Skip to main content

Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1980"

See other formats


___  No.  111 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  November  13,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of   the   proceedings   reported  in  this   issue   of  Hansard  appears   at   the   back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  9th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4211 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 
Prayers. 

ACCESS  TO  LEGISLATIVE  BUILDING 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  On  a  point  of  privi- 
lege, Mr.  Speaker:  When  I  returned  to  my 
office  at  1:40  this  afternoon  I  was  stopped 
at  the  north  door  by  a  member  of  the  Ontario 
Government  Protective  Service.  He  first  asked 
me  if  he  could  be  of  assistance  to  me.  When 
I  informed  him  that  he  could  not  be  of  as- 
sistance to  me,  he  asked  me  if  I  worked 
here.  I  said,  "No,  I  am  a  member  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly."  He  said,  "Sorry,  sir." 

When  I  suggested  to  him  that  I  would  be 
rather  upset  if  any  of  my  constituents  were 
grilled  as  they  tried  to  come  to  visit  me  in 
my  office,  his  response  was  that  his  superiors 
would  be  even  more  upset  if  he  didn't  stop 
people  at  the  entrance  to  this  building.  This 
particular  guard  is  new  to  his  duties  at 
Queen's  Park  and  I  have  no  complaint 
against  him  personally.  That  does  not  con- 
stitute part  of  my  point  of  privilege. 

However,  when  I  contacted  Senior  Super- 
visor Watts  of  the  government  protective 
service  at  Queen's  Park  and  asked  him  what 
orders  had  been  given  to  the  security  staff 
here,  I  got  the  following  explanation  of  what 
kind  of  people  would  be  stopped  and  held  at 
the  doors  of  the  building.  I  think  Mr.  Watts' 
definition  includes  a  large  number  of  the 
members  of  the  assembly.  He  said:  "There 
is  a  consensus  that  you  can  spot  people  with 
a  grievance  against  the  government,  people 
who  want  to  air  their  views,  or  people  who 
are  not  quite  right  in  the  mind."  He  said  he 
thought  the  guard  had  probably  stopped  me 
because  it  was  the  first  time  he  had  seen  me. 

As  I  say,  this  person  is  new  to  his  duties 
here  and  I  have  no  complaint  against  him, 
but  that  is  an  incredibly  unacceptable  answer 
for  the  government  protective  service  to 
provide.  I  don't  want  any  of  my  constituents 
to  be  treated  like  that.  I  think  my  privileges 
and  the  privileges  of  my  constituents  have 
been  breached.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
you  to  look  into  this  matter.  Specifically  I 
would  like  to  know  who  gave  those  orders  to 
the  security  staff  in  this  building. 


Thursday,  November  13,  1980 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  we  all  have  had 
those  difficulties  from  time  to  time  as  a 
result  of  quite  a  large  turnover  of  staff.  Ob- 
viously there  has  been  a  misunderstanding. 
I  will  undertake  to  look  into  it. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

TORONTO  ISLAND  HOMES 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  today  I  will 
be  introducing  a  bill  that  will  effectively  stay 
the  execution  of  the  writs  of  possession  upon 
the  residents  of  Toronto  Island  until  July  1, 
1981.  This  action  is  necessary  because  on 
October  27  the  Ontario  Court  of  Appeal 
found  the  writs  of  possession  to  be  still  valid. 
At  that  time,  the  commission,  headed  by 
Barry  Swadron,  QC,  was  still  under  way. 

Last  June  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in 
Council  established  this  commission,  under 
section  249  of  the  Municipality  of  Metro- 
politan Toronto  Act,  to  inquire  into  the 
future  use  of  those  lands  on  Ward's  and 
Algonquin  islands  that  were  used  for  resi- 
dential purposes.  Originally  the  intention  was 
to  have  a  commission  made  up  of  five 
people,  two  from  the  city  of  Toronto  and 
two  from  Metro,  along  with  Mr.  Swadron. 
However,  during  the  summer  Metro  declined 
to  nominate  its  two  commissioners,  so  the 
commission  was  set  up  with  Mr.  Swadron 
only. 

This  is  the  first  time  the  whole  issue  of 
future  uses  for  these  islands  has  been  looked 
at  in  depth  by  an  independent  commission. 
Mr.  Swadron  has  been  holding  meetings  and 
intense  discussions  over  the  past  few  months 
with  everyone  interested  and  concerned 
about  this  matter.  There  has  been  an  oppor- 
tunity for  a  thorough  examination  of  the 
situation.  The  commission  has  received  160 
written  submissions  and  has  heard  from  more 
than   140  individuals  during  the  hearings. 

I  understand  the  commissioner  has  almost 
completed  all  the  groundwork,  the  meetings, 
the  discussions  and  the  research,  and  has 
begun  to  write  his  report,  which  we  expect 
to  be  submitted  in  December.  The  passage 
of  this  bill  will  allow  the  residents  of  the 
islands  to  remain  in  their  homes  until  the 
Swadron  commission  can  report  and  its  rec- 
ommendations can  be  responded  to. 


4212 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


2:10  p.m. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  give  the  members  of  the  House  an  up- 
date on  our  seven-point  program  to  develop 
the  needed  facilities  to  treat  and  control 
liquid  industrial  waste. 

First  of  all,  I  am  tabling  today  an  update 
of  our  investigation  to  date  into  the  allega- 
tions over  the  operations  of  Walker  Brothers 
Quarries  in  the  Niagara  Region.  Secondly,  I 
would  like  to  report  on  the  status  of  our 
various  proposals  for  interim  and  short-term 
waste  facilities.  However,  before  I  do  that, 
I  would  like  to  draw  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  the  interim  report  on  liquid  waste 
from  the  standing  committee  on  resources 
development. 

(Although  the  report  is  already  part  of  the 
official  record  of  this  House,  I  want  to  com- 
mend the  committee  for  its  excellent  recom- 
mendation. As  this  House  will  note,  many  of 
the  recommendations  have  been  incorporated 
into  our  program,  including  the  suggestion 
that  the  ministry  should  assist  and  encourage 
companies  in  establishing  a  solidification 
plant  in  the  province. 

The  citizens  of  Thorold  held  a  referendum 
on  Monday  to  express  their  opinion  on  the 
proposal  to  locate  a  solidification  facility  near 
their  community.  The  result  was  an  over- 
whelming no.  During  September  a  local 
newspaper  conducted  an  informal  but  well- 
organized  poll  on  the  attitude  of  the  residents 
of  Harwich  township  to  a  similar  proposal. 
Again  there  was  an  overwhelming  response 
expressing  opposition  to  this  proposal.  In 
each  of  these  communities,  the  citizens  have 
taken  their  position  before  the  environmental 
assessment  process  had  the  opportunity  to 
study  adequately  the  safety  and  the  effective- 
ness of  the  proposals,  or  to  demonstrate  the 
urgent  need. 

Both  sides  of  the  House,  as  recommended 
in  the  committee  report,  have  stated  a  com- 
mitment to  the  public  hearing  process  as  a 
step  in  decision-making.  I  not  only  concurred 
with  that  recommendation,  but  I  so  ordered 
it.  Yet  certain  members  have  acted  to  frus- 
trate the  environmental  assessment  process  by 
urging  rejection  before  hearings  could  be 
held  and  the  issues  fully  addressed.  Clearly, 
the  temptation  to  support  the  "not  in  my 
backyard"  syndrome  is  an  easy  and  attrac- 
tive position  for  a  politician. 

Ontario  is  clearly  running  out  of  options 
for  the  treatment  of  liquid  industrial  waste 
and  the  crisis  is  building.  The  combination  of 


these  many  factors  has  now  served  to  delay 
the  establishment  of  urgently  needed  facili- 
ties. My  ministry  has  been  considering  other 
options  for  some  time,  but  I  do  not  intend 
to  make  a  final  decision  on  our  future  course 
of  action  until  we  have  received  the  final 
report  from  James  F.  MacLaren  Limited. 

As  the  honourable  members  will  recall, 
this  engineering  consulting  firm  was  hired  in 
January  1979  to  make  recommendations  on  a 
permanent,  long-term  liquid  waste  treatment 
facility.  The  completion  of  this  report  has 
been  a  high  priority.  The  final  cost  is  esti- 
mated at  just  under  $425,000.  I  anticipate 
the  recommendations  will  form  the  basis  of 
the  government's  future  plan  of  action.  I 
expect  to  receive  this  final  report  tomorrow. 
After  I  have  personally  had  the  opportunity 
to  assess  the  recommendations,  I  will  report 
back  to  the  House  on  November  25.  At  that 
time,  I  will  table  the  report  and  outline  the 
ministry's  course  of  action. 

In  the  meantime,  I  am  putting  a  freeze 
on  ministry  activities  and  participation  in 
the  proposals  for  solidification  facilities  in 
Harwich  township,  as  well  as  at  Walker 
Brothers,  and  for  the  interim  storage  facil- 
ity for  polychlorinated  biphenyls  in  Middle- 
port. 

COMMUNITY  SERVICES 
CONTRIBUTION  PROGRAM 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  regret 
that  today  I  must  inform  the  House  that 
my  colleague  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment (Mr.  Parrott)  and  I  have  received 
notification  from  the  Honourable  Paul  Cos- 
grove,  federal  Minister  of  Public  Works  and 
the  minister  responsible  for  Canada  Mort- 
gage and  Housing  Corporation,  that  the 
community  services  contribution  program 
wall  terminate  with  the  expiration  of  the 
interim  agreement  on  December  31,   1980. 

The  arbitrary  termination  of  this  program, 
which  replaced  funding  for  the  former 
neighbourhood  improvement  program,  mu- 
nicipal incentive  grant  program  and  munic- 
ipal infrastructure  program,  and  has  oper- 
ated successfully  in  Ontario,  is  of  signifi- 
cant importance  to  bring  before  the  Legis- 
lature for  two  basic  reasons. 

First,  the  unilateral  decision  of  the  federal 
government  to  share  no  longer  in  the  costs 
of  water  and  sewerage  installations  or  neigh- 
bourhood improvement  projects,  or  to  pro- 
vide capital  support  for  nonprofit  housing 
under  the  CSCP  not  only  will  affect  the 
quality  of  life  of  many  Canadian  residents 
but    will    also    have    far-reaching    economic 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4213 


consequences  in  terms  of  forgone  construc- 
tion and1  loss  of  indirect  and  induced  employ- 
ment. 

Second,  the  current  agreement,  which 
terminates  in  less  than  seven  weeks,  states 
that  both  parties  will  endeavour  to  conclude 
a  long-term  agreement  prior  to  December  31, 
1980,  and'  that  negotiations  for  this  program 
would  commence  not  later  than  November  1 
of  last  year.  The  termination  of  this  program 
is  a  complete  reversal  of  the  spirit  in  which 
the  original  program  negotiations  were  con- 
ducted and  the  direction  in  which  my  min- 
istry and  CMHC  have  been  moving  for  the 
past  two  years.  This  places  the  entire  federal- 
provincial  negotiation  process  in  question  at 
a  most  inopportune  time.  One  wonders 
whether  unilateral  federal  action  will  termi- 
nate other  existing  financial  arrangements. 

I  would  like  to  provide  the  honourable 
members  with  some  specifics  as  the  program 
relates  to  Ontario.  In  the  first  program 
year,  1979,  the  federal  government  allocated 
$51.6  million  to  Ontario  which  escalated  to 
$85.95  million  in  the  second  year,  1980. 
This  level  was  to  continue  over  a  long-term 
period.  The  related  provincial  contributions 
to  eligible  municipal  projects  were  $90  mil- 
lion in  the  first  year,  1979,  and  $153  million 
in  the  second  year,  1980. 

Municipalities  from  all  parts  of  the  prov- 
ince, ranging  in  size  from  the  cities  of 
Toronto,  Ottawa,  Windsor,  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
and  Timmins,  to  the  towns  of  Chesley,  Smiths 
Falls  and  Leamington,  are  participating 
in  neighbourhood-improvement-type  projects 
funded  in  part  by  CSCP  funds.  These  pro- 
jects are  upgrading  existing  neighbourhoods 
through  the  improvement  of  municipal  serv- 
ices and  public  utilities  as  well  as  the  pro- 
vision of  social  and  recreational  facilities. 
These  efforts,  combined  with  the  Ontario 
main  street  and  downtown  revitalization  pro- 
grams, are  contributing  to  the  fight  against 
urban  decline  which  is  plaguing  cities  and 
towns  in  parts  of  our  province  and  indeed 
in  Canada. 

In  all,  45  municipalities  are  improving  the 
quality  of  life  for  their  residents  through  this 
component  of  CSCP  in  the  first  two  program 
years  and  the  demand  for  the  program 
stretches  far  into  the  future.  For  example, 
the  municipal  demand  for  funds  in  1980, 
or  program  year  two,  amounted  to  approx- 
imately $46  million  from  48  municipalities 
in  our  province.  However,  only  $23  million 
of  federal  CSCP  funds  were  available  on 
a  priority  basis  to  fund  projects  in  30  mu- 
nicipalities.    Eighteen     other     municipalities 


with  defined  needs  were  deferred  in  anticipa- 
tion of  the  continuation  of  the  program 
and  were  expecting  to  receive  CSCP  funds 
from  program  years  three,  four,  five  and 
beyond. 

In  terms  of  employment,  approximately 
3,000  man-years  of  direct  and  indirect  em- 
ployment were  generated  by  the  expendi- 
tures of  all  three  levels  of  government  on 
hard  services  in  the  first  two  program  years. 
In  addition,  the  private  sector  has  been  en- 
couraged to  renovate  and  rehabilitate  resi- 
dential and  commercial  properties  in  NIP 
areas,  producing  employment  and  increasing 
property  values   and  municipal  revenues. 

Another  component  of  the  program  in 
Ontario  was  a  10  per  cent  capital  write- 
down for  municipal  nonprofit  corporations. 
The  first  program  year  provided  $6.6  million 
in  federal  funds  and  assisted  in  the  provision 
of  approximately  1,200  units  and  produced 
4,200  man-years  of  employment  throughout 
this  province.  It  is  anticipated  that  2,100 
more  units  will  receive  grants  from  program 
year  two,  amounting  to  approximately  $12 
million,  to  produce  7,350  more  man-years  of 
employment.  These  nonprofit  units  for  the 
most  part  will  provide  accommodation  to 
families  and  senior  citizens  of  low  and 
moderate  income  and  are  good  examples  of 
the  benefits  of  CSCP  to  the  people  of  Ontario. 

However,  these  federal  capital  grants  will 
no  longer  be  available.  The  bulk  of  the 
CSCP  allocation  to  Ontario  is  utilized  by  our 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  for  municipal 
infrastructure  projects.  The  gross  value  of 
water  and  waste  water  facilities  and  storm 
sewers  constructed  annually  in  Ontario  is 
estimated  to  be  about  $550  million.  More 
than  300  projects,  worth  about  $375  million, 
are  directly  assisted  by  the  CSCP  grants, 
amounting  to  $52  million  per  year. 

However,  the  termination  of  the  CSCP 
will  cause  about  $175  million  of  construction 
of  water  and  waste  water  facilities  to  be 
lost  annually  in  Ontario.  Some  95  projects  in 
about  50  municipalities  will  be  affected  and 
direct  onsite  construction  employment  loss 
could  approach  3,000  man-years  annually, 
based  on  1980-81  prices.  Loss  of  indirect  and 
induced  employment,  e.g.,  equipment  manu- 
facturing and  supply  of  materials,  will  be 
at  least  6,000  man-years  annually. 

The  related  effects  on  housing  starts  and 
the  curtailment  of  the  growth  due  to  a  slow- 
down in  the  servicing  of  raw  land  are  diffi- 
cult to  estimate,  but  will  be  substantial. 
We  anticipate  the  main  effects  will  be  felt  in 
small  to  medium-sized  urban  centres  where 


4214 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


insufficient  municipal  financing  will  force  the 
deferral  of  servicing. 

2:20  p.m. 

The  environmental  consequences  of  the 
termination  of  the  federal  funding  related  to 
municipal  infrastructure  projects  must  also 
be  considered.  For  example,  under  the  Can- 
ada-Ontario agreement  on  Great  Lakes  water 
quality,  in  excess  of  $600  million  in  federal 
funds  was  utilized  to  accelerate  the  cleanup 
of  the  municipally  caused  water  pollution 
problems.  The  successful  efforts  of  the  three 
levels  of  government  allowed  Canada  to  meet 
its  international  commitment  under  the 
Canada-US  agreement  and  provide  leverage 
in  promoting  comparable  US  pollution  abate- 
ment efforts. 

The  demands  of  the  1980s  for  protection 
and  improvement  of  the  Great  Lakes  will  be 
even  greater  than  those  of  the  1960s  and 
1970s.  Governments  are  committed  to  an  in- 
ternational response  in  connection  with  the 
reduction  of  toxic  and  hazardous  substances, 
the  control  of  raw  sewage,  combined  sewage 
and  storm  water  discharges,  and1  the  further 
reduction  of  phosphorus  discharges  from  ur- 
ban and  rural  sources.  The  termination  of 
CSCP  will  now  seriously  weaken  Ontario's 
ability  to  meet  commitments  under  the 
Canada-Ontario  agreement  and,  in  turn,  the 
Canada-US  agreement  on  Great  Lakes  water 
quality. 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  emerging  prob- 
lem areas  that  will  require  capital-intensive 
solutions  and  will  now  further  burden  pro- 
vincial and  municipal  spending.  It  would  be 
unrealistic  for  me  to  suggest  that  the  prov- 
ince will  be  able  to  fill  the  gap  created  by 
the  withdrawal  of  federal  funding.  I  will 
be  meeting  in  the  near  future  with  the  pro- 
vincial Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller),  the  Min- 
ister of  the  Environment  and  the  Minister 
of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Mr.  Wells)  to 
discuss  this  matter.  But  we  are  still  looking 
to  the  federal  government  for  funding  in 
those  areas  it  has  traditionally  funded  for 
years  in  the  past. 

My  cabinet  colleagues  and  I  are  deeply 
disturbed  by  the  termination  of  the  CSCP, 
as  the  municipalities  of  our  province  will 
be.  To  date  I  have  received  copies  of  reso- 
lutions from  more  than  100  municipalities 
addressed  to  the  federal  Minister  of  Public 
Works  urging  continuation  of  that  program. 
This  unilateral  federal  Liberal  decision  is  a 
classic  example  of  the  insensitivity  of  the 
federal  government  to  the  needs  of  the 
provinces    and   their   municipalities. 

Interjections. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  am  waiting  until 
these  members  start  to  bark  about  their  mu- 
nicipalities not  getting  funding.  I  am  waiting. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Did  you  wait  to  get  the  Pre- 
mier's (Mr.  Davis)  approval  before  you  came 
in  with  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  The  member  for  Huron- 
Middlesex  should  wait  until  he  finds  his  area 
does  not  get  its  sewer  and  water  grants;  we 
will  see  what  he  has  to  say  then.  Obviously 
these  members  are  going  to  do  their  barking 
here  because  they  are  afraid  to  do  it  back 
home;  I  can  see  that. 

It  is  becoming  increasingly  apparent  that 
as  it  attempts  to  control  expenditures,  the 
federal  government  is  adopting  a  policy  of 
unilateral  program  abandonment.  This  course 
of  action,  if  it  is  pursued  to  its  extreme  in 
the  social  policy  area  of  which  the  CSCP 
and  the  housing  programs  are  part,  will  se- 
riously impair  the  province's  ability  to  pro- 
vide housing  accommodation  for  those  of 
low  and  moderate  income.  The  serious 
economic  and  social  consequences  that  will 
result  from  this  federal  decision  have  been 
outlined. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  like  to  state  quite 
emphatically  that  when  the  CSCP  was 
launched  in  1979,  there  was  never  any 
thought  it  would  not  be  continued  for  a 
lengthy  period  of  time  in  Canada.  No  con- 
sultation was  held  with  any  of  the  provinces 
prior  to  the  federal  decision  to  terminate 
the  program,  nor  have  we  received  any  in- 
formation regarding  a  possible  replacement. 

Ontario,  together  with  the  other  prov- 
inces, invited  the  Minister  of  Public  Works, 
Mr.  Cosgrove,  to  participate  in  an  August 
meeting  to  discuss  our  concerns  about  the 
program  but  he  declined  to  attend.  He  de- 
cided he  would  rather  cut  a  ribbon  in  his 
own  riding  on  a  CSCP  grant  he  was  giving 
out  that  day.  He  has  now  indicated  that 
he  is  looking  forward  to  a  meeting  with 
us  early  in  1981;  I  would  suggest  it  is  a 
little  late  for  the  subject  now. 

In  the  interim,  I  would  urge  all  munici- 
palities and  groups  affected  by  the  termina- 
tion of  the  program  to  get  in  touch  with 
their  federal  members,  with  the  federal 
Minister  of  Finance  and  with  the  federal 
minister  reporting  for  housing  and  request 
them  to  reinstate  the  long-term  federal-pro- 
vincial agreement  that  was  understood  to  be 
staying  in  place. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  apologize  for  the  length  of 
the  statement  but  I  felt  the  House  should 
have  a  full  explanation  of  the  ramifications 
of  this  discontinuation  by  the  federal  Liberal 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4215 


government  of  a  program  that  has  been  good 
for  the  economy  of  this  country. 

MINI-BUDGET 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
point  of  privilege  relating  to  the  mini-budget 
that  will  be  brought  in  by  the  Treasurer 
(Mr.   F.   S.  Miller)  this  evening. 

I  have  before  me  a  copy  of  Corriere  Illus- 
trato  dated  Saturday,  November  8,  1980. 
On  page  one  is  an  article  which,  when  trans- 
lated, reads,  "Grossman  Predicts  Sales  Tax 
Reduction."  The  article  is  what  is  described 
as  an  exclusive  interview  with  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  in  which  the  min- 
ister clearly  indicates  the  government  intends 
to  bring  in  sales  tax  reductions  in  the  mini- 
budget  tonight. 

Surely  as  members  of  the  Legislature  we 
are  entitled  to  have  first  look  at  the  budget. 
I  was  always  under  the  impression  that  there 
were  traditions  within  the  parliamentary  sys- 
tem that  had  to  do  with  the  prerelease  of 
budget  information  before  it  was  brought 
into  this  House. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  has 
been  speculation  in  a  number  of  newspapers 
and  by  a  number  of  people,  including  mem- 
bers of  both  parties.  I  can  assure  the  mem- 
ber at  this  point  that  the  minister  does  not 
know  what  is   in  the  budget. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  would  appear,  surely, 
that  it  is  in  the  tradition  of  cabinet  soli- 
darity in  government  that  various  specula- 
tions on  component  parts  of  any  budget  have 
caused  ministers  to  lose  their  jobs  in  a  variety 
of  areas. 

I  would  suggest  to  the  Treasurer  that  if 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  does 
not  know  what  is  in  the  budget,  perhaps 
the  Treasurer  should  lose  his  job,  because 
obviously  the  cabinet  does  not  know  what 
one  side  or  the  other  is  doing.  If  this  has 
been  a  breach,  which  I  think  it  may  well 
have  been  from  the  report,  it  may  well  be 
a  serious  breach  of  the  traditional  respon- 
sibility of   cabinet   government. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  here  a 
question  of  cabinet  responsibility.  The  Treas- 
urer has  just  told  us  that  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  did  not  know  what 
was  in  the  mini-budget  coming  tonight.  If 
that  is  true,  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  misled  the  reporter  who  reported 
the  story  and  he  has  misled  the  public  who 
read  that  publication.  If  that  is  true,  he  has 
caused  speculation  and  possible  buying  or 
lack  of  buying  because  of  financial  informa- 


tion that  the  reporter  had  every  reason  to 
expect  the  minister  had.  There  deserves  to 
be  not  only  an  apology  from  the  minister, 
but  a  demand  for  his  resignation  put  by  the 
Premier  (Mr.  Davis). 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  some  in  the 
House  may  recall  that  a  few  years  ago  a 
federal  member  by  the  name  of  John  Reid, 
MP,  who  was  not  then  in  the  cabinet,  was 
brought  before  a  committee  of  the  House 
of  Commons  because  he  had  indicated  to 
one  of  his  constituents  by  way  of  letter 
that  he  thought  there  might  be  a  certain 
tax  break  in  the  forthcoming  budget.  As  I 
said,  at  that  time  John  Reid  was  not  a  mem- 
ber of  the  cabinet  and  had  absolutely  no 
information  or  knowledge  about  what  was 
going  to  be  in  the  budget. 

This  matter  was  raised  in  a  newspaper 
article  and  there  was  great  concern  ex- 
pressed, particularly  by  the  members  of  the 
Conservative  opposition  in  Ottawa  at  that 
time.  My  brother,  Mr.  Reid,  subsequently 
had  his  hearing  and  was  absolved  of  all 
blame  or  anything  else. 

Surely  this  is  an  extremely  important  mat- 
ter and  goes  to  the  fundamentals  of  our 
democratic  system  and  process.  The  whole 
theory  and  practice  of  cabinet  solidarity  is 
that  when  a  cabinet  minister  speaks,  he 
speaks  for  the  cabinet  as  a  whole.  I  do  not 
think  we  can  take  this  matter  lightly  at  all. 
We  should  refer  this  matter  to  the  standing 
committee  on  procedural  affairs  for  its  at- 
tention. 

2:30  p.m. 

Mr.   Speaker:  There  are  two  points  here. 
The  first  one  is  that  the  member  for  Bell- 
woods  is   drawing  the  chair's  attention  and 
the   House's   attention  to   something  that  is 
alleged  to  have  been  said  outside  the  House  f 
by  way  of  a  newspaper  interview.  The  other 
point  that  has  been  raised  is  whether  or  not 
there  has  been  a  leak  of  information  about   j 
something  that  is  supposed  to  be  in  a  state-    j 
ment  by  the  Treasurer  this  evening. 

The  chair  cannot  be  asked  to  rule  on 
something  that  took  place  by  way  of  an  in- 
terview. The  chair  similarly  cannot  be  ex- 
pected to  monitor  whether  or  not  there  has 
been  a  breach  of  cabinet  solidarity.  In  the 
absence  of  definitive  action  by  the  House,  I  I 
would  have  to  say  the  honourable  member 
has  brought  the  matter  to  the  attention  of 
the  chair  and  the  House  and  it  is  beyond  my 
purview  to  do  anything  other  than  to  have 
listened  to  the  honourable  member. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  view  of 
your  ruling   on  this  very  important  matter, 


4216 


{LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


may  I  ask  whether  it  would  be  in  order  at 
this  time  for  a  resolution  to  be  put  to  refer 
this  matter  to  the  standing  committee  on  pro- 
cedural affairs? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  no  opportunity  for 
any  honourable  member  to  get  up  without  a 
notice  of  motion  and  move  a  resolution  in  the 
House.  If  the  honourable  member  wants  to 
go  that  route,  it  will  be  up  to  the  House  to 
decide  whether  it  is  something  appropriate 
for  referral. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  this  point,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  we  should  wait  to  see  what  is  in  the 
budgetary  statement  by  the  Treasurer  this 
evening.  If  it  confirms  statements  that  were 
made  by  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism, it  seems  to  me  there  will  then  be  a 
prima  facie  case  that  information  in  the  hands 
of  a  cabinet  minister  was  improperly  put  out 
to  the  public  and  the  matter  should  be  in- 
vestigated by  the  standing  committee  on  pro- 
cedural affairs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  purely  hypothetical. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  keep  this 
matter  in  perspective,  I  would  gather  my 
friends  across  the  way  have  not  seen  the 
article  in  the  paper.  We  are  talking  about  an 
article  in  a  paper  that  has  been  paraphrased 
for  us  by  a  member  and  has  not  been  seen 
by  anyone  else  in  the  House  except  perhaps 
some  other  colleagues  in  his  caucus. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  the  people  who  read  the 
paper. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  That  is  all  right;  the 
people  who  read  the  paper. 

We  are  taking  the  honourable  member's 
translation  of  that  story.  I  think  before  we 
come  to  any  hasty  conclusions  about  any- 
thing, we  should  all  have  the  article  with  a 
complete  translation. 

My  friend  from  Rainy  River  referred  to  the 
case  of  his  brother.  That  case  and  the  letter 
were  mentioned  prominently  in  many  news- 
papers. It  was  not  something  that  was  un- 
known to  people  at  the  time  it  came  before 
the  House.  He  is  suggesting  that  this  House 
take  some  sort  of  action  and  ask  a  committee 
to  look  into  something  without  our  even 
having  a  complete  translation  of  some  story 
that  has  appeared  in  a  newspaper.  I  think  it 
behooves  us  all  at  least  to  get  all  that  in- 
formation before  anyone  considers  any 
further  action. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  separate  point  of  order, 
if  I  might,  Mr.  Speaker:  When  the  Minister 


of  the  Environment  spoke,  he  referred  to  a 
certain  report  he  was  making  to  the  Legis- 
lature. I  did  not  hear  clearly  whether  this 
additional  report,  which  in  fact  constitutes 
an  apology  to  Walker  Brothers  concerning  the 
matter  raised  in  this  House  last  week- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Whether  or  not  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  heard  or  was  satis- 
fied that  the  statement  by  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  satisfied  some  misgivings  that 
he  has— 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Not  at  all.  That  is  not  the 
point. 

Mr.  Speaker:  —he  can  raise  it  in  the  ques- 
tion period. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  That  is  not  the  point,  Mr. 
Speaker.  On  the  point  of  order- 
Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  not  a  point  of  order. 
There  is  nothing  out  of  order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  There  is.  I  did  not  finish  my 
sentence,   Mr.   Speaker,   and   I   am  going  to 
finish  my  sentence. 
Mr.  Speaker:  No. 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  question  is— 
Mr.    Speaker:    There    is    nothing    out    of 
order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  —was  this  placed  on  the 
record  or  not? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  nothing  out  of  order. 
Does  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  have  a 
question? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  will  ask  the  question  of 
the  minister.  Mr.  Speaker,  with  the  greatest 
respect,  I  think  in  this  instance  you  should 
have  heard  the  point. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  What  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  is  saying  is  that  by  virtue  of 
the  fact  that  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
stood  up  and  made  a  statement  to  the  House, 
he  was  out  of  order  or  the  House  was  out 
of  order  in  listening  to  him.  That  is  what  a 
point  of  order  means. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  No,  it  has  to  do  with  this 
report. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  a  ministerial  statement, 
and  if  the  honourable  member  wants  the 
minister  to  elaborate  on  it,  he  can  simply  do 
so  by  asking  him  a  question.  Do  you  have  a 
question? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Again,  you  have  miscon- 
strued my  point,  Mr.  Speaker.  With  the  great- 
est respect,  this  says  "a  report  to  the  Ontario 
Legislature." 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  have  a  question? 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  All  right,  I  will  ask  a  ques- 
tion. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4217 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  ruled  there  is  nothing 
out  of  order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  All  right,  I  will  accept  your 
ruling. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  do  not  need  to  get  up  on 
your  high  horse.  I  have  called  for  oral  ques- 
tions and  if  you  have  one,  please  put  it. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  will  ask  the  minister 
whether  this  statement,  which  is  called  a 
report  to  the  Ontario  Legislature,  which  he 
made  some  reference  to  but  did  not  read, 
and  which  I  take  to  be  an  apology  to  Walker 
Brothers  as  well  as  covering  certain  other 
matters— on  the  very  matters  raised  in  this 
House  last  week— has  been  tabled  with  the 
Clerk  so  that  it  is  on  the  record  of  the  House. 
I  would  ask  why  he  did  not  read  it  and 
whether  he  intends  not  only  to  apologize  to 
Walker  Brothers  as  he  has  via  this  letter, 
but  to  apologize  to  this  House  for  his  re- 
fusal to  acknowledge  here  what  he  has  finally 
been  willing  to  acknowledge  in  this  letter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure 
the  letter  and  the  report  are  part  of  the  record 
of  the  House  and  I  do  not  have  any  ques- 
tions that  they  should  be.  I  do  not  mind  any 
part  of  that  letter  or  any  part  of  this  report 
being  read  into  the  record  a  second  time. 
That  is  perfectly  okay  by  me. 

There  were  allegations  made.  I  am  sure 
this  House  would  ask  me  to  take  those  alle- 
gations seriously.  That  I  did.  There  were 
three  or  four  of  them.  The  one  matter,  I 
think,  is  clearly  something  the  official  of  the 
ministry  made  a  statement  about.  I  do  not 
think  the  facts  bear  the  matter  out.  I  have 
said  that  in  the  letter.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  as 
a  courtesy  to  Mr.  Walker,  I  called  him  at 
1:15  this  afternoon  so  I  am  not  at  all  em- 
barrassed by  having  that  on  the  record.  In- 
deed, on  the  contrary,  there  are  other  alle- 
gations still  pending.  I  think  this  House  would 
clearly  expect  me  to  act  on  these  allegations 
and  put  them  all  on  the  record.  That  I  shall 
do. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  Since  the 
minister  continues  to  be  willing  to  admit  that 
the  point  we  raised  repeatedly  last  week  was 
correct  but  still  refuses  to  acknowledge  this 
in  a  gentlemanly  way— that  is  exactly  what 
has  happened— I  will  ask  him  this: 

Could  the  minister  explain  why  he  and  his 
official,  Mr.  Majtenyi,  still  insist  on  express- 
ing shock  to  discover  liquids  of  some  kind  had 
been  placed  in  the  Walker  Brothers  quarry, 
when  a  letter  to  the  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine  (Ms.  Bryden)  in  September  1978, 
signed  by  the  minister,  said  his  records  indi- 


cated liquid  waste  disposal  had  occurred  in 
these  eight  sites,  including  Walker's  quarry? 

Since  in  1978  the  minister  knew  liquids 
had1  been  deposited  in  Walker's  quarry,  why 
should  he  have  pretended  to  this  House 
that  somehow  it  was  a  shock  to  learn  liquids 
appeared  there  and  that  the  whole  matter 
came  to  his  attention  at  the  time  of  the 
W5  program? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  it  is  clear  that 
that  certificate  at  that  time  was  quite  a  dif- 
ferent certificate  from  the  one  that  exists 
today.  The  certificate  was  amended  on  June 
23,  1980,  and  that  is  the  continuing  pro- 
gram of  this  ministry;  we  will  update  our 
certificates. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  certificates  never  allow 
liquids. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  if  one  were  to 
look  at  those  certificates  carefully  over  the 
past  decade,  one  would  find  that  in  earlier 
times  they  were  not  as  definitive  as  I  think 
they  should  be  and  as  we  are  moving  to- 
wards. That  was  one  of  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  standing  committee.  We  believe 
the  certificates  should  be  far  more  definitive 
than  they  were  in  1973,  1974  and  later.  In 
the  decade  of  the  1960s  there  were  no  cer- 
tificates to  speak  of  at  all;  one  could  do 
practically  what  one  wanted. 

2:40   p.m. 

We  are  moving  in  a  direct  fashion  to 
have  the  certificates  made  far  more  specific 
and  much  tougher  on  how  those  wastes  are 
handled.  We  will  continue  to  do  so.  I  have 
repeatedly  said  to  industry:  "You  have  to 
face  up  to  the  fact  that  you  are  going  to  be 
severely  regulated  on  the  matter  of  liquid 
industrial  waste.  You  have  to  face  up  to 
the  fact  that  you  are  going  to  pay  for  the 
destruction  of  those  wastes  and  there  is  no 
other  alternative  for  industry."  They  must 
face  the  reality  that  a  new  day  has  dawned. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  view  of  the  minister's  promise  of  tough- 
ness and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  his  state- 
ment indicates  quite  clearly  that  at  least 
seven  drums  containing  various  kinds  of 
liquid  waste  were  buried  in  the  Walker's 
quarry  dump— as  per  the  written  statement 
from  Mr.  Edenson  that  I  tabled  in  the  Leg- 
islature a  few  days  ago— at  a  time  when 
Walker  Brothers  licence  quite  clearly  did  not 
permit  it  to  accept  liquid  wastes,  and  since 
the  ministry  also  indicates  there  may  be  70 
more  drums  containing  similar  materials,  is 
it  the  ministry's  intention  now,  being  so 
tough,  to  prosecute   Walker  Brothers  Quar- 


4218 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ries  for  illegally  accepting  liquid  waste  con- 
trary to  its  licence? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  matter 
is  under  two  investigations.  One  is  being 
done  by  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police,  and 
I  have  not  received  that  report  yet  but  1 
expect  it  should  be  completed  soon.  The 
other  is  being  done  to  determine  whether 
there  is  a  breach  of  the  certificate.  That  is 
a  very  significant  problem  that  must  be 
addressed.  I  can  assure  the  member  that  if 
and  when  there  is  proof  there  was  a  viola- 
tion of  that  certificate,  charges  will  be  laid, 
but  I  do  not  have  the  privilege  of  making 
allegations  and  simply  saying  it  will  be  done; 
I  must  have  the  positive  proof. 

We  are  in  the  process  of  getting  those 
drums,  doing  the  analysis  on  them  and  find- 
ing what  is  in  those  drums.  Not  only  that, 
in  the  two  that  were  empty,  we  are  doing 
scrapings  on  the  drums  to  see  if  perhaps 
the  liquid  has  leaked  out  and  what  might 
have  been  in  there.  We  are  doing  the  most 
thorough  and  comprehensive  investigation 
that  is  possible.  Based  on  that  certain  knowl- 
edge, we  will  take  the  appropriate- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Last  week  the  minister 
wanted  one  drum,  that  was  all.  It  is  the 
pressure  in  this  House  that  has  made  that 
happen. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Not  at  all.  It  was  done 
well  in  advance. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  Why  has 
the  minister  persisted  in  his  story  that  the 
reason  liquids  went  in  there— and  they  were 
reported  to  the  member  for  Beaches- Wood- 
bine in  1978,  yet  somehow  come  as  a  sur- 
prise to  the  minister— has  to  do  with  a  lack 
of  specificity  in  the  certificate  of  approval, 
when  I  have  in  my  hand  every  certificate  of 
approval  made  out  for  Walker's  quarry  in 
the  last  decade,  and  plainly  these  state  that 
95  per  cent  is  to  be  solid  waste  and  the 
other  five  per  cent  construction  debris? 

Liquid  waste  was  never  permitted  in 
Walker's  quarry  by  any  certificate  of  ap- 
proval, yet  the  minister  included  that  as  a 
liquid  waste  receiving  place  in  his  letter  of 
1978  and  now  professes  surprise.  Why  does 
the  minister  not  admit  that  he  does  not 
know  what  is  happening  in  his  ministry  and 
it  has  to  be  cleaned  out  from  top  to  bottom, 
starting  with  himself? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  If  I  were  going  to  send 
someone  to  a  recycling  location,  I  think  I 
would  start  with  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion. 


Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  You  might  have  diffi- 
culty getting  a  certificate  of  acceptance. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  agree  it  might  be 
difficult    to    get   a   certificate    of   acceptance. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  be  more  serious 
about  this.  I  think  the  whole  matter  of  what 
was  in  that  site  is  certainly  worthy  of  a  full 
investigation.  I  will  continue  to  report  to 
this  House  on  our  findings.  If  there  was  a 
violation  of  the  certificate,  prosecutions  will 
be  held;  if  not,  the  company  has  the  right, 
and  I  think  it  is  an  important  right,  to  an 
assurance  that  no  one  is  found  guilty  until 
a  fair  trial  is  held.  If  the  company  was  in 
total  compliance  with  the  certificate,  the 
world  will  know  and  I  will  be  the  first  to 
tell  it. 

Mr.  Swart:  Does  the  minister  not  realize 
that  the  opposition  to  the  solidification  plant 
does  not  come  just  from  the  not-wanting-it- 
in-our-<backyard  syndrome?  It  is  because  the 
people  and  the  opposition  members  do  not 
trust  the  minister's  ministry  nor  do  they 
trust  Walker  Brothers.  The  minister's  own 
engineer  in  the  Niagara  area  said  his  faith 
and  trust  in  Walker  Brothers  has  completely 
gone  down  the  drain.  The  minister  has  stated 
that  he  will  lay  charges. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  a  question  there? 

Mr.  Swart:  May  I  ask  the  minister,  if 
charges  are  laid  and  a  conviction  is  made, 
will  he  then  suspend  for  all  time  the  pro- 
cedures for  the  establishment  of  the  solidi- 
fication plant  with  Walker  Brothers  because 
they  are  untrustworthy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  will  do  it  quite 
differently  from  the  way  of  the  honourable 
member  who  asked  the  question.  I  will  do 
it  after  the  trial,  not  before,  and  I  will  base 
it  on  solid,  positive  evidence.  I  read  from 
the  committee's  report:  "The  final  r~ com- 
mendation of  this  committee  is  one  of  high 
importance,  and  that  is,  the  committee  be- 
lieves that  the  public  hearing  should  be 
mandatory." 

I  do  not  know  of  any  party  that  was  more 
insistent  that  the  hearing  process  be  held 
than  the  member's  party.  Fair  enough;  I 
agree  with  that.  But  in  this  instance,  be- 
cause it  seemed  politically  expedient  to  do 
so,  there  was  never  an  opportunity  to  put 
on  the  record  at  a  fair  environmental  assess- 
ment hearing  both  the  pros  and  the  cons. 
That  was  sidestepped;  it  was  short-circuited. 
I  think  it  is  a  miscarriage  of  justice  that  the 
opportunity  to  put  all  the  facts  on  the 
record  and  then  make  a  decision  was  not 
given  in  this  province. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4219 


REST  HOMES 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  for 
the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices on  the  subject  of  rest  homes  in  Ontario. 

Given  the  recommendations  of  the  1977 
coroner's  jury  arising  from  a  death  at  Dr. 
Rajovic's  rest  home  in  Metro  Toronto  and 
given  that  the  Ontario  Advisory  Council  on 
Senior  Citizens  in  April  1978  called  for  im- 
mediate action  to  ensure  proper  standards 
in  rest  homes— and  he  has  had  seven?  1 
requests  from  that  council— and  given  that 
the  minister  spoke  in  the  estimates  on  the 
bill  introduced  by  the  member  for  Sarnia 
(Mr.  Blundy),  as  I  recall,  in  favour  of  im- 
proved regulation  and  said  he  is  studying 
the  matter,  can  he  explain  how  it  is  that  the 
Dr.  Rajovics  of  this  world  can  continue  to 
operate  in  conditions  that  were  so  graphi- 
cally described  in  the  Toronto  Star  recently? 

Given  the  fact  that  our  elderly  people  are 
being  kept  in  such  conditions  of  filth  and 
squalor  in  1980  in  the  province,  will  the 
minister  pass  some  kind  of  law  in  Ontario 
that  would  oblige  municipalities  to  set  prop- 
er standards,  or  is  he  going  to  continue  to 
rely  on  the  individual  municipalities  to  some- 
how clean  up  the  situation  by  themselves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  indicated,  he 
obviously  recognizes  that  municipalities  do 
have  very  significant  authority  to  ensure 
appropriate  standards  in  terms  of  health 
care,  fire  safety  and  other  kinds  of  safety 
in  such  residential  accommodation.  In  terms 
of  those  aspects  of  the  care,  it  would  be 
perhaps  unwise  for  the  province  to  attempt 
to  duplicate  the  authority  the  municipalities 
already  have. 

If  these  kinds  of  conditions  do  exist  as  the 
member  described  them— and  I  think  many 
exaggerations  are  being  made  these  days; 
nevertheless  I  am  willing  to  acknowledge 
there  may  be  cases  where  less  than  adequate 
conditions  prevail— then  I  think  the  munic- 
ipalities ought  to  be  moving  into  those  situa- 
tions and1  doing  something  about  them. 

It  is  not  good  enough  to  sit  back  and 
simply  say  another  level  of  government 
should  come  in,  especially  when  we  are  talk- 
ing about  major  municipalities;  I  can  under- 
stand some  of  the  smaller  municipalities 
might  have  some  difficulty  because  of  the 
lack  of  appropriate  staff  to  inspect,  but  our 
major  municipalities  clearly  have  that  capacity 
and  ought  to  be  doing  it. 

With  respect  to  the  member's  reference  to 
standards,  I  have  indicated  that  my  col- 
leagues and?  I  are  looking  at  ways  in  which 


we  might  assist.  I  do  not  think  we  will  be 
getting  into  passing  province-wide  legisla- 
tion and  regulation  of  each  and  every  one  of 
the  boarding  homes  and  lodging  homes  in 
this  province  because,  frankly,  we  do  not 
have  the  capacity  to  inspect  on  that  basis 
across  the  province.  However,  what  I  sug- 
gest we  may  well  look  at  is  the  possibility  of 
providing  guidelines  for  the  municipalities  or, 
if  the  member  wishes,  model  proposals  for 
the  municipalities  so  that  they  might  follow 
through  with  their  responsibility. 

2:50  p.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Will  the  minister  admit  that, 
with  all  his  guidelines,  suggestions,  construc- 
tive statements  and  so  on,  we  still  have  be- 
tween 50,000  and  90,000  people  in  rest  home 
beds  in  Ontario?  There  is  considerable  diffi- 
culty in  finding  nursing-home  accommodation, 
especially  when  more  than  a  small  amount  of 
nursing  care  is  required. 

Given  that  more  and  more  people  seem  to 
be  lining  up  for  these  rest  homes,  will  the 
minister  admit  he  has  a  responsibility  to 
oblige  the  municipalities  to  act,  and  not 
merely  to  suggest  they  act?  Does  he  not 
have  a  responsibility  to  set  certain  standards 
and  say  that  the  municipalities  have  the  duty 
to  enforce  those  standards,  and  if  they  don't 
enforce  them  the  province  will  take  certain 
actions  against  them? 

Surely  the  minister  cannot  just  sit  there 
and  wash  his  hands  of  the  squalor  and  the 
despicable  circumstances  in  which  many  of 
our  elderly  are  now  living. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  was  not  simply  wash- 
ing my  hands  of  the  situation.  The  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  has  to  bear  in  mind  that 
the  municipalities,  as  well  as  the  provincial 
government,  are  duly  elected  and  responsible 
levels  of  government.  I  certainly  will  con- 
tinue to  do  whatever  I  can  to  encourage 
them  and  press  them  to  take  action  in  those 
kinds  of  situations. 

Mr.  Warner:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  government  was  forced  to  bring  in  a 
Nursing  Home  Act  prior  to  1972  because  of 
the  deplorable  state  of  nursing  homes  in  this 
province.  In  view  of  this,  how  big  a  mess 
must  be  created,  how  much  must  we  learn  in 
this  Legislature  about  the  deplorable  condi- 
tions in  rest  homes  before  this  government 
will  act  to  bring  a  rest  homes  act  into  the 
province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  that  question  was  intended  to  elicit  an 
answer.  It  was  a  histrionic  statement  based 
upon  information  the  honourable  member  is 
using  in  what  I  think  is  an  alarmist  way. 


4220 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


STRATFORD  FESTIVAL 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question,  to  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Rec- 
reation, about  the  turmoil  in  the  Stratford 
Festival  Theatre,  a  theatre  that  is  receiving 
a  grant  of  $300,000  this  year  from  the  tax- 
payers of  Ontario  through  the  Ontario  Arts 
Council. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  the  board  of 
directors  recently  told  the  four  Canadians 
who  had  been  hired  to  run  next  year's  season 
they  were  being  fired  because,  it  said,  their 
program  would  incur  a  deficit  of  $1  million, 
which  was  unacceptable? 

Is  the  minister  also  aware  that,  just  days 
earlier,  the  same  board  of  directors  was  mak- 
ing a  submission  to  the  Canada  Council— 
which  was  signed  by  the  president,  Mr. 
Hicks,  by  the  treasurer,  Mr.  Thomas,  and  by 
the  newly  appointed  executive  director,  Mr. 
Stevens— that  indicated  they  intended  to  have 
the  season,  that  the  plan  would  have  to  run 
on  a  balanced  budget  and  would  do  so? 

Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  contradiction 
between  what  the  board  of  directors  told 
those  four  Canadians  who  were  being  fired 
and  what  they  were  telling  the  Canada 
Council? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  been 
following  the  events  of  Stratford  very  closely 
over  the  last  few  weeks  and,  to  paraphrase 
a  line  from  Shakespeare,  "Methinks  there  is 
something  rotten  in  the  state  of  Stratford." 

I  am  very  perplexed  and,  I  must  admit, 
annoyed,  as  is  my  federal  colleague,  because 
both  the  federal  agency,  the  Canada  Coun- 
cil, and  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  have  been 
supporting  the  theatre  in  Stratford  at  a  very 
substantial  level.  Fortunately  over  the  last 
few  years  Stratford  has  been  able  to  raise 
a  great  deal  of  its  money  through  the  box 
office.  This  has  been  successful  to  the  point 
where  now,  between  the  Canada  Council  and 
the  Ontario  Arts  Council,  we  are  probably 
financing  only  about  12  to  15  per  cent  of 
the  total  budget.  Nevertheless,  the  theatre 
people  at  Stratford  seem  to  know  very  well 
where  to  run  and  where  to  ask  for  help  when 
they  need  it  when  they  run  into  deficit 
situations. 

I  must  say  I  am  sufficiently  perplexed 
about  what  is  happening  there,  the  termina- 
tion of  the  contracts  of  these  four  Canadians 
and  the  hiring  of  Mr.  Dexter,  that  I  am  ask- 
ing the  chairman  of  the  Ontario  Arts  Coun- 
cil—who is,  after  all,  the  person  from  Ontario 
who  should  be  dealing  with  Stratford  directly; 
we  do  not  deal  directly  with  Stratford— to 
take    a    serious    look    at    Stratford    and    see 


whether  in  the  light  of  actions  like  these  the 
Ontario  Arts  Council  should  continue  to 
finance  that  at  a  level  of  about  $310,000  a 
year,  as  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  has 
indicated. 

That  is,  of  course,  only  the  annual  grant 
that  Stratford  gets.  In  addition  to  that,  we 
have  undertaken  to  pay  up  to  $2,900,000  for 
Stratford  under  the  arts  challenge  fund.  We 
have  given  Stratford  all  kinds  of  ad  hoc 
grants  over  the  years;  we  have  tried  to  sup- 
port them,  again  at  arm's  length. 

In  response  to  the  question,  it  seems  to  me 
that  in  the  light  of  what  has  happened  in  the 
last  few  weeks,  which  is  really  something  that 
is  astonishing,  regrettable,  and  something  I 
deplore,  the  time  may  have  arrived  for  the 
Ontario  Arts  Council  to  take  a  very  serious 
look  at  whether  the  taxpayers  of  this  province 
should  continue  their  annual  support  of  that 
theatre. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  response  took  three 
minutes  and  30  seconds.  I  wish  the  minister 
would  be  a  little  bit  crisper. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  proposal  of  the 
minister  would  punish  Stratford  for  what 
they  have  done  in  firing  the  four  Canadians, 
letting  them  go  and  bringing  a  foreign  direc- 
tor in,  but  would  not  cure  the  problem  of 
incompetence  or  deviousness  that  is  now 
found  in  the  Stratford  Festival  board  of 
directors,  will  the  government  be  making 
representations  to  Mr.  Axworthy  and  to  the 
Stratford  Festival  board  to  ensure  that  the 
artistic  direction  at  Stratford  be  in  the  hinds 
of  Canadians  rather  than  those  of  a  continu- 
ing series  of  people  who,  however  qualified, 
come  in  from  other  countries? 

Will  the  government  also  be  seeking  to 
ensure  that,  if  Ontario  taxpayers'  funds  con- 
tinue to  go  to  Stratford,  in  future  there  will 
be  a  representative  of  the  arts  council  or  the 
people  of  Ontario  put  on  the  board  of 
directors  to  avoid  the  kind  of  devious  be- 
haviour we  have  seen  in  recent  weeks? 

Hon.  Mr.  Raetz:  Again,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
will  be  very  brief.  That  was  a  long  question. 
As  I  indicated  a  moment  ago,  I  will  not, 
and  our  government  will  not,  make  a  direct 
contact  with  Stratford.  I  will  ask  the  chair- 
man of  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  to  look 
into  these  things  and  report  back  to  us.  I 
will  certainly  not  take  the  kind  of  direct 
steps  that  I  think  have  been  suggested  and 
were  implicit  in  that  question. 

DAY  CARE 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion   for    the    Minister    of    Community    and 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4221 


Social  Services  which  relates  to  the  day 
care  needs  of  people  in  the  Ottawa-Carleton 
region,  particularly  in  the  municipalities  of 
Nepean  and  Kanata  where  certain  political 
events  are  taking  place. 

Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  fact  that, 
despite  60  per  cent  of  the  women  with 
children  in  the  Carleton  constituency  area 
being  at  work,  private  day  care  centres  in 
that  area  are  seeing  their  waiting  lists  shrink 
because  people  with  family  incomes  of  more 
than  $17,000  cannot  afford  even  low-cost, 
privately  run  day  cire  centres?  Does  the 
government  have  any  plan  to  ensure  adequate 
day  care  for  these  families,  or  does  the 
government  intend  to  stand  by  until  those 
private  day  care  centres  have  no  choice 
but  to  fold? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  unless  I 
missed  something  at  the  beginning  of  that 
question,  it  is  not  clear  to  me  how  the 
honourable  member  drew  the  cause-and-effect 
relationship  in  terms  of  the  reduction  in 
waiting  lists,  as  I  believe  he  said.  That  may 
be  his  conclusion  and  it  may  be  correct,  I 
do  not  know,  but  before  I  would  agree 
with  that  conclusion  I  would  have  to  ex- 
amine the  data  which  led  him  to  come  to  that 
conclusion. 

3  p.m. 

Nevertheless,  as  I  have  indicated  on  a 
number  of  occasions,  within  the  next  short 
time— in  a  very  few  weeks— a  series  of  an- 
nouncements will  be  made  relating  to  the 
initiatives  on  the  part  of  this  government  in 
the  area  of  day  care.  I  might  add,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  honourable  member,  that  these 
initiatives  have  been  in  the  planning  stage 
for  a  lengthy  period  of  time.  I  want  to 
assure  him  they  bear  no  relationship  to  the 
current  controversy  that  exists  around  the 
issue  of  day  dare  but  are  the  result  of 
deliberate  and  competent  planning  on  the 
part  of  this  government. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Can  the  minister  assure  the 
House  that  not  only  will  there  be  an  expan- 
sion of  day  care  to  meet  the  needs  in  the 
Ottawa-Carleton  region  but  also  the  tradi- 
tional funding  of  the  government  will  be 
maintained?  Will  he  assure  the  House  that 
the  funding  of  the  $171,000  recently  given 
to  the  region  of  Ottawa-Carleton  for  day 
care  purposes  will  not  be  repeated,  since 
that  funding  involved  only  $15,300  coming 
directly  from  the  province,  with  the  remain- 
der coming  from  either  federal  sources  or 
the  local  municipalities?  Will  the  govern- 
ment  assure   us   that  in   future   Ontario   will 


not  back  out  on  its  responsibilities  to  day 
care  the  way  it  did  with  that  $171,000 
grant,  where  it  paid  less  than  10  per  cent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  With  respect  to  that 
particular  grant,  I  think  the  honourable  mem- 
ber ought  to  bear  in  mind  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  became  necessary.  Again,  it 
related  to  the  particular  land  of  administra- 
tion that  was  being  carried  on  in  that  region, 
as  it  was  in  Metropolitan  Toronto.  I  cannot 
assure  the  member  or  any  municipality  in 
this  province  of  that.  If  they  do  not  manage 
their  own  houses  appropriately  within  then- 
budgets  during  a  given  fiscal  year,  I  cannot 
assure  them  they  can  have  open-ended  rights 
to  spend  money  and  expect  me  to  come  up 
with  80  per  cent— albeit  50  per  cent  federal 
and  30  per  cent  provincial— to  subsidize  them 
if  they  are  not  going  to  manage  their  budget 
programs  appropriately. 

I  would  ask  the  member  to  consider  that 
it  has  been  acknowledged  by  both  Metro- 
politan Toronto  and  Ottawa-Carleton,  know- 
ing the  circumstances  under  which  those 
projected  deficits  arose  this  year,  that  the 
province  has  been  very  generous  with  them 
in  assisting  them  out  of  those  situations. 

With  respect  to  the  other  guarantees  the 
member  requested  of  me,  I  can  only  ask  that 
he  be  patient  and  wait  for  the  announcements 
in  the  next  few  weeks. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  wonder  if  the  minister  is  aware  that  even 
in  low-cost,  private  day  care  service  centres, 
such  as  the  Bay  shore  centre  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton,  the  waiting  list  is  dropping  from 
the  normal  50  to  60  parents  looking  for 
spaces  to  about  10  parents,  although  the  in- 
quiries about  day  care  services  continue  to 
come  in  at  the  same  rate.  According  to  the 
director  of  that  centre,  this  is  because  parents 
whose  family  income  is  slightly  more  than 
$17,000  simply  cannot  afford  to  contemplate 
looking  for  day  care  services  for  their  kids. 

Is  the  minister  going  to  wait  until  these 
centres  close  and  use  that  as  proof  that  the 
day  care  need  does  not  exist?  This  is  the 
kind  of  approach  he  has  taken  in  the  past. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
never  taken  that  approach. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Yes,  you  have.  What  were 
your  speeches  about  recently? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  would  ask  the  honour- 
able member  to  remain  calm  for  just  a 
moment.  I  would  remind  her  also,  by  the 
way,  she  has  not  raised  yet  in  the  House  the 
issue  she  took  me  on  about  a  while  ago  in 
terms   of  those  subsidies.   I   think  since  she 


4222 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


received    that   report   from   Ottawa-Carleton 
she  realizes  I  was  correct. 

Ms.  Cigantes:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege:  I  want  to  make  reference  to  the 
fact  that  I  have  not  raised  again  a  question 
which  I  raised  twice  in  this  House  and  which 
the  minister  has  not  chosen  to  answer.  I 
would  like  the  minister  to  get  up  and  tell  us 
what  documentary  evidence  he  has— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  That  is  not  a  point  of 
privilege;  that  is  correcting  the  record.  The 
honourable  minister  will  complete  his  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Perhaps  in  response  to 
the  request  from  the  honourable  member  I 
could  point  out  to  her  the  report  which  I 
am  sure  she  has  received  from  some  of  her 
friends  on  the  Ottawa  council.  I  will  stand 
by  my  original  information,  because  that  re- 
port bore  me  out  and  demonstrated  my 
figures  were  quite  correct.  I  have  nothing  to 
add  to  my  original  remarks,  because  they 
were  borne  out  by  that  report. 

Ms.  Cigantes:  Where  is  the  report?  Table 
it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Did  the  member  say, 
'Table  it"?  It  is  not  my  report  to  table.  Why 
does  the  member  not  table  her  copy?  She 
has  seen  the  report. 

I  have  forgotten  what  the  honourable 
member's  original  question  was,  as  a  matter 
of  fact. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Ottawa 
East  with  a  new  question. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  it  safe? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  In  spite  of  all  the 
histrionics,  the  member  for  Ottawa  East  still 
has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  can  assure  the  minister  I  have 
no  intention  of  leaving— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  have  a  question? 

Mr.  Roy:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have.  You 
will  agree  there  has  been  some  disturbance 
here. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  REFORM 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence  of 
the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  and  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  I  would  like  to  ask 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs.  My  question  to  the  minister  in- 
volves his  colleague's  comments  in  Montreal 
yesterday  before  the  Chambre  de  Commerce. 
If  I  may  quote  briefly  from  his  speech,  he 


said  those  "who  curse  the  darkness,  especi- 
ally with  inaccuracies  that  cannot  but  mis- 
lead, do  not  serve  .  .  .  Canada.  Instead,  they 
serve  a  vile,  hateful  and  mean-spirited  ap- 
proach based  on  self-interest  and  selfishness." 

Considering  that  the  Attorney  General  was 
talking  about  the  comment  made  by  a  Con- 
servative colleague,  the  Premier  of  New 
Brunswick,  what  steps  does  the  minister  in- 
tend to  take  to  correct  the  inaccuracies  in 
his  colleague's  pamphlet  in  Carleton  which 
states  that  the  Premier,  "Bill  Davis  prevented 
the  federal  government  from  putting  forward 
what  is  called  blanket  bilingual  policy  in  fa- 
vour of  Ontario,"  and  secondly,  "the  leader  of 
the  Liberal  Party  in  Ontario  favours  official 
bilingualism  for  Ontario,"  both  of  which  are 
clearly  inaccurate?  Is  the  minister  going  to 
ask  him  to  correct  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  correct 
the  record,  my  colleague  the  Attorney  General 
did  not  use  those  words  that  were  attributed 
to  him  by  my  friend.  The  Globe  and  Mail's 
Stan  Oziewicz,  who  was  there,  indicates  he 
did  not  use  those  words  in  his  speech. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  have  his  speech  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  He  can  answer  that.  The 
answer  to  the  member's  other  question  is  that 
the  inclusion  or  non-inclusion  of  section  133 
in  the  Canadian  charter  of  rights  in  the  pack- 
age that  is  now  before  the  House  of  Com- 
mons would  have  provided  for  bilingual  laws 
in  this  Legislature,  in  other  words,  all  the 
work  of  this  Legislature,  including  acts  be- 
ing passed  in  both  English  and  French  with 
both  versions  having  official  validity,  and  a 
full  court  system— not  only  criminal  courts, 
as  we  are  in  favour  of,  but  also  civil  courts- 
being  completely  bilingual  in  this  province. 
These  were  the  things  suggested  for  the 
charter  of  rights  by  the  federal  government 
at  some  time  which  we  said  were  not  ac- 
ceptable in  this  province. 

Mr.  Roy:  That's  not  what  you  say. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  It  is  what  we  say,  because 
the  implementation  of  those  things  would 
have  gone  a  long  way  towards  an  official 
bilingual  Ontario  policy,  which  we  are  not 
for.  At  different  times  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith)  has  indicated  he 
was  in  favour  of  a  bilingual  Ontario.  If  he 
wishes  to  correct  the  record,  that  is  fine,  but 
it  is  my  understanding  that  at  other  times 
and  in  other  places  my  friend,  and  some 
members  of  his  party  anyway,  have  been  in 
favour  of  officially  declaring  Ontario  bilingual 
as  the  federal  government  has  declared. 
3:10  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4223 


All  we  have  said  is  that  the  record  of  what 
we  have  done  in  this  province  for  the  franco- 
phones is  a  commendable  record.  That  record 
has  been  done  without  the  kind  of  tokenism 
of  declaring  Ontario  officially  bilingual, 
which  is  not  needed  to  achieve  the  kinds  of 
ends  that  need  to  be  achieved  in  this  prov- 
ince. The  record  in  the  school  system,  the 
courts,  and  in  dealing  with  governments  and 
so  forth  speaks  for  itself. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  will  not  criticize  the  govern- 
ment's record,  which  is  not  part  of  my  ques- 
tion. Does  the  minister  not  think  one  of  the 
reasons  that  he  and  his  colleague  the  Attorney 
General  have  such  difficulty  and  the  govern- 
ment lacks  such  credibility  at  the  national 
level  is  that  each  and  every  time  they  feel  it 
is  publicly  advantageous,  whether  it  is  the 
Carleton  by-election  or  the  1975  general 
election,  they  try  to  stir  up  the  anti-French 
vote? 

Why  else  would  their  candidate  use  about 
half  of  his  pamphlet  just  talking  about  gross 
distortion  of  our  policy  and  the  federal  poli- 
cies? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  If  it  is  gross  distortion  of 
the  Liberal  Party  policy,  I  ask  the  member  to 
stand  up  now  and  tell  this  House  that  their 
policy  is  not  for  an  officially  bilingual  On- 
tario. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would1  ask  this 
of  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs: 
Given  the  importance  of  the  question  of 
French-English  relations  in  Canada,  and 
given  the  fact  that  this  House  by  a  solemn 
and  unanimous  resolution  in  May  at  the  time 
of  our  constitutional  debate,  just  before  Que- 
bec went  to  the  referendum,  acknowledged 
that  the  status  quo  is  unacceptable,  that  it 
had  to  be  changed  and  clearly  that  some  con- 
cessions had  to  be  made  in  this  province  with 
respect  to  French  Canadians  because  of  the 
concerns  that  have  been  raised  for  so  many 
years  in  Quebec,  will  the  minister  undertake 
on  behalf  of  the  government  to  stop  fudging 
the  issues  the  way  the  government  seems  to 
be  so  anxious  to  do  right  now? 

Will  he  make  it  quite  clear  that  adoption 
of  section  133  for  this  province  would  mean 
the  recognition  of  French  in  the  Legislature, 
as  it  is  recognized  now,  and  the  translation 
of  our  statutes  in  Ontario,  as  is  taking  place 
at  this  moment,  as  well  as  guaranteeing  the 
use  of  French  in  the  courts  of  Ontario,  some- 
thing that  has  also  been  accepted  by  the  gov- 
ernment and  now  is  spreading  across  the 
province  on  a  planned  basis? 

Since  that  and  that  alone  is  what  was  in- 
volved with  section  133,  will  the  government 


stop  trying  to  pretend  that  concession,  which 
would  be  very  real  in  the  symbolic  sense  for 
Franco-Ontarians,  for  the  French  Canadians 
across  Canada  and  for  the  Quebecois,  is  quite 
different  from  what  the  government  seems  to 
be  pretending— 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  has  been  asked, 
surely. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Why  can  they  not  be  clear 
and  why  can  they  not  give  that  answer- 
Mr.  Speaker:  That  has  been  asked. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —which  is  so  important  for 
the  future  of  Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Let  me  answer  by  saying 
that  there  are  obviously  differences  of  opinion 
between  those  on  that  side  and  we  on  this 
side.  The  kind  of  progress  we  have  seen, 
which  we  have  been  able  to  accomplish  in 
this  province  without  taking  the  kind  of 
tokenism  that  adoption  of  133  would*  mean  at 
this  time,  speaks  for  itself. 

This  government  takes  no  back  seat  to 
anyone  in  providing  services  for  our  Franco- 
Ontarian  population.  That  is  an  accepted  fact. 
But  it  is  also  an  accepted  fact  that  kind  of 
progress  would  be  seriously  impeded  by 
taking  the  kind  of  steps  the  member  has  sug- 
gested. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  I  made 
a  formal  request  on  Tuesday  to  Mr.  John 
Cowan,  the  treasurer  of  Walker  Brothers, 
to  see  the  uncovered  drums  and  get  a  sample 
of  the  liquid  for  an  independent  analysis. 
Will  the  minister  explain  why  the  reply  from 
Mr.  Cowan,  after  a  top-level,  15-minute  meet- 
ing—and perhaps  a  phone  call  to  the  minister; 
I  do  not  know— was  that  I  would  not  be 
permitted  to  view  the  site  or  get  samples  un- 
less the  minister  gave  permission?  Does  he 
not  think  this  indicates  Walker  Brothers  has 
something  to  hide?  What  is  his  cosy  relation- 
ship in  this  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
member  had  better  address  that  question  to 
his  constituent.  If  he  wants  on  the  site  I 
am  sure  if  he  is  there  for  noble  ends  they 
will  be  more  than  pleased  to  accommodate 
him.  We  will  give  him  the  results  of  the 
test;  of  course  we  will. 

Mr.  Swart:  Would  the  minister  have  no 
objection  to  a  representative  of  the  citizens* 
committee  or  the  city  council  or  myself  be- 
ing there  at  all  times  when  digs  are  taking 
place  to  take  samples  out  of  the  drums  so  we 


4224 


{LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


can  have  an  independent  analysis?  There  is 
no  trust  left  in  his  ministry. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  the  member 
misses  one  very  significant  point.  The  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
—the  representatives  who  should  be  there, 
who  are  there  and  who  will  supervise  that  site 
—are  his  civil  servants  just  as  much  as  they 
are  mine.  He  seems  to  have  missed  that  point. 
They  are  there  to  protect  the  people  of  this 
province  and  they  happen  to  be  doing  it. 
I  was  at  the  reception  last  night  for  the 
International  Joint  Commission.  It  is  rather 
interesting  to  hear  an  outside  perspective  of 
what  a  fine  job  the  officials  of  this  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  are  doing  in  the  province. 

COMMUNITY  SERVICES 
CONTRIBUTION  PROGRAM 

Mr.  J.  Johnson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Housing.  Scveral 
small  communities  in  my  riding  will  be 
drastically  affected  by  the  change  in  federal 
policy  relating  to  the  community  services 
contribution  program.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I 
have  one  community  that  received  $1  mil- 
lion, the  village  of  Elora,  and  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  put  in  $1.6 
million.  It  was  only  because  of  the  involve- 
ment of  the  two  governments- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  a  question  there? 
Mr.  J.  Johnson:  Yes,  sir.  The  question  is, 
will  these  municipalities  be  allowed  to  pro- 
ceed with  projects,  especially  the  water  and 
sewage  projects,  in  view  of  the  change  in 
policy  of  the  federal  government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  any  pro- 
gram or  project  by  a  municipality  which 
now  has  approval,  both  by  my  ministry  and 
by  Canada  Mortgage  and  Housing  Corpo- 
ration, to  be  funded  under  the  terms  of 
reference  of  the  program  for  1980,  will  ad- 
vance to  its  conclusion  provided  all  funds 
for  that  project  are  drawn  down  by  March 
31,  1982. 

As  to  any  projects  or  programs  that  are 
being  applied  for  in  the  current  year  that 
have  not  had  our  approval,  either  at  the 
federal  or  provincial  level— being  applied  for 
by  various  municipalities  across  the  province, 
represented  by  all  parti  s  of  this  Legislature 
—they  are  not  going  to  be  approved  at  this 
time  because  of  lack  of  funding  as  a  result 
of  the  turnebwn  of  the  CSCP. 

At  March  31,  1982,  we  anticipate  we  will 
have  most  of  the  programs  with  their  total 
entitlement  of  funds  drawn  down. 


LAND  SEVERANCE 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food.  Can  the  minister  explain  why  an 
order  in  council  was  issued  on  his  advice 
on  July  31,  1980,  to  grant  a  severance  on 
agricultural  land  in  Vespra  township  to  a 
Gordon  Atkinson  which  overturned  an 
Ontario  Municipal  Board  decision  and  which 
went  against  the  township  official  plan?  What 
reason  did  the  minister  and  the  cabinet 
have  for  overturning  the  OMB  decision  other 
than  the  fact  that  Mr.  Atkinson  was  a  fund- 
raiser for  the  Conservative  member  for  Sim- 
coe  Centre  (Mr.  G.  Taylor)? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sure  the  honourable  member  is  aware  that 
I  have  many  orders  in  council.  I  will  take 
his  question  as  notice  and  return  with  a 
response. 

3:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  would  like  to  be  able  to 
ask  the  minister  where  his  commitment  is  to 
agriculture  and  just  sit  down,  but  I  will  not. 
I  will  go  on. 

What  purpose  is  there  in  a  municipality's 
creating  an  official  plan  and  having  it  ap- 
proved by  the  ministry  over  there  if  it  can 
be  ignored  by  the  government  and,  if  the 
minister  felt  so  compelled  to  support  this 
severance,  why  did  he  not  do  so  at  the 
hearings  before  the  OMB?  Does  the  minister 
not  agree  that  this  kind  of  political  decision 
by  the  government  makes  a  mockery  of  the 
planning  process  and  of  his  foodland  guide- 
lines to  preserve  agricultural  land?  Where 
is  his  commitment  to  his  foodland  guide- 
lines? 

Interjections. 

Mr.     Speaker:     Order. 

MINIMUM  WAGE 

Mr.  Samis:  A  question  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour,  Mr.  Speaker,  a  very  simple  ques- 
tion: Can  the  minister  explain  to  the  people 
in  this  province  whv  we  have  the  lowest 
minimum  wage  in  all  of  Canada? 
Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  A  new  question? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Thank  you  very  much 
for  giving  me  the  opportunity  not  to  an- 
swer, Mr.  Speaker,  but  the  member  has 
asked  about  minimum  wage.  I  have  indi- 
cated to  him  on  previous  occasions  that  the 
matter  was  under  active  review.  He  is  not 
unaware  of  the  fact  that  the  Institute  for 
Research  on  Public  Policy  has  recently  come 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4225 


out  condemning  minimum  wage.  Certainly 
that  has  given  the  government  reason  to 
review  it  very  carefully  and  we  are  actively 
reviewing  it  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.    Samis:    Can    the    minister    explain    to 
the   House- 
Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  members  who 
are  interjecting  are  the  ones  who  claim 
they  cannot  get  on  the  question  period.  It 
is   no   wonder  why. 

Mr.  Samis:  Good  advice,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Can  the  minister  explain  to  the  House 
why  there  has  been  no  increase  whatsoever 
in  the  minimum  wage  in  22  months,  and 
can  he  give  some  assurance  to  the  working 
poor  of  this  province  that  there  will  be  at 
least  some  increase  before  January  1,  1981? 
Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  can  say  nothing  else 
other  than  that  the  matter  is  under  active 
review,  and  I  hope  to  have  the  result  very 
shortly. 

INVESTMENT  COMPANIES'  FAILURE 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations  concerning  the  ongoing  Astra 
Trust  and  Re-Mor  matter:  Can  the  minister 
inform  the  House  if  at  the  time  of  the  Re- 
Mor  application  the  registrar  of  mortgage 
brokers  was  aware  of  the  judge's  comments 
and  the  evidence  tendered  by  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission  in  the  receivership 
application  against  C  and  M? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  fairness, 
I  will  take  that  as  notice  and  report  back 
tomorrow. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  While  he  is  doing  that, 
will  the  minister  table  in  the  House  the  ap- 
plication for  the  Re-Mor  mortgage  brokerage 
licence,  including  all  accompanying  corres- 
pondence, notations  and  comments  from  all 
involved  individuals  and  government  offi- 
cials? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Certainly.  I  hope  to  do  it 
tomorrow,  but  no  later  than  Monday. 

INDUSTRIAL  HEARING  LOSS 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion regarding  industrial  deafness  and,  after 
listening  to  the  member  for  Huron-Middle- 
sex (Mr.  Riddell),  I  think  we  should  apply 
the  rules  here. 

Mr.  Riddell:  You  have  to  shout  to  get 
through  to   those   characters   over  there. 

Mr.  Martel:  In  the  second  annual  report, 
there  is  a  recommendation  regarding  indus- 


trial deafness,  that  the  Minister  of  Labour 
consult  with  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board  to  consider  appointing  an  independent 
committee  of  experts  to  investigate  and  make 
recommendations  to  the  minister  and  the 
board  on  the  basis  of  compensation  for 
noise-induced  hearing  loss.  Has  that  been 
done  yet  and,  if  not,  when  can  we  antici- 
pate such  a  committee  being  established  to 
deal  with  this  serious  problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  by  way 
of  background,  may  I  say  that— 

Mr.  Kerrio:  What  do  you  talk  about  when 
you  are  out  to  dinner  together? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Careful.  I  do  not  want 
to  give  the  member  for  Niagara  Falls  (Mr. 
Kerrio)  a  hearing  loss. 

It  was  due  to  a  conversation  I  had  with 
the  member  for  Sudbury  East  about  indus- 
trial hearing  loss  and  our  mutual  concern 
about  the  problem  that  the  matter  was  re- 
ferred by  me  to  the  Advisory  Council  on 
Occupational  Health  and  Safety  for  some 
views  and  recommendations.  We  have  already 
initiated  one  part  of  its  recommendations, 
namely,  the  standard  with  regard  to  indus- 
trial noise.  We  are  now  awaiting  some  briefs 
on  that,  and  we  will  make  decisions  about 
whether  it  should  stay  as  it  is  or  whether 
to  make  some  changes. 

The  real  issue  the  honourable  member  and 
I  are  concerned  about  in  addition  to  that 
relates  to  compensation  and  rehabilitation.  I 
have  forwarded  the  recommendations  of  the 
advisory  council  to  the  board,  and  I  have 
received  an  initial  response  indicating  it 
would  like  to  wait  until  the  Weiler  report  is 
received.  That  will  be  tabled  next  week.  As 
soon  as  that  is  received,  I  will  have  further 
meetings  with  the  board  to  pursue  the 
matter. 

Mr.  Martel:  With  respect  to  rehabilitation, 
has  anything  been  done  to  date  to  provide 
speech  therapy  for  the  more  than  800 
workers  in  the  Sudbury  area  who  aire  suf- 
fering from  industrial  deafness  and  to  ensure 
there  are  adequate  speech  therapists  trained 
in  the  province  to  meet  the  need,  not  only 
in  the  Sudbury  basin  but  also  across  north- 
ern Ontario,  which  has  the  highest  incidence 
of  severe  deafness  in  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  do  not  have  that  infor- 
mation available.  I  will  take  the  question  as 
notice  and  respond  later. 

BURLINGTON  GAS  EXPLOSION 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 


4226 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


mercial  Relations.  Can  the  minister  tell  the 
House  what  action  his  ministry  is  taking 
pursuant  to  its  responsibilities  for  safety  under 
the  Energy  Act  as  a  result  of  a  natural  gas 
explosion  that  destroyed  a  Burlington  home 
on  September  16? 

Specifically,  will  the  minister  explain  why 
it  took  his  officials  more  than  a  month  to 
obtain  the  report  of  the  Ontario  Research 
Foundation  which  was  completed  at  the  end 
of  September  and  which  concluded  that  a 
plastic  T-joint  had  separated  from  the  pipe- 
line supplying  gas  to  the  Burlington  house? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  get 
the  report  on  that  matter  for  the  honourable 
member. 

Mr.  Bradley:  When  the  minister  obtains 
that  report  and  reports  back  to  the  House, 
will  he  tell  the  House  at  that  time  whether  it 
is  correct  that  30  per  cent  of  these  fittings, 
which  were  tested  by  the  Consumers'  Gas 
Company  at  its  Chatham  laboratory,  have 
failed  to  meet  pressure  specifications  and  that 
AMP  of  Canada  Limited,  the  manufacturer, 
now  makes  fittings  to  higher  specifications? 
If  so,  does  the  minister  not  agree  there  is  a 
problem  of  some  urgency  with  regard  to  the 
old  type  of  fittings  which  have  already  been 
installed?  Will  the  minister  report  back  to 
the  House  on  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  The  honourable  member  is 
asking  a  question  about  the  joints.  If  there 
were  defective  joints,  I  am  sure  the  minister 
would  have  known  about  it  some  time  ago. 

AFFIRMATIVE  ACTION  PROGRAMS 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Labour  on  the  ineffec- 
tiveness of  voluntary  affirmative  action  pro- 
grams even  within  the  government  ministries. 

With  the  women  crown  employees  office 
specifically  charged  with  affirmative  action 
programs  within  the  ministries,  how  can  this 
minister  and  this  government  possibly  con- 
done the  fact  that  over  the  last  four  years 
the  government  spent  almost  double  the 
amount  of  money  on  staff  training  for  men 
than  it  did  for  women  and  that  in  the  past 
year  the  per  capita  expenditure  on  staff  train- 
ing for  men  averaged  $79.56  and  only  $27.38 
for  women,  a  factor  almost  two  thirds  less? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  always 
nice  to  have  the  advantage  of  figures  in  front 
of  one.  As  soon  as  I  have  reviewed  those 
figures  and  can  evaluate  the  real  things  that 
led  to  those  figures,  I  will  be  glad  to  respond 
to  the  member  personally. 


Let  me  tell  my  friend  that  this  govern- 
ment is  very  serious  about  the  affirmative 
action  program  for  women  crown  employees. 
That  program  is  being  reviewed  twice  a  year, 
the  targets  are  being  reviewed  annually  and 
I  sense  a  sincere  commitment  to  it  in  every 
area  of  this  government. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  How  can  the  minister  say 
this  government  is  serious  about  affirmative 
action  for  its  own  employees  when  of  the  40 
per  cent  of  staff  employees  in  Ontario  who 
are  women,  63  per  cent  are  in  the  $9,000  to 
$12,000  bracket  only,  three  per  cent  earn 
even  less  than  $9,000  and  only  five  per  cent 
are  in  the  highest  range  of  $25,000  or  over? 
The  representation  of  women  at  the  director 
level  in  this  past  year  dropped  from  5.3  per 
cent  to  4.9  per  cent.  What  sort  of  seriousness 
is  that? 

3:30  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  The  member  may  like  to 
select  figures,  but  he  knows  from  having 
talked'  to  people  in  my  branch  there  is  no 
doubt  that  changes  are  taking  place.  The 
introduction  of  the  affirmative  action  program 
within  the  government  will,  I  predict,  have 
very  effective  and  meaningful  results. 

SOUTHWESTERN  ONTARIO 
DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism regarding  the  heavy  unemployment  in 
the  Windsor-Essex  county  area  and1  the  need 
for  new  industry.  The  Windsor-Essex  County 
Development  Commission  has  already  ap- 
proached the  minister  and  asked  that  he  set 
up  a  southwestern  Ontario  development  cor- 
poration to  assist  them.  Is  the  minister  con- 
sidering that  and  will  he  be  implementing 
such  a  thing  to  enable  the  community  at 
least  to  provide  substantial  employment  in 
the  near  future? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
think  the  mechanism  of  starting  a  new  de- 
velopment corporation  would  solve  the  prob- 
lem- The  kinds  of  things  we  are  doing  in  con- 
junction with  the  industrial  development 
commission  of  Windsor  and  Essex  are  the 
kinds  of  things  that  will  make  that  happen. 
I  do  not  think  opening  a  new  bureaucracy 
and  setting  up  a  separate  development  cor- 
poration will  solve  the  problem. 

For  example,  the  sorts  of  things  the  United 
Automobile  Workers  in  Canada  proposed 
yesterday  and  some  other  initiatives  we  have 
been  taking  for  a  long  time  and  the  honour- 
able member  has  suggested  on  previous  oc- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4227 


casions    are    the    kinds    of   things    that   will 
bring  new  development  there. 

In  the  event  we  get  an  opportunity  to 
assist  a  firm  that  is  already  in  that  area  or  a 
firm  that  is  thinking  of  moving  into  that  area, 
then  regardless  of  what  programs  are  in  place 
through  the  Ontario  Development  Corpora- 
tion or  the  employment  development  fund,  we 
would  be  flexible  with  either  of  those  pro- 
grams or  any  of  our  programs  to  make  sure 
the  plant  either  located  or  expanded.  So  there 
is  no  problem  in  terms  of  flexibility  or  avail- 
ability of  our  programs. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  In  the  communication  to 
the  minister  dated  October  23  it  specifically 
mentions  that  a  southwestern  Ontario  de- 
velopment corporation  could  expedite  appli- 
cations and  would  be  able  to  provide  exten- 
sive knowledge  to  those  who  may  be  inter- 
ested in  setting  up  industry  in  the  commu- 
nity. Those  are  two  positive  suggestions 
that  the  establishment  of  a  corporation 
would  eventually  provide.  Does  the  minister 
not  think  that  is  important  enough  to  set 
up  such  a  corporation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  would  wonder 
about  that  suggestion  because  we  would 
end  up  with  the  same  people  who  are  now 
there— our  ODC  staff  who  are  working  in 
southwestern  Ontario.  They  are  very  well 
trained  to  understand  the  economy  of  south- 
western Ontario.  They  are  in  a  position  to 
expedite  those  applications  that  must  be  ex- 
pedited. None  of  that  would  change  one  bit 
if  we  told  them  they  would  now  be  working 
for  something  called  the  Southwestern 
Ontario  Development  Corporation  as  opposed 
to  the  Ontario  Development  Corporation. 

KEATING   CHANNEL   DREDGING 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment,  if 
he  will  come  back  to  his  seat. 

My  question  relates  to  the  granting  of  an 
18-month  exemption  from  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  for  the  Keating  Channel 
dredging  in  Toronto.  It  also  concerns  the 
issue  of  a  provisional  certificate  of  approval 
under  the  Environmental  Protection  Act  to 
permit  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  to 
dredge  and  dispose  of  the  dredgeate  in  a 
pond  attached  to  the  Leslie  Street  spit  in 
Toronto. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  Dr.  Donald  Chant, 
chairman  of  the  Premier's  steering  commit- 
tee on  environmental  assessment,  has  advised 
the  Premier  "that  the  issue  of  the  need  for 
dredging  Keating  Channel  remains  unre- 
solved and  that  a—" 


Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  not  a  question  yet. 
All  I  heard  was,  "In  view  of  the  fact  .  .  ." 

Ms.  Bryden:  Let  me  just  conclude  Dr. 
Chants  quote:  "That  the  issue  of  the  need 
for  dredging  Keating  Channel  remains  un- 
resolved and  that  a  hearing  on  this  specific 
issue  should  be  held  as  soon  as  possible 
and   before   any"— 

Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  the  question? 

Ms.  Bryden:  The  question  is,  Mr.  Speaker 
—Dr.  Chant  said  to  request  exemption  be- 
fore any  irrevocable  approvals  are  given. 
Will  the  minister  indicate  whether  he  is 
prepared  to  cancel  the  exemptions  and  cer- 
tificates of  approval  until  an  independent 
inquiry,  such  as  Dr.  Chant  recommends,  is 
held,  or  is  he  going  to  ignore  the  advice  of 
Dr.  Chant,  as  has  been  done  on  many  occa- 
sions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
member  reads  the  letter  in  greater  detail, 
I  think  she  will  find  a  commitment  was 
made.  She  will  notice  the  point  where  it 
says  the  now-defeated  mayor  of  Toronto  has 
a  certain  plan  to  take  care  of  any  flooding. 
Now  that  he  is  not  the  mayor  we  had  better 
consult  with  the  new  mayor  to  see  whether 
the  commitment  to  take  care  of  the  contin- 
gency of  flooding  is  still  valid.  That  is  a 
very  pertinent  point.  That  will  have  to  be 
addressed  in  the  immediate  future. 

MINI-BUDGET 

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

The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 
would  like  to  shed  some  light  on  a  point  of 
privilege  that  was  raised  earlier. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Thank  you,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Can  we  hear  it  now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  take  it  that  in  my 
absence  earlier  today,  while  I  was  speaking 
to  some  people  concerned  with  high  tech- 
nology in  the  Ottawa  area,  a  point  was 
raised  here  with  regard  to  an  article  that 
appeared  in  a  prestigious  Italian  newspaper. 
I  was  surprised  when  I  came  to  discover 
that  the  member  opposite,  who  I  know  was 
disappointed  to  see  a  Tory  in  one  of  the 
ethnic  newspapers,  had  made  the  suggestion 
that  I  had  been  directly  quoted  as  giving 
some  information  with  regard  to  the  budget. 

First,  I  would  like  to  say  that  while  I,  like 
many  other  of  my  colleagues,  have  made 
suggestions    to    the    Treasurer    (Mr.    F.    S. 


4228 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Miller),  the  budget  remains  within  his  pur- 
view. I  will  be  here  at  eight  o'clock  tonight 
to  discover  what  will  be  in  the  budget. 

Second,  I  have  had  a  chance  to  receive 
a  translation  of  the  newspaper  article,  and 
my  recollection  of  it  was  confirmed.  Anyone 
reading  the  article  will  see  that  none  of  the 
points  attributed  to  me  by  the  member  op- 
posite is  in  quotation  marks.  They  are  not 
direct  quotations   from   me. 

Third,  the  article  itself  as  translated,  and 
I  have  had  three  Italian  translations,  which 
were  all  translated  the  same  way,  reads  as 
follows  in  the  key  portion:  "The  govern- 
ment is  examining  the  possibility  of  reducing 
sales  tax  since,  declared  Grossman,  it  has 
already  been  demonstrated  other  times  that 
similar  reductions  facilitate  a  revitalization 
of  certain  economic  sectors." 

That  is  exactly  the  same  kind  of  specula- 
tion that  the  Treasurer  himself,  and  others, 
have  made  over  the  last  few  weeks.  It  was 
the  point  of  several  questions  raised  in  this 
House  and  therefore  was  entirely  consistent 
with  everything  else  that  has  been  said  or 
speculated  about  the  budget.  It  does  not 
indicate  any  extraordinary,  unusual  reflec- 
tions upon  the  budget,  nor  any  information, 
which  I  do  not  have,  with  regard  to  the 
budget  to  be  presented  this  evening  and 
which  I  know  the  House  will  enormously 
applaud. 

SPEAKER'S  RULINGS 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege:  Am  I  correct  in  saying  the  Speak- 
er's rulings  on  procedural  affairs  cannot  be 
challenged  at  any  time? 

Mr.  Speaker:  My  rulings  can  be  challenged 
at  any  time  except  in  question  period. 

Mr.  Sargent:  May  I  ask  the  Speaker  how 
many  times  in  the  past  four  years  has  he 
been  before  the  procedural  affairs  com- 
mittee? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Never. 

Mr.  Sargent:  My  point  is  this:  I,  as  one 
member  of  this  Legislature,  do  not  think  that 
one  person  like  the  Speaker  alone  can  decide 
what  should  be  discussed  in  this  Legislature 
for  the  people  of  Ontario.  The  Speaker 
alone  makes  those  decisions,  and  I  very 
much  object  to  those  methods  after  what 
happened  today  with  my  leader  here. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  awfully  sorry  the 
honourable  member  thinks  that  way.   There 


are  another  123  members  who  have  charged 
me  with  that  responsibility. 

MINI-BUDGET 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  view  of 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism's 
statement,  will  he  give  the  House  an  under- 
taking to  have  the  translation  of  that  article 
typed  up  and  distributed  to  us?  I  am  not  so 
sure  that  I,  as  a  member,  am  prepared  to 
accept  his  explanation  that  he  was  just 
speculating  like  any  other  member  of  the 
public.  I  think  there  is  much  more  to  it 
than  that.  I  would  say  on  my  own  behalf, 
at  least,  that  I  would  like  to  have  that 
translation  and  perhaps  pursue  the  matter 
further. 

3:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:   On  a  point  of  order, 
Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  request  from  the 
honourable  member- 
Mrs.   Campbell:    There   is  nothing  out  of 
order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Oh,  the  new  Speaker. 
Was  it  a  point  of  privilege  the  member  was 
speaking  on  then?  In  view  of  the  request 
by  the  honourable  member  and  in  view  of  the 
translation  the  minister  has  brought  forward, 
I  am  wondering,  if  that  translation  is  satis- 
factory to  all  Italian-speaking  people,  whether 
the  member  for  Bellwoods  should  be  asked  to 
apologize  for  his  translation? 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
intention  whatsover  of  apologizing  to  the 
minister  or  anybody  else  for  such  an  ob- 
vious violation  of  parliamentary  principles  and 
parliamentary  tradition.  I  will  be  moving  a 
motion  at  the  appropriate  time  to  deal  with 
this  matter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  to 
clarify  what  I  said  earlier,  there  were  three 
things  that  I  pointed  out  earlier.  I  am  quite 
satisfied  with  the  three  translations,  but  the 
point  I  wish  to  make  regardless  of  any  inter- 
pretation or  any  translation  anyone  else  wants 
to  make  of  that  article— is  that  there  are  two 
things  that  are  quite  obvious.  First,  the  re- 
marks attributed  to  me  are  not  in  quotation 
marks;  they  are  someone's  reflections.  Second, 
I  say  to  this  House,  quite  openly  and  clearly, 
I  did  not  say  there  were  going  to  be  retail 
sales  tax  cuts.  That  is  a  straight  fact.  There- 
fore, regardless  of  how  anyone  might  have 
translated  it,  my  remarks  made  here  this 
afternoon  may  be  accepted  at  face  value  and 
it  would  be  challenged  regardless  of  the  trans- 
lation. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4229 


Interjections. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 
Mr.  Di  Santo:  On  a  point  of  privilege- 
Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  your  point  of  privi- 
lege? Is  it  the  same  point  of  privilege? 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  As  one 
person  who  can  understand  the  language  in 
which  the  article  was  written,  I  can  tell  the 
House  that  whoever  reads  the  article  gets  a 
clear  indication  that  the  government  is  pro- 
posing two  initiatives:  (1)  to  reduce  sales 
tax  and  (2)  in  favour  of  the  small  industries 
in  Ontario. 

This  is  grave  because  it  can  perturb  the 
market  and  the  citizens  in  their  decisions  as 
to  whether  to  buy  goods.  This  is  a  very 
serious  leak  of  the  budget  responsibility  be- 
cause the  minister  says,  and  it  is  quoted: 
"The  government  is  examining  the  possibility 
of  reducing  sales  tax  .  .  ."  In  other  words, 
the  minister  revealed  what  action  the  gov- 
ernment was  studying.  I  think  my  colleague 
the  member  for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan) 
was  totally  correct.  The  minister  not  only 
should  apologize  but  also  should  resign. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  is  no  motion  of 
any  sort  before  the  House  that  the  Chair 
can  judge  upon.  It  was  raised  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Bellwoods  by  way  of  a  point  of 
privilege— an  alleged  point  of  privilege- 
where  he  seems  to  be  saying  that  something 
reported  to  have  been  said  by  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  is  a  breach  of  his 
privileges.  That  has  not  been  established,  and 
all  I  can  do  is  look  at  the  record  of  what 
other  members  have  said  and  what  the  min- 
ister has  said  by  way  of  clarification.  I  will 
look  at  it  and  see  whether  the  allegations 
are  well-founded  and  whether  there  is  a 
point  of  privilege. 

NOTICE  OF  DISSATISFACTION 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  remind  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House  that  the  member  for  Port 
Arthur  (Mr.  Foulds)  had  stated  he  was  dis- 
satisfied with  the  answer  to  a  question  asked 
previously  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
(Mr.  Parrott).  By  mutual  agreement,  they 
have  decided  the  adjournment  debate  will 
take  place  at  10:30  p.m.,  November  20,  which 
is  next  Thursday. 


LEGISLATIVE  PAGES 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like,  for  the  benefit 
of  all  honourable  members  and  as  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  services  of  our  pages  over  the  last 
five   weeks,   to   read   their   names    into   the 


record  and  the  ridings  from  whence  they 
came. 

Anna  Bayley,  St.  David;  Leanne  Burgin, 
Perth;  Samantha  Cakebread,  Windsor-Walk- 
erville;  Gary  Chazalon,  Middlesex;  Nancy 
Dodds,  Mississauga  North;  Monique  Dull, 
Wilson  Heights;  May  Lynne  Emiry,  Algoma- 
Manitoulin;  Marlynne  Ferguson,  Algoma; 
Michelle  Mackenzie,  Yorkview;  Susan  Olsen, 
Windsor-Sandwich;  Carolyn  Prentice,  Hum- 
ber;  Mary-Beth  Radd'on,  Prince  Edward- 
Lennox;  Kimberley  Roy,  Kitchener;  Dawn 
Stevely,  Hamilton  East;  Eileen  Tucker, 
Armourdale;  Tanya  Underhill,  Elgin;  Susan 
Wall,  Lake  Nipigon;  Vicki  Webster,  Scar- 
borough West;  Beverly  Wilkinson,  Carleton; 
Megan  Winsor,  Mississauga  East;  Stephanie 
Winsor,  Mississauga  East;  Suzanne  Zmenak, 
Lincoln. 

Would  members  please  join  me  in  thanking 
them  for  their  services. 

PETITION 

CONTROL  OF  TIPS 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
petition  signed  by  more  than  270  of  the 
lower-paid  workers  in  our  society,  waiters 
and  waitresses,  protesting  against  the  fact 
that  they  do  not  control  the  tips  that  are 
paid  to  them  in  the  establishments  they  work 
within. 

REPORTS 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
RESOURCES  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Villeneuve  from  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  resources  development  reported 
the  following  resolutions: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  be  granted  to  Her  Majesty 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1981: 

Ministry  administration  program,  $26,338,- 
000;  land  management  program,  $97,162,400; 
outdoor  recreation  program,  $74,805,000;  re- 
source products  program,  $80,950,100;  re- 
source experience  program,  $9,414,800. 

And:  That  supply  in  the  following  supple- 
mentary amount  and  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  be 
granted  to  Her  Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  March  31,  1981: 

Land1  management  program,    $10,000,000. 

And:  That  supply  in  the  following  supple- 
mentary amount  and  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  be 
granted  to  Her  Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  March  31,  1981: 

Land  management  program,  $3,638,000. 


4230 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE 

Mr.  Philip  from  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice  reported  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

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,  1981: 

Ministry  administration  program,  $5,262,- 
200;  commercial  standards  program,  $11,652,- 
000;  technical  standards  program,  $7,302,900; 
public  entertainment  standards  program, 
$9,744,600;  property  rights  program,  $22,- 
398,000;  registrar  general  program,  $3,397,- 
200;  liquor  licence  program,  $7,056,  500;  res- 
idential tenancy  program,  $5,881,800. 

MOTIONS 

COMMITTEE  SITTING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  select 
committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee 
adjustment  be  authorized  to  sit  this  afternoon. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

COMMITTEE  SUBSTITUTION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  Mr.  Martel  be 
substituted  for  Mr.  Cooke  on  the  select  com- 
mittee on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee 
adjustment. 

Motion  agreed  to. 
3:50  p.m. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Does  it  have  something  to  do 
with  motions? 

Mr.   McCIellan:   Yes.   I  have  a  motion.   I 

give  notice  of  the  following- 
Mr.    Speaker:    Not    under    this    item   you 

can't. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  it  not 
permitted  to  move  motions  at  this  point? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  These  are  government 
motions— routine  motions  dealing  with  the 
business  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  would  ask  your  interpretation  of 
rule  37(c).  Does  the  notice  that  is  spoken 
of  in  that  motion  simply  require  a  filing 
with  the  table  or  does  it  require  oral  notice 
as  well?  My  interpretation  of  37(c)  would 
be  that  the  motion  would  require  notice  and 
oral  notification  and  permission  from  you  in 
writing  as  well  at  this  point  in  time. 


Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  quite  clear  under  the 
rule  that  any  motion  that  is  introduced  under 
that  item  requires  notice. 

Mr.  Foulds:  My  question  then  is,  does  the 
notice  simply  have  to  be  filed  in  writing  or 
should  you  give  oral  notice  at  this  point 
in  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
inform  my  friend  that  usually  these  notices 
appear  on  the  Notice  Paper,  notice  having 
been  given,  and  the  calling  of  those  motions 
is  at  the  discretion  of  the  government  House 
leader. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  colleague 
the  member  for  Bellwoods  has  filed  notice 
with  the  Clerk  of  the  House  for  a  motion 
that  the  matter  he  brought  up  on  a  point  of 
privilege  under  rule  37  be  considered  by  the 
standing    committee    for    procedural    affairs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Obviously  a  private  member's 
motion  such  as  this,  Avhether  it  be  by  way 
of  a  resolution  or  the  introduction  of  a  bill, 
would  be  filed  with  the  Clerk  and  it  would 
appear  on  the  Order  Paper  and  it  would  be 
debated  in  turn  in  the  same  way  as  any 
other  private  member's  motion. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  You  will  excuse  my  con- 
fusion, Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  was  under  the 
impression,  and  I  may  be  wrong,  that  we 
had  the  same  requirement  to  give  notice  of 
motion  as  we  do  to  move  and  briefly  des- 
cribe a  private  member's  bill.  I  simply 
wanted  to  indicate  to  you  pnd  to  the  House 
that  we  intend  to  refer  the  matter  raised 
by  me  earlier  with  respect  to  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism's  remarks  in  Cor- 
riere  Illustrato  to  the  standing  committee  on 
procedural  affairs,  and  the  motion  has  been 
filed  with  the  table  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  review  it,  but  my 
understanding  of  it  is  that  any  motion  pro- 
posed by  a  private  member  will  be  treated 
as  private  member's  business  and  will  be 
handled  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  the  point  of  order,  if  I 
might,  Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  very  much  like 
you  to  review  that,  because  there  is  nothing 
in  rule  37  which  confines  those  motions  to 
the  government  House  leader. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  my  understanding  of 
it  but  I  will  review  it. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

TORONTO  ISLANDS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill   181,   An  Act   to  stay  the  Execution   of 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4231 


Certain  Writs  of  Possession  issued  in  respect 
of  Certain  Premises  on  Toronto  Islands. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

MUNICIPALITY  OF  METROPOLITAN 
TORONTO  AMENDMENT  ACT,  1980 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  182,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipality 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill 
permits  the  Toronto  Transit  Commission  to 
conduct  a  transit  consulting  business  on  a 
self -financing  basis.  We  believe  the  legisla- 
tion will  allow  the  TTC  to  make  an  impor- 
tant contribution  as  a  consulting  partner  in 
Ontario's  efforts  to  obtain  a  share  of  the 
growing  international   urban  transit   market. 

The  bill  will  also  enable  the  Metro  coun- 
cil to  delegate  to  its  staff  the  ability  to  grant 
certain  permits,  approvals  or  authorizations 
and,  in  addition,  the  existing  section  which 
enables  the  Metro  council  to  designate  lanes 
on  Metro  roads  for  the  exclusive  use  of  TTC 
transit  vehicles,  taxis  and  cars  carrying  a 
specified  number  of  persons  will  be  ex- 
panded to  grant  the  area  municipalities  in 
Metro  the  same  power  over  roads  within 
their  own  jurisdiction  and  to  allow  councils 
to  define  classes  of  transit  vehicles  other 
than  TTC  vehicles,  which  would  be  able 
to  use  the  reserved  lanes. 

DOG  LICENSING  AND  LIVE  STOCK 

AND  POULTRY  PROTECTION 

AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson  moved  first  reading 
of  Bill  183,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Dog  Li- 
censing and  Live  Stock  and  Poultry  Protec- 
tion Amendment  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  sec- 
tions 19(2)  and  19(3)  of  the  act  deal  with 
compensation  for  killing  or  injuring  of  live- 
stock and  poultry  by  wolves  in  territories 
without  municipal  organization.  The  subsec- 
tions are  re-enacted  to  constitute  agricul- 
tural representatives  and  assistant  agri- 
cultural representatives  as  valuers  in  terri- 
tories without  municipal  organization,  and 
to  set  out  in  detail  and  expand  the  proce- 
dure for  determining  the  amount  of  com- 
pensation payable.  At  present,  such  proce- 
dures are  incorporated  by  reference  to  cer- 
tain subsections  of  section  14  of  the  act. 


SHEEP  AND  WOOL  MARKETING  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson  moved  first  reading 
of  Bill  184,  An  Act  respecting  the  Marketing 
of  Sheep  and  Wool. 

Motion   agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
purpose  of  the  bill  is  to  extend  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Wool  Marketing  Act  to  the  pro- 
duction and  marketing  of  sheep  that  are  sold 
for  the  production  of  meat. 

ASSESSMENT  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  185,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Assessment 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  pur- 
pose of  the  bill  is  to  postpone  to  December 
1981  the  return  of  assessments  at  full  mar- 
ket value  across  the  province.  The  bill  will 
allow  us  to  continue  with  the  section  86 
reassessment  program,  which  has  been  suc- 
cessfully implemented  in  108  municipalities 
to  date.  Approximately  110  more  munic- 
ipalities will  be  reassessed  under  section  86 
later  this  year  for  1981  taxation  purposes. 

In  addition,  I  am  proposing  in  this  bill 
administrative  amendments  to  further  clarify 
and  update  certain  operating  provisions  with- 
in the  Assessment  Act. 

4  p.m. 

BRUCE   COUNTY  BOARD  OF 

EDUCATION    AND    TEACHERS 

DISPUTE    RESOLUTION   ACT 

iMr.  Sargent  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
186,  An  Act  to  resolve  the  Dispute  between 
the  Bruce  County  Board  of  Education  and 
the  Secondary  School  Teachers. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  resolve  the  strike  between  the 
Bruce  County  Board  of  Education  and  the 
secondary  school  teachers.  I  hope  this  bill 
can  do  something  towards  resolving  the 
problem. 

It  is  a  pretty  unbelievable  situation  in  a 
democratic,  free  society,  and  with  a  minority 
government,  that  this  bill  could  get  before 
the  House,  but  our  kids  still  cannot  be  edu- 
cated. Although  they  are  paying  their  bills, 
they  cannot  be  educated.  It  is  a  terrible 
situation. 


4232 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


TORONTO  ISLAND  HOMES 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Min- 
ister of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  has  intro- 
duced a  bill  with  reference  to  the  stay  for 
the  Islanders,  can  he  enlighten  us  as  to 
what  procedures  we  are  to  follow  to  ensure 
that  the  bill  is  in  place  before  Monday 
when  the  evictions   are  effective? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was 
going  to  announce  this  when  we  announce 
House  business  later  on  today.  We  intend 
to  call  the  bill  for  second  and  third  reading 
tomorrow.  It  is  hoped  that  royal  assent  can 
be  given  if  those  stages  are  passed  tomor- 
row. 

ANSWER  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Clerk  of  the  House:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
government  House  leader  has  just  tabled 
the  answers  to  questions  283,  284,  370,  372, 
373,  382,  384,  385  to  387,  and  394,  and  the 
interim  answers  to  questions  376,  379  and 
384  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper.  (See  ap- 
pendix, page  4250.) 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

PRIVATE  MEMBERS' 
PUBLIC  BUSINESS 

WOMEN'S  ECONOMIC  EQUALITY  ACT 

Mr.  Charlton  moved  second  reading  of  Bill 
157,  An  Act  respecting  Economic  Equality 
for  Women  in  Ontario. 

Interruption. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  We  Welcome  visitors 
in  our  gallery.  We  are  pleased  that  you  take 
a  great  deal  of  interest  in  what  we  are  doing 
here,  but  I  will  have  to  request  that  you 
remain  silent  so  we  will  have  an  opportunity 
to  hear  what  the  member  who  has  the  floor 
has  to  say. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very 
pleased  and  proud  to  have  been  able  to 
introduce  this  bill  for  first  and  second  read- 
ing and  to  be  able  to  debate  this  bill  here 
this  afternoon.  It  is  a  little  unfortunate  that 
a  matter  so  important  will  be  somewhat  limit- 
ed in  time,  but  none  the  less  it  is  a  very 
important  bill.  It  is,  as  I  think  the  House  is 
aware,  part  of  an  economic  package  this 
caucus  put  forward  in  three  bills,  all  of 
which  are  complementary  and  all  of  which 
are  very  important,  one  to  the  other. 

The  purpose  of  Bill  157  is,  first  of  all,  to 
create   in  the   Ministry  Of  Labour  an  equal 


employment  office  which  will  start  to  deal  in 
an  effective  way  with  the  whole  question  of 
valid  and  successful  affirmative  action  pro- 
grams in  Ontario  in  employment. 

Second,  the  bill  will  design,  along  with 
and  complementary  to  the  other  bills  that 
have  been  introduced,  an  apprenticeship  and 
skills  training  program  in  Ontario,  and  see 
that  women  have  fair  access  to  that  program, 
which  it  would  appear  they  do  not  now  have. 
I  think  the  statistics  point  to  the  problems 
quite  clearly. 

The  bill,  in  addition,  will  provide  for  uni- 
versally acceptable  and  affordable  dav  care 
so  that  the  women  in  this  province  will  have 
full  access  to  meaningful  employment  in  a 
situation  where  they  can,  first,  notice  that 
most  of  their  pav  cheque  is  not  going  to  be 
gobbled  up  by  day  care  and,  second,  know 
that  the  quality  of  day  care  they  get  is  ade- 
quate   and   meaningful   for   their   children. 

The  bill  will  establish  as  well  a  principle 
we  debated  at  length  last  year,  the  establish- 
ment and  enforcement  of  equal  pay  for  equal 
work  of  equal  value  in  Ontario.  This  is  a 
principle  that  is  also  extremely  important  in 
the  province,  and  I  will  get  into  that  a  little 
b't  later. 

Lastly,  the  bill  will  create  in  statute,  in 
law,  a  definition  of  and  protection  from 
sexual  harassment  in  the  work  place. 

This  caucus  has  been  in  the  forefront  of 
dealing  with  women's  legislation  in  Ontario, 
especially  in  the  labour  field.  Over  the  years 
we  have  dealt  with  a  number  of  bills  dealing 
with  the  problems  and  the  discriminations 
that  women  are  confronted  by  in  the  work 
nlace  and  in  their  employment.  My  colleague 
the  member  for  Windsor-Sandwich  (Mr. 
Bounsall),  who  was  up  during  question 
neriod,  has  dealt  with  bills  on  domestics, 
bills  on  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal  value 
and  a  number  of  other  issues.  This  member 
has  debated  in  this  House  the  bill  on  do- 
mestics. My  colleague  the  member  for  Hamil- 
ton Centre  (Mr.  M.  N.  Davison)  currently 
has  a  bill  before  the  House  dealing  with 
sexual  harassment. 

The  bill  We  have  here  today  is  probably 
the  most  important  of  all  the  women's  bills 
we  have  dealt  with  in  this  Legislature.  It  is 
the  most  comprehensive  bill  attempting  to 
deal  in  a  fairly  straightforward  way  with  the 
kinds  of  problems  that  women  in  this  prov- 
ince tell  us  they  have:  not  imagined 
problems,  and  not  solutions  based  totally  on 
principle  either,  but  solutions  based  on  the 
realities  women  are  confronted  with  and 
solutions  suggested  by  the  women's  organiza- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4233 


tions  that  have  been  dealing  with  women's 
problems  in  the  work  place. 

It  is  not  even  fully  a  case  here  of  ideo- 
logical differences  between  this  side  of  the 
House  and  the  government  side.  It  is,  more 
properly  put,  the  difference  between  the 
recognition  and  the  understanding  of  the 
problem  and  the  will  to  deal  with  it. 

My  colleague  asked  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Elgie)  a  question  about  the  crown  em- 
ployees affirmative  action  program  this  after- 
noon, and  I  understand  the  minister's  un- 
willingness to  admit  openly  the  program  is 
not  working.  On  the  other  hand,  we  get  a 
little  tired  in  this  House  of  hearing  the  min- 
ister brush  off  or  rant  about  the  government's 
commitment  to  affirmative  action  when  we 
do  not  see  in  hard  statistics  the  success  of 
that  program.  No  one  is  going  to  believe  it 
is  working  until  we  do.  All  of  the  provisions 
of  this  bill  will  be  administered  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Labour  with  the  exception  of  the  day 
care  provisions. 

4:10  p.m. 

It  is  our  belief  that  the  present  economic 
situation  in  Ontario,  the  intolerably  high  level 
of  unemployment  and  the  resultant  social 
problems  and  social  costs  are  the  most  serious 
and  important  issues  currently  facing  us  in 
the  province.  Furthermore,  we  recognize  that 
the  economic  burdens  on  women  are  inevit- 
ably much  more  severe  than  for  society  as  a 
whole  when  we  are  under  the  kind  of  eco- 
nomic circumstances  we  are  under  at  present. 

Traditionally  and  continually,  unemploy- 
ment for  women  is  higher  than  that  for  men. 
Women's  wages  go  up  more  slowly  than 
men's.  Their  access  to  the  better-paying  jobs 
is  not  there.  In  the  economic  hard  times  we 
are  faced  with  right  now,  they  continually 
receive  the  brunt  of  that  economic  hardship. 
Women  are  participating  in  the  work  force 
in  greater  numbers  than  ever  before.  The 
majority  of  working  women  do  so  out  of 
necessity. 

We  have  had  a  social  problem  in  this 
province  for  a  long  time.  I  suppose  the  total 
blame  cannot  be  put  on  the  government  for 
some  of  the  social  attitudes  that  exist  about 
women  participating  in  the  work  force.  There 
are  still  a  lot  of  people  in  this  province  who 
believe  that  when  women  work  they  take 
jobs  away  from  men.  Unfortunately,  there 
does  not  even  seem  to  be  any  discrimination 
of  the  same  kind  against  men  when  it  may 
not  be  necessary  for  them  to  work.  Let  us  be 
realistic.  In  a  free  society  such  as  ours  is,  or 
is  supposed  to  be,  everyone  who  wishes  to 
work  should  have  the  right  to  do  so. 


As  I  suggested,  the  majority  of  women 
who  are  working  today  are  working  out  of 
necessity  to  support  themselves  and  their 
families  as  a  sole  wage  earner  or  to  supple- 
ment their  spouse's  income,  which  may  be 
extremely  low;  it  may  result  from  the  fact 
that  Ontario  has  the  lowest  minimum  wage 
in  the  country.  Women  are  working,  whether 
they  be  sole  supporters  or  whether  they  are 
attempting  to  supplement  the  very  low  in- 
come of  their  husbands,  to  provide  a  decent 
standard  of  living  for  their  families  and  a 
decent  opportunity  for  their  children  in  the 
future. 

On  average,  women  in  this  province  earn 
only  58  per  cent  of  what  men  earn.  As  in- 
flation continues  to  climb,  women's  wages 
generally  rise  more  slowly  and  they  fall 
further  and  further  behind.  At  present,  un- 
employment for  women  is  about  7.7  per  cent, 
while  for  men  the  rate  is  below  seven  per 
cent.  Generally,  the  unemployment  rate  for 
women  runs  one  or  two  percentage  points 
above  that  for  men. 

Many  working  women  need  access  to  good 
quality  day  care  as  well  to  work.  It  has  been 
argued  that  we  cannot  afford  more  day  care, 
but  I  would  suggest  as  strongly  as  I  can 
that  we  cannot  afford  not  to  provide  it,  both 
in  economic  terms  and  in  social  terms. 

In  terms  of  those  sections  of  the  bill  that 
deal  with  affirmative  action  and  with  equal 
pay  for  work  of  equal  value,  I  would  like  to 
take  a  moment  to  read  a  couple  of  things 
into  the  record.  Most  members  will  recall 
that  last  January  and  February  the  committee 
on  general  government  held  hearings  and 
did  a  clause-by-clause  study  of  Bill  3,  a  bill 
designed  to  create  equal  pay  for  work  of 
equal  value.  I  want  to  read  a  couple  of  quotes 
from  the  former  member  for  Carleton,  Mr. 
Handleman,  who  is  no  longer  with  us.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  is  a  by-election  going  on 
in  his  riding  right  now.  He  was  a  member  of 
that  committee. 

I  want  to  read  this  to  members  so  that  we 
can  understand  clearly  what  the  issues  are 
here  today.  I  do  not  want  to  hear  the  Minis- 
ter of  Labour  stand  up  and  deny  the  prob- 
lem is  as  bad  as  we  are  making  it  out  to  be. 
This  is  Mr.  Handleman's  comment  in  a  dis- 
cussion with  Mr.  Towill  and  Mr.  Keen  of  the 
Canadian  Manufacturers'  Association  on  the 
morning  of  January  17:  "Your  suggestion 
here  is  that  you  say  you  could  accept,  I 
assume,  or  approve  of  a  direct  government 
policy  of  equal  opportunity.  May  I  ask  you, 
because  I'm  a  proponent  of  self-regulation, 
what  have  you  done— either  your  association 


4234 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


or  your  labour  relations  committee— to  bring 
into  being  on  a  fairly  general  basis  through- 
out your  membership,  programs— affirmative 
action  programs,  equal  opportunity  programs 
—supporting  them,  promoting  them  and  ask- 
ing your  members,  'Will  you  please  try  to  do 
this  kind  of  thing?'  I'm  asking  you  as  the 
Canadian  Manufacturers'  Association  and 
labour  relations  committee,  what  have  you 
done  to  prevent  the  government  from  inter- 
vening by  bringing  in  a  bill  and  forcing  you 
to  do  it?" 

Reading  further  on,  Mr.  Handleman  says, 
"I  have  had,  of  course,  dialogues  with  your 
organization  before  about  the  need  to  avoid 
legislation  by  your  anticipating  the  needs  of 
society  and  doing  something  yourself.  I  hap- 
pen to  be  against  the  proliferation  of  legisla- 
tion, but  where  there  is  a  void,  as  in  this 
case,  whether  this  government  does  this"— 
"this"  referring  to  equal  opportunity  or 
affirmative  action— "or  does  what  Dr.  Bounsall 
is  asking  it  to,  I  think,  by  your  own  inaction 
and  lack  of  recognition  of  the  problem  you 
have  led'  to  another  form  of  intervention  in 
the  economy,  which  displeases  me,  but  which 
is  necessary  in  order  to  solve  a  social  prob- 
lem." 

I  wanted  to  read  that  into  the  record  so 
we  could  be  very  clear  that  the  problem 
exists,  that  the  problem  is  not  now  being 
dealt  with— by  the  very  clear  admission  of 
the  former  member  for  Carleton— and  that 
the  problem  has  to  be  dealt  with.  Because 
it  is  not  being  dealt  with  voluntarily,  it  has 
to  be  dealt  with  by  this  Legislature. 

During  the  course  of  those  hearings  last 
winter  a  fairly  large  number  of  employers 
and  employer  associations  who  came  before 
the  committee  suggested  they  would  prefer 
the  legislated  affirmative  action  route  to  the 
equal-pay-for-work-of-equal-value  route. 

We  as  a  party  and  I  as  a  member  of  this 
House  do  not  see  those  two  as  mutually  ex- 
clusive approaches  to  the  problems  con- 
fronted by  women  in  the  work  force.  In  fact, 
we  feel  that  both  are  necessary  parts  of  this 
government's  initiatives  in  those  areas.  Hence 
we  have  provided  for  both  in  this  bill.  We 
have  taken  the  approach  on  the  affirmative 
action  program  that  an  equal  employment 
office  should  be  set  up  in  the  Ministry  of 
Labour.  We  have  no  illusion  that  it  is  not 
going  to  take  some  time  to  accomplish.  But 
that  office  should  sit  down  with  those  com- 
panies, industry  by  industry,  and  work  out  a 
reasonable  and  satisfactory  approach  to  af- 
firmative action  in  each  company.  We  say 
that  if  an  agreement  cannot  be  reached,  a 
tribunal    should    be    set    up    to    impose    an 


affirmative  action  program  and  to  impose  the 
goals  of  that  program.  I  am  quite  sure,  if 
this  bill  were  to  pass  and  become  law,  the 
present  government  certainly  would  not 
abuse  that. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  They  might  even  get  re- 
elected. 

Mr.   Charlton:   That  is  quite  a  possibility. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  But  they  don't  de- 
serve to  be. 

Mr.  Charlton:  But  at  least  it  would  put 
government  in  a  position  that  it  is  in  now, 
or  having  some  input  in  affirmative  action 
programs  and  some  input  into  monitoring 
their  success  and  changing  them  when  they 
are  not  working.  They  have  none  of  that 
now,  and  affirmative  action  programs  in  this 
province  just  are  not  working. 

One  of  the  parts  of  the  bill  is  an  expan- 
sion of  skills  training  programs  and  a  com- 
mitment on  the  part  of  the  government  in 
legislation  that  those  affirmative  action  pro- 
grams would  be  accessible  to  women  in  a 
fair  and  open  way.  In  the  matter  of  affirm- 
ative action  for  women  and  the  skills  train- 
ing and  retraining  programs  that  are  being 
run  in  this  province,  the  statistics  are  just 
horrible  in  terms  of  women. 

4:20  p.m. 

The  equal  pay  sections  are  just  as  impor- 
tant to  the  affirmative  action  program  in  this 
bill  as  the  affirmative  action  program  itself. 
One  of  the  things  that  was  made  very  clear 
in  the  committee  last  winter  was  that  each 
deals  with  different  problems.  Equal  pay 
for  work  of  equal  value  deals  with  the 
question  of  the  value  of  a  job.  Affirmative 
action  and  equal  opportunity  deals  with  get- 
ting women  into  jobs  from  which  they  have 
been  traditionally  excluded.  Both  are  neces- 
sary to  deal  with  the  economic  problems 
that  women  are  confronted  with  in  the 
work  place.  Both  are  necessary  simoly  be- 
cause affirmative  action  programs,  although 
they  may  move  some  women  and  eventually 
substantial  numbers  of  women  into  better- 
paying  jobs  from  which  they  have  been 
excluded  in  the  past,  are  not  necessarily  go- 
ing to  do  anything  to  solve  the  existing  job 
ghetto  problems  in  the  textile  industry,  the 
clerical  sector  and  so  on.  It  is  not  going  to 
do  anything  to  solve  those  problems.  Equal 
pay  for  work  of  equal  value  will  start  to 
deal  with  some  of  those  problems  as  well. 

In  wrapping  up,  I  want  to  say  quickly 
that  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Commission 
ruling  on  sexual  harassment  earlier  this 
year  was  a  welcome  one,  but  it  is  still  not 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4235 


good  enough.  A  number  of  the  comments 
that  were  made  at  the  time  of  that  ruling 
suggested  very  clearly  that,  although  every- 
body was  extremely  happy  with  the  ruling, 
a  much  clearer  definition  of  sexual  harass- 
ment was  still  needed).  It  is  time  that  this 
Legislature  saw  that  there  was  a  clear  defini- 
tion of  sexual  harassment  as  it  relates  to  the 
job,  as  it  relates  to  dismissal  from  employ- 
ment, as  it  relates  to  punishment  and  as  it 
relates  to  withholding  promotion  and  access 
to  other  positions.  Those  definitions  are  re- 
quired and  are  long  overdue  in  this  province. 
We  need  them.  We  need  this  bill. 

We  need  the  whole  range  of  tools  with 
which  to  start  dealing  with,  first,  the 
economic  inequality  that  exists  in  this  prov- 
ince for  women  and,  second,  the  social 
attitudes  that  have  to  be  changed  and  will 
take  time  to  change.  We  need  all  of  these 
tools  to  deal  with  those,  and  we  need  them 
as  quicldy  as  we  can  get  them.  The  longer 
we  -wait  and  piddle  around  with  adding  a 
few  people  here  and  a  few  people  there  to 
the  enforcement  of  existing  legislation  which 
is  not  working,  the  worse  the  problem  will 
be  when  it  comes  time  finally  in  the  govern- 
ment's eyes  to  deal  with  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill 
before  the  House  today  raises  some  impor- 
tant issues,  most  of  which  we  have  dis- 
cussed and  debated  before.  What  separates 
us  from  the  sponsors  of  this  particular  bill 
are  not  its  objectives  but  rather  the  means 
by  which  they  can  best  be  achieved. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  How  long?  How  long  do  we 
go  on  with  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  extended  the  member 
the  courtesy  of  listening;  if  he  is  capable 
of  doing  that,  I  would  ask  him  to  please  try. 

I  quite  appreciate  that  in  supporting  these 
objectives  of  the  bill,  while  opposing  its  sub- 
stantive provisions,  there  will  be  some  who 
will  argue  that  the  government  is  somehow 
opposed  to  the  aspirations  of  women  for 
equity  in  the  labour  market.  I  suppose  we 
can  never  hope  to  convince  those  who  mis- 
construe our  commitment.  But  for  those  who 
are  genuinely  interested  in  knowing  the  gov- 
ernment's strategy  for  achieving  equal  rights 
for  women  in  employment,  I  would  like  to 
outline  briefly  what  is  now  being  done  and 
what  we  plan  for  the  future. 

First  of  all,  let  me  say  that  we  believe 
the  interrelated  problems  of  equal  pay  and 
equal  opportunity  cannot  be  tackled  and 
solved  by  a  narrow-gauge,  one-track  legis- 
lative approach.  What  is  required,  in  our 
view,  is  action  on  a  number  of  fronts  simul- 


taneously,   some    legislative    and   some    pro- 
grammatic. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Try  a  wide-gauge,  one-track 
approach.   Try  something. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Try  it  again;  my  friend 
can  be  polite  shortly. 

We  need  a  blend  of  legislative  compul- 
sion and  educational  persuasion.  We  believe 
it  is  defeatist  and  quite  bluntly  incorrect 
to  assume  that  the  only  effective  route  to 
equality  is  through  legislative  action. 

What  are  the  elements  of  the  govern- 
ment's approach?  First  of  all,  there  are  the 
existing  equal  pay  provisions  of  the  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act.  Under  that  act, 
women  are  entitled  to  be  paid  the  same  as 
men  for  performing  substantially  the  same 
work  in  the  same  establishment  where  skill, 
effort  and  responsibility  are  substantially  the 
same.  Under  the  present  act,  there  have  been 
substantial  settlements  achieved  in  response 
to  individual  complaints,  and  the  complaint 
number  is  mounting.  More  recently,  a  pro- 
gram of  random  audits  has  been  undertaken. 

A  special  section  of  the  branch  has  been 
established,  staged  with  specially  trained 
officers  who  have  been  assisted  in  their 
training  by  representatives  of  the  women's 
bureau.  New  staff  have  been  added  for  this 
purpose.  In  addition,  as  members  know, 
there  was  a  major  media  campaign  on  equal 
pay  last  summer.  All  the  indications  are  that 
the  campaign  and1  the  activities  of  the  in- 
spectorate have  increased  public  awareness 
of  employees'  rights  and,  equally  important, 
employers'   obligations   under   the   law. 

Notwithstanding  the  strength  of  the  exist- 
ing law,  I  believe  there  are  some  changes 
that  can  and  should  be  made  to  increase 
its  effectiveness.  For  example,  I  think  the 
present  restriction  to  comparisons  within  a 
single  establishment  should  be  broadened. 
As  well,  provisions  should  be  made  to  pro- 
hibit an  employer  from  substituting  persons 
of  the  opposite  sex  in  jobs  or  restricting 
entry  to  jobs  to  one  sex  to  avoid  the  appli- 
cation of  the  act. 

Finally,  I  believe  there  is  considerable 
merit  in  using  a  composite  test,  and  I  said 
so  before  the  committee  last  winter,  a  com- 
bined profile  of  skill,  effort  and  responsibility 
rather  than  requiring  each  of  these  elements 
to  be  considered  and  met  separately  in  de- 
termining whether  those  performing  substan- 
tially similar  jobs  are  being  paid  equally. 

I  will  soon  be  discussing  these  proposals 
with  my  colleagues,  and  I  have  every  reason 
to  believe  I  will  be  in  a  position  to  present 
them  to  the  House  in  the  near  future. 


4236 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  third  point  concerns  affirmative  ac- 
tion. This  government  is  a  strong  proponent 
of  voluntary  affirmative  action  programs,  not 
only  for  women  but  also  for  other  groups 
who  have  historically  suffered  from  systemic 
discrimination  and  have  not  had  equal  ac- 
cess to  the  labour  market. 

To  reinforce  this  commitment  within  the 
Ontario  public  service,  a  work  force  of  some 
83,000  persons,  the  women  crown  employees 
office  of  my  ministry  has  spearheaded  a 
phased  equal  opportunity  program  which 
culminated  this  year  in  cabinet  approval  for 
individual  ministry  and  government-wide 
target  setting.  The  targets,  based  on  pro- 
jected vacancies  and  the  availability  of 
women  applicants,  are  aimed  at  achieving 
a  30  per  cent  female  participation  rate  in 
all  bargaining  unit  categories  in  the  man- 
agement module.  This  program  not  only 
should  benefit  women  crown  employees  but 
also  should  serve  as  a  model  and  indeed  an 
inducement  to  private  sector  employers  to 
follow  suit. 

The  fourth  area  also  deals  with  encour- 
aging affirmative  action  in  the  private  sector. 
This  continues  to  be  one  of  the  major  goals 
of  the  women's  bureau  of  my  ministry.  The 
bureau's  efforts  have  two  major  elements. 
The  first  is  the  affirmative  action  consulting 
services.  The  staff  of  that  consulting  service 
informs,  consults,  advises,  exhorts  and  per- 
suades employers  that  it  is  not  only  fair 
but  also  in  their  own  self-interest  for  them 
to  institute  and  vigorously  pursue  affirmative 
action  plans.  A  recent  comprehensive  ques- 
tionnaire survey  conducted  by  the  bureau 
indicates  substantial  advances  in  this  area. 

Complementing  the  work  of  the  consulting 
service  is  the  Equal  Opportunity  Advisory 
Council,  formed  in  April  1979  and  comprising 
leaders  of  business  and  labour.  The  council 
has  two  functions:  first,  to  advise  me  and  my 
staff  on  how  equal  opportunity  can  be  encour- 
aged in  the  most  effective  way  and,  second, 
to  exert  their  own  influence  within  their  own 
constituencies  to  heighten  awareness  and 
bring  about  positive  and  measurable  results 
through  new  affirmative  action  initiatives  in 
the  private  sector. 

The  fifth  point  relates  to  sexual  harass- 
ment. As  members  know,  and  as  the  member 
has  previously  referred  to,  the  present  human 
rights  code  prohibits  discrimination  in  em- 
ployment on  the  grounds  of  sex.  The  present 
law  has  been  construed  by  the  Ontario 
Human  Rights  Commission  and  by  boards  of 
inquiry  appointed  by  that  commission  to  pro- 
vide   a    substantial    measure    of    protection 


against  on  the  job  sexual  harassment.  I  be- 
lieve, however,  the  legal  protection  should 
be  more  explicit,  and  I  can  therefore  advise 
this  House  that  will  be  one  of  the  matters 
addressed  in  the  new  human  rights  code 
which  I  shall  be  introducing  for  first  reading 
in  the  next  10  days. 
4:30  p.m. 

The  sixth  point  has  to  do  with  strategic 
evaluation  of  the  various  elements  of  our 
existing  programs  and  the  exploration  of  al- 
ternative approaches.  The  Ontario  Manpower 
Commission,  in  co-operation  with  the  Ontario 
region  of  the  Canada  Employment  and  Immi- 
gration Commission,  is  working  towards  the 
completion  of  a  women's  employment  strategy 
report.  I  expect  to  receive  that  report  and  to 
present  it  to  my  colleagues  within  the  next 
month  or  two.  Judging  from  the  work  of 
the  commission  in  its  other  undertakings,  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  report  will  be  a 
thorough  and  comprehensive  analysis  and 
evaluation  of  a  broad  range  of  topics,  includ- 
ing methods  to  ease  access  for  women  into 
nontraditional  jobs,  such  as  skilled  trades. 

In  the  time  available,  I  have  been  able 
to  touch  upon  only  the  principal  features  of 
our  various  ways  of  approaching  this  critical 
subject.  I  hope  my  summary  has  indicated 
that  we  are  actively  and  vigorously  pursuing 
all  the  matters  dealt  with  in  Bill  157,  as  well 
as  some  others  not  explicitly  dealt  with  in 
the  bill.  Therefore,  while  affirming  our  sup- 
port for  the  general  principles  enunciated  in 
the  preamble  of  the  bill,  we  cannot  support 
its  content. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  this  point 
in  time  I  am  filled  with  a  sense  of  humilia- 
tion and  shame— not  for  myself  but  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  human  race  in  this 
province— because  this  government,  by  minis- 
terial statement  in  a  private  member's  hour, 
has  indicated  a  veto  of  this  bill. 

I  would  like  to  point  out  a  few  of  the 
things  that  have  happened  in  the  course  of 
my  lifetime  in  the  battle  to  try  to  bring 
dignity  to  each  individual  in  our  society.  I 
do  not  fight  discrimination  against  women 
simply  because  I  am  a  woman.  I  fight  for 
the  right  of  every  individual  to  fulfil  his  or 
her  God-given  talents  to  the  fullest  extent 
of  his  or  her  ability.  That  is  a  principle 
which,  unfortunately,  this  government  does 
not  understand. 

I  can  tell  the  members  my  mother  was,  I 
think,  the  first  woman  building  contractor  in 
Canada.  As  a  child,  I  remember  her  saving 
to  me:  "You  know,  it  is  strange.  Any  drunk- 
ard lying  in  the  gutter  can  vote  on  how  my 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4237 


tax  dollars  will  be  paid,  will  be  served.  I 
have  no  vote."  That  is  the  same  mentality 
we  have  here  all  these  years  later. 

We  have  a  bill  before  us  that  I  find  sad, 
as  I  felt  the  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value  bill  was  sad,  simply  because  neither  of 
them  causes  anybody  to  recognize  the  spe- 
cial skills  of  women.  We  are  still  dealing 
with  that  old  business  of  trying  to  compare 
the  woman  to  the  male  regardless  of  her 
skills.  I  had  hoped  that  in  my  lifetime  we 
might  at  least  recognize  individuals  for  their 
skills  rather  than  this  comparison  route 
which  denigrates  women,  and  members  know 
that. 

This  minister  is  prepared  to  stand  in  the 
House  and  tell  us  the  great  things  the  gov- 
ernment is  doing  for  women,  yet  he  takes 
the  same  position  as  some  of  the  other  Tories 
did  in  committee,  in  talking  about  govern- 
ment employees,  where  parking  lot  attendants 
are  male  and  switchboard  operators  are 
female.  Their  skills  are  greater;  their  classi- 
fication and  job  designation  require  greater 
skills.  He  says  the  only  answer  for  those 
women  is  to  go  and  be  parking  lot  attendants 
if  they  are  going  to  get  anything  like  equal 
pay  from  this  government. 

I  say  this  to  the  author  of  the  bill:  Sadly, 
I  do  not  think  this  bill  takes  us  much  further 
than  that  position.  I  recognize  that  with  a 
government  that  believes,  with  the  board  of 
trade  and  the  chamber  of  commerce  and  all 
these  other  prestigious  groups,  if  you  pat 
women  on  the  head  and  sav,  "Be  patient;  all 
things  will  work  together  for  good—" 

Hon.   Mr.   Elgie:    You  sure  haven't  heard 

me. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  have  not  heard  the  min- 
ister say  anything  positive  the  other  way. 

What  has  the  government  done  about  the 
pay  for  parking  lot  attendants  and  switch- 
board operators?  Not  one  thing.  And  it  will 
not  do  anything,  because  it  believes  it  has 
to  keep  this  kind  of  gap  still  in  existence. 
This  is  the  government.  It  is  not  somebody 
down  on  Bay  Street. 

.   Hon.  Mr,  Elgie:  That  is  not  true. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Is  the  minister  saying 
what  I  am  saying  is  untrue?  What  has  he 
done  about  it?  He  is  the  Minister  of  Labour; 
what  has  he  done? 

All  I  am  saying  is  this:  When  a  government 
is  prepared  to  say  to  the  majority  of  the 
human  race  in  Ontario:  "Look,  children,  we 
will  look  after  you  in  the  fullness  of  time," 
it  is  an  insult  to  those  women.  The  board  of 
trade   and   the   chamber   of  commerce  have 


advocated  patience  to  women;  so  does  the 
minister,  who  is  going  to  do  more  studies.  I 
think  women  have  been  studied  about  as 
much  as  the  native  people  and  they  have  had 
about  the  same  results  from  this  government. 
I  regret  my  time  is  short  to  enter  into  this 
debate.  I  find  this  debate  about  the  role  of 
women  and  who  and  what  they  are  is  about 
the  same  kind  of  debate  that  took  place  in 
Britain  when  some  stalwart— imagine— sug- 
gested that  they  should  eliminate  child  labour. 
The  same  arguments  as  were  used  then  are 
being  used  by  this  government  to  women 
today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  the  Liberals  opposed 
it  then. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Come  off  it. 

Let  me  say  this:  All  we  need  from  this 
government  is  a  statement  and  a  law  which 
says  women  are  indeed  people,  their  talents 
shall  be  recognized  as  talents  and  they  shall 
be  employed  and  paid  accordingly. 

I  have  not  dwelt  on  the  other  matters  in 
this  bill,  because  I  do  not  have  time.  Just 
once,  I  would1  love  to  be  in  the  position  where 
I  could  say  to  all  of  you,  "Look,  be  patient, 
child;  you  will  get  your  deserts  some  day." 

I  simply  remind  the  minister  that  the  law 
is  on  the  side  of  women.  They  have  been 
declared  to  be  people.  There  has  been  no 
such  declaration  as  far  as  he  is  concerned. 

Interruption. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  I  believe  the 
visitors  in  the  galleries  have  been  advised 
that  we  cannot  allow  any  demonstrations.  I 
must  remind  the  visitors  again  that  we  cannot 
allow  any  further-  demonstration. 
4:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  after  that  last 
comment  of  trie  member  for  St.  George,  I 
was  going  to  say  it  is  nice  to  have  some 
people  in  the  gallery,  particularly  with  re- 
spect to  this  bill  which  New  Democrats 
think  is  one  of  the  most  important  bills  to 
come  before  the  Ontario  Legislature,  not  just 
this  year  but  over  the  course  of  the  last 
decade. 

The  New  Democratic  Party  has  taken  a 
strong  commitment  in  relation  to  economic 
equality  for  women  and  we  want  to  carry 
that  commitment  through.  If  we  cannot  get 
the  government  to  carry  it  through,  then  we 
will  change  the  government  and  put  a  govern- 
ment in  office  in  this  province  that  will  en- 
sure that  economic  equality  for  women  is 
not  just  a  slogan  and  not  just  a  program,  but 
a  reality  that  affects  all  of  the  4.5  million 
women  in  Ontario. 


4238 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


We  are  now  the  only  party  to  have  a 
women's  critic,  a  women's  spokesman,  in  the 
Ontario  Legislature.  He  is  the  member  for 
Windsor-Sandwich  (Mr.  Bounsall).  I  am  sorry 
he  cannot  speak  in  the  debate  today  and  I 
am  sorry  that  the  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine  and  the  member  for  Carleton  East 
(Ms.  Gigantes)  and1  all  of  our  other  members 
cannot  speak  as  well,  because  this  is  a  bill 
that  is  important  to  all  of  us  on  the  side  of 
the  New  Democrats. 

We  have  appointed  a  women's  organizer  in 
the  party  because  we  think  it  is  important  to 
reach  out  to  the  majority  of  the  electors  of 
the  province  who  happen  to  be  women.  We 
have  appointed  a  women's  co-ordmator  in 
the  NDP  caucus  for  the  same  reason.  We 
are  taking  this  question  seriously.  I  wish  the 
government  would  take  the  question  seriously 
as  well. 

I  want  to  tell  members  why  we  have 
brought  the  various  measures  of  the  economic 
equality  bill  forward  in  a  package  as  we 
have  done  today.  I  want  to  tell  about  it  by 
talking  about  a  meeting  I  had  a  couple  of 
weeks  ago  with  a  bunch  of  women  at  Seneca 
College  who  were  training  themselves  for 
jobs  where  one  doesn't  traditionally  find1 
women.  They  hope  their  course  in  nontradi- 
tional  occupations  will  help  them  play  an 
equal  role  in  the  working  world,  but  they 
know  from  bitter  experience  that  it  is  an 
uphill  battle. 

The  women  there  told  me  about  the  prob- 
lems they  ran  into  when  they  tried  to  get 
better-paid  jobs.  They  were  women  who 
ranged  in  age  from  their  late  teens  to  their 
early  50s.  Many  were  mothers;  some  had  up 
to  20  years  of  work  experience  and  some  had 
almost  none.  But  the  problems  they  faced  are 
all  the  same,  and  they  are  the  same  problems 
I  have  heard  about  from  countless  women 
from  all  across  the  province  in  all  the 
years  I  have  been  in  politics.  Most  of  the 
group  had  been  unemployed  when  they 
started  that  course  at  Seneca  College.  That 
is  not  unusual,  because  there  are  141,000 
women  officially  unemployed  in  Ontario,  plus 
many  more  who  have  despaired  of  getting  a 
decent  job  and  dropped  out  of  the  labour 
force. 

The  jobs  those  women  at  Seneca  had  held 
had  been  mostly  sales  or  clerical  jobs.  They 
had  run  into  a  brick  wall  when  they  tried  to 
broaden  their  skills  and  move  on  up  the 
ladder  as  their  male  co-workers  did  after  a 
few  months  in  entry-level  jobs.  I  think  of  the 
women  in  British  American  Bank  Note,  a  com- 
pany with  a  factory  in  my  riding  of  Ottawa 


Centre.  They  had  up  to  20  years'  experience 
and  no  promotion  into  the  chain  that  allows 
them  to  become  skilled  printers.  Men  with  a 
few  years  of  high  school  who  came  on  as 
janitors  were  automatically  put  into  that  ap- 
prenticeship very  shortly  thereafter. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  And  made  more  money  too. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  made  more  money  as 
well. 

The  women  I  talked  to  saw  themselves 
being  trapped  in  a  lifetime  of  work  in  a  job 
that  men  saw  as  just  a  dull  but  necessarv 
start  to  a  career.  They  told  me  that  some- 
times they  go  into  a  bank.  If  they  are 
women,  they  learn  a  job  in  two  or  three 
months  and  stay  there  for  15  years.  That  is 
a  reality  in  our  province  today. 

The  women  in  this  group  who  had  young 
children  could  not  see  how  they  could  work 
if  they  could  not  get  day  care.  They  were 
worried  about  how  to  find  proper  day  care 
if  they  took  a  factory  job  where  there  were 
shifts  to  be  worked.  The  pay  is  decent  but 
there  is  no  day  care  after  5:30  at  night.  That 
is  not  a  problem  that  just  faces  40  women  at 
Seneca  College;  almost  half  of  the  women 
in  the  province  who  have  children  under  the 
age  of  six  are  in  the  labour  force.  That  is 
261,000  women  with  young  children  who 
need  day  care  and  many  of  them  cannot 
get  it. 

They  told  me  about  the  most  insidious 
obstacle  of  all  for  women  who  want  to  be 
economic  equals  in  this  society:  the  social 
pressure  on  them  to  conform  to  traditional 
roles.  They  spoke  of  the  guidance  counsellor 
in  grade  school  who  tells  a  woman  that  she 
should  be  taking  domestic  science  and  not 
the  course  in  shop  in  which  she  is  really 
interested  and  of  the  electrical  subcontractor 
who  hires  one  of  the  women  that  I  met  as  a 
trainee  but  then  loses  business  as  a  result. 

Those  attitudes  are  not  very  surprising, 
because  they  are  ratified  and  supported  by 
this  government.  Frankly,  I  am  ashamed  of 
what  the  Minister  of  Labour  had  to  say  in 
defending  the  tawdry  record  of  this  govern- 
ment in  looking  after  the  interests  of  women 
in  Ontario. 

In  the  employer-sponsored  training  branch 
—and  this  minister  has  some  input  into  that 
—there  is  a  fellow  who  explained  that  only  a 
fraction  of  one  per  cent  of  the  people  in 
this  program  are  women  because,  he  said, 
women  are  afraid  of  moving  parts  and 
equipment.  That  is  ridiculous.  He  said,  "It 
takes  a  particular  kind  of  cat  to  survive  on 
a  shop  floor,"  and  he  was  bloody  well  deter- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4239 


mined  that  was  not  going  to  be  a  woman- 
only  men. 

The  ministry's  program  had  five  women 
and  605  men  in  employer-sponsored  training 
a  year  ago.  Now  it  has  1,500  men  and  it  has 
actually  gone  down  to  only  four  women  in 
the  program.  Is  that  equal  opportunity?  That 
is  a  disgrace.  That  is  why  we  think  the  gov- 
ernment needs  legislated  answers  to  provide 
economic  equality  for  women  in  Ontario.  It 
is  no  good  just  relying  on  voluntary  action. 
That  has  been  the  government's  policy  for 
far  too  many  years.  It  has  not  worked  in 
the  past,  and  there  is  no  indication  it  is 
going  to  work  in  the  future  either.  The 
voluntary  affirmative  action  program  of 
which  the  government  is  so  proud  has  re- 
sulted in  affirmative  action  programs  with 
only  160  employers  after  seven  years.  The 
agreements  have  no  goals,  they  set  no  stan- 
dard and  they  have  no  teeth. 

We  want  an  equal  employment  office— it 
is  in  the  bill— to  work  with  employers  to 
develop  affirmative  action  plans  that  will 
legally  bind  them  to  hire,  train  and  promote 
women  rather  than  meeting  with  a  civil 
servant  every  once  in  a  while  and  saying 
nice  things  about  women.  That  equal  em- 
ployment office  should  start  by  lighting  a 
lire  under  the  provincial  government,  be- 
cause the  record  of  this  government  is 
shameful  when  it  comes  to  equal  oppor- 
tunities and  treating  women  on  the  basis 
of  equality. 

The  government  began  an  affirmative 
action  program  in  1973.  It  is  such  an 
abject  failure  that  today  two  thirds  of  the 
women  who  work  for  the  province  earn  less 
than  $13,000  a  year,  and  only  five  per  cent 
earn  more  than  $21,000  a  year.  I  would  ask 
any  minister  in  the  government  whether  they 
would  be  prepared  to  sustain  a  family  on 
that  kind  of  income. 

It  is  no  surprise  either,  when  one  con- 
siders that  last  year  the  government  tor- 
pedoed the  NDP  bill  introduced  by  the 
member  for  Windsor-Sandwich  (Mr.  Boun- 
sall)  oaMing  for  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value.  The  shoddy  thing  about  it  was  they 
took  the  former  member  for  Carleton,  Mr. 
HancHeman,  who  they  knew  was  going  to 
retire  a  few  weeks  later,  in  the  spring  of 
this  year,  and  used  that  member  as  the 
spokesperson  for  the  government  when  they 
said,  "Now  is  not  the  time  to  move  on  that 
vital  piece  of  legislation."  The  performance 
of  the  government  simply  underlines  the 
Conservative  failure  to  provide  anything 
approaching  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value. 


The  member  for  St.  George  (Mrs.  Camp- 
bell; mentioned  a  case  I  raised  in  the  Legis- 
lature. Why  is  it  that  switchboard  operators 
who  need  at  least  three  more  years  of  educa- 
tion and  experience  than  the  people  who 
run  parking  lots  in  the  government,  but  who 
are  predominantly  female,  earned  $38  a  week 
less  last  year?  Why  is  it  that,  since  I  asked 
that  question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour, 
the  wage  gap  between  them  and  parking  lot 
attendants,  who  of  course  are  all  male,  has 
widened  to  $46  a  week?  That  is  another 
example  of  how  the  government  is  tailing 
to  live  up  to  whatever  principles  it  happens 
to  be  putting  forward. 

The  minister  launched  an  advertising 
campaign.  He  hired  11  more  civil  servants 
to  enforce  the  unenforceable  equal  pay 
provisions  of  the  present  Employment  Stan- 
dards Act,  and  so  far  this  year  he  has  won 
$72,000  in  equal  pay  cases.  This  works  out 
to  four  cents  for  every  working  woman  in 
the  province.  I  say  to  the  government  and 
the  Minister  of  Labour,  that  is  not  good 
enough.  It  is  not  good  enough  even  if  it  is 
an  improvement  over  the  $56,000  of  a  year 
ago.  It  is  no  wonder  the  average  earnings 
of  women  are  still  58  per  cent  of  the 
average  earnings  of  men  in  Ontario. 

Why  could  we  not  be  like  France  and 
Germany,  countries  where  women's  wages 
are  rapidly  catching  up  to  the  point  where 
they  are  almost  equal  with  the  pay  of  men? 
Why  can  we  not  have  that  as  our  goal  rather 
than  constantly  making  women  second-class 
citizens?  Why  can  we  not  pass  this  bill  and 
give  women  first-class  citizenship  in  the 
economy  of  the  province? 

The  government's  record  on  day  care  is 
a  record  of  cant  and  hypocrisy.  In  the  last 
four  years,  100,000  women  have  joined  the 
labour  force  in  Ontario.  The  number  of 
subsidized  day  care  spaces  has  gone  up  by 
only  5,000.  We  think  there  should  be  a 
right  to  day  care  in  Ontario.  We  think  it  is 
a  basic  necessity  if  women  are  to  have  an 
equal  role  in  our  economy.  Just  about  every 
municipal  candidate  elected  in  the  province 
pledged  a  commitment  to  day  care. 
4:50  p.m. 

When  will  this  government  recognize  the 
demand  is  out  there  and  that  women  will  not 
be  able  to  participate  as  equals  in  the  work 
force  as  long  as  somebody  has  to  stay  home 
to  mind  the  kids?  It  will  be  the  women  who 
are  forced  to  stay  home.  That  is  a  reality  un- 
less we  get  decent  day  care  and  make  it 
accessible  to  every  woman  and  every  family 
in  Ontario. 


4240 


'LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The   Acting  Speaker   (Mr.   MacBeth):   The 

honourable  member's  time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  realize  that.  I  just  want  to 
appeal  to  the  government.  They  have  blocked 
our  full  employment  bill  and  our  bill  on 
protection  of  workers  and  job  security.  Why 
can't  the  government  stop  paying  lip-service 
and  help  the  New  Democratic  Party  to  make 
Bill  157  a  reality  in  Ontario?  It  is  something 
that  has  essentially  been  proposed  by  their 
own  Ontario  Status  of  Women  Council.  It 
is  about  time  the  government  took  that  advice 
seriously  and  put  principle  ahead  of  partisan 
politics— 

The  Acting  Speaker:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber's time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  —and  supported  economic 
equality  for  women.  It  is  about  time  that 
came  in  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr  Speaker,  I  wonder  if 
I  could  have  some  clarification  of  the  amount 
of  time  that  remains. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  The  member  for 
Kingston  and  the  Islands  has  five  minutes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  shall  have  to  abbreviate 
my  remarks  considerably. 

First,  I  would  like  to  join  in  the  remarks 
of  my  colleague.  I  do  not  think  any  member 
of  this  House  is  in  opposition  to  the  principles 
embodied  in  this  bill,  with  the  exception  of 
one  specific  principle  that  I  would  not  be 
supportive  of  for  very  practical  purposes.  It 
seems  to  me  the  honourable  members  must 
recognize  that  the  discipline  of  the  responsi- 
bility to  implement  and  execute  policy  and 
programs  in  this  province  really  does  charge 
one  with  the  necessity  to  assess  the  reality 
of  a  given  situation. 

What  is  overlooked  entirely  in  this  bill, 
unfortunately,  in  respect  to  day  care,  is  that 
if  one  were  to  choose  to  establish  or  en- 
shrine a  right,  one  also  must  move  to  estab- 
lish a  method  of  moving  to  achieve  that  im- 
mediately. I  suggest  to  the  honourable  mem- 
bers opposite  that  we  do  not  fail  to  recognize 
there  is  a  need  that  is  not  being  met  at  the 
moment.  I  have  indicated  that  on  numerous 
occasions.  What  I  think  is  important,  though, 
is  to  see  the  difference  in  the  approach.  We 
must  be  pragmatic  and  realistic. 

I  would  suggest  that  within  the  next  short 
period  of  time— over  the  next  three  weeks— 
I  will  be  making  a  series  of  announcements 
in  terms  of  the  initiatives  we  have  been 
working  on  and  planning  for  over  almost  the 
past  two  years.  This  will  have  a  significant 
impact  upon  day  care  in  this  province.  It  is 
unfortunate    I    am   not   in   a  position   today 


to  reveal  to  the  honourable  members  what 
that  is,  but  I  will  be  shortly.  I  think  the 
members  will  be  surprised  at  how  soon  they 
learn,  at  least,  the  first  indication. 

This  has  been  in  the  planning  for  some 
time;  it  is  not  a  response.  If  it  were  simply 
reactive,  I  can  assure  the  House  I  would 
have  done  it  before  now.  I  think  it  is  also 
important  we  bear  in  mind  that  this  province 
has  done  a  better  job  in  the  provision  of  day 
care  than  any  other  jurisdiction  in  North 
America.  Think  for  just  one  moment:  there 
is  in  Ontario  two  thirds  of  all  the  day  care 
spaces  available  in  Canada.  One  third  of  the 
population  is  served  by  two  thirds  of  the 
day  care  spaces  available.  That  is  only  com- 
parative. That  has  no  absolute  value,  but 
it  is  nevertheless  significant.  I  do  not  think 
one  should  ignore  that  when  commenting 
upon  what  we  have  managed  to  achieve  and 
what  we  are  going  to  continue  to  achieve  in 
this  area  in  the  province. 

The  rates  of  increase  may  not  have  met 
everyone's  expectations  over  the  last  two  or 
three  years  but,  at  a  time  when  other  juris- 
dictions were  faced  with  absolute  declines, 
we  continued  to  have  growing  numbers  of 
day  care  spaces  available  in  this  province. 
Honourable  members  and  the  people  of  this 
province  will  shortly  see  the  unfolding  of  our 
new  policy  and  its  practical  implementation 
in  this  province. 

I  think  it  is  wrong  to  suggest  the  imple- 
mentation of  a  right  enshrined  in  legislation. 
Even  if  the  member  were  in  office,  he  could 
not  meet  it.  To  achieve  what  he  is  suggest- 
ing may  well  cost  in  the  first  year  of  imple- 
mentation an  additional  $1  billion.  He  could 
not  find  it  and  I  cannot  find  it. 

We  must  be  responsible  and  move  in  a 
phased  way  to  achieve  our  objective.  That 
is   precisely  what  we  plan  to  do. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want  to 
wrap  up  very  quickly.  The  minister  pointed 
out  very  clearly  the  very  limited  nature  of 
the  legislation  that  is  now  in  place.  I  only 
wish  the  minister  could  have  spent  more 
time  with  us  during  the  hearings  last  Jan- 
uary and  February  so  he  would  have  more 
clearly  understood  the  inadequate  nature  of 
equal  pay  for  substantially  the  same  work. 
We  had  job  after  job  after  job  described  by 
person  after  person,  all  of  them  women, 
where  they  were  deprived  of  a  fair  and 
equitable  income  for  the  work,  the  skill, 
the  responsibility  and  the  effort  they  put 
forward. 

I  was  pleased  to  hear  the  minister  say 
he  did  not  think  any  member  in  this  House 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4241 


opposed  any  of  the  principles  in  this  bill. 
1  remind  the  minister  and  all  the  members 
of  the  government  party  that  to  block  this 
bill  is  a  rejection  of  those  principles.  This 
is  a  debate  on  second  reading  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  bill. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  This  matter  will  be 
voted  on  at  a  later  time. 

NUDE   ENTERTAINxMENT  PLACES 

Mr.  Williams  moved  resolution  39: 
That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the 
government  of  Ontario  should  take  further 
action  to  prevent  the  proliferation  and  in- 
discriminate location  of  restaurants,  taverns 
and  theatres  that  feature  nude  entertain- 
ment or  nude  waitresses  or  similar  forms  of 
inducement  to  customers  and  that,  in  par- 
ticular: 

1.  The  government  of  Ontario  should  in- 
troduce legislation  that  would  authorize  mu- 
nicipalities to  pass  bylaws  prohibiting  the 
establishment  and  operation  in  the  munic- 
ipality of  these  restaurants,  taverns  and 
theatres;  and 

2.  The  Attorney  General  should  request 
the  Minister  of  Justice  for  the  government 
of  Canada  to  introduce  legislation  strength- 
ening the  public  morals  provisions  of  the 
Criminal  Code  to  facilitate  prosecutions 
against  the  owners  of  these  restaurants, 
taverns  and  theatres. 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure  the 
substance  of  the  resolution  has  a  familiar 
ring  about  it,  and  so  it  should.  All  members 
of  this  Legislature  will  recall  that  as  recently 
as  the  spring  of  1978  we  engaged  in  a  very 
lively  debate  revolving  around  Bill  49,  an 
Act  to  amend  the  Municipal  Act.  That  piece 
of  legislation  had  a  twofold  purpose:  to  ex- 
tend existing  powers  of  municipalities  over 
body  rub  parlours  and  to  give  them  powers 
to  pass  bylaws  to  regulate  and  control  adult 
entertainment   parlours. 

It  is  self-evident  that  in  the  early  1970s 
and  the  latter  part  of  the  1960s,  the  business 
operations  in  our  society  that  cater  to  erotic 
and  sexual  appetites  or  inclinations  were 
very  much  on  the  rise.  Because  of  that  there 
was  a  public  outcry  that  demanded  govern- 
ment action.  For  this  reason,  therefore,  Bill 
49  came  before  this  Legislature  for  debate 
and  was  enacted  into  law.  That  particular 
piece  of  legislation  provided  that  bylaws 
may  be  passed  by  councils  of  all  munic- 
ipalities for  licensing,  regulating,  governing, 
classifying  and  inspecting  adult  entertain- 
ment parlours  or  any  class  or  classes  thereof 


and  for  revoking  or  suspending  any  such 
licence  and  for  limiting  the  number  of  such 
licences   to  be  granted. 


One  might  raise  the  question  as  to  why  it 
would  seem  necessary  to  debate  this  issue 
again  at  this  time,  so  soon  after  the  enact- 
ment of  the  legislation  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred. I  think  the  answer  is  obvious.  First, 
if  one  looks  at  the  federal  government's  in- 
volvement in  this  area  through  the  Criminal 
Code,  there  seems  to  have  been  a  marked 
degree  of  indifference  by  the  federal  au- 
thorities in  endeavouring  to  tighten  up  the 
morality  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code  to 
try  to  come  to  grips  with  these  types  of 
entertainment  facilities. 

Secondly,  at  the  municipal  level,  until  the 
enactment  of  the  Municipal  Amendment  Act 
in  1978,  municipalities  did  not  have  the  legal 
power  to  enact  bylaws  to  regulate  or  control 
the  operation  of  either  body-rub  parlours  or 
adult  entertainment  parlours. 

The  difficulty  we  have  before  us  at  this 
time  is  the  gathering  storm  clouds  we  see  on 
the  horizon  in  the  nature  of  the  legal  chal- 
lenges that  are  being  made  to  this  existing 
legislation.  While  this  government  has  to  be 
given  full  credit  for  the  initiatives  it  took  in 
bringing  in  Bill  49  in  1978  and  having  it  en- 
acted into  law,  it  appears  that  those  in  the 
industry  who  want  to  see  a  proliferation  and 
unlimited  operation  of  these  types  of  enter- 
tainment facilities  will  go  to  all  lengths  to 
try  to  strike  down  our  existing  laws.  While 
in  the  early  1970s  the  real  attention  seemed 
to  be  on  body-rub  parlours  in  the  inner  city— 
in  Metro  Toronto  in  particular— in  1980  the 
attention  is  being  given  to  this  unprecedented 
proliferation  and  indiscriminate  location  of 
adult  entertainment  parlours,  not  only  in  the 
suburbs  of  our  large  cities  but  in  the  small 
urban  communities  throughout  the  province. 

I  would  like  to  give  members  a  case  in 
point.  I  refer  to  my  own  city  of  North  York. 
There  are  no  less  than  21  applications  pend- 
ing at  this  time  for  restaurant  and  tavern 
licences  with  specific  requests  for  provision 
of  burlesque-type  entertainment.  One  of 
these  applications  relates  to  a  restaurant  and 
tavern  in  the  very  heart  of  Oriole  riding, 
located  in  a  small  plaza  within  yards  of  a 
neighbouring  church  and  two  high  schools, 
one  of  which  is  the  largest  high  school  facility 
in  North  York.  All  these  community  facilities 
are,  in  turn,  located  within  the  centre  of  one 
of  our  finest  residential  communities. 

In  speaking  to  Mr.  Gerry  Bird,  one  of  the 
teachers      at     Georges      Vanier      Secondary 


4242 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


School,  I  think  he  expressed  the  views  of 
many  of  the  teaching  staff  as  well  as  the 
students  when  he  questioned  the  propriety 
of  having  such  a  facility  located  in  the  heart 
of  our  residential  community.  Its  very  pres- 
ence would  reflect,  I  would  suggest,  on  the 
integrity  of  our  community.  I  give  credit  to 
people  such  as  the  Levines  and  the  Camp- 
bells living  on  Silas  Hill  Drive  in  Willowdale 
and  to  Mrs.  Lynne  Crawford  living  on  Good- 
view  Road.  These  are  people  who  have  been 
concerned  enough  to  bring  their  concerns  to 
the  local  city  council  and  their  elected  repre- 
sentatives at  the  local  level.  They  have  taken 
the  initiative  in  obtaining  petitions  from 
people  in  the  area  who  have  also  expressed 
dismay  and  concern  about  the  proposed  estab- 
lishment of  such  facilities  in  the  heart  of 
their  community. 

The  local  alderman,  Mrs.  Betty  Suther- 
land, because  of  these  concerns  and  her  own 
personal  concerns,  introduced  a  measure 
before  North  York  council  and  the  council 
in  its  wisdom  enacted  a  bylaw  which 
amended  zoning  bylaw  7625  in  North  York, 
which  would  limit  the  location  of  such  adult 
entertainment  parlours  to  areas  zoned  in- 
dustrial, provided  that  such  parlours  are 
located  at  least  500  metres  from  residential 
areas.  That  bylaw  was  enacted  in  September 
of  this  year. 

From  what  I  have  said  up  till  now,  it 
would  sound  as  rf  at  the  municipal  level  and 
at  the  provincial  level  we  have  matters  well 
in  hand  and  under  control.  Unfortunately, 
this  is  not  the  case.  That  is  primarily  the 
reason  why  I  am  here  today  with  this  resolu- 
tion before  the  Legislature.  While  the  local 
bvlaw  was  passed  by  North  York,  it  has 
taken  almost  nine  months  to  bring  that  legis- 
lation to  fruition.  At  the  staff  level,  con- 
siderable apprehension  has  been  expressed 
with  regard  to  the  validitv  of  such  a  local 
bvlaw.  Both  the  reports  from  the  planning 
commissioner  and  from  the  city  solicitor  of 
North  York  questioned  whether  the  type  of 
bylaw  that  was  eventually  enacted  by  the 
council  would  stand  up  in  the  courts.  They 
suggested  that  a  zoning  bylaw  is  to  control 
land  use  and  not  to  control  morality.  The 
city  solicitor  himself  has  expressed  concern 
as  to  whether,  if  challenged  in  the  courts, 
that  bylaw  would  stand  up. 

There  have  been  considerable  reports 
written  expressing  concern  at  this.  Now  we 
find,  over  and  above  these  concerns  being 
expressed  at  the  local  level,  the  operators  of 
these  type  of  facilities  have  challenged  our 
own   section    368(b)    in   the   courts.    As   we 


know,  there  are  now  two  cases  pending 
before  the  courts:  one  in  the  city  of  Toronto 
and  another  in  the  city  of  Hamilton.  By 
reason  of  the  fact  that  the  decisions  have  yet 
to  be  handed  down  on  those  cases,  I  won't 
go  into  the  merits. 

I  will  simply  point  out  for  the  record  the 
ba^is  on  which  our  existing  legislation  is 
being  challenged.  The  operators  of  the  two 
facilities  in  question  are  questioning  the  vires 
of  the  legislation.  In  other  words,  they  are 
asking  for  a  declaration  that  our  Municipal 
Act,  as  amended,  is  ultra  vires  the  province 
of  Ontario,  being  legislation  in  relation  to 
cnmlnal  law  as  well  as  other  relief.  Of 
course,  the  Attorney  General  has  responded 
a^d  has  intervened  in  this  matter  as  of  right, 
claiming  that  the  position  of  the  province  is 
that  the  legislation  is  intra  vires  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  province  of  Ontario. 

The  fact  is  that  our  laws  are  being  chal- 
lenged. It  appears  to  me  that  remedial  action 
must  be  contemplated.  If  the  courts  should 
decide  unfavourablv  with  regard  to  the  exist- 
ing laws,  I  would  suggest  that  immediate 
remedial  legislation  must  be  considered.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is  that  if,  for  whatever 
reason,  these  cases  before  the  courts  went  in 
favour  of  the  applicants,  it  would  appear  we 
would  have  to  fall  back  on  the  Criminal 
Code  as  the  sole  basis  for  governing,  con- 
trolling or  prohibiting  these  types  of  estab- 
lishments. 

5:10  p.m. 

I  would  suggest  that  such  an  application 
could  be  favourably  made  to  the  federal 
authorities  to  provide  this  type  of  enlighten- 
ed legislation.  We  do  have  existing  legis- 
lation under  the  Criminal  Code,  section  190, 
which  provides  that  they  can  delegate  ad- 
ministrative authority  to  the  province 
through  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council 
when  it  comes  to  gaming  and  lotteries.  I 
see  no  reason  why  such  a  course  of  action 
could  not  be  taken  with  regard  to  the  con- 
trol of  adult  entertainment  parlours  if  the 
need  was  determined  to  be  there. 

I  have  pointed  out  the  fact  that  there  is 
a  need  to  tighten  up  the  existing  legislation 
at  the  municipal  level  because  the  Municipal 
Act  is  being  challenged  and  because  the 
local  bylaws  that  have  been  enacted  or  pro- 
posed are  being  questioned.  It  seems  to  me 
that  if  we  do  have  to  resort  to  the  Criminal 
Code  as  the  basis  on  which  we  can  regulate 
and  control,  then  we  must  move  in  the  direc- 
tion I  have  suggested. 

With  regard  to  the  existing  provisions  of 
the  Criminal  Code,  notwithstanding  our  sue- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4243 


cess  in  maintaining  the  validity  of  our  legis- 
lation in  the  courts,  I  think  we  could  and 
should  still  go  to  the  federal  authorities 
and  ask  them  to  strengthen  those  provisions 
of  the  Criminal  Code,  which  would  give 
further  and  stronger  clout  to  what  we  have 
done  and  are  endeavouring  to  do  here  at 
the  provincial  level. 

Section  170  of  the  Criminal  Code,  the 
means  by  which  charges  are  laid  against 
operators  of  adult  entertainment  parlours, 
deals  with  the  attire  of  the  performers, 
waiters  or  waitresses  in  restaurants.  It  is 
under  that  provision  that  charges  can  be 
laid.  The  difficulty  is  that  there  are  two 
aspects  of  the  Criminal  Code,  under  section 
170,  dealing  with  nudity  that  could  be  im- 
proved upon.  First  and  foremost,  it  is  ludi- 
crous that  no  proceeding  shall  be  com- 
menced under  this  section  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Attorney  General.  I  think  one 
can  count  on  the  fingers  of  one  hand  the 
number  of  provisions  in  the  Criminal  Code 
and  in  civil  law  where  one  has  to  get  the 
consent  of  the  Attorney  General  before  he 
can  lay  an  information.  There  are  more 
serious  crimes  by  far  under  the  Criminal 
Code  where  one  does  not  have  to  go  to  the 
Attorney  General  to  get  his  permission  to 
lay  an  information  or  a  charge.  It  is  handled 
in  the  normal  process.  Why  here,  where  we 
have  a  minor  crime  by  comparison,  does  one 
have  to  have  the  consent  of  the  Attorney 
General? 

Further,  there  is  a  difficulty  under  the 
existing  section  in  that  the  charges  can  only 
be  laid  against  the  individual,  who  may  be 
charged  with  nudity  because  of  the  nature 
of  his  attire  or  lack  thereof.  There  is  no 
provision  in  the  existing  section  to  lay  the 
charge  directly  against  the  establishment, 
unless  the  person  who  is  being  charged  with 
nudity  is  prepared  to  lay  further  charges 
against  the  owner  or  manager  of  the  facility 
where  he  or  she  might  be  working. 

As  there  is  provision  elsewhere  in  the 
Criminal  Code,  it  seems  to  me  there  should 
be  a  reverse  onus  provision  in  the  Criminal 
Code  and  this  section  in  particular  would 
assume  that  the  owners,  managers  and  oper- 
ators of  these  facilities  have  the  knowledge 
and  have  given  the  consent  with  regard  to 
the  adult  entertainment  that  goes  on  within 
the  establishment. 

Here  are  two  ways  in  which  I  think  the 
Criminal  Code  could  be  tightened  up  and 
assist  us  in  the  province  to  try  in  a  more 
meaningful  and  stronger  way  to  regulate 
and  control,  if  not  prohibit,  the  proliferation 


and  indiscriminate  location  of  these  adult 
entertainment  parlours. 

If  we  can't  make  progress  in  those  particu- 
lar areas,  I  suggest  there  is  still  a  further 
course  of  action  we  might  take.  I  have  been 
referring  to  the  initiatives  of  the  Attorney 
General.  I  would  now  suggest  there  may  be 
initiatives  that  can  be  taken  through  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations. I  would  point  out  that  there  was  an 
adverse  decision  in  the  courts  back  in  1974 
in  the  case  of  MacLean  versus  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  of  Ontario.  While  the  board 
endeavoured  to  prohibit  such  a  facility  from 
operating,  it  was  decided  by  the  courts  that 
the  regulations  under  the  Liquor  Licence  Act 
did1  not  specifically  empower  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  of  Ontario  to  pass  judgement 
upon  entertainment  offered  in  facilities  of 
this  nature.  Specific  provisions  under  section 
45  also  did  not  cover  this  particular  point. 

I  would  suggest  that  there  may  be  room, 
through  the  regulatory  process  and  through 
the  Liquor  Licence  Act,  by  which  one  could 
consider  bringing  in  regulations  that  would 
pertain  to  how  persons  employed'  in  these 
licensed  premises  would  dress.  I  am  suggest- 
ing it  could  be  done  by  regulation.  It  has 
proved  successful  in  other  jurisdictions  in 
states  in  the  United  States.  I  understand  it 
has  in  the  states  of  California  and  New  York. 

It  seems  to  me  that  provision  could  be 
made,  if  not  totally  to  provide  the  board  with 
the  power  to  control  the  regulation  of  the 
type  of  entertainment  in  licensed  establish- 
ments, at  least  most  certainly  to  do  it  with 
regard  to  establishments  that  cater  to  minors, 
that  is,  the  dining  lounges  and  dining  rooms. 
I  would  point  out  that  the  Ontario  Hotel 
and  Motel  Association  as  well  as  the  Ontario 
Food  Services  Association  would  endorse  this 
type  of  regulation  and  control.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  to  me  that  of  the  400  licensed 
establishments  within  Metropolitan  Toronto, 
if  there  was  an  outright  prohibition  with  re- 
gard to  the  dining  lounges,  it  would  reduce 
by  about  70  per  cent  the  number  of  facili- 
ties that  could  provide  adult  entertainment 
and  limit  that  type  of  activity  to  the  other 
hundred  facilities  that  are  licensed  lounges 
and  not  dining  lounges.  As  we  know,  it  is  to 
the  licensed  dining  lounges  that  families  will 
come  to  have  meals  and  bring  their  children 
with  them,  while  the  licensed  lounges  are 
areas  that  are  reserved  for  adult  attendance 
only. 

It  would  be  a  great  step  forward  if  this 
kind  of  regulatory  enactment  was  considered. 
I  am  sure  initiatives  have  to  be  taken;  we 
have  to  be  prepared  for  the  problems  that 


4244 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


lie  before  us.  I  am  sure  the  further  initiatives 
of  this  government  will  ensure  that  there 
will  be  no  further  proliferation  or  inappro- 
priate location  of  these  facilities  throughout 
the  province. 

Mr.  Blundy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very  happy 
to  speak  on  this  resolution  before  us  this 
afternoon.  I  believe  in  the  spirit  that  is  em- 
bodied in  the  resolution  and  the  goal  it  is 
trying  to  achieve. 

5:20  p.m. 

The  resolution,  in  my  opinion,  is  not  going 
to  accomplish  very  much.  It  is  doing  what 
this  government  does  so  often,  that  is,  point 
to  other  levels  of  government  to  do  what  I 
consider  might  be  work  it  does  not  want  to 
do  itself.  The  resolution  gives  authorization 
to  municipalities  to  d'o  more.  It  is  pointing  at 
the  government  of  Canada,  through  the 
Minister  of  Justice  to  do  more.  I  believe  it  is 
rather  hypocritical  to  stand  up  and  present  a 
resolution  of  this  nature  on  such  a  very  im- 
portant matter.  The  principle  behind  the 
resolution  is  one  I  endorse  100  per  cent.  But 
I  do  not  like  the  government,  through  the 
member  for  Oriole  (Mr.  Williams),  bringing 
in  a  resolution  that  is  going  to  try  to  get 
other  levels  of  government  to  do  what  I  be- 
lieve this  government  should  try  to  do. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  afternoon 
this  private  members'  period  is  being  shared 
with  the  discussion  of  Bill  137.  I  know  there 
are  vast  differences  between  this  resolution 
and  that  bill  but,  in  my  view,  the  bill  is 
talking  about  the  economic  wellbeing  of 
women  and  affording  economic  opportunities 
to  women,  while  this  resolution  is  talking 
about  trying  to  do  something  to  prevent  the 
continued  and  increased  exploitation  of  wo- 
men. Therefore,  I  think  this  resolution  and 
the  previous  bill  have  some  views  in  common. 
I  think  both  the  bill  and  the  resolution  before 
us  now  are  trying  to  improve  the  position  and 
prestige  of  women  in  our  society. 

The  proliferation  of  these  entertainment 
enterprises  is  going  hand  in  hand  with  a 
substantial  decrease  in  respect  for  the  family, 
for  the  mother  and  so  forth.  That  may  be  an 
ideological  thing  for  many  people,  but  I 
submit  it  is  something  that  touches  every  one 
of  us.  Many  of  the  problems  today  that  are 
covered  by  Community  and  Social  Services 
are  with  us  because  the  family  and  women 
in  our  society  do  not  have  the  same  status 
they  had  years  ago.  I  know  it  sounds  old- 
fashioned,  and  it  is  hard  to  turn  back  the 
clock,  but  I  do  believe  we  should  mention 
these  points  in  our  discussion  of  this  re- 
solution today. 


What  do  I  suggest  we  do  about  this  type 
of  entertainment  in  restaurants  and  taverns? 
I  believe  a  great  deal  of  it  could  be  con- 
trolled by  the  government  through  its  liquor 
licence  board  and  through  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  I  be- 
lieve they  could  do  a  great  deal  to  reduce 
the  number  of  such  establishments. 

What  about  the  municipalities?  The  mem- 
ber for  Oriole  has  mentioned  the  locations 
in  which  these  establishments  are  springing 
up.  I  think  he  has  a  good  point  in  that  re- 
spect. Here  is  a  way  the  municipality  can 
become  involved  through  its  zoning  bylaws 
if  it  wants  to  do  it,  but  it  has  to  have  the 
will  to  try  to  do  it.  I  believe  this  government 
does  not  have  the  will  or  the  guts  to  do  what 
I  think  it  could  do  to  help  prevent  the  con- 
tinuation and  proliferation  of  entertainment 
parlours  that  are  being  discussed  today.  The 
municipalities  are  going  to  have  to  be  en- 
couraged to  have  that  desire  and  the  guts 
to  do  it  also,  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
location,  through  their  zoning  bylaws  and  so 
forth.  I  believe  some  very  good  points  have 
been  made  by  the  member  for  Oriole  in  re- 
spect to  the  fact  we  see  now  in  our  own 
municipalities  where  some  of  these  enter- 
tainment parlours  are  being  settled. 

They  should  not  be  in  residential  areas 
or  even  where  children  would  be  passing  by 
the  street  seeing  the  signs  and  pictures  on 
the  outside.  Not  only  are  they  a  nuisance,  but 
it  is  a  bad  situation,  and  the  municipalities 
should  try  to  curtail  it.  The  points  the  mem- 
ber has  made  about  strengthening  the  public 
moral  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code  are 
right  on.  I  believe  this  is  an  area  where  we 
could  certainly  see  some  very  great  improve- 
ment. I  would  do  everything  to  encourage 
that  to  be  done  at  the  federal  level. 

To  sum  up  my  few  words  in  participating 
in  this  debate  on  the  resolution,  I  abhor  the 
proliferation  of  these  kinds  of  parlours  in  our 
communities  and  residential  areas.  I  would 
like  to  see  them  curtailed,  but  I  say  all  three 
levels  of  government  have  a  part  to  play 
in  doing  so.  I  do  not  think  this  government 
should  give  up  its  responsibility  in  this  matter 
of  trying  to  pass  legislation  in  this  House 
that  will  help  control  the  proliferation  of 
entertainment  parlours  of  this  nature.  The 
government  is  not  without  blame.  I  will 
support  anything  it  brings  in  that  will  help 
to  decrease  the  incidence  of  these  kinds  of 
establishments  in  our  municipality. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  in 
support  of  the  resolution.  I  want  to  speak 
to    the    members    here    about    a    particular 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4245 


problem  I  have  had  in  my  own  constituency. 
It  happens  to  be  the  Metro  Theatre,  which 
is  located  at  Bloor  and  Manning. 

As  the  member  for  Oriole  says,  it  has 
been  a  disgrace  and  problem  for  people  in 
my  constituency.  It  is  located  in  the  middle 
of  a  residential  family  neighbourhood,  des- 
pite the  fact  that  it  is  on  Bloor  Street.  The 
streets  north  and  south  of  Bloor  are  resi- 
dential family  areas  occupied  by  people  with 
very  traditional  values,  which  I  happen  to 
share  and  respect.  I  think  people  have  a 
right  to  have  their  values  honoured  and  re- 
spected in  their  own  neighbourhood. 

We  have  had  a  problem  particularly  in 
Toronto  city  with  strip  joints.  What  we  are 
talking  about  is  how  to  deal  with  the  phe- 
nomenon of  a  proliferation  of  strip  joints, 
whether  they  are  theatres,  bars  or  whatever. 
Not  too  long  ago  there  was  a  time  when 
the  main  street  in  this  city  was  virtually  be- 
yond the  pale  for  people  with  families  or 
children.  They  could  not  walk  down  Yonge 
Street  because  of  the  body-rub  parlours  and 
strip  joints  of  all  kinds  and  varieties.  So 
there  was  an  effort  to  clean  up  Yonge 
Street,  and  that  was  achieved.  One  of  the 
consequences  was  the  problem  was  not 
really  solved  but  simply  dispersed  off  Yonge 
Street  and  into  the  midst  of  residential 
neighbourhoods  such  as  mine  and  the  area 
of  North  York  referred  to  by  the  member 
for  Oriole. 

Let  me  just  say  the  Metro  Theatre  is  a 
real  blight  in  our  community.  It  is  close  to 
a  high  school.  It  attracts  teenagers  who  are 
underage.  It  is  common  knowledge  that  the 
age  provisions  are  not  followed.  We  have 
the  additional  problem  of  the  customers  of 
the  Metro  Theatre  coming  into  the  commu- 
nity and  harassing  women  either  before  or 
after  they  go  into  the  performance.  It  has 
become  a  real  problem  in  our  community. 
I  have  had  numerous  complaints  and  peti- 
tions from  people  in  the  community  about 
this  kind  of  harassment. 
5:30  p.m. 

Having  said  that  I  share  the  concern  and 
support  the  resolution,  I  want  to  continue 
in  the  vein  of  the  member  for  Sarnia  be- 
cause this  government  is  as  much  responsible 
for  the  problem  as  anybody  else.  I  remember 
that  when  the  member  for  Scarborough  Cen- 
tre (Mr.  Drea)  became  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  he  shot  his  mouth 
off  ad  nauseam  about  how  he  was  going  to 
clean  up  the  topless  waitresses  and  how  he 
was  going  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  strip 
joints  by  dealing  with  topless  waitresses.  As 


soon  as  he  was  appointed  to  the  cabinet, 
what  did  he  do?  Well  he  shot  his  mouth 
off  and  shot  his  mouth  off  and  eventually 
did  absolutely  nothing.  What  he  should  have 
done  was  brought  in  amendments  to  the 
Employment  Standards  Act.  It  is  very  sim- 
ple. He  should  have  advised  his  cabinet  col- 
leagues that  the  one  way  to  deal  seriously 
with  the  problem  was  to  prohibit  any  em- 
ployer from  requiring  a  woman  as  a  con- 
dition of  employment  as  a  waitress  to  be 
topless.  That  would  have  solved  a  lot  of  the 
problem.  I  am  sure  the  member  for  Oriole 
knows  that. 

Let  me  speak  again  about  the  Metro  The- 
atre. This  place  is  operating  in  violation  of  a 
number  of  laws.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  has 
had  two  convictions  under  the  Criminal 
Code.  The  member  for  Oriole  talks  about 
the  need  for  strengthening  the  Criminal 
Code.  Here  is  a  theatre  that  has  had  two 
convictions  under  the  Criminal  Code  for 
indecent  performance.  What  happens?  These 
theatres  are  licensed  under  the  authority  of 
the  Theatres  Act  of  Ontario  which  is  en- 
forced by  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  through  the  censor 
board. 

Remember  Don  Sims?  Last  spring  after 
this  theatre  had  been  convicted  twice  for 
offences  under  the  Criminal  Code,  Don  Sims 
renewed  its  licence.  This  is  the  great  pro- 
tector of  public  morals  and  public  decencies 
who  is  all  hot  to  trot  when  it  comes  to 
artistic  films,  but  when  it  comes  to  a  pur- 
veyor of  smut  who  is  involved  in  violating 
the  Criminal  Code,  he  simply  signs  the 
paper  and  renews  the  licence.  I  ask,  where 
is  the  initiative  of  the  government  in  that 
respect?  All  I  see  is  a  fairly  large  degree  of 
hypocrisy  and  shirking  of  responsibility. 

Getting  back  to  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough Centre,  he  did  not  amend  the  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act.  In  fact,  after 
making  all  those  bravura  promises  about 
what  he  was  going  to  do  to  clean  up  the 
strip  joints,  he  did  absolutely  nothing.  In 
desperation,  his  cabinet  colleagues  brought 
in  Bill  49,  which  simply  dumped  the  respon- 
sibility on  to  the  municipalities  and  made  it 
virtually  impossible  to  deal  with  the  problem. 

The  member  for  Samia  (Mr.  Blundy) 
mentioned  the  reality  that  the  problem  could 
be  dealt  with  under  the  authority  of  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  of  Ontario.  That  is 
not  being  done  either.  The  government 
hands  out  licences  to  the  strip  joint  operators 
with  great  abandon.  I  do  not  see  any  initia- 
tives coming  from  the  government  on  trying 
to  control  the  problem  in  that  area. 


4246 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Finally,  there  is  the  area  of  police  enforce- 
ment. I  do  not  know  how  many  times  we 
have  been  down  to  14  Division— myself, 
members  of  the  community,  alone,  separ- 
ately, together— to  try  to  get  the  police  to 
enforce  the  existing  provisions  of  the  Crim- 
inal Code  and  to  make  sure  that  people 
living  in  the  area  are  not  harassed  as  they 
walk  from  their  house  up  to  Bloor  Street  to 
go  shopping  or  to  go  to  church.  We  cannot 
get  consistent  police  enforcement.  If  the  At- 
torney General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  was  really 
concerned  about  this  problem,  in  his  capacity 
also  as  Solicitor  General,  he  might  have  some 
words  with  police  chiefs  about  ways  of  en- 
forcing the  existing  laws. 

I  am  not  sure  there  is  much  more  I  want 
to  say.  I  think  it  is  a  serious  problem.  Aside 
from  the  other  concerns  I  mentioned,  in 
terms  of  the  assault  on  the  values  of  people 
that  deserve  to  be  respected,  I  also  see  it  as 
a  form  of  blockbusting  that  is  taking  place 
in  a  number  of  communities.  I  do  not  have 
any  doubt  at  all  that  the  existence  of  strip 
joints  in  residential  neighbourhoods,  particu- 
larly in  the  inner  city  communities,  is  an 
excellent  way  to  destabilize  the  residential 
neighbourhood  and  make  it  ripe  for  block- 
busting developers  to  move  in  and  begin  the 
work  of  destroying  family  housing  in  favour 
of  different  kinds  of  development.  I  have  no 
doubt  at  all  that  is  part  of  the  phenomenon 
we  are  dealing  with. 

I  support  the  resolution  and  the  measures 
spelled  out  in  the  resolution,  but  I  also  want 
this  government  to  understand  clearly  it  has 
a  responsibility  to  deal  with  the  problem 
that  it  cannot  shirk  off  on  to  either  the 
municipalities  or  the  federal  government. 
Aga'n,  to  summarize,  it  has  the  authority 
under  the  Theatres  Act.  It  has,  through  the 
influence  of  the  Solicitor  General,  the  ca- 
pacity to  speak  to  law  enforcement  officials 
about  the  enforcement  of  existing  statutes.  It 
has  the  authority  to  control  under  the  Liquor 
Licence  Board  of  Ontario.  None  of  these 
things  is  being  enforced  with  any  degree  of 
vigour  or  consistency  whatsoever.  I  hope  the 
House  will  support  the  member  for  Oriole's 
resolution  in  the  hope  it  will  bring  this 
serious  problem  to  the  attention  of  cabinet 
and  that  we  can  have  a  more  vigorous 
assault  on  what  is  a  serious  problem  in  many 
communities,  particularly  within  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto. 

Mr.  J.  Johnson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  have  this  opportunity  to  add  my  voice  to 
those  of  my  colleagues  in  support  of  this 
resolution    and1   also   to   pay   tribute    to    the 


member  for  Oriole  (Mr.  Williams)  for  bring- 
ing in  this  timely  and  commendable  resolu- 
tion. 

TTiis  government  and,  I  would  venture  to 
say,  nearly  all  members  of  this  assembly  have 
supported  the  restriction  of  establishments 
which  rely  on  nude  entertainment  to  bring 
in  patrons.  It  was  just  over  two  years  ago 
when  this  House  debated  amendments  to  the 
Municipal  Act.  At  that  time,  it  was  hoped 
the  legislation  would  reduce  the  number  of 
such  establishments  across  Ontario  but,  one 
year  later,  there  were  still  over  200  premises 
in  Toronto  alone  which  featured  some  form 
of  nude  entertainment.  Earlier  amendments 
went  far  in  controlling  adult  entertainment 
parlours  by  closing  down  many  of  the  body- 
rub  parlours  and  sex  shops.  There  still  exists 
a  number  of  other  facilities  which  citizens  of 
our  municipalities  wish  to  see  restricted.  It 
ought  to  be  the  responsibility  of  the  local 
governments,  which  best  know  the  immediate 
local  concerns,  to  control  the  establishment 
of  restaurants,  taverns  and  theatres  that  fea- 
ture nude  entertainment.  This  applies  not 
just  to  the  major  municipalities  in  our  prov- 
ince but  to  a  number  of  the  smaller  com- 
munities   as    well. 

We  witnessed  with  great  shock  and  sorrow 
the  impact  the  sex  industry  can  have  in  the 
murder  of  Emanuel  Jaques.  This  incident 
shook  as  large  a  community  as  Toronto.  Can 
one  imagine  the  effect  it  would  have  on  a 
smaller  community?  This  is  what  is  happen- 
ing. Certainly,  crackdowns  have  removed 
some  of  the  more  questionable  establishments 
from  Toronto's  downtown  core,  but  many  of 
them  have  moved.  Instead  of  heading  into  the 
city  centre,  one  can  bump  and  grind  in  even' 
Metro  borough.  Several  of  these  relocated 
taverns  and  restaurants  have  been  located 
close  to  residential  sections  or  schools.  Under 
the  act,  municipalities  can  regulate  their 
location  but  cannot  bar  them  from  entry. 

It  is  the  community  which,  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, shapes  the  development  of  our  citizens. 
Our  citizens  should  be  able  to  choose  the 
kind  of  environment  in  which  they  wish  to 
live.  They  should  be  able  to  regulate  what 
type  of  business  they  wish  their  children  to 
be  exposed  to.  I  am  not  suggesting  this 
assembly  attempt  to  legislate  morality  for 
this  province,  but  what  I  would  like  to  see  is 
the  ability  of  a  community  to  determine  its 
own  pattern  of  development— in  other  words, 
local  autonomy. 

Having  served  as  mayor  and  councillor  in 
my  own  community  for  several  years,  I  have 
a  tremendous  amount  of  respect  for  local 
councils  and  I  know  they  are  far  better  quali- 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4247 


fied  than  any  other  level  of  government  to 
assess  what  is  in  the  best  interest  of  the 
people  they  represent.  If  they  are  mistaken, 
they  are  turfed  out  of  office  at  the  next  elec- 
tion, and  we  have  seen  some  of  that  happen 
in  the  last  few  days. 

5:40  p.m. 

The  real  concern  of  this  resolution,  as  I 
read  it,  is  to  allow  municipalities  a  legal 
means  of  blocking  establishments  which  a 
community  may  not  want.  A  community 
could,  if  it  so  desired,  prevent  sex-oriented 
businesses  not  only  from  locating  in  the 
downtown  core,  but  in  the  backstreets  and 
residential  neighbourhoods  as  well.  Several 
municipalities  have  been  fighting  to  keep 
these  taverns  and  restaurants  away  from  their 
neighbourhood  backyards.  Often  they  have 
not  had  the  necessary  clout  to  force  them  to 
move.  I  think  it  is  a  shame  when  a  munic- 
ipality, acting  in  its  collective  role,  cannot 
decide  what  type  of  entertainment  the  com- 
munity will  support. 

There  are  a  number  of  legal  points  raised 
by  this  resolution  but,  in  concert  with  the 
federal  government  and  the  municipal  repre- 
sentatives, they  are  points  which  can  be 
worked1  out.  The  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Mc- 
Murtry)  can  approach  the  federal  Minister 
of  Justice  to  make  changes  to  the  Criminal 
Code  which  would  facilitate  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Ontario  communities. 

We  are  aware  that  this  is  an  area  into 
which  we  enter  only  after  a  great  deal  of 
thought.  It  is  not  often  that  we  in  this  as- 
sembly  discuss  our  ability  to  constrain  any 
segment  of  our  society,  but  we  have  several 
questions  with  regard  to  this  industry  and  its 
establishment  across  Ontario.  The  aggressive 
marketing  of  some  of  its  supporters  may  not 
please  members  of  our  communities. 

My  principle  here  in  supporting  this  resolu- 
tion is  that  municipalities  throughout  this 
province  should  have  a  say  in  just  how  their 
communities  will  develop.  At  the  very  least 
it  will  give  them  the  opportunity  to  bring 
better  control  to  such  establishments.  No 
person  in  this  province  should  be  subjected 
to  having  these  establishments  thrust  upon 
him  if  the  community  is  opposed.  The 
municipal  representatives  may  best  decide 
each  community's  need  and  aspiration. 

In  conclusion,  I  feel  this  is  territory  which 
the  province,  together  with  both  municipali- 
ties and  the  federal  government,  can  enter. 
Together  we  can  help  ensure  communities 
which  are  safe  and  which  are  shaped  by  the 
individuals  who  live  there. 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  been  prevailed  upon. 
I  had  a  choice  between  the  members  for 
Halton-Burlington  (Mr.  J.  Reed),  Kitchener- 
Wilmot  (Mr.  Sweeney)  and  Ottawa  East  (Mr. 
Roy). 

Mr.  Roy:  It  was  a  toss-up,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  used  my  great  experience  and,  of  course, 
my  weight  within  caucus  to  override  my 
colleagues.  I  used  my  seniority  to  get  an 
opportunity  to  support  this  resolution. 

I  want  to  say,  as  my  colleague  the  mem- 
ber for  Sarnia  (Mr.  Blundy)  said  prior  to  me, 
that  we  are  in  support  of  anything  that  ap- 
pears to  be  against  sin,  sex  and  that  sort  of 
thing  and  in  support  of  the  resolution  as  such. 

It  is  with  some  trepidation  that  I  look 
at  some  of  the  provisions  within  the  reso- 
lution. I  find  it  a  bit  surprising,  considering 
the  author  of  the  resolution  and  knowing  the 
respective  jurisdictions  of  various  govern- 
ments, that  he  would  put  the  emphasis  on 
the  municipalities  to  curtail  the  proliferation 
of  such  establishments.  In  my  opinion,  the 
provincial  role  to  be  played  in  this  respect 
is  of  great  importance,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  is  where  it  has  to  be  played.  It  has 
to  be  played  at  the  provincial  level  rather 
than  trying  to  use  municipal  laws  to  curtail 
the  abuses  or  infringements  of  the  Criminal 
Code.  I  do  not  see  that  the  Criminal  Code 
has  to  be  amended.  In  fact,  the  present 
Criminal  Code,  if  it  was  only  enforced,  would 
probably  severely  curtail  the  proliferation  of 
these  establishments. 

The  other  thing  I  find  to  be  somewhat 
surprising  in  the  resolution  is  that  the  member 
for  Oriole— and  I  do  not  begrudge  the  fact 
he  brought  this  in— should  feel  obliged  to 
bring  this  resolution  to  the  House  at  this 
time.  It  was  only  a  few  years  ago  when  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations (Mr.  Drea)  was  sworn  in  that  he  gave 
a  direct  warning  to  the  public,  saying  that 
those  individuals  participating  in  nude  en- 
tertainment would  be  required  to  dress  up. 
Through  all  the  swearing  in  of  the  ministers 
at  that  time,  the  thing  that  made  the  head- 
lines was  the  comment  by  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  He 
said  that  from  now  on  things  in  this  province 
would  not  be  as  they  were  in  the  past  and 
nude  entertainers  were  going  to  have  to 
clean  up  their  act. 

I  find  it  somewhat  cynical  and  disappoint- 
ing that  after  the  minister  said  this  some 
two  years  ago,  the  member  for  Oriole  should 
be  obliged  to  bring  in  this  resolution.  Tacked 
on  to  the  resolution  should  have  been  some 
serious  condemnation  of  the  shallowness  of 


4248 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  threat  and  that  promise  of  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  If 
the  member  felt  the  necessity  of  bringing 
forward  such  a  resolution,  it  is  because  his 
colleague  the  minister  did  not  do  his  job,  and 
that  speaks  for  itself. 

I  also  find  regrettable  about  the  process 
that  is  going  to  take  place  here  this  after- 
noon that  part  of  this  resolution  indicates  that 
people  are  abusing  certain  individuals  in 
society.  It  is  an  abuse  of  females  to  perpe- 
trate the  spread  of  this  type  of  establish- 
ment. On  the  one  hand,  the  government 
wants  to  prohibit  that  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  there  is  a  bill  coming  up,  respecting 
economic  equality  for  women  in  Ontario, 
that  it  is  going  to  block.  The  government  is 
going  to  put  a  veto  on  that  bill. 

That  is  a  cynical  gesture  on  the  part  of 
government  members,  bringing  forward  this 
type  of  resolution  and  wanting  the  support 
of  the  Legislature  for  it.  We  will  support  it. 
At  the  same  time,  one  of  my  colleagues 
brings  forward  an  act  respecting  the 
economic  equality  of  women  in  Ontario,  but 
these  people  will  not  even  allow  this  bill  to 
come  to  a  vote.  The  same  people  who  will 
be  supoorting  this  resolution  Will  be  blocking 
this  bill. 

I  look  at  my  colleague  from  Ottawa  South 
(Mr.  Bennett)  who  is  shaking  his  head.  He 
does  not  understand  it  and  neither  do  we. 
We  think  the  government's  approach  to  the 
process  is  cynical  and  lacks  the  seriousness 
that  this  type  of  legislation  deserves.  Some 
priorities  those  members  have  over  there! 
They  want  to  prohibit  these  establishments, 
vet  they  do  not  care  sufficiently  for  the 
women  of  this  province.   Shame  on  them! 

In  closing,  I  want  to  say  that  if  the 
member  for  Oriole  is  embarrassed  this  after- 
noon by  the  process  that  takes  place,  he 
should  look  around  him  at  his  colleagues. 
That  is  what  is  going  on  here. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  participate  on  this  resolution,  this  con- 
voluted gobbledegook  we  have  before  us.  If 
the  member  for  Oriole  was  serious  about  this 
issue,  which  has  a  detrimental  impact  on  our 
communities,  why  did  he  not  first  put  it  in 
the  order  of  a  bill  and  not  a  resolution?  Why 
did  he  not  specify  some  controls  over  these 
establishments  in  residential  neighbourhoods? 

5:50  p.m. 

If  the  member  were  really  serious  about 
the  issue  embodied  in  this  gobbledegook,  he 
would  have  specified  that  these  places  of 
nude   entertainment  not  be   allowed  in  resi- 


dential communities.  It  is  as  simple  as  that, 
but  he  could  not  do  that.  Instead,  he  offers 
a  poor  apology  for  his  government's  lack  of 
action.  The  government  has  had  all  kinds  of 
opportunity  through  the  Solicitor  General, 
through  the  Theatres  Act  and  through  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  of  Ontario,  to  close 
down  disreputable  operations,  but  cabinet 
ministers  sit  idly  by  and  do  nothing.  Instead, 
they  put  the  member  up  to  this  sorry  excuse. 
He  should  be  ashamed  of  himself,  doing 
their  dirty  work  for  them,  which  will  get 
him  nowhere. 

WOMEN'S  ECONOMIC 
EQUALITY  ACT 

The  following  members  having  objected 
by  rising,  a  vote  was  not  taken  on  Bill  157: 

Auld,  Ashe,  Baetz,  Bennett,  Birch,  Brunelle, 
Cureatz,  Drea,  Eaton,  Elgie,  Gregory, 
Havrot,  Henderson,  Hodgson,  Johnson,  J., 
Kennedy,  Lane,  Leluk,  MacBeth,  Maeck, 
McCaffrey,  McCague,  Norton,  Parrott,  Pope, 
Ramsay,  Rotenberg,  Smith,  G.  E.,  Villeneuve, 
Walker,   Williams,   Wiseman-32. 

NUDE  ENTERTAINMENT  OUTLETS 

Mr.  Speaker:  Mr.  Williams  has  moved 
resolution  39. 

Those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye." 
Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 
In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 
Resolution  concurred  in. 

BUSINESS  OF  THE  HOUSE 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  pursuant  to 
the  standing  order,  I  would  like  to  indicate 
to  the  members  of  the  House  the  business  for 
the  rest  of  this  week  and  next  week. 

Tonight  we  will  have  the  statement  by  the 
Treasurer  and  a  reply  from  a  representative 
of  each  of  the  opposition  parties.  Tomorrow 
we  will  deal  first  with  third  readings  of  bills 
on  today's  Order  Paper  and  then,  with  the 
approval  of  the  House,  complete  all  the 
stages  of  Bill  181,  concerning  the  evictions  on 
Toronto  Islands.  Time  permitting,  we  will 
complete  consideration  of  Bill  169  and  then 
Bill  168. 

On  Monday,  November  17,  the  House  will 
consider  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs.  On  Tuesday,  November  18 
in  the  afternoon,  we  will  have  committee  of 
the  whole  House  on  Bill  182,  the  special  edu- 
cation bill.  In  the  evening  we  will  complete 
or  continue  Bill  182,  if  it  is  not  completed  in 
the  afternoon.   If  there  is  any  time  and  if 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4249 


they  have  not  been  completed  on  Friday,  we 
will  move  to  Bills  169  and  168. 

On  Wednesday  four  committees  may  meet 
in  the  morning:  the  select  committee  on 
plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment, 
and  the  standing  committees  on  general 
government,  resources  development  and  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  Three  committees  may 
meet  in  the  afternoon:  the  select  committee 
on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjust- 
ment and  the  standing  committee  on  social 
development  and  general  government. 

On  Thursday,  November  20,  we  will  have 
private  members'  ballot  items  35  and1  36 
standing  in  the  names  of  Mr.  Stong  and  Mr. 
Dukszta.  Next  Thursday  evening  we  will  con- 
clude the  debate  on  the  report  of  the  select 


committee  on  constitutional  reform.  On  Fri- 
day, November  21,  the  House  will  continue 
with  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  North- 
ern Affairs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  So  honourable  members  will 
be  aware,  just  before  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S. 
Miller)  begins  speaking  at  eight  o'clock,  to 
avoid  any  confusion,  the  Treasurer  wants  to 
share  copies  of  his  statement  with  all  mem- 
bers. Promptly  at  eight  o'clock  we  will  take 
a  few  moments  to  allow  the  pages  to  dis- 
tribute those  to  the  members.  After  that  is 
completed,  we  will  hear  whatever  it  is  the 
Treasurer  has  to  say.  That  will  be  the  pro- 
cedure we  will  take  at  eight  o'clock. 

The  House  recessed  at  5:56  p.m. 


ERRATUM 


No.  Page  Column  Line  Should  read: 

109  4177  1  7  Johnston,   R.   F.    (Scarborough  West  NDP) 


4250 


(LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4232) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

DEATHS  IN  PSYCHIATRIC 
HOSPITALS 

283.     Mr.  Breaugh:   Will  the  minister  list 
the  number  of  patient  deaths  in  psychiatric 


hospitals  for  the  years  1978,  1979,  and  the 
first  nine  months  of  1980?  (Tabled  October 
9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  following  deaths 
of  patients  in  psychiatric  hospitals  were  in- 
vestigated by  coroners  under  section  9(2)  (g) 
and  (j)  of  the  Coroners  Act: 


Accident 

Suicide 

Natural 

Total 

Year 

In 

hospital 

Transferred 

In  Hospital 

Transferred 

Total 

Deaths 

1978 

6 

0 

8 

1 

217 

232 

1979 

5 

0 

2 

0 

166 

173 

1980 

2 

1 

2 

0 

128 

133 

(8  months) 

Total 

13 

1 

12 

1 

511 

538 

284.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  minister  list 
the  number  of  inquests  called  for  and  recom- 
mendations made  by  coroners  for  patient 
deaths  in  psychiatric  hospitals  for  the  years 
1978,  1979  and  the  first  months  of  1980? 
(Tabled  October  9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  following 
number  of  inquests  were  called  and  recom- 
mendations made  relating  to  deaths  of  psy- 
chiatric hospital  patients: 

In-hospital  deaths 

resulted  in 

Year  Inquests  Recommendations 

1978  1  2 

1979  4  11 

1980  1  1 
(8 months)    (1  pending) 

Total  6  14 

ATTENDANCE  AT  CONFERENCE 

370.  Mr.  Bounsall:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  explain  why  an  Ontario  representa- 
tive was  not  sent  to  participate,  as  invited, 
to  the  Ontario  regional  conference  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Women  and  the  Law, 
held  in  Windsor,  October  24  and  25,  1980, 
to  discuss  the  association's  concerns  with  the 
proposed  constitutional  package,  especially 
inasmuch  as  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  of 
Saskatchewan,  the  federal  special  adviser  on 
the  status  of  women  and  family  relations 
from  the  federal  Department  of  Justice,  and 
the  counsel  to  the  continuing  committee  of 
ministers  on  the  constitution  from  the  At- 
torney General's  ministry  of  Manitoba,  all 
attended  and  participated  in  this,  the  first 
women's  conference  on  Women  and  the 
Constitution?   (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Although  representa- 
tives of  the  ministry  have  spoken  to  similar 
groups  on  the  subject  of  family  law  and  the 


constitution,  no  invitation  was  received  by 
the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General  to  send 
a  delegate  to  the  Ontario  regional  conference 
of  the  National  Association  of  Women  and 
the  Law. 

HIGHWAY  CONSTRUCTION 
EXPENDITURES 

372.  Mr.  Wildman:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  table  the 
following  information;  (1)  the  total  cost  to 
the  provincial  Treasury  for  the  construction  of 
the  St.  Joseph  Island  Bridge  on  Highway 
548;  (2)  the  total  expenditure  on  highway 
construction  and  reconstruction  projects,  ex- 
cluding the  construction  of  the  above-men- 
tioned bridge,  in  the  district  of  Algoma  in 
each  of  the  fiscal  years  1967,  1968,  1969, 
1970,  1971,  1972,  1973,  1974,  1975,  1976, 
1977?  (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  (1)  The  total  cost  for  the 
construction  of  the  St.  Joseph  Island  Bridge 
on  Highway  548  was  $2,353,611.  (2)  The 
total  expenditure  on  highway  construction 
and  reconstruction  projects  in  the  district  of 
Algoma,  excluding  the  cost  of  the  St.  Joseph 
Island  Bridge,   is  tabled  below: 


Year 

Expenditure 

1967 

$  5,236,741 

1968 

4,583,535 

1969 

5,381,247 

1970 

5,385,827 

1971 

3,534,264 

1972 

3,794,407 

1973 

3,855,404 

1974 

5,455,922 

1975 

14,582,107 

1976 

9,323,217 

1977 

7,906,950 

373.     Mr.  Wildman:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs   table  the  total  expenditure 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4251 


figures  for  highway  construction  projects  in 
the  district  of  Algoma  in  the  years  1978  and 
1979?  (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  The  actual  expenditures 
for  highway  construction  in  the  district  of 
Algoma  for  fiscal  years  1978-79  and  1979-80 
were  $6,128,018  and  $4,974,119  respectively. 

OISE  AFFILIATION 

382.  Mr.  Isaacs:  Are  Ministry  of  Educa- 
tion or  Ministry  of  Colleges  and  Universities 
officials  involved  in  discussions  between  the 
Ontario  Institute  for  Studies  in  Education, 
the  University  of  Toronto  and  York  Univer- 
sity concerning  a  possible  change  in  the 
status  of  the  affiliation  agreement  between 
OISE  and  U  of  T?  Will  the  minister  give  an 
assurance  that  there  will  be  no  change  in 
the  status  of  the  present  OISE  affiliation 
until  there  has  at  least  been  an  opportunity 
for  full  and  open  public  debate?  (Tabled 
October  28,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Officials  of  neither 
the  Ministry  of  Education  nor  the  Ministry 
of  Colleges  and  Universities  are  involved  in 
discussions  between  the  Ontario  Institute  for 
Studies  in  Education  and  the  University  of 
Toronto. 

These  two  institutions  signed  a  "Memor- 
andum for  Negotiations"  for  a  new  "Agree- 
ment of  Affiliation,"  and  it  states  that  "these 
negotiations  will  conclude  on  or  before  March 
15,  1981."  If  the  institutions  cannot  agree  by 
then  on  a  new  affiliation  agreement  "they 
will  immediately  inform  the  Minister  of  Col- 
leges and  Universities  ...  of  their  inability 
to  agree  .  .  .  ." 

There  has  been  no  request  for  participa- 
tion by  the  ministries  and  because  both  insti- 
tutions are  autonomous,  it  would  be  inap- 
propriate for  me  to  become  involved  without 
an  invitation  from  the  institutions.  I  am  con- 
fident that  a  new  agreement  can  be  reached1. 

Public  debate  on  the  future  of  the  affili- 
ation will  take  place  both  in  the  governing 
council  of  the  University  of  Toronto  and  in 
the  board  of  OISE. 

FBA  STUDENTS 

383.  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  How  many 
FBA  recipients  were  enrolled  in  post-second- 
ary educational  institutions  in  Ontario  in 
the  school  years  1978-79  and  1979-80,  and 
how  many  have  enrolled  this  fall?  (Tabled 
October  28,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  Ministry  of 
Colleges  and  Universities  gathers  statistics 
on   enrolment  only.    No  information  on   "in- 


come background"  is  requested  from  the 
students  unless  they  submit  applications  for 
OSAP. 

FRANCOPHONE  ENUMERATION 

385.  Mr.  Martel:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Education  indicate  the  cost  to  the  ministry 
of  carrying  out  enumeration  of  the  franco- 
phone community  this  fall  for  school  boards? 
(Tabled  October  29,  1980.) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  following 
costs  have  been  incurred  to  November  4, 
1980,  by  the  Ministry  of  Education  in  carry- 
ing out  the  identification  of  French-speaking 
electors  for  school  boards: 

Printing,  including  design,  typesetting  and 
newspaper  notices,  $24,444;  distribution, 
postage  and  handling,  $9,974;  payment  to 
enumerators,  $24,960;  processing  returns,  in- 
cluding statistical  and  clerical  costs,  $16,272; 
total,  $75,650. 

MUNICIPAL  ENERGY  FROM 
WASTE  PROJECTS 

386.  Mr.  Isaacs:  For  each  of  the  energy 
from  municipal  waste  projects  listed  in  figure 
6  (page  10)  of  Energy  From  Waste  (Min- 
istry of  Energy,  March  1980),  will  the  min- 
istry provide  a  progress  report?  Will  the 
ministry  include,  where  applicable,  names  of 
all  eligible  equipment  suppliers  and/or 
equipment  suppliers  with  whom  contracts 
have  already  been  signed,  either  by  the  min- 
istry or  by  other  parties  involved  in  the 
project?    (Tabled  October  30,   1980.) 

See  sessional  paper  282. 

INTERNATIONAL  YEAR  OF 
DISABLED  PERSONS 

387.  Mr.  Roy:  Would  the  Premier  give 
an  accounting  of  funds  and  any  other  re- 
sources that  will  be  allocated  by  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  during  the  International 
Year  of  Disabled  Persons?  Which  govern- 
ment ministries  will  be  participating  in  dis- 
bursing these  funds?  How  will  these  funds 
be  put  to  use?  What  consultation,  if  any,  has 
taken  place  with  the  handicapped  community 
in  developing  priorities  for  spending  during 
the  International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons? 
(Tabled  October  30,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  The  year  1981  is  the 
International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons.  The 
allocation  process  for  the  1981-82  fiscal  year, 
which  includes  IYDP  projects,  has  not  been 
completed. 

An  office  of  the  provincial  co-ordinator  for 
the    International   Year   of   Disabled   Persons 


4252 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


has  been  established  within  the  Secretariat 
for  Social  Development.  The  co-ordinator 
chairs  an  interministerial  committee  with 
representatives  from  18  ministries,  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Board  and  the  Civil 
Service  Commission. 

Consultations  are  ongoing  between  min- 
istries and  groups  and  individuals  represent- 
ing disabled  people.  The  Ontario  Advisory 
Council  on  the  Physically  Handicapped, 
which  was  set  up  five  years  ago  to  advise 
government,  has  representation  from  all 
regions  of  the  province.  The  council  has  held 
six  public  forums  to  involve  the  broader 
community. 

The  IYDP  co-ordinator  consults  with  the 
Ontario  Federation  for  the  Physically  Handi- 
capped, a  co-ordinating  body  of  approximately 
30  agencies  and  consumer  groups.  In  addi- 
tion, the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  has  met  with  prominent  mem- 
bers of  the  disabled  community  at  a  series 
of  dinners. 

(Ministries  are  now  developing  programs  for 
the  year.  Announcements  will  be  forthcoming 
by  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Devel- 
opment and  the  ministers   concerned. 

GOVERNMENT  COMPUTER 
SERVICES 

394.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Minister 
of  Government  Services  indicate  whether  or 
not  government  computer  services  are  leased 


to  riding  associations  of  government  members 
for  constituency  mailings  or  fund-raising 
mailings?  If  they  are  used,  what  fee  is 
charged  for  the  service  provided?  (Tabled 
November  4,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  The  Ministry  of  Gov- 
ernment Services  does  not  lease  government 
computer  services  to  riding  associations  of 
government  members  for  constituency  mail- 
ings or  fund-raising  mailings. 

INTERIM  ANSWERS 

On  question  376  by  Mr.  Breaugh,  Hon. 
Mr.  Timbrell  provided  the  following  answer: 
Due  to  the  volume  of  Order  Paper  questions 
directed  to  the  Ministry  of  Health,  a  response 
will  be  tabled  on  or  about  December  1, 
1980. 

On  questions  377  to  379  by  Mr.  Breaugh, 
Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell  provided  the  following 
interim  answer:  Due  to  the  large  amount  of 
information  requested  in  the  above  questions, 
it  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  answers  by 
November  7,  1980.  A  complete  response  will 
be  tabled  on  or  about  December  1,  1980. 

On  question  384  by  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston, 
Hon.  Miss  Stephenson  provided  the  follow- 
ing interim  answer:  We  require  additional 
time  to  prepare  our  response  to  the  above 
question.  The  answer  will  be  ready  for 
tabling  on  or  about  Thursday,  November  20, 
1980. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980  4253 


CONTENTS 


Thursday,  November  13,  1980 

Point  of  privilege  re  access  to  legislative  building:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  4211 

Toronto  Island  homes,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells  ■ 4211 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott 4212 

Community  services  contribution  program,  statement  by  Mr.  Bennett  4212 

Point  of  privilege  re  mini-budget:   Mr.  McClellan,  Mr.  Breithaupt,  Mr.   Foulds,  Mr. 

T.  P.  Reid,  Mr.  Cassidy 4215 

Liquid    industrial    waste,    questions    of    Mr.    Parrott:    Mr.    S.    Smith,    Mr.    Cassidy, 

Mr.    Swart 4216 

Rest  homes,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Warner  4219 

Stratford  Festival,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Cassidy  4220 

Day  care,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Ms.  Gigantes  4220 

Constitutional  reform,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Roy,  Mr.  Cassidy  4222 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Swart  4223 

Community  services  contribution  program,  question  of  Mr.  Bennett:   Mr.  J.  Johnson  4224 

Land  severance,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Riddell  4224 

Minimum  wage,  question  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Samis  4224 

Investment  companies'  failure,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Breithaupt  4225 

Industrial  hearing  loss,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Martel  4225 

Burlington  gas  explosion,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Bradley  4225 

Affirmative  action  programs,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Bounsall  4226 

Southwestern    Ontario    development    corporation,    questions    of    Mr.    Grossman:    Mr. 

B.   Newman 4226 

Keating  Channel  dredging,  question  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Ms.  Bryd'en  4227 

Re  point  of  privilege  on  mini-budget:  Mr.  Grossman 4227 

Point  of  privilege  re  Speaker's  rulings:   Mr.  Sargent 4228 

Point   of   privilege   re   mini-budget:    Mr.    T.    P.    Reid,    Mr.   Gregory,    Mr.    McClellan, 

Mr.   Grossman,   Mr.   Di  Santo 4228 

Notice    of    dissatisfaction    with    answer   to    oral    questions    re    PCB    spill    at    school: 

Mr.   Foulds    4229 

Legislative   pages    4229 

Petition  re  control  of  tips:   Mr.  Mackenzie  4229 

Report,  standing  committee  on  resources  development:  Mr.  Villeneuve  4229 

Report,  standing  committee  on  administration  of  justice:  Mr.  Philip  4230 


4254  (LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 

Motion  re  committee  sitting,  Mi.  Wells,  agreed  to  4230 

Motion  re  committee  substitution,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  4230 

Toronto  Islands  Act,  Bill  181,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4230 

Municipality   of   Metropolitan    Toronto   Amendment    Act,    Bill    182,    Mr.    Wells,    first 

reading 4231 

Dog  Licensing  and  Live  Stock  and  Poultry  Protection  Amendment  Act,  Bill  183,  Mr. 

Henderson,   first  reading 4231 

Sheep  and  Wool  Marketing  Act,  Bill  184,  Mr.  Henderson,  first  reading  i4231 

Assessment  Amendment  Act,  Bill  185,  Mr.  Maeck,  first  reading  4231 

Bruce  County  Board  of  Education  and  Teachers  Dispute  Resolution  Act,  Bill   186, 

Mr.    Sargent,   first  reading    . 4231 

Point  of  order  re  Toronto  Island  homes:  Mrs.  Campbell  4232 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  283,  284,  370,  372,  373,  376,  377-379,  382,  384,  385-387, 

394  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  4232 

Private  members'  business  re  Women's  Economic  Equality  Act,  Bill  157,  on  second 
reading: 

Mr.    Charlton 4232 

Mr.    Elgie 4235 

Mrs.    Campbell    4236 

Mr.    Cassidy 4237 

Mr.    Norton    4240 

Mr.    Charlton 4240 

On  resolution  39,  re  nude  enter cainment  places: 

Mr.  Williams   4241 

Mr.   Blundy   4244 

Mr.    McClellan    4244 

Mr.   J.  Johnson 4246 

Mr.  Roy ',"..  4247 

Mr.  Warner 4246 

Resolution  39   concurred  in ., 4248 

Business  of  the  House:  Mr.  Wells 4248 

Recess 4249 

Erratum      4249 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Deaths  in  psychiatric  hospitals,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Breaugh  4250 

Attendance  at  conference,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Bounsall  4250 

Highway   construction   expenditures,    questions    of    Mr.    Snow    and    Mr.    Bernier: 

Mr.  Wildman  4250 

OISE  affiliation,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Isaacs  4251 

FBA  students,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston  ,  4251 

Francophone  enumeration,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Martel  4251 

Municipal  energy  from  waste  projects,  question  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Isaacs  4251 

International  year  of  disabled  persons,  questions  of  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Roy  4251 

Government  computer  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Van  Home  4252 

Interim  answers:  Mr.  Timbrell,  Miss  Stephenson 4252 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980  4255 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Bennett,  Hon.  C;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Blundy,  P.  (Sarnia  L) 

Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Charlton,  B.  (Hamilton  Mountain  NDP) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Di  Santo,  O.  (Downsview  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Gigantes,  E.  (Carleton  East  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Johnson,  J.  (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel  PC) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP) 

Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 

Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 


No.  112 


Legislature  of 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  November  13,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can   be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  ( 416 )  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  9th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4259 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  MEASURES 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  will  allow  a  brief  period 
of  time  for  the  pages  to  distribute  the  state- 
ment to  be  made  by  the  Treasurer. 

Pursuant  to  an  order  and  the  motion  passed 
earlier,  we  will  now  revert  to  statements. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my 
budget  message  in  April,  I  said  1980  could 
well  turn  out  to  be  a  difficult  year  for  the 
Ontario  economy.  I  pointed  out  that  our 
economic  prospects  are  heavily  influenced  by 
federal  policy  and  the  performance  of  the 
United  States  economy.  Slowing  demand  in 
the  US  and  Ottawa's  high  interest  rate  policy 
threatened  to  undermine  our  economic 
stability. 

The  fiscal  strategy  for  1980-81  I  adopted  at 
that  time  called  for  a  modest  increase  in  the 
province's  deficit  and,  consequently,  a  pause 
in  our  long-term  deficit  reduction  plan.  In  the 
light  of  the  economic  situation,  I  did  not 
wish  the  budget  to  be  a  drag  on  the  economy 
and  therefore  I  did  not  impose  any  increases 
in  taxes. 

But  neither  did  I  want  to  break  with  our 
policy  of  reducing  the  size  of  government  to 
lessen  inflationary  pressures  in  the  economy 
and  free  up  resources  for  productive  private 
sector  investment.  By  maintaining  a  com- 
petitive and  stable  profit  and  taxation  environ- 
ment, we  ensure  these  resources  are  put  to 
use.  This  fiscal  policy  has  been  the  corner- 
stone of  our  economic  strategy  for  a  number 
of  years. 

In  my  budget  I  introduced  a  number  of 
selective  measures  to  stimulate  job  creation 
and  investment  and  I  have  since  supple- 
mented these  actions.  For  example,  in  May 
the  government  provided  a  substantial  in- 
terest relief  program  for  farmers.  My  budget 
also  provided  new  grants  for  pensioners  that 
increase  their  purchasing  power  this  year  by 
almost  $300  million. 

I  have  continued  to  monitor  closely 
developments  in  the  economy.  Prior  to  the 
federal  budget,  the  short-term  economic  out- 
look had  already  deteriorated.  That  budget 
has,  in  fact,  further  worsened  the  outlook  for 
Ontario.  Therefore,  I  will  be  announcing  to- 


Thursday,  November  13,  1980 

night  specific  measures  to  stimulate  imme- 
diately the  provincial  economy  and  improve 
Ontario's  longer-term  economic  prospects. 

On  October  28,  1980,  the  federal  govern- 
ment turned  back  the  economic  clock  in  the 
industrialized  provinces  of  Canada.  Mr.  Mac- 
Eachen's  "energy  budget"  was  seriously  lack- 
ing in  economic  leadership  and  it  completely 
ignored  the  dualistic  nature  of  Canada's 
regional  economies. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  If  I  ever  go  back  to 
schoolteaching  I  do  not  know  what  I  am 
going  to  do;  I  am  so  used  to  the  classroom 
talking. 

At  the  present  time,  Canada  has  neither  an 
agreed-upon  energy  pricing  and  supply 
package  nor  an  economic  strategy  to  take 
advantage  of  our  opportunities.  This  situation 
can  only  further  undermine  the  confidence  of 
investors  and  could  cost  us  dearly  in  the 
longer  run  in  lost  economic  productivity  and 
potential. 

Unlike  some  in  this  Legislature,  I  was 
surprised  and  disappointed  by  Mr.  Mac- 
Eachen's  budget.  It  is  profoundly  unbalanced 
in  its  priorities.  It  does  set  out  a  four-year 
deficit  reduction  plan,  but  it  is  far  from  clear 
that  the  fat  will  be  cut  from  the  federal 
bureaucracy.  Its  economic  forecast  implies 
sluggish  economic  performance  for  Canada's 
industrial  heartland,  but  no  measures  are 
introduced  to  improve  the  outlook.  It  rein- 
forces inflationary  pressures,  yet  relies  on  a 
tired  and  outdated  monetary  policy  that 
simply  cannot  come  to  grips  with  inflation. 
Above  all,  it  does  absolutely  nothing  to  create 
jobs  in  the  months  ahead.  In  fact,  it  threatens 
existing  jobs  in  this  province.  That  is  simply 
not  good  enough. 

Ontario  has  always  advocated  strong  federal 
leadership  in  economic  matters.  We  will  not, 
however,  tolerate  serious  economic  misdirec- 
tion at  the  expense  of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

The  most  vital  element  of  national 
economic  leadership  is  the  provision  of  long- 
term  policy  guidance  and  certainty.  Unfor- 
tunately, the  federal  budget  leaves  many  un- 
certainties. Even  if  the  planned  energy  prices 
survive,  they  remain  subject  to  unspecified 
future  increases.  The  delays  in  megaprojects 


4260 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


and  threatened  cutbacks  in  domestic  oil 
supplies  further  add  to  uncertainty  and  ag- 
gravate our  economic  problems.  Indexation 
of  the  personal  income  tax  remains  under  the 
microscope.  As  well,  the  federal  government 
intends  to  seek  major  savings  in  its  commit- 
ments under  existing  fiscal  arrangements  in 
health,  postsecondary  education  and  com- 
munity services. 
8:10  p.m. 

At  this  point,  recent  events  force  me  to 
diverge  from  the  printed  text.  Only  yesterday 
the  federal  government  officially  announced 
its  unilateral  termination  of  the  federal- 
provincial  community  services  contribution 
program  even  though  both  levels  of  govern- 
ment are  firmly  committed  to  converting  the 
existing  program  into  a  long-term  arrange- 
ment. As  a  result  of  this  action  alone,  Ontario 
will  lose  at  least  $86  million  annually  towards 
high-priority  and  fully  planned  water  and 
sewage  projects  and  other  vital  community 
services. 

This  thoughtless  action  clearly  illustrates 
that  we  have  a  national  government  that 
tolerates  high  unemployment,  stifling  interest 
rates  and  a  bloated  federal  bureaucracy  while 
seeking  savings  at  the  expense  of  a  clean 
environment  and  other  social  priorities.  Its 
actions  undermine  our  confidence  in  other 
cost-sharing  commitments  relating  to  health, 
post-secondary  education,  social  services  and 
social  assistance. 

We  require  a  national  economic  plan.  As 
part  of  this,  the  major  energy  projects  must 
proceed  and  Ottawa  must  take  firm  action  to 
shore  up  the  sagging  economy,  create  jobs 
and  restore  confidence.  Let  me  repeat  what  I 
have  stated  on  several  occasions.  The  federal 
government  has  the  fiscal  capacity  and  the 
policy  instruments  to  best  undertake  such 
action.  It  also  has  that  responsibility.  As  a 
result  of  the  clear  abdication  by  Ottawa  of  its 
national  economic  leadership  responsibility, 
we  are  faced  with  a  justified  call  for  economic 
leadership  from  elsewhere. 

The  government  of  Ontario  is  responding 
to  this  call  with  a  $1 -billion  five-year 
economic  recovery  program  which  I  am  going 
to  detail  in  a  few  minutes.  Before  so  doing, 
I  would  first  like  to  review  the  economic 
situation  and  outlook. 

The  federal  budget  threatens  Ontario's 
short-term  economic  prospects.  According  to 
Mr.  MacEachen's  projections,  Canada  will 
experience  a  decline  of  one  per  cent  in  total 
output  this  year  and  an  increase  of  only  one 
per  cent  in  1981  before  achieving  substan- 
tially higher  rates  of  growth  in  the  1982  to 
1985  recovery  period.  While  the  federal  out- 


look for  1981  is  more  pessimistic  than  many 
private-sector  predictions,  there  is  no  doubt 
our  economy  will  continue  to  operate  well 
below  potential.  The  federal  budget  certainly 
has  increased  the  possibility  of  greater  un- 
employment in  Ontario  in  the  months  ahead. 

There  are  certain  aspects  of  the  Ontario 
economy  with  which  we  can  be  very  pleased- 
strong  sectors  of  the  economy  where  employ- 
ment levels  are  being  sustained  or  are  even 
increasing  and  upon  which  strength  we  can 
build.  Among  them  are  the  nonresidential 
construction,  services,  manufacturing  of 
machinery,  paper  and  allied  products,  food 
and  beverages,  all  of  which  show  little  excess 
capacity.  Investment  is  increasing  at  a  sub- 
stantial pace  across  a  wide  range  of  sectors. 
Statistics  Canada's  Mid-Year  Private  and 
Public  Investment  Survey  indicates  new 
manufacturing  investment  may  be  up  by  44 
per  cent  in  Ontario  this  year. 

However,  some  sectors,  particularly  con- 
sumer durables  and  those  with  high  export 
content,  are  suffering  because  of  the  recession 
in  the  US  and  high  interest  rates.  There  have 
been  significant  layoffs  in  residential  con- 
struction and  in  the  motor  vehicle  assembly 
and  parts  industries.  The  major  household 
appliance  portion  of  the  electrical  products 
sector  is  performing  much  below  capacity. 
Other  important  manufacturing  industries 
showing  high  excess  capacity  are  wood  prod- 
ucts, furniture  and  fixtures,  and  non-metallic 
minerals. 

Notwithstanding  weakness  in  some  indus- 
tries, Ontario's  recent  job  creation  perform- 
ance has  been  impressive.  In  1979,  161,000 
new  jobs  were  created  following  the  genera- 
tion of  133,000  in  1978. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  How  many  were  laid 
off? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Those  are  the  nets,  my 
friend. 

Although  slowing  in  recent  months,  new 
job  creation  still  amounted  to  a  significant 
85,000  over  the  12-month  period  ending 
September  30.  While  our  average  year-over- 
year  new  job  creation  exceeds  over  100,000 
new  jobs  commitment,  we  are  neither  satis- 
fied nor  complacent.  The  bottom  line  is  that 
the  labour  force  growth  has  outstripped  job 
creation.  The  seasonally  adjusted  unemploy- 
ment rate  has  increased  from  6.2  per  cent  in 
September  1979  to  6.7  per  cent  in  September 
this  year.  In  fact,  over  the  first  nine  months 
of  1980,  the  unemployment  rate  has  averaged 
7.0  per  cent,  and  that  is  unacceptably  high 
in  terms  of  economic  hardship  and  lost 
potential. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4261 


I  believe  effective  action  can  and'  should 
be  taken  to  bolster  demand  in  the  weaker 
sectors  of  the  economy.  Our  options  in 
Ontario  are  limited  because  reductions  in  in- 
come taxes  are  not  a  viable  mechanism  for 
achieving  immediate  relief  in  specific  sectors. 
However,  in  the  past,  reductions  in  retail 
sales  tax  have  proved  to  be  most  effective.  I 
am  therefore  proposing  tonight  to  cut  the  re- 
tail sales  tax  to  provide  direct  stimulus  in  a 
number  of  areas  vitally  important  to  the 
wellbeing  of  our  economy. 

The  Ontario  automotive  industry  is  re- 
sponsible directly  and  indirectly  for  one  job  in 
every  six  jobs  in  this  province.  As  the  hon- 
ourable members  are  aware,  this  North 
American  industry  must  resolve  major  struc- 
tural difficulties  and  come  to  grips  with  vigor- 
ous foreign  competition  before  we  can  be 
certain  of  improved  prospects.  This  govern- 
ment has  urged  the  federal  government  to 
seek  a  better  deal  for  Canada  under  the  auto 
pact.  We  have  also  provided  incentives  for 
industry  to  locate  here,  expand  investment 
and  engage  in  research  and  development.  A 
large-scale  review  of  the  industry's  prospects 
and  problems  is  now  under  way  to  determine 
what  more  Ontario  can  do  to  secure  the  in- 
dustry's longer-term  future.  In  the  meantime, 
however,  we  intend  to  take  action  to  stimulate 
the  industry. 

In  current  circumstances,  measures  to 
stimulate  demand  for  passenger  automobiles 
would  not  provide  a  significant  enough  boost 
to  domestic  employment  to  justify  the  ex- 
penditure. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  didn't  last  time  either. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  It  was  a  different 
problem  last  time. 

Many  of  the  passenger  cars  purchased  by 
Ontarians  are  produced  in  the  US.  Con- 
versely, our  production  of  passenger  vehicles 
is  predominantly  exported  to  the  US.  As  a 
result,  only  the  recovery  of  demand  in  the 
US  will  generate  substantial  production  and 
employment  gains  for  Ontario  producers  of 
passenger  cars. 

This  is  not,  however,  the  case  with  light 
trucks  and  vans.  Sixty  per  cent  of  Canadian 
unit  sales  of  these  vehicles  are  domestically 
produced,  the  balance  being  produced  in  the 
US  or  offshore.  All  light  trucks  and  vans 
produced  in  Canada  are  manufactured  in 
Ontario.  Consequently,  stimulation  of  truck 
purchasers  will  result  in  a  much  smaller  im- 
port leakage  and,  therefore,  will  have  a 
stronger  impact  directly  on  vehicle  production 
and  indirectly  on  the  many  associated  in- 
dustries. 


In  Ontario,  truck  production  over  the  first 
10  months  of  this  year  was  24  per  cent  below 
last  year's  levels,  and  sales  were  down  almost 
25  per  cent  from  January  to  September  com- 
pared with  the  same  period  last  year.  Con- 
sequently, to  provide  support  to  this  sector,  I 
am  implementing  a  rebate  of  retail  sales  tax 
paid  of  up  to  $700  on  new  light  trucks  and 
vans  not  exceeding  4,100  kilograms,  ap- 
proximately 9,000  pounds,  in  gross  vehicle 
weight.  This  incentive  will  be  of  particular 
benefit  to  small  businesses  and  many  persons 
living  in  more  remote  or  rural  parts  of 
Ontario.  It  will  commence  at  midnight  to- 
night and  remain  in  effect  until  June  30, 
1981. 
8:20  p.m. 

Most  truck  purchases  are  made  to  replace 
similar  older  vehicles,  particularly  those  in 
commercial  use.  Motor  vehicles  manufacturers 
have  made  great  strides  in  improving  the  fuel 
efficiency  of  trucks  and  the  new  models  will 
consume  less  fuel  per  mile  than  the  older 
models  they  replace.  As  a  result,  this  program 
will  also  assist  energy  conservation.  I  es- 
timate the  cost  of  this  program  at  $38  million. 

Unemployment  rates  in  the  construction 
industry  have  averaged  14  per  cent  over  the 
first  nine  months  of  the  year.  At  the  present 
time  demand  is  strong  in  industrial  and  com- 
mercial construction.  In  fact,  there  are  some 
labour  shortages  in  the  finishing  trades  in  the 
Toronto  area  where  a  $500-million  to  $600- 
million  building  boom  is  under  way.  Strikes 
in  the  industrial  and  commercial  sectors  have 
artificially  boosted  unemployment,  but  over- 
all employment  in  these  sectors  is  strong  and 
is  expected  to  remain  firm  through  1981. 

The  bulk  of  unemployed  construction 
workers  normally  work  in  residential  housing, 
small  nonresidential  buildings  and  renova- 
tions. For  these  workers  the  near-term  out- 
look is  not  bright.  I  have  decided  to  imple- 
ment a  measure  designed  to  lower  the  cost 
of  new  residential  construction  and  renova- 
tions to  provide  a  boost  to  the  building 
materials  and  construction  industries. 

I  am  proposing  that  the  seven  per  cent 
retail  sales  tax  be  removed  on  many  major 
building  materials  including  lumber,  roofing 
materials,  kitchen  cabinets,  sinks,  toilets  and 
bathtubs.  This  exemption  will  be  effective 
from  midnight  tonight  to  June  30,  1981,  at 
an  estimated  cost  of  $94  million.  I  have 
chosen  specific  items  to  direct  the  benefits  of 
this  measure  principally  to  residential  con- 
struction. By  focusing  on  specific  items,  the 
cost  of  the  program  will  be  contained  and 
the  exemption  will  be  manageable  for  re- 
tailers. 


4262 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


This  incentive  will  benefit  individual  con- 
sumers, builders  and  contractors.  It  will  lower 
construction  costs  and  encourage  home  and 
apartment  owners  to  undertake  renovations 
and  remodelling.  These  activities  are  taking 
on  increasing  significance  and,  by  stimulating 
them,  it  is  hoped  that  persons  previously  em- 
ployed in  new  home  construction  will  find 
alternative  employment  for  their  skills.  Also, 
this  incentive  should  be  of  particular  benefit 
in  the  redevelopment  of  inner  core  areas.  The 
period  of  tax  relief  will  coincide  with  a  tradi- 
tionally slow  period  in  the  Canadian  con- 
struction industry,  encouraging  activity  that 
might  otherwise  not  have  taken  place. 

The  major  household  appliance  industry  is 
an  important  part  of  Canadian  manufacturing. 
Because  of  the  "big  ticket"  nature  of  house- 
hold appliances,  this  industry  has  been  hard 
hit  by  the  recent  period  of  high  interest  rates 
and  economic  slowdown.  As  well,  the  low 
level  of  housing  starts  has  depressed  demand 
for  these  products.  In  fact,  appliance  produc- 
tion was  down  9.2  per  cent  in  the  first  half 
of  1980  from  last  year's  level.  Sales  of 
refrigerators  and  electric  ranges  in  the  first 
half  of  1980  were  down  eight  per  cent  from 
the  same  period  last  year. 

To  stimulate  purchases  of  certain  major 
household  appliances,  I  propose  to  remove 
the  seven  per  cent  retail  sales  tax  from  new 
refrigerators,  freezers,  ranges,  washers  and 
dryers,  effective  midnight  tonight.  This  retail 
sales  tax  exemption  will  apply  to  purchases 
made  by  June  30,  1981,  and  will  cost  $25 
million  in  forgone  revenues.  The  low  leakage 
of  demand  to  foreign  products  in  this  largely 
Ontario-based  industry  should  result  in  a 
positive  impact  on  inventories,  production  and 
employment.  Most  purchasers  of  new  homes 
and  many  persons  undertaking  renovations 
buy  new  appliances,  and  I  anticipate  this 
measure  will  reinforce  the  incentive  provided 
by  the  exemption  for  building  materials. 

The  residential  furniture  industry,  like  the 
major  household  appliance  industry,  has  also 
felt  the  impact  of  lower  housing  starts  and 
higher  interest  rates.  Household  furniture 
store  sales  declined  by  6.1  per  cent  during  the 
first  half  of  this  year  over  the  same  period 
last  year.  Output  levels  in  this  sector  are  at 
only  two  thirds  of  their  capacity. 

This  industry  plays  an  important  role  in 
our  economy.  It  is  largely  Canadian-sourced 
and  directly  employs  a  significant  number  of 
Ontarians.  Therefore,  effective  midnight  to- 
night, I  propose  to  remove  the  seven  per  cent 
retail  sales  tax  from  new  residential  furniture 
purchases  made  until  June  30,  1981.  This 
action  will  provide  $65  million  in  tax  savings 


to  consumers  and  will  encourage  increased 
Ontario  production. 

Members  will  recall  the  unsatisfactory 
situation  in  the  hospitality  industry  in  Ontario 
and  in  Canada  only  a  few  years  ago.  Low 
prices  in  many  foreign  destinations  and  a 
strong  dollar  resulted  in  huge  deficits  in 
Canada's  balance  of  trade  in  travel.  However, 
in  the  past  two  years,  a  lower  exchange  rate 
and  considerable  private  investment  in 
facilities  have  combined  with  a  broad  range 
of  Ontario  tax  incentives  to  make  Ontario  an 
attractive  and  inexpensive  travel  alternative. 
Overseas  visitors  and  North  Americans  alike 
are  discovering  the  beauty  of  Ontario  and  the 
warmth  of  its  people.  The  new  $65-million 
downtown  convention  centre  and  the  $108- 
million  investment  in  phase  one  of  the 
Wonderland  complex  at  Maple  will  soon  be 
major  attractions  for  visitors. 

Members  will  be  familiar  with  many  of  our 
actions  to  assist  this  industry.  The  retail  sales 
tax  was  removed  from  accommodation  and 
American  plan  charges,  kitchen  equipment 
and  hotel  furnishings.  The  sales  tax  has  also 
been  removed  from  disposable  items  used  in 
hotel  rooms  and  from  prepared  meals  priced 
at  less  than  $6.  Further  assistance  is  available 
through  corporate  tax  incentives  and  the 
tourism  redevelopment  incentive  program. 

This  year's  increases  in  tourism  are  gratify- 
ing and  the  industry's  member  companies 
have  every  reason  to  be  optimistic.  To  en- 
sure its  continued  growth,  and  to  spur  the 
development  of  improved  facilities  through 
new  construction  and  refurbishing  of  existing 
infrastructure,  I  intend  to  continue  needed 
support  for  this  industry.  I  am  therefore  an- 
nouncing my  intention  to  extend  the  tem- 
porary exemptions  for  transient  accommoda- 
tions, furnishings  and  restaurant  kitchen 
machinery  and  equipment,  scheduled  to  ex- 
pire next  March  31,  until  December  31,  1981. 
The  cost  of  this  measure  will  be  $38  million 
in  1981-82. 

These  retail  sales  tax  cuts  that  I  have  an- 
nounced amount  in  total  to  $260  million.  Most 
of  the  benefits  will  be  realized  over  the  next 
eight  months  and  will  stimulate  the  economy 
during  a  difficult  period.  Specific  details  are 
contained  in  the  appendix  attached  to  my 
statement.  My  colleague  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  (Mr.  Maeck),  with  your  permission, 
will  introduce  a  bill  later  this  evening  to  give 
effect  to  these  stimulative  measures. 

The  actions  I  have  announced  to  stimulate 
demand  will  assist  the  economy  in  the  current 
business  cycle.  However,  with  the  structural 
problems  in  our  economy,  other  more  pro- 
found measures  are  needed.  I  am  accordingly 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4263 


proposing  a  five-part  program  to  improve 
Ontario's  economic  prospects  in  the  1980s. 

First,  with  the  failure  of  the  federal  budget 
to  address  strategic  economic  and  industrial 
issues— I  like  that  line;  I  will  read  it  over 
again:  First,  with  the  failure  of  the  federal 
budget  to  address  strategic  economic  and  in- 
dustrial issues,  the  province  has  commenced 
a  complete  review  of  our  economic  develop- 
ment programs,  which  total  $2  billion  in 
1980-81. 

Second,  Ontario  will  provide  $750  million 
for  new  initiatives  in  employment  and 
regional  development  over  the  next  five  years. 

8:30  p.m. 

Third,  a  full  review  of  tax  incentives  is 
under  way  to  ensure  they  are  cost  effective 
and  efficient  and  I  am  preparing  to  redirect 
such  incentives  if  necessary. 

Fourth,  explicit  initiatives  will  be  brought 
forward  to  implement  a  tougher  buy- 
Canadian  public  sector  procurement  policy. 

Finally,  Ontario  will  introduce  specific 
measures  beginning  this  quarter  to  advance 
high  technology,  world  scale  industrial 
development,  research  and  investment  in  the 
province. 

As  I  stated  earlier,  Ontario's  basic  economic 
strategy  has  been  to  promote  an  attractive 
investment,  profit  and  tax  environment  within 
which  the  private  sector  can  flourish.  The 
creation  of  the  employment  development  fund 
and  its  board  in  1979  was  designed  to  com- 
plement this  overall  policy  with  the  provision 
of  selective  direct  assistance  to  private  in- 
dustry. The  board  provided  a  valuable  cabinet 
committee  structure  to  ensure  co-ordination 
of  the  government's  program  of  direct  assist- 
ance. It  was  Ontario's  response  to  smilar 
initiatives  introduced  by  other  North 
American  jurisdictions. 

The  EDF  will  have  secured  private  sector 
investment  of  over  $3.5  billion  by  committing 
$300  million  of  direct  assistance  to  Ontario 
industry,  a  levering  of  more  than  $11  of 
private  investment  for  every  taxpayer  dollar 
invested.  This  will  ensure  the  undertaking  of 
new  projects  with  a  job  creation  potential  of 
over  19,000.  At  the  same  time,  the  EDF 
assistance  to  the  pulp  and  paper  industry  has 
helped  to  further  the  long-term  job  security 
of  20,000  mill  workers  and  loggers  in  Ontario. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Where  are  you  going  to  get 
$3.5  billion? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Go  to  Dryden,  go  to 
Iroquois  Falls  and  ask  them  how;  they  know 
it,  Eddie.  They  know  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Just  go  to  Owen  Sound 
and  ask  the  hotel  operators  what  they  think 


about  the  tax.  Ask  the  hotel  operators  in 
Owen  Sound. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  The  fund  has  assisted 
the  development  of  employee  skills  training 
programs,  urban  transportation  projects, 
mining  exploration,  small  business  and  other 
industries. 

The  fund  was  intended  as  a  short-term 
measure.  Therefore,  in  keeping  with  the  gov- 
ernment's original  commitment,  we  have  re- 
viewed this  program.  I  am  announcing  tonight 
that  the  employment  development  fund  will 
be  sunsetted  at  the  end  of  the  current  fiscal 
year. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  was  so  good  you  got  rid  of  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Just  be  patient. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Wait  for  the  next  shoe. 
Some  carryover  funding  will  be  required  in 
1981-82  to  finance  outstanding  commitments 
made  by  the  EDF.  Provision  will  also  be 
made  to  continue  certain  ongoing  programs 
which  have  been  financed  under  the  EDF 
umbrella.  I  am  thinking  of  the  Small 
Business  Development  Corporation  legisla- 
tion, the  tourism  redevelopment  incentive 
program  legislation,  the  mineral  exploration 
program  and  so  on.  These  particular  programs 
will  be  transferred  to  the  ministries  that  cur- 
rently handle  their  administration. 

The  EDF  program  was  successful  in 
developing  and  co-ordinating  Ontario's  pro- 
gram of  direct  financial  assistance  to  in- 
dustry. It  showed  clearly  the  advantages  of 
a  cabinet  committee  to  better  focus  and  co- 
ordinate the  government's  total  regional 
economic  and  employment  activities.  We 
have  decided,  therefore,  to  establish  a  new 
body  called  the  Board  of  Industrial  Leader- 
ship and  Development— BILD. 

Mr.  Martel:  BILD,  that  is  a  great  slogan. 
That  is  really  catchy.  It  grabs  you. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Like  bile. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  It  is  the  new  spelling. 
Bile  is  what  you  fellows  were  getting  listening 
to  us  talk  about  BILD. 

Chaired  by  myself,  the  board  will  incor- 
porate the  present  employment  development 
ministers  and  certain  other  ministers  as  cir- 
cumstances dictate.  The  board  will  consoli- 
date and  co-ordinate  the  government's  total 
economic  development  budget. 

I  should  mention  that  this  substantial 
budget  does  not  include  the  additional  cost 
of  incentives  to  saving  and  investment  pro- 
vided through  the  tax  system.  It  will  manage 
expenditures  of  up  to  $750  million  in  new 
initiatives  for  economic  and  regional  develop- 
ment over  five  years  and  this  will  be  in  addi- 


4264 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tion  to  the  $165-million  five-year  program 
already  announced  by  the  Minister  of  Energy. 

The  board  will  review  matters  relating  to 
federal-provincial  consultation  and  co-opera- 
tion in  economic  and  employment  develop- 
ment initiatives  and  ensure  a  comprehensive 
and  cohesive  industrial  leadership  program 
through  which  the  government  of  Ontario  can 
invest  in  the  future  of  the  people  we  serve. 

I  would  like  to  emphasize  that  $360  million 
of  the  $l-billion  economic  recovery  package 
is  allocated  to  the  period  ending  March  31, 
1982.  This  amount  comprises  $260  million  for 
the  retail  sales  tax,  $75  million  for  new 
structural  initiatives  to  be  determined,  and 
$25  million  on  special  initiatives  in  rural 
Ontario  which  I  will  now  describe. 

This  government  is  committing  $5  million 
in  1981-82  and  $21  million  in  total  over  the 
next  five  years  for  programs  for  the  rural 
counties  of  the  central  part  of  Ontario.  Those 
are  counties  that  our  Liberal  friends  in  the 
Department  of  Regional  Economic  Expansion 
would  not  include  such  as  Peterborough, 
Haliburton— and  Muskoka,  I  think,  was  one 
of  them. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Even  Muskoka? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  some  of  you  will 
write  your  weekly  columns  and  say  what  a 
great  thing  it  is.  You  will  pretend  you  were 
members  of  the  government. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  It  also  applies  to  Grey 
and  Haliburton  and  a  few  other  places,  at  the 
strong  urging  of  people  such  as  the  honour- 
able members. 

Members  will  recall  a  similar  initiative  was 
undertaken  for  the  rural  parts  of  eastern 
Ontario  under  the  DREE  agreement.  The 
major  focus  will  be  in  forestry  with  one  half 
of  the  total  funding  being  directed  to  in- 
creasing production  of  wood  fibre  from  public 
and  private  lands.  This  action  will  help  offset 
continued  depletion  of  quality  hardwood 
stands  critical  to  the  viability  of  local  forest- 
related  industries  and  will  generate  significant 
employment. 

The  other  components  of  the  package  are: 
an  intensive  geological  survey  aimed  at  in- 
creasing mining  investments;  greater  access 
for  small  business  in  rural  Ontario  to  assist- 
ance from  the  Ontario  Development  Corpora- 
tion, and  increased  funding  for  programs  that 
assist  tourist  operators  with  the  cost  of  up- 
grading their  facilities. 

Members  will  recall  that  on  April  10,  1980, 
the  Premier  addressed  the  Legislature  on  the 
subject  of  rural  electrical  rates. 

Specifically  he  requested  the  Minister  of 
Energy  (Mr.  Welch)  to  obtain  from  Ontario 
Hydro  concrete  proposals  to  reduce  the  dif- 


ferential between  electricity  rates  paid  by 
rural  residents  and  those  paid  by  urban  resi- 
dents. He  instructed  that  the  proposals  be 
made  available  by  this  fall  so  a  new  and 
more  equitable- 
Mr.  Sargent:  But  you  kept  on  the  $7- 
billion  deficit,  didn't  you? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Does  the  member  not 
want  these  in  his  county  of  Grey? 

He  instructed  that  the  proposals  be  made 
available  this  fall  when  a  new  and  equitable 
rate  structure  might  be  introduced.  At  pres- 
ent, average  rural  rates  are  considerably 
higher  than  average  municipal  rates.  This  is 
primarily  because  of  higher  distribution  costs 
experienced  in  less  densely  populated  areas 
serviced  directly  by  Ontario  Hydro.  More- 
over, the  trend  has  been  for  the  differential 
to  widen  as  the  more  densely  populated 
portions  of  the  rural  areas  have  come  in- 
creasingly into  the  service  area  of  the  munic- 
ipal utilities,  leaving  even  fewer  people  to 
share  the  costs  of  the  rural  system.  This  is 
clearly  an  inequitable  situation. 
8:40  p.m. 

As  the  electricity  rate  structure  is  quite 
complex,  it  will  require  some  time  to  alter 
this  structure.  The  government  has  decided, 
therefore,  to  instruct  Hydro  to  eliminate  the 
undue  differential  between  rural  and  urban 
electrical  rates  by  1982. 

Intejections. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Just  listen  for  a  second. 
However,  in  order  to  provide  immediate  re- 
lief to  rural  electricity  users,  the  province 
will  provide  $20  million  to  Ontario  Hydro 
during  the  1981-82  fiscal  year.  These  funds 
will  enable  Hydro  to  provide  direct  discounts 
to  rural  customers  who  at  present  pay  exces- 
sive rates. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  are  going  to  assist 
the  people  in  the  rural  areas,  Brother  Breit- 
haupt, and  that  bothers  you,  I  know. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order.  I  am  sure  the 
people  in  Armstrong  want  to  hear  this. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  think  the  people  in 
Armstrong  will  like  what  they  hear,  Mr. 
Speaker.  On  your  behalf  I  will  pass  a  word 
to  the  people  in  Armstrong  who,  I  am  sure, 
are  watching. 

Ontario's  tax  incentives  are  an  integral 
part  of  the  tax  structure.  Tax  expenditures, 
as  they  are  popularly  called,  are  not  directly 
equivalent  to  spending  programs:  a  dollar 
given  up  by  a  tax  incentive  is  not  neces- 
sarily the  same  as  a  dollar  given  in  a  grant. 
Tax  incentives  are  fundamentally  important 
in  establishing  a  competitive  tax  structure 
and  achieving  our  economic  goals.  It  is  im- 


NOVEMBER  13.  1980 


4265 


portant  that  these  incentives  be  closely  ex- 
amined in  the  context  of  the  economy's 
structural  difficulties  to  ensure  they  are  cost 
effective  and  efficient.  My  ministry  reviews 
our  incentive  programs  on  an  ongoing  basis. 
These  reviews  are  carefully  done  and  are 
instructive.  However,  I  believe  a  more  com- 
prehensive analysis  should  now  be  under- 
taken and  I  have  instructed  staff  to  com- 
mence this  review  immediately. 

I  would  like,  in  so  far  as  possible,  to  con- 
centrate our  tax  incentives  more  selectively 
in  areas  with  the  greatest  promise  and  which 
offer  the  biggest  potential  economic  gains. 
For  example,  I  believe  we  should  do  more 
to  encourage  exports,  import  replacements, 
research  and  development  and  high  tech- 
nology industries  such  as  aerospace,  com- 
munications and  microelectronics. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  They  are  just  slogans. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  am  following  the 
advice  those  gentlemen  gave  me  yesterday. 
I  rushed  it  into  print  last  night,  and  held 
the  press  until  then  so  he  could  say  he  af- 
fected this.  It  is  exactly  what  he  told  me 
to  do  yesterday,  is  it  not?  It  is  right  down 
the  line,  every  bit  of  it.  It  is  all  on  the 
record. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Treasurer  is  five  years 
behind  the  times.  Where  were  you  last  year 
and  the  year  before?  I  used  to  tell  Darcy 
McKeough  the  same  thing. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  It's  going  to  be  very 
hard  to  tell  me  it  isn't  right. 

Research  and  development  is  an  activity 
supported  by  tax  incentives,  yet  R  and  D 
spending  in  Canada  is  woefully  insufficient 
to  ensure  this  country  the  economic  resil- 
ience associated  with  high  levels  of  R  and  D 
activity.  We  are  currently  examining  options 
for  stimulating  R  and  D,  particularly  to  en- 
courage both  new  Canadian  investment  and 
greater  spending  by  multinational  corpora- 
tions. It  may  prove  necessary  to  relate  in- 
centives to  success  in  achieving  certain 
threshold  levels  of  spending.  I  want  to  make 
it  clear  I  expect  to  see  some  improvement 
in  this  area. 

I  want  to  talk  about  a  tougher  buy- 
Canadian  public  sector  procurement  policy. 
Structural  policies  to  strengthen  the  Ontario 
economy  can  be  reinforced  by  an  aggressive 
buy-Canadian  public  sector  procurement 
policy.  Buy-American  regulations  such  as  the 
Surface  Transportation  Assistance  Act,  Japa- 
nese domestic  purchasing  policies,  the  North 
Sea  oil  sourcing  legislation,  foreign  govern- 
ment-sponsored marginal  pricing,  and  grow- 
ing provincial  sourcing  preferences  that  now 
threaten   the    Canadian   common   market— all 


of  these  are  competitive  realities  that  con- 
front Ontario's  "open  door"  procurement 
stance,  with  our  strict  adherence  to  com- 
petitive principles  and  an  across-the-board 
10  per  cent  preference  for  Canadian  goods 
and  services. 

On  the  positive  side,  opportunities  for 
Canadian  participation  in  the  upcoming  re- 
source projects  have  moved  the  federal  gov- 
ernment and  Canadian  industry  to  seek  agres- 
sively  a  better  sourcing  deal  for  Canadian 
business.  Ontario  has  tested  these  waters,  too. 
In  the  pulp  and  paper  modernization  program 
we  have  secured  commitments  from  the  com- 
panies to  purchase  equipment  from  Canadian 
sources  where  feasible. 

The  existing  10  per  cent  Canadian  prefer- 
ence applies  at  the  present  time  only  to 
Ontario  government  ministries  and  not  to 
public  agencies  such  as  school  boards  and 
hospitals,  crown  corporations  and  municipali- 
ties that  receive  provincial  transfer  payments. 
Ontario  ministries  alone  currently  spend  $600 
million  annually,  or  75  cents  out  of  each 
purchasing  dollar,  on  goods  and  services  made 
in  Canada;  but  more  can  be  done. 

Several  initiatives  will  be  undertaken  to 
stimulate  Canadian  industries  through  a 
tougher  public  procurement  policy.  A  pro- 
curement policy  office  will  be  set  up  to 
establish  and  implement  effective  policy 
guidelines,  set  industry  target  ratios  for 
domestic  content,  monitor  progress  and 
develop  further  initiatives.  The  Canadian 
preference  will  be  extended  to  all  provincially 
funded  agencies  through  these  guidelines.  The 
Canadian  preference  will  also  be  extended  to 
those  industries  receiving  provincial  develop- 
ment assistance  through  commitments  in  their 
corporate  sourcing  policies. 

These  steps  will  ensure  a  bigger  role  for 
Ontario  and  Canadian  companies  in  supplying 
the  needs  of  the  public  sector  and  in  par- 
ticipating in  private  sector  expansion. 

To  have  maximum  impact,  the  activities  of 
the  new  Board  of  Industrial  Leadership  and 
Development  and  those  at  the  procurement 
office,  and  the  direction  of  tax  initiatives  and 
incentives  will  require  close  co-ordination  and 
co-operation  in  federal-provincial  actions.  I 
will  be  addressing  this  issue  when  I  and  my 
colleague  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism (Mr.  Grossman)  meet  with  the  federal 
ministers  of  Finance  and  Industry,  Trade  and 
Commerce  in  Ottawa  in  the  near  future. 

Since  the  mid-1970s,  the  economic  situation 
has  required  the  government  to  give  a 
high  priority  to  economic  and  employment 
development.  Spending  has  been  prudently 
managed  and  net  cash  requirements  reduced 


4266 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


in  a  balanced  budget  framework  as  a  con- 
tribution to  lessening  inflationary  pressures. 
Major  tax  increases  have  been  avoided  for  the 
same  reason.  Significant  incentives  have  been 
provided  to  promote  investment  and  job  crea- 
tion. However,  at  no  time  has  this  strategy 
been  allowed  to  hurt  effective  delivery  of 
major  social  programs. 

Over  the  period  1972-73  to  1980-81,  com- 
bined spending  on  health  and  community  and 
social  services  has  increased  faster  than  total 
budgetary  spending  excluding  public  debt 
interest.  Ontario's  support  for  the  elderly  and 
disadvantaged  has  increased  considerably 
faster  than  total  spending.  New  initiatives 
will  be  brought  forward  in  recognition  of  the 
International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons. 

Economies  have  been  secured  by  cutting 
out  waste.  For  the  past  four  years,  we  have 
realized  average  annual  gross  savings  of  $400 
million,  mainly  to  finance  in-year  spending  in- 
creases in  the  social  field  without  adding  to 
total  spending.  This  year  is  no  exception. 

Funding  of  the  Ministry  of  Health  has  been 
increased  since  the  budget.  Health  expen- 
ditures now  represent  approximately  28  per 
cent  of  total  government  expenditures  com- 
pared to  25.8  per  cent  prior  to  the  imposition 
of  restraint. 

In  April  1980  the  government  provided  a 
10  per  cent  rate  increase  for  family  benefits 
and  general  welfare  assistance  recipients  at 
an  annual  cost  of  $54  million.  Further  in- 
creases with  an  annual  cost  of  $49  million 
will  be  announced  by  my  colleague  the  Min- 
ister of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Mr. 
Norton).  For  this  fiscal  year,  a  further  $1 
million  will  be  provided  for  day  care.  A  more 
extensive  program  announcement  for  next 
year  will  also  be  forthcoming  from  the 
minister. 
8:50  p.m. 

Unlike  the  Liberal  government  in  Ottawa, 
we  intend  to  respect  social  priorities  and 
values  while  keeping  our  own  fiscal  and  in- 
dustrial priorities  in  clear  focus.  Let  others 
tax  those  who  can  least  afford  it,  let  others 
acquiesce  to  inequity  and  economic  injustice; 
this  Conservative  government,  the  government 
of  the  Honourable  William  G.  Davis,  will  not. 

I  would  like  to  talk  about  relief  from  home 
heating  costs.  The  Liberal  government  in 
Ottawa  has  shown  it  is  insensitive  to  the  im- 
pact of  rising  energy  prices  on  people  with 
fixed  and  low  incomes.  Sudden  increases  in 
energy  costs,  staged  or  not,  impact  unfairly 
on  these  people.  They  need  assistance  to  en- 
able them,  over  time,  to  adjust  their  house- 
hold budgets— budgets  already  strained  by 
inflation— to  the  new  realities. 


The  government  of  Ontario  believes  a 
temporary  program  of  relief  from  sharp  in- 
creases in  home  heating  costs,  one  that  is 
income-tested  and  of  three  years  duration, 
should  be  implemented  as  soon  as  possible. 
Benefits  should  start  being  delivered  no  later 
than  the  first  quarter  of  1982,  in  respect  of 
the  heating  season  beginning  next  fall,  when 
the  new  prices  will  start  to  hit  the  lowest 
income  groups  hard.  I  will  be  making  specific 
proposals  to  the  Minister  of  Finance  for  a 
shared  cost  program.  I  might  add  that  we  will 
pursue  unilateral  action  should  the  federal 
government  be  unprepared  to  see  the  error 
and  injustice  of  its  ways. 

As  a  result  of  my  proposals  tonight,  net 
cash  requirements  for  this  fiscal  year  are  now 
forecast  at  $1,059  million,  or  $110  million 
over  budget.  This  deterioration  is  wholly 
accounted  for  by  a  revision  to  the  revenue 
forecast— $33  million  reported  in  the  Septem- 
ber 30  Ontario  Finances  and  $77  million  re- 
sulting from  tax  relief  measures  announced 
this  evening.  The  balance  of  the  net  costs  of 
the  temporary  incentives,  $147  million,  will 
fall  in  1981-82. 

I  have  made  no  change  to  the  1980-81 
expenditure  forecast  at  the  present  time.  The 
Chairman  of  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 
(Mr.  McCague)  assures  me  that,  as  in  the 
past,  maximum  effort  will  be  made  to  secure 
savings  to  offset  the  in-year  increases  we  have 
allowed  in  priority  areas. 

The  higher  level  of  net  cash  requirements 
in  1980-81  and  the  flow  over  into  1981-82 
are  well  within  the  capacity  of  the  province 
to  finance  without  resorting  to  public  borrow- 
ing—unlike some  other  governments.  Some 
would  perhaps  question  our  commitment  to 
restoring  the  capacity  to  balance  the  budget. 
Well,  we  did  achieve  that  capacity  last  year. 

In  view  of  the  economic  situation,  we 
decided  this  year  to  allow  a  break  in  the 
^attem  of  regular  reductions  in  the  deficit. 
Ho-vever.  we  have  remained  vigilant  and 
prudent  in  our  spending. 

Mr.   Peterson:    You're  flexible. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  We  have  to  be,  my 
friend,  because  the  economy  is  not  a  static 
thing.  If  we  are  not  flexible— if  we  are  as 
rigid  as  the  member's  federal  friends—  thev 
cannot  adjust  to  the  realities  of  the  day  and 
we  can. 

Mr.  Peterson:   They  don't  listen  to  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  You  understand  being 
static.  You  have  been  static  all  your  life. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
static  is  something  I  hear  in  my  ears  a  lot 
trying  to  explain  what  happens. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4267 


Mr.  Peterson:  Sitting  beside  the  Premier, 
yon  are  just  crazy. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  With  a  resumption  of 
reasonable  economic  growth,  we  will  be  able 
to  lower  our  cash  requirements  once  again. 

As  we  have  stated  from  the  outset,  the 
purpose  of  cutting  the  deficit  is  twofold: 
first,  to  reduce  inflation,  and  second,  to  give 
the  province  control  and  flexibility  to  meet 
iU  priorities.  We  are  now  using  this  flexi- 
bility to  invest  heavily  in  Ontario's  future. 
Surely  that  is  the  ultimate  mission  of  com- 
passionate and  sensitive  government  during 
challenging  times 

Pour  resumer,  M.  le  President,  on  peut 
dire  que  notre  programme  de  relance  econo- 
mique  aura  pour  effet:  d'aider  des  millions 
de  contribuables,  des  milliers  d'entreprises 
et  plusieurs  communautes  negligees  par  le 
gouvernement  du  Canada;  de  faire  preuve 
de  ce  leadership  economique  dont  la  carence 
au  palier  federal  a  des  effets  si  lamentables; 
d'exercer  a  court  terme  un  effet  stimulant 
l'economie;  de  creer  des  emplois  en  Ontario; 
d'assurer  une  sage  gestion  economique  de 
notre  avenir. 

D'engager  de  nouvelles  ressources  en  vue 
d'une  croissance  et  d'une  prosperite  con- 
tinues; de  reaffirmer  notre  appui  aux  pri- 
orites  sociales,  au  developpement  regional 
et  a  la  promotion  des  regions  rurales  de 
1'Ontario;  d'investir  intensivement  dans  les 
competences  de  nos  entrepreneurs  et  dans 
le  potentiel  industriel  de  notre  province  et 
de  sa  population;  de  fournir  un  cadre  pour 
les  investissements  dans  les  industries  faisant 
appel  a  une  technologie  avancee  et  pour  les 
travaux  de  recherche  et  de  mise  au  point 
d' importance  si  vitale  pour  l'avenir  de 
1'Ontario. 

Mr.  Roy:  Tu  ne  viens  pas  a  Carleton  par- 
lant  comme  ca. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Que  cest  que  tu  veux? 
Je  1'ai  fait  dans  votre  circonscription  1'autre 
jour,  mon  ami.  J'ai  trouve  qu'il  n'y  a  per- 
sonne  qui  va  voter  pour  vous. 

To  summarize,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  economic 
recovery  program  will:  assist  millions  of  tax- 
payers, thousands  of  businesses  and  many 
communities  ignored  by  the  government  of 
Canada;  give  economic  leadership  sadly 
lacking  at  the  federal  level;  provide  effective 
short-term  stimulus  to  the  economy;  create 
employment  in  Ontario;  ensure  sound  eco- 
nomic management  for  our  future;  commit 
new  resources  for  continued  growth  and 
prosperity;  reaffirm  our  support  for  social 
priorities,  regional  development  and  rural 
Ontario;  invest  heavily  in  the  entrepreneurial 


skill  and  industrial  potential  of  our  province 
and  her  people;  provide  the  framework  for 
high    technology    investment,    research    and 
development  so  vital  to  Ontario's  future. 
9  p.m. 

Ontario  is  a  part  of  a  nation  and  a  con- 
tinent experiencing  fundamental  transition 
caused  by  international  economic  forces  and 
energy  policies  beyond  our  control.  Effective 
leadership  from  Ottawa  could  effect  this 
transition  in  a  fashion  that  profits  all  Cana- 
dians. That  leadership  is  not  forthcoming. 
We  must  assess  our  own  priorities  here  in 
Ontario  and  defend  our  fundamental  entre- 
preneurial values.  We  must  advance  Cana- 
dian ownership  and  Canadian  technology. 
We  must  move  now  to  invest  in  and  secure 
our  future— a  future  which,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Honourable  William  G.  Davis, 
holds  immense  promise  and  opportunity  for 
us  all. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder 
if  I  might  have  the  permission  of  the  House 
to  introduce  one  bill  relevant  to  the  budget 
statement  made  by  the  Treasurer. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  we  have  consent? 

Agreed. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILL 

RETAIL  SALES  TAX  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  187,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

SUPPLEMENTARY   MEASURES 

( continued ) 

Mr.  Peterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that  effort 
from  the  Treasurer  deserves  a  standing  ova- 
tion, those  guys  are  going  to  be  standing  on 
top  of  their  desks  jumping  through  hoops 
when  I  am  finished. 

It  was  a  real  case  of  promise  unfulfilled. 
I  have  never  seen  so  much  activity  in  this 
building  today,  scurrying  around  in  great 
anticipation  of  the  mini-budget  to  solve  all 
the  province's  economic  ills.  I  am  going  to 
get  into  it  in  substance  in  a  minute,  but  I 
want  to  tell  the  House  it  is  a  hollow  super- 
ficial document  that  may  or  may  not  apply 
in  the  next  two,  three  and  four  years.  There 
is  very  little  of  any  substance  to  contribute 
to  any  economic  logic  now  or  in  the  imme- 
diate future. 

I  am  constantly  struck  by  the  difference 
between  the  government's  press  releases  and 
the  substance  of  its  actions.   I  am  sure  that 


4268 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


difference  was  noticed  tonight  when  the 
minister  was  reading  it— the  great  $l-billion 
project  to  bring  about  economic  recovery.  I 
will  prove  it  is  less  than  We  are  spending 
now  on  economic  development  in  this  prov- 
ince. It  is  a  fraud.  It  is  a  sham.  He  has 
fooled  everybody. 

I  do  not  know,  maybe  it  is  a  deliberate 
sabotage.  Maybe  a  few  of  the  people  in  the 
ministry  went  down  to  Treasury.  Maybe  this 
is  the  Treasurer's  deliberate  move  to  sabo- 
tage the  Treasury  because  I  notice  some  in- 
teresting play  in  this  budget  tonight  about 
how  the  Treasurer  wants  to  review  all  the 
economic  programs  that  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  is  currently  undertaking. 

It  is  hollow  and  superficial  and  it  is  not 
going  to  work  very  well.  I  am  going  to  put 
our  alternatives  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  always  like  to  have  a  little  text  when  I 
am  speaking  to  heathens  and  tonight  I  have 
chosen  a  text  from  the  Financial  Post,  which 
my  friends  opposite  will  read  on  occasion 
and  my  friends  to  the  left  probably  do  not 
understand  at  the  best  of  times.  On  the 
timing  of  the  mini-budget,  our  former  de- 
parted friend  Sidney  Handleman  said  this: 
"Miller  sees  this  as  an  opportunity  to  do 
what  he  was  going  to  have  done  anyway  for 
next  spring,  let's  face  it.  The  mini-budget 
could  have  a  big  impact  on  the  by-election, 
especially  if  incentives  for  high  technology 
industry  concentrated  in  the  Ottawa  region 
are  implemented." 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  tell  you  the  minister 
has  disappointed  poor  old  Sidney  Handle- 
man.  He  has  disappointed  us  and  I  think  he 
has  disappointed  every  thoughtful  observer. 
All  this  fuss  today  has  amounted  to  nought. 
If  he  had  read  this  as  a  quick  statement  in 
the  House  today  it  probably  could  have 
sneaked  through,  but  he  created  such  high 
expectations  by  his  own  hand  that  he  de- 
serves to  suffer  the  slings  and  arrows  for  his 
failure  to  deliver  on  those  expectations. 

We  understand  as  well  as  the  minister 
does  the  politics  of  this  event.  I  find  it  very 
amusing  when  he  stands  and  regales  us  with 
the  great  leadership  of  William  G.  Davis.  I 
can  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  next  week  under 
Stuart  Lyon  Smith  we  are  going  to  have 
another  member  in  this  House  sitting  on  this 
side.  The  people  of  Carleton  are  going  to 
see  through  this.  Those  guys  are  not  even 
in  the  race,  so  do  not  despair.  We  are  going 
to  have  another  member  next  week  and  I 
look  forward  to  that. 

The  reality  is  we  are  facing  as  dismal  an 
economic  circumstance  in  this  province  at 
this  time  as  we  have  in  recent  history  since 


the  Depression.  Unemployment  is  bad  and 
real  income  is  not  keeping  pace  with  infla- 
tion. I  could  go  on  and  recite  statistic  after 
statistic.  There  are  not  many  thoughtful  ob- 
servers in  this  province  or  in  this  country 
who  could  not  see  this  coming;  that  is  the 
tragedy. 

We  have  made  speeches  and  speeches  from 
this  side  of  the  House.  We  have  quoted  every 
respectable  economic  authority  in  this  country 
and  this  province  and  what  we  see  today  is 
no  surprise.  What  we  see  has  not  caught  us 
by  surprise  because  we  were  arguing  for  the 
kind  of  substantive  investment  in  wealth- 
creating  instruments  in  this  province  that 
could  have  prevented  the  kinds  of  problems 
the  government  is  attempting  to  respond  to 
today. 

The  response  is  a  superficial  one.  I  cannot 
stand  here  and  say  I  am  against  sales  tax 
cuts  because  it  is  Christmas  time  and  who  is 
against  Santa  Claus?  When  we  are  dealing 
with  a  tax  expenditure  of  $260  million,  of 
which  the  minister  is  going  to  undertake  a 
complete  review,  there  are  very  creative  ways 
to  use  that  money.  One  of  the  things  he 
could  have  done,  the  parsimonious  chap,  was 
to  extend  aid  to  the  elderly,  those  people  he 
disfranchised  in  his  last  budget.  He  could 
have  spent  $10  million  doing  that  to  help  the 
poorest  of  our  senior  citizens.  That  is  some- 
thing serious  he  could  have  done. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Talk  about  mis- 
leading. Talk  about  fraud.  The  member  is  it. 

Mr.  Peterson:  I  have  exercised  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  (Miss  Stephenson)  and  I 
do  not  mean  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Havrot:  How  did  you  get  in  the  front 
bench? 

Mr.  Peterson:  Whoever  arranged  that  front 
bench  did  not  have  an  aesthetically  well- 
trained  eye.  I  am  just  looking  at  the  minister 
over  there.  They  look  for  all  the  world  like  a 
tag  team  in  an  obscene  mud  wrestling  match, 
sitting  there  together  yelling,  shouting  and 
winking  at  each  other. 

I  want  to  deal  with  this  statement  of  the 
minister  today  as  best  as  I  can  respond.  I 
have  chosen  to  go  through  it  in  the  order 
that  the  Treasurer  presented  it  tonight. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  appreciate  any  effort 
you  could  make  to  keep  the  yelping  down  to 
a  dull  roar.  I  certainly  expect  some  of  it. 
When  one  inflicts  pain,  one  expects  some 
screaming  and  yelling,  but  it  would  probably 
be  to  their  benefit  to  listen,  at  least  to  some 
extent. 

9:10  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4269 


I  have  heard  the  Treasurer  on  numerous 
occasions  wail  against  the  federal  govern- 
ment for  its  lack  of  a  national  economic  plan. 
That  is  hypocrisy  in  the  extreme.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  a  provincial  economic  plan 
of  any  description  and  even  some  of  the 
initiatives  he  alludes  to  in  this  document  are 
so  lacking  in  specificity  or  are  going  to  take 
place  so  far  in  the  future  that  he  has  con- 
tributed nothing  here  tonight  to  the  sum  total 
of  knowledge  in  this  province. 

I  understand  the  political  intention  of  their 
trying  to  dissociate  themselves  from  their 
federal  friends  in  Ottawa,  from  the  federal 
government.  That  is  their  prerogative  and  I 
don't  deny  them  that,  but  they  do  it  on  such 
wrong  grounds.  This  is  no  $1 -billion,  five-year 
economic  recovery  program.  It  just  is  not.  The 
press  releases  are  wrong.  The  whole  descrip- 
tion is  wrong. 

I  am  interested  to  read,  even  by  the 
Treasurer's  own  prescription,  on  page  four  of 
his  statement  tonight  he  says,  "Our  economy 
will  continue  to  operate  well  below  potential." 
I  assume  that  means  even  after  his  new 
economic  initiatives  here  tonight  because  that 
is  the  way  it  reads.  That  is  a  pretty  dismal 
kind  of  approach  because  I  can  tell  him  we 
decry  very  much  the  lack  of  ability  to  live  up 
to  our  potential  in  this  province— unemployed 
young  people,  the  lack  of  skilled  workers,  the 
lack  of  apprenticeship  programs.  There  are 
always  allusions  to  it,  always  studies  on  it, 
always  noise  about  it. 

There  is  the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie) 
grunting  and  laughing  over  there.  This  fail- 
ure is  going  to  rest  clearly  on  his  shoulders 
and  tonight,  still  again,  there  is  no  initiative. 
I  can  tell  him  the  gravestone  of  that  gov- 
ernment is  going  to  read,  "We  failed  to  do 
anything  about  skills  training  in  this  prov- 
ince." That  is  the  biggest  single  failure.  That 
is  something  over  which  they  have  complete 
constitutional  jurisdiction.  They  can't  blame 
that  on  the  feds.  That  is  their  fault.  They 
have  the  responsibility.  They  have  the  insti- 
tutions. But  they  don't  have  the  imagination 
and  the  guts  to  pursue  it. 

One  federal  study  I  read  said  there  would 
be  a  shortage  of  35,000  skilled  workers  in 
this  province  by  the  year  1985.  We  know  it 
is  coming.  We  also  know  the  spinoff.  We  also 
know  that  every  skilled  worker  creates  em- 
ployment for  five  or  six  other  workers.  We 
are  talking,  in  total,  of  150,000  or  200,000 
workers— yet  again  rhetoric,  yet  again  prom- 
ises, yet  again  blame  for  the  federal  govern- 
ment, but  no  specific  action.  That  is  a  glaring 
failure  in  this  document. 


The  job  creation  figures  here  are  again 
dismal,  even  after  this  economic  stimulus, 
even  after  this  $1  billion  worth  of  expenditure 
whose  method  of  deployment  we  have  yet  to 
see.  Even  there  the  job  creation  figures  would 
be  down  something  like  47  per  cent  this  year, 
even  with  an  expanding  work  force.  That  is  a 
dismal  admission  of  failure  by  this  govern- 
ment. 

I  want  to  deal  with  their  response,  their 
action  to  solve  the  economic  problem.  They 
have  pulled  out  the  tried  and  true  method  of 
sales  tax  cuts.  How  many  times  have  we  tried 
them  before?  The  quick  fix,  the  short-term 
solution— neat,  clean  and  easy  to  administer. 

He  can  put  a  cutoff  date  on  it  and  there  is  a 
cutoff  date  on  this:  June  30,  1981.  I  will 
guarantee  something  right  now:  The  next 
provincial  election  will  be  some  time  before 
June  30,  1981,  because  that  is  when  all  this 
stuff  runs  out.  It  is  so  blatantly  politically 
motivated,  it  is  fraudulent. 

I  want  to  read  something  about  sales  tax 
cuts  in  general.  The  Conference  Board  in 
Canada  found  that  the  1975  sales  tax  cut.  on 
cars  in  Ontario  led  to  a  decline  in  sales  of 
cars  in  1976.  This  conclusion  is  the  same  as 
the  Jump  and  Wilson  study  we  had.  All  we 
know,  on  the  best  evidence  from  the  best 
authorities,  is  that  sales  tax  cuts  lead  only  to 
a  change  in  the  timing  of  the  purchasing. 
Admittedly,  sometimes  there  are  reasons  for 
changing  the  timing  of  the  purchases,  but 
again  it  is  an  attempt  at  a  quick  fix  for 
political  reasons  that  does  nothing  to  solve 
the  structural  problems  in  the  province.  I  find 
that  deplorable. 

In  1978  a  study  by  the  Department  of 
Industry,  Trade  and  Commerce  found  the 
sales  tax  cut  on  footwear,  furniture  and  tex- 
tiles in  Quebec  had  a  similar  effect.  All  it  did 
was  change  the  timing.  Being  a  politician,  I 
understand  as  well  as  they  do  the  necessity 
of  good  timing,  particularly  around  election 
time,  but  we  have  done  it  so  many  times 
since  1975.  We  saw  the  biggest  deficit  ever 
in  the  history  of  this  province  in  1975,  pre- 
election obviously,  when  we  gave  away  all 
the  money  on  first-time  owners'  grants  and 
sales  tax  cuts  for  which  we  are  still  paying  a 
price. 

What  we  do  when  we  get  up  into  a  tax 
expenditure  of  this  type  is  just  force  future 
purchasers,  future  consumers,  future  tax- 
payers to  pay  for  our  consumption  now.  I  am 
not  saying  there  are  not  some  justifications 
sometimes,  but  had  we  spent  all  that  money 
over  the  past  few  years  building  the  struc- 
tural base,  the  sound  foundation,  the  job 
training,  the  skills  training  on  research  and 


.4270 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


technology  and  that  type  of  industrial  in- 
frastructure, we  should  not  have  to  fool 
around  with  quick  fixes  and  superficial  cures 
today.  Therein  is  the  major  failure  of  this 
government  and  of  this  document. 

When  we  cut  the  sales  tax  on  light  trucks 
we  are  substituting  about  40  per  cent  of 
those  that  will  be  imported  from  the  United 
States  and  Japan  and  from  other  countries. 
To  that  extent  about  $15.3  million  in  for- 
gone revenue  will  go  to  subsidize  imported 
vehicles. 

I  was  not  able  to  determine  the  exact  fig- 
ure on  building  materials,  because  we  were 
in  the  lockup,  but  again  a  lot  of  the  $94  mil- 
lion going  to  cut  the  sales  tax  on  buildine 
materials  will  go  outside  the  province  and 
outside  the  country.  It  is  interesting  that  was 
all  done  on  the  pretext  or  rationalization  of 
creating  jobs.  Admittedly  a  lot  of  people  are 
involved  in  the  renovation  business  and  it 
will  probably  create  some  jobs,  but  if  they 
want  to  take  a  fix  for  the  economy  of  about 
$100  million,  there  are  other  ways  to  do  that. 

What  about  a  wage  subsidy  program  at 
this  critical  time?  The  government  has  the 
mechanism  in  place  for  a  $1.25-an-hour  wage 
subsidy.  We  have  suggested  before  in  the 
House  programs  such  as  a  20  per  cent  tax 
credit  for  new  jobs  created.  When  we  want 
to  direct  the  power  and  might  of  government 
to  achieve  a  specific  purpose,  we  have  to  be 
more  creative  than  just  cutting  sales  tax.  We 
think  we  could  have  created  more  employ- 
ment, which  is  what  we  want  to  do  as  the 
immediate  short-term  objective,  by  involving 
ourselves  in  a  wage  assistance  program  of 
some  type.  But  again  this  is  a  quick  fix  with 
the  appearance  of  great  activity. 

Mr.  Williams:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  television  cameramen  have 
found  the  dialogue  so  tedious  they  had  to 
leave  the  room.  I  am  wondering  if  we  could 
have  the  television  lights  turned  down  to 
save  the  members*  eyes. 

Mr.  Peterson:  I  would  like  to  thank  the 
member  for  Sleepy  Hollow  for  his  contribu- 
tion. It  is  interesting  that  we  are  going  to 
have  a  sales  tax  fix  of  $25  million  on  house- 
hold appliances.  Our  studies  on  that  say  the 
market  in  Ontario  is  about  $250  million  a 
year.  About  half  of  that  is  produced  outside 
our  borders.  Again,  we  are  trying  to  stimulate 
employment.  It  is  not  necessarily  the  most 
effective  way  to  achieve  that  aim. 
9:20  p.m. 

Residential  furniture  is  about  the  same. 
The  market  in  Ontario  is  around  $1  billion 
dollars,  about  half  of  which  will  be  imported 
from  outside  our  borders.  A  high  percentage 


of  the  money  we  are  talking  about  will  assist 
production  from  external  sources  and  isn't 
focused  as  well  as  it  could  be  on  creating 
employment  in  Ontario  now. 

It  is  interesting  that  the  federal-sector 
task  force  report  on  the  furniture  industry  a 
couple  of  years  ago  recommended  a  sales  tax 
cut  for  that  sector.  Ontario's  formal  response 
to  that  report  rejected  the  proposal  as  being 
of  only  temporary  value  with  no  long-term 
impact;  that  is  a  fact.  It  is  interesting  only 
in  that  they  did  not  anticipate  a  by-election. 

My  colleague  from  Wentworth  North  (Mr. 
Cunningham)  pointed  out  an  interesting  dis- 
crepancy tonight  on  removing  the  tax  on 
household  appliances.  On  page  28  an  in- 
eligible appliance  is  defined  as  an  appliance 
designed  for  commercial  use.  Yet  on  page 
30  the  Treasurer  includes  for  sales  tax  ex- 
emptions under  the  tourism  sector  kitchen 
equipment  purchased  for  use  in  restaurants. 
I  would  just  like  to  tell  the  Treasurer  about 
that,  as  he  may  want  to  work  this  out  and 
decide  what  is  eligible  and  what  isn't  eligible 
before  he  brings  in  the  legislation  on  this 
particular  bill. 

It  is  interesting  also  that  his  incentives  for 
the  tourism  business,  the  $38  million,  db  not 
take  place  this  year.  It  is  an  extension  only 
of  an  existing  program  to  the  end  of  fiscal 
1982.  That,  realistically,  is  the  only  initiative 
in  this  budget. 

I  want  to  point  out  some  interesting  figures 
on  the  way  it  has  been  calculated,  and  these 
are  at  the  back  of  his  little  book.  We  have 
about  four  and  a  half  months  left  in  fiscal 
1980-81  and  there  will  be  a  net  tax  forgive- 
ness or  a  tax  expenditure  of  about  $77  million 
in  four  and  a  half  months.  The  major  impact 
from  these  tax  cuts  comes  next  year  when 
$147  million  worth  of  tax  expenditure  will  be 
achieved  basically  over  a  three-month  period. 
The  major  stimulus  is  going  to  be  in  the 
1981-82  fiscal  year,  not  in  this  year,  not  over 
the  tough  winter  we  are  facing  right  now, 
which  is  a  very  interesting  way  for  the 
Treasurer  to  manipulate  his  figures. 

Having  left  the  sales  tax  cuts— and  ob- 
viously our  party  will  support  them,  but  we 
will  try  to  be  as  constructive  as  we  can  about 
alternative  ways  to  use  those  moneys  crea- 
tively to  create  the  kinds  of  social  and  human 
objectives  we  want  to  create— I  can  tell  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  Ontario's  program  for  in- 
dustrial and  economic  development,  BILD, 
the  Board  of  Industrial  and  Leadership 
Development,  as  I  gather  it  is  called,  or 
BUST,  is  not  worth  the  paper  it  is  written  on 
tonight. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4271 


First,  the  Treasurer  is  going  to  have  a  com- 
plete review  of  our  economic  development 
program.  That,  of  course,  is  our  little  friend 
at  the  end  of  the  bench,  the  boy  who  would 
be  Treasurer,  as  he  is  effectively  known.  The 
Treasurer  is  now  going  to  relinquish  it  all  to 
his  colleague  at  the  end  of  the  bench,  who  is 
going  to  amuse  himself.  He  says  it  totals  $2 
billion  in  1980-81,  which  again  is  no  new 
initiative. 

There  is  going  to  be  $750  million  for  new 
initiatives  in  employment  and  regional 
development  over  the  next  five  years,  not 
starting  this  year  but  next  year.  That  is  less 
than  we  are  spending  now,  interestingly 
enough.  There  is  to  be  a  full  review  of  tax 
incentives,  which  I  will  get  to  in  a  minute, 
which  was  my  bill  that  was  introduced  in  this 
House.  I  am  glad  they  are  finally  getting 
around  to  it. 

They  are  going  to  have  a  buy-Canadian 
sector,  a  complete  policy  lifted  out  of  our 
industrial  strategy,  which  I  am  happy  on  be- 
half of  my  colleagues  to  see.  There  are  to  be 
other  specific  measures,  beginning  this  quar- 
ter, to  advance  high  technology,  world-scale 
industrial  development,  research  and  invest- 
ment in  this  province.  That  is  the  end  of  the 
specificity.  There  are  no  more  details.  I  am 
convinced  that  this  Treasurer,  that  bu- 
reaucracy, has  no  bloody  idea  what  it  plans 
to  do.  They  thought  it  would  be  a  nice 
round  figure,  $750  million  over  a  period  of 
time.  That  is  why  they  decided  at  this  time 
of  political  crisis  for  them  to  introduce  a 
program. 

They  are  going  to  form  an  economic  board, 
BILD,  which  is  something  like  BED  in 
Ottawa,  something  that  they  criticized  very 
seriously.  It  is  really  no  different  from  the 
employment  development  now.  It  is  chaired 
by  the  Treasurer  and  it  is  going  to  have  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  on  it.  There 
is  really  no  substantial  change,  not  one  initia- 
tive here. 

He  is  going  to  spend  up  to  $750  million 
over  five  years.  Get  that,  Mr.  Speaker:  it  is 
"up  to,"  with  no  commitment  of  $750  million. 
What  is  interesting  is  he  makes  a  specific 
promise.  He  said  this  year,  being  up  to  the 
end  of  1982,  he  is  going  to  spend  $75  million 
for  new  structural  initiatives  to  be  deter- 
mined, and  $25  million  in  special  initiatives 
for  rural  Ontario  which  he  will  now  describe. 
That  is  his  commitment.  It  is  $100  million  in 
new  money  to  the  end  of  1982. 

Over  the  last  two  years  he  has  spent  $300 
million  through  the  employment  development 
fund  on  economic  initiatives,  which  averages 
out  to  $150  million  a  year.  His  only  commit- 


ment next  year  to  the  end  of  1982  is  to  spend 
$100  million.  That  is  why  I  said  at  the  be- 
ginning, and  I  say  to  the  House  now,  it  is 
less— and  I  want  the  House  to  hear  me— than 
he  is  doing  now.  That  is  the  full  commitment 
out  of  that  Treasurer.  That  is  why  it  is  such 
a  hollow  proposal  that  he  has  brought  to  us 
tonight.  It  does  not  bear  serious  approval  by 
any  sophistical  observer  of  that  document. 

Of  that  $100  million,  $20  million  is  not  to 
encourage  industrial  development  but  to 
subsidize  the  rate  differential  between  rural 
and  urban  hydro  users.  One  could  not  really 
argue  that  is  to  create  industrial  develop- 
ment, it  is  to  honour  a  political  promise  the 
Premier  made  when  he  was  under  pressure 
from  a  rural  delegation  a  few  months  ago. 
They  do  not  know  what  they  are  going  to  do 
about  hydro  rates  so  they  are  going  to  buy 
them  off  for  the  short  term.  That  is  the  reality. 
In  fact,  it  is  a  reduction  from  $150  million  a 
year  to  a  commitment  of  less  than  $100 
million,  more  like  $80  million  a  year.  Still,  we 
do  not  know  what  he  is  going  to  do  with  it. 

We  did  know  what  he  was  going  to  do 
when  he  brought  in  the  employment  devel- 
opment fund.  Some  of  us  disagreed  with 
various  parts  of  it,  and  the  way  he  did  it, 
but  at  least  we  knew  what  he  was  going  to 
do.  We  still  do  not  know  what  he  is  going 
to  do  now.  I  defy  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I 
defy  any  other  observer  to  tell  me  what  he 
plans  to  do. 

He  is  going  to  spend  $5  million  growing 
trees.  I  congratulate  him.  It  is  the  old  two- 
for-one  proposal,  I  guess.  He  has  promised 
that  for  years.  I  think  it  is  a  worthwhile  ex- 
penditure of  public  funds  and  I  congratulate 
him  for  it. 

He  is  going  to  spend  $20  million  to  sort 
out  the  differential  on  hydro  rates.  Again,  as 
I  said,  that  is  to  honour  a  political  commit- 
ment of  the  Premier.  One  could  not  argue 
that  is  industrial  development. 

He  goes  on  with  a  tax  incentives  policy. 
It  is  a  most  curious  statement  in  this  review 
by  the  Treasurer.  He  said:  "My  ministry 
reviews  our  incentive  programs  on  an  on- 
going basis.  These  reviews  are  carefully  done 
and  are  instructive."  Now  get  this:  "How- 
ever, I  believe  a  more  comprehensive  analy- 
sis should  now  be  undertaken,  and  I  have 
instructed  staff  to  commence  this  review 
immediately." 

Either  he  is  doing  good  work  or  he  is  not 
doing  work.  Obviously  he  is  not  doing  good 
work.  As  I  said  earlier,  my  private  member's 
bill  passed  in  this  House,  yet  his  House 
leader  has  never  called  it  forward  for  third 
reading.   My  bill  said  we  should  have  pub- 


4272 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


lished  tax  expenditure  studies  so  we  know 
exactly  where  every  forgiven  dollar  is  going 
and  can  analyse  whether  that  is  the  best  in- 
vestment on  behalf  of  the  taxpayers  of  this 
province.  I  support  that.  I  hope  we  see  more 
than  just  words  from  him. 

His  buy-Canadian  policy,  as  I  told  him 
before,  it  is  a  straight  lift  out  of  the  quite  bril- 
liant industrial  strategy  published  by  my 
leader  about  a  year  and  a  half  ago.  I  was 
proud  to  be  associated  with  that.  It  is  in- 
teresting that  over  the  two  or  so  years  that  it 
has  been  out  it  has  stood  up  to  the  most 
rigorous  kind  of  scrutiny.  It  has  weathered 
well  with  age.  It  is  as  meaningful  now  as  it 
was  then.  It  is  substantive.  It  is  sound. 

It  is  worth  while  and  shows  far  more 
vision— from  our  limited  research  staff  and 
the  people  who  work  with  us— than  what  the 
ministers  whole  bloody  bureaucracy  could 
produce,  or  has  produced  at  this  point.  That 
shows  that  if  we  can  get  our  hooks  on  that 
bureaucracy  to  function  the  way  we  think 
it  should  function  with  new  energy,  new 
initiative  and  new  political  guts,  we  can  turn 
it  from  the  dispirited,  disgruntled  lot  it  is 
now  working  for  the  Treasurer,  into  a  crea- 
tive force  for  the  betterment  of  the  tax- 
payers of  the  province. 
9:30  p.m. 

The  most  outrageous  section  I  have  here 
is  one  entitled,  "Sensitivity  to  Social  Prior- 
ities." My  God,  one  would  almost  think  the 
Treasurer  had  a  heart  by  reading  the  titles 
to  this.  Then  he  goes  on  to  say:  "Let  others 
tax  those  who  can  least  afford  it,  let  others 
acquiesce  to  inequity  and  economic  injustice; 
this  Conservative  government,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Honourable  William  G.  Davis, 
will  not."  Noble  words,  noble  words. 

The  Treasurer  is  the  one  who  snookered 
the  poor  old  people  out  of  their  rightful  en- 
titlement. The  Treasurer  is  the  one  who  did 
it  all— all  in  the  name  of  equity  and  fairness. 
The  first  thing  we  will  do  when  we  get  into 
government  is  rectify  that  inequity  he  has 
created,  again  for  his  political  gain.  There  is 
not  a  lot  of  money;  it  is  only  about  $10  mil- 
lion. He  could  have  efforded  it  with  all  these 
outrageous  programs  he  has  outlined. 

The  fiscal  integrity  of  this  province  has 
been  even  further  distorted.  I  do  not  believe 
that  this  Treasurer  cares  about  a  balanced 
budget.  I  think  it  is  just  rhetoric.  He  hauls 
it  out  to  his  right-wing  friends  at  his  right- 
wing  meetings,  if  it  serves  his  political  pur- 
poses at  any  given  time,  because  there  has 
been  a  major  perversion  from  that  phi- 
losophy. 


We  are  still  paying  almost  $4.5  million  a 
day  in  interest.  We  are  up  over  $1  billion 
again  in  terms  of  budgetary  deficit.  Again, 
we  are  going  to  have  to  rape  the  pension 
fund  and  again  defer  our  problems  on  to 
future  generations  of  taxpayers.  We  are  now 
over  the  $l-billion  figure  for  the  deficit;  and 
this  has  been  a  major  disappointment  to  us. 

We  would  spend  taxpayers'  money  on  a 
number  of  things.  We  have  three  priorities 
in  this  party  right  now.  The  first  one  is  to 
create  wealth  in  this  province  by  building 
the  manufacturing  base  and  to  that  end  we 
have  a  number  of  specific  proposals.  Second, 
we  would  protect  those  people  in  society 
least  able  to  protect  themselves  from  the 
ravages  of  inflation  and  other  economic  poli- 
cies. Third,  we  would  cut  out  the  unneces- 
sary and  stupid  expenditures  this  government 
has  made  in  a  number  of  areas  over  the 
years.  I  refer  to  the  hundreds  of  millions  of 
dollars  of  land  banked,  to  Minaki  Lodge,  to 
advertising  of  his  ill-conceived  programs- 
there  are  so  many  areas. 

It  is  not  as  if  those  moneys  are  not  there 
to  be  employed  creatively,  because  we  think 
they  are,  and  we  would  do  it  without  bring- 
ing on  the  major  fiscal  distortions  that  my 
friends  to  the  left  do  not  even  understand  or 
care  about,  because  we  do  believe  in  fiscal 
responsibility.  Within  the  budgetary  context 
of  Ontario  we  could  do  it.  I  can  promise 
that. 

But  there  has  been  failure  to  deal  with 
skills  training,  with  research  and  develop- 
ment, with  a  manufacturing  base,  with  re- 
tooling, with  developing  indigenous  industry 
in  electronics,  machine  tools,  food  processing, 
communication  and  all  those  other  areas  that 
we  have  a  natural  structural  advantage  for. 
The  failure  to  recognize  we  have  a  problem 
and  to  do  anything  about  it  is  going  to  kill 
this  government. 

The  formerly  most  respected  treasury  in 
this  country  had  national  clout  and  national 
power.  When  our  Treasurers  went  to  Ottawa, 
Ottawa  listened.  But  the  treasury  has  now 
been  diminished  under  this  Treasurer's  auth- 
ority—not only  in  Ottawa  but  here  with  the 
voters  too.  People  understand  that. 

There  is  a  widespread  malaise  in  this 
province.  There  is  deep  economic  insecurity. 
There  is  a  deep  disgruntlement  with  the 
government  and  its  ability  to  manage  the 
economic  problems  of  this  province.  I  have 
never  felt  more  confident  in  my  political 
career  that  people  are  looking  for  substantial 
and  reasonable  alternatives.  This  rules  out 
my  friends  to  the  left  and  puts  us  clearly 
in  the  driver's  seat  today.  It  is  not  too  far 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4273 


away  that  we  are  going  to  form  the  govern- 
ment; mark  my  words. 

Our  leader  has  brought  creative  leadership 
to  this  party  and  to  the  office  of  Her 
Majesty's  loyal  opposition.  Members  should 
just  watch  next  spring  after  all  these  little 
programs  of  the  government  run  out  and  we 
have  an  election.  They  should  watch  who  is 
coming  back  to  sit  on  that  side  of  the  House 
to  bring  some  new  vitality  and  energy  to 
the  economic  growth  of  this  province. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  show 
a  great  deal  of  restraint  and  address  my  re- 
marks to  the  Treasurer's  mini-budget  rather 
than  to  the  remarks  of  the  member  for  Lon- 
don Centre. 

I  would  just  say  quickly,  though,  before 
I  get  too  involved  in  the  mini-budget,  that  it 
does  take  a  lot  of  courage  to  stand  up  in  this 
House  as  a  Liberal  following  the  federal 
Liberal  budget  of  a  couple  of  weeks  ago  and 
to  criticize  anybody's  budget,  let  alone  the 
Tories  in  Ontario.  It  does  take  a  lot  of  cour- 
age. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  am  surprised  the 
member  for  London  Centre  did  not  just 
stand  in  his  place  and  give  us  a  eulogy  of 
the  Liberal  budget  so  he  will  receive  a  formal 
welcome  if  he  ever  decides  to  move  to 
Ottawa; 

Mr.  Roy:  "Move  aside,  we  are  coming 
through,"  Floyd  says. 

Mr.  Laughren:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  Will 
say  it  again:  Move  aside,  we  are  coming 
through. 

Mr.  Bradley:  Are  you  moving  no  con- 
fidence? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Perhaps  if  the  member  will 
listen  to  my  remarks  he  will  understand 
exactly  how  this  caucus  feels  about  this  bud- 
get. I  will  ask  him  to  listen  for  a  few 
moments. 

This  budget  —  sorry,  "supplementary  ac- 
actions"  I  understand  the  Treasurer  would 
prefer  to  have  it  called— these  supplementary 
actions  do  not  do  anyone  in  Ontario  any 
harm  but  they  do  not  help  those  people  who 
need  it  the  most  either.  The  same  can  be 
said  for  individuals  as  for  the  economy  as 
a  whole.  It  does  not  do  the  economy  any 
harm  to  cut  regressive  taxes.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  does  it  some  good.  It  does  not 
do  any  harm  to  individuals  to  cut  taxes  that 
should  not  be  there  in  the  first  place.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  it  does  some  good.  But 
it  does  not  solve  the  underlying  problems 
in  the  Ontario  economy.  Naturally,  we  in 
this  party  understand  there  are  some  parts 
of  these   actions   we  must  support  and  that 


indeed  we  would  have  implemented  a  long 
time  ago. 

This  speech  of  the  Treasurer's  tonight  was 
supposed  to  be  a  response  to  the  federal 
budget  of  a  couple  of  weeks  ago.  That  is 
what  the  Treasurer  told  us.  We  agreed,  and 
still  do,  that  there  is  a  need  to  respond  to 
that  federal  Liberal  budget,  which  was  really 
more  of  an  energy  statement  than  a  budget. 

I  understand,  too,  why  the  Treasurer 
wants  to  put  as  much  distance  as  quickly 
as  possible  between  his  government  and  the 
Liberal  government  in  Ottawa.  We  under- 
stand that.  They  have  seemed  to  be  too 
cosy  for  too  long  and  it  is  time  to  put  some 
distance  between  them.  I  am  surprised  they 
did  not  make  the  distance  greater  and  do 
so  at  greater  speed. 

We  agree  with  the  Treasurer  that  the  tax 
cuts  are  necessary  at  this  time  and  that  they 
not  only  will  provide  relief  to  taxpayers, 
because  those  were  regressive,  but  will  also 
provide  a  short-term  stimulus  to  the  Ontario 
economy. 

The  Treasurer  one  week  ago  yesterday  at 
the  opening  of  his  Treasury  estimates  said 
his  mini-budget  was  going  to  be  a  response 
to  the  cyclical  problems  of  the  Ontario 
economy.  He  used  the  term  "cyclical  prob- 
lems". If  the  Treasurer  really  believes  that 
Ontario's  economic  problems  are  cyclical, 
then  I  suppose  one  could  say  his  statement 
tonight  does  something  to  address  the 
cyclical  problems,  assuming  of  course  that 
the  cycle  lasts  between  now  and  next  spring. 
9:40  p.m. 

We  know  we  are  not  into  those  kinds  of 
economic  difficulties;  the  Treasurer  will 
admit  that.  At  one  moment  he  is  castigating 
the  federal  Liberal  budget  because  it  does 
not  address  itself  to  the  structural  problems 
of  this  country,  and  the  next  moment  he  is 
telling  us  he  is  going  to  bring  supplementary 
actions  in  that  will  address  themselves  to  the 
cyclical  problems  of  the  Ontario  economy. 
Where  is  the  consistency  in  that?  I  do  not 
know  of  any  two  Ministers  of  Finance  or 
Treasurer;  who  deserve  each  more  than  this 
Treasurer  and  his  counterpart  in  Ottawa, 
MacEachsn. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  You  have  been  nasty 
before,  but  this  is  going  too  far. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  layoffs  of  thousands  of 
workers  this  year  are  a  result  of  the  struc- 
tural deformities  in  the  Ontario  economy. 
The  Treasurer  does  not  seem  to  understand 
that.  A  branch  plant  economy,  one  whose 
owners  can  repatriate  at  will— just  ask  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  about 
what  the  owners  of  the  branch  plants  in  this 


4274 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


province  can  do  if  they  want  to.  In  his  profit 
centre  booklet,  he  stated  very  clearly  there 
are  no  restrictions  on  what  they  do  with 
their  capital.  So  what  do  the  owners  of  the 
branch  plants  do?  They  shut  down  their 
plants  and  repatriate  their  capital,  just  as 
they  are  invited  to  do  by  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  in  that  booklet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Bob  White  asked  for 
more  branch  plants. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Why  do  you  not  stop  be- 
ing silly  for  once? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  is  one  of  the  causes 
of  the  structural  deformities  in  this  province 
by  inviting  ever  more  foreign  control  of  the 
Ontario  economy.  That  is  what  he  is  doing 
rather  than  understanding  that  one  of  the 
real  problems  with  the  Ontario  economy  is 
the  fact  that,  for  example,  our  exports  are 
built,  aside  from  autos,  on  fabricated  ma- 
terials and  raw  resources.  That  is  not  a  good 
way  to  build  an  economy. 

Our  imports  are  manufactured  goods.  This 
country  had  a  deficit  of  $17  billion  last  year, 
up  $5  billion  in  one  year,  and  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  is  doing  nothing 
about  that.  All  he  seems  to  think  is  that  if 
he  gets  out  there  and  sells  Ontario  to  the 
world  our  problems  will  go  away.  He  is 
fooling  none  of  us  at  all  with  his  glossy 
document,  his  expensive  packaging.  That 
profit  centre  booklet  was  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  in  bound  form;  nothing 
more,  nothing  less.  That  is  exactly  the  way 
he  is— glossy,   fast-talking  and  slick. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  All  plastic. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  was  what  that  was, 
and  that's  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism. He  is  the  pink  flamingo  of  the  Tory 
cabinet 

Mr.  Foulds:  Seventeen-doliar  pencil  cases. 
That  is  what  the  minister  puts  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Bob  White  thinks  it's 
great.  He  wants  more  foreign  investment. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No,  no.  Not  true.  The 
minister  is  thinking  of  the  member  for 
Sarnia  (Mr.  Blundy),  who  thinks  there  should 
be  more  branch  plants  in  Ontario. 

Not  only  are  there  structural  problems, 
which  have  been  there  for  some  time,  but 
also  the  government  has  sat  idly  by  and  not 
even  monitored  very  carefully  what  is  going 
on.  It  is  not  as  though  this  is  a  new  problem. 
We  are  held  up  to  ransom  when  somebody 
like  Ford  says:  "We  will  either  build  our 
plant  in  Windsor  or  some  other  place.  We 
have  grants  from   some  other  place;   so  you 


had  better  give  it  to  us."  We  are  held  up  for 
ransom  in  the  pulp  and  paper  industry  where, 
and  let  me  be  very  specific  about  this,  the 
Treasurer  told  all  of  us  those  grants  were 
absolutely  necessary  for  us  to  remain  com- 
petitive. That  is  how  far  the  Treasurer  and 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  and 
others  in  the  government  allowed  the  state 
of  the  pulp  and  paper  industry  to  deteriorate 
before  they  moved  in  and  did  anything  about 
it  at  all.  They  are  the  ones  who  sat  back 
and  watched  the  industrial  machine  called 
Ontario  wind  down  and  did  nothing  about  it 
until  it  became  a  crisis  situation.  Then  he 
says,  "Look,  we  either  have  to  do  this  or 
the  thing  goes  down  the  pipe  and  the  com- 
munities are  threatened."  That  is  some  kind 
of  economic  stewardship  for  Ontario.  He 
failed  even  to  monitor  the  situation  carefully. 

This  government  will  forever  be  slapping 
Band-Aids  on  the  problems  rather  than  prac- 
tising preventive  economic  care.  That  is 
what  it  has  failed  to  do.  It  is  almost  as 
though  it  was  transposing  the  economic 
problems  from  the  health  care  system  where 
preventive  care  has  virtually  no  role  at  all. 

We  in  this  party  are  eternal  optimists.  We 
are  very  optimistic  about  our  confidence  to 
turn  the  economy  of  Ontario  around.  We  are 
not  the  purveyors  of  doom  and  gloom;  the)' 
are  the  Tories  themselves,  not  us.  We  happen 
to  believe  we  can  turn  adversity  into  oppor- 
tunity, but  we  know  that  to  do  that  we  must 
plan  carefully  and  act  courageously.  We 
would  be  prepared  to  do  that.  We  agree 
there  is  an  element  of  risk  whenever  one 
does  that  but  we  think  it  simply  must  be 
done. 

I  would  like  to  remind  the  Treasurer  of  a 
few   things   that  we  think  should'  be  done. 

One  reason  we  are  so  upset  about  the 
Treasurer's  BILD  program  announced  in  his 
budget  tonight— someone  referred  to  it  as  a 
bilge  program— is  it  is  nothing  but  a  delaying 
tactic  to  allow  the  Treasurer  to  sit  idly  by 
yet  again  and  hope  that  the  US  economy 
improves,  that  we  will  get  some  slopover 
benefit  and  that  things  will  pick  up  in  this 
province.  That  is  all  he  is  trying  to  do  with 
his  BILD  program.  I  will  tell  the  Treasurer 
why  I  am  so  sure  of  that. 

He  says  he  is  going  to  have  the  BILD 
program  look  at  some  specific  sectors  that 
need  to  be  encouraged.  We  could  give  sector 
after  sector  that  needs  to  be  rebuilt.  There 
needs  to  be  no  further  identification  of  the 
sectors  that  are  in  trouble  in  Ontario:  sectors 
that  are  high  technology,  sectors  where  we 
have  a  large  degree  of  imports,  sectors  that 
are  high  technology  and  provide  skilled  jobs. 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4275 


We  know  those.  Those  have  already  been 
identified  and  we  have  raised  them  with  the 
Treasurer  time  and  time  again. 

For  example,  the  auto  parts  sector:  We  had 
a  $4-billion  deficit  in  auto  parts  last  year, 
which  we  all  look  after  in  Ontario.  Those 
are  skilled  jobs,  high-technology  jobs.  Ob- 
viously they  are  imports.  It  would  relieve  a 
lot  of  the  economic  problems  in  the  Windsor 
area  if  the  Treasurer  would  Canadianize  and 
rebuild  that  particular  sector.  It  is  a  crucial 
sector,  and  the  Treasurer  should  be  doing 
something  about  it.  He  does  nothing  except 
complain  to  Ottawa  that  we  are  not  getting 
our  fair  share. 

How  long  will  he  say  the  problem  is 
Ottawa's  and  not  his  own?  He  knows  the 
problem  will  go  on  forever  if  he  leaves  it 
to  those  people  in  Ottawa  to  solve  his  prob- 
lems in  Ontario.  They  are  preoccupied  with 
repatriating  the  constitution  rather  than  the 
economy.  They  are  not  going  to  worry  about 
Ontario.  When  is  the  Treasurer  going  to 
wake  up  and  realize  that? 

A  second  sector  that  needs  to  be  rebuilt— 
just  so  I  can  get  some  of  the  work  load  off 
his  BILD  program— is  the  mining  machinery 
sector.  I  know  the  Treasurer  said  in  the  esti- 
mates debate  the  other  day  that  he  under- 
stands mining  machinery.  He  said  he  knew 
we  were  number  one  in  the  world  in  import- 
ing mining  machinery,  number  two  in  the 
world  in  the  consumption  of  mining  machin- 
ery and  number  three  in  the  world  in  the 
production  of  minerals.  Imagine  being  num- 
ber three  in  all  the  world  in  the  production 
of  minerals  and  number  one  in  importing 
mining  machinery. 

What  an  outrageous  situation,  and  yet  the 
Treasurer  does  not  a  single  thing  about  it. 
The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  put 
on  a  trade  show  in  Sudbury  where  $40  mil- 
lion or  $50  million  worth  of  machinery  was 
on  display.  That  was  his  answer,  just  as  the 
BILD  program  is  the  Treasurer's  answer.  It 
is  a  sham.  It  is  like  the  old  pea  under  the 
shell  game,  but  there  is  no  pea  under  the 
shell.  We  are  just  moving  around  empty 
shells.  That  is  fraudulent. 

If  one  looks  at  mining  machinery,  there 
is  a  regional  development  component  there 
for  northern  Ontario  if  only  the  Treasurer 
would  use  it.  There  is  a  component  of  highly 
skilled  jobs.  It  is  a  high-technology  area. 
Ontario  alone  had  imports  last  year  of  about 
$175  million.  There  is  enormous  job  creation 
potential  there  in  the  mining  machinery  area. 
Think  of  what  it  would  do  for  communities 
such  as  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  North  Bay  and 
Sudbury.  To  make  it  worse,  a  month  or  so 


ago,  Jarvis  Clark,  one  of  the  big  companies 
that  produces  mining  machinery  in  North 
Bay,  decided  it  was  going  to  expand.  They 
cannot  handle  all  the  orders,  they  have  tre- 
mendous export  orders  as  well;  and  what  do 
they  do?  They  expand  in  Burlington,  not  in 
northern  Ontario.  One  reason  they  did  is 
that  there  is  no  regional  economic  develop- 
ment plan  into  which  they  could  plug  to  help 
develop  northern  Ontario.  There  is  nothing 
there. 

9:50  p.m. 

Regional  development  has  to  be  a  priority. 
There  was  a  day  when  regional  development 
was  a  priority  of  this  government.  There  was 
a  day  when  no  budget  would  have  been 
brought  down  without  a  special  section  for 
northern  Ontario.  There  is  not  a  word  this 
time.  They  even  talk  about  exploration  and 
development  in  central  Ontario,  for  heaven's 
sake. 

Another  area  that  has  an  enormous  amount 
of  potential  is  the  whole  question  of  these 
massive  energy  projects,  most  of  them  out 
west,  that  are  going  to  be  taking  place  in 
the  next  10  years.  The  opportunity  for  us  to 
provide  the  equipment  and  machinery  is 
awesome. 

A  report  by  the  Canadian  Institute  for 
Economic  Policy  stated  there  is  going  to  be 
a  total  of  $67  billion  worth  of  machinery 
and  equipment  required  between  1980  and 
1990,  in  just  10  years.  There  is  absolutely 
no  reason  why  we  should  not  have  a  part  of 
that. 

There  are  two  major  categories,  and  I 
would  like  to  quote  very  briefly  from  that 
report;  they  are  talking  about  two  new 
categories:  "Projects  that  are  new  to  Can- 
adian and  global  experience.  These  will  in- 
clude oil  sands  and  heavy  oil,  where  Canada 
is  already  a  world  leader,  frontier  and  off- 
shore field  development  and  the  more  promis- 
ing of  the  renewable  energy  technologies. 
These  sectors  provide  opportunities  to  de- 
velop an  indigenous  technology  base  with 
export  potential.  Maximizing  Canadian  par- 
ticipation from  the  start  in  these  new  markets 
will  be  vastly  preferable  to  letting  these  op- 
portunities slip  into  other  hands." 

That  is  what  is  going  to  happen.  Those 
will  be  opportunities  we  will  lose  as  long  as 
the  Treasurer  keeps  laying  down  delaying 
tactics  and  smokescreens  like  BILD  which 
will  not  address  themselves  immediately  to 
the  problems.  They  are  not  going  to  wait. 
Those  projects  are  there  now  for  the  having 
but  the  Treasurer  says  he  is  going  to  de- 
velop   a   five-year   plan.    I    never   thought    I 


4276 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


would    see    the    day    when    this    Treasurer 
would  talk  about  five-year  plans. 

Ontario  has  too  much  at  stake.  We  cannot 
stand  back  and  wait  for  Ottawa  to  develop  a 
national  investment  strategy.  That  is  what 
is  needed  so  that  we  have  a  leverage  with 
our  resources  to  machinery.  We  have  never 
had  that.  We  never  had  it  in  Ontario,  we 
never  had  it  in  this  country  at  all;  and  that 
is  what  is  necesary.  Norway  does  it;  Britain 
does  it,  very  successfully;  but  not  this  coun- 
try. I  agree  it  should  be  a  national  policy, 
but  we  are  not  going  to  get  it  from  those 
people  in  Ottawa.  We  are  the  industrial 
base;  so  we  have  to  take  the  initiative  here 
or  we  will  lose  it. 

Tt  is  as  simple  as  that.  That  is  why  I  say 
we  can  turn  our  problems  into  tremendous 
opportunities  and  potential  for  developing 
this  province.  We  are  very  optimistic  about 
the  future  as  long  as  we  take  action,  but  it 
is  not  going  to  happen  on  its  own. 

I  know  the  Treasurer  is  very  fond  of  the 
invisible  hand  out  there  in  the  marketplace, 
but  that  invisible  hand  is  not  doing  what  the 
Treasurer  or  any  of  us  think  it  should  do. 
We  cannot  wait  for  that  invisible  hand  any 
mo**.  Tt  is  a  myth;  it  is  a  withered  hand. 

What  I  am  trying  to  say  to  the  Treasurer 
is  that  he  cannot  forever  bemoan  inaction  on 
the  part  of  the  federal  government.  That  is 
not  an  adequate  action;  it  is  downright 
dumb. 

I  get  particularly  offended  at  the  Treasurer 
"'hen  he  falls  back  on  his  free  enterprise 
-hetoric.  That  is  most  offensive.  One  minute 
he  is  handing  out  grants  to  the  private 
sector,  and  the  next  minute  he  is  spewing 
forth  his  free  enterprise  rhetoric.  It  would  be 
funnv  if  it  were  not  so  irrelevant  and  if  it 
were  not  so  downright  illogical.  Most  par- 
ticularly, it  would  be  funny  if  the  Treasurer 
did  not  take  it  so  seriously.  It  is  not  going 
to  happen  with  the  private  sector;  we  have 
had  all  sorts  of  evidence  of  that. 

I  do  not  want  to  burden  the  Treasurer 
wr'th  too  much  statistics,  but  I  Want  to  give 
him  a  couple  of  examples  of  those  energy 
investment  potentials. 

Between  1970  and  1980,  a  10-year  period, 
there  has  already  been  a  lot  of  investment  in 
energy-related  fields,  and  there  is  going  to  be 
more.  Statistics  Canada  is  giving  us  figures 
every  month  of  the  year  which  tell  us  the 
problem,  which  lays  it  all  out  before  us,  and 
a  person  doesn't  have  to  be  an  economist  to 
read  the  tables. 

I  would  like  to  tell  the  Treasurer  about 
just  one  area,  imports,  and  what  happened  to 
imports  of  energy-related  equipment  between 


1970  and  1980;  for  hydraulic  turbines  and 
parts,  imports  went  from  $2  million  to  $30 
million;  gas  turbines,  from  $10  million  to 
$26  million;  well-drilling  machinery,  from 
$39  million  to  $300  million;  petroleum  and 
gas  field  production  equipment,  from  $11 
million  to  $96  million;  valves,  from  $44  mil- 
lion to  $101  million;  fittings,  from  $33  million 
to  $120  million;  zirconium  alloys,  from  $3.6 
million  to  $13  million;  diesel  and  semidiesel 
engines  and  parts,  from  $25  million  to  $133 
million;  and  construction  equipment,  from 
$167  million  to  $721  million. 

That  is  what  happened  with  import  in- 
creases on  machinery  and  equipment  that  we 
could  be  supplying  for  our  energy  projects. 
Ontario  could  be  supplying  a  lot  of  that  but, 
oh  no,  the  Treasurer  stands  back  and  thinks 
it  is  all  going  to  be  solved,  and  he  lays  down 
yet  another  smokescreen. 

I  am  just  saying  we  have  the  economic 
muscle  and  the  political  muscle  in  this  prov- 
ince to  do  something  about  it.  All  we  have 
lacked  till  now,  and  still  lack,  is  the  political 
will  to  get  in  there  and  mix  it  up  and  do 
something  about  it,  and  that  is  what  the 
Treasurer  has  failed  to  do. 

I  heard  the  Treasurer  read  in  his  statement 
tonight,  for  example,  that  manufacturing  in- 
vestment intentions  are  up  44  per  cent  in 
1980.  Perhaps  he  will  stop  using  that  figure 
and,  rather  than  talking  about  intentions,  start 
talking  about  what  is  really  happening.  Manu- 
facturing output  is  down  seven  per  cent  in 
1980,  and  it  is  forecast  to  be  down  another 
one  point  something  per  cent  in  1981.  I  will 
not  tell  the  Treasurer  which  road  is  paved 
with  good  intentions,  but  the  real  world  tells 
us  that  manufacturing  output  is  down  this 
year  and  is  going  to  be  down  again  next  year: 
the  Treasurer  should  stop  using  intention  fig- 
ures which  really  are  not  applicable. 

I  know  that  the  Treasurer  and  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  are  very  fond  of 
talking  about  creating  jobs  in  manufacturing, 
but  there  have  been  at  least  10  times  as  many 
layoffs  in  Ontario  this  year  as  there  have  been 
jobs  created.  That  is  a  sad  commentary  on 
what  is  going  on  in  the  province. 

I  have  outlined  just  a  few  sectors  that  we 
could  take  a  look  at,  and  I  did  not  even  talk 
about  housing.  We  have  a  real  problem  in 
rental  accommodation  and  we  have  high  un- 
employment in  the  residential  construction 
trades.  There  is  a  beautiful  tie-in  there.  But 
as  long  as  the  government  stands  back  and 
does  not  do  anything  about  that  either,  we 
are  not  going  to  solve  that  problem.  I  know 
the  Treasurer  is  cutting  the  tax  on  building 
materials.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  that;  I  think 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4277 


that  is  a  good  suggestion.  But  it  is  not  going 
to  address  itself  directly  to  the  rental  accom- 
modation problem  in  places  like  Metro  To- 
ronto, where  we  are  flirting  with  a  one  per 
cent  vacancy  rate,  which  is  virtually  none.  I 
can  see  the  pressures  coming  from  that  side 
to  remove  rent  review,  using  the  spurious 
argument  that  rent  review  is  causing  the  prob- 
lem of  supply  for  rental  accommodation.  What 
total  nonsense  that  is.  Why  do  they  think  we 
had  rent  review  in  the  first  place?  There  was 
no  rent  review  when  the  shortage  first  oc- 
curred; so  why  are  they  blaming  it  now?  It 
is  total  nonsense. 

There  are  a  number  of  serious  gaps  in  this 
mini-budget  tonight.  One  of  them  that  fascin- 
ated me  ties  in  with  the  new  Board  of  Indus- 
trial Leadership  and  Development;  I  refer  to 
the  Treasurer's  statement  that  he  is  going  to 
cancel  the  employment  development  fund 
program.  I  can  recall  how  over  the  last  two 
years  the  Treasurer  bragged  and  boasted 
about  how  EDF  was  the  cornerstone  of  their 
economic  development  program  in  Ontario. 
Every  time  we  would  say,  "You  are  not  doing 
enough,"  they  would  say,  "We  have  the  EDF 
program."  That  is  what  they  told  us.  Only  a 
week  ago,  in  my  leadoff,  I  was  asking  the 
Treasurer  in  his  estimates  about  EDF  grants. 
He  could  not  say  enough  good  things  about 
them,  how  they  had  saved  the  pulp  and  paper 
industry  and  how  they  had  stimulated  the 
auto  sector.  Tonight  he  pulls  the  rug  on  it. 
10  p.m. 

Is  there  no  consistency  in  the  Treasurer 
at  all?  One  has  to  wonder  what  happened. 
Was  it  the  Lakehead  report?  Did  the  Lake- 
head  report  shake  him  up?  Is  that  why  he 
said  there  are  too  many  questions  here?  Was 
it  his  free-enterprise  philosophy  that  said 
we  should  not  be  giving  out  these  grants? 
We  do  not  know,  do  we?  Was  it  the  feeling, 
as  expressed  in  that  report,  that  those  who 
need  it  were  not  getting  it? 

The  cancellation  of  the  sales  tax  on  build- 
ing materials  is  something  of  which  we 
approve.  This  party  would  be  much  happier, 
however,  if  the  Treasurer  had  made  a  com- 
mitment to  nonprofit  housing  and  co-op 
housing  where  there  is  a  tremend^"s  oppor- 
tunity to  take  some  of  the  pressures  off 
rental  accommodation  in  places  like  Metro 
Toronto.  That  is  where  the  thrust  should 
be.  Once  again,  it  would  create  jobs  and 
relieve  some  of  the  high  unemployment  in 
the  residential  building  trades,  professions 
and  jobs.  As  I  say,  it  would  also  take  the 
pressure  off  rental  accommodation. 

The  Treasurer  used  some  rather  strange 
language   when   he   talked   about   protecting 


people  on  low  incomes.  He  said:  "Unlike 
the  Liberal  government  in  Ottawa,  we  in- 
tend to  respect  social  priorities  and  values 
while  keeping  our  own  fiscal  industrial 
priorities  in  clear  focus.  Let  others  tax  those 
who  can  least  afford  it,  let  others  acquiesce 
to  inequity  and  economic  injustice." 

That  is  pretty  hard  to  swallow,  coming 
from  a  government  that  has  taxed  people 
in  this  province  more  heavily  than  any  other 
province  in  Canada.  Personal  taxes  in  On- 
tario are  higher  than  in  any  other  province. 
If  we  add  together  provincial  income  tax 
and  Ontario  health  insurance  plan  payments 
and  subtract  from  that  tax  rebates  and 
credits,  we  end  up  with  Ontario  being  the 
highest-taxed  province  in  all  of  Canada  for 
people  in  low-  and  middle-income  brackets 
—not  the  high-income  people,  but  low-  and 
middle-income  brackets.  That  is  assuming  a 
constant  property  tax  in  every  province. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  that  we  are  over- 
taxed. When  the  Treasurer  says  that  and, 
at  the  same  time,  refuses  to  do  anything  for 
people  who  need  help  the  most,  it  really  is 
hypocritical.  The  same  day  the  Minister  of 
Labour  stands  in  his  place  and  says  he  is 
not  going  to  raise  the  minimum  wage. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  didn't  say  that. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  he  did.  We  have 
gone  22  months  now  with  no  increase  in  the 
minimum  wage,  and  the  Minister  of  Labour 
would  make  no  commitment  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  didn't  say  that. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Did  he  make  a  commit- 
ment today  to  raise  the  minimum  wage?  No. 
He  made  no  commitment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Don't  distort  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Make  it  now.  Here  is  the 
opportunity. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Carry  on.  I  didn't  say 
that  today,  and  the  member  knows  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  I  will  carry  on.  It  is 
an  absolute  disgrace  for  Ontario  to  have 
the  lowest  minimum  wage  in  all  Canada. 
There  is  simply  no  excuse  for  that.  This 
budget  provides  no  direct  relief  for  low- 
income  people.  At  the  same  time  as  we  have 
the  lowest  minimum  wage,  we  have  the 
heaviest  tax  burden  on  low-  and  middle- 
income  people.  Put  all  those  things  together 
and  it  makes  the  Treasurer's  words  ring 
pretty  hollow.  That  is  simply  not  playing 
according  to  the  rules. 

I  searched  through  the  budget  document 
for  a  statement  on  day  care.  There  has  been 
an  enormous  amount  of  pressure  applied 
to  the  government  throughout  Metro 
Toronto    and   other   communities   to  provide 


4278 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


adequate  day  care  in  Ontario.  If  my  memory 
serves  me  correctly,  the  number  of  places 
required  in  Metro  Toronto  just  to  ease  the 
most  critical  burden  was  1,400,  and  then  a 
compromise  was  worked  out  by  the  Metro 
chairman  for  500  places  for  Metro  Toronto 
alone.  What  the  Treasurer  has  said  tonight 
is  that  he  is  going  to  provide  500  extra 
places  for  all  of  Ontario. 

It  is  interesting  that  we  get  from  this 
government  no  policies  at  all  to  provide  any 
kind  of  economic  justice  for  women,  no  com- 
mitment to  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value,  no  commitment  to  day  care,  no  real 
affirmative  action  program  on  the  part  of 
the  government,  none. 

Is  it  not  interesting  that  when  this  party 
introduced  three  bills  tied  in  with  economic 
rights,  the  government  blocked  them.  One 
dealt  with  full  employment  and  the  govern- 
ment blocked  it;  they  would  not  even  let  it 
come  to  a  vote.  When  we  dealt  with  pension 
rights  and  job  security,  the  government 
blocked  it  and  would  not  even  let  it  come 
to  a  vote.  Today,  when  we  tried  to  bring  in 
a  bill  that  would  provide  a  modicum  of 
economic  justice  for  women,  the  government 
blocked  it  and  would  not  let  that  come  for 
a  vote  either.  What  kind  of  commitment  is 
that  to  economic  justice?  When  I  see  the 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 
(Mrs.  Birch)  standing  there  to  block  a  bill 
like  that,  it  makes  me  wonder  about  the 
priorities  over  there. 

The  Treasurer  has  done  this  province  an 
injustice  with  his  failure  to  provide  an  ade- 
quate number  of  day  care  places  in  the 
province,  and  that  is  a  very  serious  injustice. 
I  believe  Women  now  constitute  about  40 
per  cent  of  the  work  force  in  the  province, 
and  the  government  does  not  seem  to  have 
woken  up  to  that.  They  do  not  seem  to  un- 
derstand the  kind  of  needs  and  pressures 
that  puts  on  people;  so  they  dawdle  on  and 
throw  $1  million  to  day  care  when  the  de- 
mand is  so  much  greater. 

It  is  not  as  though  there  were  not  op- 
portunities to  raise  more  money.  Some  of 
our  programs  we  talk  about  cost  money. 
Most  of  the  ones  I  have  talked  about  tonight 
would  create  wealth  so  that  we  could  get  on 
with  the  business  of  distributing  it  in  a  more 
equitable  manner.  We  believe  very  strongly 
that  a  government  has  to  create  wealth 
before  it  can  distribute  it.  What  this  govern- 
ment fails  to  understand  is  that,  unless  they 
get  busy  and  start  creating  the  wealth  by 
rebuilding  those  sectors,  we  are  not  going 
to  be  able  to  redistribute  it  fairly. 


It  is  no  wonder  the  government  has  all 
these  pressures  on  social  services  and  educa- 
tional services,  because  the  Treasurer  will 
not  do  anything  about  creating  the  wealth 
that  is  necessary.  The  Conservative  back- 
benchers sitting  there  in  their  grey  splendour 
would  have  a  much  easier  life  and  would 
get  along  much  better  with  their  constituents 
if  they  could  convince  the  Treasurer  of  what 
is  needed.  We  need  meaningful  job  creation 
projects  out  there  that  would  create  wealth 
and  ease  the  burden  on  all  those  social, 
health  and  educational  services  that  have 
been  cut  back.  The  Treasurer  can  talk  all 
he  likes  about  not  cutting  back,  but  there 
have  been  very  serious  cutbacks  in  social, 
health  and  educational  services. 

One  of  the  areas  I  hope  the  Treasurer  will 
think  about— there  is  no  mention  of  it  in  his 
budget— is  the  whole  question  of  interest 
rates.  Right  now,  interest  rates  on  mortgages 
are,  I  believe,  about  two  per  cent  higher 
than  they  were  a  year  ago  at  this  time  and 
there  are  predictions  that  they  are  going  to 
go  higher.  Surely  the  government  should 
have  a  mechanism  to  monitor  defaults  and 
foreclosures. 

We  presented  a  package  to  the  govern- 
ment last  spring  which  could  relieve  the 
problem.  It  would  have  cost  around  $20  mil- 
lion I  believe,  and  it  was  income-related.  It 
was  a  sensible  program,  it  was  not  particu- 
larly expensive,  and  it  would  solve  the  most 
pressing  problems.  The  Treasurer  should  take 
another  look  at  our  proposals,  because  he 
may  have  to  implement  those  in  the  not-too- 
distant  future. 

Another  area  that  bothers  me  about  this 
budget  is  that  there  is  nothing  at  all  in  it 
for  northern  Ontario.  I  said  earlier  there  was 
a  day  when  no  Treasurer  would  have 
brought  in  a  budget  that  did  not  make  some 
concessions  to  northern  Ontario,  that  did  not 
recognize  the  particular  problems  that  are 
faced  in  northern  Ontario.  This  budget  does 
not  talk  about  freight  rates  which  cause 
problems  in  northern  Ontario;  it  does  not 
talk  about  further  processing  of  minerals  in 
northern  Ontario;  it  does  not  talk  about  the 
opportunities  for  mining  machinery  invest- 
ment in  northern  Ontario;  it  does  not  talk 
about  the  whole  problem  of  iron  development 
in  northern  Ontario. 

10:10  p.m. 

There  is  nothing  at  all  about  the  north. 
There  was  a  day  when  no  Tory  government 
would  have  dared  to  do  that.  But  lately  the 
Treasurer  seems  to  think  the  north  is  just  fine 
and  he  does  not  need  to  pay  any  attention 
to  it.  That  is  simply  not  right.  Not  only  that, 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4279 


but  also  there  is  still  no  food  terminal  for 
Timmins. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Alan  Pope  should  resign. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  member  for  Cochrane 
South  (Hon.  Mr.  Pope)  is  the  minister  with- 
out a  food  terminal.  I  want  to  see  him  on 
television  and  radio  in  Timmins  explaining 
why  there  is  still  no  food1  terminal  in  Tim- 
mins. He  promised  one  in  1977.  He  said, 
"You  elect  me  and  there  will  be  a  food  ter- 
minal." Here  we  are,  heading  for  1981,  and 
there  is  still  no  food  terminal  in  Timmins. 
We  know  what  happened.  He  complained 
loudly  from  the  back  benches,  and  the 
Premier  said,  "Come  here,  Alan." 

Mr.  Hennessy:  He  gave  him  a  cabinet 
post. 

Mr.  Laughren:  He  gave  him  a  cabinet  post. 
Exactly.  The  member  for  Fort  William  (Mr. 
Hennessy)  understands  how  it  works.  The 
Premier  said:  "Come  here,  Alan.  You  are  in 
the  cabinet  now;  so  shut  up."  That  is  exactly 
what  happened. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  that  is  what  Alan  Pope 
has  done. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  is  right:  I  hope  the 
people  in  Timmins  start  writing  letters  to 
him  saying:  "Where  is  that  food  terminal 
that  was  going  to  distribute  goods  more  effi- 
ciently in  northeastern  Ontario?  Timmins 
needs  a  food  terminal."  I  have  not  heard  a 
word  from  the  member  for  Cochrane  South. 

I  have  talked  about  the  food  terminal  and 
about  northern  Ontario,  mentioning  specific 
cities,  but  I  am  serious  when  I  say  there  was 
a  day  when  this  government  would  not  dare 
to  bring  in  a  budget  that  did  not  deal  with 
regional  development.  When  they  were  talk- 
ing about  southwestern  Ontario,  there  was 
enormous  potential  in  southwestern  Ontario 
with  the  auto  parts  industry  and  food  pro- 
cessing. There  is  opportunity  all  over  this 
province,  but  the  Treasurer  does  not  see  it 
as  a  regional  development  problem.  I  have 
been  here  nine  years,  but  it  is  only  in  the 
last  couple  of  years— as  a  matter  of  fact, 
since  the  member  for  Muskoka  (Mr.  F.  S. 
Miller)  became  Treasurer— that  we  have 
stopped  hearing  about  regional  development 
and  about  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Or  eastern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Or  eastern  Ontario;  thank 
you. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Have  you  ever  heard  of  the 
Eastern    Ontario    Development    Corporation? 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  just  talked  about  eastern 
Ontario,  but  I  never  hear  the  Treasurer.  If 
the   Treasurer  were   serious   about  economic 


development  in  eastern  Ontario,  he  would 
have  made  a  specific  commitment  here  to- 
night to  develop  the  Ottawa  area  as  the 
Silicone  Valley  of  the  north  so  we  can  have 
a  high-technology  electronic  area  in  this 
province  second  to  none. 

Mr.  Sterling:  He  has  already  made  a 
commitment. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No.  He  made  no  commit- 
ment to  regional  economic  development  at 
all.  All  the  Treasurer  did  was  lay  down  a 
delaying  tactic.  That  is  all  he  did,  and  the 
member  for  Carleton-Granville  (Mr.  Sterling) 
knows  it. 

Mr.  Foulds:  And  that  member  swallowed  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  There  is  another  area  I  am 
surprised  the  Treasurer  made  no  mention  of 
at  all.  It  has  to  do  with  farming  machinery 
and  implements.  It  is  incredible  in  this  prov- 
ince we  did  not  have  a  reduction  or  elimina- 
tion in  the  sales  tax  on  farm  machinery  and 
equipment. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Right  on. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  inspired  suggestion 
came  from  the  member  for  Brantford.  He  is 
not  being  parochial.  He  understands  the 
needs  of  all  of  Ontario. 

In  another  area,  it  would  not  have  cost 
very  much  money  but  it  would  have  been  a 
very  nice  gesture  if  the  Treasurer  had  raised 
the  exemption  for  sales  tax  on  footwear.  It 
stands  at  $30  now.  It  should  be  raised  to  at 
least  $50,  when  one  considers  the  price  par- 
ticularly of  outer  footwear  for  the  winter. 
The  sales  tax  should  be  removed  on  that. 

In  conclusion,  we  welcome  the  tax  cuts 
for  their  short-term  value.  The  sales  taxes 
were  regressive  to  start  with  and  this  will 
provide  a  short-term  stimulus.  I  guess  the 
BILD  program  is  this  government's  admis- 
sion that  planning  may  be  necessary.  I  am 
amazed  that  the  Treasurer  is  the  one  who 
brought  in  this  statement  on  the  BILD  pro- 
gram. I  have  no  illusions  whatsoever  but  that 
it  is  a  delaying  tactic.  The  only  delaying 
tactic  he  knew  he  could  get  away  with  was 
something  that  addressed  itself  to  long-term 
structural  problems  in  Ontario;  so  he  called 
it  a  BILD  program. 

He  knows  he  will  have  to  take  no  specific 
action  at  all  until  after  next  spring,  when 
the  election  will  be  behind  us.  We  know 
that  and  we  understand  the  cynicism  of  that 
act.  It  is  also  an  indication  that  the  Treas- 
urer's faith  in  the  private  sector  is  somewhat 
diminished.  There  was  a  day  when  he  would 
not  have  touched  that.  As  I  said  earlier,  we 
regard  this  budget  as  one  that  does  not  do 
anyone  any  harm,  but  it  sure  does  not  help 


4280 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the    people    and    the   parts    of   the    economy 
that  need  it  the  most. 

TELEVISION  CAMERAS 

Mr.  Martel:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  This  is  the  second  occasion  on 
which  the  television  cameras  have  come  into 
this  Legislature.  In  fact,  they  allow  the 
government  side  with  all  its  pomp  to  present 
to  the  people  of  Ontario  the  government's 
position  on  the  economy.  The  second  that 
occurs  and  is  delivered,  they  then  shut  the 
cameras  down  when  the  critics  for  the 
Liberal  Party  and  my  party  are  responding, 
whether  it  be  in  the  appropriate  budget 
time  or  a  week  later,  and  those  responses 
are  not  delivered  to  the  people  of  Ontario. 

I"  is  time  this  House  said  to  the  media, 
"You  damned  well  do  it  for  all  three  or  you 
do  not  do  it  for  any."  I  am  getting  increas- 
ingly frustrated  at  the  television  people, 
whom  we  allow  in  here.  It  is  a  privilege  for 
them  to  be  in  this  Legislature,  as  a  result 
of  the  Morrow  report  in  1975  and  1976, 
which  you  helped  to  bring  about  as  Speaker 
in  this  Legislature.  But  the  bias  shown  by 
the  media  and  the  disrespect  they  show  to 
the  two  opposition  parties  are  unacceptable 
any  longer. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  ask  you,  in  conjunction  with 
the  House  leaders,  to  ensure  that  it  does  not 
occur  again.  If  they  are  not  prepared  to  tele- 
vise my  critic  and  the  Liberal  critic,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  Treasurer,  then  they  are  out  on 
this  occasion  as  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  will 
do  everything  I  know  to  obstruct  them,  be- 
cause this  will  not  go  on  again  as  long  as  I 
am  here.  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  make 
sure  there  is  some  fairness  to  all  political 
parties  in  the  presentation  of  the  budget  and 
the  responses;  otherwise  it  is  for  nought.  I 
ask  that  you  take  this  matter  into  considera- 
tion immediately. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  remind  the  honour- 
able member  that  the  guidelines  that  were 
laid  down  to  allow  the  electronic  media  in 
here  were  done  on  the  basis  of  the  Speaker's 
ad  hoc  committee  that  was  set  up  many 
years  ago  before  I  assumed  the  duties  I  now 
hold.  I  want  to  remind  the  member  that  I 
am  a  servant  of  the  House.  If  the  House 
wishes  to  take  the  kind  of  action  that  you 
think  appropriate,  it  is  up  to  the  House  to 
direct  the  Speaker  as  to  what  action  that 
should  be 

10:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  would  ask  the  government 
House  leader  to  respond.  I  think  it  is  in- 
cumbent upon  the  government  House  leader 


to  indicate  to  this  Legislature  that  he  is  in 
agreement  that,  if  we  are  going  to  have  the 
Treasurer  televised— and  I  have  no  objection 
to  it— it  is  incumbent  on  the  media  to  give 
the  same  opportunity  to  the  Liberal  Party  and 
the  New  Democratic  Party.  Otherwise,  there 
is  a  bias  that  is  unacceptable  as  far  as  I  am 
concerned.  I  hope  the  government  House 
leader  will  agree  that  we  have  to  expand 
the  coverage  of  what  goes  on  in  the  Legis- 
lature so  people  of  this  province  understand 
what  is  going  on. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
wisest  thing  to  do  would  be  for  you  to 
convene  at  your  convenience  a  meeting  of 
this  ad  hoc  committee  so  we  could)  talk 
about  this.  I  do  not  disagree  with  the  criti- 
cisms of  the  member,  but  I  do  not  think  we 
should  take  any  hasty  action  to  remove 
television  cameras  tonight.  Quite  frankly,  I 
was  surprised  when  I  saw  them  in  here  to- 
night. I  do  not  recall  being  made  aware 
that  the  cameras  were  going  to  be  in  here 
tonight  for  this  particular  statement. 

There  is  a  normal  procedure  for  cameras 
to  be  provided  during  question  period  and 
any  other  time.  The  special  cameras  are 
here.  I  do  not  know  under  what  agreements 
they  are  here.  Perhaps  we  should  have  a 
meeting  and  talk  about  that  again.  I  think 
we  did  talk  about  television  in  a  very  good 
way  and  set  some  good  ground  rules  for 
the  Confederation  debate.  Perhaps  we  should 
get  that  committee  together  again  and  take 
a  look  at  this  and  see  what  can  be  done. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  next  Thursday 
morning  the  members'  services  committee 
and  the  procedural  affairs  committee  are 
attempting  to  hold  a  joint  meeting.  Both 
committees  have  matters  relating  to  the 
television  coverage  of  proceedings  in  this 
House  on  their  agendas. 

It  is  my  understanding  that  there  had  been 
agreement  reached  previously  on  how  the 
cameras  would  enter  the  House  and  how  they 
would  function  and  precedents  were  set  about 
the  kind  of  coverage  that  would  go  on  during 
the  coverage  of  the  Confederation  debate.  I 
did  notice  this  evening  the  precedent  that 
was  set  in  terms  of  the  kind  of  shots  that 
would  be  taken,  the  precedent  that  was  so 
carefully  laid  down  during  the  Confedera- 
tion debate,   was  not  followed  this  evening. 

It  would  be  our  pleasure  for  those  two 
committees  to  serve  in  an  advisory  capacity 
to  the  House  and  perhaps  to  make  a  report 
to  the  House  if  that  would  be  the  wish. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  before  you 
respond,  perhaps  I  could  ask  you,  who  did 


NOVEMBER  13,  1980 


4281 


give  permission  for  the  special  lights  and 
the  camera  positions  to  be  put  in? 

The  point  made  by  the  government  House 
leader  is  valid,  that  by  agreement  television 
can  come  in  any  time  they  want,  turn  the 
lights  on  any  time  they  want  and  take  pic- 
tures of  whatever  they  want,  but  this  stuff 
of  course  works  a  special  hardship  on  the 
members  who  are  here. 

Tf  they  are  going  to  go  to  all  this  elaborate 
trouble,  they  should  televise  all  participants. 
I  remember,  when  this  first  started,  that  was 
what  was  done.  The  idea  was  that  the 
budget  of  the  province  Would  be  televised 
and  the  full  hour-long  responses  of  both  op- 
position parties  would  be  televised.  No  mat- 
ter how  excellent  the  response— the  member 
for  York  South  (Mr.  MacDonald)  remembers 
just  how  excellent  they  were— I  can  say  that 
there  is  a  certain  feature  of  diminishing  re- 
turns associated  with  it,  because  the  only 
letters  I  got  about  my  response  were  giving 
me  hell  for  pre-empting  The  Edge  of  Night. 
There  are  intrinsic  problems  here  which  even 
the  committees  meeting  together  might  not 
be  able  to  solve. 

Mr.  Speaker:  To  answer  directly  the  ques- 
tion raised  by  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford- 
Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon),  I  was  not  asked 
directly  whether  permission  would  be  given 
for    the    extra    lighting    or   the    two    camera 


placements,  one  behind  the  government 
benches  and  one  behind  the  opposition 
benches.  I  was  notified  by  the  Sergeant  at 
Arms  earlier  today  that  they  were  being  in- 
stalled and  that  they  had  talked  to  the 
director  of  administration,  who  normally 
monitors  the  camera  positions  in  keeping 
with  the  guidelines  that  were  laid  down  by 
the  ad  hoc  committee  on  radio  and  tele- 
vision. 

I  appreciate  the  sentiments  expressed  by 
all  members  who  have  spoken.  I  was  aware 
that  there  was  to  be  a  joint  meeting  of  the 
standing  committees  on  procedural  affairs 
and  members'  services.  We  have  a  file  on 
that  in  the  Speaker's  office.  It  will  be  made 
available  to  the  chairmen  of  those  two  com- 
mittees so  it  may  assist  them  in  their  deliber- 
ations. 

Perhaps,  rather  than  convening  the  ad  hoc 
committee,  we  could  await  the  findings  or 
any  recommendations  that  might  come  for- 
ward from  the  joint  committee  that  the 
member  for  Oshawa  referred  to  earlier.  I 
make  the  commitment  to  co-operate  in  any 
way  possible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  had  a 
member  who  wished  a  late  show. 

Mr.  Speaker:  By  agreement  of  both  par- 
ties, that  was  deferred  until  next  Thursday. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:26  p.m. 


4282  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  November  13,  1980 

Supplementary  measures:   Mr.   F.   S.   Miller   4259 

Retail  Sales  Tax  Act,  Bill  187,  Mr.  Maeck,  first  reading 4267 

Supplementary  measures,  continued: 

Mr.   Peterson   4267 

Mr.    Laughren 4273 

Point  of  privilege  re  television  cameras:  Mr.  Martel,  Mr.  Breaugh,  Mr.  Wells,  Mr.  Nixon  4280 

Adjournment    4281 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davidson,  M.  (Cambridge  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Havrot,  E.  (Timiskaming  PC) 

Hennessy,  M.  (Fort  William  PC) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Sterling,  N.  W.  (Carleton-Grenville  PC) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 

Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 


No.  113 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Friday,  November  14,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears   at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can   be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  9th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4285 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Friday,  November  14,  1980 


The  House  met  at  10  a.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  morning 
I  shall  be  introducing  for  first  reading  An 
Act  to  amend  the  Employment  Standards 
Act. 

In  my  statement  on  plant  closures  and 
layoffs  on  October  14,  I  announced  the  gov- 
ernment's intention  to  amend  this  legislation 
to  provide  for  employer  participation  in  ad- 
justment committees  and  for  the  protection 
of  employees'  fringe  benefits.  While  joint 
labour-management  adjustment  committees 
in  most  cases  have  proven  successful  in  as- 
sisting displaced  employees  find  employment, 
some  employers  have  refused  to  participate 
in  them.  A  further  problem  is  the  fact  that 
employees  affected  by  plant  closures  can  lose 
fringe  benefits  if  an  employer  elects  to  close 
operations  without  giving  the  required  notice 
and  pays  wages  in  lieu  of  notice. 

The  bill  contains  three  substantive  ele- 
ments in  response  to  these  concerns.  First,  it 
empowers  the  minister  to  require  employers 
to  participate  in  and  contribute  to  the  fund- 
ing of  committees  to  facilitate  the  employ- 
ment of  employees  who  are  being  terminated. 
Second,  it  clarifies  that  employers'  contribu- 
tions to  benefit  plans  must  be  maintained 
during  the  notice  period. 

Third,  it  requires  that  employers  who  ter- 
minate employees  without  notice  must  con- 
tinue to  make  contributions  to  benefit  plans 
during  the  period  for  which  notice  should 
have  been  given.  It  also  provides  that  em- 
ployees are  deemed  to  have  worked  during 
the  period  for  which  notice  should  have 
been  given  to  ensure  they  will  be  entitled  to 
the  benefits. 

I  believe  these  amendments  provide  more 
equitable  treatment  and  effective  adjustment 
provisions  for  workers  affected  by  plant 
closures. 


ACID  RAIN 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Today,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  honourable  members  will  find  in  their 
post  boxes  copies  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment's  new  publication,  The  Case 
Against  Acid  Rain. 

This  is  a  report  on  acid  rain  which  clearly 
summarizes  and  describes  ( 1 )  the  nature 
and  magnitude  of  acidic  precipitation  in  North 
America,  (2)  the  extent  to  which  we  know 
Ontario  is  affected,  (3)  the  programs  we 
now  have  in  place  to  meet  the  challenge 
and  (4)  most  important,  the  commitment  to 
action  which  will  be  required  both  here  and 
in  the  United  States  to  curb  acidic  rain  pol- 
lution in  our  countries. 

This  new,  graphically  illustrated  booklet  is 
intended  to  meet  the  high  demand  for  in- 
formation about  acid  rain.  Mv  ministry  is 
distributing  this  report  widely  without 
charge  to  anglers',  hunters'  and  cottagers'  as- 
sociations, to  conservation  groups,  to  the 
business  and  manufacturing  sectors,  to 
scientists,  schools  and  universities  and  to 
news  media  throughout  Canada  and  in  many 
areas  of  the  United  States  as  well. 

HIGHWAY  TRAFFIC  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  three 
statements  I  would  like  to  make  this 
morning. 

First,  I  would  like  to  take  some  time  to 
outline  several  amendments  to  the  Highway 
Traffic  Act  and  the  regulations  I  will  be 
introducing  in  a  bill  later  this  morning. 
While  a  number  are  basically  housekeeping 
items,  three  are  rather  important,  and  I  would 
like  to  describe  them  in  more  detail.  Spe- 
cifically, they  cover  medical  standards,  regis- 
tration reciprocity  and  the  regulation  of 
safety  equipment  on  vehicles  carrying  physi- 
cally disabled  persons. 

Let  me  begin  with  the  amendments  that 
will  allow  a  degree  of  flexibility  in  applying 
medical  standards  to  classified  drivers' 
licences.  As  the  members  are  aware,  my  min- 
istry has  been  approached  by  a  number  of 
individuals  and  organizations  concerning  the 
existing  medical  standards  for  drivers  under 
the  classified  driver  licensing  system. 


4286 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


In  a  number  of  instances,  the  ministry  has 
been  criticized  because  it  is  felt  our  stand- 
ards cause  undue  hardship  to  certain  indi- 
viduals, or  deny  drivers  the  right  to  appeal 
when  a  licence  is  downgraded  for  medical 
reasons.  In  most  cases,  the  arguments  focus 
on  the  inflexibility  of  current  regulations 
which  prevent  any  consideration  for  profes- 
sional drivers  who  have  ceased  to  meet  the 
medical  standards,  forcing  them  to  look  for 
other  means  of  employment,  despite  good 
driving  records. 

Currently,  classified  driver  licensing  sys- 
tems are  used  in  eight  of  the  10  provinces. 
Like  theirs,  our  system  was  devised  with  the 
intent  to  maintain  a  high  level  of  driver 
skill  and  safety. 

Medical  standards  were  based  on  the 
guidelines  published  by  the  Canadian  Medi- 
cal Association,  and  were  part  and  parcel 
of  the  package.  With  minor  variations  in 
procedure,  all  provinces  adhere  closely  to 
these  medical  standards. 

When  classified  driver  licences  were  intro- 
duced in  1977,  a  grandfather  provision  was 
included  to  permit  many  individuals  who 
did  not  meet  the  medical  standards  to  con- 
tinue driving  provided  their  condition  did  not 
deteriorate  further.  That  was  regulation  906/ 
76,  section  12(2). 

The  medical  standards  were  not  meant 
to  cause  undue  hardship,  and1  I  believe  they 
have  been  applied  by  my  officials  in  a  fair 
and  equitable  manner.  But,  as  I  noted  a 
few  moments  ago,  my  ministry  has  been 
approached  by  various  individuals,  as  well 
as  interested  organizations,  primarily  on  the 
basis  of  economic  hardship. 

Honourable  members  will  appreciate  that 
the  standards  intended  to  ensure  the  safety 
of  our  highways  cannot  directly  take  into 
account  loss  of  livelihood  to  individual 
drivers.  However,  I  can  appreciate  the 
potential  need  for  some  greater  flexibility 
in  individual  cases  where  it  can  be  demon- 
strated the  medical  condition  is  stable  and 
does  not  constitute  a  hazard  to  the  public. 
10:10  a.m. 

I  would  agree  in  principle  that  there 
are  experienced  drivers  in  the  higher  licence 
classification— drivers  whose  licences  have 
been  downgraded  because  they  no  longer 
meet  all  the  medical  standards  who  should 
have  an  opportunity  to  make  representations 
to  the  registrar  of  motor  vehicles  and,  if 
necessary,  to  have  a  hearing  before  the 
Licence  Suspension  Appeal  Board. 

Nevertheless,  I  continue  to  have  reserva- 
tions about  any  system  that  would  allow 
the    waiving    of    existing    medical    standards 


for  drivers  directly  responsible  for  the  car- 
riage of  school  children  or  the  general 
public  in  large  or  small  buses. 

In  some  cases,  however,  the  needs  of 
these  drivers  may  be  met  by  continuing  to 
allow  them  to  drive  trucks  where  these 
vehicles  were  included  in  their  previous 
licences.  As  a  result,  I  intend  to  introduce 
amendments  that  will  provide  for  a  degree 
of  flexibility  to  the  medical  standards  for 
classified  drivers  without  affecting  existing 
standards. 

What  we  have  in  mind  includes  amend- 
ments that  will  allow  the  ministry  to  waive 
any  medical  standard  excepting  vision,  in 
licence  classes  A  and  D  for  drivers  who  (a) 
hold  or  have  held  a  valid  A,  B,  C  or  D 
driver's  licence,  (b)  first  submit  a  certificate 
from  a  medical  specialist  to  the  effect  that 
their  medical  condition  is  stable  and  com- 
patible with  professional  driving  duties  and 
(c)  satisfy  the  registrar  as  to  their  fitness 
with  regard  to  driving  experience,  medical 
risk,  personal  insight  and  responsibility  in 
adapting  to  their  medical  condition. 

The  Highway  Traffic  Act  will  also  be 
amended  to  allow  the  Licence  Suspension 
Appeal  Board  to  hear  appeals  arising  out  of 
medical  downgrading  decisions  by  the  regis- 
trar. May  I  note  that,  if  the  House  sees  fit 
to  pass  this  amendment  during  this  fall  ses- 
sion, I  anticipate  the  necessary  regulatory 
and  administrative  changes  can  be  made  in 
time  to  introduce  the  new  procedures  very 
early  in   1981. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Bring  in  the  bill  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:   I  will.  It  is  here. 

Mr.   Foulds:   Terrific. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Just  wait  a  minute;  I  have 
said  that.  Listen. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  these  changes  will 
give  my  ministry  the  flexibility  to  respond 
to  improvements  in  medical  diagnosis,  treat- 
ment and  technology  consistent  with  the 
basic  Canada-wide  medical  standards. 

I  would  like  to  mention  the  amendments 
necessary  for  us  to  administer  the  Canadian 
Agreement  of  Vehicle  Registration,  known  as 
CAVR,  an  agreement  signed  at  the  October 
2  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  re- 
sponsible for  Transportation  and  Highway 
Safety. 

As  you,  sir,  and  the  members  are  aware, 
Ontario  has  been  committed  to  this  reci- 
procity agreement  since  receiving  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  select  committee  of  the 
Ontario  Legislature  on  the  highway  trans- 
portation of  goods  in  1977.  Ontario  and  the 
other  provinces  have  been  working  on  this 
agreement  for  the  past  three  years.  Six  prov- 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4287 


inces,  including  Ontario,  have  now  com- 
mitted themselves  to  trying  to  meet  the 
target  implementation  date  of  April  1,  1981. 
Therefore,  I  am  now  introducing  the  neces- 
sary amendments  to  make  it  possible  to  ad- 
minister this  agreement  here  in  Ontario. 

By  way  of  partial  explanation,  the  CAVR 
will  make  it  possible  for  a  trucker  or  bus 
operator  to  travel  from  coast  to  coast  on 
one  licence  plate  and,  in  most  cases,  be 
assessed  fees  on  the  mileages  travelled  in 
member  provinces.  Mileage  prorated  vehicles 
will  require  a  registration  plate  from  only 
one  jurisdiction  and  can  travel  through  other 
jurisdictions  on  the  basis  of  a  "CAVR  cab 
card."  The  amendments  will  cover  the  imple- 
mentation and  regulation  of  the  CAVR  cab 
cards  and  provide  the  necessary  means  of 
ensuring  us  of  the  accuracy  of  the  mileage 
records.  They  are  essential  if  we  are  to  meet 
our  commitment  to  this  agreement. 

I  am  sure  this  reciprocity  agreement  will 
be  highly  effective  if  we  are  to  promote  the 
smooth  and  efficient  movement  of  people 
and   goods   across   provincial  boundaries. 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  mention  another 
amendment,  which  will  enable  us  to  pre- 
scribe the  use  of  safety  devices,  particularly 
on  vehicles  carrying  physically  disabled  pas- 
sengers, thus  enabling  us  to  enhance  the 
safest  possible  operation  of  these  vehicles. 

Applause. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  get  very  nervous  when 
I  get  applause  from  that  corner  of  the 
House. 

TRANSPORTATION  OF 
DANGEROUS  GOODS 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  you  may 
note,  the  federal  government  has  enacted 
legislation  to  cover  the  movement  and1 
handling  of  dangerous  goods  in  Canada.  En- 
titled the  Transportation  of  Dangerous  Goods 
Act,  it  applies  to  all  federally  regulated 
modes  of  transport,  including  railways,  air- 
lines, ships,  interprovincial  trucking,  manu- 
facturers of  dangerous  goods,  shippers,  con- 
signees, warehousemen  and  so  on. 

The  federal  legislation  is  not  intended, 
however,  to  provide  for  the  regulation  of 
intraprovincial  highway  transport,  a  well- 
established  area  of  provincial  jurisdiction 
falling  within  the  purview  of  my  ministry. 
I  am  therefore  pleased  to  announce  today 
the  introduction  of  a  bill  designed  to  pro- 
mote the  safe  transportation  of  dangerous 
goods  in  all  vehicles  using  all  provincial 
highways. 

In  drafting  the  Dangerous  Goods  Trans- 
portation Act  we  have  taken  great  pains  to 


ensure  it  is  consistent  with  federal  legisla- 
tion governing  the  transportation  of  dan- 
gerous goods  to  maintain  uniformity  right 
across  this  country.  Briefly  stated,  the  bill 
prohibits  the  transportation  of  dangerous  ma- 
terials on  provincial  highways  in  any  vehicle 
that  does  not  comply  with  the  prescribed 
safety  regulations  outlined  in  the  federal 
law,  including  the  regulations  regarding  the 
packaging  and  placarding  of  vehicles. 

Once  enacted,  this  provincial  legislation 
will  be  strictly  enforced  by  duly  authorized 
highway  carrier  inspectors  of  the  Ministry 
of  Transportation  and  Communications, 
doubtlessly  with  the  support  and  co-operation 
of  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police.  To  ensure 
compliance,  we  have  set  some  pretty  hefty 
fines  for  carriers  who  break  the  law.  Every 
person  who  contravenes  the  act  will  be  liable 
to  a  fine  of  up  to  $50,000  for  a  first  offence 
and  to  a  fine  of  up  to  $100,000  for  each 
subsequent  offence.  In  this  way  our  legis- 
lation will  provide  for  the  safe  and  efficient 
movement  of  dangerous  goods,  regardless 
of  origin,  on  all  provincial  highways  in  the 
interests  of  Ontario  residents. 

UTDC  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  members 
of  this  House  are  no  doubt  aware  of  the 
success  that  the  Urban  Transportation  De- 
velopment Corporation  has  recently  had  in 
developing,  at  its  new  test  track  and  research 
facility  near  Kingston,  one  of  the  most  ad^ 
vanced  intermediate  capacity  transit  systems 
in  North  America,  if  not  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  thought  Kraus-Maffei  was 
the  best  in  the  world. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  high- technology 
Ontario  industry. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  Pre- 
mier and  the  former  Leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition would  carry  on  their  conversation 
some  place  else,  I  could  iget  on  with  the 
statement. 

I  anticipate  that  UTDC  will  have  the  op- 
portunity within  the  next  year  to  bid  on  the 
construction  of  similar  ICT  systems  in  one 
or  more  of  the  major  centres  of  the  United 
States  and  Canada.  The  short  bill  I  will  be 
introducing  later  this  morning  is  intended  to 
deal  with  two  technical  difficulties  which 
must  be  addressed  prior  to  any  bidding.  The 
first,  in  section  2  of  this  bill,  makes  it  clear 
that  UTDC  is  not  an  agent  of  Her  Majesty 
at  common  law,  nor  a  crown  agency  within 
the  meaning  of  the  Crown  Agency  Act.  This 
intention    was    originally    expressed    by    the 


4288 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Legislature  in  similar  language  contained  in 
the  Ontario  Transportation  Development 
Corporation  Act.  It  was  not  carried  over 
when  the  business  and  affairs  of  that  corpo- 
ration were  assumed  by  UTDC,  a  company 
incorporated  under  the  Canada  Business 
Corporations  Act. 

The  second  provision  authorizes  the  prov- 
ince to  guarantee  the  performance  of  the 
Urban  Transportation  Development  Corpo- 
ration in  complying  with  the  terms  of  any 
contract  of  indemnity  given  by  UTDC  in 
obtaining  bonding  in  connection  with  a  bid, 
performance  contract  or  warranty  of  the  cor- 
poration. Without  this  assurance  by  the 
province,  the  corporation  would  be  unable 
to  obtain  bonding  and  therefore  would  not 
be  able  to  bid  on  any  major  transit  contracts. 

Given   the  very   significant  industrial  and 
economic  benefits  that  success  on  such  major 
bids   will   have   for   Ontario,    I   am   sure   all 
members  will  join  in  support  of  this  bill. 
10:20  a.m. 

TVONTARIO  ANNIVERSARY 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  later  this 
morning  I  will  join  with  you  and  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  at  a  ceremony  in  the 
St.  Lawrence  lounge  to  celebrate  the  tenth 
anniversary  of  the  Ontario  Educational 
Communications  Authority. 

I  am  sure  the  acting  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  will  be  the  first  one  over  there  today, 
knowing  his  traditional  enthusiastic  support 
for  that  great  organization. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  regret  to  say  that  was  my 
idea.  You  take  a  good  idea  and  wreck  it 
every  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  give  the  member 
credit  for  a  lot  of  things  which  these  days 
he  wants  to  ignore.  I  am  delighted  to  do 
that.  I  have  always  been  generous. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  was  even  the  father  of  the 
Ontario  Institute  for  Studies  in  Education. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Sure,  I  will  give  him 
credit  for  that  too.  I  will  give  him  credit 
for  that  and  the  Peterborough  manifesto. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Why  do  you  interrupt  your- 
self so  often? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  do  not  know.  I  learned 
that  from  the  member. 

Some  members  will  recall  that  while  I  was 
Minister  of  Education  I  introduced  a  bill 
that  took  educational  television  from  the 
Department  of  Education  and  placed  it  in 
an  arm's-length  position  within  an  autono- 
mous corporation,  which  was  supported  in- 
cidentally by  all  members  at  the  time. 


Within  its  purposely  broad  terms  of  refer- 
ence, TVOntario's  educational  programs  in 
English  and  French  extend  beyond  the  class- 
room into  the  home.  Working  within  the  cur- 
riculum guidelines  of  the  Ministry  of  Edu- 
cation, TVOntario  presents  programs  used  by 
most  of  our  schools.  The  success  of  programs 
for  preschoolers  is  well  known,  and  evening 
programs  now  draw  an  unduplicated  audience 
of  1.75  million  each  week. 

Because  it  is  a  mass  medium,  educational 
television  is  relatively  inexpensive.  Our  edu- 
cational television  service— the  entire  opera- 
tion of  TVOntario— consumes  about  one 
quarter  of  one  per  cent  of  Ontario's  public 
education  dollar.  I  am  able  to  say  that, 
through  its  sales  and  co-production  activities, 
TVOntario  increasingly  supplements  its  bud- 
get. This  year  it  expects  to  sell  about  $2  mil- 
lion worth  of  programs  in  Canada,  to  the 
United  States,  and  to  other  parts  of  the  world. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Why  don't  you  cover  north- 
ern Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Oh,  it  is  coming. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  It's  coming.  It's  a  second 
coming. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  delighted  to  know 
the  member  is  interested  in  having  it.  Some 
of  his  colleagues  are  interested  and  some  are 
not.  He  should  get  his  brother  off- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  It's  not  my  brother's  fault; 
it's  the  Premier's  fault. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  They  do  not  have  it  at  all 
in  Hawaii.  When  the  member  was  in  Hawaii, 
did  he  see  how  much  TV  they  had  for  edu- 
cational purposes?  None. 

TVOntario  has  a  greater  sales  volume  of 
television  programs  than  has  the  CBC.  TV- 
Ontario  sells  more  to  obtain  revenue  than  that 
great  public  network  owned  by  the  taxpayers 
of  Canada. 

There  were  some  concerns  when  educa- 
tional television  broadcasting  began  in  On- 
tario just  10  years  ago.  Now  we  are  moving 
into  a  new  era  of  educational  technology 
which  is  creating  new  concerns— a  technology 
that  incorporates  satellite  transmission,  tele- 
text systems,  mini-computers,  videodisc.  Ironi- 
cally, but  perhaps  not  surprisingly,  our  chil- 
dren often  feel  more  at  ease  with  these  de- 
velopments than  many  of  their  teachers  do. 
TVOntario,  through  its  own  experiments  and 
work  with  the  new  technologies,  as  well  as 
through  its  description  programs,  continues  to 
be  innovative  in  its  presentation  of  learning 
opportunities. 

Those  members  who  watch  TVOntario's 
programs  will  appreciate  the  breadth  of  in- 
terests that  are  covered:  programs  to  help  us 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4289 


understand  differences— different  ethnic  ori- 
gins, different  intelligences,  different  back- 
grounds and  families,  different  ages— programs 
that  have  to  do  with  the  arts  as  well  as  the 
sciences  and  technologies. 

A  synopsis  of  10  years  of  these  programs 
presented  in  10  minutes— to  expedite  the  ac- 
tivities of  members  of  the  House— will  be 
featured  at  the  event  in  the  St.  Lawrence 
lounge.  Some  of  TVOntario's  personalities  will 
be  pleased  to  welcome  them,  including  Ran 
Ide,  to  whom  I  wish  to  pay  tribute  for  his 
work  as  OECA's  first  chairman.  I  know  the 
member  for  Fort  William  will  be  delighted 
to  share  in  that,  knowing  full  well  where  Mr. 
Ide  gained  a  great  deal  of  his  experience.  I 
hope  on  this  occasion  we  may  all  feel  proud 
of  the  success  of  this  educational  enterprise. 

TORONTO  DISTRICT  HEATING 
CORPORATION  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
couple  of  statements  in  regard  to  bills  I 
will  be  introducing.  The  first  concerns  the 
Toronto   District   Heating  Corporation   Act. 

I  am  pleased  to  be  able  to  tell  the  House 
that  a  consensus  has  been  reached  by  all 
parties  involved  in  the  Toronto  steam  heat- 
ing system,  and  it  is  my  privilege  to  intro- 
duce today  the  Toronto  District  Heating 
Corporation  Act.  The  proposed  legislation 
enables  the  participants  to  make  contractual 
arrangements  which  will  allow  the  integra- 
tion of  the  heating  systems  of  Queen's  Park, 
the  University  of  Toronto,  the  Hospital 
Steam  Corporation  and  the  Toronto  Hydro- 
Electric    Commission's    steam    division. 

The  integration  of  these  four  existing 
steam  systems,  which  was  initiated  by  the 
city  of  Toronto,  will  have  the  following 
beneficial  results:  It  will  improve  air  quality 
by  significantly  reducing  the  operations  of 
the  Toronto  Hydro-Electric  System's  Pearl 
Street  plant,  which  has  an  environmental 
control  order  against  it  for  not  complying 
with  air  pollution  regulations  pursuant  to 
the   Environmental  Protection  Act. 

It  will  improve  the  security  of  supply  for 
customers,  including  hospitals  and  the  com- 
mercial users  because,  if  one  plant  breaks 
down,  the  others  can  pick  up  the  shortfall. 
It  will  allow  more  flexibility  in  using  cheaper 
or  more  available  fuel,  for  example,  coal, 
gas,  oil  or  garbage. 

It  will  create  a  sufficient  load  demand  to 
justify  the  economics  of  a  refuse-fired  steam 
plant.  The  plant  will  reduce  the  amount  of 
gas  and  fuel  oil  currently  being  consumed 
by  the  four  heating  plants  by  about  40  per 
cent.    The    burning    of    garbage    could    save 


418,000  barrels  of  oil  per  year— enough 
energy  to  heat  1,400  homes. 

The  refuse-fired  plant  could  dispose  of  25 
per  cent  of  Metropolitan  Toronto's  munici- 
pally collected  garbage;  490,000  metric  tons 
of  garbage  could  be  burned  at  the  Hearn 
plant,  for  instance,  or  380,000  metric  tons 
per  year  at  the  proposed  Cherry  Street  plant. 
The  Hearn  plant  could  also  generate  elec- 
tricity as  well  as  heat  in  a  process  called 
cogeneration. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  You  discovered  that  too.  It 
is  done  everywhere  else  on  the  face  of  the 
earth. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  are  doing  it.  This 
legislation  is  a  credit  to  all  those  who  have 
participated  in  the  consultation  process  over 
the  years.  To  give  members  some  idea  of  the 
breadth  and  comprehensiveness  of  this  con- 
sultation, let  me  briefly  list  the  players  who 
have  been  a  party  to  this  bill:  Four  hospital 
boards  of  governors,  the  Canadian  Union  of 
Operating  Engineers,  the  University  of  To- 
ronto, the  Toronto  Hydro-Electric  Commis- 
sioners representing  36  downtown  customers, 
the  International  Union  of  Operating  En- 
gineers, the  Canadian  Union  of  Public  Em- 
ployees, the  Ontario  government  ministries 
of  Government  Services,  Revenue,  Treasury, 
Health,  Energy,  Environment,  Attorney  Gen- 
eral and  Intergovernmental  Affairs,  the  city 
of  Toronto,  Metropolitan  Toronto  and  Con- 
sumers' Gas  Company. 

Consultations  with  the  unions  have  re- 
sulted in  revisions  to  this  legislation  which 
will  allow  for  the  continuation  of  three  sep- 
arate collective  agreements.  This  will  ensure 
that  no  employee  is  in  a  worse  position  be- 
cause of  the  integration  of  the  steam  sys- 
tems. Let  me  emphasize  that  many  have  set 
aside  their  own  program  and  policy  interests 
so  that  the  greater  provincial  good,  which 
shall  be  afforded  by  integration,  might  be 
achieved.  I  thank  all  the  parties  for  their 
great  sacrifices  of  time  and  effort,  which  are 
today  making  the  introduction  of  this  legis- 
lation possible. 

MUNICIPAL   LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  also 
be  introducing  today  amendments  to  the 
Municipal   Act. 

This  bill,  which  will  amend  the  Municipal 
Act,  will  do  so  by  adding  a  number  of  new 
powers,  by  removing  many  archaic  bylaw 
provisions,  by  substituting  a  few  general 
provisions  for  many  very  specific  ones,  by 
removing  status  distinctions  in  passing  by- 
laws and  by  relocating  a  number  of  sections. 


4290 


LEGISLATURE,  OF  ONTARIO 


Among  the  new  provisions  is  a  change  to 
the  provisions  for  filling  vacancies  on  local 
councils.  When  a  vacancy  occurs  after 
March  31  in  an  election  year  and  at  least 
45  days  before  nomination  day,  a  council 
will  be  required  to  fill  the  vacancy  by  ap- 
pointment within  45  days. 

An  example  of  a  power  which  the  bill 
would  remove  on  the  grounds  that  it  is 
archaic  is  that  which  allows  a  mayor  to 
commit  habitual  drunkards  to  an  institution 
for  their  reclamation  and  cure  with  or  with- 
out hard  labour. 

10:30  a.m. 

The  main  new  general  power  proposed 
in  the  bill  is  an  expansion  of  the  existing 
grants  provisions  to  allow  municipalities  to 
provide  grants  in  aid  for  any  purpose  con- 
sidered by  the  council  to  be  in  the  interests 
of  the  municipality.  This  would  replace  many 
specific  grants-in-aid  provisions  now  in  the 
act. 

A  number  of  changes  in  the  bill  will 
allow  all  local  municipalities  to  have  the 
powers  that  now  are  available  to  municipal- 
ities of  particular  status  or  population.  An 
example  of  this  type  of  change  is  to  allow 
all  local  municipalities  to  establish  taxi 
stands.  At  present  townships  do  not  have  this 
power. 

The  bill  also  proposes  to  relocate  a 
number  of  provisions  to  place  them  with  or 
near  to  similar  provisions  in  the  present  act. 

ACCESS  TO  LEGISLATIVE  BUILDING 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yesterday  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  (Mr.  M.  N.  Davison)  rose 
on  >a  point  of  privilege  with  respect  to  an 
incident  which  took  place  when  he  was 
questioned  by  a  member  of  the  Ontario 
Government  Protective  Service  as  he  entered 
the  Legislative  Building. 

For  the  information  of  all  members,  sec- 
tion 93(2)  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  Act 
provides  that  the  Speaker  shall  establish 
guidelines  for  the  security  of  the  legislative 
chamber  and  other  parts  of  the  Legislative 
Building  that  are  under  his  control. 

These  guidelines,  which  were  established 
in  December  1975  by  my  predecessor  and 
have  been  reviewed  from  time  to  time  by 
the  Board  of  Internal  Economy,  authorize 
the  protective  service  to  request  identifica- 
tion from  any  individual  seeking  access  to 
the  building  and  to  examine  any  parcels, 
briefcases,  et  cetera.  For  the  information  of 
the  House,  I  am  advised  that  it  has  been 
necessary  in   recent  months   for  the   protec- 


tive service  to  recruit  a  number  of  new 
personnel  to  replace  those  who  have  left  to 
seek  employment  elsewhere. 

Under  these  circumstances,  I  think  it  is 
understandable  that  a  recently  appointed 
officer  might  not  yet  recognize  every  mem- 
ber. I  have,  however,  written  to  the  super- 
intendent of  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police 
in  the  security  branch,  who  administers  the 
protective  service.  I  have  requested  that  he 
ensure  that,  in  addition  to  being  vigilant, 
members  of  the  protective  service  should 
exercise  wise  judgement  in  pursuing  their 
duties  and  refrain  from  making  personal 
comments  which  can  only  serve  to  further 
complicate  delicate  relationships. 

I  would  also  request  that  all  honourable 
members  appreciate  some  of  the  real  diffi- 
culties which  confront  members  of  the 
Ontario  Government  Protective  Service  in 
carrying  out  their  duties  and  assist  wherever 
possible  to  make  their  jobs  a  little  bit  easier. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

RURAL  ELECTRICAL  RATES 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Treasurer  relating  to  the  part  of  his 
statement  last  night  that  was  supposed  to 
fulfil  the  commitment  made  by  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  to  equalize  rural  and  urban 
hydro  rates. 

Will  the  Treasurer  explain  why  it  was  not 
the  policy  of  the  government  to  stop  the 
11.2  per  cent  increase  that  is  going  to  be 
imposed  on  the  rural  hydro  ratepayers  as  of 
January  1,  particularly  since  that  11.2  per 
cent  will  raise  the  rural  rates  by  something 
more  than  $57  million?  Will  he  compare  that 
increase,  which  is  to  take  place  in  January, 
with  the  $20  million  he  is  indicating  will 
begin  to  be  paid  after  April  1981,  and  agree 
with  me  that  he  is  not  moving  towards 
changing  the  inequities,  but  is  allowing  them 
to  continue? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
setting  of  the  rates  in  Ontario  Hydro  has 
always  been  on  the  basis  of  Hydro's  recover- 
ing its  costs,  as  I  understand.  We  are  not 
interfering  with  that  basic  procedure,  but  We 
did  say  that  by  1982  they  should  resolve  this 
complex  problem.  It  is  complex.  The  $20 
million  we  have  allocated  to  reduce  the 
differential  is  for  an  immediate  start  on  that 
process  while  the  rate  structures  are  worked 
out  by  Hydro  and  the  Ministry  of  Energy.  I 
think  the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  Welch), 
when  he  returns,  would  'be  best  able  to 
explain  the  current  rate  figures. 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4291 


Mr.  Nixon:  Since  we  as  farmers  in  Ontario 
now  pay  the  highest  rates  in  Canada  west 
of  New  Brunswick,  where  they  make  their 
electricity  out  of  oil,  and  we  see  other  juris- 
dictions where  equality  has  been  achieved  and 
in  this  jurisdiction  the  friend  and  former 
campaign  manager  of  the  Premier  is  running 
the  corporation,  why  cannot  the  three  of  them 
get  together  and  solve  this  problem  without 
making  it  simply  a  political  football,  as  they 
intend  to  do? 

The  minister  announced  it  seven  months 
ago  and  he  announced  it  again  last  night. 
We  are  not  going  to  get  any  money  until 
April,  and  he  will  announce  it  again  in  the 
budget  in  the  spring  if  we  have  one.  Why 
can  he  not  accomplish  equity  in  this  instance 
simply  by  passing  a  law  that  is  going  to  re- 
quire Ontario  Hydro  to  do  this  for  the 
benefit  of  the  farmers  in  this  province? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  There  are  many  ways 
in  which  we  try  to  help  the  farmers  of  this 
province  apart  from  this  specific  one.  I  hope 
the  honourable  member  will  agree  with  that. 
We  have  instructed  Hydro  to  have  that  in- 
equitable rate  differential  solved  by  1982. 

If  one  starts  looking  at  the  various  rates 
charged  in  rural  sections  of  the  province, 
they  vary  considerably.  Therefore,  we  have 
to  look  at  the  problem  in  some  detail,  and 
that  is  being  tackled. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  will  put  my  question  to  the 
Treasurer,  but  I  hope  the  Premier  will  listen. 
When  he  made  the  request  last  April  or  May 
that  we  should  move  to  investigate  this  thing, 
the  differential  amounted  to  $32  million. 
That  is  the  old  differential.  Hydro's  proposed 
reform  of  its  rate  structure,  on  which  I  put 
questions  to  the  Premier  and  the  Minister  of 
Energy  a  week  or  so  ago,  proposes  to  add 
another  $24  million  to  that  differential. 

How  does  the  Treasurer  think  that  $20 
million  is  going  to  cope  with  an  old  differen- 
tial of  $32  million  and  Hydro's  proposed  ad- 
ditional differential  of  $24  million  added  to 
the  rural  costs? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  still 
argue  that  $20  million  credited  directly  to 
the  rural  residential  users  will  be  a  very 
useful  assistance  program  while  the  details 
are  worked  out. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  the  credit 
the  minister  is  talking  about,  if  it  is  divided 
among  the  770,000  rural  customers,  will 
amount  to  about  $25  a  family  for  the  year, 
it  is  certainly  something  that  is  welcome  as 
far  as  a  Christmas  gift  is  concerned,  except 


that  people  will  have  to  wait  to  get  it  in  the 
year  following  April  1981,  how  can  the  gov- 
ernment establish  a  policy  by  edict  of  the 
Premier  and  permit  an  11.2  per  cent  increase 
to  come  on  January  1  which  is  going  to 
further  exacerbate  the  inequity? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  hon- 
ourable member  knows  that  the  hydroelectric 
power  content  in  Ontario  is  about  30  per  cent 
of  the  total  amount  we  make  and  the  bal- 
ance is  made  from  fuel  plants.  The  costs  of 
these  fuels  are  changing  very  dramatically  be- 
cause of  forces  beyond  our  control. 

Hydro  has  continued  to  maintain  a  policy 
of  breaking  even.  Therefore,  there  have  been 
requirements  to  adjust  rates  on  an  annual 
basis. 

Mr.  McKessock:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Ontario 
Hydro  feels  the  extra  cost  charged  to  rural 
customers  is  for  distribution  costs,  does  the 
minister  not  feel  that  if  these  high  power 
lines  that  go  from  the  Bruce  plant  down  to 
the  cities  were  charged  as  distribution  costs 
for  urban  dwellers  instead  of  as  capital  costs, 
there  would  be  no  difference  in  the  distri- 
bution costs  between  urban  and  rural  resi- 
dents? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  very 
much  like  trying  to  apportion  the  cost  of 
snowploughing  a  road.  The  honourable  mem- 
ber and  I  live  in  a  part  of  the  province  where 
there  are  often  two  or  three  homes  per  mile 
of  road.  Therefore,  the  cost  of  ploughing  the 
road  is  high.  In  Toronto  and  most  urban 
municipalities  there  are  many  users  per  mile 
of  line,  and  the  costs  for  maintenance  of 
those  lines  are  very  high.  As  we  have  ab- 
sorbed the  more  developed  parts  of  some 
communities  into  the  urban  structure,  it  has 
left  even  more  load  on  the  rural  structures. 
We  have  said  the  time  has  come  to  equalize 
that  and  we  are  doing  it. 
10:40  a.m. 

ENERGY  TAX  REBATES 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
put  another  question  to  the  Treasurer  on 
another  section  of  his  statement  last  night 
on  page  20,  under  the  heading  "Relief  for 
Home  Heating  Costs."  Actually,  what  drew  it 
to  my  attention  was  his  gratuitous  comment 
about  another  government  which  "is  insensi- 
tive to  the  impact  of  rising  energy  prices  on 
people  with  fixed  and  low  incomes."  The 
question  has  to  do  with  the  sensitivity  of  the 
minister  to  those  people  with  fixed  and  low 
incomes. 


4292 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Why  is  his  announced  program  to  assist  in 
heating  costs  going  to  begin  its  payout  in 
the  spring  of  1982?  What  is  the  point  of  an- 
nouncing that  in  a  special  budget  last  night 
when  it  is  going  to  be  of  no  significance  to 
the  people  he  is  referring  to,  those  with  fixed 
and  low  incomes,  until  the  spring  of  1982, 
even  though  energy  costs  have  already  gone 
up  well  beyond  the  ability  of  these  people  on 
low  and  fixed  incomes  to  pay? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  sense  that 
the  member's  many  years  in  this  House  are 
making  him  cynical.  I  just  have  that  feeling. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Does  the  Treasurer 
have  a  response? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  You  notice  I  have  been 
standing  by  very  quietly,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  you  to  say  something. 
I  don't  want  you  just  to  stand  there. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  They  do,  too,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

The  issue  is  twofold.  First,  we  feel  that 
federal,  provincial  and  national  co-operation 
is  needed  for  a  program  that  is  affordable  and 
fairly  apportioned  to  governments.  Do  not 
forget,  a  great  chunk  of  the  increase  in  the 
costs  of  home  heating  oil,  the  great  part  of 
it,  will  now  be  going  to  governments.  They 
should  use  that,  first  and  foremost,  to  cushion 
the  shock  of  the  price  increases  which  be- 
come greater  and  greater  for  the  home  owner 
in  the  next  three  years,  as  my  friend  Mr. 
Crosbie  did  last  year.  I  recommended  him  for 
it  at  the  time. 

First  of  all,  we  will  be  talking  to  Mr. 
MacEachen  and  our  fellow  finance  ministers, 
hoping  to  gain  their  support  for  a  national 
program.  Second,  it  needs  to  be  income  tested 
and,  therefore,  is  best  put  on  the  income 
tax  form.  The  earliest  possible  time  to  have 
that  done  is  for  the  spring  of  1982. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Returning  again  to  the  min- 
ister's concern  for  people  on  fixed  and  low 
incomes,  why  is  it  he  could  not  bring  him- 
self to  adjust  the  inequity  he  introduced  in 
his  previous  budget,  giving  the  grant  to  the 
95,000  senior  citizen  pensioners  who  had 
their  tax  grant  assistance  removed  from 
them  to  the  extent  of  $110  each?  How  can 
he  criticize  one  government  for  insensitivity 
to  the  old  and  people  on  fixed  incomes 
when,  with  the  other  hand,  he  has  taken 
$110  away  from  each  one  of  95,000  pen- 
sioners? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Again,  my  honourable 
friend  is  not  totally  accurate  with  his  figures. 
He   conveniently  forgets  we  increased  Gains 


for  a  number  of  these  95,000.  That  was 
$120  a  year.  The  fact  is  we  targeted  our 
program  for  need.  Those  who  had  income 
needs  got  it;  those  who  had  tax  needs  got 
it.  It  was  much  more  precise  than  our 
previous  program,  something  I  believe  the 
member  has  even  criticized  me  for  in  the 
past.  "Make  it  more  specific,"  he  said.  I 
did. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Can  the  minister  tell  the  House  whether 
he  has  a  group  of  people  working  in  his 
ministry  devising  promises  that  can  be  put 
into  future  budget  statements  with  refer- 
ence to  years  in  the  distant  future? 

Can  he  explain  why  people  on  low  in- 
comes are  promised  jam  yesterday,  jam  to- 
morrow but  never  jam  today,  or  more  spe- 
cifically, why  this  energy  tax  rebate  promised 
by  the  minister  is  a  vague,  shadowy  kind  of 
promise  not  to  take  place  until  1982,  if  the 
government  is  still  around,  but  to  provide 
no  relief  right  now?  Will  the  minister  ex- 
plain why  the  entire  budget  has  that  same 
shadow)  kind  of  consistency  where  promises 
are  made  as  far  as  five  years  in  the  future, 
but  delivery  right  now  in  terms  of  jobs  or 
relief  for  people  on  low  incomes  is  in- 
adequate? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  disagree 
that  it  is  shadowy.  I  think  we  were  very 
specific.  I  find  the  honourable  member's 
ability  to  criticize  me  when  I  project  five 
years  into  the  future  quite  inconsistent,  be- 
cause he  has  been  criticizing  me  for  not 
projecting  five  years  into  the  future.  We  are 
now  doing  it;  we  are  giving  the  honourable 
members  some  figures;  we  are  co-ordinating 
our  economic  thrusts;  we  are  putting  them 
into  a  committee  chaired  by  the  Treasurer, 
bringing  together  many  of  the  programs  of 
economic  development  in  the  province  total- 
ling about  $2  billion  a  year.  We  are  going  to 
be  reviewing  our  tax  expenditures;  we  are 
going  to  make  a  better  use  of  our  dollars. 
Then  the  honourable  member  tells  me  I  am 
not  doing  the  right  thing. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  Treasurer  has  chosen  to  turn  most  of 
the  carriages  into  pumpkins  on  July  1  of 
next  year  and  he  extends  the  home  heating 
program  to  people  on  fixed  and  low  incomes 
for  three  years  and  proposes  to  terminate  it 
after  three  years.  Is  the  minister  not  aware 
that  the  projected  increases  in  the  cost  of 
heating  oil  will  continue  beyond  the  three- 
year  period?  What  happens  at  the  end  of 
three    years    when    this    program   of    largess, 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4293 


designed  for  whatever  it  is  supposed  to  be 
designed  for,  comes  to  an  end? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  of 
the  things  iwe  point  out  is  that  we  are  trying 
to  cushion  the  shock  to  allow  people  to 
have  time  to  adjust.  I  have  great  confidence 
in  the  managerial  ability  of  the  average 
Canadian  family,  given  time  to  adjust  to 
new  conditions.  When  you  suddenly  dump 
a  new  cost  on  a  family  already  spending  all 
its  income,  you  have  left  no  place  for  it  to 
get  money  except  by  getting  into  debt.  We 
therefore  suggest  they  need  an  adjustment 
period  and  during  that  adjustment  period, 
I  would  suggest,  they  will  reorder  their 
priorities  in  many  cases  so  that  at  the  end 
of  that  period  of  time  they  will  have  an 
adjusted  family  budget. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Why  did  the  Treasurer  take  the  ap- 
proach of  reducing  the  sales  tax  on  specific 
sectors?  While  it  does  put  more  money  into 
the  economy  in  terms  of  people's  discretion- 
ary income,  at  the  same  time,  if  someone  is 
going  to  save  $35  on  the  purchase  of  a  $500 
refrigerator,  for  example,  they  obviously 
must  have  that  $500  to  start  with  to  make 
the  original  purchase.  Why  did  the  Treasurer 
not  take  an  approach  that  would  put  some 
money  directly  into  the  hands  of  low-income 
families  in  this  province,  for  example,  by  a 
reduction  in  OHIP  premiums  or  an  increase 
in  the  Gains  allowance? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  hon- 
ourable colleague  would  have  to  admit  that 
low-income  people  do  not  pay  OHIP  pre- 
miums under  our  system.  The  most  effective 
mechanism  for  short-term  stimulus  has  been 
proven  to  be  the  sales  tax  route  where  the 
savings  elements  are  high. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
On  the  matter  of  relief  of  home  heating 
costs,  the  Treasurer  says  in  his  statement, 
"I  will  be  making  specific  proposals  to  the 
Minister  of  Finance."  What  are  those  spe- 
cific proposals? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  said 
in  my  comment,  I  will  be  making  them  to 
the  Minister  of  Finance. 

10:50  a.m. 

STRATFORD  FESTIVAL 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Premier.  The  bungling  of 
the  Stratford  Festival  board  of  directors  has 
precipitated  not  only  an  artistic  crisis  in  the 
festival  but  also  an  economic  crisis.  It  is 
going  to  cost  about  $30  million  in  revenues 


and  500  or  600  jobs  in  the  Stratford  area  this 
summer  if  the  boycott  of  Equity  which  has 
been  precipitated  by  the  board  is  carried 
through.  In  view  of  this,  would  the  Premier 
say  what  steps  the  government  now  intends 
to  take  in  order  to  seek  to  resolve  this  crisis 
which  is  both  artistic  and  economic? 

Mr.  Peterson:  Would  the  Premier  consider 
Frank  as  our  artistic  director  of  the  Stratford 
Festival? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  am  a  choreographer 
by  nature. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  but  I  think  it  might 
be  a  great  spot  for  the  member.  That  would 
save  him  having  to  make  a  decision. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be  delighted  to  an- 
swer that  question  but  I  think  the  minister 
responsible  for  art,  culture,  recreation  and 
many  things  in  this  province  might  more  ap- 
propriately answer  it  for  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party.  The  minister  is  in  his 
seat.  I  am  sure  he  would  be  delighted  to 
answer  that  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe 
that  question  is  entirely  premature.  Negotia- 
tions are  just  starting  today,  not  only  with 
the  Ontario  Arts  Council  and  with  Stratford 
but  also  with  the  Canadian  Actors'  Equity 
Association  and  so  forth.  So  for  us  now  to 
draw  conclusions  implicitly  to  questions  like 
that  I  think  is  entirely  too  premature.  But 
as  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  has  indi- 
cated, this  is  a  question  that  has  not  only 
artistic  but  also  economic  implications.  We 
will  keep  an  eye  on  it  and  keep  reporting 
to  this  House.  It  is  too  premature  to  try  to 
answer  to  anything  today. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Could  the  minister  not  have 
a  greater  sense  of  urgency  about  what  is 
happening  there  and  what  that  means,  not 
just  for  the  economy  of  an  important  region 
in  southwestern  Ontario,  but  for  the  whole 
province?  The  Stratford  Festival  has  been  a 
premier  tourist  attraction  for  people  from 
the  United  States  and  as  far  away  as  Europe 
and  Japan. 

Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  the  boycott 
by  Equity,  precipitated  by  the  Stratford  Fes- 
tival board,  is  in  force  immediately?  That 
means  the  actors  and  other  theatre  people 
affected  are  immediately  going  to  be  looking 
for  other  engagements  and1  making  other 
commitments  which  will  keep  them  out  of 
Stratford  if  a  resolution  is  arrived  at  in  a 
month  or  two. 

Is  the  minister  also  aware  that  the  Canada 
Council  is  now  not  in  a  position  to  consider 
Stratford's    application    for    funding   for    the 


4294 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


1981  year  because  the  signatures  on  the  sub- 
mission that  was  made  last  month  by  the 
four  artistic  directors  can  no  longer  be  con- 
sidered to  be  valid  because  those  artistic 
directors  are  no  longer  with  Stratford?  Their 
position  is  in  doubt  because  of  the  hiring  of 
Mr.  Dexter  and  because  of  the  fact  that 
severance  terms  are  being  offered  to  those 
four  artistic  directors. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  has  been  asked. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Could  the  minister  not  take 
this  as  a  matter  of  greater  urgency?  What  is 
he  going  to  do  before  the  entire  Stratford 
Festival,  which  has  been  an  important  part 
of  our  lives  for  28  years,  descends  into  a 
shambles? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  As  I  indicated  earlier, 
these  questions  are,  at  this  moment,  still 
premature.  The  Ontario  Arts  Council,  which 
is  our  agency  working  with  Stratford  in  this, 
is  very  concerned  about  the  situation.  They 
issued  a  statement  today  and,  Mr.  Speaker, 
with  your  permission  I  will  read  one  para- 
graph: 

"The  Ontario  Arts  Council  initiated  in- 
quiries on  Tuesday,  November  11,  the 
minute  they  knew  about  it,  within  hours  of 
the  announcement  of  the  dismissal  of  the 
Canadian  director,  and  the  appointment  of 
Mr.  John  Dexter.  After  numerous  informal 
contacts  and  discussions,  the  Ontario  Arts 
Council  requested  that  representatives  of  the 
Stratford  Festival  board  meet  with  the  execu- 
tive committee  of  the  Ontario  Arts  Council 
on  Wednesday,  November  19,  at  which  time 
it  is  expected  that  answers  to  a  number  of 
pressing   questions   will  be   forthcoming. 

"In  addition,  the  Ontario  Arts  Council 
was  in  communication  with  Equity  in  light 
of  their  recent  announcement  of  a  boycott  at 
Stratford  by  the  Canadian  actors." 

So  I  feel  the  Ontario  Arts  Council,  the 
Canada  Council,  my  counterpart  in  Ottawa 
and  my  ministry  are  all  aware  this  is  a  serious 
situation.  But  We  must  simply  take  this  step 
by  step.  It  is  urgent  and  we  are  going  to 
treat  it  as  such. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  issue  which  has  precipi- 
tated the  crisis  at  Stratford  is  the  decision  of 
the  board  to  once  again  pass  over  Canadian 
talent  in  the  artistic  direction  of  the  festival. 
The  Stratford  Festival  board  has,  for  almost 
all  of  its  20  years,  hired  foreigners  as  the 
artistic  directors  of  the  festival.  In  view  of 
this,  will  the  government  insist  at  least  this 
time  that  artistic  direction  be  in  the  hands 
of  Canadians,  since  that  is  also  a  means  by 
which  this  dispute,  this  crisis,  can  be  resolved 
very  quickly? 


Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  again  I 
must  say  it  would  be  premature  for  me  to 
stand  here  in  this  place  at  this  hour  and  say 
we  are  going  to  insist  on  specific  situations 
such  as  this.  Let  us  give  both  the  Canada 
Council  and  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  and 
Stratford  and  the  Equity  people  some  time 
to  negotiate  and  then  we  will  see  where  we 
need  to  go  from  there.  We  will1  do  what  needs 
to  be  done  when  the  time  comes  to  do  it. 

AUTO  INDUSTRY  LAYOFFS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  I  would  like  to  direct  to  the  Premier 
about  the  layoffs  in  the  auto  industry  that 
are  recurring  now  in  Windsor. 

This  week  6,000  workers  at  Chrysler  are 
told  they  are  going  on  layoff  next  week  be- 
cause the  production  of  those  gas  guzzlers  they 
make  down  there  is  exceeding  the  demand 
for  them.  There  are  also  indications  that 
Chrysler  intends  to  expand  its  K  car  produc- 
tion in  the  United  States  at  its  St.  Louis 
plant  and  to  transfer  production  of  the  larger 
cars  that  are  now  made  in  St.  Louis  to 
Windsor,  instead  of  expanding  K  car  produc- 
tion in  Canada. 

Since  the  Premier  said  in  June  he  was 
optimistic  the  Big  Four  auto  makers  would 
give  Canada  a  fair  share  of  production  of  the 
new  fuel-efficient  cars,  can  the  Premier  say 
what  he  now  intends  to  do  in  order  to  ensure 
that  Chrysler  builds  K  cars  in  Canada  rather 
than  building  cars  for  which  there  is  obvi- 
ously a  very  declining  market? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  of  course 
there  is  a  concern  here  with  respect  to 
Chrysler  and  the  other  auto  companies  in 
terms  of  the  market  conditions  this  year. 
From  my  perspective  I  think  it  is  rather 
premature  to  be  determining,  in  fact,  what 
the  market  conditions  are  going  to  he- 
Mr.    Cassidy:    Everything    is   premature. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Listen,  I  know  exactly 
what  is  happening  in  Windsor.  I  think  it  is 
fair  to  state  that  the  government,  through  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  communi- 
cated last  June,  and  has  since,  the  desire  on 
the  part  of  this  government— and  I  would 
hope  the  government  of  Canada— to  have  a 
growing  percentage  of  the  more  fuel-efficient 
vehicles  in  this  country. 

For  instance,  my  recollection  is  that  GM 
has  made  a  commitment  that  some  of  that 
production  will,  in  fact,  take  place  in 
Oshawa.  The  member  for  Oshawa  (Mr. 
Breaugh)  is  nodding  his  head,  and  it  is 
great  to  have  him  in  agreement  on  a  Friday 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4295 


morning.  The  situation  with  Chrysler  is  not 
as  final  or  committed  as  it  is  with  GM.  We 
intend,  I  hope  along  with  the  government  of 
Canada,  to  be  pursuing  it  with  them. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  Premier  said  in 
June  he  was  optimistic  that  we  would  get  a 
fair  share  of  these  cars,  is  the  Premier  aware 
that  the  other  problem  with  Chrysler  Canada 
is  the  fact  the  company  has  an  inadequate 
sourcing  of  parts  and  production  of  parts 
here  in  Canada?  I  have  here  the  invoices  that 
document  the  systematic  stripping  of  the 
Chrysler  engine  plant  which  was  closed  in 
August  and  where  the  equipment  and  ma- 
chinery is  now  being  shipped  out  to  the 
United  States  and  to  the  Chrysler  subsidiary 
in  Mexico. 

Since  this  disposal  of  the  equipment  in  a 
plant  which  we  were  told  was  going  to  be 
mothballed  endangered  the  perspective  use  of 
the  plant  for  either  a  V6  engine  or  for  a 
diesel  facility  such  as  the  one  Massey-Fergu- 
son  has  been  discussing  with  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Tourism,  will  the  government 
step  in  and  make  Chrysler  stop  stripping  the 
assets  from  that  engine  plant  in  Windsor 
until  a  future  use  can  be  found  for  the  plant 
here  in  Canada  that  would  create  jobs  for 
Canadians? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  the  term  "strip- 
ping the  assets"  is  not  totally  accurate.  It  is 
my  understanding,  and  it  is  only  an  under- 
standing, that  certain  equipment  was  being 
moved  out  of  that  particular  plant,  and  this 
was  known  to  the  members. 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  not  news.  Some 
of  the  NDP  members  asked  us  about  that 
last  June.  That  is  not  new  information.  We 
knew  this  was  in  the  process  of  taking  place. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker 
—and  I  want  to  assure  the  Premier  that  I 
drive  a  Chrysler,  not  a  Peugeot— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  I  don't 
know  who  drives  a  Peugeot.  I  drive  a 
Chrysler. 

Mr.  Mancini:  We  wish  to  welcome  the 
leader  of  the  third  party  to  the  Chrysler 
drivers. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  And  the  model  is  called  the 
Premier. 

11  a.m. 

Mr.  Mancini:  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
Premier  if  he  is  going  to  involve  himself  with 
the  federal  Minister  of  Industry,  Trade  and 
Commerce  in  the  renegotiation  of  some  parts 
of  the  auto  pact  to  ensure  that  Windsor  gets 


a  fair  share  of  automobile  production  in 
many  sectors  of  the  industry  and  not  only  in 
the  large  car  sector. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  govern- 
ment will  ibe  involved,  and  has  been.  I  think 
that  will  be  very  evident  to  the  honourable 
member  when  he  sees  what  has  been  ac- 
complished. Certainly  there  are  discussions 
with  the  federal  minister,  Mr.  Gray.  Of 
course,  the  member  is  much  closer  to  him 
than  I  am,  geographically  and  philosophi- 
cally, and  I  assume  he  is  making  his  views 
known  as  well. 

I  can  say  to  the  honourable  member,  not 
only  is  Windsor  of  concern  and  of  interest, 
but  any  alteration  of  the  auto  pact  must,  of 
course,  take  into  account  the  needs  of  Amer- 
ican Motors  in  the  great  city  of  Brampton. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Has  the  Premier  or  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman)  had 
any  talks  at  all  with  Chrysler  about  produc- 
ing in  Canada— and  making  it  an  international 
vehicle— their  very  good  safety  oar,  which 
they  have  had  on  the  books  for  six  or  seven 
years,  as  a  means  of  getting  fully  into  the 
production  of  a  car  in  Ontario  and  in  Can- 
ada that  would  really  have  a  sales  market? 

Secondly,  as  the  Premier  has  stated  he 
knows  so  much  about  the  Windsor  situation, 
he  must  know  last  night's  budget  with  its 
$700  maximum  rebate  for  a  van  purchase  is 
not  really  going  to  materially  help  the  em- 
ployment situation  in  Windsor.  What  will 
the  Premier  do  for  Windsor  in  terms  of 
meaningful  public  works  programs  this 
winter  and  support  for  all  those  social 
service  agencies  whose  needs  have  gone  up 
tremendously  and  whose  budgets  have  to  be 
cut? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
first  part  of  the  supplementary  was  in  fact 
a  supplementary.  The  second  part  of  the 
question  was  really  a  new  question. 

In  answer  to  the  first  part  of  the  question, 
there  have  been  rather  wide-ranging  discus- 
sions with  Chrysler,  in  which  I  have  not 
taken  part,  related  to  this  "safety  car."  In 
answer  to  the  second  part  of  the  question, 
this  government  has  always  assisted  those 
people  who  have  genuine  needs  and  will  con- 
tinue to  do  so. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
advise  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  that  the  Chrysler  car  is  not  a  gas 
guzzler  and,  according  to  all  statistics,  it 
is  equal  to,  if  not  better  than,  all  other 
makes. 


4296 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  have  a  supplementary  to  the  Premier: 
Is  the  Premier  aware  that  Chrysler  produces 
two-door  models  in  Canada,  and  since 
family  cars  have  a  tendency  to  be  four-door 
models  and  station  wagons,  we  should  stress 
to  the  company  they  should  be  making  a 
family  car? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  de- 
lighted to  hear  the  honourable  member  sup- 
port Chrysler  products.  I  have  been  driving 
one  for  more  years  than  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party,  who  has  become 
a  recent  convert. 

Mr.  Nixon:  When  was  the  last  time  you 
bought  one? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  my 
wife  has,  but  I  have  not.  I  will  make  the 
point  to  Chrysler  that  the  honourable  mem- 
ber suggests  families  find  it  easier  to  get 
into  four-door  cars  than  two-door  cars. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Particularly  if  they  have  a 
weight  problem. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  On  a  point  of  personal 
privilege,  I  want  to  say  that  I  have  never 
felt  the  member  for  Essex  North  has  had 
a  weight  problem.  The  member  for  London 
Centre  may  think  so,  but  I  do  not. 

ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Peterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  to 
the  Treasurer:  Now  that  he  has  had  at  least 
12  hours  to  reflect  on  the  statement  he  read 
last  night,  is  the  Treasurer  prepared  to  stand 
up  and  admit  his  commitment  to  so-called 
structural  reform  or  structural  investment  in 
the  economy  is  less  than  it  was  under  the 
old  employment  development  fund  program? 
In  that  he  budgeted  $300  million  over  two 
years,  averaging  $150  million  a  year,  yet  the 
extent  of  his  commitment  to  the  end  of  1982, 
according  to  his  own  figures,  is  only  $100 
million,  of  which  $20  million  is  going  to 
equalize  rural  hydro  rates.  So  his  only  real 
commitment  in  terms  of  structural  reform  is 
about  $80  million,  substantially  less  than  he 
was  spending  in  the  last  two  years. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  tried  to 
explain,  even  on  the  radio  program  the  mem- 
ber and  I  shared  this  morning,  that  certain 
elements  of  the  employment  development 
fund  that  were  becoming  programmatic  as 
time  went  on  were  being  incorporated  into 
the  budgets  of  ministries.  These  programs 
have  been  quite  successful.  They  no  longer 
needed  the  individual  decision-making  ap- 
proach of  the  employment  development 
board. 


They  were  better  handled  by  a  program 
within  a  ministry  of  government,  such  as  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  the  Minis- 
try of  Natural  Resources  and  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  We 
have  a  small  business  development  corpora- 
tion handled  by  the  Ministry  of  Revenue. 
We  have  the  program  for  mineral  resource 
exploration  handled  by  Natural  Resources. 
We  have  the  tourism  redevelopment  program 
handled  by  Industry  and  Tourism.  They  are 
now  becoming  parts  of  programs  and  those 
moneys  continue  to  flow. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Given  the  carryover  of  some 
of  these  programs,  the  new  initiatives  in  new 
investment  in  productive  capacity  in  this 
province  is  less  than  it  was  under  the  old 
program.  Even  though  the  board  has  been 
renamed  the  Board  of  Industrial  Leadership 
and  Development,  BILD  or  bust  or  whatever, 
as  opposed  to  EDF,  it  is  less  and  there  is  no 
substantial  change  of  any  type  whatsover 
in  this  specious  document  that  was  presented 
last  night,  is  there  not? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  think  an  important 
factor  has  been  missed  and  that  is  the  re- 
view of  the  moneys  already  being  spent  in 
the  co-ordination  of  activities  A  lot  of  people 
have  criticized— I  believe  the  member  has 
when  he  has  talked  about  it— Treasury's  role 
in  these  matters.  What  I  am  saying  is  the 
Treasury  role  as  a  co-ordinator  of  economic 
activity  with  the  power  to  look  at  existing 
programs  was  strengthened  in  the  board 
called  BILD.  We  had  a  different  name  for  it 
earlier.  It  was  going  to  be  called  BRED  but 
we  did  not  think  that  one  would  work  out  so 
well. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  When  the  minister  looked 
in  the  mirror  he  knew  that  was  impossible 
too. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  do  not  spell  quite  the 
same  way  as  the  member  does.  The  fact  re- 
mains, I  would  argue  we  are  going  to  be 
making  much  more  efficient  use  of  some  of 
the  $2  billion  currently  being  spent  by  minis- 
tries that  are  economically  related,  as  well  as 
adding  more  moneys  to  the  program. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  reference  to  the  BILD  program  which  the 
Treasurer  is  so  proud  of,  perhaps  the  Treas- 
urer could  tell  us  why  he  needed  that  de- 
laying tactic  called  BILD,  which  really  puts 
off  any  decisions  on  rebuilding  key  sectors 
until  another  year  at  least  and  he  may  not 
even  be  there  to  make  those  decisions? 

Perhaps  the  Treasurer  could  tell  us  why 
he  needs  that  kind  of  delay,  that  kind  of  time, 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4297 


to  understand  that  a  key  sector  such  as  min- 
ing machinery  needs  to  be  rebuilt?  We  have 
all  the  information  there.  Statistics  Canada 
provides  us  with  information  monthly  on  how 
bad  it  is. 

Does  the  Treasurer  not  agree  it  would1  be 
better  to  look  at  a  sector  such  as  mining 
machinery  where  imports  are  high,  where 
there  is  a  large  deficit,  where  jobs  are  skilled 
and  where  there  is  a  high  component  of  re- 
gional development,  in  the  development  of 
the  mining  machinery  complex  in  northern 
Ontario? 

Why  did  the  Treasurer  not  take  a  sector 
and  make  a  firm  commitment  to  put  a  sub- 
stantial amount  of  investment  into  that  sector 
to  rebuild  it  so  we  can  have  key  sectors  re- 
built for  the  future? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
exactly  the  kind  of  thing  we  expect  to  do. 
I  do  not  know  where  the  member  gets  the 
idea  of  a  delay  of  a  year.  That  is  precisely 
one  of  the  sectors  I  am  going  to  look  at. 

HOSPITAL  EMERGENCY  SERVICES 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Health.  In  view 
of  the  minister's  often  strident  defence  of 
his  responsibility  to  health  care  in  Ontario, 
will  he  explain  to  this  House  the  inadequacy 
of  the  treatment  afforded  one  Mary  Ann 
Thomson,  22  years  of  age,  in  my  riding,  who 
on  October  15  had  part  of  her  right  thumb 
sliced  off  in  a  meat  slicing  machine  in  the 
establishment  where  she  worked?  She  had 
her  hand  bandaged,  the  piece  of  thumb  was 
packed  on  ice  and  she  was  sent  to  Hamilton 
General  Hospital  where  they  took  details  of 
the  accident. 

She  was  left  on  a  stretcher  from  2:20  p.m. 
to  4:40  p.m.  before  she  was  finally  moved 
to  a  surgical  room.  At  5:45  p.m.  they  finally 
had  a  doctor  there  who  ordered  the  piece 
of  the  thumb  thrown  out  because  it  should 
have  been  packed  in  salt  on  arrival  at  the 
hospital.  They  did  not  have  adequate  sur- 
gical supplies  and  they  draped  her  hand  in  a 
doctor's  green  gown  when  they  were  clean- 
ing it  up  before  the  operation.  A  number  of 
other  pieces  of  equipment  were  inadequate 
for  the  operation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
familiar  with  the  individual  case  nor  with 
the  other  quarter  of  a  million  a  day  that 
go  through  the  health  care  system.  I  will 
have  to  have  my  staff  contact  Dr.  Noonan, 
the  executive  director  of  the  hospital,  to 
ascertain  any  further  facts  in  the  case  and 


get  an  answer  to  the  honourable  member's 
question.  That  is  all  I  can  do  at  this  time. 

11:10  a.m. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Can  I  also  ask  the  min- 
ister whether  or  not  he  will  take  the  respon- 
sibility in  this  House  for  the  inadequacy  of 
the  treatment  that  his  policies  are  causing 
for  people  in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  With  respect,  if  the 
honourable  member  is  prepared  to  give  me 
the  personal  credit  for  every  miracle  which 
is  performed  on  a  daily  basis  in  the  health 
care  system,  then  I  might  entertain  his  ques- 
tion. It  is  a  stupid  question. 

DREE  ASSISTANCE 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Treasurer.  As  a  result  of  the 
recent  meetings  with  the  federal  officials,  can 
the  Treasurer  indicate  any  progress  in  having 
the  benefits  for  regional  development  under 
the  Department  of  Regional  Economic  Ex- 
pansion program  extended  to  include  the 
northern  part  of  Simcoe  county,  the  district 
of  Muskoka  and  the  northern  parts  of,  I 
understand,   Grey  county  as  well? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  honour- 
able member  mentioned  one  area  that  cer- 
tainly attracted  my  attention  in  his  comments 
when  he  got  to  Muskoka.  On  Wednesday 
night,  I  believe  it  was,  several  ministers  from 
Ontario  met  with  several  federal  ministers 
under  the  chairmanship  of  Mr.  De  Bane  to 
discuss  DREE  programs.  I  was  not  present 
for  a  number  of  reasons.  I  think  the  Minister 
of  Northern  Affairs  (Mr.  Bernier)  was  there, 
and  I  believe  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development  (Mr.  Brunelle)  was 
there  also,  so  they  could  probably  bring  the 
member  more  up  to  date  on  the  actual  events. 
I  understood  it  was  a  good  meeting  but  that 
any  attempt  by  us  to  have  these  counties  in- 
cluded that  was  felt  were  in  some  trouble 
still  fell  on  deaf  ears. 

One  of  the  reasons  I  brought  in  the  rural 
Ontario  program  was  just  that.  We  made 
several  pleas  to  DREE  to  include  counties 
such  as  Grey,  Bruce,  Simcoe  North,  Hali- 
burton,  Victoria,  Muskoka  in  the  kind  of  as- 
sistance programs  that  were  available  through 
DREE  for  eastern  Ontario.  When  we  failed, 
we  thought  the  second-best  approach  was  to 
have  Ontario  design  a  program  for  those 
counties  and  that  is  what  I  announced  in  the 
budget. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  Will  there  be  any  further 
meetings  with  the  federal  ministries  for  on- 


4298 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


going  negotiations   to   attempt  to   bring  this 
about? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  We  will  continue  to 
meet  with  the  federal  ministers  because  we 
do  that  at  least  once  a  year,  and  recently  it 
has  been  twice  in  the  last  three  or  four 
months.  I  am  not  optimistic  that  they  are 
willing  to  concede  there  was  a  need  to  help 
those  areas.  I  think  we  had  a  fair  amount  of 
support  from  both  sides  of  the  House  on  our 
representations  for  those  counties  but  it  did 
not  seem  to  succeed. 

SUSPENSION  OF  DOCTOR 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
for  the  Minister  of  Health.  It  concerns  the 
latest  report  of  the  discipline  committee  of 
the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  of 
Ontario  and  in  particular  the  judgement 
against  Dr.  Eric  August  Deernsted  of  the 
Ottawa  area. 

The  discipline  committee  found  the  said 
doctor  guilty  of  two  counts  of  professional 
misconduct.  The  first  was  that  he  falsified  a 
record  in  respect  to  the  examination  or  treat- 
ment of  his  patient  in  a  discharge  summary 
which  portrayed  a  completely  misleading 
picture  of  the  patient's  clinical  condition. 
The  second  professional  misconduct  involved 
sexual  impropriety  in  that  this  doctor  began 
a  course  of  conduct  with  a  married,  ill, 
female  patient  which  culminated  in  an  in- 
timate sexual  relationship.  I  believe  those  to 
be  very  serious  violations  of  professional 
conduct. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  the  college, 
through  the  discipline  committee,  meted  out 
the  penalty  of  30  days'  suspension?  Would 
the  minister,  having  regard  to  his  responsi- 
bility to  protect  the  public  interest  in  so  far 
as  the  health  discipline  legislation  is  con- 
cerned, not  agree  with  me  that  this  is  a  piti- 
fully inadequate  response  by  this  self-govern- 
ing regulator  with  respect  to  the  charges 
involved? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of 
all,  just  to  complete  the  record^so  it  does 
not  sound  too  much  like  As  the  World 
Turns— the  doctor  in  question  married  the 
lady  in  question,  just  to  complete  the 
member's  description  of  events. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Is  that  new  health  policy? 
Called  preventive  medicine  is  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  No.  If  the  member 
would  like  me  to  counsel  him  on  that  at 
some  point  in  time,  I  would  be  glad  to,  or 
maybe    the    member    for    Renfrew    North. 


Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all,  a  30-day  suspen- 
sion is  not  an  inconsiderable  penalty  in 
terms  of  the  maintenance  of  a  practice  of 
medicine  and  the  maintenance  of  a  reputa- 
tion. In  fact,  even  the  very  finding  of  guilt 
by  the  discipline  committee  and  the  publi- 
cation of  that,  I  suggest  to  the  member,  is 
a  serious  matter  in  the  maintenance  of  an 
ongoing  career  in  medicine. 

Second,  there  was  a  lay  person— my  under- 
standing is  there  always  is  a  lay  person 
appointed  by  the  government  sitting  on  the 
discipline  committee— who  was  involved  in 
this  particular  decision. 

Third,  the  government  does  not  have  the 
authority  under  the  legislation  to  intervene 
in  a  particular  judgement.  From  time  to  time 
I  do  take  up  with  the  college  some  of  its 
decisions,  and  I  must  say  I  find  on  the  whole 
the  college  is  very  thorough  in  its  investiga- 
tions and  goes  to  a  great  deal  of  difficulty 
to  attempt  to  arrive  at  just  decisions. 

One  of  the  aspects  of  this  case  that  does 
concern  me  is  this  question  of  the  falsifi- 
cation of  hospital  records,  and  I  have  direct- 
ed my  staff  to  look  into  the  matter  to  see 
if  further  action  on  our  part  with  respect 
to  the  Public  Hospitals  Act  is  warranted. 

Mr.  Conway:  I  could  not  disagree  more 
with  what  I  think  is  a  perfectly  outrageous 
beginning  to  the  minister's  answer.  The  fact 
that  this  particular  doctor  married  this  par- 
ticular patient  after  these  violations  is  of  no 
real  consequence  to  me  at  all,  and  I  think 
it  is  just  a  totally  unacceptable  response 
from  the  minister. 

Is  the  minister  aware,  given  what  he  said 
at  the  end  of  his  answer  about  the  falsifi- 
cation of  medical  records,  that  the  involved 
third  party,  the  Queensway-Carleton  Hospi- 
tal, and  in  particular  the  director  of  the 
medical  staff  there,  is  not  yet  aware  of 
precisely  what  transpired  at  that  hearing 
that  had  such  a  direct  effect  on  his  hospital? 
Does  the  minister  not  think  the  time  has 
come  that  some  formal  mechanism  be  struck 
for  the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons 
to  directly  involve  third  parties  like  hospitals 
so  that  they  will  not  be  left,  as  the  Queens- 
way-Carleton is  in  this  instance,  completely 
in  the  dark  as  to  why  this  particular  doctor's 
licence  is  being  suspended  and  how  they 
might  be  on  guard  to  monitor  the  kind  of 
outrageous  conduct  that  led  to  the  suspen- 
sion in  the  first  place? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  could 
be  wrong  and  I  will  check  this,  but  I  believe 
that   either   of   the   parties   to   a   disciplinary 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4299 


matter  has  the  right  to  call  before  the  dis- 
ciplinary committee,  to  offer  their  advice 
and/or  information,  whomsoever  they  please, 
so  the  involvement  of  third  parties— and 
again  I  will  confirm  this— is  part  of  the 
process. 

Secondly,  I  did  not  start  my  answer  to  be 
good,  but  rather  to  complete  the  back- 
ground which  the  member  was  giving.  I 
think  we  are  dealing  with  some  verv  com- 
plicated interpersonal  relationships.  I  want 
to  put  those  in  perspective.  I  want  to  deal 
with  the  professional  question  and  I  want  to 
deal  with  the  hospital  question. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  Will 
the  minister  advise  the  House  and  the  people 
of  Ontario  today  that  South  Cayuga  is  no 
longer  under  consideration  as  a  possible  site 
for  a  liquid  industrial  waste  disposal  facility? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Does  the  minister  not  recall 
that  he  asked  James  F.  MacLaren  Limited, 
an  independent  consultant,  to  identify  the 
best  possible  areas  for  locating  these  facili- 
ties? Given  that  MacLaren  reported  very 
specifically  that  South  Cayuga  was  not  even 
minimally  acceptable,  does  the  minister  not 
agree  that  his  intervention  and  direction  to 
MacLaren  to  study  South  Cayuga  and  other 
sites  that  are  politically  embarrassing  to  that 
government  has  seriously  jeopardized  the  in- 
dependence, the  impartiality  and  the  public 
trust  in  the  MacLaren  study?  Will  the  min- 
ister withdraw  his  political  interference  today 
so  that  public  trust  in  the  independence  of 
MacLaren  can  bo  restored  before  he  makes 
his  announcement  on  November  25? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  There  are  about  four  an- 
swers of  no  to  that,  but  I  would  only  add 
that  I  think  it  is  of  paramount  importance 
that  the  ministry,  and  myself  as  well,  should 
ask  the  MacLaren  people— it  is  a  very  com- 
prehensive study— to  look  at  land  that  is 
owned  by  the  government.  I  am  sure  if  we 
did  not  do  so  we  would  be  criticized.  I  have 
no  intention  of  taking  the  advice  of  the 
member  opposite. 

11:20  a.m. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Could  the  minister  indicate  to  this 
House  the  cost  of  the  study  that  is  taking 
place  at  the  present  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  About  $425,000. 


LAND  SEVERANCE 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  yester- 
day the  member  for  Huron-Middlesex  asked 
me  a  question:  "Can  the  minister  explain 
why  an  order  in  council  was  issued  on  his 
advice  on  July  31,  1980,  to  grant  a  severance 
on  agricultural  land  in  Vespra  township?" 
He  went  on  in  his  statement  to  ask,  "If  the 
minister  felt  so  compelled  to  support  this 
severance,  why  did  he  not  do  so  at  the  hear- 
ing before  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board?" 
I  note  the  honourable  member  is  here  now 
and  I  do  have  the  order  in  council  here. 

On  the  severance  in  question,  Mr.  George 
Atkinson  operates  a  large  dairy  farm  in 
Vespra  township  with  several  full-time  farm 
helpers.  Mr.  Atkinson  applied  to  the  Vespra 
committee  of  adjustment  for  a  severance  for 
farm  help.  The  committee  approved  the 
severance.  The  township  council  appealed 
this  to  the  OMB. 

To  accommodate  his  hired  workers,  the 
petitioner  proposed  to  construct  two  dwel- 
lings and  to  hire  someone,  perhaps  the  wife 
of  one  of  the  workers,  to  provide  the  services 
his  wife  at  present  provides.  For  this  purpose, 
Mr.  Atkinson  needs  to  sever  a  parcel  of  land 
having  a  100-foot  frontage  and  a  200-foot 
depth  from  a  total  parcel  of  45  acres.  The 
lot  to  be  severed  fronts  on  a  township  road 
and  is  adjacent  to  the  community  of  Crown 
Hill  in  the  township  of  Vespra. 

The  committee  of  adjustment  of  the  town- 
ship of  Vespra  granted  the  petitioner's  appli- 
cation for  severance.  I  have  a  copy  of  this 
decision  if  the  member  wishes  it.  There  was 
no  opposition  placed  before  the  committee  of 
adjustment.  No  written  submissions  were  re- 
ceived by  the  committee  in  opposition  to  Mr. 
Atkinson's  severance. 

The  following  persons  and  agencies  re- 
ceived notice  of  Mr.  Atkinson's  application: 
(a)  the  clerk  of  the  township  of  Vespra;  (b) 
the  issuer  of  building  permits  for  the  town- 
ship; (c)  the  secretary  of  the  Vespra  Planning 
Board;  (d)  the  clerk  of  the  county  of  Simcoe, 
and  (e)  the  central  county  health  unit.  None 
of  these  persons  or  agencies  appeared  or  gave 
any  written  submission  of  any  nature  whatso- 
ever. There  was  no  opposition. 

Some  time  later  an  appeal  was  taken  by 
the  township  of  Vespra  against  the  decision  of 
the  committee  granting  Mr.  Atkinson's  sever- 
ance. The  township  gave  no  reason  for  this 
appeal.  At  the  OMB  hearing,  the  only  grounds 
for  the  appeal  advanced  by  the  township 
were  that  Mr.  Atkinson's  proposal  did  not 
fall  within  one  of  the  specific  exemptions 
enumerated  in  the  official  plan. 


4300 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  uncontradicted  evidence  of  the  OMB 
hearing  was  that  the  subject  lands  are  the 
poorest  of  the  lands  owned  by  Mr.  Atkinson. 
The  lands  are  generally  wet,  and  attempts  to 
tile-drain  the  lands  have  been  unsuccessful. 
After  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to  grow 
crops,  Mr.  Atkinson  allowed  the  lands  to 
revert  to  pasture.  This  evidence  as  to  the  agri- 
cultural capability  of  the  land  was  uncon- 
tradicted at  the  hearing  of  the  OMB  and  no 
argument  was  placed  against  it. 

The  evidence  before  the  board  was  that  the 
lot  the  petitioner  proposes  to  sever  is  located 
just  west  of  Highway  93,  fronting  on  a  town- 
ship road  known  as  Side  Road  15.  There  are  a 
number  of  residences,  and  I  will  get  that,  Mr. 
Speaker,  because  I  did  mention  that  earlier 
in  my  remarks. 

The  evidence  again  was  uncontradicted  that 
the  proposed  lot  would  fall  within  the  com- 
munity of  Crown  Hill.  Again  if  there  is  a  re- 
quest for  it,  I  will  give  the  plan.  The  official 
plan  for  the  Vespra  planning  area  referred 
to  above  provides  that  wherever  farm  animal 
operations  are  to  be  carried  out,  the  agricul- 
tural code  of  practice  and  the  fool  land  guide- 
lines should  be  followed. 

Mr.  Dale  Toombs,  government  representa- 
tive and  Simcoe  county  field  officer  with  the 
food  land  development  branch  of  the  ministry, 
applied  minimum  distance  separation  formula 
number  one  to  the  subject  lands  and  found 
that  the  proposed  lot  met  the  minimum  dis- 
tance separation  criteria  established  by  the 
code.  He  found  the  distance  between  the 
proposed  lot  and  the  closest  livestock  opera- 
tion was  more  than  adequate  to  avoid  any 
potential  environmental  conflict  between  the 
two. 

Mr.  Toombs's  evidence  was  uncontradicted. 
He  stated  the  prevailing  government  policy  in 
respect  to  the  petitioner's  application  is  found 
in  the  food  land  guidelines.  He  stated  the 
particular  policies  enunciated  in  the  guide- 
lines and  applicable  to  the  subject  land  were 
as  follows— 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  this  important? 

Hon.   Mr.  Henderson:    Mr.    Speaker,   it  is 
important  that  the  honourable  members- 
Mr.   Cassidy:    It  is   an   abuse   of  the  pri- 
vate members'  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  It  is  important.  The 
honourable  minister  has  taken  six  minutes 
and  30  seconds,  which  I  am  going  to  add  to 
the  question  period.  It  is  just  a  question  of 
how  long  the  minister  persists  because  I  in- 
tend to  add  to  the  question  period.  I  would 
suggest  that  in  future  if  the  minister  organ- 


izes his  material  a  little  better,  it  would  allow 
for  a  supplementary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  thank 
you,  but  this  is  pertinent  information.  The 
honourable  member  made  serious  charges 
about  my  staff.  They  should  be  answered  in 
an  appropriate  way. 

To  continue:  The  general  policy  relating 
to  the  preservation  of  good  agricultural  land 
subject  to  some  exceptions;  the  provision  of 
severances  for  the  establishment  of  accom- 
modation for  full-time  farm  help. 

Mr.  Toombs  stated  that  in  this  instance  the 
prevailing  policy,  that  is  the  policy  of  great- 
est relevance,  is  found  in  section  4A.20  of 
the  guidelines.  This  section  relates  to  farm- 
related  severances.  The  relevant  subsection  of 
section  4A.20— I  could  read  that,  but  I  will 
not  at  this  time. 

The  only  thing  I  add  is  that  this  operation 
milks  about  80  cows.  They  ship  thorough- 
bred stock  all  over  the  world.  There  is  a 
farmer  and  two  sons  with  six  full-time 
helpers.  The  farmer's  wife  provides  lodging 
and  boarding  for  this  help,  but  her  health 
lias  got  to  the  point  that  they  decided  they 
would  have  to  contract  this  work  out  to  the 
wife  of  one  of  the  employees  of  the  farm. 
That  is  the  reason  for  the  severance. 

I  have  no  problems  and  no  reservations 
with  the  decision  of  cabinet.  Our  action  was 
in  keeping  with  all  the  policies  and  for  the 
good  of  the  farm  people  of  this  province. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  answer  took  eight  min- 
utes, so  we  will  add  another  five  to  the 
question  period. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Would  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
ask  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  for  a  copy  of 
the  letter  that  Was  sent  to  him  by  the  clerk- 
treasurer  of  Vespra  township?  It  would  indi- 
cate that  what  he  has  told  us  this  morning 
is  rubbish.  Would  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  not  also  agree  that  the  grant- 
ing of  that  severance  was  in  contravention 
of  the  township  official  plan  and  the  zoning 
bylaw  and  that  it  flies  in  the  face  of  his  own 
food  land  guidelines?  What  is  the  purpose 
of  a  municipality  going  to  the  trouble  of 
drawing  up  official  plans  and  zoning  bylaws 
to  meet  the  requirements  laid  down  by  this 
government  if  cabinet  can  overturn  them  all? 

11:30  a.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
certainly  read  the  letter  to  our  Premier,  a 
letter  that  our  Premier  will  respond  to.  Early 
in  my  statement  I  responded  that  the  official 
plan    did    carry    a    clause   that   farm-related 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4301 


severances  should  be  in  keeping  with  our 
code  of  practice  and  food  land  guidelines. 
This  severance  is  certainly  in  keeping  with 
them  all  the  way. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Read  the  letter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  should  go 
up  and  have  a  look  at  it. 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  have  the  letter.  I  want  the 
minister  to  read  it.  There  was  never  any 
stronger  language  than  that  laid  out  to  him 
in  that  letter. 

NIAGARA  RIVER  POLLUTION 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  Will 
the  minister  comment  on  the  statement  by 
the  United  States  chairman  of  the  Interna- 
tional Joint  Commission  who  stated  he  does 
not  know  how  government  can  allow  SCA 
Chemical  Services  Limited  to  put  more  waste 
in  the  Niagara  River  when  there  are  apparent 
violations  there  now?  Is  this  not  a  concern 
the  Deputy  Premier  (Mr.  Welch)  stated 
months  ago  when  he  told  a  private  citizens' 
meeting  in  Niagara  Falls,  New  York,  that  not 
another  drop  should  go  into  that  river?  Now, 
in  this  morning's  paper,  we  have  the  chair- 
man of  the  IJC  making  those  comments.  How 
does  the  minister  react  to  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
have  reacted,  not  only  this  morning  but  some 
time  ago.  I  went  to  see  the  governor.  He  was 
unable  to  see  me.  Therefore,  I  saw  the  com- 
missioner of  New  York  state.  We  had  a  very 
long  visit  in  the  capital  of  New  York,  Albany. 
There  is  no  doubt  in  his  mind  about  my 
concern  about  the  Niagara  River. 

I  am  not  going  to  be  a  phoney  in  this 
situation  and  start  to  make  idle  comments.  I 
will  not  do  that.  I  think  the  honourable 
member  knows  me  well  enough  to  know  I 
will  not  do  that.  The  member  knows  my 
concern,  and  it  is  as  genuine  as  it  can  pos- 
sibly be.  But  I  do  not  think  the  story  ends 
with  just  saying,  "We  do  not  want  another 
drop  to  go  in  there."  We  do  have  an  industry 
that  needs  treatment  facilities. 

I  will  tell  the  member  this,  there  has 
never  been  a  commitment  more  dear  to  me. 
When  we  have  the  facilities  we  are  going  to 
have  in  this  province,  the  best  in  the  world, 
and  we  now  have  the  best  waybill  system 
on  the  continent- 
Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Yes,  that  is  true-then 
we  will  scream  from  the  highest  mountain, 
"You  follow  our  lead."  We  are  going  to  be 


in  that  position,  there  is  no  doubt  about  it. 
I  want  to  scream  loud  and  clear,  but  I  want 
to  do  it  from  a  position  where  there  is  clear 
leadership.  That  will  be  established  in  this 
province  in  1982. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Supplementary:  Will  the  min- 
ister accelerate  the  testing  at  Walker  Brothers 
now  to  be  certain  as  to  what  is  in  those 
drums  so  we  can  clear  the  air?  My  concern 
is  that  if  we  do  not  clean  up  that  matter  im- 
mediately, I  want  some  reassurance  from 
the  minister  that  those  liquid  wastes  will  not 
go  into  the  river.  I  am  very  concerned  that 
the  solidification  process  should  go  into 
place,  and  I  would  like  the  minister  to  take 
the  initiative  now  and  not  just  wait.  Let  us 
clear  up  that  matter  at  Walker  Brothers. 
Will  he  accelerate  that  process? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  sorry  to  say  the 
member  is  way  behind.  We  have  done  that. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  We  do  not  have  the  evidence 
yet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Whoa,  whoa,  whoa.  I 
must  tell  the  member  we  have  done  that. 
We  do  not  have  the  results.  I  told  the  House 
yesterday  we  are  taking  all  those  and 
sampling  them.  We  happen  to  have  the  best 
lab  facilities  in  North  America  to  be  able 
to  do  it.  Think  about  that  for  a  moment.  No 
one  can  test  the  drums  as  thoroughly  as  we 
can  here  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  When  do  you  get  the  results? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  We  said  we  would  do  it. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
How  can  the  minister  say  he  is  accelerating 
the  testing  in  Walker  Brothers  Quarries 
when  he  knows  there  are  hundreds  of  drums 
and  to  date  he  has  unearthed  only  nine  of 
them?  That  is  going  to  take  three  or  four 
years  at  that  rate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  sorry  to  say  the 
member  is  absolutely  incorrect.  Again  that 
is  not  true. 

AID  TO  PENSIONERS 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  two- 
part  question  of  the  Minister  of  Revenue. 
Does  he  know  that  his  ad  informing  seniors 
that  the  ministry's  office  is  located  at  77 
Bloor  Street  West  instead  of  Queen's  Park 
appeared  on  the  business  page  of  the  To- 
ronto Star  on  November  1?  Does  he  think  a 
majority  of  seniors  are  likely  to  read  the 
business  page? 

Secondly,  has  he  cheeked  the  reception 
desk  downstairs  since  the  ad  appeared  to  see 
how  many  seniors  are  still  coming  to  Queen's 


4302 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Park  for  information  and  is  there  any  service 
at  the  reception  desk  to  provide  them  with 
phone  calls  to  the  ministry  or  application 
forms? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
control  over  the  newspapers  as  to  where  they 
are  going  to  put  the  ads  when  we  ask  them 
to  advertise.  I  would  agree  with  the  member 
that  if  it  were  on  the  financial  page,  perhaps 
some  of  the  senior  citizens  would  not  see  it. 
I  do  not  have  control  over  the  Globe  and 
Mail  or  the  Toronto  Star  to  tell  them  where 
they  are  going  to  put  ads.  I  have  to  accept 
that  when  an  ad  is  placed,  they  decide  the 
layout  of  the  paper,  not  I. 

As  far  as  the  desk  downstairs  is  concerned, 
it  is  my  understanding  the  people  at  the  desk 
do  call  the  ministry  office  if  someone  appears 
there,  so  I   think  that  is  being  looked  after. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Supplementary:  I  am  sure 
the  minister  is  aware  one  can  ask  for  the 
section  of  the  paper  where  one  wants  the 
ad  put  but  that  appears  not  to  have  been 
done.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister,  since 
there  are  820,000  old  age  pensioners  who 
received  application  forms  and,  according  to 
his  figures,  only  540,000  have  sent  in  applica- 
tion forms  and  only  54,000  are  in  nursing 
homes  and  so  on,  is  he  following  up  on  the 
more  than  200,000  seniors  who  have  not 
responded  and  who  may  lose  out  on  this  tax 
relief  simply  because  they  cannot  understand 
the  forms  or  cannot  get  through  on  the  tele- 
phone for  assistance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  figure  of  820,000  is 
the  total  number  of  seniors  in  Ontario.  Not 
all  of  them  were  mailed  application  forms.  A 
family  received  one  application  form,  not 
two.  That  is  taken  from  the  old  age  supple- 
ment files.  The  820,000  figure  comes  from 
the  fact  we  sent  out  a  retail  sales  tax  grant 
of  $50.  Each  senior  citizen  received  that 
without  application. 

There  were,  in  effect,  540,000  applications 
sent  out.  Those  were  the  ones  dealing  with 
families.  In  other  words,  if  there  were  a  man 
and  wife  living  together,  they  got  one  appli- 
cation. That  is  why  it  was  reduced  from 
820,000  to  540,000.  All  the  people  eligible 
for  the  property  tax  grants  whom  we  are 
aware  of  have  received  the  applications,  with 
the  exception  of  those  who  may  be  landed 
immigrants,  who  must  come  to  us  if  we  do 
not  have  a  file  on  them.  All  the  rest  of  them 
have  received  their  applications. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  the  minister  be  surprised 
that  the  reason  for  the  ad  appearing  in  the 


business  section  of  the  Globe  and  Mail  would 
be  that  this  has  the  highest  line  rate  in  the 
Globe  and  Mail,  thereby  enabling  the  ad 
agency  to  make  an  even  greater  commission? 
Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  last  ad  put  in  was 
not  a  planned  ad,  as  was  the  rest  of  the 
program.  It  was  an  addition  to  the  advertis- 
ing program  at  the  request,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  of  some  members  of  the  NDP.  We  had 
to  accept  the  space  we  could  get  on  such 
short  notice.  I  wanted  to  get  the  ads  in  to 
explain  some  of  the  difficulties  the  ministry 
was  having  and  to  get  in  the  address  re- 
quested, so  people  would  be  able  to  get  to 
the  proper  office  rather  than  the  Queen's 
Park  address.  It  was  an  additional  ad  to  the 
regular  advertising  program  and  we  had  to 
accept  the  space  available  to  us  on  short 
notice. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  November  6 
I  asked  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  (Mr.  Parrott).  He  stated  he 
would  reply  on  November  7.  He  did  not 
reply  that  day.  I  raised  a  question  of  privi- 
lege and  he  gave  a  commitment  to  this 
House  that  he  would  reply  shortly.  This 
issue  is  distinct  from  what  we  are  discussing 
this  week  because  it  concerns  another  prop- 
erty, but  it  is  a  revelation  of  ministry 
negligence  and  Walker's  violation,  once 
again,  of  environmental  law.  Would  you 
bring  to  the  attention  of  the  minister  that 
his  answer  is  long  overdue? 

Mr.  Speaker:   I  am  sure  he  heard  that. 

11:40  a.m. 

ACCESS  TO  LEGISLATIVE  BUILDING 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on 
a  point  of  privilege  to  thank  you  for  your 
prompt  response  to  the  point  I  raised  yester- 
day. I  very  much  appreciate  your  having 
written  to  the  superintendent  of  the  Ontario 
Provincial  Police  securities  branch,  which 
administers  the  Ontario  Government  Protec- 
tive Service. 

However,  I  remain  quite  concerned  about 
what  I  view  to  be  the  patently  ludicrous 
interpretation  placed  on  your  security  guide- 
lines by  Acting  Senior  Supervisor  Watts 
yesterday.  I  would  ask  that  you  refer  this 
matter  to  the  standing  committee  on  proce- 
dural affairs  for  consideration  and  advice. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  It  is  really  not  a  concern 
of  the  procedural  affairs  committee.  It  is  the 
responsibility  of  the  Speaker  and  the  Board 
of  Internal  Economy. 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4303 


Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  think  we  ought  to 
do  something  about  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  are  monitoring  it  and 
I  am  quite  sure  things  are  proceeding  as  they 
should. 

IDENTIFICATION  OF  MEMBER 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise 
to  correct  the  record  and  it  is  a  breach  of 
my  privilege  as  well,  in  a  sense— the  prob- 
lem of  names  and  party  affiliations.  On 
November  6  I  made  a  speech  in  the  consti- 
tution debate  in  which  I  attacked  the  Pre- 
mier savagely  from  time  to  time.  Yet  in  the 
"Speakers  in  this  Issue"  record  at  the  end 
of  it,  I  am  put  down  as  "Johnston,  R.  F., 
Scarborough  West,  PC."  That  hurts  a  good 
deal,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  it  has  happened 
several  times.  I  have  to  rise  to  say,  please 
do  not  confuse  me.  There  is  no  Progressive 
Conservative  who  spoke  out  against  the 
Premier  as  I  did  that  night. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  can  see  the  editor  of  debates 
got  that  comment.  It  will  be  corrected. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

HIGHWAY  TRAFFIC  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  188,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Highway 
Traffic  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

DANGEROUS  GOODS 
TRANSPORTATION  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  189,  The  Dangerous  Goods  Transporta- 
tion Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

URBAN  TRANSPORTATION 

DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

LIMITED  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  190,  An  Act  respecting  Urban  Trans- 
portation Development  Corporation  Limited. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

EMPLOYMENT  STANDARDS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
191,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Employment  Stand- 
ards Act,  1974. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


TORONTO  DISTRICT 
HEATING  CORPORATION  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 

192,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Toronto  Hospitals 
Steam  Corporation  Act,  1968-69. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

MUNICIPAL  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 

193,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal  Act. 
Motion  agreed  to. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  194, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  authorize  the  residential  tenancy 
commissioner  to  order  payment  of  a  tenant's 
costs  when  the  commission  has  determined 
that  the  tenant  paid  rent  in  excess  of  the 
amount  permitted  by  the  act. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  195, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  this 
bill  is  too  require  a  landlord,  upon  the  request 
of  a  tenant,  to  file  certain  receipts  for  ex- 
penditures made  by  the  landlord  with  the 
residential  tenancy  commission. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  wish  to  table  the  answer 
to  question  380  and  the  interim  answer  to 
question  348  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper. 
(See  appendix  page  4315). 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

THIRD  READINGS 

The  following  bills  were  given  third  read- 
ing on  motion: 

Bill  59,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Game  and 
Fish  Act; 

Bill  139,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Shoreline 
Property  Assistance  Act,  1973; 


4304 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Bill  152,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Beef  Cattle 
Marketing  Act; 

Bill  153,  An  Act  to  repeal  the  Warble  Fly 
Control  Act; 

Bill  164,  An  Act  to  amend'  the  Insurance 
Act; 

Bill  165,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Motor 
Vehicle  Accident  Claims  Act; 

Bill  170,  An  Act  to  erect  the  Township  of 
Gloucester  into  a  City  Municipality. 

Bill  171,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Valida- 
tion of  Certain  Adoption  Orders  made  under 
the  Child  Welfare  Act,  1978. 

Bill  175,  An  Act  to  provide  for  Municipal 
Hydroelectric  Service  in  the  City  of  Sudbury. 
11:50  a.m. 

TORONTO  ISLANDS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  181,  An  Act  to  stay  the  Execution  of 
Certain  Writs  of  Possession  issued  in  respect 
of  Certain  Premises  on  Toronto  Islands. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  minister  have  an 
opening  comment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
made  the  comments  that  were  necessary 
yesterday.  I  would  just  like  to  reiterate  to 
the  House  that  the  necessity  of  this  bill  was 
caused  by  the  fact  that  the  Ontario  Court  of 
Appeal  found  on  October  27  that  the  writs 
of  possession  which  Metropolitan  Toronto 
had  asked  for  against  the  residents  on  Toron- 
to Island  were  valid  and  servable  and  the 
sheriff  has  taken  steps  to  serve  those  writs.  In 
fact,  he  would  be  enforcing  them  on  Novem- 
ber 17. 

In  the  interval,  as  I  stated  yesterday  and 
as  members  of  this  House  knew,  we  did  ap- 
point, under  the  authority  of  the  Municipality 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act,  a  one-man 
commissioner,  Barry  Swadron,  QC,  who  has 
been  holding  a  very  full,  thorough  and,  I 
think,  very  good  inquiry  into  this  whole 
matter.  He  has  had  a  number  of  presenta- 
tions. They  tell  me  well  over  100  presenta- 
tions have  been  made  to  him.  He  has  listened 
to  many  of  the  experts  in  both— 

Mr.  Nixon:  Is  that  necessarily  a  good 
thing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Certainly  it  is  a  good 
thing.  He  has  moved  around  and  held  his 
hearings  both  in  the  suburbs  and  in  down- 
town Toronto  and  has  listened  to  the  con- 
cerns of  people  all  over  this  area  in  regard 
to  what  the  future  uses  of  Ward's  and  Al- 
gonquin islands  should  be. 


He  has  just  about  finished  the  formal  part 
of  his  work  and  he  has  to  sit  down  and 
write  his  report.  It  will  probably  be  avail- 
able some  time  in  December.  Therefore,  it 
would  be  ludicrous  to  think  that  some  action 
should  be  taken  in  so  far  as  these  warrants 
are  concerned  at  this  time  when  this  very 
full  report  and  its  recommendations  will  be 
available  to  all  of  us,  and  I  hope  will  form 
the  basis  for  a  permanent  solution  to  this 
very  pressing  matter. 

I  fully  acknowledge  the  sheriff  had  no 
other  choice  because  the  writs  were  asked 
for  by  Metropolitan  Toronto.  We  asked 
Metropolitan  Toronto  not  to  have  those  writs 
enforced  and  they  could  have  relieved  us  of 
the  necessity  of  passing  this  bill  by  saying 
they  would  not  ask  the  sheriff  to  enforce  the 
writs.  Of  course,  that  would  have  enabled 
him  to  hold  up  any  action.  That  was  not 
forthcoming,  so  we  are  asked  to  take  this 
kind  of  action. 

The  date  that  was  picked  is— I  think  I 
used  the  words— stupid  and  inhumane.  I 
regret  that  many  people  thought— and  have 
spoken  to  me  since  about  this— I  was  refer- 
ring to  them  when  I  used  those  remarks. 
Actually  I  was  referring  to  the  date.  It  was 
a  stupid  and  inhumane  date. 

To  suggest  that  people  should  be  evicted 
in  the  cold  weather,  six  weeks  before  Christ- 
mas, certainly  would  not  be  the  kind  of 
thing  that  any  member  of  this  Legislature 
would  believe  should  happen.  I  would  hope 
it  is  not  the  kind  of  thing  that  any  member 
of  council  of  the  municipality  of  Metro- 
politan Toronto  would  really  expect  should 
happen,  regardless  of  their  feelings  on  this 
matter.  To  think  that  people  should  be 
evicted  on  that  particular  date,  I  think,  is 
ludicrous.  Anyway,  one  can  even  argue  on 
humanitarian  grounds  that  something  should 
be  done  to  make  sure  there  are  no  evictions 
at  this  particular  time. 

It  has  also  been  suggested  to  me  from 
time  to  time  that  we  are  meddling  in  an  area 
where  we  should  not  be  meddling.  I  would 
suggest  to  the  House  that  the  mass  eviction 
of  anywhere  from  250  to  500  people  in  any 
community  in  any  part  of  this  province 
would  necessitate  this  Legislature  somehow 
being  involved.  I  really  answer  that  charge 
that  is  made  to  us  by  saying  that  if  this  kind 
of  mass  eviction  were  to  occur  anywhere  in 
the  province,  I  am  sure  we  would  somehow 
be  involved  in  it. 

I  do  not  in  any  way  countenance  the  fact 
or  the  argument,  or  give  any  credence  to  the 
argument,  that  we  should  not  be  involved  in 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4305 


this,  because  I  think  we  are  involved  in 
many  areas,  particularly  when  the  whole 
resolution  of  this  problem  concerns  an  act 
of  this  Legislature  which  could  or  would 
have  to  be  amended.  Therefore,  of  necessity 
we  must  be  involved  in  the  problem  and,  in 
fact,  by  amendment  in  1956  we  started  the 
whole  trend  towards  having  the  island  as  a 
Metro  park,  so  we  were  involved  back  then 
and  We  are  legitimately  involved  now. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  government?  Or  Scar- 
borough? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  the  government.  The 
government  in  1956  amended  the  Munic- 
ipality of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act  at  the  re- 
quest of  Metro  and  the  city  of  Toronto  to 
change  the  ownership  of  the  island  from 
Toronto  to  Metro  for  the  purpose  of  creating 
a  park,  so  at  that  particular  time  the  Legis- 
lature was  involved  and  had  to  be  involved. 
That  section  is  the  one  that  is  in  there  and 
that  is  the  section  that  still  provides  that  the 
island  should  become  a  Metro  park.  The 
only  way  that  can  be  changed  is  by  us  chang- 
ing that  section. 

Since  it  is  an  act  of  this  Legislature,  we 
properly  are  involved.  That  is  why  I  really 
reject  the  idea  that  somehow  we  should  never 
be  involved  in  this  at  all,  because  we  were 
involved  and  we  probably  will  continue  to 
be  involved. 

I  do  not  want  to  take  any  more  time  on 
my  opening  statement,  other  than  to  say  that 
the  events  surrounding  this  are  well  known. 
What  we  have  here  today  is  a  simple  bill  to 
stay  the  execution  of  the  writs  until  next 
July,  which  will  allow  the  Swadron  commis- 
sion to  report  and  will  allow  all  of  us  to 
study  that  report.  It  is  hoped  that  out  of  that 
report  will  come  some  resolution  to  the 
problem. 

I  would  say  at  this  time  I  hope  that  all  who 
receive  the  report  will  read  it,  and  not  reject 
it  out  of  hand  without  reading  it.  I  hope  the 
members  of  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  coun- 
cil will  read  that  report  and  will  read  it  with 
an  open  mind  rather  than,  as  I  have  heard 
some  of  them  do  already,  predeciding  what  is 
going  to  be  in  there  and  prejudging  the  re- 
port. That  would  be  a  tragedy,  because  I 
think  Mr.  Swadron  is  taking  a  lot  of  time, 
based  on  the  evidence  presented  to  him,  to 
come  up  with  some  solutions  and  to  give 
some  historic  background  that  perhaps  has 
not  been  presented  before.  I  hope  that  report 
will  be  considered  on  its  merits  and  the 
only  way  it  can  be  considered  on  its  merits 
is  for  us  not  to  interfere  with  anybody  at  this 
time.  That  is  what  this  bill  does. 


I  might  also  say,  for  those  who  are  con- 
cerned that  it  might  somehow  cause  more 
legal  battles  concerning  the  writs,  that  the 
law  officers  of  the  crown  inform  us  it  is  not 
interfering  with  the  writs,  in  that  the  writs 
will  still  be  valid  after  July  1,  1981.  We  are 
not  setting  up  a  process  whereby  more  legal 
manoeuvres  can  occur  after  that.  It  is  merely 
stalling  the  execution  of  those  writs  for  the 
reasons  we  have  just  stated.  I  would  hope  it 
will  be  supported  by  all  members  of  this 
House. 

12  noon. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  minister  has 
been  guilty  of  a  certain  degree  of  brinkman- 
ship in  bringing  forward  this  bill.  It  has  been 
obvious  for  three  weeks  that  the  bill  would  be 
necessary,  and  here  it  is  before  the  House 
for  three  readings  on  the  very  day  before  the 
execution  of  the  writs.  I  know  the  minister 
has  had  a  certain  amount  of  difficulty,  per- 
haps with  his  own  colleagues,  in  this  con- 
nection because  I  think  it  has  been  made 
clear  in  public  statements  that  both  the 
Liberals  and  the  New  Democrats  not  only 
have  been  expecting  the  bill,  but  in  fact  have 
been  demanding  it. 

We  would  agree  with  the  statement,  if  not 
the  tone  of  the  minister's  comments,  that  it 
would  be  a  ridiculous  thing  indeed  if  the  is- 
land residents  were  dispossessed  in  the  middle 
of  November.  We  are  also  aware  that  this 
matter  has  gone  on  for  many  months— in  fact 
years— and  whether  we  like  it  or  not  the  final 
decision  of  what  is  going  to  happen  on  the 
island  is  going  to  be  made  in  this  House. 

I  sense  the  minister,  in  his  emphasis  on  the 
importance  of  the  Swadron  commission  and 
the  investigation  coming  under  the  direction 
of  Barry  Swadron,  has  made  his  own  decision 
and  that  is  that  he  will  do  whatever  the  com- 
missioner recommends.  He  is  advising  us  so 
sincerely— and  he  does  that  very  well— not  to 
prejudge  the  commissioner's  report,  but  I  sup- 
pose the  fate  of  the  island  community  has 
already  been  judged  by  almost  all  members 
of  this  House. 

We  have  listened  to  the  argument  put  for- 
ward by  the  member  for  St.  Andrew-St 
Patrick  (Mr.  Grossman)  in  a  most  impassioned 
way.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  has  convinced 
me  of  the  correctness  of  his  position.  I  do 
not  expect  to  see  the  House  or  the  govern- 
ment itself  move  in  a  way  to  allow  the  dis- 
possession of  the  present  residents  on  the 
island. 

I  visited  the  island  in  the  presence  of  many 
thousands  of  Torontonians  at  the  great  CHIN 
picnic.  It  is  always  representative  of  at  least 


4306 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


three  political  parties  and  a  couple  of  others 
that  are  not  really  there  except  in  spirit.  It 
is  always  a  great  event.  I  remember  even  as 
a  boy  going  to  Centre  Island,  riding  the 
merry-go-round  and  grabbing  the  brass  ring. 
That  is  something  all  of  us  have  heard  of, 
but  I  think  I  am  the  only  one  who  ever  did 
it.  It  was  the  last  piece  of  good  luck  I  ever 
had.  After  having  had  such  a  long  ride,  I 
think  I  was  then  promptly  sick,  but  that  is 
another  matter. 

I  do  believe,  however,  that  parks  on  the 
island  are  a  great  thing  and  necessary  for 
the  metropolitan  area.  I  do  believe  that  in 
the  areas  that  are  available  for  them,  the 
metropolitan  area  has  an  extensive  area  for 
recreation,  yacht  clubs  and1  other  facilities.  I 
think  it  is  a  marvellous  thing  for  the  benefit 
of  this  community,  something  that  would  lead 
me  to  think  even  more  highly  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto  as  a  place  to  live  than  I  do  now.  I 
most  sincerely  love  this  city. 

(I  do  not,  however,  feel  it  is  necessary  to 
kick  everybody  off  the  two  islands,  Ward's 
and  Algonquin.  If  the  Legislature  votes  to  do 
that  eventually,  I  will  be  very  surprised. 

The  minister  has  gone  to  some  lengths  in 
his  opening  remarks  to  fend  off  any  criticism 
of  interference  in  local  affairs,  indicating  it 
was  an  amendment  by  this  House  that  estab- 
lished the  concept  of  a  park  in  the  first  in- 
stance. I  suppose  we  are  all  very  sensitive 
about  this  intrusion  into  local  affairs  but,  in 
spite  of  that  sensitivity,  I  can  assure  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  final  decision  on  what  happens 
on  the  island  is  going  to  be  made  in  this 
House  and  not  elsewhere. 

I  know  the  minister  feels  he  has  a  special 
persuasive  power  in  dealing  with  the  chair- 
man of  Metropolitan  Toronto,  but  for  some 
reason  that  well-known  persuasiveness  is  not 
effective  with  the  present  chairman.  The 
chairman  is  adamant  that  the  decisions  of 
Metro  must  stand  and  any  interference  from 
outside  is  unwarranted  and  to  be  opposed  at 
all  costs.  He  was  even  prepared  to  instruct 
the  sheriff  to  go  forward  with  the  disposses- 
sion. 

I  presume  since  the  minister  was  criticized 
for  using  immoderate  language  with  regard 
to  the  sheriff— and  he  says  he  was  not  re- 
ferring to  the  sheriff  as  being  stupid  and 
inhumane— then  he  must  apply  that  criticism 
to  the  chairman  of  Metropolitan  Toronto.  I 
see  the  minister  shaking  his  head.  He  does 
not  want  to  call  anybody  stupid  and  in- 
humane. I  know  what  a  kind  man  the  minis- 
ter is  and  how  unflappable  he  is.  We  can 
only  assume  then  that  some  of  his  advisers 
have  put  these  adjectives  in  his  mind  and  in 


his  mouth  and  probably  he  has  discussed  this 
matter  with  them  already. 

I  suppose  a  person  in  politics  who,  like  the 
minister  is  upwardly  mobile,  must  be  very 
careful  indeed  as  to  what  sort  of  advice  he 
gets  from  those  people  who  are  thinking  only 
of  his  own  benefit.  They  want  to  be  helpful, 
but  sometimes  in  their  very  helpfulness  they 
can  be  injurious.  It  is  a  lesson  I  learned 
myself  far  too  late,  but  perhaps  the  minister 
with  his  well-known  moderation  and  good 
humour,  which  I  have  seen  break  down  only 
on  rare  occasions  and  then  perhaps  only  by 
misunderstanding,  still  has  time.  He  must  be 
careful  to  see  that  in  the  months  that  lie 
ahead  he  is  not  led  into  this  ridiculous  trap 
whereby  upwardly  mobile  politicians  fall  into 
the  hands  of  managers  who  can  do  nothing 
but  harm  them. 

I  could  embark  on  a  longer  treatise  on  this, 
but  I  know  the  minister  was  very  embar- 
rassed. In  using  the  words  "stupid"  and  "in- 
humane" he  certainly  got  our  attention,  but 
he  has  been  busy  ever  since  denying  they 
apply  to  anybody.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
said  they  applied  to  the  day,  that  it  was  a 
stupid  and  inhumane  day,  so  I  suppose  that 
is  all  right.  We  know  he  really  meant  the 
chairman  of  the  council  of  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto, because  he  is  the  person  who  has  been 
intransigent  in  this  matter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  have  been  looking 
for  some  answers  like  that.  I  need  some  an- 
swers to  teach  me  some  moderation. 

Mr.  Nixon:  You  have  ripped  off  the 
Treasury.  Why  don't  you  look  at  the  Min- 
istry of  Intergovernmental  Affairs?  There 
are  a  couple  of  good  plums  sitting  there 
who  are  looking  for  a  winner. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  accept  your  instruction 
to  proceed.  I  simply  say  it  is  unpalatable 
for  us  in  this  House  to  be  dealing  with 
matters  which,  by  our  previous  action,  we 
have  given  to  the  municipalities— the  lower- 
tier  municipalities  have  been  involved  to 
some  degree— especially  the  municipality  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto.  Now  that  we  do  not 
like  its  actions,  we  are  prepared  to  draw 
back  and  instruct  it  otherwise. 

I  am  glad  the  minister  has  abandoned  the 
concepts  of  Bill  5.  I  guess  it  was  a  week  or 
10  days  ago  when  there  was  a  mild  little 
flurry  from  the  minister,  once  again  con- 
siderably out  of  character.  He  got  up  and 
harangued  the  people  in  the  opposition  for 
their  bad  judgement  in  not  supporting  the 
principle  of  Bill  5.  If  Bill  5  comes  forward 
in  any  other  form,   even  as  a  recommenda- 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4307 


tion  from  Barry  Swadron,  it  will  not  be  sup- 
ported on  this  side  either. 

We  do  not  want  to  prejudge  what  Mr. 
Swadron  recommends,  but  if  his  recommen- 
dation is  to  take  each  property  as  the  owner 
or  occupant  moves  away  or  dies  and  have  it 
transferred  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto  to  be  torn  down,  which  is  the 
minister's  solution  to  this,  we  will  not  sup- 
port it  whether  it  comes  from  Swadron,  John 
Robarts  or  any  of  the  other  Tory  gurus  who 
are  going  to  be  involved  in  this  solution. 
The  Tories  can't  agree  among  themselves, 
either  on  the  front  bench  or  involving  the 
lesser  Tories  who  get  more  money  working 
in  unelected  capacities  in  the  Metro  govern- 
ment. 

We  really  cannot  help  the  members  oppo- 
site to  come  to  a  conclusion  among  them- 
selves. In  the  past  we  have  suggested  they 
retire  to  one  of  those  back  rooms  at  the 
Albany  Club  and  come  to  some  solution  that 
would  be,  I  should  not  say  saleable,  but 
acceptable,  and  they  have  failed  miserably. 

Bill  5  is  not  the  solution  now  and  it 
never  will  be.  I  hope  the  minister  is  listening 
to  me  as  he  peruses  that  piece  of  paper  so 
carefully,  because  I  hope  the  last  we  will 
hear  of  Bill  5  was  that  little  flurry  he  gave 
us  in  the  House  10  days  ago. 

This  bill  puts  the  whole  thing  on  ice 
until  next  July.  We  know  that  is  a  good 
date.  The  provincial  election  will  be  over 
and  the  new  government— it  may  be  a  new 
government  made  up  of  new  Tories,  al- 
though I  predict  and  expect  otherwise- 
can  look  at  it.  Certainly  we  feel  on  this 
side  that  the  island  community  should  be 
maintained,  and  if  it  requires  an  amendment 
to  the  Municipality  of  Metropolitan  Toronto 
Act,  so  be  it. 

Unpalatable  though  we  may  think  this 
is,  the  disposition  of  this  matter  lies  in  this 
House.  Even  in  July,  supposing  there  isn't 
an  election  and  we  are  here  in  our  same 
situation,  God  forbid,  it  will  once  again  be 
debated  here  and  the  government  of  the  day, 
finally,  when  pushed  to  extremes— if  it  is 
Tory— will  move  another  bill  that  will  post- 
pone it  again. 

12:10  p.m. 

I  sincerely  hope  the  Swadron  report  will 
be  a  moderate  report.  I  presume  it  will  be 
moderate,  knowing  Mr.  Swadron's  reputation, 
but  will  allow  for  a  continuation  of  the 
island  community.  I  have  been  consistent  in 
my  support  of  that  concept. 

That  was  why,  when  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  made  a  strong  statement 


in  his  more  callow  years  about  playing  hard- 
ball in  this  connection— being  fresh  from 
saving  Doctors  Hospital  from  extermination 
—and  undertook  to  sway  the  views  of  cabinet 
in  support  of  the  island  community,  frankly, 
I  admired  what  he  did.  I  thought  probably 
the  salvation  of  the  Doctors  Hospital  was 
sort  of  an  inside  drop  ball,  but  this  one 
seems  really  to  be  a  battle. 

The  fact  that  this  bill  is  so  late  in  coming 
forward  means  the  minister  and  the  admin- 
istration of  Ontario  have  had  difficulties  we 
do  not  understand.  Presumably  they  have 
been  able  to  walk  over  the  chairman  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto  because  he  likes  his 
job.  He  may  have  even  threatened  not  to  run 
for  the  Legislature,  or  to  run  for  the  Liberals 
or  something  like  that,  unless  the  government 
did  what  he  wanted,  but  the  minister  has 
even  been  able  to  overcome  threats  like  that. 

I  feel  the  problems  the  minister  has  may 
be  in  cabinet  council  or  with  caucus  at 
large.  Frankly,  I  resent  a  little  bit  the  way 
he  has  left  the  House  hanging  on  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  bill.  He  was  critical  of  our  atti- 
tude on  Bill  5,  but  he  had  no  reasonable 
alternative  until  Bill  181,  a  Band- Aid 
measure,  was  presented  to  us  today  for  three 
readings  and  royal  assent  all  at  once. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  We  had  one  reading 
yesterday. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Two  readings  and  royal  assent 
or,  let  us  say,  three  references  in  this 
chamber.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  supporting 
it  and  I  express  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
view  that  in  the  long  run  the  chamber  will 
vote  to  maintain  the  island  community. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to 
fondly  give  the  speech  I  was  going  to  give 
every  time  the  other  bill  kept  coming  up, 
but  I  am  not  going  to  give  it  because  it  was 
at  least  an  hour  and  a  half  in  length  and 
gave  the  full  history  of  the  island. 

I  think  this  Bill  181  should  be  described 
as  the  better-late-than-never  bill.  I  come  at 
it  with  mixed  emotions  as  much  as  did  the 
member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  who  just 
spoke.  I  am  pleased  to  see  it  has  come 
through.  Obviously  we  are  in  favour  of  it 
and  obviously  we  are  going  to  support  it, 
because  it  never  needed  to  be  done  in  the 
way  it  has  been  done.  There  is  a  certain 
amount  of  anger  in  me  that  it  has  come  up 
in  the  way  it  has. 

It  is  brinkmanship,  waiting  until  the  future 
of  the  island  is  hanging  over  the  cliff  and 
then  the  government  seems  to  pluck  it  out 
and  save  it  in  the  Perils  of  Pauline  style 
with  a  train  coming  down  the  track.  In  point 


4308 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  fact,  this  government  has  been  an  accom- 
plice in  tying  the  islanders  down  on  that 
track,  and  it  controls  the  purse  strings  of  the 
engineer  who  is  bringing  the  train  down  the 
track. 

The  government  had  the  ability  to  stop 
this  thing  long  ago  and  did  not  have  to  try 
to  build  an  unnatural  and  unfair  suspense 
about  the  fate  of  these  islanders  as  has  been 
done.  It  is  a  singular  sign  of  the  failure  of 
power  on  those  front  benches  of  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  and  the  Minister  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs  that  they  had  all 
this  problem  in  getting  this  thing  together 
and  getting  it  before  us  at  this  date.  The 
problems  in  the  government  caucus  must  be 
extreme,  I  would  say. 

I  would  have  thought  it  would  have  been 
far  better  from  the  beginning  to  have  come 
forward  with  a  bill  that  was  not  Bill  5  after 
the  minister  saw  it  was  unacceptable  to  us. 
Many  months  ago,  when  he  set  up  the 
Swadron  commission,  it  would  have  been 
better  to  have  done  that  with  an  act,  and  to 
have  said  in  that  act  he  was  setting  up  this 
commission  which  would  report  back  to  this 
House  because  we  are  involved  and  it  is  our 
responsibility.  We  would  then  debate  it  and 
make  a  decision  on  it.  That  would  have  been 
far  better  than  the  kind  of  approach  the 
minister  has  taken  to  this  date. 

I  am  not  going  to  go  into  the  reasons  we 
support  the  islanders.  They  have  laid  out 
that  case  well  and  we  have  laid  out  that  case 
well;  there  is  no  need  to  do  that  again.  I  want 
to  raise  two  items.  One  is  that  anybody  in 
this  Legislature  who  would  not  say  we  have 
an  obligation  to  protect  that  community  with 
its  history,  a  community  with  roots,  a  com- 
munity that  does  not  need  to  be  taken  over 
for  park  land,  is  crazy  and  is  out  of  step 
with  the  people  of  Metropolitan  Toronto. 
The  other  is  that  those  people  who  claim 
they  cannot  interfere  in  municipal  business 
because  Metro  council  brought  forward  the 
suggestion  are  also  working  on  a  fallacious 
interpretation. 

Surely  what  we  have  is  a  community  of 
650,000— or  whatever  the  city  of  Toronto  is 
now— very  strongly  wanting  to  preserve  one 
of  its  communities,  and,  in  my  view,  an  in- 
directly elected,  unaccountable  council  over- 
riding those  wishes  and  being  supported  by 
this  government.  If  this  is  not  enough  reason 
for  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
to  change  the  format  of  election  of  Metro 
council,  I  do  not  know  what  is. 


I  appeared  before  the  good  Tory  lawyer, 
Mr.  Swadron;  I  do  not  know  whether  any  of 
the  rest  of  the  members  did.  I  did  not  see  too 
many  names  I  recognized  on  the  list  of  people 
who  had  appeared.  I  was  pleased  with  the 
hearing  he  gave  me.  I  am  convinced  the  re- 
port he  is  going  to  come  forward  with  is  go- 
ing to  have  some  interesting  recommendations 
we  should  all  look  at.  I  would  like  to  have  a 
commitment  from  the  minister  today,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  I  am  going  to  support  un- 
equivocally what  he  is  bringing  forward, 
that  we  will  have  a  chance  to  discuss  this  in 
the  Legislature  when  it  comes  forward. 

I  would  like  to  hear  the  minister,  when  he 
wraps  up,  indicate  whether  we  are  going  to 
have  a  chance  to  talk  about  Swadron  here  in 
the  Legislature,  because  I  feel  we  should.  We 
are  in  the  ball  game;  it  is  in  our  court.  He 
has  taken  that  on  today,  he  has  accepted  that 
responsibility;  now  let  him  bring  in  the 
Legislature  to  discuss  the  results. 

I  would  just  say  that  the  timing  of  the  bill, 
the  date  for  the  end  of  June,  was  an  inter- 
esting one.  It  seems  to  tie  into  the  budget 
timetable  of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman).  I  guess  we  know 
that  ties  in  not  just  with  good  weather  and 
the  humanity  of  not  evicting  the  people  at 
this  point,  but  also  with  the  timing  of  a 
prospective  election.  No  doubt  one  of  the 
things  going  on  in  the  minds  of  caucus  mem- 
bers over  there  is  that,  by  passing  this  bill, 
the  minister  is  not  going  to  have  to  deal  with 
the  solution  to  the  Swadron  suggestions, 
when  they  come  forward,  until  after  an  elec- 
tion. 

I  am  giving  the  minister  notice  we  are  go- 
ing to  expect  him  to  come  through  with  his 
recommendations  to  do  with  Swadron  well 
before  an  election.  We  will  give  the  minister 
a  month  or  month  and  a  half  to  look  over 
Swadron.  But  by  goodness,  in  January, 
February  or  whenever  this  House  comes  back 
—immediately  this  House  comes  back— we 
want  the  minister's  recommendations  on  what 
is  going  to  happen  to  the  islanders.  Do  not 
leave  it  until  June  30;  do  not  play  with  those 
people  again. 

The  minister  has  given  himself  enough 
time  to  come  through  with  his  recommenda- 
tions, bring  them  before  this  House,  have  us 
debate  them  and  pass  through  a  long-term 
solution  for  those  people.  I  place  squarely  on 
the  shoulders  of  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  the  mess  we  are  in 
now  in  terms  of  passing  this  thing  in  one 
day. 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4309 


I  believe  his  speech  10  days  ago,  or  when- 
ever it  was,  when  he  talked  about  there  be- 
ing three  options,  was  a  false  political  speech 
which  used  these  people  unfairly.  When  one 
speaks  of  inhumanity,  I  feel  that  was  inherent 
in  what  he  was  doing.  Those  first  two  options 
were  not  options.  Metro  could  not  move. 
There  was  not  going  to  be  another  Metro 
council  meeting.  The  Metro  chairman  could 
not  act  unilaterally  and  the  minister  knew 
that. 

Option  one  had  no  relevance  at  all  and  yet 
he  threw  it  out  again  as  one  of  the  possibili- 
ties and  played  games  with  it.  Then  the 
minister  came  back  with  Bill  5.  He  knew  it 
was  not  acceptable  to  the  opposition  here; 
he  knew  it  was  not  acceptable  to  the  islanders. 
It  was  not  even  acceptable  to  Robert  Bundy 
of  Metro  Parks  and  Property  who  made  a 
presentation  to  the  Swadron  commission  say- 
ing that  any  kind  of  attrition  or  slow  death 
bill  was  unacceptable.  The  minister  knew  that 
was  not  an  option,  so  why  did  he  play  politics 
with  it  and  then  get  the  rednecks  in  his 
caucus,  whom  he  was  having  trouble  con- 
trolling, inflamed?  That  is  what  happened; 
that  is  why  they  got  their  backs  up  and  why 
he  had  trouble  getting  this  thing  through.  It 
was  totally  unnecessary  to  mess  around  with 
them  in  that  way. 

I  want  the  minister  to  tell  us  today 
whether  he  is  going  to  ask  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  to  look  into  the 
sheriff's  office  in  terms  of  what  it  tried  to 
do  with  Toronto  Hydro  and  Consumers' 
Gas.  I  understand  the  sheriff's  office  had  to 
act  in  sending  out  the  eviction  notices,  which 
it  had  obviously  sent  out  before,  but  did 
it  have  to  go  to  Toronto  Hydro  and  say: 
"We  want  you  to  participate  with  us.  We 
want  you  to  drive  your  truck  in  behind1  us 
and  as  we  close  down  the  house  we  are 
going  to  ask  you  to  shut  the  hydro  off.  Then 
we  will  have  the  parks  truck  in  right  after 
that  and  they  will  hammer  the  place  up  and 
it  will  be  closed"?  Surely  that  was  going 
further  than  the  sheriff's  office  had  to  go. 
Asking  for  confidential  lists  of  people  who 
were  receiving  services  from  Consumers' 
Gas  and  Toronto  Hydro  was  unnecessary. 
12:20  p.m. 

I  think  the  Attorney  General  should  look 
into  that  as  it  was  a  totally  unnecessary 
kind  of  provocative  act  by  the  sheriff's 
office.  If  the  sheriff's  office  is  under  the 
control  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General,  I  see  no  reason  why  he  could  not 
have  at  least  slapped  their  wrists  for  that 
kind  of  action. 


There  are  a  few  things  I  would  like  to 
say  to  the  minister  before  I  can  support 
the  bill.  I  want  to  assure  him  we  will  not 
support  Bill  5  if  it  comes  back,  and  I  don't 
expect  it  will  come  back.  I  expect  the 
Swadron  commission  report  to  contain  a 
number  of  items  the  islanders  have  already 
asked  for.  I  expect  him  to  say  the  land 
should  be  left  in  public  ownership.  I  expect 
him  to  say  something  about  a  25-year  lease, 
much  as  they  have  given  to  the  yacht  club 
on  the  islands.  I  will  be  very  surprised  if  he 
does  not  come  through  with  a  review  of  that. 
I  do  not  doubt  that  he  will  say  those  build- 
ings have  to  be  raised  to  a  certain  standard. 
That  is  totally  acceptable  to  the  islanders 
and  totally  acceptable  to  any  rational  person 
on  this  side  of  the  House  as  well,  and  there 
are  many  of  us. 

The  final  item  on  the  islanders'  position 
which  I  spoke  about  when  I  spoke  with 
Swadron  is  that  the  homes  and  leases 
should  be  done  on  a  nonprofit  basis.  If  it 
can  be  done  on  a  co-operative  basis,  even 
better.  I  think  you  are  going  to  see  sugges- 
tions like  that  come  through  from  Swadron. 
An  attrition  type  of  bill  is  not  going  to  be 
acceptable  to  us  at  all. 

I  also  want  to  be  sure  we  have  a  debate 
in  the  House  on  the  Swadron  commission 
report  and  I  want  assurance  from  the  min- 
ister that  he  is  not  going  to  wait  until  June 
30  to  bring  forward  a  solution  to  the  island 
problems  for  the  long  term.  I  would  like  to 
hear  from  the  minister  on  those  three  things 
before  the  debate  is  concluded.  Thank  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  going  to  take  the  time  of  the  House  to 
repeat  the  kinds  of  messages  I  have  given  in 
this  House  previously,  nor  to  repeat  the 
message  I  delivered  in  my  presentation  to 
the  Swadron  commission.  Suffice  to  say  some- 
thing members  opposite  want  to  forget,  I 
am  gratified  that  all  members  of  this  House 
are  supportive  of  the  proposition  that  the 
islands  matter  should  be  referred  to  an  im- 
partial, careful  study  which  is  being  con- 
ducted by  Mr.  Swadron.  Like  other  members 
who  have  spoken,  I  am  quite  satisfied  the 
Swadron  commission  is  being  conducted  in 
that  kind  of  sensible  and  impartial  fashion 
and  I  look  forward  to  a  balanced  recom- 
mendation flowing  from  it. 

The  kind  of  balanced  recommendation  I 
think  anyone  looking  at  it  objectively  will 
present  is  well  known  to  members  of  this 
House  because  my  position  has  been  as 
clear  and  as  historical  as  anyone  else  in  the 
assembly  can  claim.  I  want  to  make  the  point 


4310 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  my  colleagues  who  have  joined  in  our 
attempts  to  prevent  too  expeditious  and  too 
hasty  action  being  taken  on  this  matter  are 
all  concerned  about  being  sure  there  is  fair- 
ness adopted  in  whatever  stance  we  take. 

It  is  a  little  harder  to  deal  with  when  we 
have  two  councils  with  some  claim  to  au- 
thority dramatically  disagreeing  on  what 
should  happen  there.  My  goal  has  always 
been  to  accomplish  one  simple  thing.  I  can- 
not pretend  it  is  not  a  goal  to  retain  a  com- 
munity there.  It  is  a  goal  I  am  proud  of  and 
one  for  which  I  have  always  fought. 

Secondly,  I  have  always  believed  an  im- 
partial, fair  hearing,  devoid  of  the  kind  of 
political  posturing  that  frankly  city  council 
has  seen  and  frankly  Metro  council  has  seen 
and  frankly  this  assembly  has  seen,  is  what 
is  necessary  to  get  a  sensible  resolution  to  the 
matter.  I  think  that  is  what  we  are  going  to 
see  coming  out  of  the  Swadron  commission 
and  to  that  end  I  take  some  pride  in  the  fact 
that  as  a  member  for  a  particular  and  unique 
community  I  am  able  to  stand  here  as  part 
of  a  government  that  has  taken  steps  to  en- 
sure a  fair  hearing  of  those  issues. 

I  must  be  honest  and  say  that  I  take  some 
personal  pride  in  the  fact  I  have  carried  this 
fight  forward  on  behalf  of  a  particular  neigh- 
bourhood and  community  in  my  riding  that 
has  never  voted  for  me  nor,  as  I  indicated 
to  the  Swadron  commission,  do  I  expect  ever 
will  vote  for  me.  Those  who  attest  political 
motives  to  me  should  have  a  look  at  the  re- 
sults of  the  polls  over  on  the  islands.  That 
is  not  going  to  change,  regardless  of  the  out- 
come of  the  Swadron  commission,  though  I 
certainly  wish  it  would.  It  happens  to  be 
something  I  believe  in  in  terms  of  the  prin- 
ciple. 

I  am  also,  as  one  of  those  charged  with 
executive  duties  in  the  government  of  On- 
tario, concerned  about  and  have  to  be  aware 
of  the  responsibilities  we  bear  to  the  councils 
involved  and  those  who  have  been  given 
certain  responsibilities  by  us  to  manage  over 
the  past  20  or  25  years.  It  is  a  little  harder  to 
work  out  the  solutions  in  government  and  a 
little  easier  to  posture  when  one  is  not.  It  is 
a  little  harder  to  work  out  a  solution  and 
fight  for  a  principle  when  those  who  will 
benefit  from  the  principle  I  am  fighting  for 
in  this  case  will  continue  to  provide  no  sup- 
port and,  in  fact,  vote  against  me. 

None  the  less,  I  take  some  pride,  as  I 
guess  I  have  in  other  matters  in  my  riding 
that  I  have  fought  for,  in  the  fact  that  we  are 
able  to  stand  here  today  and  see  the  islanders 
still  there  and  in  place  two  years  after  the 


courts  have  ruled  that  the  writs  are  valid  and 
that  they  could  be  evicted. 

With  those  short  remarks,  I  am  hoping  the 
House  will  join  us  in  at  least  giving  the 
Swadron  commission  the  opportunity  to  com- 
plete its  hearings  and  all  of  us  a  chance  to 
read  that  impartial  and  objective  analysis  and 
act  upon  it.  I  am  pleased  to  join  our  House 
leader  and  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs  in  supporting  this  legislation. 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  speak 
just  briefly  to  this  particular  bill  and  indicate 
that  we  are  going  to  support  the  bill,  as  our 
House  leader  indicated  earlier. 

Obviously,  it  is  long  overdue  and  there  was 
no  need  to  have  to  wait  until  the  eleventh 
hour  to  bring  in  this  bill  to  stay  the  various 
writs.  It  is  shown  or  seen  as  a  death-bed 
repentance  on  behalf  of  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  who  has  in  the  final 
hours  been  able  to  convince  some  of  his  col- 
leagues in  the  cabinet  that  they  should  at 
least  do  something  before  those  writs  are 
issued  on  Monday. 

I  think  it  is  quite  clear  to  everyone  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto,  if  not  in  Ontario,  that 
there  is  overwhelming  support  for  the  com- 
munity to  be  retained  on  the  islands.  A  sur- 
vey done  some  short  time  ago  by  some  very 
able  people  from  Ryerson  Polytechnical  In- 
stitute, called  Attitude  Of  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto Residents  Towards  the  Toronto  Island 
Community,  reveals  that  about  78  per  cent  of 
Metro  residents  support  the  retention  of  the 
island  community.  Only  six  per  cent  of  Metro 
residents  feel  the  community  should  be  re- 
moved. 

In  other  words,  there  are  a  number  of 
people  there  who  do  not  have  any  strong 
opinion  on  it,  but  an  overwhelming  support, 
78  per  cent  as  shown  in  that  survey,  indi- 
cates that  it  wants  to  retain  the  island  com- 
munity as  it  is  at  present.  They  do  not  want 
this  inch-by-inch  decaying  or  inch-by-inch 
taking  down  of  that  particular  community,  as 
was  recommended  in  Bill  5,  which  obviously 
the  government  will  have  to  withdraw  once 
the  Swadron  report  is  introduced  in  the  Legis- 
lature. 

I  want  to  comment  briefly  on  the  meddling 
that  this  Legislature  is  accused  of  by  inter- 
fering with  the  island  community.  As  we 
know,  when  various  organizations  or  various 
groups  or  municipalities  get  grants  from  the 
province  they  do  not  accuse  the  province  of 
meddling  in  their  affairs.  They  are  always 
anxious  to  have  those  particular  grants  and 
do  not  feel  it  is  meddling  when  they  accept 
money  from   the  provincial   government  for 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4311 


various  purposes.  However,  the  government  is 
sometimes  accused  of  meddling  in  those 
affairs  when  it  passes  legislation  that  what- 
ever that  organization  is  does  not  agree  with. 
It  reminds  me  of  the  case  where  I  met 
with  a  number  of  people.  I  suppose  they 
could  be  classified  as  small-c  conservatives. 
They  said:  "Look,  we  do  not  want  any  more 
government  regulations.  We  have  too  much 
government  now  and  we  do  not  want  any 
more  government."  The  second  item  of  that 
agenda  was,  "Yes,  we  need  higher  tariffs  to 
protect  our  manufacturing  goods."  They  did 
not  want  any  more  government,  yet  they 
wanted  more  government  interference  in  the 
protection  of  manufactured  goods  in  the 
province  and  the  country.  It  depends  on 
which  side  of  the  issue  one  is  on  and  what 
serves  one's  purposes  at  the  time. 

12:30  p.m. 

I  think  the  province  is  on  the  right  track 
by  bringing  in  Bill  181  to  stay  the  various 
writs.  It  would  be  my  hope,  and  I  am  sure 
the  hope  of  all  members  of  this  Legislature, 
that  when  the  Swadron  report  does  come  in 
it  is  going  to  recommend  the  continuation  of 
that  community  to  give  them  a  long  lease  on 
life. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wanted  to 
participate  in  this  debate  because  the  brink- 
manship of  the  government  has  brought  us 
to  a  kind  of  latter-day  Perils  of  Pauline  four 
days  prior  to  the  eviction  being  exercised  by 
the  writs  of  possession.  That  is  far  too  close. 
I  do  not  like  that  kind  of  brinkmanship  which 
has  characterized  the  government's  handling 
of  the  island  issue  for  far  too  long.  None  the 
less,  we  welcome  the  fact  that  the  govern- 
ment has  agreed  to  have  a  stay  of  execution 
by  means  of  this  legislation  until  the  Swadron 
report  can  be  published  and,  I  hope,  debated 
in  the  Legislature  and  action  taken. 

I  hope  very  much,  as  my  colleague  from 
Scarborough  West  has  already  indicated,  the 
action  that  will  be  taken  by  the  government 
will  be  public  and  will  be  in  place  prior  to 
the  election  taking  place— if  it  takes  place  in 
the  spring,  as  now  seems  likely.  I  do  not  think 
this  should  be  used  as  a  political  football  any 
more.  The  future  of  the  island  community 
should  be  guaranteed.  Whatever  workable 
kinds  of  solutions  are  proposed  by  the 
Swadron  report,  or  can  be  developed  on  the 
basis  of  it,  should  be  in  place.  We  should  no 
longer  have  empty  promises  from  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman),  and  we  should  no  longer  have 
politicians  having  to  fight  over  that  issue. 


One  reason  I  say  that  is  that  New 
Democrats  would  be  fighting  for  a  com- 
munity like  the  island  anywhere  in  the 
province.  We  have  shown  that  by  the  kind 
of  actions  we  have  taken  in  the  past  with 
respect  to  other  communities  as  well.  Whether 
it  is  the  miners  up  in  Atikokan,  the  people 
affected  by  the  closing  of  the  Moose  Mountain 
mine  in  Capreol,  the  auto  workers  in  Windsor, 
the  people  in  Mechanicsville  and  Centre- 
town  in  my  riding  of  Ottawa  Centre,  or  the 
workers  in  small  bush  communities  who 
worked  in  the  woods  for  Boise  Cascade  until 
they  were  affected  by  that  company's  unfair 
labour  practices,  we  have  fought  for  people 
across  the  province  and  we  are  fighting  for 
people  on  the  island  as  well. 

The  second  thing  is  that  the  island  is  a 
symbolic  issue  about  the  kind  of  communities 
we  are  going  to  have,  not  just  in  Toronto  but 
everywhere  across  the  province.  I  speak  as  a 
former  islander.  Some  people  know  that  in 
1973  and  1974  I  brought  my  family  down 
here  and  we  lived  on  Toronto  Island  for  a 
year.  It  was  one  of  the  happiest  years  we 
have  spent  as  a  family  in  my  entire  married 
life.  It  was  and  is  a  community  that  is  warm, 
friendly,  co-operative  and  outgoing,  a  com- 
munity that  believes  in  self-help,  a  community 
that  has  demonstrated  by  the  determination 
and  doggedness  of  their  fight  for  survival  the 
kinds  of  resources  there  are  in  a  small  group 
of  people  when  they  have  created  that  kind 
of  community  entity. 

I  asked  myself,  is  that  not  the  kind  of  com- 
munity life  I  would  like  to  have  here,  living 
in  Toronto  or  in  my  home  in  Ottawa?  Is  that 
not  the  kind  of  life  we  all  look  for?  Do  we 
not  all  have  a  bit  of  a  hankering  for  the 
village  and  small-town  life  that  some  of  us 
experienced  as  youngsters  and  perhaps  do  not 
have  right  now?  I'm  thinking  of  places  where 
there  was  an  intimate  relationship,  where  you 
knew  the  person  who  ran  the  shop  or  where 
your  great-aunt  lived  down  the  street  or  where 
you  were  involved  with  other  people  in  that 
community.  Is  this  not  what  planners  have 
been  getting  at  for  the  last  35  years— the 
creation  of  urban  villages  where  people  would 
be  able  to  interrelate  on  a  face-to-face  basis 
and  not  just  be  faceless  and  nameless  blobs 
who  pass  like  ships  in  the  night? 

Is  not  the  existence  of  the  island  com- 
munity—perhaps this  is  where  the  symbolism 
comes  in— kind  of  an  affront  to  those  forces  in 
our  society  which  support  the  Conservative 
Party,  those  forces  in  business  and  commerce 
which  would  like  everybody  to  be  atomized, 
to  be  living  in  a  little  box,  in  a  little  shell,  in 


4312 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


a  little  apartment,  to  have  no  interrelationship 
with  people  up  and  down  the  hall  or  the 
street  or  around  the  corner,  to  have  no  inter- 
relationship with  their  fellow  workers  on  the 
job,  and  therefore  to  be  powerless  against  the 
forces  of  big  business,  of  multinational  cor- 
porations, against  the  forces  of  advertising 
and  other  people  who  try  to  make  everything 
in  human  life  something  where  you  consume, 
you  buy,  buy,  buy  and  you  work,  work,  work, 
rather  than  ever  having  a  community  life 
where  you  can  simply  enjoy,  savour  and  take 
pleasure  in  the  growth  of  children,  as  I  still 
do  in  the  case  of  the  young  children  who 
were  born  five  and  six  years  ago  when  I  lived 
on  Toronto  Island,  and  take  pleasure  in  con- 
tact with  people  of  different  generations,  as 
people  do  on  the  island  where  people  from 
eight  months  to  80  years  live  side  by  side  and 
interrelate  together? 

Is  a  community  like  the  island  not  worth 
preserving  as  well,  when  we  consider  that  if 
Hydro  were  intending  to  put  a  dam  in 
Ontario  and  the  Friends  of  the  Earth  pointed 
out  that  the  dam  was  going  to  flood  a  unique 
ecological  area  with  some  unique  flora  or 
fauna  that  were  not  duplicated  elsewhere  in 
the  province,  the  chances  are  everybody's 
hearts  would  go  out  and  we  would  say,  "No, 
that  has  got  to  be  preserved;  dt>  the  dam  in  a 
different  way"? 

When  we  have  a  unique  piece  of  human 
ecology,  a  community  like  no  other  com- 
munity in  all  of  Canada  and  probably  like  no 
other  community  in  all  of  North  America,  and 
when  Conservatives  like  Paul  Godfrey  and  his 
buddies  on  Metro  council  come  along  and 
ruthlessly  move  to  stamp  that  out,  then  I 
think  something  unique  like  that  should  be 
preserved. 

At  a  time  when  we  are  increasingly  con- 
fronting the  problems  of  the  energy  crisis, 
should  we  not  have  some  lessons  to  learn 
from  a  community  that  has  no  cars  and  sur- 
vives without  them?  Should  we  not  have 
some  lessons  to  learn  from  a  community 
where  people  live  cheek  by  jowl  on  lots  40 
or  50  feet  by  40  or  50  feet  at  a  density  that 
is  almost  unheard  of  in  most  of  our  urbanized 
areas  with  low-rise  housing,  and  yet  manage 
to  survive  as  well  as  the  islanders  do?  Are 
there  not  a  lot  of  lessons  there? 

I  am  glad  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs  agrees  with  me,  that  his  colleagues  in 
the  Conservative  caucus  have  been  brought  to 
agree  with  him  as  well,  and  that  this  par- 
ticular bill  is  now  in  place.  It  is  still  only 
temporary  and  we  need  a  long-term  solution. 
I  am  very  concerned  over  the  fact  that  this 


whole  episode  would  not  have  had  to  occur 
if,  on  the  one  hand,  we  had  not  had  the 
machinations  of  Paul  Godfrey  and  his  friends 
and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  had  not  had  a 
structure  of  two-tier  government  in  Metro- 
politan Toronto  which  so  inadequately 
responds  to  the  very  clear,  determined  and 
declared  will,  not  just  of  the  people  of 
Toronto,  but  of  the  vast  majority  of  people  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto  as  well. 

This  government  has  delayed1  for  so  long 
on  the  restructuring  of  Metro  government 
that  it  has  helped  to  create  the  problem.  The 
two- tier  structure  where  Metro  had  control 
over  the  parks  was  an  inadequate  one  when 
it  was  the  people  of  Toronto,  first  and  fore- 
most, who  wanted  to  preserve  the  island 
community.  If  Paul  Godfrey  had  to  be 
elected  somewhere  within  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto to  qualify  for  nomination  to  the  post 
of  Metro  chairman,  then  the  islanders  and 
the  people  who  feel  with  them  would  have 
been  able  to  go  out  and  talk  face  to  face  to 
the  constituents  of  Paul  Godfrey  and  seek 
their  support.  I  predict  that,  if  the  munic- 
ipality of  Metropolitan  Toronto  six  or  eight 
years  ago  had  had  a  chairman  who  was  an 
elected  official  and  not  just  an  appointed 
official,  we  would  not  have  had  this  island 
problem  we  have  today. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:   That  is  total  nonsense. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  not  total  nonsense.  The 
member  for  Wilson  Heights  says  it  is  total 
nonsense.  He  should  know  perfectly  well  that, 
if  Paul  Godfrey  had  come  under  scrutiny  of 
the  people  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  in  any 
corner  of  this  area,  the  island  matter  would 
not  have  continued  to  be  what  amounted  to 
a  vendetta  against  the  islanders.  I  say  as 
well  that,  if  Paul  Godfrey  and  his  Conserva- 
tive friends  had  any  commitment  to  pre- 
serving communities  the  way  we  have  in 
the  New  Democratic  Party,  this  would  not 
have  been  an  issue  and  a  long-term  solution 
to  the  island  matter  would  have  been  found 
long  before  now. 

What  Godfrey  and  his  friends  seem  to  be 
saying  is  that  because  the  decision  was  made 
back  in  the  1950s  we  have  to  continue  with 
blinkers  as  though  nothing  has  changed  and 
as  though  people's  perceptions  of  how  com- 
munities should  exist  and  how  the  city 
should  exist  have  not  changed  at  all. 

12:40  p.m. 

We  have  thrown  out  the  idea  of  block- 
busting. We  have  thrown  out  the  idea  of 
massive  skyscrapers  to  house  everybody  in 
Metropolitan   Toronto,    Ottawa   or   our   other 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4313 


cities.  We  have  changed  our  views  about  the 
way  a  community  like  that  on  the  islands 
could  interrelate  when  it  is  in  a  park-like 
setting.  We  have  grown  to  appreciate  that, 
if  it  were  not  for  the  islanders,  the  Toronto 
Island  would  probably  be  closed  to  the  pub- 
lic for  six,  seven  or  even  eight  months  of  the 
year  and  would  be  totally  inaccessible.  That 
would  be  done  by  Paul  Godfrey  in  the  name 
of  economy  or  something  like  that. 

I  want  to  close  by  reiterating  what  my  col- 
league from  Scarborough  West  has  said. 
When  the  Swadron  report  comes  down,  it 
must  be  available  for  debate  in  this  House. 
There  must  be  a  commitment  from  the  gov- 
ernment to  consult  with  the  islanders,  the 
city,  Metro  and  other  interested  parties. 
There  must  be  a  commitment  to  have  a 
resolution  that  will  ensure  the  long-term 
survival  of  the  island  community  and  to  have 
that  resolution  in  place  before  we  go  into  a 
provincial  election  campaign. 

If  we  do  not  have  it,  we  will  know  this 
bill  was  just  another  in  a  series  of  sham 
actions  by  this  government  and  was  not 
really  dedicated  to  protecting  the  island 
community.  It  will  be  an  election  issue.  I 
pray  to  God  the  government  will  accept  that 
it  should  not  be  an  election  issue  and  that 
the  islanders'  future  should  be  sorted  out  and 
guaranteed  before  the  election  campaign 
comes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  to  con- 
clude this  debate  quickly,  there  is  no  sham 
intended,  nor  can  that  charge  be  made 
against  this  piece  of  legislation.  I  outlined 
exactly  why  it  is  being  introduced. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Nor  against  the  minister;  I 
quite  acknowledge  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  All  right.  The  Swadron 
report  will  be  brought  in  and  discussed.  We 
will  have  to  decide  how  it  will  be  discussed 
when  we  have  the  report.  It  is  not  normal 
for  this  House  to  debate  reports  made  by 
royal  commissions  except  when,  on  various 
occasions,  we  put  it  on  the  Order  Paper  and 
call  it  for  discussion.  I  think  we  should  wait 
and  see  the  report  before  deciding  if  that  is 
the  vehicle  We  want  to  take.  If  it  is  neces- 
sary, it  can  be  discussed,  but  I  think  we 
should  wait  and  see  the  report.  Of  course, 
this  House  will  have  ample  opportunity  to 
discuss  the  report  in  the  estimates  of  the 
Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  as  it 
always  discusses  many  things. 

The  kinds  of  remarks  that  were  attributed 
to  the  three  options  I  put  forward  a  few 
weeks  ago,  remarks  that  these  were  strictly  a 


political  smokescreen  et  cetera,  I  feel  were 
completely  unfounded.  All  the  options  have 
within  them  a  degree  of  achievability  and 
they  cannot  be  ruled  out  of  hand  immedi- 
ately. The  suggestion  that  they  were  strictly 
a  political  smokescreen  should  not  have  been 
put  forward.  It  is  not  a  viable  thing. 

Bill  5  is  still  a  piece  of  legislation  that  is 
supported  by  a  number  of  people. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  The  islanders  don't 
support  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  New  Democratic 
Party  and  the  Liberal  Party  do  not  support 
it.  Some  of  the  islanders  do  not  support  it; 
some  do.  As  I  recall,  the  Toronto  Star  sug- 
gests that  it  is  the  solution  to  the  island 
situation.  That  is  one  group  of  people— I  will 
still  use  the  term  "group"— who  feel  that  is 
an  option.  What  I  recall  saying  then  was 
that  if  the  House  wished  to  pass  that  bill  it 
would  be  one  way  of  stopping  the  writs  from 
being  served  immediately. 

It  was  also  within  the  power  of  the  chair- 
man of  Metropolitan  Toronto  to  call  Metro 
council  together  if  he  wished,  or  if  a  num- 
ber of  people  on  Metro  council  wished,  and 
to  ask  that  the  writs  not  be  served.  It  can- 
not be  said  that  was  a  frivolous  suggestion. 

The  third  suggestion  is  the  one  we  are 
acting  upon  today.  We  had  three  alterna- 
tives, all  of  which  could  have  prevented  the 
islanders  from  being  evicted  at  this  time. 
We  have  now  opted  for  the  third  one,  but  I 
resent  the  fact  that  people  said  the  others 
were  some  kind  of  shim-sham  or  political 
opportunism  that  really  had  no  validity  to 
them.  I  submit  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  they  all 
have  validity  to  them,  and  it  just  happens 
the  third  one  is  now  the  practical  one  we 
can  put  into  effect. 

We  can  now  pass  this  bill,  I  hope,  since 
all  parties  in  this  House  have  indicated  sup- 
port. We  can  pass  the  bill  and  then  await 
the  Swadron  commission  report,  and  all  of 
us  can  look  at  that.  I  hope  from  it  will  come 
the  basis  for  a  permanent  solution. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also  agreed  to  on  motion. 

Hon.    Mr.   Wells:    Mr.    Speaker,   I   am   in- 
formed that  His   Honour  is   awaiting  a  call 
to  come  into  the  House. 
12:50  p.m. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
of  Ontario  entered  the  chamber  of  the  Leg- 
islative Assembly  and  took  his  seat  upon 
the  throne. 


4314 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ROYAL  ASSENT 
Hon.  Mr.  Aird:  Pray  be  seated. 
The  Deputy  Speaker:  May  it  please  Your 
Honour,  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the 
province  has,  at  its  present  sitting  thereof, 
passed1  certain  bills  to  which,  in  the  name 
of  and  on  behalf  of  the  said  Legislative 
Assembly,  I  respectfully  request  Your  Hon- 
our's assent. 

First  Clerk  Assistant:  The  following  are 
the  titles  of  the  bills  to  which  Your  Honour's 
assent  is  prayed: 

Bill  85,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Limited 
Partnerships  Act. 

Bill  136,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Land  Titles 
Act. 

Bill  137,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Registry 
Act. 

Bill  138,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Boundaries 
Act. 

Bill  Pr21,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
London. 

Bill  Pr28,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Sault  Ste.  Marie. 

Bill  Pr30,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Hamilton. 

Bill  Pr32,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Mississauga. 

Bill  Pr33,  An  Act  respecting  the  Estate  of 
Mary  Agnes  Shuter. 

Bill  Pr34,  An  Act  to  revive  Theatre  Passe 
Muraille. 

Bill  Pr35,  An  Act  to  revive  Gould's  Drug 
Store  Limited. 


Bill  Pr37,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
North  York. 

Bill  Pr38,  An  Act  respecting  the  Borough 
of  Etobicoke. 

Bill  Pr39,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Ottawa. 

Bill  59,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Game  and 
Fish  Act. 

Bill  139,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Shoreline 
Property  Assistance  Act,  1973. 

Bill  152,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Beef  Cattle 
Marketing  Act. 

Bill  153,  An  Act  to  repeal  the  Warble  Fly 
Control  Act. 

Bill  164,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Insurance 
Act. 

Bill  165,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Motor 
Vehicle  Accident  Claims  Act. 

Bill  170,  An  Act  to  erect  the  Township  of 
Gloucester  into  a  City  Municipality. 

Bill  171,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Valida- 
tion of  Certain  Adoption  Orders  made  under 
the  Child1  Welfare  Act,  1978. 

Bill  175,  An  Act  to  provide  for  Municipal 
Hydro-Electric  Service  in  the  City  of  Sud- 
bury. 

Bill  181,  An  Act  to  stay  the  Execution  of 
Certain  Writs  of  Possession  issued  in  respect 
of  Certain  Premises  on  Toronto  Islands. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  In  Her  Majesty's  name, 
the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
doth  assent  to  these  bills. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
was  pleased  to  retire  from  the  chamber. 

The  House  adjourned  at  12:53  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980 


4315 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4303) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 


LOTTARIO 

380.  Mr.  Ruston:  Would  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  inform  the  Legisla- 
ture how  many  Lottario  tickets  were  sold 
throughout  the  following  periods:  September 
14,  1980,  to  September  20,  1980;  September 
21,  1980,  to  September  27,  1980;  September 
28,  1980,  to  October  4,  1980;  October  5, 
1980,  to  October  11,  1980;  October  12,  1980, 
to  October  18,  1980;  October  19,  1980,  to 
October  25,  1980?  (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 


Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Lottario  sales  for  the 
periods  requested  Were:  September  14  to  20, 
$2,142,950;  September  21  to  27,  $2,302,067; 
September  28  to  October  4,  $2,535,803; 
October  5  to  11,  $3,103,686;  October  12  to 
18,  $3,883,586;  October  19  to  25,  $5,225,139; 
total,  $19,193,231. 

INTERIM  ANSWER 

On  question  348  by  Mr.  Foulds,  Hon.  Mr. 
Baetz  provided  the  following  interim  answer: 
A  detailed  reply  to  this  question  will  follow 
the  first  week  of  December,  approximately. 


4316  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  November  14,  1980 

Plant  closures  and  termination  entitlements,  statement  by  Mr.  Elgie  4285 

Acid  rain,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott  4285 

Highway  traffic  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Snow  4285 

Transportation  of  dangerous  goods,  statement  by  Mr.  Snow  4287 

UTDC  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Snow  4287 

TVOntario  anniversary,  statement  by  Mr.  Davis 4288 

Toronto  District  Heating  Corporation  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells  4289 

Municipal  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells 4289 

Speaker's  comment  re  access  to  Legislative  Building  4290 

Rural   electrical   rates,   questions   of  Mr.   F.    S.   Miller:    Mr.    Nixon,    Mr.    MacDonald, 

Mr.   McKessock   4290 

Energy  tax  rebates,  questions  to  Mr.  F.   S.   Miller:   Mr.   Nixon,  Mr.   Cassidy,   Mr.  J. 

Reed,  Mr.  Laughren,  Mr.  Peterson  4291 

Stratford  Festival,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Cassidy  4293 

Auto  industry  layoffs,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Mancini,  Mr.  Bounsall, 

Mr.    Ruston    ■ 4294 

Economic  development,  questions  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:   Mr.  Peterson,  Mr.  Laughren  #296 

Hospital  emergency  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Mackenzie  4297 

DREE  assistance,  questions  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith  4297 

Suspension  of  doctor,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Conway  4298 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs,  Mr.  G.  I.  Miller  4299 

Land  severance,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Riddell 4299 

Niagara  River  pollution,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Kerrio,  Mr.  Swart  4301 

Aid  to  pensioners,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Ms.  Bryden,  Mr.  Cunningham  4301 

Point  of  privilege  re  liquid  industrial  waste:  Mr.  Swart  4302 

Point  of  privilege  re  access  to  Legislative  Building:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  4302 

Point  of  privilege  re  identification  of  member:  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston  4303 

Highway  Traffic  Amendment  Act,  Bill  188,  Mr.  Snow,  first  reading 4303 

Dangerous  Goods  Transportation  Act,  Bill  189,  Mr.  Snow,  first  reading  ,  4303 

Urban  Transportation   Development   Corporation  Limited  Act,   Bill   190,    Mr.    Snow, 

first    reading 4303 

Employment  Standards  Amendment  Act,  Bill  191,  Mr.  Elgie,  first  reading  4303 

Toronto  District  Heating  Corporation  Act,  Bill  192,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4303 


NOVEMBER  14,  1980  4317 


Municipal  Amendment  Act,  Bill  193,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4303 

Residential  Tenancies  Amendment  Acts,  Bills  194  and  195,  Mr.  Philip,  first  reading  4303 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  348  and  380  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  4303 

Third  readings,  Bills  59,  139,  152,  153,  164,  165,  170,  171,  175 4303 

Toronto  Islands  Act,  Bill  181,  Mr.  Wells,  second  and  third  readings  4304 

Royal  assent  to  certain  bills:  The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  4314 

Adjournment 4314 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Lottario,  question  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Ruston 4315 

Interim   answer:    Mr.    Baetz 4315 


4318  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Aird,  Hon.  J.  B.;  Lieutenant  Governor 

Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches- Woodbine  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

McKessock,  R.  (Grey  L) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC) 

Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East  PC) 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 


No.  114 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Monday,  November  17,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears   at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  9th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4321 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2:01  p.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

MINISTRY  RESTRUCTURING 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
inform  the  House  today  of  a  number  of  or- 
ganizational changes  that  will  be  introduced 
shortly  to  my  ministry's  head  office  organiza- 
tion. 

Honourable  members  will  recall  that  two 
years  ago  I  announced  the  first  phase  of  a 
major  ministry  restructuring.  That  first  phase 
included  establishment  of  two  major  delivery 
divisions:  children's  services  and  adults' 
services.  It  also  included  the  designation  of 
four  regional  offices  for  each  of  the  divisions, 
and  a  network  of  area  and  local  offices  with 
reporting  relationships  to  their  respective 
regional  centres. 

Those  initial  steps  were  taken  to  create  an 
organization  at  both  the  regional  and  area 
levels  that  possessed  a  greater  degree  of 
decision  making  through  increased  delegation 
of  authority.  As  a  result  of  those  changes, 
we  have  been  able  to  develop  a  field  struc- 
ture that  is  more  sensitive  to  local  and 
regional  needs  and  priorities,  and  an  organi- 
zation that  possesses  the  capability  to  work 
closely  with  our  partners  in  the  social  services 
field. 

While  that  phase  of  our  reorganization  is 
complete,  we  must  move  now  to  improve 
and  to  increase  the  corporate  capacity  and 
effectiveness  of  the  ministry.  In  essence,  we 
intend  to  introduce  an  organization  at  head 
office  and  at  the  regional  level  that:  (1) 
builds  upon  the  strengths  of  the  existing 
organization;  (2)  retains  a  focal  point  for 
continued  momentum  and  stewardship  of  the 
children's  services  division  and  adult  serv- 
ices division  initiatives;  (3)  provides  a  struc- 
ture where  the  advocacy  voices  on  behalf  of 
children  and  adults  can  have  clear  and 
separate  points  of  access  to  the  ministry;  (4) 
furthers  the  decentralization  of  operations 
decision  making  to  the  field  and  strengthens 
the  capacity  of  the  area  office  to  provide 
leadership  to  service  delivery  activities,   and 


Monday,  November  17,  1980 

(5)    improves    the    ministry's    mid-term    and 
long-term  planning  and  policy  harmonization. 

I  would  now  like  to  describe  briefly  the 
new  head  office  and  regional  structure,  its 
objectives  and  its  senior  staff. 

Effective  January  1,  1981,  there  will  be 
three  divisions:  children's  and  adults'  opera- 
tions; children's  and  adults'  policy  and  pro- 
gram development,  and  finance  and  adminis- 
tration. 

The  children's  and  adults'  operations  divi- 
sion will  consolidate  delivery  of  all  ministry 
programs— in  other  words,  the  current  pro- 
grams and  service  to  children  and  adults, 
including  income  maintenance  and  institu- 
tional care.  Continued  decentralization  and 
increased  delegation  of  authority  will  be 
achieved  by  the  appointment  of  one  regional 
director  for  each  of  the  northern,  southeast- 
ern and  southwestern  regions.  In  the  short 
term,  due  to  its  complexity,  the  central  region 
will  be  headed  by  two  directors,  one  for  chil- 
dren's programs  and  the  other  for  adults' 
services.  The  existing  area  offices  for  chil- 
dren's  and  adults'  services  will  be  retained. 

I  am  pleased  to  announce  that  Peter 
Barnes  has  accepted  the  position  of  assistant 
deputy  minister  of  this  new  division.  I  am 
also  pleased  to  announce  that  the  policy  and 
program  development  division  will  be  headed 
by  the  associate  deputy  minister,  Judge 
George  Thomson,  who,  as  members  are 
aware,  is  currently  responsible  for  the  chil- 
dren's services  programs.  That  division  will 
bring  together  the  policy  development  and 
related  program  functions  from  throughout 
the  ministry.  In  this  way,  the  overall  plan- 
ning process  will  take  on  a  clear,  corporate 
thrust  within  the  context  of  the  family. 

When  the  children's  services  division  was 
established  in  1977,  it  was  agreed  that 
an  organization  focal  point  was  needed  to 
consolidate  programs  and  carry  out  a  com- 
prehensive policy  review.  This  focal  point 
is  being  maintained  within  George  Thomson's 
division  by  the  establishment  of  an  execu- 
tive co-ordinator  of  children's  policy.  This 
position  will  be  responsible  for  the  steward- 
ship of  children's  programs  and  the  con- 
tinued development  of  initiatives  such  as 
the  omnibus  legislation.  The  current  finance 


4322 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


and  administration  division  will  not  change 
substantially  as  a  result  of  this  restructuring. 

I  would  like  to  announce  two  other 
senior  staff  appointments  at  this  time.  John 
Anderson  has  accepted  the  position  of  senior 
adviser  to  the  minister.  In  that  capacity,  in 
addition  to  working  closely  with  the  minister 
on  policy  and  operational  matters,  Mr. 
Anderson  will  be  responsible  on  behalf  of 
the  minister  and  the  deputy  minister  for 
high-level  liaison  with  special  interest  groups 
and  service  users  and  will  undertake  special 
inquiries  and  issue  resolutions  as  critical 
matters  arise.  Glen  Heagle  has  agreed  to 
accept  a  new  position,  that  of  executive 
co-ordinator  for  federal-provincial  relations. 
In  that  role,  Mr.  Heagle  will  undertake  a 
review  with  our  counterparts  in  Ottawa  of 
cost  sharing  and  constitutional  social  policy 
issues. 

I  am  confident  that  the  changes  I  am 
announcing  will  result  in  an  even  greater 
capacity  to  design,  develop  and  deliver 
programs  and  services.  I  am  equally  confi- 
dent that  there  will  be  no  adverse  impact 
on  program  delivery  during  the  implementa- 
tion of  these  changes. 

INCREASE  IN  SOCIAL  ASSISTANCE 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  advise  the  House  and  the  public  of 
changes  to  income  maintenance  programs  of 
my  ministry,  which  will  come  into  effect 
in  January  and  February  1981. 

I  am  pleased  to  say  that  cabinet,  as  an- 
nounced in  the  recent  statements  of  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller),  has  approved 
an  additional  annual  expenditure  of  approx- 
imately $49  million  to  increase  by  seven 
per  cent  the  allowances  being  paid  to  family 
benefits  recipients  and  to  those  who  receive 
general  welfare  assistance.  The  increases  in 
allowances  to  recipients  under  the  family 
benefits  program  will  be  reflected  in  the 
cheques  issued  at  the  end  of  January  1981. 
Increases  to  general  welfare  recipients  will 
be  shown  in  the  cheques  issued  at  the  begin- 
ning of  February  1981. 

The  increased  allowances  will  benefit  ap- 
proximately 115,000  recipients  of  family 
benefits  and  70,000  general  welfare  recipi- 
ents. The  last  increase  was  an  overall  10 
per  cent,  which  took  effect  in  April  and  May 
of  this  year.  I  would  like  to  point  out  that 
this  is  an  interim  adjustment  to  compensate 
for  inflation  effects.  I  must  stress  that  this 
is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  the  basic  rate 
adjustment  for  the   1981-82  fiscal  year. 

There  are  a  number  of  other  related 
changes,  which  I  will  address  briefly.  Bene- 


fits for  about  1,200  people  under  the  work 
incentives  program  will  be  increased  from 
between  $25  and  $65  per  month,  depending 
on  family  size.  The  maximum  amount  of  the 
handicapped  children's  benefits  will  be  in- 
creased by  $25,  from  $175  to  $200  per 
month.  Also,  the  earned-income  level  at 
which  benefit  reduction  starts  has  been 
raised  by  $2,000,  from  $22,000  to  $24,000. 
2:10  p.m. 

The  exemptions  on  part-time  earnings  will 
be  increased  from  between  $15  and  $40  a 
month  for  recipients  of  family  benefits.  Assets 
ceilings  for  family  benefits  clients  will  be  in- 
creased from  between  60  and  150  per  cent, 
depending  on  family  size  and!  client  type 
being  served.  For  example,  assets  ceilings  for 
a  mother  with  two  children  will  increase  from 
the  current  level  of  $2,800  to  $5,500  in 
January  1981. 

Municipalities  throughout  the  province  will 
be  permitted  to  make  comparable  adjust- 
ments to  the  needs  test  and  assets  exemption 
under  the  homemakers'  and  nurses'  services 
program.  The  phase-out  benefits  for  persons 
going  from  family  benefits  allowance  to  full- 
time  employment  will  be  increased  by  $25, 
from  $225  to  $250. 

I  am  also  pleased  to  announce  another  step 
in  our  continuing  efforts  to  assist  the  handi- 
capped in  making  the  transition  from  insti- 
tutional to  community  living  as  easily  as 
possible.  As  of  January  1981,  we  are  im- 
plementing a  discharge  allowance  of  up  to 
$337  for  persons  leaving  institutions  to  take 
up  residence  in  the  community. 

1  have  had  fact  sheets  prepared  showing 
some  examples  of  these  changes,  which  will 
be  distributed  to  the  members  opposite  and 
other  interested  persons.  I  believe  they  are 
appended  to  the  statement  as  circulated. 

CONSTRUCTION  LIEN  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
the  pleasure  today  of  tabling  a  discussion 
paper  on  the  draft  Construction  Lien  Act. 
This  discussion  paper  will  be  of  great  interest 
to  all  those  concerned  with  the  construction 
industry  of  this  province. 

The  purpose  of  the  discussion  paper  is  to 
propose  a  replacement  to  Ontario's  107-year- 
old  Mechanics'  Lien  Act.  The  suggested  re- 
placement—the draft  Construction  Lien  Act- 
is  the  product  of  considerable  discussion  be- 
tween officials  of  my  ministry  and  the  various 
segments  of  the  construction  industry:  owners, 
developers,  financial  institutions,  architects, 
engineers,  contractors  and  labour  unions. 

Construction  lien  legislation  is  vitally  im- 
portant to  Ontario's  construction  industry.  Its 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4323 


objective  is  to  protect  the  thousands  of  trades- 
men, labourers  and  small  contracting  busi- 
nesses who  provide  their  services  to  improve 
the  property  of  others.  The  draft  Construc- 
tion Lien  Act  contained!  in  the  discussion 
paper  is  intended  to  deal  with  a  number  of 
problems  that  have  prevented  the  existing 
Mechanics'  Lien  Act  from  achieving  this  ob- 
jective. 

For  example,  the  existing  act  requires  an 
owner  to  retain  a  portion  of  the  contract  price 
payable  to  the  general  contractor.  This  hold- 
back is  to  be  used  to  pay  lien  claims  of  sub- 
contractors, tradesmen  and  workmen  involved 
in  the  project.  However,  very  often  these 
persons  find  the  owner  has  spent  the  money 
he  was  required  to  retain  as  a  holdback; 
there  is  no  money  available,  therefore,  to 
satisfy  the  claims  of  the  lien  claimants. 

Although  the  act  gives  constructors  a  right 
to  enforce  their  claim  against  the  owner's 
property,  this  right  will  often  be  subordinate 
to  the  claims  of  mortgagees.  If  the  value  of 
the  mortgage,  including  accrued  interest,  ex- 
ceeds the  value  of  the  premises,  then  the 
right  of  the  lien  claimant  against  the  premises 
is  illusory.  For  this  reason,  the  discussion 
paper  proposes  that  the  holdback  on  major 
projects  be  paid  into  a  joint  trust  account, 
thereby  ensuring  the  money  will  be  available 
if  needed. 

Although  it  is  proposed  that  the  home 
owners  be  bound  by  the  draft  Construction 
Lien  Act,  there  are  a  number  of  provisions 
in  the  draft  act  that  would  reduce  the  impact 
of  the  lien  legislation  on  consumer  home 
improvements.  For  example,  the  requirement 
to  pay  the  holdback  into  a  joint  trust  account, 
which  I  just  mentioned,  does  not  apply  where 
the  value  of  the  work  to  be  done  is  less  than 
$150,000.  It  would  not  apply  therefore  to  a 
home  owner  who  was  paving  his  driveway  or 
installing  a  swimming  pool. 

The  draft  act  also  proposes  reducing  the 
amount  of  the  holdback  from  15  per  cent  to 
10  per  cent  of  the  contract  price.  Thus,  even 
if  a  home  owner  did  not  retain  the  required 
holdback,  his  maximum  liability  would  be  re- 
duced to  10  per  cent  of  the  contract  price. 

The  draft  Construction  Lien  Act  contained 
in  the  discussion  paper  addresses  a  large 
number  of  other  problems  with  the  existing 
legislation.  Many  of  these  problems  result 
from  the  language  of  the  existing  act,  much 
of  which  is  simply  incomprehensible  to  those 
who  must  rely  on  it.  The  ambiguities  of  the 
existing  legislation  often  result  in  huge  sums 
of  money  being  tied  up  in  litigation,  which 
in  turn  can  cause  serious  difficulties  for  the 
people  involved  in  a  construction  project. 


The  pervasive  language  problems  of  the 
existing  legislation  have  been  a  major  con- 
cern in  preparing  the  draft  Construction  Lien 
Act.  The  draft  act  completely  restructures 
and  rewrites  the  lien  legislation  with  a  view 
to  making  it  more  comprehensible  and  ac- 
cessible. Because  of  the  complicated  nature 
of  the  relations  with  which  it  must  deal, 
any  statute  pertaining  to  construction  liens 
is  bound  to  be  complex.  However,  a  com- 
plex subject  need  not  be  incomprehensible. 
One  major  objective  behind  the  preparation 
of  the  draft  act  has  been  the  desire  to  pro- 
duce a  more  straightforward,  comprehen- 
sible piece  of  legislation,  written  in  a  style 
as   simple   as   the  subject  will   allow. 

With  the  release  of  the  discussion  paper, 
I  look  forward  to  a  period  of  active  public 
discussion  on  the  subject.  I  hope  the  various 
segments  of  the  construction  industry  will 
offer  suggestions  as  to  how  the  draft  Con- 
struction Lien  Act  can  be  improved  and 
made  more  practical.  The  draft  act  is  in- 
tended to  serve  as  a  model  for  discussion; 
I  would  like  to  emphasize  it  is  not  engraved 
in  stone. 

In  addition,  I  will  be  establishing  an  ad- 
visory committee  of  experts  in  the  field  of 
construction  liens  who  collectively  will  ap- 
preciate the  lien  legislation  from  the  per- 
spectives of  all  segments  of  the  industry. 
The  advisory  committee  will  be  meeting  to- 
gether to  review  the  draft  Construction  Lien 
Act  and  making  recommendations  based  on 
their  personal  experience  and  legal  expertise. 
They  will  also  be  reviewing  the  comments 
and  suggestions  received  from  the  public 
and  will  be  making  recommendations  based 
on   those   submissions. 

It  is  my  sincere  hope  that  the  discussion 
paper  I  am  tabling  today  will  be  the  basis 
upon  which  the  construction  industry  and 
the  government,  working  together,  will  be 
able  to  devise  for  Ontario  the  best  possible 
construction  lien  legislation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Oral  questions. 

ATTENDANCE  OF  MINISTERS 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  realize  there  is  not  much  you 
can  do  about  this,  but  of  25  ministers  who 
respond  to  questions,  leaving  out  the  chief 
government  whip,  a  grand  total  of  nine  have 
deigned  to  show  up  today— here  is  number 
10— which  I  would  think  brings  the  respect 
they  have  for  this  House  into  some  perspec- 
tive. I  am  not  sure  if  there  is  anything  you 
can  do  about  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No. 


4324 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ORAL  QUESTIONS 

ECONOMIC  EQUALITY 
FOR  WOMEN 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  direct 
a  question  to  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Per- 
haps he  is  aware  of  the  matter  of  two  Water- 
loo co-operative  program  students,  equal  in 
experience,  although  possibly  the  woman 
among  the  two  had  better  qualifications  for 
the  job,  who  were  offered  different  salaries 
in  applying  to  the  Office  of  the  Premier. 
I  would  ask  him  particularly  if  he  recalls 
that  about  $430,000  has  now  been  paid  for 
an  advertising  campaign  across  Ontario  that 
says  in  essence,  "Paying  a  woman  less  than 
a  man  for  doing  substantially  the  same  work 
is  not  just  unfair,  it  is  illegal." 

Does  the  minister  remember  that  ad  and 
can  he  tell  us,  therefore,  what  investigation 
he  is  going  to  be  doing  of  the  Office  of  the 
Premier,  where  a  differential  in  salary  was 
offered,  with  the  male  being  offered  consid- 
erably more  than  the  woman  in  this  case, 
although  any  examination  of  the  credentials 
would  seem  to  indicate  either  equal  experi- 
ence or  greater  qualifications  on  the  part  of 
the  woman?  What  investigation  is  the  minister 
going  to  be  doing,  keeping  in  mind  precisely 
that  not  only  is  it  unfair,  it  is  illegal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  there  be 
no  doubt  that  this  is  the  position  of  this 
government:  it  is  illegal  and  it  is  unfair. 

It  is  with  some  degree  of  regret  I  point 
out  that,  as  usual,  without  exploring  beyond 
the  story,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  has 
chosen  to  pick  this  up  without  investigating 
it  himself  or  having  someone  else  do  it.  I 
have  already  taken  the  opportunity  of  per- 
sonally asking  for  a  report  on  it.  I  think  it  is 
fair  to  say,  at  the  very  least  and  probably  the 
very  best,  one  could  call  it  inaccurate  sen- 
sationalism. 
2:20  p.m. 

There  is  absolutely  no  doubt  as  to  what 
happened,  if  I  may  state  for  the  record  the 
exact  incident  that  took  place.  The  present 
students  on  the  staff  in  the  Premier's  office 
are  paid  approximately  $200  if  they  are 
third-year  students  and  $225  per  week  if 
they  are  fourth-year  students.  The  particu- 
lar man  who  was  interviewed  was  told  the 
salary  ranges  and  he  said  he  had  been  mak- 
ing considerably  more  than  that  at  a  previ- 
ous co-op  job  he  had,  namely  about  $350. 
He  was  told  he  could  not  expect  to  receive 
anything  in  that  range;  it  would  be  at  least 
$100  less  than  that. 

Somehow,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  re- 
porter was  told  the  facts,  that  inaccuracy  has 


been  sustained  by  the  question  the  member 
puts  to  me  now  and  it  is  not  true. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  If  the  gov- 
ernment wishes  to  continue  its  running  battle 
with  the  Globe  and  Mail,  it  should  feel  en- 
tirely free  to  do  so.  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
when  we  called  the  director  of  placement 
services  at  the  University  of  Waterloo,  he 
admitted  very  clearly  on  the  telephone  that 
Mr.  Ferdinand,  who  conducted  the  interviews 
for  the  Office  of  the  Premier,  did,  in  his 
words,  "make  an  unfortunate  mistake"? 

Given  that  the  Premier's  office  has  been 
hiring  co-op  students  from  Waterloo  for  about 
four  years,  such  a  mistake  in  setting  salary 
ranges  is  scarcely  credible,  and  given  the 
fact  that  this  problem  still  exists  in  the 
Premier's  office,  will  the  minister  admit  now 
that  his  advertising  campaign  is  rather  in- 
effectual and  a  change  in  the  laws  of  Ontario 
is  exactly  what  is  required  to  change  this 
problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  I  will  not  admit  that 
the  campaign  has  been  ineffective.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  we  have  had  more  complaints 
and  closed  more  cases  in  a  period  of  six 
months  than  any  other  province  has  even 
started  to  look  at. 

Let  me  say  to  the  member  that  equal  pay 
for  substantially  the  same  work  in  this  prov- 
ince is  being  enforced  both  on  the  basis  of 
specific  complaints  and  by  way  of  audit.  Let 
me  also  tell  the  member  that  just  because 
he  says  it,  does  not  make  it  right.  The  rec- 
ords show  the  Premier's  office  hires  people 
on  the  basis  of  their  qualifications  and  abil- 
ity, and  the  story  was  wrong. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  view  of  the  minister's  unqualified  defence 
of  the  decision— 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No  defence,  just  the  facts. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  In  view  of  the  minister's 
citing  of  the  facts,  is  the  minister  aware 
that  the  decision  to  spend  $485,000  to  ad- 
vertise this  toothless  equal  pay  law  that  we 
have  in  Ontario  right  now  has  so  far  this 
year  resulted  in  only  122  awards,  and  in 
awards  amounting  to  $72,000  or  about  four 
cents  for  every  working  woman  in  Ontario? 
Does  that  not  really  indicate  that  no  amount 
of  advertising  can  substitute  for  an  effective 
law  to  give  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
thoroughly  disagree  with  the  statement  that 
any  teeth  are  missing  from  the  act.  If  there 
are  teeth  missing,  we  had  better  take  the 
leader  of  the  third  party's  teeth  out  and  check 
them. 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4325 


I  have  to  say  that  the  number  of  com- 
plaints and  the  number  of  audits  being  car- 
ried out  cannot  be  matched  by  any  other 
government.  I  would  say  to  the  member 
that  he  may  want  to  look  only  at  the  amount 
of  money  that  is  recovered  but  I  look  at 
the  number  of  cases  that  are  dealt  with 
and  future  inequities  that  are  dealt  with. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  the  min- 
ister has  still  not  said  whether  he  is  going 
to  investigate  this  matter,  I  take  it  the  min- 
ister is  quite  satisfied  simply  to  have  asked— 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  He  told  the  member.  Why 
doesn't   the   member   listen? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  very  diffi- 
cult to  speak  above  the  rattling  and  yapping 
and  nattering  that  come  from  the  back  row 
over  there. 

Mr.  Speaker:   Try  to  ignore  it. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  will  ask  the  minister,  is 
he  going  to  send  one  of  his  famous  investi- 
gators to  investigate  this,  or  is  he  satisfied 
just  to  take  the  side  given  to  him  by  a  per- 
son in  the  Premier's  office  without  personally 
talking  to  the  students  themselves  to  confirm 
their  side  of  the  story?  Will  he  be  investi- 
gating? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  have  no  problem  in 
asking  one  of  the  investigators  to  look  at 
this,  but  let  me  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  look 
on  myself  as  a  reasonable  investigator  and 
I  have  investigated.  It  is  not  true. 

ACID  RAIN 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  ask  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Energy. 
He  is  undoubtedly  aware  that  the  second 
report  on  long-range  transport  of  air  pollu- 
tion has  come  out  indicating  that  the  number 
of  Ontario  lakes  killed  by  acid  rain  may  al- 
ready exceed  4,000,  which  is  an  almost 
thirtyfold  increase  over  the  number  of  lakes 
we  knew  about  last  year  at  this  time. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  Ontario  Hydro's 
fossil  fuel  generating  stations  accounted  for 
30  per  cent  of  Ontario's  sulphur  dioxide 
emissions?  In  light  of  the  fact  that  recent  dis- 
cussions have  taken  place  between  the  Deputy 
Minister  of  the  Environment  and  Ontario 
Hydro,  would  the  Minister  of  Energy  finally, 
after  repeated  questioning,  tell  this  House 
exactly  what  control  orders  he  expects  will  be 
placed  by  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
(Mr.  Parrott)  on  the  Hydro  facilities  in  order 
to  curb  sulphur  dioxide  and  nitrous  oxide 
emissions? 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  obviously  I 
have  some  interest  in  the  question  but,  as 
the  question  is  put,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion is  asking  me  to  respond  to  what  might 
be  the  activities  of  my  colleague  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment.  I  do  remind  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  that  this  question  was  put 
to  my  colleague  two  or  three  weeks  ago,  as  I 
recall,  and  he  assured  the  House  at  that 
time  that  he  had  the  matter  in  hand  and  we 
could  expect  some  statement  from  him  before 
too  long  in  that  regard. 

I  would  point  out  that  the  figures  in  the 
article  that  the  member  refers  to  are  based 
upon  computer  modelling  and  not  necessarily 
upon  actual  fact  in  so  far  as  the  overall  report 
is  concerned.  A  great  many  of  the  initiatives 
with  respect  to  acid  rain  have  been  taken  on 
this  side  of  the  border  and  not  on  the  other. 

Certainly  Ontario  Hydro,  if  I  could  speak 
for  it,  is  very  cognizant  of  the  importance 
and,  as  I  reported  to  the  House  in  response  to 
a  question  on  this  subject  some  weeks  ago, 
I  have  been  expecting  a  report  from  the 
officials  of  Ontario  Hydro  as  to  what  steps 
they  might  be  able  to  take  in  order  to  help 
curb  this  particular  rate  of  emission.  Once  I 
have  that  information,  I  will  be  glad  to  share 
it  with  the  House.  I  will  draw  the  concern 
of  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  to  the  atten- 
tion of  my  colleague  when  he  returns,  with 
respect  to  the  responsibilities  that  are  his. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  Why  is  it 
that  the  Minister  of  Energy  is  always  having 
to  wait  for  other  people?  Why  does  he  have 
to  say  that  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
will  tell  him  what  the  plans  are,  or  that 
Ontario  Hydro  might  make  a  report  to  him? 

May  I  ask  the  minister  whether  he  intends 
to  tell  Hydro  that  they  are  going  to  have 
to  clean  up  their  act?  At  present,  Nanticoke 
generating  station  alone  in  1981-82  will  be 
putting  out,  apparently,  727  short  tons  a  day 
of  sulphur  dioxide;  the  way  the  trend  is 
moving,  Hydro  will  be  putting  out  about  70 
per  cent  of  what  Inco  is  going  to  be  putting 
out.  Is  it  not  time  that  he,  as  Minister  of 
Energy,  spoke  to  the  people  at  Hydro  and 
instructed  them  to  clean  up  their  act,  instead 
of  being  like  some  of  the  reticent  corporations, 
waiting  for  the  other  minister  to  tell  him 
what  he  has  to  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  am  glad  to  have  the 
supplementary  because  I  did  not  want  to 
create  the  impression  that  I  was  unmindful 
of  the  responsibilities  that  are  mine  to  ac- 
count to  the  House  for  the  activities  of  the 
Hydro  corporation. 


4326 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


We  have  asked  the  Hydro  officials  to  take 
a  very  serious  look  at  this  matter  and  to 
come  up  with  some  proposals  to  reduce  the 
rate  of  these  toxic  emissions.  I  think  that,  in 
all  fairness,  I  should  await  their  report.  Once 
I  have  it,  we  will  be  quite  prepared  to  take 
what  action  is  considered  practicable  and  in 
the  interests  of  the  environment  and,  indeed, 
of  the  health  of  the  people  to  be  affected. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  minister  has  qualified  his  answer  in  so 
many  ways  that  it  is  impossible  to  know 
whether  any  effective  measures  will  be  taken 
to  curb  the  sulphur  dioxide  emissions  and 
their  consequences  in  acid  rain  coming  from 
Hydro.  Could  the  minister  explain  why  it  is 
that  in  the  constituency  newsletter  of  the 
member  for  Simcoe  Centre  (Mr.  G.  Taylor) 
the  problem  is  seen  so  much  more  simply 
that  he  reported  to  his  constituents  this  fall 
that  all  governments  on  both  sides  of  the 
border  are  committed  to  bringing  the  acid 
rain  under  control  by  1982?  Are  we  to  take 
it,  then,  that  this  government  is  not  com- 
mitted to  bringing  the  acid  rain  under  con- 
trol by  1982?  Did  the  member  for  Simcoe 
Centre  have  it  wrong? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
rather  be  judged  on  what  I  finally  do,  rather 
than  on  speculation  in  advance  of  the  deci- 
sion. I  do  not  apologize  for  that  position.  I 
would  rather  be  taking  some  decisions  based 
on  some  technical  advice  and  then  be 
judged  on  them,  rather  than  engaging  in 
speculative  questions  all  this  time  and  at- 
tempting to  figure  things  out. 
2:30  p.m. 

TOMATO  PROCESSING 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  to  the  minister  responsible  for 
promoting  the  sales  of  Ontario  farm  prod- 
ucts. In  this  plain  brown  envelope  are 
Ontario  hothouse  tomatoes;  they  come  from 
the  Niagara  Peninsula,  as  a  matter  of  fact. 
They  really  are  excellent.  I  commend  them 
to  everybody  on   the   government  side. 

Can  the  minister  explain  why  Ontario 
hothouse  tomatoes  as  magnificent  as  these 
ones  here,  which  have  been  coming  to 
market  for  the  last  two  months,  have  been 
kept  off  the  shelves  of  supermarkets  in  the 
Loblaws  chain  and  have  been  appearing 
only  irregularly  in  other  supermarkets  across 
the  province,  and  why  consumers  as  a  con- 
sequence have  had  no  choice  in  many  cases 
but  to  buy  imported  tomatoes? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Say  you  don't  know,  Lome. 


Mr.  Breaugh:  Just  admit  you  don't  know. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  No.  I  would  not  say 
that. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  honourable  member  who 
has  brought  this  forth  is  well  aware  that 
we  are  promoting  the  sale  of  Ontario 
products  at  every  opportunity.  Wherever 
one  goes,  one  sees  our  symbol  of  Ontario 
products.  If  he  will  give  me  the  name  of 
these  tomatoes  that  he  claims  are  kept  off 
the  shelf  and  where  they  come  from,  I  will 
be  glad  to  check  into  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  growers  of  hot- 
house tomatoes  have  had  to  sell  some  of 
their  product  at  distress  prices,  and  one  of 
the  major  reasons  is  their  being  shut  out 
of  the  shelves  of  Loblaws  and  other  super- 
markets, and  since  the  imported  product  is 
being  sold  up  to  the  price  of  the  Canadian 
product  in  the  supermarkets,  even  though  the 
wholesale  price  is  lower,  can  the  minister  say 
what  the  point  is  of  this  practice  of  super- 
markets, if  it  is  not  just  to  give  inflated 
profits  to  the  supermarkets  and  no  benefit  to 
the  consumers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  The  honourable 
member  has  brought  out  his  concern  now. 
He  is  as  well  aware  as  I  am  that  the  em- 
bargo is  not  high  enough  to  protect  our 
Ontario  producers.  That  is  the  problem,  and 
he  is  as  well  aware  of  it  as  I  am. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  a  few  years 
ago  a  private  member  of  this  Legislature 
wrote  to  Dominion  Stores  and  asked  them, 
concerning  this  problem,  why  they  were  not 
displaying  the  hothouse  tomatoes  in  Ontario? 
Mr.  Ivor  Crimp,  the  vice-president  of  Do- 
minion, wrote  back  saying:  "We  should 
have  had  them  prominently  displayed,  prop- 
erly marked  and  been  active  in  our  market- 
ing effort  concerning  them.  The  public 
should  have  a  chance  to  make  their  choice"? 
Does  the  minister  not  think  that  principle 
should  apply  today,  and  will  he  table  in 
this  House  any  correspondence  he  has  had 
with  the  major  supermarkets  asking  that  they 
give  prominent  display  to  tomatoes  grown 
in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
no  intention  of  tabling  any  communications 
that  the  honourable  member  has  mentioned. 
The  people  of  this  province  have  had  their 
opportunities  to  buy  Ontario  products. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Not  at  Loblaws. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  I  have  told  the  hon- 
ourable members,  if  they  will  supply  me  with 
the  names  of  farmers  and  greenhouse  opera- 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4327 


tors  who  are  not  able  to  get  their  tomatoes 
on  the  shelves,  we  will  look  into  it  and  do 
something  about  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  is  asking  us  to 
serve  as  his  policemen,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  sug- 
gest the  minister  should  do  that  himself. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
just  asking  the  member  to  give  me  the  evi- 
dence he  is  speaking  about,  which  he  is  not 
ready  to  produce. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  We  will  bring  it  here.  The 
government  should  do  its  job. 

DUO-MATIC  PLANT  CLOSURE 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Is  the 
Minister  of  Labour  aware  of  yet  another 
plant  closing  that  has  taken  place,  this  one 
being  the  Duo-Matic  facility  in  Waterford, 
where  100  workers  will  have  lost  their  jobs 
by  December  31?  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
not  only  do  these  workers  not  qualify  for 
severance  pay  but  also  they  will  not  receive 
any  pension  benefits?  Since  Waterford  is  in 
the  vicinity  of  Brantford,  where  the  major 
layoffs  in  the  farm  equipment  industry  have 
taken  place,  they  also  face  a  bleak  future 
in  terms  of  finding  alternative  employment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  aware 
that  the  Duo-Matic  company,  which  manu- 
factures oil  furnaces,  has  announced  there  is  a 
reduction  in  the  market  for  their  product  and 
they  will  be  closing  down.  The  staff  had  some 
preliminary  meetings  with  them  and  Mr. 
Joyce,  my  special  adviser  with  regard  to  plant 
closings,  has  indicated  this  will  be  a  case 
in  which  he  will  take  a  personal  involvement. 
He  is  meeting  with  the  parties  either  later 
this  week  or  the  beginning  of  next  week. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  switch  from  oil 
to  gas  has  been  encouraged  by  public  policy 
for  several  years  and  by  what  is  clearly  hap- 
pening in  terms  of  the  relative  prices  of  oil 
and  gas,  and  when  jobs  are  on  the  line  at 
Duo-Matic  and  other  companies  making  oil 
furnace  equipment  across  the  province,  can 
the  minister  explain  why  there  has  not  been 
a  plan  of  rationalization  in  place  to  anticipate 
these  shutdowns  and  to  ensure  a  transfer  or 
conversion  to  gas  furnace  or  similar  types  of 
production  where  new  jobs  could  be  created? 
Why  should  the  workers  have  to  suffer  lay- 
offs with  no  secure  future  because  of  a  lack 
of  anticipation  or  planning  by  this  govern- 
ment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  rather  than 
disagree   with   the   member,   I   would   think 


those  would  be  the  very  questions  Mr.  Joyce 
will  be  putting  to  the  company. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  the  minister  recall  receiving  a  letter 
from  me  about  the  shutdown  of  that  plant 
and  might  I  expect  an  answer  from  him? 

Will  he  also  explain  to  the  House  whether 
there  has  been  a  grant  to  that  company  to 
assist  in  its  expansion,  particularly  since  it 
has  been  taken  over  by  new  management? 
If  there  has  been  public  money  put  in  to 
assist  in  the  expansion,  can  we  be  assured 
that  at  least  part  of  that  expansion  will  be 
kept  in  Waterford  to  maintain  the  employ- 
ment where  it  is? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  aware 
of  the  member's  letter  to  me,  and  I  recall 
sending  a  response  several  days  ago.  If  he 
has  not  received  it,  he  knows  who  to  blame. 
They  are  up  near  yer  Ottawa  somewhere. 
That  is  what  Charlie  Farquharson  would 
say:   "Somewhere  near  yer  Ottawa." 

I  am  personally  not  aware  whether  there 
has  been  any  Ontario  Development  Corpo- 
ration money  or  any  other  grants  or  loans 
to  the  company,  but  I  will  be  glad  to  ask 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman). 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Can  the  minister  indicate  at  this 
time  what  actions  his  ministry  is  taking  to 
provide  alternative  employment  for  the 
people  in  that  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
member  means  what  assistance  will  be  given 
to  workers  to  obtain  alternative  employ- 
ment, he  knows  very  well  that  the  bill  I 
have  before  the  House  would  require  com- 
panies to  co-operate  in  the  establishment 
of  manpower  adjustment  committees  where 
they  are  not  set  up  voluntarily.  Clearly, 
what  we  are  aiming  at  is  to  make  sure  the 
mechanisms  are  in  place  to  help  workers 
find  alternative  employment. 

PAYMENTS  TO  CONSULTING  FIRMS 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Chairman,  Management 
Board  of  Cabinet,  in  regard  to  a  question  I 
had1  on  the  Order  Paper  that  was  replied 
to  on  October  23. 

Can  the  minister  explain  the  fact  that, 
in  407  cases,  consultants  came  back  to  the 
government  to  ask  for  further  money  over 
and  above  the  contract  they  had  agreed  to 
and  that  had  been  tendered?  Other  people 
lost  out  because  of  the  tendered  price,  yet 
on  407   different  occasions  in  one  year  the 


4328 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


successful  contractors  came  back  and  got  an 
extension  and  an  expansion  of  their  contracts 
of  an  average  of  $10,000  over  and  above 
what  they  had  bid  originally.  How  does  the 
minister  justify  that?  Does  that  not  make 
a  mockery  of  his  whole  tendering  system? 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  No,  it  does  not,  Mr. 
Speaker.  It  was  not  money  asked  over  and 
above  what  they  agreed  to  do  it  for.  It  was 
extension  of  contracts. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  am  not  sure  what  an 
extension  of  contract  means.  Is  the  minister 
saying  his  civil  servants  and  cabinet  board 
did  not  know  what  they  required  when  they 
originally  put  these  matters  out  for  bids?  He 
is  doing  a  disservice  to  the  whole  tendering 
process  and  to  all  those  people  who  have 
lost  out.  Some  of  these  people  are  low- 
balling  on  their  bid  and  then  coming  back 
to  an  easy  government  to  get  an  increase  in 
their  contracts.  It  is  not  simply  a  matter  of 
an  extension  of  contract.  If  it  is,  the  civil 
servants  and  the  people  in  management 
board  are  irresponsible  in  not  knowing  what 
they  require  in  the  first  place. 

2:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  We  have  just  heard 
the  honourable  member's  opinion  of  what 
goes  on,  and  it  is  entirely  incorrect.  He 
knows  the  work  tendered  for  is  specific.  It 
is  what  the  ministry  thinks  it  needs  at  a 
particular  time.  He  knows  other  items  are 
often  discovered  that  need  to  be  studied 
further.  Most  of  the  consulting  engineers, 
management  consultants  and  technical  people 
have  set  schedules  for  charges.  It  is  onlv 
logical  that  the  people  who  do  the  first  half 
of  the  work  or  the  first  two  thirds  of  the 
work  should  carry  on.  It  is  not  as  the 
member  says  at  all.  I  think  the  tendering 
maintains  the  integrity  of  the  system. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  But  you  don't  pay  any 
attention  to  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  We  certainly  do.  They 
tender  for  the  work  we  expect  to  have  done 
at  that  precise  time  and,  if  there  is  an  ex- 
tension of  the  contract,  the  same  is  done  for 
all  people  in  the  business.  It  is  a  fair  system 
and  I  think  the  honourable  member  knows 
that. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: In  view  of  the  fact  that  in  the  standing 
committee  on  public  accounts  it  was  evident 
from  the  provincial  auditor's  report  that  none 
of  this  procedure  the  minister  outlined  is 
going  on  and  that  what  happens  is  the  people 
submit  the  bills  and  he  pays  them,  is  he  going 
to  re-examine  that  policy  or  operation  of  his 


government  to  ensure  we  are   getting  value 
for  the  money  they  are  spending? 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
getting  value  for  the  money  we  spend.  It  is 
not  as  automatic  as  just  submitting  an  extra 
bill  and  having  it  paid.  There  is  an  extension 
granted  by  the  ministry  for  the  extra  work  it 
asks  to  be  done. 

HERITAGE  LANGUAGES  PROGRAM 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Education  on  the 
heritage  languages  program.  The  minister  is 
aware  it  recently  came  out  with  a  study  of 
the  cultural  retention  of  Italian-Canadian 
youth.  It  had  two  major  recommendations: 
(1)  that  the  heritage  languages  program  should 
be  part  of  the  school  day  so  as  to  strengthen 
them,  and  (2)  that  there  should  be  an  Italian 
immersion  program  for  children  of  Italian 
origin.  This  particular  thing  is  supported  by 
almost  all  ethnic  groups,  and  specifically  by 
the  multicultural  ethnic  liaison  committee  to 
the  board  of  education  and  the  Polish  Cana- 
dian Congress- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  a  question  there 
some  place? 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Yes.  The  question  is,  what 
is  the  minister's  proposed  course  of  action  on 
what  appears  to  be  a  very  popular  course 
suggested  by  almost  all  ethnic  groups? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
honourable  member  is,  I  know,  referring  to 
a  study  that  was  funded  as  a  summer  works 
project  for  several  university  students  by  the 
federal  government.  That  study  apparently 
has  been  reported  to  a  group  related  to  the 
heritage  languages  program.  We  do  not  have 
a  copy  of  the  study  at  this  point- 
Mr.  Wildman:  He  has. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  Ministry  of 
Education  does  not  have  one,  I  should  like 
you  to  know,  Mr.  Speaker.  A  copy  has  not 
been  delivered  to  us. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  The  minister  could  read  the 
Globe  and  Mail;  it  was  mentioned  there. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  read  the  news- 
paper. I  should  like  to  see  the  study  itself, 
and  I  think  it  would  be  appropriate  that  I 
read  the  study  in  its  entirety  rather  than 
simply  a  newspaper  report. 

I  am  aware  that  there  is  a  recommenda- 
tion related  to  the  inclusion  in  an  integral 
way  of  the  heritage  languages  program  into 
the  educational  program  of  the  school  sys- 
tem of  Ontario.  I  am  sure  the  honourable 
member  knows  that  a  large  number  of  boards, 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4329 


at  least  those  boards  with  very  large  attend- 
ances in  heritage  language  programs,  already 
include  heritage  language  programs  as  part 
of  an  extended  school  day,  and  the  educa- 
tional program  is  taking  place  throughout  the 
school  day  in  many  of  those  schools. 

I  am  also  very  much  aware  that  about  50 
per  cent  of  the  students  involved  in  that 
kind  of  program  are  involved  in  the  Italian 
heritage  language  program,  which  seems  to 
be  the  main  thrust  of  the  newspaper  report  I 
read;  but  I  would  certainly  like  to  read  the 
whole  study  before  making  any  comment. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  asked  the  minister  very 
specifically  not  to  talk  of  extended  programs 
after  the  school  day  which  are  already  in 
existence,  because  they  treat  the  heritage 
language  program  as  secondary  and  the  stu- 
dents as  second-class  citizens.  What  I  am 
asking  is  whether  she  would  consider  treating 
it  as  a  part  of  the  day,  and  she  has  obfus- 
cated on  the  answer.  She  knows  perfectly  well 
there  have  been  several  attempts— I  have  a 
specific  question,  Mr.   Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  glad  to  hear  that. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  have  a  proposal.  As  the 
minister  knows,  on  Thursday  we  will  be 
debating  a  private  member's  bill  introduced 
by  me  which  deals  with  bilingual  education 
and  specifically  with  those  two  points  plus 
an  additional  point.  I  want  to  ask  the  min- 
ister whether  she  is  again  going  to  get  her 
colleagues  to  guillotine  the  project,  as  she 
did  two  years  ago,  or  will  she  support  it 
this  time?  Excuse  me;  is  my  English  clear 
enough  for  the  minister? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  was  a  little  dif- 
ficult, Mr.  Speaker.  I  am  not  sure  that  there 
was  any  guillotining  two  years  ago,  but  I 
shall  be  most  interested  to  hear  the  mem- 
ber's arguments  in  support  of  that  case. 

DIABETIC  DRIVERS 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  ques- 
tion is  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  Brewers'  Warehousing 
Company  has  implemented  a  policy  requir- 
ing all  its  employees  to  have  a  class  D 
driver's  licence  in  the  event  they  should 
have  to  drive  one  of  their  trucks?  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  the  import  of  such  a 
regulation  is  that  no  diabetic  in  Ontario 
would  be  hired  by  that  company? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was 
not  aware  of  the  announced  change,  if  it 
occurred,  nor  was  I  aware  of  the  implica- 
tions. I  do  know  that  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation   and    Communications    (Mr.    Snow) 


announced  some  revisions  to  that  legislation 
at  the  end  of  last  week,  but  I  do  not  know 
whether  they  apply  to  that  class  of  licence. 
I  will  be  glad  to  look  into  it. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  In  the  event  that  the 
proposed  legislation  does  not  apply  to  these 
people,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  at  any 
time  only  20  per  cent  of  the  employees  of 
Brewers'  Warehousing  would  ever  be  re- 
quired to  drive  a  truck,  will  the  minister 
use  whatever  power  he  may  have  to  take 
it  upon  himself  to  discuss  this  matter  with 
the  president  of  Brewers'  Warehousing  to 
see  that  a  fairer  and  more  equitable  ap- 
proach is  taken  for  the  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  people  in  Ontario  who  are  diabetic? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  have  a  particular  in- 
terest in  that  area  of  concern  as  well.  Be- 
cause of  having  been  a  physician,  I  am  well 
aware  that  simply  because  one  has  diabetes 
does  not  mean  one  should  be  excluded  from 
driving  a  car.  I  happen  to  know  a  good 
hockey  player  right  now  who  does  very 
well  playing  hockey.  I  will  be  pleased  to 
discuss  it  with  my  colleague  the  Minister 
of    Transportation    and    Communications. 

WHITE  MOTOR  CORPORATION 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Can  the 
minister  indicate  what  is  happening  at  White 
Motor  Corporation  in  Brantford  and  whether 
it  is  possible  that  the  plant  may  be  closed? 
If  so,  has  the  minister  received  any  notice 
to  that  effect  and  does  he  know  whether 
proper  procedures  will  be  followed  in  terms 
of  severance  to  the  employees? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
received  no  notice  from  the  company  indi- 
cating it  will  be  closing  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  In  that  case,  will  the 
minister  find  out  what  is  happening  in  that 
situation  and  let  the  employees  know  some 
time  in  the  very  near  future  what  exactly  is 
going  on  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  will  be  glad  to  have  the 
employees'  adjustment  service  look  into  it. 

CHRYSLER  RESEARCH  AND 
DEVELOPMENT  CENTRE 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Since  the  Minis- 
try of  Industry  and  Tourism  has  made  an 
agreement  with  Chrysler  to  build  a  research 
and  development  centre  in  Windsor,  can  the 
minister  tell  us  what  plans  he  has  for  supply- 


4330 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ing  staff  for  the  research  and  development 
department? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  aware 
there  was  an  agreement  that,  if  Chrysler 
Canada's  fortunes  were  good  at  the  end  of 
1981  or  the  beginning  of  1982,  the  agreement 
with  regard  to  contribution  of  funds  for  an 
R  and  D  centre  would  be  forthcoming.  I  am 
not  certain  at  this  stage  if  the  minister  has 
reached  the  point  where  he  feels  the  obliga- 
tion will  be  fulfilled;  so  I  am  not  aware  of  any 
discussions  that  have  gone  on  with  regard  to 
technology  and  training  of  people. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment is  going  to  put  up  substantial  moneys 
for  that  research  and  development  centre,  is 
the  minister  going  to  bring  it  to  the  attention 
of  Chrysler  Corporation,  before  the  govern- 
ment spends  those  millions  of  dollars,  that 
they  are  going  to  fail  this  year  in  meeting 
their  sales-to-production  ratio  in  Canada  and 
therefore  are  not  living  up  to  the  auto  pact? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be  glad 
to  bring  that  question  to  the  attention  of  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Gross- 
man). 

CHEMICAL  STORAGE 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Solicitor  General  concerning  a 
fire  at  Robson-Lang  Leathers  Limited  in 
Oshawa.  Is  the  ministry  now  contemplating 
some  kind  of  regulation  that  would  make 
mandatory  a  listing  of  chemicals  that  are 
stored  in  an  old  plant  like  the  tannery  in 
Oshawa  so  that  at  least  when  the  local  fire 
department  goes  to  put  out  a  fire  it  has 
some  idea  of  what  it  is  dealing  with  and  does 
not  face  unknown  explosions  as  they  did  in 
that  fire? 

2:50  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  familiar  with  the  details  of  that  fire.  I 
think  the  suggestion  implicit  in  the  question 
seems  to  make  some  degree  of  sense.  I  am 
not  sure  how  practical  it  is  from  an  admin- 
istrative standpoint,  but  I  am  quite  prepared 
to  explore  the  member's  useful  suggestion 
and  report  back  to  the  House. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Is  there  any  requirement 
now,  as  there  is  on  the  transportation  of 
hazardous  materials,  to  post  a  listing  of  the 
chemicals  that  are  stored  in  a  building  such 
as  the  tannery?  Is  there  any  current  regula- 
tion that  might  be  readily  applied  to  that 
kind  of  situation? 


Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  do  not  believe 
there  is,  but  I  will  confirm  that. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  May  I  suggest  to  the  minister  that 
he  also  consider  a  standard  colour  coding 
approach  to  the  storage  of  these  dangerous 
chemicals?  Also,  will  he  consider  a  regula- 
tion that  they  be  stored  only  in  specified 
places  in  the  establishment  and  not  left  in 
multiple  spaces  throughout  a  facility? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  will  look  into  that 
suggestion,  Mr.   Speaker. 

FINES  OPTION  PROGRAM 

Mr.  Bradley:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Attorney  General,  Mr.  Speaker,  regarding 
the  fines  option  program.  As  the  Attorney 
General  is  aware,  a  fines  option  program  is 
one  where  a  person  is  given  the  option  of 
$300  or  30  days  in  jail  and  he  has  an  op- 
portunity to  work  that  off  in  some  form  of 
community  work.  Will  he  not  agree  that  in 
such  a  circumstance  the  convicted  person 
is  clearly  not  a  danger  to  society,  nor  is  the 
offence  one  that  would  warrant  incarcera- 
tion? Would  it  not  be  better  if  such  a  person 
had  the  option  to  work  off  his  fine  in  a 
service  to  the  community  when  he  cannot 
afford  to  pay  the  actual  fine?  This  option 
is  now  available,  I  believe,  in  Alberta  and 
Saskatchewan. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
am  familiar  to  some  extent  with  the  legisla- 
tion, certainly  in  Saskatchewan  although  I 
am  not  sure  about  Alberta's.  We  are  review- 
ing this  program  in  some  depth  right  now, 
and  we  will  have  something  to  say  about  it 
in  the  not-too-distant  future  in  so  far  as 
Ontario   is  concerned. 

Mr.  Bradley:  I  am  sure  the  minister  would 
agree  with  me,  because  he  has  so  stated  in 
his  estimates.  He  is  certainly  familiar  with 
the  estimates  of  the  other  ministries  in  the 
justice  field.  Will  he  not  agree  that  the  cost 
of  keeping  these  people  in  jail  is  such  that 
the  short-term  sentence  where  a  person  can- 
not pay  the  fine  is  not  desirable?  Will  he 
not  agree  the  legal  problem  that  has  arisen 
concerning  the  federal  Criminal  Code  is  not 
really  an  obstacle,  since  in  Saskatchewan 
the  federal  government  apparently  has  co- 
operated to  the  extent  that  it  is  prepared  to 
implement  that  kind  of  program  at  the  fed- 
eral level  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  am  not  suggesting 
there  are  any  constitutional  impediments.  I 
certainly  made  it  very  clear  during  the  de- 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4331 


bate  on  the  Provincial  Offences  Act  that  it 
was  not  in  the  public  interest  to  put  the  tax- 
payers to  the  expense  related  to  jail  sen- 
tences where  people  cannot  pay  fines.  I  do 
not  think  it  is  a  wise  expenditure  of  public 
funds.  We  made  it  very  clear  we  should  be 
exploring  all  of  these  options  in  relation  to 
incarceration  when  a  person  has  been  given 
a   fine. 

We  think  that  when  a  fine  has  been  im- 
posed, incarceration  for  failure  to  pay  the 
fine  should  be  the  last  possible  alternative. 
I  am  simply  agreeing  with  the  honourable 
member  that  this  is  something  we  are  going 
to  continue  to  pursue.  It  was  certainly  very 
much  the  philosophy  of  the  provincial  of- 
fences legislation. 

CONDOMINIUM  ONTARIO 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations.  Has  the  minister  read  the 
recent  article  written  for  The  Condominium 
newspaper  by  his  former  staff  member,  Irv 
Kumer?  In  it,  that  lawyer  stated:  "Condo- 
minium Ontario  does  not  seem  to  be  able  to 
provide  the  kind  of  direct  advice  and  infor- 
mation on  specific  questions  that  form  the 
reason  for  creating  it  in  the  first  place. 
They  are  so  obsessed  with  disclaiming 
liability  for  advice  they  give  and  so  hesitant 
to  provide  any  advice  that  would  really  be 
helpful  that  the  whole  operation  as  presently 
constituted  probably  is  not  worth  the  effort/' 

Has  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  seen  the  comments  attrib- 
uted to  his  colleague,  the  member  for  Dur- 
ham West  (Mr.  Ashe),  in  which  he  takes 
the  New  Democratic  Party  position  that 
Condominium  Ontario  is  a  major  problem 
and  should  be  replaced  by  a  registrar  of 
condominiums?  In  the  light  of  such  criticism 
from  his  own  ranks,  will  the  minister  tell 
the  House  whether  his  government  will  con- 
tinue to  finance  this  body  after  December 
31,  since  it  is  fairly  clear  that  the  court 
case  concerning  the  levy  to  finance  Condo 
Ontario  will  not  be  completed  this  fall? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are 
three  questions  there.  First  of  all,  I  draw  to 
the  honourable  member's  attention  that  some 
action  was  taken  by  the  Law  Society  of 
Upper  Canada  concerning  the  giving  of 
advice.  If  Mr.  Kumer  does  not  know  what 
happened  when  he  was  urging  people  to 
give  advice  and  what  the  reaction  of  the 
Law  Society  of  Upper  Canada  was,  I  am 
rather  surprised. 


Second,  I  think  the  member  has  a  private 
bill,  and  if  he  does  not  some  other  NDP 
member  has,  to  put  in  a  registrar.  So  that 
is  a  matter  of  opinion. 

Third,  the  entire  question  of  the  thrust 
of  Condominium  Ontario  and  its  future  role, 
particularly  in  regard  to  some  of  the  things 
the  member  has  asked,  will  be  the  sub- 
ject of  a  meeting  between  Condominium 
Ontario  and  myself  some  time  later  this 
month  or  within  the  next  few  days.  I  will 
gladly  report  back  to  the  House  concerning 
that  meeting. 

Mr.  Philip:  Has  the  minister  reviewed 
the  proposed  changes,  which  I  understand 
the  new  president  of  Condominium  Ontario, 
Dr.  Peter  Donnelly,  has  submitted  to  him? 
After  this  meeting  with  Condo  Ontario,  can 
the  minister  inform  the  Legislature  whether 
his  officials  or  those  of  Condo  Ontario  will 
have  costed  these  new  proposals  and  what 
position  the  minister  is  taking  on  these  pro- 
posals? Will  he  also  give  a  guarantee  to  this 
Legislature  that  Condo  Ontario  will  provide 
to  the  public  regular  financial  statements  of 
its  spending,  la  practice  that  was  not  followed 
under  the  former  president,  Mr.  Batchelor, 
whom  the  minister  appointed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  thought  I  had  answered 
that  question  the  first  time  around;  I  presume 
the  member  had  it  written  down  and  had 
to  read  it.  I  do  not  understand  the  business 
about  the  financial  statements  but,  if  the 
member  wants  to  elaborate  in  a  note  to  me, 
I  will  be  glad  to  look  into  it. 

I  draw  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the 
fact  that  Condominium  Ontario  is  not  an 
arm  of  the  government.  Condominium  On- 
tario operates  at  arm's  length.  The  member 
who  asked  this  has  been  in  several  disputes 
and  has  lost  every  one  of  them  in  this 
House,  demanding  that  the  government 
provide  financial  statements  or  mailing  lists 
or  other  things.  If  he  will  tell  me  in  writing 
what  he  wants,  I  will  do  my  best  to  get 
it  for  him. 

BURLINGTON  GAS  EXPLOSION 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  same  minister  has  the 
answer  to  another  question  asked  previously. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  November 
13  the  member  for  St.  Catharines  (Mr.  Brad- 
ley) asked  a  number  of  questions  arising  out 
of  a  gas  explosion  that  destroyed  a  home  in 
Burlington.  Investigation  of  this  accident  be- 
ing conducted  by  the  staff  of  the  technical 
standards  division  of  my  ministry  has  not 
been  concluded.  We  received  the  Ontario  Re- 


4332 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


search  Foundation's  report  on  November  4 
and  it  is  being  analysed  carefully. 

I  would  point  out  that  the  report  was 
provided  to  us  as  a  matter  of  courtesy.  The 
primary  objective  of  the  Ontario  Research 
Foundation  test  was  to  provide  data  on  AMP 
T-fitting  for  litigation  purposes.  Because  of 
this  litigation  I  do  not  think  it  appropriate  to 
comment  on  the  contents  of  the  report.  How- 
ever, I  can  say  the  report  did  not  conclude 
that  the  plastic  T-joint  had  separated  from 
the  pipeline  supplying  gas  to  the  house. 
That  fact  was  established  by  our  own  on-site 
investigation  on  September  16. 

The  honourable  member  asked  whether  it 
was  correct  that  30  per  cent  of  these  fittings, 
which  he  said  were  tested  by  the  Consumers' 
Gas  Company's  Chatham  laboratory,  had 
failed  to  meet  pressure  specifications  and 
that  AMP  of  Canada  Limited,  which  he 
identified  as  the  manufacturer,  now  makes 
fittings  to  higher  specifications. 

In  reply,  I  would  point  out  that  Con- 
sumers' Gas  Company  does  not  have  a 
laboratory  in  Chatham,  nor  did  it  make  any 
such  findings  at  its  Toronto  laboratory.  Union 
Cas,  which  does  have  a  laboratory  in  Chat- 
ham, did  not  make  any  such  findings  either. 
Further  I  am  advised  that  AMP  of  Canada 
Limited  is  the  distributor,  and  not  the  manu- 
facturer, of  these  fittings. 

3  p.m. 

The  suggestion  that  new  fittings  are  now 
being  designed  to  meet  higher  specifications 
is  misleading.  The  Canadian  Standards 
Association  standard  for  these  fittings  has 
not  changed  during  the  period  we  are  talk- 
ing about.  In  the  light  of  advances  in  plastic 
technology,  changes  were  made  to  the  mate- 
rial and  the  body  of  the  fitting  in  1977.  The 
designed  strength  of  the  fitting,  before  and 
after  the  change,  has  met  the  CSA  standard. 
We  have  no  information  to  indicate  there  is 
an  urgent  or  unusual  problem  with  the  old 
or  new  style  fitting.  Indeed  because  of  its 
flexibility  and  absence  of  corrosion,  a  plastic 
system  provides  additional  safety  when  com- 
pared with  the  more  rigid  steel  system. 

Immediately  following  the  accident, 
Union  Gas  stepped  up  the  frequency  of  its 
gas  leakage  service.  Although  some  small 
leaks  have  been  found,  there  have  been  no 
further  discoveries  of  line  separation.  Some 
of  these  installations  are  over  landfill  sites 
which  may  be  more  prone  to  leakage  as  a 
result  of  stresses  caused  by  settlement  of  the 
fill  in  such  sites.  I  understand  Union  Gas  is 
directing  special  attention  to  these  locations. 


Our    investigation    in    the    matter    is    con- 
tinuing. 

MUNICIPAL  ELECTION  TIES 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
ask  a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs.  Is  the  minister  aw? re 
that,  during  last  week's  municipal  election, 
a  tie  occurred  in  one  of  the  municipalities 
I  represent  and  that  the  Municipal  Act  calls 
for  a  judge  to  do  a  recount?  However,  if  the 
tie  vote  is  maintained,  the  person  to  hold 
office  must  be  chosen  by  a  draw  from  a  hat. 
Does  the  minister  not  believe  it  is  time  to 
review  the  Municipal  Act  to  assure  we  have 
proper  legislation  to  break  these  ties  in  a 
proper  manner  in  order  that  the  people  may 
be  best  served? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  might  say,  Mr.  Speaker, 
there  is  an  amendment  to  the  Municipal  Act 
at  present  on  the  Order  Paper.  It  does  not 
cover  this  but  deals  with  archaic  sections  of 
the  act.  We  are  consistently  going  through 
the  act  to  update  any  sections  that  seem 
irrelevant  or  not  up  to  date.  I  suggest  my 
friend  think  about  this  whole  matter  a  little 
more.  It  is  easy  to  criticize  that  as  a  tie- 
breaking  mechanism  but  to  come  up  with 
something  more  acceptable  is  perhaps  not  as 
easy. 

As  the  member  knows,  in  our  case  the 
returning  officer  casts  the  deciding  ballot. 
Maybe  the  municipal  clerk  should  cast  the 
deciding  ballot,  but  I  would  suggest  to  the 
member  that  many  of  the  clerks  would 
rather  have  it  this  way  than  be  left  with  that 
responsibility.  In  fact,  they  might  like  to 
have  an  unofficial  draw  first  before  they 
legally  cast  the  deciding  ballot. 

It  is  difficult  but,  fortunately,  we  have  very 
few  ties  in  this  province.  Let  us  wait  and 
see  what  the  recount  brings  forward  in  that 
case. 

Mr.  Mancini:  We  should  be  concerned  not 
only  about  this  specific  election  but  also  about 
the  general  principle  of  the  matter.  Does  the 
minister  not  think  it  is  an  important  matter 
for  a  person  to  make  decisions  for  the  next 
two  years  and  to  affect  peoples'  lives?  Does 
he  not  think  a  better  system  should  be  de- 
vised, other  than  having  a  person's  name 
drawn  from  a  hat? 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  the  same  as  the  first 
question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  just  want  to  say  I  do 
not  view  that  method  of  settling  it  with 
alarm.   If,   after  a  recount,  the  people  of  a 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4333 


given  municipality  have  voted  in  exactly  in 
the  same  numbers  for  each  of  two  candidates, 
obviously  it  is  an  absolute  split  down  the 
middle  and  some  way  has  to  be  found  to 
solve  that.  Putting  the  names  in  a  hat  and 
drawing  the  winner  seems  to  me  to  be  just 
as  equitable  a  way  of  settling  it  as  any. 

PARTICIPATION  HOUSE 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services.  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
negotiations  at  Participation  House  in  Hamil- 
ton resumed  today  and  broke  off  quickly 
after  management  refused  to  budge  one  cent 
from  the  position  it  held  at  the  beginning  of 
negotiations? 

As  the  taxpayers  and  charitable  donors  of 
this  province  have  invested  almost  100  per 
cent  of  the  capital  and  operating  costs  of 
Participation  House  and  its  programs,  will  he 
now  place  Participation  House  under  tem- 
porary trusteeship  so  that  the  residents  can 
be  returned  to  their  home  and  the  investment 
which  has  been  placed  there  by  the  tax- 
payers and  donors  can  be  saved  from  an 
apparently  intransigent  management? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must 
tell  the  honourable  member  that  I  have  not 
yet  received  that  information  from  my  staff. 
I  am  sure  by  the  time  I  get  back  to  my  office 
following  question  period  it  will  be  there. 

The  only  thing  I  can  say  at  this  point  is 
that  I  will  review  the  most  up-to-date  infor- 
mation available  to  me  and  see  whether  there 
is  any  way  in  which  I  can  appropriately  act 
so  as  not  to  interfere  with  the  present  nego- 
tiations, or  at  least  with  the  free  collective 
bargaining  process,  and  yet  be  of  some 
assistance  to  that  organization. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  As  the  minister  had  previously 
indicated  that  he  believed  there  might  be 
some  room  for  solution  of  this  protracted 
dispute,  will  he,  if  management  still  refuses 
to  move,  at  very  least  open  the  books  of 
Participation  House  to  the  scrutiny  of  the 
members  of  this  House  and  the  public  so  that 
we  may  determine  for  ourselves  whether 
Participation  House  management  is  simply 
playing  games  or  whether  it  is  that  his  minis- 
try is  not  providing  them  with  enough  money? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  can  only  interpret  that 
suggestion  to  mean  that,  if  I  am  not  prepared 
to  interfere  in  the  free  collective  bargaining 
process,  then  the  honourable  members  op- 
posite are.  I  am  not  sure  I  would  give  that 
undertaking. 


NORFOLK  TEACHERS'  DISPUTE 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
to  put  to  the  Minister  of  Education  about  the 
continuing  strike  in  Norfolk. 

Now  that  a  new  school  board  has  been 
elected  but  cannot  function  until  the  first 
week  of  December,  and  since  the  mediator 
has  yet  to  come  up  with  any  positive  results, 
at  least  as  far  as  is  publicly  known,  can  the 
minister  indicate  what  steps  she  may  be 
contemplating  to  bring  this  matter  to  a  suc- 
cessful conclusion,  since  the  young  people 
have  been  out  of  school  for  seven  weeks? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  understanding  that  there  are  some  dis- 
cussions going  on  right  at  the  present  time 
in  that  situation.  I  am  relatively  hopeful, 
because  it  would  appear  there  are  some  routes 
to  a  successful  completion  of  the  dispute;  I 
believe  those  are  being  explored. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Since  the  minister  said  exactly 
that  when  the  question  was  first  put  six  weeks 
ago,  is  there  any  indication  that  she  could 
give  to  the  members  of  the  House,  particu- 
larly the  members  from  the  area,  that  these 
discussions  are  more  hopeful  than  they  were 
a  month  or  more  ago? 

The  students  are  missing  a  good  deal  of 
school  and  the  parents  are  coming  to  the 
elected  members  from  the  area  in  some  des- 
peration. The  fact  that  there  is  no  pressure 
put  to  bear  on  this  House,  the  fact  that  it  is 
not  a  strike  in  downtown  Toronto  so  nobody 
here  gives  a  damn  about  it,  is  getting  to  be  a 
matter  of  grave  concern  for  me  and  the 
people  in  the  area. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  member  for 
Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  may  believe  that,  but 
I  have  to  tell  him  that  there  are  a  large  num- 
ber of  people  who  give  a  damn  about  this 
strike. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Yes,  there  are:  You,  me  and 
maybe  one  other,  the  member  for  Haldimand- 
Norfolk  (Mr.  G.  I.  Miller). 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Oh,  no.  There  are 
several  more  than  that  as  well. 

Mr.  Huston:  You  didn't  care  about  Windsor. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  beg  your  pardon; 
about  Windsor? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  You  need  a  pardon  about 
Windsor. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Well,  I  do  not  have 
to  beg  Windsor's  pardon  about  Windsor,  but 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  to  beg  Sault 
Ste.  Marie's  pardon  about  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
and  the  rest  of  northern  Ontario. 


4334 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


It  is  perfectly  obvious,  as  a  result  of  some 
meetings  that  were  held  about  10  days  to 
two  weeks  ago,  at  which  time  we  met  with 
representatives  of  the  parents,  the  community 
and  representatives  of  the  students,  and  what 
the  Education  Relations  Commission  did  as 
well,  that  there  has  been  some  pressure 
brought  to  bear  where  it  is  more  important; 
that,  of  course,  is  in  the  local  community. 
What  is  happening  is  that  we  are  having  some 
communications  from  individuals  who  are 
involved  on  either  one  side  or  the  other  and 
who  believe  there  is  a  route  now  to  finding  a 
solution  to  this  problem.  We  had  not  had 
that  kind  of  indication  before. 

INVESTMENT  COMPANIES'  FAILURE 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  get  a  response  from  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  to  a 
suggestion  I  would  like  to  put  about  the 
Re-Mor  and  Astra  matter. 

In  order  for  the  Legislature  to  be  able  to 
explore  and,  we  hope,  to  untangle  the  web 
of  Re-Mor  and  Astra  involvement,  will  the 
minister  support— and  I  offer  this  suggestion 
in  all  good  faith— a  referral  of  this  matter  to 
a  legislative  committee  for  consideration? 

3:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  will  not,  Mr.  Speaker,  on 
the  grounds  that  it  would  virtually  destroy 
the  litigation  or,  at  the  very  least,  it  would1 
run  head  on  into  the  litigation  that  now 
exists  in  the  situation  in  two  regards:  first, 
the  class  action  or  the  group  action  accusing 
the  registrar  of  mortgage  brokers  of  negli- 
gence and,  second,  the  question  concerning 
the  rights  of  creditors  to  have  the  Re-Mor 
funds  extricated  from  the  Astra  bankruptcy 
now  under  way. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Would  the  minister 
care  to  explain  to  the  House  the  effect  on  his 
ministry's  actions  and  decisions  in  this  case 
caused1  by  the  involvement  of  a  Mr.  Matt 
Dymond,  a  former  minister  of  the  crown  in 
Ontario,  with  Mr.  Carlo  Montemurro,  who 
was  behind  the  Astra  and  Re-Mor  ripoffs? 
Will  the  minister  explain  the  effects  of  the 
close  relationship  between  these  two  men? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  do  not  know  who  has 
any  kind  of  a  relationship  with  anybody.  It 
has  never  had  any  impact  upon  me,  and  I 
will  tell  him— 

Mr.  Breaugh:  You  are  so  lonely  a  man, 
Frank. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Well,  he  is  asking  if  some- 
body was  doing  something;  so  let  us  not  be 


so  cute.  I  say  to  the  honourable  member,  if 
he  is  suggesting  that  somebody  influenced  me 
or  somebody  within  my  ministry- 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  The  minister  has  to 
explain  his  action  in  some  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  If  the  member  wants  to 
stand  up  right  now  and  say  that  somebody 
influenced  me,  he  can  be  my  guest,  but  I 
would  ask  him  to  remember  what  is  going  to 
happen  to  him  afterwards. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
really  understand  how  a  member  can  ask  a 
question  like  that  if  he  is  not  prepared  to 
bring  forward  some  evidence  or  material.  I 
personally  know  of  no  relationships  with 
anybody  involved  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: With  respect  to  the  Re-Mor  matter,  may 
I  take  the  opportunity  to  ask  the  minister  if 
he  is  able,  as  he  promised  last  Thursday,  to 
table  today  the  application  for  the  Re-Mor 
mortgage  brokerage  licence  and  the  other 
items  I  had  asked  for,  since  that  all  ties  into 
this  overall  theme? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  reply  is 
in  consultation  with  the  Ministry  of  the 
Attorney  General;  it  will  be  tomorrow.  In 
one  of  the  replies,  I  said  as  soon  as  possible, 
Monday  or  Tuesday. 

FIRE  SAFETY 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  direct  a  question  to  the  Solicitor  Gen- 
eral. What  is  the  status  of  the  Ontario  pro- 
vincial fire  code  at  the  present  time  and 
whose  ministry  will  enforce  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will 
be  introducing  legislation.  Generally,  as  far 
as  the  regulations  pertaining  to  fire  safety 
and  those  matters  are  concerned,  they  will 
be  the  responsibility  of  the  fire  marshal's 
office. 

FRENCH-LANGUAGE 
ADVISORY  COMMITTEES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Education. 
How  many  voters  did  she  find  of  the  French- 
speaking  electors  for  the  French-language 
advisory  committee  across  Ontario  for  the 
$75,650  she  spent  on  her  feeble  enumeration 
technique,  and  how  much  would  it  have 
cost  if  she  had  simply  added  the  questions 
to  the  enumeration  forms  for  the  various 
areas   where  they  would  have  applied? 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4335 


Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  as 
the  honourable  member  knows,  what  was 
carried  out  was  not  an  enumeration.  It  was 
a  method  of  attempting  to  assist  the  French- 
language  advisory  committees  to  identify 
on  a  broader  base  those  who  might  be  in- 
terested in  participating  in  the  election  of 
French-language  advisory  committee  mem- 
bers. Those  elections  are  not  part  of  the 
municipal  elections,  which  are  enumerated 
properly  for  the  election  of  trustees  and 
members  of  local  government. 

Members  of  the  French-language  advisory 
committees  are  neither  members  of  the  board 
of  school  trustees  nor  of  local  government. 
Therefore,  what  we  did  was  to  attempt  to 
help  that  group  to  identify  more  clearly 
those  francophone  individuals  within  their 
jurisdictions  who  might  be  interested  in  par- 
ticipating in  the  French-language  advisory 
committee  elections. 

That  exercise  is  now  being  completed. 
When  the  final  figures  have  been  tallied,  I 
will  certainly  ask  permission  of  the  five 
francophone  groups,  with  which  I  had  dis- 
cussions and  with  which  I  made  a  pact  I 
would  never  use  this  information  as  any 
kind  of  statistical  base,  to  permit  me  to 
provide  that  information  to  the  member. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Does  the  minister  be- 
lieve or  does  she  not  believe  that  there 
should  be  full  enumeration  for  the  FLACs? 
She  has  made  a  distinction.  Have  they  a 
right  or  not  to  have  full  enumeration  so  that 
they  know  whom  they  are  electing. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  my  under- 
standing that  enumeration  is  carried  out  for 
purposes  of  municipal  elections  to  those 
bodies  in  which  there  is  full  participation 
of  all  citizens.  Since  the  French-language 
advisory  committee,  although  established 
under  law,  is  not  what  one  would  consider 
to  be  a  municipal  body,  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  should  be  a  part  of  the  enumera- 
tion. 

RIGHT-TO-FARM  LEGISLATION 

Mr.  McKessock:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food.  Can  the  minister  tell  me  what  stage 
his  right-to-farm  legislation  is  at  and  when 
we  can  expect  it  to  be  introduced  into  the 
House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  shortly 
after  the  throne  speech  last  year  we  took  this 
up  with  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agricul- 
ture. My  staff  and  the  staff  of  the  feder- 
ation were  working  together.  About  a  month 


ago  the  federation  came  back  and  reported 
to  me  that  they  had  a  proposal  but  they 
were  not  yet  ready  to  present  it  to  me.  They 
want  to  present  it  to  the  annual  meeting 
of  the  federation  next  week.  That  is  where 
it  is  at. 

PETITION 

KU  KLUX  KLAN 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
petition  which  reads  as  follows:  We,  the 
undersigned,  petition  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor and  Legislative  Assembly  of  Ontario 
to  ensure  public  protection  against  the  Ku 
Klux  Klan,  an  organization  which  has  clearly 
violated  our  human  rights  legislation  and 
hate  literature  laws.  We  petition  for  an 
immediate  prosecution  under  the  Criminal 
Code  in  an  effort  to  end  the  activities  of 
the  Ku  Klux  Klan  in  Ontario." 

The  petition  is  signed  by  38  citizens  from 
the  good  borough  of  Scarborough. 

MOTION 

COMMITTEE  SITTING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  select 
committee  on  Ontario  Hydro  affairs  be 
authorized  to  sit  on  Thursday,  November  20, 
from  1  p.m.  to  2  p.m. 

'Motion  agreed  to. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILL 

MORTGAGE  PAYMENTS 
MORATORIUM  ACT 

Mr.  Makarchuk  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  196,  An  Act  to  provide  for  a  Moratorium 
on  Mortgage  Payments  for  Persons  affected 
by  an  Interruption  of  Employment. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  The  purpose  of  the  bill, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  to  provide  for  a  moratorium 
on  payment  of  principal  and  interest  amounts 
secured  by  mortgages  on  the  residences  of 
persons  who  suffer  an  interruption  of  em- 
ployment arising  from  a  legal  strike,  lockout 
or  layoff.  The  bill  also  protects  the  mort- 
gagor from  mortgage  default  proceedings 
during  the  moratorium  period. 

3:20  p.m. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the   answers  to  questions  388  to  391, 


4336 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


393,    396   and  397   standing  on   the   Notice 
Paper.  (See  appendix,  page  4363.) 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  supply. 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY 
OF  NORTHERN  AFFAIRS 

(continued) 

On  vote  701,  ministry  administration  pro- 
gram: 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  ask  the  minister  whether  it  is  his  intention 
to  table  the  answers  to  questions  I  asked  of 
him  in  the  opening  statement  when  we  com- 
menced the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs? 

Are  you  finished? 

Mr.  Martel:  No. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Carry  on. 

Mr.  Martel:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Are  you? 

Mr.  Martel:  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  .Are  you  running  the 
House? 

Mr.  Bolan:  I  don't  know;  I  am  starting 
to  wonder  who  is.  Do  you  want  to  carry 
on  your  conversation? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  ask  if  the  minister  has  answers  to  the 
questions  I  asked  of  him  when  we  started 
the  estimates?  I  asked  him  the  following 
questions:  What  is  the  total  advertising 
budget  for  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs 
and  its  agencies,  boards  and  commissions 
for  the  fiscal  year?  What  was  the  comparable 
advertising  budget  for  the  previous  year? 
What  advertising  agencies  are  employed? 
Are  tenders  let  for  the  account?  Will  the 
minister  also  provide  a  copy  of  the  material 
used  in  all  the  promotions,  such  as  bro- 
chures, radio  and  television  scripts,  direct 
mailing  and  any  other  promotional  material? 

I  asked  those  questions  some  three  weeks 
ago.  The  minister  has  had  three  weeks  to 
get  the  answers.  I  presume  he  has  them  now. 
If  he  does  not  have  them  now,  db  I  have 
his  undertaking  that  they  will  be  provided  to 
us  between  now  and  the  time  the  estimates 
are  finished? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe 
that  question  is  on  the  Order  Paper,  and  we 
are  preparing  a  reply  to  it. 


Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  when  we 
adjourned  last,  I  was  asking  some  questions 
of  the  minister  with  regard  to  the  relationship 
of  his  ministry  to  other  ministries  of  the 
government.  Since  he  has  delineated  that  his 
ministry  is  a  co-ordinating  ministry,  I  would 
like  to  pursue  that  a  little  with  some  specific 
examples. 

It  is  rather  difficult  to  deal  with  this  in 
one  way,  because  when  one  writes  to  the 
minister  about  a  specific  problem  in  northern 
Ontario  he  is  often  wont  to  refer  one  to 
anoher  minister.  For  instance,  there  is  the 
position  taken  by  this  minister  with  regard  to 
the  question  of  Ontario  health  insurance  plan 
coverage  for  transfers  by  doctors  of  patients 
from  northern  Ontario  to  larger  centres  in  the 
north,  to  southern  Ontario,  or  in  some  cases 
in  the  northwest,  to  Manitoba.  When  I  con- 
tacted him,  he  said  he  was  sympathetic,  but 
he  referred  me  to  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Timbrell). 

I  understand  the  Minister  of  Health  has  a 
liaison  committee  on  the  air  ambulance  ser- 
vice; they  are  talking  about  it  and  they  may 
be  coming  up  with  something.  But  I  would 
like  to  know  what  role,  if  any,  this  ministry 
has  in  advising  the  Minister  of  Health  and 
trying  to  persuade  him  to  accept  the  resolu- 
tion I  have  on  the  Order  Paper  which  would 
provide  OHIP  coverage  for  those  lands  of 
transfers. 

In  the  same  vein,  I  would  be  interested  to 
find  out  what  the  minister's  position  is  with 
regard  to  the  proposals  now  being  made  for  a 
telemedicine  program  by  the  Port  Arthur 
General  Hospital  and  by  a  Dr.  Barrett,  who 
is  a  radiologist  in  Toronto.  I  understand  Dr. 
Barrett  has  met  with  the  minister  and  with 
the  Speaker,  I  believe,  to  discuss  his  pro- 
posals. He  has  also  met  with  me.  It  is  some- 
what similar  to  what  is  in  operation  now  in 
northwestern  Quebec;  James  Bay,  I  believe, 
has  a  similar  hookup  to  Montreal  hospitals. 

I  would  be  interested  to  find  out  what 
role  this  minister  has  in  influencing  health 
policy  for  northern  Ontario.  I  know  the  minis- 
ter does  announce  programs  with  regard  to 
health  policy,  such  as  the  bursary  program 
for  professionals  to  be  attracted  to  the  north. 
But,  besides  announcing  policies  that  have 
been  decided  in  the  Ministry  of  Health,  what 
role  does  this  minister  have  in  actually  in- 
fluencing the  development  of  policy  and, 
in  particular,  the  questions  of  OHIP  transfers 
and  the  telemedicine  proposal? 

In  a  similar  vein,  can  the  minister  indicate 
what  is  happening  with  the  proposals  made 
in  Espanola,  in  the  riding  of  my  colleague 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4337 


the  member  for  Algoma-Manitoulin  (Mr. 
Lane),  for  an  integrated  facility  involving 
nursing  home  care— residential  care,  extended 
care  or  whatever  it  is  called— as  well  as  senior 
citizens'  housing?  This  is  a  very  good)  con- 
cept and  one  with  which  I  think  his  ministry 
is  involved  in  a  committee.  Can  he  give  me 
some  indication  of  what  stage  it  is  at  and 
what  his  ministry's  role  is  in  it? 

Can  he  also  say  what,  if  anything,  his 
ministry  is  doing  about  the  mixup  we  have 
between  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  the 
Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Services 
with  regard  to  a  similar,  although  not  as 
large,  pilot  project  that  is  now  in  operation 
in  Hornepayne  for  residential  care  for  the 
elderly  and  disabled?  This  is  the  kind  of 
concept,  I  am  sure  the  minister  will  agree, 
that  we  need  to  expand  in  the  small  com- 
munities in  northern  Ontario,  since  it  enables 
the  elderly  and  the  disabled  to  remain  in 
their  own  communities,  rather  than  being 
transported  great  distances  to  facilities  in 
larger  centres.  I  will  be  interested  to  hear 
his  comments  on  his  responsibilities  in  that 
area. 

In  relation  to  the  Ministry  of  Industry 
and  Tourism,  I  hope  the  minister  can  clarify 
a  controversy  that  has  developed  as  a  result 
of  statements  made  by  his  colleague  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman)  on  October  22,  when  the  esti- 
mates of  his  ministry  were  being  debated 
by  the  resources  development  committee. 
During  that  debate,  he  indicated  that  fur- 
ther decisions  by  the  provincial  government 
on  provision  of  funding  for  infrastructure 
for  the  proposed  King  Mountain  project  in 
my  riding  would  await  the  completion  of 
the  Department  of  Regional  Economic  Ex- 
pansion agreement  on  tourism  for  northern 
Ontario. 

Subsequent  to  those  statements  becoming 
public,  the  president  of  the  development 
firm,  a  Mr.  Frank  Rush,  characterized  the 
statement  of  the  minister's  colleague  as 
.'"bull."  I  believe  that  was  the  word  he  used; 
it  was  on  the  front  page  of  the  Sault  Ste. 
Marie  Star. 

He  said  the  DREE  agreement  might  have 
some  bearing— but  very  little,  if  any— on  the 
proposals,  and  he  had  to  have  a  decision  on 
provincial  involvement  by  December  31. 
Also,  the  Assistant  Deputy  Minister  of  Re- 
gional Economic  Expansion  in  Ottawa  said 
that,  although  they  were  interested  in  the 
King  Mountain  project,  the  agreement  on 
tourism  for  northern  Ontario  between  the 
province    and    the    federal    government    was 


not  nearly  rich  enough  to  be  able  to  provide 
any  significant  contribution  to  the  King 
Mountain  project.  My  colleague  the  member 
for  Sault  Ste.  Marie  (Mr.  Ramsay)  said  that 
as  far  as  he  was  aware  there  was  no  real 
relationship  between  the  negotiations  with 
DREE  and  the  King  Mountain  project. 

Frankly,  it  is  inconceivable  to  me  that  a 
minister  responsible  for  tourism— even  in  a 
Tory  government— would  not  know  about 
the  relationship  between  the  negotiations  on 
a  tourism  agreement  with  DREE  and  a 
major  project  in  northern  Ontario.  But  that 
appears  to  be  the  case. 

Is  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  the 
so-called  lead  minister  in  the  negotiations 
with  DREE,  and  can  he  clear  up  the  con- 
tradictions that  have  been  raised  by  the 
statements  of  his  colleagues?  Maybe  he  can 
also  tell  us  in  general  terms  what  is  the 
relationship  between  the  Ministry  of  North- 
ern Affairs  and  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  with  regard  to  tourist  developments 
in  northern  Ontario,  because  obviously  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  does  not 
know  what  he  is  talking  about. 

3:30  p.m. 

I  will  not  prolong  this,  but  in  every  esti- 
mates we  have  had  on  this  ministry  I  have 
raised  the  question  of  the  relationship  be- 
tween this  ministry  and  the  Ministry  of 
Transportation  and  Communications.  We 
will  be  talking  about  northern  roads  on  a 
specific  vote;  so  I  will  not  prolong  it.  But 
it  seems  to  me  rather  interesting  that  the 
minister  could  state  in  Sudbury  last  Thurs- 
day that  the  bypass  between  Highway  144, 
the  Timmins  highway,  and  Highway  17  at 
Sudbury  is  on  schedule  and  will  be  com- 
pleted in  1981.  Whereas,  on  exactly  the 
same  day,  the  member  for  Sudbury  East 
(Mr.  Martel)  received  a  letter  from  the  Min- 
ister of  Transportation  and  Communications 
(Mr.  Snow),  who  said  this  project  would  be 
completed  by  1982  at  the  earliest.  The  min- 
ister said  1981,  and  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation  and  Communications  said   1982. 

Who  is  deciding  when  these  projects  are 
going  to  be  complete?  Who  is  responsible? 
Can  the  ministers  get  their  act  together? 
What  is  the  relationship  between  them?  I 
understand  they  are  supposed  to  set  the 
overall  priorities.  MTC  is  supposed  to  make 
recommendations  to  help  make  those  priori- 
ties, and  then  the  minister  is  supposed  to 
appropriate  the  moneys  and  turn  it  over  to 
MTC  to  carry  out  the  program  he  sets.  But, 
obviously,  the  two  ministers  are  not  on  the 
same  wavelength  with  regard  to  the  bypass 


4338 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


from  Highways  144  to  17.  They  are  at  least 
a  year  apart.  It  is  interesting  the  minister 
would  say  something  one  day  and  the  very 
same  day  a  letter  would  be  received  from 
the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Commu- 
nications saying  something  very  different. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  You  have  not  been 
briefed!  well  enough. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  can  get  the  letter  the 
member  for  Sudbury  East  received.  He 
would  be  quite  willing  to  send  it  down.  I 
would  read  it.  I  do  not  want  to  prolong  it, 
but  I  understand  Mr.  Tom  Diavies,  the 
mayor  of  Walden,  is  quite  upset  about  this 
discrepancy  and  is  very  concerned  about  the 
whole  contradiction.  So  here  we  have  another 
contradiction— in  this  case  the  contradiction 
between  the  two  ministers. 

I  would  also  like  to  refer  to  two  other 
matters  the  minister  raised  in  his  leadoff 
statement.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  then 
criticized  me  for  not  raising  them  in  my 
leadbff.  One  Was  the  Hornepayne  town 
centre  project.  The  minister  may  know  that 
a  week  ago  Saturday  I  was  at  the  opening 
of  one  portion  of  it,  although  they  have  not 
got  permission  yet  for  occupancy;  there  is 
some  problem  with  the  fire  marshal.  At  any 
rate,  I  understand  his  ministry  has  an- 
nounced a  further  contribution  to  the  project 
in  the  range  of  something  like  $300,000,  and 
another  $100,000  from  CN,  to  complete  it. 
Can  he  indicate  what  the  final  capital  cost 
will  be?  I  understand  of  that  $300,000  ap- 
proximately $100,000  is  a  commitment  to 
assist  with  operating  costs  over  the  first  two 
years-$60,000  the  first  year  and  $40,000  the 
second  year— because  there  is  a  projected 
deficit. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Generous,  eh? 

Mr.  Wildman:  Yes,  I  welcome  the  assist- 
ance. One  thing  I  am  concerned  about, 
though,  is  what  happens  after  the  first  two 
years?  If  there  is  a  projected  deficit  and  the 
ministry  is  going  to  provide  $60,000  the  first 
year  and  $40,000  the  second  year,  what 
happens  the  third  year?  I  know  that  may 
sound  like  looking  a  gift-horse  in  the  mouth, 
but  I  am  concerned  about  the  future  and 
what  it  means  in  terms  of  the  finances  of 
the  community. 

As  the  minister  may  know,  Hornepayne  is 
in  a  serious  financial  situation;  that  is  why 
his  ministry  has  largely  contributed,  as  well 
as  the  fact  that  he  wants  to  see  the  centre 
go  ahead.  There  is  some  concern  about  the 
curling  rink  and  the  airport,  and  a  rather 
serious  concern  about  Canada  Mortgage  and 


Housing  Corporation  end  the  use  of  funds 
that  were  appropriated  for  a  certain  matter. 
I  understand  the  Ministry  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs  is  involved  with  that  and  is 
going  into  Hornepayne  in  the  last  couple  of 
weeks  of  November  to  try  to  straighten  out 
the  finances  of  the  municipality.  In  that  case, 
I  would  like  to  find  out  the  minister's  rela- 
tionship with  the  Ministry  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs  on  the  future  of  Hornepayne. 

The  minister  also  raised  the  matter  of 
Missanabie  and  pointed  to  that  as  an  ex- 
ample of  how  his  ministry  responds  to  the 
concerns  of  small  communities,  and  how 
they  co-ordinate  all  the  other  agencies,  in 
this  case,  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources, 
the  Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
and  so  on.  But  the  one  thing  he  ignored  was 
the  fact  that  the  pipe  that  was  purchased 
more  than  a  year  ago  by  this  ministry  to 
extend  the  water  line  on  an  emergency  basis 
to  provide  a  water  supply  for  the  community 
is  still  sitting  in  a  pile  in  Missanabie. 

How  anyone  could  point  to  that  as  a  great 
achievement,  I  fail  to  understand— an  ex- 
penditure of  something  like  $30,000,  and  the 
project  is  not  complete.  Now  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs  is  refusing  to  go  ahead  with 
any  further  work,  saying  it  committed  itself 
only  to  providing  a  water  supply  for  the 
community  for  one  winter  and,  since  that 
winter  is  now  over  and  nobody  went  without 
water,  it  fulfilled  its  commitment.  Frankly,  it 
is  pure  luck.  They  did  not  resolve  the  tech- 
nical problem.  It  cost  a  lot  more  than  they 
expected,  and  they  were  not  willing  to  pro- 
vide the  extra  moneys  that  were  required. 

I  understand  that  the  local  residents  of  the 
community  have  said  they  want  to  apply 
through  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board/  to  be- 
come an  improvement  district.  I  understand 
it  is  the  position  of  both  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs  and  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  (Mr.  Wells)  that  they 
would  rather  the  community  would  go  the 
route  of  a  local  services  board.  The  com- 
munity has  rejected  that,  largely  because  it 
anticipates  that  the  Renabie  Mine  will  be  re- 
opening this  summer.  The  president  of  the 
company  has  indicated  it  will  be  reopening 
and  employing  between  80  and  100  people. 
They  wish  to  be  an  improvement  district, 
they  hope  with  their  boundaries  including 
that  property,  so  they  will  have  a  tax  base 
and  they  will  be  able  to  resolve  some  of 
their  problems  through  being  able  to  levy 
taxes. 

The  Ministry  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs,   I   understand   on   the   advice  of  the 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4339 


Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs,  raised  some 
objections  with  the  OMB  to  holding  that 
hearing.  They  said  they  were  studying  it 
and  they  wished  it  to  be  postponed.  In  fact, 
they  were  not  studying  it;  they  just  did  not 
want  it  to  be  held.  When  I  phoned  them  and 
asked  if  they  could  give  me  copies  of  their 
study,  they  had  to  admit  they  had  not  done 
any  study.  But  I  understand  they  are  now  pre- 
pared to  withdraw  their  objections  to  going 
ahead  with  the  hearing,  and  I  hope  the 
OMB  will  schedule  a  hearing  and  decide 
whether  Missaniabie  should  be  an  improve- 
ment district.  Whatever  is  decided,  I  hope 
we  can  move  to  resolving  the   problems. 

If  I  were  minister,  I  would  hardly  point 
to  Missanabie  as  a  great  example  of  a 
response  by  this  ministry  to  the  problems 
of  a  small  community.  To  purchase  pipe, 
and  then  not  even  to  install  it  after  a  full 
year,  to  commit  oneself  to  improving  a 
water  system  and  after  a  year  not  to  have 
even  cleaned  out  the  tank,  is  hardly  an 
example  of  swift  action  by  this  ministry  to 
respond  to  the  needs  of  a  community.  We 
are  just  lucky  it  was  not  a  harder  winter 
last  year,  or  we  would  have  had  major  prob- 
lems. 

Interestingly,  as  the  minister  may  be 
aware,  there  is  a  serious  attempt  to  resolve 
difficulties  and  to  provide  amenities  and 
services  to  one  other  riding  in  my  commun- 
ity; that  is,  White  River.  The  local  major 
employer,  Abitibi-Price,  is  co-operating.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  Abitibi-Price  has  hired  a 
consulting  firm,  called  Robb  Ogilvie  Associ- 
ates, which  has  brought  together  the  local 
community,  not  only  the  municipal  officials 
but  also  private  citizens,  local  service  clubs 
and  representatives  of  a  number  of  minis- 
tries, including  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs,  the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Recrea- 
tion, and  so  on.  They  are  working  together 
to  bring  about  a  number  of  changes  in 
White  River— one  being  the  building  and 
financing  of  a  recreation  centre— looking  into 
the  housing  problem  and  the  problem  of 
other  amenities  and  services,  to  try  to  make 
it  a  more  attractive  community  to  new  em- 
ployees coming  in,  so  they  will  stay  there. 

3:40  p.m. 

My  only  question  for  this  minister  is  why 
they  had  to  hire  a  private  consultant.  Why 
is  his  ministry  not  doing  the  very  same  sort 
of  thing?  That  is  what  he  is  supposed  to  be 
doing;  at  least  that  is  what  he  tells  us.  Why 
is  his  ministry  not  coming  in  and  taking 
hold  of  the  reins  and  bringing  all  those 
various    local    groups    and    ministry    officials 


together  to  bring  about  developments,  as  is 
being  done  in  White  River,  but  in  this  case 
is  being  done  largely  by  the  private  sector? 

I  am  not  too  concerned  about  Abitibi- 
Price  having  to  pay  Robb  Ogilvie,  but  did 
they  have  to  do  it  that  way?  Why  did  the 
Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  not  take  hold 
of  the  whole  issue?  The  point  is,  they  only 
went  to  Robb  Ogilvie  after  they  got  nowhere 
for  years  in  trying  to  bring  about  the 
developments  they  are  looking  at. 

If  one  looks  at  an  example,  the  recreation 
centre  is  a  10-year  ongoing  matter  that 
was  not  being  pushed  until  they  brought 
someone  in— to  use  the  minister's  own 
arguments,  "What  you  need  is  the  impetus 
of  someone  who  can  bring  all  the  groups 
together  and  co-ordinate  them  and  put  some 
initiative  there."  Frankly,  in  an  ironic  way 
the  experience  of  White  River  is  an  example 
of  what  the  minister  claims  is  necessary  for 
small  communities  in  northern  Ontario.  What 
is  so  ironic  about  it  is  that  his  ministry  is 
not  doing  it;  it  is  a  private  consultant. 

Last,  I  would  like  to  raise  a  concern  about 
French-language  services.  The  minister  knows 
I  sent  him  a  letter  this  fall  asking  him  how 
the  government  would  be  implementing  the 
commitment  made  by  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
at  the  first  ministers'  conference  to  provide 
French-language  services  in  areas  where 
numbers  warrant.  I  was  referring  especially 
to  social  services  and  to  services  to  children. 
I  received  a  reply  from  the  minister  in  which 
he  said:  "As  you  know,  some  of  my  colleagues 
in  cabinet  have  announced  French-language 
policy  for  their  ministries  with  specific  meas- 
ures for  the  improvement  of  francophone  serv- 
ices throughout  northern  Ontario.  More  re- 
cently my  colleague  the  Honourable  Keith 
Norton,  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services,  reaffirmed  a  French-language  serv- 
ices policy  for  his  ministry." 

I  wonder  what  kind  of  consultation  went  on 
between  whoever  wrote  this  letter  for  the 
minister  and  the  Ministry  of  Community  and 
Social  Services.  The  Minister  of  Community 
and  Social  Services  did,  in  fact,  announce 
French-language  services  for  children— a 
$400,000  fund  for  northern  Ontario-but  he 
specifically  excluded  Algoma,  of  which  fact 
the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  seems  to  be 
unaware. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  goes  on  to  say:  "I 
have  been  advised  that  the  social  services 
representatives  servicing  that  area  all  work 
out  of  the  office  at  55  Broadway  Avenue  in 
Wawa.  This  office  is  staffed  full-time  by  a 
fully  bilingual  clerical  receptionist  who  pro- 


4340 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


vides  services  to  general  welfare  assistance, 
family  benefits,  children's  aid  and  probation 
and  after-care  workers  located  in  Wawa." 

Hip,  hip,  hurrah!  We  have  a  clerk  who 
is  bilingual  in  Wawa.  The  Wawa  office  serves 
an  area  from  White  River  to  Homepayne 
—about  120  miles  in  one  direction— to  Mis- 
sanabie— about  70  to  75  miles  in  the  other 
direction.  I  would  like  to  know  if  this  clerk 
travels  with  the  social  workers  who  go  to 
serve  those  areas?  Especially,  does  she  travel 
with  the  social  worker  who  goes  to  Dubreuil- 
ville,  which  is  approximately  55  miles  from 
Wawa  and  whose  social  worker  does  not 
speak  French?  As  the  minister  knows  since 
he  has  visited  that  community,  95  per  cent  of 
the  people  in  Dubreuilville  are  francophones, 
and  a  large  majority  of  them  are  unilingual 
French-speaking.  A  clerk  in  an  office  in  Wawa 
hardly  serves  French-language  people  in 
northern  Algoma. 

I  would  like  to  know  what  kind  of  advice 
this  minister  gives  to  the  Minister  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  and  what  kind 
of  advice  he  gets  from  that  ministry.  Ob- 
viously, whoever  phoned  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  to  get  some  as- 
sistance to  answer  this  letter— because  I  am 
sure  that  is  how  it  went— was  not  informed 
they  had  excluded  Algoma  when  they  made 
their  announcement  of  a  $400,000  fund  for 
French-language  services  to  children  in  north- 
ern Ontario. 

What  I  am  really  asking  is,  does  this 
ministry  get  involved  in  policy  development 
for  serving  the  north?  Or  does  it  simply  phone 
them  up  and  say:  "We  have  a  request  for 
something?  Can  you  tell  us  what  to  reply?" 
I  would  appreciate  if  the  minister  could 
respond. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might 
respond  to  the  member,  I  must  say  I  am 
pleased  he  is  taking  an  interest  in  his  own 
particular  area.  I  sensed  a  lack  of  apprecia- 
tion for  what  has  been  accomplished  in  many 
areas  of  his  riding. 

I  am  glad  I  have  on  the  record  all  those 
great  things  we  have  been  doing  in  the  riding 
of  Algoma.  I  am  sure  before  the  estimates 
are  concluded  he  will  come  around  to  seeing 
the  magnificent  improvements  and  accom- 
plishments that  this  government  and  cer- 
tainly this  ministry  have  made  in  his  particu- 
lar riding,  in  spite  of  the  member  for  Algoma. 

Mr.  Wildman:  There  has  been  more  money 
spent  in  my  riding  since  1975  than  in  the  10 
years  prior  to  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bemier:  That  is  right.  Why 
doesn't  the  member  say  that?  Why  doesn't  he 
tell  the  people? 


Mr.  Wildman:  It  is  because  I  have  raised 
these  matters  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Those  things  have  been 
done  in  spite  of  the  member.  I  am  glad  he  has 
realized  that  we  are  doing  things  in  the  north. 

The  member  was  talking  about  our  co- 
ordinating responsibilities  as  a  northern  minis- 
try. As  he  is  very  much  aware,  we  are  not  a 
line  ministry  per  se;  that  is,  we  do  not  have 
the  technical  engineers  to  design  a  highway 
or  to  do  field  work  with  respect  to  the  de- 
velopment of  a  new  highway,  nor  do  we  have 
the  engineers  or  the  experts  to  plan  and 
develop  a  sewer  and  water  system. 

That  is  not  our  role.  Our  role  is  to  co- 
ordinate and  to  answer  to  the  special  and 
unique  needs  of  northern  Ontario.  Where  we 
identify  those  special,  unique  needs,  we  lean 
on  the  other  ministries  and  work  very  closely 
with  them  to  get  a  program  in  place  that  will 
satisfy  the  needs  of  northern  Ontario.  In  many 
instances,  that  requires  extra  funds,  which  we 
have  been  given  to  do  these  things.  We  have 
a  fund  that  can  accomplish  those  require- 
ments. A  typical  example  is  sewer  and  water 
projects.  The  member  is  very  familiar  with 
the  problems  we  have  with  sewer  and  water 
projects  in  northern  Ontario.  Not  only  do  we 
work  very  closely  with  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  in  many  instances  in  topping 
up  what  it  gives  in  normal  grants,  but  also 
we  top  up  to  make  it  possible  for  a  munic- 
ipality to  carry  out  its  responsibilities.  In 
many  instances,  that  municipality  does  not 
have  a  taxation  base  to  carry  it  under  the 
normal  program. 

We  go  a  step  further  than  that.  We  look 
at  a  particular  area:  Belle  Vallee  is  a  good 
example.  Belle  Vallee  is  a  small  community 
with  a  very  high  water  table.  The  cost  of 
putting  in  a  conventional  sewer  system  in 
that  community  would  have  been  astronomi- 
cal and  would  have  been  completely  out  of 
reach  of  that  small  community.  They  were 
anxious  to  have  a  system  in  place  they  could 
afford  and  one  that  the  government  could 
afford  to  support  and  pay  for  from  our  point 
of  view.  We  did  come  up  with  an  idea  and 
a  plan.  That  is  being  implemented  right  now 
and  the  system  is  being  constructed.  In  fact, 
I  think  it  should  be  completed  relatively 
soon.  It  is  a  low-pressure  sewage  system, 
the  first  of  its  kind  in  northern  Ontario,  at 
Belle  Vallee.  I  think  I  have  the  figures  on 
that  particular  program.  I  should  put  them 
on  the  record,  because  I  know  they  will  be 
of  interest  to  the  members. 
3:50  p.m. 

In  case  the  honourable  members  are  not 
aware  of  where  Belle  Vallee  is,  it  is  about  20 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4341 


kilometres  northeast  of  New  Liskeard.  The 
system  consists  of  a  two-compartment  septic 
tank  and  a  pump  in  each  home,  connected 
by  a  pipe  to  a  two-cell  lagoon  on  the  out- 
skirts of  the  community.  Belle  Vallee,  as  I 
pointed  out,  is  in  an  extremely  flat  area,  and  a 
conventional  gravity  feed  system  would  have 
required  very  deep  trenches  to  maintain  the 
sewage  flow  in  the  pipes.  The  low-pressure 
system  is  simple  to  operate  and  maintain  and 
requires  only  that  the  pipe  be  below  the 
frost  line.  We  contributed  about  $270,000 
for  that  particular  project,  and  the  community 
will  pay  the  balance  of  $74,230.  That  is  an 
example  of  what  we  do  in  a  very  special 
way.  Not  only  did  we  co-ordinate  it  with 
the  other  ministry,  but  also  we  assisted  in 
the  funding. 

iVnother  example,  with  regard  to  sewer  and 
water  projects,  is  at  Serpent  River.  The  mem- 
ber for  Algoma-Manitoulin  (Mr.  Lane),  my 
parliamentary  assistant,  came  to  me  with  the 
very  special  problems  that  Serpent  River  had 
as  a  small  community  on  a  plastic  pipe  sys- 
tem. They  said  to  us:  "We  do  not  want  a 
massive  steel  pipe  system,  buried  eight  or 
10  feet  in  the  ground.  We  have  been  operat- 
ing for  25  years  with  a  good,  reliable  plastic 
pipe  system.  Would  you  supplement  that  and 
improve  upon  it?"  We  said,  "Fine,  if  that  is 
what  you  want  and  it  will  work."  We  brought 
in  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment.  We  had 
some  lengthy  discussions  with  them.  Obvi- 
ously, the  engineers  are  not  taken  with  this 
type  of  a  development.  It  is,  I  suppose,  a 
little  removed  from  what  they  have  been 
used  to  or  what  their  practice  is,  because— 

Mr.  Wildman:  What  about  the  fire 
marshal?  Did  he  like  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  This  is  what  the  people 
wanted,  and  I  think  we  have  to  answer  to 
the  people's  needs,  their  requirements  and 
what  they  can  pay  for.  We  have  a  system  go- 
ing in  there  and  I  think  that  will  be  well 
on  its  way  before  the  year  is  out;  the 
honourable  member  has  nodded.  So  we  have 
two  specific  examples  as  to  how  we  co- 
ordinate in  the  sewer  and  water  area. 

The  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications is  another  with  which  we  work 
very  closely;  we  get  a  tremedous  amount  of 
co-operation.  One  matter  alone  about  which 
we  have  been  leaning  on  MTC  is  that  of 
getting  them  to  change  their  attitude  to 
paved  shoulders;  that  is  moving  ahead.  As 
you  move  across  northern  Ontario,  particu- 
larly on  Highway  17,  you  will  see  that  the 
new  requests  of  northern  Ontario  are  being 
answered;       for       example,       more      paved 


shoulders.  They  went  into  a  very  excellent 
program  of  putting  in  passing  lanes.  Now,  in 
many  areas,  they  are  finding  that  they  can  put 
in  paved  shoulders,  an  eight-foot  paved 
shoulder,  for  about  the  same  cost  as  they 
could  put  in  a  truck  passing  lane.  We  are 
looking  at  that  as  a  new  thrust  in  northern 
Ontario.  Granted,  it  will  not  apply  in 
southern  Ontario,  but  again  it  is  part  of  our 
thrust  and  part  of  our  efforts  to  answer 
specific  northern  Ontario  needs  in  a  co- 
ordinated way. 

The  honourable  member  asked  what  in- 
volvement we  have  with  the  Ministry  of 
Health  in  a  co-ordinating  role.  He  mentioned 
a  few,  such  as  bursary  program.  We  identi- 
fied very  quickly  the  need  to  come  up  with 
some  special  programs  to  encourage  doctors, 
dentists,  physiotherapists  and  other  spe- 
cialists to  move  into  northern  Ontario.  We 
went  right  to  the  heart  of  the  problem  and 
assisted  the  medical  students  on  a  two-year 
basis,  with  up  to  $5,000  a  year  for  the  last 
two  years,  on  the  express  understanding  that 
they  will  go  to  northern  Ontario.  This  is  a 
Northern  Affairs  thrust,  one  we  are  paying 
for  through  the  budget  of  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs,  and  one  on  which  you  are 
asked  to  vote  today. 

Medical  clinics— the  honourable  member 
knows  our  new  thrust  in  medical  clinics. 
Again,  this  is  in  co-operation  with  the  Minis- 
try of  Health,  because  they  have  to  approve 
it,  they  are  the  line  people,  the  experts  in 
that  particular  field  but  we  identify  the 
special  need  in  northern  Ontario.  So  we 
came  up  with  a  program  by  which  we  would 
assist  those  municipalities  wanting  to  de- 
velop a  medical  clinic  so  that  they  could 
attract  a  doctor  or  a  dentist.  We  would  assist 
with  up  to  two  thirds  of  the  cost,  and  it 
varies;  it  is  not  a  flat  two  thirds,  but  up  to 
two  thirds  of  the  capital  cost  paid  on  the 
express  understanding  that  the  doctors  using 
the  clinic  would  pay  the  ongoing  local  rent, 
which  they  have  all  accepted. 

There  is  the  dental  program,  the  mobile 
dental  clinics  that  we  established  in  northern 
Ontario,  again  in  co-operation  and  co- 
ordination with  the  Ministry  of  Health. 
There  is  the  air  ambulance  system  on  which 
we  are  working  very  closely  with  the  Minis- 
try of  Health  right  now. 

Mr.  Wildman:  What  about  OHIP? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  That  is  part  of  the 
whole  package,  one  part  in  which  we  have 
had  a  thrust.  Certainly,  I  do  not  want  to 
make  any  announcement  here  of  what  is  go- 
ing to  happen.  The  line  ministry  does  have 


4342 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  responsibility.  But  I  can  assure  the  hon- 
ourable member  that  we  have  the  thrust, 
that  we  have  the  input,  and  that  we  meet 
regularly.  Our  staff  members  from  the  minis- 
ter, the  deputy  minister,  and  the  assistant 
deputy  minister  down  to  our  directors,  are 
in  constant  contact  with  their  counterparts  in 
other  ministries  to  get  that  northern  Ontario 
thrust  into  their  decision-making  process, 
and  the  system  is  really  working. 

About  the  telemedic  issue,  to  which  the 
honourable  member  referred,  my  assistant 
deputy  ministers  are  meeting  with  the  offi- 
cials of  that  group  to  see  how  they  and  we 
as  a  ministry  can  assist  in  the  delivery  of 
that  system.  I  was  very  interested  in  his 
proposal.  He  indicated  to  me  that  much  of 
it  would  be  in  the  private  sector— there  is  no 
question  about  that-^but  he  certainly  wanted 
to  get  the  support  of  this  government  and 
this  ministry.  We  are  very  interested  in  that 
as  a  way  to  meet  the  needs  of  northern 
Ontario,  and  I  know  my  colleague  the  Min- 
ister of  Health  shares  my  view  in  that  field. 

The  honourable  member  spoke  about  tho 
integrated  senior  citizens'  unit  at  Espanola. 
I  want  to  place  on  the  record  my  personal 
congratulations  to  the  member  for  Algoma- 
Manitoulin,  my  parliamentary  assistant.  It 
was  his  idea.  He  brought  the  thing  forward 
and  has  pursued  it  relentlessly  through  the 
various  levels  of  government.  He  sold  the 
idea  locally  and  that  is  most  important.  He 
sold  it  to  the  private  sector— there  will  be 
involvement  of  the  private  sector. 

Dr.  Fergal  Nolan  of  my  ministry  is  part 
of  that  overall  group  which  is  working  with 
the  various  other  ministries.  I  understand 
the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Develop- 
ment (Mrs.  Birch)  is  doing  the  steering  of 
this  program  and  we  can  expect  something 
relatively  soon  on  the  status  of  that  facility. 
I  think  it  will  be  a  forerunner. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Hornepayne  too? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes.  I  think  that  is  an 
excellent  program.  In  fact,  I  met  with  the 
director  just  a  couple  of  days  ago  and  he 
went  to  some  length  to  assure  me  the 
facility  they  have  in  Hornepayne  adjacent 
to  the  Hornepayne  Hospital  is  in  fairly  good 
condition.  I  think  he  is  spending  another 
$20,000  this  year  fixing  up  the  roof  or  doing 
the  skirting  around  the  bottom  of  it.  But  he 
thinks  he  is  there  for  another  three,  four  or 
five  years  before  he  needs  any  major  capital 
expenditure.  He  was  very  pleased;  they  are 
well  set  up;  and  he  was  very  complimentary 
to  this  government  for  what  we  have  done 
in  that  field.   I  am  looking  forward  to  the 


day  when  we  can  turn  the  sod  in  Espanola 
for  that  new  and  exciting  facility,  which  will 
bring  together  three  different  levels  of  serv- 
ice to  the  senior  citizens  in  that  area.  I  can 
assure  you  many  communities  in  northern 
Ontario  will  be  watching  what  transpires: 
there. 

Another  area  where  we  are  in  a  co- 
ordinating role  with  the  Ministry  of  Energy 
is  the  Shell  Woodex  plant  uo  at  Hearst.  That 
plant  and  that  idea  have  been  around  for 
some  considerable  time,  but  it  was  not  until 
the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  got  involved 
to  'bring  the  sewer  and  water  facilities  to 
the  plant  that  it  really  took  off.  We  are 
working  very  closely  with  the  Ministrv  of 
Energy  and1  with  the  private  sector  in  making 
these  things  happen.  So  while  we  may  not 
be  the  line  ministry  making  all  these  an- 
nouncements, we  are  behind  the  scenes 
pressing  the  right  buttons  so  that  they  do 
happen. 

Speaking  about  a  co-ordinating  role,  I 
think  one  of  the  other  members  asked  about 
the  policy  analysis  branch  of  my  ministry. 
He  asked  just  what  their  responsibility  was 
and  is.  There  is  a  small  group  in  my 
ministry  located  here  in  Toronto  and  it 
monitors  on  behalf  of  my  ministry  what 
goes  in  all  the  other  cabinet  committees 
and  in  management  board,  in  addition  to 
cabinet.  So  they  know  what  is  going  on  in 
the  Justice  policy  field;  they  monitor  what 
is  coming  forward  in  the  Social  Develop- 
ment policy  field  and  the  Resources  De- 
velopment policy  field;  they  know  what  is 
going  on  in  management  board,  which  I 
try  to  keep  on  top  of. 

So  it  is  a  massive  job.  It  is  not  like  an 
ordinary  ministry  where  you  are  just  in- 
volved with  one  section  of  cabinet.  This  is  a 
unique  situation  where  my  ministry  is  in- 
volved in  all  those.  It  takes  a  tremendous 
amount  of  effort  keeping  on  top  of  the  issues 
on  an  ongoing  day-to-day  basis  to  see  what 
is  brought  forward.  Then,  of  course,  we 
initiate  things  that  we  want  to  see  happen 
and  that  is  all  put  into  the  system.  It  is  a 
very  complex  and  very  interesting  ministry, 
indeed,  that  sees  and  makes  sure  things  really 
happen. 

4  p.m. 

The  member  for  Algoma  mentioned  King 
Mountain  and  the  Department  of  Regional 
Economic  Expansion  proposal.  I  think  he  is 
aware  this  government  is  very  sympathetic 
to  the  DREE  proposal.  I,  along  with  my 
colleague  from  Sault  Ste.  Marie  (Mr.  Ramsay), 
made   an   extensive  flight   over   the  possible 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4343 


location  of  the  facility.  It  is  a  different  and 
exciting  area.  The  potential  is  unlimited  as 
it  relates  to  that  type  of  year-round  facility 
just  north  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie.  The  member 
attached  it  to  the  DREE  proposal  and  he  is 
quite  right  in  doing  that. 

It  was  discussed  last  week  in  a  general 
way.  The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 
(Mr.  Grossman),  who  was  the  chairman  at 
the  Ottawa  meeting,  made  it  a  pointed  thrust 
with  regard  to  destination  facilities  in  north- 
ern Ontario,  King  Mountain  being  one  of 
them.  We  are  anxious  to  start  talking  and 
get  moving  on  a  massive  tourism  package.  We 
are  not  looking  at  a  small  package;  we  are 
looking  at  a  package  of  about  $100  million. 
King  Mountain  could  fit  quite  easily  into  that 
package  if  we  are  successful. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Are  you  going  to  be  able 
to  make  an  announcement  on  your  attitude 
towards  involvement  with  King  Mountain 
whether  or  not  the  DREE  proposal  is  reached 
before  the  end  of  the  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  would  not  be  making 
an  announcement  with  regard  to  King  Moun- 
tain. I  am  sure  my  colleague  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  will. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Is  he  the  lead  minister  in 
negotiations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  his  would  be  the 
lead  ministry  in  that  field. 

We  will  certainly  be  supporting  him  as  he 
goes  on  with  DREE  and  as  he  moves  ahead 
because  we  are  very  interested  and  we  are 
giving  him  all  the  help  and  assistance  we 
can  from  our  field.  That  is  in  the  works. 
Following  our  meeting  in  Ottawa,  I  would 
have  to  admit  I  am  not  excited  about  the 
quick  acceptance  of  a  tourism  package  of 
that  size. 

Mr.  Wildman:  They  said  it  would  take  four 
months. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  would  like  to  see  it 
happen  in  four  months.  That  is  more  opti- 
mistic than  I  would  be,  but  we  all  have  our 
feelings  and  assumptions. 

The  honourable  member  made  some  refer- 
ence to  the  development  of  a  bypass  and 
Highway  144.  We  will  call  it  the  north-south 
bypass  in  Sudbury.  I  think  he  did  get  some 
direction  from  the  member  for  Sudbury  (Mr. 
Germa).  I  regret  he  did  not  get  all  the  facts 
right  or  all  the  information  because  he  is  a 
little  twisted  around.  He  said  this  would  be 
completed  in  1982  and  somebody  else  said 
1981.  It  is  not  going  to  be  completed  then; 
it  is  just  going  to  be  started.  The  land 
acquisition  is  complete  and  the  design  work 


and   environmental   studies   are   nearly  com- 
plete. I  said  this  in  Sudbury  last  Thursday. 

Mr.  Wildman:  You  said  1981  and  slowed 
it  to  1982. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No,  there  has  been  no 
mention  of  dates  at  all.  I  wrote  the  regional 
chairman.  It  is  in  the  planned  project  of  the 
Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions. When  we  took  it  over,  it  was  in  1982. 
It  is  still  in  1982.  I  hope  we  can  advance 
that  period  but  I  am  not  sure.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  funding  will  be  for  next  year.  I  do 
know  from  my  many  visits  to  the  Sudbury 
area  there  is  anxiety  to  get  on  with  it.  We 
are  as  anxious  as  anybody  else.  I  said  in 
Sudbury  that  is  a  government  commitment 
and  it  will  be  lived  up  to.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  fuss  is  all  about.  I  suspect  it  might 
have  been  before  a  certain  day— November 
10.  That  might  have  stirred  things  up  to  get 
a  little  publicity. 

As  far  as  we  are  concerned  nothing  has 
changed.  I  hope  the  funding  will  be  there  to 
get  on  with  it  and,  if  we  get  some  extra 
funding  I  would  like  to  see  some  kind  of 
start  in  1981,  but  I  cannot  at  this  time  make 
any  firm  commitment  that  will  happen. 
Nevertheless,  I  am  sympathetic  to  that. 

The  member  made  reference  to  Horne- 
payne  and  I  was  pleased  he  recognized  the 
generous  assistance  we  are  giving  to  that 
municipality.  I  want  to  compliment  my  own 
staff  in  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  for 
their  negotiations  with  Canadian  National 
Railways  in  coming  up  with  $100,000  from 
the  CNR  towards  that  medical  centre,  which 
will  cost  about  $300,000.  The  normal  contri- 
bution is  two  to  one,  as  I  mentioned  earlier 
in  my  remarks.  We  will  put  up  $200,000 
capital. 

I  might  say  that  they  were  extremely  co- 
operative and  our  dealings  with  them  have 
been  exceptionally  good.  It  was  very  heart- 
warming to  see  them  respond  in  a  very  posi- 
tive way  in  answer,  of  course,  to  the  need  of 
that  municipality  and  they  put  their  dollars 
on  the  line. 

As  the  member  correctly  pointed  out,  we 
will  be  assisting  in  the  operation  for  the 
next  two  years.  The  projections  are  that  after 
that  it  will  carry  itself  so  there  won't  be  a 
large  burden  on  the  community  and  we  look 
forward  to  that.  I  think  the  development  of 
the  Hornepayne  town  centre  complex  is 
unique  in  the  government.  I  don't  know  of 
any  other  facility— I  would  ask  the  honour- 
able members  to  look  around  and  see  if  that 
has  ever  been  carried  on,  not  only  with  the 


4344 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


private  sector  but  with  all  levels  of  govern- 
ment. 

I  suppose  you  might  say  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs  is  starting  to  become  very 
adept  and  very  able  in  that  particular  effort, 
because  we  saw  it  happen  with  the  develop- 
ment of  Ontario  North  Now,  where  not  only 
the  various  levels  and  various  ministries  of 
the  government  became  involved  with  their 
expertise  and  our  financial  commitment,  but 
the  private  sector  and  the  municipalities  also 
became  involved.  Our  co-ordinating  role  is 
really  there;  it  is  very  real;  it  is  very  positive 
and  it  is  very  easy  to  identify  and  the  results 
are  starting  to  flow  from  it. 

The  honourable  member  made  some 
comment  about  Missanabie.  I  would  have  to 
say  to  the  honourable  member  at  the  outset 
that  I  just  wonder  where  he  would  have 
gone  if  Northern  Affairs  hadn't  been  around 
to  answer  to  that  particular  need  at  Missa- 
nabie, because— 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  went  to  every  ministry  in 
the  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  That  is  exactly  right, 
but  who  responded?  Our  ministry  responded 
as  quickly  as  possible.  We  came  up  with  the 
funds  that  were  required.  Granted,  the  water 
level  didn't  drop  as  low  as  most  people  had 
anticipated  so  that  the  projected  water 
problem  did  not  develop,  but  nevertheless 
we  were  there.  We  had  purchased  the  par- 
ticular pine  to  which  the  honourable  member 
made  reference;  the  pipe  is  there  and  I 
would  have  to  say  to  the  member  there 
could  be  a  little  more  self  help  in  Missanabie 
by  the  people. 

I  think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  we 
offered  the  local  services  board  an  excellent 
route  they  could  have  used  but  they  chose 
not  to,  for  some  reasons  of  which  I  am  not 
aware.  It  would  have  been  a  first  step  had 
they  gone  into  the  local  services  board  be- 
cause the  CPR  did  not  want  to  deal  with 
anybody  who  did  not  have  a  legal  identity. 
I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  they  were  willing  to 
turn  over  the  water  system  to  a  legal  body, 
and  until  they  form  some  form  of  a  re- 
sponsible group  it  is  very  difficult  to  deal 
with  them. 

Nevertheless,  our  interest,  our  concerns  for 
Missanabie  have  not  diminished;  we  will  be 
there  when  they  need  us.  I  say  that  to  you 
in  all  sincerity,  because  that  is  our  responsi- 
bility. The  local  staff  were  there,  johnny-on- 
the-spot  when  they  were  needed  in  answer 
to  their  particular  needs.  It  was  a  very 
unique  situation,  one  that  you  wouldn't  have 


answered  as  you  correctly  point  out,  by 
another  ministry.  You  might  even  say  it  is  a 
little  ad  hockish,  but  nevertheless  it  answers 
the  needs  of  the  special  problems  of  northern 
Ontario. 

The  honourable  member  made  some  refer- 
ence to  the  delivery  of  French  services.  As  I 
pointed  out  in  my  recent  correspondence  to 
him,  we  have  a  number  of  staff  where  num- 
bers warrant,  as  he  correctly  pointed  out,  to 
deliver  services  in  the  French  language  right 
across  northern  Ontario.  When  we  identify  a 
problem  we  make  those  feelings  known  to 
other  ministries,  which  we  have  done  and 
will  continue  to  do  because  we  do  think  this 
government  is  committed  to  provide  those 
services  in  a  French-language  program  where 
numbers  warrant.  We  have  a  number  of  our 
people  located  in  the  Sault  Ste.  Marie  and 
the  Wawa  areas  who  are  very  fluent  in  the 
French  language,  so  I  feel  very  comfortable 
from  a  ministry  point  of  view  that  we  can 
deliver  the  services  right  across  northern 
Ontario  where  numbers  warrant,  where  people 
warrant. 

Obviously,  in  the  town  of  Kenora  or  even 
in  Sioux  Lookout,  there  really  is  no  need, 
but  there  is  a  need  in  Timmins  and  Hearst 
and  Iroquois  Falls  and  Sturgeon  Falls,  and 
other  areas,  and  our  staff- 
Mr.  Wildman:  And  Dubreuilville? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  And  Dubreuilville,  yes, 
we  will  certainly  follow  up  on  that. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  pretty  well 
winds  up  the  response  to  comments  the 
honourable  members  made.  I  would  like  to 
take  just  a  moment  to  send  over  to  the 
honourable  members- 
Mr.  Wildman:   More  tomatoes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No.  I  think  before  we 
wound  up  last  session  we  talked  about  peat 
and  my  visit  to  Ireland. 

Many  of  us  talk  about  peat  as  an  energy 
source  or  as  a  product  that  could  be  used  in 
a  horticultural  sense,  but  a  lot  of  us  have 
not  seen  what  it  is.  I  have  in  my  hand  raw 
peat.  This  is  very  similar  to  what  is  in  north- 
ern Ontario.  As  you  know,  we  have  identified 
something  like  67  locations  in  northern  On- 
tario with  an  estimated  resource  in  the 
amount  of  about  30  billion  tons  of  peat.  In 
the  next  few  years  we  will  see  a  lot  of 
interest  being  focused  on  this  particular 
source  of  energy. 

4:10  p.m. 

In  my  left  hand  I  have  a  sample  of  a 
briquette.  This  is  just  an  end  off  the  bri- 
quettes that  are  made  in  Ireland.  All  that  is 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4345 


taken  out  is  the  water  content.  It  is  mixed 
in  a  very  general  way.  There  are  16  different 
layers  in  the  natural  peat  that  is  taken  off 
the  field.  These  are  all  blended  and  then  put 
into  a  dryer  where  85  per  cent  of  the  mois- 
ture is  taken  off.  It  is  then  compressed'.  It  is 
very  valuable  as  a  fuel  for  fireplaces  in 
Ireland.  It  is  very  low  in  ash  and  very  low 
in  the  pollution  count  in  S02.  I  will  pass 
these  over  to  the  members  so  they  can  look 
at  them  as  a  matter  of  interest. 

Mr.  Bolan:  What  about  the  heat  from  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  The  British  thermal  unit 
content  is  very  comparable.  In  fact,  our  re- 
search in  Ontario  indicates  that  it  equals 
that  of  soft  coal  or  lignite,  so  the  potential  is 
very  real  and  positive. 

Vote  701  agreed  to. 

On  vote  702,  project  development  and 
community  relations  program: 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  have  a  short  question. 
Every  month  I  receive  the  ministry's  news- 
paper in  which  the  minister  explains  all  the 
things  that  are  being  done  in  northern  On- 
tario by  his  ministry.  The  latest  one  is  for 
October.  In  it  were  all  the  pictures  of  the 
northern  affairs  officers  across  northern  On- 
tario. It  is  interesting  that  a  couple  of  people 
in  my  riding  are  also  on  the  mailing  list  of 
the  Unorganized  Communities  Association  of 
Northern  Ontario  East.  They  received  the 
October  edition  from  the  Ministry  of  North- 
ern Affairs  from  UCANO.  I  was  wondering 
who  paid  for  that  mailing.  Was  it  the  Minis- 
try of  Northern  Affairs  or  was  it  UCANO? 
Could  the  minister  explain  what  the  reason 
was  for  having  UCANO  send  out  the  ministry 
newsletter  as  well  as  its  own  community  re- 
lations department  news  brief? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  am  pleased  the  mem- 
ber has  recognized  that  particular  edition  of 
our  regular  monthly  ministry  newspaper,  be- 
cause in  that  edition  we  are  honouring  the 
tenth  anniversary  of  the  northern  affairs 
branch.  I  am  pleased  to  say  I  will  be  going 
to  Sault  Ste.  Marie  tomorrow  where  all  the 
northern  affairs  officers  are  meeting  to  ex- 
tend to  them  my  congratulations  and  honour 
those  who  have  been  with  us  for  that  10-year 
period.  It  will  be  a  very  pleasant  event  in- 
deed. 

As  the  member  knows,  the  northern  affairs 
officers  are  unique  to  northern  Ontario  and 
are  accepted.  The  service  is  hailed  as  a  major 
breakthrough  for  the  delivery  of  govern- 
ment information  and  services  in  the  29 
communities  and  areas  we  serve  across  north- 
em  Ontario. 


Regarding  the  question  the  honourable 
member  has  directed  to  me  in  connection  with 
the  mailing  of  that  paper  by  the  Unorga- 
nized1 Communities  Association  of  Northern 
Ontario,  we  do  fund  UCANO.  I  think  it  is 
$25,000  a  year  for  the  northeast,  or  maybe 
it's  more  than  that  now.  We  provide  about 
$27,000  or  $28,000  a  year  to  each  of  UCANO 
East  and  UCANO  West.  I  would  expect  that 
since  those  are  so  freely  distributed  across 
northern  Ontario  they  just  took  it  upon  them- 
selves to  mail  them  to  their  membership, 
knowing  they  would  be  interested. 

We  look  after  our  own  mailing,  and  if  they 
choose  to  give  further  distribution  to  it  that 
pleases  me  tremendously.  I  think  it  is  a  good 
newspaper.  It  is  well  put  together.  It  is  very 
informative;  and  it  does  a  good  job  of  in- 
forming not  only  my  ministry  but  the  public 
as  well. 

Mh\  Wildman:  There  seems  to  be  some 
concern  underneath  the  gallery  about  the 
minister's  reply,  so  maybe  he  can  straighten 
it  out  with  his  staff. 

I  noticed  in  the  picture  of  the  northern 
affairs  officers,  there  are  quite  a  few  of  them 
who  are  in  my  riding.  It  is  rather  a  large 
riding,  but  of  course  not  as  large  as  the 
minister's.  There  is  a  new  northern  affairs 
officer  in  Iroquois  Falls.  His  name  is  Gerald 
Violette. 

I  want  to  add  my  congratulations  to  Mr. 
Violette  on  his  appointment.  I  am  surprised, 
though,  that  the  minister  did  not  at  least 
leave  him  in  Gogama  so  he  could  continue 
to  serve  the  interests  of  the  people  in  that 
community.  I  hope  if  there  was  any  contri- 
bution for  this  mailing  from  the  ministry  that 
the  minister  could  provide  me  with  that  in- 
formation. I  have  no  objection  to  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am 
pleased  the  honourable  member  has  recog- 
nized the  appointment  of  Gerald  Violette  to 
the  Northern  Affairs  staff.  As  we  all  know, 
he  was  very  active  and  very  vocal  and  led 
UCANO  East  for  a  number  of  years.  He 
did  an  excellent  job  on  behalf  of  the  unorga- 
nized communities. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  with  his 
background— I  believe  he  was  teaching  for 
a  while— he  has  a  broad  knowledge  of  north- 
ern Ontario.  With  his  involvement  in  UCANO 
he  has  become  very  familiar  with  the  many 
programs  of  this  government  and  of  this 
ministry. 

Another  appointment  I  would  like  to  recog- 
nize is  that  of  Jane  Greer.  She  has  just  moved 
—today  I  believe— to  Marathon.  She's  a  young 


4346 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


girl  from  Sioux  Lookout  who  has  come 
through  the  ranks.  We  do  not  confine  our 
appointments  to  the  male  of  the  species;  we 
mix  them  up  and  try  to  get  as  many  women 
as  possible  in  areas  where  they  show  an 
interest.  Jane  will  take  up  the  position  in 
Marathon  and  I  know  she  will  do  a  great 
job,  as  will  Gerry. 

Vote  702  agreed  to. 

On  vote  703,  northern  communities  assist- 
ance program;  item  1,  community  priorities: 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  some 
questions.  First,  though,  I  need  some  direc- 
tion. I  wonder  if  it  is  in  order  to  raise  ques- 
tions with  regard  to  funding  for  medical 
centres  under  item  1.  Is  that  all  right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Could  the  minister  give  us 
some  indication  of  what  his  ministry's  policy 
is   with   regard   to   the   funding   of  medical 
centres?  I  know  he  mentioned  it  earlier. 
4:20  p.m. 

I  know  the  ministry  has  provided  a  grant 
for  the  Cobalt  medical  centre  in  the  range 
of  $13,000  for  renovations  to  the  munic- 
ipally-owned building.  I  understand  the 
ministry  has  also  provided  $30,700  for  the 
purchase  of  equipment  for  a  dental  clinic  on 
a  shared  cost  basis  with  the  community  of 
Chapleau.  I  understand  Chapleau  is  under 
serious  financial  constraints  and  is  having 
difficulties  right  now.  That  assistance  was 
probably  very  useful,  but  could  the  minister 
give  us  some  indication  of  whether  there  is 
an  overall  policy  on  funding  by  his  ministry 
either  to  pay  the  full  cost  or  to  pay  a  portion 
of  the  cost  of  the  development  of  medical 
or  dental  clinics  in  small  communities  in 
the  north,  or  were  these  special  grants? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  moved  into  the 
area  of  assistance  to  smaller  communities  in 
the  development  of  medical  centres  follow- 
ing our  own  staff  observations  and  following 
requests  from  the  smaller  municipalities  and 
the  Minister  of  Health.  They  could  see  this 
as  a  real  need. 

In  our  initial  reviews,  we  found  each  com- 
munity was  different.  As  an  example, 
Geraldton  had  a  facility  already  built  but 
needed  $20,000  to  put  in  certain  equip- 
ment. That  is  all  it  required.  The  building 
was  there.  They  said:  "That  is  all  we  need. 
We  need  the  $20,000,  because  we  have  run 
out  the  full  length  of  our  commitment."  It 
had  difficulty  generating  those  further  funds, 
so  we  assisted. 

In  Nakina,  they  had  a  different  system. 
They  went  out  and  prevailed  upon  the  local 


timber  company  to  provide  them  with  a 
trailer.  We  assisted  that  community  by 
coming  forward  and  completing  that  trailer, 
which  is  now  a  medical  clinic. 

What  we  said  was  we  would  assist  up  to 
two  thirds  of  the  total  cost  as  to  the  type  of 
facility,  size  and  all  the  configurations  and 
everything  they  require  once  that  had  been 
approved  by  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  once 
we  had  an  opportunity  to  look  at  their 
financial  capability,  but  we  did  not  want  to 
be  fixed  firmly  to  a  two-to-one  type  of 
assistance  program.  Where  the  municipali- 
ties could  do  more  for  themselves,  with  some 
encouragement  from  us,  we  would  ask  them 
to  do  a  little  more.  It  is  not  a  fixed1  two- 
to-one  basis. 

Many  municipalities,  of  course,  are  coming 
forward  and  saying,  "Look,  we  need  two 
thirds  of  the  financial  assistance."  We  are 
working  closely  with  them  on  an  individual 
basis.  Red  Lake  has  now  received  two- to- 
one  assistance;  Chapleau  received  two-to-one; 
I  think  Rainy  River  received  two-to-one;  and 
Manitouwadge  is  receiving  two-to-one.  A  lot 
of  them  will  flesh  out  but  before  we  do  that 
we  do  not  want  to  lock  ourselves  into  a  firm, 
fixed  locked-in  policy.  We  look  at  each  re- 
quest individually  in  co-operation  and  co- 
ordination with  the  Ministry  of  Health.  We 
look  at  the  financial  capability  of  the  com- 
munity, then  work  out  a  formula  it  can  carry. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Could  the  minister  give 
us  some  indication  of  how  much  money  has 
actually  been  spent  by  the  ministry  for 
renovation  or  construction  of  medical  and 
dental  clinics  and  how  much  it  is  anticipated 
will  be  spent  in  the  next  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  don't  have  those  total 
figures  here  but  I  will  make  a  commitment 
to  get  all  those  totals  for  you. 

Mr.  Wildman:  In  that  regard  I  also  would 
like  the  minister,  if  he  could,  to  expand  on 
the  ministry's  position  with  regard  to  the 
dental  clinic  and  the  renovation  of  the 
medical  clinic  in  Dubreuilville.  I  appreciate 
assistance  is  being  provided  to  Hornepayne. 

One  of  the  major  problems  we  have  had 
in  Dubreuilville  is  it  is  very  difficult  to  get 
professional  staff  who  can  speak  French  to 
move  to  an  area.  The  local  community  and 
the  Algoma  district  health  council  has  sug- 
gested one  of  the  ways  to  make  it  more 
attractive  for  a  French-speaking  professional 
to  move  to  the  Wawa-Dubreuilville  area 
would  be  a  major  renovation  of  the  medical 
clinic  and  the  addition  of  a  dental  clinic. 

After  some  effort  we  did  obtain  a  nurse 
practitioner  for  Dubreuilville  who  is  fluently 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4347 


bilingual  and  is  doing  a  very  good  job.  But 
I  think  he  would  agree  that  with  some  capi- 
tal expenditure  it  might  make  it  a  more 
serviceable  facility,  and  make  it  easier  for 
the  doctor  who  comes  in  on  a  rotating  basis. 
Also,  it  might  make  it  more  attractive  for  a 
dentist  who  might  want  to  come  in  on  a 
rotating  basis. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  would  certainly  en- 
tertain a  request  from  that  municipality  for 
upgrading  the  present  facilities. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  have  already  talked  to 
Ed  Belfry. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Good.  I  know  the  posi- 
tive response  by  him.  Again,  the  Ministry  of 
Health  is  involved  and  with  their  concur- 
rence, of  course,  we  would  sit  down  and 
work  something  out  with  that  municipality, 
as  we  have  done  in  Geraldton  and  other 
communities.  As  you  correctly  point  out, 
one  has  to  have  the  right  type  of  atmos- 
phere. The  work  place  has  to  be  something 
a  doctor  can  be  proud  to  work  in,  where  he 
can  do  his  best  and  provide  the  services 
people  are  entitled  to. 

I  might  say  at  this  point  that  some  munic- 
ipalities have  come  forward  with  requests  for 
the  purchase  of  homes  for  doctors.  They  say, 
"Now  you  have  provided  or  helped  us  to 
provide  a  good  medical  clinic,  but  we  still 
cannot  attract  a  doctor  because  we  do  not 
have  a  decent  home  for  him."  Our  response 
up  to  this  time  has  been  that  our  priority 
across  northern  Ontario  would  be  the  de- 
velopment of  medical  clinics.  We  have  only 
a  limited  amount  of  funds.  If  they  will  bear 
with  us  we  would  like  to  answer  all  the  re- 
quests for  medical  clinics  first,  then  the  next 
time  around,  if  that  requirement  is  still  there, 
we  would  have  a  look  at  it.  But  we  have 
encouraged  municipalities  to  go  into  long- 
term  mortgages  and  loans  from  banks  and 
Canada  Mortgage  and  Housing  Corporation 
and  develop  those  homes  for  doctors  them- 
selves. The  doctors  would  surely  pay  the 
ongoing  rent. 

Mr.  Philip:  Are  you  suggesting  that  doc- 
tors should  live  in  public  housing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  It  is  not  public  hous- 
ing. I  do  not  think  they  are  looking  for  pub- 
lic housing  at  all.  They  are  looking  for 
decent  housing  that  will  add  to  the  comfort 
of  their  jobs  in  northern  Ontario.  The  doctors 
I  have  spoken  to  are  not  looking  for  any 
handouts  or  giveaways.  They  say:  "Give  me 
a  home.  I  will  pay  the  going  rent."  We  have 
made  that  known  to  the  various  municipali- 
ties. I  just  make  that  as  a  point. 


Getting  back  to  the  appointment  of  Gerry 
Violette,  it  has  been  properly  pointed  out 
to  me  that  Gerry  did  compete.  It  was  a 
province-wide  competition.  I  just  want  to 
put  that  on  the  record,  make  it  clear  and 
precise  that  he  did  compete  with  other 
aspirants  for  that  job.  When  we  have  an 
opening  for  a  northern  affairs  officer,  the 
applications  flow  in  from  literally  every 
other  department  of  government  and  from 
many  people  in  the  private  sector,  because 
it  is  a  unique  job,  a  very  satisfying  job.  As 
we  celebrate  our  tenth  anniversary,  I  am 
particularly  pleased  that  many  of  the  origi- 
nals are  still  around,  which  shows  me  it  is 
a  very  satisfying  career.  I  am  looking  for- 
ward to  tomorrow  night,  as  I  said  earlier. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Following  along  on  the  lines 
of  health  services,  I  brought  to  the  ministry's 
attention  the  plight  of  the  people  of  Thome, 
some  40  miles  from  North  Bay,  who  are 
having  some  difficulty  in  obtaining  medical 
services  for  that  community.  I  pointed  out 
that  everything  had  been  set  in  motion  to 
have  a  doctor  attend  in  Thorne.  This  was  co- 
ordinated through  St.  Joseph's  Hospital.  The 
only  problem  we  had  was  where  the  services 
would  be  rendered.  I  am  wondering  if  the 
minister  has  anything  to  report  at  this  time, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was  brought  to  his 
attention  three  weeks  ago. 

I  am  informed  by  the  local  northern 
laffairs  officer  that  the  minister  is  looking  at 
the  question  of  bringing  in  a  portable  to  the 
Thorne  area;  in  fact,  the  site  has  already 
been  located.  I  am  just  wondering  if  you 
have  anything  more  concrete  to  report  to  us 
at  this  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bekirier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  did 
have  some  information  on  Thorne  land  I  have 
misplaced  it.  I  have  asked  my  staff  to  see  if 
they  can  dig  it  up  again. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Perhaps  the  minister  will  come 
to  over  the  next  while  and  inform  us. 

4:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  also 
like  to  raise  under  this  vote  the  question  of 
ongoing  operating  costs  of  various  facilities 
whose  construction  this  ministry  assists  in 
funding. 

We  have  talked  briefly  about  Hornepayne 
and  the  commitment  made  by  the  ministry 
which  I  understand  has  to  be  confirmed  by 
the  municipality's  accepting  it  at  a  meeting 
with  Mr.  Aiken  on  November  20.  The  minis- 
try has  committed  itself  to  $100,000  in  oper- 
ating costs  over  two  years  if  there  is  a 
deficit.  I  understand  one  of  the  main  reasons 


4348 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


there  is  possibly  going  to  be  a  deficit  is  the 
recreation  facility  in  the  complex,  the  swim- 
ming pool  largely.  I  understand  the  original 
agreement  signed  by  the  developer  was  that 
if  there  was  a  deficit  over  the  first  five  years, 
the  developer  would  pay  towards  it.  This  is 
now  supplementing  that  agreement. 

That  is  a  welcome  suggestion  by  the  min- 
istry. It  relates  to  a  problem  I  brought  to 
the  minister's  attention  in  September  with 
regard  to  recreational  facilities  that  have 
l^een  built  in  small  communities,  not  onlv  in 
the  north  but  all  across  Ontario  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Culture  and  Recreation,  often  with 
Wintario  funds,  Community  Recreation 
Centres  Act  grants  and  so  on. 

I  use  as  an  example  the  plight  of  the 
recreation  facility  in  Searchmont,  which  is 
just  north  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie.  It  is  a  very 
small  community  which  has  been  running  a 
deficit  for  some  time  and  which  has  a  Inrge 
loan  with  the  bank.  The  bank  has  threatened 
to  foreclose,  although  I  am  not  sure  what 
the  bank  would  do  with  it  if  it  disd  foreclose. 
The  minister's  staff  were  quite  concerned— 
I  will  emphasize  that— about  the  problem 
and  were  willing  to  look  at  it.  After  some 
consultation,  I  think,  with  the  Ministry  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  and  also  with  his 
own  staff  who  attended  a  meeting  I  also 
attended  in  Searchmont,  the  minister  wrote 
back  to  me  and  said  in  a  letter  dated  Sep- 
tember 24:  "You  will  appreciate  the  difficul- 
ties encountered  by  the  Searchmont  club  are 
not  unique  but  are  common  to  many  centres 
in  northern  and  southern  Ontario.  Although 
I  appreciate  fully  the  nature  of  this  predica- 
ment, I  must  regretfully  inform  you  that  my 
ministry  is  unable  to  assist  with  the  fund- 
ing." Then  he  goes  on  to  suggest  that  per- 
haps the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Pecreation 
would  be  able  to  provide  some  assistance. 

.That  was  quite  a  statement  because— and 
I  don't  think  I  am  reading  too  much  into  it 
—basically  what  the  minister  is  saying  is 
that  for  many,  or  at  least  a  significant 
number  of  small  communities,  not  only  in 
northern  Ontario  but  also  in  southern  On- 
tario, that  have  built  recreational  facilities 
with  moneys  they  have  obtained  from  the 
Ministry  of  Culture  and  Recreation  and  are 
now  in  financial  trouble  in  trying  to  operate 
those  facilities,  perhaps  the  Ministry  of  Cul- 
ture and  Recreation  would  be  able  to  do 
something  about  it. 

I  am  sure  the  minister  is  aware  that  the 
Ministry  of  Culture  and  Recreation  does  not 
have  any  program  for  providing  operational 
funds.  That  is  one  reason  why  his  ministry 


has  become  involved  in  such  an  intimate  way 
with  the  operation  of  the  Hornepayne  town 
centre.  I  followed  up  his  suggestion,  though, 
and  got  in  touch  with  the  Minister  of  Cul- 
ture and  Recreation.  I  got  a  rather  interest- 
ing response,  which  raises  the  question,  that 
I  pointed  to  in  the  previous  vote  of  the 
relationship  between  this  ministry  and  other 
ministries  of  the  government. 

This  is  a  letter  dated  October  17  from  the 
Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Mr. 
Baetz)  in  which  he  states:  "In  answer  to 
your  question,  I  am  quite  unaware  of  any 
small  community  in  the  province  which  is 
experiencing  financial  difficulties  as  a  direct 
result  of  receiving  capital  funding  from  my 
ministry.  All  applicants  for  a  capital  grant  are 
required  to  examine  the  operating  cost  impli- 
cations of  their  proposed  facility  development, 
and  the  applicants  must  indicate  to  the  minis- 
try their  ability  and  willingness  to  support 
these  costs." 

He  indicates  what  assistance  is  given  by 
the  ministry  in  those  calculations.  Further,  he 
says:  "My  ministry  review  of  its  capital  pro- 
grams does,  however,  examine  the  increase 
in  operating  costs  created  by  capital  con- 
struction or  expansion.  Staff  are  at  present 
devising  criteria  and  guidelines  for  a  new 
capital  program,"  and  so  on. 

In  other  words,  he  is  in  the  process,  as  we 
all  know,  of  changing  his  capital  program 
so  that  there  will  not  be  communities  in 
trouble  as  a  result  of  building  a  facility  which 
might  be  too  large  for  them  to  be  able  to 
operate  economically  and  to  be  able  to  pay 
for.  But  it  seems  to  me— and  maybe  I  am 
wrong— that  this  is  again  an  example  of  a 
direct  contradiction  between  what  this  minis- 
ter says  and  what  one  of  his  colleagues  said 
about  the  same  thing. 

How  is  it  that  this  ministry  believes  the 
Searchmont  situation  is  not  unique,  that  many 
centres  in  both  northern  and  southern  On- 
tario are  experiencing  financial  difficulties  in 
operating  centres  built  with  government  assist- 
ance, but  the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Rec- 
reation, the  line  ministry  responsible  for 
these  facilities,  does  not  know  of  any  small 
community  in  the  province  in  this  situation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  suppose  one  could 
play  on  words,  but  as  the  honourable  member 
has  pointed  out,  the  Minister  of  Culture  and 
Recreation,  to  my  knowledge,  is  looking  at 
the  problem.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind 
that  the  capital  construction  program  of  Win- 
tario was  stopped  temporarily.  I  suppose  the 
primary  reason  was  because  of  the  backlog 
of  commitments  that  had  to  be  caught  up 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4349 


until  they  were  examined.  But  it  is  of  con- 
cern, and  I  am  sure  it  is  of  concern  to  my 
colleague,  with  regard  to  the  operation  of 
these  massive  recreational  facilities. 

It  does  not  stop  at  the  ones  that  are  funded 
by  this  government.  Certainly,  the  Canada 
Games  project— and  I  had  the  opportunity  of 
touring  those  facilities  that  are  well  into  con- 
struction now  in  Thunder  Bay.  The  question 
I  asked  was,  "Who  is  going  to  pay  the  on- 
going operational  cost  of  these  facilities  in 
Thunder  Bay?"  It  was  quietly  whispered  in 
my  ear  that  the  overall  operating  costs  would 
be  in  excess  of  $80,000  a  year,  that  we  may 
be  able  to  pick  up  through  a  user  fee  charge 
$300,000  or  $400,000,  but  there  is  going  to 
be  a  shortfall  of  $400,000  or  $500,000  a 
year.  It  is  giving  them  some  concern. 

I  think  that  is  the  concern  we  were  trying 
to  express  in  our  letter  to  the  member  for 
Algoma.  It  is  a  concern  because  sometimes 
the  one-shot  capital  construction  dollars  flow 
quite  easily.  Then,  when  municipalities  are 
anxious  to  get  a  facility  in  place  and  get  to 
use  it,  the  ongoing  costs  are  pushed  down 
the  road  again  to  be  dealt  with  later.  They 
will  have  to  deal  with  them  because  it  is 
their  responsibility. 

As  an  example,  the  town  of  Geraldton 
wanted  to  develop  a  very  elaborate  recre- 
ational centre.  Our  staff  sat  down  with  the 
municipality,  went  over  the  plans  they  had 
and  changed  the  direction  considerably,  so 
that  the  town  went  out  and  bought  a  building 
off  the  rackj  so  to  speak,  rather  than  getting 
a  custom-built  facility  that  would  accelerate 
the  cost  tremendously. 

Here  again  is  an  example  of  how  we  can 
get  involved,  work  very  closely  with  a 
municipality  and  pare  down  their  overall 
capital  cost,  which  would  be  reflected  in  a 
lower  operating  cost  down  the  road.  We  are 
concerned  about  it.  It  is  something  that  the 
municipality  in  its  own  way  should  be 
responsible  for  and  be  concerned  with, 
because  it  has  that  local  responsibility  to 
make  sure  it  can  carry  it.  We  cannot  just 
keep  passing  on  the  responsibility  to  other 
levels  of  government.  We  make  it  very  clear 
to  them  when  they  are  moving  ahead  With 
these  facilities.  Even  with  the  medical 
centres,  we  tell  them  to  make  sure  they  look 
at  the  ongoing  operational  costs  because  they 
are  of  concern  to  us  and  to  them  too. 
4:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  appreciate  that  the  Min- 
ister of  Culture  and  Recreation  is  involved 
and  has  been  for  some  time  with  the  revision 
of   these    criteria.    I    hope    in   future   a   very 


small  community  will  not  get  involved  with 
a  centre  that  is  perhaps  a  little  too  elaborate. 
I  hope  they  will  build  centres  scaled  more 
to  their  ability  to  pay  the  operating  costs  but 
still  provide  them  with  a  recreational  facility 
they  will  be  able  to  use  and  that  will  be 
good  for  the  community.  I  hope  that  will 
resolve  problems  in  the  future. 

Frankly,  I  agree  with  the  minister's  posi- 
tion. I  do  not  agree  with  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation.  There  are  a  number 
of  small  communities  that  are  in  trouble  or 
may  be  in  the  future.  The  revision  of  his 
criteria  for  future  capital  expenditures  is  not 
going  to  help  those  communities.  I  would 
urge  this  minister  to  put  some  pressure  on  his 
colleague  to  try  to  look  at  the  problem  in  a 
more  realistic  way. 

The  problem  we  have  now  is  that  com- 
munities and  the  ministry,  in  good  faith,  got 
involved  in  some  facilities  that  Were  perhaps 
a  little  too  elaborate.  Maybe  they  need  to 
be  bailed  out.  I  suppose  the  ministry  is  con- 
cerned that  if  it  does  this  it  will  set  a  prece- 
dent—that in  future,  communities  that  build 
new  facilities  will  say,  "They  gave  operating 
expenses  to  such  and  such  a  community; 
therefore  we  should  get  them  too." 

Perhaps  it  could  be  done  by  saying  that 
facilities  built  prior  to  a  certain  date,  and 
where  there  are  really  serious  financial 
problems,  might  be  given  some  kind  of 
financial  assistance.  Perhaps  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs  could  get  involved  in  that 
as  well  in  small  communities  in  the  north. 

We  know  many  of  the  small  communities, 
especially  in  unorganized  areas  like  Search- 
mont,  have  very  little  ability  to  raise  operat- 
ing costs  except  by  contributions.  They  are 
doing  that,  but  sometimes  it  is  just  out  of 
range  for  them.  I  would  urge  the  minister  to 
persuade  his  colleague  to  take  another  look 
at  trying  to  resolve  these  problems. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Minister,  I  would  like  to 
set  the  stage  for  a  meeting  which  will  take 
place  on  December  10  or  11  between  offi- 
cials of  the  city  of  North  Bay,  yourself  and 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr. 
Parrott).  I  believe  the  Minister  of  Revenue 
(Mr.  Maeck)  is  also  going  to  be  there  in  his 
capacity  as  the  member  for  the  riding  adjoin- 
ing Nipissing. 

One  of  the  problems  that  will  be  discussed 
is  that  of  the  extension  of  the  sewage  treat- 
ment plant  at  North  Bay.  I  have  corresponded 
with  you  on  the  matter  and  I  am  sure  you 
are  familiar  with  it.  However,  I  would  like 
to  take  this  opportunity  to  review  it  and  see  if 
you  have  any  response  at  this  time. 


4350 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Basically  what  happened  is  that  some  years 
ago— I  believe  it  was  in  1970— the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  and  the  city  of  North  Bay 
entered  into  an  agreement  whereby  the  min- 
istry would  build  the  sewage  treatment  plant. 
Prior  to  the  plant  being  built,  discussions 
took  place  as  to  the  size  of  the  plant.  The 
city  said  it  needed  something  that  could 
handle  approximately  12  million  gallons  a 
day.  Ministry  officials  said  it  should  be  six 
million.  The  views  of  the  ministry  officials 
prevailed  and  the  smaller-sized  plant  was 
built. 

There  was  also  a  proviso  in  the  agreement 
to  the  effect  that  the  ministry  would  enter- 
tain further  submissions  by  the  city  for  an 
extension  of  the  sewage  treatment  plant, 
again  to  be  built  by  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment,  if  that  was  its  policy  at  the 
time.  We  had  this  grey  area  that  crept  into 
it  and  it  has  been  the  interpretation  of  that 
policy  that  is  the  subject  matter  of— I  will  not 
call  it  a  confrontation— the  differences  of 
opinion  that  have  arisen. 

Some  two  years  ago,  if  not  before  that, 
the  Ministry  of  Housing  put  a  freeze  on  ap- 
provals of  all  plans  of  subdivision  for  the 
city  of  North  Bay  until  such  time  as  the 
sewage  treatment  plant  was  extended  to  meet 
the  growing  requirements.  This  meant,  of 
course,  all  kinds  of  delays  for  individuals  and 
developers  who  had  plans  for  the  growth  of 
the  city.  Finally,  a  meeting  was  arranged 
between  city  officials  and  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment.  I  believe  it  was  a  year  ago, 
perhaps  a  bit  longer.  I  attended  that  meet- 
ing and  basically  by  that  time  what  had  hap- 
pened is  the  ministry  policy  had  changed 
and  instead  of  the  ministry  coming  in  and 
building  the  plant  as  well  as  maintaining  it 
and  providing  the  personnel  for  it,  the  policy 
was  that  the  plant  would  have  to  be  built 
or  expanded  by  the  city. 

There  was  a  system  of  grants  which  were 
set  up  that  would  fall  into  place  to  assist  the 
city  in  the  construction  of  the  plant.  The 
problem  is  that  the  original  expense  of  the 
expansion  was  something  to  the  tune  of  about 
$12  million.  This  has  been  revised  and  I  be- 
lieve it  is  now  down  to  about  $8  million. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  in  spite  of 
the  freeze  which  the  Ministry  of  Housing  put 
on,  they  did  release  a  number  of  lots  and 
they  did  release  or  approve  some  plans  so  that 
more  lots  were  thrown  on  the  market.  In 
view  of  the  other  projects  which,  as  you 
know,  the  city  has  in  mind,  such  as  the 
industrial  park  which  this  ministry  was  very 
much  involved  in  and  to  which  the  govern- 


ment of  Ontario  contributed  50  per  cent  of 
the  funds— and  I  may  say  that  aside  from  the 
Marshall    Avenue    interchange    which    I    am 
told  now  is  being  resolved— 
Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  By  whom? 

Mr.  Bolan:  By  both  parties.  That  is  the 
last  word  I  have  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  You  must  have  been 
talking  to  Jean- Jacques  Blais. 

Mr.  Bolan:  I  understand  there  was  a  meet- 
ing last  Wednesday  in  Ottawa  with  Mr. 
Brunelle.  I  don't  know  if  you  were  there  or 
not.  Were  you? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  I  was. 
Mr.  Bolan:   In  any  event,  that  is  another 
topic  altogether.  It  was  not  resolved? 
Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No. 

Mr.  Bolan:  I  am  told  that  it  will  be.  They 
are  waiting  for  other  things  to  happen  be- 
fore that  takes  place. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  In  the  fullness  of  time. 

Mr.  Bolan:  In  the  fullness  of  time,  yes. 
I  hope  the  province's  treatment  of  the  prob- 
lem of  the  expansion  of  the  sewage  treat- 
ment plant  will  not  be  in  the  fullness  of  time 
but  rather  will  be  shortly. 

In  any  event,  as  you  know  there  are  some 
major  plans  going  on  in  North  Bay  for  ex- 
pansion, because  North  Bay,  if  anything, 
certainly  can  be  described  as  a  definite 
growth  area  in  northeastern  Ontario  and  you 
could  look  upon  it  as  a  future  distribution 
centre  for  northeastern  Ontario  and  north- 
western Quebec.  The  amount  which  is  gen- 
erated from  that  area  for  northwestern  Que- 
bec is  quite  large  and  a  big  flow  of  dollars 
and  of  demands  for  services  and  goods  comes 
from   northeastern  Ontario. 

In  view  of  these  expansion  programs  which 
are  growing  and  in  view  of  the  progress 
which  is  made  with  the  industrial  park,  I 
Would  like  to  know  from  the  minister  just 
what  his  position  is  with  respect  to  the 
funding  of  the  extension  of  the  sewage  treat- 
ment plant  at  North  Bay. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  the 
honourable  member  is  very  much  aware  and 
as  he  indicated,  that  was  a  project  that  was 
taken  on  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Environ- 
ment. The  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  has 
not  been  involved  in  the  funding  of  the 
treatment  plant.  We  will  await  the  outcome 
of  the  December  10  meeting.  I  believe  your 
new  mayor  is  coming  down  with  some  senior 
officials  from  North  Bay,  so  I  would  be  re- 
luctant to  even  comment  on  our  involve- 
ment at  this  time.  I  have  to  say  I  do  not 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4351 


know  all  the  details  and  I  will  be  briefed 
prior  to  that  meeting,  of  course.  I  think,  in 
all  fairness,  you  will  have  to  wait  until  we 
get  through  the  discussions. 

The  Ministry  of  the  Environment,  of 
course,  would  be  the  lead  line  ministry  in 
that  particular  responsibility,  so  if  you  will 
bear  with  me,  we  will  wait  until  that  par- 
ticular meeting  and  I  can  get  some  more 
facts. 
4:50  p.m. 

I  cannot  help  but  comment  on  the 
Marshall  Avenue  overpass.  Since  the  honour- 
able member  mentioned  it,  I  know  he  will 
want  me  to  comment  on  it  because  an  op- 
portunity never  goes  by  without  him  being 
pleased  to  see  what  development  is  going 
on  in  North  Bay  that  is  being  shared  50  per 
cent  by  this  province  and  50  per  cent  by 
the  federal  government. 

I  remember  the  honourable  member  stand- 
ing in  his  place  and  pleading  with  me  to  get 
together  with  the  then  Treasurer  of  the 
province,  Mr.  Darcy  McKeough,  to  sign  that 
subsidiary  agreement  for  $14  million.  I 
agreed  to  it.  The  member  for  Algoma  well 
remembers  how  we  moved  ahead  and  nego- 
tiated with  the  federal  government.  We 
wanted  a  $14-million  package  which  would 
take  in  the  Marshall  Avenue  overpass  and 
look  after  all  the  requirements  of  the  indus- 
trial park  that  is  going  to  mean  so  much 
to  the  future  of  North  Bay. 

The  industrial  commissioner  has  done  a 
fantastic  job.  If  there  is  a  community  that 
has  shown  what  can  be  done  with  a  dynamic, 
industrial  development  committee,  foresight 
and  an  industrial  development  program,  it 
is  North  Bay.  It  has  excelled  in  that.  It  is 
a  leader  in  northern  Ontario  when  it  comes 
to  attracting  small  industries  to  its  borders. 
Nevertheless,  I  was  prevailed  upon  and 
pressured  to  do  everything  I  could.  I  was 
hammered  down,  believe  me,  at  a  meeting 
in  North  Bay  attended  by  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce  of  North  Bay  and  the  honourable 
member.  He  said  to  me:  "Go  for  a  smaller 
package.  Do  not  go  for  the  $14-million  pack- 
age. Go  for  a  $10-million  package." 

Mr.  Bolan:  You  and  Jean-Jacques  Blais. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  Jean-Jacques  Blais 
was  saying  that  because  he  had  the  $10 
million.  He  had  $5  million  and  the  province 
was  going  to  put  up  $5  million.  I  said: 
"Look,  we  are  so  close;  let  us  wait.  We  can 
get  $7  million  from  each.  The  province  is 
willing  to  put  up  its  $7  million."  We  had 
the  $7  million  at  that  time.  I  am  sure  if  the 


member  had  to  do  it  all  over  again  he  would 
agree  with  me  we  should  have  hung  in 
there  tighter.  It  would  have  been  only  a 
matter  of  weeks. 

The  federal  government  was  on  the  verge 
of  an  election.  Let  us  be  honest.  Jean- 
Jacques  Blais  wanted  to  get  re-elected.  He 
wanted  that  particular  project  to  move  ahead 
and  he  prevailed  upon  the  Treasurer  to  go 
for  a  $10-million  package.  So  we  are  right 
back  to  square  one  where  we  are  now  fight- 
ing for  that  $4  million.  I  think  North  Bay 
was  shortchanged.  I  really  do.  In  all  honesty, 
we  should  have  hung  in  there,  with  all  due 
respect  to  some  of  those  community  leaders 
and  the  chamber  of  commerce.  Now  the  fight 
is  going  to  be  a  very  tough  and  difficult  one 
because  moneys  are  that  much  tighter  today 
than  they  were  at  that  particular  time. 
Nevertheless,  we  will  await  the  outcome  of 
that  meeting  on  December  10  with  the 
North  Bay  officials  and  the  honourable  mem- 
ber to  see  where  we  can  assist,  if  we  can 
assist.  I  am  very  sympathetic  to  the  desires 
of  North  Bay  and  the  need  to  get  on  with 
industrial  development.  Of  course,  with  that, 
goes  the  treatment  plant  at  North  Bay. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to 
have  the  opportunity  of  setting  my  part  of 
the  record  straight,  if  I  may.  Naturally,  a 
bird  in  the  hand  is  worth  two  in  the  bush. 
I  have  used  that  expression  before  with 
respect  to  this  funding.  It  only  stands  to 
reason  to  take  the  $10  million,  and  we  will 
get  the  other  $4  million  somehow. 

Ontario  is  responsible  for  all  of  that, 
because  in  1976  there  was  an  agreement 
hammered  out  between  the  federal  and 
provincial  governments  for  about  $10  million. 
I  saw  the  agreement  myself,  because  I  was 
on  city  council  at  that  time.  I  met  with  my 
predecessor,  Dick  Smith,  and  other  members 
of  council.  There  it  was  in  black  and  white: 
$10  million  for  the  city  of  North  Bay  from 
the  provincial  and  federal  governments.  It 
did  provide  that  $2  million  of  that  was  for 
the  Marshall  Avenue  interchange.  But 
Ontario  reneged  on  its  end  of  the  deal  in 
signing  the  agreement  at  that  time.  It  kept 
putting  it  off. 

In  the  meantime,  this  is  what  happened. 
The  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications went  ahead  with  a  four-lane 
highway,  which  is  coming  into  North  Bay 
and  which  is  a  good  project.  As  a  result  of 
that  four-lane  highway  they  changed  their 
criteria  for  the  Marshall  Avenue  interchange. 
It  now  calls  for  an  overpass  over  the  railway 
and  for  all  those  other  things  which  were  not 


4352 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


needed  back  in  1976  when  the  original 
agreement  was  hammered  out. 

Again  I  will  say  I  would  do  the  same 
thing  over  again.  The  project  is  on  course,  I 
might  add.  There  was  a  $l-million  contract 
let  out  just  the  other  day  for  more  sewage 
system  expansion.  The  contract  for  the 
extension  of  Chippewa  Avenue  will  probably 
be  let  next  year.  It  is  all  on  stream  and 
all  falling  into  place.  The  $4  million  is 
going  to  be  paid  eventually.  I  feel  it  will 
definitely  be  50-50  between  the  province 
and  the  federal  government. 

As  I  say,  the  Ministry  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  has  changed  its  criteria 
for  the  interchange,  which  triggered  this 
additional  $2  million.  It  is  not  $4  million 
we  are  looking  at  really;  $2  million  would 
have  been  required  in  any  event  for  the 
Marshall  Avenue  interchange.  It  is  the 
change  in  design  and  the  change  in  criteria. 
That  is  my  part  of  the  record.  It  has  been 
going  on  for  three  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  It  all  boils  down  to  the 
fact  that  you  are  $4  million  short. 

Item  1  agreed  to. 

On  item  2,  isolated  communities: 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman.  I'm  looking 
at  the  figures  for  this  item.  If  I  look  at  the 
estimates  for  1978-79,  it  was  $630,000,  but 
actually  only  $195,998  was  spent.  The 
estimate  for  1979-80  was  $500,000  and  the 
estimate  for  1980-81  is  $800,000.  If  it  is  in 
order,  I  would  like  the  minister  to  explain 
why  the  low  amount  was  spent  in  1978-79. 
Can  he  also  give  us  some  indication  of  how 
much  has  been  spent  of  the  1979-80  estimate 
so  far? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  think  1978-79  was 
basically  the  start  of  the  program.  I  do  not 
think  the  message  really  got  out  to  the 
unorganized  areas  that  this  assistance  was 
available  to  them  in  order  to  get  them  to 
make  applications.  That  slowed  up  the  flow 
of  money  in  that  particular  year.  In  1979-80, 
we  had  a  total  of  $500,000  and  we  spent 
$489,500.  We  just  about  used  up  alf  the 
funds  there. 

I  think  the  increase  in  the  requirement 
this  year  flowed  from  the  establishment  of 
the  local  services  boards.  I  think  we  will 
have  a  more  sophisticated  group  out  in  the 
unorganized  areas  that  will  be  fully  familiar 
with  and  aware  how  this  program  works 
and  how  it  can  work  for  them.  We  expect  an 
increase  in  applications.  This  is  the  reason 
we  have  asked  for  your  support  for  additional 
funds  in  this  particular  vote. 


Mr.  Wildman:  What  the  minister  is  say- 
ing is  that  the  funds  allocated  for  this  year's 
program  have  almost  all  been  expended.  If 
there  are  applications  in  the  few  months  be- 
tween now  and  the  end  of  March,  let's  say, 
for  fire  protection  equipment  under  the 
isolated  communities  assistance  fund,  the 
equipment  will  not  be  able  to  be  provided 
until  after  the  beginning  of  the  next  fiscal 
year.  Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  are  into  the  1980- 
81  year.  I  was  referring  to  the  1979-80 
figure.  There  is  no  problem  this  year.  There 
are  still  funds  available. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Could  the  minister  indicate 
how  much  has  been  expendied  of  that 
$800,000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Of  the  1980-81  amount, 
that  figure  is  $677,000.  We  are  moving  right 
ahead. 

Mr.  Bolan:  On  the  question  of  the  local 
services  boards.  I  am  looking  at  the  attached 
chart  in  the  estimates  which  shows  the  num- 
ber of  meetings  which  were  held,  et  cetera. 
It  has  been  a  year  since  the  act  was  passed 
and  I  am  wondering  if  you  are  experiencing 
any  difficulties  with  respect  to  the  develop- 
ment of  the  boards.  What  is  the  feeling  out 
there?  What  is  the  feeling  with  the  people 
who  are  having  the  informational  meetings? 
Is  there  progress  being  made  once  the  initial 
meeting  is  held? 

5  p.m. 

•It  has  been  a  year  since  the  act  was 
passed,  and  Lord  knows,  we  discussed  it 
until  everybody  was  blue  in  the  face.  I  have 
noticed  you  have  some  results  here.  I  be- 
lieve you  had  an  election  in  Hudlson  and 
Foleyet.  Would  you  have  expected  the 
others  to  be  so  far  behind  before  imple- 
mentation or  what?  I  do  not  know.  I  am  just 
asking  the  question.  Is  there  a  reason  for  the 
dselay  in  the  implementation  of  the  local 
services  boards  beginning  with  their  informa- 
tional meetings  which  took  place  after  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  looked  at  a  period 
of  about  three  months  from  the  time  the 
organizational  meetings  were  being  brought 
together.  Bringing  a  new  piece  of  legislation 
like  this  forward— printing  the  material  alone 
in  both  languages  took  us  a  considerable 
amount  of  time.  Then,  of  course,  we  had  to 
train  our  northern  affairs  officers  because 
they  are  the  front-line  people  who  actually 
go  out  to  communities  and  help  them  or- 
ganize. We  even  made  the  posters  for  them. 
They  could  put  in  the  names,  times  and 
places  for  their  organizational  meetings. 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4353 


But  normally  we  look  at  about  a  three- 
month  period.  We  are  having  some  minor 
difficulty  with  regard  to  boundiaries.  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  has  rightly  requested 
the  right  to  comment  on  the  boundaries  that 
are  established  by  the  local  people  because 
it  wants  to  know  about  acting  with  an  or- 
ganized municipality.  That  is  one  minor 
situation  we  are  developing  and  it  is  work- 
ing fairly  well. 

Now  we  have  the  first  two  local  services 
boards.  The  honourable  member  has  cor- 
rectly pointed  out  that  Hudson,  the  greatest 
little  community  in  the  northwest,  was  the 
fir^t  local  services  board  to  be  established  in 
the  northwest.  As  I  said  in  Foleyet  on  Thurs- 
day last,  Hudson  and  Foleyet  are  unique  be- 
cause they  are  the  first  in  the  world  to  have 
local  services  boards.  That  is  pretty  different. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Why  are  there  not  more 
though? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  They  are  going  to  start 
to  go  now.  We  have  20  to  move  along  very 
quickly.  I  wish  the  honourable  member 
would  have  been  with  me  both  at  Hudson 
and  Foleyet  to  see  the  enthusiasm  and  the 
pride  that  those  people  have.  They  packed 
the  hall. 

We  had  a  special  swearing-in  ceremony 
for  them.  The  people  elected  to  the  board 
are  given  a  snecial  certificate  and  we  identi- 
fied both  of  those  communities  with  a  special 
scroll  honouring  the  event  because  we  have 
a  piece  of  legislation  here  that  is  unique  to 
northern  Ontario.  There  is  nothing  like  it  on 
the  North  American  continent  or  anywhere 
in  the  world.  They  were  very  pleased  and 
proud  of  that.  The  pride  of  making  their 
decisions  and  knowing  where  they  can  go 
and  where  they  want  to  go  was  very  real  at 
both  of  those  meetings. 

So  we  have  two  in  place  now.  There  are 
a  number  that  will  fall  in  place  after  these 
have  been  sworn  in.  We  are  looking  at  about 
20  that  will  be  fully  operational,  we  hope 
by  the  end  of  the  year  or  early  in  1981. 

Among  the  smaller  groups  of  population 
there  is  some  concern.  They  want  to  see  how 
the  other  ones  are  working  before  they  move 
in.  That  is  understandable.  But  as  I  pointed 
out  to  them,  it  is  permissive  legislation  which 
is  unique  in  this  House.  We  allowed  the 
people  to  opt  in  or  opt  out  and  the  fear  they 
may  have  is  not  as  great  as  maybe  they 
anticipate. 

I  am  personally  very  pleased.  I  made  it  a 
point  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  people 
in  Hudson  and  Foleyet  that  the  piece  of 
legislation    we    brought    to    this    Legislature 


and  had  passed  after  hours  of  debate  was  so 
good  that  all  political  parties  took  credit  for 
it.  I  think  you  would  agree  with  me  on  that. 
You  all  want  to  be  associated  with  that  piece 
of  legislation.  I  know  you  do.  As  you  go 
around  northern  Ontario  you  say  to  your- 
selves, "I  was  part  of  that  piece  of  legisla- 
tion." It  is  different.  It  is  something  the 
people  of  northern  Ontario  brought  together 
themselves.  The  unorganized  communities 
brought  it  together,  the  Unorganized  Com- 
munities Association  of  Northern  Ontario  East 
and  UCANO  West  and  the  30-odd  meetings 
my  staff  had  in  the  unorganized  communities 
of  northern  Ontario. 

The  staff  of  Northern  Affairs  deserves  a  lot 
of  credit,  as  do  the  communities  themselves 
and  UCANO  East  and  UCANO  West.  I  want 
to  express  my  appreciation  again  to  members 
on  both  sides  of  the  House  for  their  support 
in  the  excellent  piece  of  legislation  we  are 
now  seeing  put  into  place  and  becoming 
operational  and  functional  as  we  thought  it 
would. 

I  do  not,  at  this  point,  after  a  year  of 
examination  by  the  unorganized  communities, 
see  where  we  need  any  amendments.  You 
will  recall  I  said  that  if,  after  a  couple  of 
years,  we  saw  some  glaring  mistakes  I  was 
prepared  to  bring  the  bill  back  and  have 
some  amendments.  At  this  time  I  have  not 
seen  any  areas  where  we  need  amendments. 
I  think  that  is  a  credit  to  all  members  of  this 
Legislature. 

Mr.  Bolan:  That  is  what  I  was  going  to 
ask  the  minister,  whether,  now  the  act  has 
been  in  operation  for  one  year,  he  sees  any 
areas  where  amendments  would  be  required, 
particularly  to  deal  with  the  very  small  com- 
munities that  are  looking  at  forming  a  local 
service  board. 

These  are  distinct  types  of  communities 
and  that  is  what  is  unique  about  northern 
Ontario.  A  community  like  Foleyet  is  larger 
than  another  community.  Do  you  find  the 
requirements  of  the  act  lend  themselves  to 
the  smaller  community  as  well  as  to  the 
larger  community  which  seeks  an  LSB?  Do 
the  provisions  of  the  act  apply  as  well  with 
respect  to  the  arranging  of  the  meetings,  the 
numbers  that  are  required  and  the  number 
of  people  on  the  board?  I  can  see  in  a  small 
area  there  is  a  shortage  of  manpower.  There 
are  only  so  many  people  who  are  prepared1  to 
undertake  this  onerous  work.  I  am  just 
wondering  if  you  see  anything  happening 
there  so  that  a  really  small  community  may 
not  be  getting  as  full  a  benefit  of  the  act  as 
a  larger  community. 


4354 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  These  issues  have  not 
surfaced  as  yet.  As  I  pointed  out,  we  are  just 
getting  into  it.  It  has  been  a  year  since  the 
bill  was  passed.  We  have  had  lots  of  time  to 
study  it.  They  have  accepted  the  five-man 
boards  and  the  annual  election  of  those  board 
members.  They  love  the  secret  ballot  and 
they  like  the  50-50  arrangement. 

At  Hudson  and  Foleyet,  we  asked  them 
to  submit  a  global  budget.  They  did  that. 
They  looked  at  their  requirements  for  the 
next  year  and  took  a  global  figure  which  our 
staff  carefully  went  over  with  them.  We  then 
provided  them  with  50  per  cent  of  that  bud- 
get. If  they  came  up  with  a  budget  of,  say, 
$10,000,  we  would  be  responsible  for  $5,000 
at  the  end  of  the  year.  To  get  them  started, 
we  give  them  an  advance.  We  gave  them  50 
per  cent  of  our  normal  assistance.  The  bal- 
ance of  our  grant  would  come  after  the  audit. 
They  were  appreciative  of  that.  We  wanted 
to  show  our  desire  and  sincerity,  saying: 
"Look  here,  this  is  what  we  meant.  We  are 
putting  up  dollar  for  dollar  to  show  you  we 
mean  business.  Here  is  our  50  per  cent  of  the 
grant  in  advance."  This  is  very  unusual. 

I  think  one  has  to  respond  to  those  small 
communities  in  that  way  because  $2,500  or 
$3,000  in  a  small  community  is  a  lot  of  money 
when  it  is  put  out  and  used  for  services. 
They  now  have  that  kind  of  encouragement. 
When  I  gave  the  cheque  to  the  people  in 
Foleyet  for  $3,000  on  Thursday  night,  they 
realized  this  ministry  and  this  government 
meant  business.  We  were  out  to  help  them 
as  much  as  we  could  and  we  were  showing 
that  sincerity  with  the  delivery  of  those  funds 
at  the  start  of  the  first  part  of  their  fiscal 
year. 

5:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Bolan:  I  have  one  more  question  on 
this.  Have  you  had  any  complaints  on  the 
method  of  service  by  mail  to  the  voters  or  to 
those  to  whom  notice  is  sent  out  that  con- 
sideration is  being  given  to  the  formation  of 
a  local  services  board  in  that  area?  We  dis- 
cussed that  at  some  length  and  I  suggested 
it  be  done  by  registered  mail.  I  believe  that 
failed,  and  I  would  just  like  to  know  if  there 
were  any  complaints  from  anyone  on  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  If  I  recall  correctly, 
the  honourable  member  did  make  the  sug- 
gestion that  we  have  a  mailing  list  and  that 
registered  mail  be  used  to  advise  all  the 
voters  in  that  particular  area.  I  think  he 
modified  that  after  giving  it  some  further 
thought,  knowing  of  the  expense  and,  of 
course,  the  effectiveness  of  the  postal  system. 


I  think  he  would  review  that  request  totally 
now  if  he  had  to  do  it  over  again. 

No,  I  have  not  heard  of  anything  along 
those  lines  that  would  cause  me  to  change 
my  position  with  respect  to  notices.  The 
northern  affairs  officers  make  a  point  of 
making  sure  the  area  being  serviced  by  the 
local  sendees  boards  is  very  broadly  notified 
through  posters.  We  have  come  up  with  a 
very  attractive  poster,  where  we  just  put 
the  place  and  the  time.  The  information  is 
given  and  in  a  small  community  the  word  gets 
out  pretty  fast.  We  have  not  encountered  any 
problems  along  the  line  that  the  member 
was  fearful  of  at  that  particular  time,  but 
we  have  monitored  it  very  carefully. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wonder  if 
the  minister  could  tell  us  how  many  officials 
he  has  working  specifically  on  the  local  serv- 
ices board  applications  and  processing?  I 
understand  in  the  northeastern  regional  office 
Mr.  Peter  Merritt,  whom  I  have  met  on  a 
number  of  occasions,  is  in  charge,  and  I 
suppose  he  has  a  counterpart  in  the  north- 
western regional  office.  I  was  wondering  if 
the  minister  believes  that  one  person  in  each 
regional  office  is  sufficient  to  process  and 
carry  through  the  whole  procedure  for  the 
applications  after  the  initial  meetings  with 
the  local  northern  affairs  officers.  There  seems 
to  be  some  holdup  once  the  initial  applica- 
tion is  made.  The  minister  himself  said  it 
takes  about  three  months.  I  wonder  if,  as  well 
as  telling  us  how  many  people  he  has  work- 
ing on  it  and  whether  he  thinks  that  is 
sufficient,  he  could  explain  the  reason  for 
the  delay  of  three  months  before  there  is  a 
decision  on  whether  a  board  will  be  set  up? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  have  been  advised 
that  we  have,  as  the  member  has  correctly 
pointed  out,  two  full-time  people  looking  after 
the  local  services  boards,  in  the  northeast, 
Peter  Merritt,  and  in  the  northwest  Stu  Evert. 
Of  course,  they  have  the  backup  support  of 
other  branches  of  our  ministry,  including  the 
legal  staff.  As  I  pointed  out  in  my  earlier 
remarks,  those  applications  are  sent  to  Inter- 
governmental Affairs,  particularly  as  they  re- 
late to  the  boundaries.  So  we  have  to  wait 
until  that  ministry  has  a  chance  to  comment 
on  them.  At  this  time,  we  do  not  see  any 
necessity  to  build  up  that  staff.  We  may  be 
concentrating  more  of  our  resources  in  the 
initial  stages  in  getting  applications  resolved, 
but  with  the  co-operation  and  the  assistance 
of  northern  affairs  officers  as  they  move 
around,  they  are  flowing.  If  we  run  into  any 
snags,  I  can  assure  you  we  will  get  some 
extra  resources  and  keep  the  program  mov- 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4355 


ing,   because   I  think  it  is  essential  we  do 
that. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Could  the  minister  also 
indicate  whether  it  is  a  requirement  of  the 
ministry  to  have  the  local  community,  when 
they  are  applying  for  assistance  under  the 
isolated  communities  assistance  fund,  also  to 
apply  for  a  local  services  board?  In  other 
words,  if  they  are  looking  for  capital  assist- 
ance or  firefighting  equipment,  for  instance, 
and  the  question  arises  as  to  maintenance 
and  funding  for  maintenance,  is  it  necessary 
for  them  to  form  a  local  services  board  or 
could  a  group  somehow  incorporate  itself  in 
another  way  and  apply  for  assistance  under 
the  isolated  communities  assistance  fund,  and 
then  look  after  the  maintenance  on  its  own 
without  getting  the  matching  funds  through 
a  local  services  board? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  kept  the  isolated 
communities  assistance  fund  in  place  and,  as 
you  have  already  noticed,  we  have  added  to 
it  this  year  for  that  very  reason.  No,  there  is 
no  requirement  that  a  community  must  form 
a  local  services  board  to  apply  for  an  ICAF 
grant.  There  is  no  connection  at  all.  We 
want  to  make  it  very  clear  that  if  that 
nucleus  of  people  have  the  desire  and  they 
can  show  to  us  they  are  a  cohesive  group, 
that  they  have  some  resources  and  they  have 
a  self-help  motivation,  then  the  ICAF  fund 
is  still  available  to  them.  They  can  form  a 
community  action  group  if  they  so  wish.  But 
it  is  still  there  in  place  and  it  has  no  connec- 
tion with  the  local  services  board.  But  a 
local  services  board  can  apply  for  an  ICAF 
grant,  over  and  above  their  operational  costs 
for  the  services  they  administer. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Has  the  ministry  run  into 
the  problem  of  different  groups  in  the  same 
vicinity  which  are  interested  in  different 
services  both  applying  to  form  local  services 
boards?  In  other  words,  have  you  had  a 
situation  where  one  group  might  be  inter- 
ested in  water  supply— getting  some  assist- 
ance to  maintain  a  water  system— but  in  the 
same  vicinity  another  group  is  interested  in 
providing  fire  protection— and  it  has  applied 
to  form  a  local  services  board  and  also  ap- 
plies under  ICAF  for  fire  protection  equip- 
ment? If  you  have  run  into  that  problem, 
what  process  are  you  going  through  to  re- 
solve it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  It  is  obvious  the 
member  for  Algoma  is  very  familiar  with  the 
Unorganized  Communities  Association  of 
Northern  Ontario,  and  I  think  he  is  referring 
to   the  politics   that  develop   within   a  small 


community.  He  is  quite  right.  There  are 
little  groups  that  have  a  certain  desire  to  do 
something  for  the  field  of  recreation;  another 
group  is  totally  centred  on  a  water  supply, 
another  group  is  wrapped  up  with  having  a 
fire  department.  I  am  not  saying  it  is  a 
problem,  but  it  is  there,  it  is  real,  and  we  do 
not  discount  it.  The  best  way  to  resolve  it, 
of  course,  is  at  an  open  public  gathering.  We 
have  to  point  out  to  them  the  benefits  of  a 
co-operative,  co-ordinated  approach  to  either 
services.  After  they  have  seen  the  benefits 
that  can  flow,  particularly  with  the  incentive 
of  the  dollar-for-dollar  assistance  program, 
they  come  together. 

I  know  in  my  own  home  town  of  Hudson, 
I  was  with  the  chamber  of  commerce  for  a 
number  of  vears.  The  chamber  there  has 
been  responsible  for  the  development  and 
the  funding  of  the  town  fire  truck  so  they 
had  a  bit  of  a  bank  account  built  up.  The 
new  chairman  of  the  local  services  board 
said  they  should  pass  it  over  to  them  because 
the  board  would  use  it  in  the  delivery  of 
firefighting  service  and  would  provide  the 
fire  department  with  all  the  things  it  needed, 
and  then  the  board  could  get  a  dollar-for- 
dollar  grant.  That  is  correct,  because  it  is 
there,  it  was  used  as  part  of  their  original 
funding  mechanism,  so  now  it  will  be  in  one 
pot. 

It  is  an  issue  that  the  northern  affairs 
officers  deal  with  very  delicately,  because  the 
pride  is  built  up,  say,  in  the  community  hall, 
in  the  curling  rink  or  in  the  skating  rink- 
even  in  the  street  lights.  You  could  get  a 
couple  of  people  who  are  solely  dedicated  to 
having  their  community  really  lit  up  and  take 
pride  in  that.  They  cherish,  they  protect  and 
they  guard  their  accomplishments.  So  it  is  a 
little  bit  of  working  closely  with  the  people 
and  pointing  out  to  them  the  benefits  that 
will  flow  from  it.  But  you  are  quite  right  in 
pointing  this  matter  out.  We  are  making  the 
northern  affairs  officers  aware  of  it.  They 
were  always  aware,  of  course,  but  we  ask 
them  to  work  closely  with  the  local  people 
and  point  out  to  them  the  benefits  that  flow 
from  an  LSB. 

5:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Have  you  developed  any 
policy  or  do  you  have  to  look  at  it  simply  on 
a  case-by- case  basis  about  this  possible 
problem  of  having  two  actual  formal  applica- 
tions for  local  services  boards  within  a  very 
small  area?  Again,  that  is  not  exactly  the 
same  area.  However,  you  might  even  have 
that  situation  where  there  is  one  group  apply- 
ing for  a  local  services  board  to  provide  a 


4356 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


particular  service  in  covering  the  whole  of  an 
unorganized  township,  while  some  other 
group  in  a  small  community  in  that  township 
that  is  interested  in  another  service  for  its 
own  particular  area  is  applying  for  a  local 
services  board.  If  you  do  get  two  applications 
like  that,  what  is  your  policy?  What  do  you 
do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  There  is  no  specific 
example  I  can  relate  to  in  this  particular 
situation.  As  I  said  earlier,  the  Ministry  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs  looks  at  the 
boundaries  that  are  being  established  by  a 
local  services  board.  Our  own  staff  look  at 
those  boundaries  and,  in  their  opinion, 
examine  what  that  particular  group  can  ser- 
vice. What  do  they  want  to  service?  Do  they 
want  to  service  street  lights?  Do  they  want 
to  provide  garbage  collection  and  fire  protec- 
tion? We  may  go  to  the  fire  marshal's  office 
for  his  advice. 

When  we  do  that,  we  can  pretty  well  sort 
it  out.  We  bring  both  groups  together  and 
say:  "This  is  what  the  people  in  the  field 
think.  This  is  the  area  that  can  be  serviced 
with  the  services  you  require.  In  our  opinion, 
this  is  the  route  to  go."  With  the  art  of  dis- 
cussion, putting  all  the  cards  on  the  table, 
so  to  speak,  and  bringing  them  into  our  con- 
fidence as  to  how  best  they  can  operate  as  a 
self-help  program,  I  feel  confident  we  can 
work  it  out. 

Getting  back  to  the  town  of  Hudson,  it 
chose  just  to  go  with  a  fire  department, 
recreation  program  and  street  lighting.  I 
was  very  interested  in  having  them  take  over 
the  water  system  because  I  happen  to  be 
very  much  involved  with  the  water  system  at 
Hudson.  However,  I  could  not  talk  them  into 
taking  over  the  water  system  at  this  time. 
They  see  that  as  something  down  the  road  in 
two  or  three  years.  Their  argument  is,  and  I 
suppose  it  is  a  valid  one:  "We  want  to  get  the 
local  services  board  going.  We  want  to  get  it 
functional  and  gain  some  experience  before 
we  take  too  big  a  bite.  Leave  the  water  out 
of  it  for  the  time  being.  Hopefully  as  we  get 
more  experience  and  knowledge  and  build  up 
our  administrative  strength,  we  will  look  at 
the  water  system."  I  think  that  is  a  very 
responsible  kind  of  thinking. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Since  the  minister  could  not 
think  of  a  particular  example,  I  will  give  him 
two  examples.  The  community  of  Searchmont 
in  my  riding,  which  I  mentioned  before,  has 
a  fire  department  that  has  been  in  operation 
for  some  time.  They  got  some  equipment  on 
their  own  before  the  isolated  communities 
assistance    fund    came    in.    They    got    some 


assistance  from  ICAF  when  it  did  come  in. 
They  have  applied  for  further  assistance  be- 
cause the  equipment  they  have,  which  is 
secondhand,  is  not  adequate  to  provide  the 
fire  protection  they  require. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  over  a  year  ago 
now  that  that  community  applied  for  a  truck 
to  replace  the  truck  that  carries  only  a  300- 
gallon  capacity  and  is  inadequate.  I  got  a  call 
from  the  fire  chief  or  the  head  of  the  com- 
mittee about  it  last  week.  I  was  wondering  if 
I  could  ask  you  why  it  has  taken  since 
January  of  last  year  for  them  to  hear  any- 
thing about  it.  I  am  asking  you  that  now  and 
using  that  as  an  example. 

They  also  had  the  problem  of  the  com- 
munity centre.  They  had  these  two  groups 
that  hoped  to  get  assistance  and  wanted  to 
put  their  two  services  into  operation.  The 
Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  was  successful 
in  bringing  those  two  groups  together. 
Although  there  was  some  trepidation  on  the 
part  of  some  people,  they  decided  to  work 
together  and  to  say,  "We  have  these  two 
committees,  the  recreation  hall  committee  and 
the  fire  protection  committee.  They  can  both 
be  subcommittees  of  one  local  services  board 
and  we  will  make  an  application  for  a  local 
services  board."  You  have  received  that 
application.  In  that  sense,  the  ministry  was 
successful  in  doing  what  the  minister  in- 
dicated. 

In  the  township  of  Aweres,  however,  we 
have  a  group  that  is  attempting  to  set  up  a 
fire  brigade  and  to  get  fire  protection  equip- 
ment. It  is  interested  in  providing  protection 
for  the  whole  of  the  unorganized  township. 
However,  within  that  township  there  is 
another  small  group,  a  subdivision  group 
basically,  that  has  a  problem  with  mainte- 
nance of  its  water  system,  which  is  a  communal 
water  system.  They  have  made  an  application 
for  a  local  services  board  for  their  own  little 
area  to  provide  their  water  supply.  I  believe 
both  of  those  applications  have  been  for- 
warded to  the  ministry  through  Peter  Merritt, 
and  I  guess  have  been  processed. 

My  question,  which  maybe  I  should  not  be 
putting  on  the  record,  is:  Does  Northern 
Affairs  have  the  same  kind  of  concern  that  has 
been  expressed  to  me  unofficially  by  the 
Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  about 
having  two  applications  for  different  services 
within  a  similar  area?  If  you  do  share  that 
concern,  can  you  tell  me  what  you  are  hoping 
to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  wasn't  aware  of  that 
particular  situation,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I 
think  it  is  fair  to   say  that  in  some  of  the 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4357 


applications,  the  actual  organizational  meeting 
may  not  take  place  as  quickly  as  one  group 
or  the  other  group  may  wish.  I  think  we  have 
found  in  a  couple  of  cases  that  if  we  just 
take  a  little  more  time  and  let  the  people 
talk  among  themselves,  sometimes  those 
groups  will  come  together.  It  has  happened 
that  where  we  went  into  an  information 
meeting,  we  have  had  two  different  groups 
sitting  in  the  hall,  obviously  both  on  different 
wavelengths  and  both  determined  to  be  the 
inspiration  of  the  leaders  with  regard  to  the 
local  services  board. 

Once  we  have  disseminated  all  the  informa- 
tion, a  northern  affairs  officer  will  then  go 
back  in  and  talk  to  the  various  groups.  As 
we  discussed  during  the  development  of  that 
piece  of  legislation,  really  it  was  a  consensus 
we  wanted.  We  wanted  a  strong  feeling,  be- 
cause it  was  a  self-help  type  of  thrust,  so  it 
is  obvious,  if  we  are  going  to  go  ahead  with 
a  structure,  that  we  have  to  have  the  support 
or  at  least  the  consensus  of  some  support 
from  a  majority  of  the  people. 

It  is  fair  to  say  that  in  some  of  these  smaller 
communities  there  are  objections.  Some 
people  don't  want  to  change  and  they  have 
made  their  views  known,  but  they  are  very 
much  in  the  minority.  Just  the  odd  one  has 
that  fear  and  sometimes  they  are  not  fully 
informed;  they  have  a  lack  of  knowledge  as 
to  what  it  will  do  for  them  in  the  way  of 
costs.  That  is  a  big  thing  in  an  organized 
area.  They  see  a  horrendous  structure,  they 
see  tax  being  imposed  upon  them  without 
getting  into  the  real  operation  of  the  local 
services  board,  but  once  that  has  been  done, 
in  the  largest  percentage  of  the  cases,  those 
fears  are  dispelled. 

It  is  the  art  of  persuasion,  I  guess,  that  we 
use  and  will  continue  to  use  until  we  find  a 
better  system,  but  obviously  we  can't  have 
two  LSBs  overlapping  each  other;  that  would 
be  impossible.  We  hope  common  sense  will 
prevail  and  they  will  get  together  and  do  the 
best  for  the  area  that  they  can. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  dealing  once 
again  with  the  question  of  extension  of  serv- 
ices to  the  northern  communities,  I  am  sure 
the  House  would  like  to  know  that  as  a  re- 
sult of  vigorous  and  persistent  pressure  by 
myself  and  by  other  members  of  both  oppo- 
sition parties  with  respect  to  the  extension 
of  ETV  in  Ontario,  the  Minister  of  Culture 
and  Recreation  (Mr.  Baetz)  today  announced 
from  North  Bay  the  extension  of  the  services 
to  service  the  ridings  of  Nipissing  and  Parry 
Sound  as  well  as  part  of  Muskoka,  so  I  am 
sure  you  would  like  to  hear  that. 


Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  must  put  on  the  rec- 
ord along  with  what  the  honourable  member 
from  North  Bay  has  put  on  the  record,  the 
fact  that  the  member  for  Parry  Sound  (Mr. 
Maeck)  was  most  supportive,  most  vocal,  as 
was,  of  course,  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs  in  making  sure  that  ETV  is  brought 
to  that  great  part  of  northern  Ontario.  We 
still  have  a  few  blank  spots  up  there  that 
we  are  looking  at  very  carefully,  and  cer- 
tainly as  funds  become  available  we  will 
continue  to  apply  pressure.  I  know  I  have 
the  support  of  my  northern  cabinet  colleagues 
to  extend  that  excellent  service  in  northern 
Ontario  into  all  parts  of  northern  Ontario. 
5:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  pleased 
to  be  able  to  participate  in  this  particular 
estimates  discussion  as  a  bona  fide  northern 
Ontario  member.  I  have  to  tell  the  minister, 
according  to  the  Office  of  the  Assembly,  my 
mileage  rate  is  now  adjusted  to  take  into 
consideration  northern  circumstances,  so  I 
appreciate  that  status  being  conferred  on  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  must  have  that 
checked. 

Mr.  Ashe:  Is  it  a  $10  licence  fee? 

Mr.  Conway:  That  is  one  of  the  subjects 
I  will  parenthetically  refer  to  in  a  moment. 
I  want  to  draw  to  the  minister's  attention, 
under  vote  703,  isolated  communities  activity. 

In  my  constituency  there  is  a  portion  of 
the  southeastern  Nipissing  district.  The  areas 
are  divided  into  one  organized  municipality 
area  township  and  some  unorganized  town- 
ships in  which  approximately  600  to  800 
people  reside.  One  of  those  hamlets  is  called 
Madawaska.  For  some  time  now  the  people 
there  have  been  engaged,  through  the  local 
fire  department,  in  the  business  of  trying  to 
arrange  for  the  raising  of  sufficient  funds  to 
construct  a  building  in  which  their  fire  en- 
gine might  be  located. 

My  friend  the  member  for  Algoma-Mani- 
toulin  (Mr.  Lane)  will  well  remember  a  sunny 
day  some  months  ago  when  he  brought  that 
fine  new  vehicle  into  town. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Did  he  drive  it  in? 

Mr.  Conway:  The  member  for  Algoma- 
Manitoulin,  as  I  recall,  did  not  drive  the 
vehicle  into  town  but  it  did  arrive  with  a 
very  considerable  fanfare. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Lights  and1  siren  going? 

Mr.  Conway:  Exactly.  My  friend  from  Al- 
goma  has  it  down  to  a  T.  It  was,  none  the 
less,  appreciated  because,  as  the  minister 
knows,  those  kinds  of  services  in  isolated 
communities   are  particularly  important. 


4358 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


To  the  problem  at  hand:  the  community 
found  itself  in  the  possession  of  a  very  good 
vehicle,  but  with  some  financial  constraint  in 
terms  of  raising  funds  to  house  it  properly. 
They  have  preceded  the  local  Murchison 
and  Lyell  fire  department  in  building  not 
only  a  firehall  but  also  an  associated  library. 
They  have  done,  I  think,  an  excellent  job 
in  raising  funds,  and  they  are  continuing  that 
process. 

As  of  this  weekend— and  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  visit  that  community  just  36  hours 
ago— the  construction  had  pretty  well  been 
completed  as  far  as  the  contract  work  was 
involved,  although  a  substantial  amount  of 
volunteer  labour  had  yet  to  be  applied.  The 
minister  will  know,  because  I  have  written 
to  him  and  heard  from  him  not  too  long  ago 
in  this  matter.  I  was  wondering  if  he  could 
advise  me  today  as  to  whether  there  would 
be  favourable  consideration  given  to  a  re- 
quest by  the  Murchison  and  Lyell  fire  de- 
partment for  some  financial  assistance  with 
respect  to  the  construction  and  related  costs. 
It  will  not  be  a  great  amount  of  money  in 
the  overall  scheme  of  things. 

I  want  to  reiterate  my  earlier  comments  in 
saying  the  local  volunteer  fire  department  has 
done  an  extremely  good  job.  Mr.  Mervin 
Dupuis  and  his  group  have  been  very  active 
over  a  number  of  months  now  in  raising 
funds,  but  given  the  fact  not  more  than  300 
to  400  people  live  in  that  hamlet  they  do 
have  a  very  restricted  base  from  which  to 
draw.  They,  I  know,  would  be  very  appreci- 
ative of  any  assistance  the  minister  might 
provide,  recognizing  that  he  has  done  a 
considerably  good  service  in  making  the 
vehicle  available.  It  seems  to  me  it  would 
make  very  good'  sense  to  provide  some  funds 
to  assist  in  that  particular  project. 

While  I  am  on  my  feet— I  think  this  is 
parenthetical  but  I  always  imagined  it  to  be 
directly  under  the  vote— the  people  of  that 
particular  isolated  community  wonder  why, 
in  terms  of  tax  benefits,  they  continue  to  be 
discriminated  against  in  so  far  as  what  I  call 
the  Mac  tax  cut  of  1976  is  involved.  Perhaps 
I  should  call  it  the  Mac-McKeough  tax  cut 
which  gave  the  $10  licence  fee  to  the  people 
of  northern  Ontario  with  some  flexibility. 

The  good  people  of  Madawaska,  Whitney, 
Stonecliffe  and  that  northern  portion  of  Ren- 
frew county  would  feel  I  was  being  remiss 
in  the  defence  of  their  isolated  circumstances 
if  I  did  not  draw  to  the  attention  of  the 
Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  again  today  their 
very  earnest  desire  to  have  favourable  con- 
sideration given  to  the  inclusion  under  that 


benefit  of  all  of  the  district  of  Nipissing  and 
that  northerly  portion  of  the  county  of 
Renfrew.  It  is  an  important  matter  for  those 
people.  They  see  it  as  more  than  a  symbolic 
gesture. 

I  know  the  minister  appreciates  the  isolated 
circumstances  of  some  of  these  communities. 
I  notice,  for  example,  under  this  particular 
vote  there  is  reference  to  Kaa  in  terms  of  an 
isolated  community.  There  are  people  who 
live  near  that  isolated  lumber  camp— which  is 
essentially  what  it  is— who  still  pay  a  southern 
Ontario  rate,  though  to  procure  the  licence 
they  go  to  Mattawa  where  everyone  else  gets 
the  special  benefit. 

I  realize  drawing  a  line  is  always  difficult. 
I  would  make  myself  available  to  the  minister, 
in  public  or  in  private,  to  assist  in  what  I 
think  is  a  responsible  arbitration  of  that 
sensitive  and  difficult  matter. 

I  would  like  to  draw  out  from  the  minister 
at  this  time,  recognizing  winter  snows  have 
already  fallen  in  the  great  community  of 
Madawaska,  whether  we  can  expect,  on  be- 
half of  that  volunteer  fire  association,  any 
direct  financial  assistance  in  the  coming  weeks 
for  that  public  work— the  firehall  and  library— 
and  secondly,  whether  he  might  pronounce 
on  government  policy  as  it  relates  to  a  favour- 
able consideration  for  all  the  district  of 
Nipissing  and  the  northerly  sections  of  the 
great  county  of  Renfrew  with  respect  to  the 
Mac-McKeough  licence  tax  cut. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  If  I  could  comment  on 
the  remarks  of  the  member  for  Renfrew 
North,  I  appreciate  his  desire  to  have  a  por- 
tion of  his  affluent  riding  belong  to  northern 
Ontario.  I  hope  the  people  in  northern 
Ontario,  and  mv  friend  from  Algoma,  are 
listening. 

We  so  often  hear  in  northern  Ontario:  "If 
I  only  belonged  to  southern  Ontario.  That's 
where  all  the  goodies  and  all  the  benefits 
really  are  and  we're  always  shortchanged  in 
northern  Ontario."  To  have  the  situation 
reversed  and  have  an  eastern  Ontario  riding 
wanting  to  be  part  of  northern  Ontario  is  a 
message  I  am  going  to  take  right  across 
northern  Ontario.  It's  a  real  twist. 

I  regret  I  cannot  give  the  honourable 
member  any  encouragement  that  we  would 
change  our  present  administrative  border,  our 
north-south  line,  as  it  relates  to  the  licence 
fee.  I  believe  it  goes  across  the  northern  part 
of  Algonquin  Park.  That  has  basically  been 
established  as  our  area  of  responsibility. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  a  moral  respon- 
sibility we  have  looked  at  the  needs  of 
Madawaska  with  respect  to  that  fire  truck.  I 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4359 


want  to  make  it  clear  that,  while  we  did  that, 
it  didn't  mean  they  were  part  of  northern 
Ontario  or  part  of  our  administrative  area. 

I  want  to  go  one  step  further.  In  view  of 
the  fact  we  have  given  them  a  fire  truck,  I 
think  it's  only  fair  we  assist  them  with  the 
facility  that  nouses  that  fire  truck.  We  have 
a  $40,000  investment  there  and  I  am  pre- 
pared to  have  my  staff  take  a  close  look  at 
that  and  to  work  with  the  people  in  that 
community. 

I  don't  think  I  can  go  any  further  than 
that.  I  don't  want  it  to  be  spelled  out  as  a 
commitment  that  they  are  part  of  northern 
Ontario  or  part  of  our  administrative  respon- 
sibility, but  only  that  we  have  a  unique  situa- 
tion. As  the  member  correctly  points  out,  the 
border  areas  are  always  the  grey  areas.  They 
are  always  difficult  areas  to  deal  with.  No 
matter  what  program  one  comes  up  with,  one 
puts  a  dividing  line  on  it.  There  are  always 
people  on  one  side  of  the  street  who  get 
services  that  people  on  the  other  side  of  the 
street  do  not. 
5:40  p.m. 

It  is  very  difficult.  We  do  believe  in  main- 
taining that  northern  boundary,  so  to  speak. 
It  has  been  in  place  now  for  three  or  four 
years  and  seems  to  be  working  fairly  well.  It 
is  fairly  definitive.  That  buffer  zone  of  Algon- 
quin Park  does  assist.  To  alleviate  some  of 
your  concerns  and  certainly  to  protect  what 
is  a  public  investment  in  Madawaska,  I  am 
going  to  ask  my  staff  to  go  down  and  meet 
with  your  people  in  that  community  and 
work  out  some  financial  assistance  program. 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might,  I 
want  to  add  a  couple  of  points.  Let  me  say 
at  the  outset  I  thank  the  minister  for  that 
assurance  because,  to  be  sure,  the  people 
involved  in  that  volunteer  fire  department 
will  be  gratified  to  know  the  minister  is  giving 
the  matter  serious  and,  hopefully,  favourable 
consideration.  I  want  to  make  myself  available 
to  his  staff.  I  reiterate  it  is  not  a  great  deal 
of  money.  In  fact,  a  relatively  small  amount 
of  money  will  probably  solve  the  immediate 
concern. 

I  want  to  tell  the  minister  that  if  any  of 
his  staff  are  working  on  this,  I  would  be  de- 
lighted to  assist  because  I  do  have  quite  a 
deep,  personal  involvement  with  that  com- 
munity. I  would  be  quite  happy  to  do  any- 
thing I  can  to  assist  in  the  consideration 
and,  hopefully,  favourable  execution  of  some 
assistance  in  that  respect. 

With  the  Minister  of  Education  (Miss 
Stephenson)  present,  I  want  to  draw  to  the 


attention  of  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs 
some  of  the  anomalies  that  strike  at  the  heart 
of  local  residents  with  respect  to  this  line.  I 
also  draw  them  to  the  attention  of  my  friend 
from  Algoma  who  was  brought  into  this  by 
the  minister  in  his  remarks.  People  who  live 
in  the  Nipissing  district  find  themselves  con- 
sidered for  many  other  things  as  part  of 
northern  Ontario,  as  of  course  they  should 
be.  They  just  wonder,  "Why,  in  terms  of  this 
benefit,  are  we  suddenly  not  included?"  be- 
cause it  is  quite  properly  a  benefit  that  is 
extended  to  northern  Ontario. 

There  are  a  couple  of  isolated  communities 
that  find  themselves  in  the  district  of 
Nipissing,  which  is  part  of  northern  Ontario. 
Again,  we  are  not  talking  about  a  great  num- 
ber of  people.  We  are  talking  altogether 
probably  of  an  additional  1,500  people,  if  we 
include  all  the  district  of  Nipissing.  If  it  were 
a  city  of  25,000  or  40,000  people  anchored 
in  there,  then  it  would  probably  be  a  different 
matter.  But  we  are  talking  about  a  relatively 
few  people  who  in  many  other  respects 
receive  their  benefits  from  northern  Ontario. 

The  added  frustration  of  that,  and  the  one 
I  have  with  respect  to  this  kind  of  demarca- 
tion, is  that  in  my  research— and  it  has  been 
very  tentative  and  cursory— I  have  noted  that 
this  government  has  not  one  but  at  least  five 
or  six  lines  of  demarcation.  In  the  presence 
of  my  good  friend  the  Minister  of  Education, 
the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  will  be  happy 
to  know  that  the  town  of  Arnprior  in  the  far 
southeastern  section  of  Renfrew  county,  but 
40  miles  from  the  national  capital,  for  at  least 
one  program  under  this  Ontario  government 
is  considered  northern  and  gets  a  grant  from 
Education  for  that  purpose.  In  my  own  home 
town  of  Pembroke,  there  is  consideration  of 
the  central  and  northern  portion— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  We  looked  at  the 
entire  area. 

Mr.  Conway:  That  is  right,  the  minister 
is  quite  correct.  For  the  young  travellers' 
grant  under  the  Ministry  of  Education,  all  of 
the  county  of  Renfrew  is  considered  north- 
ern. I  am  certainly  not  lamenting  that  fact 
at  all.  But  I  want  to  stand  in  my  place  and 
tell  you  that  as  a  lifelong  resident  of  Ren- 
frew county  I  have  never  for  a  moment  con- 
sidered Arnprior— the  Prior— as  northern.  As 
my  friend,  who  is  formerly  from  Richmond, 
will  well  know,  it  is  not  considered  with  Go- 
gama  and  Moosonee  and  other  places  as 
main  street  northern  Ontario  but,  none  the 
less,  under  a  particular  departmental  pro- 
gram—a grant  in  this  instance— Arnprior  is 
ostensibly  northern  Ontario. 


4360 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


My  home  community  of  Pembroke  is  con- 
sidered northern  for  the  Ministry  of  Govern- 
ment Services.  There  are  at  least,  as  I  say, 
a  half  dozen  different  governmental  lines  of 
demarcation  which  involve  my  electoral  dis- 
trict, both  in  Nipissing  and  Renfrew.  This 
is  a  confusion  and  difficulty  I  would  invite 
the  minister  with  the  able  and,  I  am  sure, 
ready  assistance  of  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion to  work  towards  resolving. 

I  would  certainly  like  to  see  a  single  line 
of  demarcation  that  does  take  into  consider- 
ation the  favourable  inclusion  of  some  of  the 
northerly  sections  of  the  county  of  Renfrew. 
Certainly  it  has  never  been  my  position  that 
the  entire  county  should  be  included.  That 
would  just  not  be  realistic  in  light  of  the 
inclusion  of  what  I  believe  to  be  most  of  the 
counties  in  eastern  Ontario. 

There  are  small  isolated  communities  up 
Highway  17  in  the  Mattawa  area  that  go  to 
Mattawa  as  their  service  base— isolated  com- 
munities like  Deux-Rivieres.  They  go  to  Mat- 
tawa to  get  their  licence  plates  and  find  out 
they  have  to  pay  a  southern  Ontario  rate 
when  their  condition  is  exactly  that  of  Mat- 
tawa and  Cavan  township  and  other  places. 
Similarly  with  Madawaska  and  Whitney. 

My  plea  really  is  for  a  systematic  ap- 
proach to  that  demarcation.  I  wonder  if  it 
could  be  regularized  in  such  a  Way  that 
there  was  one  line  and  if  there  could  be 
favourable  consideration  to  the  most  norther- 
ly portions  of  the  county  of  Renfrew.  That 
is  really  all  I  ask.  I  draw  to  the  minister's 
attention  again  those  kinds  of  local  anoma- 
lies that  really  irk  people  who  live  in  a  dis- 
trict of  northern  Ontario  and  find  themselves, 
however  few  in  numbers,  unable  to  get  a 
benefit  which  is  as  important  to  them  as  is 
the  Mac-McKeough  licence  tax  cut. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  If  I  could  respond 
briefly,  I  recognize  the  communities  that  the 
honourable  member  identified.  Arnprior— and 
I  believe  Fitzroy  Harbour  is  in  your  riding? 

Mr.  Conway:  That  is  Carleton. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Oh,  that  is  interesting 
because  I  was  a  resident  of  Fitzroy  Harbour 
years  ago.  As  a  matter  of  information  I  am 
sure  you  will  be  pleased  to  know  that  my 
father  worked  on  the  dam  at  Fitzroy  Har- 
bour as  a  steel  helmet  diver.  I  made  a  point 
of  visiting  that  community  about  two  years 
ago  looking  for  some  people  who  were  there 
when  the  construction  was  going  on.  I  could 
not  find  anybody.  I  was  very  young  at  that 
time,  but  we  always  considered  Fitzroy  Har- 
bour, which  is  not  very  far  from  Arnprior, 
as  being  southern  Ontario. 


In  fact,  those  of  us  who  live  in  northern 
Ontario  really  think  North  Bay  is  in  southern 
Ontario.  I  think  the  member  from  North 
Bay  would  agree  with  me.  Parry  Sound  is 
southern  Ontario.  Sudbury  is  the  border- 
line; really  that  is  the  entrance  to  northern 
Ontario.  So  you  get  all  these  anomalies  the 
member  was  speaking  about— these  grey 
areas  that  are  very  difficult  to  deal  with. 

But  we  have  a  number  of  demarcation 
lines,  as  the  member  referred  to  them.  Each 
ministry  that  delivers  different  services 
would  obviously  have  a  different  need  for  a 
different  demarcation  line. 

I  think  the  line  we  have  established  north 
of  Algonquin  Park  is  a  very  reasonable  one- 
one  that  gives  us  the  buffer  zone  of  Algonquin 
Park.  It  doesn't  create  too  much  of  a  problem. 
I  realize  1,500  people  are  upset;  they  feel 
they  are  being  shortchanged.  It  is  one  of  the 
problems  we  have  in  setting  up  a  region  area 
division.  I  hope  we  can  try  to  lessen  that 
impact  as  much  as  possible  and  we  will  cer- 
tainly do  that  with  assistance  for  the  fireball. 
Mr.  Wildman:  I  listened  with  interest  to 
the  exchange  between  my  colleague  from 
Renfrew  North  and  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs.  I  would  certainly  hope  the  member 
was  not  suggesting  the  benefit  the  students  of 
Arnprior  get  should  somehow  be  removed  by 
setting  up  one  demarcation  line.  Two  relatives 
of  mine,  great-aunts  who  live  in  Arnprior, 
spent  their  whole  lives  in  the  education  sys- 
tem and  would  be  very  unhappy  that  the 
students  of  Arnprior  might  somehow  lose  the 
benefit  they  are  now  experiencing.  The  young 
travellers'  program  is  a  very  good  program  in 
bringing  students  from  more  distant  places. 
However,  I  must  admit  I  was  somewhat  sur- 
prised to  find  out  that  Arnprior  was  included 
in  the  visit  to  Queen's  Park. 

Mr.  Conway:  The  honourable  member  may 
rest  assured  that  was  not  my  intention. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  am  sure  it  wasn't. 

I  welcomed  the  comments  of  the  minister 
with  regard  to  the  member's  request  for  him 
to  look  at  the  possibility  of  assistance  for  a 
firehall  to  the  small  community  in  Nipissing 
in  his  riding.  I  would  hope  that  if  the  minister 
is  prepared  to  look  at  that  seriously,  that  he 
will  look  at  the  application  that  has  been 
made  by  Hawk  Junction  which— there's  no 
question— is  in  northern  Ontario  and  has 
applied  for  assistance  for  the  construction  of 
a  firehall  to  house  the  fire  truck  that  the 
minister  himself  delivered  to  Hawk  a  few 
years  ago.  We  had  a  good  afternoon.  I  think 
they  presented  the  minister  with  a  silver  or 
golden  fire  hat. 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4361 


Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  still  have  it. 

Mr.  Wildman:  You  still  have  it?  It  was  a 
beautiful  symbol  of  all  that  is  right  with  fire 
protection  in  northern  Ontario.  I  just  got  a 
plaque  out  of  that  but  I  appreciated  the 
plaque.  It  is  in  my  office.  I  would  hope  that 
the  minister  would  look  carefully  at  the 
application  made  by  the  fire  brigade  in  Hawk 
Junction  for  assistance  to  build  their  firehall 
because,  as  the  minister  knows,  the  Algoma 
Central  Railroad  made  a  commitment  at  the 
time  the  fire  truck  was  presented  to  Hawk 
Junction  to  provide  housing  for  the  truck. 
They  are  still  able  to  use  that,  although  I 
think  the  ACR  would  like  them  to  move  into 
another  facility  and  the  fire  brigade  them- 
selves would  like  to  move  as  well  because 
the  location  that  is  being  provided  by  the 
railway  is  not  the  best. 

I  have  a  letter  the  minister  sent  me  dated 
October  24  in  which  he  said  the  ministry  is 
reviewing  the  application  by  Hawk  Junction 
for  isolated  communities  assistance  and  that 
he  hoped  he  could  provide  a  response  in  the 
near  future.  I  would  hope  the  future  is  now 
and  that  the  minister  could  provide  us  with 
a  response  and  also  respond  specifically  to 
why  it  has  taken  so  long  for  Searchmont  to 
get  a  response  to  its  application  for  more 
adequate  fire  protection  equipment,  since  the 
representative  of  the  fire  marshal's  office, 
Merv  Neidraver  stated  in  January  1980  that 
they  should  get  it. 

It  looked  as  if  they  were  going  to  get  it, 
and  yet  the  fire  brigade  there  has  not  heard 
anything  from  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs  since  January  1980.  I  would  hope  the 
applications  made  by  Aweres  township  for 
assistance  and  the  application  that  is  going  to 
be  made  in  Goulais  will  not  somehow  hold 
up  what  has  been  an  ongoing  discussion  since 
January  1980  for  Searchmont. 

Certainly  there  is  no  question  those  other 
communities  need  fire  protection,  and  I  am 
glad  the  ministry  has  changed  its  criteria,  its 
guidelines,  so  that  it  now  is  possible  for  those 
two  communities,  Aweres  township  and 
Goulais  River,  to  apply  for  protection  as  did 
Batchawana  under  that  program.  I  want  to 
emphasize  that  it  has  been  some  time  since 
Searchmont  heard  what  is  happening  and  I 
would  hope  the  minister  could  respond  in 
relation  to  those  two  applications. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  ap- 
preciate the  honourable  member's  concern 
with  regard  to  those  small  communities.  The 
Hawk  Junction  application,  as  I  pointed  out 
to  him,  is  being  reviewed. 


I  think  the  whole  thrust  of  those  applica- 
tions is  to  make  sure  there  is  a  local  involve- 
ment, because  in  an  unorganized  community 
if  there  isn't  the  dedication  to  a  project  so 
that  there  is  some  ongoing  responsibility,  we 
lose  the  whole  thrust.  I  don't  think  it  is  our 
intention  to  go  out  and  hand  out  fire  trucks 
or  to  hand  out  all  types  of  financial  assist- 
ance for  projects  because  one  person  or  two 
persons  applied.  We  would  like  to  get  the 
feeling  of  consensus.  We  ask,  "What  is  your 
contribution?  We  will  help  you,  but  help 
yourself  a  little  bit  and  we  will  top  it  off." 
This  is  what  we  have  been  doing.  I  can 
assure  the  member  that  we  will  resolve  those 
problems  as  quickly  as  we  can. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  we  have  had  some 
delays  with  respect  to  the  delivery  of  fire 
equipment.  The  fire  marshal  has,  in  his  wis- 
dom, made  some  modification  to  the  equip- 
ment and  rightly  so.  I  think  they  have  come 
a  long  way  in  the  last  three  or  four  years 
in  designing  equipment  that  really  fits  the 
needs  of  the  unorganized  communities,  in 
which  up  to  that  time— let's  be  honest— there 
was  some  reluctance  to  go  into  that  field  be- 
cause we  all  thought  of  big  tankers  and  big 
hydrants  and  all  this  type  of  thing  and  lad- 
ders that  would  go  up  four  or  five  storeys. 
That  was  not  required  in  northern  Ontario. 

We  have  come  a  long  way  and  it  is  the 
support  of  the  field  staff  of  the  fire  marshal's 
office,  in  co-operation  with  our  staff  and  the 
unorganized  communities,  that  has  changed 
that  thinking.  So  we  are  getting  modifica- 
tions and  improvements  to  the  equipment 
itself. 

I  can  assure  the  members  we  will  expedite 
those  applications  as  quickly  as  we  can,  be- 
cause we  are  getting  to  that  time  of  the  year 
when  that  equipment  should  be  in  place- 
there  is  just  no  question  about  it— and  I  will 
personally  take  an  interest  and  make  sure 
those  are  looked  after. 

Mr.  Wildman:  In  the  last  couple  of  mo- 
ments, Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  just  say  to 
the  minister  I  appreciate  and  support  his 
comments  about  the  need  for  local  involve- 
ment and  local  commitment.  There  is  no 
question  in  the  case  of  Searchmont  that 
there  have  been  serious  efforts  on  the  part 
of  the  local  community  to  provide  for  its 
own  fire  protection.  As  I  said,  it  originally 
got  its  equipment  before  the  program  was 
in  place.  Also,  the  community  of  Hawk  Junc- 
tion has  obtained  grants  or  assistance  from 
the  local  private  sector  to  purchase  materials 
for   its   building.    So   there  has   been   an   at- 


4362 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tempt  on  its  part  as  well  to  provide  assist- 
ance for  erecting  the  building  on  its  own. 

The  community  of  Goulais  River  is  meet- 
ing this  evening  with  Peter  Merritt  from  the 
minister's  northeastern  region  and  with  rep- 
resentatives from  the  fire  marshal's  office  to 
talk  about  the  formation  of  a  local  fire 
brigade  there,  and  how  it  might  go  about 
applying  for  equipment  under  next  year's 
program.  As  the  minister  is  probably  also 
aware,  Aweres  township,  after  all  the  con- 
troversy between  him  and  myself  about  it, 
is  now  considered  by  the  ministry  to  be  pos- 
sibly eligible.  It  has  organized  a  committee 
and  is  working,  I  think,  very  carefully  and 
cautiously  in  making  certain  that  it  does 
have  the  numbers  of  people  locally  inter- 
ested and  involved,  and  a  location  available 
for  the  construction  of  a  hall.  So  its  applica- 
tion can  be  seen  to  be  one  that  can  be  ap- 
proved by  the  ministry  when  it  finally  is 
decided. 


This  program  is  a  needed  one  that,  I 
think,  despite  the  comments  sometimes  made 
about  the  minister  or  his  parliamentary 
assistant,  about  the  delivery  of  fire  trucks 
with  sirens  blaring  and  lights  flashing— the 
jokes  that  are  sometimes  made  about  that- 
all  of  us  recognize  as  one  that  is  necessary, 
as  something  that  had  to  be.  It  really  was 
brought  in  even  before  this  ministry  was 
created,  when  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Re- 
sources initially  got  involved  with  isolated 
communities  assistance,  and  I  am  glad  it  has 
now  continued  and  grown  under  the  Minis- 
try of  Northern  Affairs. 

Item  2  agreed  to. 
Item  3  agreed  to. 
Vote  703  agreed  to. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Bemier,  the  com- 
mittee of  supply  reported  certain  resolutions. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4363 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4335) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

BAIL  PROGRAMS 

388.  Mr.  Warner:  1.  Will  the  Attorney 
General  advise  the  House  when  clear,  pub- 
licly available  guidelines  for  justices  of  the 
peace  regarding  who  is  acceptable  as  a  surety 
will  be  available?  2.  Will  the  Attorney  General 
require  reasons  for  the  rejection  of  a  surety 
in  writing  from  the  justice  of  the  peace?  3. 
When  will  the  Attorney  General  allow  an 
appeal  procedure  regarding  the  rejecting  of 
a  surety?  What  form  will  the  appeal  pro- 
cedure encompass?  4.  When  will  the  duty 
counsel  be  available  on  a  regular  basis  for 
estreatment  court?  5.  Will  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral enter  into  a  co-operative  agreement  with 
the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services  to 
ensure  joint  planning  and  funding  on  bail 
programs?  6.  What  is  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral's policy  on  access  to  remand  prisoners? 

7.  When  will  the  government's  system  of 
justice  return  to  the  presumption  of  inno- 
cence as  the  basis  for  a  policy  on  remands? 

8.  Will  the  Attorney  General,  in  co-operation 
with  the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services, 
establish  ground  rules  and  procedures  for  a 
system  of  bail  hostels  where  needed?  Will 
the  Attorney  General  table  the  guidelines? 
(Tabled  October  31,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  1.  It  is  not  my  in- 
tention to  propose  guidelines  for  justices  of 
the  peace  with  respect  to  the  acceptability 
of  sureties.  As  I  have  said  before,  I  consider 
it  extremely  difficult,  if  not  possibly  undesir- 
able, to  attempt  to  lay  down  a  set  of  guide- 
lines which  might  serve  as  appropriate  bench- 
marks for  the  acceptance  of  a  surety  by  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  as  there  are  so  many 
varying  circumstances.  A  very  real  danger 
exists  that  by  defining  certain  items  that  must 
be  considered  undue  emphasis  will  be  placed 
upon  them.  The  type  of  factors  that  the 
justice  of  the  peace  may  want  to  take  into 
account  in  deciding  whether  or  not  a  par- 
ticular individual  is  a  suitable  surety,  may 
include  the  following: 

Roots  of  the  prospective  surety  in  the  com- 
munity; his  general  character  and  reputation; 
whether  or  not  there  is  any  suggestion  that 
he  acted  or  has  acted  with  the  co-accused  in 
a  joint  criminal  venture;  his  or  her  ability  to 
control  the  accused  and  to  ensure  that  the 
accused  lives  up  to  the  terms  of  his  recogni- 
zance including  his  attendance  at  trial;  age 
of  the  surety;  whether  or  not  the  surety  is 


acting  under  duress;  financial  resources  of 
the  surety;  employment  record  of  the  surety; 
length  of  time  the  surety  has  known  the 
accused;  whether  or  not  the  surety  is  surety 
for  any  other  person;  whether  or  not  the 
surety  appears  to  be  in  the  business  of  provid- 
ing bail;  whether  or  not  the  surety  intends  to 
remain  within  the  jurisdiction  until  the  trial  is 
over;  whether  or  not  the  surety  understands 
clearly  the  obligation  placed  upon  him;  and 
so  on. 

I  am  sure  I  could  easily  add  many  more 
factors  to  this  list,  but  the  one  thing  that  is 
clear  is  that  any  list  could  never  be  exhaus- 
tive. It  would  moreover  be  potentially  mis- 
leading for  any  such  a  partial  list  to  be 
promulgated  as  having  any  sort  of  official 
sanction.  It  is  an  obvious  principle  of  our 
law  that  a  judicial  officer,  be  he  a  justice  of 
the  peace  or  a  provincial  court  judge,  must 
exercise  his  discretion  judicially;  failure  to 
do  so  may  give  rise  to  a  prerogative  remedy 
if  the  officer  either  exceeds  his  jurisdiction, 
or  if  he  refuses  to  address  his  mind  to  the 
issues  before  him.  Moreover,  it  is  surely  no 
easier  to  lay  down  rules  or  guidelines  as  to 
who  may  or  may  not  be  acceptable  as  a 
surety  than  it  is  to  lay  out  all  the  circum- 
stances under  which  a  justice  of  the  peace 
may  or  may  not  be  satisfied  whether  to  re- 
lease an  accused  from  custody. 

There  is  no  express  provision  in  the  Crim- 
inal Code  for  requiring  any  sort  of  qualifica- 
tion for  proposed  sureties.  It  would  be  un- 
reasonable to  suppose  that  a  justice  of  the 
peace  is  bound  to  accept  as  a  surety  every 
person  put  forward  by  an  accused.  When 
one  examines  the  Criminal  Code,  it  provides 
no  guidance  on  the  question  of  the  suffi- 
ciency of  any  surety.  The  Ouimet  committee 
that  drafted  the  amendments  to  the  Criminal 
Code,  commonly  referred  to  as  the  Bail 
Reform  Act,  felt  that  the  exercise  of  the 
justice's  discretion  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  a 
surety  should  not  be  controlled  by  detailed 
regulation,  nor  is  it  capable  of  being  so  con- 
trolled. The  committee  also  felt  that  it 
should  not  be  controlled  by  administrative 
direction,  issued  either  by  law  enforcement 
officers  or  officials  concerned  with  the  admin- 
istration of  justice.  This  position  is  one  with 
which  I  have  no  quarrel.  Justices  of  the 
peace  undergo  periodic  training,  and  this  is 
one  area  which  I  am  assured  by  the  Chief 
Judge  of  the  Provincial  Court,  His  Honour 
F.  C.  Hayes,  will  continue  to  be  stressed 
during  their  educational  programs. 


4364 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


2.  The  approval  of  sureties  is  part  and 
parcel  of  the  judicial  interim  release  process, 
as  laid  down  in  Part  XIV  of  the  Criminal 
Code.  It  is,  once  again,  a  judicial  function 
of  the  justice  of  the  peace,  and  assuming  that 
I  as  Attorney  General  have  the  power  to  do 
so,  it  would  not  be  appropriate  to  require 
justices  of  the  peace  to  provide  written 
reasons  for  their  decision  in  this  area.  An 
order  for  release  subject  to  certain  conditions 
is  subject  to  review,  as  laid  out  in  section 
457(5)  of  the  Criminal  Code.  Any  changes 
in  this  area  will,  of  course,  have  to  be  made 
by  the  Parliament  of  Canada. 

3.  As  I  have  noted  above,  the  appeal 
procedure  is  already  in  place  in  the  Criminal 
Code.  An  accused  may  always  seek  a  review 
of  the  justice's  decision  made  during  the 
judicial  interim  release  process.  Section 
457(5)  of  the  Criminal  Code  sets  out  in 
detail  how  this  is  to  be  done.  The  province 
would  not  be  able  to  set  up  a  similar  pro- 
cedure because  this  is  a  matter  that  falls 
within  federal  jurisdiction. 

4.  I  do  not  feel  it  is  essential  to  have  duty 
counsel  at  estreatment  court.  Many  sureties 
come  to  court  already  having  retained 
counsel,  and  those  who  do  not  are  always 
given  the  opportunity  to  seek  counsel  or 
apply  for  legal  aid.  If  an  adjournment  is 
requested  by  a  surety  to  seek  counsel  or 
apply  for  legal  aid,  it  is  almost  never  refused. 
I  am  informed  that  in  fact  this  situation  very 
rarely  arises.  If  a  surety  wishes  further  time 
to  fulfil  his/her  obligations  as  a  surety  (in 
other  words,  to  locate  the  accused  and  turn 
him  over  to  the  authorities),  here  again, 
further  time  is  always  allowed.  Estreatment 
court  is  a  court  of  equity  and  in  a  sense  does 
not  operate  on  the  adversary  system.  Apart 
from  advising  sureties  as  to  how  to  apply  for 
legal  aid,  the  duty  counsel  would  have  little 
or  no  function.  However,  I  will  discuss  the 
matter  with  the  director  of  legal  aid  and 
seek  his  opinion  as  to  the  necessity  and 
practicality  of  having  a  duty  counsel  in 
estreatment  court. 

5.  I  am  unclear  as  to  the  point  of  this 
question.  I  do  not  consider  it  desirable  for 
the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General  to  be 
involved  in  either  the  planning  or  funding 
of  any  bail  projects.  It  is  my  understanding 
that  the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services  is 
at  present  funding  and  planning  a  bail 
project  which  has  to  do  with  the  provision 
of  funds  to  obtain  living  accommodation  for 
persons  on  bail  who  require  a  home  address. 
Our  ministry  is  providing  the  Ministry  of 
Correctional  Services  with  advice  and  assist- 


ance when  required,  and  other  than  that  I 
do  not  feel  that  our  ministry  should  be 
further  involved  with  this  project. 

6.  This  ministry  does  not  formulate  policy 
in  regard  to  access  to  remand  prisoners.  The 
policy  of  who  is  allowed  to  visit  prisoners, 
remand  or  otherwise,  and  when,  is  set  by 
the  Ministry  of  Correctional  Services.  How- 
ever, I  am  informed  that  the  policy  in  regard 
to  remand  prisoners  is  more  liberal  than  for 
those  serving  sentences,  and  counsel,  of 
course,  may  have  access  to  their  clients  at  all 
times. 

7.  I  feel  that  your  question  is  somewhat 
unclear.  However,  I  assume  that  you  refer  to 
the  decision  to  grant  or  deny  bail  rather  than 
to  remand.  T  should  point  out  that  the  pre- 
sumption of  innocence  is  an  evidentiary 
burden  at  trial  only.  The  burden  of  proof  at 
a  show  cause  hearing  depends  on  the  par- 
ticular provision  of  the  Criminal  Code  under 
consideration.  While  the  onus  of  showing 
whv  an  accused  should  be  detained  in  most 
instances  rests  on  the  crown,  in  certain  speci- 
fied circumstances  the  Parliament  of  Canada 
has  seen  fit  to  reverse  this  onus.  There  are 
only  two  reasons  for  the  requiring  of  a  deten- 
tion order  or  conditional  release.  The  first 
(nrimary)  reason  is  to  ensure  the  attendance 
of  th«  accused  in  court  for  his  trial.  The 
second  (secondary)  is  to  ensure  that  the 
public  is  protected,  having  regard  to  the 
substantial  likelihood  that  an  accused  may,  if 
released  from  custody,  commit  a  further 
criminal  offence  or  interfere  with  the  admin- 
istration of  justice.  Although  one  of  the  areas 
into  which  inquiries  may  be  made  is  the 
probability  that  the  accused  has  committed 
the  crime  charged,  the  justice  of  the  peace 
does  not  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  accused,  he  merely  determines  whether 
m  fact  the  accused  is  a  suitable  candidate 
for  bail.  These  procedures,  being  part  of  the 
Criminal  Code,  fall  under  federal  legislative 
jurisdiction. 

8.  This  is  a  matter  which  falls  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Ministry  of  Correctional 
Services  only.  It  is  not  desirable  that  the 
Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General  should  be- 
come involved  in  the  setting  up  of  bail 
hostels.  I  understand  that  the  Ministry  of 
Correctional  Services  is  presently  funding  a 
project  along  such  lines.  Again,  we  are  willing 
to  provide  advice  and  counsel  as  required. 

FAMILY  LAW  COMMISSIONERS 

389.  Mr.  Warner:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  advise  the  House  how  family  law 
commissioners     of    the     Supreme    Court    of 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4365 


Ontario  are  appointed;  to  whom  are  they 
responsible;  what,  if  any,  age  limitations 
exist  for  appointees;  and  to  whom  would 
complaints  regarding  their  conduct  and 
reports  be  directed?  (Tabled  November  3, 
1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Family  law  commis- 
sioners are  appointed  by  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor in  Council  upon  the  recommendation 
of  the  Attorney  General. 

Pursuant  to  section  19(1)  of  the  Divorce 
Act  and  rule  803a  of  the  Rules  of  Practice, 
upon  a  reference  by  a  judge  of  the  High 
Court,  the  family  law  commissioner  holds  a 
hearing  and  makes  a  report  in  respect  to 
custody  and  maintenance  pursuant  to  the 
Divorce  Act.  Pursuant  to  sections  71,  72,  75 
and  97  of  the  Judicature  Act,  with  the 
consent  of  counsel  and  upon  reference  by  a 
judge  of  the  High  Court,  a  family  law  com- 
missioner may  act  as  an  official  referee  to 
hold  a  hearing  and  make  a  report  in  respect 
of  division  of  property,  support  or  custody 
under  the  Family  Law  Reform  Act.  The 
reports  of  the  commissioner  are  subject  to 
confirmation  by  the  referring  judge.  In  addi- 
tion, family  law  commissioners  conduct  pre- 
trials with  a  view  to  narrowing  and,  if  pos- 
sible, resolving  the  issues  in  dispute  between 
the  parties. 

Family  law  commissioners  are  officers  of 
the  court  and  are  therefore  responsible  to  the 
Attorney  General. 

There  are  no  age  limitations  for  ap- 
pointees. 

As  mentioned  above,  the  reports  of  the 
family  law  commissioners  are  subject  to  con- 
firmation by  a  judge.  If  counsel  are  not  satis- 
fied with  the  report  of  the  commissioner, 
they  mav  argue  the  matter  before  the 
Supreme  Court  judge  who  heard  the  case.  If 
still  not  satisfied,  an  appeal  from  the  judge's 
decision  confirming  the  report  may  be  taken 
to  the  divisional  court. 

TEACHERS'  PENSIONS 

390.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Minister 
of  Education  indicate  whether  or  not  section 
3  and  section  20(3)  of  the  Teachers'  Super- 
annuation Act,  1975,  permit  the  Teachers' 
Superannuation  Commission  to  designate  part 
of  a  teacher's  salary  in  1975  as  a  retirement 
gratuity  and,  further,  decide  that  this  portion 
should  not  be  recognized  for  superannuation 
purposes?  Will  the  minister  also  indicate 
whether  or  not  these  same  sections  would 
allow  the  Teachers'  Superannuation  Commis- 
sion to  decide  that  the  teacher  has  been  paid 


too  much  pension  in  each  of  the  five  years 
since  his  retirement,  that  he  must  pay  back 
the  overpayment,  and  that  his  future  pension 
payments  will  reflect  the  retroactive  decision 
of  the  commission  to  discount  part  of  his 
1975  salary  for  pension  purposes?  (Tabled 
November  3,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Section  3  of  the 
Teachers'  Superannuation  Act  indicates  that 
"it  is  the  duty  of  the  commission  to  admin- 
ister this  act,  and  in  so  doing  it  shall  deter- 
mine the  right  of  every  applicant  to  receive 
an  allowance  or  a  refund  and  the  amount 
thereof."  Since  the  amount  of  a  pension  is 
affected  by  three  things,  the  age  of  the 
person  at  the  time  of  retirement,  the  number 
of  years  of  credit  in  the  fund  at  retirement 
and  the  average  salary  over  the  best  seven 
years  of  service,  the  commission  does  have 
the  right  to  determine  what  payment  of 
money  to  the  teacher  constitutes  salary  for 
pension  purposes  in  the  same  way  as  Revenue 
Canada  has  the  right  to  determine,  subject 
to  ratification  by  the  courts,  as  to  what  is 
salary  for  income  tax  purposes. 

Each  year  the  commission  issues  instruc- 
tions to  employers  as  to  what  amounts  are 
subject  to  a  deduction  for  pension  purposes 
and  what  amounts  are  not  subject  to  such 
a  deduction.  A  pension  is  computed  on  the 
basic  salary  paid  to  a  teacher  and  it  is  not 
meant  that  a  person's  salary  should  be  arti- 
ficially increased  in  the  last  seven  years  so 
that  the  pension  paid  would  reflect  other  than 
the  basic  salary.  For  this  reason  the  commis- 
sion has  excluded  special  payments  in  the 
determination  of  salary  for  pension  purposes. 
One  of  these  special  payments  has  been  a 
retirement  gratuity. 

When  it  was  determined  that  boards  had 
not  always  adhered  to  these  instructions,  the 
commission  did  check  the  pension  calculation 
for  the  last  five  years  in  an  attempt  to  find 
out  whether  or  not  abnormally  high  pavments 
were  reported  as  salary.  Where  such  pay- 
ments were  apparent,  a  check  was  made 
with  the  boards  concerned  to  see  why  the 
salaries  had  been  inflated.  If  the  salary 
reported  was  based  on  retirement  gratuities 
the  pensions  were  recalculated  and  the  over- 
payments requested. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  commission's  soli- 
citor that  overpayments  of  pensions  should 
be  returned  to  the  commission  in  the  same 
way  as  are  underpayments  to  the  pensioner. 
The  underpayments  are  made  in  a  lump  sum 
whereas  the  overpayments  are  collected  over 
a  period  of  time  so  that  there  is  not  an  undue 
hardship  on  the  pensioner. 


4366 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


OPP  RADAR  UNITS 

391.  Mr.  Van  Home:  How  accurate  are 
nonstatic  radar  machines  that  are  used  by 
the  Ontario  Provincial  Police?  Will  the  Soli- 
citor General  check  and  report  on  the  radar 
unit  used  by  officer  5673,  of  unit  0310,  at 
9:06  a.m.  on  October  13,  1980?  (Tabled 
November  3,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  MDR  1  radar 
unit  is  accurate  to  within  0.05  per  cent. 

The  radar  set  used  by  officer  5673  at  9:06 
a.m.  on  October  13  was  purchased  new  in 
Mav  of  1979.  At  8.30  a.m.  on  October  13  the 
unit  was  checked  for  accuracy  prior  to  the 
constable  proceeding  on  patrol.  It  was  work- 
ing properly. 

TROUT  IMPORTS 

393.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources  indicate  what  amount 
of  trout  fish  was  imported  into  Ontario  during 
the  calendar  years  1978,  1979?  (Tabled 
November  4,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  The  preponderance  of 
trout  imported  into  Ontario  are  frozen, 
hatchery-reared  rainbow  trout  from  Den- 
mark, Japan,  Uruguay  and  the  United  States. 


1,644,000  lb  and  1,756,000  lb  were  im- 
ported in  1978  and  1979  respectively.  There 
were  also  some  importations  from  Nova 
Scotia  and  Manitoba  in  these  two  years. 

No  figures  are  available  for  the  import  of 
wild  trout,  although  quantities  are  thought 
to  be  small.  No  live  trout  or  eggs  were  im- 
ported into  Ontario  during  1978  or  1979, 
primarily  due  to  stringent  federal  fish  health 
regulations  aimed  at  preventing  the  importa- 
tion of  diseased  fish. 

FOREST  CUTTING  PRACTICES 

396.  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Ministry 
of  Natural  Resources  table  the  number  of 
timber  comnanies  that  were  charged  under 
section  21  of  regulation  159,  RRO  1970  of 
the  Crown  Timber  Act  in  regard  to  wasteful 
cutting  practices  in  1979-80  and  the  current 
year?  Please  provide  the  names  of  the  com- 
panies, the  amount  of  the  fine,  and  the  reason 
for  the  charge.  (Tabled  November  4,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  A  table  has  been  prepared 
showing  the  licensees  who  have  been  charged 
under  the  Crown  Timber  Act  in  regard  to 
wasteful  cutting  practices  in  1979-80  and  the 
current  year  to  date. 


PENALTIES  IMPOSED  UNDER  THE  CROWN  TIMBER  ACT 

FOR  WASTEFUL  PRACTICES  DURING 

1979-80  and  1980-81  (to  date) 


Licensee 

Kimberly-Clark 

of  Canada  Limited 
Algonquin  Forestry  Authority 
Bracebridge  Lumber 

Company  Limited 

Kearney  Lumber  Limited 
Spruce  Falls  Power  and  Paper 

Company  Limited' 
*Chantier  Co-operative  De  Barker 
Bois  A.  Lachance  Lumber  Limited 
Abitibi-Price  Incorporated 
Cochrane  Enterprises  Limited 
L.  Blais 

R.  Whitfield 

Midway  Lumber  Mill  Limited 


1979  -  80 

Penalty 

Reason  for  charge 

i   497.68 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

leaving  merchantable  trees 

2,586.00 

leaving  high  stumps 

80.64 

not  utilizing  merchantable   logs 

long-butting 

leaving  lodged  trees 

53.00 

leaving  high  stumps 

141.70 

leaving  high  stumps 

leaving  merchantable  trees 

143.55 

unauthorized  cutting 

49.77 

leaving  merchantable  trees 

707.00 

leaving  high  stumps 

635.00 

leaving  high  stumps 

160.18 

not  utilizing  merchantable   logs 

leaving  high  stumps 

533.18 

leaving  merchantable  trees 

224.71 

not    utilizing    sound    straight    logs 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

leaving  high  stumps 

NOVEMBER  17,  1980 


4367 


Licensee 

Alec  Boudeleau 

Murray  N.  Joseph 


Fred  Riddick 


Frank  Warne 
Claudet  Lapoint 
Laurent  Godet 


1980  -  81 

Penalty 

Reason  for  charge 

$      54.40 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

leaving  high  stumps 

386.06 

not   utilizing   sound   straight   logs 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

leaving  high  stumps 

leaving  lodged  trees 

long-butting 

7.40 

not    utilizing   sound    straight   logs 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

longJbutting 

90.42 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

122.84 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

66.36 

not  utilizing  merchantable  logs 

*With  reference  to  the  answer  to  question  156  tabled  on  May  27,  1980,  it  should  be 
noted  that  the  reason  for  the  charge  in  this  instance  should  have  been  for  unauthorized 
cutting  only. 


FOREST  CLEAR-CUTTING 

397.  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources  provide  the  size  of  the 
three  largest  forest  clear-cuts  within  the 
licensed  areas  of:  1.  Boise  Cascade  Limited. 
2.  Great  Lakes  Forest  Products  Limited.  3. 
Abitibi  Paper  Company  Limited.  4.  Kim- 
bely-Clark  of  Canada  Limited.  5.  Spruce 
Falls  Power  and  Paper  Company  Limited? 
Please  provide  the  location  of  these  clear- 
cuts,  when  they  were  cut,  who  approved  the 
clear-cuts,    the    extent    of    any    artificial    or 


natural    regeneration    on    the    sites?    (Tabled 
November  4,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  The  annual  compilation 
of  areas  of  clear-cut  does  not  record  the  size 
of  each  individual  cutover,  separately.  To 
provide  the  requested  information  on  the 
three  largest  clear-cuts,  their  location,  when 
they  were  cut,  and  the  extent  of  their  regen- 
eration would  require  a  special,  detailed 
study  of  approximately  two  man-years'  dura- 
tion. Approval  of  annual  plans  for  cutting 
operations  to  be  undertaken  by  a  licensee  is 
made  at  the  district  level. 


4368  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 


Monday,  November  17,  1980 

Ministry  restructuring,   statement  by   Mr.    Norton    4321 

Increase  in  social  assistance,  statement  by  Mr.  Norton 4322 

Construction  lien  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  McMurtry  4322 

Economic  equality  for  women,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy  ....  4324 

Acid  rain,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy 4325 

Tomato  processing,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Swart  4326 

Duo-Matic    plant    closure,    questions    of    Mr.    Elgie:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr.    Nixon,    Mr. 

Makarchuk   4327 

Payments   to    consulting    firms,    questions    of    Mr.    McCague:    Mr.    T.    P.    Reid,    Mr. 

Makarchuk   4327 

Heritage  languages  program,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Dukszta  4328 

Diabetic  drivers,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Cunningham 4329 

White  Motor  Corporation,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Makarchuk  4329 

Chrysler   research    and    development   centre,    questions    of   Mr.    Elgie:    Mr.    Ruston, 

Mr.    Mancini    4329 

Chemical  storage,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Breaugh,  Mr.  B.  Newman  4330 

Fines  option  program,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Bradley 4330 

Condominium  Ontario,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Philip  4331 

Burlington  gas  explosion,  question  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Bradley 4331 

Municipal  election  ties,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Mancini  4332 

Participation  House,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Isaacs  , 4333 

Norfolk  teachers'  dispute,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Nixon  4333 

Investment   companies'    failure,    questions    of    Mr.    Drea:    Mr.    M.    N.    Davison,    Mr. 

Breithaupt    4334 

Fire  safety,  question  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.   Haggerty 4334 

French-language    advisory    committees,    questions    of    Miss    Stephenson:    Mr.    R.    F. 

Johnston    4334 

Right-to-farm  legislation,  question  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  McKessock  4335 

Petition  re  Ku  Klux  Klan:  Mr.  Warner  4335 

Motion  re  committee  sitting,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to 4335 

Mortgage  Payments  Moratorium  Act,  Bill  196,  Mr.  Makarchuk,  first  reading  4335 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  388-391,  393,  396  and  397  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  4335 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs,  continued:  Mr.  Bernier  4336 

Adjournment    4362 


NOVEMBER  17,  1980  4369 


Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Bail  programs,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:   Mr.  Warner  4363 

Family  law  commissioners,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Warner  4364 

Teachers'  pensions,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Van  Home 4365 

OPP  radar  units,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:   Mr.  Van  Home  4366 

Trout  imports,  question  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Van  Home  4366 

Forest  cutting  practices,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:   Mr.   T.  P.  Reid  4366 

Forest  clear-cutting,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  4367 


4370  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC) 

Bernier,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  (Kenora  PC) 

Bolan,  M.  (Nipissing  L) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Dukszta,  J.  (Parkdale  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C.;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McCague,  Hon.  G.;  Chairman  of  Management  Board;  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

(Dufferin-Simcoe  PC) 
McKessock,  R.  (Grey  L) 

McMurtry,  Hon.  R.;  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  (Eglinton  PC) 
Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 
Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 
Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 
Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 
Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC) 
Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 
Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 


No.  115 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  November  18,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index  of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  <^gggi^>10 


4373 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

UNIVERSITY  STUDY 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  in 
recent  months,  several  meetings  have  been 
held  with  the  members  and  representatives 
of  Executive  Heads  of  Ontario  Universities 
to  discuss  the  future  role  of  the  universities 
in  Ontario. 

The  future  holds  many  challenges  and 
opportunities  for  universities  here  and  around 
the  world.  As  we  approach  a  period  of  pro- 
tracted decline  in  the  traditional  university 
population,  aged  18  to  24,  there  is  great  un- 
certainty about  enrolment.  On  the  other 
hand,  one  can  see  many  opportunities  for 
the  universities  to  contribute  to  society 
through  research,  community  services  in 
responding  to  rising  skill  requirements  in  the 
labour  force  and  in  meeting  the  needs  of 
nontraditional  client  groups. 

Last  Friday,  November  14,  the  Premier 
( Mr.  Davis )  and  I  met  with  representatives 
of  Executive  Heads  of  Ontario  Universities. 
They  presented  a  brief  entitled,  The  Situ- 
ation of  Ontario  Universities.  This  was  pre- 
pared in  response  to  the  Premier's  request 
for  their  view  on  future  direction  for  Ontario 
universities. 

In  its  brief,  the  executive  heads  suggested 
there  should  be  a  study  of  the  role  of  Ontario 
universities  and  of  the  relationship  between 
the  universities,  the  Council  of  Ontario  Uni- 
versities, the  Ontario  Council  on  University 
Affairs  and  the  government. 

I  am  pleased  to  report  that  the  govern- 
ment has  agreed  to  this  suggestion  and  that 
a  broadly  based  committee  will  be  struck  to 
study  the  role  of  the  universities  in  Ontario. 
Within  the  next  few  days  I  will  inform  the 
House  about  the  terms  of  reference  of  the 
study  and  the  makeup  of  this  committee. 

TVONTARIO 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  several  days 
ago  I  told  this  House  I  was  actively  con- 
sidering   the    expansion    of    the    outstanding 


Tuesday,  November  18,  1980 

service  of  TVOntario.  This  afternoon  it  is 
my  pleasure  to  inform  honourable  members 
that,  beginning  immediately,  we  are  under- 
taking a  major  extension  of  the  TVOntario 
network  into  the  Parry  Sound-Nipissing 
district,  the  Timmins  area  and  the  Grey- 
Bruce  area. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Hurrah.  Where  were  you 
this  morning?  You  didn't  come  to  Owen 
Sound  this  morning. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  I  was  up  in  Owen  Sound 
this  morning. 

TVOntario  is  applying  for  licences  from 
the  Canadian  Radio-television  and  Telecom- 
munications Commission.  We  are  negotiating 
for  land  in  Parry  Sound  and  Grey-Bruce.  We 
are  negotiating  co-site  arrangements  with  the 
Canadian  Broadcasting  Corporation  in  Tim- 
mins. If  everything  goes  according  to  plan, 
TVOntario's  full  service  off  air  should  be 
available  in  the  three  areas  in  about  14 
months. 

In  total,  the  network  expansion  into  these 
areas  will  raise  by  approximately  271,000  the 
number  of  people  who  will  be  able  to  receive 
all  of  TVOntario's  programming  directly  off 
air.  In  Parry  Sound-Nipissing,  75,000  will  be 
added  to  the  service;  in  Timmins,  64,000;  in 
Grey-Bruce,  132,000. 

Mr.  Sargent:  That  is  more  like  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  It  is  very  good,  Eddie. 

In  the  Timmins  district,  the  range  of  the 
signal  will  be  Driftwood  in  the  north, 
Matachewan  in  the  south,  east  to  Matheson 
and  just  short  of  Palomar  in  the  west.  The 
North  Bay  signal  will  reach  viewers  north 
to  Martin  River,  Melissa  in  the  south,  Mat- 
tawa  in  the  east  and  west  to  Sudbury.  The 
Owen  Sound  signal  will  reach  people  living 
in  Lions  Head  in  the  north,  Palmerston  and 
Wingham  in  the  south,  east  to  Thornbury 
and  west  to  Kincardine,  including  Chester 
and  Hanover. 

I  would  point  out  that  a  very  large  ma- 
jority of  these  people  live  in  rural  areas 
which  are  not  served  by  cable  today  and 
which  do  not  appear  likely  to  be  served  by 
cable  in  the  near  future.  In  other  words, 
if  they  were  not  able  to  get  TVOntario  off 
air  they  would  likely  not  be  able  to  get  it 
at  all. 


4374 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  estimate  that  the  capital  cost  of  all  this 
important  activity  will  be  approximately 
$3.5  million-$l,245,000  in  Parry  Sound- 
Nipissing;  $1,015,000  in  Timmins  and 
$1,150,000  in  Grey-Bruce.  Using  today's 
technology,  the  expansion  will  mean  an  in- 
crease in  annual  operating  costs  of  about 
$700,000.  This  operating  money  will  come 
from  tax-generated  revenues.  The  capital 
financing  will  come  from  the  proceeds  of  the 
Lottario  lottery. 

As  honourable  members  know,  the  Ontario 
Lottery  Corporation  Act  dedicates  Lottario 
proceeds  to  cultural  and  recreational  activi- 
ties and  facilities.  This  is  the  very  first  Lot- 
tario allocation  that  has  been  made.  Frankly, 
I  cannot  think  of  a  more  useful  way  to 
spend  the  money.  I  would  emphasize  that 
only  the  one-time  capital  investment  in  this 
extension  is  coming  from  lottery  proceeds. 
We  will  not  be  depending  on  lottery  pro- 
ceeds for  the  continuing  operation  of  the 
new  facilities. 

I  had  the  pleasure  of  visiting  the  three 
new  TVOntario  areas  yesterday  and  this 
morning.  Members  will  not  be  surprised 
when  I  tell  them  that  the  news  of  TV- 
Ontario's  expansion  was  greeted  with  tre- 
mendous enthusiasm.  They  will  not  be  sur- 
prised because  they  know  the  service  is  an 
excellent  one  that  a  lot  of  people  want.  We 
decided  to  go  into  these  three  new  areas 
at  the  same  time  because  each  of  them  was 
able  to   claim  similar  priority. 

I  know  members  on  all  sides  of  the  House 
represent  regions  which  equally  want  to  re- 
ceive TVOntario's  signal  off  air.  I  can  tell 
them  here  today  that  nobody,  but  nobody, 
is  being  ignored.  For  the  moment,  however, 
the  three  areas  I  have  announced  today  rep- 
resent the  most  compelling  cases  for  imme- 
diate expansion.  Each  has  shown  unusually 
active  interest  in  getting  TVOntario's  signal. 
Each  has  a  substantial  rural  population  that 
cannot  be  reached  by  cable  and  each  has  a 
regular  VHF  channel  open.  As  honourable 
members  know,  this  type  of  channel  is  the 
easiest  for  people  to  receive  in  their  homes 
and  offers  the  widest  conventional  coverage 
at  the  lowest  cost. 

I  know  all  members  will  want  to  join  with 
me  in  celebrating  this  major  expansion  of 
the  TVOntario  network  on  the  occasion  of 
TVOntario's  tenth  birthday.  I  think  the  ex- 
pansion is  a  great  birthday  present  for  both 
TVO  and  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Can  the  minister  tell  us  why 
we  are  the  last  one  to  get  it  and  why  it  took 
five  years? 


Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  You  are  taking  time  off 
the  question  period,  are  you,  Mr.  Speaker? 
2:10  p.m. 

WORKMEN'S    COMPENSATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  members 
may  recall,  in  January  of  this  year  I  ap- 
pointed Professor  Paul  C.  Weiler  as  my 
special  adviser  to  undertake  a  comprehen- 
sive study  of  Ontario's  workers'  compensa- 
tion system  and  to  make  recommendations 
on  possible  changes  to  existing  substantive 
and  administrative  arrangements.  At  the 
same  time,  I  tabled  a  discussion  paper  which 
suggested  areas  of  possible  reform. 

I  have  distributed  to  each  member,  and 
will  be  tabling  later  today,  the  first  of  two 
reports  of  Professor  Weiler.  The  first  report 
deals  with  four  main  issues:  The  philosophy 
of  workers'  compensation,  the  structure  of 
benefits,  financing  arrangements  and  the 
decision-making  process  from  primary  claims 
through  final  appeals.  I  hope  members  will 
agree,  when  they  have  had  an  opportunity 
to  study  this  first  report,  that  it  is  one  of 
the  most  significant  and  constructive  contri- 
butions to  the  analysis  of  this  critical  topic 
ever  made.  I  do  not  wish  to  embarrass  the 
author,  Mr.  Weiler,  who  is  with  us  in  the 
gallery  today,  but  it  is  in  my  view  an  extra- 
ordinarily perceptive  and  compelling  piece 
of  work. 

I  would  like  to  say  a  word  or  two  about 
the  process  which  Mr.  Weiler  has  followed. 
As  the  report  indicates,  he  has  met  and 
conferred  with  virtually  every  person  or 
organization  with  an  interest  in  workers' 
compensation  in  Ontario,  including  members 
of  both  opposition  parties.  In  addition  to 
consultations  with  officials  and  experts  in 
Ontario,  in  other  provinces  and  in  the  United 
States,  he  received  more  than  50  written 
briefs  and  held  over  75  meetings.  The  em- 
phasis throughout  was  on  informality  and 
the  free  and  candid  expression  of  facts, 
opinions  and  insights  by  persons  and  orga- 
nizations with  interest  in  and  knowledge  of 
the  topic.  As  he  says  in  his  report,  this  was 
deliberately  not  a  public  inquisition  on  how 
the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board  handled 
specific  cases  in  the  past.  Rather,  it  was  an 
informal  yet  detailed  probing  aimed  at 
recommending  solutions  to  real  and  pressing 
problems  which,  in  the  author's  view,  require 
early  attention.  I  think  this  first  report  fully 
justifies  the  informal  investigative  approach 
which  has  been  followed. 

While  I  wish  to  refer  briefly  to  some  of  the 
key  recommendations  contained  in  the  report, 
I  do  so  with  a  word  of  caution.  There  are 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4375 


hazards  in  attempting  to  evaluate  individual 
recommendations  in  the  abstract  without 
the  benefit  of  the  analysis  and  reasoning 
upon  which  those  recommendations  are 
based.  Moreover,  the  recommendations  are 
presented  as  a  package  and  the  totality  of 
the  package,  with  its  internal  balance,  should 
be  considered  as  a  whole. 

With  these  caveats,  let  me  turn  to  the 
highlights  of  the  report.  As  to  total  disabil- 
ity, temporary  or  permanent,  Mr.  Weiler 
would  replace  the  existing  formula— that  is, 
75  per  cent  of  the  pre-accident  gross  earn- 
ings—with a  new  one,  namely,  90  per  cent 
of  pre-accident  net  disposable  income  up  to 
an  earning  ceiling  of  250  per  cent  or  $40,000 
at  current  levels  of  the  average  industrial 
wage.  In  addition,  he  proposes  that  an  in- 
jured worker  should  have  necessary  fringe 
benefits  maintained  during  periods  of  dis- 
ability; that  workers'  compensation  should 
be  integrated  with  other  systems  of  income 
maintenance  and  that  compensation  should 
ensure  against  loss  of  normal  retirement 
income. 

As  to  fatal  injuries,  he  recommends  that 
all  surviving  spouses  receive  a  lump  sum 
equal  to  the  income  ceiling  of  the  program. 
In  addition,  those  surviving  spouses  and 
children  who  are  dependent  in  the  true 
sense  of  the  term  as  defined  in  the  report, 
should  receive  a  pension  related  to  the  pre- 
accident  net  disposable  income  of  the  de- 
ceased worker. 

As  to  permanent  partial  disability,  the 
report  recommends  that  all  permanently  dis- 
abled workers— and  that  means  total  or 
partial— should  receive  a  lump  sum  payment 
determined  by  the  degree  of  physical  im- 
pairment and  the  age  of  the  worker  at  the 
time  of  the  injury.  In  addition,  compensation 
should  be  paid  to  replace  90  per  cent  of 
the  net  disposable  income  actually  lost  by 
the  worker  as  a  result  of  the  injury,  that  is, 
90  per  cent  of  the  difference  between  pre- 
accident  and  post-accident  net  disposable 
income.  Recommendations  are  also  made  to 
encourage  disabled  workers  to  return  to 
suitable  available  employment  and  to  en- 
courage employers  to  make  such  alternative 
employment  available. 

As  to  inflation  adjustments,  Mr.  Weiler 
recommends  that  income  ceilings  and  other 
criteria  for  current  compensation  claims 
should  be  determined  in  relation  to  the 
average  industrial  wage,  so  that  the  amounts 
payable  for  future  claims  will  adjust  auto- 
matically to  wage  inflation,  while  the  assess- 
ments of  employer  payrolls  will  generate  the 
necessary  corresponding  revenues.  As  to  the 


method  of  financing  benefit  payments,  the 
report  recommends  that  a  mandatory  plan 
for  experience  rating  of  individual  employ- 
ers be  instituted.  It  further  recommends 
that  the  board  be  empowered  to  recover  the 
unfunded  liability  of  an  employer  for  its 
employees'  injuries  if  that  employer  goes 
out  of  business. 

Finally,  as  to  the  structure  of  decision 
making,  the  report  recommends  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  new  independent  tripartite 
workmen's  compensation  appeals  tribunal 
as  the  final  appeal  authority  over  com- 
pensation claims.  In  addition,  Mr.  Weiler 
recommends  the  establishment  of  independent 
medical  review  panels  to  reach  final  deter- 
minations on  disputed  medical  claims.  He 
advocates  the  establishment  of  a  new  cor- 
porate board,  with  final  authority  for  general 
policy  making,  composed  of  the  chairman  of 
the  board,  the  vice-chairman  of  administra- 
tion and  the  chairman  of  the  appeals  tribunal, 
as  well  as  outside  directors  drawn  from  the 
ranks  of  labour  and  business  and  other  dis- 
ciplines and  areas  of  expertise,  including 
medicine,  economics,  vocational  rehabilita- 
tion and  occupational  health  and  safety. 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  highlights  of 
the  report.  As  I  indicated  previously,  any 
summary  does  not  do  it  justice,  and  I  com- 
mend the  full  text  of  the  report  to  all  mem- 
bers. I  intend  to  see  that  it  is  widely  cir- 
culated to  the  business  and  labour  communi- 
ties across  the  province  and  I  look  forward 
to  receiving  responses  as  soon  as  possible  so 
that  I  may  make  the  appropriate  submissions 
and  recommendations  to  my  cabinet  col- 
leagues. 

Finally,  I  wish  to  remind  members  that 
this  report  covers  the  first  phase  of  a  two- 
phase  procedure.  The  second  report,  which 
Professor  Weiler  intends  to  complete  next 
summer,  will  deal  with  the  relationship  be- 
tween the  system  for  compensating  injured 
workers  and  programs  for  improving  safety 
in  the  work  place;  the  emerging  notion  that 
workers'  compensation  might  be  folded  into 
a  broader  system  for  protecting  everyone 
against  income  loss  due  to  personal  injuries, 
however  caused;  and,  finally,  the  important 
topic  of  industrial  disease  and  its  treatment 
by  workers'  compensation  boards. 

MUNICIPAL  BOUNDARY 
NEGOTIATIONS  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  today  I  will 
be  introducing  a  bill  which  will  assist  munic- 
ipalities to  resolve  boundary  and  boundary- 
related  issues.  This  bill  represents  two  years 
of    consultation    and    work    with    Ontario's 


4376 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


municipal  leaders.  In  September  1978,  urban 
and  rural  municipalities  called  for  an  alterna- 
tive to  bitter  and  costly  confrontations  at  the 
Ontario  Municipal  Board  on  matters  of  an- 
nexations and  amalgamations.  In  August 
1979,  the  government  presented  a  proposal 
for  a  new  process  modelled  on  labour-man- 
agement negotiating  techniques.  The  process 
was  then  tested  in  the  Brantford-Brant  area, 
where  a  comprehensive  agreement  was  reach- 
ed in  the  spring  of  this  year  and  represented 
a  mutually  agreed-to  legislated  conclusion  to 
years  of  discussions  and  controversy. 

Earlier  this  fall  I  released  a  position  paper 
setting  out  a  refined  version  of  the  new 
process.  This  paper  was  prepared  in  consul- 
tation with  a  working  group  representing 
Ontario's  three  municipal  associations.  The 
paper  has  subsequently  been  endorsed  by  the 
boards  of  directors  of  the  Association  of 
Municipalities  of  Ontario  and  the  Rural  On- 
tario Municipal  Association.  The  board  of 
directors  of  the  Association  of  Counties  and 
Regions  of  Ontario  has  not  yet  had  a  chance 
to  consider  the  paper,  but  ACRO  has,  of 
course,  played  a  key  role  in  the  development 
of  this  new  process. 

Section  2  of  the  legislation  to  implement 
the  position  paper  would  authorize  a  munic- 
ipality wanting  to  resolve  an  intermunicipal 
boundary  or  boundary-related  issue  to  apply 
to  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
rather  than  to  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board. 
A  fact-finder  would  be  appointed  under  sec- 
tion 4  of  the  act  to  look  into  the  application. 
If  necessary,  direct,  face-to-face  negotiations 
between  the  municipalities  would  follow. 
These,  I  hope,  would  lead  to  an  agreement 
as  they  did  in  Brantford-Brant.  If  so,  the 
agreement  could  be  implemented  either 
through  legislation  or,  in  certain  circum- 
stances, through  an  order  in  council  issued 
under  section  14  of  the  act. 

If,  however,  there  were  no  agreement,  we 
would  have  a  number  of  options,  one  of 
which  would  be  allowing  the  matter  to  go 
before  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board.  The 
bill  would  amend  the  Municipal  Act  so  as  to 
limit  annexation  and  amalgamation  applica- 
tions to  the  OMB  to  those  involving  un- 
organized territory  and  those  authorized  fol- 
lowing proceedings  under  this  new  legisla- 
tion. 

2:20  p.m. 

It  is  my  hope  that  this  legislation  to  make 
the  Brantford-Brant  process,  as  it  has  be- 
come known,  available  to  other  parts  of  the 
province  will  receive  a  broad  measure  of  sup- 
port so  that  we  can  have  the  necessary  legal 


and    administrative   framework   in    place    by 
early  in  the  new  year. 

HALTON  FINANCIAL  DEFICIT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
further  statement  in  answer  to  a  question 
from  the  member  for  Halton-Burlington  (Mr. 
J.  Reed). 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  answer  ques- 
tions asked  on  Monday,  November  3,  and 
Tuesday,  November  4,  by  the  member  for 
Halton-Burlington. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  Will  the  answer  to  this  question  be 
allowed  to  result  in  a  supplementary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Not  at  this  time. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Will  the  minister  be  prepared 
to  answer  it  during  question  period? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pre- 
pared to  answer  any  question.  Since  this  will 
take  a  few  minutes,  it  should  be  made  as  a 
statement. 

On  November  3,  the  member  transmitted  a 
petition  containing  167  signatures  from  resi- 
dents of  the  regional  municipality  of  Halton 
which  requested  me  to  set  up  a  commission 
of  inquiry  into  the  financial  management  of 
the  region.  The  next  day  he  gave  me  a  second 
petition  from  a  different  group  of  residents 
from  the  region  of  Halton  also  asking  for  a 
commission  of  inquiry.  The  petitioners  cited 
the  existence  of  a  large  deficit  as  the  primary 
cause  of  their  concern. 

After  carefully  reviewing  the  present  situa- 
tion, I  would  like  to  tell  the  House  that  the 
situation  does  not  appear  to  warrant  a  formal 
inquiry.  Our  ministry  has  been  aware  of  the 
difficulties  in  the  financial  affairs  of  Halton 
since  this  summer.  My  staff  has  been  in  close 
communication  with  officials  and  elected 
representatives  of  the  region  to  determine 
what  is  being  done  about  the  problems.  The 
regional  representatives  have  not  remained 
idle  and  have  reacted  quickly  to  find  the 
cause  of  the  problem  and,  we  believe,  to 
correct  it.  The  region  is  undertaking  a  thor- 
ough review  of  its  internal  control  systems 
and  is  now  preparing  a  plan  to  deal  with  its 
accumulated  deficit.  It  is  also  my  under- 
standing that  council  is  contemplating  the 
hiring  or,  indeed,  has  already  hired  a  firm  of 
management  consultants  to  devise  ways  to 
improve  its  administrative  practices. 

In  these  circumstances,  I  am  sure  honour- 
able members  will  agree  the  council  is  taking 
steps  to  investigate  and  correct  the  situation. 
I  believe  this  is  at  this  time  a  much  more 
effective  way  of  dealing  with  the  situation 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


43*77 


than  setting  up  a  commission  of  inquiry.  My 
staff  is,  of  course,  monitoring  this  situation 
closely  and  will  offer  such  advice  and  assis- 
tance as  may  be  required. 

I  might  remind  the  House  we  have  six 
criteria  which  we  use  to  determine  the 
need  for  a  formal  commission  of  inquiry. 
One  or  more  of  these  criteria  must  be  met. 
First,  is  there  evidence  of  such  maladmin- 
istration on  the  part  of  municipal  officials 
as  to  prejudice  local  government?  Second, 
have  criminal  proceedings  been  undertaken? 
Third,  we  ask  if  such  a  commission  might 
make  recommendations  of  such  a  general 
nature  as  to  benefit  municipal  governments 
throughout  the  province.  Fourth,  is  there 
evidence  the  cost  to  the  municipality  of 
holding  an  inquiry,  which  we  estimate  at 
about  $2,000  a  day,  is  justified  by  the  nature 
of  the  problem?  Fifth,  a  commission  may  be 
set  up  if  the  municipality  itself  cannot  or 
will  not  institute  corrective  measures  on  its 
own.  Finally,  a  commission  of  inquiry  may 
be  required  if  the  facts  cannot  be  ascertain- 
ed in  any  other  way. 

While  in  Halton's  case  there  is  little 
doubt  the  systems  of  internal  financial  con- 
trols require  improvements,  I  am  of  the  opin- 
ion none  of  the  above  criteria  has  been  met 
and  that  a  commission  of  inquiry  is  not  the 
appropriate  vehicle  to  use  at  this  time  and 
in  this  particular  case. 

TOMATO  PROCESSING 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a 
point  of  personal  privilege  in  order  to  correct 
the   record. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  either  one  or  the 
other. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rose  the  other 
day  on  a  point  of  privilege  and  you  informed 
me  that  was  to  correct  the  record  so  I  can 
see  some  basis  for  using  both  comments 
today. 

I  would  like  to  start  off  by  saying  that 
the  leader  of  the  third  party  has  once  again 
misinformed  the  House  and  has  given  in- 
correct information  to  the  Legislature.  He 
was  speaking  yesterday  concerning  the  mat- 
ter of  hothouse  tomatoes  which  are  produced 
in  Ontario. 

The  information  provided  to  the  Legis- 
lature was  basically  concerning  the  matter, 
and  I  quote,  "Hothouse  tomatoes  which 
have  been  coming  to  market  for  the  last 
two  months  have  been  kept  off  the  shelves 
of  the  supermarkets  in  the  Loblaw  chain—" 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Just  Loblaws? 


Mr.  Mart  el:  Are  you  the  spokesman  for 
Loblaws? 

Mr.  Mancini:  Just  a  second,  hang  on,  it 
is  coming— 

"And  have  been  appearing  only  irregularly 
in  other  supermarkets  across  the  province 
and  why  as  a  consequence  consumers  have 
had  no  choice  in  many  cases  but  to  buy 
imported  tomatoes." 

The  leader  of  the  third  party  does  not 
understand  the  greenhouse  industry  or  the 
marketing  procedures  used.  It  is  also  evident 
that  he  does  not  understand  the  matter  of 
crop  production.  The  vast  majority  of  crops 
are  produced  in  the  spring,  when  the  average 
yield  is  12.1  pounds  of  tomatoes  per  plant. 
This  crop  is  marketed  readily  to  Ontario, 
Quebec  and  the  Mari times.  The  biggest 
market  is  in  Quebec,  where  two  thirds  of 
all  the  greenhouse  tomatoes  are  sold.  In  the 
fall  the  farmers  are  able  to  produce  only 
3.41  pounds  per  plant. 

Mr.  Foulds:  What  personal  privilege  has 
been  violated? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Which  side  of  the 
House  do  you  think  you're  on? 

Mr.  Mancini:  I  can  see  those  members 
are  really  interested  in  the  greenhouse 
farmers. 

Therefore,  the  quantity  of  tomatoes  avail- 
able for  market  is  much  less.  The  federal 
government,  in  recognizing  this,  has  a  15 
per  cent  duty  on  imported  tomatoes  running 
from  April  1  until  November  1.  After 
November  1  the  duty  is  removed.  This  was 
done  with  the  consent  of  the  greenhouse 
marketing  board. 

In  the  early  fall  when  many  of  our  home- 
grown field  tomatoes  are  going  to  market, 
this  is  also  another  consequence  of  compe- 
tition for  the  greenhouse  grower.  However, 
for  the  months  of  October  and  November- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member 
rose,  as  is  his  right,  to  correct  something 
he  felt  was  misleading  the  House.  I  am  not 
going  to  permit  the  honourable  member  to 
get  up  and  make  a  budget  speech.  If  there 
was  an  incorrect  impression  left,  I  wish  he 
would  bring  his  remarks  to  a  close  as 
quickly   as  possible. 

Mr.  Mancini:  I  would  like  to  apologize 
to  the  House,  Mr.  Speaker,  for  the  length 
of  the  comment  but  so  little  is  understood, 
especially  by  the  members  to  the  left,  about 
the  greenhouse  industry. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Correct  the  record  as  you 
perceive  it  and  then  we  will  get  on  to  the 
regular  business  of  the  House. 


4378 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Mancini:  More  specifically  on  the  mat- 
ter of  shelf  space,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  morning 
I  had  the  opportunity  of  speaking  with  the 
chairman  of  the  greenhouse  marketing 
board- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member 
can  table  the  remainder  of  it  with  the  Clerk 
and  everybody  can  read  it.  I  think  I  have 
been  more  than  tolerant  with  the  honourable 
member.  He  makes  his  point;  if  he  wants  to 
elaborate  further,  he  can  table  it  with  the 
Clerk. 

Interjections. 
2:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order.  The  Leader 
of  the  Opposition,   with  oral  questions. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  It  might  be  more  profitable, 
Mr.  Speaker,  to  direct  the  questions  to  this 
side  of  the  House  instead  of  the  other. 

ORAL   QUESTIONS 

DAY  CARE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services  regarding  the  matter  of  day  care, 
particularly   in   the   Ottawa-Carleton   area. 

An  hon.  member:  There  is  a  by-election 
on  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  You  have  never  been  in- 
terested in  Carleton  before.  You  wouldn't 
know  where  it  is. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  members  opposite  seem 
to  express  a  lot  of  incredulity.  Ottawa-Carle- 
ton is  toward  the  east  end  of  the  province. 
It  is  sort  of  by  the  river.  You  remember 
where  it  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  After  Thursday  you  will 
never  want  to  see  it  again. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  question  period 
started   one  minute  ago. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Would  the  minister  con- 
firm for  this  House  the  information  which 
he  provided  in  the  answer  to  questions  on 
the  Order  Paper  at  one  time,  that  with  his 
vaunted  help  to  Ottawa-Carleton,  with  their 
$120,000  overrun  in  the  day  care  budget, 
the  grand  total  contributed  by  this  level  of 
government  is  $22,500,  roughly  the  salary 
of  one  of  his  office  assistants  in  the  ministry, 
and  that  is  the  total  he  has  contributed  to 
the  cost  overrun  this  year  in  the  Ottawa- 
Carleton  day  care  situation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Could  I  ask  if  the  member  might  repeat  the 
latter  part  of  that  question?  Did  he  say  that 
is  the  total  we  have  contributed  this  year? 


Mr.  S.  Smith:  Yes,  towards  the  overrun. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  cannot  recall  offhand 
the  precise  dollar  figure.  I  can  indicate  that 
the- 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  It  was  $22,500. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  No,  I  do  not  believe  the 
honourable  member  is  correct.  If  he  will  just 
be  patient  for  a  moment,  I  will  give  him  the 
percentage  breakdown.  I  believe  the  first 
$51,000  was  cost  shared  on  the  regular  basis, 
80-20,  with  30  per  cent  coming  from  the 
provincial  government,  50  from  the  federal 
and  20  from  the  municipality.  On  the  balance, 
or  the  difference  between  $52,000  and  the 
total  amount  of  their  overrun,  it  was  cost 
shared  as  between  us  and  the  municipality  at 
50-50,  but  our  50  per  cent  was  also  cost 
shared  by  the  provincial  government.  It  was 
not  strictly  a  pass-through  of  federal  funds, 
if  that  is  the  point  the  member  is  trying  to 
get  at. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Since  on  page  4198  of  Han- 
sard it  will  be  very  clear  that  the  total  pro- 
vincial government  contribution  was  $22,500, 
I  ask  the  minister  to  look  up  his  own  answers, 
which  he  has  provided. 

More  importantly,  could  I  ask  the  minister 
whether  he  could  give  me  some  advice  to 
pass  on  to  a  lady  who  lives  in  Kanata,  a  Mrs. 
Hover  of  Salter  Crescent,  who  is  a  mother 
alone  with  two  children,  aged  five  and  a  half 
and  eight  and  a  half?  At  present,  she  has 
just  recovered  from  an  illness,  has  been  off 
work  for  a  year  and  has  a  new  job.  She  has 
a  student  who  comes  in,  but  comes  in  after 
her  younger  child  arrives  home,  and  it  costs 
her  $30  a  week.  She  earns  $9,360  a  year,  and1 
she  has  determined  that  with  transportation 
and  baby-sitting  and  other  associated  costs 
she  would  be  much  better  off  on  welfare.  She 
has  now  been  on  the  day  care  waiting  list  for 
approximately  four  months,  and  she  has  not 
moved  at  all,  not  at  all,  on  that  waiting  list. 

Can  the  minister  tell  me  what  advice  I 
should  give  to  Mrs.  Hover  in  Kanata  when  in 
point  of  fact  all  he  is  able  to  do  is  con- 
tribute such  a  very  measly  amount  to  the 
problems  in  Ottawa-Carleton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  can't  respond  on  the 
basis  of  the  specific  figures  that  the  member 
has  given  me.  I  have  always  been  rather 
good  in  mathematics,  but  I  won't  rely  upon 
my  mental  calculations  as  he  relates  those 
figures  across  the  House. 

I  will  say  this  in  general  terms:  The  alloca- 
tion of  the  available  subsidies  and  spaces  is  a 
matter  that  is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
municipalities  under  the  administration  of 
our  day  care  policy  in  this  province.  I  would 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4379 


reiterate  once  again  it  is  my  conviction— in 
spite  of  the  protests  that  I  know  the  honour- 
able members  from  the  Ottawa  area  have 
raised  in  the  House  when  I  have  brought  this 
to  their  attention— that  there  is  a  substantial 
amount  of  the  subsidy  money  in  the  Ottawa- 
Carleton  area  which  is  presently  going  to 
sort  of  top-end  subsidies  by  placing  ceilings 
on  day  care  rates  or  contributions  that  are 
chargeable  to  parents.  I  think  this  is  having 
the  effect  of  depriving  lower  income  families 
in  many  instances  and  keeping  them  on  wait- 
ing lists. 

I  have  discussed  this  on  numerous  occa- 
sions with  the  officials  from  Ottawa-Carleton 
and  I  can  assure  the  honourable  member  that 
in  private  conversations  they  agree  that  is 
one  of  the  effects,  regardless  of  the  protests 
that  I  have  to  deal  with  in  this  House. 

The  only  additional  thing  I  can  suggest  is 
that,  as  members  know  from  the  budgetary 
statements  of  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller) 
last  week,  I  will  very  shortly  be  announcing 
some  expansion  in  the  balance  of  this  fiscal 
year  in  terms  of  subsidized  day  care  spaces 
which  will  be  allocated  across  the  province. 
I  hope  it  will  be  part  of  a  larger  package  of 
announcements  that  I  will  be  making  in  the 
very  near  future.  Ottawa-Carleton,  along  with 
other  municipalities  in  this  province,  will 
benefit  from  that  and  I  would  hope  the  par- 
ticular individual  to  whom  the  member  re- 
ferred might  benefit  at  that  time,  if  not 
before. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Could  the  minister  let  the  people  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton  know  how  far  he  expects  that  $1 
million  additional  spending  on  day  care  to 
go  when  there  are  1,000  people  on  the  wait- 
ing list  looking  for  day  care  for  their  kids 
in  the  Ottawa-Carleton  region,  and  the  most 
generous  estimate  for  the  $1  million  proposed 
by  the  Treasurer  is  that  it  will  provide  500 
additional  spaces  for  day  care  to  cover  the 
entire  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber either  did  not  listen  to  the  Treasurer  or 
did  not  read  the  Treasurer's  statement,  be- 
cause the  $1  million  figure  to  which  he  is  re- 
ferring—and I  think  his  critic  understands; 
at  least  I  thought  I  communicated  that  across 
the  House  to  him  on  the  evening  of  the 
Treasurer's  statement— relates  to  the  last  three 
months  of  this  fiscal  year  and  is  not  the  an- 
nualized figure.  As  a  consequence,  when  one 
translates  that  into  spaces— although  I  will 
be  making  that  part  of  my  announcement,  I 
am  not  going  to  indicate  the  specific  number 
of  spaces  or  their  allocation  at  this  point- 
it  will  be  very  substantially  more  than  the 


number   of   spaces   the   honourable   member 
referred  to. 

ST.  MICHAEL'S 
COLLEGE  LAND 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Premier  regarding  the  matter  of 
the  St.  Michael's  College  land  in  the  city  of 
Toronto.  The  Premier  will  be  aware  that  it  is 
the  desire  of  the  city  of  Toronto  and  has 
been  voted  unanimously  by  city  council,  if 
I  am  not  mistaken,  to  use  the  St.  Michael's 
lands  for  park  land  purposes.  The  Premier 
will  be  aware  that  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Board  has  recently  overturned  this  unani- 
mous decision  on  the  part  of  the  city  of 
Toronto. 

Given  the  fact  that  the  OMB  appears  to 
have,  in  the  first  place,  imputed  false  motives 
to  the  city  of  Toronto  and  in  the  second  place 
has  not  addressed  all  the  evidence  presented 
at  the  hearing,  will  the  Premier  assure  this 
House  it  is  the  intention  of  cabinet  to  over- 
turn the  decision  of  the  OMB  and  restore  the 
decision  of  the  city  of  Toronto? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  on  sober  re- 
flection, might  rephrase  the  question.  I  know 
he  understands  how  the  OMB  works  and 
that  this  is  really  a  quasi-judicial  matter  where 
an  appeal  has  been  filed  with  the  cabinet. 
The  material  has  not  yet  been  assessed  by 
the  legislative  committee  of  cabinet,  at  least 
not  to  my  knowledge,  and  certainly  it  has 
not  been  considered  by  the  full  cabinet. 

Really,  what  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
is  asking  is  that  I  commit  the  government 
to  a  decision  based  on  a  recommendation  or 
judgement  from  a  quasi-judicial  group  with- 
out even  hearing  or  reading  the  material 
that  has  been  presented  by  either  the  persons 
appealing,  or  by  the  church,  or  those  in 
support  of  the  development  on  that  particu- 
lar site.  I  am  sure  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion, really,  if  he  thought  this  through  care- 
fully, would  not  presume  to  ask  the  head 
of  government  to  make  a  decision  here  pub- 
licly prior  to  the  process  being  followed. 

2:40  p.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  apologize  for  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Premier  had  already  read  the 
salient  matters,  since  it  was  published  in 
the  newspaper. 

It  was  stated  in  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Board  decision  that  it  was  the  opinion  of 
the  hearing  officer  the  city  was  trying  to 
down-zone  the  lands,  and  the  city  should 
have    expropriated    the    lands    if    it    wanted 


4380 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


them.  However,  it  did  not  have  the  right 
to  expropriate  the  land  since  it  belonged 
to  St.  Michael's  College  in  this  instance. 
Furthermore,  the  hearing  officer  said  the 
city  should  have  bought  the  lands  but  Cadil- 
lac Fairview  had  the  option  to  buy. 

Will  the  Premier  not  agree  that,  on  the 
face  of  it,  at  the  very  least  there  is  a  plain 
misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  the  hearing 
officer  who,  in  addition,  decided  not  to  hear 
and  consider  all  the  evidence?  Therefore, 
once  he  has  had  time  to  reflect  on  it,  to 
read  the  material  and  familiarize  himself 
with  it,  will  the  Premier  not  agree  that 
there  are  good  grounds  for  overturning  that 
decision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Once  again,  I  realize  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  gains  most  of  his 
relevant  information  from  the  newspapers, 
and  I  am  not  being  critical  of  that.  I  can 
always  predict  with  some  accuracy  what  the 
questions  will  be  from  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  based  on  his  hasty  reading. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  The  Premier  gets  all  his 
information  from  polls. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  for  Rainy 
River  is  not  around  enough  to  know  how 
many  polls  his  own  party  does  on  govern- 
ment trunk  lines.  Where  does  it  get  its  in- 
formation? He  was  away  for  that  debate. 

I  repeat  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
that  unlike  him  I  do  not,  nor  does  cabinet, 
make  judgements  based  on  newspaper  re- 
ports. I  am  not  being  critical  of  the  reports, 
but  the  documentation  involved  is  somewhat 
more  extensive  than  what  he  has  read  in 
the  paper.  I  am  not  going  to  argue  for  a 
moment  whether  the  city  of  Toronto  had 
the  right  to  expropriate  the  lands  from  St. 
Michael's  College.  However,  I  know  enough 
about  the  history,  having  been  Minister  of 
Education  when  St.  Michael's  College  was 
involved  in  another  matter  with  Metro,  to 
know  that  the  municipality  certainly  has  the 
right  to  purchase  from  St.  Michael's  College 
if  it  wishes  to  do  so. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Cadillac  Fairview,  I  believe, 
had  the  option. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  not  get  into  a  de- 
bate on  the  facts,  but  I  think  the  honourable 
member  should  have  some  concern  as  to 
the  economic  welfare  of  St.  Michael's  Col- 
lege. He  may  not,  but  as  a  part  of  cabinet's 
considerations  we  cannot  neglect  that  side 
of  the  discussion  either.  I  know  he  does  not, 
except  when  he  is  meeting  with  the  bishops, 
but  he  does  have  a  concern  on  other  issues. 
I  know  what  he  discusses  with  them. 


DISPOSAL  OF   PCBs 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  of  the  Premier.  Does  he  recall  the 
assurances  we  had  from  his  Minister  of  the 
Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  about  a  year  ago 
that  the  government  was  opposed  to  the  dis- 
posal of  hazardous  wastes  at  sea  by  burning 
them  on  ships?  In  the  light  of  that  state- 
ment of  a  year  ago,  has  the  Premier  made 
himself  aware  of  the  fact  that  Willinger 
Systems,  which  until  a  year  ago  was  a  part 
of  the  Walker  Brothers  Quarries  group  in 
Thorold,  is  proposing  to  bring  together 
polychlorinated  biphenyls  at  a  site  in  south- 
ern Ontario  and  ship  them  to  Czechoslovakia 
for  ultimate  disposal?  Has  the  government 
changed  its  policy,  or  will  it  undertake  not 
to  foist  Ontario's  PCBs  either  on  the  un- 
suspecting oceans  or  on  the  unsuspecting 
Czechs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  con- 
fess to  the  honourable  member  I  am  not 
familiar  with  this  discussion.  I  will  be  de- 
lighted to  have  the  minister  reply  to  him 
on  Thursday.  I  would  be  very  surprised  if 
any  country  were  as  unsuspecting  as  the 
honourable  member  suggests. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Will  the  Premier  undertake  to 
have  this  House  fully  informed  about  the 
hazards  entailed  in  assembling  PCBs  from 
the  entire  province  and  then  snipping  PCBs, 
with  all  the  hazards  they  carry  with  them, 
along  the  St.  Lawrence  Seaway  for  a  distance 
of  a  couple  of  thousand  miles  before  they 
ultimately  cross  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  go 
to  another  country? 

Will  the  Premier  undertake  that  in  future 
Ontario  will  not  try  to  export  our  hazardous 
waste  problems  to  other  countries,  just  as  we 
should  not  seek  to  import  hazardous  waste 
problems  from  other  countries  into  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  be  delighted  to  have 
the  minister  reply  to  as  much  of  that  as  possi- 
ble. He  has  always  fully  informed  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House.  I  think  he  has  some  doubts 
on  some  days  as  to  how  much  of  that  in- 
formation has  been  properly  assimilated  by 
some  members  of  the  House.  But  certainly 
he  will  inform  members. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Will  the  Premier  advise  the  House— if  he 
does  not  know,  he  can  ask  the  Minister  of 
Energy  (Mr.  Welch)— whether  the  govern- 
ment is  still  making  plutonium  shipments  to 
France  from  Douglas  Point? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
know  if  that  is  really  a  supplementary.  I  do 
not  have  the  answer  to  that,  but  I  will  con- 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4381 


suit  the  Minister  of  Energy.  I  am  not  sure 
it  is  a  supplementary. 

I  was  going  to  say  something  about  hazard- 
ous wastes  and  their  exports,  but  I  would  not 
do  that  to  the  member  for  Grey-Bruce.  If  he 
would  like  me  to  redirect  his  question  to 
the  Minister  of  Energy,  I  am  sure  if  he  has 
the  information  he  will  be  delighted1  to  share 
it  with  the  member. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Why  don't  you  ask  him  right 
now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No.  I  want  him  to  have 
the  opportunity,  if  he  has  the  information,  to 
reply  to  the  member  directly. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  redirect 
the  question,  then. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That's  not  your  option.  If  the 
Premier  wishes  to  do  so,  he  can  do  so. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
When  the  Premier  is  discussing  this  with  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment,  in  view  of  the 
close  connection  between  Willinger  Systems 
and  Walker  Brothers,  will  he  remind  the 
minister  of  the  deplorable  track  record  of 
Walker  Brothers  in  the  violation  of  their 
certificate  and  suggest  to  him  that  they  should 
not  be  given  a  permit  to  carry  out  this  pro- 
posal with  PCBs? 

Will  the  Premier  also  remind  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  that  the  Walker  Brothers 
site  is  located  only  1.5  kilometres  from  the 
urban  district  of  Thorold  and  that  in  no  way 
should  there  be  any  PCB  storage  area  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  knowing  the 
hobby  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment, 
there  are  very  few  members  who  are  better 
able  to  determine  track  records  on  anything— 

Mr.  Swart:  He  may  determine  it  but  he 
ignores  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  minister's  track  record 
is  an  awful  lot  better  than  that  of  the  mem- 
ber's over  the  years.  I  make  that  brief  obser- 
vation. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Name  one  area. 

DATA  PROCESSING 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another 
question  for  the  Premier.  Since  we  will  both 
be  in  the  Ottawa  area  in  the  near  future  with 
respect  to  certain  political  events,  my  ques- 
tion to  the  Premier  concerns  markets  in 
Ontario  for  the  microelectronics  industry, 
which  is  becoming  increasingly  important, 
particularly  because  of  its  growth  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton. 

Can  the  Premier  say  what  the  government 
is  doing  to  stop  the  transfer  of  data  process- 


ing by  Ontario  corporations  to  the  United 
States,  such  as  the  recent  announcement  by 
Graham  Cable  TV  in  Toronto  that  it  is  shift- 
ing its  computerized  data  processing  for 
74,000  subscribers  to  a  California  company? 
Can  the  Premier  say  how  we  can  have  jobs 
for  microelectronics  firms  in  Ontario  if  the 
data  processing  continues  to  be  shifted  to  the 
United  States? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  data 
processing  is  not  being  shipped  to  the  United 
States. 

I  can  assure  the  honourable  member  I  ex- 
pect to  be  in  the  Ottawa  area,  as  he  does 
and  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  does.  I  am 
not  even  in  Carleton  tonight;  I  expect  to  be 
at  a  nominating  convention  where  we  have 
a  great  candidate,  sought  after  I  am  sure  by 
others,  who  will  upset  that  delightful  young 
lady  who  is  not  here  this  afternoon,  when- 
ever the  next  general  election  is.  That  is  the 
political  event  I  am  going  to. 

2:50  p.m. 

I  also  make  it  very  clear  that  over  the 
objections  of  both  opposition  parties,  the 
New  Democratic  Party  and  the  Liberal  Party, 
we  are  the  ones  who  are  supporting  the  elec- 
tronics industry  in  the  Ottawa  Valley.  We  are 
doing  it  over  the  objections  of  the  members 
opposite,  who  are  opposed  to  Marconi,  the 
multinationals  and  all  the  nonsense  raised 
during  the  course  of  the  by-election. 

It  is  really  intriguing  to  me  that  the 
leader  of  the  third  party  comes  here  to  ask 
me  what  we  are  doing  to  protect  the  market 
at  the  same  time  that  the  NDP  and  the 
Liberal  Party  of  this  province  are  making 
it  difficult  for  the  electronics  industry  to 
expand  in  the  Ottawa  Valley. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  remind  the  Premier  that 
Mitel,  a  Canadian  company  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton,  has  been  trying  for  two  and  a  half 
years  to  get  its  systems  attached  to  Bell 
Canada  here  in  Ontario,  and  there  has  not 
been  a  peep  from  the  government  to  defend 
the  right  of  that  Canadian  company  to 
market  here  in  Ontario. 

Is  the  Premier  not  concerned  that  we  are 
already  importing  more  than  $500  million 
worth  of  data  processing  services  from  the 
United  States,  which  is  already  costing  us 
10,000  jobs,  and  the  federal  Department  of 
Communications  estimates  that  by  1985  we 
are  going  to  be  importing  so  much  data 
processing  from  the  United  States  that  we 
will  have  lost  23,000  jobs  that  we  could 
have  had  here  in  Canada?  What  steps  does 
the    government  intend   to   take  to  stop  this 


4382 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


outflow  of  data  processing,  which  should 
take  place  in  Ontario  or  Canada  and  which 
would  create  jobs  for  tens  of  thousands  of 
Canadians? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  great  respect,  I 
think  the  honourable  member  grossly  exag- 
gerates the  situation.  There  is  some  data 
processing  work  being  done  south  of  the 
border;  there  is  a  certain  amount  being  done 
here.  This  government,  through  the  assist- 
ance to  the  electronics  industry,  has  made  it 
possible  for  us  to  be  in  the  forefront  of 
many  of  these  new  developments,  in  spite 
of  the  objections  from  the  members  opposite, 
and   that  will   continue  to  be  the   policy. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary: 
Considering  the  Premier's  recent  conversion 
and  his  interest  in  the  high-technology  in- 
dustry in  the  Ottawa  area,  when  is  he  going 
to  wake  up  his  government  and  Minister 
of  Education  (Miss  Stephenson)  to  provide 
adequate  funds  so  we  can  get  the  specialized 
workers  necessary  to  supply  that  industry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
made  it  abundantly  clear  that,  when  the 
post-secondary  institutions  and  the  industry 
itself  determine  for  the  government  what 
kind  of  personnel  they  require,  we  can 
educate  them.  In  fact,  we  are  in  the 
process  of  doing  it.  We  are  holding  discus- 
sions with  some  of  the  employers— and  the 
member  should  spend  a  little  time  with 
them;  instead  of  calling  thsm  the  crummiest 
in  the  world,  he  should  talk  to  some  of 
these  people  who  are  involved  in  the  process. 

I  just  say  to  the  honourable  member, 
when  he  is  talking  about  high  technology, 
we  are  making  some  real  progress  in  the 
electronics  field  in  the  Ottawa  Valley—but 
the  Ottawa  Valley  also  extends  to  Kingston. 
If  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  and  the 
critic  over  there  would  be  a  little  more 
understanding  and  supportive  of  the  Urban 
Transportation  Development  Corporation- 
understanding  that  there  is  high  technology 
developed  in  Ontario  which  is  going  to 
operate  in  Hamilton,  and  has  bids  in  with 
Detroit,  Los  Angeles  and  Miami— then  I 
would  believe  the  member  when  he  makes 
some  of  his  observations  about  high  tech- 
nology. He  does  not  like  it  because  this 
government  has  done  it;  that's  why. 

OTTAWA  HEALTH  CLINIC 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  considering  that 
of  recent  date  the  Premier  is  interested  in 
Ottawa  problems  and  considering  that  he  is 
spending  some  time  there,  will  he  look  into 


the  question  of  the  establishment  of  the  24- 
hour  health  clinic  in  the  old  Ottawa  General 
Hospital  which,  as  the  Premier  knows,  has 
been  replaced  by  the  new  Ottawa  General 
Hospital?  How  does  the  Premier  expect  that 
clinic  to  be  able  to  justify  its  existence  if  his 
Ministry  of  Health  does  not  allow  the  clinic 
to  advertise  on  radio,  television  or  in  news- 
papers that  they  are  in  existence  and  offer- 
ing an  essential  service?  Does  the  Premier 
want  the  clinic  to  work  or  does  he  want  it  to 
fail? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  of  course 
that  is  not  right.  I  say  to  the  honourable  mem- 
ber that  my  interest  in  Ottawa  has  been  for 
years  far  greater  than  his.  When  I  visit 
Ottawa,  when  I  am  in  that  community,  I  do 
not  spend  all  my  spare  time  in  the  courts, 
as  he  does  when  he  is  in  his  constituency. 
That  is  all  he  does  up  there. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  it  comes  to 
believing  people,  I  will  believe  Sister 
Paquette  before  I  will  believe  the  Premier, 
I  will  tell  him  that.  Why  does  he  not  want 
Joe  Clark  in  that  riding? 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  Premier  whether  he 
is  prepared  to  prevail  upon  the  Minister  of 
Health  (Mr.  Timbrell)  to  extend  the  date  for 
assessment  of  this  clinic  past  November  27; 
and  can  he  tell  me  what  kind  of  government 
he  is  leading  when  it  will  not  allow  a  clinic 
to  advertise  an  essential  service  at  the  same 
time  he  is  spending  millions  telling  the  pub- 
lic of  Ontario  how  great  he  is? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  do  not  happen  to  be  in 
the  medical  profession,  but  I  know  of  a 
number  of  clinics  and  my  recollection  is  that 
clinics  do  not  advertise.  I  also  say  to  the 
honourable  member,  who  was  not  at  the 
opening,  I  do  not  know  of  many  communi- 
ties that  have  received  more  assistance  and 
support  in  terms  of  health  services  than  the 
great  Ottawa-Carleton  region. 

Mr.  Roy:  Fifteen  years  behind  everybody 
else. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  We  are  way  ahead.  I 
understand  the  Liberal  candidate  has  been 
taking  some  exception  to  where  the  chronic 
care  facility  is  going  to  be,  but  memory- 
serves  me  very  correctly  that  he  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  health  council  when  that  decision 
was  made. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Since  the  Premier  appears  to  have  for- 
gotten that  Ottawa-Carleton  consistently  has 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4383 


been  at  the  tail  of  the  line-up  in  getting 
capital  assistance  for  health  facilities,  a 
process  that  has  gone  on  for  the  past  15 
years,  will  the  Premier  explain  why,  even 
when  there  is  a  by-election  on,  the  govern- 
ment is  not  prepared  to  come  up  with  a  plan 
to  wipe  out  the  $500,000  deficit  currently 
being  experienced  by  the  Queensway-Carle- 
ton  Hospital  in  the  heart  of  the  riding  of 
Carleton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  delighted  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  is  at  long  last  taking  a 
modest  interest  in  his  own  general  area. 
Does  he  ever  get  back  there  except  during 
by-elections? 

I  say  to  the  honourable  member,  we  are 
solving  these  problems,  not  only  in  Ottawa- 
Carleton  but  also  right  across  the  province. 
Ottawa  has  not  been  at  the  bottom  end  of 
the  list.  In  terms  of  capital  allocation,  it  has 
done  remarkably  well.  I  just  wish  the  member 
had  been  with  me  at  the  opening  of  the  new 
hospital  the  other  day.  Why  did  he  not  come 
there  and  see  what  the  government  and  the 
people  of  that  community  provided— one  of 
the  first-rate  hospitals  in  North  America, 
right  there  in  the  Ottawa-Carleton  region. 
Why  was  he  not  there? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  are  other  places 
in  the  province  than  Ottawa-Carleton. 

SALES  TAX  ON  CARPETS 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  quiet, 
nonpartisan,  non-Ottawa  question  for  the 
Minister  of  Revenue.  Can  the  minister 
explain  to  the  House  why  carpets  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  list  of  household  items 
eligible  for  the  sales  tax  rebate  when  we 
have  two  major  carpet  producers  closing 
down  their  plants  in  Cornwall  and  Lindsay 
this  month  and  when  the  stated  purpose  of 
the  mini-budget  was  to  create  jobs  and 
stimulate  the  economy  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all, 
the  decision  as  to  what  would  and  what 
would  not  be  exempted  was  taken  by  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  and  not  by  the 
Minister  of  Revenue. 

I  understand  floor  coverings  of  any  type, 
including  floor  tile  and  even  hardwood  floor 
coverings,  were  not  included.  There  was  a 
limit  to  the  amount  of  dollars  the  province 
could  afford  in  this  program  and  that  was 
where  the  line  was  drawn. 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if  I 
might  redirect  that  question  to  the  Premier, 


since  the  minister  admits  he  was  not  part  of 
the  decision-making  process. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  these 
matters  of  course  are  determined  solely  by 
the  Treasurer;  there  is  a  great  history  and 
great  tradition  in  this  process.  I  am  sure 
there  are  honourable  members  opposite  who 
could  add  any  one  of  a  dozen  items  to  the 
list  of  exemptions.  The  decision  was  made 
not  to  include  floor  coverings  in  the  exemp- 
tions, based  on  the  amount  of  money  the 
Treasurer  felt  would  be  available  in  terms  of 
stimulation.  As  I  say  to  the  honourable 
member,  I  can  think  of  another  half  dozen  a 
lot  of  us  would  like  to  see  included,  but  one 
has  to  draw  a  line  somewhere  and  that  is 
where  the  line  was  drawn. 

3  p.m. 

BATA  STRIKE 

Mr.  O^Neil:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Can  the 
minister  bring  this  Legislature  up  to  date  on 
the  status  of  the  serious  strike  at  the  Bata 
shoe  company's  locations  at  both  Batawa  and 
Trenton,  and  can  he  report  on  events  that 
took  place  over  the  weekend  where  several 
people  were  injured,  some  with  concussions 
and  one  with  broken  bones,  and  tell  us  what 
action  is  being  taken  to  settle  this  strike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  mediators 
from  the  Ministry  of  Labour  met  with  the 
parties  in  mediation  on  October  22  and  again 
on  November  7.  They  have  been  in  constant 
contact  with  the  parties  and,  as  soon  as  there 
is  any  indication  given  to  them  that  there  is 
a  reason  to  gather  the  parties  together  again, 
they  will  do  it. 

As  to  events  that  took  place  over  the 
weekend,  I  have  no  information  about  them. 
The  honourable  member  may  wish  to  refer 
that  question  to  the  Attorney  General  (Mr. 
McMurtry)  when  he  arrives. 

WORKMEN'S   COMPENSATION 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Now 
that  the  Weiler  report  has  been  tabled  in 
the  Legislature,  can  the  minister  state  when 
he  expects  business  and  labour  to  respond 
and,  therefore  when  we  can  expect  retro- 
activity of  legislation  for  current  pensioners? 
When  will  the  increases  in  rates  occur  so 
that  inflation  is  compensated  for  to  all  in- 
jured workers   across   Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be 
tabling   that  report  shortly  today.    Members 


4384 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


have  copies  of  it  already.  I  have  drafted  a 
letter  to  be  sent  to  all  those  who  contributed 
briefs  or  who  contributed  in  any  other  way 
to  the  process,  as  well  as  to  a  variety  of 
representatives  from  business  and  from  la- 
bour. I  have  requested  responses  to  the 
briefs  by  the  end  of  December  so  that  I 
can  get  on  with  preparing  recommendations 
for  my  colleagues. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Can  the  minister  give  us 
a  clear  commitment  today  that  the  new 
legislation  he  is  planning  to  introduce  in 
the  near  future  will  cover  past  injured  work- 
ers who  are  currently  receiving  a  partial 
permanent  pension  and  those  who  are  re- 
ceiving  temporary   total   disability  benefits? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  can  tell  the  member 
that  as  soon  as  responses  are  in  to  the  re- 
port and  as  soon  as  I  present  recommenda- 
tions to  my  colleagues— I  have  already  asked 
Professor  Weiler  whether  he  will  review  in- 
terim and  transitional  arrangements  with  re- 
gard to  pensioners  who  are  on  existing  pen- 
sions—on the  basis  of  that  information,  the 
government  will   proceed. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  Minister  of  Labour 
whether  it  is  true  that  Mr.  Weiler  contacted 
all  the  interested  parties  in  the  province  be- 
fore he  made  his  report,  part  of  which  has 
been  tabled  here  in  the  House  with  the 
accompanying  sheet?  Why  does  the  minister 
feel  he  has  to  contact  these  people  all  over 
again  just  to  repeat  the  process? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the  mem- 
ber was  listening  to  me,  I  said  all  those  who 
were  interested  and  submitted  reports  or 
who  appeared  before  Mr.  Weiler  will  be 
receiving  a  letter  from  me,  along  with  a 
request  for  their  remarks.  In  addition,  docu- 
ments and  the  request  for  comments  will  go 
out  to  various  business  people,  various  trade 
union  movements  and  others  for  their  re- 
sponse. In  other  words,  there  should  be  a 
public  response,  and  I  want  that  response 
by  the  end  of  December. 

USE  OF  AMERICAN  DICTIONARIES 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Education.  Is  the 
minister  aware  that  approximately  1,000  stu- 
dents who  are  taking  correspondence  pro- 
grams in  this  province  are  being  issued 
American  dictionaries  and  that  this  is  creat- 
ing a  problem  with  Ontario  teachers,  who 
are  marking  their  assignments  and  expecting 
them    to    use    Canadian    spelling?    Does    the 


minister  approve  of  it  and,  if  not,  what  does 
she  intend  to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 
As  a  semanticist  whose  Bible  is  the  Oxford 
dictionary,  I  do  not  approve  of  American 
dictionaries,  nor  do  I  approve  of  the  Ameri- 
can spelling  of  a  number  of  Anglo-Saxon 
and  other  words.  I  shall  most  certainly  in- 
vestigate that. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Will  the  minister,  in  her 
investigation,  ask  her  officials  why,  when 
they  are  phoned  by  parents,  parents  are 
told  this  practice  began  in  1975,  they  plan 
to  continue  it  to  1983,  and  the  only  reason 
it  is  being  done  is  that  the  American  dic- 
tionary is  cheaper? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Yes.  That  is  inter- 
esting information. 

SCHOOL  FIRE 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Education.  Can 
the  minister  report  to  the  House  what 
measures  her  ministry  has  undertaken  to 
ensure  that  the  temporary  French-language 
high  school  in  Lafontaine  will  continue  to 
function  effectively  so  that  whatever  twisted 
bigot  or  sick  person  who  set  fire  to  the 
building  will  be  denied  the  satisfaction  of 
interrupting  the  students'  education? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
program  is  continuing  in  that  school  and 
will  continue  there  until  other  premises  are 
provided. 

Mr.  Samis:  Can  the  minister  give  the 
House  any  idea  when  those  students  will 
be  able  to  move  out  of  the  firetrap  in  La- 
fontaine and  into  a  decent  facility  in  Pene- 
tanguishene,  as  she  promised  last  spring, 
and  at  what  stage  will  she  personally  get 
involved  to  ensure  that  those  students  will 
be  in  a  new  facility  in  1981? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  First,  that  build- 
ing is  not  a  firetrap.  Second,  it  has  not  been 
condemned,  as  has  been  suggested  by  a 
number  of  members  in  the  House.  It  is  a 
building  that  has  not  been  used  by  the 
board  because  of  declining  enrolment.  How- 
ever, the  program  is  continuing  in  that 
facility  and  will  continue  until  the  problems 
related  to  the  provision  of  other  premises 
are  resolved,  in  which  I  have  already  been 
personally  involved. 

MASSEY-FERGUSON 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion   I   want   to    put   to   the   Premier  in   the 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4385 


continuing  absence  of  the  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman),  pertain- 
ing to  the  financial  situation  involving 
Massey-Ferguson  and  to  some  extent  the 
White   Motor  Corporation  in   Brantford. 

Is  the  Premier  aware  that  the  Canada 
Development  Corporation  has  announced 
that  it  will  not  be  taking  part  in  the  refi- 
nancing of  Massey-Ferguson?  Since  that  an- 
nouncement has  been  made,  does  he  know 
what  plans  the  government  of  Ontario,  in 
conjunction  with  the  government  of  Canada, 
has  to  see  that  the  refinancing  goes  forward, 
that  the  company  remains  afloat  and  that  the 
jobs  remain  viable? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  famil- 
iar with  some  of  the  discussions,  but  I  say 
to  the  member  that  we  are  keeping  in  con- 
stant touch  with  the  government  of  Canada. 
As  soon  as  we  have  anything  of  a  specific 
nature  that  is  proper  to  disclose  to  members 
of  the  House,  we  will  certainly  do  so,  but 
I  am  not  in  a  position  to  make  any  further 
comments  today. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Will  the  Premier  arrange  for 
either  himself  or  the  minister  to  make  a 
statement  on  this  matter  on  Thursday  and, 
if  possible,  to  make  a  statement  having  to 
do  with  the  situation  involving  White  Motor 
Corporation  as  well,  since  the  proposal  to 
buy  out  the  parent  corporation  in  the  United 
States  seems  to  be  hung  up  on  the  Foreign 
Investment  Review  Agency?  Really,  the 
people  involved  in  this  way  in  the  city  of 
Brantford  should  have  more  information 
than  they  are  getting. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  quite  prepared  to 
give  any  information  I  will  be  free  to  give 
on  Thursday.  I  do  not  want  to  give  an  under- 
taking, because  I  would  hate  to  have  the 
member  move  the  adjournment  of  the  House 
if  I  do  not  have  a  statement. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Is  the  Premier  aware  that  the  intended 
purchase  is  dependent  on  the  workers  taking 
a  $3-  to  $4-per-hour  cut  in  wages?  If  so,  will 
the  Premier  do  everything  possible  to  ensure 
thai  that  purchase  does  not  go  through,  using 
FIRA  if  necessary? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
really  is  unwise  to  debate  this  or  to  discuss  it 
here  in  the  House  based  on  either  rumour  or 
non-fact. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  It  is  fact. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  suggesting,  with  re- 
spect, that  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  say  any- 
thing further  to  the  House  at  this  moment 
than   I   have   already   said.    If  I   have   some 


further  information  to  share  on  Thursday,  I 
am  more  than  prepared  to  do  so. 

USE  OF  ASBESTOS  IN  SCHOOLS 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Why  has  the 
minister  not  ensured  that  the  health  and 
safety  branch  issue  automatically— it  has  not 
covered  the  whole  province  already— to  school 
boards  and  employee  groups,  when  they 
start  to  search  for  the  possible  asbestos  prob- 
lems in  schools,  all  the  procedures,  methods 
of  testing  and  proper  safety  procedures  which 
testing  people  should  use  when  they  are  do- 
ing those  inspection  processes,  which  were 
patently  not  available  to  either  the  school 
board  or  the  employee  groups  in  Windsor 
this  past  summer  when  they  went  about  their 
testing  procedures? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  mem- 
ber knows,  the  Ministry  of  Labour  did  pre- 
pare for  distribution  by  the  Ministry  of  Edu- 
cation a  detailed  documentation  about  identi- 
fication of  asbestos.  I  will  have  to  look  into 
the  other  aspect  of  it,  but  I  do  know  that  in 
the  Windsor  situation  that  particular  school 
board  did,  as  he  knows,  retain  a  physician  to 
advise  them  about  the  procedures. 

3:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  As  one  who  is  intimately 
involved  with  health  and  safety  inspection, 
would  the  minister  be  satisfied  if  six  or  seven 
school  boiler  rooms  were  inspected  and  found 
to  contain  some  asbestos  and  the  inspector 
then  said,  "If  these  are  the  types  of  boiler 
rooms  found  in  all  the  rest  of  the  schools,  I 
do  not  need'  to  see  any  more"?  Would  the 
minister  not  expect  that  any  inspector  or  con- 
sultant would  inspect  all  the  locations  in  all 
the  schools  in  the  area  concerned? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  The  member  well  knows 
that  in  the  Windsor  situation  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  did  have  an  inspector  visit  the  school 
involved.  Recommendations  were  made  and 
follow-ups  will  be  carried  out  to  see  whether 
those  recommendations  have  been  adopted. 

TOMATO  PROCESSING 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  assures  me  he  has  a  brief  answer  to 
a  question  asked  yesterday. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Yesterday,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, the  leader  of  the  third  party  asked  me  a 
question.  I  am  sorry  he  is  not  in  the  House, 
but  I  will  give  members  the  answer. 

In  Ontario,  the  production  of  tomatoes  from 
our    greenhouses   was   24   million   pounds   in 


4386 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  spring  crop.  The  fall  crop  was  only  two 
million  pounds.  The  fall  crop  is  available  only 
from  early  October  until  mid-November,  an 
insufficient  supply  to  fill  the  needs  of  the 
supermarket  chains.  They  are  sold  mostly 
through  the  small  stores. 

California  produced  an  excellent  crop  of 
large,  very  high-quality  tomatoes  this  fall.  It 
was  a  bumper  crop  and  they  moved  into  the 
Ontario  market  at  a  very  cheap  price— from 
25  to  40  cents  a  pound  in  Toronto— around 
the  beginning  of  November. 

Our  greenhouse  tomato  season  normally 
ends  in  mid-November.  In  view  of  the  high 
quality,  low  price  and  heavy  supplies  of  to- 
matoes from  the  United1  States,  the  green- 
house board  advised  Ontario  growers  to  re- 
move the  tail  end  of  their  crop  a  week  to  10 
days  early  to  save  costs  and  fuel.  Some 
growers  did;  others  are  trying  to  continue  to 
harvest  and  sell. 

Ontario  quality  normally  starts  to  drop  at 
this  time  of  the  year.  The  price  dropped  in  the 
past  two  weeks  from  50  cents  a  pound  to  less 
than  30  cents.  The  large  retailers  tend  not 
to  purchase  fall-crop  greenhouse  tomatoes  be- 
cause of  the  very  short  availability  period  of 
six  weeks.  The  inconsistency  or  lack  of  supply 
and  the  higher  price  are  due  to  energy  costs. 

In  the  past,  some  growers  sold  directly  to 
one  large  chain,  Dominion.  Once  the  chain 
converted  completely  to  central  warehousing, 
this  was  no  longer  possible.  The  chain  now 
tends  to  purchase  US  tomatoes  because  of 
the  price. 

Loblaws  seldom  buys  Ontario  greenhouse 
tomatoes,  especially  if  US  imports  are  lower 
in  price. 

At  present,  the  reason  for  not  purchasing 
is  the  low  quality  of  the  Ontario  greenhouse 
tomatoes.  The  quality  has  dropped  because 
it  is  the  end  of  the  season  and  the  heat  has 
been  cut  back. 

The  House  should  be  aware  that  the  normal 
acre  of  greenhouse  produces  about  $75,000 
worth  of  products  a  year.  If  they  continue 
producing  through  this  period,  it  costs  them 
about  half  that  for  energy  alone.  That  is  the 
reason  our  greenhouse  operators  cannot  com- 
pete. 

The  only  way  this  will  be  corrected  is  by  a 
form  of  embargo. 

I  have  a  short  letter  here,  Mr.  Speaker, 
from  one  of  the  chain  stores. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  can  table  it  or  make  it 
a  ministerial  statement.  I  wish  you  would 
emulate  the  precedent  established  by  the 
government  House  leader  (Mr.  Wells),  who 


gave  a  detailed  answer  by  way  of  a  minis- 
terial statement. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  can  the  minister 
explain  two  things  that  were  not  covered  in 
his  statement? 

In  the  first  place,  why  is  it  that  throughout 
the  Ontario  greenhouse  tomato  season  this 
fall,  Loblaws  in  Toronto  has  not  once  had 
those  green  house  tomatoes  available  even 
when  the  quality,  according  to  him,  was  bet- 
ter than  it  is  at  the  end  of  the  season? 

Second,  if  the  imported  tomatoes  are 
cheaper  to  the  supermarkets,  can  the  minister 
explain  why  none  of  the  benefit  is  being  felt 
by  the  consumers?  The  imports  are  being 
priced  at  the  same  price  as  the  Ontario  prod- 
uct, yielding  windfall  profits  to  the  super- 
markets and  no  benefits  to  the  consumers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  I  did  answer  the 
honourable  member's  question.  If  he  had 
listened  to  my  statement,  there  was  a  clear 
answer- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  apologized  for 
Loblaws.  That  is  what  he  did. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  There  are  no  apolo- 
gies in  this  statement  whatsoever.  Loblaws 
seldom  buy  Ontario  greenhouse  tomatoes, 
especially  if  US  imports  are  lower-priced.  I 
have  answered  the  question. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  again 
I  say  to  you  and  to  the  honourable  member 
that  the  greenhouse  tomatoes  in  Ontario 
were  withdrawn  at  the  request  of  the  pro- 
ducers' organization. 

NURSING  HOMES 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  regarding  nursing  homes  and 
their  inspection. 

Is  the  provincial  secretary  aware  that  in 
Ontario,  specifically  in  the  city  of  St.  Catha- 
rines, two  private  homes  have  denied  access 
to  a  five-member  public  institutions  inspec- 
tion panel,  which  replaces  the  old  grand  jury 
for  the  purpose  of  inspecting  these  facilities 
for  which  the  citizens  of  this  province  and 
the  Ministry  of  Health  pay  some  of  the  shot, 
in  the  form  of  Ontario  health  insurance  plan 
premiums,  for  those  who  are  in  there?  Is 
the  minister  aware  that  these  people  have 
been  denied  access  for  inspection  purposes 
and,  if  so,  what  action  is  she  prepared  to 
take  to  ensure  these  facilities  will  be  open  to 
inspection? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  aware  of  that.  I  think  the  question  should 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4387 


be  more  properly  addressed  to  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry). 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  direct  a 
supplementary  question  then  to  the  Provin- 
cial Secretary  for  Justice,  since  it  appears  to 
be  in  that  particular  field?  Will  the  Provin- 
cial Secretary  for  Justice  inform  the  House 
whether  it  is  his  view  that  these  nursing 
homes  and  rest  homes,  which  indirectly  are 
publicly  supported,  should  submit  themselves 
to  inspection  by  a  publicly  appointed  and 
provincially   sanctioned   inspection   panel? 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  certainly 
have  no  objection  to  seeing  the  public  insti- 
tutions inspection  panel  do  an  appropriate 
review  and  check  of  various  institutions,  in- 
cluding the  rest  homes.  I  have  no  doubt 
whatsoever  it  is  an  appropriate  step  to  ensure 
this  happens. 

I  will  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of 
the  aopropriate  minister  and  I  am  sure  he 
will  develop  a  policy  on  it,  if  there  is  not 
one  already. 

INVESTMENT    COMPANIES'    FAILURE 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.  Is  the  minister  pre- 
pared to  table  all  the  files  being  held  in  his 
ministry  and  its  component  agencies,  boards 
and  commissions  which  deal  with  Re-Mor 
Investment  Management  Corporation,  Astra 
Trust  Company  and  Mr.  Carlo  Montemurro 
so  that  members  of  the  assembly  finally  can 
be  privy  to  some  information  that  might 
explain  his  negligence  in  registering  Re-Mor 
and  permitting  it  to  rip  off  so  many  people 
in   the   province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  asked 
substantially  the  same  question  last  Thurs- 
day by  the  member  for  Kitchener  (Mr. 
Breithaupt).  I  had  wanted  that  member  to 
be  here  when  I  responded,  but,  since  some- 
body else  is  trying  to  get  on  his  coat-tails, 
I  will   give  that  answer  now. 

On  Thursday  last,  the  member  for  Kit- 
chener asked  me  to  inform  the  House  if 
at  the  time  of  the  Re-Mor  application  the 
registrar  of  mortgage  brokers  was  aware  of 
the  judge's  comments  and  the  evidence  ten- 
dered by  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission 
in  the  receivership  application  against  C 
and  M.  In  a  supplementary  question,  he 
asked  me  to  table  certain  documents. 

I  sought  advice  on  these  matters  from 
the  crown  law  office.  I  have  been  advised 
by  the  crown  law  office  that  the  matters 
raised  in  that  question  and  the  supplementary 


question  are  directly  in  issue  on  the  ongoing 
civil  litigation.  Anything  I  say  in  response 
to  the  questions  or  table  in  the  House  could 
prejudice  a  fair  trial  of  the  issue. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  honourable  minister 
saying  anything  of  that  nature  is  sub  judice? 

3:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  question 
that  was  asked  by  the  member  for  Kitchener, 
while  not  as  broad  in  scope  as  the  one  asked 
today,    dealt   particularly   with   the   file. 

I  repeat,  I  sought  advice  from  the  crown 
law  office  and  was  advised  that  the  matters 
raised  in  that  question  and  the  supplemen- 
tary question,  and  obviously  because  of  its 
scope  in  the  ensuing  question  by  someone 
else,  are  directly  at  issue  in  the  ongoing  civil 
litigation.  Anything  I  say  in  response  to 
the  questions  or  table  in  the  House,  and 
that  includes  the  file,  could  prejudice  a  fair 
trial  of  the  issues.  That  is  the  advice  I  re- 
ceived from  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  Will  the  Speaker  take  under  advise- 
ment the  statement  made  by  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  and 
decide,  for  the  purposes  of  the  rules  of  this 
House,  whether  the  matter  is  or  is  not  sub 
judice? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No,  I  cannot  undertake  to 
do  that,  because  I  do  not  know  what  is 
before  the  courts.  Of  my  own  knowledge, 
I  do  not  know  what  information  may  preju- 
dice the  case.  I  will  have  to  leave  that  to 
the  discretion  of  the  minister  or  the  person 
answering  the  question. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  point  of 
order:  It  would  seem  you  are  simply  accept- 
ing the  minister's  explanation  that  he  con- 
siders the  matter  sub  judice  as  sufficient  rea- 
son not  to  answer  the  question.  It  would  be 
sufficient  then  for  the  minister  simply  to  say 
he  refuses  to  answer  the  question  on  the 
basis  of  his  own  misgivings. 

I  bring  to  your  attention,  sir,  that  it  may 
well  be  this  matter  will  be  directed  to  one  of 
the  committees  for  review.  Frankly,  I  be- 
lieve it  should  be  and  will  be.  The  fact  that 
the  minister  is  refusing  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion surely  does  not  mean  the  whole  matter 
can  no  longer  be  discussed  by  this  House  or 
its  committees.  I  would  hope,  sir,  your  ruling 
would  not  in  any  way  indicate  the  matter 
should  not  be  discussed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  did  not  make  a  ruling. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  point 
of  order:  I  want  to  make  it  very  clear  that 


4388 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  minister  did  not  refuse.  He  gave  the 
member  the  information  and  advice  he  had 
received  from  the  law  officer  of  the  crown. 
That  is  what  he  said  on  that  basis. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can- 
not understand  any  reason  why  the  minister 
is  hiding  this  information  from  the  House, 
but  I  have  a  supplementary  question.  If  the 
minister  will  not  provide  the  House  with  this 
information  on  which  we  could  make  some 
judgements  and  have  some  understanding, 
will  he  tell  us  whether  he  is  aware  of  any 
activity  or  action  of  any  sort  undertaken  by 
Mr.  Carlo  Montemurro  that  would  lead  the 
minister  and  his  staff  to  believe  Mr.  Monte- 
murro could  have  been  expected  to  have  been 
financially  responsible  or  to  carry  on  his  busi- 
ness with  integrity  and  honesty  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  required  by  the  legislation  of 
the  Mortgage  Brokers  Act?  Can  he  provide  us 
with  a  single  example  of  such  an  action  or 
activity  by  Mr.  Montemurro  that  would  ex- 
cuse his  negligence  in  this  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
make  it  very  plain  that  I  am  not  hiding  any- 
thing. I  would  be  delighted  to  table  that  file, 
because  that  would  hit  it  right  out  of  the  ball 
park.  I  have  been  advised  by  the  crown  law 
office  that  I  cannot  table  that  file  or  answer 
those  questions  without  prejudicing  a  fair 
trial  on  the  issue.  That  was  not  my  judge- 
ment. I  sought  the  advice  of  the  Ministry  of 
the  Attorney  General.  That  was  the  advice  I 
received.  I  have  conveyed  that  to  the  House. 

As  far  as  the  question  of  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  is  concerned,  I  have  an- 
swered that  question  before. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Give  us  one  example. 

Mr.   S.   Smith:   By  way  of  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  No.  A  new  question. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  minister  is  saving  the  reason 
he  has  not  been  able  to  comply  with  the 
promise  he  made  to  table  certain  informa- 
tion is  the  advice  he  was  given  by  the  law 
officers  of  the  crown.  What  I  think  is  out  of 
order  is  that  we  in  the  opposition  are  left  in 
this  situation  with  no  way  of  taking  anything 
other  than  the  minister's  word.  For  instance, 
all  that  has  been  filed  is  a  notice  of  claim. 
There  is  no  civil  litigation;  there  is  only  a 
notice  of  claim  that  has  been  filed.  Therefore, 
at  the  very  least  we  ought  to  know  what  the 
basis  is  for  the  alleged  opinion  the  minister 
has  allegedly  received  from  the  law  officers 
of  the  crown  which  prevents  him  from  tabling 
the  information  he  promised  us. 


Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  sought  the 
advice  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General,  of  the  crown  law  office.  This  is  the 
advice  I  was  given.  I  am  conveying  it  to  the 
House. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Table  the  basis  of  the  report. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  It  is  right  here.  This  was 
the  advice.  If  the  honourable  member  wants 
another  report  from  the  crown  law  office,  I 
will  be  delighted  to  table  that. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  There  is  no  civil  litigation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  That  is  nonsense.  There 
is  a  statement  of  claim  and  everything  else. 

ACID  RAIN 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Premier.  In  view  of  the  un- 
believable tragedy  facing  this  province, 
based  on  a  report  that  some  2,000  to  4,000 
lakes  in  Ontario  will  disappear  because  of 
acid  rain,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
someone  has  to  take  the  responsibility  to 
call  a  crash  conference  of  all  adjacent  state 
governors,  along  with  US  President-elect, 
Mr.  Reagan,  I  think  it  is  on  the  Premier's 
shoulders  to  start  carrying  the  ball  immedi- 
ately and  to  contact  the  President-elect  and 
all  adjacent  state  governors  to  call  a  con- 
ference. We  are  the  main  province  affected. 

I  want  to  ask  the  Premier  why  he  cannot 
forget  all  this  nonsense  about  amending 
formulae  and  constitutional  reform  and  do 
something  that  is  relatively  important  to  us 
here  in  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
honourable  member  has  at  least  approached 
part  of  the  real  difficulty  here  that  perhaps 
was  not  highlighted  in  the  discussions  at 
the  press  conference  yesterday;  that  is,  a 
good  part  of  the  difficulty  exists  with  our 
neighbours  to  the  south. 

The  honourable  member  is  quite  right  in 
saying  that  the  states  bordering  the  Great 
Lakes  have  a  responsibility,  but  I  must  say 
to  him  that  I  believe  the  overriding  respon- 
sibility belongs  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States. 

In  assessing  some  of  the  information  from 
the  news  stories,  I  was  intrigued  by  the 
suggestion  that  some  of  the  American  elec- 
trical plants  were  operating  at  better  levels 
than  those  of  Ontario  Hydro.  The  facts  do 
not  support  that.  In  fact,  only  about  three 
per  cent  of  the  energy  facilities  or  utilities 
that  would  impact  upon  southern  Ontario 
have  that  kind  of  technology  available  to 
them. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4389 


I  think  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
has  been  talking  to  Mr.  Roberts  about  this. 
I  myself  have  raised  the  matter  with  the 
Prime  Minister  of  this  country,  and  I  hope 
that  one  of  the  very  early  priorities  for  Mr. 
Roberts  and  the  Prime  Minister  of  Canada 
when  Mr.  Reagan  assumes  office  will  be  to 
establish  immediately  some  form  of  contact, 
some  form  of  policy  development  whereby 
our  American  neighbours  will  move  with  the 
same  alacrity  and  will  join  in  solving  a 
problem  that  really  does  cross  the  border 
between  our  country  and  theirs. 

To  get  the  President-elect  committed  at 
this  stage  is  somewhat  premature.  But  cer- 
tainly, in  terms  of  getting  the  new  adminis- 
tration's involvement  and  commitment  to 
this,  that  is  something  this  government  will 
be  pursuing. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  say  respectfully  that  I  do 
not  think  it  is  up  to  the  Premier  to  pigeon- 
hole this  to  a  minister.  I  think  it  is  important 
that  the  first  minister  of  this  province  go  to 
bat,  put  the  thing  on  track,  put  the  Presi- 
dent-elect on  the  spot  and  get  the  thing 
in  motion  now,  rather  than  letting  someone 
else  pigeon-hole  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  remind  the  honourable 
member,  if  he  will  go  back  in  history  a 
little  bit  to  a  matter  that  was  the  same 
sort  of  issue  as  acid  rain,  that  he  will  find 
it  was  the  Premier  of  this  province  who  lit 
a  bit  of  a  fire  under  the  then  and  present 
Prime  Minister,  who  in  turn  had  some 
modest  success  with  the  President  of  the 
United  States  three  times  removed. 

If  the  member  will  recall,  the  Premier  of 
this  province  was  quite  directly  involved  with 
respect  to  the  water  quality  agreement  that 
was  executed  between  the  United  States  and 
Canada.  If  memory  serves  me  correctly— and 
the  honourable  member  may  check  this— in 
terms  of  Ontario's  performance  and  Canada's 
performance,  we  met  it  here  in  this  province. 

If  the  member  finds  out  in  his  research 
that  the  Nixon  administration  in  the  latter 
stages  of  its  activities  started,  because  of 
restraint  or  whatever,  to  diminish  its  com- 
mitment in  terms  of  water  quality,  that  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  commitment  of  this 
province.  So  we  were,  in  fact,  successful  in 
doing  it  on  that  occasion. 

3:30  p.m. 

PETITIONS 

HALTON  FINANCIAL  DEFICIT 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  peti- 
tion to  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 


ernor and  the  Legislative  Assembly  of 
Ontario  as  follows: 

"We,  the  undersigned,  request  that  a  com- 
mission of  inquiry  be  recommended  into  the 
administrative  and  fiscal  affairs  of  the 
regional  municipality  of  Halton  pursuant  to 
section  121  of  the  Regional  Municipalities  of 
Halton  Act." 

I  have  a  further  petition  to  the  Honour- 
able the  Lieutenant  Governor  and  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly  of  Ontario  as  follows: 

"We,  the  undersigned,  respectfully  petition 
the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  to 
issue  a  commission  of  inquiry  into  the  fiscal 
management  and  administrative  practices  of 
the  regional  municipality  of  Halton  arising 
out  of  the  deficit  of  $1.2  million  over  a  period 
of  two  years,  1978-80,  pursuant  to  section 
323(2)  of  the  Municipal  Act  of  Ontario." 

ANNUAL  REPORT, 

MINISTRY  OF  CONSUMER  AND 

COMMERCIAL  RELATIONS 

Mr.  Bradley:  Pursuant  to  standing  order 
33(b),  the  undersigned  members  of  the 
Legislature  hereby  petition  that  the  annual 
report  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  for  the  year  ending  March 
31,  1980,  tabled  in  the  Legislature  on  Oc- 
tober 6,  1980,  be  referred  to  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice  for 
immediate    and   urgent    consideration. 

REPORT 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
SOCIAL  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Gaunt  from  the  standing  committee 
on  social  development  presented  the  follow- 
ing report  and  moved  its  adoption: 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bill  without  amendment: 

Bill  167,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Chiropody 
Act. 

Report  adopted. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

MOTION 

PRIVATE  MEMBERS'  PUBLIC 
BUSINESS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved,  notwithstanding 
standing  order  63(d),  that  Mr.  Warner  and 
Mr.  Cooke  exchange  positions  in  the  order 
of  precedence. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


4390 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

MUNICIPAL  BOUNDARY 
NEGOTIATIONS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  197,  An  Act  to  facilitate  the  Negotiation 
and  Resolution  of  Municipal  Boundary  and 
Boundary-related  Issues. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

CITY  OF  TORONTO  ACT 

Mr.  Renwick  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
Pr44,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of  Toronto. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

GRADORE  MINES  LIMITED  ACT 

Mr.  Ramsay  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
Pr49,  An  Act  to  revive  Gradore  Mines 
Limited. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  198, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  provide  a  procedure  for  the 
Residential  Tenancy  Commission  to  review 
rent  increases  allowed  by  the  commission  for 
the  purpose  of  financing  major  repairs  by  the 
landlord.  If  the  commission  determines  that  a 
landlord  has  not  carried  out  the  repairs,  or 
that  the  cost  of  repairs  is  less  than  the  cost 
forecast  by  the  landlord,  the  commission  may 
order  a  reduction  in  the  rent  increase. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the  answers  to  the  following  questions 
standing  on  the  Notice  Paper:  384,  392  and 
395.  (See  appendix,  page  4411.) 

WRITTEN  QUESTIONS 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  point 
of  order  relating  to  question  No.  381  which 
was  tabled  on  October  28,  1980.  Standing 
order  81(d)  requires  the  minister  to  answer 
within  14  days.  Twenty-one  days  have  now 
passed  without  my  receiving  an  answer  to 
that  question.  Surely  there  should  be  some 
mechanism  to  impose  a  penalty  upon  minis- 


ters who  do  not  reply  to  written  questions 
as  required  by  standing  order. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  no  provisions  for 
any  penalties,  not  even  flogging  with  a  wet 
noodle.  The  minister  can  answer  in  any  way 
he  chooses.  It  is  probably  an  oversight.  I  am 
sure  the  government  House  leader  will  bring 
it  to  the  attention  of  the  minister  in  question. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

EDUCATION  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  82,  An  Act  to  amend 
the  Education  Act. 

On  section  1: 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wanted  to 
point  out  to  my  colleagues  just  how  impor- 
tant this  section  is  for  everything  else  we  will 
be  doing  during  the  course  of  the  afternoon 
and  for  however  long  the  debate  on  Bill  82 
takes.  I  refer  to  section  1(1),  the  definition  of 
"exceptional  pupil."  Much  of  the  rest  of  what 
we  do  this  afternoon  will  hinge  on  what  we 
are  doing  in  this  subsection. 

In  this  definition  section  we  are  conferring 
the  statutory  power  of  decision  upon  the 
placement  committee  of  the  local  board  of 
education.  We  are  saying  to  the  local  board 
of  education,  "We,  the  Legislative  Assembly 
of  Ontario,  are  delegating  the  power  upon 
you  to  decide  the  fate  of  the  students  within 
your  school  board.  We  are  giving  you  the 
power  to  decide  who  of  the  pupils  in  your 
school  system  are  exceptional  pupils  and  who 
are  not.  We  are  giving  you  the  power  to 
determine  which  students  within  the  school 
system  will  receive  special  education  program 
services  and  which  students  will  not." 

3:40  p.m. 

The  power  under  this  subsection  is  such 
that  the  local  placement  committee  of  a 
board  of  education  will  decide  who  is  an 
exceptional  pupil.  In  order  to  qualify  for 
special  education  programs  and  special  edu- 
cation services,  a  child  has  to  be  so  classi- 
fied as  an  exceptional  pupil.  If  a  child  is  not 
designated  an  exceptional  pupil,  that  child 
is  not  eligible  for  special  education  programs 
or  services.  So  we  are  giving  a  twofold  power 
to  the  local  placement  committee,  first,  the 
power  to  decide  who  is  an  exceptional  pupil, 
that  is,  who  is  eligible  for  the  benefits  and 
programs;  and  second,  the  power  to  decide 
what  kind  of  benefits  and  programs  the  chil- 
dren will  receive,  where  a  particular  student 
will  go  and  what  particular  program  and  ser- 
vices he  or  she  will  receive. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4391 


I  wanted  to  stress  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  to 
you,  to  the  minister  and  to  my  colleagues  in 
the  Liberal  Party  because  at  this  time  we  are 
dealing  with  an  amended  bill  which  provides 
a  means  of  appeal  against  the  decision-making 
power  of  the  local  placement  committee  of  a 
local  board  of  education.  None  of  the  amend- 
ments that  have  been  introduced  either  by 
the  Minister  of  Education  or  by  the  Liberal 
Party  speaks  to  the  need  to  have  an  appeal 
system  with  respect  to  those  two  statutory 
powers  of  decision:  the  power  of  the  local 
board  to  decide  who  is  and1  who  is  not  an 
exceptional  pupil,  and,  following  upon  that 
decision,  what  kind  of  special  education  pro- 
grams and  services  the  child  will  receive. 

If  we  are  to  be  faithful  to  the  principles  of 
the  McRuer  report,  written  in  the  1960s,  we, 
as  a  Legislature,  will  enshrine  in  this  statute 
a  means  of  appeal  against  that  particular 
statutory  power  of  decision.  We  will  get  to 
that  in  the  fullness  of  time  and  we  will  de- 
bate what  the  appeal  process  ought  to  look 
like  when  we  get  to  section  7.  But  it  is 
section  1(1),  clause  20a,  which  vests  this 
enormous  power  to  determine  life  and  death 
decisions  in  terms  of  access  to  educational 
services. 

At  this  time,  we  have  put  an  appeal  pro- 
cedure into  the  bill  and  others  are  trying  to 
take  it  out.  I  want  to  argue  over  the  course 
of  this  debate  as  strenuously  as  I  possibly 
can  that  we  have  an  obligation,  if  we  are 
going  to  confer  those  kinds  of  powers  on 
somebody  else  to  make  such  fundamentally 
important  decisions  about  the  lives  of  the 
children  of  this  province,  to  provide  an  appeal 
against  those  decisions. 

There  should  be  a  chance  for  a  second  look 
at  what  a  local  board  of  education  and  what 
a  local  placement  committee  has  in  its  wis- 
dom decided.  Unless  we  put  that  right  of 
appeal  in,  first,  with  respect  to  the  designa- 
tion of  exceptional  pupils  and,  second,  with 
respect  to  the  adequacy  of  a  special  educa- 
tion service  and  program,  we  are  betraying 
the  needs  and  aspirations  of  many  thousands 
of  people  in  this  province. 

I  believe  that  very  deeply.  There  have 
been  many  hundreds  of  people  who  have 
communicated  that  feeling  to  us  as  members 
of  the  assembly  over  the  course  of  the  last 
month.  I  would  start  this  debate  by  making 
an  appeal  to  the  other  two  parties  to  come 
to  grips  with  the  challenge  posed  to  us 
through  the  delegation  of  these  important 
statutory  powers  to  the  local  placement 
committees. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  speak  very  briefly  to  what  has  just 


been  said.  I  would  draw  the  committee's 
attention  to  one  sentence  in  the  opening 
statement  of  the  minister  on  May  23  of  this 
year.  She  said:  "But  until  today  it  cannot 
be  said  that  the  law  clearly  and  unequiv- 
ocally obliged  the  publicly  supported  system 
to  provide  appropriate  forms  of  education 
for  all  students  who  could  potentially  bene- 
fit. Today's  bill  closes  the  small  gap,"  and 
it  goes  on. 

I  want  to  start  from  that  point  by  making 
the  observations  I  agree  with  what  has  been 
said  in  that.  The  law  until  today  did  not, 
and  the  law  at  the  present  time  does  not, 
guarantee  every  student  in  this  province  the 
land  of  education  he  or  she  needs. 

The  second  point  I  would  make  is  that 
since  May  of  last  year  we  have  come  a  long 
way.  The  minister  will  recall  that  one  of  the 
first  and  most  critical  comments  made  to  her 
by  a  number  of  members,  particularly  on 
this  side  of  the  House,  was  the  need  for  an 
appeal  mechanism  because  the  original 
version  of  the  bill,  as  presented  to  us,  did 
not  have  what  we  deemed  to  be  an  adequate 
appeal  mechanism. 

There  have  been  a  number  of  amend- 
ments presented  which  gradually  and  slowly 
have  closed  the  gap  between  what  was 
offered  and  what  is  deemed  to  be  needed.  It 
will  be  my  intention  today  to  try  to  close 
that  gap  a  little  further.  I  would  accept  the 
premise  the  minister  has  come  a  long  way, 
but  the  way  that  still  needs  to  be  gone 
though  small,  is  critically  important.  It  is 
on  that  point  I  want  to  indicate  to  the  min- 
ister as  clearly  as  I  can  that  I  will  be 
making  amendments   to  her  amendments. 

fWe  have  come  a  long  way  with  respect  to 
the  principle  of  exclusion.  In  the  original 
legislation  it  was  made  clear  that  in  our 
judgement  there  was  no  place  in  this  kind 
of  statute,  in  this  kind  of  legislative  pro- 
vision, for  an  exclusion  principle.  We  have 
once  again  gradually,  slowly  but  effectively, 
closed  the  door.  We  have  just  a  narrow 
little  crack  there  that  still  has  to  be  closed 
with  respect  to  whether  potentially  in  prac- 
tice, although  not  in  word,  there  may  be  an 
exclusion  principle  still  in  this  bill.  We  are 
going  to  speak  to  that  in  terms  of  the  defi- 
nition of  a  special  education  program  and 
when  we  come  to  some  other  definition 
sections  in  this  bill. 

I  would  also  draw  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister  and  my  colleagues  something  which 
is  well-known  to  many  of  them,  that  there 
is  a  strong  difference  of  opinion  outside  this 
House  as  to  how  we  should  deal  with  legis- 


4392 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


lation  like  this.  Many  of  the  school  boards 
and  some  of  the  teachers'  federations  of  the 
province  are  concerned  that  the  bill,  as 
at  present  written,  is  too  rigid  and  could 
lead  to  complicating  problems  which  would 
mean  the  services  that  children  should  have 
will  not  be  received  by  them.  That  is  one 
side. 

The  other  side  is  contacts  from  many 
parents  of  children  who  have  already  experi- 
enced some  rather  negative  effects  of  the 
special  education  services  that  are  offered  in 
this  province  at  the  present  time.  They  want, 
and  it  is  understandable  they  would  want,  a 
bill  that  is  as  tight,  as  restricted  and  as  rigid 
as  possible  so  there  will  be  no  loopholes.  Our 
job  surely  is  to  try  to  balance  these  two.  That 
will  be  part  of  the  attempt  I  will  speak  to 
as  we  deal  with  the  various  sections  of  the 
bill. 

Finally,  I  would  draw  particularly  to  the 
minister's  attention  that,  if  we  had  in  place 
in  Ontario  now  sufficient  facilities  to  meet 
the  greatly  varying  needs  of  many  of  our 
children  who  have  special  needs,  we  would 
not  be  dealing  with  many  of  the  problems 
in  this  legislation.  All  we  would  have  to  do 
then  is  decide  who  was  going  to  pay  for  it 
and  which  one  of  those  facilities  the  chil- 
dren were  going  to  go  to.  That  would  be  the 
only  decision  open  to  us.  It  would  be  the 
only  decision  over  which  we  would  have  to 
spend  much  time.  The  unfortunate  fact  is  that 
the  need  for  this  legislation  is  that  for  the 
past  decade  and  beyond  we  have  not  had  a 
sufficient  number  of  qualified  teachers  to  meet 
the  greatly  varied  needs  of  the  special  edu- 
cation pupils  in  this  province.  We  have  to 
begin  to  move  on  that.  It  is  certainly  the 
purpose  of  this  legislation  and  it  is  a  goal  I 
endorse. 
3:50  p.m. 

The  best  information  I  have  is  that  there 
are  between  80,000  and  100,000  students  in 
this  province  who  still  need  special  education. 
They  still  need  the  kind  of  attention  they 
have  not  been  getting  for  the  past  number 
of  years  and  probably  will  not  get  if  we  do 
not  do  an  adequate  job  with  this  legislation. 
It  is  those  children,  who  have  been  identi- 
fied by  their  parents  and  in  many  cases  by 
the  school  boards  that  are  now  responsible 
for  them,  whose  needs  we  have  to  meet.  We 
also  have  to  recognize  the  kind  of  experi- 
ences that  parents  and  children  in  this  prov- 
ince have  undergone.  I  recognize  we  cannot 
be  omnipotent  here,  but  we  must  produce  a 
piece  of  legislation  that  is  most  likely  to  meet 
the  needs  of  every  single  child  in  this  prov- 
ince who  has  a  special  need. 


I  would  certainly  hope  that  in  the  process 
of  doing  that  we  can  put  aside  some  of  our 
own  personal  ambitions  in  dealing  with  this— 
let  me  put  it  that  way— and  I  am  speaking 
for  myself  as  well  as  anyone  else  in  this 
Legislature.  I  hope  we  will  keep  in  mind 
the  only  ones  we  are  here  to  serve  are  the 
children  who  have  special  needs  and  the 
parents  of  those  children  who  are  trying  des- 
perately to  do  the  best  they  can  to  meet  the 
needs  of  their  children  across  this  province. 

In  that  light  I  am  willing  to  work  with  the 
minister  and  with  my  colleagues  in  the  New 
Democratic  Party  to  produce  the  best  piece  of 
legislation  we  can. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 
bill  has  had  a  long  and  interesting  history. 
I  believe  it  was  approximately  seven  years 
ago  that  work  was  begun  on  trie  drafting  of 
what  might  be  considered  legislation  in  order 
to  ensure  that  all  the  exceptional  children  in 
this  province  would  receive  the  benefit  of 
an  educational  program  designed  to  help  them 
meet  their  full  potential. 

In  January  1979,  we  had  completed  the 
draft  of  proposed  legislation  that  was  widely 
distributed  throughout  the  province  to  all 
the  parent  interest  groups,  the  special  educa- 
tion interest  groups  and  the  educational  com- 
munity interest  groups  in  order  to  achieve 
their  reactions.  We  received  those  reactions 
in  comprehensive  form,  in  brief  form  and  in 
verbal  form.  All  of  those  reactions  were  col- 
lated and  brought  together  and  the  draft  pro- 
posals were  modified  in  order  to  accommodate 
the  concerns  that  were  expressed.  We  car- 
ried on  with  the  help  of  an  advisory  council 
on  special  education  that  has  been  in  exist- 
ence now  for  at  least  three  years  and  that  has 
diligently  addressed  itself  to  the  problem 
of  legislation  in  this  area  and  with  the  assist- 
ance of  a  multipartite  committee  made  up 
of  representatives  of  the  school  system  itself— 
trustees,  education  administration  officers  and 
teachers.  We  went  through  the  procedure  of 
making  the  modifications  to  the  draft  legis- 
lation that  culminated  in  Bill  82. 

In  all  of  this,  the  motivating  force  was  the 
concern  to  provide  an  educational  program 
for  children.  We  have  had  no  other  goal  in 
mind.  That  goal  remains  dominant  today. 
However,  in  this  province  the  structure  of 
education  is  such  that  one  must  rely  upon  the 
goodwill,  the  co-operation  and  the  thoughtful 
input  of  not  just  parents  and  those  who  are 
concerned  about  the  children.  I  refer  also  to 
those  who  were  given  the  responsibility  under 
legislation  for  designing  programs,  for  looking 
after  children's  educational  needs,  for  deliver- 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4393 


ing  educational1  programs  and  for  providing 
the  facilities  in  which  that  occurs. 

No  bill  can  hope  to  be  successful  in  this 
very  sensitive  area  unless  that  kind  of  co- 
operation, that  kind  of  concern  and  that  kind 
of  support  are  forthcoming  from  the  educa- 
tional community.  Therefore,  I  welcome  the 
remarks  of  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Kitchener- Wilmot  (Mr.  Sweeney)  that  a  bal- 
ance must  be  struck.  And  that  balance  must 
be  struck  in  favour  of  the  children.  We  must 
ensure  that  the  program  is  made  available  to 
the  children;  that  those  children  with  needs 
who  are  designated  exceptional  receive  that 
program;  that  there  are  methods  of  monitor- 
ing and  methods  of  ensuring  that  program  is 
being  delivered;  and  that  those  children  are 
being  assessed. 

In  the  hearings  of  the  committee,  the  opin- 
ions which  were  expressed  provided  an  excel- 
lent range  of  background  information  for  all 
members  of  the  committee  to  examine  the 
bill  and  to  make  modifications  to  it.  During 
those  hearings  and  clause-by-clause  examina- 
tion, several  modifications,  which  are  entirely 
acceptable,  were  made.  There  were,  however, 
two  that  were  made  that  produced  a  reaction 
within  a  very  wide-ranging  group  within  our 
society  which  I  think  we  cannot  afford  to 
overlook. 

There  were  amendments  related  to  section 
1  which  I  believe  now  are  probably  appropri- 
ate. I  am  perfectly  willing  at  this  point  to 
withdraw  the  amendments  which  I  was  pro- 
posing to  that  amendment  and  I  would  leave 
section  1(1)  as  it  is  in  the  bill. 

In  certain  other  areas  of  the  bill,  concerns 
have  been  expressed  by  people  who  have  a 
great  deal  of  knowledge,  a  great  deal  of  ex- 
perience and  a  good  deal  of  concern  about 
the  provision  of  programs  for  exceptional 
children.  One  of  these  was  an  unsolicited 
letter  received  from  Dr.  Frederick  Weintraub 
who  was  the  prime  mover  of  Bill  94-142  in 
the  United  States,  a  bill  which  has  had  some 
effect  upon  the  thinking  of  not  only  those 
who  are  proponents  of  the  amendments  which 
the  opposition  party  supported,  but  also  those 
who  are  opposed  to  those  amendments. 

I  should  like  this  House  to  know  what  Dr. 
Weintraub  has  suggested  in  specific  areas  re- 
lated to  those  amendments.  Dr.  Weintraub 
expressed  some  very  real  concern  about  an 
excessive  concentration  upon  the  development 
of  what  is  called  in  the  United  States  an  indi- 
vidual educational  plan  which  must  be  filed 
in  that  country  and  must  be  perused  on  a 
regular  basis.  His  concern  is  based  upon  the 
fact  that  he  believes  IEPs,  as  he  calls  them, 


have  become  instructional  tools,  with  teachers 
spending  an  inordinate  amount  of  time  doing 
clerical  and  paperwork,  rather  than  devoting 
their  time  to  the  role  they  fill  best,  which  is 
teaching.  He  has  suggested  very  strongly  that 
we  not  move  in  that  direction. 

In  addition  to  that,  he  has  suggested  that 
we  are  wrong,  or  at  least  erroneous  or  per- 
haps misguided,  in  attempting  to  introduce 
into  a  piece  of  legislation  the  statement  that 
we  would  be  designing  a  plan  that  "meets  the 
needs,"  of  exceptional  pupils  because  he  feels 
very  strongly  that  the  appropriate  phrase 
should  be  "designed  to  meet  the  needs." 
From  his  experience,  he  suggests  that  the 
needs  of  exceptional  pupils  are  extremely 
difficult  to  define  in  the  light  of  our  current, 
somewhat  circumscribed  knowledge;  that  as 
we  advance  in  our  knowledge  we  shall  be 
able  to  do  that  better,  but  at  the  present  time 
we  are  suggesting,  through  that  kind  of  word- 
ing, that  we  shall  be  able  to  do  something  he 
does  not  believe  we  can  do. 

This  is  a  man  who  has  had  a  tremendous 
amount  of  experience  in  this  area.  He  was 
the  prime  mover  of  the  legislation  in  the 
United  States  and  actually  shepherded  it 
through  the  legislative  process  there.  He  feels 
very  strongly  that  the  failure  to  meet  the 
needs  may  be  in  a  number  of  areas  which 
have  nothing  to  do  with  education.  He  sug- 
gests very  strongly  that  the  educators  should 
deal  with  education  rather  than  with  other 
matters. 
4  p.m. 

He  is  concerned  about  our  use  of  the  word 
"appropriate."  While  I  share  that  concern,  I 
also  understand  the  concern  of  parents  in  this 
area  and  feel  it  is  probably  better  to  leave 
that  kind  of  definition  in  the  legislation  than 
to  remove  it  because  it  gives  us  a  goal  to- 
wards which  we  can  work  with  the  co-opera- 
tion and  the  support,  I  hope,  of  all  of  those 
who  will  be  responsible  for  delivering  pro- 
gramming. 

Dr.  Weintraub  was  particularly  concerned 
about  the  establishment  of  what  was  called 
in  the  amendment  Ontario's  special  educa- 
tion board.  He  recognized,  appreciated  and 
agreed  with  the  need  for  parents  to  be  able 
to  appeal  the  decisions  of  placement  com- 
mittees and  suggested  this  should  be  done,  as 
we  have  attempted  to  do.  He  felt  very 
strongly,  however,  that  one  could  not,  on  the 
one  hand,  hold  education  officials  account- 
able and  responsible  for  the  education  of 
exceptional  children  and,  at  the  same  time, 
remove  from  those  individuals  the  total  re- 
sponsibility for  decision-making  in  that  area. 


4394 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


He  felt  we  should1  modify  very  dramatically 
the  structure  and  function  of  that  board  as  it 
was  defined  in  the  amendments.  We  have 
attempted  to  do  that. 

He  also  suggested  it  was  not  reasonable  at 
all  to  anticipate  that  a  board  such  as  that 
would  be  able  to  devote  the  time  that  would 
be  necessary  to  handle  the  appeals.  He  sug- 
gested it  would  be  important  to  recognize 
that  if  we  moved  in  that  direction  we  would 
probably  be  establishing  another  major  bu- 
reaucracy with  perhaps  the  experience  they 
have  had  in  the  United  States  that  this  con- 
sumes not  just  a  great  deal  of  time  and 
effort  but  much  of  the  cerebral  activity  of 
those  who  should  be  using  that  power  in 
other  directions  on  behalf  of  children. 

In  addition  to  that,  we  have  received  com- 
munications from  the  Council  for  Exceptional 
Children  in  this  province,  which  very  strongly 
disapproved  of  those  amendments  but  which, 
having  had  in  a  small  group  an  opportunity 
to  look  at  the  amendments  which  we  had 
proposed  related  to  section  34,  suggested  it 
could  support  the  amendments  which  we 
were  suggesting. 

We  have  had  tremendous  communication 
from  a  number  of  areas  within  and  outside  of 
the  educational  svstem,  expressing  support 
for  the  concent  of  Bill  82,  expressing  very 
real  concern  about  some  of  the  portions  with- 
in that  bill  and  asking  us  to  move  in  the 
direction  of  ensuring  that  the  bill  does  what 
we  had  suggested  earlier  in  all  of  this  pro- 
cedure, that  is,  meet  the  needs  of  children 
without  exposing  the  children,  the  system 
and  the  educational  program  unduly  to  a 
litigation  process  that  would  be  both  time- 
consuming  and  destructive.  We  have  tried  to 
take  into  account  all  of  the  expressions  of 
concern  which  we  have  heard  from  all  sides. 
We  have  provided  some  amendments  which  I 
think  are  reasonable  and  meet  the  require- 
ments. 

I  would  remind  the  members  that  in 
committee  the  member  for  Mississauga  South 
(Mr.  Kennedy),  who  was  representing  me 
on  a  day  I  could  not  be  present,  introduced 
an  amendment  which  ensures  that  the  min- 
ister has  responsibility  for  establishing  an 
appeal  mechanism  in  respect  of  placements 
of  exceptional  pupils  and  would  be  respon- 
sible for  procedures  with  respect  to  parents' 
and  guardians'  participation  in  that.  Those 
regulations  are  in  the  process  of  being  drafted 
at  this  point  to  ensure  there  will  at  the  time 
of  designation,  initial  placement  and  further 
placement  be  a  time,  a  place  and  the  appro- 
priate   kind    of    participation    on    behalf    of 


parents  or  guardians  in  support  of  the 
students  for  which  they  have  concern  and 
responsibility. 

No  one  recognizes  more  than  I,  as  a 
parent  who  has  had  personal  experience  in 
this  area,  that  the  responsibility  of  the 
province  and  government  of  Ontario  is  to 
try  to  ensure  that  all  exceptional  pupils  will 
be  well  served  in  this  province.  That  was  the 
purpose  of  the  legislation.  In  our  consulta- 
tions, when  we  discovered  there  were  limita- 
tions within  our  capabilities  at  this  point, 
we  accepted  the  requirement  that  this  need- 
ed to  be  a  phase-in  program.  The  first  and 
most  important  phase  of  that  program  is 
being  carried  out  right  now. 

It  was  begun  on  September  11.  1980, 
with  the  inauguration  of  pilot  projects  in 
the  21  participating  boards.  The  initiating 
teams  and  the  implementation  teams  func- 
tioned in  conjunction  with  those  boards  in 
making  an  acute,  critical  and  careful  assess- 
ment of  all  the  requirements  and  needs  of 
exceptional  pupils  in  those  jurisdictions,  an 
assessment  of  all  the  resources  available 
and  an  estimate,  as  accurate  as  possible,  of 
the  resources  necessary  to  provide  the  full 
range  of  special  education  programs  in 
support  of  these  children. 

Probably  by  the  end  of  the  third  year  of 
the  phase-in  program  this  jurisdiction  will 
have  more  accurate  information  about  the 
requirements  and  the  services  which  need  to 
be  provided  for  exceptional  children  than 
anv  other  jurisdiction  on  this  planet.  I 
believe  that  is  a  goal  for  which  we  should 
strive  diligently. 

We  know  at  this  point  our  knowledge  is 
circumscribed  and  that  we  are  not,  as  my 
friend  from  Kitchener-Wilmot  (Mr.  Sweeney) 
suggested,  either  omnipotent  or  omniscient. 
Thus  we  feel  we  must  at  this  time  introduce 
legislation  which  provides  us  with  oppor- 
tunity to  meet  the  requirements  as  carefully 
as  we  can  and  which  also  gives  us  the 
chance  to  modify  those  requirements  as  our 
knowledge  increases  and  as  we  become 
more  experienced  in  the  totality  of  ensuring 
educational  programs  for  all  exceptional 
children. 

I  believe  the  bill  we  introduced,  the 
amendments  which  we  have  accepted  and 
those  amendments  which  we  are  proposing 
today  will  allow  us  to  move  in  that  direc- 
tion responsibly  in  order  to  ensure  that  our 
children  are  well  served  in  the  province.  I 
would  ask  that  the  members  of  this  House 
consider  seriously  the  amendments  we  have 
provided  today  and  the  objective  we  are  at- 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4395 


tempting  to  meet  and  support  us  in  that 
activity  which  will  allow  this  legislation  to 
pass  as  we  propose  to  amend  it. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  want  to  be  sure  I 
understood  the  minister,  Mr.  Chairman.  The 
minister  will  not  foe  proceeding  with  her 
amendment  to  section  1(1).  Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman, 
given  the  concern  which  had  foeen  expressed 
about  the  amendment  we  had  proposed,  I 
suggested  we  will  agree  to  accept  the  amend- 
ment that  was  accepted  in  committee.  There- 
fore, we  will  not  propose  an  amendment 
to  section  1(1). 

Mr.  McClellan:  That's  certainly  fine  with 
us.  We  are  quite  comfortable,  as  in  so  much 
else,  with  the  language  of  the  bill  as  it 
reads  now. 

I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  one  other 
question.  It  is  my  understanding  that  there 
may  be  some  additional  amendments  coming 
from  the  minister.  If  there  are,  perhaps  the 
minister  could  share  those  or,  if  not,  indicate 
to  us  that  we  have  the  complete  package  of 
ministerial  amendments  with  us  now. 

Mr.  Chairman:  This  might  be  the  appro- 
priate time  to  remind  the  members  of  the 
committee  of  standing  order  58:  "When  time 
permits,  amendments  proposed  to  be  moved 
to  bills  in  any  committee  shall  be  filed  with 
the  Clerk  of  the  House  at  least  two  hours 
before  the  bill  is  to  be  considered  and  copies 
of  such  proposed  amendments  shall  be  dis- 
tributed to  all  parties." 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  be- 
lieve our  amendments  were  filed  with  the 
Clerk  of  the  House  and  were  distributed.  Is 
that  not  so?  I'm  sorry,  that  commitment  was 
made  this  morning.  Do  the  members  not  have 
them? 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  believe  the  table  received 
amendments  from  two  members  of  the  com- 
mittee just  as  we  were  starting  the  bill,  but 
that  is  all  that  has  been  received.  The  min- 
ister's amendments  have  now  been  received 
here. 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  are  in  something  of  a 
difficult  situation.  We  can't  really  proceed 
until  we  have  the  complete  package  of 
amendments  from  the  Minister  of  Education. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
complete  package  of  amendments,  save  for 
one  paragraph,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  two 
critics  for  the  past  72  hours,  as  a  matter  of 
fact.  But  there  is  one  paragraph  of  adden- 
dum which  I  had  notified  at  least  the  critic  for 
the  NDP  about,  and  I  believe  the  member  for 


Kitchener-Wilmot    (Mr.    Sweeney)    also    has 
them. 

4:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  will  ask  the  question 
again.  Are  there  any  comments,  questions  or 
amendments  to  section  1  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  Warner:  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  Before  I 
begin,  while  the  critic  may  have  received  the 
amendments,  I  would  assume  that  properly 
they  should  be  tabled  with  the  clerk  before 
we  can  proceed  to  any  other  amendments. 

I  have  some  concerns  about  the  definition 
section.  I  am  certainly  pleased  to  learn  that 
the  minister  has  agreed  to  withdraw  a  previ- 
ously considered  amendment  which  she  had. 
It  indicates  a  good  spirit  with  which  to  be- 
gin the  deliberations  of  this  afternoon  and 
possibly  this  evening  in  an  attempt  to  come 
through  with  an  extremely  important  piece 
of  legislation. 

I  start  from  the  premise  that  our  educa- 
tional system  should  be  designed  in  such  a 
way  as  to  meet  the  individual  educational 
need  of  each  student;  that  is  a  goal.  As  the 
minister  knows,  for  far  too  long  that  goal  has 
not  been  realized.  In  fact,  over  the  past  too 
many  years,  there  has  not  been  the  kind  of 
dedicated  effort  from  this  government  which 
is  needed.  We  need  only  remind  ourselves, 
with  respect  to  children  with  learning  dis- 
abilities, a  number  of  years  ago  the  mentally 
retarded  children  and  the  parents  of  those 
children  had  a  terrible  time  when  attempting 
to  get  proper  education  for  their  children— 
the  kind  of  educational  program  that  would 
meet  the  needs  of  that  child.  We  have  a  long 
way  to  go. 

The  progressive  amendments  that  were 
spearheaded  by  the  member  for  Bellwoods 
(Mr.  McClellan)  go  a  long  way  to  assist. 
Where  the  minister  has  indicated  a  spirit  of 
co-operation  in  taking  a  second  or  third  look 
at  Bill  82  and  in  trying  to  come  up  with 
something  which  will  be  agreeable  to  all— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  would  be  more 
appropriate  to  say  a  102nd  or  a  103rd  look. 

Mr.  Warner:  Several  looks.  That  is  certainly 
welcome.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind,  as 
the  minister  is  certainly  aware,  that  there 
are  a  lot  of  parents  in  this  province  who  are 
a  bit  nervous  about  whether  or  not  they  will 
have  a  direct  voice  in  the  educational  future 
of  their  children. 

,Like  other  members,  I  have  had  phone 
calls  within  the  last  few  days  from  parents 
and  educators  who  are  anxious  to  know  what 
is  happening.  I  have  some  specific  concerns, 
one  of  which  touches  on  the  definition  itself. 


4396 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


In  our  area,  as  the  minister  may  be  aware, 
we  have  a  program  for  gifted  children.  The 
Scarborough  Board  of  Education  started  it 
a  while  ago,  and  that  program  is  running  very 
smoothly  and  nicely.  I  think  it  is  doing  a 
first-rate  job  in  meeting  the  needs  of  those 
children  who  are  classified  as  gifted. 

The  concern  raised  to  me— and  this  is  why 
I  raise  it  with  the  minister— is  whether  or  not 
the  definition,  particularly  as  indicated  on 
page  1,  under  62(a),  would  ensure  that  a  pro- 
gram for  gifted  children  is  included  in  the 
definition  and  could  not  in  any  way  be  ex- 
cluded. While  it  may  not  be  ultimately  of 
any  consequence  for  the  Scarborough  Board 
of  Education,  since  it  has  already  made  a 
commitment  to  run  such  a  program  and  to 
continue  such  a  program,  I  raise  it  because 
there  may  be  other  boards  that  do  not  have 
such  a  program.  I  want  to  be  assured  that  the 
parents  in  that  area  could  then  very  logically 
and  reasonably  approach  the  board  and  ask 
it  to  begin  such  a  program.  That  is  why  I  am 
wondering  whether  gifted  children  would  be 
included  in  that  definition. 

I  also  want  to  be  assured  that  children  with 
learning  disabilities  are  included  in  that 
definition  because,  as  the  minister  knows,  the 
fight  on  behalf  of  those  children  against  this 
government  has  gone  on  far  too  long.  Like 
other  members,  I  do  not  believe  I  should 
have  to  fight  on  a  regular  basis  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  in  order  to  get  children  who 
live  in  my  riding  the  appropriate  course  here 
in  Ontario,  nor  do  I  think  that  in  19S0  chil- 
dren should  have  to  attend  schools  outside 
of  the  province  or  outside  of  the  country. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Have  you  read  the 
bill?  That  is  what  it  is  about. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  have  read  the  bill  and  I  do 
not  want  any  loopholes  left.  With  respect,  I 
would  like  a  commitment  that  children  with 
learning  disabilities  and  gifted  children  can- 
not in  any  way  be  excluded  from  the  defini- 
tion. In  my  experience,  definition  sections  of 
bills  are  extremely  important.  They  can  be 
the  loophole  under  which  a  board  or  any 
other  authority  can  say,  "It  does  not  fit  the 
definition.  I  am  sorry,  you  lose."  Those  two 
particular  areas  are  a  deep  concern  to  me. 

The  minister  has  shown  a  spirit  of  co- 
operation this  afternoon,  and  I  do  not  wish  to 
destroy  that  spirit.  But  I  must  say,  in  the 
light  of  my  experience  in  this  Legislature, 
too  often  my  faith  has  been  misplaced  in 
legislation  I  thought  was  going  to  help  solve 
a  problem.  So  if  she  will  forgive  me,  I  want 
to  nail  down  every  possible  loophole  this 
afternoon  before  this  bill  becomes  law.  That 


is  why  I  raise  both  those  matters  with  the 
minister  and  I  would  appreciate  her  re- 
sponse. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am 
delighted  with  the  expression,  "nail  down  the 
loophole."  I  find  that  a  little  difficult  to  do. 
None  the  less,  had  the  member  attended  any 
of  the  committee  hearings,  he  would  know 
that  under  section  2  of  this  bill  the  minister 
is  responsible  for  defining  the  exceptionalities. 
I  can  tell  him  that  those  exceptionality  defini- 
tions include  both  dyslexic  and  gifted  chil- 
dren specifically.  The  list  is  available.  It  was 
made  available  to  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee at  the  time  of  the  committee  hearings. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  am  fully  aware  of  that, 
which  is  why  I  raised1  it.  It  is  all  very  nice  to 
have  it  appended.  We  are  not  discussinc 
section  2.  We  are  discussing  section  1,  the 
definition  section.  I  want  to  ensure  the  defini- 
tion of  "special  education  program"  includes 
gifted  children  and  children  with  learning 
disabilities. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  just  said  it  did. 

Mr.  Warner:  With  respect,  Mr.  Chairman, 
in  responding  to  my  question  about  section  1, 
I  understood  the  minister  to  give  an  answer 
related  to  section  2.  I  want  to  know  that  the 
definition  of  special  education  program  in 
section  1  includes  gifted  children  and  children 
with  learning  disabilities.  That  is  what  I 
want  on  the  record. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 
does.  I  do  have  an  amendment  to  section 
1(2).  I  note  on  page  two  of  the  amended 
act  under  section  1(2)66  it  states:  "  'trainable 
retarded  child*  or  'trainable  retarded  pupil' 
means  a  pupil  who  is  six  or  more  years  of 
age,  but  less  than  21  years  of  age."  I  would 
like  to  move  an  amendment. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Before  we  get 
there,  I  wonder  if  there  is  anything  else  in 
section  1(1)? 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  dealing 
with  the  exceptional  pupil  and  the  defini- 
tion of  an  exceptional  pupil.  That  is  in  sec- 
tion 1.  I  want  to  go  back  briefly  to  the 
minister's  intent  in  the  Legislature  on  May 
23  on  the  introduction  of  this  bill.  The  min- 
ister at  that  time  talked  about  principles, 
about  universal  access  to  education  and 
about  children  having  a  right  to  an  educa- 
tion,   exceptionalities    notwithstanding. 

4:20  p.m. 

What  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister,  in 
terms  of  the  amended  bill  before  us,  is  did 
not  the  standing  committee  on  social  devel- 
opment  respond   to   the   minister's   intention 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4397 


of  a  right  to  a  public  education  for  excep- 
tional children?  I  think  we  have  a  bill  which, 
as  the  saying  goes,  has  teeth  in  it.  What  is 
happening,  of  course,  is  that  whenever  one 
has  a  piece  of  legislation  with  teeth  in  it 
there  are  certain  interest  groups  that  don't 
like  any  legislation  with  teeth  in  it  and 
don't  like  the  fact  that  the  exceptional  child 
has  a  right  to  an  education  because  that 
child  was  born. 

In  other  words,  it's  a  birthright  to  have 
educational  opportunities  in  this  province 
and  the  Minister  of  Education  proudly  said 
so  in  so  many  words  on  May  23.  It  is  a 
right,  and  this  bill  is  going  to  provide  the 
opportunities  and  those  rights  for  those 
children.  Then  we  found  in  the  first  bill 
which  was  introduced  an  hour  later,  from 
the  statements  of  the  minister  made  on  May 
23  to  the  time  the  minister  tabled  the  first 
reading  of  that  bill,  that  really  the  children 
do  not  have  rights  any  longer. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  that  particular  bill 
there  was  originally  an  exclusion  clause.  We 
talked  about  this  famous  exclusion  clause 
forever  and  a  day  in  the  social  development 
committee.  I  am  glad  we  were  able  finally 
to  persuade  the  minister  that  exclusion  clause 
should  have  no  part  in  that  bill  if  the  min- 
ister firmly  believes  children  ought  to  have 
educational  programs  by  right. 

Different  people  and  different  groups  have 
different  estimates,  but  the  one  I  have  seen 
constantly  is  there  are  about  200,000  chil- 
dren with  learning  disabilities  in  this  prov- 
ince—in other  words,  exceptional  pupils. 
Once  the  minister  makes  the  commitment 
that  the  child  should  have  access  to  public 
education  by  right,  the  minister  must  admit 
there  has  to  be  a  safeguard  for  that  right 
to  be  exercised.  There  has  to  be  some  kind 
of  mechanism  whereby  the  parents  can  say, 
"The  right  of  my  child  has  not  been  pro- 
tected and  I  have  a  way  of  redress."  Once 
a  placement  committee  of  a  board  makes  a 
decision  under  this  bill,  it  should  be  able  to 
say  that  those  children  have  a  right  to  an 
education.  The  placement  committee  should 
be  able  to  say:  "Yes,  you  have  a  right  to  a 
special  education  program.  That's  where  you 
are  going  to  be  in  that  special  education 
program."  What  can  a  parent  do  who  sees 
his  or  her  child  slowly  or  rapidly  deteriorat- 
ing in  terms  of  intellectual  ability  and  edu- 
cational growth?  Very  little. 

The  social  development  committee  spent  a 
whole  week  and  a  day  over  amendments. 
With  both  opposition  parties  firmly  in  agree- 
ment, the  committee  said  in  effect  there  has 


to  be  an  appeal  procedure  and  an  appeal 
procedure  worth  its  name.  On  September  30 
the  Liberals  did  support  the  New  Democratic 
Party  and  the  immense  work  the  member  for 
Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan)  and  many  other 
people  have  been  doing  in  this  province  for  a 
lot  of  time. 

What  has  taken  place?  My  suspicion  is— 
and  I  certainly  hope  I  am  wrong,  because 
200,000  kids  out  there  in  this  province 
demand,  by  right,  that  at  this  particular  time, 
in  terms  of  what  I  am  going  to  be  saying,  I  be 
wrong.  I  certainly  hope  that  the  Liberal  Party 
is  still  consistent  with  the  kinds  of  things  it 
said  in  the  social  development  committee 
about  having  the  right  of  appeal  to  any  deci- 
sion that  a  placement  committee  might  be 
making. 

As  a  legislator  and  as  a  person  who  has 
taught  for  10  years  in  this  province,  I  do  not 
want  to  see  a  child  who  vegetates  because 
of  a  lack  of  services  or  because  of  a  lack  of 
programming.  That  is  not  an  extreme  position. 
Because  I  taught  special  education  for  two 
years,  I  know  what  I  am  talking  about.  I 
know  some  of  those  children  I  taught  should 
not  have  been  in  that  particular  classroom; 
they  should  have  specialized  help. 

Yet  those  children  could  not  get  that  pro- 
gram. The  reason  goes  back  to  the  famous 
year  of  1972  when  special  education  programs 
were  going  well— at  least  we  were  beginning 
to  see  some  movement— and  then  down  came 
the  ceilings  from  this  provincial  government 
which  totally  crippled  that  development  in 
the  school's. 

I  can  understand  why  boards  of  education 
are  upset  about  this  bill  as  the  social  develop- 
ment committee  has  amended  it.  I  can  under- 
stand it,  because  in  essence  it  says  to  the 
boards  of  education  and  not  necessarily  to 
those— shall  I  put  the  word?— enlightened 
boards  that  have  in  the  past  10  years  moved 
in  that  direction,  but  some  of  the  boards 
across  this  province,  as  the  minister  ought  to 
know- 
Mr.  Deputy  Chairman:  I  wonder  if  I  could 
interrupt  the  member  for  Oakwood  for  a 
moment.  It  seems  to  me  that  you  are  speaking 
pretty  generally  to  the  whole  philosophy  of 
the  bill  rather  than  dealing  with  some  section. 
I  have  been  quite  tolerant,  trying  to  find  what 
section  or  subsection  here  you  are  talking 
about.  It  seems  to  me  you  are  rehashing  the 
philosophy  that  was  done  on  second  reading. 
I  wish  you  would  bring  my  attention  to  the 
particular  item  in  subsection  1  that  you  think 
should  be  changed,  or  to  which  you  wish  to 
speak. 


4398 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, the  member  for  Oakwood  is,  in  fact, 
speaking  on  the  definition  section  of  the  bill. 
I  would  suggest  to  you  with  great  respect  that 
when  one  is  talking  about  the  exceptional 
pupil,  special  education  program,  special  edu- 
cation services  and  the  trainable  retarded 
child,  all  of  the  points  my  colleague  was 
making  with  regard  to  education  for  those 
people  in  that  land  of  a  program  are  relevant. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  realize  he  is 
tying  it  in  and  that  the  whole  bill  deals 
with  exceptional  children  in  one  way  or 
another,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  you  are 
recommending  a  change  in  here,  speaking 
to  an  amendment  or  just  what  the  point  is 
you  are  trying  to  make. 

Mr.    Grande:    The   point   I    am    trying  to 

make  is  that  inherent  in  that  definition  of 

exceptional    pupil    everything    else    flows  in 
this  bill. 

4:30  p.m. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Are  you  proposing 
an  amendment? 

Mr.  Grande:  What  I  am  talking  about, 
Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  definition  of  excep- 
tional pupil.  I  am  attempting  to  give  my 
input  to  this  Legislature  in  terms  of  the 
exceptional  student  in  this  province,  and  how 
those  particular  needs  of  the  exceptional 
pupil  have  'been  addressed  in  the  past  and 
are  going  to  be  addressed  by  this  particular 
bill  before  us. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  As  I  say,  I  am 
trying  to  be  tolerant,  but  would  you  make 
your  point  briefly  rather  than  speaking  to 
the  whole  principle  of  the  bill,  which  has 
been  discussed  on  many  occasions.  If  you 
have  an  amendment  to  propose,  I  would  ask 
you  to  put  it  before  the  chair. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  a  point  of 
order,  it  has  been  the  tradition  in  this 
House  that  one  can  speak  on  every  section 
of  every  bill  when  it  is  in  committee.  There 
need  not  be  an  amendment  to  a  section  to 
speak  to  it. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  speaking  must 
be  relevant  to  the  section.  I  am  trying  to 
find  out  how  what  the  member  for  Oak- 
wood  is  saying  is  particularly  relevant  to 
section  1(1). 

Mr.  Foulds:  With  great  respect,  he  is 
speaking  about  exceptional  pupils,  and  that 
is  what  is  in  section  1(1),  paragraph  20a. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Committee  study 
does  not  permit  you  to  ramble  and  redo  the 
speech  that  was  done  on  second  reading  of 


the  bill.  I  do  not  want  to  be  short  with 
the  member  for  Oakwood,  but  I  would  ask 
him  to  save  the  House  a  little  time  and 
come  to  the  point  he  is  making. 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Chairman,  with  due 
respect,  I  am  attempting  to  save  the  House 
time.  I  am  also  attempting  in  the  best  way 
I  know  how  to  deal  with  this  particular 
section  before  us  now,  namely  the  definition 
of  exceptional  pupil.  I  can  only  deal  with 
that  definition  in  terms  of  programs  and 
lack  of  programs  being  offered  right  now  in 
this  province.  Unless  we  begin  from  that 
definition  and  talk  about  programs,  we  have 
a  definition  in  a  total  vacuum.  That  is  what 
I  am  attempting  to  do. 

The  definition  of  exceptional  pupil  in  this 
bill,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  perhaps  a  good 
definition.  However,  the  programs  that  flow 
from  that  definition  are  really  the  pits.  If 
we  do  not  have  the  programs  in  place  to 
look  after  the  very  specific  and  important 
needs  of  the  exceptional  pupil,  then  I  think 
this  bill  will  amount  to  nought.  If  the 
boards  of  education  are  saying  in  essence 
they  do  not  want  their  hands  tied1  by  legisla- 
tion in  order  to  provide  the  programs,  then 
I  must  say  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  will 
be  going  on  in  this  province  for  the  next 
10  or  15  years  without  proper  educational 
services  being  provided  to  the  exceptional 
pupil  or  student. 

This  is  what  I  am  addressing  to  the  min- 
ister. Since  the  minister  has  asked  us  to 
take  a  look  at  her  amendments  once  again, 
I  would  like  to  suggest  she  take  a  look  at 
the  good,  solid,  fundamental  amendments 
that  the  social  development  committee  has 
brought  forward  to  amend  this  legislation.  I 
would  say  to  my  Liberal  friends  on  that  side, 
"Take  a  look  at  it  very  carefully,  because 
if  you  do  not  what  is  going  to  happen  is 
that  the  199,998  children  who  need1  special 
education  services  in  this  province  will  not 
get  them." 

Mr.  Stong:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I  want  to  assure  my  friend  from  Oak- 
wood  that  we  Liberals  have  indeed  looked  at 
the  amendments.  There  are  no  amendments 
on  section  1.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  was 
okayed  by  the  committee.  It  is  here  without 
amendment  at  this  time.  My  privileges  as  a 
member  of  this  House  are  being  breached 
by  this  waste  of  time  in  speaking  to  the 
principle. 

I  would  like  to  get  to  the  meat  of  the 
amendments  before  us  and  have  some  votes 
on  the  rights  to  appeal  that  are  not  even  in- 
volved in  this  section.  Let  us  not  waste  time; 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4399 


let  us  get  to  the  vote  that  is  required  instead 
of  speaking  to  principle;  then  members  will 
see  that  the  Liberals  are  consistent. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  As  I  said  earlier, 
I  am  trying  to  be  tolerant  with  the  member 
for  Oakwood.  I  am  going  to  allow  him  a 
few  more  minutes  to  try  to  bring  the  chair's 
attention  to  the  point  he  is  making  on  section 
1(1).  That  is  the  point  in  issue  at  the  present 
time.  We  are  looking  at  section  1(1)  of  the 
bill. 

I  know  you  are  speaking  about  exceptional 
children,  but  I  have  not  found  anything  in 
what  you  have  to  say  that  is  drawing  my  at- 
tention to  any  change  you  want  to  make  there 
or  any  proposed  amendment  to  it.  Are  you 
asking  any  questions  of  the  minister?  If  you 
would,  please  do  that  so  we  can  get  on  with 
the  work  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Grande:  I  certainly  would  not  want 
my  Liberal  friend  to  be  upset  about  what 
I  am  saying.  All  I  am  saying  to  him  is  let  us 
be  serious  about  this  legislation,  let  us  remain 
consistent  with  what  we  decided  in  the  social 
development  committee  because  this  legisla- 
tion is  indeed  one  of  the  most  important 
pieces  of  educational  legislation  we  have  had 
in  this  province  for  a  long  time. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  for 
the  first  and  quite  possibly  the  last  time  in  my 
five  years  in  the  House,  I  would  like  to 
commend  the  Minister  of  Education  on  some- 
thing she  has  done  today.  I  assure  you  it 
won't  become  a  tradition  with  me.  I  want 
to  commend  her  on  withdrawing  or  not  plac- 
ing her  amendment  to  section  1(1)  and  leav- 
ing this  section  of  the  bill  as  it  came  back 
from  the  social  development  committee.  I 
think  that  it  is  a  good  principle  that  she 
should  recognize  as  this  debate  progresses, 
that  much— as  a  matter  of  fact,  almost  every- 
thing—that the  social  development  committee 
did  in  terms  of  innovation  is  good.  I  know 
the  minister  has  a  number  of  other  amend- 
ments which  she  intends  to  place  and  I 
hope  she  reconsiders  them. 

I  think  what  has  happened  in  section  1(1) 
is  important.  The  government  has  an  obli- 
gation to  realize  it  has  a  record  that  is  not 
all  that  very  good  in  terms  of  special  educa- 
tion. This  is  really  the  first  time  the  govern- 
ment has  moved  so  far  by  way  of  legislation. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Name  me  a  gov- 
ernment with  a  record  that  is  better. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  am  sorry,  what  did 
the  minister  have  to  say? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  all  right.  I 
am  not  going  to  interrupt. 


The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  welcome  an  inter- 
jection from  the  minister  if  she  wants  to  bring 
something  to  my  attention,  although  just  be- 
cause she  does  that  is  no  guarantee  I  will 
accept  it,  as  I  have  done  this. 

Like  all  members  of  the  assembly,  I  had 
a  lot  of  mail  on  this  section  and  other  sections 
of  the  bill  and  in  it  were  compelling  argu- 
ments made  by  parents  in  terms  of  the 
definitions  and  the  other  parts  of  the  bill  that 
were  changed  by  the  social  development  com- 
mittee. I  think  the  minister  should  listen  and 
reconsider  those  other  ones  as  she  has  in  this 
case  by  not  moving  ahead  with  amendments 
to  undo  the  work  of  the  social  development 
committee. 

I  don't  know  if  this  is  true  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House,  but  I  am  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House  who  can  speak  about 
special  education  from  a  personal  point  of 
view.  I  have  a  retarded  sister  who  was  denied 
any  right  whatsoever  to  a  decent  education 
in  Ontario.  I  know  what  it  is  like  for  a  family 
when  the  government  will  not  permit  one  of 
its  kids  to  have  access  to  decent  education. 
That  was  done  by  a  Tory  government,  so  I 
know  a  lot  personally  about  the  record  of 
this  Tory  government. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  hyperbole  to 
suggest  it  was  all  done  by  a  Tory  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  When  my  sister  tried 
to  get  an  education  in  this  province,  this 
government  did  not  give  a  damn  and  denied 
her  access  to  a  proper  education,  as  it  did  in 
many  cases,  so  don't  tell  me  about  it. 

I  would  hope  the  Tories  would  finally 
understand  that  they  don't  have  a  record  they 
can  be  proud  of  in  special  ed;  that  they  will 
accept  the  arguments  that  have  been  put  to 
them  by  parents  in  this  province;  and  that 
this  will  not  be  the  only  time  today  the 
minister  refuses  to  bring  forward  one  of  her 
amendments  to  undo  the  work  of  the  social 
development  committee. 

II  think  the  committee  did  a  fine  job  and  I 
do  not  think  the  minister  should  stand  in  the 
way  of  the  important  changes  it  has  made  to 
the  bill. 

4:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  two  or 
three  points  I  want  to  make  on  this  section 
because,  as  some  of  my  colleagues  have  men- 
tioned, the  rest  of  the  bill  hinges  on  the 
definition  section.  We  have  seen  that  time 
and  time  again  when  it  comes  to  legislation 


4400 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


or  regulations  that  are  devolved  out  of  legis- 
lation. 

There  are  two  basic  principles  in  this  sec- 
tion. Like  my  colleague,  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  (Mr.  M.  N.  Davison),  I  must 
initially  commend  the  minister  for  her  gra- 
ciousness  and  her  ability  in  accepting  the 
section  as  it  is  printed  and  defined.  That  is 
very  important  for  the  children  whose  needs 
we  are  trying  to  meet  with  this  legislation, 
and  it  is  very  important  for  the  province  as 
a  whole. 

One  of  the  important  things,  and  one  of 
the  principles  that  we  must  keep  in  mind 
when  discussing  this  particular  section  of  the 
bill,  is  that,  several  years  ago  a  Minister  of 
Education  in  this  province  made  a  commit- 
ment that  there  would  be  equality  of  access 
to  education  across  the  province  and  that 
there  would  no  longer  be  a  balkanization  of 
education  in  this  province.  That  Minister  of 
Education  later  became  the  Premier  of  this 
province.  For  a  while  it  was  pretty  hard  for 
a  Minister  of  Education  not  to  become 
Premier  of  this  province  eventually. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Thank  goodness 
that  has  changed. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  certainly  has  changed. 
If  the  Liberals  support  the  present  Minister 
of  Education  for  Premier,  that  would  be  the 
lass  of  death.  They  can  be  assured  of  that. 

Where  is  the  member  for  London  Centre 
(Mr.  Peterson)  going?  Now  I  am  off  the  sec- 
tion, I  admit,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  amazed 
you  have  not  called  me  to  order. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  As  I  said  before, 
I  am  trying  to  be  very  tolerant.  That  toler- 
ance still  exists. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  important  principle  in 
this  section,  and  the  important  principle 
that  we  face  as  we  go  through  this  bill 
clause  by  clause,  is  that  we  must  at  all 
costs  avoid  balkanization  of  education  for 
children  with  special  needs  in  this  province. 
We  must  ensure  that  the  principles  which 
apply  to  education  generally,  the  principles 
of  universality  and  access,  are  maintained 
in   this  bill. 

That  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  I  com- 
mend the  minister  for  this  section.  It  is 
obvious  that  this  section,  her  acceptance  of 
it  and  our  endorsement  of  it  indicate  that 
the  minister,  and  I  hope  also  all  of  the  Legis- 
lature when  debating  the  rest  of  the  sections 
of  this  bill,  will  decide  that  if  there  is  a 
balance  to  be  struck  between  the  competing 
and    conflicting    interests    in    education,    the 


balance  must  always  be  tipped  in  favour  of 
the  child  because  it  is  the  child  the  educa- 
tional system  is  designed  to  serve.  In  terms 
of  this  bill,  it  is  the  exceptional  pupil  whom 
the  boards  of  education  are  there  to  serve; 
it  is  the  exceptional  pupil  whom  the  teachers 
of  this  province  are  there  to  serve.  I,  for 
one,  have  objected,  more  strenuously  in  a 
personal  way  than  I  can  express,  to  the  lob- 
bying, to  which  I  have  been  subjected  by 
people  in  the  boards  of  education  sector  and 
the  teaching  sector  of  education,  against  the 
amendments  put  forward  by  this  bill.  It  is 
their  job,  and  the  job  of  us  in  this  Legisla- 
ture, to  serve  those  needs. 

Contrary  to  one  of  the  things  my  col- 
league from  Oakwood  (Mr.  Grande)  said, 
the  children  of  this  province  do  not  demand 
special  education.  I  know  several  children 
who  have  exceptional  needs.  I  know  chil- 
dren with  learning  disabilities.  I  have  a 
child  with  a  learning  disability.  They  are 
not  demanding  special  education  because 
they  do  not  yet  know  and  are  not  yet  cog- 
nizant of  the  fact  they  have  rights  in  this 
province.  Those  of  us  who  are  their  guar- 
dians, those  of  us  who  are  legislators,  must 
demand  them  on  their  behalf. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
speak  very  briefly  to  this  section.  It  has  oc- 
curred to  me  when  I  have  looked  at  the 
educational  system— and  I  spent  some  time 
in  it  myself— that  it  reflects  the  kind  of  so- 
ciety we  have  built,  not  just  in  Ontario  but 
elsewhere.  We  have  built  a  society  designed 
for  the  young  and  the  swift,  whether  we  are 
talking  physically  or  mentally.  That  is  the 
problem  with  our  educational  system. 

If  I  were  to  start  all  over  again,  I  think 
I  would  design  a  system  that  said  to  the 
people  who  ran  it:  "We  will  teach  the  people 
who  are  young  and  swift  how  to  learn;  we 
will  teach  the  rest  of  the  people  we  describe 
as  exceptional  pupils.  We  will  teach  the 
others  how  to  learn,  and  they  will  get  about 
the  process  of  learning  primarily  on  their 
own.  The  exceptional  pupils  who  have  prob- 
lems need  the  majority  of  the  resources  to 
teach  them."  For  the  first  time,  this  bill 
seems  to  understand,  or  go  part  way,  to  re- 
solving  that  problem. 

I  can  think  of  a  situation  in  Sudbury 
which  is  very  bad.  If  a  person  has  a  speech 
problem  that  affects  his  or  her  learning,  and 
such  a  person  could  certainly  be  described 
as  an  exceptional  pupil  under  this  section 
of  the  bill,  if  the  student  is  of  pre-school 
age  he  or  she  is  referred  to  the  Sudbury 
Algoma    Sanatorium.    If    the    person    is    of 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4401 


school  age,  that  person  is  referred  to  the 
school  system,  the  school  board,  which  does 
not  have  speech  therapists.  It  has  itinerant 
speech  teachers.  It  does  not  have  the  facili- 
ties to  deal  with  the  problem  adequately. 

I  too  have  been  lobbied  in  the  last  few 
days  by  school  boards  and  by  teachers.  I 
find  it  pretty  upsetting  to  be  lobbied  by 
those  people  who  are  supposed  to  be  carry- 
ing out  their  mandate  of  educating  the  chil- 
dren of  this  province  and  who  are  saying 
that  this  problem,  in  effect,  is  too  big.  One 
person  from  a  school  board  said  to  me:  "We 
can't  deal  with  this  problem;  we  are  not  a 
social  agency.  We  cannot  deliver  social  pro- 
grams, and  that  is  what  you're  talking  about 
in  this  bill." 

What  is  the  purpose  of  our  educational 
system?  I  look  around  me  in  the  Sudbury 
basin,  as  an  example,  where  we  do  not  have 
anyone  who  is  co-ordinating  things  properly. 
At  one  point,  it  appeared  there  was  going  to 
be  a  social  services  commissioner  in  the  basin 
who  would  try  to  co-ordinate  educational 
needs,  health  needs  and  social  services  needs 
so  there  would  not  be  overlapping  and  there 
would  not  be  people  in  the  system  falling  be- 
tween the  stools.  But  that  has  not  come  to 
fruition. 

When  the  board  of  education  says  this  bill 
just  will  not  work  because  it  is  a  social 
services  problem,  not  an  educational  one,  I 
wonder  what  the  educational  system  is  sup- 
posed to  be  doing  for  people  with  learning 
disabilities.  When  I  think  of  the  children  in 
the  province  who  really  need  the  extra  help, 
I  wonder  if  the  minister  is  going  to  say  to 
the  boards  across  the  province,  "We  are  no 
longer  going  to  give  you  a  formula;  we  are 
going  to  provide  the  assistance  required  to 
help  people  who  are  defined  as  exceptional 
pupils."  That  is  one  of  the  things  that  is 
bothering  the  school  boards. 

Whe'-e  is  the  money  going  to  come  from  to 
look  after  these  programs?  It  is  now  going 
to  be  right  for  these  exceptional  students  to 
have  an  education,  to  have  a  program  de- 
signed' for  these  needs?  I  can  see  why  the 
school  boards  are  very  nervous.  They  are 
very  nervous  that  this  minister  and  her  gov- 
ernment are  not  going  to  provide  the  neces- 
sary funds.  It  would  not  be  the  first  time. 

I  would  expect  the  minister  would  have 
some  veiy  precise  things  to  say  today  about 
making  a  commitment  to  provide  an  ade- 
quate level  of  funding  to  make  sure  the 
school  boards  are  not  only  given  the  respon- 
sibility of  implementing  this  bill,  but  are  also 
given  adequate  funding  to  do  it  properly.   I 


can  understand  why  the  school  boards  are 
nervous.  They  simply  do  not  trust  the  min- 
ister to  come  through  with  an  adequate  level 
of  funding.  They  have  every  right  to  foe 
nervous. 

4:50  p.m. 

Hon.   Miss  Stephenson:    On  what? 

Mr.  Warner:  On  funding  for  education.  It 
continues  to  erode  each  year.  It  dropped 
from  60  per  cent  to  almost  50  per  cent,  and 
she  knows  it. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  member  for 
Nickel  Belt  has  the  floor.  Will  he  proceed 
please? 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  minister  surely  would 
not  disagree  that  the  property  taxpayers  are 
picking  up  an  increased  proportion  of  the 
educational  costs,  as  compared  with  the 
province,  through  general  revenues.  I  would 
simply  urge  the  minister  to  make  a  commit- 
ment that,  whatever  level  of  funding  is  re- 
quired to  implement  these  programs,  it 
simply  be  done. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
compliment  the  minister  on  trying  to  simplify 
things  this  afternoon— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  did  not  succeed, 
did  I? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  —by  not  proceeding  with  her 
amendment  on  section  1.  I  would  sympathize 
with  the  minister's  feelings  at  this  point  in 
that  what  looked  like  a  simplification  is  be- 
coming a  major  debate.  I  think  we  should 
move  on  to  another  section. 

I  would  like  to  say  at  this  point  that  I 
missed  very  much  being  on  the  social 
development  committee  this  summer  because 
of  having  to  serve  on  the  Hydro  affairs  com- 
mittee. I  find  myself  in  a  more  and  more 
frustrating  position  over  the  last  couple  of 
weeks  in  dealing  with  constituents  over  the 
problems  involved  with  the  definition  sec- 
tion. It  was  difficult  trying  to  keep  straight 
which  version  of  the  bill  they  were  talking 
to,  whether  it  was  the  original  one  or  the 
one  amended  by  the  social  development 
committee. 

Then  we  had  the  minister  tabling  her 
amendment  here,  new  calls  coming  in  over 
the  weekend  and  submissions  being  sent  to 
us  which  were  written  over  the  weekend. 
At  this  point,  it  is  very  difficult  to  tell, 
unless  their  letters  were  very  specific,  which 
amendments  they  are  talking  about— those 
brought  forward  by  the  social  development 
committee  even  in  this  section  or  those 
brought  forward  by  the  minister. 


4402 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


As  I  tried  today  to  sort  through  some  of 
the  letters  of  objections  and  phone  calls  I 
received  over  the  weekend,  after  having  taken 
the  minister's  amendments  home  with  me  I 
found  myself  and  the  person  who  was  talk- 
ing getting  more  and  more  frustrated  as  we 
tried  to  determine  which  set  of  amendments 
we  were  talking  about. 

I  know  it  is  not  possible  now,  but  would 
it  not  have  been  more  profitable  if  at  this 
point  we  could  have  sent  the  minister's 
amendments  to  a  committee  outside  the 
House?  There  it  could  be  made  very  clear 
what  was  being  asked  of  us  by  the  various 
groups  that  were  contacting  us  and  whether 
it  was  the  minister's  amendments  or  the 
social  development  committee's  amendments 
the  various  groups  were  concerned  about. 

I  received  a  communication  from  the 
Federation  of  Women  Teachers'  Associations 
of  Ontario  and  some  of  their  remarks  looked 
very  reasonable.  They  are  concerned  with 
some  of  the  remarks  the  minister  made  in 
quoting  the  author  of  American  Public  Law 
94-142,  that  we  do  not  zero  in  on  a  plan, 
and  the  plan  and  the  program  themselves 
become  the  be-all  and  end-all.  To  quote 
them,  "We  should  be  looking  at  the  result 
which  is  forthcoming."  And  we  should  have 
a  phrase,  which  in  their  opinion,  "in  accord^ 
ance  with  the  best  possible  educational 
practices,"  coming  in  to  achieve  their  ends, 
as  the  best  way  to  achieve  their  objectives. 

As  I  read  through  that  paragraph,  I  have 
a  great  desire  to  sit  down  outside  the  Legis- 
lature with  the  people  who  have  contacted 
us  so  that  we  could  have  a  clear  understand- 
ing of  exactly  what  it  is  they  wish  to 
achieve.  But  here  we  are  going  through 
these  various  amendments  and  we  will  prob- 
ably reach  a  point  which  is  very  much 
more  frustrating  to  all  concerned  than  it 
has  been  so  far.  I  just  regret  there  isn't  a 
route  open  to  us  to  allow  a  situation  which 
would  be  a  little  less  frustrating  tlrm  the 
situation  we  have  to  deal  with  here. 

I  won't  make  the  same  speech  I  gave  on 
second  reading  on  definitions  of  exceptional 
students  and  their  needs.  I  am  glad  we  have 
reached  agreement  on  the  wording  of  section 
1  that  came  from  the  social  development 
committee  and  that  we  can  go  on  to  some 
of  the  other  sections. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hon.  Miss  Stephenson 
moves  that  paragraph  66  of  section  1(1)  of 
the  act  as  set  out  in  section  1(2)  of  the  bill 
be  amended  by  striking  out  "a  pupil  who 
is  six  or  more  years  of  age  but  less  than  21 
years  of  age"  in  the  second  and  third  lines 


and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "an  exceptional 
pupil." 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  given  the  fact 
we  have  made  so  many  amendments,  and 
amendments  to  amendments  in  some  cases, 
although  it  looks  very  obvious  I  think  it  is 
important  that  the  minister  would  indicate 
to  us  the  precise  reason  for  introducing  the 
change.  I  think  I  know  what  it  is,  but  we 
have  tripped  over  so  many  amendments  to 
amendments  to  amendments  that  we  can 
lose  the  thread  of  what  we  are  trying  to  do 
here. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  purpose  of  the 
amendment  is  to  reduce  the  age  requirement 
to  attain  the  status  of  a  trainable  mentally 
retarded  pupil  from  six  down  to  four  in  order 
to  accommodate  those  people  at  an  earlier 
age  than  at  present  in  the  act. 

Mr.  Nixon:  How  about  those  over  21? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  As  you  know,  under 
the  act  at  the  present  time  they  are  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  educational  program  until 
the  age  of  21.  We  are  also  looking  at  that. 
Specifically  at  this  point,  it  is  to  reduce  the 
admission  age. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  There  are  boards  in  this 
province  taking  even  younger  children  than 
you  have  just  described  under  their  juris- 
diction and  providing  a  program  for  children 
who  are  hard  of  hearing.  Are  we  speaking  to 
this,  or  is  that  something  different  again? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  That  is  something 
else  again.  The  trainable  mentally  retarded 
is  the  only  group  addressed  in  this  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
be  sure  I  understand  the  purpose  of  the 
amendment.  First,  from  what  the  minister  has 
said,  age  six  is  eliminated  in  order  that  chil- 
dren can  be  accommodated'  in  the  program 
who  are  younger  than  six.  Is  there  a  provision 
elsewhere  in  the  bill  or  in  the  act  so  that  the 
age  can  be  extended  at  the  other  end  to 
beyond  age  18? 

5  p.m. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Under  the  Educa- 
tion Act  at  the  present  time,  the  trainable 
mentally  retarded  child  is  the  responsibility 
of  that  educational  program  until  the  age  of 
21. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Under  what  section  of  the 
act? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Section  571(1). 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  don't  understand  what 
section  you  are  talking  about. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4403 


Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  sorry,  it  is 
section  71(1)  of  the  Education  Act. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Right.  I  didn't  think  that 
was  correct  because  there  are  only  200  sec- 
tions in  the  Education  Act.  There's  nothing 
in  section  71(1)  about  increasing  the  age  from 
18  to  21.  The  reason  I  want  to  raise  it  is 
that  it  is  an  important  consideration.  It  is 
something  that  was  raised  in  committee  dur- 
ing the  hearings.  A  number  of  witnesses  who 
were  advocating  on  behalf  of  mentally  re- 
tarded children  or  on  behalf  of  the  associa- 
tion were  commending  the  ministry  on  the 
extension  of  the  eligible  age  from  18  to  21. 
I  think  your  amendment  is  taking  21  out  of 
the  act.  I  want  to  know  precisely  where  it  is 
in  the  existing  act  or  in  the  regulations.  As 
I  read  section  71(1),  it  is  not  there. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Try  section  32. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  will  try  section  32.  If 
you  will  bear  with  me,  I  will  stay  on  my 
feet.  Section  32  has  four  subsections.  Which 
subsection? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  One,  right  to  attend. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Perhaps  the  minister  could 
explain  that  section  to  me  because  I  don't 
understand  it. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  says,  "Subject  to 
sections  34,  35  and  42,  a  person  who  attains 
the  age  of  six  years  in  any  year  is,  after  the 
first  day  of  September  in  such  year,  qualified 
to  be  a  resident  pupil  in  respect  of  a  school 
section  until  the  last  school  day  in  June  in 
the  year  in  which  he  attains  the  age  of  21 
years,"  and  then  the  qualifications  follow. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Where  are  the  qualifica- 
tions that  relate  this  to  a  trainable  retarded 
child? 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  is  a  particularly  important 
question  in  view  of  some  of  the  exclusions  in 
section  34. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  don't  mean  to  bring 
things  to  a  halt  but  we  can't  proceed  on  the 
amendment  until  we  have  a  clear  under- 
standing of  where  the  authority  is  to  extend 
the  eligible  age  for  trainable  retarded  chil- 
dren to  21  years  and  we  haven't  found  it  yet. 

Mr.  Foulds:  With  great  respect,  I  think 
the  minister  is  trying  to  find  an  answer  and 
I  believe  she  thinks  the  section  covers  the 
concern  expressed  by  my  colleague  the  mem- 
ber for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan).  How- 
ever, we  are  concerned  because  section  32(1) 
starts  out  with  the  simple  words,  "Subject  to 
sections  34,  35  and  42,"  and  then  gives  the 
right  to  attend  and  includes  the  age  21.  How- 
ever, section  34(1),  which  section  32  is  sub- 


ject to,  reads:  "A  person  is  not  qualified  to 
be  a  resident  pupil  in  respect  of  an  elemen- 
tary school  if  he  is  unable  by  reason  of 
mental  or  physical  handicap  to  profit  by  in- 
struction in  an  elementary  school." 

We  feel  that  unless  it  is  clearly  explained 
or  embedded  in  this  piece  of  legislation  there 
is  no  provision  for  the  act  dealing  with  the 
problems  we  have  before  us  in  this  bill, 
namely,  ensuring  that  trainable  retarded  chil- 
dren will  be  eligible  for  school  until  the 
physical  age  of  21. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Under  the  existing 
definition  of  trainable  retarded  child,  a  child 
is  defined  as  someone  under  the  age  of  18. 
The  amendment  is  intended  to  remove  that 
upper  limit  of  18  and  permit  the  current 
practice,  which  is  that  those  young  people 
will  be  a  part  of  the  educational  program 
until  the  age  of  21  as  other  pupils  may  be. 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  minister  has  referred 
to  another  section  and  I  don't  know  where 
it  is.  Perhaps  she  could  tell  us  where  the 
definition  of  trainable  retarded  child  appears. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  has  been 
pointed  out  to  me  that  section  12  of  Bill  82 
in  its  amended  form  may  address  the  prob- 
lem my  friend  is  having.  I  am  referring  to 
section  71  of  the  act  being  repealed  and  sub- 
stituted by  section  12,  which  probably  an- 
swers the  member's  question.  I  thank  my  in- 
formant in  the  gallery. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Perhaps  my  colleagues  will 
pursue  that  while  I  pursue  another  concern 
in  the  same  subsection. 

This  subsection  has  caused  me  some  con- 
cern because,  to  put  it  bluntly,  it  skirts 
around  the  issue  of  whether  or  not  the  child 
is  able  to  profit  from  instruction.  I  can't  tell 
from  this  section  dealing  with  a  trainable 
retarded  child  whether  or  not  there  will  be 
special  education  programs  for  trainable  re- 
tarded children. 

(What  this  subsection  does  is  separate  the 
so-called  educable  retarded  pupil  from  the 
so-called  trainable  retarded  pupil.  It  states 
that  a  trainable  retarded  child  is  a  pupil  who 
cannot  profit  from  a  special  education  pro- 
gram for  educable  retarded  pupils.  I  am  not 
quite  sure  what  that  means.  Perhaps  the 
minister  could  give  us  some  clarification  on 
that.  Then  I  have  another  question. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  An  educable  re- 
tarded pupil  is  one  who  can  profit  from  a 
special  education  program  designed  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  the  intellectual  capacity 
of  that  child.  A  trainable  retarded  pupil  is 
one  whose  intellectual  capacity  is  considered 


4404 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


by  all  methods  of  assessment  to  be  below 
the  level  of  educability.  Professional  defini- 
tions have  been  developed.  I  have  limited 
knowledge  of  them  but  certainly  specialists 
in  psychometrics,  psychological  assessment 
and  those  teachers  who  have  been  respon- 
sible for  the  development  of  the  program 
have  made  that  definition  and  it  is  a  defini- 
tion which  functions  at  the  present  time. 

5:10  p.m. 

Mr.  McClellan:  If  a  trainable  retarded 
child  is  not  eligible  for  a  special  education 
program  for  educable  retarded  pupils,  is 
there  such  a  thing  as  a  special  education 
program  for  a  trainable  retarded  child? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:   Yes. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Will  that  be  defined  pur- 
suant to  your  regulation  authority  under 
section   (2b)   or  3? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  can  be  included 
there.  The  purpose  of  including  it  in  this 
act  is  because  of  the  action  that  has  taken 
place  under  the  act  that  provides  the  re- 
sponsibility to  separate  school  boards  for  the 
provision  of  educational  programs  for  the 
trainable  retarded  child.  There  is  already  a 
definition  of  that  kind  of  program  because 
it  has  been  in  place  for  some  time  under  the 
Education  Act. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Why  is  it  necessary  to 
continue  to  use  the  term,  "trainable  retarded 
child,"  on  the  one  hand,  and  "educable  re- 
tarded child,"  on  the  other?  Why  is  it  neces- 
sary to  maintain  that  distinction  between 
these  so-called  classes  of  retarded  children? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  shall  be  pleased 
to  take  that  matter  up  with  those  profession- 
als whose  expertise  has  defined  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  groups  of  individuals 
over  the  past  several  years.  It  is  a  matter  of 
practice  at  the  present  time  and  it  has  some 
basis  in  valid,  scientific  assessment  which 
has  been  accepted  within  the  educational 
community  and  certainly  within  the  psy- 
chological community. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  want  to  be  absolutely 
clear  on  this.  Where  does  an  educable  re- 
tarded pupil  receive  his  or  her  special  educa- 
tion program? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Within  the  school 
system. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  had  assumed  it  was 
within  the  school  system.  I  did  not  think  it 
would  be  at  the  corner  grocery  store. 

If  it  is  not  too  much  trouble,  perhaps  the 
minister  could  explain  to  this  House  which 
programs  within  the  school  system  are  par- 


ticularly designed  for  educable  retarded 
pupils  and  where  they  would  be  accommo- 
dated in  some  way  different  from  programs 
for  trainable  retarded  children. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  educable  re- 
tarded have  most  certainly  been  educated 
within  the  school  system  for  many  vears. 
Those  children  are  children  who  can  learn, 
probably  to  a  lesser  degree  than  those  who 
are  within  the  so-called  normal  range,  but 
who  do  have  the  capacity  to  learn  within 
the  structure  of  the  educational  program 
provided.  They  have  certainly  been  dealt 
with  in  manv  fashions  during  the  past 
decades  through  programs  designed  specifi- 
cally to  help  a  group  that  in  some  instances 
have  been  called  slow  learners.  In  some  in- 
stances in  the  past,  they  have  been  given 
the  perhaps  unfortunate  name  of  opportunity 
classes,  or  other  kinds  of  designations.  They 
are  instructed  through  special  education  pro- 
grams within  the  school  system  at  the  present 
time. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Trainable  retarded  children, 
then,  are  in  an  entirely  different  stream? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  In  some  instances 
many  of  the  trainable  mentally  retarded, 
while  they  may  have  some  of  their  program 
in  an  entirely  different  stream,  are  integrated 
into  certain  of  the  classes,  depending  on  the 
philosophy  of  the  program  that  is  provided 
and  the  experience  of  the  board,  the  super- 
visors, the  teachers  and  the  parents  with  those 
children.  In  many  instances  they  believe  that 
mainstreaming  or  integrating  those  children 
in  certain  of  the  classes  is  helpful  to  them. 

Mr.  McClellan:  It  is  clearly  the  intention 
of  the  minister  that  all  trainable  retarded 
children— and  it  is  an  unfortunate  phrase 
which  we  are  forced  to  use,  because  it  is  the 
language  of  the  statute— will  have  a  program 
made  available  to  them  by  the  time  the  bill 
matures  in  1985. 

I  have  a  concern,  however,  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  so-called  trainable  retarded  children 
who  will  be  designated  as  hard-to-serve 
children.  In  the  past,  the  two  terms  were 
synonymous.  In  the  past  we  did  not  use  the 
exact  language,  'Tiard-to-serve  children";  we 
talked  in  section  34  about  children  unable  to 
profit  by  instruction;  under  section  34  we 
simply  excluded  them  entirely  from  the  school 
system.  Some  of  them  remained  at  home, 
some  of  them  remained  in  institutions,  some 
of  them  were  in  nursing  homes,  some  of  them 
were  in  homes  for  special  care,  and  many 
hundreds  of  them  did  not  receive  an  educa- 
tion of  any  kind. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4405 


We  have  had  a  great  deal  of  debate  in  the 
committee  about  the  notion  of  exclusion  and, 
as  we  stand  here  today,  at  least  one  thing  all 
three  parties  are  agreed  on  is  that  the  word 
"exclusion"  will  no  longer  appear  in  the  bill 
when  it  is  finally  passed.  I  think  that  is  a 
major  achievement. 

Nevertheless,  we  still  have  the  designation, 
"hard-to-serve  pupil"— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  not  in  this 
section. 

Mr.  McClellan:  No,  it  is  not  in  this  section, 
but  if  I  can  just  finish  the  sentence:  we  have 
the  definition  of  a  hard-to-serve  child  in  a 
subsequent  sentence  as  a  child  who  is  unable 
to  profit  by  instruction.  My  question  is,  how 
many  of  these  children  will  be  de  facto  train- 
able retarded  children  for  whom  no  program 
is  available? 

I  think  in  particular  of  what  we  discovered 
after  a  number  of  years  of  questioning  of 
successive  ministers  of  Health  and  ministers 
of  Community  and  Social  Services  with 
respect  to  the  number  of  retarded  children 
who  were  in  homes  for  special  care  without 
any  programs.  We  finally  found  out,  after 
being  given  varying  figures  by  the  Ministry 
of  Health,  that  approximately  400  children 
with  developmental  handicaps  are  in  homes 
for  special  care  and  not  getting  any  education 
program  at  all. 

You  will  forgive  us,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we 
are  a  little  bit  cautious  about  this  particular 
issue.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  minister  is 
willing  or  able  to  speculate  with  respect  to 
the  number  of  trainable  retarded  children 
who  are  likely  to  end  up  categorized  as  hard- 
to-serve  children  unable  to  profit  by  instruc- 
tion. But  I  think  we  know  from  past  ex- 
perience that  it  is  the  trainable  retarded 
child  about  whom  we  have  been  talking 
when  we  have  discussed  the  application  of 
the  principle  of  exclusion  under  either  section 
34  or  another  section  that  serve  to  do  the 
same  thing. 

In  fact,  the  process  of  exclusion  is  simply 
a  de  facto  process,  which  says,  "No,  you  can- 
not come."  They  do  not  have  to  formally 
invoke  either  section  34  or  section  75  to 
achieve  a  de  facto  segregation.  I  am  raising 
this  point  more  as  a  point  of  concern.  I  do 
not  know  whether  the  minister  is  able  to  give 
reassurances  on  whether  the  hard-to-serve 
child  unable  to  profit  by  instruction  is  liable 
to  be  the  trainable  retarded  child  and  whether 
the  very  sad  patterns  of  the  past  may  con- 
tinue into  the  future. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  very  purpose 
of  this  piece  of  legislation  is  to  ensure  that 


the  responsibility  for  providing  a  program 
for  all  children  within  the  province  will  be 
assumed  by  all  of  the  boards  of  this  province. 
There  is  no  child  at  the  present  time  who 
cannot  be  admitted  to  the  educational  sys- 
tem with  the  passage  of  this  bill. 

The  purpose  of  the  specific  change  within 
the  definition  under  subsection  2  was  to  en- 
sure that  the  word  "child"  was  defined  as 
something  other  than  the  usual  definition— 
that  a  trainable  retarded  pupil  is  one  who 
does  not  fall  into  the  classification  of  "child" 
—in  the  traditional  sense  of  that  definition— 
and  would  be  expanded  to  permit  the  pupil 
in  that  classification  both  to  receive  an  earlier 
program  through  the  education  system  than 
the  ordinary  child  would,  and  to  have  that 
extended  to  the  age  of  21  years  in  all  in- 
stances. In  almost  all  instances  for  the 
trainable  mentally  retarded,  that  is  a  very 
appropriate  extension  to  help  them  to  learn 
a  skill  or  at  least  to  become  more  self-satisfied' 
in  their  educational  experience. 

5:20  p.m. 

I  have  no  means  of  defining  the  numbers 
of  pupils  within  this  category  who  might  be 
classified  as  hard  to  serve.  Although  the 
member  for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan)  con- 
tinues to  raise  the  matter  of  the  mentally 
retarded  young  people  who  are  within  cer- 
tain kinds  of  institutions,  he  is  acutely  aware 
that  the  three  ministries  involved  are  actively 
participating  in  a  program  to  assess  the  edu- 
cational requirements  of  all  those  children 
in  all  those  institutions  so  that  we  may  meet 
their  educational  needs.  It  is  the  intent  of  this 
bill  to  ensure  that  all  children  in  the  prov- 
ince, regardless  of  their  circumstances,  will 
have  an  opportunity  to  have  their  educa- 
tional needs  met  appropriately  within  the 
school  system. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  have  a  question  of  clarifica- 
tion here.  I  assume  that  the  minister's  amend- 
ment and  her  explanation  referring  to  the 
new  section  71,  which  is  section  12  of  the 
bill,  are  still  subject  to  section  75  as  it  is 
printed  in  the  act? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Section  75  was 
revoked. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Where  is  section  75  revoked? 

Once  upon  a  time  several  years  ago  when 
I  was  Education  critic  for  this  party  I  went 
through  this  whole  act  and  that  was  one  of 
the  parts  of  the  maze  that  escaped  us.  We 
do  not  want  it  to  escape  us  this  time. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Section  75  and  76 
of  the  said  act  are  repealed  at  section  14  in 
this  act. 


4406 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Isaacs:  I  have  some  concern  when  a 
bill  of  this  nature  has  been  dealt  with  by  a 
committee,  the  committee  has  brought  for- 
ward its  recommendations,  and  the  minister 
comes  into  the  committee  of  the  whole 
House  with  an  amendment  that  appears  in- 
nocuous and  even  desirable,  but  with  ex- 
planations that  somehow  are  not  completely 
satisfying. 

I  appreciate  the  minister's  saying  it  is  the 
intent  of  the  bill  that  education  shall  be 
provided  to  all  children  across  the  province. 
Unfortunately,  decisions  about  these  things 
tend  to  be  made  outside  of  this  House,  and 
outside  of  the  ministry— in  the  courts.  If  we 
are  not  very  careful  with  the  wording,  we 
are  going  to  find  a  situation  where  someone 
uses  something  as  a  way  of  getting  around 
doing  something. 

I  want  to  raise  one  more  point  on  this 
amendment.  The  minister  is  replacing  the 
words  "a  pupil  who  is  six  or  more  years  of 
age  but  less  than  21  years  of  age"  with  the 
words  "an  exceptional  pupil"— not  a  person, 
or  something  like  that,  but  the  specific 
phrase,  "an  exceptional  pupil."  As  soon  as 
that  is  used,  we  have  to  go  back  to  section 
1(1),  or  the  revised  section  20a  of  the  act, 
where  "exceptional  pupil"  is  defined.  But 
the  definition  of  "exceptional  pupil"  does  not 
encompass  all  the  children  of  this  province. 

It  seems  to  me,  at  least,  there  are  children 
in  this  province  who  could  be  excluded  be- 
cause they  are  not  resident  pupils  in  a  par- 
ticular board  area,  because  they  are  not  be- 
ing admitted  under  an  agreement,  or  because 
they  do  not  fall  under  the  clause  that  says, 
"to  which  the  cost  of  education  in  respect 
of  the  pupil  is  payable  by  the  minister." 

It  seems  to  me  those  children  might  in- 
clude children  who  are  at  present  in  special 
education  programs  in  the  United  States  and 
whose  costs  are  being  paid  by  the  Ministry  of 
Community  and  Social  Services.  I  wonder 
how  those  children,  who  may  also  be  train- 
able retarded,  can  be  brought  into  this  sec- 
tion as  the  minister  is  revising  it,  when  sec- 
tion 1(1)  does  not  appear  to  me  to  include 
those  pupils. 

I  wonder  why  we  take  out  the  generaliza- 
tion of  a  pupil  with  an  age  description  and 
replace  it  with  an  "exceptional  pupil,"  which 
means  something  very  specific.  Why  do  we 
not  take  out  the  age  wording  and  say  it 
means  the  pupil  whose  intellectual  function- 
ing is  below  the  level  et  cetera? 

I  would  appreciate  some  clarification  of 
those  matters. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  understand  the 
concern   of   the   honourable   member,   which 


has  to  be  based  on  a  very  malevolent  kind  of 
misanthropic  attitude.  I  feel  strongly  he  has 
to  understand  that  much  of  the  wording 
that  is  drafted  into  a  bill  is  a  result  of  re- 
quirements established  by  the  legislative 
counsel  in  terms  of  definitions  that  have 
already  been  established,  are  already  used 
in  the  Education  Act  and  must  be  reused  to 
avoid  confusion. 

The  purpose  of  this  amendment  to  this 
section  is  to  ensure  that  all  pupils  who  could 
be  classified  as  trainable  mentally  retarded 
will  be  dealt  with  in  this  act  in  the  defini- 
tion of  the  function  of  the  school  system  on 
behalf  of  the  trainable  mentally  retarded.  It 
also  is  an  attempt  to  provide  for  flexibility 
for  those  specific  pupils,  recognizing  they  re- 
quire an  educational  program  or  a  training 
program  that  may  be  significantly  longer 
than  that  which  is  necessary  even  for  some 
exceptional  children. 

I  have  to  tell  the  member  the  child  he  is 
talking  about  would  be  included  in  the 
group  of  which  he  is  a  resident  pupil.  As 
long  as  his  parents  remain  within  the  juris- 
diction of  a  school  board,  he  remains  a  resi- 
dent pupil. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Section  1,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  section  2: 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  T 
have  an  amendment  to  section  2 (la)  which 
I  believe  must  be  introduced  at  this  time  to 
ensure  that  the  appropriateness  of  the  legis- 
lation is  maintained. 

The  general  statement  at  the  beginning  of 
section  2 (la)  is  a  preamble  statement  which 
I  believe  is  spelled  out  fairly  clearly  in  the 
Education  Act  and  requires  no  specific  re- 
definition in  this  area,  in  an  act  that  is 
specificallv  designed  to  be  of  assistance  to 
exceptional  pupils.  The  concentration  in  this 
area  on  all  children  I  think  dilutes  the  kind 
of  attention  we  were  attempting  to  provide 
for  exceptional  pupils  in  this  legislation. 

I  would  therefore  recommend  this  amend- 
ment to  the  House. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hon.  Miss  Stephenson 
moves  that  section  8 (la)  of  the  act,  as  set 
out  in  section  2  of  the  bill,  be  amended  bv 
striking  out  "children  in  Ontario  have  avail- 
able to  them  a  free  and  appropriate  public 
education  that,  for  exceptional  children,  em- 
phasizes special  education  programs  and  ser- 
vices that  meet  their  unique  needs,  and  that 
the  rights  of  exceptional  children  and  their 
parents  or  guardians  are  protected"  in  the 
first,  second,  third,  fourth  and  fifth  lines  and 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4407 


inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "exceptional  pupils 
in  Ontario  have  available  to  them,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  act  and  the  regulations,  spe- 
cial education  programs  and  special  educa- 
tion services." 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I 
said  earlier,  our  concern  was  that  this  legisla- 
tion concentrate  upon  exceptional  pupils,  and 
this  reference  is  to  all  pupils  in  the  portion 
of  the  bill  that  was  included  by  amendment. 

5:30  p.m. 

"Children"  is  not  defined  in  the  Education 
Act.  It  could  mean  only  those  under  the  age 
of  18  and  it  could  mean  those  from  the  age 
of  one  day  up.  "Free  and  appropriate  public 
education"  is  an  American  term  from  the 
American  federal  legislation,  Bill  94-142,  and 
each  word  is  specifically  defined  within  that 
bill.  If  the  member  wants  that  phrase  defined, 
I  think  that  would  have  to  be  an  activity 
carried  out  by  this  House. 

As  it  is  used  in  this  phrase,  clause  and 
section,  the  word  "free"  would  be  open  to 
varying  interpretations  because  it  is  not  de- 
fined. The  Education  Act  in  Ontario  for  more 
than  100  years  has  made  provision  for  all 
pupils  to  attend  schools  within  the  public 
system  without  payment  of  fees.  I  suppose 
that  is  one  definition  of  a  free  educational 
program.  But  the  the  Education  Act  already 
specifies  that.  It  is  appropriately  set  out  in 
the  Education  Act  and  is  inappropriately 
added  in  this  one. 

The  other  thing  that  concerns  me  is  that 
"the  rights  of  exceptional  children"  has  no 
definitive  meaning  in  this  legislation  because 
we  do  not  have  a  children's  bill  of  rights  in 
this  province.  If  there  were  such  a  piece  of 
legislation,  then  that  might  be  appropriate 
wording.  At  the  present  time  it  would  appear 
to  dangle  in  mid-air  without  being  tied  to 
anything  except  for  definitions  as  may  be 
established  by  the  courts  from  time  to  time. 

The  rights  of  due  process  for  parents  and 
children  are  already  outlined  in  regulation 
704  and  they  are  strengthened  by  the  pro- 
visions of  the  amendment  in  this  act,  which 
was  made  by  the  government  member  during 
the  committee  hearings  and  was  supported  by 
both  members  of  the  opposition  parties  who 
were  present  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  one 
area  where  I  am  prepared  to  understand  the 
change  the  minister  is  making.  In  the  initial 
amendment  we  were  referring  to  all  the  chil- 
dren in  the  provincial  schools  and  yet,  on 
further  reflection,  I  realize  the  purpose  of  this 
bill  is  to  speak  to  exceptional  children. 


I  would  refer  once  again  to  the  minister's 
opening  statement  of  May  23,  in  which  she 
said,  "The  concept  is  simply  that  an  educa- 
tional system  which  is  supported  by  the  taxa- 
tion of  all  citizens  has  an  obligation  to  be  of 
service  to  all  children,  exceptionalities  not- 
withstanding." We  are  dealing  here  with 
those  children  in  the  system  who  have  excep- 
tional or  special  needs,  and  for  that  reason  I 
am  prepared  to  accept  the  first  part  of  the 
amendment. 

But  I  have  three  changes  which  I  would 
introduce  at  this  time.  The  first  is  that  we 
should  change  the  word  "pupils"  to 
"children,"  leaving  the  word  "exceptional," 
so  we  will  not  in  any  way  negate  the  offering 
of  some  place  to  a  child  in  this  province,  in 
some  kind  of  institution  and  under  some  kind 
of  special  care  in  this  province,  who  may  not 
fit  the  definition  of  pupil.  I  want  to  use  the 
word  "children"  rather  than— 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman:  I  do  not  want  to  unduly  interrupt 
the  flow  of  the  member  speaking  but,  if  he 
intends  to  move  amendments  to  the  amend- 
ments, perhaps  we  should  have  those  in  front 
of  us  first  so  all  the  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature can  understand  what  is  being  talked 
about. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  agree.  I  was 
going  to  let  him  complete  his  explanation 
first.  Does  he  have  those  amendments  with 
him? 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  pre- 
pared amendments  to  the  minister's  amend- 
ments as  I  understood  they  were  coming  up. 
However,  the  minister  has  withdrawn  one  of 
her  amendments,  and  that  creates  some  prob- 
lem for  us,  because  now  we  are  going  to 
have  to  include  the  intent  of  some  of  our 
original  amendments  some  place  else.  Obvi- 
ously there  is  no  way  I  can  know  in  advance 
what  amendments  the  minister  is  going  to 
leave  on  the  table  or  withdraw. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  have  withdrawn 
the  only  one  I  am  going  to  withdraw. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Then  I  would  put  it  to  you 
this  way,  Mr.  Chairman:  Until  this  point  I 
did  not  know  that.  When  I  came  into  the 
Legislature  this  afternoon  I  had  no  way  of 
knowing  the  minister  had  decided  to  with- 
draw her  first  amendment.  Therefore,  for  the 
balance  of  this  afternoon  and  perhaps  even 
into  this  evening,  I  am  going  to  be  faced 
with  having  to  put  amendments  in  places 
they  would  have  fitted  otherwise.  I  have  on 
the  table  before  you  an  amendment  that  will 
match  the  first  request  I  am  making  but  will 


4408 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


not  tie  into  the  next  two  I  am  making.  They 
would  have  been  fitted  into  the  first  one, 
which  is  no  longer  there. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  checked  with  your  pre- 
decessor and  was  advised  that  when  I  am 
making  an  amendment  to  the  minister's 
amendment,  it  is  not  appropriate  for  me  to 
make  it  until  the  minister  places  it.  There- 
fore, I  cannot  give  it  to  you  in  advance. 

e  Deputy  Chairman:  I  understand  the 
problem  you  are  faced  with  but,  at  the  same 
time,  amendments  must  be  in  writing.  I  do 
not  know  whether  you  wish  to  stand  this  sec- 
tion aside  for  a  moment.  I  realize  you  are 
in  some  difficulty  because  of  the  minister's 
amendment. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  either 
speak  to  the  amendment  I  want  to  make  at 
this  time,  or  I  can  write  it  out  and  give  it 
to  you,  whichever  you  direct. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Will  it  take  long 
to  write  out?  Perhaps  you  can  do  that. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  For  the  members  who  are 
in  the  Legislature  I  can  identify  the  two 
simple  changes  I  am  going  to  request.  I 
think  they  can  write  it  on  their  own.  If  they 
choose  to  force  me  to  do  otherwise,  I  will 
do  that. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  rule  provides 
that  it  shall  be  in  writing. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  I  will  take  a  minute  to 
write  it  then,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  McClellan:  While  the  honourable 
member  is  drafting  his  flip-flop,  let  me  speak 
to  the  amendment  that  is  before  us.  In  many 
respects,  I  regard  this  as  the  most  significant 
amendment  achieved  during  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  social  development  committee 
in  the  summer  and  fall  of  this  year.  What 
this  amendment  does  is  broaden  and  extend 
the  traditional  rights  provision  under  the 
Education  Act  of  Ontario. 

Until  section  2  of  this  bill  was  passed, 
resident  pupils  in  Ontario  had  the  right  to 
be  physically  present  in  a  classroom,  to  sit 
in  a  chair  within  a  school  building.  That  was 
the  beginning  and  the  end  of  their  right.  It 
was  an  important  right  to  be  physically  pres- 
ent, nothing  else,  but  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury it  was  a  significant  right. 

We  stand  here  a  century  later  and  it  is  time 
to  extend  the  provision  of  statutory  right 
beyond  what  was  appropriate  in  Egerton 
Ryerson's  day.  What  we  have  done  is  to  say 
in  the  statute  that  all  children  in  Ontario  have 
available  to  them  a  free  and  appropriate 
public  education  that  meets  their  unique 
needs.  In  addition,  the  Minister  of  Education 


shall  ensure  that  shall  take  place.   I   cannot 
think  of  a  more  significant  amendment. 

During  International  Year  of  the  Child, 
when  I  moved  the  children's  bill  of  rights, 
it  contained  a  provision  virtually  identical  to 
this  section.  I  remind  my  friends  in  the 
Liberal  Party  that  they  supported  it  then.  I 
remind  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  we  were  in 
the  social  development  committee,  the  Liberal 
Party  supported  this  rights  provision  without 
equivocation.  I  make  the  appeal  to  them  now, 
while  it  is  still  possible,  to  stay  with  the 
decision  they  made  when  the  children's  bill 
of  rights  was  before  us  and  stay  with  the 
decision  they  made  when  we  were  in  the 
social  development  committee. 

Mr.   Stong:   The  social  development  com- 
mittee made  a  mistake. 
5:40  p.m. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  say  to  the  member  for 
York  Centre,  the  social  development  com- 
mittee did  not  make  a  mistake.  The  member 
is  making  a  mistake  today,  and  I  want  to  tell 
him  the  nature  of  that  mistake.  His  party 
wants  to  limit  the  ministerial  responsibility  to 
ensuring  educational  service  for  exceptional 
pupils.  It  wants  to  limit  the  statutory  pro- 
vision to  exceptional  pupils.  I  go  back  to  the 
remarks  I  made  when  I  first  stood  up  this 
afternoon. 

We  have  defined  "exceptional  student"  in 
this  statute  as  the  only  child  who  is  eligible 
for  special  education  programs  and  special 
education  services.  If  a  child  is  not  so  for- 
tunate as  to  be  designated  an  exceptional 
pupil,  that  child  is  not  entitled  to  special  edu- 
cation programs  or  special  education  services. 
We  have  given  the  local  placement  committee 
of  the  boards  of  education  the  power  to  make 
that  life-or-death  decision,  and  yet  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  and  the  Liberal  Party  are 
not  willing  at  this  point  in  time  to  grant  a 
right  of  appeal  against  the  designation  of 
exceptional  pupils.  It  is  not  in  there. 

I  remind  the  minister  that  Chief  Justice 
MeRuer  said  appeal  rights  cannot  be  en- 
shrined by  regulation.  It  is  the  obligation  of 
the  Legislature  to  put  appeal  provisions  and 
appeal  rights  into  statutes  and  the  minister 
can  t  shirk  it.  It  is  not  proper  to  shirk  it.  The 
minister  knows  that  and  members  of  the  gov- 
ernment know  that  because  they  have  fol- 
lowed many  of  Chief  Justice  McRuer's  recom- 
mendations very  faithfully  over  the  years. 
The  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Develop- 
ment (Mrs.  Birch)  knows  that  because  the 
social  assistance  legislation  and  the  social 
services  legislation  of  this  province  have  been 
amended  to  conform  with  the  recommenda- 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4409 


tions  of  the  McRuer  report.  When  decisions 
are  made  with  respect  to  the  awarding  of 
benefits  or  services  and  when  decisions  are 
made  as  to  who  is  entitled  to  receive  services 
from  the  government,  there  are  rights  of  ap- 
peal, whether  in  the  Family  Benefits  Act  or 
the  Vocational  Rehabilitation  Services  Act  or 
the  General  Welfare  Assistance  Act  or  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Act  or  any  of  a 
dozen  other  statutes  in  this  province. 

For  some  reason,  education  is  not  regarded 
as  a  service  or  a  benefit  like  the  others.  In 
fact,  it  is  and  it  needs  to  be  defined  in  that 
way.  There  need  to  be  rights  of  entitlement 
put  into  this  statute  and  a  right  of  appeal 
against  the  decisions  on  who  is  eligible  for 
the  service  and  what  kind  of  service  they  are 
going  to  get.  Unless  we  have  a  clear  and 
unequivocal  statutory  provision  of  right,  as 
we  have  now  in  the  bill  as  amended,  then 
whatever  right  of  appeal  is  set  up  will  be  a 
travesty  and  a  sham. 

The  provision  in  the  statute  as  it  reads  now 
sets  a  benchmark  for  all  children  in  this 
province,  whether  or  not  they  have  been  so 
fortunate  to  have  been  designated  as  excep- 
tional pupils  or  not.  It  says  to  each  and  every 
child  in  this  province  they  have  a  right  to  an 
education  based  on  their  own  unique  needs, 
that  they  are  not  ciphers,  that  all  children 
aren't  the  same,  that  children  are  not  a  series 
of  identical,  infinitely  multiple  twins,  and  that 
we  are  not  talking  about  a  bunch  of  under- 
aged  social  insurance  numbers.  We  are  talk- 
ing about  living  individual  children,  all  with 
their  own  unique  personalities,  their  own 
unique  experiences  and  their  own  unique 
learning  needs.  We  are  saying  as  a  province 
we  are  going  to  tailor  our  education  system 
to  provide  service  on  the  basis  of  the  unique- 
ness of  each  and  every  child's  own  individual 
humanity. 

The  minister  talks  about  this  provision 
somehow  diluting  service  to  the  exceptional 
pupil.  Of  course,  exactly  the  opposite  is  true. 
What  the  minister  is  trying  to  do  is  water 
down  a  very  strong  rights  provision.  It  is 
beyond  my  comprehension  how  the  members 
of  the  Liberal  Party,  who  participated  in  the 
debate  in  the  social  development  committee, 
and  who  supported  this  statutory  provision  in 
the  social  development  committee,  can  now 
come  into  this  House  and  do  a  complete 
about-face.  I  think  it  is  shameful.  There  is 
no  other  way  to  describe  it.  We  have 
achieved  something  of  significance  in  this 
statute  that  is  unparalleled  in  this  country, 
and  we  are  forced  now  to  watch  as  our 
friends  once  again  backslide  away  from  a 
significant  decision. 


Mr.  Stong:  Vote  for  our  amendment. 

Mr.  McClellan:  There  is  still  time  before 
we  come  to  the  vote.  The  kind  of  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  minister  limits  her 
responsibility  to  making  sure  that  the  act 
and  the  regulations  are  followed  out.  That 
is  all  she  is  saying.  The  minister  will  do  what 
is  required  to  be  done  in  the  act.  I  thank  her 
very  much.  That  is  awfully  generous  of  her. 
But  that  is  not  a  rights  provision;  that  has 
nothing  to  do  with  a  statutory  rights  pro- 
vision. If  my  friends  in  the  Liberal  Party 
cannot  see  that,  it  is  because  they  choose 
not  to  see  that. 

Mr.  Stong:  Address  the  bill. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  am  addressing  the  bill 
and  the  Liberal  Party's  attempts  to  under- 
mine the  bill.  The  bill  is  tough  and  will 
guarantee  that  all  children  will  have  a  basis 
for  having  their  rights  upheld.  If  there  is 
no  rights  provision,  there  is  no  entitlement. 
It  is  as  simple  as  that,  is  it  not? 

Hon.   Miss   Stephenson:   That  is  not  true. 

Mr.  McClellan:  It  is  true.  If  there  is  no 
rights  provision  in  the  statute,  there  is  no 
entitlement.  If  it  did  not  say,  I  think  in  sec- 
tion 32- 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  What  country  does 
he  live  in? 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  minister  is  beginning 
to  froth. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  No.  It  is  astonish- 
ing that  I  am  not,  but  I  am  not. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Bear  with  us  for  another 
10  minutes  before  you  begin  to  froth. 

(I  believe  it  is  section  32  that  guarantees 
the  right  of  the  child  to  be  physically  pres- 
ent in  the  classroom.  If  that  section  was  not 
in  the  bill,  there  would  be  no  right  for  a 
child  to  be  physically  present  in  the  class- 
room. Is  that  so  hard  to  understand?  Each 
and  every  child  in  this  province  now  has  the 
right  to  attend  school.  Why?  Not  because  we 
are  sweet,  because  we  are  just  oozing  benev- 
olence, because  all  of  our  administrators  are 
so  full  of  the  milk  of  human  kindness  that 
they  let  all  these  children  into  our  schools. 
No.  The  reason  that  children  have  a  right  to 
go  to  school  is  that  it  says  so  in  the  Educa- 
tion Act.  It  is  right  here  in  the  statute.  If  we 
want  to  say  that  children  have  a  right  to  an 
appropriate  education  based  on  their  unique 
need,  that  has  to  be  in  the  statute  too.  If  it 
is  not  in  the  statute,  it  does  not  exist  as  a 
right  and  it  will  not  happen.  It  is  as  simple 
as  that. 

Over  the  course  of  the  last  three  weeks  I 
am  sure  all  members  who  have  been  involved 


4410 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


with  this  bill  have  been  receiving  a  flood  of 
correspondence  from  parents  in  the  com- 
munities. All  of  those  letters  have  said  sub- 
stantially the  same  thing,  that  they  are  aware 
of  the  changes  that  were  made  to  the  Educa- 
tion Act  in  the  social  development  committee. 
They  are  aware  that  the  new  statute  provides, 
for  the  first  time  in  our  history  as  a  province, 
that  all  children  have  the  right  to  a  free  and 
appropriate  education  based  on  their  unique 
needs. 

Virtually  all  ox  those  letters  called  upon  us 
to  preserve  and  protect  those  victories  won 
in  the  social  development  committee.  I,  for 
one,  intend  to  honour  what  I  read  in  those 
letters  to  be  a  very  heartfelt  plea.  Those  were 
not  letters  from  the  kind  of  people  who 
usually  write  us  letters— professionals,  business 
people,  trade  unionists,  each  with  his  own  set 
of  organizational  interests  to  put  forward. 
Those  were  letters  from  parents  with  children 
with  learning  disabilities. 

Virtually  all  of  the  letters  talked  about  the 
kinds  of  problems  they  had  experienced  them- 
selves, because  of  the  failure  to  get  service 
from  the  education  system  in  Ontario,  and 
the  kind  of  agony  they  had  gone  through  or 
the  kind  of  anguish  that  the  denial  of  an 
appropriate  education  had  meant  for  them 
and  their  family. 
5:50  p.m. 

Those  of  us  who  are  legislators  are  not 
charged  with  the  administration  of  the  school 
system.  That  is  the  responsibility  of  the  min- 
ister and  her  officials.  But  as  legislators  we 
are  charged  with  a  sacred  responsibility  to 
make  sure  the  legislation  is  as  good  as  it  is 


humanly  possible  to  devise.  I  say  to  all  mem- 
bers that  we  have  taken  a  giant  step  forward 
through  the  introduction  and  passage  of  a 
statutory  right  to  an  appropriate  education. 
It  will  be  a  sad  day  if  that  victory  is  taken 
away  by  the  shortsightedness  of  people  here 
in  this  assembly  today. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  indicated  a 
few  minutes  ago  that  I  had  what  I  considered 
to  be  three  important  amendments  to  this 
particular  section  that  will  parallel  some  of 
the  amendments  I  had  intended  to  introduce 
to  the  minister's  first  amendment  that  has  now 
been  withdrawn. 

The  first  one  would  be  to  change  the  word 
"pupils"  in  the  first  line  to  "children."  I  have 
already  indicated  the  reason  for  doing  that. 
It  has  been  brought  to  our  attention  that  there 
are  some  children  in  this  province,  again 
going  back  to  the  minister's  opening  state- 
ment where  it  says,  "All  children,  excep- 
tionalities notwithstanding—" 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Let  me  just  explain 
to  the  House  that  the  amendment  was  written 
out,  but  it  was  not  written  heavily  enough 
for  the  photocopy  machine  to  bring  it 
forward. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Maybe  it  was  invisible  ink. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  It  is  not  invisible  but 
very  close  to  invisible.  Unless  somebody  else 
wants  to  speak  to  the  minister's  original 
amendment,  I  am  wondering  whether  we 
should  not  rise  at  this  point  and  let  this  be 
properlv  typed  so  that  all  members  of  the 
House  can  see  it. 

The  House  recessed  at  5:54  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4411 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4390) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

STUDENT  AID  FOR 
FBA  RECIPIENTS 

384.  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  How  many 
FBA  recipients  attending  post-secondary 
institutions  in  1978-79,  1979-80  and  in  this 
school  year  applied  for  and  received  or  are 
anticipating  receipt  of  financial  aid  from 
OSAP?  What  were  the  average  levels  of  as- 
sistance per  student  in  each  of  the  school 
years  listed?  (Tabled  October  28,  1980.) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  number  of 
FBA  recipients  who  received,  or  are  antici- 
pating receipt  of  financial  aid  from  OSAP: 
1978-79,  1,155;  1979-80,  1,756;  1980-81  (as 
of  November  12,   1980),   1,662. 

The  average  levels  of  OSAP  assistance  per 
FBA    recipient: 

1978-79     1979-80     1980-81 

(as  of 
November 
12,  1980) 
1,443         1,648 
857         1,859 


Provincial  grants   1,395 
Loans  2,707 


LIEN  LEGISLATION 

392.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  provide  details  of  the  proposed 
changes  to  the  Mechanics'  Lien  Act?  How 
do  these  proposals  intend  to  provide  further 
protection  for  the  small  businessman  in  the 
construction  industry  who  is  suffering  from 
the  misuse  of  the  present  legislation?  (Tabled 
November  3,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Before  the  end  of 
the  month,  I  intend  to  table  in  the  Legisla- 
ture a  discussion  paper  on  the  draft  Con- 
struction Lien  Act.  It  contains  a  first  draft 
of  legislation  designed  ultimately  to  replace 
the  Mechanics'  Lien  Act. 

The  draft  Construction  Lien  Act  is  in- 
tended to  serve  as  a  model  for  discussion. 
The  discussion  paper  invites  suggestions 
from  interested  individuals  or  groups  with 
respect  to  improving  the  draft  legislation.  In 
this  connection,  I  am  establishing  an  ad- 
visory  committee   of  experts   in  the   field   of 


mechanics'  liens  to  review  the  draft  and  the 
suggestions  received  from  the  public. 

The  draft  Construction  Lien  Act  contained 
in  the  discussion  paper  completely  restruc- 
tures and  rewrites  the  lien  legislation.  It 
makes  the  major  revisions  to  the  lien  legisla- 
tion about  which  some  consensus  has  been 
achieved  within  the  industry.  It  also  presents 
for  consideration  a  number  of  concepts  de- 
vised by  ministry  officials. 

The  second  part  of  the  question  in  its 
present  form  is  impossible  to  answer.  Small 
businessmen  can  be  involved  in  all  stages  of 
the  construction  industry.  The  nature  of  the 
protection  offered  by  the  draft  legislation 
will  depend  on  the  relationship  of  the  small 
businessman  to  the  particular  construction 
project.  A  small  businessman  may  be  the 
owner  of  the  building  or  other  improvement 
being  made,  a  general  contractor  doing  reno- 
vating work  or  a  subcontractor  doing  work 
on  a  major  contract.  In  each  of  these  cases, 
the  type  of  protection  offered  by  the  draft 
legislation  will  be  different. 

Once  members  have  had  an  opportunity  to 
review  the  discussion  paper,  I  will  make 
available  for  the  assistance  of  anv  interested 
member,  counsel  of  the  policy  development 
division  of  the  ministry. 

PRIVATE  SCHOOLS 

395.  Mr.  Grande:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Education  table  the  latest  statistical  informa- 
tion regarding  enrolment,  staff,  and  courses 
of  study,  provided  by  private  schools  pur- 
suant to  section  15(5)  of  the  Education  Act? 
( Tabled  November  4,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  latest  statis- 
tical information  for  private  schools  in 
Ontario  is  for  1979-80  and  is  as  follows: 
enrolment,  67,899;  teachers  full-time,  2,640; 
teachers  part-time,  3,121;  teachers  total, 
5,761. 

The  Minister  of  Education  supervises  only 
the  courses  of  study  in  inspected  private 
schools  that  want  to  grant  the  secondary 
school  graduation  diploma  or  the  secondary 
school  honour  graduation  diploma.  However, 
statistics  are  not  gathered  on  the  variety  of 
courses   offered  in   inspected  private  schools. 


4412  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  November  18,  1980 

University  study,   statement   by   Miss   Stephenson   4373 

TVOntario,  statement  by  Mr.    Baetz 4373 

Workmen's  compensation,  statement  by  Mr.  Elgie   ■ 4374 

Municipal  boundary  negotiations  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells  4375 

Halton  financial  deficit,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells   4376 

Point  of  information  re  tomato  processing:  Mr.  Mancini  4377 

Day  care,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy  f4378 

St.  Michael's  College  land,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  S.  Smith  4379 

Disposal  of  PCBs,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Sargent,  Mr.  Swart  4380 

Data  processing,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Roy  4381 

Ottawa  health  clinic,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Roy,  Mr.  Cassidy  4382 

Sales  tax  on  carpets,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck  and  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Samis  4383 

Bata  strike,  question  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  O'Neil  4383 

Workmen's  compensation,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Lupusella,  Mr.  Mancini  4383 

Use  of  American  dictionaries,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Sweeney  4384 

School  fire,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Samis  4384 

Massey-Ferguson,    questions    of    Mr.    Davis    and    Mr.    Grossman:    Mr.    Nixon,    Mr. 

Makarchuk   4384 

Use  of  asbestos  in  schools,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Bounsall  4384 

Tomato  processing,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Cassidy  4385 

Nursing  homes,  questions  to  Mrs.  Birch  and  Mr.  Walker:   Mr.  Bradley  4386 

Investment  companies'  failure,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  4387 

Acid  rain,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Sargent  4388 

Petition  re  Halton  financial  deficit:  Mr.  J.  Reed  4389 

Petition  re  annual  report,  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations:  Mr.  Bradley  4389 

Report,  standing  committee  on  social  development:  Mr.  Gaunt 4389 

Motion  re  private  members'  public  business,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  4389 

Municipal  Boundary  Negotiations  Act,  Bill  197,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4390 

City  of  Toronto  Act,  Bill  Pr44,  Mr.  Renwick,  first  reading 4390 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980  4413 


Cradore  Mines  Limited  Act,  Bill  Pr49,  Mr.  Ramsay,  first  reading  4390 

Residential  Tenancies  Amendment  Act,  Bill  198,  Mr.  Philip,  first  reading  4390 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  384,  392  and  395  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  4390 

Point  of  order  re  written  questions:  Mr.  Isaacs 4390 

Education  Amendment  Act,  Bill  82,  in  committee <4390 

Recess 4410 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Student  aid  for  FBA  recipients,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston  14411 

Lien  legislation,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Van  Home  4411 

Private  schools,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Grande  4411 


4414  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Birch,  Hon.  M.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development  (Scarborough  East  PC) 

Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Lupusella,  A.  (Dovercourt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

O'Neil,  H.  (Quinte  L) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Pope,  Hon.  A.;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Cochrane  South  PC) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP) 

Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Stong,  A.  (York  Centre  L) 
Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 
Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 
Walker,  Hon.  G.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

(London  South  PC) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 


No.  116 

Ontarto 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  November  18,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this   issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4417 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 
House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

EDUCATION  AMENDMENT  ACT 
(continued) 

Resuming  consideration  of  Bill  82,  An  Act 
to  amend  the  Education  Act. 

On  section  2: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Sweeney  moves  that  the 
amendment  by  Hon.  Miss  Stephenson  be 
further  amended  by  deleting  the  word 
"pupils"  in  the  first  line  and  replacing  it  with 
"children";  by  adding  "appropriate"  in  the 
third  line  after  "regulation";  by  adding 
"without  payment  of  fees"  in  the  fourth  line 
after  "services"  and  by  further  adding  "and 
providing  for  the  parents  or  guardians  to 
appeal  the  appropriateness  of  the  special 
education  placement." 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  explain  precisely  why  I  have  gone  about  it 
in  this  way.  To  repeat  what  I  attempted  to 
indicate  prior  to  the  dinner  recess,  some 
parts  of  this  amendment  were  contained  in 
an  amendment  I  had  to  the  honourable  min- 
ister's first  amendment,  which  she  withdrew, 
and  I  apologize  to  my  colleagues  in  the 
House  for  having  created  some  confusion 
prior  to  6  o'clock. 

If  I  may  now  explain  why  I  am  asking  the 
minister  to  accept  this  change  to  her  amend- 
ment: I  think  it  is  necessary  to  change  the 
word  "pupil"  to  "children"  because  it  has  been 
drawn  to  my  attention  that  there  are  some 
children  in  this  province  who  may  be  in  a 
facility  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  school 
system  who  would  not  be  defined  as  pupils 
according  to  normal  terminology  and  who 
may  require  special  education  services. 

I  am  quite  prepared  to  hear  the  minister 
indicate  to  me  that  under  the  existing  section 
1  of  this  bill  they  may  be  covered.  I  felt  it 
was  my  responsibility  to  bring  it  forward  as 
an  amendment  so  we  would  at  least  have  the 
opportunity  to  clarify  that  those  children  not 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  school  system, 
who  may  be  in  some  kind  of  an  institution, 
are  covered.  That  is  the  whole  purpose  of 
doing  it.   I  am  quite  prepared  to  hear  the 


Tuesday,  November  18,  1980 

minister  indicate  to  me  that  it  may  not  be 
necessary,  that  they  are  covered  in  some  other 
way-I  will  be  happy  with  that.  I  just  want  to 
be  sure  they  are  covered,  which  is  why  I 
brought  it  in. 

The  minister  will  be  very  aware  that  the 
word  "appropriate"  has  come  up  time  and 
time  again  during  our  discussions.  A  number 
of  those  concerned  about  this  legislation  said 
the  term  "special  education"  may  not  be 
enough;  we  have  to  be  sure  it  meets  the  needs 
of  kids.  That  is  the  whole  intent  of  using  the 
word  "appropriate." 

I  would  draw  to  the  minister's  attention 
that  on  page  three  of  her  amendment  to 
section  7(8),  the  minister  herself  uses  the 
term  "appropriate  special  education."  I  do 
not  believe  I  am  being  inconsistent  in  saying 
at  this  time  there  would  be  no  good  reason 
to  be  concerned  about  using  the  word 
"appropriate."  I  realize  it  may  be  perceived 
as  an  unnecessary  duplication  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  there  are  those  who  have 
children  and  who  are  concerned  about  what 
we  are  doing,  and  if  this  clarifies  in  a  more 
precise  way  what  we  are  after,  I  think  the 
minister  will  appreciate  why  I  want  to  put 
it  in. 

In  terms  of  "without  payment  of  fees," 
which  is  my  third  amendment,  I  would  direct 
the  minister  to  her  own  statement,  which  I 
briefly  referred  to  prior  to  the  recess.  The 
concept  is  simply  that  it  is  an  educational 
system  supported  by  the  taxation  of  all 
citizens.  Literally,  what  I  am  saying  here  is, 
if  we  find  there  are  some  children  who  for 
whatever  reason  have  to  be  educated  in  a 
program  some  place  else,  the  general  taxation 
base  should  bear  that  whatever  the  cost.  The 
individual  parent  should  not  be  burdened 
with  that  problem. 

I  would  also  point  out  to  the  minister,  and 
I  am  sure  she  is  already  aware  of  it,  that  in  a 
subsequent  amendment  I  am  going  to  move 
that  where  the  board  itself,  co-operatively 
with  the  parent,  decides  to  place  the  child  in 
some  other  educational  setting,  the  board 
pay  for  it.  If  we  go  one  step  further  and  the 
special  education  tribunal  decides  the  child 
should  be  placed  in  another  educational 
setting,  I  am  going  to  move  an  amendment 
that  the  minister,  for  whom  the  tribunal  is 


4418 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


acting,  would  pay  for  it.  Once  again  it  would 
be  consistent  with  what  will  be  coming  up 
later. 

Finally,  the  minister  will  be  aware  that  in 
the  amendment  she  has  withdrawn,  I  wanted 
a  more  precise  statement  of  what  she  is  going 
to  do  anyway,  that  is,  to  provide  for  the 
parents  or  guardians  the  right  to  appeal  the 
appropriateness  of  the  special  education 
placement. 

The  minister  will  realize  that  in  the  bill, 
as  it  now  stands,  under  section  5  there  is  a 
reference  to  the  fact  that  a  special  education 
placement  can  be  appealed.  The  fact  the 
minister  has  accepted  that  in  committee— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  That  is  section  3. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Thank  you.  The  minister 
probably  will  appreciate  that  I  am  trying  to 
be,  in  so  far  as  possible,  internally  consistent 
as  far  as  this  legislation  is  concerned.  I  am 
trying  to  draw  to  the  minister's  attention  that 
any  amendments  I  propose  are  consistent 
with  what  we  have  done  in  other  places  in 
the  legislation.  We  passed  it  in  standing  com- 
mittee. The  minister  supported  it.  I  have  not 
yet  seen  any  amendment  that  the  minister 
proposes  that  would  eliminate  it.  I  would 
recommend  to  her  that  putting  this  in  this 
particular  section  would  be  consistent. 

I  do  not  intend  to  go  on  at  any  great 
length.  What  I  have  tried  to  indicate  to 
the  minister  is  the  four  amendments  I  am 
proposing.  I  have  attempted  to  indicate  in 
each  case  why  I  believe  they  are  acceptable 
and  consistent  with  what  is  done  in  other 
parts  of  the  legislation. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  May  I  respond,  Mr. 
Chairman?  I  should  like  to  respond  to  the 
honourable  member's  proposed  amendments. 
I  think  I  have  already  stated  my  concern 
about  the  inclusion  of  the  word  "children" 
rather  than  "pupil"  since  the  age  range  that 
is  possible  within  that  definition  is  one  that 
is  not  entirely  consistent  with  any  of  the 
provisions  within  the  Education  Act.  I 
recognize  the  rationale  for  the  inclusion  of 
that  word,  but  I  believe  the  definitions  in- 
cluded in  section  1  under  subsection  20(a) 
(i),  (ii)  and  (iii)  cover  all  the  children  in  the 
province. 

I  do  not  believe  there  is  anyone  who  can 
escape  that  net  at  this  point  because  that 
includes  all  those  children  in  all  kinds  of 
institutions,  including  nursing  homes  and 
homes  for  special  care,  where  we  may  not 
at  this  point  have  agreements  but  will.  It 
includes  all  those  who  are  considered  resident 
pupils  of  a  board,  and  all  who  could  enrol 
with  the  board  although  they  may  not  be 
resident  pupils  for  certain  circumstances. 


8:10  p.m. 

It  would  not  be  consistent  with  the  re- 
mainder of  the  Education  Act  to  include  the 
word  "children"  rather  than  "pupils."  But  I 
do  not  have  any  major  objection  to  it  if  the 
member  feels  it  is  going  to  cover  a  circum- 
stance that  might  arise  from  some  unknown 
factor  that  I  certainly  cannot  prognosticate  at 
this  point. 

I  have  no  difficulty  with  the  word  "appro- 
priate." I  am  told  the  inclusion  of  adjectives 
within  legislation  tends  to  be  less  than  pro- 
ductive because  there  may  be  a  number  of 
intepretations  of  the  word  "appropriate"  and 
this  may  lead  to  some  difficulties  in  the 
future.  But  we  know  what  we  are  talking 
about  when  we  talk  about  an  "appropriate" 
educational  program.  If  we  can  use  our 
definition  of  "appropriate,"  I  think  that  is 
probably  fairly  reasonable. 

"Without  payment  of  fees"  as  an  inclusion 
is  simply  a  reinforcement  of  the  current  edu- 
cational philosophy,  and  that  I  would  cer- 
tainly accept. 

My  only  question  about  the  member's 
fourth  amendment  is  that  in  section  3(2)  of 
the  bill,  paragraph  5a  specifically  requires  of 
the  minister  an  action  that  will  develop  the 
procedures  to  govern  the  appeals  of  parents 
regarding  placement,  will  govern  the  par- 
ticipation of  parents  in  all  the  activities  that 
might  lead  up  to  a  placement,  and  certainly 
will  define  the  way  in  which  those  appeals 
should  be  carried  out.  Therefore,  my  question 
would  be  whether  it /  needs  to  be  repeated. 
Does  it  need  to  be  stated  twice  within  such 
a  short  space  in  the  act,  or  is  it  more  appro- 
priate in  section  3? 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  could 
briefly  respond  to  what  the  minister  has  said 
with  respect  to  the  last  point,  I  recognize, 
and  I  have  already  given  cognizance  to  the 
fact,  that  the  minister  has  accepted  the  ap- 
peals procedure  on  page  three  of  the  bill  as 
it  now  stands.  But  it  has  been  brought  to  my 
attention  that  when  it  is  totally  within  the 
regulations,  there  is  some  concern  by  people 
outside  this  House  that  it  does  not  fit  all 
the  needs.  Since  it  is  the  minister's  intention 
to  bring  it  in  by  regulation  anyway  in  this 
particular  section,  it  seems  to  strengthen  the 
statute  requirement  that  in  fact  the  minister 
do  that. 

I  am  quite  prepared  to  understand  that  the 
minister  in  good  faith  would  bring  it  in.  In 
the  same  vein,  I  would  say  it  does  not  really 
change  anything  here.  The  minister  will  re- 
call in  my  opening  remarks  I  made  the  ob- 
servation that  we  are  dealing  here  with  a 
delicate  balance  between,  on  the  one  hand, 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4419 


trustees  and  teachers  who  have  to  implement 
this,  and,  on  the  other,  a  very  large  number 
of  parents  who  have  genuine  concerns  based 
upon  long  experience.  Unfortunately,  there  is 
nothing  we  can  do  about  that  experience. 
That  is  what  they  are  speaking  from.  That  is 
their  perception.  If  by  putting  it  in  this  area 
they  have  some  sense  they  are  better  pro- 
tected in  a  way  in  which  the  minister  intends 
to  protect  them  anyway,  I  would  simply  ask 
the  minister  to  accept  it,  even  if  it  is  probably 
a  duplication. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
only  concern  I  have  is  that  it  is  repeated 
within  a  relatively  short  period  of  time  in 
the  act,  if  it  is  in  both  places.  Which  is  the 
most  appropriate  place  in  which  to  put  it? 

I  will  make  a  commitment  to  this  House 
that  the  regulations  governing  this  activity 
will  be  introduced  for  the  members  of  the 
House  to  see  before  this  bill  receives  royal 
assent.  We  are  in  the  process  of  working  on 
those  regulations  at  the  moment.  That  mech- 
anism for  the  active  participation  of  parents 
in  the  function  of  the  placement  and  review 
committee  and  the  active  role  of  parents  in 
appealing  that  placement  is  a  regulation 
activity  I  have  already  committed  myself  to 
and  which  will  be  before  the  members  of  the 
House  before  the  bill  receives  royal  assent. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  Bellwoods. 

Mh\  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may- 
Mr.  Chairman:  No,  order. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
believe  the  minister  has  asked  a  question  with 
respect  to  my  amendment  and  I  would  like 
to- 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  did. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Am  I  in  order  or  out  of 
order? 

Mr.  Chairman:  You  will  have  an  oppor- 
tunity. The  member  for  Bellwoods. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  will  not  be  long  but  I  do  want  to  indicate 
just  how  intolerable  I  find  this  subamend- 
ment. 

My  colleagues  may  try  to  argue  that  there 
is  no  difference  between  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  honourable  minister,  as 
amended  by  the  Liberal  Party,  and  what  is 
currently  on  the  books  as  passed  by  the  social 
development  committee.  There  are  profound 
differences  and  let  us  not  kid  ourselves.  If 
we  want  to  water  down  the  rights  provision 
under  section  2  of  Bill  82,  let  us  have  the 
honesty  to  stand  up  and  say,  "That  is  what 
we  are  doing,"  because  that  is  the  result  of 
the  amendment  and  the  subamendment. 


Number  one,  it  has  eliminated  the  phrase 
"unique  needs."  We  are  no  longer  talking 
about  an  appropriate  public  education  pro- 
gram that  meets  the  unique  needs  of  children. 
We  are  not  talking  about  that  any  more.  We 
are  talking  about  something  entirely  different. 

Secondly,  we  are  not  talking  about  all 
children  in  Ontario  any  more.  We  are  not 
talking  about  all  the  children  in  the  prov- 
ince. We  are  simply  talking  about  those  who 
are  designated  by  a  local  board  of  education 
placement  committee  as  exceptional  pupils. 
If  people  do  not  see  the  difference  between 
a  statutory  provision,  which  covers  all  the 
children  of  the  province,  and  a  statutory 
provision  which  simply  covers  those  who  are 
designated  exceptional  pupils  by  officers  of  a 
board  of  education,  then  there  is  something 
profoundly  wrong  with  their  mental  vision. 

The  amendment  and  the  subamendment 
include  the  word  "appropriate."  Later  on, 
the  same  people  who  want  to  move  this 
amendment  and  the  subamendment  want  to 
take  out  the  definition  of  appropriate  from 
the  act.  So  we  have  a  nice  little  word  in  here 
—"appropriate."  Nowhere  in  the  act,  if  the 
group  here— the  Conservatives  and  the 
Liberals— has  its  way,  will  there  be  a  defini- 
tion of  appropriate.  Who  are  you  trying  to 
kid,  who  are  you  trying  to  fool? 

I  very  much  hope  you  are  not  fooling  any- 
body who  is  watching  this  debate.  There  is 
the  gamesmanship  around  what  "free" 
means.  What  does  the  minister  mean  by  say- 
ing there  is  ambiguity  with  respect  to  the 
word  "free."  Of  course  it  means  no  user 
charge.  If  that  is  not  sufficiently  clear,  let 
somebody  move  an  amendment  to  Bill  82 
that  simply  spells  out  the  obvious  meaning 
of  free,  instead  of  this  gamesmanship  around 
words. 

What  we  have  in  front  of  us  is  a  substan- 
tial backing  off  from  the  statutory  rights  pro- 
vision in  Bill  82,  which  guarantees  to  all 
children  in  Ontario  the  right  to  a  free  and 
appropriate  education  that  meets  their  uni- 
que needs.  The  formulation  that  the  other 
two  parties  are  attempting  to  move  is  pro- 
foundly different  from  that.  Let  there  be  no 
mistake  about  it  whatsoever.  Finally,  there 
is  the  little  tag  end  that  the  Liberal  Party 
has  moved  providing  for  the  parents  or 
guardians  to  appeal  the  appropriateness  of 
the  special  education  placement.  What  on 
earth  does  that  mean?  It  means  absolutely 
nothing. 

The  powers  of  decision  in  this  bill  are 
statutory  powers.  Let  me  stress  the  point 
again  for  the  third  time.  It  says  on  the  very 
first  page  of  the  bill,  "Her  Majesty,  by  and 


4420 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly  of  the  Province  of  Ontario 
enacts  as  follows."  The  very  first  thing  we 
enact  in  this  bill  is  the  power  of  officials  of 
a  board  of  education  to  decide  which  chil- 
dren are  exceptional  pupils  and  which  chil- 
dren are  not  exceptional  pupils.  Having 
made  that  decision,  the  same  committee  de- 
cides what  kind  of  a  special  education  pro- 
gram and  what  kind  of  special  education 
services  those  who  have  been  designated 
exceptional  pupils  will  receive. 
8:20  p.m. 

Neither  of  the  other  two  parties  is  pre- 
pared to  put  forward  a  genuine  appeal  pro- 
cedure and  genuine  appeal  mechanism  with- 
in the  statute  itself.  A  statutory  power  of 
decision  cannot  be  met  with  the  kind  of 
vague  nonsensical  phrase  that  we  have  in  the 
subamendment.  Appeal  procedures  against 
statutory  powers  of  decision  cannot  be  im- 
posed by  regulation  by  the  minister  or  the 
cabinet.  It  is  us,  the  Legislature  conferring 
the  statutory  power  of  decision,  and  only 
this  Legislature,  that  should  enact  in  the 
statute  itself  the  right  of  appeal  against  the 
decisions  exercised  under  that  statutory 
power. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  1976  I  in- 
troduced a  bill  calling  for  mandatory  special 
education.  That  is  exactly  what  this  bill  be- 
fore us  purports  to  do.  Let  me  just  speak  to 
the  amendment  being  offered  by  my  col- 
league from  Kitchener- Wilmot. 

In  the  bill  passed  by  the  committee  the 
word  "free"  is  included  loud  and  clear.  In 
essence,  the  word  "free"  opens  a  Pandora's 
box.  It  represents  bad  legislation,  bad  draft- 
ing. It  would  allow  any  individual  to  com- 
mence litigation  that  would  ask  the  court 
to  determine  whether  that  person  would 
have  to  pav  his  property  taxes  for  education 
if  that  could  be  tested.  It  is  better  to  have 
the  word  "free"  deleted  from  the  section 
completely. 

In  place  of  that,  my  colleague  from 
Kitchener- Wilmot  included  after  that,  "with- 
out payment  of  fees."  This  obviously  in- 
cludes no  excess  payment  over  and  above 
what  his  property  taxes  would  bring  him  for 
educational  purposes.  It  also  imposes  and 
continues  to  impose  upon  the  individual  his 
responsibility  to  the  educational  system.  The 
word  "free"  is  not  desirable  and  must  be 
removed. 

The  question  of  "appropriate"  is  very  im- 
portant. It  is  our  belief,  as  expressed  this 
afternoon  by  members  to  my  left,  that  the 
purpose  of  the  bill  itself  is  to  meet  a  need. 
Until  the  enactment  of  this  bill,  this  has  not 


been  a  compulsion  on  the  ministry  yet  the 
need  has  existed.  We  have  recognized  that 
need  and  attempted  to  do  something  about 
meeting  it. 

I  have  no  problem  with  the  definition  or 
the  inclusion  of  "exceptional  children."  As 
my  friend  from  Kitchener-Wilmot  defines  it, 
it  is  desirable  to  us.  I  have  more  faith  than 
my  friends  to  the  left  in  the  appeal  pro- 
cedures that  will  be  debated  later  and  in  the 
classification  of  individual  needs  of  children. 
I  have  great  faith  in  those  who  will  be  imple- 
menting the  appeal  procedures  when  we 
fiinally  enact  them. 

This  afternoon  my  friends  on  my  left  chas- 
tised us  for  flip-flopping.  We  have  not  flip- 
flopped;  we  have  improved  on  what  the  min- 
ister has  proposed.  It  is  good  to  see  the 
honourable  minister  is  not  opposed  to  what 
wc  have  included.  I  would  urge  upon  her 
that  this  is  the  most  appropriate  spot  for 
enabling  legislation  in  reference  to  an  appeal. 
It  is  better  here  than  in  some  section  later  on 
dealing  with  a  procedural  or  regulatory  enact- 
ment or  enabling  part.  In  fact,  an  enabling 
part  ought  to  be  included  here,  in  my  respect- 
ful submission  to  the  minister,  as  we  have 
done  in  our  amendment. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  could  be  in  both, 
actually. 

Mr.  Stong:  That  could  be,  and  we  are 
willing  to  have  it  invoked. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  with  a 
great  deal  of  sadness  and  an  enormous 
amount  of  anger.  We  have  before  us  in  the 
clause,  as  it  is  reported  to  this  Legislature 
from  the  social  development  committee,  a  his- 
toric and  important  clause  that  actually 
breaks  new  ground  and  establishes  the 
principles  that  many  of  us  in  this  Legislature 
fought  for  for  many  years  with  regard  to 
rights  for  children  who  need  special  educa- 
tion. 

There  were  honourable  members  of  all 
parties  who  fought  for  those  rights.  The  two 
previous  speakers  for  the  Liberal  Party,  in 
fact,  fought  for  those  rights.  I  am  saddened 
more  than  I  can  say  by  their  retreat  and  the 
sophistry  we  have  in  the  arguments  coming 
from  the  Liberal  Party  this  evening,  and  the 
sophistry  involved  in  the  arguments  coming 
from  the  honourable  minister  in  her  amend- 
ment earlier  this  afternoon.  Those  arguments 
are  simple  arguments  to  save  face  and  they 
are  arguments  to  weasel  out  of  a  legislative 
commitment  to  the  right  to  education  for  kids 
with  special  learning  needs. 

I  would  like  to  quote  the  member  for  York 
Centre,  who  had  the  courage  in  1976  to  in- 
clude in  legislative  terms  the  phrase  "every 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4421 


child"  in  his  Education  Amendment  Act.  He 
added  it  to  the  act,  not  to  the  regulations, 
and  he  did  not  have  faith  in  the  regulators  in 
1976.  He  said  nothing  this  evening  to  show 
us  what  has  changed  his  faith  in  the 
regulators. 

His  bill  read:  "The  said  act"— that  is  the 
Education  Act— "is  amended  by  adding 
thereto  the  following  section:  19a.  Every 
child"— no  weaseling,  no  adjective  that 
modifies  that— "of  compulsory  school  age  has 
a  right  to  an  education." 

That  was  a  clause  he  could  have  been 
proud  of.  The  amendment  his  colleague  has 
introduced  is  one  he  should  be  ashamed  of. 

As  for  the  minister  s  argument  that  the 
wording  is  American,  are  the  Americans  such 
horrible  people?  Have  they  not  done  some- 
thing occasionally  right  in  legislative  terms? 
Of  course  they  have.  They  have,  in  fact, 
occasionally  made  some  of  the  best  ringing 
declarations  of  human  freedom  this  world 
has  heard,  and  they  have  embodied  some  of 
those  principles  of  freedom  in  legislation  in 
a  very  sound  and  effective  way. 

The  minister  argues  that  the  word  "chil- 
dren" is  not  appropriate.  Why  not?  Her  argu- 
ment is  specious  that  it  might  include  chil- 
dren starting  at  day  one  to  whatever  the  age 
of  majority  is,  because  the  rest  of  the  legis- 
lation in  the  Education  Act  deals  with  all 
those  problems. 

The  minister's  arguments  might  hold  water 
in  legislative  terms  if  the  government  had 
brought  in  a  special  and  separate  bill  that 
dealt  with  special  education,  but  it  did  not. 
It  saw  fit  to  amend  the  Education  Act,  the 
general  act  we  consolidated  in  1974.  Because 
it  did  that,  as  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Bellwoods  indicated  earlier,  this  act  embodies 
the  right  of  the  child  to  be  present  physically 
in  a  classroom.  That  is  the  only  legislative 
right  we  have  in  Ontario,  that  children  shall 
have  access  to  education.  That  is  the  only 
legislative  guarantee.  If  we  want  to  guaran- 
tee the  right  of  exceptional  children  to  edu- 
cation, that  guarantee  also  has  to  be  em- 
bodied! in  the  legislation. 

As  I  ponder  this  clause  and  hear  the  argu- 
ments coming  from  the  other  corners  of  the 
House,  I  say  to  myself,  as  I  look  at  section  2 
of  the  bill  as  it  was  reported  by  the  social 
development  committee,  what  is  so  horrible 
about  this  section?  What  is  there  in  the  sec- 
tion that  harms  anybody?  Is  there  any  harm 
in  the  section?  Does  it  harm  the  children? 
Does  it  harm  the  school  board  administrators? 
Does  it  harm  the  general  public? 
8:30  p.m. 


I  must  answer  "no"  to  all  those  questions;. 
There  is  no  harm  in  the  section.  It  does  make 
more  work  for  some  people  or  less  for  others. 
It  makes  a  lot  more  work  for  the  teachers  in 
the  classrooms,  for  the  administrators  of  the 
school  boards  and  for  the  ministry.  But  we 
do  not  devise  legislation  for  the  purpose  of 
the  bureaucracies.  The  bureaucracies  are 
there  to  serve  the  needs  of  the  children. 

I  say  to  myself,  does  section  2  do  any 
good  as  it  is  in  this  legislation?  I  can  under- 
stand the  misgivings  many  people  have.  I 
can  understand  their  uneasiness  because  there 
is  a  precedent  set.  Thank  God  we  have  a 
precedent  once  in  a  while  in  this  Legislature 
in  1980  when  we  have  such  a  dbn't-rock-the- 
boat  kind  of  legislative  program  from  the 
William  G.  Davis  government.  Thank  God 
we  have  one  or  two  precedents- 
Does  it  do  any  good?  Yes,  it  does  good.  It 
does  an  enormous  amount  of  good  because 
it  guarantees  the  right  to  education  for  the 
people  we  are  supposed  to  be  serving  as 
legislators  when  we  deal  with  the  Education 
Act.  Presumably  we  are  supposed  to  be  serv- 
ing the  children  of  this  province  who  require 
an  education. 

We  have  an  opportunity  before  us  this 
evening  which,  if  the  previous  speeches  are 
the  intentions  of  the  two  parties  the  speak- 
ers represent,  is  a  historic  opportunity  that 
will  be  lost.  We  in  this  caucus  propose  to 
fight  with  every  ounce  of  our  legislative 
strength  so  that  battle  is  not  lost.  If  it  is  lost 
this  evening  or  during  the  debate  on  this 
legislation,  we  will  fight  again  and  again 
until  we  have  won  the  right  for  kids  with 
learning  disabilities,  whatever  they  may  be, 
to  have  enshrined  in  legislation  the  right  to 
a  free  and  appropriate  education  in  this 
province. 

One  of  the  problems,  because  we  are  set- 
ting a  precedent  with  this  clause,  is  that  we 
are  setting  out  on  some  unchartered  Waters. 
That  is  what  the  bureaucrats  are  afraid  of; 
that  is  what  the  Liberal  Party  is  afraid  of; 
that  is  what  the  minister  is  afraid  of.  It  is 
because  we  have  yet  to  define  all  the  prob- 
lems we  will  face.  To  be  frank,  we  will  never 
meet  all  those  problems  perfectly  but,  if  we 
do  not  enshrine  in  legislation  the  principle 
that  they  should  be  met,  that  we  have  an 
obligation  to  meet  them  and  that  we  must 
do  everything  in  our  power  which  is  human- 
ly possible  to  meet  them,  that  right  will  be 
lost. 

It  will  be  a  historic  moment,  a  moment 
of  lack  of  faith,  a  moment  of  cowardice  that 
all  of  us  in  this  Legislature  will  be  ashamed 
of  in  future  years.  It  will  be  an  act  that  the 


4422 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


bureaucrats  in  the  Ministry  of  Education 
should  also  be  ashamed  of  because  they 
should  have  acquiesced  in  the  Legislature's 
will  as  it  was  expressed  by  a  majority  of 
people  on  the  social  development  committee 
and  the  good  that  would  be  done. 

The  Liberal  member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot 
says  they  have  a  historic  memory  of  having 
to  fight  for  rights.  You  bet  your  sweet  life 
they  have  a  historic  memory  of  having  to 
fight  for  rights.  We  must  embody  in  this 
legislation  the  principle  that  parents  with 
kids  who  need  special  education  should  not 
be  made  to  feel  they  have  to  beg  for  it.  They 
should  not  be  made  to  feel  they  are  asking 
for  something  exceptional  for  their  excep- 
tional children.  It  should  be  a  matter  of 
right. 

It  is  a  rights  clause  we  are  talking  about 
here,  a  good  clause  that  was  proposed  by 
the  social  development  committee.  It  is  a 
clause  that  may  be  difficult  to  implement,  I 
grant  you,  but  given  the  will  and  the  finan- 
cial resources  from  the  minister,  it  could  be 
implemented. 

Mr.  Chairman,  what  we  have  before  us 
from  the  minister,  with  a  few  Band-Aids  by 
the  spokesman  for  the  Liberal  Party,  is  a 
'backing  away,  a  shameful  retreat,  and  I  will 
vote  against  those  amendments. 

I  would  hope  the  Legislature  would  em- 
body section  2  as  it  was  reported  by  the 
social  development  committee.  If  the  mem- 
bers are  so  worried  about  the  word  "free" 
toeing  embodied  in  legislation,  I  'believe  my 
colleague  from  Bellwoods  has  an  amendment 
that  would  strike  that  word,  leaving  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  clause  in  Bill  82  intact.  The 
member  is  attacking  and  weakening  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  clause.  The  party  that  has 
traditionally  fought  against  government  by 
regulation  in  this  Legislature  has  acquiesced 
to  the  Tory  move. 

I  remember  time  and  again  in  the  last  six 
or  seven  years  when  the  member  for  Rainy 
River  (Mr.  T.  P.  Reid)  attacked  regulations 
in  the  Crown  Timber  Act  saying  they  should 
be  embodied  in  legislation,  but  when  the 
crunch  comes  he  is  willing  to  give  the  minis- 
ter and  bureaucrats  the  right  to  determine 
the  terms  under  which  a  person  may  appeal 
a  local  decision. 

Finally,  we  get  back  to  the  point  made 
earlier  in  the  debate:  If  We  are  amending 
the  Education  Act,  we  are  amending  an  act 
that  presumably  applies  to  all  the  people  of 
the  province,  all  the  children  of  the  prov- 
ince, and  we  do  not  want  to  balkanize  that 
act.  If  the  minister  strikes  this  clause,  she 
and  the  members  of  the  Liberal  Party  know 


very  well  that  the  amendment  before  us  will 
be  applied  unequally  throughout  the  prov- 
ince. Children  who  are  not  defined  originally 
by  the  committee  of  the  board  will  not  have 
free  and  total  access  to  the  educational 
rights  embodied  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
address  myself  particularly  to  the  amend- 
ments put  forward  by  my  colleague.  The 
member  for  Port  Arthur  quoted  from  Hansard 
the  bill  from  the  member  for  York  Centre. 
I  wish  he  had  quoted  almost  everything  in 
that  amendment  to  the  Education  Act,  1974. 
He  is  correct  when  he  says  it  would  have 
guaranteed  every  child  of  compulsory  school 
age  a  right  to  an  education.  It  also  would 
have  required  every  school  board  in  Ontario 
to  establish  special  educational  programs,  par- 
ticularly for  those  children  suffering  from 
learning  disabilities. 

Many  of  the  amendments  to  the  Education 
Act,  Bill  82,  follow  the  principle  outlined  in 
my  colleague's  private  member's  bill.  When  I 
read  that  and  look  at  what  has  been  proposed 
here  by  my  colleague,  I  suppose  the  amend- 
ment to  it  is  appropriate  in  the  third  line. 
I  see  nothing  wrong  with  that.  It  follows  the 
principle  outlined  further  on  in  the  bill, 
adding  the  words,  "without  payment  of  fees." 

The  word  "free"  perhaps  has  a  double 
meaning  in  the  sense  that  "free"  means  any- 
body who  wants  to  can  have  his  children  in  a 
special  educational  program.  The  words 
"exceptional  children"  could  mean  gifted 
children  or  children  with  learning  disabilities 
or  other  physical  disabilities  and  could  be 
interpreted  later  on  as  meaning  free  educa- 
tion. 

Nothing  in  this  world  is  free,  let's  not  kid 
ourselves,  and  my  Socialist  friend  knows 
that.  Somebody  eventually  is  going  to  pay  for 
it.  The  intent  of  the  amendment  is  the  same 
as  legislation  for  any  other  school  children 
enrolled  in  the  school  system  in  Ontario;  the 
money  is  raised  through  municipal  taxation 
and  grants  from  the  Ministry  of  Education. 
That  is  the  point  I  want  to  make. 
8:40  p.m. 

I  interpret  that  to  mean  somebody  perhaps 
could  come  back  later  and  say,  "My  child  gets 
free  education.  I  do  not  pay  a  cent  for  it."  I 
will  tell  you,  that  is  going  to  open  the  door 
for  all  parents  of  school  children  in  the 
province  to  say,  "Do  I  have  to  pay  educa- 
tional tax  if  it  is  free?"  This  bill  says  it  is 
free.  I  suggest  to  you  that  my  colleague's 
private  member's  bill  definitely  says  it  should 
be  part  of  the  educational  program  and  the 
school  boards  will  establish  the  programs  and 
they  will  be  funded  through  school  taxation. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4423 


The  best  way  we  have  found  to  educate 
our  children  in  Ontario  is  through  the  portion 
of  the  municipal  tax  base  for  school  purposes 
and  the  grant  system.  I  see  nothing  wrong 
with  the  amendment  put  forward  by  my 
colleague.  I  think  it  is  a  reasonable  amend- 
ment. It  just  says  "without  payment  of  fees," 
so  there  is  a  clear  understanding  of  what  the 
word  "free"  means  in  the  bill. 

If  that  is  left  in  the  bill,  you  can  rest 
assured  it  will  be  a  lawyers'  field  day.  If  that 
word  is  left  in  there,  that  is  what  will  happen. 
Everybody  will  be  going  to  the  courts  to 
argue  that  there  is  no  cost  for  education  for 
any  children  in  the  province.  It  would  be 
great  to  go  that  way.  There  would  be  no 
municipal  taxes  for  anybody,  but  I  suggest  I 
can  see  difficulties  in  this  particular  area. 

For  example,  in  the  Niagara  Peninsula, 
there  is  a  program  called  NTEC,  Niagara 
Training  Employment  Centre.  The  students 
there  are  considered  dropouts  from  the  ele- 
mentary public  school  system.  They  are  not 
accepted  in  the  high  school.  The  way  they 
go  about  raising  the  money  to  carry  out  that 
program  makes  it  one  of  the  best  programs 
for  retarded,  emotionally  disturbed  children 
in  Ontario.  It  is  a  forerunner  you  might  say. 
It  is  done  through  lotteries  and  fund-raising 
programs  by  different  clubs  and  organiza- 
tions. It  is  also  funded  through  the  Ministry 
of  Community  and  Social  Services,  which  I 
disagree  with,  since  it  should  be  funded 
under  the  Ministry  of  Education. 

Hopefully,  the  intent  of  this  bill  is  that  it 
will  be  part  of  the  educational  system  and 
will  be  paid  for  by  all  taxpayers  without 
th's  group  of  people,  dedicated  as  they  are, 
going  out  and  trying  to  raise  funds  through 
lotteries,  gambling,  or  whatever  you  want  to 
call  it. 

I  suggest  it  is  a  good  bill,  and  the  amend- 
ments put  forward  by  my  colleague  from 
Kitchener- Wilmot  are  reasonable.  I  hope  the 
minister  v/ill  accept  them. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel 
moved  to  comment  on  this  con  being  pulled 
by  the  member  for  Erie.  One  assumes  he  has 
looked  carefullv  at  the  amendment  put  for- 
ward bv  his  colleague  from  York  Mississippi, 
or  wherever,  which  handily  deals  with  five 
or  six  items  in  this  section  of  the  bill  and  in 
the  minister's  amendment. 

The  member  for  Erie  has  chosen  to  focus 
on  only  one  element  as  his  reason  for  sup- 
porting it,  never  mind  what  other  damage  is 
done  in  his  colleague's  amendment.  He  has 
hooked  on  to  the  word  "free"  and  has  found 
some  objection  to  it.  Through  the  most  in- 
credible sophomoric  arguments  about  having 


to  support  our  educational  system  through 
lotteries,  he  has  decided  he  is  going  to  op- 
pose the  bill  as  it  was  sent  back  by  the  social 
development  committee. 

What  we  are  really  talking  about  here, 
and  what  I  think  is  the  most  important  ele- 
ment in  the  debate  on  this  section,  is  the 
question  of  sheer  power  and  who  it  is  that 
is  going  to  make  decisions  on  behalf  of  the 
people  in  the  province.  Is  it  going  to  be  the 
legislative  assembly  of  the  province  which 
has  been  elected  as  a  constituent  assembly 
by  all  the  people  in  the  province,  or  is  it 
going  to  be  the  honourable  minister  and  her 
friends  in  the  cabinet  and  her  friends  in  the 
bureaucracy? 

That  is  what  is  really  at  stake.  Are  we,  as 
legislators,  going  to  go  forward  and  support 
the  position  brought  forward  by  the  social 
development  committee  where  the  Legisla- 
ture makes  the  decisions,  and  the  people 
elected  by  everyone  in  Ontario  make  the  de- 
cisions, or  are  we  going  to  hand  over  that 
power  to  the  Minister  of  Education  and  her 
friends? 

We  have  seen  the  lack  of  sensitivity  that 
the  minister  and  the  Tories  have  dealt  out 
to  kids  with  special  needs  over  the  past  num- 
ber of  years  in  this  province.  Thaf  s  what  we 
will  be  doing  if  we  support  the  Conservative 
amendment  and  the  Liberal  subamendments. 

I  want  to  come  back  to  the  question  of 
the  words  "free"  and  "without  payment" 
raised  bv  the  member  for  Erie.  If  that  is  the 
honourable  member's  concern,  I  would  hope 
the  member  for  Erie  would  support  an 
amendment  that  would  simply  alter  those 
words.  We  are  quite  prepared  to  negotiate 
something  reasonable  on  that  basis.  He 
doesn't  have  to  buy  all  the  items  brought 
forward  by  his  colleagues,  if  that  is  his  con- 
cern. There  can  be  an  accommodation  on 
this  side.  We  don't  have  to  turn  all  the 
power  over  to  the  minister  so  We  can  be 
satisfied  with  one  word. 

If  the  member  looks  at  some  of  the  other 
things  that  are  in  his  colleague's  amend- 
ments he  will  see  some  of  the  problems.  The 
report,  as  brought  back  by  the  social  devel- 
opment committee,  refers  to  "all  children  in 
Ontario."  The  minister  comes  back  with  an 
amendment  that  redefines  "all  children"  very 
narrowly  as  "exceptional  pupils."  Then  the 
Liberal  speaker,  not  to  be  outdone,  redefines 
it  further  as  "exceptional  children"  as  op- 
posed to  "exceptional  pupils."  The  entire 
Liberal  amendment  is  in  that  tone  and  I 
don't  see  any  reason  why  we  should  support 
it. 


4424 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I've  already  mentioned  the  aspect  of  the 
costs  but,  if  we  go  to  the  third  element,  the 
social  development  committee  reported  back 
the  phrase  "emphasizes  special  education 
programs  and  services  that  meet  their  unique 
needs."  It  was  talking  about  the  needs  of 
the  children.  The  minister  comes  back  and 
perverts  that  into  "special  education  programs 
and  special  education  services"  with  abso- 
lutely nothing  about  them  being  tailored  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  kids. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  That's  in  section  1. 
Does  it  need  to  be  repeated? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Oh,  yes.  This  is  the 
way  the  minister  is  going  to  interpret  every- 
thing. I  can  see  it  now,  as  the  minister  and 
her  fuzzy  friends  sit  down  to  see  what  they 
can  do  by  way  of  interpretation  of  this  bill 
in  the  future.  The  Liberal  Party  amendment 
does  nothing  to  rectify  that.  Tliey  don't  relate 
it  back  to  the  unique  needs  of  the  children. 
There  is  no  question  of  tailoring. 

I  think  the  real  issue  here— the  money  and 
the  unique  needs  of  the  lads  aside— is  the 
question  of  power.  Are  we  as  legislators 
going  to  take  the  responsibility  to  establish 
the  parameters  and  guidelines  of  this  program 
or  are  we  going  to  turn  it  over  to  the  min- 
ister? 

During  the  social  development  committee 
hearings  the  Liberals  decided)  they  would 
take  the  power  to  themselves  as  legislators 
and  try  to  arrive  at  some  kind  of  process 
and  fashion  it  in  the  Legislative  Assembly. 
They  fulfilled  their  responsibility  as  legis- 
lators. Now  they  are  shirking  it  and  handing 
that  power  over  to  the  minister.  That  is 
wrong  and  I  don't  think  we  can  trust  the 
government  with  that  land  of  power.  We 
would  just  welcome  abuse,  abuse  not  only 
of  legislation,  but  abuse  of  kids  who  have 
special  needs  in  this  province. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  question 
was  raised  a  little  earlier  by  the  honourable 
minister  as  to  whether  it  would  be  more 
appropriate  to  have  the  reference  to  an  ap- 
peal mechanism  where  it  currently  is  under 
section  3  of  the  bill  or  under  section  2.  I 
would  say  to  the  minister  at  this  point  that 
in  my  judgement,  and  responding  to  the  con- 
cern expressed  by  many  parents,  it  would  be 
more  appropriately  placed  in  section  2. 

Then  without  any  question  we  could  clearly 
state  that  they  would1  have  an  appeal  mech- 
anism available  to  them  at  every  single  stage 
along  the  way.  Whether  their  perception  is 
correct  or  not,  there  is  genuine  concern  that 
the  first  stage— the  decision  by  the  place- 
ment and  review  committee  of  the  board- 
may  not,  as  the  act  is  worded  at  present, 


give  them  an  appeal  mechanism  at  that  level. 
That  is  not  my  perception. 

However,  I  would  repeat  for  the  minister's 
benefit  that  we  are  genuinely  trying  to  hear 
what  people  are  saying  and  to  structure  this 
legislation  in  such  a  way  that  it  would  meet 
their  needs. 
8:50  p.m. 

I  understood  the  minister  to  say  it  made 
no  difference  to  her  whether  it  was  here  or 
in  section  3.  It  would  certainly  make  a  dif- 
ference to  others  that  it  be  here  rather  than 
in  section  3.  It  would  more  precisely  say  to 
them  that  even  at  the  placement  stage— and 
the  minister  would  notice  that  I  specifically 
indicated  in  my  amendment  the  word  "place- 
ment," which  is  the  first  step— they  would 
have  the  right  to  appeal  that  step.  Therefore 
I  would  prefer  to  have  it  in  section  2,  where 
the  amendment  now  stands,  rather  than  in 
section  3. 

On  that  basis,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  once 
again  say  that  the  terms  "appropriate"  and 
"without  payment  of  fees"  and  with  the  ap- 
peal mechanism  built  into  this  section  of 
the  bill,  we  are  clearly  saying  to  the  parents 
of  those  children  who  have  had  negative 
experiences  in  the  past  that  we  have  heard 
what  they  are  saying  and  that  we  are  mov- 
ing in  this  legislation  to  respond  to  their 
concerns.  For  that  reason  I  would  ask  the 
minister  to  support  these  amendments. 

•I  would  go  one  step  further.  It  was  drawn 
to  my  attention  that  I  had  a  slight  oversight 
with  respect  to  the  third  part  of  mv  amend- 
ment; that  is  "without  payment  of  fees."  It 
was  suggested  to  me  that  "by  parents  or 
guardians  resident  in  Ontario"  is  an  appro- 
priate addition  to  my  amendment.  I  can  well 
understand  the  need  for  that  and  I  would 
certainly  go  along  with  that. 

So  if  it  is  appropriate  at  this  time  I  would 
add,  under  the  third  part  of  my  amendment, 
"by  parents  or  guardians  resident  in  Ontario." 
Surely  we  are  talking  about  the  special  edu- 
cation needs  of  Ontario  children.  I  cannot 
personally  conceive  of  a  situation  where  it 
would  be  other  than  that,  but  I  appreciate 
the  necessary  restriction  that  we  would  be 
placing  here  and  I  would  support  that 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  would  ask  you 
again  to  put  that  in  writing  and  send  it  up 
to  me. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  also  rise  in 
sorrow  over  the  question  of  section  2.  I  am 
sad  because  the  Minister  of  Education  has 
not  understood  what  happened  over  the 
course  of  the  committee  hearings  this  sum- 
mer, when  what  was  effectively  a  bad  bill 
was  turned  into  a  good  bill  because  of  the 


De 

DU       1 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4425 


work  of  the  member  for  Bellwoods  and  other 
members  of  the  NDP  caucus,  when  a  bill 
that  began  as  utterly  faulty  in  implementing 
the  principles  the  honourable  minister  put 
forward  was  changed  to  put  into  legislation 
the  principle  that  the  minister  had  said!  earlier 
in  the  year  the  government  intended  to  sup- 
port. 

In  reality  we  know  the  minister  was  not 
giving  a  correct  story  at  the  very  beginning, 
and  that  was  demonstrated  with  this  legisla- 
tion as  it  came  forward.  The  right  to  special 
education  for  kids  in  the  province  was  not 
put  into  the  bill.  It  was  so  hemmed  around 
with  regulations  and  the  power  to  make  de- 
cisions by  bureaucrats  and  so  on  that  the 
right  was  not  there. 

What  has  happened  now,  though,  is  that 
not  only  has  a  Conservative  minister  decided 
to  try  to  go  back  to  where  she  began  in 
terms  of  watering  down  the  principles  of  the 
bill,  as  contained  in  section  2,  but  she  is 
now  being  joined  by  the  Liberal  Party  which 
at  one  point  seemed  to  be  prepared  to  stand 
with  the  principle— which  they  had1  said  was 
the  principle  they  subscribed  to  for  many 
years. 

I  have  here  not  just  one  bill  but  three  bills 
that  were  presented  by  the  member  for  York 
Centre:  in  1976,  Bill  192;  in  1977,  Bill  23, 
and  in  1978,  Bill  66.  That  said  quite  explic- 
itly that  the  bill  he  proposed  guaranteed  to 
every  child  of  compulsory  school  age  a  right 
to  an  education,  with  specific  reference  to 
special  education.  There  were  no  ifs,  ands  or 
buts.  There  were  none  of  the  endless  qualifi- 
cations that  are  being  proposed  now  by  the 
member  for  Kitchener- Wilmot,  the  education 
critic  for  the  Liberal  Party. 

I  took  the  trouble  to  go  back  to  the  debate 
we  had  in  June  of  this  year  to  see  exactly 
what  the  Liberal  spokesperson  had  to  say  at 
that  time.  There  were  no  qualifications  then 
either.  The  member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot 
said  he  was  pleased  with  the  two  basic  prin- 
ciples the  government  said  it  subscribed  to 
in  the  legislation.  The  principles  were  that 
every  child  in  the  province  now  has  the 
automatic  right  to  be  admitted  to  a  school, 
and  has  the  automatic  right  to  expect  a  pro- 
gram meeting  his  or  her  special  needs  to  be 
prepared  for  him  or  her-no  ifs,  ands  or  buts, 
no  qualifying  clauses  such  as  "in  accordance 
with  the  act  and  the  regulations"  which  the 
minister  has  reinjected  into  the  bill,  and  the 
member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot,  on  behalf  of 
the  Liberal  Party,  is  now  prepared  to  accept. 
This  is  where  the  somersault  has  taken  place. 
The  government  says,  "We  will  make 
special  education  a  right  so  long  as  it  is  in 


accordance  with  the  act  and  the  regulations, 
and  we  will  define  what  that  is  going  to  be." 
The  minister  says,  "Before  we  get  the  bill 
to  proclamation,  we  will  let  you  know  what 
the  regulations  are  going  to  be."  But  cer- 
tainly she  is  not  going  to  give  to  this  Legis- 
lature the  power  to  determine  those  regula- 
tions. No,  she  will  leave  it  to  her  bureau- 
crats, to  her  officials,  to  determine  what  in 
their  wisdom  is  going  to  be  correct  for  the 
special  education  needs  of  kids  of  the  prov- 
ince, whether  or  not  that  effectively  imple- 
ments the  principles  to  which  this  party 
certainly  subscribes. 

Back  in  June  the  member  for  Kitchener- 
Wilmot  said  the  principles  of  the  bill  of  the 
member  for  York  Centre  were  exactly  that: 
Every  child  has  the  automatic  right  to  ex- 
pect that  a  program  meeting  his  or  her  special 
needs  will  be  prepared  for  him  or  her.  But 
that  is  not  what  is  entailed  in  the  Liberal 
amendment.  They  backed  away  from  that. 

The  member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot  saidi  he 
rejected  the  principle  of  exclusion.  He  said 
he  did  not  believe  there  should  be  an  exclu- 
sion principle  anywhere  in  the  legislation.  But 
as  I  read  it,  that  is  effectively  what  he  is 
endorsing  with  the  amendment  here  right 
now.  I  want  to  point  out  the  difference  be- 
tween the  positive  way  we  have  put  the 
rights  of  children,  in  the  amendment  accepted 
by  the  social  development  committee,  and 
accepted  by  the  Liberal  Party  at  that  time 
through  their  representatives  on  the  commit- 
tee downstairs,  and  what  they  are  rejecting 
right  now. 

We  say  the  minister  shall  ensure  that  all 
children,  not  just  some  children,  should  have 
available  to  them  a  free  and  appropraite  pub- 
lic education.  We  say  that  for  exceptional 
children  education  shall  emphasize  special 
programs  and  services  that  meet  their  unique 
needs.  We  say  the  rights  of  exceptional  chil- 
dren and  their  parents  and  guardians  shall  be 
protected,  and  the  minister  shall  ensure  they 
are  protected.  The  member  for  Kitchener- 
Wilmot  says  it  is  not  a  matter  of  protecting 
the  rights  of  exceptional  children  and  their 
parents,  it  is  a  matter  of  giving  them  an 
appeal  process,  whether  or  not  that  appeal 
process  is  actually  going  to  do  the  job. 

We  say  positively,  "Protect  those  rights." 
They  say  negatively,  "Well,  you  may  have  to 
hammer  on  the  door  because  you  may  be 
excluded,  but  you  are  going  to  have  an  ap- 
peal process  that  may  or  may  not  be  effec- 
tive." The  rights  to  education  that  the  edu- 
cation critic  for  the  Liberal  Party  said  his 
party  endorsed  look  pretty  sorry  by  the  time 
the  Liberals  have  diluted  them  in  the 
amendment  we  have  before  us. 


4426 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Nixon:  How  are  you  going  to  vote? 
Why  don't  you  quit  playing  cheap  politics? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  am  not  playing  cheap  poli- 
tics. The  Liberal  Party  is  playing  cheap 
politics  in  the  province,  backing  away  from 
the  needs  of  children  who  should  have  the 
right  to  special  education  with  no  ifs,  ands, 
or  buts  and  no  qualifications. 

Interjections. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Order,  please.  The 
member  for  Ottawa  Centre  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  quote  the 
member  for  Kitchener- Wilmot  who  said  on 
June  17,  "some  word  or  description  that  says 
it  is  not  enough  just  to  have  special  educa- 
tion; it  must  be  of  a  particular  quality."  He 
said,  "Don't  just  put  the  words  'special  edu- 
cation' in  the  bill  and  hope  people  will 
understand  what  that  is."  Now  they  reject 
what  we  have  suggested  here,  which  attempts 
to  respond  to  the  need  to  define  special 
education  and  to  indicate  that  the  special 
education  program  and  services  provided  in 
the  province  should  be  such  that  they  meet 
the  unique  needs  of  kids.  God  knows  there 
are  unique  kids  and  there  are  unique  needs 
in  the  province. 

9  p.m. 

A  week  ago  I  had  a  phone  call  from  a 
parent  in  North  York  who  has  been  fighting 
bitterly  with  the  North  York  Board  of  Edu- 
cation to  get  education  for  his  seven-year-old 
child.  The  child  has  now  been  put  into  a 
private  school  with  funding  from  the  minis- 
try, but  only  after  a  year  or  a  year  and  a 
half  of  desperately  anxious  fretting  by  this 
parent.  The  parent  was  educated  and  had 
the  ability  and  the  resources  to  fight  the 
system,  and  in  this  case  perhaps  to  win.  This 
child  is  beginning  to  benefit. 

But  what  the  North  York  Board  of  Educa- 
tion said  was,  "We  know  what  is  appropriate. 
We  are  going  to  put  your  child  back  in  the 
class  he  was  in  last  year"  and  that  is  the 
appropriateness  of  what  was  going  to  be 
provided  to  him.  They  knew  from  the  ex- 
perience of  the  child,  they  knew  from  the 
way  the  child  was  acting  up,  they  knew 
from  the  way  the  child  was  depressed  with 
the  education  he  was  getting,  but  that  was 
not  appropriate.  Yet  that  would  still  be 
allowed  to  be  continued  under  what  the 
minister  is  suggesting,  and  what  the  Liberal 
Party  is  suggesting  here  as  well. 

I  look  at  the  kind  of  loopholes  that  were 
left  in  the  Liberal  position  as  early  as  last 
June,  and  God  knows,  they  are  driving 
through  them  right  now.  The  member  for 
Kitchener-Wilmot    said    we    must    not    raise 


expectations  too  high.  He  said  it  may  be 
difficult  to  define  in  certain  cases.  He  was  a 
bit  concerned  about  the  question  of  funding. 
He  also  left  all  sorts  cf  qualifications  around 
what  ought  to  be  a  basic  and  unequivocal 
principle. 

This  section  comes  as  close  to  dealing 
with  the  whole  principle  of  BiH  82  as  any 
other  part  of  the  entire  bill.  That  is  why  it  is 
so  distressing  to  see  the  Liberal  Party  in- 
dicating they  are  now  siding  with  the  minis- 
ter—just using  a  different  set  of  words— in 
her  efforts  to  sabotage  a  bill  which  in  its 
present  form  has  widespread  support  from 
enormous  numbers  of  anguished  parents 
across  the  province  who  simply  want  to  en- 
sure that  their  ldds  will  be  able  to  get  the 
education  from  which  they  are  going  to 
benefit. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Children. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Call  them  children  or  call 
them  kids;  I  call  them  kids  because  I  love 
them,  I  call  them  children  because  they  are 
important.  They  can  use  whichever  term 
they  want  to  use.  I  do  not  care  whether  the 
Liberal  Party  calls  them  kids  or  children.  I 
call  the  Liberal  Party  members  to  stand  to 
the  principles  they  stood  for  in  June  and 
that  they  stood  for  in  the  committee  over 
the  course  of  the  summer,  and  to  reject  the 
amendment  of  the  member  for  Kitchener- 
Wilmot  and  to  support  the  bill  in  its  present 
form  and  to  reject  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  Minister  of  Education. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Just  before  we 
call  on  the  member  for  Lakeshore  (Mr.  Law- 
lor),  I  now  have  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot. 

Mr.  Sweeney  moves  that  section  2  be 
amended  by  deleting  "pupils"  in  the  first 
line  and  replacing  it  with  "children";  by 
adding  "appropriate"  in  the  third  line  after 
"regulation";  by  adding  "without  payment 
of  fees  by  parents  or  guardians  resident  in 
Ontario"  in  the  fourth  line  after  "services"; 
by  further  adding,  "and  providing  for  the 
parents  or  guardians  to  appeal  the  appro- 
priateness of  the  special  education  place- 
ment." I  assume  you  have  got  consent  to 
that. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  one  of  the 
few  members  of  the  House  tonight  who  is 
totally  above  the  fray,  living  in  some  sort 
of  sublimity— objective,  unprejudiced  with 
respect  to  the  matter— I  find  what  is  going 
on  here  ludicrous.  As  a  total  outsider  to 
this  legislation,  having  not  participated  in 
the  obfuscatory  processes  of  the  committee 
or   in   the   initiation   of   the   legislation,   but 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4427 


sitting  here  and  listening  to  the  proposals 
being  made,  I  have  never  seen  quite  the 
likes  of  it. 

It  is  incredible  that  the  honourable  minis- 
ter, who  is  usually  a  fairly  open-minded  and 
good-hearted  soul— I  am  trying  to  make  an 
appeal  to  her  and  would  go  to  any  lengths 
to  seduce  a  minister  of  the  crown— and  who 
pretends  on  occasion  to  have  modicums  of 
intelligence,  has  been  persuaded  in  the 
course  of  committee  hearings  by  the  wisdom, 
efficacy  and  equity  of  a  proposal  made  by 
an  honourable  member  of  this  House  as  to 
what  she  is  really  after,  and  what  the  prin- 
ciple of  this  legislation  really  is. 

She  acceded  to  it,  the  whole  committee 
bowed  to  it,  but  it  has  been  changed  in  the 
process.  It  is  an  articulation  of  a  central 
motif.  Now  she  is  betraying  us,  not  just  by 
watering  it  down  but  washing  it  out.  Stand- 
ing back  from  the  issue,  I  have  never  quite 
seen  it  on  this  scale.  Shame  on  the  minister 
for  participating  in  this  particular  piece  of 
scuttling. 

The  member  for  Kitchener- Waterloo  is  too 
much  of  a  scholastic.  He  parses  words  too 
nicely,  playing  with  the  word  "free."  One 
would  concede  his  wretched  "free"  in  this 
particular  context.  He  knows  as  well  as  I  do 
that  the  courts  construe  things  contextually. 
They  would  not  wipe  out  all  municipal  taxa- 
tion. That  is  just  a  simulacrum  of  the  des- 
peration he  faces  in  order  to  bring  a  minatory 
position  into  effect  in  this  legislation.  He  sells 
his  own  cause  down  the  river  in  the  process. 

The  members  still  have  time  to  change 
their  minds  and  I  will  leave  it  with  them. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  should  have  my  green 
turtleneck  and  my  cross  of  nails  on  tonight. 
The  members  may  understand. 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  section  is  what  the 
entire  bill  is  all  about.  The  rest  of  the  bill 
just  fills  in  the  details  as  to  how  we  are  going 
to  implement  what  the  social  development 
committee  put  in  this  section.  It  is  simply 
the  very  basic  right  of  parents  of  exceptional 
children  to  have  those  special  education  needs 
met  by  the  boards  of  education  in  an  appro- 
priate way.  This  bill  is  about  the  right  of 
parents  to  receive  that  appropriate  education 
on  behalf  of  their  children.  The  rest  of  the 
bill  just  fills  in  the  details  of  how  to  do  it. 

This  is  the  principle  and  the  guts  of  this 
legislation  and  it  is  incredible  that  the  honour- 
able minister  has  decided  to  withdraw  it. 
This  is  what  it  is  all  about.  I  cannot  under- 
stand why  the  minister  fears  to  give  the 
parents  of  exceptional  children  or  pupils- 
it  does  not  matter  much— an  absolute  statutory 
right  to  have  the  unique,  special  educational 


needs  of  their  exceptional  children  met  by 
special  public  education  appropriate  for  them. 
I  cannot  think  of  any  other  reason  why  she  is 
doing  it. 

What  does  the  minister  fear?  If  she  cares 
to  reply  to  that,  I  will  defer  to  her  at  the 
moment. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  That  is  exactly  what 
the  whole  act  is  all  about. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  That  is  what  the  whole  act 
is  all  about.  If  one  turns  to  a  corner  of  the 
act,  one  finds  principle  laid  out  somewhere. 
With  this  section  deleted  as  the  minister  pro- 
poses, there  is  no  phrase  one  can  turn  to,  to 
see  what  it  is  really  all  about,  while  the  rest 
of  the  bill  goes  on  to  implement  the  details 
of  it. 

This  section  speaks  to  the  meaning  of  the 
act  as  amended  by  the  social  development 
committee.  Where  does  the  minister  stand 
in  this?  What  is  it  that  causes  her  to  with- 
draw this  section? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  not  withdraw- 
ing anything. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  minister  is  putting  forth 
an  amendment  that  withdraws  the  phrase  that 
indicates  what  the  bill  is  all  about,  a  right 
in  legislation  for  the  special  educational  needs 
unique  to  the  particular  child  or  pupil  to  be 
met  in  the  most  appropriate  way.  She  has 
taken  out  the  words  in  the  legislation  that 
are  really  meaningful  and  left  in  are  the 
details.  She  has  cut  down  the  forest  and  all 
she  has  left  is  a  bunch  of  stacked  up  trees. 
That  is  what  she  is  doing  when  she  changes 
this  amendment  and  I  don't  understand  why. 

9:10  p.m. 

All  the  other  items  that  are  embodied 
in  these  discussions  of  the  amendments  are 
trivial  in  comparison  with  what  we  have 
done  here  with  this  rights  clause,  and  the 
minister,  now  supported  by  the  Liberals, 
wishes  to  get  rid  of  it.  The  provision  for  an 
appeal  procedure  is  covered  in  section  5. 
In  terms  of  the  way  legislation  is  written,  it 
need  only  be  covered  in  one  place,  I  agree. 
Cover  it  in  section  5  of  the  bill  or  cover  it 
here;  it  does  not  need  to  be  covered  twice. 
If  the  minister  wishes  to  cover  it  twice, 
then  let  her  cover  it  twice.  It  is  trivial  in 
comparison  with  the  removal  of  the  rights 
clause. 

Children  or  pupils,  one  can  argue  it  both 
ways.  I  am  sure  in  this  party  we  really  don't 
care  very  strongly  whether  it  is  children  or 
pupils.  My  colleague  from  Thunder  Bay  put 
it  in  the  right  perspective:  If  this  was  a 
separate  bill  all  on  its  own  and  not  part  of 
the  Education  Act,  probably  "pupil"  would 


4428 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


'be  the  appropriate  word1;  but  it  is  part  of 
the  Education  Act,  and  "children"  is  used 
in  many  places  throughout  the  act.  In  terms 
of  the  act  into  which  it  is  inserted,  whether 
it  is  "pupils"  or  whether  it  is  "children" 
really  does  not  matter.  It  is  six  of  one  and 
half  a  dozen  of  the  other  and  it  is  really  a 
case  of  personal  choice. 

If  the  legislative  counsel  has  an  argument 
as  to  whether  one  is  somewhat  better  than 
another,  I  would  listen  with  interest  and  take 
his  advice,  but  I  am  sure,  again,  it  is  a 
trivial  point  compared  to  the  principle  in- 
volved in  this  part  of  the  bill  which  the 
minister  is  taking  out. 

With  respect  to  the  amendment  which 
the  social  development  committee  inserted 
as  the  result  of  the  very  hard  work  of  the 
member  for  Bellwoods  to  replace  in  the 
amendment  the  word  "free"  by  "without 
payment  of  fees,"  it  is  probably  a  better 
definition.  Certainly  my  colleague  from  Bell- 
woods  would  not  be  at  all  upset  and  would 
accept  an  amendment  which  says,  "Children 
in  Ontario  have  available  to  them  without 
payment  of  fees  an  appropriate  public  edu- 
cation," et  cetera.  I  am  sure  that  would  be 
perfectly  all  right  because  that  is  a  bit  more 
explicit. 

I  agree  with  the  member  for  York  Centre, 
who  just  fell  out  of  the  House,  on  that 
point  that  it  is  probably  a  lot  more  appro- 
priate, but  these  are  all  trivial  matters  in 
terms  of  what  the  minister  has  presented 
and  what  she  has  done.  She  has  taken  out 
of  this  bill  a  clear  statutory  right,  now 
agreed  to  by  the  Liberals. 

The  Liberals  in  their  attitudes  are  often 
very  clear  followers  of  John  Stuart  Mill  and 
often  their  thinking  does  not  go  beyond  the 
eighteenth  century,  but  I  am  sure  Mill  is 
flip-flopping  in  his  grave  tonight  in  face  of 
what  his  followers  are  doing  in  this  section. 

In  September  1980  they  were  for  this 
absolute  rights  phrase  and  in  November 
1980  they  are  not.  That  is  what  the  prin- 
ciple is  all  about.  If  one  wants  to  write  a 
section  in  a  bill,  this  is  where  one  puts  it— 
in  the  bill.  One  does  not  put  it  in  the  bill 
in  order  to  put  it  in  the  regulations.  That 
is  ridiculous  and  I  am  sure  the  minister  is 
not  planning  to  say  anything  about  rights. 
The  word  will  not  appear  in  the  regulations. 
The  minister  is  not  planning  to  take  it  out 
of  the  bill  to  put  it  in  the  regulations.  That 
would  be  ridiculous  and  I  am  sure  she  is 
not  going  to  do  it.  You  just  want  it  out  of 
the  bill. 

Quite  seriously,  why?  What  concern  is  it 
of   yours?   I  really  cannot  see   the  teachers' 


groups  in  Ontario  coming  to  you  and  saying, 
"We  fear  the  right  of  our  children  and  their 
parents  to  come  to  us  as  a  right  and  to  talk 
about  the  special  educational  needs  of  the 
children."  I  am  sure  they  have  not  presented 
that  to  you.  If  they  have  I  would  be  sur- 
prised because  they  so  often  have  been 
forced  into  situations  in  the  last  four,  five, 
six  or  seven  years  of  having  to  stand  up  for 
some  basic  rights  of  their  own.  They  under- 
stand what  rights  mean.  I  cannot  see  any 
teacher  group  in  the  province  putting 
pressure  on  the  minister,  or  writing  long 
briefs  to  her  or  spending  long  periods  of 
time  in  her  office  saying:  "We  have  to  get 
rid  of  this  rights  section  in  the  bill.  We 
are  afraid  of  our  pupils." 

I  cannot  see  that  happening.  I  can  see 
that  occurring  to  some  of  the  boards  in  On- 
tario. They  would  say,  "My  God,  what  will 
happen  to  us  and  our  poor  trustees  if  all  of 
a  sudden  parents  and  children  in  this  prov- 
ince have  some  right  to  come  to  us  and  de- 
mand, because  they  have  the  right  given  to 
them  in  legislation,  some  special  education 
that  meets  their  unique  needs?"  I  can  see 
some  of  them  doing  that. 

This  has  been  around  for  two  months  now. 
Upon  reflection,  I  cannot  see  them  looking 
at  this,  in  a  sane,  rational  way  at  this  point 
of  the  game,  thinking  this  is  what  they  must 
do.  That  might  have  been  the  first  reaction 
on  the  part  of  some  administrators  but,  in 
looking  at  that  reaction  which  they  might 
have  had  in  the  first  instance,  I  cannot  see 
them  holding  that  opinion  for  two  months. 
I  cannot  see  them  fearing  the  parents  and 
the  pupils  who  have  these  special  educational 
requirements  in  the  province.  If  they  do,  I 
hope  I  do  not  live  in  the  jurisdiction  of  one 
of  those  boards,  because  if  a  few  of  them 
still  continue  to  hold  that,  they  are  not 
serious  about  meeting  the  intent  of  the  bill. 
Madam  Minister,  I  would  really  like  to 
know  who  got  to  you  on  this  and  said  to 
you,  in  essence,  "We  must  have  that  statutory 
right  removed."  Is  it  the  people  in  your  main 
administration  office?  I  asked  in  estimates,  if 
you  recall,  what  is  it  you  do  up  there?  Is  this 
one  of  the  things  you  do?  Do  you  get  all 
fearful  from  time  to  time  about  putting  a 
rights  clause  in  the  legislation? 

I  can  think  of  much  more  appropriate 
things  to  get  paranoid  about.  I  would  worry 
up  there  that  some  of  the  school  boards  were 
not  going  to  take  up  the  enthusiasm  the 
minister  has  shown  from  time  to  time  about 
this  legislation  and  were  not  going  to  meet 
the  exceptional  needs  of  children.  I  can  see 
them  getting  paranoid  when  you  talk  to  man- 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4429 


agement  board  over  the  years  and  are  not 
able  to  get  the  funds  to  meet  the  exceptional 
needs  that  show  up  in  the  province.  But  I 
cannot  really  see  them  getting  paranoid  about 
granting  a  statutory  right  that  says,  "Look, 
you  simply  have  the  right  as  children  and 
parents  of  children  to  have  your  unique  edu- 
cational needs  met  appropriately  if  you  are 
exceptional  children/'  This  is  what  this  is  all 
about.  Everything  else  in  the  bill  pales  in 
comparison  to  this. 

Why  have  you  done  this,  Madam  Minister? 
I  can  understand  why  the  Liberals  have 
done  this.  They  have  been  nowhere  on  the 
amendments  to  this  bill  in  committee,  and 
for  crass  political  purposes  they  are  trying  to 
carve  out  some  area  for  themselves  in  this 
bill.  I  can  see  them  doing  that.  I  can  see 
them  having  been  out-scored,  out-argued, 
out-debated  and,  in  terms  of  placing  the 
amendments,  out-legislated.  I  can  see  them 
desperately  trying  to  find  a  place  for  them- 
selves in  this  whole  situation  by  taking  the 
minister's  amendment  and  adding  to  it  every- 
thing of  a  trivial  nature  they  can  possibly 
think  of. 
9:20  p.m. 

Meanwhile  they  are  carefully  avoiding  the 
main  principle  of  this  whole  section;  that  is, 
embodying  a  clear  right  for  pupils  and  their 
parents  in  Ontario.  I  can  see  them  doing 
that  because  that  is  the  way  they  have  always 
operated.  When  it  comes  right  down  to  it, 
they  are  never  honest  about  anything.  But 
that  is  one  thing  one  usually  cannot  accuse 
the  Conservative  government  of.  One  may  dis- 
agree with  the  Conservatives  in  Ontario- 
Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  I  was  listening  very 
carefully  to  the  member,  and  I  believe  he 
accused  other  members  of  this  House  of  not 
being  honest. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  don  t  recall  exactly  what 
I  said,  Mr.  Chairman,  sometimes  one  gets 
carried  away  with— 

Mr.  Chairman:  Will  the  honourable  mem- 
ber withdraw  that? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  If  I  accused  anybody  in  this 
House  of  anything  derogatory,  I  will  certainly 
withdraw  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  understand  you  withdrew 
it. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Whatever  it  was  I  said,  I 
withdraw. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Everything  to  this  point. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Whatever  I  said  that  dis- 
pleased the  Chairman,  I  withdraw. 

In  terms  of  the  Conservative  Party  being  a 
party  of  principle,  I  have  never  been  in  much 


doubt  of  that.  I  may  disagree  with  the  prin- 
ciple, and  rather  heatedly  at  times,  but  I 
know  they  have  taken  the  position  from  a 
principled  point.  My  real  question  to  the 
minister  at  this  point  is  what  has  happened 
to  their  principles  on  this  one? 

What  is  it  that  the  Conservative  Party, 
through  this  minister,  finds  so  repugnant 
about  granting  what  should  be  a  very  obvious 
right?  I  really  can't  understand  why  they 
would  give  way  on  this  one  or  what  it  is 
the  minister  or  the  ministry  fears.  I  really 
don't  think  the  minister— 

Hon.  Miss   Stephenson:   Nobody  is  afraid. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Explain  it,  please.  Let  the 
minister  explain  why  she  has  cut  the  real 
guts  out  of  this  bill  in  terms  of  the  principle. 
This  is  where  we  state  it,  and  this  is  where 
they  do  not  want  it.  They  do  not  want  it  in 
the  bill  at  all. 

I  would  be  pleased  if  the  minister  could 
tell  me  precisely  why  she,  by  going  to  all 
the  trouble  of  making  this  amendment,  does 
not  want  to  have  in  the  amendment  to  the 
Education  Act  a  clause  which  very  simply 
and  very  clearly  gives  the  right  to  parents 
of  pupils  or  children  who  have  a  special  edu- 
cational need  to  have  that  need  met  appro- 
priately. What  is  wrong  with  that?  Why  is 
it  that  she  cannot  tolerate  that?  Why  is  it 
they  have  gone  to  such  great  lengths  to  en- 
sure that  the  Liberals  will  support  them  on 
this?  That's  something  I  would  really  like 
to  know. 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Chairman,  I'm  not  going 
to  take  a  long  time.  I  do  not  intend  to  repeat 
a  lot  of  what  my  colleagues  on  this  side  of 
the  House  have  already  stated.  I  will  not 
say  they  have  done  a  flip-flop.  I  will  say  they 
have  done  a  back  flip,  a  180-degree  turn. 

I  would  like  to  say  to  the  Liberal  critic 
for  education,  with  whom  I  have  on  occasion 
in  the  past  two  to  three  weeks  shared  the 
same  platform,  that  if  he  really,  truly  believes 
this  amendment  is  going  to  make  any  dif- 
ference to  this  bill— that  it  is  going  to  give 
those  parents  who  have  written  him  letters 
in  the  last  two  or  three  weeks  asking  him  to 
water  down  this  section  of  the  bill— if  he  feels 
this  is  not  a  watering  down  of  that  section 
of  the  bill,  then  I  must  say  to  him,  with  due 
respect,  with  all  his  background  in  education, 
he  had  better  go  back  to  school. 

I  want  to  quote  what  the  Liberal  education 
critic  said  in  the  social  development  com- 
mittee, "I  cannot  find  anything  serious  to 
object  to  in  this  amendment."  We  are  talking 
about  the  rights  amendment.  At  the  end  of 
his  very  short  speech  he  said,  "So  unless  the 
minister  or  one  of  her  officials  can  indicate 


4430 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


what  would  be  wrong  with  this,  I  would  be 
inclined  to  support  it."  Obviously,  at  that 
particular  time,  the  minister  and  her  officials 
in  the  social  development  committee  did  not 
produce  the  evidence  necessary  for  the  Liberal 
critic  to  say,  "I  should  not  be  supporting  this 
amendment  and  this  bill." 

Between  September  30  and  tonight,  the 
government  somehow  has  produced  that  evi- 
dence for  the  Liberal  member.  I  am  sorry  to 
say  that  tonight  the  Liberals  are  participating 
with  the  Conservatives  in  this  province  to 
deny  rights  to  children  who  need  special  edu- 
cation, programs  and  services— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  That  is  balderdash. 

Mr.  Stong:  You  know  that  is  wrong.  You 
know  it. 

Mr.  Grande:  Thousands  of  parents  in  this 
province  have  gone  to  every  extreme  possible 
in  the  past  10  or  15  years  to  find  an  adequate 
program  for  their  lads,  including  the  private 
sector,  because  the  minister  has  pushed  them 
to  the  private  sector  in  this  particular  area  in 
order  to  find  an  adequate  program  for  their 
kids.  The  minister  has  pushed  these  parents 
to  go  to  the  social  assistance  board  to  try  to 
get  some  money  in  order  to  procure  an 
education  for  their  kids— an  education  which, 
in  1980,  we  should  not  be  debating  is  a  right. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  What  are  you  talk- 
ing about?  The  logic  escapes  me.  Why  should 
they  be  pushed  to  the  private  sector  about 
this? 

Mr.  Grande:  The  reason  the  logic  escapes 
the  minister  is  exactly  the  reason  why  she 
is  watering  down  this  amendment. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  not  watering 
it  down. 

Mr.  Grande:  The  minister  has  never  under- 
stood that  logic.  She  has  never  understood 
the  plight  of  parents  who  have  not  been  able 
to  get  a  special  education  program  in  their 
province. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order?  Would  the  member 
for  Oakwood  speak  to  the  amendment? 

Mr.  Grande:  That  is  exactiy  what  I  am 
doing. 

Let  me  say  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  when 
the  initial  bill  was  presented  in  this  Legis- 
lature the  Ontario  Association  for  Children 
with  Learning  Disabilities  issued  a  statement 
saying  "Special  act  amendment  a  tiger  with 
no  teeth."  We  worked  in  good1  faith  on  the 
social  development  committee.  At  least  on 
this  side  of  the  House  we  worked  in  good 
faith  with  the  Liberals  and  Conservatives 
in  that  committee  to  try  to  bring  about  the 
best  possible  bill  that  we,  as  legislators,  could. 
I  think  we  succeeded  in  doing  that. 


Tonight  the  minister,  with  the  help  of  the 
Liberals,  is  taking  the  teeth  out  of  that  bill 
once  again.  My  friend  from  Windsor  wanted 
an  explanation  from  the  minister.  Let  me 
assume  an  explanation,  and  that  is  that  Tories 
in  Ontario  have  never  been  interested  in 
giving  rights  to  people.  People  have  always 
had  to  scream  and  yell.  When  the  time  comes 
that  it  is  politically  attractive  for  that  to  be 
granted,  it  is  granted. 

9:30  p.m. 

Some  members  have  said  they  are  sad- 
dened by  what  has  happened  here  tonight. 
Frankly,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  only  sad, 
I  am  angry.  I  am  angry  with  the  flip-flop  of 
those  people  on  that  side  of  the  House.  I  am 
angry  with  the  people  on  the  opposite  side 
of  the  House,  because  they  are  the  people 
who  continuously  deny  rights  to  children 
with  learning  disabilities.  Perhaps  there  is  no 
way  to  salvage  this  amendment,  but  let  me 
inform  the  Liberals  about  that  amendment 
they  put  giving  the  government  the  oppor- 
tunity or  the  ability  to  set  up  some  kind  of 
appeal  procedure,  there  is  already  an  appeal 
procedure  when  we  get  to  section  9.  How- 
ever, that  appeal  procedure  will  deal  only 
with— 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  Would  the  honour- 
able member  return  to  the  amendment?  The 
appeal  comes  later  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  thought  I 
was  speaking  to  the  subamendment  the  Lib- 
erals have  put  on  the  floor.  That  talks  about 
an  appeal.  That  is  what  I  was  referring  to. 

In  essence,  what  that  accomplishes  is 
virtually  nothing  because  the  minister  her- 
self has  said  that  in  the  last  year  only  two 
children  in  the  province  have  oeen  excluded 
from  attending  a  school.  That  is  the  only 
right  the  children  have  now  in  Ontario,  the 
right  to  attend  a  school,  a  right  to  be 
physically  present  in  the  school,  a  right  to 
a  desk  in  school.  There  is  no  right  to 
quality  education  in  our  schools.  There  is 
no  right  to  programs  that  meet  the  unique 
needs  of  those  kids.  If  you  do  not  under- 
stand that,  and  if  you  do  not  understand 
that  this  bill  does  not  give  those  children 
the  appropriate  education  which  they  re- 
quire and  must  have,  the  expenses  some- 
where down  the  road  to  the  public  purse 
are  going  to  be  much  greater  if  we  do  not 
deal  with  those  problems  when  the  children 
are  in  the  school  system.  We  are  going  to 
pay  a  lot  more  if  you  want  to  think  in  terms 
of  dollars,  in  terms  of  money,  than  you 
would  be  paying  by  making  sure  the  children 
get  an  appropriate   education. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4431 


Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  I  have  done 
enough.  I  think  I  understand  where  the 
Conservative  Party  stands  on  this  issue.  I 
don't  understand  where  the  Liberals  are.  In 
the  five  years  I  have  been  here,  I  have 
never  been  able  to  understand  where  the 
Liberals  are 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  been 
listening  since  eight  o'clock  to  the  debate- 
Mr.  Bradley:  Sanctimony  from  the  left. 

Mr.  Roy:  —as  one  of  my  colleagues  says, 
sanctimony  from  the  members  to  my  left.  I 
have  read  the  original  proposal  in  the  bill  as 
amended  by  the  social  development  com- 
mittee, I  have  read  the  amendment  as  pro- 
posed by  the  minister,  I  have  also  read 
closely  the  subamendments  by  my  colleague, 
the  member  for  Kitchener-  Wilmot  (Mr. 
Sweeney),  and  I  think  it  is  important  that 
things  be  put  into  some  sort  of  perspective. 

I  am  amazed  to  listen  to  speaker  after 
speaker  from  the  NDP  talk  about  two  of  my 
colleagues,  the  member  for  Kitchener- 
Wilmot  and  the  member  for  York  Centre 
(Mr.  Stong),  people  who  have  had  an  in- 
terest in  this  matter,  whose  motives  are  be- 
yond question,  whose  sincerity  and  knowl- 
edge of  the  subject  matter  is  something  I 
would  rely  on  by  far.  I  would  put  far  more 
emphasis  on  their  judgement  than  on  that  of 
some  of  my  colleagues  to  the  left,  but  these 
members  are  portrayed  by  some  of  our 
colleagues  to  the  left— one  of  them  went  so 
far  as  to  suggest  a  question  of  honesty— 
as  somehow  having  ulterior  motives  to  take 
away  the  very  principle  of  the  bill  which  is 
to  give  special  education  to  exceptional 
pupils. 

This  kind  of  rubbish  comes  from  people 
whose  background  is  teaching.  I  look  at  the 
member  for  Port  Arthur  (Mr.  Foulds)  who 
made  a  long-winded,  passionate  speech  about 
how  my  colleagues  had  betrayed  by  this 
amendment,  or  how  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion had  betrayed  by  her  amendment,  the 
very  principle  in  this  bill.  I  looked  back  and 
I  tried  to  think— I  read  it  again  and  tried  to 
see— what  it  is  about  this  process  that  has  so 
stirred  this  enthusiasm  on  the  part  of  the 
NDP  and  tends  to  misconstrue  the  whole 
purpose  of  the  proposition,  the  amendments 
put  forward  by  other  members  in  this  House. 

This  is  from  people  who  were  school- 
teachers. I  have  to  wonder  what  motivates 
these  people.  Even  the  leader  of  the  NDP 
got  up  at  one  point  and  again  mentioned 
the  fact  that  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Kitchener- Wilmot  talked  about  how  he  was 
in  favour  of  the  principle  of  the  bill.  Of 
course  we   are  when  we   are   talking  about 


general  principles.  But  when  we  are  drafting 
legislation  sometimes  wording  has  to  be 
changed.  It  has  been  my  experience  in  this 
House,  if  I  am  going  to  rely  on  legislative 
interpretation,  if  I  am  going  to  rely  on 
someone  drafting  legislation,  I  have  known 
from  the  past  not  to  rely  on  my  colleagues 
to  my  left.  This  is  from  long-standing  ex- 
perience- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman- 
Mr.  Roy:  The  member  for  Ottawa  Centre, 
Mr.  Chairman— 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  He  says  he  has  a 
point  of  order.  I  will  listen  to  it. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  am  convinced  you  will  rule 
against  him.  I  will  bet  you  on  that. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  would  like  to 
hear  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  just  hate  to  see  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  East  castigating  his  own 
members  on  the  committee  who  were  pre- 
pared to  accept  the  NDP's  amendment  a  few 
months  ago.  Now  he  is  repudiating  them. 
While  I  am  on  my  feet,  I  will  just  say  I  wish 
the  electors  in  Carleton  would  see  that  a 
principle  is  not  a  principle  of  the  Liberal 
Party  when  it  comes  to  this  Legislature. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  member  for 
Ottawa  East  won  his  bet. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Chairman,  do  I  have  to  em- 
phasize my  point  any  longer?  Has  he  not  just 
made  it?  He  is  confused,  poor  man.  He  has 
been  here  since  1971  and  he  does  not  even 
know  the  rules  of  this  House.  But  he  is  going 
to  tell  us  what  type  of  legislation  is  going 
to  protect  exceptional  children  in  this 
province. 

We  have  heard  rubbish  from  one  member 
and  the  other.  We  started  with  the  member 
for  Port  Arthur,  then  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre.  As  I  have  said  many  times,  the 
minute  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  takes 
a  particular  position  there  is  an  onus  on  this 
side  to  go  the  opposite  way,  and  nine  out  of 
10  times  we  are  right  on. 

The  process  went  on.  My  colleague  the 
member  for  Lakeshore  (Mr.  Lawlor)  is  a  nice 
fellow,  but  he  has  been  away  from  the  law 
books  and  the  courts  far  too  long. 

9:40  p.m. 

Then  we  move  on  to  dear  Mr.  Bounsall. 
He  is  the  one  who  is  going  to  straighten  us 
out  on  the  needs  of  exceptional  pupils  or 
children  here  in  Ontario.  We  are  going  to 
get  it  from  him.  I  sat  for  months  with  that 
man  on  the  committee  dealing  with  family 
law.    I    think   you   were   on   that   committee 


4432 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


yourself,  Mr.  Chairman.  My  God,  think  of 
the  mess  we  would  have  here  today  had  we 
accepted  his  amendments. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chair- 
man: A  few  moments  ago,  the  previous 
chairman  of  this  committee  indicated  to  one 
of  the  members  of  this  Legislature  that  he 
should  withdraw  remarks  directed  towards 
other  members.  I  suggest  that  the  present 
speaker  for  the  Liberal  Party,  such  as  he  is, 
is  imputing  motives  to  my  colleagues  in  the 
New  Democratic  Party.  Surely  this  is  against 
the  rules  of  the  House?  It  is  particularly 
inappropriate  for  that  member,  who  has  said 
he  prides  himself  on  knowing  the  rules,  to  be 
abusing  and  contravening  those  rules. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  Chairman  has 
been  listening.  It  has  been  a  little  difficult 
for  the  Chairman  to  listen  to  everything 
tonight,  but  I  have  been  listening  and  noth- 
ing that  was  said  offended  me  to  the  extent 
where  I  thought  it  should  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Chairman:  I  almost  brought  in  the  matri- 
monial property  law  bill  as  an  example  in 
this  debate.  We  did  have  a  good  clause  in 
principle  in  that  bill  that  we  should  have  in 
this  bill.  I  am  very  proud  of  anything  I  ever 
said  and  any  stand  I  ever  took  on  that  matri- 
monial property  law  bill.  If  we  did  not  have 
the  fuzzy  thinking  of  the  member  of  the 
Liberal  Party  who  last  spoke,  we  would  have 
had  a  decent  bill  in  Ontario. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  wonder  if  we 
may  now  return  to  section  2  of  Bill  82. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Chairman,  do  you  think  I 
am  hitting  close  to  the  bone  when  these 
characters  start  getting  up  and  interrupting 
on  points  of  order  about  imputing  motives? 
What  motives  could  I  impute?  The  only 
motives  of  you  people  I  impute  are  ignorance 
and  political  posturing.  Those  are  the  motives 
I  impute. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chair- 
man: That  remark  should  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Roy:  My  God,  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
would  be  apologizing  all  the  time  if  we  had 
to  withdraw  accusations  of  ignorance. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  word  ignor- 
ance does  offend  me.  However,  I  would  ask 
you  to  keep  to  Bill  82,  section  2.  That  is  what 
we  are  on.  Let  us  forget  about  the  other 
members  of  the  House,  because  I  think  a 
lot  of  them  have  forgotten  us. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  complete 
my  remarks,  we  have  the  tirade  and  the 
posturing  going  on  from  one  member  to  the 
next.  I  look  at  the  amendment  proposed  by 


my  colleague  the  member  for  Kitchener- 
Wilmot.  What  is  the  terrible  man  doing  that 
is  so  undermining  the  very  principle  of  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation; that  is  undermining  the  whole  prin- 
ciple of  this  act?  In  one  line  he  is  changing 
the  word  "pupil"  to  "children."  It  is  terrible 
that  he  should  be  doing  that.  It  is  extremely 
offensive  that  he  should  be  doing  that.  It  is 
so  underhanded  that  he  should  be  proceeding 
so  directly  to  undermine  the  very  principle 
of  this  bill. 

In  the  next  step,  he  is  adding  the  word 
"appropriate."  The  member  for  Bellwoods 
said:  "That  is  terrible,  adding  the  word  ap- 
propriate. It  should  be  defined."  We  are  going 
to  be  defining  every  word  in  this  act  if  we 
start  defining  "appropriate."  Why  do  we  not 
define  the  words  "reasonable"  or  "minister"? 
We  should  define  everything  in  the  act.  I 
know  I  have  limited  knowledge  of  the  English 
language  but  are  we  going  to  start  defining 
words   such   as   "appropriate"? 

They  are  annoyed  because  he  changes  the 
word  "free"  to  "without  payment  of  fees." 
Is  that  the  change  that  is  made?  That  is  a 
terrible  amendment  as  well.  It  is  extremely 
offensive  and,  again,  the  man  has  betrayed 
the  principles  he  stated  on  second  reading  of 
this  legislation. 

Finally,  he  sets  up  an  appeal  mechanism  in 
this  section  and  that  is,  I  suppose,  the  worst 
and  most  underhanded  move  of  all. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  NDP  is  going  to  vote 
against  that 

Mr.  Roy:  Exactly.  Finally,  that  is  the  key, 
that  is  what  the  NDP  has  been  so  annoyed 
about.  It  is  because  my  colleagues  in  the 
Liberal  Party  have  taken  the  initiative,  some- 
thing the  NDP  forgot  about.  Maybe  at  some 
point  when  talking  about  special  education 
for  exceptional  pupils,  people  may  have  dif- 
fering views  as  to  what  is  appropriate,  so  they 
set  up  an  appeal  mechanism.  I  would  have 
thought  the  NDP  would  think  about  some- 
thing like   that.   That  is  why  they  are  so— 

Mr.  McClellan:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman— 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  will  listen  to  this 
point  of  order. 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  point  of  order  is  brief. 
It  is  obvious  the  member  has  never  read  the 
bill.  If  he  had,  he  would  see  in  section  7  the 
appeal  procedure  which  was  introduced  in 
committee  and  supported  by  his  own  col- 
leagues. I  rise  simply  to  correct  the  in- 
vincible ignorance  of  the  member. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  realize  the  word 
"appropriate"  is  defined  in  section  7,  but 
that  is  not  a  point  of  order. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980 


4433 


Mr.  Roy:  I  am  talking  about  the  appeal 
process  as  proposed  by  my  colleague.  It  has 
the  NDP  so  annoyed  one  can  come  to  only 
one  conclusion:  When  the  NDP  cannot  take 
the  initiative  about  a  bright  idea,  when  it 
cannot  take  credit  for  something,  it  starts 
doing  what  is  called  political  posturing.  I 
heard  the  leader  of  the  NDP  say,  "I  love 
children,"  as  though  he  is  the  only  one  in 
the  province  who  loves  children  or  cares 
about  them.  My  God,  that  has  to  be  your 
motto  in  the  next  election,  "We  are  the  only 
ones  who  love  children." 

What  rubbish  we  have  heard  this  evening. 
When  it  comes  to  sincerity  and  caring  about 
children  with  special  problems  and  about 
education,  I  would  just  as  soon  rely  on  my 
colleague  from  Kitchener- Wilmot. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  moved  to 
participate  in  the  debate  on  this  subamend- 
ment  by  the  member  for  Erie  (Mr.  Haggerty) 
who  started  talking  about  the  relationship 
between  property  taxes  and  free  education 
in  this  province.  I  wonder  where  the  Liberal 
Party  stands  on  that. 

Since  then,  I  have  heard  quite  a  number  of 
contributions  that  have  talked  about  the  rela- 
tive merits  of  positions  taken  by  both  sides. 
None  of  those  contributions  have  been 
as  telling  as  the  interjections  from  Liberal 
Party  members  which  have  indicated  to  me 
this  subamendment  is  a  compromise.  When 
it  comes  to  providing  the  best  possible  edu- 
cation for  all  the  children  of  this  province,  I 
will  not  accept  any  compromise.  I  want  to 
say  to  the  member  for  Kitchener- Wilmot  that 
I  understand— 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Let's  talk  about  what's 
best  for  the  kids. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Get  serious  about  education,  I 
ask  you.  I  want  to  say  to  the  member  for 
Kitchener-Wilmot  who  moved  this  sub- 
amendment  that,  if  I  understand  correctly, 
he  indicated  to  a  member  from  the  Hamilton- 
Wentworth  chapter  of  the  Ontario  Associa- 
tion for  Children  with  Learning  Disabilities 
just  a  few  days  ago  by  telephone— and  that 
person  may  be  in  the  gallery  this  evening— 
that  he  would  not  accept  any  amendment 
which  weakened  this  bill  in  any  way  and 
if  such  an  amendment  came  forward  and  he 
was  forced  to  vote  on  that  amendment  he 
would  resign.  I  call  the  member  for  Kitch- 
ener-Wilmot to  make  good  on  that  promise 
and  to  resign  as  a  result  of  his  plan  to  weaken 
this  bill  here  tonight. 
9:50  p.m. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  we  should  look  at 
the  subamendment  before  us  with  regard  to 
some  of  the  comments  made  by  some  of  the 


lawyers  and  some  of  the  barrack-room  lawyers 
who  have  spoken  on  this  tonight.  Right  out, 
the  subamendment  suggests  we  change  "ex- 
ceptional pupil"  to  "exceptional  children." 

We  have  talked  about  the  definition  of 
terms  within  the  act.  We  have  talked  about 
how,  if  we  do  not  define  things  properly, 
everybody  might  get  sued  in  court.  I  suggest 
that  "exceptional  pupil"  is  at  least  defined  in 
the  act  where  "exceptional  children"  is  not 
defined  in  the  act. 

We  have  talked  about  adding  the  word' 
"appropriate"  to  the  term  "special  education," 
Yet  we  have  not  properly  defined,  in  this 
section,  how  "appropriate"  is  to  be  deter- 
mined. We  talked  in  vague  terms  about  an 
appeal  without  specifying  here  how  that 
appeal  process  is  to  work. 

We  have  talked  about  "without  payment 
of  fees"  as  being  better  than  "free."  My 
colleague  the  member  for  Bellwoods  has 
indicated  we  are  prepared  to  talk  about  that 
word  "free"  if,  indeed,  there  is  good  legal 
advice  that  it  causes  a  problem.  But,  Mr. 
Chairman,  the  citizens  of  this  province  be- 
lieve they  have  a  right  to  free  education  for 
the  children  of  this  province.  I  suggest  that 
today  that  belief  is  incorrect.  But  if  this  bill 
is  passed  without  the  amendment  the  minis- 
ter has  moved,  and  without  the  Liberal  sub- 
amendment,  for  the  first  time  the  children  of 
this  province  will  be  guaranteed  a  free  edu- 
cation regardless  of  their  situation. 

Tt  is  about  time  we  stop  putting  children 
into  categories;  time  we  stop  saying,  "These 
children  need  special  education,  these  chil- 
dren do  not,"  and  dealing  with  things  in  that 
kind  of  partitioned  way.  It  is  about  time  we 
had  in  our  Education  Act  a  statement  which 
says  the  minister  shall  ensure  all  children  in 
Ontario  have  avail  abble  to  them  a  free  and 
appropriate  public  education.  Anything  less 
than  that  commitment  from  this  Legislature 
is  totally  and  utterly  unacceptable. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I 
may,  I  should  like  to  comment  briefly.  For 
the  past  hour  and  a  half  our  ears  have  been 
assailed  by  the  greatest  collection  of  hyper- 
bolic, hyperaemic,  hypercholeric  hypocrisy 
from  that  side  of  the  House  that  I  have  ever 
heard  in  my  life  related  to  this  section. 

No  rights  are  being  defiled.  No  rights  are 
being  removed.  This  section  of  the  act  spe- 
cifically defines  the  responsibility  of  the 
Ministry  of  Education,  the  boards  of  educa- 
tion and  the  educational  system  to  provide 
programs  for  all  exceptional  children  in  this 
province.  There  is  no  question  about  it.  There 
is  no  question  that  is  the  purpose  of  this  bill, 
and  there  is  no  question  that  is  the  intent 


4434 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of    the    amendments    that    have    been   intro- 
duced. 

Mr.  Foulds:   Why  are  you  watering  down 
the  sections? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  There  is  no  water- 
ing down.  The  vision  of  that  party  is  indeed 
myopic.  It  really  requires  some  correction 
at  this  point.  It  is  inappropriate  for  members 
of  that  party  to  make  the  kinds  of  remarks 
that  have  been  made- 
Mr.  Van  Home:  Which  party? 
Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  New  Demo- 
cratic Party,  about  other  members  in  this 
House. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  grammar— 
Hon.   Miss    Stephenson:    The   members   of 
the  New  Democratic  Party— 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Order.  Will  the 
member  for  Port  Arthur  please  be  seated? 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  point  of  grammar. 
Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  would  be  de- 
lighted to  tell  members  that  my  children 
call  the  party  the  party  of  the  knee-deepers. 
I  will  leave  them  to  decide  what  they  are 
knee-deep  in. 

There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the 
amendments  which  have  been  provided  will 
provide  the  framework  for  the  responsibility— 
because  this  is  responsibility  legislation— to 
be  delivered  on  behalf  of  all  the  exceptional 
children  in  this  province.  I  believe  the  sub- 
amendments  which  have  been  provided  are 
indeed  appropriate  as  well.  Therefore,  we 
are  in  support  of  those  subamendments. 
10  p.m. 


The  committee  divided  on  Mr.  Sweeney's 
amendment  to  the  amendment  to  section  2, 
which  was  agreed  to  on  the  following  vote: 

Ayes  62;  nays  29. 

The  committee  divided  on  Hon.  Miss 
Stephenson's  amendment,  as  amended,  which 
was  agreed  to  on  the  following  vote: 

Ayes  62,  nays  29. 

Mr.  Warner:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman,  when  the  division  bells  ring  they 
should  be  ringing  in  all  the  members'  offices. 
In  the  north  wing  on  the  fourth  floor,  the 
division  bells  were  not  ringing.  I  would  re- 
quest the  chair  direct  that  repairs  be  made  so 
the  division  bells  can  be  heard  in  all  the 
north  wing. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  will  bring  that  to  the 
attention  of  the  Speaker. 

The  committee  divided  on  whether  section 
2,  as  amended,  should  stand  as  part  of  the 
bill,  which  was  agreed1  to  on  the  following 
vote: 

Ayes  62,  nays  29. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  reported  progress. 

SPEAKER'S  WARRANTS 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  to  advise  the 
House  that  in  accordance  with  the  authority 
given  me  by  an  order  of  the  House  passed 
on  October  28,  1980,  I  have  today  issued 
warrants  for  certain  documents  requested  by 
the  select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and 
employee  adjustment. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:30  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  18,  1980  4435 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  November  18,  1980 

Education  Amendment  Act,  Bill  82,  in  committee 4417 

Adjournment    4434 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Lawlor,  P.  D.  (Lakeshore  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Stephenson,  Hon.   B.;   Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges   and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Stong,  A.  (York  Centre  L) 
Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 
Van  Home,  R.  (London  North  L) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 


No.  117 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  November  20,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  With  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4439 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2:02  p.m. 
Prayers. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  ESTIMATES 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  message  from  the  Honourable  the  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  signed  by  his  own  hand. 

Mr.  Speaker:  John  B.  Aird,  the  Lieutenant 
Governor,  transmits  supplementary  estimates 
of  certain  additional  sums  required  for  the 
services  of  the  province  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1981,  and  recommends  them  to 
the  Legislative  Assembly,  Toronto,  Novem- 
ber 20,  1980. 

REPORT  IN  TORONTO  SUN 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a 
point  of  personal  privilege  involving  the  def- 
amation of  my  character. 

I  have  been  serving  in  public  life  for  17 
years.  I  have  come  to  appreciate  and  under- 
stand the  political  process.  I  have  won  politi- 
cal battles;  I  have  lost  political  battles.  I  have 
worked  in  my  community  to  serve  my  con- 
stituents to  the  best  of  my  ability.  I  have 
had  debates  with  my  colleagues  in  municipal 
council  and  in  this  Legislature.  I  have  had 
open  and  fair  discussions,  disagreements  and 
agreements  with  constituents  at  public  meet- 
ings and  in  other  places. 

I  have  derived  a  great  deal  of  satisfaction 
out  of  being  able  to  serve  in  this  capacity, 
notwithstanding  that,  being  in  public  office, 
one  sometimes  has  to  expect  to  take  slings 
and  arrows  and  abuses.  One  learns  to  live 
with  those  and  accepts  them,  save  with  one 
exception. 

The  one  exception  of  fundamental  im- 
portance to  me  is  that  at  no  time  during  my 
public  life  would  I  permit  a  person  or  a 
group  of  individuals  to  malign  me  at  any 
time  or  to  endeavour  through  false  state- 
ments or  actions  to  lower  the  esteem  in 
which  I  am  held  in  my  community  by  my 
peers,  by  my  family  and  by  my  constituents. 
While  I  was  a  member  of  the  municipal 
council  of  North  York  I  had  the  unfortunate 
experience  of  being  maliciously  libelled  by 
the   Toronto    Globe   and   Mail.    It   gave   me 


Thursday,  November  20,  1980 

cause  to  initiate  a  libel  and  slander  action, 
the  result  of  which  was  that  a  public  apology 
was  made  in  that  newspaper  to  myself  and 
to  my  family. 

On  Tuesday  of  this  week  I  learned  that  on 
Thursday,  November  13,  I  was  libelled  in 
this  Legislature.  You  may  recall  that  on  that 
occasion  I  had  a  resolution  before  this  Legis- 
lature dealing  with  the  request  to  limit  and 
to  better  control  the  proliferation  and  indis- 
criminate location  of  adult  entertainment 
parlours  throughout  the  province.  At  that 
time  I  indicated  that  while  this  province  had 
taken  great  initiatives  through  this  govern- 
ment in  endeavouring  to  bring  about  these 
controls,  more  could  and  should  be  done. 

During  the  course  of  that  debate,  I  learned 
subsequently  on  Tuesday  of  this  week,  one 
of  two  members  of  this  Legislature,  with 
intent,  with  calculated  purpose  and  with 
malice  aforethought,  sent  a  note,  a  written 
statement  to  a  member  of  the  press.  It  was 
the  member  for  Rainy  River  (Mr.  T.  P. 
Reid)  or  the  member  for  Wentworth  North 
(Mr.  Cunningham)  who  sent  a  note  to  a 
reporter  for  the  Toronto  Sun,  Mr.  David 
Oved,  maliciously  alleging  I  had  danced 
with  a  striptease  artist  in  a  strip  joint  in  a 
cocktail  lounge  in  Washington,  DC,  in  1976. 

That  libel  was  designed  specifically  to 
impugn  my  integrity.  It  was  designed  to 
induce  that  newspaper  to  publish  a  libel 
against  me.  That  libel  was  followed  this 
week  by  a  slander  perpetrated  by  both  of 
those  gentlemen  through  slurs  and  innuen- 
does in  a  statement  they  made  to  the  same 
reporter  for  that  newspaper. 
2:10  p.m. 

I  have  two  further  things  to  say,  but  first 
I  am  going  to  demand  here  and  now  a  full 
apology  from  the  member  for  Rainy  River 
and  the  member  for  Wentworth  North.  I  will 
accept  nothing  less.  If  that  is  not  forthcom- 
ing, I  have  two  further  matters  to  discuss. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  presume  it 
is  on  a  point  of  privilege  the  member  for 
Oriole  has  risen.  It  is  one  of  the  few  times 
in  my  life  that  I  have  seen  somebody  die  of 
self-inflicted  wounds. 

The  honourable  member  has  accused  me 
and  another  member  of  libel.  He  started  out 


4440 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


his  statement  by  saying  it  was  either/ or  and 
wound  up  his  statement  by  demanding  an 
apology  from  both  of  us.  I  would  think  that 
as  a  lawyer  and  somebody  who  is  intimately 
involved  in  this  particular  process,  he  might 
be  a  little  more  careful  about  his  legalities 
and  the  way  he  approaches  the  matter. 

I  stand  before  this  House  to  deny  cate- 
gorically that  I  sent  any  note  to  any  reporter 
in  the  press  gallery  in  relation  to  the  inci- 
dent the  member  has  put  forward  to  the 
House.  I  did  not  seek  out  any  reporter  and 
speak  to  him.  That  has  never  been  my  polit- 
ical style.  We  will  beat  the  members  over 
there  by  better  policies,  better  government 
and  better  candidates  and  all  the  regular 
operations   of   the  democratic  process. 

I  feel  now  that  my  integrity  has  been  im- 
pugned by  the  member,  who  has  accused  me 
and  another  member,  and  that  member  can 
speak  for  himself,  but  my  integrity  has  been 
impugned  in  the  very  way  that  the  member 
says  his  was  impugned.  I  think  he  should 
have  been  a  little  more  aware  of  the  facts 
and  done  a  little  more  research  before  he 
made  that  statement,  which  has  slandered 
and  libelled  me  in  this  House  and  before 
the  people  of  Ontario. 

To  my  mind,  I  read  the  article  with  some 
amusement,  if  nothing  else.  I  think  it  is 
being  blown  out  of  all  proportion.  But  I 
would  repeat  that  I  sent  no  message  or  let- 
ter, nor  initiated  any  telephone  conversation 
or  any  kind  of  suggestion  with  any  member 
of  the  press  in  regard  to  this   incident. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  What  did  you  say 
to  the  reporter? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  said,  and  I  believe  I 
was  quoted  in  that  article,  that  I  was  not 
prepared  to  say  anything  about  the  matter 
because  "none  of  us  is  squeaky  clean."  That 
is  the  quote  I  made  to  that  particular  re- 
porter after  he  approached  me.  I  did  not 
approach  him;  I  did  not  send  any  letter.  I 
understand  the  member  for  Oriole  was  sub- 
sequently approached  and  spoke  to  that  par- 
ticular reporter. 

Hon.   Miss   Stephenson:    But  you  are   one 

of  those  quoted,  though? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  In  that  phrase  that  I  have 
just  put  forward. 

I  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  feel  my  in- 
tegrity has  been  impugned.  The  member 
has  suggested  I  tried  to  seek  out  a  reporter 
to  give  him  this  story,  if  that  is  what  it  was. 
I  categorically  reject  that.  I  deny  it.  I  stand 
in  my  place  to  demand  a  full  apology  from 
that  member. 


Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indicated, 
I  stand  by  what  I  said,  that  both  of  the 
gentlemen  in  question  slandered  me.  There 
were  two  individuals  involved  and  only  two. 
The  newspaper  article,  and  I  will  quote  it, 
states:  "  'The  first  guy  I  see  is  John  Wil- 
liams,' one  of  the  MPPs  remembered.  1  would 
have  given  $100  for  a  camera  that  day/" 
That  is  what  one  of  the  members  said.  It 
was  either  the  member  for  Rainy  River  or 
the  member  for  Wentworth  North,  because 
the  other  MPP  said:  "Williams  seemed  to  be 
enjoying  himself.  It  wasn't  a  classy  place."  If 
that  is  not  a  slur  and  an  innuendo,  that  is 
slander. 

I  will  make  two  further  points.  When  I 
became  aware  of  this  matter,  I  walked  over 
to  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk 
(Mr.  Nixon)  because  I  saw  that  he,  the  ever- 
smiling  member  for  Ottawa  East  (Mr.  Roy) 
and  their  leader  were  having  some  satisfac- 
tion and  enjoyment  out  of  the  fact  this  mat- 
ter was  about  to  become  public  knowledge. 
I  think  the  member  for  Ottawa  East  was 
pointing  a  naughty  finger  at  Mr.  Oved  up 
in  the  press  gallery  at  the  time. 

I  approached  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford^- 
Norfolk,  for  whom  I  have  had,  up  to  this 
point,  the  greatest  of  respect,  and  I  asked 
him  if  his  party  would  consider  what  it  was 
doing  in  stooping  to  this  new  low,  in  con- 
doning, with  the  knowledge  of  that  caucus, 
that  type  of  sleazy  cheap  action,  which  im- 
pugns the  integrity  not  only  of  the  Liberal 
caucus  but  of  the  whole  of  this  Legislature. 
What  I  got  from  the  member  was  a  "Well" 
and  a  shrug. 

I  would  have  assumed1  these  gentlemen  at 
least,  in  the  front  ranks  of  the  Liberal  caucus, 
would  have  had  the  integrity  to  speak  to 
those  less-principled  members  of  their  caucus 
who  had  perpetrated  this  libel  and  slander. 
I  am  asking  in  the  name  of  decency  that  the 
member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk,  his  leader 
and  the  member  for  Ottawa  East,  together 
with  the  members  for  Rainy  River  and  Went- 
worth, reconsider  their  position. 

I  will  rise  in  this  House  after  the  votes  this 
afternoon,  in  continuation  of  my  point  of 
privilege,  to  determine  whether  an  apology 
is  forthcoming.  If  it  is  not,  I  will  be  proceed- 
ing with  a  libel  and  slander  action  against 
the  two  named  members  for  Rainy  River  and 
Wentworth  North. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  feel  I 
must  rise  on  this  particular  issue.  I  was  the 
chairman  of  the  select  committee  on  highway 
transportation  and  was,  I  suppose,  in  charge 
of  the  committee's  trip  to  Washington. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4441 


I,  too,  read  the  article  in  question  with 
some  shock  and  also  discussed  the  matter 
with  the  Liberal  House  leader  as  to  the 
actions  taken  by  one  of  two  members  of  the 
Liberal  Party.  I  find  it  very  shocking  that 
members  of  this  Legislature  could  resort  to 
this  type  of  tactic.  As  the  member  for  Rainy 
River  stated  earlier,  the  Liberal  Party  is  con- 
tent to  depend  on  its  good  policies  to  beat 
this  government.  It  certainly  is  not  depending 
on  its  good  character  in  this  case.  It  certainly 
is  not  demonstrating  it. 

I  regret  very  much  that  a  committee  of 
which  I  was  chairman,  which  to  this  point 
has  deserved  and  earned  a  good  reputation 
and  presented  an  excellent  report  that  has 
been  well  used,  has  to  be  tarnished  by  this 
type  of  action  because  of  irresponsibility  on 
the  part  of  the  opposition. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  really  must  re- 

Ispond  very  briefly  by  simply  indicating  to  you 
that  I  know  of  nothing  that  requires  an 
apology,  and  there  will  not  be  an  apology. 
The  member  for  Oriole  indicates  his  extra- 
sensory perception  somehow  in  knowing  what 
is  in  the  minds  of  the  people  across  here.  If 
he  is  so  sensitive  that  he  thinks  we  are  laugh- 
ing at  him,  I  suppose  occasionally  he  is  cor- 
rect. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  We  have  laughed1  at  the 
member  for  Oriole  for  years. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  member  for  Oriole 
has  risen  on  what  he  alleges  to  be  a  breach 
of  his  privileges  as  a  member  of  the  House 
by  one  or  more  other  members  of  this  House. 
He  has  made  very  serious  allegations  and 
used  very  strong  language  in  bringing  it  to 
the  attention  of  the  House.  I  think  it  only 
fair  that  I  give  the  other  member  to  whom 
the  accusations  were  directed  an  opportunity 
to  respond.  Having  done  that,  I  will  judge 
the  information  to  see  whether  there  is  a 
prima  facie  case. 

2:20  p.m. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

MASSEY-FERGUSON, 
WHITE  MOTOR  CORPORATION 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
put  a  question  to  the  Minister  of  Industry 
and  Tourism  pertaining  to  the  farm  imple- 
ment manufacture  industry  in  Ontario  but 
particularly  in  Brantford  and  Toronto. 

Can  he  confirm  that  the  principal  new 
investor  in  the  Massey-Ferguson  situation 
has  publicly  withdrawn  and  that  there  is  no 
new    investor    in    sight,    which    means    the 


Massey-Ferguson  situation  has  rapidly  been 
downgraded  to  the  point  where  we  must 
once  again  look  for  new  government  initia- 
tives to  save  the  company?  In  the  same  con- 
nection, will  he  report  to  the  House  on  the 
situation  involving  the  White  Motor  Corpo- 
ration, where  the  parent  company  has  been 
purchased  in  the  United  States  and  the 
American  purchaser  has  indicated  it  will  not 
purchase  the  Canadian  subsidiary  because 
it  is  in  receivership? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  with 
regard  to  the  Massey-Ferguson  portion  of 
the  question,  I  would  report  to  the  honour- 
able member  that  discussions  are  still  going 
on  between  Massey-Ferguson  and  several 
potential  and,  I  believe,  fairly  serious  Cana- 
dian purchasers  of  the  company.  Also, 
Massey-Ferguson  has  had  a  great  deal  of 
success  in  convincing  its  international  and 
Canadian  investors  to  stay  with  the  com- 
pany. In  other  words,  they  are  leaving  their 
money  in,  they  are  continuing  to  extend 
credit  in  order  that  the  company  may  con- 
tinue to  operate,  and  their  suppliers  are 
keeping  them  in  a  situation  in  which  the 
current  financial  viability  of  the  company 
remains  intact. 

With  regard  to  the  White  situation,  the 
White  Motor  Corporation  of  the  United 
States,  which  was  also  in  what  is  referred 
to  as  chapter  11  receivership,  has  now  been 
purchased  by  an  American  corporation.  In 
buying  the  shares  of  the  White  Motor  Corpo- 
ration, they  buy  the  Canadian  shares  owned 
by  White  USA  and  the  Canadian  assets. 

The  purchaser  has  not  yet  filed  an  appli- 
cation to  the  Foreign  Investment  Review 
Agency,  which  will  be  our  first  indication 
and,  perhaps  more  accurately,  the  clear  and 
final  indication  with  regard  to  what  the 
purchaser  of  the  White  Motor  Corporation 
intends  to  do  with  regard  to  the  Canadian 
assets.  I  would  hope  that  at  the  very  least 
we  would  see  a  FIRA  application  come 
through.  That  would  be  some  indication 
that  there  is  at  least  that  minimum  position; 
that  is,  though  it  will  continue  to  be  foreign- 
owned,  the  people  will  be  able  to  go  back 
to  work  at  a  newly  financed  and  repurchased 
White  Motor  Corporation. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Since  the  continuing  un- 
certainty in  this  matter  is  having  a  very 
serious  effect  on  the  confidence  that  farmers 
and  consumers  have  in  the  two  companies, 
and  particularly  if  there  is  some  indication 
they  will  not  be  in  business  perhaps  this 
time  a  year  from  now,  does  the  minister  not 
feel  he  should  make  a  firmer  statement  in 


4442 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


support  of  the  government  policy  to  keep 
both  operations  in  progress?  Would  he  not 
agree  it  is  not  enough  to  say  that  Massey- 
Ferguson's  current  viability  is  not  interfered 
with,  when  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
its  current  viability  will  lead  it  to  a  cessa- 
tion of  business  unless  there  is  some  new 
money  involved? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  do  not  think  there 
is  any  secret  about  the  fact  that  unless  a 
substantial  reinvestment  package— that  is, 
one  of  many  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars 
—is  put  together  for  Massey-Ferguson,  the 
company  is  going  to  be  unable  to  make  it. 
It  is  important  that  Massey-Ferguson  s  credi- 
tors have  enough  confidence  in  the  company 
to  have  left  their  money  in  it.  They  are 
aware  of  the  fact  that,  as  time  goes  on, 
Massey-Ferguson  is  not  making  a  profit  each 
month— in  fact,  it  is  expected  to  continue  to 
lose  some  money— but  those  creditors,  who 
are  currently  in  a  position  in  which  their 
money  is  at  risk,  are  prepared  to  leave  their 
money  at  risk  rather  than  foreclose  on  the 
company  and  put  it  into  receivership. 

Those  creditors  who  are  in  a  good  posi- 
tion to  know  everything  there  is  to  know 
about  the  company  are  obviously  satisfied 
that  enough  progress  is  being  made  that  it 
is  safe  to  leave  their  money  invested  and, 
as  it  were,  "at  risk"  in  the  company.  I  think 
that  is  an  important  signal  that  those  who 
are  most  familiar  with  the  company  are 
sticking  with  the  company. 

I  suggest  no  further  statement  needs  to 
be  made  at  this  time  with  regard  to  the 
government's  willingness  to  participate  in 
the  necessary  package,  because  we  have  al- 
ready indicated  both  at  federal  and  provin- 
cial levels  the  degree  to  which  we  are  pre- 
pared to  participate. 

I  do  not  want  to  attest  to  the  accuracy  of 
these  figures,  but  going  on  the  publicly  talked 
about  figures,  which  are  in  the  area  of  $600 
to  $700  million,  the  federal  and  provincial 
packages  would  amount  to  about  $150  mil- 
lion. That  is  the  ball  park  talked  about  in  the 
discussions.  That  means  the  governments  are 
substantially  committed  to  a  large  portion  of 
the  refinancing.  I  think  25  per  cent  is  a 
fairly  large  portion  and  indicates  we  will  do 
anything  practical  and  necessary  if  it  appears 
it  is  appropriate  to  do  that  to  save  the  com- 
pany. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Can  the  minister  indicate  at  this  time 
whether  continuous  consultations  are  going 
on  with  the  federal  government  to  ensure 
that,  if  there  is  a  need  to  change  the  govern- 


ment package  for  Massey-Ferguson,  he  is 
prepared  to  make  that  change? 

Regarding  White  Motor  Corporation,  in 
view  of  the  statements  that  have  been  circu- 
lated to  the  effect  the  American  purchaser 
wishes  to  cut  wages  between  $3  and  $4  an 
hour,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  there  are  pos- 
sible Canadian  purchasers  for  that  operation, 
is  the  minister  prepared  to  commit  himself 
and  his  department  to  provide  financial  assis- 
tance to  the  Canadian  purchasers  to  ensure 
that  White  remains  in  Brantford  as  a  viable 
operation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the 
case  of  both  companies,  may  I  say  this  gov- 
ernment has  made  it  quite  clear  it  will  enter- 
tain any  reasonable  business  proposition  that 
will  ensure  the  work  force  remains  intact  in 
Brantford.  The  whole  purpose  of  our  inter- 
vention and  assistance  proposed  in  the 
Massey-Ferguson  situation  is  not  to  relieve 
the  banks  or  other  creditors  of  any  potential 
loss,  but  to  ensure  that  there  is  employment 
in  Brantford  and  Toronto  in  the  long  term. 

To  that  end,  if  a  different  proposition  were 
brought  to  us  by  new  potential  purchasers, 
we  would  be  open  to  any  sort  of  proposal 
brought  to  us.  That  does  not  mean  we  would 
agree  with  a  blindfold  on  to  any  blind  pro- 
posal, nor  would  we  give  a  blank  cheque. 
However,  if  any  good,  viable  business  propo- 
sition is  brought  to  us  which  we  think  will 
work,  we  would  be  willing  to  change  our 
earlier  undertaking  or  indication  of  support. 

RADIOACTIVITY  AT 
OHC  SUBDIVISION 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment having  to  do  with  the  detection  of 
radiation  at  the  Malvern  Ontario  Housing 
Corporation  subdivision.  If  he  wants  his  col- 
league the  Minister  of  Housing  to  answer  it, 
that  will  be  all  right  with  me. 

However,  since  it  seems  to  be  technical, 
would  the  minister  indicate  what  steps  are 
going  to  be  taken  to  correct  the  situation?  It 
is  reported  that  radiation  in  excess  of  875 
millirem  per  year  is  generally  detectable  in 
the  area,  while  500  millirem  is  the  standard 
permitted.  In  fact,  right  at  ground  level,  the 
radiation  is  in  excess  of  3,500  millirem  per 
year.  Obviously  this  is  a  matter  of  great  con- 
cern. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
several  will  answer  this  question.  First  of  all, 
may  I  tell  the  honourable  member  what  he 
perhaps  already  knows.  The  Atomic  Energy 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4443 


Control  Board  people  are  there  and,  along 
with  our  own  officials  from  several  minis- 
tries, will  be  doing  a  thorough  review.  De- 
pending on  that  review,  it  will  be  addressed 
in  a  short  period  of  time  by  either  the  Minis- 
ter of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell),  if  it  is  a 
public  health  matter,  or  by  the  Minister  of 
Housing. 

(The  Minister  of  Housing  may  want  to  add 
something  to  my  comment  even  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  so 
we  have  the  most  recent  story  regarding  the 
Malvern  situation  and  the  hot  spots,  may  I 
say  that  Dr.  Eaton,  who  represents  the 
Atomic  Energy  Control  Board,  has  been  there 
this  morning  along  with  people  of  the 
press,  radio  and  TV  media,  my  staff  and 
staff  of  other  ministries  as  well.  To  date, 
they  have  not  detected  any  high  radiation 
counts  in  the  basements  of  the  homes  in  the 
community.  They  have  spotted  some  very 
high  readings,  I  am  told,  in  the  backyards 
along  the  fence  lines  of  six  or  seven  proper- 
ties. 

The  man  from  the  AECB  indicated  in  a 
press  conference  at  two  o'clock  today  on 
behalf  of  the  AECB  that,  where  difficulties 
are  encountered,  he  is  prepared  to  recom- 
mend and  take  action  to  remove  the  soil, 
similar  to  what  was  done  in  the  Port  Hope 
situation. 

2:30  p.m. 

My  understanding  is  they  are  doing  a  very 
clear  analysis.  It  is  a  federal  responsibility. 
The  Ministry  of  the  Environment  and  the 
other  agencies  of  the  province  have  offered 
to  give  the  fullest  assistance  possible. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Malvern  and  the  development 
of  that  property  has  been  before  the  Ministry 
of  Housing  and  its  predecessor  for  many 
years.  Can  the  minister  explain  why  his  tech- 
nical experts  were  not  aware  of  this  sooner 
and  why  so  many  people  must  have  been  ex- 
posed to  this  radiation  over  the  years  of 
development? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  This 
site  came  into  the  possession  of  both  the 
federal  and  provincial  governments  in  1953. 
Neither  government  was  aware  of  any  con- 
tamination on  this  land,  some  1,700  acres.  It 
was  in  1972  that  the  opportunity  to  construct 
homes  in  that  community  began,  and  the  first 
home  was  sold  in  1973. 

It  was  not  until  1975  that  the  AECB  came 
into  possession  of  a  private  firm's  records 
that  demonstrated  there  could  be  some  con- 
tamination on  that  site.  It  was  as  a  result  of 
some  work  on  a  building  on  Church  Street, 


which  had  been  used  during  the  war  years 
for  the  making  of  instruments  where  uranium 
was  used  in  the  printing  on  the  dials.  The 
waste  from  that  operation  was  dumped  on  a 
farm  that  was  owned  by  the  president  of  the 
company  that  owned  the  building  on  Church 
Street. 

Some  spot  checks  were  carried  out  on  this 
site  in  1975,  as  a  result  of  the  information 
acquired  at  the  time  the  Church  Street  site 
was  being  renovated. 

Mr.  Nixon:  That  would  be  three  or  four 
years  after  they  started  to  build. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  At  that  time,  no  one 
was  aware  of  the  fact  there  had  been  any 
dumping  nor  of  any  hot  spots  even  to  be 
detected. 

In  1976  the  Honourable  Alastair  Gillespie, 
who  was  then  the  minister  reporting  for  the 
AECB  to  the  federal  House,  tabled  in  the 
House  of  Commons  a  report  indicating  what 
were  the  contaminated  spots  across  this 
country.  Malvern  was  not  one  of  those  spots, 
as  indicated  in  his  report.  It  was  not  until 
this  recent  situation  developed  that  We  were 
brought  on  site.  Throughout  it  all,  the  tests 
that  were  taken  by  AECB  back  in  1975  did 
not  indicate  contamination. 

The  main  contaminated  location  we 
believe— and  I  have  to  preface  this  with  "we 
believe"— from  the  reports  that  I  have  had  so 
far  this  morning,  was  where  the  building  on 
the  farm  was  used  for  holding  these  con- 
taminants and  some  fertilizer  that  had  some 
of  the  contaminent  products  in  it.  The  other 
part  of  the  problem  is  the  roadway  that  was 
used  in  getting  to  and  from  this  building 
from  the  main  highway. 

Dr.  Roger  Eaton  of  the  AECB  is  there  today 
and  is  doing  a  thorough  investigation.  I  am 
sure,  as  he  said  to  our  ministry  just  recently, 
that  he  will  have  a  full  and  complete  report. 
Whatever  corrective  actions  are  necessary, 
he  assures  us  and  the  property  owners  in  that 
area,  will  be  taken  at  the  expense  of  the 
federal  government. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary  to  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment,  Mr.  Speaker:  The  minis- 
ter has  been  involved  in  a  major  review  of  in- 
dustrial waste  disposal  sites,  and  it  now  ap- 
pears the  work  that  has  been  done  by  AECB 
is  inadequate  when  it  comes  to  identifying 
sites  that  contain  radioactive  waste.  Given 
this,  will  he  extend  his  testing  program  to 
make  sure  there  are  no  other  sites  such  as 
Malvern  where  housing  has  been  erected  close 
to  dumps  that  contain  radioactive  waste? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
question  is  certainly  reasonable,  but  I  think 


4444 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


we  have  all  agreed  that  AECB  should  be  en- 
tirely responsible.  If  the  member  is  asking  if  I 
would  be  prepared  to  discuss  with  them  a 
further  examination  of  sites  and  potential  sites, 
and  relay  to  them  any  of  the  information  that 
we  get  from  our  in-depth  investigation  of  our 
sites,  indeed  I  will. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Final  supplementary  to  the 
Minister  of  Energy,  Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  quite 
apparent  that  what  the  minister  is  doing  is  not 
adequate.  The  AECB  are  dead  down  there. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  US  Senate  is  now 
appropriating  $4.1  billion  to  ferret  out  radia- 
tion toxic  sites  in  America,  why  does  the  min- 
ister not  start  a  system  in  Ontario  where  he 
will  give  a  blanket  reward  of  $5,000  for 
anyone  who  can  come  forward  with  a  dump 
that  is  not  known  to  his  people?  There  must 
be  plenty  of  them  around.  Why  does  he 
not  consider  setting  up  an  incentive  system 
to  find  out  exactly  where  those  places  are? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't 
think  it  is  necessary  to  have  an  incentive 
system  because  in  the  last  year  we  have  had 
many  citizens  of  Ontario  come  forward  and 
suggest  to  us  where  there  are  potential  sites. 
We  have  immediately  gone  to  these  sites  and 
investigated  them  and  they  will  be  thoroughly 
investigated  in  the  whole  program  of  our 
ministry,  so  I  don't  think  a  payout  is  neces- 
sary. The  people  are  doing  it  because  they 
understand  the  importance  of  it  and  I  think 
they  have  been  very  satisfied  with  the  re- 
sponse of  the  staff. 

NUCLEAR  WASTE  DISPOSAL 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  note  the 
Premier  is  back  in  my  riding  again  today, 
and  I  just  want  to  tell  him  he  is  welcome 
any  time  he  wants  to  come  to  Ottawa 
Centre.  It  is  not  going  to  have  much  im- 
pact, but  he  was  speaking  there  last  week- 
Mr.    Speaker:    Do    you   have    a    question? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes,  I  do,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Energy, 
to  whom  I  am  sending  a  questionnaire  pre- 
pared for  the  Gallup  Poll  about  nuclear 
waste  disposal. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  the  Gallup 
Poll  questionnaire  has  been  prepared  for  use 
in  the  communities  of  Renfrew,  Cobden, 
Field,  Sturgeon  Falls  and  Dryden,  and  that 
the  questionnaire  is  clearly  designed  to 
measure  the  extent  of  public  resistance  to 
nuclear  waste  disposal  and  how  that  resis- 
tance can  be  overcome?  Can  the  minister 
say  who  is  doing  this  poll,  why  that  poll  is 
being  undertaken,  whether  the  province  has 


been  informed  the  polls  being  carried  out 
by  Ontario  Hydro  or  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment, and  will  he  give  an  assurance  that  the 
results  of  the  poll  will  be  made  public? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  assure 
the  honourable  member  that  this  is  the  first 
time  I  have  seen  this  material;  so,  obvious- 
ly, I  welcome  the  opportunity  to  review 
with  my  officials  and  with  Ontario  Hydro 
any  information  they  might  have  about  this 
and  to  report  back  to  the  House.  I  have  not 
seen  this  before. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  Gallup  Poll  was 
most  likely  carried  out  by  the  Canada-Ontario 
waste  management  committee,  which  is 
concerning  itself  with  nuclear  waste  dis- 
posal in  Ontario,  can  the  minister  tell  me 
whether  there  are  plans  to  dump  nuclear 
waste  in  any  of  those  five  sites— that  is, 
Renfrew,  Cobden,  Sturgeon  Falls,  Field  or 
Dryden— 'and  if  there  are  no  such  plans,  can 
he  explain  why  it  is  that  a  poll  clearly 
directed  to  that  question  is  being  carried  out 
in  those  areas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Obviously  no  decision 
has  been  taken  with  respect  to  the  ultimate 
disposal  of  nuclear  waste.  At  the  moment, 
I  do  not  think  they  are  past  the  flyover  or 
general  observation  stage. 

As  regards  whoever  has  commissioned  the 
poll,  I  go  back  to  my  answer  to  th?  orig- 
inal question.  I  will  have  to  get  further 
information,  which  I  will  be  glad  to  share 
with  the  honourable  member  once  I  have 
consulted  with  some  of  the  parties  named 
in  the  questionnaire. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  minister,  in  effect,  has 
taken  it  as  notice.  I  will  allow  one  brief 
supplementary  from  the  member  for 
Halton-Burlington. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  apprised  or  briefed  on  a 
regular  basis  as  to  the  activities  of  the 
federal-provincial  agreement  application?  If 
he  is  briefed,  would  he  not  have  been  in- 
formed that  such  a  poll  was  being  under- 
taken if,  as  the  leader  of  the  third  party 
says,  it  was  in  connection  with  that  federal- 
provincial  agreement? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suppose 
it  is  reasonable  to  assume,  if  that  is  the 
committee  that  commissioned  the  poll,  that 
would  be  information  my  officials  would 
have,  but  that  is  the  very  point  I  am  now 
being  asked^whether  that  particular  com- 
mittee or  group  has  retained  Gallup  Poll  for 
that  purpose.  As  the  Speaker  has  indicated, 
I  have  simply  said  in  response  to  all  three 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4445 


questions  that  I  have  not  seen  this  before  but 
I  will  get  the  information. 

2:40  p.m. 

AUTO  PRODUCTION 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism. 
Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  Science  Council 
of  Canada's  study  of  the  auto  industry  which 
appeared  this  week  and  which  once  again 
documents  that  the  problem  with  the  Cana- 
dian automobile  industry  is  a  structural 
problem  and  not  just  a  short-term  problem 
of  declining  sales,  and  that  the  Big  Four 
auto  makers  will  not  give  Canadians  a  fair 
share  of  auto  and  parts  production  if  they 
are  left  on  their  own,  despite  the  assurances 
we  have  had  from  the  Premier? 

Can  the  minister  say  what  new  strategy 
the  government  intends  to  follow  to  ensure 
the  Canadian  auto  and  parts  industry  does 
get  a  fair  share,  not  just  of  production  but 
also  of  jobs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  First,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
remind  the  honourable  member  that  a  great 
number  of  recommendations  have  been  made 
in  that  report,  which  I  should  begin  by  say- 
ing we  have  just  received  and  I  am  still 
analysing.  From  our  preliminary  analysis,  we 
have  found  a  fair  number  of  things  the 
science  council  has  reported  are  things  we 
reported  to  this  House,  and  to  other  places, 
quite  some  time  ago. 

Second,  for  some  time  we  have  advocated 
many  of  the  things  that  report  advocates.  If 
the  member  looks,  as  I  know  he  has,  at  the 
remarks  I  made  to  the  Automotive  Parts 
Manufacturers'  Association  last  April,  I 
talked  about  moving  to  an  averaging-out 
formula  which  would  provide  some  of  the 
flexibility  that  is  required  to  get  our  produc- 
tion-to-sales  ratios  into  the  kinds  of  ratios  we 
need  that  would  encourage  light  car  produc- 
tion. 

I  also  said  in  that  speech  that  it  is  time 
the  automobile  manufacturers  began  to  as- 
semble enough  light  vehicles  in  Canada.  I 
also  talked  of  the  opportunities  for  the  auto 
parts  industry  and  indicated  one  of  the  short- 
comings of  the  auto  pact  was  the  fact  it  was 
assembly-oriented  and  not  auto  parts-oriented. 

In  that  same  speech  I  said  we  believe  the 
Canadian  value  added  component  of  the 
auto  pact  should  move  from  60  per  cent  or 
65  per  cent  up  to  100  per  cent.  We  advo- 
cated that  over  a  five-year  period  the  com- 
panies should  be  required  to  be  in  a  balanced 
trade  situation,  which  again  would  deal  with 


the  value  and  the  number  of  cars  and  would 
be  the  kind  of  situation  that  would  allow  us 
to  move  to  a  situation  where  we  were  be- 
ginning to  get  a  number  of  lighter,  more  fuel- 
efficient  vehicles  made  in  this   country. 

There  was  also  talk  in  that  science  council 
report  about  the  need  for  new  technology  in 
auto  parts.  I  remind  the  member  that  the 
major  initiative  being  taken  in  Canada  in  this 
area  is  being  taken  by  this  government  with 
the  auto  parts  technical  centre  we  are  setting 
up  with  the  Ontario  Research  Foundation. 

As  the  member  goes  through  the  various 
recommendations  the  science  council  has 
made,  I  think  it  will  be  difficult  for  him  to 
find  one  or  two  instances  in  which  this  gov- 
ernment has  not  dealt  with  in  a  maximum 
way  possible  for  a  provincial  jurisdiction,  the 
kinds  of  things  that  science  council  report 
advocates  is  necessary  for  the  restructuring 
of  this  industry.  In  point  of  fact,  assessing 
our  policies  and  our  performance  in  the 
things  we  have  done  against  that  single 
report,  we  have  every  right  to  be  very  proud 
of  the  progress  we  have  made. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  When  there  are  25,000  auto 
workers  out  of  work  in  this  province,  and 
the  prospects  are  that  is  going  to  continue 
long  after  the  current  decline  in  the  auto 
industry  is  turned  around,  I  find  it  difficult 
to  see  how  the  minister  can  say  that  he  or 
the  government  is  proud  of  what  is  happen- 
ing   right    now. 

Will  the  minister  not  admit  that  one  of 
the  major  problems,  and  it  is  documented  in 
the  science  council  report,  is  the  lack  of 
leverage  we  have  in  governments  in  Canada 
in  getting  our  fair  share  in  auto  production 
and  in  the  auto  parts  industry?  Will  he  not 
admit  that  what  we  need  now  is  a  crown 
corporation  which  can  spearhead  that  devel- 
opment, which  can  engage  in  research  and 
development,  which  can  enter  into  joint 
ventures  with  the  Canadian  automobile  parts 
manufacturers  to  get  production  here,  and 
which  can  enter  into  long-term  agreements 
with  the  Big  Four  manufacturers  for  the 
supply  of  technologically  advanced  parts  that 
are  now  made  almost  exclusively  in  the 
United  States?  Is  that  not  the  way  we  have 
to  go  to  get  the  leverage  we  are  now  lacking? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  First,  in  terms  of  pre- 
tending that  this  government  or  this  country 
is  going  to  be  left  behind,  or  is  dramatically 
behind  in  terms  of  what  is  happening  in  the 
North  American  automobile  industry,  a  quick 
look  at  the  facts,  in  fairness,  would  be  in- 
structive. 


4446 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


In  die  automotive  industry,  for  the  week 
of  November  3  to  November  7,  there  were 
184,700  workers  on  indefinite  layoff  in  the 
United  States,  and  9,700  in  Canada.  That  is 
in  an  industry  where,  as  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party  well  knows,  the  ratio 
is  about  10:1.  Relatively  speaking,  in  terms 
of  the  layoffs  and  adjustments  that  both 
American  and  Canadian  industries  are  going 
through,  we  are  substantially  better  off. 

Second,  we  have  never  suggested  there  is 
not  going  to  be  a  difficult  structural  change 
going  on  in  this  country.  But  in  terms  of  how 
we  are  doing  so  far,  in  terms  of  assessing  the 
performance  and  success  we  have  had  in 
getting  some  of  the  Big  Three  to  move  and 
to  change  some  of  their  auto  manufacturing, 
we  have  had  some  successes. 

We  know  about  the  retooling  that  is  going 
on  in  St.  Catharines-I  will  not  take  the  time 
of  the  House  to  recite  it— in  Oshawa  and  in 
Windsor  to  make  key  parts  for  the  down- 
sized cars.  We  know  the  smaller  Ford  ve- 
hicles are  being  made  in  St.  Thomas,  which 
is  a  major  advance  for  us.  We  know  that 
when  Chrysler  Corporation  finally  gets  around 
to  taking  some  of  its  investment  steps  in  this 
country,  it  will  be  putting  in  a  research  and 
development  facility— the  kind  the  member  is 
talking  about— thanks  only  to  the  government 
of  Ontario.  We  know  that  at  that  time  we  will 
have  an  auto  parts  technical  centre  in  place, 
to  help  all  the  members  of  the  auto  parts 
industry. 

The  only  thing  the  member  is  adding  is  the 
mystical  suggestion  or  belief  that  if  a  crown 
corporation  were  set  up,  it  would,  to  use  his 
own  words,  have  more  success  in  negotiating 
and  reaching  agreements  with  the  Big  Three 
or  the  Big  Four  in  the  United  States  than  the 
government  and  the  independent  auto  parts 
people  in  Canada  have  had.  I  fail  to  see  how 
a  crown  corporation,  as  opposed  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada,  might  have  more  success 
than  the  government  or  the  auto  parts  manu- 
facturers have  to  date. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supple- 
mentary: Has  the  minister  looked  into  the 
concept  of  using  the  labour  content  or  the 
man-hours  in  the  auto  industry,  both  parts 
and  assembly,  rather  than  simply  the  dollar 
value  of  the  product?  There  may  be  a  sub- 
stantial deficit  in  man-hours,  whereas  the 
dollar  value  may  be  in  balance. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
that  does  point  out  a  lot  of  the  concerns  we 
have.  The  science  council,  even  in  its  com- 
prehensive report,  could  not  address  that 
fully.   There  are  a  lot  of  other  things  that 


impact.  It  is  not  only  the  lands  of  cars  being 
made  here;  it  is  the  number  and  quality  of 
the  jobs.  When  one  moves  to  the  kind  of 
calculation  the  member  is  talking  about,  I 
think  we  would  not  want  to  move  away  from 
putting  some  sort  of  value  on  the  kinds  of 
jobs. 

Obviously  the  research-intensive,  highly- 
skilled  jobs  are  the  kinds  of  jobs  we  want. 
We  don't  always  want  to  be  locked  into 
the  situation  which  the  auto  pact  locked 
us  into.  We  got  a  large  number— more  than 
we  would  have  got  otherwise— of  lesser- 
skilled  jobs,  because  they  are  assembly- 
oriented.  Perhaps  we  are  talking  about  a 
lower  number  of  more  highly  skilled  jobs. 

We  want  an  adequate  mixture  of  both.  I 
am  leery  of  developing  formulae  that  tend 
to  get  us  into  the  kind  of  1965  auto  pact 
situation,  where  we  found  ourselves  in  a 
chronic  situation  that  could  not  have  been 
anticipated  when  we  struck  what  seemed 
to  be  a  reasonable  formula  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  the  minis- 
ter not  aware  that  the  report  by  Mr.  Mac- 
Donald  from  the  science  council  indicates 
there  is  a  shortfall  in  skilled  jobs  for  Can- 
ada; that  is,  in  the  United  States,  75  per 
cent  of  the  jobs  are  skilled  and  in  Canada 
only  50  per  cent  are  skilled?  Furthermore, 
is  he  aware  that  in  the  investment  inten- 
tions, there  is  going  to  be  a  $2.6-billion 
shortfall  in  this  country  in  the  next  five 
years  alone  which  will  also  exacerbate  the 
problem  that  the  skilled  jobs  are  in  auto 
parts  manufacturing  as  opposed  to  assembly? 

Why  does  the  minister  not  come  to  the 
realization  that  the  private  sector  has  had 
all  these  years  to  turn  it  around  and  is  sim- 
ply not  going  to  do  it  because  it  is  not  in 
the  best  interests  of  the  automobile  firms  in 
the  United  States?  Therefore,  he  simply  must 
create  a  crown  corporation  and  get  on  with 
the  job  to  ensure  that  we  get  our  fair  share, 
which,  after  all,  was  the  intent  of  the  auto 
pact  in  the  first  place. 
2:50  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  under- 
stand that  the  member  for  Nickel  Belt  be- 
lieves, unlike  everyone  else  who  studies 
the  industry,  that  all  we  need  is  a  crown 
corporation  to  solve  the  problem.  There  is 
no  point  in  us  taking  the  rest  of  the  after- 
noon to  decide  whether  a  crown  corpora- 
tion is  the  answer  to  our  problems. 

I  just  remind  the  honourable  member  that 
at  one  time  his  party  believed  the  auto  pact 
should  be  ended  and  totally  renegotiated. 
Of  course,  reality  has  set  in  during  the  past 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4447 


year  and  his  party  has  come  to  the  realiza- 
tion that  what  we  need  are  alterations  to, 
not  abandonment  of,  the  auto  part. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No,  no. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Oh,  yes;  it  is  true. 

Secondly,  the  honourable  member  and  his 
party  have  long  been  advocating  a  Canadian 
car:  "Let  us  build  our  own  car  here  in  Can- 
ada." 

Mr.    Laughren:    Why   haven't  you? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  fact  is,  the  Mac- 
Donald  Teport  clearly  disagrees  with  that 
and  disposes  of  that  as  a  viable  alternative. 

SCA  PIPELINE 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 
Will  the  minister  assure  this  House  that  he 
will  consult  immediately  with  officials  in 
New  York  state  to  reopen  hearings  on  the 
SCA  Chemical  Waste  Services  pipeline, 
which  is  expected  to  dump  100  million  gal- 
lons of  treated  liquid  waste  into  the  Niagara 
River  each  year?  Will  the  minister  recom- 
mend against  this  proposal  in  the  light  of 
the  following  facts? 

Extremely  explosive  impure  TNT  has  been 
found  on  the  site  which  is  as  explosive  now 
as  when  it  was  buried  decades  ago.  CBC 
radio  has  reported  today  that  not  only  are 
the  nuclear  wastes  in  a  silo  400  metres  from 
the  TNT,  but  also  there  is  low-level  nuclear 
waste  that  was  shipped  in  from  the  nuclear 
waste  site  in  Nevada  in  1948,  and  that  there 
is  a  possibility  that  the  mixing  of  radioactive 
and  hazardous  waste  could  lead  to  increased 
teachability  and  hazards  to  human  health. 

This  information  was  contained  in  a  brief 
submitted  to  the  SCA  hearing  officer  on  Sep- 
tember 25  of  this  year,  but  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  seems  to  be  unaware  of  it 
or  to  be  ignoring  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
question  is  whether  I  would  do  it  imme- 
diately, I  must  tell  the  honourable  member 
I  (did  it  yesterday.  If  I  might,  I  would  like 
to  read  a  copy  of  the  telegram  I  sent— 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  finally  got  you  moving,  eh? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  It  is  a  little  late. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Maybe  the  member  did 
not  hear.  I  said  I  did  it  before  the  question. 
May  I  read  it  into  the  record,  please? 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Please  do. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  "The  apparent  presence 
of  TNT  at  the  SCA  waste  site  in  Lewiston, 


New  York,  requires  immediate  clarification. 
The  existence  of  such  high  explosive  adja- 
cent to  a  chemical  treatment  facility  is  ob- 
viously a  matter  for  grave  concern  to  Ontario. 
While  we  have  been  able  to  accept  the 
proposed  technology  for  SCA's  operation,  this 
new  information  creates  doubt  as  to  the 
stability  of  the  site.  As  this  new  information 
relates  to  US  government  activity,  we  urge 
that  immediate  clarification  be  sought  by 
Ottawa  from  Washington." 

I  sent  that  to  the  Honourable  John  Roberts 
and  I  have  his  reply,  which  I  would  also  like 
to  read  into  the  record.  It  was  sent  on  his 
behalf:  "On  behalf  of  the  Honourable  John 
Roberts,  I  wish  to  acknowledge  receipt  of 
your  minister's  November  19  telegram  re- 
questing that  immediate  clarification  be 
sought  with  regard  to  the  possible  presence 
of  TNT  at  the  SCA  site  in  Lewiston,  New 
York.  The  minister  is  aware  of  your  request 
and  will  give  this  matter  his  prompt  atten- 
tion. 

I  have  also  called  the  state  governor's  office 
and  indicated  to  him  our  concern.  I  have  not 
been  able  to  speak  to  the  governor,  but  I  will 
be  speaking  to  Commissioner  Flacke.  This  is  a 
matter  of  very  serious  concern,  and  we  will 
take  a  good  deal  of  time  and  effort  to 
clarify  it  with  the  officials  in  New  York  state. 
It  could  lead  to  a  whole  new  dimension  on 
that  proposal  and  we  will  follow  it  with  a 
great  deal  of  care. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Is  the  minister  also  aware  that 
toxic  wastes  dumped  by  Hooker  Chemical 
have  already  contaminated  portions  of  the 
Niagara  River  and  the  Niagara  Falls,  New 
York,  treatment  plant— this  is  an  area  other 
than  the  Love  Canal  area— and  that  New  York 
state  officials  claim  that  chemicals  found  in 
the  intake  system  include  toxics  known  to 
cause  or  suspected  of  causing  cancer,  birth 
defects  and  mutations?  Those  toxics  not  go- 
ing into  the  intake  are  going  down  the 
Niagara  River,  past  the  area  where  residents 
of  Niagara-on-the-Lake  get  their  water  sup- 
plies. I  have  some  concern  about  the  water 
supply  of  Niagara  Falls,  Ontario. 

Reinforcing  a  point  I  made  last  Friday  in 
this  House,  the  US  chairman  of  the  Inter- 
national Joint  Commission,  Robert  Sugarman, 
stated  that  he  could  not  understand  how 
any  government,  federal,  state  or  provincial, 
could  recommend  the  SCA  pipeline. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Now  that  the  honourable 
member  has  admitted  to  repetition,  we  will 
allow  the  minister  to  answer. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  have  just  one  word  left, 
Mr.  Speaker.  How  can  the  minister  have  any 


4448 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


credibility  if  he  will  not  get  into  this  picture 
and  clear  it  up? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  do  not  understand 
how  the  member  opposite  could  not  under- 
stand what  I  just  read  into  the  record.  It 
seems  a  bit  strange  to  me. 

Mr.  Bradley:  It's  a  bit  strange. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Did  the  member  say  his 
colleague  was  a  bit  strange?  I  have  to  agree. 

I  want  the  member  for  Niagara  Falls  to 
know  I  raised  that  very  significant  issue 
with  the  commissioner.  I  am  surprised  the 
member  did  not  understand  the  significance 
of  that  treatment  plant  some  time  ago  and 
why  it  was  not  working  and  how  it  was  not 
working. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  understood  a  long  time  ago. 
The  minister  didn't  understand. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No.  With  respect,  the 
member  ignored  that.  This  is  a  far  more 
significant,  far  greater  volume.  We  have  made 
a  very  forceful  presentation  to  the  commis- 
sioner, saying  we  want  that  done  as  soon  as 
it  is  humanly  possible  to  do  so. 

May  I  also  say  I  think  the  member  raised 
an  unfair  worry  for  the  residents  who  are 
getting  their  drinking  supplies.  We  test  that 
water  on  a  continuous  basis.  I  say  to  the 
member  that  water  is  safe.  We  will  continue 
to  test  it  on  a  continuous  basis  and  we  will 
be  the  first  to  set  the  record  on  what  is  or 
is  not  in  that  stream,  if  it  is  necessary.  We 
will  not  deal  with  conjecture.  It  is  a  very 
important  issue  and,  as  I  said  earlier,  we 
will  follow  it  very  carefully. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  will  see  to  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  he  will  not  have  to. 
I  am  ahead  of  him. 

SKF  CANADA  PLANT  CLOSURE 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  My  question  is  for 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  con- 
cerning the  SKF  closing,  Mr.  Speaker.  Is 
the  minister  aware  that  for  the  past  few 
years  and  until  very  recently,  SKF  Canada 
has  been  importing  the  6200  bearing  series 
from  the  United  States  of  America,  which 
bearings  used  to  be  produced  in  their  en- 
tirety and  in  the  hundreds  of  thousands  in 
the  company's  Scarborough  plant? 

Is  the  minister  also  aware  that,  in  addi- 
tion to  this  deindustrialization  policy  of  the 
company,  these  bearings  coming  from  the  US 
in  two  parts  are  stamped  in  the  United 
States,  "Canada  SKF,"  implying  that  they 
are  made  in  Canada,  whereas,  all  the  SKF 
plant  that  used  to  produce  these  does  now 


is  to   grease  them,  clamp  that  on  to  it  and 
then  ship  them  out  as  made  in  Canada? 

Does  the  minister  condone  this  practice, 
and  does  he  still  feel  that  SKF  is  closing 
because  of  market  problems  in  Ontario,  or 
is  it  really  part  of  a  systematic  rationaliza- 
tion of  which  Canadians  are  being  made 
victims? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Frankly,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I  would  appreciate  it  if  the  honourable 
member  could  send  those  over  to  me  so 
that  I  could  see  them.  As  well,  my  seven- 
year- old's  two- wheeler  is  missing  a  couple 
of  bearings  and  I  might  be  able  to  use 
them,  provided  they  are  made  in  Canada. 

May  I  indicate  to  the  member  it  is  not 
my  responsibility,  even  by  the  furthest 
stretches  of  his  imagination,  to  monitor  the 
production,  importation  and  stamping  of 
products  made  by  SKF  or  anyone  else  in 
the  province.  I  would  appreciate  if  he  could 
send  them  over  anyway. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  In  response  to  me 
on  October  17,  the  minister  gave  the  reason 
for  the  closing  as  problems  with  Massey 
orders  and  that  sort  of  thing.  Is  the  min- 
ister not  aware  that  the  annual  report  of 
SKF  indicates  that  sales  in  Canada  are  up 
33  per  cent  and  they  include  this  series, 
which  is  one  of  their  largest  sales  compon- 
ents? Will  he  not  ask  the  federal  department 
to  investigate  this  to  see  whether  it  is 
illegal?  If  it  is  not  illegal,  it  is  a  question- 
able practice.  Will  he  not  commit  himself 
to  investigating  this  before  they  try  to  pull 
out  of  Scarborough? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  If  the  member  will 
send  the  bearings  over  here,  I  will  give  one 
to  my  colleague  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea),  who  I 
am  sure  will  send  one  up  to  Ottawa,  where 
I  am  sure  they  will  be  pleased  to  investi- 
gate that  situation. 
3  p.m. 

GO  TRAIN  FIRE 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  my  constituent  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications.  I  am  sure  the 
minister  is  aware  of  the  incident  that  occurred 
on  the  GO  Train  last  night  at  rush  hour  when 
an  eastbound  train  pulled  into  the  Port  Credit 
station  on  fire. 

Can  the  minister  tell  us  whether  his  offi- 
cials have  been  able  to  determine  if  the 
operators  of  the  train  at  that  time  were  aware 
of  the  fire  before  they  pulled  into  the  station? 
If  so,  was  the  fire  under  control?  If  not,  was 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4449 


there  any  danger  to  the  passengers  who  were 
disembarking  at  that  particular  time  from  a 
westbound  train? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  have 
the  information  regarding  that  particular  in- 
cident. I  will  look  into  it  and  report  back  as 
quickly  as  possible. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  being  taken  as  notice. 
Is  there  anything  else  the  member  would  like 
him  to  look  at? 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Yes,  please,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
just  wonder  whether  the  minister  will  also 
inquire,  if  there  was  knowledge  that  this 
fire  was  burning  as  the  train  pulled  in,  why 
it  would  not  have  been  prudent  to  stop  the 
train  outside  of  that  crowded  station  some- 
where in  the  country  at  either  side. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Certainly  I  will  inquire  as 
to  that  additional  question  as  well.  As  I  am 
sure  the  member  knows,  the  train  crews  and 
the  signalling  and  operation  of  the  trains  are 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  CNR.  I  will  have 
to  get  a  report  from  them  to  answer  those 
questions. 

DISPOSAL  OF  PCBs 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  Why 
has  his  ministry  not  been  at  all  encouraging 
with  regard  to  the  testing  of  the  diesel  engine 
process  for  disposal  of  polychlorinated  bi- 
phenyls? 

Given  that  the  preliminary  testing  has 
suggested  that  the  process  is  99.998  per  cent 
efficient,  does  he  not  believe  that  it  would 
have  been  of  benefit  to  the  people  of  Ontario 
to  have  the  testing  completed  here  so  that,  if 
it  is  proven  to  be  as  good  as  it  appears  from 
the  preliminary  tests  supervised  by  Environ- 
ment Canada,  we  might  have  had  future  de- 
velopment and  marketing  of  the  technology 
carried  out  here  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
think  the  member  is  correct.  We  have  done 
those  things  required  of  us  with  regard  to 
assessing  the  proposal.  We  did  not  spend  any 
particular  amount  of  money  on  this  proposal; 
however,  the  federal  government  did.  I  am 
sure  the  member  would  not  want  to  see  it 
double-funded';  there  is  no  need  of  that.  They 
have  done  their  assessment  of  it,  as  have  we. 

I  want  to  say  also  we  have  spent  a  lot  of 
money  on  the  destruction  of  PCBs  in  other 
areas.  I  think  it  is  a  clear  case  of  where  one 
government  has  chosen,  with  co-operation 
from  the  other  government,  to  assess  a  par- 
ticular method  of  destruction  of  PCBs,  while 
we    ourselves   have   chosen   another   area   in 


which  to  do  research.  I  think  that  is  a  very 
responsible  way  to  address  what  is  obviously 
a  significant  problem. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  the 
frustration  of  D  and  D  Disposal  Services  with 
regard  to  his  ministry's  failure  to  assist  the 
project  with  further  tests  has  resulted  in  a 
development  contract  being  signed  with  a 
major  equipment  manufacturer  in  the  United 
Kingdom,  which  contract  gives  that  UK  com- 
pany substantial  rights  for  the  marketing  of 
the  equipment  in  Europe  and  across  much 
of  the  world? 

Does  he  not  think  it  is  sad  when  frustra- 
tion with  his  ministry's  officials  means  that 
we  lose  the  possibility  of  a  new  technology 
that  could  make  us  a  world  leader  in  a  very 
important  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  would  almost  assume 
the  member  was  always  supportive  of  these 
kinds  of  activities  and  would  not  want  us  to 
do  in-depth  assessments  of  them.  We  are  not 
prepared  to  do  haphazard  approvals  or  any 
other  kinds  of  approvals  unless  we  are  cer- 
tain in  our  own  minds  they  are  done  properly. 

If  the  member  thinks  in  this  instance  that 
the  gentleman  does  not  also  write  letters  to 
suggest  that  our  ministry  does  an  excellent 
job,  I  can  assure  him  he  is  wrong.  I  will  be 
glad  to  supply  that  information.  We  fre- 
quently hear  both  sides  from  that  particular 
firm.  Sometimes  it  is  very  complimentary; 
sometimes  it  is  not.  I  can  assure  him  it  is 
more  frequently  complimentary  of  our  staff 
than  the  contrary,  and  I  wish  he  would 
understand  that  point  of  view.  It  would  be 
helpful. 

Mr.  Hall:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
With  regard  to  the  answers  the  minister  has 
given  on  the  subject  so  far  today,  do  I  take 
it  his  ministry  is  not  actively  pursuing  the 
diesel  engine  technique;  that  he  is  out  of 
that  one  and  is  counting  on  other  systems? 
Alternatively,  is  he  really  saying  he  is  con- 
tinuing to  evaluate  that  method  as  well  as 
others?  He  has  not  left  it  clear  to  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  fair 
enough.  We  are  interested  in  that  method, 
but  we  are  not  funding  it;  we  think  there  are 
better  methods.  For  instance,  the  plasma  arc 
is  a  better  technology  and,  as  the  member 
knows,  we  have  spent  a  lot  of  money  and 
will  continue  to  spend  more  on  that  one. 

On  a  nontechnical  assessment  of  that 
diesel  engine  project,  I  think  the  member 
will  agree  it  was  a  very  limited  amount  of 
fuel  that  was  put  through  the  machine,  and 
my  staff  tell  me  they  have  real  concern  about 
the  possibility  of  this  being  successful. 


4450 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


However,  we  are  not  in  a  position  at  this 
time  to  say  there  is  no  chance  of  success.  If 
they  wish,  with  federal  aid,  to  pursue  that 
method  of  destruction  of  PCBs,  and  if  it  is 
successful,  that  is  great.  We  think  there  are 
better  alternatives,  and  that  is  where  we  are 
putting  our  money,  but  only  on  an  assess- 
ment basis. 

WELLAND  CANAL  BRIDGE 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications.  Can  the  minister  assure 
the  citizens  of  the  city  of  Port  Colborne  that 
the  proposed  new  third  bridge,  located  in 
the  south  end  of  lock  eight  of  the  Welland 
Canal,  will  be  completed  and  in  operation 
before  the   1981   navigational  season  opens? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
reason  to  believe  that  there  will  be  any 
change  in  the  construction  schedule  of  the 
third  bridge.  I  will  have  to  doublecheck 
whether  the  date  the  honourable  member 
mentions  is  the  scheduled  date  and  whether 
the  process  of  building  the  new  bridge  by 
the  St.  Lawrence  Seaway  Authority  is  keep- 
ing up  with  the  schedule.  I  will  get  a  report 
for  the  member.  I  have  no  information  that 
it    is    not    on    schedule. 

OWEN  SOUND 
HOSPITAL  TRANSFER 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Health  concerning 
the  outpatient  medication  program  at  Owen 
Sound  General  and  Marine  Hospital,  particu- 
larly the  one  for  psychiatric  patients. 

Who  do  I  believe?  On  June  9,  1978,  when 
we  raised  this  matter  in  the  House,  the  min- 
ister agreed  there  was  a  problem  but  they 
were  not  terminating  that  program.  If  I  may 
quote  from  page  3327  of  Hansard  for  that 
day,  "By  the  terms  of  this  agreement  a  con- 
dition exists  which  states  that  the  hospital 
shall  not  delete,  remove  or  modify  any  exist- 
ing program  unless  instructed  to  do  so  by 
the  province  or  unless  prior  consent  is  ob- 
tained in  writing  from  the  province."  Yet 
the  director  of  psychiatric  medicine,  in  a 
letter  to  his  staff,  dated  October  21,  says: 
"Since  that  time,  we  have  diligently  and  dis- 
creetly continued  the  phasing  out  of  this 
program."  Which  one  of  them  is  lying? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  beg  your  pardon. 
Would  the  member  like  to  repeat  that,  Mr. 
Speaker?  I  am  sure  he  would. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Which  one  is  lying? 


Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  can  assure  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  no  one  on  this  side  is  lying.  I  will 
look  into  the  matter.  In  fact,  I  will  be 
visiting  that  hospital  in  about  10  days'  time 
on  another  matter,  and  I  will  look  into  that. 
The  agreement  is  exactly  as  I  described  it  in 
June. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  While  the  minister  is  there, 
perhaps  he  can  ask  him  about  this  remark 
as  well.  The  administrator  said,  "I  am  en- 
tirely prepared  to  instruct  the  medical  staff 
to  stop  the  program  immediately."  Does  that 
fall  in  with  the  agreement  which  the  minister 
has  with  that  hospital? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber asked  about  the  agreement.  The  agree- 
ment is  exactly  as  I  have  described  it.  If  the 
agreement  is  being  abridged,  I  will  take  that 
up  with  the  chairman  of  the  board,  who  is 
responsible  for  that  hospital. 
3:10  p.m. 

SALES  TAX  ON  UPHOLSTERY 

Mr.  Peterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  Noting  that 
he  acquiesced  to  the  great  upholsterers'  lobby 
in  this  province  yesterday,  I  believe,  I  would 
like  to  ask  him  how  he  justifies  the  existence 
of  the  following  regulations.  He  has  now 
removed  sales  tax  on  upholstery  orders  of 
more  than  $250.  For  orders  of  $250  and  less, 
sales  tax  is  charged  on  material  only.  When 
one  buys  material,  one  should  specify  the  use 
and  should  pay  sales  tax  but,  according  to 
his  own  officials,  most  customers  do  not 
specify  use  and  therefore  do  not  pay  the 
tax.  This  brings  into  question  the  whole 
enforceability  of  his  regulations.  If  one  pro- 
vides one's  own  material,  one  does  not  pay 
tax  on  the  labour.  How  can  the  minister  pos- 
sibly sit  there  with  such  a  screwed-up  set  of 
regulations  and  be  happy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
think  I  indicated  I  was  happy  about  it.  How- 
ever, the  member  has  correctly  described 
the  rule  under  which  we  have  adminis- 
tered the  retail  sales  tax  on  upholstery.  Up 
until  this  time;  retail  sales  tax  was  charged 
on  material  up  to  $250  if  they  were  sepa- 
rately billed. 

We  have  run  into  this  in  other  areas  of 
administration  as  well.  For  example,  people 
who  install  mufflers,  who  give  a  total  price 
rather  than  a  breakdown  of  the  material  and 
the  labour,  also  pay  full  sales  tax.  It  is 
administratively  impossible  to  break  it  down 
any  other  way.  We  encourage  the  retailers 
to  break  it  down  so  that  we  can  identify  the 
material  put  in. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4451 


To  go  beyond  the  $250,  what  we  have  said 
there  was  that  we  consider  it  to  be  a  manu- 
factured piece  of  goods  rather  than  just  a 
repair  job.  Therefore,  the  retail  sales  tax 
was  charged  totally  on  that  article,  the  same 
as  it  would  be  if  one  bought  a  new  chester- 
field or  a  new  piece  of  upholstered  furni- 
ture. Being  consistent  with  that  ruling,  we 
have  now  changed  the  exemption  on  sales 
tax,  in  the  new  program  that  was  announced 
in  the  budget,  so  that  the  same  criterion 
applies.  In  other  words,  if  there  is  $250  or 
more  on  the  cost  of  an  upholstery  job,  we 
consider  it  to  be  a  manufactured  product 
rather  than  just  something  that  has  been 
repaired;  therefore,  there  will  be  an  exemp- 
tion on  that  part  of  the  program. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Because  they  are  almost  in- 
comprehensible, even  to  the  ministry,  because 
they  are  virtually  unenforceable,  as  admitted 
by  his  officials,  and  because  they  invite  dis- 
honesty and  cheating  by  fooling  around 
with  the  bills,  why  does  the  minister  not 
just  get  rid  of  retail  sales  tax  on  all  up- 
holstery jobs  and  material  to  make  it  far 
less  confusing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  My  function  is  to  collect 

revenues,    not    to    get    rid1    of    them.    It    is 

pretty  obvious  that  any  tax  we  take- 
Mr.  Peterson:  You  just  got  rid  of  part  of 

it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes.  But  we  are  trying 

to  be  consistent  with  the  program  that  was 

in  place  before. 

Mr.    Peterson:    Consistent    depending    on 

who  lobbies  you. 

Hon.    Mr.    Maeck:    We  will    look   into   it; 

let  us  put  it  that  way. 

INDIAN  SALES  TAX  EXEMPTION 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  Can 
the  minister  explain  why  he  did  not  consult 
with  the  chiefs  of  Ontario  before  notifying 
Indian  retailers  on  reserves  that,  to  prevent 
non-Indians  from  taking  advantage  of  the 
Indian  sales  tax  exemption,  effective  Decem- 
ber 1,  1980,  treaty  Indian  store  owners  on 
reserves  will  no  longer  have  the  exemp- 
tion under  the  Tobacco  Tax  Act  from  re- 
quirement to  obtain  sales  tax  vendors'  per- 
mits? Why  is  he  treating  Indians  this  way 
^because   of  a   problem   with  non-Indians? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  ruling 
applies  to  all  Ontario  citizens  and  all  re- 
tailers. To  sell  cigarettes,  one  must  have 
a  retail  vendor's  permit.  It  costs  nothing  to 


have  a  retail  vendor's  permit.  All  one  has 
to  do  is  apply  for  it.  The  reason  for  that 
is  very  simple.  Wholesalers  are  not  permit- 
ted to  sell  cigarettes  to  anyone  who  does 
not  hold  a  vendor's  permit. 

But  I  realize  there  is  a  problem  there,  and 
I  have  extended  the  time  of  implementation 
of  that.  As  the  member  knows,  it  was  to  be 
immediate,  and  I  think  we  have  extended 
it  until  December  1  or  the  end  of  December 
—I  forget  which. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Is  it  not  correct  that,  until 
now,  treaty  Indians  who  owned  stores  on  re- 
serves have  not  had  to  get  sales  tax  vendors' 
permits?  If  that  is  the  case,  why  did  the 
minister  take  this  move  unilaterally  without 
consulting  the  Indian  organizations?  Will  he 
now  further  extend  the  deadline  from  Decem- 
ber 1  until  April  1  next  year,  so  that  he  can 
consult  with  the  Indian  organizations  to  work 
out  a  compromise  method  of  dealing  with  his 
enforcement  problems  and  not  raising  the 
whole  question  of  provincial  jurisdiction  on 
federal  Indian  reserves? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  legal 
advisers  tell  me  we  are  within  our  legal  rights 
to  do  what  we  are  doing.  I  have  already  indi- 
cated that  we  have  extended  it  beyond  the 
first  time  limit  we  put  on.  I  will  be  meeting 
with  my  staff  either  tomorrow  morning  or 
the  beginning  of  next  week  and  we  will  be 
discussing  the  very  request  the  honourable 
member  has  made.  I  already  have  a  request 
from  the  Union  of  Ontario  Indians  in  that 
regard.  In  fact,  I  offered  to  meet  with  the 
Union  of  Ontario  Indians  and  they  rejected  it. 

Mr.  Swart:  They  are  in  Ottawa  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  know;  but  it  seemed  a 
very  urgent  matter  until  I  suggested  we  meet. 
At  the  moment,  they  are  not  ready  to  meet 
me.  I  am  prepared  to  discuss  the  whole  thing 
with  my  staff  and  see  whether  some  accom- 
modation can  be  made. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
One  of  the  accommodations  to  be  considered 
would  be  not  to  have  them  registered  at  all 
but  to  allow  them  to  proceed  as  they  have 
since  the  grass  started  blowing— I  mean  grow- 
ing—and the  wind  started  blowing. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  What  kind  of  grass  have 
you  been  blowing? 

Mr.  Nixon:  Brant  county  gold.  In  other 
words,  why  does  the  government  not  leave 
them  alone? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  knows 
very  well  we  are  having  enforcement  prob- 


4452 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


lems  in  the  collection  of  tobacco  tax.  Some  of 
the  problems  start  at  the  Indian  reservations 
where  purchases  are  made  without  paying 
any  tobacco  tax.  Some  of  these  cigarettes  are 
now  getting  into  areas  other  than  Indian 
reservations.  We  are  trying  to  tighten  up  on 
this  situation,  and  I  hope  the  members  op- 
posite will  give  me  some  support  in  trying  to 
resolve  the  problem  of  a  possible  loss  of  tax 
dollars  in  the  amount  of  millions. 

ASSISTIVE  DEVICES 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Health,  and  per- 
haps the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  De- 
velopment (Mrs.  Birch),  in  regard  to  my 
long-running  questions  about  prosthetic, 
orthotic  and  assistive  devices  for  the  psysi- 
cally  handicapped. 

I  last  asked  a  question  on  April  3,  1980, 
as  to  what  the  minister  intended  to  do  in 
regard  to  providing  these  devices  and  whether 
he  would  table  in  the  Legislature  the  report 
of  his  eternal  committee  that  has  been  drag- 
ging on  for  some  years  as  to  the  provision 
of  these  services.  What  is  he  going  to  do 
about  it,  particularly  with  the  International 
Year  of  Disabled  Persons  coming  up? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  mat- 
ter is  under  very  active  review  by  the  minis- 
ters in  the  Social  Development  field.  I  an- 
ticipate they  will  be  making  a  statement  of 
policy  on  that  matter  for  the  beginning  of 
the  International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  The  minister  will  appreciate 
that  I  am  a  little  cynical,  since  I  have  been 
hearing  this  for  a  couple  of  years. 

How  does  the  government  square  finding  an 
extra  $4.7  million  for  consultant  fees  over  and 
above  the  original  contract  price,  yet  having 
delayed  this  long  in  providing  any  kind  of 
program  for  these  devices  in  Ontario  when 
they  are  available  in  almost  every  other  prov- 
ince in  Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  If  it  were  a  very 
simple,  straightforward  matter  without  any 
complications  about  long-term  effects  from 
the  use  of  the  devices,  their  replacement  and 
cost,  the  member  would  have  a  valid  com- 
plaint. 

With  respect  to  the  other  matter,  it  is  one 
the  member  should  take  up  with  the  Chair- 
man of  Management  Board  of  Cabinet.  It  is 
a  one-time  matter,  whereas  what  we  are  talk- 
ing about  here  is  the  development  of  a  pro- 
gram that,  once  begun,  will  be  ongoing, 
permanent  and  extremely  expensive. 


LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is  to 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  and  again 
concerns  the  Walker  Brothers  dump  site.  Is 
the  minister  aware  that  some  75  to  85  addi- 
tional drums  were  excavated  at  that  site  yes- 
terday and  the  day  before?  They  found  liquid 
industrial  waste  in  those  drums  and  siphoned 
out  some  1,500  gallons  of  it  to  be  sent  back 
to  the  suppliers  in  the  Toronto  area. 

In  particular,  is  the  minister  aware  that 
Mr.  Grant  Mills,  who  is  the  director  of  the 
environment  in  that  area,  acknowledged  pub- 
licly that  this  was  a  violation  of  Walker 
Brothers'  certificate.  Is  the  minister  now 
prepared  to  lay  charges  against  Walker 
Brothers,  and  will  he  take  this  into  con- 
sideration in  his  statement  next  Tuesday  re- 
lative to  proceeding  or  not  proceeding  there 
with  the  solidification  process? 

3:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  an- 
swer to  most  of  those  three  or  four  ques- 
tions is  yes  and,  if  the  honourable  member 
would  like,  I  will  deal  with  the  question 
he  raised  the  other  day.  Do  I  have  your 
permission,    Mr.   Speaker? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber was  on  the  same  subject  matter,  which 
was  the  Hydro  geological  report.  It  is  quite 
significant  he  has  been  asking  for  that,  but 
I  have  been  absent  for  the  last  two  days 
and  I  really  think  he  does  not  quite  under- 
stand the  nature  of  that  particular  report. 
I  am  not  being  argumentative  when  I  say 
I  think  it  would  make  the  honourable  mem- 
ber jump  to  some  conclusions  that  are  not 
necessarily  valid.  That  report  was  to  deter- 
mine the  suitability  of  the  stockpile  of  strip 
overburden,  which  would  eventually  be  used 
for  the  clay  pad  and  liner  for  the  proposed 
fixation  site. 

As  part  of  normal,  quarrying  operations 
that  area  had  been  receiving  the  fines.  We 
think  at  this  time  that  it  was  calcium  car- 
bonate slurry  that  appeared  in  the  borehole 
which  the  honourable  member  has  ques- 
tioned about. 

Surely  he  also  appreciates  that  there  is  a 
full  investigation  of  that  particular  site  and 
that  the  matter  he  raised,  along  with  a 
myriad  of  other  questions  on  that  particular 
site,  will  be  dealt  with  in  the  full  environ- 
mental assessment  hearing  that  is  proposed. 

I  think  that  is  a  more  appropriate  time 
to    come    with    all    the    information    on    not 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4453 


only  the  question  the  honourable  member 
raised!  but  also  what  is  in  those  particular 
materials,  which  of  course  must  be  answered 
in  detail.  We  think  at  this  time  it  is  calcium 
slurry,  but  that  will  be  determined  at  a  later 
date. 

Mr.   Swart:   Supplementary  to  that— 

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

REPORTS 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
GENERAL  GOVERNMENT 

Mr.  Cureatz  from  the  standing  committee 
on  general  government  reported  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amount  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  office  of  the 
Ombudsman  be  granted  Her  Majesty  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1981: 

Office  of  the  Ombudsman  program, 
$4,750,000. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE 

Mr.  Philip  from  the  standing  committee 
on  administration  of  justice  presented  the 
following  report: 

Your  committee  met  on  Wednesday,  No- 
vember 19,  1980,  to  consider  the  annual 
report  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1980,  referred  to  the  committee 
on  Tuesday,  November  18,  1980,  on  a  peti- 
tion of  20  members  pursuant  to  standing 
order  33(b). 

Your  committee  adopted  a  motion  re- 
quiring the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  to  produce  to 
the  committee  certain  documents  with  re- 
spect to  Carlo  Montemurro  and  his  related 
companies.  The  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  failed  to  produce  the 
documents  which  your  committee  requested. 

Your  committee  therefore  requests  that 
the  House  authorize  Mr.  Speaker  to  issue 
his  warrant,  as  provided  in  section  35  of 
the  Legislative  Assembly  Act,  requiring  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations to  produce  to  the  standing  committee 
on  administration  of  justice  all  correspond^- 
ence,  interdepartmental  memoranda,  memo- 
randa to  file,  application  forms,  notes,  files 
and  other  such  documents  that  are  in  the 
possession  of  any  agency,  board,  commis- 
sion, registry,  branch  or  division  of  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 


lations relating  to  Carlo  Montemurro  and 
his  related  companies,  particularly  C  and  M 
Financial  Consultants  Limited,  Re-Mor  In- 
vestment Management  Corporation,  Cana- 
dian Metal  Recycling  Labs  and  Astra  Trust 
Company. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  moving 
the  adjournment  of  the  debate  in  accordance 
with  standing  order  30(c),  I  would  like, 
by  way  of  a  brief  statement,  to  point  out 
to  you  and  to  members  of  the  House  that 
this  is  a  matter  considered  to  be  of  the  ut- 
most importance  by  the  standing  committee 
on  administration  of  justice. 

Your  committee  has  been  charged  with  the 
responsibility  to  inquire  into  the  activities  of 
Carlo  Montemurro  and  his  related  companies, 
particularly  C  and  M  Financial  Consultants 
Limited,  Re-Mor  Investment  Management 
Corporation,  Canadian  Metal  Recycling  Labs 
and  Astra  Trust  Company.  To  do  this,  our 
committee  requested  by  way  of  motion  that 
the  minister  produce  certain  documents  as 
without  these  documents  the  work  of  the 
committee  would  be  frustrated.  The  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr. 
Drea)  has  failed  to  produce  the  documents 
in  the  time  stipulated  by  the  committee. 

Today  I  received  a  letter  from  him  stating 
it  was  his  understanding  that  I  would  not 
make  a  report  in  the  House  until  the  Attor- 
ney General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  had  made  a 
representation  to  the  committee  this  after- 
noon. This  is  simply  not  the  case,  as  any  readL 
ing  of  the  transcripts  of  yesterday's  justice 
committee  deliberations  will  clearly  show.  I 
pointed  out  to  the  minister,  through  a  call  to 
his  office  at  approximately  12:02  p.m.  today, 
that  this  was  not  the  case.  It  is  clear  to  me 
and  to  other  members  of  the  committee  that 
the  minister  was  requested  to  produce  the 
documents  by  11:10  a.m. 

I  am  mindful  of  the  importance  of  the 
constitutional  debate  this  evening  and  of 
private  members'  public  business  this  after- 
noon. However,  at  a  House  leaders'  meeting 
today,  my  leader  sought  a  commitment  from 
the  government  House  leader  (Mr.  Wells)  to 
have  this  matter  debated  and  voted  on 
following  routine  proceedings  tomorrow.  The 
government  House  leader  would  give  no  such 
guarantee. 

This  is  an  urgent  matter  that  demands 
immediate  attention.  Standing  order  30(c) 
requires  the  following:  "After  moving  the 
adoption  of  a  report,  trie  chairman  may  make 
a  brief  statement  and  then  shall  adjourn  the 
debate."  Technically,  therefore,  I  have  no 
recourse  but  to  follow  the  procedure  set  out. 


4454 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  would  however,  ask  members  of  the  as- 
sembly to  join  me  in  voting  against  this 
motion  of  adjournment. 

My  colleagues  and  I  realize  that  if  the 
debate  is  adjourned  today  we  may  not  have 
an  opportunity  to  deal  with  this  important 
matter  in  this  House  before  adjournment.  I 
feel  the  legitimate  inquiry  by  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice,  of 
which  I  am  the  chairman,  must  not  be  stifled. 
The  public  has  the  right  to  know. 

Now,  as  is  my  responsibility  under  stand- 
ing order  30(c),  I  do  hereby  move  the  ad- 
journment of  the  debate. 

3:30  p.m. 

5:35  p.m. 

The  House  divided  on  Mr.  Philip's  motion 
for  the  adjournment  of  the  debate,  which 
was  negatived  on  the  following  vote: 

Ayes  48;  nays  56. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  now  before  the 
House  is  the  motion  for  adoption  of  the 
report  of  the  justice  committee.  Shall  the 
motion  carry? 

Some  hon.  members:  No. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  anyone  wish  to  speak 
to  the  motion? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  put  a  couple  of  points  on  the  record  at 
this  time.  The  real  vote  that  has  just  gone 
on,  of  course,  has  not  been  on  the  substance 
of  that  motion  or  that  report.  We  have  really 
established  a  new  interpretation  at  this  time 
of  what  many  of  us  thought  were  the  rules 
of  this  House. 

We  had  always  believed,  and  it  certainly 
is  the  interpretation  I  have  received  from 
people  on  the  various  committees  who  wrote 
these  rules,  that  the  intent  was  that  reports 
from  committees  that  contained  substantive 
motions  should  be  introduced  with  short 
remarks  from  the  chairman  of  that  committee 
and  then  adjourned.  The  understanding  was 
that  they  would  be  adjourned. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  agree  with  you  that  the 
rule  says  they  shall  be  adjourned,  and  of 
course  the  way  that  is  done  is  through  a 
motion  of  adjournment,  but  it  has  always 
been  my  understanding  that  this  would  be  a 
unanimously   agreed   adjournment. 

I  draw  the  House's  attention  to  a  report 
on  October  6  moved  by  the  member  for 
Humber  (Mr.  MacBeth)  from  the  select 
committee  on  constitutional  reform.  He 
moved  the  report  be  adopted  when  it  came 
in  here.  We  had  agreement  at  that  time 
of   all   the   parties   in   this    House   to   adopt 


that  report  and  you  said,  Mr.  Speaker,  "I 
will  hear  the  member  for  Humber,  but  I 
must  remind  the  honourable  member  that  a 
routine  motion  like  that  is  usually  best 
handled  by  a  simple  motion  by  the  govern- 
ment House  leader."  That  was  the  first 
point. 

"If  you  are  asking  for  us  to  approve  what 
is  contained  in  a  committee  report,  the 
normal  procedure  is  for  the  chairman  to 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  debate  and  for 
it  to  be  recorded  for  debate  on  a  later 
occasion. 

"You  do  cause  the  chair  some  difficulty. 
However,  I  will  hear  what  you  have  to  say, 
and  if  we  have  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
House  to  put  the  adoption  of  that  report  at 
this  time,  I  will  do  so,  but  you  know  that 
we  ran  into  considerable  difficulty  on  a 
previous  occasion." 

I  draw  the  attention  of  the  House  to 
this,  Mr.  Speaker,  because— 

Mr.  Sargent:  Why  did  you  not  say  this 
before  the  vote? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  would  have  said  this 
if  I  had  had  the  opportunity.  I  just  want  to 
put  very  clearly  on  the  record  that  our 
vote  on  this  particular  matter  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  substance  of  this  matter  or 
any  of  those  things  concerned  with  this 
particular  matter.  What  we  have  always 
understood  in  this  House  is  that  reports 
would  be  adjourned  so  they  could  be  studied 
by  the  House.  The  reason  for  that  I  would 
submit  is  that  this  Teport  contains  a  sub- 
stantive morion. 

Rule  37(a)  says  a  substantive  motion  is  a 
number  of  things  and  a  motion  for  returns. 
This,  in  effect,  is  a  kind  of  motion  for 
returns.  If  this  had  been  a  substantive 
motion,  it  could  not  be  moved  in  this  House 
without  notice.  In  effect,  we  are  now  being 
asked  to  vote  on  a  motion  from  a  committee 
without  notice  of  the  members  of  the  House. 
It  is  a  motion,  I  suggest,  that  most  members, 
except  those  on  the  committee,  do  not  even 
have  in  their  hands. 

What  I  am  saying  is,  it  is  very  difficult 
for  the  members  of  the  House  to  speak  in 
a  debate  and  to  vote  on  a  motion  at  this 
time  without  even  having  that  motion  before 
them.  In  fact,  that  defeats  the  essence  and 
substance  of  the  motion  on  substantive 
motions. 
5:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  must  remind  the 
government  House  leader  that  there  was  an 
opportunity  before  I  put  the  question  to 
the    House    for    the    adjournment    of    the 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4455 


debate.  I  heard  no  one  who  wanted  to 
express  an  opinion  on  the  validity  of  the 
motion  that  was  before  the  House.  As 
members  well  know,  any  motion  to  adjourn 
the  debate  or  to  adjourn  the  House  is  not 
debatable. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It's  not  debatable. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  A  motion  to  adjourn 
the  debate  or  to  adjourn  the  House  is  clearly 
not  debatable.  If  the  government  House  lead- 
er wanted  to  get  up  on  a  point  of  order  prior 
to  my  putting  the  question,  he  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  do  so.  The  question  that  is  before 
the  House  now  is  whether  the  House  wants 
to  adopt  the  committee  report.  I  recognize 
the  minister  and  he  has  the  floor,  but  he  will 
have  to  speak  to  the  substance  of  the  motion, 
which  is  whether  the  House  wishes  to  adopt 
the  report  of  the  committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  certainly 
respect  what  you  say.  I  understand  that  you 
did  not  see  me.  I  tried  to  get  up  before  the 
vote  was  put. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  My  friends  can  talk  like 
that.  I  even  had  the  courtesy  to  send  the 
Speaker  the  reference  I  quoted  from  before. 
I  thought  Mr.  Speaker  himself  might  inter- 
rupt these  proceedings  to  remind  the  House 
again  of  the  rule.  However,  I  recognize  it  is 
not  his  duty  to  do  that.  I  also  recognize  that 
once  a  motion  to  adjourn  is  put  it  is  not 
debatable  and  it  must  be  voted  upon.  The 
point  is,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest  either  you, 
the  House  leaders  or  the  standing  committee 
on  procedural  affairs  should  look  at  this,  be- 
cause we  have  now  changed  what  was  a 
pretty  clear  understanding- 
Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  really  think  my  friend 
the  House  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  is  wrong.  We  have  changed  and  we  are 
now  in  another  no  man's  land  as  far  as  com- 
mittee reports  are  concerned.  That  is  the 
essence  of  my  argument  on  this  particular 
point  about  why  this  report  should  not  be 
adopted  today.  The  House  is  being  asked  to 
adopt  a  report  which  is  a  substantive  motion 
that  is  not  even  in  the  hands  of  the  members 
of  this  House  to  debate.  I  submit  that  is 
wrong,  and1  the  rules  substantiate  that;  they 
say  substantive  motions  must  have  notice 
given.  Therefore,  I  would  suggest  the  mem- 
bers should  not  pass  this  motion. 

Let  me  also  say  the  member  for  Etobicoke 
(Mr.   Philip)  indicated  I  said  we  would  not 


debate  this  tomorrow  morning.  That  is  quite 
correct  from  the  House  leaders'  meeting.  But 
he  left  the  impression  that,  if  this  report  were 
adjourned,  it  would  never  be  debated1  again 
in  this  session  of  the  House.  That  is  com- 
pletely erroneous.  That  impression  was  never 
left.  The  record  we  have  of  debating  these 
reports  is  a  good  one.  We  have  always  de- 
bated all  of  them.  Even  Nakina  will  be  de- 
bated in  due  course,  I  am  sure. 

Speaking  on  the  substance  of  this  and 
further  substantiating  the  point  I  have  made 
—and  I  want  to  underline  that— the  vote  we 
have  just  taken  was  a  vote  to  uphold  what  we 
think  are  the  rules  of  this  House  and  the 
way  this  House  should  be  administered,  and 
not  on  the  substance  of  this. 

On  the  substance  of  the  motion  and  the 
matter,  the  Attorney  General  indicated  to 
the  standing  committee  on  administration  of 
justice  committee  that  he  would  appear  this 
afternoon  and  fully  discuss  this  matter. 

This  is  a  matter  of  great  concern.  It  is  a 
matter  involving  civil  rights  and  the  rights 
of  everyone.  It  may  be  construed  to  involve 
only  those  who  have  been  charged,  but  it  is 
basically  a  matter  that  involves  the  rights  of 
everyone  in  this  province,  our  whole  inter- 
pretation of  the  sub  judice  rule  in  this  House 
and  many  other  things. 

We  are  being  asked  to  pass  a  report  and 
do  something  affecting  such  fundamental 
things  in  this  province  without  prior  notice 
or  in  any  way  knowing  what  is  in  this  motion, 
without  the  Attorney  General  having  been 
given  an  opportunity  to  appear  fully  before 
the  justice  committee.  The  Attorney  General 
came  this  afternoon  not  expecting  to  sit  here 
and  wait  for  a  vote  but  to  be  down  in  the 
committee  discussing  this  important  matter. 
That  has  been  frustrated. 

I  am  willing  to  suggest  a  compromise  in 
this  situation.  Having  voted  that  we  are  go- 
ing to  debate  this  now,  this  House  should 
debate  it  now.  But  considering  the  import 
of  what  this  motion  deals  with,  considering 
the  members  have  not  had  a  full  chance  to 
discuss  it,  considering  the  Attorney  General 
is  ready,  willing  and  wants  to  go  before  the 
justice  committee  and  discuss  the  matter, 
after  discussion  in  this  House  we  should  ad- 
journ adoption  of  the  report  asking  for  a 
warrant  from  you  until  the  Attorney  General 
has  had  an  opportunity  to  discuss  the  matter 
fully  before  the  justice  committee.  Then  I 
will  give  assurances  to  this  House  that,  as 
government  House  leader,  I  will  call  the 
matter  again  and  bring  it  to  a  vote  at  that 
time.  If  my  friends  are  not  willing  to  accept 


4456 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  procedure,  I  suggest  we  will  have  to  vote 
against  the  adoption  of  this  report. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  was 
only  one  point  I  particularly  wished  to  raise 
in  this  debate  this  afternoon,  and  that  is  with 
respect  to  the  events  of  yesterday.  The  com- 
mittee, in  its  wisdom,  passed  a  motion  about 
11  o'clock  yesterday  morning  dealing  with 
this  particular  matter.  The  Attorney  General 
was  kind  enough— and  I  think  that  is  the 
proper  word  to  use— to  appear  with  the  Dep- 
uty Attorney  General  and  a  law  officer  at  a 
few  moments  after  one  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon. We  were  able  to  hear  the  Attorney 
General  explain  at  some  length  his  particu- 
lar concerns  in  this  matter. 

It  was  somewhat  difficult  to  proceed,  how- 
ever, because  there  was  not  one  Conservative 
member  of  the  committee  present,  and  there 
were  only  three  other  opposition  members 
besides  the  chairman— it  being  very  late  in  the 
afternoon,  and  the  Attorney  General's  pres- 
ence being,  I  think,  unexpected  at  that  point. 

However,  having  made  its  motion,  and 
there  being  no  alternative,  without  a  quorum, 
to  deal  otherwise  with  the  matter,  the  com- 
mittee was  bound  by  the  earlier  ruling,  which 
is  why  the  motion,  I  believe  it  is  fair  to  say, 
was  put  today  by  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee; he  had  no  alternative  but  to  bring 
before  the  House,  at  the  earliest  opportunity, 
the  motion  that  had  been  passed. 

Perhaps,  if  the  attendance  had  been  other- 
wise, the  matter  possibly  could  have  been 
reversed  at  that  point  and  the  law  officers  of 
the  crown  could  have  been  heard  this  after- 
noon, as  I  had  suggested  would  have  been  a 
way  to  resolve  the  problem.  However,  in  the 
absence  of  members  of  the  committee,  virtu- 
ally nothing  else  could  be  done  but  to  pro- 
ceed in  this  fashion,  with  the  hope  that,  if  the 
Attorney  General  and  his  advisers  were  able 
to  appear  before  the  committee,  possibly 
some  other  report  would  come  forward  from 
the  committee  that  might  reverse  a  step  that 
had  otherwise  been  made.  But  I  put  it  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  we  had  no  alternative  at 
that  point  but  to  reverse  the  earlier  ruling. 
This  is  part  of  the  difficulty  in  which  we  find 
ourselves. 

5:50  p.m. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  proposal  having  been 
made,  if  there  had  been  one  Tory  present 
in  the  committee,  we  might  have  got  some- 
where. There  was  not  one  Tory  present;  so, 
as  a  result,  we  are  here  this  afternoon  and 
the  Attorney  General  has  the  opportunity  to 


speak  to  this  issue.  I  wanted  to  put  that 
matter  before  the  Speaker  so  that  we  would 
know  why  we  got  into  this  circumstance, 
and  I  hope  the  Attorney  General  will  speak 
tc  the  report. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  What  a  bunch  of  garbage. 
Adjourn  the  debate  now  and  go  downstairs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Every  member  should 
have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Let  the  Attorney  General 
speak  now. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  afternoon 
at  the  House  leaders'  meeting,  I  volunteered 
to  have  the  report  debated  tomorrow,  which 
would  have  allowed  the  Attorney  General  to 
be  present  at  the  committee  downstairs  this 
afternoon.  I  have  to  remind  the  House  that 
it  was  the  government  House  leader  who  did 
not  want  to  do  it  that  way.  Now  we  are  into 
a  hassle. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Martel:  Do  not  barrack;  that  is  factual. 

In  fact,  I  even  volunteered  to  postpone 
it  until  Monday,  if  need  be.  We  were  not 
happy  to  do  that.  The  House  leader  for 
the  Liberals  indicated  he  would  prefer  to 
do  it  sooner,  but  we  were  prepared  to 
debate  it  tomorrow.  If  the  government  House 
leader  and  his  party  chose  not  to  go  that 
route  and  decided  they  wanted  to  resolve 
it  this  afternoon,  that  is  their  decision.  But 
we  were  prepared  to  accommodate  the  At- 
torney General  and  allow  him  to  appear  this 
afternoon  and  then  debate  the  report  to- 
morrow. If  I  heard  the  government  House 
leader  correctly,  that  is  what  he  just  volun- 
teered to  do.  We  would  not  have  gone 
through  this  hassle  if  he  had  accepted  my 
proposal  this  afternoon. 

If  I  could  turn  for  a  moment  to  the  rules 
that  my  friend  spoke  to,  the  rule  was  not 
brought  into  the  House  for  the  reason  he 
suggested.  The  government  House  leader, 
who  continuously  had  to  adjourn  debate 
when  reports  were  presented,  did  not  want 
to  be  in  the  untenable  position  of  appearing 
to  be  the  person  who  put  off  all  debates  on 
all  reports.  So  the  new  ruling  was  devised 
whereby  the  chairman  of  a  committee  would 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  debate,  after 
having  an  opportunity  to  make  a  few  re- 
marks, thus  giving  members  of  the  Hous? 
an  opportunity  to  review  the  content  of  any 
given  report.  That  is  how  that  rule  came 
about. 

I  think  we  have  a  problem  yet.  That  is, 
unless  there  is  agreement  on  a  report,  there 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4457 


is  no  guarantee  that  we  can  get  a  report 
back  to  the  House  for  discussion.  Up  until 
this  time  it  has  worked  well,  save  for  one 
report  which  we  are  having  a  bit  of  a  prob- 
lem on.  I  think  my  friends  from  the  Liberal 
Party  and  I  are  nervous  about  that  one 
because  we  have  attempted  to  have  it 
brought  forward  on  a  number  of  occasions 
and  there  has  been  a  little  bit  of  reluc- 
tance- 
Mr.  Nixon:  Nakina? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Nakina  one. 

There  is  no  mechanism  to  get  it  back 
to  the  House.  If  we  are  going  to  look  at 
a  mechanism  that  should  be  devised,  once 
a  report  is  tabled  there  should  be  a  mechan- 
ism that  says  under  certain  circumstances  or 
after  an  extended  period  of  time  this  report 
must  be  called.  In  that  way  one  has  the 
assurance  that  a  report  is  going  to  get  back 
before  the  Legislature.  It  now  rests  totally 
with  the  government  as  to  whether  a  report 
comes  back.  That  is  our  concern  with  this 
one.  If  it  had  been  adjourned  this  afternoon, 
there  is  no  guarantee  that  we  could  ever 
get  it  back  to  be  debated. 

So  except  for  one  case,  there  has  been  no 
problem  with  that.  But  there  is  still  not  a 
real  way  of  resolving  it.  Maybe  that  is  the 
thing,  in  terms  of  the  rules,  that  should  be 
reviewed.  If  there  were  a  time  limit  under 
which  it  must  come  back  to  the  Legislature 
for  debate,  we  would  get  ourselves  out  of 
this. 

We  had  an  easier  way  today-which  I 
proposed  and  the  government  did  not  accept 
—and  that  was  to  debate  it  tomorrow 
morning. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  give  some  additional  background  in 
relation  to  this  motion  that  is  before  the 
House,  if  I  may.  Certainly,  in  talking  with  a 
number  of  the  members  both  from  this  side 
of  the  Legislature  and  across  the  aisle,  it  is 
very  clear  that  many  are  not  yet  aware  of 
the  issues  involved  in  this  matter. 

First  of  all,  I  would  like  to  turn  to  the 
resolution  that  was  passed  by  the  committee 
because,  as  my  House  leader  pointed  out, 
this  has  not  been  distributed.  With  respect 
and  not  in  any  sense  of  criticism,  I  believe 
the  majority  of  members  are  not  aware  of 
what  this  issue  is  really  all  about.  I  will  quote 
from  the  proceedings  the  substance  of  the 
issue  before  us: 

"Mr.  Bradley  moved  that  all  materials  re- 
lating to  Carlo  Montemurro  and  his  related 
companies,  particularly  C  and  M  Financial 
Consultants     Limited,     Re-Mor     Investment 


Management  Corporation,  Canadian  Metal 
Recycling  Labs  and  Astra  Trust  Company, 
be  produced  to  the  committee,  such  materials 
to  include  all  correspondence,  interdepart- 
mental memoranda,  memoranda  to  file,  appli- 
cation forms,  notes,  files  and  such  other  docu- 
ments that  are  in  the  possession  of  any 
branch,  board,  agency,  commission,  registry 
or  division  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations," 

This  motion,  which  was  duly  carried  at 
some  point  by  the  committee,  was  made 
known  to  law  officers  of  the  crown  and  senior 
law  officers  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General  relatively  shortly  thereafter.  The  law 
officers  of  the  crown  were  in  possession  of 
many  of  these  documents  as  they  pertained 
not  only  to  an  ongoing  criminal  investigation 
but  also  to  criminal  charges  that  had  been 
laid.  In  relation  to  these  criminal  charges,  as 
I  will  be  discussing  in  a  moment  or  two,  there 
is  actually  a  preliminary  hearing  scheduled 
to  commence  on  Monday. 

The  law  officers  of  the  crown,  having  heard 
and  being  concerned  about  the  proper  ad- 
ministration of  justice  in  this  province  and 
the  extent  to  which  this  was  going  to  firstly 
prejudice,  undermine  and  potentially  seri- 
ously interfere  with  an  ongoing  criminal  in- 
vestigation, and  secondly,  at  the  very  least 
if  not  in  fact,  interfere  with  the  proceedings 
that  were  before  the  court,  brought  it  to  my 
attention.  As  soon  as  I  could,  I  attended- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  Criminal? 
Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  preliminary  hear- 
ing on  the  criminal  charges,  yes,  I  will  give 
more  details  of  that  in  a  moment.  As  soon 
as  this  was  brought  to  my  attention,  I  decided 
I  should  go  forthwith  to  the  committee— 
which  I  did,  as  has  already  been  noted  by 
the  member  for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt), 
with  the  Deputy  Attorney  General  and  Mr. 
Howard  Morton,  the  director  of  the  crown 
law  office,  criminal  division— to  inform  the 
members  of  the  committee  as  fully  and  com- 
pletely as  we  could  of  the  issues  involved. 

You  have  been  asked1,  sir,  to  issue  a  war- 
rant. In  the  final  analysis  it  is  your  discretion 
that  will  be  applicable,  because  section  35  of 
the  Legislative  Assembly  Act  states  that  upon 
request  you  may  issue  such  a  warrant.  I 
felt  the  members  of  the  committee  were  en- 
titled to  all  the  relevant  information  we 
could  divulge  without  ourselves  interfering 
with  the  ongoing  criminal  investigation. 

I  want  to  stress  at  the  outset  that  I  was 
personally  only  familiar  with  the  general 
details  with  respect  to  the  nature  of  the 
investigation.    Yesterday    I    appeared    before 


4458 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  committee  and  I  said  in  part  that  repre- 
sentations had  been  made  in  relation  to  the 
notices  that  have  been  issued  and  served  with 
respect  to  civil  proceedings.  I  do  not  want  to 
dwell  too  long  on  those. 
6  p.m. 

My  senior  law  officers  of  the  crown  who 
have  been  advising  the  Ontario  Provincial 
Police,  particularly  with  respect  to  the 
criminal  investigation,  are  very  concerned 
about  the  Speaker's  warrant  in  relation  to 
the  integrity  of  the  ongoing  investigation.  In 
our  view,  the  investigation  could  be  seriously 
prejudiced  by  any  issuance  of  a  Speaker's 
warrant. 

I  was  going  to  ask  Mr.  Howard  Morton, 
who  I  have  already  introduced,  to  address 
members  in  relation  to  this  issue,  because 
he  is  more  familiar  with  the  details  of  the 
investigation  than  I  am.  Given  the  fact  that 
there  were  a  number  of  members  of  the 
committee  who  had  voted  on  the  original 
motion  who  were  then  present,  I  was  quite 
prepared  to  have  Mr.  Morton  address  the 
committee  at  that  time  or,  at  the  discretion 
of  the  chairman  and  the  members  of  the 
committee,  when  there  was,  in  the  words  of 
the  member  for  Kitchener,  "a  larger 
audience." 


I  thought  it  was  agreed.  I  do  not  want  to 
get  preoccupied  with  what  was  agreed,  but  it 
was  my  understanding- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  want  to  remind  the 
Attorney  General  we  have  reached  the  time 
when  we  usually  break  for  the  dinner  hour. 
Would  this  be  a  convenient  point  for  him  to 
break  off  his  remarks  and  continue  at  eight? 
Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Yes,  it  would,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  remind  the  House 
and  the  government  House  leader  that  the 
provisions  of  standing  order  30  were  not 
breached  this  afternoon.  The  chairman  who 
brought  the  report  in  moved  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  debate.  That  was  quite  in  order. 
He  did  move  the  adjournment  of  the  debate. 
It  was  taken  out  of  my  hands  by  the  House, 
which  is  supreme  and  which  decided  it  did 
not  want  the  debate  to  adjourn. 

I  want  the  government  House  leader  to 
differentiate  between  this  instance  this  after- 
noon and  the  one  he  quoted  covering  the 
member  for  Humber,  who  is  the  chairman  of 
the  select  committee  on  constitutional  reform. 
There  is  a  distinct  difference. 

The  House  recessed  at  6:05  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980  4459 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  November  20,  1980 

Transmitting  supplementary  estimates:  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  4439 

Point  of  privilege  re  report  in  Toronto  Sun:  Mr.  Williams,  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid,  Mr.  Gregory, 

Mr.    Nixon    4439 

Massey-Ferguson,  White  Motor  Corporation,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Nixon 

Mr.  Makarchuk 4441 

Radioactivity  at  OHC  subdivision,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott  and  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Nixon, 

Mr.  Isaacs,   Mr.   Sargent 4442 

Nuclear  waste  disposal,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  J.  Reed  4444 

Auto   production,    questions    of   Mr.    Grossman:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr.    B.    Newman,    Mr. 

Laughren 4445 

SCA  pipeline,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Kerrio  4447 

SKF  Canada  plant  closure,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston  4448 

GO  train  fire,  questions  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  J.  Reed  4448 

Disposal  of  PCBs,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs,  Mr.  Hall  4449 

Welland  Canal  bridge,  question  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Haggerty  4450 

Owen  Sound  Hospital  transfer,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Breaugh  4450 

Sales  tax  on  upholstery,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Peterson  4450 

Indian  sales  tax  exemption,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Wildman,  Mr.  Nixon  4451 

Assistive  devices,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  4452 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  question  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Swart  4452 

Report,  standing  committee  on  general  government:  Mr.  Cureatz  4453 

Report,  standing  committee  on  administration  of  justice:  Mr.  Philip  4453 

Recess   4458 


4460  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bennett,  Hon.  C;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Gregory,  Hon.  M.  E.  C;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Mississauga  East  PC) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Hall,  R.  (Lincoln  L) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L. ;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McCague,  Hon.  G.;  Chairman  of  Management  Board;  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

(Dufferin-Simcoe  PC) 
McMurtry,  Hon.  R.;  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  (Eglinton  PC) 
Newman,  B.  (Windsor-Walkerville  L) 
Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 
Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 
Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 
Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 
Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 
Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 
Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 
Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 
Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 


No.  118 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  November  20,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  a^^^°10 


4463 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8:01  p.m. 

CARLETON  BY-ELECTION 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  privilege:  It  is  a  privilege  for  me  to  an- 
nounce from  Ottawa,  that,  out  of  249  polls, 
212  heard  from,  the  NDP  has  3,179  votes,  the 
Liberals  have  7,279  votes,  and  the  PCs  have 
10,240  votes. 

REPORT  IN  TORONTO  SUN 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  prior  to  the 
recess  I  had  asked  for  the  right  and  you  had 
extended  to  me  the  privilege  to  speak  further 
on  my  point  of  privilege. 

I  had  raised  the  question.  In  fact,  I  had 
made  the  statement  with  regard  to  the  libel 
that  had  been  committed.  It  had  been  perpe- 
trated either  by  the  member  for  Rainy  River 
(Mr.  T.  P.  Reid)  or  the  member  for  Went- 
worth  North  (Mr.  Cunningham),  and  that 
particular  libel  pertained  to  the  notice  sent  up 
to  the  member  of  the  press.  That  was  a 
totally  malicious  and  untrue  statement. 

I  think  I  am  entitled  to  have  the  member 
for  Wentworth  North  here  to  answer  to  this 
matter.  On  the  basis  of  the  advice  I  have 
received  from  my  discussions  this  afternoon 
with  legal  counsel,  he  must  be  entitled  to 
answer  to  that.  I  am  prepared  to  stand  down 
until  that  occurs.  But  by  the  same  token, 
because  my  reputation  is  at  stake  and  it  is  a 
very  serious  matter,  I  ask  that  you  exercise 
whatever  you  can  in  the  way  of  influence, 
along  with  the  leaders  of  the  Liberal  Party, 
to  bring  the  member  for  Wentworth  North 
before  the  House  at  the  earliest  moment  to 
answer  these  charges.  I  must  have  an  answer, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  As  I  reminded  the  honour- 
able member  this  afternoon  when  he  first 
raised  the  issue,  it  is  only  common  courtesy 
that  any  person  who  is  named  as  violating 
another  member's  privileges  has  to  be  given 
an  opportunity  to  respond.  I  do  not  have  it 
within  my  power  to  command  him  to  be  here 
at  any  given  point  in  time.  When  he  does 
arrive,  I  am  sure  the  honourable  member 
will  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity  to  ex- 
press his  point  of  view.  I  do  not  have  the 


Thursday,  November  20,  1980 

authority  to  summon  anybody  at  any  par- 
ticular point  in  time.  No  doubt,  in  due  course 
the  honourable  member  will  be  here  to  re- 
spond to  any  allegations  you  have  made. 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  ask  the 
deputy  leader  of  the  Liberal  caucus  whether 
it  is  within  his  knowledge  if  the  member  for 
Wentworth  North  intends  to  be  in  the  House 
tomorrow. 

Mr.  Nixon:  It  is  not. 

Mr.  Williams:  I  did  not  hear  the  answer. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  are  not  entitled  to  an 
answer.  All  you  can  do  is  put  your  point 
before  the  House.  I  am  sure  the  honourable 
member  to  whom  you  refer  will  hear  your 
remarks  and,  when  he  is  here,  he  will  re- 
spond to  them. 

REPORTS 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 

ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE 

(continued) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I 
recall  when  the  House  adjourned  at  six 
o'clock  this  evening,  I  was  referring  the 
members  to  certain  extracts  from  the  pro- 
ceedings that  took  place  before  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice  yester- 
day. It  was  clear  that  some  of  the  members 
indicated  they  would  like  to  hear  Mr.  Howard 
Morton,  the  director  of  the  crown  law  office, 
criminal  division,  because  of  the  importance 
of  these  proceedings. 

Although  I  am  not  familiar  with  everything 
that  was  said  in  the  justice  committee  prior 
to  the  passage  of  the  resolution  which  invites 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  issue  a  Speaker's  war- 
rant, from  what  I  have  been  able  to  learn 
and  from  what  I  recall  as  having  been  said 
yesterday,  several  members  were  totally  un- 
aware that  criminal  charges  had  been  laid, 
that  the  matter  was  before  the  court  and 
that  there  are  accused  individuals  who  are 
about  to  appear  at  a  preliminary  hearing. 

In  such  a  vital  matter,  I  would  like  to  think 
that  even  members  who  find  it  difficult  at 
the  best  of  times  to  demonstrate  the  most 
basic,  elementary  courtesy  to  this  House 
should  appreciate  that  this  is  an  issue  that 


4464 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


affects  the  rights  of  every  individual  in  this 
country.  Regardless  of  what  we  may  think  of 
them  personally,  individuals  who  are  charged 
in  our  courts  have  a  right  to  a  trial  in  a 
properly  constituted  court  of  law,  not  in  this 
Legislature  and  not  in  a  committee  thereof. 

I  honestly  believe  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  members  on  both  sides  of  this 
House  appreciate  the  importance  of  these 
fundamental  principles.  With  respect,  I  am 
trying  to  direct  my  remarks  in  a  nonpartisan 
vein.  I  cannot  speak  for  certain  but,  as  I 
indicated  earlier,  I  doubt  the  majority  of 
the  members  who  voted  on  that  resolution 
were  aware  of  the  criminal  proceedings  and 
the  ongoing  criminal  investigation.  I  do  not 
know  to  what  extent  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea) 
was  aware  of  the  criminal  proceedings. 

In  any  event,  as  was  suggested  by  the 
member  for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt)  and 
as  appeared  to  be  the  view  of  other  mem- 
bers of  the  committee,  they  invited  me,  as 
Attorney  General,  to  return  this  afternoon 
and  appear  before  the  justice  committee  in 
order  that  they  might  hear  Mr.  Morton,  the 
director  of  the  crown  law  office,  who  was 
there  yesterday  and  was  again  to  be  here 
today  and  Mr.  Blenus  Wright,  the  assistant 
deputy  minister  in  charge  of  the  civil  branch 
of  the  ministry. 

As  I  indicated  to  the  members  of  the 
justice  committee  yesterday,  I  was  not  per- 
sonally familiar  with  all  the  details  of  the 
investigation.  It  should  not  come  as  a  sur- 
prise that  the  Attorney  General  cannot  keep 
himself  apprised  of  the  day-to-day  workings 
of  any  particular  investigation. 

Certainly  on  that  occasion  the  members 
wanted  very  much  to  hear  from  Mr.  Morton, 
and  it  was  my  understanding  that  he  was 
going  to  be  given  an  opportunity  to  address 
certain  remarks  to  the  committee  today  in 
relation  to  the  nature  of  the  investigation 
and  what  was  involved.  I  want  to  indicate 
at  this  time,  that,  if  the  justice  committee 
had  proceeded  as  I  thought  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  members  at  that  time,  Mr. 
Morton's  concerns  would  have  been  express- 
ed to  them. 

8:10  p.m. 

I  am  reading  a  statement  prepared  for 
me,  at  my  request,  by  the  director  of  the 
crown  law  office,  as  he  is  most  familiar  with 
the  details  of  this  investigation. 

My  major  concern,  and  the  concern  of  the 
senior  law  officers,  with  respect  to  the 
justice  committee's  resolutions,  is  that  if 
adopted  by  this  Legislature  they  will  impair 


a  very  important  and  complex  ongoing 
criminal  investigation.  Since  early  spring  of 
this  year,  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police  have 
been  conducting  a  criminal  investigation 
with  respect  to  the  financial  affairs  of  Mr. 
Montemurro;  prior  to  that  time,  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission  had  been  conducting 
a  similar  investigation  into  C  and  M  Finan- 
cial Consultants  Limited.  As  a  result  of  the 
securities  commission  investigation,  Mr. 
Montemurro  and  two  of  his  associates  have 
been  charged  with  conspiracy  to  defraud 
the  public,  fraud,  conspiracy  to  commit  theft, 
and  theft. 

The  preliminary  hearing  into  those 
charges  is  scheduled  to  commence  next 
Monday,  and  it  is  entirely  possible— of 
course,  I  cannot  speculate— that  counsel  for 
Mr.  Montemurro  may  very  well  wish  to 
adjourn  these  proceedings  in  the  event  that 
a  Speaker's  warrant  is  issued.  While  I  am 
not  suggesting  any  of  our  provincial  court 
judges  are  going  to  be  influenced  by  a 
debate  that  goes  on  in  this  House  or  in  a 
committee  of  this  House,  what  we,  who  are 
truly  concerned  about  the  administration  of 
justice,  are  concerned  about  is  the  appear- 
ance of  a  man  who  is  on  trial  at  a  pre- 
liminary hearing  having  the  very  issues 
related  to  his  trial  debated  in  a  committee 
of  this  Legislature.  Surely  this  is  not  a  result 
that  is  desired  by  any  responsible  member, 
at  least,  of  this  House. 

A  much  broader  OPP  investigation  is  still 
under  way,  and  I  am  advised  it  will  be  some 
time  before  the  decision  is  made  as  to  what, 
if  any,  further  charges  will  be  laid.  I  might 
add  that  a  very  experienced  counsel  from 
the  crown  law  office,  criminal  division,  has 
been  assisting  the  police  from  the  outset  of 
this  investigation.  Approximately  50  search 
warrants  have  been  executed,  and  more  than 
50  boxes  of  documents  have  been  seized. 
Accountants  have  been  retained,  and  they 
are  in  the  process  of  assisting  the  OPP  in 
their  investigation. 

Although  I  am  not  prepared  to  hamper 
an  ongoing  criminal  investigation  by  having 
a  public  debate  at  this  time  with  respect  to 
the  details  of  the  investigation,  I  am  pre- 
pared to  state  that  the  substantial  portion  of 
the  investigation  centres  on  Re-Mor  Invest- 
ment Management  Corporation  and  Astra 
Trust,  the  very  companies  named  in  the  com- 
mittee's resolution. 

As  Attorney  General,  I  must  impress  upon 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  in  my  view  a  Speak- 
er's warrant  to  produce  the  documents  set 
out  in  the  justice  committee's  resolutions  will 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4465 


seriously  impair  the  integrity  of  a  very  im- 
portant ongoing  criminal  investigation.  In 
fact,  it  may  impede  it,  or  it  may  even 
grind  it  to  a  halt.  As  chief  law  officer  of 
the  crown,  with  public  responsibilities  that 
flow  from  that  position,  I  cannot  idly  stand 
by  and  permit  that  to  happen. 

In  addition  to  what  I  have  already  said, 
I  would  only  add  that,  were  a  Speaker's 
warrant  to  issue,  there  is  a  very  real  risk 
that  the  three  accused  persons  whose  pre- 
liminary hearing  starts  next  Monday  will 
be  prejudiced  with  respect  to  their  right  to 
a  fair  trial  by  virtue  of  the  publicity  which, 
I  might  say,  has  already  been  generated 
by  the  justice  committee's  resolutions.  The 
right  of  any  accused  person  to  a  fair  trial 
is  a  right  I  am  not  prepared  to  compromise. 

I  remind  the  members  of  the  House  that, 
apart  from  the  responsibilities  some  of  them 
obviously  are  unwilling  to  discharge,  they 
have  a  responsibility  to  you,  too,  sir. 

Reading  section  35  of  the  Legislative  As- 
sembly Act,  which  perhaps  is  not  familiar 
to  some  of  the  members:  "When  the  assem- 
bly requires  the  attendance  of  a  person  be- 
fore the  assembly  or  a  committee  thereof, 
the  Speaker  may  issue  his  warrant  directed 
to  the  person  named  in  the  order  of  the 
assembly  requiring  his  attendance  before 
the  assembly  or  committee  and  the  produc- 
tion of  the  papers  and  things  as  ordered." 

It  appears  quite  clear  that  it  was  the  in- 
tent of  the  Legislature  in  passing  this  sec- 
tion to  vest  in  the  Speaker  the  discretion 
with  respect  to  whether  or  not  to  issue  such 
a  warrant.  I  think— 

Mr.  Warner:  You  only  give  half  the  story. 
Why  don't  you  try  subsection  1   of  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  honourable 
member  will  have  his  opportunity  to  partic- 
ipate in  the  debate.  He  is  always  telling 
people  to  resign  almost  every  hour  on  the 
hour.  He  is  masquerading  as  the  justice 
critic  for  his  party.  Why  does  he  not  smarten 
up  for  a  change? 

Mr.  Warner:  And  you're  masquerading  as 
Attorney  General.  Read  subsection  1  of 
that. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  would  think,  Mr. 
Speaker,  even  the  members  of  the  third 
party  would  have  enough  respect  for  your 
position  not  to  ask  you  to  have  to  exercise 
that  very  difficult  decision.  I  would  have 
thought  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
would  have  more  respect  for  the  position 
of  Speaker  than  to  put  you  in  that  very 
difficult  position. 


The  other  matter  that  has  been  con- 
sidered, I  think  it  is  fair  to  say,  is  not  of 
as  crucial  importance  as  the  matters  I  have 
been  discussing,  but  they  are  matters  related 
to  the  administration  of  justice.  I  am  ad- 
dressing myself  to  the  issue  of  the  civil 
proceedings  that  have  been  commenced.  The 
advice  I  have  from  the  senior  law  officers 
of  the  crown  in  the  civil  division  of  the 
ministry  is  as  follows:  I  think  again  this 
may  be  of  (assistance  to  the  members,  and 
I  am  speaking  about  the  majority  of  the 
members  who  want  to  know  these  facts. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  don't  want  to  assist;  you 
want  to  insult. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Perhaps  some  of  the 
honourable  members  over  there  might  learn 
again  the  most  basic  elements  of  courtesy 
and  just  allow  the  other  members  to  hear 
these  submissions. 

Mr.  Martel:  Don't  talk  down  to  us. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  We've  had  enough  of 
your  sanctimonious  claptrap. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  people  of  Carle- 
ton  have  told  the  people  of  Ontario  what 
they  think  of  the  NDP  today. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  because  you  blew  in 
with  every  goodie  possible  to  give  in  a  by- 
election. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
first  notice  of  a  potential  claim  in  this  matter 
was  served  on  our  office  in  June  1980.  We 
have  now  received  a  total  of  32  separate 
notices  of  claim  delivered  on  behalf  of  ap- 
proximately 300  claimants.  Ten  separate 
writs  of  summons  naming  the  crown  as  a 
defendant  have  been  issued  and  served  on 
our  office. 

In  addition,  we  are  aware  of  three  other 
writs  of  summons  issued  on  behalf  of  a  total 
of  83  individual  plaintiffs.  Mr.  I.  B.  Wein- 
stein,  who  at  the  material  time  was  the  regis- 
trar of  mortgage  brokers,  is  named  personally 
as  a  defendant.  A  number  of  other  writs  of 
summons  may  have  been  issued  but  not  yet 
served  in  which  the  crown  or  Mr.  Weinstein 
or  other  individuals  are  named  as  defend- 
ants. No  statements  of  claim  have,  as  yet  been 
delivered  in  any  of  the  actions. 

8:20  p.m. 

In  every  notice  of  claim  and  in  every  writ 
of  summons  we  have  seen  so  far,  the  specific 
issue  raised  is  the  decision  of  the  registrar  to 
grant  a  licence  as  a  mortgage  broker  to  Re- 
Mor  Investment  Management  Corporation, 
which  is  exactly  the  issue  sought  to  be  dis- 
cussed in  this  House  or  in  committee.  In  my 


4466 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


view,  any  discussion  of  this  matter,  either  in 
the  House  or  in  committee,  would  be  pre- 
mature while  the  lawsuits  are  pending  as  it 
could  tend  to  create  a  prejudgement  in  the 
minds  of  the  public,  or  in  the  minds  of  the 
litigants,  as  to  the  issues  involved  in  the 
litigation.  It  would  also  set  up  this  House,  or 
the  committee,  as  an  alternative  forum  for 
the  trial  of  the  issues. 

It  is  my  view  that  this,  in  turn,  would  con- 
stitute a  serious  preiudice  both  for  the  rights 
of  the  registrar  of  mortgage  brokers  and  the 
rights  of  the  plaintiffs  in  the  various  lawsuits. 
In  addition,  because  of  the  danger  of  pre- 
judgement of  the  issues  based  on  incomplete 
information  or  on  an  inadequate  understand- 
ing of  its  effect,  it  also  could  create  a  serious 
prejudice  to  the  administration  of  justice  in 
this  province. 

For  these  reasons,  it  was  our  advice  to  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations to  advise  this  House  that  the  matters 
in  issue  are  sub  judice  and  we  advised  him 
not  to  produce  the  files  and  documents  of  the 
ministry  with  respect  to  the  matters  in  issue 
in  the  litigation. 

Finally,  it  was  my  respectful  view  and,  I 
believe  quite  frankly,  the  view  of  a  number 
of  the  members  opposite,  that  the  proper 
forum  to  deal  with  this  issue,  if  it  is  required 
to  be  dealt  with  further,  would  have  been 
the  justice  committee,  where  the  members 
could  have  heard  not  only  from  the  Attorney 
General  or  members  of  this  Legislature  but 
also  from  senior  law  officers  of  the  crown  who 
are  much  more  intimately  and  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  facts  of  these  matters  than 
I  am.  The  members  of  the  committee  would 
have  had  the  opportunity  to  benefit  from  the 
views  of  these  senior  law  officers  of  the  crown 
whose  sole  responsibility  in  this  matter  is  to 
protect— 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  To  protect  the  minister. 
Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  —the  integrity  of  the 

administration    of    justice    in    tins    province. 

I  hope  that  remark  was  not  meant  to  be  heard 

by  anyone  other  than  the  person  who  uttered 

it.  Suggesting  that  senior  law  officers  of  the 

crown  have  any  other  goal- 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  am  suggesting  that 

it  is  the  Attorney  General's. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  —than  to  protect  the 

integrity  of  the  administration  of  justice  in 

this  province- 
Mr.  Sargent:  They  do  what  they  are  told 

by  the  Attorney  General's  office.  I  will  prove 

it  to  be  the  minister  in  a  minute. 


Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  say  to  the  member 
for  Grey-Bruce,  that  is  beneath  contempt.  It 
really  is. 

I  would  have  thought  the  committee  would 
have  been  the  proper  forum  to  have  heard 
from  these  law  officers.  I  still  think,  on  this 
very  vital  and  crucial  debate  as  far  as  the 
interests  of  individual  citizens  of  this  province 
are  concerned  in  relation  to  proper  law  en- 
forcement and  the  administration  of  justice, 
and  before  we  risk  allowing  it  to  be  ground 
down  into  a  lot  of  mindless  partisanship,  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  should  consider 
the  possibility  of  allowing  the  justice  com- 
mittee to  consider  this  matter  further  and  to 
deliberate  on  it  rather  than  placing  you,  sir, 
in  a  most  invidious  position  in  exercising  your 
discretion  in  a  matter  that  is  of  such  funda- 
mental importance  to  the  administration  of 
justice  in  this  province  which  bears  directly 
on  the  rights  of  every  single  citizen  in  our 
province. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  with 
somewhat  mixed  emotions  I  rise  to  speak  on 
this  matter.  Having  heard  the  position  put 
forward  by  the  Attorney  General,  one  of 
course  has  to  think  very  deeply  about  it. 

However,  I  would  bring  to  the  Attorney 
General's  attention  a  ruling  that  was  made  on 
July  8,  1977.  It  was  a  ruling  made  by  the 
then  Speaker  Rowe  in  regard  to  Hydro  con- 
tracts and  the  whole  subject  of  sub  judice. 
I  put  this  to  the  committee  yesterday  morning 
before  the  Attorney  General  came  in. 

The  Speaker  was  making  a  ruling  on  a 
question  put  by  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford- 
Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon)  in  regard  to  Hydro  con- 
tracts. The  Speaker  referred  to  a  study  that 
had  been  done  at  the  federal  level  in  regard 
to  the  sub  judice  rule.  I  want  to  emphasize 
this  point  in  particular.  Speaker  Rowe  said 
this,  "May  I  first  say  as  strongly  as  I  can  that 
I  know  of  no  authority  by  which  any  court 
can  prevent  free  discussion  in  this  chamber." 
He  re-emphasized  that  later  on. 

That  is  the  first  and  most  fundamental 
point.  It  is  perhaps  somewhat  ironic  that  I 
should  be  quoting  that  particular  section  and 
bringing  to  the  attention  of  the  Attorney 
General  this  evening  that  this  assembly  has 
the  authority  for  free  discussion  and  free 
speech,  when  I  personally  have  been  the  butt 
or  recipient  of  a  diatribe  by  the  member  for 
Oriole  (Mr.  Williams),  which  I  think  the 
Attorney  General  would  agree  would  con- 
stitute libel  and  slander  outside  of  this 
chamber.  But  he  has  that  right  as  a  member 
of  this  Legislature,  and  he  has  exercised  that 
right  perhaps  a  little  further  than  most  of  us 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4467 


would  like.  I  say  to  the  Attorney  General  that 
this  assembly  as  a  whole  has  the  right  of 
free  discussion  of  any  matter  that  it  sees  fit. 
That  is  the  first  point. 

On  the  general  matter  of  sub  judice,  this 
federal  report  went  on  to  state,  and  I  quote 
from  section  22:  "In  the  view  of  your  com- 
mittee, the  justification  for  the  convention 
has  not  been  established  beyond  all  doubt, 
although  it  would  not  go  so  far  as  to  recom- 
mend that  it  be  totally  abolished.  Your  com- 
mittee believes,  however,  that  any  modifica- 
tion to  the  practice  should  be  in  the  direction 
of  greater  flexibility  rather  than  stricter  ap- 
plication." 

Further,  Mr.  Speaker— and  I  am  sure  you 
have  the  reference— I  quote  again:  "On  no 
account  should1  the  convention  which  has 
been  applied  infrequently  in  years  past  come 
to  be  regarded  as  a  fixed  and  binding  rule. 
It  is  not  reasonable,  for  example,  that  Parlia- 
ment should  be  any  more  limited  in  this  de- 
bate concerning  judicial  proceeding  than  is 
the  press  in  the  reporting  of  such  proceed- 
ings." 

There  is  more,  Mr.  Speaker.  As  you  well 
know,  it  also  says,  "Your  committee  recom- 
mends that  the  Speaker  should  remain  the 
final  arbiter  in  the  matter." 

The  point  remains  that  the  whole  sub 
judice  rule  is  a  vague  one.  It  has  been  used 
on  occasion  in  this  assembly  and  in  others  as 
an  excuse  for  not  providing  information  or 
not  taking  action.  I  am  concerned  about  this 
matter.  I  refer  the  Attorney  General  to  the 
question  put  on  November  13  by  the  member 
for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt).  I  remind  him 
of  that  question  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  in  re- 
gard to  the  documentation  and  memorandum 
concerning  the  registration  of  Re-Mor  after 
C  and  M  had  been  put  into  receivership. 

I  find  it  somewhat  strange,  quite  frankly, 
that  the  Attorney  General  should  have  come 
into  the  committee  at  the  point  he  did  yes- 
terday—I happened  to  have  come  back  into 
the  committee— with  a  law  officer  of  the 
crown,  and  attempted  to  explain  to  the  com- 
mittee at  that  point  why  he  felt  the  way  he 
did. 

I  would  have  thought  at  the  very  least  it 
would  have  been  incumbent  upon  the  Min- 
ister of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations 
at  the  time  he  received  that  brief  paragraph 
from  the  law  officers  of  the  crown  to  give  a 
much  fuller  explanation  than,  in  fact,  was 
given. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  In  fairness,  that  concerned 
a    civil    matter.    The    discussions    that    Mr. 


Morton  attempted  to  bring  to  the  committee 
yesterday,  as  I  said1,  were  unknown  to  me. 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  appreciate  that,  but  the 
minister  did  stand  in  his  place  the  other 
day  and  say  he  could  not  reply  to  the 
request  of  the  member  for  Kitchener  because 
of  the  ruling  of  the  law  officer  of  the  crown. 
With  all  due  respect,  and  perhaps  with  some 
cynicism  over  the  years,  that  is  not  sufficient. 
We  have  to  have  valid  reasons  why  these 
matters  should  be  considered  sub  judice. 

8:30  p.m. 

I  find  it  difficult  to  understand  how  the 
production  of  these  documents  is  going  to 
prejudice  or  affect  these  cases.  The  justice 
committee,  having  received  the  documents— 
which  it  is  entitled  to  under  the  rules  of  this 
House— will  proceed  with  them  in  the  way 
it  best  sees  fit.  It  has  that  authority  and 
that  responsibility,  as  the  committee  charged 
with  this  matter,  to  proceed  in  the  best  way 
it  knows  how. 

■I  was  also  concerned  that  the  Attorney 
General  put  a  new  twist  on  the  whole  sub 
judice  rule.  It  was  my  understanding  that, 
vague  as  the  rule  has  been  in  the  past,  at 
least  it  referred  primarily  and  specifically, 
if  not  completely,  to  criminal  actions  in  the 
court.  The  Attorney  General  shakes  his  head. 
Perhaps  I  have  been  under  some  misappre- 
hension in  that  regard  but  I  have  not  yet, 
until  tonight,  heard  the  argument  that  the 
sub  judice  rule  also  applied  to  ongoing  or 
potential  criminal  investigations. 

It  seems  to  me,  if  we  carry  that  argument 
to  its  logical  conclusion,  there  is  little  if 
anything  we  can  discuss  in  this  chamber  if 
that  is  a  valid  argument.  I  do  not  think  it  is 
acceptable  to  us  as  an  argument  to  use  the 
sub  judice  rule  for  closing  off  debate  and 
discussion  on  this  matter.  I  quoted  the  ruling 
of  your  predecessor,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  July  8, 
1977.  I  fail  to  see  how  the  production  of 
these  documents  for  the  justice  committee 
will  have  any  prejudicial  effect  on  these 
matters  and  we  would  hope  the  motion  and 
report  would  carry. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  the  in- 
dulgence of  the  House,  I  want  to  vent  my 
anger  for  about  60  seconds  and  then  I  want 
to  try  to  deal  with  the  substance  of  the 
matter.  It  is  incomprehensible  to  me  that  the 
suggestion  made  by  the  House  leader  of  this 
party  to  the  government  House  leader  that 
this  matter  be  debated  tomorrow  morning 
was  not  accepted.  That  would  have  given 
the  opportunity,  as  the  record  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  justice  committee  shows,  to 


4468 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


have  heard  the  Attorney  General  and  anyone 
the  Attorney  General  wished  to  bring  to 
the  committee  this  afternoon. 

My  anger  is  not  about  that  matter.  My 
anger  is  that  the  private  members'  public 
business  has  been  totally  eliminated  for  this 
week.  My  anger  is  also  directed  at  the  fact 
that  the  third  reading  of  the  debate  on  the 
select  committee  on  constitutional  reform  is 
not  going  to  take  place  or  only  in  truncated 
form. 

In  addition,  it  is  a  personal  concern  of 
mine  as  a  member  of  the  assembly  that  the 
failure  to  have  maturity  about  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  House  disrupts  the  work  of  each 
member  of  the  assembly.  In  this  particular  in- 
stance, I  have  had  in  my  appointment  book 
for  well  over  two  months  an  obligation  to 
attend  a  meeting  about  lead  pollution  in 
my  riding  from  5:30  p.m.  to  6  p.m.  today 
and  to  attend  the  annual  meeting  of  the 
South  Riverdale  Community  Health  Centre 
this  evening.  I  am  prevented  from  participat- 
ing in  those  events  because  of  the  immaturity 
displayed  today  about  this  matter,  although 
I  was  able  to  be  there  briefly  during  the 
dinner  recess  this  evening. 

Having  said  that,  let  me  try  to  deal  with 
the  issue  before  us,  which  is  the  question  of 
whether  we  should  adopt  the  report  of  the 
justice  committee  in  the  light  of  the  comments 
made  principally  by  the  Attorney  General  and 
his  concern  about  it. 

My  remarks  are  addressed  to  allaying  his 
concern  by  bringing  to  his  attention  what  the 
justice  committee  is  about,  what  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  justice  committee  were  deal- 
ing with  yesterday,  and  not  just  to  inform 
the  Attorney  General,  because  I  believe  my 
colleagues  in  the  assembly  who  were  not  in 
that  committee  should  have  an  understanding 
of  what  is  being  asked. 

First  of  all,  let  me  clarify  as  best  I  can 
what  the  process  was  at  the  end  of  the  com- 
mittee yesterday,  not  because  I  was  present, 
but  because  there  has  been  some  confusion 
that  in  some  way  the  committee  was  creating 
this  difficulty.  The  committee  did  not  create 
this  difficulty.  I  quote  from  near  the  end  of 
yesterday's  Hansard  with  respect  to  the  com- 
mittee hearing,  after  the  Attorney  General  had 
been  there  and  spoken,  when  the  question 
arose  of  whether  there  were  sufficient  mem- 
bers present  to  deal  with  the  matter  that 
had  been  raised  and  all  the  other  matters 
that  had  been  raised.  My  colleague  the  mem- 
ber for  Brantford  (Mr.  Makarchuk)  made  these 
remarks  almost  at  the  end  of  the  meeting: 

"My  feeling  on  this  matter  is  that  it  pro- 
ceed as  it  is  right  now,  which  still  gives  us 


time  tomorrow  when  the  committee  meets. 
Mr.  Morton  can  still  make  his  statement.  If 
the  committee  decides  to  withdraw  the  war- 
rant at  that  time  or  requests  the  Speaker  not 
to  execute  that  warrant,  that  procedure  can 
be  followed.  We  have  the  time  to  follow  that 
process.  As  the  motions  are  at  this  time,  I 
would  suggest  the  proper  procedures  be 
carried  out.  The  committee  still  has  the  option 
to  change  its  mind  on  the  basis  of  the 
evidence  we  will  hear  tomorrow  and  prevent 
the  execution  of  the  warrant.  That  time  is 
still  available  to  us  and  I  suggest  we  will 
leave  things  as  they  stand  at  this  time." 

The  member  for  Kitchener  intervened, 
"Then  we  will  hear  Mr.  Morton  first  thing 
tomorrow  afternoon/'  There  were  a  couple 
of  other  interventions  and  my  colleague  the 
member  for  Hamilton  Centre  stated:  "If,  in 
fact,  the  committee  is  given  a  warrant,  the 
motion  is  granted  and  the  warrant  is  obtained, 
then  there  is  no  problem  if  something  should 
come  forward  that  convinces  us  we  should 
not  do  it  by  asking  the  Speaker  to  stay  the 
execution  of  that  warrant.  It  is  not  going  to 
happen  instantaneously.  Nothing  ever  does." 

The  member  for  Kitchener  then  concluded: 
"We  have  no  choice  in  the  matter,  in  the 
absence  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  motion,  and 
we  do  not  have  a  quorum  to  continue  with 
the  placing  of  a  new  motion  other  than  the 
one  that  would  embarrass  the  chairman.  I 
believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  no  alternative 
but  to  adjourn  and  to  hear  Mr.  Morton  to- 
morrow afternoon." 

Mr.  Chairman  said:  "We  stand  adjourned1. 
Will  the  Solicitor  General  be  free  tomorrow 
afternoon?"  The  Attorney  General  replied, 
"Yes,  I  think  we  are  scheduled  to  be  here." 
Then  the  committee  adjourned  at  1:30  in  the 
afternoon.  I  simply  read  that  to  indicate 
quite  clearly  that  the  normal  adjournment 
hour  for  the  committee  was  one  o'clock. 
There  was  no  quorum  present  at  the  time 
this  discussion  took  place.  There  was  no 
authority  in  the  committee  to  rescind  or  alter 
or  vary  in  any  way  what  had  been  passed 
when  the  committee  met  in  the  morning. 

What  did  the  committee  do  when  it  met  in 
the  morning?  It  dealt  with  the  procedural 
matters.  There  were  four  motions  put  before 
the  committee.  I  do  not  intend  to  read  them 
at  length.  They  are  in  the  proceedings.  Three 
of  the  motions  were  put  by  the  member  for 
St.  Catharines  (Mr.  Bradley).  The  fourth 
motion,  the  one  relating  to  the  request  for 
the  Speaker's  warrant,  was  put  by  my  col- 
league the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre. 

It  is  because  of  the  substance  of  the  matter 
in  issue  that  I  am  very  much  concerned  with 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4469 


the  great,  broad  cloak  the  Attorney  General 
spread  about  the  matter  in  the  House  tonight. 
I  do  not  yield,  and  no  other  member  of  the 
House  yields,  to  the  Attorney  General  on  the 
question  of  the  integrity  of  the  administration 
of  justice  in  the  province.  He  happens  to 
carry  the  ministerial  responsibility  in  this 
House.  We  all  share  that  responsibility  and 
no  one  can  impute  by  direct  words  or  other- 
wise a  greater  concern  to  some  members  of 
this  House  than  resides  in  other  members. 

8:40  p.m. 

I  get  concerned  when  the  Attorney  General 
smothers  or  attempts  to  smother  that  issue  on 
the  basis  that  somehow  or  other  he  has  sole 
responsibility.  He  only  has  sole  responsibility 
in  the  sense  that  he  is  responsible  to  this 
House.  It  is  important  for  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, when  he  comes  before  the  House  to  ask 
that  a  matter  related  to  one  of  the  committees 
of  the  House  be  aborted,  that  he  stand  in  his 
place  and  understand  what  it  was  that  the 
committee  was  about. 

I  suggest  the  Attorney  General's  remarks 
tonight  showed  at  least  an  ignorance  about 
what  the  committee  was  saying  yesterday.  I 
do  not  want  to  repeat  the  motions  because 
they  tended  to  be  put  in  formal  terms.  Three 
of  them  were  put  by  the  member  for  St. 
Catharines. 

The  first  motion,  which  was  the  formal  gut 
motion  before  the  committee,  was  expressed 
in  formal  terms  and  then  explained  to  the 
committee  by  the  member  for  St.  Catharines. 
He  said,  "Through  this  particular  motion,  we 
would  like  to  examine  the  role  of  the  Ministry 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations." 
That  was  the  matter  the  committee  was 
asked  to  consider. 

Before  I  go  on,  let  me  express  that  this 
House,  under  its  rules,  on  a  petition  signed 
by  20  members,  referred  the  report  of  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions to  that  committee  to  carry  out  its 
instructions.  The  problem,  and  I  want  to 
make  this  very  clear,  is  that  the  committee's 
mandate  will  continue.  The  committee  has 
no  alternative  as  a  creature  of  this  House 
but  to  continue  its  investigation  into  the 
matters  with  which  it  has  been  charged. 

The  problem  will  be  that  if  the  argument 
of  the  Attorney  General  is  accepted,  the 
committee  will  be  unable  to  do  its  work  in 
the  way  in  which  this  assembly  must  expect 
it  to  do  its  work  and  that  is  ably,  well  and 
efficiently. 

I  want  to  emphasize  that  the  purpose  of 
the  committee,  in  the  words  of  the  member 
for   St.    Catharines   who   moved   the   motion 


whicH  was  passed  by  the  committee,  is, 
"Through  this  particular  motion,  we  would 
like  to  examine  the  role  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations."  He 
then  went  on  to  particularize  the  nature  of 
the  inquiry  into  the  role  of  the  ministry. 
Because  we  were  not  engaged  in  something 
called  a  fishing  expedition,  it  was  very  clear 
as  to  what  the  responsibility  of  the  committee 
is  in  that  investigation  and  examination. 

Again,  quoting  the  member  for  St 
Catharines,  ".  .  .  and,  in  particular,  the 
registrar  of  mortgage  brokers  in  relation  to 
the  issuance  of  a  mortgage  broker's  licence 
to  Re-Mor  Investment  Management  Corpora- 
tion. We  would  also,  through  this  motion, 
like  to  examine  the  role  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  and,  in 
particular,  the  registrar  of  loan  and  trust 
corporations,  in  relation  to  the  denial  of  a 
provincial  trust  company  charter  to  a  trust 
company  to  be  incorporated  by  Mr.  Carlo 
Montemurro  and  the  subsequent  registration 
and  monitoring  by  the  registrar  of  Astra  Trust 
Company;  and  also,  the  role  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  and,  in 
particular,  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission, 
in  relation  to  investigations  pertaining  to  C 
and  M  Financial  Consultants  Limited,  Re-Mor 
Investment  Management  Corporation,  Astra 
Trust  Company  and  other  related  companies." 

I  do  want  to  emphasize,  so  it  will  not  be 
overlooked,  that  that  is  the  mandate  of 
responsibility  which  the  standing  committee 
on  the  administration  of  justice  has  before  it. 
We  are  now  being  told  that  to  investigate 
the  role  of  the  ministry  in  some  way  is  going 
to  prejudice  the  rights  of  individual  citizens 
because  of  certain  civil  matters  and  certain 
criminal  matters  which  are  outstanding  before 
the  courts.  I  want  to  say  there  is  nothing 
whatsoever  in  the  role  of  the  committee  in 
this  matter  that  will  in  any  way  prejudice 
anyone  in  any  trial  in  any  court  arising  out 
of  the  defalcations  which  have  damaged  so 
many  people. 

I  want  to  impress  on  the  House  we  must 
have  confidence  in  the  committees  and  we 
must  have  confidence  in  this  committee.  If 
this  matter  is  proceeded  with  and  the  warrant 
is  issued,  as  I  hope  and  trust  it  will  be,  and  if 
that  committee  is  aware  in  any  way  during 
the  course  of  its  investigation  that  it  will 
interfere  with  those  rights  of  individual 
citizens  before  the  courts,  the  confidence  of 
this  House  in  that  committee  is  such  that  the 
committee  will  respect  the  integrity  of  the 
administration  of  justice.  To  say  at  this  point 
that  the  committee  will  run  roughshod  over 
the  rights  of  people  shows,  in  my  judgement, 


4470 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


a  total  lack  of  understanding  by  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  functioning  of  committees  of 
the  House  and  a  lack  of  respect  for  the 
integrity  of  those  committees. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Why  did  you  not 
want  the  law  officers  of  the  crown  to  have 
an  opportunity  to  discuss  it? 

Mr.  Renwick:  Perhaps  a  little  later  I  will 
come  back  to  the  point  my  House  leader 
made  this  afternoon  and  to  the  point  I  made 
about  the  process  that  will  take  place  in  the 
committee  that  will  give  the  Attorney  General 
the  opportunity  to  make  whatever  statement 
he  wants  to  make. 

I  simply  want  to  make  the  point  that  the 
committee  is  not  only  entitled  to  respect,  but 
this  House  would  be  most  unwise  not  to 
respect  the  work  of  that  committee.  The  com- 
mittee is  made  up  of  members  of  this 
assembly  who  are  alert  to  the  kinds  of  con- 
cerns we  all  share  about  the  integrity  of  the 
administration  of  justice. 

My  colleague  the  member  for  Brantford 
said  so  in  expressing  it.  My  colleague  the 
member  for  Hamilton  Centre  at  the  end  of 
the  desultory  talk  yesterday  indicated  quite 
clearly  what  the  position  would  be.  That  is 
not  a  particular  bar. 

I  want  to  draw  clearly  to  the  attention  of 
the  House  the  two  matters  which  relate  to 
something  called  this  vexed  rule  of  sub  judice 
which  is  before  us,  one  relating  to  civil 
matters  and  one  relating  to  criminal  matters. 
Let  me  say  right  at  the  beginning  that  during 
the  course  of  the  proceedings  of  that  com- 
mittee yesterday  morning,  when  the  four  mo- 
tions were  put,  three  by  the  member  for  St. 
Catharines  and  one  by  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre,  we  were  talking  about  the 
civil  litigation  that  was  the  subject  of  ques- 
tions on  the  preceding  day  to  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  by  mem- 
bers of  this  assembly.  That  is  what  we  were 
directed  to. 

I  want  the  Attorney  General  to  under- 
stand that,  yes,  on  Wednesday  morning  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions indicated  and  recalled'  to  the  House 
for  those  who  had  not  recalled  it  that  there 
were  outstanding  charges.  It  was  in  the 
minds  of  the  members  of  the  committee  that 
there  were  outstanding  charges  when  they 
went  to  pursue  this  course.  That  is  not 
because  we  were  saying  we  do  not  under- 
stand or  do  not  appreciate  that  what  we 
are  doing  is  not  to  prejudice  the  people  who 
are  standing  trial  in  the  province  in  these 
matters.  That  was  not  it,  but  they  were 
aware  of  it  and  the  purpose,  as  I  said,  was 


to  investigate  the  role  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  in  re- 
spect of  the  three  matters  outlined  by  the 
member  for  St.  Catharines. 

8:50  p.m. 

I  want  to  draw  to  your  attention,  not  so 
much  because  it  is  a  matter  of  your  ruling 
at  this  point,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  it  is  a 
motion  before  the  House  for  the  adoption  of 
a  report,  but  as  it  is  in  essence  a  question  of 
the  sub  judice  rule,  and  I  want  to  put  clearly 
on  the  record  what  the  rules  of  the  House 
say  about  that  matter: 

"In  debate,  a  member  shall  be  called  to 
order  by  the  Speaker  if  he  refers  to  any 
matter  that  is  the  subject  of  a  proceeding 
(i)  that  is  pending  in  a  court  or  before  a 
judge  for  judicial  determination,  or  (ii)  that 
is  before  any  quasi-judicial  body  constituted 
by  the  House  or  by  or  under  the  authority 
of  an  act  of  the  Legislature." 

(Both  those  headings  are  qualified  by  the 
following  clause:  "where  it  is  shown  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Speaker  that  further  refer- 
ence would  create  a  real  and  substantial 
danger  of  prejudice  to  the  proceeding." 

I  listened  carefully  to  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, and  I  want  to  say  that  in  no  way  will 
this  create  a  real  and  substantial  danger  of 
prejudice  to  the  proceeding.  If  there  are 
those  who  want  to  prejudge  the  matter  at 
this  time  and  say,  "Oh  yes,  it  will,"  then  I 
say  let  us  await  the  event. 

Let  us  have  the  courtesy  to  give  the  com- 
mittee of  this  assembly  what  it  is  entitled1  to: 
the  respect  to  understand  that  in  anything 
they  do,  whether  it  is  related  to  the  war- 
rant which  is  one  of  the  matters  in  the  report 
to  be  adopted  or  whether  it  is  simply  in  the 
course  of  other  proceedings  before  that  com- 
mittee, they  will  be  fully  aware  of  their 
responsibility  with  respect  to  that  kind  of 
prejudice.  To  say  at  this  point  that  it  would 
is  at  least  to  prejudge.  In  my  judgement,  so 
far  there  has  been  no  indication  by  the 
Attorney  General  that  there  is  any  real  sub- 
stance to  the  allegation  he  has  made  that 
we  have  no  concern  for  the  administration 
of  justice  and  he  is  the  only  one  who  can  be 
entrusted  with  this  operation. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a 
point  of  personal  privilege:  I  did  not  impute 
that  motive  to  the  committee.  I  invited  the 
members  of  the  committee  to  avail  themselves 
of  the  opportunity  of  further  deliberations 
with  law  officers  of  the  crown  to  attempt  to 
sort  this  matter  out.  I  did  not  say,  "You  are 
not  entitled  to  any  documents  whatsoever," 
nor  did  I  impute  that  the  members  of  the 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4471 


committee  were  all  dedicated  to  running 
roughshod  over  the  rights  of  individual  citi- 
zens. I  indicated  that  their  responsibility  to 
the  administration  of  justice  would  demand 
that  at  least  they  make  that  attempt.  That  is 
quite  different  from  the  remarks  attributed 
to  me  by  the  member  for  Riverdale. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not  mean 
to  provoke  the  Attorney  General  in  the 
matter.  I  want  to  deal  further  with  the  present 
wording  of  the  sub  judice  rule  we  have  in 
our  rules. 

(Interjection. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  heard  an  interjection 
there  that  was  clearly  unparliamentary  and  I 
ask  the  member  for  Sudbury  East  to  with- 
draw it. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  just  a  name 
I  called  him,  but  I  will  withdraw  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What  did  he  call  him? 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  not  a  part  of  the  record. 
The  member  for  Riverdale  will  please  con- 
tinue. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  rule  we 
now  have  in  our  standing  orders  book  on  the 
doctrine  related  to  matters  of  sub  judice  has 
evolved  over  a  long  period  of  time.  I  believe, 
along  with  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Rainy  River  (Mr.  T.  P.  Reid),  that  the  state- 
ment made  by  the  Speaker's  predecessor,  Mr. 
Rowe,  on  July  8,  1977,  is  a  very  adequate 
statement  of  the  present  position  under  which 
we  act  with  respect  to  the  rule  we  have 
before  us.  I  want  to  quote  only  portions  of  it, 
but  I  want  to  emphasize  those  particular 
portions. 

I  quote  from  the  ruling  of  Mr.  Speaker 
Rowe  at  that  time,  "May  I  first  say  as 
strongly  as  I  can  that  I  know  of  no  authority 
by  which  any  court  can  prevent  free  discus- 
sion in  this  chamber."  Within  that  context, 
Speaker  Rowe  then  went  on  and  quoted  from 
the  study  made  by  the  House  of  Commons  of 
Canada  about  this  convention  of  the  sub 
judice  rule,  and  he  concluded  his  remarks  by 
saying,  "I  can  see  no  reason  why  similar 
principles  ought  not  to  guide  the  members 
of  this  House." 

At  this  point,  I  am  not  going  to  deal  with 
one  portion  of  that  House  of  Commons  report 
with  respect  to  the  matter  of  questions  to  the 
minister  and  a  minister's  claim,  in  response, 
not  to  answer  the  question  because  of  sub 
judice  matters.  That  is  dealt  with  in  one  of 
the  conclusions  of  the  House  of  Commons 
report.  I  do  want  to  read  the  one  that  I  be- 
lieve is  pertinent  to  the  work  of  the  com- 


mittee, because  I  think  it  will  assist  us  in 
solving  the  dilemma  we  are  in  tonight: 

"Your  committee  has  given  consideration 
to  the  role  of  the  Speaker  in  the  application 
of  the  convention.  It  is  submitted  that  while 
there  can  be  no  substitute  for  the  discretion 
of  the  chair,  in  the  last  resort  all  members  of 
the  House  should  share  in  the  responsibility 
of  exercising  restraint  when  it  seems  called 
for.  A  member  who  feels  that  there  could  be 
a  risk  of  causing  prejudice  in  referring  to  a 
particular  case  or  inquiry  should  refrain  from 
raising  the  matter.  Additionally,  a  member 
who  calls  for  the  suppression  of  discussion 
of  a  matter  on  grounds  of  sub  judice  should 
be  obliged  to  demonstrate  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  chair  that  he  has  reasonable  grounds 
for  fearing  that  prejudice  might  result.  Should 
a  question  to  a  minister  touch  upon  a  matter 
sub  judice  .  .  ."  and  so  on  and  he  deals  with 
the  question  matter  which  I  do  not  want  to 
touch  upon. 

Then  it  goes  on: 

"Your  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that 
precise  regulations  concerning  the  application 
of  the  sub  judice  convention  cannot  be 
evolved  and  it  would  be  unwise  to  attempt  to 
do  so.  Your  committee  recommends  that  the 
Speaker  should  remain  the  final  arbiter  in  the 
matter,  that  he  should  retain  the  authority  to 
prevent  discussion  of  matters  in  the  House  on 
the  grounds  of  sub  judice  but  that  he  should 
only  exercise  this  discretion  in  exceptional 
cases  where  it  is  clear  to  him  that  to  do 
otherwise  could  be  harmful  to  the  specific 
individuals.  In  exercising  this  discretion  your 
committee  recommends  that  when  there  is  a 
doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  chair  a  presumption 
should  exist  in  favour  of  allowing  debate  and 
against  the  application  of  the  convention.  In 
the  view  of  your  committee  prejudice  is  most 
likely  to  occur  in  respect  of  criminal  cases 
and  civil  cases  of  defamation  where  juries  are 
involved." 

That  is  the  present  statement,  and  to  relate 
it  to  what  we  are  about  in  this  assembly,  all 
the  House  is  being  asked  to  do  is  to  adopt  a 
report  of  the  committee,  one  element  of 
which  would  be  that  a  Speaker's  warrant  be 
issued  for  the  production  of  certain  docu- 
ments. The  production  of  the  documents  to 
which  the  committee  was  referring  was  the 
production  of  the  documents  within  the  min- 
istry. It  was  drawn  in  such  a  way  as  to  in- 
dicate quite  clearly  that  it  is  not  a  request 
for  the  40  or  50  packing  cases  or  crates  of 
documents  that  have  been  seized  by  the 
Attorney  General  from  these  various  com- 
panies or  from  any  of  the  people  who  are 
being  charged.  It  is  a  request  for  the  produc- 


4472 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tion  of  the  documents  related  to  the  investiga- 
tion which  the  committee  is  charged  to  carry 
out  about  the  role  of  the  ministry. 

Materials  we  would  be  calling  for  to  be 
presented  to  the  committee  would  be  all  the 
materials  relating  to  Carlo  Montemurro  and 
his  related  companies,  particularly  C  and  M 
Financial  Consultants  Limited,  Re-Mor  In- 
vestment Management  Corporation  and  Astra 
Trust  Company.  Such  material  shall  in- 
clude all  correspondence,  interdepartmental 
memoranda,  applications,  forms,  notes,  files, 
and  so  on,  in  the  possession  of  any  branch, 
board,  registry  or  division  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations. 
9  p.m. 

Again  it  is  carefully  constructed  so  that  it  is 
the  responsibility  of  the  committee  to  deal 
with  what  is  in  the  possession  of  the  ministry, 
having  to  do  with  the  very  serious  concerns 
that  exist  in  this  House  about  the  role  of  the 
ministry  in  the  matters  referred  to  by  the 
member  for  St.  Catharines  (Mr.  Bradley). 

The  other  aspect,  with  respect  to  the  wit- 
nesses to  be  called,  detailed  the  persons  who 
were  to  be  called.  The  persons  to  be  called 
were  the  minister,  the  deputy  minister,  the 
executive  director  of  the  business  practices 
division,  the  deputy  director  of  the  enforce- 
ment branch  of  the  Ontario  Securities  Com- 
mission, the  chief  investigator  of  the  in- 
vestigation section,  and  Mr.  M.  A.  Thompson, 
executive  director  of  the  financial  institutions 
division  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations. 

As  you  will  see,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  matter 
was  carefully  constructed  and  carefully  con- 
stricted by  the  member  for  St.  Catharines  and 
the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre  (Mr.  M.  N. 
Davison)  to  specify  very  clearly  the  precise 
limitations  of  the  investigation  they  were 
going  to  carry  out.  That  had  nothing  to  do 
with  civil  suits  by  individual  citizens  against 
the  ministry  or  any  of  the  officials  of  the  min- 
istry under  the  Proceedings  Against  the 
Crown  Act.  It  had  nothing  whatsoever  to  do 
with  the  questions  relating  to  evidentiary 
matters  to  be  brought  in  at  a  preliminary 
hearing  on  the  basis  of  conspiracy  to  defraud, 
fraud,  conspiracy  to  steal  and  theft  or  what- 
ever other  charges  are  before  the  preliminary 
inquiry  which,  I  understand  from  the  Attor- 
ney General,  is  to  start  this  coming  week. 

I  cannot  conceive  that  there  is  any  judge 
anywhere  who  would  so  misunderstand  his 
responsibilities  as  to  grant  an  adjournment  on 
the  basis  of  any  of  the  matters  we  have  been 
trying  to  deal  with,  subject  to  the  problems 


we  have  run  into  this  afternoon  in  the  stand- 
ing committee  on  administration  of  justice. 

Let  me  also  state  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  limited  role  of  the  standing  committee 
on  administration  of  justice  in  this  matter  as 
required  by  this  House  which  will  affect  the 
ongoing  police  investigation  in  any  way.  The 
police  can  go  about  their  business  and  we 
will  go  about  ours.  This  idea  that  somehow 
or  other  there  is  a  tandem  and  an  "after  you 
Alphonse"  operation  is  totally  wrong.  We 
have  our  responsibilities  and  the  police  have 
theirs.  Those  two  matters  are  not  in  collision. 
They  can  go  along  in  tandem  or  in  parallel 
or  any  other  way.  The  committee  is  always 
open  to  be  spoken  to  at  any  time  by  any 
member  of  the  Attorney  General's  staff  to 
make  a  case  that  a  particular  matter  being 
considered  is  a  matter  directly  related  to 
those  trials  or  those  matters  and  to  make  the 
argument  about  prejudice. 

To  make  a  blanket  argument,  however,  that 
the  ongoing  police  investigation  or  the  pre- 
liminary hearing  is  in  some  way  going  to  be 
-and  I  think  I  quote  the  Attorney  General 
correctly— something  like  "impaired  if  not 
ground  to  a  halt"  is  a  ridiculous  argument  to 
put  to  the  assembly  about  the  work  of  one 
of  its  own  committees. 

I  have  gone  on  at  some  length  because, 
more  than  anything  else,  I  was  anxious  to 
explain,  to  the  members  of  the  assembly  who 
were  not  sitting  on  the  committee,  the  course 
of  events,  the  limited  nature  of  the  responsi- 
bility that  committee  has  under  the  rules  of 
the  House  and  the  responsibility  for  its  con- 
tinuing inquiry.  The  particular  motion  that  is 
causing  the  concern  is  limited  to  the  docu- 
ments and  the  information  that  are  in  the 
hands  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations.  It  is  their  documents,  it  is 
their  witnesses  we  are  calling,  and  it  is  for 
the  purpose  of  investigating  their  role.  It 
has  nothing  whatsoever  to  do  with  the  civil 
actions  that  have  been  brought  against  the 
minister  or  other  members.  It  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  criminal  matters  that  are  now 
before  the  court  and  certainly  there  is  nothing 
that  would  indicate  in  any  way  that  an  on- 
going police  investigation  is  an  automatic 
signal  for  this  House  to  cease  and1  desist 
from  carrying  out  its  basic  responsibilities. 

I  made  the  point  because  I  was  intrigued 
by  the  argument  that  a  sub  judice  rule, 
which  had  its  origins  long  before  the  crown 
was  subject  to  suit  at  all,  is  now  called  in 
aid  of  the  crown  against  a  committee  of  the 
assembly  for  a  ministry  that  is  responsible  to 
the  assembly.  Talk  about  the  inherent  con- 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4473 


tradiction  in  other  matters,  but  that  inherent 
contradiction  is  one  that  simply  defies  me. 
There  is  no  way  this  assembly  can  be 
diverted  from  its  responsibility  to  carry  out 
an  examination  of  the  role  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  in  the 
matters  which  were  put  before  the  assembly 
by  my  colleagues  the  member  for  St.  Catha- 
rines and  the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre. 

Because  the  Attorney  General  again  raised 
the  matter  when  he  made  an  interjection  a 
while  ago,  let  me  end  where  I  started  on 
this  matter.  It  was  the  specific  request  made 
by  the  House  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  to  the  government  House  leader,  to 
have  this  matter  brought  before  the  assembly 
and  debated,  that  would  have  given  the  At- 
torney General  the  opportunity  this  after- 
noon to  have  put  his  position.  I  regret  that 
did'  not  take  place.  That  is  not  our  responsi- 
bility. 

I  expressed  my  concern  at  the  beginning 
of  my  remarks  about  the  immaturity  of  what 
took  place  in  disrupting  the  private  members' 
public  business  and  disrupting  the  debate 
that  was  an  order  of  business  of  the  House. 
I  will  never  understand  that  lack  of  under- 
standing by  the  government  House  leader  in 
this  matter. 

Nothing  I  have  heard  from  the  Attorney 
General  says  that  there  is  any  prejudice  to 
anybody  under  any  rule  of  this  House  by  an 
adoption  of  this  report  that  would  see  the 
orderly  process  of  an  examination  by  the 
standing  committee  on  administration  of 
justice  of  the  role  of  that  ministry.  It  would 
not  be  anybody  else's  role.  It  would  not  be 
a  fishing  expedition.  It  would  be  a  carefully 
limited  investigation  of  the  role  of  that  min- 
istry. It  is  there  on  the  record.  If  we  were 
to  permit  the  interpretation  put  by  the  At- 
torney General  to  prevent  the  adoption  of 
this  report  then  on  matters  of  urgency  in  the 
public  interest,  this  House  will  not  be  able 
to  fulfil  its  function. 

I  urge  my  colleagues  in  the  whole  House 
to  have  confidence  in  the  standing  committee 
on  administration  of  justice.  I  urge  them  to 
understand  that  the  committee  is  well  aware 
of  its  obligations  under  the  rule  with  respect 
to  sub  judice  and  that  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  is  charged  with  the  responsibility 
in  a  committee  of  enforcing  the  rules  of  the 
House  with  respect  to  sub  judice.  The  com- 
mittee will  always  be  open  to  representa- 
tions on  any  issue  about  this  ongoing  exam- 
ination from  the  Attorney  General,  or  from 
anyone  whom  he  deputes  to  come  before  the 
committee  making  any  of  the  allegations  in 
specifics   that   he   has   made   in   such   broad 


general  terms  tonight.  I  simply  say,  on  that 
basis,  let  us  agree  to  adopt  the  report  of 
the  chairman  of  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice,  which  will  let  that 
committee  get  about  its  business.  Let  us  have 
confidence  in  that  committee  to  abide  by  the 
rules  of  the  House  on  the  matters  of  sub 
judice. 

I  am  certain  that  will  be  the  outcome  and 
they    will    be    able    to    get    on    with    their 
business,  and  the  matters  can  be  resolved  in 
a  way  that  is  quite  amicable. 
9:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  very  briefly, 
a  few  remarks:  I  want  to  place  on  the  record 
very  firmly  and  very  concretely  that  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, from  day  one  in  this  matter- 
Mr.  Sargent:  Speak  into  the  mike.  I  can't 
hear  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  The  microphone  is  on. 

Mr.  Sargent:  I  couldn't  hear  you. 

Hon.    Mr.    Drea:    The    member   must   be 
having  a  problem.  I'm  sorry.  From  day  one 
in  this  present  matter- 
Mr.  Sargent:  Now  we  can  hear  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Is  something  the  matter 
now? 

Mr.  Sargent:  Go  ahead. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Thank  you. 

I  believe  it  was  a  ministerial  statement 
concerning  certain  criminal  charges  that  were 
laid  that  began  day  one  in  this  matter.  I  want 
it  clearly  placed  on  the  record  that  I 
personally,  as  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations,  was  prepared  at  all 
times  to  provide  any  information  asked  of 
me,  either  in  this  House  or  in  committee.  In 
the  spring  half  of  my  estimates,  I  discussed  a 
great  many  matters,  even  though  a  number 
of  people  who  now  have  become  suddenly 
interested  in  the  matter  were  not  there  and 
sometimes  choose  not  to  recall  that  when  the 
questions  were  asked  of  me  in  the  House.  I 
want  to  set  this  very  clearly  on  the  record 
because  of  the  events  of  yesterday;  because 
Mr.  Morton  did  not  have  the  opportunity  to 
go  before  the  committee,  I  want  to  set  a 
sequence  of  events  entirely— 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Whose  fault  was  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  It  was  not  my  fault.  The 
committee  said  they  could  not  hear  him. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  There  was  no  quorum  in  the  com- 
mittee at  the  time  the  matter  was  before  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  there, 
and  I  was  perfectly  aware  of  how  many 
people  were  there. 


4474 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Makarchuk:  Well,  was  there  a  quorum? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  No.  There  was  not  a 
quorum.  You  read  the  record.  I  said  because 
the  committee  could  not  hear  him.  It  has 
been  told  over  and  over  again  tonight  why 
the  committee  could  not  hear  him.  If  the 
member  wants  me  to  parrot  all  his  mouthings, 
I  will  be  glad  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  You  might  be  able  to  say 
something  intelligent  if  you  parrotted  my 
mouthings. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  would  become— never 
mind  what  I  would  become. 

Mr.  Speaker,  when  the  question  by  the 
member  for  Kitchener  was  asked  Thursday 
last,  it  pertained  solely  to  the  file  of  the 
Re-Mor  company  and  to  files  of  the  registrar. 
It  was  limited  in  scope.  At  that  time  I  said 
I  would  bring  back  a  report.  I  received  the 
advice  of  the  law  officers  of  the  crown  to  read 
a  statement,  which  I  did.  That  has  been  dis- 
cussed fully. 

At  that  time  there  was  some  confusion  in 
the  House.  I  have  been  assured  by  honour- 
able members  who  raised  interjection  queries 
that  they  were  not  questioning  my  integrity 
or  my  honesty  in  stating  there  were  writs  out. 
Those  matters  have  been  put  forward  very 
clearly  by  the  Attorney  General  tonight.  But 
obviously  there  was  some  confusion  as  to  the 
exact  status  of  particular  aspects  of  civil 
litigation,  particularly  if  writs,  rather  than 
notices,  had  been  served. 

I  trust  the  Attorney  General's  statement 
earlier  tonight,  where  he  outlined  a  sequence 
of  notices  and  writs,  has  answered  and  clari- 
fied that  question.  Even  though  that  matter 
dealt  with  Re-Mor,  I  assure  the  House  that 
as  late  as  12:30  p.m.  yesterday,  Wednesday,  I 
was  not  aware  of  the  full  scope  of  the  criminal 
investigation  which  is  under  the  direction  and 
supervision  of  Mr.  Morton.  When  Mr.  Morton 
arrived  at  the  committee  there  was  another 
bill  in  process.  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Morton  outside. 
Mr.  Morton  informed  me  the  entire  Astra  and 
Re-Mor  matter  was  under  active  criminal  in- 
vestigation. I  knew  the  C  and  M  Financial 
Consultants  matter  was  under  investigation, 
as  did  every  member  of  the  House,  because 
I  announced  it  back  in  the  early  part  of  the 
spring  session  In  that  statement  back  in  the 
spring  session  I  said  there  would  be  ongoing 
investigations  into  Re-Mor. 

I  want  to  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  the 
practice  in  this  province  is  that,  in  a  criminal 
investigation,  those  in  charge  of  the  criminal 
investigation  at  the  public  prosecutor's  level, 
at  the  actual  field  level  of  the  police  or, 
indeed,  at  the  level  of  investigatory  people  of 


the  Ontario  Securities  Commission,  they  do 
not  report  to  the  minister  as  to  their  day-to- 
day progress,  lack  of  progress  or  develop- 
ment in  a  matter,  notwithstanding  it  may  be 
information  that  originated  from  a  ministry  or 
a  minister  and  notwithstanding  that  the  in- 
vestigatory staff  of  a  commission  that  reports 
through  this  minister  to  the  Legislature  may 
be  involved.  That  is  a  very  important  tradi- 
tion and  practice  to  uphold. 

If  there  is  a  culmination  either  in  the 
filing  of  information  for  criminal  charges  or 
in  the  determination  by  those  in  charge  of 
the  criminal  investigation  that  there  is  not 
sufficient  evidence  for  a  charge  to  be  laid,  it 
is  only  after  one  of  those  two  events  takes 
place  that  the  minister  is  informed. 

The  reason  I  have  dwelt  at  some  length  on 
when  I  first  found  out  that  all  of  Astra  Trust 
and  all  of  Re-Mor  were  criminal  is  that  ob- 
viously the  question  is  going  to  be  raised, 
"If  you  knew  on  Monday  it  was  criminal,  why 
did  you  merely  convey  the  instructions  of  the 
law  officers  of  the  crown  regarding  this  civil 
matter?"  Those  instructions  were  conveyed 
because  the  law  officer  of  the  crown  who 
issued  that  advice  was  not  privy  to  the 
matters  in  the  criminal  investigation. 

It  was  my  feeling  that  Astra  Trust  was 
entirely  in  federal  jurisdiction  and  was  being 
investigated  by  both  the  federal  Department 
of  Insurance  and,  to  the  best  of  my  knowl- 
edge, the  Royal  Canadian  Mounted  Police  in 
assistance  to  that  federal  department.  While 
we  were  supplying  and  for  many  years  had 
supplied  information  or  corroboration,  that 
was  primarily  in  the  federal  sphere  so  that, 
indeed,  the  file  on  Astra  in  possession  of  the 
ministry— 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  Mr. 
Minister,  I  wonder  if  you  will  wait  a  moment 
to  see  if  we  can  get  a  little  order  in  the 
House.  There  are  a  fair  number  of  private 
conversations  going  on  and  it  is  difficult  for 
me  to  hear  what  the  minister  is  saying.  I  am 
sure  it  is  difficult  for  the  rest  of  you.  I  would 
ask,  if  you  must  carry  on  your  conversations, 
to  keep  them  very  quiet. 

9:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  point- 
ing out  that  I  was  unaware  Astra  and  its 
documents  were  no  longer  in  the  federal 
sphere  and  had  become  a  matter  of  criminal 
investigation  in  the  province.  Until  12:30  p.m. 
yesterday  I  regarded  them  as  civil  or  reg- 
ulatory proceedings  under  federal  jurisdic- 
tion. I  hope  that  clarifies  the  sequence  of 
events  for  the  honourable  members,  since 
Mr.    Morton   informed   me   of   these   details. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4475 


Had  Mr.  Morton  spoken— and  he  cannot 
speak  here  tonight— he  was  going  to  explain. 

I  want  to  put  it  firmly  on  record  that  I 
am  prepared  to  deliver  those  files,  circulate 
them  and  hand  them  to  the  press.  I  am  not 
suppressing  or  hiding  anything.  As  a  matter 
of  record,  there  has  been  considerable  tur- 
moil between  me  in  my  position,  which  is 
one  of  constant  openness,  and  the  advice  I 
have  had  to  accept  as  a  minister  of  the 
crown.  I  want  to  put  those  things  clearly  on 
the  record. 

I  am  perfectly  prepared  to  abide  by  the 
rulings  of  this  House,  as  naturally  I  would 
be,  but  I  hope  this  assembly  will  understand 
my  position.  I  must  accept  the  advice  and 
instructions  given  to  me  by  the  law  officers 
of  the  crown.  If  this  assembly  wants  to  over- 
ride that  advice  and  those  instructions,  as  a 
minister  I  shall  certainly  comply. 

10:20  p.m. 

The  House  divided  on  Mr.  Philip's  motion 
for  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  stand- 
ing committee  on  administration  of  justice, 
which  was  agreed  to  on  the  following  vote: 

Ayes 

Blundy,  Bolan,  Bounsall,  Bradley,  Breaugh, 
Breithaupt,  Bryden,  Campbell,  Cassidy, 
Charlton,  Davidson,  M.,  Davison,  M.  N., 
Di  Santo,  Dukszta,  Eakins,  Epp,  Foulds, 
Gaunt,  Grande,  Haggerty,  Hall,  Isaacs, 
Johnston,  R.  F.,  Kerrio,  Laughren,  Lupusella. 

MacDonald,  Mackenzie,  Makarchuk,  Man- 
cini,  Martel,  McClellan,  McGuigan,  McKes- 
sock,  Miller,  G.  I.,  Newman,  B.,  Nixon, 
Peterson,  Philip,  Reed,  J.,  Reid,  T.  P.,  Ren- 
wick,  Riddell,  Ruston,  Sargent,  Smith,  S. 
Stong,  Swart,  Sweeney,  Van  Home,  Warner, 
Wildman,  Worton,  Ziemba. 

Nays 

Auld,  Ashe,  Baetz,  Belanger,  Bennett, 
Birch,  Brunelle,  Cureatz,  Davis,  Drea,  Eaton, 
Elgie,  Gregory,  Grossman,  Havrot,  Hender- 
son, Hodgson,  Johnson,  J.,  Jones,  Kennedy, 
Kerr. 

Lane,  Leluk,  Maeck,  McCaffrey,  McCague, 
McMurtry,  Newman,  W.,  Norton,  Parrott, 
Pope,  Ramsay,  Rotenberg,  Rowe,  Stephenson, 
Timbrell,  Turner,  Villeneuve,  Watson,  Wells, 
Williams. 

Pair:  MacBeth  and  Edighoffer. 
— lAtyes  54;.nays-41r— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  there  any  more  reports? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Eleven  thousand  votes 
for  us. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That's  not  the  land  of  report 
I'm  referring  to. 


J> 


MOTION 

SUPPLEMENTARY  ESTIMATES 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  supple- 
mentary estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  be  referred  to  the  standing 
committee  on  resources  development,  to  be 
considered  within  the  time  allocation  for  the 
main  estimates  of  Agriculture  and  Food. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Sargent:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Over  the  years  the  Premier  has 
come  in  the  back  door,  but  tonight  he  came 
down  the  main  aisle.  That's  great  showman- 
ship. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  really 
wanted  to  find  out  what  it  was  like  to  come 
in  or  go  out  the  same  route  as  the  member 
for  Grey-Bruce. 

ANSWERS   TO   QUESTIONS   ON 
THE  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the  answers  to  questions  277,  300,  334, 
344  and  381  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper. 
(See  appendix,  page  4479.) 

BUSINESS  OF  THE  HOUSE 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  pursuant  to 
the  standing  order,  I  would  like  to  indicate 
to  the  House  the  business  for  next  week  and 
the  rest  of  this  week. 

Tomorrow  we  will  consider  the  estimates 
of  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs. 

On  Mondav,  November  24,  in  the  after- 
noon we  will  begin  the  estimates  of  the 
Ministry  of  Government  Services,  and  the 
House  will  sit  Monday  evening  and  continue 
considering  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of 
Government  Services. 

On  Tuesday,  November  25,  in  the  after- 
noon, we  will  handle  any  third  readings  that 
are  on  the  Notice  Paper  and  then  continue 
with  committee  of  the  whole  House  on  Bill 
82,  the  special  education  bill.  In  the  even- 
ing, we  will  have  complete  consideration  of 
Bill  169,  followed  by  Bill  168  and  second 
reading  and  committee  of  the  whole  House 
on  Bill  182  and  Bill  192. 

On  Wednesday,  November  26,  four  com- 
mittees may  meet  in  the  morning:  general 
government,  resources  development,  admin- 
istration of  justice  and  plant  shutdowns. 
Three  committees  may  meet  in  the  after- 
noon: social  development,  general  govern- 
ment and  plant  shutdowns. 

On  Thursday,  November  27,  we  will  con- 
sider the  private  members'  items  that  were 
not    dealt    with    today,    items    35    and    36 


4476 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


standing  in  the  names  of  the  member  for 
York  Centre  (Mr.  Stong)  and  the  member 
for  Parkdale  (Mr.  Dukszta).  In  the  evening, 
the  House  will  debate  the  report  from  the 
select  committee  on  Ontario  Hydro  affairs 
on  fuel  waste. 

On  Friday,  November  28,  the  estimates 
of  the  Ministry  of  Government  Services  will 
be  continued. 

The  debate  on  the  report  of  the  select 
committee  on  constitutional  reform,  which 
was  not  held  tonight,  will  have  to  be  re- 
scheduled in  one  of  the  remaining  weeks  be- 
fore the  House  prorogues. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Under  standing  order  28,  a 
motion  to  adjourn  is  deemed  to  have  been 
made.  I  will  listen  to  the  member  for  Port 
Arthur  for  five  minutes. 

PCB  SPILL  AT  SCHOOL 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  make 
some  straightforward,  if  simple,  points  in 
this  debate  with  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment (Mr.  Parrott): 

1.  Poly  chlorinated  biphenyls  are  environ- 
mentally hazardous  when  they  are  in  the  air, 
when  they  are  in  the  food  chain  and,  in 
liquid  form,  when  they  come  in  contact  with 
the  skin.  As  the  report  from  the  occupational 
health  and  safety  division  of  March  1978 
stated,  toxic  effects  of  human  exposure  to 
high  doses  of  PCBs  have  been  known  for 
years.  They  include  an  acne-like  skin  erup- 
tion, abnormal  pigmentation  of  the  skin  and 
nails  and  swelling  of  the  eyelids.  Digestive 
disturbances  and  burning  of  the  eyes  have 
also  been  reported.  Low-dose  effects  of  PCBs 
in  animals  have  been  studied  recently;  liver 
damage,  malignancy  and  reduced  ability  to 
reproduce  have  been  recorded. 

2.  The  PCB  spill  at  the  Isabella  Street 
School  in  Thunder  Bay  seems  not  to  have 
caused  serious  environmental  effects.  It  seems 
not  to  have  been  a  dangerous  one,  and  I  think 
that  should  be  stated  at  the  outset. 

3.  The  spill  did  cause  considerable  anxiety 
amongst  people  in  Thunder  Bay,  particularly 
amongst  the  parents  of  children  at  the  school 
there. 

The  sequence  of  events,  as  I  know  them, 
is  that  the  transformer  ruptured  at  approxi- 
mately 3:40  p.m.  on  October  8,  1980.  Because 
the  school  lost  its  electricity  supply,  the 
school  officials  notified  Thunder  Bay  Hydro. 
It  came  and  repaired  the  transformer  that 
evening.  Power  was  restored,  I  believe,  at 
approximately  9:30  p.m.,  but  neither  the 
school  officials  nor  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  were  informed  that  the  trans- 


former was  a  PCB  transformer  at  that  time. 
At  about  8  a.m.  the  following  morning, 
Thunder  Bay  Hydro  notified  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  that  PCBs  were  involved. 
The  Ministry  of  the  Environment,  and  pos- 
sibly the  medical  officer  of  health,  at  3:10 
p.m.  on  October  9,  notified  school  officials 
that  PCBs  were  involved  in  the  transformer 
spill.  That  was  some  24  hours  after  the  event. 
The  most  outstanding  and  simple  question 
the  minister  needs  to  answer  is,  if  he  is  not 
happy  that  his  ministry  was  not  informed, 
what  is  he  doing  about  making  damned  good 
and  sure  that  whenever  a  PCB  transformer 
ruptures  near  a  private  or  public  institution 
he  is  notified  and  can  take  steps  to  rectify 
the  situation? 

10:30  p.m. 

Thunder  Bay  Hydro  says  it  made  a  judge- 
ment call  that  in  retrospect  was  possibly  not 
the  right  one.  What  is  the  ministry  doing  to 
ensure  that  all  institutions  in  the  province  do 
not,  in  the  future,  make  such  a  judgement 
call  when  public  health  could  be  at  stake? 

I  have  forwarded  to  the  minister  10  ques- 
tions that  I  believe  are  outstanding.  If  the 
minister  fails  to  answer  these  questions  satis- 
factorily this  evening,  I  shall  file  those  ques- 
tions in  written  form  tomorrow.  I  want  to 
mention  a  couple  of  them  of  which  he  has 
had  notice  for  a  week  now: 

1.  What  steps  is  the  ministry  taking  to  en- 
sure that  delays  in  reporting  to  it  from  owners 
of  PCB  transformers  don't  occur  in  the 
future? 

2.  Why  did  Ministry  of  the  Environmental 
officials  not  notify  school  officials  as  soon  as 
they  knew  of  this  PCB  spill  at  least  to  alert 
them  to  the  potential  danger? 

3.  How  could  the  ministry  be  sure  that  the 
PCB  material  was  not  a  hazard  to  the  school 
children  when  the  officials  are  quoted  as  say- 
ing, "Readings  were  erratic,"  and  when  the 
minister  himself  in  his  reply  to  me,  as  re- 
ported on  page  4192  of  Hansard,  "We  wanted 
to  make  sure  that  there  was  no  danger,"  was 
unconditionally  so? 

Another  question  is,  what  does  the  dis- 
covery of  an  unexplained  and  unusually  high 
reading  of  PCBs  about  six  feet  below  ground 
level  indicate?  Does  it  indicate  there  was  a 
previous  transformer  rupture  that  was  not  re- 
ported and  a  spill?  Is  there  any  way  of  deter- 
mining that?  Is  there  an  estimate  of  the 
amount  of  PCB  liquid  spilled?  How  can  the 
minister  call  it  a  small  amount  when  250 
barrels  of  PCB-contaminated  earth  were 
accumulated  by  Thunder  Bay  Hydro  in  the 
cleanup? 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4477 


A  week  ago,  the  minister  stopped  me  out- 
side in  the  hall  and  said  he  did  not  under- 
stand why  I  was  dissatisfied  with  his  answer. 
My  dissatisfaction  stems  from  two  factors. 
The  minister  does  not  seem  to  understand  his 
responsibility  to  protect  people  and  the  en- 
vironment from  actual  and  potential  hazards. 
In  this  case,  if  there  was  no  harm  done  to  the 
children  of  Isabella  Street  School  and  to  the 
environment,  it  was  more  by  good  luck 
rather  than  by  good  management. 

The  procedure  for  reporting  PCB  trans- 
former spills  must  be  as  foolproof  as  is 
humanly  possible,  and  this  one  small  incident 
proves  that  was  not  so.  Why,  therefore,  does 
the  minister  not  take  and  insist  on  more  pre- 
ventive measures?  One  small  step  would  be 
to  have  all  PCB  transformers  publicly  identi- 
fied on  the  outside,  not  on  the  inside. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member's 
time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Foulds:  If  I  might,  Mr.  Speaker,  just 
one  more  sentence. 

Finally,  what  I  think  we  need  is  a  Minister 
of  the  Environment  who  takes  his  respon- 
sibilities seriously.  He  should  be  a  protector 
of  the  public  good  and  he  should  be  seen  as 
the  protector  of  the  public  good.  He  should 
not  be  an  apologist  for  cautious  inaction,  for 
procrastination  or  for  uncertainty.  He  should 
do  all  in  his  power  to  protect  the  people  of 
this  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  One  is  tempted  to 
respond  just  by  not  answering  the  questions, 
Mr.  Speaker.  There  were  some  other  state- 
ments made  which  I  will  not  respond  to, 
other  than  to  make  one  simple  statement. 
This  ministry,  myself  and  my  predecessors 
have  done  and  are  doing  far  more— this  juris- 
diction is  so  far  in  the  lead  of  other  jurisdic- 
tions in  this  country  and  in  the  United 
States— that  by  any  comparison  we  are  so  far 
ahead  the  honourable  member  does  not  even 
understand  how  big  that  gap  is.  He  is  so  far 
out  in  left  field  on  this  that  it  is  not  even 
funny.  Make  some  comparisons- 
Mr.  Laughren:  What  about  Darlington? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Yes,  what  about 
Darlington?  Darlington  D  was  cleaned  up  to 
the  satisfaction  of  everyone  there,  if  the 
honourable  member  wants  to  check  with  the 
mayor. 

It  took  me  five  months  and  no  more- 
Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  honourable  member 
should  check  with  the  people  in  that  area,  if 
he  is  not  scared  to. 

Interjections. 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  honourable  member 
should  check  with  the  mayor  and  he  will  hear 
quite  a  lot  of  testimony  about  what  we  did. 

I  would  like  to  get  as  much  information  on 
the  record  as  possible.  I  would  like  to  point 
out  that  the  delay  in  reporting  this  spill  in  this 
case  was  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule. 
We  usually  get  splendid  co-operation.  In  this 
case,  a  letter  of  reprimand  will  be  sent  to 
Thunder  Bay  Hydro,  and  we  will  ask  them 
for  a  copy  of  their  procedures  and  an  assur- 
ance that  all  staff  are  aware  of  them.  As  a 
precaution,  the  region  will  remind  all  other 
public  utilities  in  the  area  of  their  respon- 
sibilities. 

School  officials  knew  about  the  incident  on 
the  morning  of  October  9,  1980.  In  fact,  the 
custodian  of  the  school  was  present  when 
Hydro  officials  removed  the  back  of  the  trans- 
former to  reveal  the  label,  which  indicated  it 
contained  PCBs. 

The  member  was  concerned  why  we  would 
regard  the  material  spilled  as  not  being  a 
hazard.  I  want  to  assure  him  staff  made  this 
judgement  based  on  the  amount  spilled,  the 
location,  the  isolation  of  the  transformer  and 
the  fact  the  whole  spill  was  extremely  well 
contained  and  the  children  could  not  get  near 
it.  A  barricade  was  erected  on  the  evening  of 
October  8  following  the  spill.  It  covered  an 
area  of  approximately  50  by  100  feet,  and 
staff  discouraged  children  from  coming  within 
200  feet  of  the  site. 

In  regard  to  the  TAGA,  it  is  a  highly 
sensitive  device  which  costs  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  $400,000.  It  is  installed  in  a  large 
van  and,  as  such,  obviously  cannot  be  avail- 
able all  over  the  province.  Even  if  we  were 
able  to  have  one  in  each  regional  office, 
geographical  considerations  make  it  unlikely 
that  the  TAGA  could  be  made  available 
immediately  at  the  scene  of  any  incident. 

The  new-tech  system  that  was  utilized 
in  this  instance  is  a  satisfactory  means  of 
measuring  PCBs.  I  want  to  assure  the  mem- 
ber we  always  endeavour  to  use  the  best 
technology.  I  think  the  quality  of  our 
laboratory  operations  will  bear  this  out. 

With  respect  to  the  labelling  of  trans- 
formers, Ontario  Hydro  has  carried  out  a 
labelling  program  for  all  its  PCB-containing 
transformers.  I  am  pleased  to  have  a  copy, 
which  I  will  send  across  the  floor  to  the 
honourable  member.  The  federal  government 
is  also  undertaking  a  labelling  program  for 
these  transformers  not  covered  by  Ontario 
Hydro. 

There  was  evidence  in  this  case  that  a  label 
had  been  removed  by  a  person  or  persons 
unknown  from  the  outside  of  the  transformer. 


4478 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


In  addition,  the  school  board  had  a  list  of 
PCB  transformers  owned  by  it  at  its  schools 
but,  since  this  particular  transformer  was 
owned  by  Thunder  Bay  Hydro,  it  did  not 
appear  on  the  school  board's  list.  Regional 
offices  have  listed  the  PCB  transformers  in 
their  areas  and  the  locations  of  same. 

The  member  was  concerned  about  the  fact 
that  a  high  level  of  PCB  was  found  un- 
expectedly in  ground  below  the  transformer. 
We  have  no  way  of  determining  the  cause  of 
this  for  sure  but  it  was  probably  due  to  a 
previous  leak  in  the  transformer.  I  know  he 
also  questioned  why,  if  the  spill  was  fairly 
small,  we  would  remove  so  much  soil.  I 
would  like  to  point  out  to  him  that  was  a  pre- 
caution. We  just  kept  digging  until  our  read- 


ing showed  the  soil  was  clear  of  PCBs.  In 
other  words,  a  lot  of  soil  we  dug  up  was  only 
very  slightly  contaminated  and  possibly  a  fair 
amount  of  that  was  not  contaminated  at  all. 
We  just  wanted  to  be  very  sure  what  was  left 
behind  was  clear. 

I  know  the  member  was  interested  in  the 
recommendations  of  the  health  and  safety 
branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour.  This  dealt 
mainly  with  the  questions  of  spills  of  PCBs 
and  safety  in  the  workplace  with  respect  to 
PCBs.  I  understand  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
will  comment  directly  to  the  member  for  Port 
Arthur  on  that  particular  item. 

I  trust  this  information  is  sufficient  for  the 
member's  concerns. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:38  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4479 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4475) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTTCE  PAPER 

DRUG  INGREDIENTS 

277.  Mr.  Cunningham:  Would  the  Min- 
ister of  Health  advise  the  country  of  origin 
for  component  drug  ingredients  for  20:12 
Coagulants  and  Anti-C.  for  Dicumarol,  He- 
parin, Nicoumalone,  for  Phenindione,  for 
Phenprocouman,    for   Warfarin?   Also    Macu- 


mar,  Athrombin-K,  Coumadin,  Warnerin, 
Danilone,  Sintrom,  Hepalean,  Dufalone,  Di- 
coumarol  and  Warfilone?  (Tabled  October 
9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Our  response  to  Order 
Paper  question  277  is  as  follows: 

The  following  information  has  been  com- 
piled with  respect  to  those  preparations  listed 
in  the  Drug  Benefit  Formulary/Parcost  Com- 
parative Drug  Index: 


Drug 

Brand  name 

Manufacturer 

Country  of  origin 
active  raw  material 

Dicumarol 

Dicoumarol 

Abbott 

USA 

Dufalone 

Frosst 

Germany 

Heparin 

Heparin 

Allen  &  Hanburys 

USA 

Heparin 

Harris 

Canada 

Heparin 

Organon 

USA 

Heparin 

Abbott 

USA 

Nicoumalone 

Sintrom 

Geigy 

Switzerland 

Phenindione 

Danilone 

Frosst 

UK 

Phenprocoumon 

Marcumar 

Roche 

Switzerland 

Warfarin 

Coumadin 

Endo 

USA 

Athrombin-K 

Purdue-Frederick 

USA 

Warnerin 

Parke-Davis 

Canada 

Warfilone 

Frosst 

Sweden 

LEGAL  AID  GUIDELINES 

300.  Mr.  Warner:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  table  any  and  all  policy  guidelines 
of  the  Ontario  legal  aid  plan  respecting 
eligibility  for  legal  aid  certificates  of  appli- 
cants whose  financial  eligibility  has  already 
been  established,  including  but  not  restricted 
to  those  policy  guidelines  for  (1)  divorce, 
(2)  criminal  injuries  compensation  and  (3) 
workmen's  compensation  cases?  (Tabled 
October  9,  1980. ) 

See  sessional  paper  302. 

LEGAL  AID  CERTIFICATES 

334.  Mr.  Warner:  Will  the  Attorney 
General  provide  figures  on  the  number  and 
percentage  of  persons  awarded  legal  aid 
certificates  in  the  York  region  of  the  Ontario 
legal  aid  plan  in  each  of  the  last  12  months 
who:  (i)  were  required  to  make  a  financial 
contribution  to  their  legal  expenses  because 
they  were  deemed  (a)  to  have  financial 
resources  of  their  own  or  (b)  to  be  depend- 
ants   of    another    person    with    financial    re- 


sources; (ii)  had  such  certificates  withdrawn 
or  discontinued  because  of  inability  to  meet 
such  financial  requirements;  and  (iii)  were 
as  a  consequence  of  such  withdrawal  or  dis- 
continuance obliged  to  proceed  to  trial  with- 
out le^al  representation?  (Tabled  October  15, 
1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  reply  to  this 
inquiry  is  based  upon  a  sampling  of  120 
files  of  contributing  clients  spanning  the 
complete  12-month  period. 

The  sample  size  was  6.25  per  cent  and  the 
results  of  the  sample  were  applied  to  all 
contributing  certificates  issued  in  the  12- 
month  period  under  review. 

When  a  certificate  is  withdrawn  or  dis- 
continued, for  whatever  reason,  our  file  is 
then  closed  and  we  therefore  have  no  sta- 
tistics as  to  whether  or  not  a  former  client 
would  proceed  to  trial  without  legal  repres- 
entation. 

The  results  of  the  sample,  as  applied  to  the 
total  population  of  contributing  certificates, 
are  reflected  in  the  attached  schedule.  (See 
schedule  A). 


4480 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


S    U  ^S  C5  rf  C5  05 
OS 


I   irt    C5    ""T 
fi  rH 


J 


co  10  10  oo 


co  tj<  i-i  cq  o> 

CN  f-H  i— I 


CD  —l  -*  1>  00 
i— I  CO  i— i  oq 


I    O  05 
lO  O 


^g  piocoi-icqiococoi-jojin 
a  «-Oxo*o6o5o6i>o6^i-ho6co 

gW'C^Oq  HCO  rH    r-M   .-1   CN 


o  t- 

in  © 

CN  CM 


g* 


&-5JS 


!^OlOCDrHCOi-lxt*l^CS|     I    ©  00 

t^iCH  wt^HoqHoqco    '  coo 


8~ 


.9 

§,3    g    ginrfOlOOlCbNOJOOlOOOCO 

o  B,»^r!JHdHeiHirio6H©QiooS 
S  S  O*c*o»©°oco©oooooot>©i>t> 


3  «*  g 

So 


3^ 


05o5^CDHM>q-Hoqo(NH(M 

i— (i— li— (i— IHHr li-Hi— (i— ti— llO 


a 
o 

'■B 

a 

to 

a 

i 


0)W©CO©COt}<CDC01O©U0©© 

a  t^  ^  oo  t^  i>  oo  t^  <b  t>  i>  t>  i>  t> 
S 

en 

1 
a> 
o 


'e3^rHlO'-i00O2C01OlO— inocdh 
■wqNNCocTJoooj^cxiiococqiccq 

*l 3 


©  O 

£:  °° 

©  a 

HSSH 

fc   -9-    rO      S. 


n    R    G 
O    9    <° 


J 


3-S    §^    ^S    XW)-rliS 

O  £  Q  £>fc  S  <  S  £,£,<  oo  H 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980 


4481 


WINTARIO  GRANT  AUDITS 

344.  Mr.  O'Neil:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  advise  if  the  internal 
audit  reports  on  Wintario  grant  recipients 
are  open  to  the  public  for  inspection? 
(Tabled  October  16,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Once  the  Freedom  of 
Information  Act  is  in  place  it  is  my  minis- 
try's intention  to  open  up  all  Wintario  files 
for  public  inspection  and  such  inspection 
would  include  the  right  to  examine  any  in- 
ternal audit  report  which  was  prepared  in 
relation  to  such  files. 

DIAMOND  SHAMROCK  PLANT 

381.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  hazardous  indus- 
trial liquids  are  stored  at  the  Diamond 
Shamrock  plant  in  Hamilton?  What  liquid 
industrial  waste  does  this  plant  produce? 
(Tabled  October  28,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  Diamond  Sham- 
rock plant  in  west  Hamilton  handles  a  wide 
range  of  animal,  vegetable  and  mineral  oils 
along  with  petroleum  solvent-type  chemi- 
cals. Some  of  these  are  sulphonated  for  use 
in  manufacturing  defoaming  agents,  surfac- 
tants and  oils  for  the  tanning  industry.  The 


materials  present  varying  degrees  of  fire 
hazard.  The  Hamilton-Wentworth  Fire  De- 
partment has  visited  the  plant  and  is  fully 
aware  of  this  potential  hazard. 

The  plant  also  manufactures  butylated 
hydroxytoluene,  (BHT),  an  antioxidant 
widely  used  in  foods  to  maintain  freshness. 

Waste  waters  from  this  plant  are  dis- 
charged in  accordance  with  the  regional 
municipality  of  Hamilton-Wentworth  sewer- 
use  bylaw.  The  discharge  is  monitored  by 
the  regional  municipality  to  ensure  compli- 
ance with  the  sewer-use  bylaw.  We  are  ad- 
vised by  the  region  that  the  discharge  meets 
the  requirements  for  the  two  main  para- 
meters that  are  of  concern;  that  is,  BOD 
and  ether  solubles. 

The  ministry  has  the  information  concern- 
ing the  chemicals  used  by  this  company  but 
is  bound  by  section  87  of  the  Environmental 
Protection  Act  to  preserve  its  confidentiality. 

For  reasons  intended  to  avoid  information 
concerning  the  formulation  of  the  products 
becoming  available  to  competitors,  the  com- 
pany will  not  disclose  a  detailed  list  of 
chemicals  it  uses.  We  cannot  require  that 
the  company  disclose  this  information  pub- 
licly. 


4482  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  November  20,  1980 

Point  of  privilege  re  Carleton  by-election:  Mr.  Gregory 4463 

Point  of  privilege  re  report  in  Toronto  Sun:  Mr.  Williams 4463 

Report,  standing  committee  on  administration  of  justice:  Mr.  Philip,  continued           -  4463 

Motion  to  adopt  report,  Mr.  Philip,  agreed  to 4475 

Motion  re  supplementary  estimates,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to ?4475 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  277,  300,  334,  344  and  381  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  4475 

Business  of  the  House:  Mr.  Wells 4475 

Debate   re    dissatisfaction    with   answer    to    oral    question   re   PCB    spill    at    school: 

Mr.    Foulds,    Mr.    Parrott    4476 

Adjournment    * 4478 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Drug  ingredients,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Cunningham  4479 

Legal  aid  certificates,  question  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Warner  4479 

Wintario  grant  audits,  question  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  O'Neil  4481 

Diamond  Shamrock  plant,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs 4481 


NOVEMBER  20,  1980  4483 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Gregory,  Hon.  M.  E.  C;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Mississauga  East  PC) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St  Patrick  PC) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McMurtry,  Hon.  R.;  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  (Eglinton  PC) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 

Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 


No.  119 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Friday,  November  21,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  'with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference  to  a  cumulative  index  of  previous  issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4487 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  a.m. 
Prayers. 

MEMBER-ELECT  FOR  CARLETON 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  matter 
of  personal  privilege:  I  would  like  to  draw 
the  attention  of  the  members  of  the  House 
to  the  presence  of  a  distinguished  public 
servant  sitting  in  your  gallery.  He  is  Mr. 
Robert  Mitchell,  a  former  deputy  reeve  of 
Carleton  and  a  public  servant  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  National  Defence  for  some  two 
decades.  In  case  some  members  opposite  do 
not  recall,  he  is  here  at  the  request  of  the 
voters  of  the  great  riding  of  Carleton  who 
dispatched  him  here  in  our  democratic 
process  last  evening  to  represent  the  interests 
of  all  of  the  people  of  that  constituency  and 
the  people  of  this  province. 

I  would  like  to  make  the  day  for  the  acting 
leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  this  morning  by 
saying,  as  I  look  at  the  figures,  the  Liberal 
candidate  did  better  in  1975  than  he  did  in 
1980. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Before  you  start  the  clock  on 
the  question  period,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
join  with  the  Premier  in  congratulating  Mr. 
Mitchell.  I  hope  he  will  have  a  pleasant  six 
months  here  until  the  general  election.  He 
looks  like  he  will  fit  right  in,  so  when  the 
writs  are  returned  we  will  see  what  he  can 
do  for  the  people.  He  will  have  the  same 
opportunity  as  the  rest  of  the  back-benchers 
to  influence  policy. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

NORFOLK  TEACHERS'  DISPUTE 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
put  a  question  to  the  Minister  of  Education. 
Did  she  by  any  chance  see  a  letter  written 
by  Mrs.  Jackie  McMann  to  the  editor  of  the 
Port  Dover  Maple  Leaf,  dated  November  14? 
I  quote  the  second-last  paragraph: 

"I  would  like  to  know  exactly  when,  in 
your  opinion,  does  the  continuance  of  a  strike 
place  in  jeopardy  the  successful  completion 
of  courses  of  study  by  the  students  affected 
by  the  strike?  Obviously,  not  even  the  Sud- 
bury strike,  which  lasted  over  three  months, 


Friday,  November  21,  1980 

jeopardized  anyone's  education.  They  were 
all  given  their  credits.  Great  system  we 
have." 

Since  that  reflects  the  view  that  I  myself 
have  put  to  the  minister,  would  she  not  feel 
that  since  the  strikes  in  Norfolk  and  in 
Bruce  county  are  now  going  into  their 
eighth  week  she  should  be  prepared  to  make 
a  statement  to  the  House  as  to  how  this  is 
going  to  be  brought  to  an  end  and  what  in 
her  view  constitutes  jeopardy,  other  than  a 
reference  to  her  commission  which  under  the 
law  has  to  advise  her  when  the  students' 
education  is  in  jeopardy?  That  is  something 
which  they  have  never  seen  fit  to  do. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  the  honourable  member  is  wrong  in 
that  final  statement,  because  I  do  believe 
such  a  decision  was  made  by  the  Education 
Relations  Commission  in  1976.  I  am  sorry, 
but  I  have  not  seen  the  Port  Dover  news- 
paper and  I  have  not  seen  that  particular 
letter  to  the  editor. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Doesn't  the  minister  read 
that  newspaper? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  sorry,  I  have 
not  received  a  copy  of  the  Port  Dover  Maple 
Leaf.  I  gather  that  is  what  it  is  called.  I 
would  be  very  pleased  to  see  the  newspaper, 
but  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  see  it  if  it  is  not 
delivered. 

It  is  fortunate  that  the  honourable  member 
has  raised  this  today,  because  there  are  things 
happening  in  both  the  Bruce  and  Norfolk 
areas  at  this  time.  Negotiations  are  being 
pursued  in  Bruce  right  now  which  I  think 
will  have  a  potentially  happy  outcome  in  the 
relatively  near  future.  In  Norfolk,  I  am  aware 
that  there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  discussion 
this  week  and  I  am  optimistic  there  will  be 
a  reasonably  negotiated  settlement  in  that 
situation  as  well. 

The  definition  of  jeopardy  is  one  which 
I  suppose  is  rather  difficult  to  make  because 
it  depends  on  one's  assessment  of  the 
length  of  time  of  separation  from  the  school 
system  that  a  student  may  undergo.  There 
are  those  who  believe  that  one  day's  absence 
may  be  jeopardy.  There  are  obviously  those 
who  believe  that  a  longer  period  of  time 
can   be    compensated   for   through   intensive 


4488 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


effort  on  the  part  of  teachers,  principals  and 
students  after  even  a  relatively  prolonged 
period. 

I  wish  I  did  have  an  easy  definition.  I 
do  not,  but  it  is  something  we  must  consider 
very  seriously  in  our  review  of  the  responses 
to  the  Bill  100  external  review  committee. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Could  the  minister  be  clearer 
as  to  what  steps  are  being  taken  to  bring 
this  matter  to  a  successful  conclusion  bear- 
ing in  mind  that  having  had  the  schools 
closed  for  seven  weeks,  the  people  in  the 
community  are  feeling  that  these  extraor- 
dinary steps  might  very  well  have  been 
taken  during  the  first  week,  since  the  em- 
ployees of  the  ministry  are  using  their  un- 
doubted persuasive  efforts  to  have  both  sides 
leave  their  communities,  at  least  in  the  one 
instance,  and  settle  down  and  try  to  come  to 
som«  conclusion? 

Why  should  this  be  treated  just  like  any 
other  strike  rather  than  bearing  the  interests 
of  the  community  and  the  children  in  mind? 
Why  does  it  have  to  be  allowed  to  go  on 
to  the  noint  where  even  the  minister  is 
saying  that  the  students'  education  may  be 
in  jeopardy? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  not  sure  how 
the  honourable  member,  who  obviously  must 
have  had  some  experience,  having  been  in 
this  Legislature  for  such  a  long  time,  would 
determine  that  the  labour-management  rela- 
tionships within  a  school  board  situation 
should  be  treated  differently  from  anv  other 
nublic  service  situation,  or  indeed  from  any 
other  labour-management  dispute.  It  would 
appear  that  the  appropriate  mechanisms  that 
are  undertaken  within  such  disputes  have 
been  pursued  in  this  one.  They  have  been 
pursued  vigorously  and  appear  at  this  point, 
at  the  beginning,  I  believe,  of  the  thirty- 
seventh  day  of  one  of  the  strikes,  likely  to 
bear  fruit  in  the  near  future. 
10:10  a.m. 

I  would  hope  the  member  would  under- 
stand that  for  the  benefit  of  the  students 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  settlement 
which  is  negotiated  amicably  between  the 
two  parties  is  by  far  the  best  solution  in 
any  such  situation.  One  which  is  imposed 
is  less  than  likely  to  provide  for  the  kind 
of  atmosphere  which  will  be  conducive  to 
the  continuing  education  process  of  the 
students. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Can  the  minister  assure  me,  as  a  mem- 
ber who  lives  in  a  community  that  experi- 
enced a  long  strike  in  Sudbury  earlier  this 
year,  that  she  has  a  strong  mediation  team 


at  work  in  those  communities?  Further,  does 
she  think  that  threats  of  a  legislated  return 
to  work,  as  implied  by  the  question  from  the 
Liberal  House  leader,  aid  in  the  process 
of  a  negotiated  settlement  or  just  encour- 
age the  two  parties  to  dig  in  and  wait  for 
that  inevitable  date  which  the  Liberals 
would  impose  on  the  settlement? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
answer  to  the  first  question  is  yes,  we  do. 
The  answer  to  the  second  question  is  I 
think  that  is  a  debatable  point.  I  really 
fully  believe  there  are  those  who  probably 
would  be  extremely  happy  if  they  felt  the 
Legislature  was  going  to  impose  a  settlement 
because  it  would  absolve  those  negotiators, 
those  members  of  the  groups,  of  any  respon- 
sibility which  they  have  both  demanded  and 
both  assumed  under  Bill  100,  which  I  would 
remind  the  members  was  not  something 
which  was  inimical  to  the  member  for  Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon).  It  is  my  under- 
standing that  he  was  supportive  of  this 
when  that  legislation  was  introduced.  The 
results  of  that  legislation  have  been  that 
there  has  been  a  reduced  number  of  disputes 
within  the  educational  system.  Unfortunately, 
they  seem  to  have  been  prolonged  in  a  way 
which  I  find  unsatisfactory. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Why  is  it  that  young  students  who 
want  to  take  correspondence  courses  find 
they  cannot  because  they  are  registered  in 
school? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sorry,  I  could  not  hear  that  question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Other  members  were  inter- 
rupting their  own  colleague.  Would  you 
please  repeat  the   question? 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  why  is  it 
that  students  who  want  to  take  correspond- 
ence courses  are  finding  out  they  cannot 
take  those  courses  because  they  are  regis- 
tered in  school? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  cor- 
respondence courses  are  provided  for  stu- 
dents who  are  registered  in  the  schools  if  the 
program  is  one  which  cannot  be  delivered 
within  the  school  in  which  they  are  regis- 
tered and  if  the  principal  agrees  they  should 
have  the  benefit  of  the  correspondence  course 
in  addition  to  their  school  program. 

These  students  are  registered,  and  it  has 
been  the  policy  when  there  is  a  strike  that 
the  correspondence  mechanism  is  one  which 
is  less  than  appropriate  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  educational  program  of  those  students. 
This  is  something,  however,  which  I  believe 
has  to  be  reconsidered. 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4489 


ENERGY  TAX  CREDIT 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Premier  to  give  him 
an  opportunity  to  expand  in  his  usual  Friday 
morning  manner.  Now  that  the  federal  gov- 
ernment has  indicated  it  has  no  plan  to  par- 
ticipate in  a  shared-cost  program  with  this 
province  or  other  provinces  in  an  energy  tax 
credit  program  and  since  the  mini-budget  in- 
dicated clearly  that  the  province  was  going 
to  go  ahead  by  itself  if  it  did  not  get  this 
co-operation,  can  the  Premier  indicate  what 
the  plans  are  for  such  a  program?  Will  it  be 
available  for  this  heating  season  and  what 
will  be  our  cost  involvement,  approximately? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Treasurer 
(Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  has  been  away  for  the  past 
few  days.  I  will  be  discussing  this  with  him 
next  week,  but  we  have  not  really  given  up 
in  our  efforts  to  persuade  the  government  of 
Canada  to  show  a  more  enlightened  approach 
to  this  situation.  I  really  think,  given  some 
time,  the  government  of  Canada  might  not  be 
as  adamant.  To  me,  it  is  a  very  logical  and 
realistic  approach  to  the  situation.  With  the 
increased  flow  of  revenue  to  the  government 
of  Canada,  primarily  from  the  energy  field, 
we  feel  this  is  as  legitimate  a  use  of  those 
funds  as  many  other  programs  they  have  sug- 
gested. 

I  can  assure  the  members  of  the  House  that 
the  Treasurer,  when  he  returns,  and  perhaps 
even  myself,  will  be  discussing  this  further 
with  the  government  of  Canada,  because  I 
really  think  to  share  with  the  provinces  this 
sort  of  credit  for  people  in  terms  of  home 
heating  fuels  is  a  logical  position  for  them 
to  take. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Recognizing  the  government 
of  Canada  owes  the  Premier  of  Ontario  and 
his  government  a  considerable  amount  of 
gratitude  for  their  continuing  support  of  its 
position,  will  he  still  not  recognize  that  the 
federal  Minister  of  Energy,  Mines  and  Re- 
sources has  flatly  refused  to  participate  in 
such  a  program,  and  might  it  not  be  realistic 
for  this  government  to  expect  the  undoubted 
persuasive  powers  of  the  Premier  to  be  suc- 
cessful in  this  one  instance?  If  that  is  so, 
might  we  expect  the  time  table  enunciated  by 
the  Treasurer  that  the  first  payments  in  such 
an  energy  assistance  program  would  be  due 
in  the  spring  of  1982  will  continue  to  be  the 
government's  program  and,  in  fact,  nothing 
will  be  done  until  that  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think,  as  the  Treasurer 
explained  and  the  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr. 
Welch)  would  explain,  the  more  significant 
impact  of  the  increase,  in  say  home  heating 


oil,  will  actually  take  place  in  the  winter 
or  spring  of  1981.  I  think  if  one  looks  at  it 
on  the  basis  of  a  tax  credit,  it  would  be  on 
the  basis  of  expenditures  in  that  period,  but 
the  credit  then  would  take  effect  in  the  year 
1982.  I  think  a  taxpayer  would  be  able  to 
calculate  what  might  be  anticipated,  as  he 
can  with  other  parts  of  the  credit  system. 

I  want  to  assure  the  House  we  have  not 
given  up  in  our  suggestions  to  the  national 
government,  but  if  the  decision  is  to  move 
ahead  on  our  own,  the  program  could  be 
annouced  and  in  place.  I  want  to  make  it 
clear  the  credit,  because  of  the  nature  of  the 
taxation  year,  would  appear  in  1982  but  the 
home  owners  would,  in  fact,  know  in  1961 
just  what  degree  of  credit  they  would  be 
receiving,  as  they  do  with  property  tax  credit 
and  other  matters. 

I  am  delighted  the  acting  leader  of  the 
Liberal  Party  really  was  this  morning— I  say 
this  quite  objectively— far  more  gracious  in 
his  reception  and  acceptance  of  the  results 
yesterday  than  was  his  leader.  I  really  want 
to  thank  him  for  that  here  this  morning. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Will  the  Premier  assure  us  any  energy  tax 
credit  program  which  comes  in  to  ease  the 
cost  of  home  heating  fuel  will  be  related  to 
not  only  consumption  but  will  also  be  related 
to  income  so  those  people  who  need  the  help 
the  most  will  receive  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  seem  to  recall  that  most 
of  the  tax  credits  are  related  to  income. 

EXTRA  BILLING 
BY  PHYSICIANS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation 
(Mr.  Baetz)  but  he  seems  to  have  disappeared 
for  a  minute.  I  hope  he  could  be  found  and 
could  come  back. 

I  have  a  question  for  the  Minister  of  Health 
arising  out  of  the  commitment  he  made  last 
year,  in  an  agreement  reached  with  the 
doctors  of  the  province,  which  indicated  that 
in  future  in  every  public  hospital  in  Ontario 
the  patient  would  have  a  choice  of  access  to 
physician  services  at  Ontario  health  insurance 
plan  rates. 

Will  the  minister  examine  the  pamphlet  I 
am  sending  to  him  which  is  currently  being 
used  by  the  anaesthetists  at  St.  Michael's 
Hospital  and  which  informs  patients  getting 
elective  surgery  in  that  hospital  they  will  be 
extra-billed  while  making  no  mention  of  the 
patient's  right  to  receive  services  at  opted-in 
rates?  Is  it  the  minister's  position  such  prior 
notification  complies  with  the  1979  agreement 


4490 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


when  it  makes  no  indication  of  the  patient's 
right  to  receive  the  care  at  the  OHIP  rate, 
and  is  it  his  view  that  acceptance  of  that 
pamphlet  constitutes  agreement  by  the  patient 
to  pay  the  anaesthetist's  opted-out  rates? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  one 
looks  at  the  bottom  part,  it  says,  "Accordingly 
a  bill  may  be  sent  to  you."  I  think  it  is  well 
known  generally  by  the  public  that  the  serv- 
ices are  available.  I  remember  an  instance  of 
a  hospital  in  downtown  Toronto  a  year  ago 
when  one  of  the  members  got  up  and  talked 
about  the  fact  that  all  of  the  anaesthetists 
were  opted  out.  When  we  checked  into  it 
we  found  70  per  cent  of  their  bills  are  opted 
in.  I  will  check  this  with  Sister  Mary,  the  ad- 
ministrator of  St.  Michael's,  but  I  would  think 
if  the  member  looks  at  it  carefully,  it  makes 
it  clear  that  it  is  not  a  universal  thing  with 
every  patient. 
10:20  a.m. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  the  minister  saying  it  is 
not  the  responsibility  of  the  opted-out  doctors 
to  indicate  clearly  that  people  have  the 
choice?  Does  he  expect  that  people  who  are 
sick  will  know  automatically  that  when  they 
go  to  hospital  they  have  to  ask  and  they 
have  to  insist?  Is  that  the  position  he  is 
taking? 

Can  he  tell  the  House  how  his  alternative 
of  getting  anaesthetists  on  some  kind  of  a 
direct  payment  plan  is  going  to  work  when 
all  of  the  anaesthetists  are  currently  opted  out 
in  hospitals  like  St.  Michael's?  Through  the 
Ontario  Medical  Association's  fee  committee 
they  are  now  being  told  to  consult  the  OMA 
before  agreeing  to  any  plan  such  as  the 
minister  is  proposing.  They  are  also  being 
warned  that  their  committee  does  not  believe 
physicians  are  prepared  to  give  up  their 
economic  freedom  as  that  kind  of  plan  would 
cause  them  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  First  of  all,  I  would 
ask  the  member  to  look  again  at  what  he  just 
sent  me.  It  points  out  that  in  most  cases  the 
patient  will  be  visited  beforehand,  and  it  is 
at  that  point  the  discussion  usually  takes 
place  about  the  billing.  It  goes  on  to  point 
out  the  use  of  words- 
Mr.  Nixon:   But  they  are  sedated. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  No,  before  surgery. 
Not  like  Friday  morning  in  the  Legislature, 
sedated.  It  says  a  bill  "may"  be  sent. 

With  respect  to  the  question  of  the  alter- 
native mechanism,  we  are  in  discussion  with 
a  couple  of  groups  on  that.  We  already  have 
one  group  at  the  Northwestern  General  Hos- 
pital who  are  on  the  alternative  payment 
mechanism   for   anaesthetic  services. 


Third,  I  would  remind  the  member  that 
less  than  eight  per  cent  of  the  physicians' 
services  in  this  province  are  currently  extra- 
billed,  a  significant  drop  from  where  it  was 
a  year  and  a  half  ago. 

Fourth,  I  would  remind  the  member  that 
one  of  the  ways  we  brought  that  about  was 
in  the  last  round  of  negotiations  with  the 
medical  association.  In  those  we  paid  par- 
ticular attention  to  a  number  of  specialties, 
especially  family  practice  where  their  in- 
crease was  in  the  order  of  15  or  16  per  cent. 
I  think  anaesthesia  clearly  has  to  be  one  of 
our  primary  focuses  in  the  next  round  of 
negotiations  which  are  about  to  begin  in  the 
next  month  or  so. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supplementary:  Can  the  min- 
ister assure  the  House  that  anaesthetic  serv- 
ices are  available  at  OHIP  rates  in  every 
public  hospital  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  believe  I  can,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  have  the  co-operation  of  the 
boards  of  the  hospitals  and  the  medical 
staffs  that  nobody  will  be  denied  these  serv- 
ices by  reason  of  the  physician  being  nomi- 
nally opted  out.  Again,  I  would  point  out 
the  example— I  guess  it  was  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith)  who  raised  it 
a  year  or  two  ago— I  think  it  was  the  Toronto 
Western  Hospital  where  he- 
Mr.  Nixon:  We  are  not  talking  about 
charity  cases. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  am  not  talking  about 
that  either.  He  was  pointing  out  that  100 
per  cent  of  the  anaesthetists  were  opted  out 
in  that  hospital,  as  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  is  trying  to  say  about  St.  Michael's. 
When  we  checked  into  that  case,  we  found 
they  opt  in  70  per  cent  of  their  business. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  sup- 
plementary question  regarding  the  phantom 
agreement  and  whether  or  not  the  minister 
intends  to  enforce  the  so-called  agreement— 
an  agreement  which,  by  the  way,  we  have 
never  had  tabled  in  this  Legislature. 

A  constituent  of  mine  was  extra-billed. 
When  she  inquired  she  was  told  by  Dr. 
Lamont,  who  was  speaking  on  behalf  of  a 
group  of  Scarborough  anaesthetists,  and  I 
quote  from  his  letter,  "At  present  it  is 
ethical  and  perfectly  legal  for  doctors  to 
charge  the  OMA  tariff  without  prior  noti- 
fication of  patients."  I  ask  the  minister  again, 
will  he  make  sure  that  the  agreement  is 
upheld?  If  it  seems,  as  it  would  appear, 
that  either  there  is  no  such  agreement  or 
that  the  OMA  chooses  not  to  honour  the 
agreement,  will  he  stop  the  charade  and 
end  the  extra  billing  in  this  province? 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4491 


Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
say  on  the  whole  the  agreement  and  the 
understanding  between  the  ministry  and  the 
medical  association  is  working  very  well. 
There  are  cases  from  time  to  time— I  think 
in  the  last  year  maybe  six  cases  have  come 
to  my  attention— where,  for  one  reason  or 
another,  there  have  been  difficulties.  On 
the  whole,  we  have  been  able  to  get  those 
resolved- 

I  think  I  know  the  case  the  member  is 
talking  about  where  unfortunately  we  were 
not  able  to  get  it  resolved,  even  using  the 
good  offices  of  the  Ontario  Medical  Asso- 
ciation. There  are  bound  to  be  some  excep- 
tions from  time  to  time,  but  when  you  con- 
sider that  by  the  time  today  is  out,  250,000 
claims  will  be  filed  on  the  health  insurance 
plan  for  services  rendered  to  the  people  of 
Ontario,  the  incidence  of  nonadherence  to 
the  agreement  is  extremely  rare. 

Mr.  Warner:  So  you  will  not  enforce  the 
agreement;    is    that   what   you    are  saying? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber is  darned  right.  I  am  not  going  to  follow 
his  policies,  which  would  destroy  our  system. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  new  question,  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  would  like  to  say,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  welcoming  my  former  colleague 
from  the  Ottawa  regional  council,  that  things 
are  a  good  deal  more  heated  up  here  than 
they  were  in  the  regional  council.  I  suspect 
Mr.  Mitchell  may  find  after  a  few  months 
here  that  he  wonders  why  he  came  down, 
particularly  given  the  frustration  that  those 
of  us  who  are  Ottawa  members  have  always 
had  trying  to  get  any  action  from  the  govern- 
ment which  he  intends  to  support  for  a 
while. 

At  any  rate,  I  welcome  him  here  and 
congratulate  him  on  his  victory.  Maybe  it 
is  something  to  do  with  the  ministers  from 
the  Ottawa  area,  so  maybe  Mr.  Mitchell 
could— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  have  a  question? 
Please  put  it. 

STRATFORD  FESTIVAL 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Culture  and 
Recreation  arising  out  of  the  continuing 
hard  line  which  is  being  taken  by  the 
members  of  the  board  of  the  Stratford 
Festival  and  the  indications  that  they  are 
not  backing  away  at  all  from  the  choice  of 
John  Dexter  and,  consequently,  are  continu- 
ing to  precipitate  a  boycott  which  may  well 


keep  the  plays  off  the  boards  at  Stratford 
next  season. 

The  minister  is  aware  that  the  festival 
board  indicated  it  could  not  find  a  qualified 
Canadian  to  take  over  from  the  four  in 
whom  it  had  apparently  lost  confidence.  Is 
he  aware  that  John  Hirsch,  who  is  one  of 
the  most  eminent  Canadian  theatre  directors 
we  have  in  the  country,  has  now  notified 
Equity  by  telegram  that  he  has  at  no  time 
received  any  official  or  unofficial  communi- 
cation from  the  board  on  any  matter  in  the 
last  five  years?  How  can  the  festival  board 
claim  it  was  looking  for  a  Canadian  director 
if  it  had  not  even  taken  the  opportunity  to 
talk  to  John  Hirsch,  whose  experience  cer- 
tainly would  have  enabled  him  to  take  over 
the  artistic  directorship  of  the  Stratford 
Festival? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  obviously 
I  have  been  following  the  events  of  the  last 
few  weeks  very  closely  with  Stratford  and 
Canadian  Actors'  Equity,  and  we  will  con- 
tinue, as  we  have  in  the  past,  to  work 
through  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  to  enter 
the  negotiations  with  Stratford  and  with 
Canadian  Actors'  Equity. 

I  am  aware  that  this  telegram  was  sent.  I 
was  advised  of  this  by  the  Ontario  Arts 
Council.  But  I  just  want  to  assure  the 
member  for  Ottawa  Centre  and  all  members 
of  this  House  that  the  policy  of  my  ministry 
and  of  our  government  will  continue  to  be 
to  rely  on  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  to  serve 
as  our  agent  in  the  negotiations  that  will 
take  place. 

I  know  this  is  probably  contrary  to  the 
cradle-to-grave  government  intervention 
mentality  of  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre, 
who  would  like  to  see  me  jump  in  and 
muscle  aside  all  those  institutions  which  are 
set  up  to  carry  out  this  work.  I  will  simply 
not  do  that.  I  remain  highly  confident  that 
Stratford,  Equity,  the  Canada  Council,  the 
Ontario  Arts  Council  and  all  the  key  actors 
in  all  of  this  are  going  to  end  up  in  a  very 
suitable  settlement.  That  is  all  I  am  prepared 
to  say  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  has  certainly 
retreated  a  long  way  from  a  week  ago  when 
he  said  something  is  rotten  in  the  festival 
up  at  Stratford.  Now  he  is  saying  he  is  not 
going  to  get  involved  himself.  He  says  he 
expects  there  will  be  some  form  of  compro- 
mise. In  fact,  the  arts  council  expected 
there  would  be  some  form  of  compromise. 
But  then  we  learned  to  the  contrary  that 
since  they  met  with  the  festival  on  Wed- 
nesday of  this  week  the  arts  council  is 
frustrated,  the  members  of  Equity  now  find 


4492 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


there  is  absolutely  no  give  from  the  festival 
board,  and  they  have  therefore  reconfirmed 
their  boycott;  and  since  we  now  face  a 
major  economic  loss  to  southwestern 
Ontario  and  thousands  of  jobs  will  be  af- 
fected by  the  failure  of  the  festival  to  go 
forward,  is  it  not  time  for  the  minister  and 
the  government  to  look  for  a  new  initiative 
which  will  help  to  find  a  compromise  and 
•get  Stratford  back  on  the  boards? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  Centre  has  drawn  many 
conclusions  here  and  has  created  a  scenario 
in  which  it  would  appear  we  are  at  a  total 
stalemate,  which  is  simply  not  the  case.  The 
various  sides  have  taken  rather  firm  posi- 
tions but  the  bargaining  and  negotiations 
continue.  I  am  still  confident  the  plays  will 
go  on  in  Stratford  next  summer. 
10:30  a.m. 

I  want  to  reiterate  I  am  not  prepared  at 
this  time,  nor  is  my  federal  counterpart, 
nor  is  the  Minister  of  Employment  and  Im- 
migration, Mr.  Axworthy,  to  jump  in  as  the 
member  would  have  us  do  anid  have  govern- 
ment take  over,  intervene  and  come  up  with 
all  the  right  solutions.  We  are  not  prepared 
to  do  that  and  we  will  not  be  drawn  into 
it  at  all  at  this  particular  time. 

PUBLIC  OPINION  POLLS 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Premier  regarding  our  on- 
going battle  in  relation  to  public  opinion 
polls.  In  the  Premier's  answer,  I  hope  he 
will  not  fuzz  the  issue  as  he  usually  does 
by  talking  about  the  polls  this  party  or  the 
NDP  takes.  We  are  talking  about  public 
opinion  polls  taken  at  taxpayers'  expense. 

In  view  of  the  report  of  the  freedom  of 
information  committee,  will  the  Premier  now 
give  us  a  policy  statement  in  the  Legislature 
to  make  public  the  public  opinion  polls 
taken  by  his  government— I  will  be  flexible— 
a  week  or  two  after  he  has  had  them,  read 
them  and  sucked  them  dry?  Will  he  make 
them  public  and  table  them  in  this  Legis- 
lature because  they  are  taken  with  public 
funds? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be 
delighted  to  give  that  matter  some  very 
careful  consideration  and  contemplate  giv- 
ing a  reply  to  the  member  some  time  be- 
tween now  and  December  12.  I  do  not  say 
it  is  an  unreasonable  question  to  ask. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  have  only  asked  it  a 
dozen  times. 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Seek  and  you  shall  find; 
ask  and  you  may  get  an  answer.  I  certainly 
will  not  cloud  the  issue  by  suggesting  the 
polls  the  opposition  took  at  one  point  in 
time  were,  in  fact,  at  taxpayers'  expense. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  They  were  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Oh,  you  used  the  trunk 
lines.  That  is  as  fuzzy  a  position  as  any  the 
opposition  has  taken. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  it  here.  "Chretien 
won't  release  details  of  $61,000."  Why  does 
the  member  not  ask  Jean  to  release  that  poll? 
I  would  be  kind  of  interested  in  seeing  it 
myself. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Why  don't  you  ask  htm  your- 
self? You  are  in  bed  with  them  in  Ottawa. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  to  tell  the  member 
for  Essex  North  the  only  poll  that  counts 
was  the  one  that  was  counted  at  seven 
o'clock  la^t  night.  That  was  the  poll  that 
counted.  Does  the  member  know  what  his 
Liberal  leader  said  about  that?  He  said,  "If 
we  do  not  win  it,  it  will  be  a  disaster."  Ob- 
viously, the  disaster  has  struck.  Where  is  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  this  morning?  Do 
members  of  his  party  know  what  I  think  he 
has  done?  I  suspect  he  is  applying  for  the 
job  as  artistic  director  in  Stratford  as  we  sit 
here  this  morning. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  appreciate  that  the 
Premier  is  going  to  give  me  a  definitive  an- 
swer by  December  12.  In  the  meantime, 
would  he  consider  tabling  next  week  the 
polls  that  were  taken  in  the  last  year,  par- 
ticularly last  spring  and  summer,  in  regard 
to  constitutional  matters  and  the  feelings  of 
the  people  of  Ontario  in  regard  to  those 
matters? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  These  questions  have  all 
been  on  the  Order  Paper.  We  have  tabled 
a  number  of  polls.  I  will  certainly  consider 
this.  I  am  not  personally  familiar  with  any 
specific  polls  in  this  regard,  but  there  may 
be  some.  I  will  give  it  some  thought. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  it  became  quite 
obvious  in  the  public  accounts  committee 
that  public  funds  were  used  to  obtam  polls 
which  could  have  been  used  for  political 
purposes  or  partisan  purposes,  does  it  not 
bother  the  Premier  that  he  is  indulging  in 
what  is  essentially  a  sleazy  practice? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  not  want  to  say 
the  member  for  Brantford  was  reflecting 
what  might  be  his  own  approach  if  given 
public  responsibility.  I  would  not  make  that 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4493 


observation  except  that  I  am  always  con- 
cerned when  people  make  that  sort  of  state- 
ment to  me.  I  have  never  tried  to  hide  the 
fact  that  as  a  political  party  we  conduct 
some  polls.  They  are  more  extensive  on  some 
things  than  on  others.  I  suggest  the  member's 
own  party  does  the  same  thing.  Maybe  they 
even  use  the  telephones. 

But  I  make  this  statement,  and  I  make 
it  categorically:  Everything  we  do  as  poli- 
ticians is  political,  but  the  polls  we  conduct 
for  government  are  not  done  for  partisan 
purposes,  and  they  are  not  used  for  partisan 
purposes.  That  is  the  very  real  distinction. 

STRATFORD  FESTIVAL 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recrea- 
tion. I  realize  the  Stratford  Festival  board  is 
semi-autonomous,  and  I  realize  that  the  On- 
tario Arts  Council  is  semi-autonomous,  but 
as  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation,  he 
is  the  major  paymaster.  I  would  like  to  know 
his  attitude  towards  this  major  Canadian  fes- 
tival, whether  he  believes  the  festival  should 
be  run  by  Canadians,  and  if  he  believes  that 
not  only  the  actors  but  also  the  directors 
should  be  Canadians? 

He  has  never  specified  whether  he  actu- 
ally believes  that  the  director  of  the  Stratford 
Festival  should  be  a  Canadian.  If  he  does, 
what  is  he  doing,  secretly  or  otherwise,  to 
make  it  certain? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  only 
repeat  what  I  said  earlier.  The  agency  that 
operates  with  the  Stratford  Festival  is  the 
Ontario  Arts  Council. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  May  I  ask  very  specifically 
what  the  minister  believes,  what  is  his  atti- 
tude towards  having  a  Canadian  director  for 
a  Canadian  festival? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  I  may  have  a  personal 
attitude  on  this,  but  I  do  not  think  the  min- 
ister or  the  government  at  this  particular  time 
should  say  they  are  either  all  for  Mr.  Dexter 
or  all  opposed  to  him.  The  minute  we  state 
that,  we  are  doing  exactly  the  kind  of  thing 
the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre  would  want 
us  to  do,  and  I  think  that  would  be  a  very 
inappropriate  stance  to  take  at  this  time.  I 
will  not  be  drawn  into  that  kind  of  a  con- 
troversy. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker- 


Mr.  Speaker:  This  question  is  going  no- 
where. The  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  has  the  answer  to  a  question 
asked  previously. 

WELLAND  CANAL  BRIDGE 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  yesterday 
the  member  for  Erie  (Mr.  Haggerty)  asked  me 
a  question  regarding  the  scheduling  of  the 
construction  of  the  third  bridge  at  Port 
Colborne.  I  have  checked  into  this  and  I  am 
pleased  to  advise  that  as  far  as  we  know, 
this  contract,  which  is  a  federal  contract  being 
carried  out  by  the  federal  government  through 
the  St.  Lawrence  Seaway  Authority  and  being 
shared  on  a  50-50  basis  with  the  province, 
has  been  awarded.  As  far  as  we  know,  the 
intention  is  to  have  it  completed  and  opened 
next  year. 

My  staff  is  still  attempting  to  check  (final 
details  with  federal  officials  to  determine  if 
any  changes  in  the  schedule  are  anticipated. 

The  approach  roads  to  each  side  of  the  new 
bridge  are  being  constructed  under  a  contract 
by  the  regional  municipality  of  Niagara  at 
provincial  expense,  and  these  approach  roads 
are  substantially  completed  at  the  present 
time. 

GO  TRAIN  FIRE 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  also  had  a 
question  yesterday  from  the  member— my 
member— for  Halton-Burlington  (Mr.  J.  Reed), 
who  is  obviously  not  here  today.  I  would  like 
to  say  that  his  question  was  regarding  what 
he  termed  a  fire  on  the  Go  train  coming 
into  the  Port  Credit  station. 

On  Wednesday  evening,  November  19,  the 
crew  of  an  eastbound  GO  Transit  train  of 
empty  equipment  being  returned  to  the 
Willowbrook  maintenance  facility  was  ad- 
vised by  radio  from  a  passing  westbound  train 
that  an  abnormally  heavy  amount  of  smoke 
was  visible  from  the  running  gear.  You  will 
know  all  about  this,  Mr.  Speaker,  being  an 
old  railroader. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well,  not  an  old  rail- 
roader. A  young  railroader. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  A  young  railroader. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  knowledgeable  railroader.  A 
railroader  on  leave  of  absence. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  A  knowledgeable  rail- 
roader on  leave  of  absence.  The  crew  of  the 
equipment  train  had  already  noted  the  situa- 
tion and  attributed  it  to  brakeshoe  smoke.  On 
receipt  of  the  report  from  the  other  train, 
they  decided  to  stop  at  the  Port  Credit  station 


4494 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


at  5:55  p.m.  for  a  more  thorough  investiga- 
tion. The  inspection  confirmed  that  the  smoke 
was,  indeed,  caused  by  the  heat  buildup  be- 
tween the  brakeshoe  and  the  wheels  which 
occurs  normally  as  a  result  of  brake  applica- 
tion. Occasionally,  oil  or  grease  on  the  wheel 
surface  will  give  rise  to  heavier  than  normal 
smoke  during  braking,  as  was  the  case  in  this 
instance. 

10:40  a.m. 

There  was  never  any  suggestion  that  there 
was  a  fire  or  a  hazard  to  persons  close  to 
the  train.  The  final  passengers  on  the  west- 
bound train  were  leaving  the  platform  at 
the  time  the  eastbound  train  arrived.  In 
fact,  to  have  stopped  the  train  at  a  remote 
location,  as  the  member  for  Halton-Burling- 
ton  suggested,  would  have  obliged  the  crew 
to  perform  an  inspection  on  the  uncertain 
footing  of  the  railway  ballast,  and  in  the 
dark  immediately  adjacent  to  the  other  main- 
line track  where  trains  could  pass  at  a  high 
speed  at  any  time. 

By  deciding  to  move  the  train  to  Port 
Credit  station  where  a  proper  platform  and 
lighting  were  available,  the  crew  recognized 
that  a  safer  and  more  thorough  inspection 
could  be  made.  We  are  satisfied  that  the 
matter  was  handled  safely  and  competently 
by  the  train  crews  involved. 

PUBLIC  SERVICE  GRIEVANCES 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  to  the  Chairman  of  Management 
Board  of  Cabinet.  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
public  servants  must  wait  for  excessive 
periods— over  a  year  and  a  half  in  one  partic- 
ular case  that  has  just  been  brought  to  my 
attention—before  they  can  have  grievances 
heard  by  the  Crown  Employee's  Grievance 
Settlement  Board?  Would  the  minister  not 
agree  that  justice  delayed  this  long  is 
obviously  akin  to  justice  denied,  and  would 
he  take  steps  to  expedite  the  hearing  of  these 
grievances? 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  action  has  already  been  taken.  As  the 
honourable  member  probably  knows,  we 
were  without  a  chairman  for  a  period  of 
time.  There  was  one  appointed  back  in 
August.  There  is  quite  a  backlog.  We  and 
the  union  are  working  to  clean  up  that 
backlog,  and  I  believe  there  will  be  some 
200  scheduled  for  hearings  in  January,  Feb- 
ruary, March  and  April. 

Mr.  Van  Home:  A  supplementary:  Given 
the  phone  call  that  was  made  very  recently 
to  the  Grievance  Settlement  Board  indicating 


that  the  backlog  would  demand  extra  staff 
beyond  the  chairman,  is  the  minister  plan- 
ning to  add  staff  to  accommodate  that  huge 
backlog? 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  We  have  already 
gone  from  eight  to  26.  I  think  that  should 
take  care  of  it. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
to  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  First,  I 
would  like  to  send  him  30  letters  from  a 
school  in  Thorold  expressing  the  opinions 
of  the  students  there  relative  to  the  proposed 
solidification  plant. 

The  minister  knows,  does  he  not,  that 
there  was  a  closed  meeting  held  between 
the  principals  of  Walker  Brothers  and  the 
chairman  of  Niagara  region  and,  subsequent 
to  that,  there  was  another  closed  meeting 
held  between  four  mayors  of  the  area  and 
Walker  Brothers?  The  city  of  Thorold  has 
now  learned  from  the  minister's  office  that 
he  is  meeting  with  the  principals  of  Walker 
Brothers  on  Monday.  Will  the  minister  tell 
this  House  whether  that  meeting  with  Walker 
Brothers  will  be  open  to  the  media,  and 
what  will  be  discussed  between  him  and 
Walker  Brothers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  will 
not  be  open  to  the  media  and  I  will  make 
the  appropriate  announcement  at  the  appro- 
priate time. 

Mr.  Swart:  The  minister  also  has  a  request 
from  the  city  of  Thorold  for  a  meeting  with 
him  before  he  makes  his  statement  on  Tues- 
day. I  understand  they  have  not  had  an 
answer  to  date  but  it  was  stated  by  the 
minister's  staff  that  he  probably  will  not 
have  time.  Would  it  not  show  a  very  high 
degree  of  distortion  of  priorities  if  the 
minister  met  with  the  representatives  of 
Walker  Brothers,  which  has  grossly  violated 
the  environmental  laws,  and  then  did  not 
meet  with  the  elected  representatives  of  the 
city  of  Thorold?  Will  the  minister  meet  with 
them  prior  to  next  Tuesday,  when  he  is 
going  to   announce  his   decision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  I  am  afraid  I  will 
not  be  able  to  meet  with  them  before  Tues- 
day. I  am  more  than  pleased  to  meet  with 
them.  I  also  want  to  put  it  on  the  record 
that  I  tli  ink  it  is  rather  important  to  bear  in 
mind  that  it  is  all  right  for  the  member  to 
pass  a  judgement  of  guilt  or  no  guilt  in  this 
House.  He  can  get  away  with  that.  I  am 
afraid  he  might  not  have  that  same  privilege 
outside    the    House.    He    is    fortunate    to    be 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4495 


doing  that  in  the  House.  But  I  will  let  him 
worry  about  that.  He  can  look  after  his  own 
bailiwick. 


SEX  AND  VIOLENCE  ON  TV 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  for  the  Solicitor  General.  Is  he  aware  of 
the  various  studies  in  Canada  and  other 
countries  that  show  the  depiction  of  violent 
sex  has  a  significant  antisocial  effect  on  the 
attitudes  of  the  viewer?  Has  the  Solicitor 
General  advised  his  officials  to  lay  charges 
under  the  Criminal  Code  of  Canada  against 
television  stations  that  broadcast  obscene 
films?  I  am  speaking  specifically  of  a  film 
called  Prime  Cut,  shown  on  CFPL-TV 
London  at  11:45  p.m.  on  Friday,  October  31. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  familiar  with  the  film  the  honourable 
member  mentioned.  I  think  many  of  us  are 
familiar  with  the  studies  that  have  been  done 
which  indicate  violence  as  entertainment  is  a 
very  significant  problem  with  respect  to  crime 
in  society  generally.  The  late  Judv  LaMarsh 
headed  a  commission  dealing  with  violence 
in  the  entertainment  industry.  The  studies 
the  Royal  Commission  on  Violence  in  the 
Communications  Industry  did  would  indicate 
this  is  an  issue  about  which  all  society 
should  be  concerned.  When  we  look  at  the 
rising  crime  rates,  particularly  in  relation  to 
violence  and  young  people,  there  is  no 
question  violence  as  entertainment  is  some- 
thing our  society  has  not  shown  a  great  deal 
of  responsibility  about  in  continuing  to  toler- 
ate it  to  the  extent  we  do. 

For  example,  while  I  do  not  have  any 
particular  views  with  respect  to  films  dealing 
with  explicit  sex  as  such,  I  do  not  happen  to 
think  it  is  nearly  the  problem  that  violence  is 
as  entertainment.  I  am  advised  that  in 
Europe  most  of  the  people  in  positions  of 
responsibility  are  very  concerned  and  much 
tougher  than  we  are  in  relation  to  the  whole 
matter  of  violence  as  entertainment,  as  op- 
posed to  portrayals  of  explicit  sex. 

As  far  as  prosecutions  are  concerned  for 
any  offences  related  to  the  Criminal  Code, 
this  is  a  matter  for  local  police  authorities 
and,  in  our  system  of  justice,  individual 
citizens  also  have  the  opportunity  at  least 
to  attempt  to  prefer  charges  if  they  are  of 
the  view  the  Criminal  Code  has  been 
breached. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Would  the  minister  have 
his  authorities  review  that  film?  I  would 
point  out  that  in  the  film  a  scene  of  cattle 
pens    was    clearly    shown.     I    thought    this 


would  be  very  interesting  to  show  how  a 
modern  cattle  pen  operates.  I  was  amazed 
to  find  they  were  not  selling  cattle  in  those 
pens;  they  were  selling  women.  Also,  two 
gangs  were  warring  against  one  another  in 
the  film.  One  gang  member  was  made  into 
sausages.  These  sausages  were  presumably 
sold  as  human  food.  How  can  we  stomach 
such  a  thing? 
10:50  a.m. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  There  was  no  marketing 
board  involved  either.  Would  the  Solicitor 
General  have  his  officers  request  a  viewing 
of  that  film  and  if  they  feel  as  I  do,  lay 
charges? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  will  be  happy  to 
bring  the  member's  concerns  to  the  atten- 
tion  of   the   proper   authorities. 

UNICEF   CHRISTMAS   CARDS 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  Is  it  true 
that  the  retail  sales  tax  is  applicable  to 
handling,  shipping  and  postal  charges  for 
Unicef  Christmas  cards  as  is  indicated  on 
the  order  forms  sent  out  by  Unicef  this 
year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  no 
knowledge  of  it.  I  will  certainly  look  into 
it  and  get  back  to  the  members. 
Ms.  Bryden:  Supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  has  been  taken 
as  notice.  When  the  minister  responds  there 
may  be  time  for  a  supplementary. 

REFILLABLE  MILK  CONTAINERS 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 
Could  the  minister  state  why  he  directed  the 
waste  management  advisory  board,  through 
its  chairman,  to  inform  the  president  of  the 
Ontario  Dairy  Council  that  the  introduction 
of  a  multitude  of  refillable  milk  containers 
in  Ontario,  in  different  shapes  and  sizes,  will 
be  allowed? 

Since  this  action  comes  before  the  final 
decision  har-  been  made  by  the  industry  task 
force  on  fluid  milk  containers  in  Ontario, 
would  the  minister  not  consider  this  action 
inappropriate?  Would  he  not  also  consider 
reversing  that  advice  to  the  dairy  council,  at 
least  until  the  task  force  has  reported? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
recall  offhand  having  so  directed  in  a  formal 
communication,  but  I  could  be  in  error  on 
that.  I  am  not  saying  I  did  not. 


4496 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Gaunt:  It  was  a  letter  dated  Novem- 
ber 5,  actually. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  All  right.  I  would  like 
to  look  at  that  if  I  might  and  have  an  up- 
date on  it  before  I  respond  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  can  certainly  provide  the 
minister  with  the  communication.  Would  the 
minister  not  consider  that  action  inappropri- 
ate since  we  have  been  trying  to  encourage 
uniformity  in  pop  bottles  and  avoid  a  prolif- 
eration of  various  types  of  pop  bottles?  Why 
would  the  same  not  apply  to  milk  containers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  to  a  marked 
degree  it  does.  At  the  same  time  I  think  the 
member,  knowing  of  his  great  interest  in  the 
dairy  community,  wants  to  be  very  sure  that 
the  best  beverage  in  the  world— agreed?— 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Agreed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  —is  in  the  most  environ- 
mentally sound  containers.  We  must  be  very 
careful  that  we  deal  with  both  issues, 
namely,  the  sanitation  of  the  product  and 
the  maintenance  of  the  quality  of  that  prod- 
uct, plus  the  impact  on  the  environment  if 
inappropriate  containers  are  used. 

I  will  be  glad  to  take  another  look  at  that. 
But  I  hope  we  would  agree  the  maintenance 
of  the  product  itself  is  of  paramount  im- 
portance. 

WINDSOR  HOUSING  AUTHORITY 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Housing.  Having  created  the 
situation  with  the  Windsor  housing  authority 
board  which  led  to  the  resignations  of  six 
persons  because  of  the  minister's  appoint- 
ment of  a  chairman  who  had  no  previous 
experience  with  that  board,  what  is  he  doing 
to    resolve    that    situation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
received  two  out  of  four  resignations  so  far 
which  have  been  submitted  to  the  Ontario 
Housing  Corporation.  To  answer  the  ques- 
tion very  simply,  I  am  in  the  process  of 
making  some  new  appointments. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Since  it  is  quite  important 
that  the  board  be  able  to  meet  in  the  next 
few  months  because  of  the  economic  and 
unemployment  situation  in  Windsor  and  the 
increased  need  for  geared-to-income  hous- 
ing, has  the  minister  contacted  the  federal 
and  municipal  governments,  requesting  them 
to  fill  their  vacant  appointment  positions  as 
soon  as  possible,  and  what  date  is  he  looking 
towards  to  having  all  those  vacancies  filled 
so  that  board  may  function  properly? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  There  are  no  municipal 
vacancies    on   that   particular   board    to    the 


best  of  my  knowledge.  The  vacancies  that 
occurred  were  those  of  the  federal  repre- 
sentation and  one  provincial  appointment,  the 
chairman,   whose   term   had   expired. 

I  made  the  selection  of  a  new  provincial 
member  and  I  also  selected  him  as  the  indi- 
vidual to  chair  that  particular  board.  I  want 
to  indicate  to  this  House  that  we  have  select- 
ed many  individuals  who  have  been  appointed 
chairmen  the  first  time  they  served  on  a 
board.  The  new  chairman  of  Ontario  Housing 
Corporation  is  a  gentleman  who  had  not 
served  on  previous  boards.  We  appointed 
him  to  the  board  and  made  him  chairman  at 
the  same  time.  I  think  we  pick  people  with 
the  competence,  understanding  and  capabili- 
ties of  one  who  is  trying  to  direct  a  housing 
authority,  whether  in  Windsor,  Ottawa-Carle- 
ton  or  anywhere  else. 

I  have  already  made  one  provincial  ap- 
pointment in  the  last  few  days.  Going  to  the 
cabinet  in  the  next  few  days  will  be  the 
additional  appointments  as  far  as  the  province 
is  concerned.  I  await  the  recommendations 
for  appointments  from  the  federal  government, 
which  we  have  already  notified  of  those 
vacancies. 

NURSING  HOME  INSPECTIONS 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Health  concerning 
nursing  home  inspections.  As  the  minister  is 
aware,  two  nursing  homes  within  the  city  of 
St.  Catharines,  Tufford  Rest  Home  and 
Chatelaine  Villa  Convalescent  and  Nursing 
Centre,  denied  access  to  a  public  inspection 
panel,  not  from  the  ministry.  This  right  to 
refuse  the  inspection  was  upheld  by  Judge 
Kovacs  on  Tuesday  in  St.  Catharines.  Since 
these  homes  are  indirectly  supported  by  the 
Ministry  of  Health  through  OHIP  payments, 
which  are  heavily  subsidized  through  gov- 
ernment funds,  is  the  minister  contemplating 
a  change  in  legislation  which  would  bring 
about  the  kind  of  definition  which  would 
compel  homes  of  this  nature  to  accept  public 
inspections? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  legis- 
lation under  which  these  grand  juries  operate 
does  not  come  under  the  Ministry  of  Health, 
as  I  think  the  member  acknowledged.  I  am 
not  sure  whether  it  comes  under  the  Solicitor 
General  or  Attorney  General. 

Secondly,  even  with  those  institutions 
which  are  subject  to  and  are  regularly  visited 
by  these  public  inspection  panels  that  regu- 
larity is  once  every  few  years.  It  is  not  any 
more    frequent    than    that.    The    inspections 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4497 


which  are  carried  out  by  my  staff  in  the  in- 
spection branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Health  are 
very  frequent.  Certainly  they  are  all  inspected 
annually  with  respect  to  environmental  safety, 
fire  safety,  nursing,  nutrition  and  the  like. 

Every  complaint  we  receive,  be  it  from 
a  patient  or  a  family  member,  is  followed 
up  by  an  inspection  as  well  on  that  particu- 
lar complaint.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is 
the  need  to  amend  that  legislation.  I  think 
we  have  an  adequate  number  of  inspectors 
and  an  inspection  process  including,  as  the 
member  may  know,  team  inspections,  which 

I  instituted  a  couple  of  years  ago,  in  the 
case  of  homes  about  which  we  are  receiving 
an  inordinate  number  of  complaints.  We  go 
in  as  a  team  to  see  what  the  problems  are 
and  get  them  cleaned  up. 

Mr.  Bradley:  Since  other  institutions  are 
subjected  to  inspections  by  the  public  in- 
spection panels,  despite  the  fact  they  are 
inspected  by  ministry  inspectors,  does  the 
minister  not  feel  it  would  still  be  an  advan- 
tage to  give  them  the  right  to  go  into  those 
institutions,  as  average  citizens,  to  do  an 
inspection,  as  the  minister  says,  on  an  infre- 
quent basis? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  pub- 
lic inspection  panels  go  into  public  hospitals 
which  are  totally  funded  from  the  public 
purse,  but  we  in  the  ministry  do  not  inspect 
the  public  hospitals.  There  is  not  the  same 
inspection  process  for  the  public  hospitals 
that  exists  for  the  nursing  homes.  It  is  a 
totally  different  situation.  In  addition,  the 
nursing  homes,  like  the  hospitals,  are  subject 
to  inspection  by  the  local  fire  departments 
and  by  the  public  health  departments  with 
respect  to  infection  control,  so  that  by  com- 
parison on  balance  I  would  have  to  submit 
to  the  members  that  the  nursing  homes  are 
inspected  more  frequently  and  more  inten- 
sively. 

II  a.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  the  Premier 
has  the  answer  to  a  question  asked  pre- 
viously. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  He  has  a  reply,  not  an 
answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  do,  I  have  an  answer. 

SOUTH  CAYUGA  LAND  DRAINAGE 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  Novem- 
ber 7  the  member  for  Haldimand-Norfolk 
(Mr.  G.  I.  Miller)  asked  me  a  question  re- 
garding some  test  drilling  which  was  being 
carried     out    on    properties     in    the     South 


Cayuga  area:  I  apologize,  I  was  here  a 
couple  of  times  with  the  answer  and  other 
matters  intervened. 

I  have  been  advised  that  the  test  drilling 
in  question  is  being  carried  out  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Government  Services  for  the  purpose 
of  refining  the  Ontario  Land  Corporation's 
knowledge  of  the  hydrogeological  nature  of 
the  site.  That  is  a  very  definitive  answer. 
I  have  been  informed  that  all  affected  resi- 
dents in  the  area  were  notified  that  this  drill- 
ing would  be  taking  place,  and  also  of  the 
reason  for  the  drilling.  In  fact,  the  member 
sent  me  a  photocopy  of  a  letter  sent  to  a 
resident  from  the  supervisor  of  western  town 
sites  providing  to  the  resident— and  to  the 
member,  incidentally— the  information  I  have 
just  presented  to  the  House:  a  hydrogeo- 
logical study  to  determine  the  hydro- 
geological  nature  of  the  site.  How  can  one 
be  more  definitive  than  that? 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  I  did  ask  the  Premier 
a  supplementary  question  also,  pointing  out 
that  it  is  class  one  and  two  land.  What  is 
the  policy  of  his  government  as  far  as  the 
use  of  that  land  is  concerned? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  they  are  two  sep- 
arate questions.  One  is  the  question  of  the 
land  use,  the  second  is  why  was  the  drilling 
and  why  is  the  drilling  taking  place. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Because  it  is  being  associated 
with  using  it  as  a  dump  site  for  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No  one  is  suggesting  in 
any  way  that  there  are  no  surveys  going  on 
in  many  parts  of  the  province;  but  the  hon- 
ourable member  asked  me  what  the  purpose 
of  the  drilling  was,  and  the  purpose  of  the 
drilling  is  to  determine  the  hydrogeological 
nature  of  the  soil. 

HAMILTON  COURT  FACILITIES 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Attorney  General.  Can  he 
tell  this  House  why,  in  spite  of  his  own 
admission  that  we  have  a  serious  problem 
in  terms  of  delays  in  the  courts  in  Hamilton 
—which  is  adversely  affecting  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  in  that  city  and  in  that  area— 
absolutely  nothing  has  been  done  about  a 
situation  which  he  himself  admits  is  a  serious 
one;  and  why,  when  the  other  Hamilton  mem- 
bers and  I  met  him  today  for  the  second 
time  in  five  weeks,  he  could  not  give  us  an 
update  on  the  Turner  situation  when  we  had 
specifically  requested  such  information  be 
part  of  the  information  available  to  us  at 
the  second  meeting? 


4498 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  think  there  may 
be  a  misunderstanding  between  myself  and 
the  honourable  member,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  to 
precisely  what  the  nature  of  the  conversa- 
tion was  going  to  be  today.  I  indicated  I 
did  not  have  a  recent  update  of  the  Turner 
investigation.  But  with  respect  to  the  matter 
of  trial  delays  and  court  facilities  respecting 
the  administration  of  justice  in  Hamilton,  it 
is  quite  true  that  we  are  very  concerned 
about  the  problems  in  that  area. 

I  do  not  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that 
nothing  has  been  done  about  it,  because  it 
has  been  the  subject  matter  of  frequent  dis- 
cussions with  our  members  of  crown  attorney 
staff  in  that  area  as  well  as  with  the  court 
administrators  and  the  local  police  depart- 
ment, to  expedite  the  trial  of  some  of  these 
matters.  While  we  have  not  come  up  with 
any  totally  satisfactory  solutions,  I  think  we 
have  made  some  modest  progress  at  least. 
But  I  am  of  the  view  that  additional  re- 
sources, both  judicial  court  and  crown  at- 
torney resources,  are  required  in  relation  to 
the  administration  of  justice  in  Hamilton. 
We  are  hoping  to  be  in  a  position  to  provide 
them. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  At- 
torney General  has  been  expressing  deep 
concern  over  this  matter  since  he  arrived 
in  the  Legislature  five  years  ago,  and  in  view 
of  the  fact  that,  clearly,  the  time  for  an 
expression  of  his  deep  concern  has  long 
since  passed  and  the  time  for  action  has 
arrived,  will  he  not  give  a  guarantee  to  this 
House  to  get  the  city  of  Hamilton  two  more 
courts  as  quickly  as  possible  so  that  we  can 
do  something  to  deal  with  this  backlog  that 
has  been  the  creation  of  his  inability  to 
administer  the  justice  system  in  the  city  to 
the  benefit  of  the  people? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  ad- 
ditional resources  have  been  added  during  my 
tenure  as  Attorney  General  for  this  prov- 
ince and  the  situation  has  been  improved 
somewhat.  As  I  indicated  to  the  honourable 
members  from  the  NDP  caucus  this  morning, 
we  are  looking  for  additional  courtroom  space. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Let's  have  a  guarantee. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Of  course,  I  can  give 
no  guarantees  in  relation  to  the  additional 
courtrooms  about  which  I  spoke.  It  is  our 
expectation  and  certainly  our  desire  to  ac- 
quire those  additional  resources. 

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

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  thought  this 
might  be  an  appropriate  time  to  bring  to  your 


attention  and  to  the  attention  of  other  mem- 
bers, the  presence  in  the  gallery  of  the 
former  member  for  Hamilton  Centre,  Mr. 
Norman  Davison,  with  his  grandson,  another 
Mr.  Davison. 

MOTION 

ESTIMATES 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  estimates 
of  Management  Board  be  referred  to  the 
standing  committee  on  general  government 
for  consideration,  following  the  estimates  of 
the  Ministry  of  Housing. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

ONTARIO  UNCONDITIONAL 
GRANTS  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 

199,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Ontario  Uncon- 
ditional Grants  Act,  1975. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  will 
amend  the  Ontario  Unconditional  Grants  Act. 
It  revises  the  current  provisions  relating  to 
special  assistance  in  order  to  enable  the  min- 
istry to  provide  assistance  in  circumstances 
which  would  result  in  an  undue  increase  in 
property  taxes  in  certain  municipalities. 

In  addition,  it  contains  measures  which 
serve  to  complement  the  proposed  Municipal 
Boundaries  Negotiation  Act.  More  specifically, 
it  generalizes  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
ministry  could  provide  financial  assistance  re- 
lated to  municipal  annexations  or  amalgama- 
tions. It  also  provides  authority  for  the  minis- 
try to  phase  in  the  areas  affected  by  reorgan- 
ization towards  a  common  municipal  mill  rate. 

REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY  OF 
PEEL  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 

200,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Regional  Munic- 
ipality of  Peel  Act,  1973. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  has 
two  amendments.  The  first  would  effect  a 
minor  boundary  alteration  in  the  mutual 
boundary  of  the  cities  of  Brampton  and  Mis- 
sissauga  at  the  request  of  the  two  cities  in 
the  regional  municipality  of  Peel.  The  amend- 
ment draws  the  boundary  to  coincide  with  the 
southerly  limit  of  the  northern  link  of  the 
parkway  belt  west  design  area. 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4499 


The  second  amendment  would  permit  the 
region  of  Peel  to  establish  a  special  transpor- 
tation system  for  the  handicapped  without 
jeopardizing  the  right  of  area  municipalities 
in  the  region  to  continue  to  operate  public 
transportation  systems.  At  present,  the  act 
provides  generally  that  if  the  region  estab- 
lishes a  transportation  system,  no  area 
municipality  shall  establish  such  a  system. 

LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
201,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Legislative  Assem- 
bly Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 
11:10  a.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill 
provides  that  the  differential  in  accommoda- 
tion allowance  for  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion (Mr.  S.  Smith)  and  the  leader  of  the 
third  party  (Mr.  Cassidy)  will  be  main- 
tained. It  makes  some  minor  changes  in  the 
way  the  accommodation  allowance  will  be 
calculated. 

EXECUTIVE  COUNCIL 

AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  204,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Executive 
Council  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill 
provides  the  same  differential  in  accommoda- 
tion allowance  that  I  just  indicated  would 
apply  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  and 
the  leader  of  the  third  party,  for  members 
of  the  executive  council  who  reside  outside 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto. 

DENTURE  THERAPISTS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  205,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Denture 
Therapists  Act,  1974. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the 
honourable  members  are  aware,  denture 
therapy  is  a  relatively  new  practice  that  is 
governed  by  an  appointed  board.  However, 
there  are  several  members  on  the  board  who 
are  coming  to  the  end  of  their  appointments. 
Under  the  Denture  Therapists  Act,  1974, 
they  cannot  be  reappointed  because  of  a  six- 
year  membership  restriction. 

Since  the  present  members  are  so  familiar 
with  the  issues   that   affect   the  practice  of 


denture  therapy,  I  am  introducing  an  amend- 
ment to  the  act  to  permit  members  to  serve 
for  more  than  six  consecutive  years  and  be 
reappointed  for  one,  two  and  three-year 
terms.  We  believe  this  amendment  will  en- 
able the  board  of  denture  therapists  to  con- 
tinue to  discharge  its  responsibilities  in  an 
effective  and  knowledgeable  manner. 

REDEEMER  COLLEGE  ACT 

Mr.  J.  Johnson,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Ashe, 
moved  first  reading  of  Bill  Pr48,  An  Act  to 
incorporate  Redeemer  College. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  supply. 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF 
NORTHERN  AFFAIRS 

( concluded ) 

On  vote  704,  regional  priorities  and  devel- 
opment program: 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to 
take  up  the  matter  of  regional  priorities  with 
the  ministry.  Under  the  heading  "tourism 
development,"  he  lists  a  number  of  activities 
his  ministry  has  considered  or  is  considering. 
I  would  like  to  speak  for  a  few  minutes 
about  the  ski  agency  that  has  been  devel- 
oped in  the  North  Bay  area. 

I  think  the  minister  is  familiar  with  it.  In 
fact,  he  and  I  cut  a  ribbon  last  year.  His 
presence  was  quite  suspicious  on  that  day 
because  it  was  the  first  day  we  had  sufficient 
snow  to  ski.  However,  his  largess  with  respect 
to  the  falling  of  snow  did  not  last  very  long; 
we  had  one  of  the  more  miserable  winters  as 
far  as  ski  conditions  were  concerned.  I  hope 
that  is  not  a  reflection  on  his  ministry. 

In  any  event,  as  the  minister  knows,  for 
two  years  in  a  row  his  ministry  has  provided 
seed  money  for  the  maintenance  of  trails, 
which  have  grown  to  have  international 
recognition.  In  fact  this  year  during  the 
Christmas  festivities  we  have  some  charter 
flights  coming  in  from  South  America,  as 
well  as  from  Europe,  which  will  be  spending 
one  week  to  10  days  using  the  trails.  Perhaps 
the  minister  would  like  to  come  into  my  area 
at  that  time  and  bring  with  him  the  same 
good  luck  we  had  last  year  with  respect  to 
snowfall. 

I  point  this  out  to  the  minister  to  show 
him  how  important  it  is  to  look  at  the  pro- 
grams, and  how  important  it  is  for  the 
government  to  get  involved  in  them.  When 


4500 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


he  considers  the  amount  of  money  his  min- 
istry did  put  into  the  ski  agency,  it  really 
is  relatively  small  when  one  considers  the 
tremendous  benefits  the  entire  region  obtains 
from  it. 

My  purpose  in  raising  the  matter  of  the 
ski  agency  with  the  minister  is  that  as  a 
result  of  the  tremendous  traffic  that  has  come 
about,  the  local  roads  board  in  the  township 
of  Phelps  has  been  under  tremendous  pres- 
sure to  maintain  the  road  that  leads  from 
Highway   69   into  the  ski   agency   area. 

The  local  roads  board  has  only  so  many 
dollars  to  maintain  the  road,  and  there  was 
tremendous  pressure  put  on  it  by  the  city 
of  North  Bay,  by  the  residents  in  the  area, 
and  by  the  ski  agency  as  well  to  keep  that 
road  in  good  condition,  particularly  on  the 
weekends  when  the  traffic  is  most  heavy. 

The  attitude  of  the  local  roads  board— 
and  it  is  the  proper  attitude— has  been  that 
we  simply  do  not  have  the  funds  to  expend 
to  better  the  facilities  for  the  ski  agency. 
There  is  such  a  tremendous  usage  of  it,  it 
requires  much  more  funding  than  is  made 
available  to  it. 

I  had  several  people  from  southern  Ontario 
who  spent  considerable  time  and  money  com- 
ing up  there  to  sld  only  to  have  their  charter 
bus  go  off  the  road.  The  next  24  hours  were 
spent  in  frustration,  getting  tow  trucks  and 
pulling  the  bus  out.  We  did  manage  to  solve 
some  of  the  problems,  but  nevertheless  I 
think  it  is  an  area  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs  should'  look  into. 

I  would  ask  ministry  officials  to  contact 
the  local  roads  board  of  the  township  of 
Phelps  with  a  view  to  coming  to  some  agree- 
ment with  it  to  provide  additional  funding 
for  the  maintenance  of  that  road.  I  don't 
know  how  the  ministry  would  do  this,  but 
I  leave  it  in  the  minister's  good  hands.  I  am 
sure  he  has  a  sufficient  number  of  compe- 
tent administrators  in  his  ministry.  A  relative- 
ly small  amount  of  money  would  be  involved 
to  assist  the  local  roads  board  in  providing 
better  service  for  the  people  of  southern 
Ontario. 
11:20  ajn. 

They  are  the  ones  who  are  coming  up 
weekend  after  weekend.  If  we  are  not  going 
to  have  good  access  for  them  to  get  to  the 
ski  site  once  they  arrive  at  North  Bay,  then 
they  are  not  going  to  come  back.  It  is  going 
to  be  sour  grapes  and  that  is  very  poor 
advertising.  I  put  that  to  the  minister,  as  the 
member  for  that  riding  as  well  as  a  person 
who  is  very  much  interested  in  the  develop- 
ment of  what  I  think  is  a  tremendous  idea, 


a  tremendous  agency.  Believe  me,  the  north 
is  really  benefiting  from  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I 
could  respond  to  the  member  for  Nipissing, 
I  would  first  express  my  appreciation  for  his 
very  complimentary  remarks  in  respect  to 
our  efforts  to  promote  tourism  in  the  North 
Bay  area. 

I,  too,  was  most  impressed  with  the  atti- 
tude of  the  young  people  who  had  taken 
on  that  responsibility,  the  accomplishments 
of  the  community  college  itself,  Canadore 
College  in  North  Bay,  and  the  efforts  they 
went  through  to  really  get  something  going 
in  the  North  Bay  area  that  was  the  continu- 
ation of  a  good  summer  tourism  economy 
into  a  winter  tourism  economy. 

I  am  sure  the  people  who  read  our 
comments  and  maybe  those  people  in  the 
gallery  who  want  to  do  some  cross-country 
skiing  will  look  to  North  Bay  as  one  of  the 
finer  places  in  northern  Ontario  to  enjoy  that 
kind  of  recreational  experience.  I  must  say 
I  was  most  impressed  to  learn  that  X  number 
of  miles  of  the  cross-country  ski  routes  were 
lit  by  night.  That  was  a  very  impressive 
sight  and  certainly  those  people  in  charge 
were  to  be  and  are  to  be  complimented 
because  they  are  fulfilling  a  need  for  some- 
thing we  can  do  up  there.  Certainly,  I  ap- 
preciate the  member's  remarks. 

We  will  be  following  their  successes  very 
closely.  We  are  prepared  to  co-operate  with 
them  right  to  the  fullest  because  I  think  we 
have  something  going  that  we  should  con- 
tinue. Following  on  that  it  is  obvious,  in 
response  to  the  member's  concern  about  the 
roads  and  access  roads  into  those  areas,  that 
they  must  be  maintained.  It  seems  a  little 
ridiculous  to  promote  something  and  then 
not  be  able  to  get  to  it.  I  am  going  to  ask 
my  staff  to  meet  with  the  local  roads  board 
and  to  meet  with  the  tourism  promotion 
people  in  North  Bay  to  see  if  there  is  some 
way  we  can  help. 

I  think  there  is.  We  have  done  it  in  the 
past.  We  have  the  regional  priority  budget 
designed  for  that  type  of  assistance  where  it 
does  not  fall  into  a  regular,  normal  program 
—it  falls  in  between  the  slots,  so  to  speak. 
We  can  come  along,  with  the  co-operation 
of  the  local  services  board,  and  I  can  assure 
the  honourable  member  that  we  will  look  at 
that  problem. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  that  vein, 
I  had  not  intended  to  raise  this  but  I  am 
glad  to  hear  the  minister  make  those  com- 
ments because,  as  he  may  know,  I  sent  him 
a  letter— I  do  not  know  whether  he  has  re- 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4501 


ceived   it   as   yet— regarding  the   question   of 
infrastructure  for  the  King  Mountain  project. 

Obviously,  there  is  a  possibility  of  a  great 
influx  of  people  if  that  project  goes  ahead, 
and  there  is  some  concern  in  that  area  on  the 
part  of  the  local  roads  board  and  some  of 
the  local  people  about  first,  how  the  infra- 
structure could  be  provided  and  upgraded, 
and  second,  how  it  could  be  maintained 
subsequent  to   the   project  being   completed. 

(I  would  like  to  know  if  the  minister  could 
respond  to  whether  or  not  that  kind  of  fund- 
ing is  being  looked  at  by  his  ministry.  If  so, 
is  it  independent  from  or  is  it  related  to  the 
current  discussions  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment with  regard  to  the  Department  of 
Regional  Economic  Expansion  subagreement 
on  tourism? 

The  particular  issue  I  wanted  to  raise  this 
morning,  however,  deals  with  developments 
in  Blind  River.  As  the  minister  knows, 
related  to  the  expansion  at  Elliot  Lake,  Blind 
River  has  become  a  bit  of  a  boom  town, 
which  is  quite  a  change  from  what  it  was  a 
few  years  ago.  There  is  a  tremendous  amount 
of  expansion  going  on— residential,  to  be  sure 
—with  people  commuting  back  and  forth  to 
the  mines  in  Elliot  Lake,  but  it  is  not  only 
residential. 

There  has  been  a  spurt  of  commercial 
development,  tourist-related,  service-related 
and  small-retail-related.  The  municipality  is 
very  anxious  to  attract  small  secondary  in- 
dustry so  that  it  will  not  be  just  a  bedroom 
community  but  a  community  with  diversifi- 
cation of  employment  opportunities  within 
its  boundaries. 

On  the  whole  issue  of  Granary  Lake  Road, 
one  of  the  reasons  the  government  has  said 
it  does  not  wish  to  go  ahead  with  that  con- 
struction at  this  time  is  related  to  cost,  of 
course,  but  also  it  does  not  want  Blind  River 
to  be  a  bedroom  community.  If  that  is  the 
case,  I  would  think  the  ministry  would  be 
doing  all  it  can  to  ensure  there  is  a  possi- 
bility for  the  development  of  other  types  of 
small  industry  and  business  in  the  community 
to  provide  employment  opportunities.  In  that 
regard,  the  municipality  has  had  discussions 
with  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs,  the 
Ministry  of  the  Environment,  the  Ministry  of 
Housing  and  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  for  assistance  in  the  expansion  of 
an  industrial  park. 

I  understand  the  minister  wrote  to  the 
municipality  just  last  month,  after  his  discus- 
sions with  the  other  ministries  of  the  govern- 
ment, indicating  the  provincial  government 
would  not  be  providing  additional  assistance 


for  the  rehabilitation  of  the  sanitary  sewer 
system  and  the  provision  of  services  in  the  in- 
dustrial park  area.  Municipal  officials  were 
most  disappointed  with  the  response.  Ap- 
parently, the  main  reason  for  the  denial  of 
funding  was  that  municipal  service  charges  in 
Blind  River  are  lower  than  in  a  number  of 
other  northern  communities  with  similar  pop- 
ulation and  assessment;  in  a  way,  this  seems 
to  be  saying  that  if  the  municipality  does  well 
fiscally  it  will  be  penalized,  in  that  it  will 
not  be  able  to  get  special  funding  when 
faced  with  a  great  deal  of  expansion  and  it 
has  to  expand  services.  We  have  the  unfor- 
tunate example  of  some  other  communities  in 
northern  Ontario  which  have  not  done  well 
fiscally,  and  the  provincial  government  had 
to  come  in  and  bail  them  out  and  provide  the 
necessary  funding  to  enable  the  community 
to  provide  the  services  it  needs  without 
greatly  increasing  the  mill  rate  and  taxes  for 
local  residents. 

I  wonder  if  the  minister  is  prepared  to  meet 
with  representatives  of  the  municipality  again 
to  discuss  this  very  important  matter  and  to 
hear  their  views.  In  a  way,  it  seems  he  is 
denying  his  policy  of  not  wanting  Blind  River 
simply  to  be  a  residential  area  with  com- 
muters. I  hope  the  minister  is  prepared  to 
meet  with  the  municipal  officials,  who  indi- 
cate they  would  like  to  arrange  a  meeting 
convenient  to  him.  I  hope  I  can  get  a  response 
and  that  the  government  will  take  another 
look  at  assisting  Blind  River.  After  all,  exten- 
sive assistance  is  being  provided  to  Elliot 
Lake,  and  it  is  largely  the  same  expansion 
that  is  leading  to  the  need  for  expansion  of 
services  in  Blind  River. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  replying 
to  the  question  of  the  member  for  Algoma 
regarding  the  infrastructure  for  the  possible 
King  Mountain  development,  it  is  certainly 
obvious  to  the  government— and  I  say  that  in 
a  general  way,  because  we  are  strongly  sym- 
pathetic to  that  development— that  it  would  be 
an  economic  development  for  the  north- 
eastern part  of  the  province,  an  area  that 
really  needs  it  from  the  point  of  view  of 
economic  activity  and,  I  suppose,  the  mag- 
netic attraction  for  tourists  from  the  United 
States  would  be  outstanding. 

11:30  a.m. 

I  know  the  member  for  Sault  Ste.  Marie 
(Mr.  Ramsay)  has  been  vocal  on  this  issue. 
I  had  the  privilege  of  flying  with  him  in  a 
helicopter  about  a  month  and  a  half  ago 
during  the  height  of  the  fall  season  when  the 
colour    was    at   its    best.    I    guess   the   most 


4502 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


beautiful  colour  on  the  North  American  con- 
tinent is  around  Sault  Ste.  Marie  in  the  fall. 
It  was  beautiful  to  see.  To  look  at  King 
Mountain  at  that  point  in  the  season  and  that 
time  of  the  year  was  a  real  experience. 

The  location,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned 
from  a  layman's  point  of  view,  is  an  excellent 
one.  The  hills  are  great.  The  countryside  is 
just  gorgeous.  It  is  untouched.  It  has  reason- 
ably good  access.  The  member  is  quite  right 
in  saying  the  infrastructure  requirements 
would  be  rather  significant— roads,  sewers, 
water  and  that  type  of  thing.  That  would  be 
part  of  the  Ontario  government's  interest  if 
we  moved  with  the  King  Mountain  develop- 
ment. 

It  is,  as  the  member  knows,  a  major  private 
development.  Until  the  Ontario-DREE  tour- 
ism package  is  finalized  or  at  least  some  direc- 
tion is  given  to  that  package,  I  suppose  we 
will  have  to  do  it  as  one  big  unit,  but  I  can 
assure  the  member  that  is  one  area  we  will 
be  sympathetic  to. 

The  town  of  Blind  River,  as  the  honour- 
able member  correctly  points  out,  has  had  an 
economic  lift  with  the  Eldorado  refining 
facility  being  moved  from  Port  Hope  to 
northern  Ontario,  where  I  suppose  it  lends 
itself  to  the  development  very  handsomely, 
as  uranium  is  mined  40  minutes  away  from 
Blind  River  now.  Is  Elliot  Lake  about  40 
minutes  away  from  Blind  River? 

Mr.  Wildman:  It  is  40  minutes  to  an  hour 
depending  on  the  weather. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  it  depends  on  the 
weather.  The  whole  Blind  River  area  is  going 
through  some  real  upheavals  and  changes 
now.  We  have  been  active  in  the  Blind 
River  area  with  the  assistance  we  have  given 
out  of  the  regional  priority  budget.  We  have 
put  up  $1  million  for  their  treatment  plant. 
They  have  had  some  real  infiltration  prob- 
lems, as  we  are  all  aware. 

I  think  the  community  is  aware  that,  when 
we  put  the  money  into  the  treatment  plant, 
the  agreement  was  they  would  look  after 
their  own  upgrading.  I  understand  they  have 
been  doing  that  very  well  this  year  with  their 
own  forces.  For  that  they  are  to  be  compli- 
mented. 

The  question  of  the  industrial  park  is  still 
around.  I  met  with  Mayor  Gallagher.  He  was 
in  about  a  week  or  10  days  ago.  We  dis- 
cussed that  problem  in  the  east  lobby  of  the 
main  building  here.  We  indicated  to  him  at 
that  time  that  he  should  go  back  to  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  with  re- 
spect to  that  request  because  the  whole 
question    of   industrial   parks   is   now   under 


active  review  by  that  ministry.  It  is  standing 
back  and  looking  at  its  accomplishments, 
seeing  how  they  are  funded  and  the  results 
of  the  efforts  to  date.  It  would  be  very  time- 
ly if  he  went  to  Industry  and  Tourism  with 
that  formal  request  for  some  enlargement 
and  improvements  to  his  own  industrial  park. 
He  said  he  certainly  would  do  that. 

With  regard  to  the  Granary  Lake  road, 
there  is  no  change  on  the  Granary  Lake 
Toad.  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  the  feeling 
now  is  they  are  40  minutes  away  from 
Elliot  Lake  by  a  fairly  good  road  and  that 
is  sufficient  for  their  immediate  require- 
ments. The  expenditure  of  $12  million  or 
$14  million— I  am  sure  it  is  up  to  that  now 
—to  shorten  the  distance  between  Blind  River 
and  Elliot  Lake  would  mean  maybe  five  or 
10  minutes  in  travelling  time. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  will  come  back  to  that 
when  we  get  to  northern  roads. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Okay,  but  it  was  very 
difficult.  There  has  been  no  change.  I  do 
not  think  there  is  that  much  demand.  Mayor 
Gallagher  did  not  make  it  an  issue  when  we 
met  with  him  last  week. 

Mr.  Wildman:  The  Elliot  Lake  chamber 
of  commerce  wants  it,  but  that  is  a  different 
vote. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  have  not  heard  from 
them. 

You  questioned  our  decision  with  respect 
to  some  assistance  to  Blind  River  and  our 
examination  of  their  local  tax  load.  I  think 
in  all  the  assistance  we  give  on  the  regional 
priority  budget,  that's  one  area  we  do  look 
at.  I  think  it  would  be  unfair  if  the  local 
taxpayers  were  not  carrying  their  full  equi- 
table responsibility  as  it  relates  to  adjacent 
communities. 

The  mayor  or  the  reeve  and  the  council 
of  that  community  may  say:  "We  will  have 
a  very  low  tax  burden  here  and  we  will  go 
after  the  federal  and  provincial  governments 
to  take  our  responsibility,"  which,  by  right, 
is  theirs.  So  we  look  at  that  comparison  and 
we  point  out  they  are  lower  than  other  areas 
and  that  to  be  fair  an|d  equitable  to  the 
other  communities  they  may  want  to  raise 
some  additional  funds,  which  would  improve 
their  borrowing  capacity. 

I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  responds  to 
the  inquiries  of  the  member  for  Algoma. 
If  there  are  any  further  questions  I  will  be 
glad  to  assist. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  minister 
is  carrying  a  very  heavy  burden  over  there 
all  by  himself. 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4503 


Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Oh,  I've  got  some  good 
staff  over  here  with  me. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Minister,  I  have  a  genuine 
interest  in  this  area  we  are  discussing  as  it 
relates  to  the  tourist  aspect  of  northern 
Ontario.  I  come  from  a  very  successful  part 
of  Ontario,  Niagara  Falls.  We  happen  to  be 
within  reach  of  many  people  who  visit  our 
area— some  15  million  every  year— so  that 
transportation  is  really  left  up  to  the  indi- 
vidual. The  very  successful  people  in  the 
area  do  a  great  deal  of  advertising,  as  does 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman),  which  actually  reflects  on  the 
land  of  business  that  happens  down  there. 

The  reason  I  wanted  to  talk  on  this  sub- 
ject today  was  because  I  have  had  firsthand 
experience.  I  spend  a  gooid  deal  of  my  leisure 
time  in  the  north.  I  have  taken  on  myself 
the  task  of  representing  our  party  in  the 
north  from  time  to  time  and  so  I  know  of 
what  I  speak. 

I  have  a  concern,  and  the  concern  is 
shared  by  the  government,  that  transporta- 
tion is  very  difficult  in  the  north— and  that's 
proven.  The  government  has  reacted  on  li- 
cence fees  and  in  keeping  gasoline  at  an 
equitable  price  with  southern  Ontario  so 
that  northerners  can  avail  themselves  of  a 
bit  of  advantage  to  get  from  place  to  place. 

My  concern  is  that  unless  we  provide 
some  really  meaningful  transportation  to  the 
north,  we  are  going  to  have  difficulty  get- 
ting people  interested  in  spending  time  there. 
The  reason  I  pose  the  question  is  because 
I  have  taken  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway 
from  Toronto  right  through  to  Moosonee  to 
hunt  geese  on  James  Bay  at  the  Harricanaw 
camp,  which  is  run  by  the  Ontario  North- 
land. I  find  this  is  a  unique  experience. 

The  train  itself  is  one  of  the  finest  modes 
of  transportation  you  will  find  on  rails  any- 
where in  the  world.  The  difficulty  I  have 
with  it  is  that  very  often  on  a  weekend  you 
cannot  be  accommodated  on  that  train.  If 
that  is  the  case,  without  putting  forward  any 
new  initiatives  to  get  more  people  to  travel, 
unless  we  have  a  more  flexible  means  of 
handling  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway,  un- 
less we  can  add  a  considerable  number  of 
cars  or  more  facilities,  we  will  never  expand 
that  mode  of  transportation. 

11:40  a.m. 

As  I  have  suggested  before,  I  know  per- 
sonally some  of  the  people  who  are  involved 
in  the  operation.  I  am  very  pleased  about 
the  functioning  of  the  railway  but  the  limits 
of  it  are  obvious.  Unless  you  take  the  initia- 
tive, there  is  little  point  in  doing  some  of 


the  things  I  would  suggest  should  be  on- 
going in  the  northern  parts  of  Ontario,  such 
as  preferential  reforestation  that  has  con- 
sideration for  the  animals  as  well  as  the 
pulp  and  paper  mills  up  north.  We  should 
consider  stocking  our  northern  lakes,  where 
the  lakes  are  considered  safe,  so  that  our 
young  people  and  our  residents,  as  well  as 
visitors  from  south  of  the  border,  can  be 
assured  they  are  going  to  come  into  northern 
Ontario  and  expect  good  fishing. 

Doing  things  on  the  ski  slopes  and  all 
over  northern  Ontario  that  will  encourage 
people  to  travel  there  will  all  be  for  naught, 
unless  we  can  prove  we  have  the  necessary 
kind  of  transportation.  I  mean  an  advanced 
thinking  in  transportation;  I  do  not  mean  to 
keep  pace  with  some  other  jurisdiction.  I 
mean  to  take  the  initiative  and  say,  "You  can 
come  to  Ontario  and  leave  your  car  parked. 
We  will  take  care  of  you  from  point  A  to 
anywhere  you  want  to  travel  for  whatever 
you  might  like  to  do  in  northern  Ontario." 

A  high  priority  in  your  responsibility  as 
Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  is  to  encourage 
that  railway  to  put  forward  a  two-year, 
three-year  or  four-year  plan  that  will  ulti- 
mately say  we  have  a  tourist  attraction 
where  one  can  leave  one's  car  at  home  and 
save  fuel  and  go  into  the  far  reaches  of  the 
north,  come  snow  or  what  have  you.  In 
the  case  of  places  as  remote  as  Minaki  or 
Moosonee,  places  that  everyone  in  this  great 
country  of  ours  should  be  able  to  travel  to, 
I  do  not  think  we  will  be  able  to  exploit 
those  visitors  and  give  them  the  exposure 
they  need  unless  transportation  becomes  a 
very  high  priority  in  the  ministry's  involve- 
ment in  northern  Otnario. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  believe  the  member 
slipped  down  into  item  4. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  appre- 
ciate the  involvement  of  the  member  for 
Niagara  Falls  in  these  estimates.  I  am  very 
familiar  with  his  love  of  the  north  and  his 
desire  to  spend  more  time  up  there.  I  would 
extend  a  very  warm  welcome  to  him  to  visit 
us  on  a  regular  basis  in  all  seasons— spring, 
summer,  fall  and  winter.  There  are  glorious 
opportunities  to  enjoy  the  things  that  many 
people  in  southern  Ontario  do  not  have  the 
opportunity  to  do  and  to  really  get  a  feel 
for  what  is  happening  up  there,  not  only 
for  the  wilderness  aspect  of  northern  On- 
tario, but  the  beautiful  urban  areas  we 
have. 

We  have  a  beautiful  city  called  Sudbury. 
I  would  encourage  you  to  visit  that  beauti- 
ful  city   because   there   is    a   new   mood   in 


4504 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Sudbury.  Recent  ads  have  come  out  that 
they  want  to  develop  a  new  convention 
centre. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  The  only  problem  you  have 
in  the  north  is  some  of  the  members. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  will  get  to  that  point 
next  spring.  First  things  first.  I  was  inter- 
ested in  the  comments  from  Sudbury  about 
their  community  and  how  proud  they  are. 
They  want  a  new  convention  centre  estab- 
lished in  Sudbury.  They  want  to  change  the 
attitude  of  people  in  southern  Ontario  to- 
wards that  particular  area.  It  is  most  en- 
couraging to  go  into  Sudbury  and  see  the 
greening  of  the  rocks  now  coming  on.  I 
know  the  member  for  Nickel  Belt  (Mr. 
Laughren)  is  anxious  to  get  into  the  esti- 
mates, to  elaborate  on  the  developments 
going  on  in  the  Sudbury  area  and  to  tell  us 
about  the  great  things  that  have  happened 
in  his  particular  community. 

Getting  back  to  transportation,  I  just  want 
to  tell  the  member  that  we  have  some 
excellent  services  into  the  northeastern 
Ontario  corridor  per  se  with  the  Northland 
train  and  the  Northlander,  to  which  you 
made  reference,  with  Air  Canada  making 
regular  trips  into  North  Bay,  Sudbury  and 
Timmins  and  with  the  excellent  sleeper  bus 
service  we  have  now  which  operates  in  that 
entire  corridor.  You  can  leave  Toronto,  go 
up  to  Tobermory,  get  on  one  of  the  most 
modern  auto  ferries  anywhere  in  the  North 
American  continent,  take  a  nice  trip  across 
to  South  Baymouth  on  Manitoulin  Island 
and  continue  on  up  to  northern  Ontario. 

I  think  you  touched  on  a  very  sensitive 
area  when  you  mentioned  Minaki  Lodge.  I 
am  sensitive  about  the  way  the  rail  trans- 
portation facilities  into  that  particular  area 
are  regulated  by  the  federal  government  and 
the  CNR,  which  goes  through  there.  We 
have  a  lot  of  work  to  do  with  the  CNR 
because  the  attitudes  to  which  you  refer  are 
not  showing  up  in  the  Via  Rail  operations  as 
much  as  I  would  like  them  to  come  forth. 
They  do  a  lot  of  talking  about  getting  people 
back  on  the  rails,  but  in  my  estimation  they 
have  not  made  any  great  strides  or  changes. 
I  know  it  takes  time  and  I  am  one  of  those 
who  are  willing  to  wait  until  they  can  get 
their  house  in  order,  get  new  equipment  and 
get  on  with  the  job  of  bringing  people  back 
to  the  rails.  That  is  the  way  it  has  to  go. 

I  want  to  compliment  my  colleague,  the 
member  for  St.  David  (Mrs.  Scrivener).  As 
you  know,  she  is  chairing  a  rail  task  force. 
The  interim  report  has  just  come  down  and 
my  own  deputy  minister,  Mr.  Herridge,  has 


literally  spent  hours  working  with  that  com- 
mittee. I  hope  you  have  had  the  opportunity 
to  read  the  interim  report.  I  understand  in 
her  final  report,  or  at  least  the  report  with 
all  the  recommendations  as  it  relates  to  rail 
service  in  this  province,  she  has  gone  beyond 
the  provincial  responsibility,  which  was  part 
of  her  terms  of  reference,  to  look  at  the 
province  as  a  whole  and  the  need  to  im- 
prove rail  services  in  this  province.  With  the 
energy  problem  we  have  now,  it  is  obvious 
that  is  the  route  we  have  to  move  in. 

I  encourage  honourable  members  to  read 
the  interim  report  of  that  task  force  and  to 
digest  in  great  detail  the  recommendations 
when  they  come  out  later  next  year,  because 
I  think  it  will  have  some  real  effect  on  what 
the  future  holds  for  us  in  northern  Ontario. 

I  am  particularly  proud  of  our  services  on 
the  Ontario  Northland  Transportation  Com- 
mission, and  I  want  to  touch  on  the 
norOntair  operation.  When  you  get  to  North 
Bay,  you  can  jump  on  the  greatest  little  air- 
line on  the  North  American  continent,  the 
norOntair  operation. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  have  to  get  to  North  Bay 
first. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Well,  we  have  excellent 
service  to  North  Bay.  Right  now  we  are 
serving  21  communities.  Just  last  week  we 
added  Cochrane  and  we  hope  to  add  another 
four  or  five  in  the  next  short  period.  We  also 
hope  to  add  to  our  fleet.  As  the  member 
knows,  we  have  put  in  the  first  orders  for 
two  Dash-8s— T  get  mixed  up  between  the 
Dash-7s  and  the  Dash-8s;  I  think  it  is  the 
Dash-8.  It  is  a  30-passenger,  twin-engine 
aircraft— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  And  started  the 
flood  of  orders. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  And  started  the  flood 
of  orders,  certainly.  The  orders  are  up  to 
about  100  now  that  de  Havilland  will  build. 

The  transportation  requirements  of  north- 
ern Ontario  have  been  addressed  in  the  past 
five  or  10  years  as  they  have  never  been  ad- 
dressed before.  The  highway  construction 
program,  which  I  am  sure  we  will  get  into, 
has  enabled  you  to  drive  across  northern 
Ontario  now.  The  passing  lanes,  the  paved 
shoulder  program  and  the  improvements  to 
the  main  highway  are  things  that  we,  as 
northerners,  expect,  and  rightly  so.  We  are 
not  asking  for  anything  we  are  not  entitled 
to,  but  that  has  been  accelerated. 

This  year  alone,  with  the  funds  that  will 
flow  out  of  our  construction  program,  about 
$55  million,  and  what  we  add  from  this  par- 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4505 


ticular  vote,  the  regional  priorities  budget, 
along  with  what  we  bring  into  our  access 
road  program,  the  Ontario  North  and  Trans- 
portation Commission's  budget  and  the  forest 
access  program,  which  flows  through  the 
whole  package,  all  that  comes  to  about  $92 
million.  That  is  a  big  increase,  and  much  of 
it  comes  from  this  regional  priorities  budget, 
which  was  established  to  look  after  the  very 
special  needs  of  northern  Ontario  where 
there  are  vast  distances  and  usually  high 
costs  that  we  don't  encounter  here  in 
southern  Ontario. 

We  are  very  cognizant  of  the  transporta- 
tion needs  of  northern  Ontario.  It  is  some- 
thing we  are  not  going  to  relax  on;  I  can 
assure  the  honourable  member  of  that.  I 
appreciate  his  sincerity  and  his  desire  to 
improve  transportation,  and  I  can  assure  him 
I  share  that  feeling  and  I  intend  to  go  that  way. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  hour 
or  so  remaining,  I  want  to  divide  my 
remarks  into  things  that  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment is  doing  well  in  the  north  and  things 
it  is  not  doing  well.  I  think  the  norOntair 
service  is  a  very  nice  service  for  the  north. 
The  one  thing  I  like  very  much  is  the 
norOntair  service  for  the  small  communities. 
Now  I  would  like  to  get  on  to  the  things 
the  government  is  not  doing  very  well. 
11:50  a.m. 

Mr.  Chairman,  a  mini-budget  was  brought 
down  very  recently  in  this  province.  There 
was  a  day  when  no  budget,  mini  or  otherwise, 
would  have  been  brought  down  without  some 
reference  to  the  north  and  its  particular  needs. 
I  do  not  think  the  recent  mini-budget  men- 
tioned the  word  "north"  once  in  its  entirety. 
It  is  an  indication  of  the  shifting  priorities 
of  this  government  and  the  lack  of  status 
which  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  has 
held  in  that  cabinet.  There  was  a  day  10 
years  ago,  perhaps  beyond  that  and  even  a 
couple  of  years  since  then,  when  it  was  under- 
stood by  cabinet  that  they  had  to  address 
the  particular  problems  of  the  north. 

That  is  no  longer  the  case.  We  never  hear 
this  government  talking  about  the  particular 
needs  of  the  north  except  when  the  Minister 
of  Northern  Affairs  cuts  a  ribbon  or  hands  out 
a  grant.  Much  of  the  money  in  the  regional 
priorities  budget,  as  the  minister  knows  full 
well,  is  from  other  ministries,  and  that  money 
would  be  there  anyway.  There  are  all  sorts  of 
examples  in  which  the  presence  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Northern  Affairs  has  done  nothing 
but  clutter  up  the  process.  He  has  become  a 
barrier  in  many  cases  to  the  proper  func- 
tioning of  the  other  ministries.  There  is  no 


better  example  of  that  than  with  the  Ministry 
of  Transportation  and  Communications. 

I  invite  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  talk  to  the 
people  in  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  and  to  ask  them  what  they 
think  of  the  role  of  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs  in  the  apportioning  of  the  budget  in 
northern  Ontario.  They  will  look  at  you  and 
the  first  thing  they  will  ask  you  is  whether 
their  remarks  are  on  or  off  the  record.  They 
are  very  unhappy  with  what  this  minister  has 
done. 

I  invite  you  to  come  to  Sudbury,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, and  ask  the  people  of  Sudbury  what 
they  think  of  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  (Mr.  Snow).  They  will 
say  to  you:  "I  think  he  is  a  good  fellow.  We 
have  had  a  fair  number  of  new  roads  in  the 
Sudbury  basin  in  the  last  few  years."  Then 
you  will  say,  "What  about  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs?"  They  will  say,  "Well, 
everything  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  has  done,  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs  is  trying  to  undo." 

1  will  give  you  a  very  specific  example  from 
his  regional  priorities  budget.  The  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications  ap- 
proved a  northeast  bypass  which  would  join 
up  Highway  17,  west  of  Sudbury,  and  High- 
way 144,  north  of  Sudbury.  That  bypass  was 
promised  by  the  Minister  of  Transportation 
and  Communications  as  a  result  of  public 
hearings.  It  was  promised  because  the 
majority  of  the  business  people  in  that  area 
did  not  want  the  bypass;  they  wanted  an 
expansion  of  the  existing  route.  I  happened 
to  support  the  bypass.  To  the  credit  of  the 
former  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications, I  believe  he  listened  to  the 
public  at  large  and  did  the  right  thing;  he 
built  the  bypass. 

But  one  of  the  things  that  was  promised 
to  the  people  in  that  community,  to  the  busi- 
ness community  in  particular,  was,  "Support 
us  on  building  the  bypass,  and  we  will  put  a 
link  over  to  Highway  144  so  the  traffic  will 
come  over  this  way  coming  down  from 
Timmins  to  Toronto,  and  going  from  Toronto 
up  to  Timmins  or  from  the  Sault  up  to  the 
Timmins  area."  That  promise  was  made  to 
the  community,  that  they  would  proceed 
with  that  bypass,  that  link  between  the  two 
roads,  with  some  dispatch. 

In  the  community  the  municipal  councils 
and  regional  councils  were  proceeding  on  the 
assumption  that,  as  Highway  17  was  expanded 
to  four  lanes  and  the  bypass  built,  the  link 
would  then  fall  into  place.  We  were  given 
every  reason  to  believe  that.  Then,  suddenly 
this    fall,    the    Minister    of   Northern   Affairs 


4506 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


descended  out  of  the  far  north  into  Sudbury 
and  said:  "Maybe  priorities  have  shifted.  We 
need  an  updating  of  the  data."  What  a  lot 
of  nonsense!  There  is  no  updating  required. 
The  promise  was  made. 

Another  reason  the  minister  said  they  would 
build  a  bypass  there  is  that  at  the  present 
time  there  is  no  link  between  those  two  roads 
except  to  go  into  Sudbury.  We  were  pressing 
to  have  another  road.  From  each  highway  a 
road  went  part  way  in  but  they  were  not 
joined.  There  is  a  private  road,  owned  by 
Falconbridge,  called  the  Lockerby  Mine 
Road.  The  minister  said,  "No,  we  are  not  go- 
ing to  join  that  and  make  a  bypass  through 
there,  because  we  are  building  a  link  over 
the  bypass  in  question,  the  link  between 
Highway  17  and  144."  So  people,  including 
me,  said:  "All  right,  we  agree  with  you.  Build 
that  link  between  the  two  highways  and  then 
we  will  not  push  for  this  other  road  to  be 
joined  up,  because  it  makes  more  sense  to 
have  a  proper  link." 

There  were  all  sorts  of  holdups  with 
such  things  as  building  a  shopping  centre, 
until  an  exact  route  at  the  intersection  of 
Highway  144  was  determined,  and  so  forth. 
Then  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  ir»  his 
wisdom  shifted  priorities  around.  Perhaps 
he  could  tell  us  today  what  became  a  higher 
priority.  Was  it  Ontario  North  Now,  down 
at  Ontario  Place?  Is  that  where  the  funds 
went?  Did  it  go  to  the  northwest?  Where 
did  those  funds  go?  Those  funds  were  com- 
mitted. There  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

The  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  had  best 
not  show  his  comely  features  in  Sudbury 
these  days  or,  if  he  does,  he  had  better 
have  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  with  him  as  a  bodyguard, 
because  he  is  going  to  need  one. 

That  is  one  area  in  which  the  Ontario 
government  and  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs  are  failing  to  do  their  job  in  northern 
Ontario. 

A  few  moments  ago,  the  minister  talked 
about  rail  service.  There  is  what  is  called 
the  Budd  car  service,  which  runs  between 
Sudbury  and  White  River  and  back.  It  is 
a  neat  service  that  stops  at  all  the  small 
communities  along  the  line.  Hunters  can 
throw  a  moose  on  and  can  send  packages  in 
and  out.  It  is  a  boon  for  the  tourist  operators 
and  the  people  who  live  in  the  communities. 
I  use  it  myself  to  go  to  some  of  the  more 
remote  communities.  I  used  to  be  able  to 
go  in  the  morning  and  come  out  in  the 
afternoon. 

Within  six  months  of  every  federal  mem- 
ber   elected    in    northern    Ontario    being    a 


Liberal,  the  Canadian  Transport  Commis- 
sion cancelled  the  Budd  car  service.  The 
people  in  northeastern  Ontario  are  not  miss- 
ing that  message  one  iota,  not  a  bit.  They 
cancelled  the  service  for  the  Budd  car, 
imposing  a  hardship  on  those  communities. 

I  wrote  to  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs  and  said: 

"Dear  Mr.  Minister:  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  CTC  is  being  so  insensitive  to  the 
needs  of  the  northeast,  and  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  you  are  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs,  why  don't  you  join  with  us  in  battle 
and  get  the  CTC  to  reverse  that  incredible 
decision?" 

The  minister  said,  "I  agree  with  you;  we 
shouldn't  cancel  it."  I  said  to  him:  "That's 
not  much  of  a  commitment.  If  the  CTC 
persists,  why  don't  we  get  the  Ontario 
Northland  Railway  to  operate  the  Budd  car 
services?"  "Oh  no,"  said  the  minister,  "that 
is  a  federal  responsibility." 

That  is  some  commitment  to  northern 
Ontario.  Thanks  to  the  pressure  of  every- 
body except  this  minister,  the  CTC  has  now 
agreed  to  hold  public  hearings  in  some  of 
the  communities. 

Mr.  Wildman:  He  wrote  them  a  letter. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  the  minister  wrote 
a  letter.  Now  isn't  that  a  major  commitment 
on  behalf  of  the  people  of  northeastern 
Ontario? 

I  ask  the  minister  to  read  the  latest  head- 
line in  the  Chapleau  Sentinel  which  explains 
why  there  are  now  going  to  be  public 
hearings,  whereas  there  were  none  before. 
The  proper  credit  is  given  in  that  story. 

There  were  two  basic  reasons.  My  federal 
colleague  in  the  House  of  Commons,  the 
member  for  Regina  West,  Mr.  Les  Ben- 
jamin, has  done  a  truly  excellent  job.  He  is 
a  member  from  Regina  and  he  is  doing  more 
to  preserve  rail  service  in  northeastern 
Ontario  than  the  Minister  of  Northern  Af- 
fairs has  even  attempted  to  do.  The  member 
for  Regina  West  pointed  out  to  the  CTC 
there  are  two  basic  reasons  why  the  Budd 
car    service   should   be    maintained. 

He  said:  "Cross-Canada  travellers  cannot 
be  adequately  served  if  the  train  is  stop- 
ping to  do  local  work.  It  makes  more  sense 
to  supplement  the  Transcontinental  with  a 
local  train  than  to  stop  a  16-car  train  every 
four  or  five  miles  to  pick  up  a  trapper  or 
drop  off  a  parcel." 

The  second  reason  is:  "The  Canadian 
transcontinental  train  will  not  carry  express. 
Of  the  19  express  stations  currently  served 
by    the    Budd    car,    two   will    be   served    by 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4507 


interline  truck,  six  will  be  servqd  once  a 
week  by  way  freight,  and  11  are  left  with 
no  confirmation  of  service." 

Perhaps  I  can  expand  on  a  couple  of 
those  points.  It  is  so  stupid  to  ask  a  trans- 
continental service  to  go  from  coast  to  coast 
and  stop  at  communities  every  four  or  five 
miles  apart— that  is  no  exaggeration— com- 
munities some  of  which  have  10  people, 
some  50  people  and  some  200  people.  It  is 
simply   outrageous. 

How  can  we  ever  have  a  crack  transcon- 
tinental service  if  these  trains  are  stopping 
at  all  these  small  communities?  It  is  abso- 
lutely stupid. 

12  noon 

Secondly,  the  Canadian  will  not  carry  ex- 
press. Do  members  know  what  the  CTC 
told  us?  It  said:  "Your  concern  regarding 
the  service  changes  impact  on  Chapleau's 
fur,  tourist,  and  mineral  exploration  indus- 
tries is  appreciated."  And  here  comes  a 
critical  sentence.  "However,  please  be  as- 
sured that  the  CTC  has  ordered  Via  to 
provide  the  same  service  on  the  Transcon- 
tinental as  was  formerly  offered  by  trains 
185  and  186.  In  that  respect,  all  freight 
responsibilities  previously  provided  by  trains 
185  and  186  in  transporting  supplies  in  and 
out  of  Chapleau  will  now  be  carried  out  by 
the  Transcontinental  during  the  off-peak 
months.  The  only  exception  to  this  will  be 
hunters'  game,  which  will  be  transported  by 
a  Canadian  Pacific  truck  express  service." 

I  ask  the  minister,  how  is  a  truck  going 
to  get  into  these  remote  communities,  the 
only  access  to  which  is  rail,  and  carry  out 
the  moose?  I  hope  every  hunter  up  there 
who  shoots  a  moose  waves  down  the  Trans- 
continental and  lugs  his  moose  on  to  one 
of  the  passenger  cars.  Those  are  the  kinds 
of  silly  statements  that  are  coming  out  of 
the  CTC.  The  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs 
should  have  been  involved  in  this  issue. 
He  sits  there  like  a  pussy  cat  and  writes  a 
letter  to  the  CTC,  telling  them  he  thinks 
that  is  not  a  very  nice  thing  to  do. 

I  know  the  minister  is  very  happy  to  have 
federal  Liberal  members  representing  north- 
ern Ontario.  It  makes  him  feel  nice  and 
comfortable  and  he  can  then  blame  them 
for  the  problems  in  northern  Ontario.  But 
he  has  an  obligation  to  do  something  about 
their  stupidity.  He  sits  there  and  does  vir- 
tually nothing  about  it.  The  whole  thing  has 
become  absolutely  ludicrous.  All  I  can  say 
is,  thank  goodness,  my  colleague  Mr.  Ben- 
jamin was  able  to  prevail  upon  them  to 
hold  a  public  meeting. 


They  talk  about  express  service.  The  ex- 
press costs  for  shipping  in  and  out  of  Chap- 
leau by  truck  have  doubled-  Mr.  Peter 
Gjoni  owns  Northern  Pottery  up  there,  a 
very  nice  and  successful  operation.  He  has 
received  assistance  from  this  government  in 
the  past.  He  knows  from  experience  that 
his  costs  for  shipping  out  are  double.  That 
is  not  going  to  make  him  nearly  as  com- 
petitive as  he  once  was.  We  should  be  en- 
couraging those  kinds  of  businesses  in  north- 
ern Ontario.  What  is  the  minister  doing? 
Not  very  much. 

The  CTC  says  they  must  provide  the  same 
service.  Not  too  long  ago  someone  went  into 
the  station  in  Chapleau  and  said,  "I  would 
like  to  ship  this  plywood  to  mile  so  and  so 
up  the  track."  He  was  told:  "Oh,  no,  we 
won't  accept  that.  You  have  to  ship  it  by 
truck."  As  I  said  earlier,  there  is  no  road 
to  that  community,  yet  there  is  the  CTC 
assuring  us  that  the  service  will  be  provided 
to  the  same  degree  as  was  provided  by  the 
Budd  car  service.  That  is  total  nonsense. 

I  hope  that  as  the  public  hearings  take 
place  we  will  see  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs  there  making  the  case  for  Ontario 
and  for  those  small  communities  in  north- 
eastern Ontario.  Do  I  have  that  commit- 
ment from  the  minister? 

Mr.  Wildman:  He  will  be  there  but  he 
will  say  he  will  live  with  whatever  they  say. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes.  I  hope  the  minister  is 
unequivocal  in  his  position  at  those  hearings, 
and  not  like  he  was  in  his  letter  to  me, 
where  he  was  more  or  less  shrugging  his 
shoulders  and  saying  that  is  a  federal 
responsibility.  I  do  hope  I  have  made  some 
impression  upon  the  minister  about  the  need 
to  maintain  the  Budd  car  service. 

Another  area  that  bothers  me,  when  I 
think  of  the  minister's  responsibilities  under 
the  regional  priorities  budget,  is  the  need  to 
create  new  jobs  and  maintain  existing  jobs  in 
the  north.  It  is  not  too  long  ago  since  I  spent 
a  day  at  Jarvis  Clark,  a  very  aggressive, 
healthy  mining  machinery  company  in  North 
Bay  owned  by  CIL.  They  are  expanding 
into  world  markets  and  are  really  flexing 
their  muscles.  They  have  the  money  behind 
them  to  do  it. 

I  went  there  because  I  had  heard  a  rumour 
that  Jarvis  Clark  was  expanding  its  operations 
in  southern  Ontario.  Sure  enough,  they  are. 
They  have  bought  a  plant  in  Burlington  for 
warehousing  purposes  and  God  only  knows 
what  else  down  the  road.  When  I  went  to 
visit  Jarvis  Clark  and  spent  some  time  there, 
touring    their    plant,    meeting    the    president 


4508 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


and  so  forth,  they  impressed  on  me  a  couple 
of  things.  First,  there  is  a  shortage  of  skilled 
tradespeople  they  need  there.  I  do  not  know 
why  they  would  need  skilled  tradespeople  in 
a  warehouse;  nevertheless,  that  was  a 
problem,  they  said.  Secondly,  they  were 
going  into  export  markets  and  they  wanted 
to  be  down  here. 

More  fundamental  than  that  is  that  the 
company  has  no  sense  of  obligation  to  expand' 
in  the  north.  The  reason  they  have  no  sense 
of  obligation  is  that,  although  they  know  they 
started  there  and  that  is  where  they  became 
healthy,  there  is  no  regional  plan  into  which 
they  can  plug.  There  is  nothing.  The  com- 
pany in  northern  Ontario  operates,  makes  a 
profit,  does  its  thing;  they  don't  feel  part  of 
any  northern  Ontario  strategy. 

That  is  part  of  what  I  was  talking  about 
at  the  beginning  when  I  said  there  was  a  day 
when  no  budget  would  have  been  brought 
down  here  without  talking  about  regional 
development  in  northern  Ontario.  Communi- 
ties in  northern  Ontario  have  no  reason  to 
stay  in  the  north  and  expand  if  it  is  more 
convenient  for  them  to  do  so  in  southern 
Ontario.  That  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
Minister  of  Northern  Affairs.  I  would  have 
thought  that  is  why  he  has  a  regional  prior- 
ities budget,  yet  it  is  as  though  there  were 
no  regional  priorities. 

Falconbridge  Nickel  Mines  in  Sudburv  is 
another  example.  Thev  have  been  there 
almost  50  years.  To  this  day  they  have  no 
refinery.  They  do  the  dirty  and  dangerous 
work  in  Sudbury,  namely,  the  digging  out  of 
the  ore  and  the  smelting,  and  they  ship  the 
ore  to  Norwav  for  processing.  The  minister 
was  formerlv  Minister  of  Natural  Resources; 
he  knows  the  story  well.  To  this  day  not 
only  is  Falconbridge  allowed  to  ship  its  ore 
to  Norway  but,  to  add  insult  to  injury,  it  can 
also  write  off  the  processing  costs  in  Norway 
against  its  operating  profits  in  Ontario.  That 
is  a  crazy  policy  on  the  part  of  this  govern- 
ment. Creating  a  refinery  there  would  create 
jobs  and  give  us  something  to  which  we  are 
entitled.  That  is  not  a  favour;  we  are  entitled 
to  it. 

I  never  hear  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs  talking  about  freight  rates  in  north- 
ern Ontario.  We  know  that  is  a  deterrent  to 
the  development  of  the  north.  If  this  govern- 
ment were  as  angry  about  things  on  which 
they  disagree  with  the  federal  Liberals  as 
they  are  cozy  with  items  and  issues  on  which 
they  agree,  we  might  accomplish  something 
in  this  province.  When  this  government 
agrees  with  the  Prime  Minister,  my  goodness, 


the  embrace  is  something  to  behold;  but 
when  they  disagree,  they  are  a  bunch  of 
pussycats.  That  is  what  has  to  change.  The 
government  has  to  say,  "We  agree  with  the 
federal  government  on  certain  issues  and 
support  you  there,  but  when  we  disagree,  we 
are  going  to  make  it  very  uncomfortable  for 
you."  The  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  has 
not  made  it  uncomfortable  for  the  federal 
government  in  northern  Ontario.  The  federal 
Liberals  have  done  virtually  nothing  for 
northern  Ontairo  all  the  time  they  have  been 
in  power.  Does  the  minister  agree  with  me? 
Of  course  he  does.  He  is  nodding  his  head. 
Yet  I  never  hear  him  saying  that. 

Interjection. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That's  right,  but  Mr.  Rod- 
riguez is  not  there  any  more.  When  Rod- 
riguez was  there  he  got  public  hearings  when 
t^ey  tried  to  cut  back  the  service  of  the  CN. 
Now  Rodriguez  isn't  there,  the  federal 
Liberals  are  saying  nothing.  They  are  mute 
on  issues  in  northern  Ontario  that  are  im- 
portant. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  Minister  of  State  for  Mines, 
Judy  Erola,  is  a  northerner. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Nixon:  And  she's  a  great  minister. 

Mr.  Laughren:  She  has  done  nothing.  She 
has  no  mines  either.  She  is  known  as  the 
mineless  minister. 

There  is  another  issue  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs  was  strangely  silent  on,  and 
that  had  to  do  with  the  iron  ore  mines. 
National  Steel  in  Capreol,  north  of  Sudbury, 
was  closing  down.  They  made  $6  million  the 
previous  year— a  profitable  operation— and  they 
closed  down.  The  minister  looked  the  other 
way,  embarrassed,  and  said  virtually  nothing. 
There  was  no  reason  for  that  closing  at  all. 

I  think  of  this  minister's  potential  to  de- 
velop northern  Ontario  and  compare  that  to 
what  he  is  doing  and  it  riles  me.  There  are 
some  other  examples  I  want  to  mention  to 
the  minister.  They  are  not  as  sweeping  as  the 
ones  I  have  talked  about  so  far,  but  one  is 
the  whole  question  of  a  little  community 
called  Gogama.  Gogama  is  a  nice  little  com- 
munity. Citizens  have  formed  themselves  into 
different  organizations.  They  have  raised 
money  locally;  they  have  taken  a  real  interest 
in  making  that  a  better  community  in  which 
to  live.  They  are  in  the  process  of  forming 
a  local  services  board  now,  one  of  the  first 
in  the  province. 
12:10  p.m. 

1  hope  the  minister  has  noticed  that  two 
of  the  first  service  boards  in  the  province  are 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4509 


in  the  riding  of  Nickel  Belt  and  the  very  first 
one  was  in  the  riding  of  Nickel  Belt. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  And  you  weren't  there 
to  honour  the  event.  Very  nice. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Foleyet,  yes.  The  night  that 
local  service  board  was  honoured  by  the 
minister— and  I  was  really  glad  he  was  able 
to  go  there  and  do  that— was  the  same  night 
they  brought  down  the  mini-budget.  I  regret 
very  much  I  could  not  be  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  A  funny  coincidence. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  do  not  really  think  they, 
knowing  I  am  the  treasury  critic,  did  it  that 
way  on  purpose.  I  am  not  paranoid,  but  even 
paranoids  have  enemies. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  They  are  going  to  re- 
member that. 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  may  remember  it. 

To  get  back  to  Gogama:  People  there  have 
really  worked  hard  to  make  their  com- 
munity a  better  place  in  which  to  live.  They 
applied  last  year  for  a  grant.  They  built  a 
firehall.  They  have  an  ambulance  and  a  fire 
truck  there.  The  Sudbury  District  Health  Unit 
says:  "This  is  a  public  place.  You  wash  your 
vehicles  in  there.  You  hold  public  meetings 
in  there.  You  had  better  have  washroom 
facilities."  So  they  apply  for  a  grant  for 
building  washroom  facilities  to  help  them  out 
with  the  field  grant  and  so  forth.  Northern 
Affairs  told  them  it  was  okay  to  go  right 
ahead.  The  grant  is  $8,303.  They  are  given 
every  reason  to  believe  they  would  get  that 
grant.  I  was  given  every  reason  to  believe  it. 
I  phoned  the  minister's  executive  assistant, 
who  said:  "It  looks  like  that  grant  is  going  to 
go  through.  There  is  just  a  holdup  here;  I 
will  straighten  that  out." 

It  was  straightened  out  all  right:  They  were 
told  they  were  not  going  to  get  the  grant.  I 
think  that  was  handled  in  a  very  shabby  way. 
Now  the  people  in  Gogama  are  being  told 
the  application  goes  beyond  the  provisions  of 
basic  community  services.  Isn't  that  beautiful? 
The  facilities  in  this  public  building  go  be- 
yond the  basic  community  services.  I  think 
the  minister  should  reassess  the  rejection  of 
that  grant  application  for  some  $8,000.  The 
community  was  prepared  to  put  some  money 
of  its  own  in  as  well. 

I  should  remind  him  it  was  the  Ministry 
of  Natural  Resources  which  originally  ap- 
proved it.  There  was  a  freeze  on  the  lot;  they 
approved  taking  the  freeze  off  to  allow  the 
building  to  be  built  in  the  first  place.  So  I 
think  there  is  an  obligation  on  the  part  of  the 
Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  to  review  the 
rejection  of  that  grant  application.  I  think  it 
was  not  done  in  a  very  nice  way. 


If  the  minister  wants  to  make  it  clear  to 
all  communities  that  a  grant  like  that  is  not 
appropriate,  then  he  should  send  out  some 
kind  of  notice  to  all  the  local  service  boards 
and  the  community  organizations  so  they 
know.  They  did  not  know  that.  They  were 
given  every  reason  to  believe,  and  they 
proceeded  under  the  belief,  that  they  were 
going  to  get  their  money.  That  may  not 
seem  much  to  the  minister  when  he  is  talking 
about  $90  million  for  his  regional  priorities 
budget,  but  $8,300  to  a  small  community 
like  Gogama  really  does  mean  something. 

The  last  point  I  want  to  raise  has  to  do 
with  the  Chapleau  airport.  I  do  not  know 
whether  the  minister  has  been  involved  in 
this  dispute  yet.  Chapleau  is  under  super- 
vision and,  as  such,  all  expenditures  must 
be  approved  by  the  Minister  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs  (Mr.  Wells). 

They  applied  to  have  an  airport  man- 
ager. The  airport  there  is  served  by  nor- 
Ontair  and  there  are  quite  a  few  small 
private  planes  in  the  Chapleau  area  owned 
by  tourist  operators,  the  lumber  barons  in 
the  area  and  so  forth.  They  applied  to  hire 
an  airport  manager  and  were  turned  down 
by  the  Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs. 
The  airport  commission  feels  very  strongly 
that  the  manager  should  be  hired,  because 
they  can  no  longer  run  it  like  a  shoestring 
operation.  There  is  the  sale  of  fuel  to  worry 
about,  ticket  sales,  clearance  of  the  runway 
and  weather  forecasting.  All  those  things 
are  going  on  there,  and  it  should  not  be 
run  by  a  part-time  person  any  more.  It  has 
become  too  sophisticated,  and  there  is  an 
obligation  on  the  part  of  the  Ministry  of 
Northern  Affairs  to  help  out  there. 

In  his  response,  I  hope  the  minister  will 
tell  me  whether  other  municipalities  have 
airport  managers  in  small  communities. 
Quite  frankly,  I  do  not  know.  If  so,  will 
he  tell  me  roughly  what  kind  of  salary  are 
they  receiving,  what  are  their  duties  and 
why  is  he  not— or  maybe  he  is— prepared 
to  move  in  and  help  out  Chapleau  in  hiring 
an  airport  manager  and  talking  to  the  Min- 
istry of  Intergovernmental  Affairs?  Because 
they  are  under  supervision  does  not  mean 
they  do  not  have  to  get  on  with  the  daily 
business  of  running  a  community  and  a  local 
airport.  I  would  hope  the  minister  will 
respond  to  some  of  the  points  I  have  raised. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wel- 
come the  honourable  member's  contribution 
to  the  examination  of  the  estimates  of  this 
ministry. 


4510 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Laughren:  I  did  say  something  good, 
too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  he  said  a  little 
more  than  he  did  a  few  years  ago.  There 
has  been  a  slight  improvement.  When  I  first 
came  to  Queen's  Park  several  years  ago  as 
a  novice,  as  one  from  the  backwoods  of 
northwestern  Ontario— I  was  elected  in  a 
by-election  in  1966—1  sat  here  that  first 
year— because  there  was  a  general  election 
in  1967— and  I  listened  to  the  member 
for  Nickel  Belt  at  that  time- 
Mr.  Laughren:  I  was  not  here  then. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  His  attitude  was  the 
same. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  was  elected  in  1971. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  But  the  attitude  is  the 
same.  I  would  go  back  to  my  hotel  room  at 
night  and  I  would  think:  "God,  things  are 
terrible  in  this  province.  They  are  really 
terrible.  I  cannot  believe  how  terrible  things 
are  in  this  Legislature."  Yet  I  would  go  home 
on  the  weekend  and  people  were  so  grateful; 
things  were  happening  in  northern  Ontario, 
all  over  northern  Ontario  and  all  across  this 
province. 

In  fact,  it  was  so  bad  I  said  to  my  wife  one 
night,  "Things  are  so  bad,  this  government 
will  never  get  re-elected."  That  was  1966.  We 
are  still  around.  We  are  still  doing  great 
things  for  the  people  of  this  province,  from 
Kenora  right  clean  through  to  Ottawa.  I  say 
that  as  a  matter  of  interest,  because  the 
attitude  is  the  same.  I  hope  that  the  member 
for  Nickel  Belt  will  go  to  Saskatchewan  and1 
get  on  the  government  side  of  the  House.  I 
think  he  has  been  too  long  in  opposition. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  agree. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  He  has  become  so  cyni- 
cal, so  critical,  it  is  built  into  his  lifestyle.  I 
feel  sorry  for  him,  because  he  is  missing  a 
way  of  life.  There  are  so  many  great  things 
happening  around  him  and  he  has  closed  his 
eyes  to  them.  Just  last  week- 
Mr.  Laughren:  Does  the  minister  think  I 
have  raised  legitimate  problems? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  but  the  member 
forgot  a  lot  of  them,  though-a  lot  of  the 
good  things.  That  is  what  I  am  saying. 

Mr.  Laughren:  My  job  is  to  raise  legitimate 
problems. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  know.  That  is  the  point 
I  am  getting  to.  I  have  some  sympathy  for 
the  member,  and  I  feel  sorry  for  him.  Just 
last  week  I  had  to  be  in  Ottawa;  then  the 
next  day  I  flew  to  Sudbury.  What  a  beauti- 


ful day  it  was.  The  weather  was  great.  The 
attitudes  were  great.  There  we  were,  opening 
up  a  brand-new,  $12-million  provincial  build- 
ing. And  who  was  there?  The  member  for 
Kenora  was  there,  the  Minister  of  Northern 
Affairs  was  there,  period. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  rise  on  a  point  of  privi- 
lege, Mr.  Chairman.  The  minister  is  distorting 
the  facts  and  misleading  us  all  by  saying  that, 
because  he  knows  full  well  that  a  plane  left 
here  in  the  morning  with  the  member  for 
Sudbury  (Mr.  Germa)  on  it,  who  was  attempt- 
ing to  get  there  for  that  opening— along  with 
the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis),  I  might  add.  The 
minister  had  better  retract  that  statement. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  He  did  not  arrive.  No- 
body arrived.  But,  as  a  member  for  northern 
Ontario,  I  have  a  responsibility  and  I  made 
sure  I  was  there.  I  made  sure  I  was  there  to 
look  after  the  member's  interests  and  the 
interests  of  this  government,  and  it  was  a 
real  pleasure  and  a  real  honour  to  officiate 
at  that  official  opening  ceremony. 

Bouquets  were  prepared  and  tossed  out  to 
the  Premier  of  this  province  and  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  this  province  by  the  municipal 
leaders— in  fact,  they  had1  prepared  texts;  all 
the  texts  were  prepared  and  written  out,  and 
they  read  them  verbatim.  It  was  very  pleas- 
ant from  my  point  of  view  and  of  course  I 
thanked  them  profusely.  They  even  recog- 
nized the  great  contribution  that  2001  had 
made  to  the— I  know  the  member  does  not 
want  to  touch  on  that,  but  the  mayor  of 
Sudbury  literally  made  reference  to  it;  the 
member  may  want  to  comment  on  that. 
12:20  p.m. 

Then,  of  course,  I  went  on  to  Foleyet.  I 
regretted  that  the  honourable  member  was 
not  there,  because  it  was  an  historical  occa- 
sion. As  I  said  to  the  people  in  Foleyet, 
"This  is  the  first  local  services  board  in  the 
world."  It  was  a  gala  event.  The  pride  dis- 
played by  the  people  of  Foleyet  was  some- 
thing I  will  long  remember.  It  was  a  sight  to 
behold.  I  was  pleased  and  I  made  mention 
there  of  the  contribution  all  political  parties 
have  made  to  the  LSB  bill  itself-yes,  I  did. 
In  fact,  it  is  such  a  good  bill  that  all  political 
parties  want  to  take  credit  for  it. 

Getting  back  to  the  priority-setting  for  the 
highway  construction  program,  I  want  to 
correct  an  earlier  figure  I  gave.  I  said  we  had 
$92  million  in  road  construction  programs  in 
northern  Ontario  in  the  1980-81  budget.  That 
figure  should  be  $96.5  million.  It  is  a  very 
handsome  figure,  one  that  people  in  northern 
Ontario  are  very  grateful  for. 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4511 


I  went  to  Sudbury  and  had  a  very  pleasant 
lunch  with  the  regional  chairman,  with  the 
mayor  of  Rayside-Balfour,  the  mayor  of 
Walden  and  a  couple  of  others.  We  dis- 
cussed the  north-south  bypass.  I  said  to  them 
at  that  time,  "What  is  all  the  fuss?"  One  of 
them  said  to  me:  "Look,  there  was  a  munic- 
ipal election.  We  could  not  get  any  ink.  Really 
we  had  to  say  something.  We  had  to  get  the 
pot  boiling  a  little  bit."  I  said:  "The  Minis- 
ter of  Transportation  and  Communications 
made  the  announcement.  When  a  member 
of  this  cabinet  makes  a  public  statement,  it 
is  a  commitment  of  this  government.  That 
commitment  will  be  lived  up  to." 

Mr.  Laughren:  You  are  holding  it  back  at 
least  a  year. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No,  we  are  not.  The 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions had  indicated  it  would  be  in  the  1982 
budget. 

Mr.  Laughren:  In  1981. 
Hon.   Mr.   Bernier:    In   1982.   It  is   in  the 
1982  program,  and  there  is  no  change. 
Mr.  Laughren:  You  promised  1981. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  said  I  would  like  to 
see  a  start  maybe  in  1981.  I  said  that  in  Sud- 
bury. We  are  going  to  try  to  do  something 
to  see  if  we  can  get  something  going  in  1981. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  is  really  shabby  on 
your  part. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No.  It  was  announced 
for  1982  as  part  of  a  program  that  has  to  be 
examined.  The  land  acquisition  is  all  com- 
plete. The  environmental  assessment  is  near- 
ing  completion.  The  design  work  is  practically 
complete.  Everybody  knows  it  was  in  the 
1982  program.  It  was  accepted;  so  I  do  not 
know  what  the  fuss  is.  It  is  there,  it  is  a 
commitment  and  this  government  honours  its 
commitments. 

Mr.  Laughren:  You  have  delayed  it  a  year. 
Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No,  we  did  not. 

Mr.  Laughren:  You  made  a  commitment 
that  construction  would  start  in  1981. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  could  not  make  a  com- 
mitment like  that.  I  do  not  even  know  what 
my  1981-82  budget  will  be.  The  Treasurer 
gives  me  my  allocation  and  we  work  out  the 
budgetary  process  for  the  next  year.  I  said 
that  in  Sudbury.  We  are  as  anxious  to  get  on 
with  that  access  as  anybody  else. 

Getting  back  to  the  Budd  car,  I  was  pleased 
the  member  brought  that  issue  up  because  I 
failed  to  mention  it  in  my  earlier  remarks. 
The  Budd  car  is  a  burning  issue  with  us  in 
the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs.  We  made 


our  feelings  known  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment. I  am  pleased  the  member  made  repre- 
sentation to  his  federal  Liberal  colleagues, 
because  they  sat  very  quietly. 

So  often  the  federal  government  does  things 
and  we  are  called  upon  to  rattle  the  chains 
and  to  beat  the  drum  for  northern  Ontario 
and  we  are  going  to  continue  to  do  that.  We 
have  done  it  for  television.  We  appeared  at 
the  hearings  in  Geraldton  and  the  recom- 
mendations we  made  at  the  CRTC  hearings 
in  Geraldton  with  relation  to  television  have 
been  accepted  by  the  CRTC.  We  are  waiting 
for  the  federal  government  to  get  on  with  it, 
to  accept  those  as  recommendations  that  will 
improve  that.  Our  presence  is  very  real  and 
is  there.  We  will  be  at  the  public  hearing  with 
regard1  to  the  Budd  car.  I  say  that  sincerely. 
We  will  be  there  and  we  will  be  as  vocal  as 
we  know  how  because  we  have  the  responsi- 
bility, as  you  correctly  point  out,  to  look  after 
the  interests  and  the  needs  of  that  great  vast 
area  of  northern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Why  didn't  you  do  that 
with  CN?  You  said  you  would  accept  what- 
ever decision  they  made. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No.  We  fought  them 
all  the  way  along  and  we  will  continue.  We 
are  even  righting  them  now  with  regard  to 
Minaki,  for  God's  sake. 

Mr.  Laughren:  You  said  you  were  op- 
posed to  it,  but  you  would  accept  any  deci- 
sion they  made.  So  they  went  ahead  and 
made  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  will  not  accept  any- 
thing from  them.  If  it  is  a  decline  or  a 
lessening  of  the  service  to  the  people  of 
northern  Ontario,  we  will  be  in  there  fighting 
for  them.  That  has  been  our  attitude.  That 
has  been  the  feeling  of  this  ministry  and  we 
will  continue  that. 

Getting  on  with  Gogama,  as  the  member 
has  correctly  pointed  out.  Gogama  has  ap- 
plied for  local  services  board  status.  That  is 
progressing  very  well  and  it  will  be  an- 
nounced and  should  be  in  place  very  soon. 

I  am  prepared  to  look  at  that  isolated 
communities  assistance  fund  grant  again.  I 
think  our  responsibility  has  to  be  to  the 
priority  requirement  of  the  community,  and 
possibly  a  washroom  area  for  firemen  may 
not  be  that,  in  somebody's  opinion.  But  I  am 
prepared  to  have  another  look  at  that. 

Mr.   Laughren:    The  washroom   area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  the  washroom 
area;  we  will  have  a  look  at  that. 

I  was  not  aware  of  the  problem  in  relation 
to   the   Chapleau  airport.    As   you   know,  we 


4512 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


have  put  about  $1.8  million  into  that  facility 
under  the  regional  priority  budget.  It  is  an 
excellent  airstrip;  norOntair  goes  in  there 
now.  The  Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Communications  does  have  a  program  to 
assist  municipalities  in  cost  sharing  the  main- 
tenance of  the  airports  that  are  municipally 
owned.  The  town  of  Sioux  Lookout,  which 
is  comparable  in  size  to  Chapleau— about 
2,500  people— has  an  airport  manager.  So  I 
think  there  must  be  a  way  that  they  could 
come  up  with  some  program.  We  really  have 
to  take  a  look  at  that. 

I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  answers  all 
the  members'  very  constructive  criticism. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Except  for  the  regional 
developments  in  the  north  like  Jarvis  Clark. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
Jarvis  Clark  issue  was  one  that  bothered  us 
and  I  would  like  to  share  that  feeling  with 
vou.  When  we  heard  they  were  going  to  Bur- 
lington we  made  our  feelings  known  to  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism.  We  felt 
very  strongly  that  it  should  be  an  expansion 
to  the  plant  in  North  Bay.  We  are  very 
proud  of  that  plant.  It  employs  something 
like  400  people  now  and  they  are  exporting 
mining  equipment- 
Mr.  Bolan:  There  are  500  there  and  100  in 
Sudbury. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  ond  they  export 
right  across  the  world.  I  understand  they 
are  getting  into  a  different  field  as  they 
come  down  to  Burlington.  As  you  correctly 
pointed  out,  they  wanted  some  skilled 
labour;  they  want  to  be  close  to  the  market. 
I  think  one  of  the  comments  that  came  to 
me  was  they  did  not  want  all  their  egts 
in  one  basket.  That  did  not  really  wash  with 
me.  We  have  made  our  feelings  known  and 
we  will  continue  to  make  that  attitude 
known  to  these  companies  that  move  out  of 
the  north. 

Mr.  Laughren:   It  is  always  after  the  fact. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  No,  we  have  b?en 
involved  since  day  one  and  I  can  tell  you 
right  now,  they  are  not  finished  yet. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Again  under  the  heading  of 
tourism,  there  are  two  points  I  would  like 
to  raise.  That  should  just  about  finish  off 
my  portion  of  the  estimates. 

I  believe  you  sold  Moosonee  Lodge. 
Moosonee  Lodge  was  sold  in  what  year?  The 
reason  I  am  asking  you  is  that  I  have  a 
profit  and  loss  statement  for  the  Ontario 
Northland  Railway  operation  for  the  period 
ending  November  30,  1979.  That  would 
leave  another  three  months  to  run  en  what- 


ever their  period  is.  On  their  expenditures 
they  have  Moosonee  Lodge  for  which  they 
had  budgeted  a  deficit  of  $8,485  whereas 
the  actual  deficit,  as  of  the  end  of  November 
1979,  was  $133,007.  I  am  having  some 
difficulty  in  understanding  these  figures.  My 
information  is  that  the  lodge  was  sold  before 
that,  so  why  are  we  still  carrying  such  a 
deficit  of  some  $8,000  when  as  of  the  end 
of  November  1979  the  actual  deficit  was 
$133,000?  I  am  sure  there  is  an  explanation 
for  it  and  I  would  like  to  have  it. 

12:30  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  They  are  getting  the 
figures  now. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Fine.  There  are  two  more 
points  I  want  to  make.  On  the  Ontario 
Northland  Railway,  I  would  like  to  know 
the  monthly  cost  of  repairs  for  the  North- 
lander.  I  will  not  go  into  the  whole  history 
of  it  as  you  know  when  it  was  acquired. 
It  has  been  with  us  now  since  June  10, 
1977.  I  understand  it  ran  into  all  kinds  of 
difficulties  during  the  first  while  with  respect 
to  maintenance  and  service  repairs— not  just 
service  repairs  but  actual  mechanical  break- 
downs. 

I  would  like  to  know  if  you  have  a  figure 
on  what  the  monthly  repair  cost  is  for  the 
Northlander.  When  I  speak  of  the  North- 
lander,  I  mean  all  of  the  units.  I  believe 
there  are  four  or  five  units.  You  might  want 
to  provide  me  with  that  figure  as  well.  I  am 
told  it  is  as  high  as  $125,000  or  $150,000  a 
month.  That  seems  astronomical.  I  do  not 
know,   but   I    want  to  find   that  out. 

While  those  figures  are  being  obtained,  I 
would  like  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister  a  petition  which  was  forwarded  for 
his  attention  a  year  ago.  It  was  a  petition 
from  the  River  Valley  Citizens'  Association 
to  do  with  a  road,  Highway  539  and  539A. 
It  was  signed  by  some  250  oeonle.  Their 
concern  was  the  condition  of  the  road. 

As  a  result  of  the  poor  condition  of  the 
road,  there  was  a  period  of  half-loading 
there.  Half-loading  put  a  major  portion  of 
the  work  force  on  unemployment  or  wel- 
fare for  anywhere  up  to  three  months  in  a 
year.  School  buses,  which  transport  the  chil- 
dren to  and  from  their  schools,  go  over  it 
twice  a  day.  Most  residents  of  River  Valley 
have  to  travel  to  Sturgeon  Falls  for  health, 
legal,  banking  and  commercial  services.  The 
road  in  question  is  about  10  miles  long. 

You  did  acknowledge  receipt  of  this  peti- 
tion under  letter  of  February  13.  You  did 
say  there  was  some  construction  going  on 
to   improve   the   road.   You   said:    "The  resi- 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4513 


dents  of  River  Valley  will  benefit  from  some 
improvements  in  the  driving  conditions  upon 
the  reconstruction  of  the  bridge  over  Mc- 
Cardy  Creek,  five  miles  northwest  of  Field. 
This  work,  which  includes  reconstruction  of 
about  a  half  mile  of  road  on  either  side  of 
the  bridge,  is  scheduled  to  take  place  during 
1980-81."  You  then  said  you  regretted  you 
were  unable  to  tell  them  when  the  remain- 
der of  the  road  would  be  rebuilt. 

As  I  say,  this  was  six  or  seven  months 
ago.  I  have  been  over  that  road  and,  be- 
lieve me,  it  is  a  sad  sight.  These  people  have 
a  very  legitimate  complaint.  I  would  like  to 
obtain  from  you  at  this  time  an  undertaking 
that  further  road  construction  will  be  done 
on  this  highway  with  a  view  to  making  it 
easier  for  not  only  the  residents  of  River 
Valley,  but  people  who  travel  with  logging 
trucks  back  and  forth.  They  are  running  at 
half -loads  and  it  costs  just  as  much  for  them 
to  run  at  half-loads  as  it  does  with  a  full 
or  three-quarter  load.  The  reason  they  have 
to  run  at  half-loads  is  the  condition  of  the 
road.  Perhaps  I  could  have  some  response 
on  that  as  well  as  on  the  items  which  I 
raised  about  Moosonee  Lodge  and  the  cost 
of  repairs  on  a  monthly  basis  to  the  North- 
lander. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  an- 
swer to  the  members  earlier  inquiry  with 
respect  to  the  Chapleau  problem  of  the  air- 
port, I  have  just  been  informed  that  my 
deputy,  Mr.  Herridge,  will  be  in  Chapleau 
on  Tuesday.  He  has  already  had  some  dis- 
cussions with  Reeve  Howard  with  respect 
to  the  airport  itself.  We  have  been  in  touch 
with  the  Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Af- 
fairs with  regard  to  the  financing  and  the 
airport  matters.  We  can  assure  you  nothing 
will  be  done  that  will  affect  or  even  close 
the  airport.  We  want  to  assure  you  that  will 
not  happen  under  any  circumstances.  That 
can  be  passed  on  to  them.  There  is  no  fear 
of  that  happening. 

In  connection  with  the  operation  of  the 
Northlander,  I  would  advise  the  member 
the  actual  operating  subsidy  for  1979-80 
was  $4,658,000,  and  in  the  1980-81  plan  it 
is  $4,672,000.  As  you  know  the  engine  con- 
version for  the  Northlander  was  done  in  the 
North  Bay  shops  where  the  very  able  staff 
of  the  Ontario  Northland  Transportation 
Commission  installed  Canadian-made  idiesel 
units  m  these  Swiss-manufactured  locomo- 
tives. The  cost  of  that  engine  conversion  in 
1979-80  was  $770,000  and  in  the  1980-81 
plan  it  was  $850,000. 

I  am  just  waiting  for  the  information  on 
the  Moosonee  Lodge,  and  on  Highway  539. 


Mr.  Bolan:  When  was  the  lodge  sold? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  The  Moosonee  Lodge 
was  sold  in  1979  for  $133,000.  I  am  ad- 
vised the  loss  on  disposal  was  approximately 
$90,000.  That  is  the  difference  between  the 
book  value  of  approximately  $224,000  and 
the  amount  received  for  the  sale  of  the 
lodge,  which  was  $133,000.  Accounting  rules 
require  that  this  loss  on  disposal  be  shown 
in  the  financial  statement.  That  is  the  figure 
to  which  the  member  refers. 

Mr.  Bolan:  How  was  it  sold?  Was  it  sold 
by  public  tender?  I  see  Mr.  Herridge  nod- 
ding. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Yes,  it  was  solid  by 
public  tender.  The  idea  of  selling  the 
Moosonee  Lodge  had  been  floating  around 
for  a  considerable  time.  It  was  felt  it  could 
be  operated  much  more  efficiently  by  the 
private   sector. 

I  think  the  initial  idea  of  getting  it  going 
and  keeping  it  operational  until  the  private 
sector  was  strong  enough  to  take  over  was  a 
valid  one.  Now  that  it  has  taken  over,  it 
seems  to  be  going  very  well. 

In  connection  with  Highway  539-539A,  the 
member  correctly  points  out  that  the  work 
that  was  promised  was  done.  McCardy  Creek 
bridge  will  be  advertised  for  tender  on  Janu- 
ary 21,  1981.  We  will  be  calling  tenders  for 
the  construction  of  that  bridge  in  January 
for  completion  in  the  summer  of  1981. 

Mr.  Bolan:  What  about  the  rest  of  the 
road? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  will  get  the  informa- 
tion on  that  for  the  member.  I  do  not  have 
it  right  at  my  fingertips.  If  I  don't  get  it 
before  the  estimates  are  over,  I  will  make 
sure  the  member  gets  it  in  the  mail. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  may 
seem  strange  for  the  member  for  Scarborough 
West  to  be  getting  up  on  something  that 
has  to  do  with  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs.  It  is  because  of  the  close  relationship 
I  have  with  Mr.  Wildman.  We  have  con- 
sidered swapping  our  jurisdictions,  one  of  the 
reasons  being  that  the  encroachment  by 
Northern  Affairs  into  Metro— which  is  my 
responsibility— has  become  obvious  of  late 
with  Ontario  North  Now  coming  into  Ontario 
Place.  It  is  to  do  with  Ontario  North  Now 
that  I  wanted  to  ask  a  couple  of  questions 
of  the  minister. 

I  visited  the  exhibition  at  Ontario  Place  for 
the  first  time  this  summer  with  a  friend  of 
mine  from  France  who  is  a  unilingual  franco- 
phone. He  is  a  forestry  student  in  France,  by 
the  way.  We  went  there  because  I  thought 


4514 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  forestry  side  of  things  would  interest  him 
and  I  also  thought  this  would  be  a  way  of 
showing  him  part  of  the  French  culture  of 
Ontario  and  part  of  the  role  francophones 
have  played  in  opening  up  Ontario  and  in 
developing  the  north. 

I  presumed  this  would  be  one  area  in  the 
whole  of  Ontario  Place  where  I  might  be 
able  to  find  something  he  would  be  able  to 
understand  in  French,  maybe  even  be  able  to 
hear  a  slide  show  in  French.  I  thought  he 
would  at  least  be  able  to  have  some  compre- 
hension that  this  province  is  not  just  made  up 
of  anglophones  and  that  a  special  part  of  our 
province  has  been  opened  up  in  a  great 
many  respects  by  francophones  and  Franco- 
Ontarians. 

12:40  p.m. 

I  was  very  disappointed  to  see  not  one 
word  of  French  in  the  whole  place.  There 
was  mention,  certainly,  of  the  French  com- 
munity but  it  was  mentioned1  in  English.  In 
the  slide  show,  there  was  not  one  word  of 
French  involved.  There  were  many  displays 
with  many  plaques  on  the  walls,  all  in  En- 
glish. There  was  a  major  pamphlet  display  at 
the  very  end  with  information  on  all  the 
northern  municipalities,  put  together,  as  I 
understand  it,  by  the  northern  mayors.  There 
was  not  one  word  of  French,  not  one  pam- 
phlet in  French  in  the  whole  place. 

(I  became  very  upset  about  this  and  wrote 
to  the  Premier  asking  why  this  had  occurred. 
His  response  to  me  indicated  that  the  reasons, 
outside  of  oversight— to  which  he  did  not 
admit— were  lack  of  time,  lack  of  money  and 
a  lack  of  space  in  the  exhibit. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Aurele  Gervais  was  involved 
in  that— a  francophone  himself. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  That  is  right. 

I  was  very  upset  to  see  that.  I  asked  for 
some  action  and  I  know  that  there  is  more 
than  this  ministry  involved;  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  is  involved.  I  have  had 
a  reply  from  Omer  Deslauriers  to  say  that  he 
has  raised  this  with  the  mayors  of  the  north- 
ern municipalities  and  he  is  hopeful  that  some 
action  will  be  taken  in  the  coming  year. 

I  would  like  to  know  from  the  minister's 
point  of  view— I  think  the  minister  was  pres- 
ent at  the  opening,  the  ministry  was  certainly 
involved  in  the  development  of  this  project 
—why  it  was  that  such  an  important  showcase 
was  not  developed  with  some  francophone 
inclusion,  with  some  French  somewhere  in 
the  whole  place. 

It  is  important  for  Franco-Ontarians  to  feel 
that  they  are  recognized  for  their  role  in 
northern  Ontario,  and  this  was  certainly  the 


place  to  do  that,  to  show  them  off,  to  show 
the  kinds  of  things  that  had  been  done  in 
the  mining  industry,  the  pulp  and  paper  in- 
dustry and  in  plain  pioneering  through  the 
clay  belt  by  Ontario  francophones.  It  was  not 
done.  There  was  a  huge  opportunity  there  to 
do  it. 

Aside  from  those  people,  there  are  a  large 
number  of  people  who  go  to  Ontario  Place 
who  do  speak  French,  not  just  my  friend  from 
France— which  would  be  kind  of  unique,  I 
would  presume— but  a  number  of  Quebecois 
go  there.  There  are  100,000  French-speaking 
people  in  this  city  who  go  there,  I  would 
presume,  on  a  regular  basis.  What  an  op- 
portunity to  miss.  I  find  it  shameful  that  that 
is  the  case.  This  is  at  a  time  when  our  coun- 
try is  going  through  all  sorts  of  turmoil. 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  forced  bilingualism,  by 
any  means.  Even  the  Premier  might  have 
trouble  stretching  that  one,  I  would  think,  to 
say  that  this  would  be  shoving  French  down 
people's  throats.  This  was  the  perfect  time  to 
take  some  action,  to  show  that  Ontario  thinks 
as  immediately  of  its  French-speaking  popu- 
lation as  it  does  of  its  English-speaking  pop- 
ulation. Instead,  what  gets  reflected  is  that 
they  are  not  thought  of,  that  it  is  bypassed. 
Somehow,  a  lack  of  money,  in  terms  of  hav- 
ing two  languages  on  a  sign,  or  of  space,  in 
terms  of  thinking  of  that  as  part  of  the 
design,  are  just  not  valid  reasons  to  hold  up 
to  people  in  this  province. 

I  would  very  much  like  to  hear  the  minis- 
ter's comments  about  why  that  occurred, 
number  one;  and  number  two,  can  we  expect 
some  very  quick  action  so  that  by  next  season 
that  is  rectified  and  they  are  given  their 
proper  place  in  that  spectacle? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
thank  the  member  for  his  contribution  and 
his  interest  in  and  awareness  of  the  northern 
Ontario  showcase  at  Ontario  Place.  I  am 
pleased  that  he  took  the  time  to  bring  his 
people  down  there  to  show  what  the  north  is 
all  about  and  to  share  with  us,  in  northern 
Ontario,  a  real  northern  experience. 

I  want  to  point  out  that  the  concept  of 
Ontario  North  Now  is  one  that  has  been  ac- 
cepted right  across  northern  Ontario  and 
across  this  province;  that  is,  that  we  would 
have  a  northern  Ontario  showcase  right  here 
in  the  heart  of  the  most  populated  area  of  this 
province. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Who  were  the  architects? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  We  asked  for  tenders 
from  five.  We  got  five  proposals  and  the 
Association  of  District  Municipalities  are  the 
ones  who  selected  the  architects. 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4515 


Before  I  answer  your  question,  I  want  to 
put  on  the  record  that  we  built  a  very  unique 
showcase  at  Ontario  Place,  one  which  had  the 
involvement  of  this  province,  this  government, 
and  the  municipalities,  not  in  a  way  that  their 
local  taxes  were  reflected  in  that  develop- 
ment, but  the  involvement  and  direction  of 
the  displays  themselves  in  the  nine  pavilions 
was  the  responsibility  of  the  Association  of 
District  Municipalities.  That  takes  in  all  the 
municipalities  from  Kenora  to  North  Bay, 
headed  by  Aurele  Gervais  of  Iroquois  Falls, 
assisted  by  Tommy  Jones  of  Dryden.  The  in- 
volvement of  the  municipalities  was  very 
real.  It  was  there  because  we  strongly  felt  we 
did  not  want  to  take  the  route  on  our  own. 
We  did  not  want  it  to  appear  to  be  another 
government  initiative  taking  something  away 
from  the  municipalities  or  regions.  They  had 
to  be  involved  to  get  the  real  flavour  of  north- 
ern Ontario. 

In  addition  to  that,  we  strongly  felt  the 
industries— the  private  sector— in  northern 
Ontario  had  a  responsibility.  They  wanted  to 
show  their  industries  off  in  a  light  that  was 
complimentary  to  what  they  were  doing  in 
northern  Ontario.  Thev  were  very  co-opera- 
tive and  contributed  handsomely.  In  excess 
of  $700,000  came  from  the  private  sector  for 
the  displays  which  are  located  in  Ontario 
North  Now.  All  this  was  done  in  a  very 
short  time  frame  of  about  nine  months.  Many 
people  said  it  could  not  be  done.  It  was  done 
and  I  think  the  staff  of  the  Ministrv  of 
Northern  Affairs,  particularly  Sheila  Willis, 
with  Don  Obosawin's  assistance  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  program,  did  a  fantastic  job  in 
going  across  northern  Ontario  getting  the 
interest  and  support  which  was  really 
required  to  make  the  thing  a  success.  It  is 
in  place.  It  will  be  a  permanent  showcase 
for  northern  Ontario.  The  member  points  out 
some  of  the  weaknesses  which  I  am  very 
much  aware  of  and  which  I  accept. 

During  the  course  of  the  three-week 
entertainment  period  many  French-Canadian 
groups  from  northern  Ontario  were  present. 
In  fact,  opening  night  We  had  two  French 
groups,  one  from  Hearst,  I  recall  quite  well 
because  it  was  an  excellent  group.  The 
guides  were  all  selected  from  northern 
Ontario.  Many  were  chosen  because  they 
were  bilingual. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  There  wasn't  one  the 
day  I  was  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  There  should  have 
been,  because  they  were  selected  with  that 
in  mind.  In  connection  with  our  native 
culture,  we  made  sure  the  native  people  were 


present  to  provide  the  native  flavour  we  are 
so  familiar  with  in  northern  Ontario.  They 
did  it  exceptionally  well.  They  too  were 
directly  involved. 

Through  the  Ontario  Arts  Council  we 
made  inquiries  right  across  northern  Ontario 
for  groups  to  give  us  information  about  the 
francophone  community.  Regretfully,  it  was 
not  forthcoming.  We  have  had  meetings  since 
the  closure  of  Ontario  North  Now  with  the 
various  francophone  groups  and  we  have 
their  assurance  they  will  be  there  in  full 
force  next  year.  Some  of  the  weaknesses  in 
our  signing  will  be  corrected  so  I  think  the 
concerns  you  have  expressed  will  be  rectified. 
We  will  make  sure  all  those  things  are  done 
when  the  pavilion  opens  up  this  spring. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Would  it  be  in  order  for 
ns  to  pass  this  vote  and  go  on  to  northern 
roads? 

Mr.  Chairman:   Shall  item  1  carry? 

Mr.  Bolan:  Do  you  have  an  answer  to 
those  other  matters  I  asked  about? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  I  thought  I  gave  that 
to  you.  The  operating  subsidy  in  1979-80 
was  $4,658,000  and  in  1980-81  it  was 
$4,672,000.  The  engine  conversion  cost  was 
$770,000  in  1979-80  and  in  1980-81  it  was 
$850,000.  That  is  where  we  actually  changed 
the  diesel  units  in  the  Northlander  trains  at 
the  North  Bay  shops.  We  put  in  Canadian- 
made  diesel  units  as  they  had  been  the 
European  type.  We  must  compliment  the 
staff  of  the  Ontario  Northland  Railway  for 
doing  an  exceptionally  good  job. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  would  like  to  raise  a 
number  of  things  in  terms  of  northern  roads 
budget.  The  minister  mentioned  briefly,  in 
response  to  my  earlier  comments,  his  views 
on  the  Granary  Lake  road  and  the  lack  of 
necessity  to  spend  the  dollars  to  make  a 
shorter,  more  direct  route  between  Blind 
River  and  Elliot  Lake. 
12:50  p.m. 

I  just  want  to  point  out  two  things  to  him. 
With  the  construction  of  Eldorado  on  the 
west  side  of  Blind  River,  the  minister  may 
be  aware— T  think  I  have  written  to  him 
about  it— that  Eldorado  sends  waste  acid 
which  is  moderately  radioactive  to  Rio 
Algom  for  reprocessing.  As  it  looks  now,  that 
acid  is  going  to  be  transported  right  through 
the  middle  of  Blind  River  and  up  Highway 
17  to  Highway  108  and  then  up  to  Elliot 
Lake  and  right  through  Elliot  Lake  to  Rio 
Algom. 

I  just  wonder  if  it  is  worth  looking  at,  in 
relation  to  the  Granary  Lake  road,  the  devel- 


4516 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


cpment  of  some  kind  of  bypass  system  where 
you  are  not  going  to  be  trucking  this  stuff 
right  through  these  two  communities.  We 
have  had  spills  in  the  area.  Just  a  few  weeks 
ago  there  was  a  major  oil  spill  on  Highway 
108.  These  are  dangerous  materials  and  I 
tli ink  we  should  be  looking  seriously  at  doing 
something  about  it,  especially  when  you  con- 
sider the  weather  conditions  that  we  have 
in  northern  Ontario. 

One  of  the  long-standing  arguments  against 
this  road  is  that  you  did  not  have  the  agree- 
ment of  both  communities.  I  am  looking  at  an 
article  that  appeared  in  the  Elliot  Lake 
Standard  on  October  8,  where  it  states,  "The 
Elliot  Lake  and  District  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce says  construction  of  a  road  between 
the  uranium  capital  and  Blind  River  should 
be  given  top  priority."  The  reason  for  that  is 
that  with  the  expansion  of  residential  develop- 
ment in  Blind  River  I  guess  a  lot  of  the 
business  men  in  Elliot  Lake  are  hoping  to  be 
able  to  have  those  people  travel  easily  to 
Elliot  Lake  to  shop. 

There  are  two  other  highways  in  my  own 
area  I  would  like  the  minister  to  give  me 
some  indication  about  when  they  might  be 
going  ahead.  We  have  had  extensive  discus- 
sions and  correspondence  about  the  Search- 
mont  highway.  That  is  even  more  important 
now  when  you  consider  that  one  of  the  main 
reasons  for  Searchmount  is  the  ski  hill.  If  the 
King  Mountain  project  does  go  ahead  they 
are  going  to  have  some  competition  there.  It 
would  seem  to  me  if  we  are  going  to  put 
provincial  money  into  the  King  Mountain 
project  we  should  be  doing  all  we  can  to  en- 
sure that  the  access  to  Searchmont  is  as  good 
a  road  as  possible  so  that  they  will  be  able 
to  compete.  There  are  new  owners  for  the 
ski  operation  in  Searchmont  now  and  they 
have  done  all  they  could  to  make  that  a 
more  competitive  operation. 

The  last  one  is  Highway  631  between 
Hornepayne  and  Highway  11  which  is  in  ter- 
rible shape.  There  have  been  a  number  of 
accidents  there.  The  Ministry  of  Transporta- 
tion and  Communications,  on  that  highway 
as  well  as  the  Searchmont  road,  is  carrying 
out  what  they  call  aggressive  maintenance, 
whatever  that  is.  I  would  like  to  see  this 
aggressive  maintenance  turn  into  aggressive 
reconstruction. 

To  finish  off  the  estimates,  I  do  not  like  to 
finish  off  on  a  negative  note,  but  I  want  to 
give  the  minister  the  opportunity  to  respond 
to  this.  The  minister  may  have  seen  an 
editorial  that  appeared  in  the  Thunder  Bay 
Times-News  on  Tuesday,  November  4.  It  is 
entitled,  "And  This  is  Dedicated  To—" 


It  says:  "Provincial  Tories  engaged  in  a 
heap  more  of  tacky  campaigning  when  they 
flurried  into  Ear  Falls  last  week  for  a  round 
of  ribbon  cutting,  beaming  in  the  spotlight 
and  claiming  credit  for  bringing  goodies  to 
the  north.  Transportation  minister  James 
Snow  and  Northern  Affairs  minister  Leo 
Bernier  flew  in  and  were  greeted  by  a  throng 
of  500  residents  and  school  children  out  early 
for  the  occasion  and  doubtless  herded  to  the 
site  by  party  organizers. 

"The  ministers  first  shared  in  slicing  a 
ribbon  to  pieces  as  part  of  a  six-member 
official  cutting  team  dedicating  a  $1  million 
airport  paid  for  by  the  people  of  Ontario. 
Then  came  the  speeches,  and  Snow  outdid 
his  mossbacked  cronies,  who,  after  decades  of 
government  in  this  province,  have  grown  very 
accustomed  to  the  role.  He  urged  the  crowd 
to  acclaim  Bernier  in  the  next  election  and 
turning  to  pal  Leo,  remarked,  'After  all  you 
have  done  for  the  Kenora  area,  Leo,  I  think 
they  should  call  you  king  of  Kenora.'  Then 
they  go  on,  'Thanks,  Jim,  we  will  stick  to 
regular  elections  for  now.' 

"Then  the  party  unveiled  a  plaque  on  the 
wall  of  a  mobile  home  being  used  temporarily 
as  a  terminal  building.  A  mobile  home  as  a 
terminal  building?  Looking  closely,  one  might 
have  seen  the  ministers  jotting  reminders  to 
have  an  opening  later  for  a  permanent  build- 
ing, and  maybe  a  closing  for  the  temporary 
one,  too.  Then  they  were  off  to  unveil  a 
monument  commemorating  last  year's  area 
rocket  launchings  for  a  solar  eclipse  study. 
Then  they  were  away  to  a  fire  hydrant  where 
apparently  Bernier  helped  to  turn  a  wrench 
to  spout  out  some  water  for  a  post  signalling 
extension  of  the  community's  water  supply, 
thanks  to  a  $78,000  boost  from  the  people  of 
Ontario. 

"Such  horn-blowing  forays  are  outdated  and 
wasteful.  If  our  high-priced  elected  rep- 
resentatives can't  confine  themselves  to  more 
productive  activities  for  the  people  of  Ontario, 
perhaps  it's  time  some  guidelines  were 
established." 

I  hope  the  minister  will  take  this  to  heart 
and  will  look  at  the  particular  projects  I  have 
raised  with  him  and  not  look  at  them  in  the 
way  of  more  of  this  outdated  horn-blowing 
but  rather  as  a  way  of  serving  the  needs  of 
the  people  of  the  north. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am 
sure  that  if  we  accomplished  all  the  things 
in  his  riding  the  member  for  Algoma  would 
like,  he  would  join  me  with  enthusiasm  at 
every  ribbon-cutting  ceremony.  He  was  dis- 
appointed he  could  not  be  at  Hornepayne, 
Wawa   and    Blind   River  on   the   same   day, 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980 


4517 


three  major  accomplishments  in  his  riding. 
He  chose  to  go  to  Blind  River  which  was  the 
largest  one,  I  admit.  I  say  to  the  member, 
when  we  open  up  the  Hornepayne  town 
centre  complex  he  will  not  be  in  Wawa  or  in 
his  home  town.  He  will  be  there  with  me 
and  the  Premier.  He  will  be  there  with  the 
Premier  and  he  will  be  taking  the  glory  like 
all  the  other  politicians  who  have  been  in- 
volved in  that  project. 

But  I  share  the  humour  the  member  ad- 
vances. I  think  it  is  right  that  members  of  this 
House  recognize  the  accomplishments  in  those 
small  communities.  I  think  they  like  to  see 
one  up  there  to  share  with  them  the  joy  and 
the  pride  of  moving  ahead  and  improving 
the  quality  of  life  in  northern  Ontario.  The 
things  you  recited  are  all  part  of  the  things 
we  enjoy  doing  on  this  side  of  the  House  and 
we  invite  you  to  share  with  us  the  joy  and 
pride  of  opening  up  those  facilities. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  would  like  to  join  you  in 
opening  up  the  Granary  Lake  road. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Okay.  In  connection  with 
the  problem  of  dangerous  waste,  this  is  a  con- 
cern to  us  in  the  ministry  because  of  the 
great  distances  and,  in  many  instances,  the 
main  highway  goes  through  the  centres  of 
those  small  communities.  Bill  189,  the 
Dangerous  Goods  Transportation  Act,  1980, 
which  my  colleague  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  now  has  be- 
fore the  House  will,  I  hope,  address  some  of 
those  problems  in  a  regulatory  manner  along 


with  the  federal  authorities.  It  had  not  been 
known,  let's  be  honest,  but  since  the  Missis- 
sauga  issue  that  need  has  arisen  in  a  very 
real  way  and  I  would  hope  it  will  address 
some  of  the  concerns  you  have.  We  obviously 
won't  be  able  to  put  a  bypass  around  every 
community  for  the  hauling  of  waste  but  I 
hope  these  regulations  will  be  tight  enough 
to  alleviate  any  concerns. 

In  connection  with  your  inquiry  about  the 
highway  programming,  I  will  be  meeting  with 
my  own  staff  and  the  MTC  staff  within  the 
next  two  or  three  weeks  to  set  the  priorities 
for  next  year's  highway  construction  program 
and  I  will  certainly  make  it  a  point  and  a 
commitment  to  get  back  to  you  in  writing  on 
those  two  projects. 

Vote  704  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  That  completes  the  es- 
timates of  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  just 
take  a  moment  to  thank  my  critics  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House  in  both  the  Liberal 
Party  and  the  New  Democratic  Party  for  the 
constructive  criticism  they  advanced  during 
the  course  of  the  examination  of  my  estimates 
and  the  co-operation  they  have  shown  in 
passing  these  votes  within  a  time  frame  that 
will  allow  us  to  get  on  to  other  things  in  the 
Legislature.  I  appreciate  it  very  much. 

-On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Bernier,  the  com- 
mittee reported  certain  resolutions. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1:01  p.m. 


4518  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  November  21,  1980 

Point  of  privilege  re  member-elect  for  Carleton:  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Nixon                  ■...*...  4487 

Norfolk  teachers'  dispute,  questions  of  Miss   Stephenson:   Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  Laughren, 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller  < 4487 

Energy  tax  credit,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  Laughren  4489 

Extra   billing   by   physicians,    questions    of   Mr.    Timbrell:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr.    Nixon, 

Mr.    Warner    4489 

Stratford  Festival,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Cassidy  4491 

Public  opinion  polls,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid,  Mr.  Makarchuk  4492 

Stratford  Festival,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Dukszta  -  4493 

Welland  Canal  bridge,  question  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Haggerty  4493 

GO  train  fire,  question  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  J.  Reed         4493 

Public  service  grievances,  questions  of  Mr.  McCague:  Mr.  Van  Home  4494 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Swart  4494 

Sex  and  violence  on  TV,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  McGuigan 4495 

Unicef  Christmas  cards,  question  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Ms.  Bryden  4495 

Refillable  milk  containers,  question  of  Mr.  Parrott:   Mr.  Gaunt 4495 

Windsor  housing  authority,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Bounsall  4496 

Nursing  home  inspections,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Bradley  . 4496 

South  Cayuga  land  drainage,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  G.  I.  Miller  4497 

Hamilton  court  facilities,  questions   of  Mr.  McMurtry:    Mr.    Mackenzie,   Mr.    M.   N. 

Davison 4497 

Motion  re  Estimates,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to 4498 

Ontario  Unconditional  Grants  Amendment  Act,  Bill  199,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4498 

Regional  Municipality  of  Peel  Amendment  Act,  Bill  200,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4498 

Legislative  Assembly  Amendment  Act,  Bill  201,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  , 4499 

Executive  Council  Amendment  Act,  Bill  204,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  4499 

Denture  Therapists  Amendment  Act,  Bill  205,  Mr.  Timbrell,  first  reading 4499 

Redeemer  College  Act,  Bill  Pr48,  Mr.  Ashe,  first  reading  4499 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs,  concluded:  Mr.  Bernier 4499 

Adjournment 4517 


NOVEMBER  21,  1980  4519 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Bennett,  Hon.  C;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Bernier,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  (Kenora  PC) 

Bolan,  M.  (Nipissing  L) 

Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NOP) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  C;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Dukszta,  J.  (Parkdale  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

McCague,  Hon.  G.;  Chairman  of  Management  Board1;  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

(Dufferin-Simcoe  PC) 
McGuigan,  J.  (Kent-Elgin  L) 

McMurtry,  Hon.  R.;  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  (Eglinton  PC) 
Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norf  oik  L) 
Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 
Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 
Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 
Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 
Van  Home,  R.  (London  North  L) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 


No.  120 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Monday,  November  24,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4523 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 
Prayers. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  ESTIMATES 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
a  message  from  the  Honourable  the  lieuten- 
ant Governor,  signed  by  his  own  hand, 
which  replaces  the  message  of  Thursday  last 
as  there  was  a  typographical  error  in  the 
estimates  accompanying  that  message. 

Mr.  Speaker:  John  B.  Aird,  the  Honour- 
able the  Lieutenant  Governor,  transmits 
supplementary  estimates  of  certain  additional 
sums  required  for  the  services  of  the  prov- 
ince for  the  year  ending  March  31,  1981, 
and  recommends  them  to  the  Legislative 
Assembly,  Toronto,  November  24,  1980. 

REPORT  IN  TORONTO  SUN 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  speak 
now  to  the  further  point  of  privilege  regard- 
ing the  defamation  of  my  character.  I  have 
carefully  read  Hansard  of  November  20  and 
I  have  now  determined  that  a  further  slander 
has  been  committed  against  me  since  Nov- 
ember 20.  For  this  reason,  I  must  speak 
further  to  this  matter  here  and  now,  even 
though  the  member  for  Rainy  River  (Mr.  T. 
P.  Reid)  and  the  member  for  Wentworth 
North  (Mr.  Cunningham)  are  not  in  the 
Legislature. 

Before  I  proceed,  I  would  point  out  that 
numerous  interjections  were  made  while  I 
was  speaking  to  my  point  of  privilege  in  this 
Legislature  last  Thursday.  What  I  thought  I 
heard  on  a  number  of  occasions  disturbed 
me  greatly.  In  reviewing  Hansard,  I  found 
none  of  the  interjections  was  recorded.  I  will 
not  tolerate  the  attempt  by  any  member  of 
this  Legislature  to  ridicule  or  embarrass  me 
further  on  this  matter.  If  there  has  to  be  a 
libel  and  slander  action,  I  will  not  hesitate 
to  add  further  names  to  the  style  of  cause  in 
the  action. 

I  am  asking  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  am 
directing  the  members  of  Hansard  to  report 
in  particular  any  interjections  and  to  identify 
the  authors  thereof.  I  direct  the  Hansard 
reporters   in   particular   to   that   area   of  the 


Monday,  November  24,  1980 

Legislature  where  the  member  for  Hamilton 
Centre  (Mr.  M.  N.  Davison)  is  sitting. 

There  are  seven  points  that  I  must  have 
you  consider  in  this  matter  so  that  there  will 
be  no  question  of  my  position  in  this  matter. 

First,  the  false  portrayal  of  my  behaviour 
arising  out  of  my  attendance  with  fellow 
colleagues  of  this  Legislature  in  a  cocktail 
lounge  in  the  city  of  Washington  four  years 
ago,  while  a  member  of  the  select  committee 
of  the  transportation  of  goods  committee, 
has  done  irreparable  damage  to  my  character 
and  reputation,  and  it  has  been  of  great 
public  embarrassment  to  me,  my  wife  and 
my  family.  I  have  been  humiliated  before  my 
family  and  friends. 

My  anger  on  last  Thursday  was  so  great, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  did  not  give  you  the 
benefit  of  having  before  you  the  basic  facts 
of  the  incident  surrounding  the  false  and 
malicious  charges  that  have  been  made 
against  me.  It  is,  therefore,  absolutely  essen- 
tial that  I  set  the  record  straight. 

The  establishment  which  the  member  for 
Wentworth  North,  the  member  for  Rainy 
River,  the  member  for  Algoma-Manitoulin 
(Mr.  Lane)  and  I  attended  in  Washington 
four  years  ago  was  a  cocktail  lounge.  What 
became  a  private  embarrassment  to  the 
member  for  Algoma-Manitoulin  and  me  at 
that  time  was  that  after  the  waitress  had 
served  us  our  drinks,  she  left  our  table, 
walked  to  the  dance  floor,  removed  her  top 
and  started  to  dance.  It  had  to  be  degrading 
to  the  girl.  It  was  certainly  embarrassing  to 
the  member  for  Algoma-Manitoulin  and  me. 
He  and  I  finished  our  drinks  and  left  the 
premises. 

Second,  the  libel  contained  in  the  note 
sent  to  the  Sun  reporter  alleging  I  was 
dancing  with  a  stripper  in  the  Washington 
cocktail  bar  was  a  malicious,  blatant  and 
total  lie.  Not  only  must  I  have  a  total  and 
absolute  apology  from  the  guilty  member, 
I  must  have  his  admission  that  he  deliber- 
ately lied  about  me. 

Third,  with  regard  to  the  first  slander 
made  in  the  Sun  article,  which  said,  "The 
first  guy  I  see  in  the  bar  is  John  Williams. 
I  would  have  given  $100  for  a  camera  that 
day,"  any  reasonable  person  would  interpret 
that  slander  to  mean  that  I  was  involved  in 


4524 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


some  gross  impropriety,  that  I  was  doing 
something  inconsistent  with  good  moral  con- 
duct, that  I  was  doing  something  other 
than  enjoying  a  drink  with  my  friend,  the 
member  for  Algoma-Manitoulin.  I  demand 
the  apology  and  an  acknowledgement  that 
there  was  no  impropriety. 

Fourth,  the  other  slander  was  that  "Wil- 
liams seemed  to  be  enjoying  himself.  It  was 
not  a  classy  place."  From  this  innuendo,  any 
reasonable  person  would  conclude  that  I 
went  to  the  cocktail  lounge  for  the  express 
purpose  of  seeing  a  nude  performance,  and 
that  the  establishment  was  not  the  type  of 
place  a  reputable  person  would  visit.  I  de- 
mand an  apology  for  both  those  slurs. 

2:10  p.m. 

Fifth,  on  Thursday,  the  member  for  Rainy 
River  admitted  to  the  members  in  this  House 
that  he  was  the  author  of  the  slur,  "None 
of  us  is  squeaky  clean."  At  that  time,  the 
member  complained  that  I  accused  him  of 
seeking  out  a  reporter  to  speak  to  him  on 
this  matter.  I  tell  the  member,  and  he  will 
have  to  read  it  in  Hansard  because  he  is  not 
here,  to  read  Hansard  carefully.  He  will  find 
no  such  statement  made  by  me.  He  alone 
made  that  suggestion. 

On  Thursday,  the  member  for  Rainy  River 
also  said  he  had  read  the  article  in  the 
Toronto  Sun  with  "some  amusement."  I 
suggest  to  Mr.  Reid  that  before  he  shoots 
off  his  mouth  again,  he  have  a  long,  hard 
talk  with  his  lawyer.  The  general,  all-encom- 
passing nature  of  that  slur,  within  the  con- 
text of  all  the  charges  made  against  me, 
makes  it  perhaps  the  most  serious  slur  of 
all.  It  was  clearly  designed  to  give  credence 
to  the  libel  and  the  other  innuendoes.  Any 
reasonable  person  could  conclude  from  the 
inference  that  John  Williams  would  be  likely 
to  commit  those  indiscretions.  I  remain  reso- 
lute in  my  demand  for  an  apology  for  this 
slur. 

Sixth,  on  Friday,  November  21,  I  was 
further  slandered,  specifically  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Wentworth  North  in  the  Sun  news- 
paper of  that  date  on  page  five,  in  an  article 
dealing  further  with  this  matter.  The  mem- 
ber was  quoted  as  saying,  "The  place—" 
meaning  the  cocktail  lounge— "was  so  slea2y 
you  would  want  to  flush  with  your  foot,  but 
I  do  not  begrudge  anyone  going  to  a  place 
like  that." 

The  clear  implication  is  that  everything 
about  the  establishment  was  so  bad  that  no 
self-respecting  citizen  would  want  to  go  in, 
certainly  not  four  persons  in  public  life, 
four  members  of  the  Legislature  of  Ontario, 


and  that  it  is  the  type  of  place  not  even  a 
skid  row  bum  would  want  to  frequent.  The 
irony  of  that  slur  is  that  the  member  for 
Wentworth  North  and  the  member  for  Rainy 
River  were  both  in  the  bar  in  question,  sit- 
ting two  or  three  tables  away  from  the  mem- 
ber for  Algoma-Manitoulin  and  me.  In  fact, 
they  were  still  there  when  he  and  I  left  the 
establishment. 

I  demand  an  apology  from  the  member 
for  Wentworth  North  for  this  most  vicious 
of  slanders. 

Seventh,  the  integrity  and  privileges  of 
all  members  of  this  House  must  be  protected 
from  unprincipled  personal  attacks  of  defa- 
mation by  any  other  member  of  the  Legis- 
lature. 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  must  discharge  your 
duty  in  this  regard.  If  you  do  not  demand 
the  apologies  and  admission  of  false  state- 
ments on  my  behalf,  and  if  those  apologies 
and  admissions  are  not  forthcoming  before 
I  walk  out  the  door  of  this  Legislative 
Assembly,  when  I  walk  out  that  door  I  will 
be  instructing  my  lawyer  to  initiate  an  ac- 
tion for  libel  and  slander  against  the  mem- 
ber for  Wentworth  North  and  the  member 
for  Rainy  River  in  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Speaker:  First,  I  want  to  remind  the 
honourable  member  that  it  is  not  his  respon- 
sibility or  his  prerogative  to  direct  Hansard 
to  add  anything  to  or  subtract  anything  from 
the  official  record  of  this  House.  That  will 
be  done  in  the  normal  manner  as  the  editor 
of  Hansard  sees  fit  and  that  will  continue 
to  be  the  policy  of  Hansard.  I  want  the 
honourable  member  to  disabuse  himself  of 
any  authority  that  he  thinks  he  might  have 
with  regard  to  directing  Hansard  to  do  or 
not  to  do  anything. 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order- 
Mr.  Speaker:  No.  Order.  I  have  been  very 
patient  and  very  tolerant  of  the  member 
and  allowed  him  to  put  whatever  it  was  he 
thought  he  must  put  on  the  record. 

The  second  thing  I  want  to  remind  the 
honourable  member  is  that  anything  that  is 
said  in  this  House  is  privileged  and  can't 
be  used  as  an  action  outside  this  House. 

The  third  thing  I  want  to  remind  the 
honourable  member  of  is  that  I  have  heard 
one  side  of  the  story  from  the  honourable 
member  on  three  different  occasions.  One  of 
the  members  who  is  named  in  the  allega- 
tions made  by  the  member  has  had  an  op- 
portunity to  respond.  The  other  member  has 
still  not  appeared  in  the  House.  I  will  await 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4525 


his  arrival  to  hear  what  it  is  he  has  to  say 
about  it  and  decide  at  that  time  whether 
or  not  any  action  is  deemed  appropriate 
by  the  chair. 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  a 
question? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  No,  I  am  not  listen- 
ing to  you  any  more.  You  have  had  an 
opportunity  to  put  your  case  on  the  record 
and  that  is  it. 

Mr.  Williams:  I  wish  to  ask  a  question  of 
you,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  I  am  not  in  a  position 
to  answer  questions.  That  is  the  prerogative 
of  the  ministers. 

SPEAKER'S  WARRANT 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  beg  to  inform  the  House 
that  even  though  the  Legislative  Assembly 
Act  makes  it  discretionary  with  the  Speaker 
as  to  whether  or  not  he  should  issue  a 
warrant,  I  feel  that  in  view  of  the  clear 
direction  of  the  House  on  Thursday  last,  the 
warrant  should  issue.  It  will,  therefore,  be 
served  this  afternoon. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I 
<  might,  I'd  like  to  rise  on  a  point  of  order 
about  the  matter  of  direction.  I  think  it  is 
important,  and  I  think  we  would  all  agree, 
that  this  be  done  in  the  most  orderly  way 
possible. 

I  have  had  discussions  with  the  chairman 
of  the  justice  committee  dealing  with  the 
process  in  the  event  that  you  made  the  ruling 
that  you  have,  sir.  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
we  have  a  number  of  issues  to  be  concerned 
about— and  I  won't  trouble  you  with  all  the 
details  now,  but  for  example,  the  security 
of  the  documents  being  one  principal  con- 
cern, and  there  are  others— it  was  understood 
between  the  chairman  of  the  justice  com- 
mittee and  me  that  we  possibly  would  have 
some  discussion  today  and  that  he  would, 
in  turn,  deal  in  committee  with  the  matter 
with  respect  to  the  process— the  mechanics 
of  the  execution  of  the  Speaker's  warrant. 

I  thought  it  would  be  important  to  ac- 
quaint the  members  with  the  understand- 
ing because  I  think  once  the  warrant  is 
issued,  the  manner  in  which  the  documents 
are  delivered  and  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  dealt  with  are,  of  course,  very  impor- 
tant. It  may  be  that  the  delivery  of  the 
documents  could  await  the  deliberations  of 
the  justice  committee  on  Wednesday,  but  I 
think  it  is  important  that  we  have  some 
understanding  about  that. 


Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  point 
raised  by  the  Attorney  General,  the  com- 
mittee is  sensitive  to  the  problems  of  security, 
in  particular,  and  to  obtaining  these  docu- 
ments in  an  orderly  way.  I  instructed  the 
clerk  of  our  committee  this  morning  that 
should  the  Speaker  make  the  decision  which 
he  has  now  announced  and  issue  the  warrant, 
the  clerk,  immediately  on  hearing  this, 
should  contact  the  Attorney  General  and 
the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  to  discuss  those  methods  whereby 
security  and  the  orderly  transfer  of  those 
documents  may  be  made  to  the  committee. 

I  hive  no  doubt  that  he  is  in  the  process 
of  doing  that  at  this  very  minute.  Of  course, 
I  will  be  happy  to  meet  with  the  Attorney 
General  or  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  to  see  if  I 
may  be  of  any  assistance  in  this  matter. 

On  the  other  matter  of  the  scheduling,  I 
have  asked  that  the  steering  committee  of 
the  justice  committee  meet  tomorrow,  and 
the  clerk  is  sending  out  notices  of  that  to 
that  committee.  The  Attorney  General  and 
any  other  member  who  is  interested  will  be 
kept  informed  of  our  proposals.  We  will 
present  a  proposal  on  Wednesday  morning 
for  the  scheduling  of  the  committee  for  the 
rest  of  this  session. 
2:20  p.m. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

ITALIAN  EARTHQUAKE 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  On  behalf  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  province,  I  would1  like  to  express 
to  the  House  our  deep  sympathy  for  the  vic- 
tims of  the  massive  earthquake  that  struck 
southern  Italy  during  the  weekend.  The  first 
reports  indicate  that  several  hundred  people 
were  killed,  many  more  injured  and  extensive 
damage  occurred  in  at  least  29  cities  and 
towns. 

This  new  tragedy  causes  special  concern 
and  anguish  in  this  province,  for  a  large 
number  of  residents  are  of  Italian  origin, 
many  of  them  with  relatives  in  the  region 
affected  by  the  earthquake.  May  I  remind  the 
House  that  in  1976,  after  the  Friuli  earth- 
quake in  northeastern  Italy,  the  Ontario  gov- 
ernment, in  conjunction  with  local  Italo- 
Canadian  organizations,  played  an  important 
role  in  the  large  aid  project  for  the  recon- 
struction of  the  area  destroyed. 

The  Ontario  government  is  now  following 
closely  the  situation  in  southern  Italy  and 
the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Mr. 


4526 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Wells)  is  keeping  in  constant  contact  with  the 
appropriate  organizations  with  a  view  to  ob- 
taining detailed  and  updated  reports.  We  are 
prepared  to  give  immediate  emergency  relief 
assistance  to  the  citizens  of  this  stricken  re- 
gion as  needs  unfold.  We  are  already  work- 
ing closely  with  the  Canadian  Red  Cross  to 
do  what  we  can  to  help  in  this  tragic  situa- 
tion. 

To  their  families,  particularly  those  resident 
in  this  province,  we  extend  our  sincere  con- 
dolences. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
associate  the  Liberal  caucus  with  the  com- 
ments that  have  been  expressed  by  the 
Premier.  Being  a  person  of  Italian  origin  and 
having  been  born  in  that  country,  I  can  well 
imagine  what  this  terrible  event  is  doing  to 
the  small  villages  and  towns  of  southern 
Italy.  I  wish  to  commend  the  Premier  for  his 
quick  action.  I  sincerely  hope  that  the  On- 
tario government  moves  quickly  in  order  to 
approve  funds  for  food,  medical  supplies  and 
clothing  and  possibly  any  other  staples  that 
might  be  necessary  in  this  type  of  emergency. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  behalf  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party,  I  would  like  to 
express  my  sympathy  and  feelings  and  asso- 
ciate myself  with  the  Premier  and  the  mem- 
ber for  Essex  South  in  their  remarks. 

The  earthquake  that  hit  Italy  yesterday  is 
the  worst  in  the  last  70  years  and  certainly 
the  worst  disaster  since  the  Second  World 
War.  Cities,  towns  and  villages  have  been 
destroyed  and  wiped  out.  The  death  toll,  as 
announced  at  this  point,  is  792.  The  Ministry 
of  the  Interior  of  Italy  announced  that  two 
towns  have  been  completely  wiped  out.  If 
that  is  the  case,  the  toll  can  go  as  high  as 
5,000  people  dead. 

I  would  like  to  express  to  the  Italian  people, 
to  the  relatives  of  the  victims  and  to  the 
thousands  of  Italian-Canadians  who  live  in 
Ontario  and  in  Canada  and  who  come  from 
the  area  hit  by  the  earthquake,  my  sympathy 
and  condolences  and  a  sense  of  solidarity  at 
this  time  of  grief  and  sorrow.  I  am  sure  I 
express  the  feelings  of  all  the  members  of 
the  assembly. 

I  would  like  to  say  we  are  close  to  the 
populations  who  have  survived  such  a  tragedy. 
I  want  to  thank  the  Premier  for  his  action.  I 
am  sure  it  will  be  as  generous  as  it  was  in 
1976  when  a  similar  tragedy  occurred  in  the 
northern  part  of  Italy. 

DEATH  OF  JULES  LEGER 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  express  on  behalf  of  the  government  our 


very  deep  regret  at  the  passing  of  the  former 
Governor  General  of  this  country.  The  Hon- 
ourable Jules  Leger  was  one  of  the  very 
great  public  servants,  known  to  a  number  of 
the  members  of  this  House  in  a  personal  way, 
I  am  sure.  He  was  a  gentleman  who  really 
dedicated  the  bulk  of  his  public  life  to  en- 
deavouring to  do  his  best  to  further  the 
interests  of  this  country,  both  at  home  and 
abroad. 

I  would  extend  in  a  particular  way  our 
sympathies  to  Madame  Leger,  also  chancellor 
of  the  University  of  Ottawa,  a  very  distin- 
guished Canadian  who,  I  know,  speaking  for 
many  of  us,  made  us  feel  very  much  at  home 
in  her  presence. 

I  had  the  privilege  of  being  with  both 
Jules  Leger  and  Madame  Leger  here  a  few 
days  ago  in  what  was,  I  guess,  their  last 
public  appearance  in  the  city  of  Toronto.  I 
can  recall  the  warm  words  expressed  by  so 
many  at  that  gathering  about  the  contribution 
he  had  made  to  the  public  life  of  our  nation. 

In  very  simple  terms,  he  was  a  great  Cana- 
dian. I  extend  my  particular  sympathy  to  his 
wife,  who  shared  those  responsibilities  with 
him  for  so  many  years  and  who,  in  her  way, 
has  done  so  much  for  this  country  as  well. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  behalf  of  the 
official  opposition  I  want  to  extend  our  sym- 
pathies to  Madame  Leger  and  the  family  on 
the  death  of  the  former  Governor  General. 

The  Premier  has  indicated  some  people  in 
this  House  knew  him  reasonably  well.  Un- 
fortunately, I  was  not  one  of  those,  but 
shortly  after  he  became  Governor  General 
I  did  have  an  opportunity  to  have  dinner 
with  him,  along  with  the  other  members  of 
the  Legislature  and  a  number  of  govern- 
ment officials,  at  a  very  special  event  which 
was  hosted  by  the  government  of  Ontario. 

I  am  sure  everyone  will  recall  the  dignity 
with  which  he  and  Madame  Leger  conducted 
themselves  that  evening.  His  remarks  made 
it  clear  to  all  of  us  that  we  had  as  our  Gov- 
ernor General,  an  outstanding  citizen,  a  man 
of  great  intellect  and  moderation,  but  as  well 
and  perhaps  just  as  important,  a  man  of  good 
humour  and  breadth  of  understanding.  It  is  a 
great  loss  indeed  that,  for  a  part  of  his 
tenure,  his  illness  prohibited  him  from  being 
as  active  in  his  responsibility  as  Governor 
General  as  I  know  he  would  have  wished. 
This  is  very  much  to  be  regretted. 

We  were  all  delighted  at  his  recovery,  but 
during  those  years  Madame  Leger  assisted 
him  in  very  special  ways  which  were  obvious 
to  anyone  seeing  them  in  action  performing 
official  duties.  I  know  on  one  occasion  she 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4527 


even  read  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  in 
Ottawa. 

I  want  to  join  with  the  Premier  and  other 
members  of  the  House,  on  behalf  of  my 
colleagues,  in  saying  we  sense  the  loss  of  a 
great  Canadian,  a  man  whose  career  must  be 
an  example  to  all  of  us. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  De  la  part  du  Nouveau  Parti 
Democratique,  j'aimerais  joindre  mes  hom- 
mages  destines  a.  M.  Leger,  ancien  Gouver- 
neur  general  et  homme  dont  tous  les  Cana- 
diens  peuvent  etre  fiers. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to  join  my  voice, 
on  behalf  of  the  New  Democratic  Party,  in 
paying  tribute  to  Jules  Leger  and  in  express- 
ing our  sympathy  to  Madame  Leger,  two 
great  Canadians.  In  the  case  of  the  Hon- 
ourable Jules  Leger,  he  was  a  Canadian 
who  came  from  the  most  modest  of  back- 
grounds in  a  small  town  on  the  fringe 
of  Ontario  and  New  York  state  in  west- 
ern Quebec.  He  had  modest  beginnings, 
yet  came  from  a  family  that  gave  not  only 
a  man  who  became  Governor  General  of 
Canada,  but  also  his  brother  who  we  all 
know  as  Cardinal  Leger,  another  distinguished 
Canadian. 

I  took  part  in  the  recent  banquet  of  the 
conference  of  the  Canadian  Council  of  Chris- 
tians and  Jews  where  an  award  was  given 
to  the  Leger  family.  There  was  a  great  deal 
of  emotion  at  that  time  because  of  the  dis- 
tinguished contribution  this  family  has  given 
to  our  country  over  so  many  years. 

Jules  Leger  was  originally  a  journalist.  He 
was  an  ambassador.  He  was  a  civil  servant. 
He  was  Governor  General  of  Canada.  He 
spoke  throughout  for  Canada.  He  expressed  in 
the  finest  and  highest  ways  what  we  want  to 
achieve  in  Canada,  the  melding  of  our  two 
founding  peoples,  the  French  and  English 
people  in  Canada.  Jules  Leger  in  his  years  as 
Governor  General  displayed  exceptional  cour- 
age in  overcoming  a  debilitating  stroke,  the 
second  of  which  took  his  life  this  weekend, 
and  in  continuing  to  serve  his  country  through 
an  entire  term. 

I  had  looked  forward  to  the  chance  of 
making  closer  acquaintance  with  the  Legers 
because,  when  they  retired,  they  moved  into 
my  constituency  just  a  few  blocks  from 
where  I  live  in  Ottawa.  That  will  not  be, 
but  on  behalf  of  all  of  my  party  I  join  in 
the  tributes  that  are  paid  to  him  and  in 
paying  thanks  to  him  for  his  contribution 
to  our  province,  to  our  country  and  to  the 
world. 

2:30  p.m. 


POLLUTION  CONTROL 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  behalf 
of  the  ministry  and  this  government,  I  would 
like  to  acknowledge  a  compliment  paid  to 
this  province  today  by  the  United  States 
Interstate  Legislative  Committee  on  Lake 
Erie. 

The  committee's  chairman,  representative 
Roy  Wilt  from  the  state  of  Pennsylvania, 
presented  a  resolution  today  to  Premier 
Davis.  I  have  it  here  and  a  copy  is  attached 
of  the  statements  I  have  sent  to  the  other 
parties.  In  this  resolution,  the  committee 
commended  Ontario  for  our  achievements  in 
urban  air  pollution  control,  air  quality  mon- 
itoring and  an  air  quality  alert  system. 

The  resolution  mentioned  specifically  our 
sharp  reduction  of  both  sulphur  dioxide  and 
particulate  matter  in  the  air  of  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto  and  other  major  industrial 
centres.  It  also  commended  our  clear  iden- 
tification of  acid  rain  as  a  priority,  our 
action  program  and  my  ministry's  efforts 
to  seek  Canada-Us  accord  on  a  strategy  to 
ideal  with  this  problem  on  a  continental 
basis. 

I  appreciate  the  endorsement  and  the 
support  that  was  offered  by  this  committee, 
representing  as  it  does  four  of  our  neighbour 
states— New  York,  Ohio,  Michigan  and  Penn- 
sylvania. While  we  have  observer  status 
rather  than  membership  in  the  committee,  I 
am  pleased  we  have  been  able  to  co-operate 
in  resolving  policies  on  offshore  drilling  in 
Lake  Erie,  in  finding  common  ground  on 
regulating  wastes  from  pleasure  craft,  in 
phosphorous  controls  on  detergents  and  in  a 
number  of  initiatives  in  controlling  toxic 
substances  on  both  sides  of  the  border. 

I  would  like  to  express  Ontario's  appre- 
ciation of  this  gesture  of  support  and  the 
sincere  environmental  commitment  of  these, 
our  neighbour  states,  and  to  wish  the  com- 
mittee every  success  in  the  issues  it  is  deal- 
ing with  during  its  meeting  here  today  and1 
tomorrow  in  Toronto. 

I  would  like  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture to  join  me  in  welcoming,  and  to  recog- 
nize in  the  Speaker's  gallery,  Chairman 
Wilt  and  the  members  of  the  interstate  legis- 
lative committee,  our  fellow  legislators  from 
New  York,  Ohio,  Michigan  and  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  to  draw  the 
attention  of  all  honourable  members  to  the 
presence  of  yet  another  distinguished  guest 
in  the  Speaker's  gallery,  the  Honourable 
Ken  MacMaster,  who  is  Minister  of  Labour 


4528 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


in  Manitoba.  Would  members  also  welcome 
him  to  our  assembly. 

RURAL  ELECTRICAL  RATES 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  ta- 
bling later  this  afternoon  a  report  with  respect 
to  rural  residential  electrical  rates  received 
from  Ontario  Hydro  in  response  to  the 
request  made  bv  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  on 
April  10. 

Members  will  recall  Ontario  Hydro  was  re- 
quested to  prepare  proposals  to  reduce  the 
differential  between  the  retail  rate  for  elec- 
tricity paid  by  rural  residents  and  that  paid 
by  urban  residents. 

Ontario  Hydro  has  recommended  that  the 
target  differential  be  set  at  15  per  cent  above 
the  weighted  average  municipal  hydro  utility 
rate  at  a  monthly  consumption  of  1,000  kilo- 
watt hours.  Two  options  are  recommended  in 
order  to  provide  the  funds  for  reducing  the 
differential.  These  are  as  follows— I  quote 
from  the  report:  "The  government  provide  an 
annual  operating  grant  to  Ontario  Hydro  for 
this  purpose  or  the  funds  be  obtained  by 
separate  and  distinct  charge  to  the  bulk 
power  costs." 

As  the  members  are  aware,  the  Treasurer 
(Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  in  his  wisdom,  in  his 
budget  statement  of  November  13  advised  the 
House  that  the  province  will  provide  a  $20- 
million  grant  to  Ontario  Hydro  during  the 
coming  fiscal  year,  so  that  Hydro  can  pro- 
vide a  direct  discount  to  its  rural  residential 
customers. 

This  operating  grant  to  Ontario  Hydro  will 
reduce  the  differential  between  the  average 
municipal  retail  rate  and  the  rural  residential 
rate  to  about  20  per  cent  for  the  year  1981;  I 
point  out  that  without  that  grant  the  differen- 
tial would  have  been  about  30  per  cent. 

Effective  January  1,  1981,  some  525,000 
rural  and  farm  residential  customers,  using 
250  kilowatt  hours  per  month  or  more,  will 
receive  a  discount  on  their  electrical  bill.  The 
grant  will  not  be  available  to  intermittent 
occupancy  cottages  and  chalets,  and  will  not 
cover  commercial  or  industrial  customers. 

As  members  are  aware,  the  rural  retail  sys- 
tem is  only  one  part  of  the  total  hydro  sys- 
tem. The  majority  of  the  power  consumers  of 
Ontario,  some  2.1  million  customers,  receive 
their  electrical  service  from  325  municipal 
electrical  utilities.  As  well,  there  are  some 
100  large  industrial  customers,  which  while 
small  in  number,  use  more  than  15  per  cent 
of  the  electrical  energy  consumed  in  the 
province. 

In  its  preparation  of  the  report  tabled  to- 
day, I  am  advised  that  Ontario  Hydro  dis- 


cussed the  rural  rate  differential  issue  and 
obtained  the  views  of  these  two  major  cus- 
tomer classes.  Their  letters  are  contained  in 
the  report  I  will  be  tabling  this  afternoon. 

The  30  per  cent  reduction  in  the  rate  dif- 
ferential announced  by  the  Treasurer,  meas- 
ured against  the  goal  recommended  by  On- 
tario Hydro,  is  an  interim  measure  pending 
further  action  for  the  year  1982.  The  precise 
way  subsequent  reductions  in  the  rate  dif- 
ferential will  be  made  is  still  under  discussion. 

It  is  anticipated,  however,  that  in  the 
coming  months  further  discussions  will  be 
held  with  the  municipal  hydro  representatives 
and  industrial  customer  representatives,  with 
the  objective  of  making  another  adjustment 
in  the  rate  differential  for  the  year  1982.  The 
change  for  1982  will  take  into  account  the 
proposals  now  before  these  customer  groups 
for  the  change  in  rate  structure,  and  will 
attempt  to  achieve  the  dual  objectives  of  an 
equitable  rate  structure  and  a  reduced  rural 
municipal  differential. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Pretty  weak. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  thought  that  line  was 
pretty  good,  to  tell  you  the  truth. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  have  a  story  I  want  to  tell 
the  minister  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  English  was  never  a 
strong  point  for  the  member.  He  should  re- 
member that. 

As  the  members  of  the  House  know,  On- 
tario Hydro  is  also  reviewing  its  rate  struc- 
ture as  a  result  of  recently  concluded  hearings 
of  the  Ontario  Energy  Board  and  currently 
has  proposals  before  its  customer  classes  for 
changes  in  the  basic  rate  structure  for  1982. 
The  interim  reduction  in  the  differential  be- 
tween the  rural  residential  rate  and  the  mu- 
nicipal retail  rate  should  not  be  confused 
with  this  ongoing  review  of  Ontario  Hydro's 
rate  structure. 

That  is  put  in  for  the  benefit  of  the  mem- 
ber for  York  South  (Mr.   MacDonald). 

Similarly,  it  is  not  appropriate  to  confuse 
the  general  rate  increases  announced  for  1981 
by  Ontario  Hydro  with  this  special  grant,  as 
the  member  for  Renfrew  North  (Mr.  Conway) 
has  been  reminded  recently. 

The  bulk  power  rate  increases,  which  are 
approximately  at  the  level  of  inflation  or 
below,  are  applicable  to  both  urban  and  rural 
rates.  However,  the  special  discount  is  appli- 
cable to  rural  residential  customers  only,  so 
as  to  reduce  the  rate  differential  between 
urban  and  rural  residential  electricity  cus- 
tomers. The  interim  measure  is  a  first  and 
significant  step  in  achieving  that  particular 
goal. 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4529 


In  summary,  whatever  the  1981  electrical 
rates  for  rural  Ontario  and  for  municipal 
utilities  may  be,  the  differential  at  a  con- 
sumption of  1,000  kilowatt  hours  between 
the  average  rural  and  urban  bills  will  be 
reduced  by  30  per  cent  as  a  result  of  the 
progressive  measures  taken  by  this  govern- 
ment. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

RURAL  ELECTRICAL  RATES 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of  Energy 
relating  to  the  statement  he  has  just  com- 
pleted. 

First,  why  would  he  have  rejected  the 
concept  of  equality  of  rate  structure  and 
opted  for  the  goal  of  15  per  cent,  which  will 
continue  to  penalize  our  rural  hydro  users  as 
opposed  to  the  rural  users  in  many  other 
jurisdictions?  It  will  still  leave  us  with  one 
of  the  higher  rate  structures. 

Second,  why  is  it  that  he  would  permit 
the  chairman  of  Ontario  Hydro  to  announce 
an  11.2  per  cent  increase  in  rural  rates, 
effective  January  1,  and  then  come  out  with 
this  $20-million  handout  to  the  farming  com- 
munity, which  is  going  to  go  into  effect  just 
after  that?  Does  it  not  occur  to  him  that  the 
$20  million  is  even  less  than  the  government 
is  investing  in  Minaki  Lodge,  and  that  it  is 
an  insufficient  step  to  improve  the  inequality 
that  has  burdened  the  farming  community 
for  the  past  36  years? 

2:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suppose 
one  should  be  somewhat  appreciative  of  the 
persistent  attempts  of  the  House  leader  of 
the  official  opposition  to  strive  to  continue 
to  confuse  this  particular  issue. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Is  there  anything  I  have  said 
that  was  incorrect? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Absolutely.  It  is  quite 
clear  from  the  statement  that  the  member  is 
confusing  an  annual  exercise  that  started 
some  months  ago  in  determining  1981  rates, 
to  which  reference  was  made  in  the  state- 
ment. That  is  a  process  about  which  the 
member  has  all  kinds  of  information. 

I  do  not  recall  reading  that  the  member 
attended  the  Ontario  Energy  Board  public 
hearings  to  make  any  representation  with 
respect  to  the  general  rate  consideration.  In 
due  course,  the  increase  was  reviewed  by  the 
Ontario  Energy  Board  and  subsequently  an- 
nounced by  Hydro.  Hydro,  of  course,  has 
some    obligation    to    notify    customers    with 


respect  to  the  adjustments  to  become  effec- 
tive on  January  1. 

The  municipal  utilities  commissions'  addi- 
tion to  the  bulk  rate  has  hardly  increasecU- 
perhaps  at  the  rate  of  inflation  or  below. 
As  the  statement  says,  they  add  their  cost 
of  distribution  to  the  municipal  system;  so, 
therefore,  there  are  these  adjustments.  We 
are  talking  here  about  the  differential,  what- 
ever it  may  be. 

One  point  has  to  be  made  particularly 
clear.  Regardless  of  the  rate  increases  to  all 
customers  in  1981,  the  differential  between 
the  weighted  averages  will  be  reduced  by 
30  per  cent.  No  matter  how  many  times  the 
member  tries  to  confuse  the  issue,  that  is 
what  the  rural  customers  are  really  entitled 
to  know,  namely,  that  the  differential  in 
1981  between  their  rates  and  the  weighted 
average  municipal  rates,  because  of  this 
transfer  agreement  to  Hydro,  has  been  re- 
duced in  this  first  year  by  30  per  cent. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Why  would  the  minister  think 
that  I,  or  even  my  colleague,  should  attend 
the  rate  hearings  held  by  one  of  the  govern- 
ment boards  when  our  responsibility  is  to 
do  what  we  have  done,  that  is,  repeatedly 
bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Premier, 
who  no  doubt  told  the  Minister  of  Energy 
what  to  do  about  this  matter.  It  was  the 
pressure  of  the  farm  lobby,  if  one  wants  to 
call  it  that,  present  right  here  at  Queen's 
Park,  that  prompted  the  Premier  to  pull  a 
sorry  situation  that  he  found  himself  in 
back  into  a  little  bit  of  limelight  when  he 
promised  he  would  do  something  about  the 
rates. 

Is  the  minister  implying  that  anything  I 
have  said  is  incorrect  when  I  simply  put  to 
him  that  he  and  the  chairman  of  Hydro, 
the  good  friend  of  the  Premier,  have  allowed 
the  rural  rates  to  go  up  by  11.2  per  cent  on 
January  1  and  then  balance  it— 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  And  the  urban  rates  are 
going  up  as  well. 

Mr.  Nixon:  They  go  up  by  less  than  11.2 
per  cent.  They  even  increase  the  (disparity. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  member  ask  his 
question? 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  would  the  min- 
ister not  agree  that  it  would  be  unfair  if 
he  did  not  agree  with  me  that  the  $20 
million,  being  less  than  what  is  spent  on 
many  of  the  piffling  programs  that  the  min- 
ister and  his  colleagues  are  supporting  else- 
where, is  not  sufficient  to  meet  the  needs 
for  the  electrical  costs,  which  have  been 
unfairly  high  for  the  farming  community  of 


4530 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


this   province,    and   in  fact  really   does   not 
require  any  support  from  us? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  question  has  been  asked. 
Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
three  observations.  When  the  Premier  rose 
in  his  place  on  April  10,  he  read  from  a 
statement  indicating  that  the  government 
was  committed  to  this  and  that  I  had  re- 
ceived instructions  as  to  what  can  be  done 
to  reduce  the  differential.  The  statement  is 
there  to  be  read;  it  is  quite  clear.  It  is  in 
Hansard. 

Secondly,  there  is  an  ongoing  process 
every  year  with  respect  to  reviewing  rates 
and  power  at  cost.  That  process  was  going 
on  and  adjustments  will  be  made  as  of  Jan- 
uary 1,  1981,  reflecting  those  increased  costs. 
What  we  are  talking  about  now  is  address- 
ing ourselves  to  the  differential.  The  men> 
ber  makes  reference  to  the  target  percentage 
which,  I  remind  him,  is  simply  a  recom- 
mendation from  Hydro.  The  government  has 
not  responded  definitely  with  respect  to  this 
report.  It  has  taken  step  number  one  for 
1981  and  made  $20  million  available  from 
the  consolidated  revenue  fund  of  Ontario 
to  reduce  the  differential  between  rural  and 
urban  rates  in  this  province  by  30  per  cent. 
Mr.  MacDonald:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  There  has  been  considerable  con- 
fusion out  in  the  public  as  to  whether  the 
objective  in  the  government's  new  statement 
of  policy  is  to  reduce  or  to  eliminate  the 
differential. 

My  question  to  the  Minister  of  Energy  is 
this:  Does  he  accept  Hydro's  target  differen- 
tial, in  other  words  a  permanent  differential 
of  15  per  cent  between  rural  and  other  rates? 
If  so,  is  it  his  intention  to  take  money  out  of 
the  public  treasury  and  subsidize  Hydro  in 
order  to  bring  it  down  to  that  15  per  cent 
or  lower?  Or,  as  an  alternative,  is  he  going 
to  suggest  to  Hydro  by  a  policy  statement, 
which  presumably  it  must  abide  by,  to  do 
here  in  Ontario  what  has  been  done  in  four 
other  provinces— that  is,  to  pool  the  revenues 
from  the  three  different  kinds  of  customers 
and  equalize  rates  at  least  between  residen- 
tial and  rural? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  keeping 
with  the  spirit  of  the  statement,  the  govern- 
ment has  not  as  yet  accepted  the  report  from 
Hydro.  I  am  tabling  the  report  today.  Second, 
as  an  interim  measure  for  1981,  we  have 
gone  the  consolidated  revenue  fund  route  and 
are  making  available  to  Hydro  $20  million  to 
reduce  the  differential.  What  happens  for 
subsequent  years  is  referred  to  in  my  state- 


ment—we want  time  to  further  consider  the 
implications  of  reaching  some  target  with 
respect  to  the  rate  differential.  We  must  keep 
in  mind  that  we  have  some  obligation  to 
consult  with  the  municipal  utility  organization 
and  other  users  of  hydro  because  of  some 
of  the  implications  that  are  involved. 

In  summary,  the  report  is  here  to  be  con- 
sidered and  we  are  not  committed  to  it  as  yet. 
In  1981  the  answer  is  a  direct  grant  to  Hydro 
for  the  30  per  cent  reduction  in  the  differen- 
tial. What  happens  in  1982  and  subsequent 
years  will  be  the  outcome  of  discussions  and 
consideration  of  this  report,  and  the  atti- 
tudes of  other  customers  of  Hydro. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  wonder  if  the  minister  could  explain,  if  he 
has  backtracked  to  the  point  today  where 
he  said  that  the  objective  was  to  reduce  the 
differential,  could  he  explain  the  statement  in 
the  mini-budget  on  page  16  that  says  "the 
government  has  decided  therefore  to  instruct 
Hydro  to  eliminate"  the  undue  differential  be- 
tween rural  and  urban  electrical  rates  by 
1982. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  leave  it  to 
the  House  to  decide  whether  or  not  "to  re- 
duce" or  "to  eliminate"  the  undue  differential 
mean  the  same  thing.  I  direct  the  member  to 
the  Premier's  statement  on  April  10  which 
talked  in  terms  of  reducing  the  differential. 

HOUSING  AUTHORITIES' 
MEDIA  RELATIONS 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
put  a  question  to  the  Minister  of  Housing. 
Can  he  confirm  to  the  House  that  a  special 
training  program  began  on  October  16,  1980, 
involving  his  housing  authority  managers,  in 
which  they  are  supposed  to  be  taught  what 
elements  reporters  are  looking  for  in  a  news 
story  and  to  give  suggestions  on  the  handling 
of  bad  news? 

Hon.    Mr.    Bennett:    Mr.    Speaker,    in   the 
course  of  running  the  housing  authority- 
Mr.  Conway:  Are  you  taking  the  course 
too? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  No,  but  I  suggest  that 
honourable  member  should  try  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  What  are  the  members 
opposite  doing  about  Carleton?  Was  that  bad 
news? 

Mr.  Riddell:  Greatest  fabricators  of  the 
truth  you  would  ever  want  to  run  into. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Boy,  you  have  been 
working  with  great  teachers  from  Ottawa  in 
your  party. 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4531 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  see  that  one  of  the 
perpetrators  is  moving.  If  the  other  one  will 
join  him  behind  there,  we  will  get  on  with 
the  business  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Conway:  I  would  not  be  seen  with 
that  minister  after  some  of  his  remarks. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  member  for 
Huron-Middlesex  made  a  statement  that  I  am 
sure,  on  reflection,  he  would  want  to  have 
removed  from  the  record. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Speaker,  reflecting  on  the 
type  of  information  that  came  out  of  the 
Carleton  by-election- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  don't  want  you  to  do  that. 
I  want  you  to  reflect  upon  what  ycu  said  in 
the  House,  which  was  clearly  unparliamen- 
tary. Would  you  please  withdraw  it? 

Mr.  Riddell:  Very  reluctantly. 

Mr.  Speaker:   You  will  withdraw  it? 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  will  withdraw  a  statement 
which  I  firmly  believe  to  have  contained 
more  fact  than  fiction. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  not  what  you  believe, 
but  what  you  are  allowed  to  say  in  this 
House. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the 
course  of  trying  to  serve  the  public  and  keep 
them  informed  on  the  running  of  housing 
authorities,  whether  it  be  in  the  Windsor 
area  or  the  Ottawa  area  and  so  on,  what 
we  have  been  trying  to  do  is  offer  to  our 
chairmen  and  members  of  the  various 
authorities  some  opportunity  to  understand 
the  way  they  should  be  dealing  with  the 
press  in  answering  specific  questions.  In  no 
way  has  it  been  to  try  to  flavour  or  colour 
their  stories.  But  obviously  some  of  the 
chairmen— 

2:50  p.m. 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Margaret,  if  you  would 
sit  and  listen  for  a  while  you  might  just 
improve  your  knowledge.  You  are  not  the 
fount  of  knowledge  in  this  great  province. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  It  may  help  if  the 
Minister  of  Housing  would  speak  to  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
agree  with  you.  If  the  member  for  St. 
George  would  speak  to  you  too,  I  would 
not  have  that  problem. 

Very  clearly,  when  people  are  going  into 
some  of  the  chairmanships  and  various 
memberships  of  the  boards  of  directors,  they 
do  not  have  the  understanding  of  how  they 
are  going  to  face  the  questions  of  the  press. 
What   we   have    very   simply   tried   to   do   is 


show  them  how  they  should  cope  with  the 
situation  and  be  able  to  answer  the  questions 
the  press  asks.  In  none  of  our  housing  autho- 
rities have  we  a  thing  to  hide  or  colour  or 
flavour.  We  give  exactly  what  goes  on  within 
those  authorities. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  interjection  from  my  colleague,  the 
member  for  Essex  South  (Mr.  Mancini)  is  a 
good  one.  Why  are  they  not  just  instructed 
to  tell  the  truth  and  give  the  information  as 
requested?  Why  would  it  be  necessary,  for 
example,  in  trying  to  convince  the  press  of 
the  efficacy  and  usefulness  of  John  White's 
vision  in  Townsend,  after  spending  $50 
million  to  develop  a  town  site  in  which  only 
14  lots  have  been  sold,  for  the  minister  to 
have  his  managers  in  so  that  he  could  per- 
suade them  and  teach  them  to  convince  the 
press  that  that  was  some  sort  of  a  good  thing 
and  not  just  a  ridiculous  bad  judgement 
that  has  been  a  burden  on  the  taxpayers  for 
all  these  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  very 
frankly,  I  do  not  accept  the  acting  Leader 
of  the  Opposition's  remark  that  our  people 
have  to  be  brainwashed  or  fed,  or  would 
indicate  to  the  press  something  that  is  not 
correct.  Through  our  housing  authorities 
and  through  our  staff  in  various  areas  of 
this  province,  we  have  always  given  to  the 
press  exactly  what  they  have  asked  for  as 
clearly  and  concisely  as  possible,  because 
we  realize  th°y  are  the  communicators  to 
the  public  and  it  is  the  public's  money  we 
are  spending  wisely  and  soundly. 

BOYCOTT  OF  ONTARIO  GOODS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Premier.  Has  the  Premier  re- 
ceived a  letter  from  the  group  of  Alberta  oil 
companies  that  committed  themselves  to 
boycotting  Ontario  goods?  Did  the  Premier 
take  the  opportunity  this  weekend  to  discuss 
the  matter  with  the  Premier  of  Alberta  when 
they  were  sitting  a  seat  or  two  away  from 
each  other  at  the  Grey  Cup  game,  and  spe- 
cifically ask  the  Premier  of  Alberta  to  ensure 
that  Alberta  does  not  try  to  take  out  its 
anger  on  a  federal  Liberal  budget  by  boy- 
cotting  goods    manufactured   in   Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  in 
fact  one  seat  away  from  the  Premier  of 
Alberta.  The  intervening  seat  was  occupied 
by  a  very  dedicated  loyal  Ontario  fan,  cheer- 
ing vigorously  for  the  Hamilton  Tiger-Cats 
with  some  measure  of  futility- 
Mr.  Nixon:  Great  girl. 


4532 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  was  my  wife  who 
was— yes,  a  great  lady. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Did  she  get  hit  at  all  be- 
tween you  two  guys? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Just  ignore  the  inter- 
jections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  But  he  was  getting  very 
personal,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Peterson:  No  one  else  would  put  his 
wife  through  that.  Why  would  you? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Listen- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Anybody  who 
watched  the  game  yesterday  knew  who  was 
sitting  between  you  and  the  Premier  of 
Alberta,  but  the  question  has  nothing  at  all 
to  do  with  that. 

Hon.   Mr.  Davis:    With   great  respect,   Mr. 

Speaker,    it    did.    The    question   very   clearly 

said- 
Mr.    Speaker:    No,    not    who    was    sitting 

between  you   and  the   Premier. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  "—when  you  were  sitting 
close  to  or  near  the  Premier  of  Alberta,"  and 
T  wanted  to  clear  up  for  members  of  the 
House  just  how  close  that  proximity  was  on 
Sunday.  The  member  for  London  Centre 
asked  how  my  wife  could  tolerate  being 
between  the  two  of  us,  and  I  was  just  re- 
piying- 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  That  was  not  the 
question  I  heard.  I  heard  an  interjection  that 
I  ignored  totally  and  I  want  you  to  do  the 
same. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not 
actually  see  the  Sunday  edition  of  the 
Toronto  Star  until  after  the  game  was  com- 
pleted. I  left  fairly  early  on  the  Sunday 
morning,  at  least  for  me,  and  I  must  say  I 
had  not  seen  the  story.  I  think  it  originated 
in  the  Sunday  Star;  anyway  I  had  not  seen 
it. 

I  have  not  raised  it  yet  with  the  Premier 
of  Alberta.  I  certainly  did  not  yesterday  be- 
cause I  was  not  familiar  with  it  during  the 
Grey  Cup  game  itself  or  the  festivities  pre- 
ceding it. 

I  would  make  the  general  observation, 
because  I  have  been  asked  by  one  or  two 
others,  that  in  spite  of  the  story  I  have  read, 
this  government  would  not  and  will  not 
adopt  any  policy  that  precludes  the  free 
operation  on  a  competitive  basis  of  business 
within  Canada. 

In  this  province  we  have  not  limited  our 
procurement  policies,  nor  have  we  given 
instructions  to  agencies  or  other  areas  in  the 
general    government    service    to    buy    solely 


Ontario  goods  or  not  to  buy  goods  from  some 
other  province  of  Canada.  No  matter  what 
the  provocation  may  be,  that  will  continue 
to  be  the  policy. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state  we  are  going 
through  a  period  of  some  controversy.  Quite 
obviously,  there  are  people  in  our  sister 
provinces— perhaps  including  Saskatchewan, 
I  do  not  know— who  are  upset  about  the 
directions  of  the  government  of  this  country, 
partially  related  to  the  recent  budget,  obvi- 
ously in  the  energy  field. 

I  spoke  in  Ottawa  on  Thursday  with 
respect  to  some  of  these  issues,  suggesting  it 
would  be  wise  to  try  to  reduce  some  of  the 
rhetoric  and  to  make  it  clear  these  are  im- 
portant issues  that  must  be  resolved.  Nothing 
will  be  served,  in  my  view  at  least,  by 
further  exacerbating  the  situation  by  increas- 
ing the  rhetoric  or  making  threats  of  "we  will 
do  this  if  you  do  that,"  et  cetera.  To  me  that 
is  not  a  solution,  nor  is  it  the  route  we  should 
go  at  this  time. 

On  Thursday,  I  repeated  the  messages  I 
sent  to  both  the  Prime  Minister  of  this 
country  and  the  Premier  of  Alberta,  that  I 
believe  it  would  be  in  the  national  interest 
for  them  to  sit  down  once  more  to  see  if 
they  can  negotiate  an  acceptable  solution  to 
the  present  energy  debate.  I  would  hope  both 
those  gentlemen  would  consider  this  very 
seriously  as  being  the  best  route  to  go. 

I  want  to  make  it  clear  that  I  regret  the 
point  of  view  expressed  by,  hopefully,  a 
small  group  of  people  in  the  business  com- 
munity- in  Alberta  and  that  this  is  the  ap- 
proach they  are  taking.  I  think  it  is  a  nega- 
tive approach,  quite  frankly.  I  do  not  think 
that  sort  of  thing  produces  positive  results 
in  a  political  or  economic  sense.  I  would 
only  add  this  to  it,  in  case  there  is  a  supple- 
mentary, that  I  think  for  most  Canadians, 
at  least,  this  land  of  approach  will  not  pro- 
vide the  kind  of  solutions  we  are  looking  for. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state  that  with  some 
companies,  at  least,  the  shareholders  or  even 
the  boards  of  directors  might  start  to  take 
a  modest  interest  because,  if  steel  happens 
to  be  one  of  the  products  they  may  be 
considering  boycotting  or  what  have  you, 
I  would  suggest  those  who  are  interested  in 
the  business  activities  of  those  organizations 
really  would  question  the  judgement  where- 
by they  would  be  importing  Japanese  or 
West  German  steel.  With  the  amount  of 
differential  in  money  at  this  time,  and  know- 
ing the  efficiency  of,  say,  the  steel  industry 
in  this  country,  I  think  shareholders  and 
boards  of  directors  would  have  to  be  a  little 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4533 


careful  about  saying,  "We  are  prepared  to 
spend  substantially  more  on  a  given  prod- 
uct," knowing  that  would  reduce  the  eco- 
nomic viability  of  those  organizations  for 
which  they  have  responsibility. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  answer  took  five  min- 
utes. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Given  that  energy  invest- 
ments in  western  Canada  will  approach  $100 
billion  over  the  next  10  or  12  years,  and 
given  the  need  to  recycle  oil  and  gas 
revenues  in  western  Canada  back  to  the  rest 
of  the  country  if  we  are  not  to  get  a  com- 
pletely lopsided  economy,  when  the  Premier 
discusses  this  matter  with  the  Premier  of 
Alberta,  will  he  seek  to  have  Alberta  intro- 
duce Canadian  content  requirements  for  the 
oil  industry  to  ensure  that  the  benefits  of 
those  investments  in  western  Canada  are 
spent  in  Canada  and  not  elsewhere  and, 
therefore,  to  ensure  that  Ontario  benefits 
in  a  major  way  from  the  investments  being 
made  in  the  oil  industry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  the  history  up 
to  this  time  has  been  by  and  large  very- 
positive.  It  is  something  I  keep  reminding 
people  about  in  this  province.  When  another 
Syncrude  plant  is  committed,  the  Ontario 
economy  is  the  beneficiary,  not  only  from 
the  standpoint  of  steel  and  other  goods  being 
provided  to  the  development  of  these  major 
undertakings,  but  also  in  the  long-term 
objective  of  sufficiency  of  oil  supply.  There 
is  a  very  positive  impact  on  the  economy  of 
this  province. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state— and  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman)  can 
correct  me  if  I  am  in  error— that  while  there 
may  not  have  been  any  written  or  stated 
policy,  there  has  been  a  recognition  that  the 
marketplace  is  somewhat  relevant,  that  in 
the  marketplace  Canadian  suppliers  have 
been  very  competitive  and  that  we  have  had 
our  fair  share  of  supplies  to  the  oil  industry 
in  Alberta. 

3  p.m. 

The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 
can  correct  me  if  I  am  wrong,  but  I  think 
that  is  factually  the  case.  I  would  be  very 
optimistic  when  we  get  through  the  next 
short  period  of  time,  with  hopefully  the  two 
governments  sorting  out  the  policies  at 
present  in  conflict,  that  that  will  continue 
to  be  the  policy.  I  see  no  benefit  for  anyone 
in  not  having  it  the  policy. 

I  might  have  reservations  if  we  were  not 
as  competitive.  In  the  steel  industry  in  par- 
ticular,  we   can   compete   with   any  offshore 


supplier  in  terms  of  quality  and  price.  I 
have  no  reluctance  in  making  that  observa- 
tion because  those  happen  to  be  the  facts. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Before  the  events  we  are  reading  about 
escalate  to  the  point  where  they  become  un- 
salvageable  or  at  least  very  difficult  for  the 
respective  parties  to  back  down  from,  would 
the  Premier  consider  leading  a  delegation  to 
the  west  to  do  the  best  he  could  to  be  an 
honest  broker  in  this  situation  and,  in  the 
process,  as  best  as  he  can,  protect  the  in- 
terests of  the  manufacturing  sector  in 
Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  would 
like  to  convey  messages.  I  intend  to  be  in 
Vancouver  a  week  this  Friday  and  have 
some  observations  to  make.  I  think,  there 
are  some  things  that  can  be  stated  and  can 
be  said.  One  thing  that  would  igive  me  some 
difficulty  is  that  when  I  say  some  of  these 
things,  I  am  always  confronted  with  people 
saying,  "What  does  the  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  of  Ontario  say?  We  recall  a  few 
months  ago  he  said  that  Alberta  producers 
should  not  get  another  nickle."  Have  the 
Liberals  once  again  changed  their  policy  on 
energy,  so  that  if  I  say  some  of  these  things, 
I  can  speak  on  their  behalf  as  well? 

Mr.  Nixon:   That  is  terrible. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  true,  that  is  ex- 
actly what  he  said. 

The  honourable  member  asks  me,  why 
don't  I  be  the  broker.  We  have  made  a 
very  genuine  attempt  to  resolve  some  of 
these— 

Mr.  Nixon:  You  are  making  a  mess  of 
this. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  People  have  to  be  ac- 
countable for  what  they  say.  The  honourable 
members  are  always  very  reluctant  to  accept 
the  responsibility  for  what  they  say,  and 
when  they  are  reminded  of  it,  they  ido  not 
like  it. 

NUCLEAR  WASTE  DISPOSAL 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Energy.  Last  Thurs- 
day, I  asked  the  minister  about  a  Gallup 
poll  on  nuclear  waste  disposal  that  was  tak- 
ing place  in  a  number  of  Ontario  communi- 
ties. We  have  since  learned  that  the  poll 
was  carried  out  by  Atomic  Energy  of  Can- 
ada Limited  and  it  was  conducted  in  August 
and  September  of  this  year. 

Would  the  minister  explain  how  this  poll, 
which  was  clearly  designed  to  help  AECL 
soften    up   resistance    to    nuclear   waste    dis- 


4534 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


posal,  could  be  conducted  in  Ontario  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  the  ministry  and  ap- 
parently without  the  knowledge  of  the  joint 
Ontario-Canada  committee  which  is  supposed 
to  oversee  all  research  into  nuclear  waste 
disposal  in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  surely  the 
honourable  member  does  not  find  it  unusual 
for  a  lot  of  things  to  be  going  on  that  would 
not  necessarily  be  specifically  brought  to  the 
attention  of  any  particular  minister. 

In  fairness,  the  honourable  member  will 
remember  that  as  he  was  asking  me  that 
particular  question  last  week,  he  sent  the 
document  across  and  asked  me  if  I  had  seen 
it.  I  said  honestly  that  I  had  not  seen  the 
document.  I  undertook,  as  I  am  sure  he 
found  out  later,  to  find  out  who  had  pre- 
pared these  questions  for  a  regular  Gallup 
poll  survey. 

As  I  did  my  follow-up,  it  is  my  under- 
standing—and I  apologize  to  the  honourable 
member  for  not  reporting  the  next  day— 
that  that  particular  survey  was  the  sixth 
survey  of  an  ongoing  series  done  by  the 
federal  commission  and  these  results  are 
made  public  and  are  part  of  their  report. 
I  suppose  eventually  we  would  have  access 
to  the  information  that  is  made  public  as 
part  of  the  publications  of  the  commission. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Perhaps  the  minister  could 
say  what  is  going  on.  He  does  not  know  that 
polling  is  taking  place,  but  it  turns  out  there 
are  six  polls  by  AECL  that  have  been  done 
up  until  now.  Is  the  minister  aware  as  well 
that  AECL  has  now  gone  into  the  area  at 
East  Bull  Lake  near  Massey,  west  of  Sud- 
bury, without  informing  the  local  council  or 
consulting  with  them,  in  order  to  carry  out 
research  into  using  that  area  as  a  nuclear 
waste  disposal  site? 

Does  the  fact  they  are  polling  and  not  tell- 
ing the  minister,  and  the  fact  they  are  now 
contravening  their  previous  policy  and  going 
into  potential  waste  disposal  sites  without 
telling  the  local  council,  mean  there  has  been 
a  change  in  their  policy  of  consultation  with 
the  province  or  with  local  communities?  What 
are  the  changes  in  the  consultation  program 
and  why  have  they  not  been  announced? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  do  not  think  the  mem- 
ber is  being  fair  in  suggesting  I  indicated  I 
did  not  know  anything  about  polling  going 
on.  I  remind  him  once  again  that  he  sent 
across  to  me  a  particular  set  of  questions  and 
asked  me  if  I  was  familiar  with  those  ques- 
tions. I  said  I  was  not  and  he  has  subse- 
quently confirmed  that  fact. 


General  polling  going  on  to  get  certain 
public  attitudes  on  the  part  of  the  commission 
is  another  matter.  The  member  once  again 
is  confusing  the  fact  that  there  are  five 
centres  about  which  Atomic  Energy  of 
Canada  Limited  announced  particulars,  in  un- 
organized territories,  where  they  were,  at 
least  at  this  stage,  simply  doing  flyovers  and 
walkovers.  That  was  the  only  aspect  of  the 
program  they  were  doing.  The  five  areas  pub- 
licized in  their  news  release  indicated  that. 
The  information  was  quite  public  at  the  time 
in  those  organized  territories. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  wonder  if  the  minister  could  explain  what 
was  meant  by  the  statements  made  by  AECL 
to  the  select  committee  on  Ontario  Hydro 
affairs  when  they  told  us  they  would  not 
enter  an  area  without  local  approval.  Indeed 
they  said  that  if  they  could  not  get  that  ap- 
proval, they  would  not  go  into  those  areas. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  don't  think 
I  am  accountable  for  the  activities  of  AECL. 
However,  I  do  point  out  once  again  by  way 
of  emphasis  that  the  five  areas  we  are  talking 
about  now  are  all  unorganized  territories; 
AECL  announced  what  their  plans  were  with 
respect  to  flyover  and  walkover  and  that  has 
been  completed.  It  is  my  understanding  there 
was  some  consultation  with  federal  and  pro- 
vincial members  of  Parliament  in  whose  rid- 
ings the  unorganized  territory  was  located— 
and  I  repeat,  the  unorganized  territory.  They 
are  the  five  we  are  talking  about  at  the 
moment. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  During  hearings  of  the  Hydro  com- 
mittee, the  minister  indicated  he  was  post- 
poning any  effort  to  renegotiate  the  Canada- 
Ontario  agreement  with  regard  to  developing 
an  acceptable  waste  disposal  management 
program  until  he  got  a  copy  of  our  report. 
The  minister  has  a  copy  of  that  report  and  he 
has  had  it  now  for  some  time. 

On  page  29  of  the  report  there  is  a  recom- 
mendation that  the  governments  of  Canada 
and  Ontario  should  establish,  under  joint 
ownership,  a  nuclear  fuel  waste  management 
agency  that  would  have  an  overall  responsi- 
bility for  the  Canadian  program,  et  cetera.  Is 
it  the  government's  intention  now  to  move  to 
establish  that  agency  in  order  to  take  away 
from  AECL  the  overall  political  management 
of  the  program  and  leave  them  to  do  what 
they  are  capable  of  doing  and  equipped  to 
do— namely  the  research  work?  What  is  the 
minister's  reaction  to  that  recommendation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the 
member  notes,  the  minister  attended  before 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4535 


the  committee  and  indicated  he  wanted  to 
see  the  report,  he  is  quite  correct  in  that 
regard.  That  report  has  not  yet  been  debated 
in  the  House  and  we  are  soon  to  debate  that. 
The  minister  wants  the  benefit  of  that  debate, 
and  the  government's  intention  with  respect 
to  the  recommendations  contained  in  that  re- 
port will  be  made  in  due  course,  following 
the  completion  of  that  debate. 


Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
believe  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  bring  in 
legislation  for  this  purpose.  I  think  it  can  be 
done  by  regulation.  I  believe  the  rules  we 
are  working  under  now,  which  deal  with 
vehicles  that  have  been  altered,  are  by  regu- 
lation rather  than  legislation.  I  do  not  think 
the  fact  that  the  legislation  is  before  the 
House  or  not  would  have  any  bearing  on  it. 


SALES  TAX  EXEMPTION 

Mr.  Eakins:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
for  the  Minister  of  Revenue,  and  I  ask  it  on 
behalf  of  a  constituent  of  mine  who  is  a 
double  amputee. 

Will  the  minister  give  consideration  to  ex- 
panding the  retail  sales  tax  exemptions  to 
give  greater  coverage  for  th-  purchase  of 
special  vehicles  for  those  who  are  handi- 
capped? On  the  purchase  of  a  van,  for 
instance,  the  rebate  is  given  only  for  special 
controls  and/or  a  wheelchair  lift.  Will  the 
minister  consider  expanding  this  rebate  to 
include  other  installations  to  assist  in  the 
comfort  of  those  handicapped  people  who 
must  often  spend  a  longer  period  of  time  in 
their  vans  and  require  these  installations  for 
medical  reasons? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  a  matter 
of  fact  I  directed  my  staff  a  month  or  more 
ago  to  look  into  the  very  type  of  situation 
that  the  member  has  brought  up.  There  are 
many  people  in  the  province  who  may  not 
require  a  modified  vehicle  but  may  need 
special  options— for  instance,  power  steering, 
power  brakes  or  an  automatic  transmission 
that  thev  would  not  need  under  normal 
circumstances.  We  are  looking  into  that  situ- 
at;on  at  the  moment  and  hopefully  some 
solution  can  be  found  to  it. 

Mr.  Eakins:  Will  the  minister  give  special 
consideration  to  medical  reasons  for  the 
equipment  of  a  van?  I  am  thinking  of  couch 
facilities  or  toilet  facilities  which  many 
amnutees  require. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  would  be  part  of 
the  overall  package.  Any  special  equipment 
that  would  be  required  or  special  option  that 
would  have  to  be  ordered  is  being  con- 
sidered. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
S'nce  the  cuts  in  the  retail  sales  tax  were 
designed  to  improve  purchasing  and  employ- 
ment in  this  province,  would  it  not  be  a 
sensible  approach  to  make  this  change  when 
the  bill  to  put  in  the  sales  tax  cuts  that  were 
in  the  mini-budget  is  going  through? 
3:10  p.m. 


HOSPITAL  FUNDING 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Health.  Has  the  min- 
ister seen  recent  statements  by  Robert 
Ferguson,  the  administrator  at  Humber 
Memorial  Hospital,  in  which  he  states, 
"Humber  Memorial  Hospital  receives  the 
smaPe-t  Ministry  of  Health  annual  allocation 
of  all  the  west  suburban  hospitals,"  and, 
"Were  it  to  receive  even  the  average  re- 
ceived by  other  west  suburban  hospitals,  it 
would  have  received  an  additional  $1,428,482 
for  this  year"?  If  so,  does  he  agree  with  Mr. 
Ferguson's  figures?  Does  he  feel  this  is 
equitable?  What  action  is  his  ministry  taking 
at  present  to  remedy  the  situation  at  that 
pa-ticular  hospital? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have 
not  seen  the  particular  quotes  to  which  the 
member  refers.  I  have  met  several  times  in 
recent  months  with  the  entire  board  of  that 
hospital,  most  recently  about  four  weeks  ago, 
at  which  time  we  discussed  their  present 
operational  plans  and  the  1980-81  budget 
situation.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  any 
problems  they  were  forecasting  are  being  ad- 
dressed. 

Mr.  Philip:  I  wonder  if  the  minister  would 
help  me  to  understand  why  the  hospital  has 
been  underfunded  from  the  time  it  opened, 
as  alleged  by  Mr.  Ferguson.  Why  has  this 
one  particular  hospital  been  so  underfunded 
historically? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the 
last  meeting  with  the  board  we  established 
that  it  ha*  not.  The  hospital  had  a  significant 
addition  in  1972  or  1973,  for  which  the 
hospital  projected  certain  operating  costs, 
which  projections  the  hospital  exceeded  sig- 
nificantly. That  has  led  to  a  battle  of  words 
from  time  to  time  between  the  administrators 
of  the  hospital  and  my  own  civil  servants 
over  whether  the  original  forecasts  were 
accurate  or  whether  there  was  a  difference 
that  had  to  be  settled. 

At  that  very  meeting  I  submitted  to  the 
chairman  and  members  of  the  board  that  that 
meeting  should  be  considered  the  meeting  at 


4536 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


which  we  resolved  that  matter  once  and  for 
all.  I  believe  we  have. 

PALMERSTON  PROPERTY  TAXES 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs. 
The  minister  is  probably  aware  of  recent 
public  revelations  concerning  the  town  of 
Palmerston  where  the  records  showed  that  up 
to  70  per  cent  of  the  property  owners  were 
in  default  of  paying  their  property  taxes. 
Since  municipalities  are  the  creatures  of  the 
province  and  since  the  province  is  supposedly 
the  watchdog  over  municipal  actions,  why 
was  his  mmistry  not  able  to  detect  the  great 
discrepancy  between  what  was  actuallv  paid 
by  the  residents  and  the  amount  recorded  bv 
the  clerk-treasurer,  a  shortfall  of  several 
hundred  thousand  dollars  in  a  budget  of  $1 
million  or  $2  million  for  a  population  of 
2,000  people? 

This  theft  has  probably  been  going  on 
from  three  to  10  years,  and  neither  the 
town's  auditors  nor  his  ministry  officials 
detected  anything  wrong  during  this  period. 
In  fact,  it  was  left  to  one  of  the  councillors 
of  the  town  of  Palmerston  to  detect  that  it 
involved  70  per  cent  of  the  property  owners, 
a  figure  which  is  about  10  times  the  pro- 
vincial average.  What  steps  are  being  taken 
by  his  ministry  to  correct  this  particular 
problem  in  Palmerston  and,  secondly,  to  try 
to  detect  it  before  it  might  happen  again  in 
the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  best 
way  I  can  answer  the  question  is  to  say, 
first,  we  do  a  computer  printout  and  make  it 
available  on  the  percentage  of  tax  arrears  to 
levy.  Therefore,  as  a  ministry  we  know  and 
are  able  to  tell  the  various  municipalities,  if 
they  do  not  know  or  if  the  figures  they  have 
are  different  from  those  we  have. 

The  Palmerston  situation  involves  criminal 
charges.  Criminal  charges  have  been  laid 
against  the  clerk-treasurer  of  that  munic- 
ipality. I  understand  he  subsequently  sub- 
mitted his  resignation.  There  is  a  new  audit 
firm  coming  in  to  do  an  investigation.  Hope- 
fully, after  that  has  been  completed,  we  will 
have  more  detailed  information  as  to  how  the 
various  events  occurred  in  that  area  and  what 
steps  can  be  taken  to  prevent  them  from 
occurring  in  other  areas. 

In  view  of  the  fact  the  matter  is  before 
the  courts  and  charges  are  pending  against 
this  person,  I  really  do  not  think  there  is 
anything  else  I  can  say  about  the  matter  at 
this  time. 


Mr.  Epp:  Does  it  not  appear  odd  to  the 
minister  that,  in  a  municipality  the  size  of 
Palmerston,  the  rates  would  go  up  from  10  to 
15  to  30  to  50  to  60  to  70  per  cent  and  no 
one  in  his  ministry  would  think  it  odd  these 
percentages  were  that  high,  that  people  were 
not  paying  their  taxes?  Up  to  70  per  cent  of 
the  people  in  Palmerston  were  suspected  of 
not  paying  their  taxes,  10  times  the  provin- 
cial average.  Did  nobody  think  it  was  odd? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  certainly  do  think  it  is 
odd  and  it  did  occur  to  us  it  was  odd.  For 
that  very  reason  the  ministry  asked  the  crown 
attorney  about  the  matter  and  he  asked  the 
police  to  investigate.  Subsequently,  the 
charges  were  laid. 

SCHOOL  TRUSTEES'  ALLOWANCES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  ques- 
tion is  for  the  Minister  of  Education.  As  the 
minister  is  aware,  many  school  board  mem- 
bers now  carry  out  the  job  full-time.  Since 
there  has  not  been  a  major  review  of  the 
allowances  for  some  time,  for  people  who  are 
trying  to  do  the  job  on  a  full-time  basis  the 
present  allowance  is  clearly  inadequate.  Does 
the  minister  have  any  intention  of  introducing 
an  amendment  to  section  164  of  the  Educa- 
tion Act  to  increase  the  allowance  to  members 
of  school  boards  across  the  province,  an 
allowance  now  fixed  at  a  maximum  of  $7,200 
even  for  large  metropolitan  areas  such  as 
Toronto? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sure  the  honourable  member  is  aware  that,  up 
until  this  date,  the  role  of  the  school  trustee 
has  never  been  considered  philosophically  to 
be  one  that  required1  full-time  activity.  How- 
ever, it  is  becoming  obvious  some  trustees  are 
making  the  job  a  full-time  activity,  in  spite 
of  a  fairly  massive  increase  in  the  administra- 
tive staff  employed  to  administer  the  schools 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  board. 

There  has  been  a  request  from  the  Ontario 
School  Trustees'  Council  that  we  consider 
this  matter.  As  the  member  is  probably  aware, 
or  he  may  not  be  if  he  has  not  read  Issues 
and  Directions,  there  is  at  present  a  thor- 
ough-going review  of  the  role  of  the  school 
trustee  and  his  relationship  to  the  roles  of 
others  within  the  structure  of  education  in 
Ontario.  This  is  an  intregal  part  of  that  ex- 
amination. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Is  there  consideration 
in  that  review  of  the  establishment  of  a  new 
formula  that  is  not  based1  on  enrolment,  like 
the  present  formula,  but  is  more  in  terms  of 
the  duties  performed? 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4537 


Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  have  not  con- 
sidered a  new  formula.  The  philosophical 
base  upon  which  the  whole  process  is  estab- 
lished is  what  is  being  examined  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  There  may  be  any  number  of  ways 
to  determine  the  appropriate  level  of  re- 
muneration. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  the  minister  have  any  records  or  sta- 
tistics to  show  where  in  Ontario  trustees  are 
performing  their  jobs  on  a  full-time  basis? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  No,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
am  sure  we  could  do  a  survey  asking  trustees. 
We  have  the  public  statements  of  certain 
members  of  school  boards  that  they  consider 
their  jobs  to  be  full-time.  I  am  very  aware 
that,  in  the  vast  majority  of  boards,  the  role 
is  still  considered  to  be  a  part-time  rather 
than  a  full-time  activity. 

CHILDREN'S  AID  SOCIETY  FUNDING 

Mr.  Blundy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services.  Is  the  minister  aware  of  the 
precarious  financial  situation  of  the  Lamb- 
ton  Children's  Aid  Society  and  the  concern 
by  the  board  of  that  society  that  it  will  go 
broke  by  the  end  of  the  year?  According  to 
the  write-up  in  the  paper,  the  director  says, 
"The  CAS  is  going  (broke  by  the  end  of  the 
year."  Apparently  the  funding  situation  is 
that  it  is  not  able  to  provide  the  funds  for 
the  work  load  of  this  children's  aid  society. 
Is  the  minister  aware  of  this  and,  if  so, 
what  is  he  planning  to  do  about  it? 

3:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot 
claim  to  be  intimately  familiar  with  the 
details  of  the  financial  situation  of  that 
society.  I  can  assure  the  honourable  mem- 
ber, though— as  has  been  the  case  throughout 
this  year  when  we  moved  into  the  new  fund- 
ing approach  with  children's  aid  societies— 
that  any  society  experiencing  financial  diffi- 
culty or  projecting  a  deficit  situation  at  any 
point  during  the  year  has  been  urged  to 
notify  the  ministry  immediately. 

We  have  a  group  of  staff  who  will  work 
with  the  society  in  what  we  are  calling  a 
special  circumstances  review.  If,  as  a  result 
of  the  work  done  with  the  society,  it  be- 
comes evident  that  it  is  facing  a  financial 
situation  as  a  result  of  unforeseen  circum- 
stances and  the  only  solution  is  to  look  at 
the  possibility  of  additional  funding,  then 
we  will  do  that.  But  the  first  step,  of  course, 
is  to  look  at  the  total  budget  situation  and 


to  make  recommendations  to  the  society  of 
ways  in  Which  it  might  otherwise  cope. 

In  the  case  of  the  Sarnia  society,  I  am  not 
sure  whether  there  has  been  a  special  cir- 
cumstance review  at  this  point  or  not.  I 
would  have  to  check  with  staff  to  find  out. 

Mr.  Blundy:  I  do  not  believe  such  a 
review  has  been  held.  Apparently  the  great 
increase  in  the  case  load  of  juveniles  in  the 
system  is  one  of  the  things  contributing 
largely  to  the  substantial  deficit  of  the  board. 
I  would  like  to  know  whether  the  minister 
will  look  into  this  matter  and  take  whatever 
steps  are  necessary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker.  I  will 
certainly  check  with  staff  to  see  if  there  has 
been  a  request  for  a  special  circumstances 
review  from  that  society.  If  there  has  not 
been  a  communication  from  the  society,  I 
will  certainly  ask  staff  to  check  with  the 
society  to  see  what  the  situation  is. 

I  do  think,  though,  it  is  important  to 
recognize  that  in  many  instances  where  the 
special  circumstances  reviews  have  taken 
place,  they  have  resulted  in  finding  a  resolu- 
tion to  the  budgetary  difficulty  the  society 
perceived  itself  to  be  facing.  In  fact,  in  one 
case,  a  society  was  projecting  a  deficit  of 
$160,000.  As  a  result  of  the  review,  working 
with  our  staff,  it  agreed  it  was  able  to 
reduce  that  projected  deficit  to  something 
like  $25,000  and  would  be  able  to  eliminate 
it  'by  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  If  memory  serves  me,  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  was  a  royal  commission  in- 
quiry into  the  Sarnia  Children's  Aid  Society. 
I  believe  we  have  been  waiting  some  three 
years  for  the  report.  Does  the  minister  have 
some  explanation  as  to  why  there  has  not 
been  a  report  as  a  result  of  that  royal 
commission? 

Hon.    Mr.    Norton:    Mr.    Speaker,    to   the 
-best  of  my  knowledge,  His  Honour  Judge- 
Mr.    McCIellan:    You    have    forgotten    his 
name. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  It  has  been  a  long  time. 
Judge  H.  Ward  Allen,  I  believe,  has  been 
writing  the  report  for  some  time  now.  I 
have  not  received  the  report.  I  d)o  not  know 
precisely  when  it  will  be  received.  I  have 
been   expecting  it  for  months  now. 

Mr.  McCIellan:   Years. 

DRUG   PRESCRIPTION    RECORDS 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Health  concerning 
the  practice  known  as  double  doctoring.  We 


4538 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


have  now  had  court  cases  in  regard  to  the 
practice  of  double  doctoring,  whereby  idrug 
addicts  identify  which  physicians  in  any 
given  community  are  either  extremely  loose 
in  their  keeping  of  records  or  extremely 
loose  in  giving  out  prescriptions  for  drugs 
and  feed  their  habit  in  that  manner. 

Does  the  ministry  have  any  accurate  rec- 
ords on  precisely  who  these  physicians  are? 
Is  the  minister  condoning  the  practice  known 
as  double  doctoring?  What  steps  is  he  taking 
then  to  correct  that  problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  We  certainly  do  not 
condone  it.  We  are  in  the  position  that  we 
are  dependent,  to  a  great  extent,  on  the  co- 
operation of  the  federal  government,  which 
gains  after  the  fact— and  sometimes  quite  a 
while  after  the  fact— access  to  the  records 
of  whoever  is  prescribing  which  narcotics. 
Based  on  that  information,  usually  through 
the  auspices  of  the  College  of  Physicians 
and  Surgeons,  and  sometimes  of  the  police, 
we  are  able  to  follow  up  on  these  cases. 
The  ministry  does  not  have  a  direct  line  to 
all  the  prescribing  habits  of  every  physician. 
That  would  be  nigh  unto  impossible. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Since  it  appears  that  drug 
addicts  on  the  street,  federal  law  enforce- 
ment agencies  and  local  police  forces  know 
who  these  physicians  are,  it  should  not  be 
that  difficult  to  find  out— from  the  minister's 
point  of  view— who  they  are.  What  steps  is 
the  minister  taking  to  correct  the  problem? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  have  been  in  discus- 
sions with  the  college.  My  officials  have 
been  discussing  the  situation  with  the  fed- 
eral officials.  At  this  point  I  don't  have  any 
particular  remedy  to  suggest,  but  as  the 
member  indicates,  clearly  the  police  authori- 
ties are  aware  of  it  and  they  ido  lay  charges 
with  our  full  co-operation  where  they  are 
able  to  obtain  the  evidence. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  May  I  ask  the  minister  if  his  min- 
istry operates  a  data  bank  into  which  is  in- 
serted information  concerning  doctors  who 
seem  to  prescribe  an  unusual  quantity  of 
drugs,  as  well  as  individuals  who  have  pur- 
chased a  substantial   quantity  of  drugs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated in  answering  the  initial  question,  the 
federal  government  does  maintain  a  record  of 
the  dispensing  habits  with  respect  to  narcotics, 
which  is  the  area  of  concern  here. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  All  scheduled  drugs. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  The  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation reminds  us  it  records  all  scheduled 
drugs,   but  particularly  narcotics,   which   are 


the   problem.   We   are  reliant   on   that   data 
bank,  which  exists  in  the  federal  government. 

LABOUR  RELATIONS 
BOARD  RULINGS 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  direct 
this  question  to  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development  in  the  absence  of  the 
Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie).  With  your 
permission,  I  will  put  the  question  and  a  sup- 
plementary because  I  am  sure  he  will  take 
it  under  advisement. 

I  would  like  to  know  from  the  minister  if 
he  agrees  with  the  perverse  and  ludicrous 
ruling  of  the  arbitration  board  in  the  case  of 
Graham  Cook,  whose  appeal  for  being  un- 
fairly discharged  was  upheld  by  the  Ontario 
Labour  Relations  Board.  Further,  I  would  like 
to  know  what  steps  the  minister  is  taking  to 
protect  the  public  interest  in  the  light  of  the 
often  apparent  interest  of  the  labour  relations 
board  to  protect  only  the  interest  of  the 
worker? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
familiar  with  the  case  and  I  will  be  pleased 
to    get    the    information    for    the    member. 

NURSING  HOMES 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  have  a  very  general 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Health,  Mr. 
iSpeaker,  regarding  the  nursing  home  situa- 
tion in  the  province.  Given  the  amount  of 
controversy  surrounding  the  situation  in  nurs- 
ing homes  in  the  province,  is  he  going  to 
undertake  a  major  review  of  his  policies  for 
nursing  homes  in  Ontario,  especially  in  terms 
of  how  the  profit  motive  in  nursing  home  care 
may  be  affecting  the  quality  of  care,  specifi- 
cally in  terms  of  the  use  of  physical  restraint 
and  drug  abuse  in  those  institutions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  only  six 
months  ago  we  revised  the  regulations  under 
the  Nursing  Homes  Act.  I  may  say  that  I 
think  in  the  last  four  years  we  have  been 
very  successful  through  a  variety  of  means, 
including  changes  in  methods  of  inspection  of 
our  branch,  in  bringing  about  some  salutary 
improvements  in  a  few  of  the  homes  that 
were  giving  us  trouble  two  or  three  years  ago. 
I  think  we  are  now  in  a  position  where 
more  than  half  the  nursing  homes  in  the 
province  are  new;  that  is,  they  have  been 
built  since  the  new  act  became  effective  in 
1972. 

I  do  not  believe  the  profit  motive  inhibits 
the  quality  of  care.  I  do  not  believe  there  are 
grounds  to  suggest  other  than  that  belief. 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4539 


With  respect  to  drug  abuse,  one  of  the 
changes  in  the  nursing  home  regulations 
made  clear  the  responsibility  of  a  consulting 
physician  for  each  nursing  home.  Unless  the 
member  has  some  specific  questions  in  that 
regard  or  specific  concerns,  it  is  very  difficult 
to  respond,  except  to  say  we  have  placed  in 
the  new  regulations  a  greater  responsibility 
on  the  physicians  to  be  responsible  for  the 
courses  of  treatment  they  are  prescribing  for 
their  patients. 
3:30  p.m. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  There  are  any  number 
of  specifics  that  could  be  raised,  Mr.  Speaker. 
The  reason  I  asked  the  general  question  was 
because  I  thought  it  was  important. 

il  guess  the  way  to  raise  this  in  a  question 
is  to  ask  the  minister  how  he  reacts  to  a  case 
where  a  woman  is  restrained  in  a  wheelchair 
in  an  institution  and  is  drugged  to  the  point 
where  her  speech  is  slurred  and  her  eyes  are 
glazed.  This  is  on  one  day.  The  next  day 
somebody  from  the  outside  gets  that  indi- 
vidual out  of  the  home  and  has  her  per- 
forming kitchen  duties  for  a  volunteer  organi- 
zation in  the  community.  The  day  before  she 
was  restrained  physically  in  a  chair  and  was 
drugged  to  the  point  where  she  was  slurring 
her  speech.  She  came  out  the  next  day  and, 
after  being  out  eight  or  nine  hours,  was  able 
to  participate  as  a  regular  functioning  human 
being. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
honourable  member  is  suggesting  that  there 
is  some  professional  misconduct  here,  that 
somebody  had  mistreated  the  individual- 
Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  The  same  thing  hap- 
pens all  the  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  re- 
spect, the  member  makes  these  kinds  of 
generalizations,  but  let  us  be  fair.  I  know  the 
member  does  not  have  any  use  for  anybody 
who  believes  in  profit,  no  matter  who  they 
are  or  where  they  are,  but  let  us  be  fair.  If 
he  wants  to  give  me  the  specifics  so  I  can 
have  a  medical  consultant  look  at  that  and 
see  if  there  is  something  untoward,  I  will  be 
glad  to  do  so;  but  he  should  not  make  those 
ridiculous  generalizations. 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Speaker,  supplementary 
to  the  member's  very  general  question  about 
government  policy  with  respect  to  nursing 
homes:  I  note  in  the  minister's  current  tender 
call  for  an  additional  300  nursing  beds  for 
the  city  of  Toronto  he  makes  mention  of 
heavy  nursing  care.  However  he  does  not 
spell  out  in  the  tender,  nor  have  I  seen  it 
spelled  out  elsewhere,  what  he  imagines  to 


be  heavy  nursing  care.  Recognizing  the  ex- 
treme importance  of  this  category,  does  his 
ministry  have  an  operational  definition  for 
heavy  nursing  care?  Second,  is  he  now  pre- 
pared, or  does  he  expect  to  be  shortly,  to 
fund  to  an  additional  level,  or  fund  and 
recognize  as  a  special  category,  the  increas- 
ingly important  area  of  heavy  nursing  care? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  indi- 
cated when  I  released  the  report  of  the  re- 
view on  Metropolitan  Toronto  that  one  of 
the  things  we  are  looking  at  is  the  possibility 
of  revising  our  regulations  so  as  to  require 
the  holding  of  a  certain  number  of  beds  for 
persons  needing  heavier  nursing  care. 

It  is  a  difficult  area  to  comment  on  be- 
cause what  is  heavy  nursing  care  to  one  may 
not  be  to  another.  To  be  covered  as  an  ex- 
tended care  patient,  the  patient  must  require 
a  minimum  of  90  minutes  nursing  per  day. 
There  is  no  maximum  indicated.  Some  of  the 
operators  and  some  of  the  reviewers  of  needs 
in  certain  parts  of  the  province  have  com- 
mented that  there  seems  to  be  a  heavier  level 
of  nursing  care  being  required  than  was  the 
case  five  and  10  years  ago. 

I  think  one  might  argue  that  some  of  those 
patients  should  properly  (be  in  chronic  hos- 
pitals if  their  needs  have  become  that 
heavy.  That  is  one  of  the  things  we  are 
looking  at,  and  if  we  do  that  we  would 
have  to  amend  the  criteria  for  extended 
care.  Then  it  would  become  part  of  the 
general  negotiations  with  the  nursing  home 
association,  which  are  carried  on  annually 
with  respect  to  the  overall  per  diem  rate. 
Even  those  who  are  covered  now  as  extended 
care  patients  have  varying  needs  of  nursing 
care. 

FIRE  SAFETY  IN  NURSING  HOMES 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  would  like  to  put  a  question 
to  the  Minister  of  Health  about  his  nursing 
home  policy.  Is  he  familiar  with  the  situ- 
ation in  the  village  of  Ohsweken  in  the  Six 
Nations  Indian  reservation,  which  has  been 
well  provided  with  hospital  and  later  nurs- 
ing home  care  in  the  same  building,  known 
as  the  Lady  Willingdon  Nursing  Home, 
which  has  become  old  and  I  believe  prob- 
ably offers  some  fire  danger?  I  do  not  want 
to  over-emphasize  that  but  it  obviously  is 
a  matter  of  concern  for  the  local  Indian 
council. 

Does  he  recall  receiving  a  letter  from  the 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 
(Mr.  Norton),  being  a  copy  of  a  letter 
to  me,  bringing  the  matter  to  his  attention?  If 
he  does  not  recall  that,  will  he  get  somebody 


4540 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


to  dig  that  out  and  give  us  some  information 
about  what  should  be  done  to  co-operate 
with  the  government  of  Canada  to  build  a 
proper  nursing  and  chronic  care  facility 
without  too  much  delay? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do 
recall  it.  My  staff  are  looking  into  it.  T  may 
say  that  in  a  related  matter,  namely  the 
provision  of  institutional  care  for  the  native 
people,  I  was  disappointed  recently  in  dis- 
cussions with  the  federal  minister  to  find 
that  apparently  they  will  not  participate  in 
anv  way  in  funding  facilities  that  they  con- 
sider to  be  nursing  homes. 

It  was  indicated  to  me  by  the  federal 
minister  that  they  would  consider  sharing 
in  the  funding  of  "what  they  consider  to  be 
hospital  facilities"  but  not  nursing  homes. 
So  it  is  related  and  it  could  be  an  additional 
problem.  Our  staff  are  looking  into  it. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supolementary:  This  com- 
munity, as  the  minister  knows,  has  a  popu- 
lation of  9,000.  There  is  every  justification 
for  a  modern  facility  and  I  do  not  believe 
the  minister  is  incapable  of  putting  it  to 
his  federal  colleagues  in  such  a  way  that 
they  could  not  turn  him  down.  This  com- 
munity has  to  have  a  proper  facility  and 
since  nobodv  else  is  taking  the  lead,  I 
believe  we  should  take  the  lead. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Th^  honourable  mem- 
ber may  recall— perhaps  he  did  not  see  it— 
that  last  week  my  colleague,  the  member  for 
Cochrane  North  (Mr.  Brunelle),  and  I  issued 
a  press  release  dealing  with  the  beginning 
of  planning  to  replace  the  two  hosnital  units 
of  the  James  Bay  General  Hospital  at  Atta- 
wapiskat  and  Fort  Albany.  It  was  specifically 
with  respect  to  those  two  units  that  I  put  to 
the  federal  minister  that  the  assistance  of  the 
federal  government  in  funding  would  be 
helpful.  I  was  told  in  no  uncertain  terms 
that  they  consider  those  to  be  nursing  hom^ 
units,  not  hospital  care,  and  they  would  not 
consider  participating. 

I  will  be  glad  to  take  this  matter  up  further 
with  the  federal  minister,  but  having  been 
turned  down  once  I  am  not  all  that  opti- 
mistic that  she  is  going  to  change  her  mind. 
If,  in  fact,  the  need  is  for  a  nursing  home  as 
such,  then  in  the  absence  of  any  federal 
assistance,  the  money  would  have  to  be 
raised  privately,  as  it  is  for  new  construction 
at  all  nursing  homes  in  the  province. 

Mr.  Warner:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  am  wondering  if  the  minister  has  any  in- 
tention to  introduce  changes  to  the  Nursing 
Homes  Act  as  a  result  of  the  recommenda- 


tion from  the  coroner's  jury  at  the  inquest  on 
the  fire  that  occurred  in  Mississauga. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  We  have  had  that 
now  about  five  weeks  and  we  are  working 
on  it.  In  fact,  I  have  the  first  draft  of  an 
analysis  my  staff  are  working  on  now. 

Most  of  the  recommendations  have  to  do 
with  staff  training  and  with  the  question  of 
smoke  detectors  versus  closure  devices  and 
various  other  things.  I  think  it  is  a  little 
early  for  us  to  comment  until  we  take  the 
matter  up  with  the  fire  marshal's  office,  but 
it  is  under  review.  I  will  be  making  a  state- 
ment at  some  point  in  the  next  couple  of 
months  once  that  review  is  completed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  So  as  not  to  establish  a 
dangerous  precedent,  I  would  like  to  advise 
the  House  that  that  was  not  a  supplementary. 

Mr.  Warner:  But  it  was  an  important 
question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  but  not  a  supple- 
mentary. 

OHIP  COVERAGE 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
also  to  the  Minister  of  Health  and  it 
concerns  a  comment  in  Mr.  Justice  Emmett 
Hall's  review  of  our  national  medical 
program.  Reading  from  page  46,  I  quote  Mr. 
Justice  Hall  as  saying: 

"During  the  public  hearings  I  was  sur- 
prised at  the  wealth  of  complaints  regarding 
the  numbers  of  persons  reported  by  com- 
munity groups  and  by  medical  and  hospital 
spokesmen  as  not  being  insured  in  the  three 
provinces  of  Alberta,  British  Columbia  and 
Ontario,  which  still  levy  premium  taxes." 

Can  the  Minister  of  Health  for  Ontario 
indicate  whether  he  has  evidence  to  indicate, 
and  to  assure  this  House  and  the  people  of 
Ontario,  that  as  of  this  month  not  less  than 
95  per  cent  of  the  people  of  Ontario  are 
enrolled  in  our  medicare  program  as  it  is 
defined  and  described  in  the  Medical  Care 
Act  of  Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  do  not  receive 
monthly  reports  on  the  percentage  of  the 
population  enrolled.  I  can  tell  the  member, 
though,  that  the  numbers  on  premium  as- 
sistance are  up  this  year  over  last.  Currently, 
approximately  two  million  people  in  the 
province  are  receiving  some  form  of  OHIP 
premium  assistance,  be  that  full  assistance  to 
the  elderly  or  to  those  of  extremely  limited 
income,  or  partial  25,  50  or  75  per  cent  sub- 
sidization. I  do  not  receive  a  monthly  report 
on    the    actual    percentage    coverage    unless 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4541 


there  is  a  problem,  and  to  the  best  of  my 
knowledge  there  is  no  problem. 

Mr.  Conway:  Could  you  give  me  an  assur- 
ance to  find  out? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Sure. 

REPORT  IN  TORONTO  SUN 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  earlier 
today  the  prurient-minded  member  for 
Oriole  (Mr.  Williams)— or  Topless  John  as 
he  is  known  in  some  quarters— drew  attention 
to  some  alleged  and  purported  problem  with 
Hansard's  recording  of  interjections  and  took 
the  opportunity  to  name  me  specifically  in 
that  regard. 
3:40  p.m. 

He  stated  this  afternoon  in  the  House,  "I 
will  not  tolerate  the  attempt  by  any  member 
of  this  Legislature  to  ridicule  or  embarrass 
me  further  on  this  matter."  Surely  the  hon- 
ourable member  does  not  need  any  help 
from  me  in  his  bizarre  and  twisted  penchant 
for  self-abuse. 

He  did  go  on  to  say,  "If  there  has  to  be 
any  libel  and  slander  action,  I  will  not  hesi- 
tate to  add  further  names  to  the  style  of 
cause  in  the  action."  Regarding  this  rather 
bizarre  threat,  if  there  is  any  doubt  in  his 
mind  or  the  mind  of  any  other  member  of 
the  House,  let  me  say  I  think  the  member 
for  Oriole  is  a  moralizing  little  twerp  and  I 
invite  him  to  sue  me. 

REPORT 

ELECTRICAL  RATES 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch  presented  a  report  en- 
titled Reduction  of  Electrical  Retail  Rate 
Differentials  in  Ontario. 

MOTION 

SUBCOMMITTEE  MEETING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  subcommit- 
tee on  agenda  and  procedure  of  the  standing 
committee  on  the  administration  of  justice  be 
authorized  to  sit  on  Tuesday,  November  25, 
in  the  afternoon. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

EMPLOYMENT  STANDARDS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Martel  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  206, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Employment  Standards 
Act,  1974. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
the  bill  is  to  prohibit  an  employer  from  re- 
quiring an  employee  to  work  more  than  five 
consecutive  days  without  a  day's  rest. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  207, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  the 
bill  is  to  require  a  landlord  who  obtains 
vacant  possession  of  a  rental  unit  for  the 
purpose  of  making  repairs  or  renovations  to 
the  unit  to  apply  to  the  Residential  Tenancy 
Commission  for  an  order  determining  the  rent 
that  may  be  charged  for  the  repaired  or 
renovated  unit. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  208, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  this 
bill  is  to  authorize  the  Residential  Tenancy 
Commission  to  conduct  an  inquiry  on  its  own 
motion  to  determine  whether  a  tenant  has 
paid  an  amount  of  rent  in  excess  of  the 
amount  permitted  under  the  act. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF 
GOVERNMENT  SERVICES 

House  in  committee  of  supply. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  make  some  brief  introductory  remarks 
concerning  my  ministry  before  we  proceed 
with  the  discussion  of  the  various  votes  and 
items  in  the  1980-81  estimates. 

The  general  mission  of  the  Ministry  of 
Government  Services  is  to  provide  accommo- 
dation facilities  and  a  wide  range  of  goods 
and  services  in  support  of  government  pro- 
grams. The  operations  of  the  ministry  are 
organized  into  three  major  programs  of  serv- 
ice: accommodation,  supply  and  services,  and 
communication  and  computer  services. 

The  accommodation  program  has  responsi- 
bility for  the  provision  and  maintenance  of 
accommodation  for  ministries  and  agencies  of 
the  government. 

The  supply  and  services  program  involves 
the  provision  of  a  wide  variety  of  centralized 


4542 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


services  and  facilities  to  achieve  efficiencies 
and  economies  in  the  supply  of  purchased 
goods  and  services  as  well  as  certain  com- 
monly used  government  support  services. 

The  communication  and  computer  services 
program  is  responsible  for  the  supply  and  pro- 
motion of  computer  processing  services  as 
well  as  the  provision  of  local  and  intercity 
telephone  service  for  government  use. 

The  ministry's  annual  report  for  1979-80 
provides  information  on  the  achievements  of 
all  ministry  programs  and  also  provides  com- 
plete information  on  tenders  and  contract 
awards.  The  1980-81  estimates  are  within  the 
target  established  by  the  government  and  are 
in  accordance  with  the  government  program 
on  expenditure  restraint. 

This  concludes  my  introductory  remarks 
and  I  will  be  pleased  to  answer  any  ques- 
tions concerning  the  estimates  of  my  minis- 
try. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Chairman,  to  start  off  on 
the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  Government 
Services,  this  ministry  covers  a  wide-ranging 
area  of  responsibility,  much  more  than  a  lot 
of  people  probably  anticipate,  with  the  num- 
ber of  buildings  involved,  with  leasing  and1 
supplying  services  to  the  government  in  other 
ways,  with  purchases  and  so  forth. 

I  thought  I  would  make  a  few  remarks  this 
year  with  regard  to  the  overall  leasing  and 
ownership  of  buildings  of  the  ministry,  espe- 
cially in  Metropolitan  Toronto.  I  know  it  has 
buildings  in  many  other  cities  and  towns 
throughout  Ontario,  but  I  have  had  a  cursory 
look  at  the  buildings  and  some  of  the  leasing 
in  Metropolitan  Toronto  and  I  must  say  it 
is  a  hotchpotch  of  a  number  of  areas  leased, 
parts  of  buildings  leased  and  four  or  five 
floors  in  some  buildings  taken  over.  One 
ministry  moves  to  another  area,  and  so  forth. 

I  think  it  would  almost  take  a  royal  com- 
mission or  a  select  committee  of  the  Legis- 
lature really  to  look  into  all  the  leasing  and 
owning  of  buildings  in  Metropolitan  Toronto 
if  one  wanted  to  delve  into  it  thoroughly.  If 
it  is  not  too  much  trouble  to  the  ministry  and 
its  officials,  I  would  like  at  some  time  to  have 
a  complete  list  of  all  the  buildings,  parts  of 
buildings  or  property  leased  in  Metropolitan 
Toronto,  the  owners  of  each  building  and  the 
cost  per  square  foot  of  that  property.  In  the 
past  we  have  had  some  information  to  that 
effect  to  some  degree,  but  it  could  probably 
be  updated  without  too  much  trouble. 
3:50  p.m. 

However,  in  the  last  few  weeks  I  have 
looked  around  at  some  of  the  property  we 
have.  The  other  day  I  went  to  77  Bloor  Street 


West,  where  the  Ministry  of  Culture  and 
Recreation  is  located.  They  have  leased  many 
floors  in  that  building,  as  have  the  Ministry 
of  Revenue  people. 

The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  is 
located  on  the  very  elegant  corner  of  Yonge 
and  Bloor.  It  is,  I  suppose,  one  of  the  most 
elite  corners  of  Metropolitan  Toronto.  When 
you  say  "Bloor  and  Yonge"  to  people  outside 
Metropolitan  Toronto,  they  figure  that  is  the 
corner.  We  talk  of  Bay  Street,  where  the 
financiers  are  located,  but  most  people  are 
more  familiar  with  Bloor  and  Yonge  in  To- 
ronto. That  is  where  the  Ministry  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  is  located. 

Many  people,  farmers  in  particular,  would 
wonder  why  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  Minis- 
try of  Agriculture  and  Food  officials  on  the 
corner  of  Bloor  and  Yonge  streets  where  the 
asphalt  and  pavement  are  pretty  thick.  Those 
people  would  probably  think  the  ministry 
should  be  located  in  an  area  where  there  is 
a  little  green  grass  around,  or  the  odd  field 
of  wheat,  or  where  tomatoes  or  soybeans  are 
growing  and  blowing  in  the  wind.  It  would 
give  a  little  better  feeling  to  those  officials 
who  are  looking  after  the  farmers  and  the 
ministry  might  have  a  little  better  outlook 
on  what  is  going  on,  especially  if  there  was 
a  driving  rain  or  a  flood  and  they  could  not 
see  the  soybeans  for  the  water  lying  in  the 
fields.  They  would  then  have  a  little  more 
sympathy  for  them  when  there  is  a  little 
trouble  in  the  farming  community. 

I  suppose  the  same  could  be  said  with 
regard  to  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources. 
Their  offices  are  across  the  street  from  here. 
I  understand  they  would  like  to  get  into  a 
larger  building  into  which  they  could  move 
all  their  people.  That  would  probably  be  on 
the  corner  of  Bay  and  Wellesley  streets, 
where  the  ministry  has  a  fair-sized  piece  of 
property.  I  believe  I  read  in  an  article  that 
they  have  about  18,000  square  feet  in  either 
that  area  or  on  Grosvenor  Street.  Maybe 
some  of  their  staff  who  deal  with  day-to-day 
operations  in  Northern  Affairs  should  be  in 
the  great  city  of  North  Bay.  It  is  still  all 
part  of  Ontario. 

I  realize  that  when  one  starts  moving 
offices,  one  runs  into  problems  such  as  the 
Ministry  of  Health  is  having  in  regard  to 
moving  the  Ontario  health  insurance  plan  to 
Kingston.  One  of  the  promises  was  that  it 
was  to  be  moved.  Of  course,  that  means  a 
lot  of  people  have  to  move  with  their  jobs. 
That  is  a  real  problem.  If  one  were  going  to 
make  a  policy  of  decentralizing  government, 
one  would  have  to  make  it  over  a  long-range 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4543 


period  in  order  to  avoid  those  problems  with 
employees  who  would  have  to  sell  their 
homes  and  move.  That  is  quite  understand- 
able. However,  this  government  has  been  in 
power  37  years,  three  months  and  21  days. 
I  have  a  feeling  they  created  their  own 
problems  and  they  keep  trying  to  solve  them. 

This  is  not  directly  related  to  these  esti- 
mates, but  I  am  sure  you  will  not  rule  me 
out  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman.  When  I  was  the 
critic  for  the  Ministry  of  Correctional 
Services,  they  used  to  have  problems  when 
they  tried  to  replace  some  of  the  old  jails 
through  the  assistance  of  the  Ministry  of 
Covernment  Services.  They  had  systems  in 
Correctional  Services  15  or  20  years  ago  that 
many  people  thought  were  pretty  good. 

As  the  change  in  government  policy  came 
along,  it  had  to  become  more  modern  so  it 
did  away  with  all  the  facilities  having  anv 
livestock  or  any  gardens  or  any  farms  around 
the  jails.  They  made  a  great  statement  about 
it,  but  I  will  be  darned  if  the  Minister  of 
Correctional  Services  (Mr.  Walker)  is  not 
brmging  it  all  back  in.  That  is  the  problem 
with  the  democratic  system.  When  we  have 
one  party  in  power  so  long,  we  lose  a  little 
bit  of  that  democratic  system.  They  resort 
to  repeats  and  change  their  minds  and  do  not 
have  a  complete  new  look  at  where  we  are 
going.  It  is  just  a  rehash  of  the  old. 

There  are  buildings  scattered  in  different 
places.  I  know  they  are  probably  leased  and 
rented  on  the  basis  of  "we  can't  be  building 
new  buildings  all  the  time."  That  is  right; 
sometimes  it  is  cheaper  to  lease.  We  have 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  at  Yonge 
and  Wellesley.  I  believe  a  portion  of  North- 
ern Affairs  is  across  the  street  at  10  Welles- 
lev.  We  have  the  Minister  of  Housing  at 
Bav  and  Wellesley  at  the  new  Sun  Oil 
Building.  Downtown,  the  Ministry  of  Labour 
has  large  offices  on  University  Avenue.  The 
Attorney  General's  massive  offices  are  on 
King  Street  East. 

As  the  lease  was  going  up  on  the  property 
where  the  Ombudsman  was  located,  that 
office  is  moving  to  the  corner  of  Bloor  and 
Avenue  Road  into  the  Massey  Building.  I 
believe  it  is  part  of  the  university  and  it  is 
being  refurbished.  The  building  apparently 
has  been  vacant  for  some  time.  From  what 
I  gathered  when  I  was  in  the  estimates  of 
the  Ombudsman  last  week,  the  lease  seemed 
to  be  fairly  reasonable.  It  was  $10  a  square 
foot. 

However,  there  is  a  lot  of  proper  floor 
space  that  might  be  a  bit  of  a  problem  to 
use.  I  understand  the  hallways  are  very  wide 
and  he  said  that  by  using  low  partitions  and 


so  forth  he  could  use  some  of  the  hallways 
for  office  space.  The  lease  is  quite  reasonable 
compared  to  leases  in  most  areas,  especially 
when  one  considers  the  corner  of  Bloor  and 
Avenue  Road  is  another  prime  real  estate 
property.  I  understand  they  are  going  to  take 
the  top  two  storeys.  It  is  only  a  three-storey 
building.  A  bank  would  be  going  into  the 
lower  floor.  There  again,  we  are  scattered 
around  considerably. 

I  suppose  some  would  say  the  Ombudsman 
shouldn't  be  located  in  a  government  build- 
ing or  around  the  Legislature  here  because 
he  is  independent— an  arm  of  the  Legislature 
itself  and  not  of  the  government.  Perhaps  we 
would  agree  that  he  should  be  in  a  place 
outside  the  government  buildings. 

Then  there  is  Correctional  Services.  Some 
of  its  offices  are  located  out  on  Eglinton  East 
in  the  Scarborough  area. 

One  has  some  reservations  about  all  this. 
I  think  probably  it  has  come  about  as  gov- 
ernment has  grown  so  much  over  the  last 
20  years.  We  have  taken  over  many  func- 
tions that  were  done  previously  by— the 
capitalist  system,  I  guess.  For  instance,  the 
health  care  system  is  a  big  business  with 
government— hospitals  and  OHIP  and  all  that 
—so  naturally  we  have  a  great  many  em- 
ployees; we  have  expanded  in  other  areas. 
This,  I  suppose,  was  never  planned  bv  the 
government  as  to  where  they  were  going  to 
put  all  the  people. 

They  built  some  new  buildings,  of  course 
—we  are  well  aware  of  the  ones  to  the  east 
of  these  buildings  where  some  of  them  have 
been  named  after  the  Premiers  and  so  forth. 
We  are  well  aware  of  the  buildings  that  are 
close  by  and  are  serving  a  good  purpose. 
Also  there  is  Ontario  Hydro,  which  is  not 
really  a  part  of  this  ministry,  as  we  are 
well  aware.  But  in  a  way  it  has  probably 
one  of  the  choicest  pieces  of  property  in 
Ontario,  on  the  corner  of  College  and  Uni- 
versity Avenue. 

I  think  anyone  who  ever  comes  to  Toronto 
and  drives  down  University  Avenue  would 
have  to  say  it  is  one  of  the  nicest  streets 
in  any  city  on  the  North  American  con- 
tinent. I  think  whoever  laid  it  out,  and  the 
people  of  Toronto  who  have  kept  it  the 
way  they  have,  are  to  be  commended  be- 
cause it  is  a  beautiful  street.  We  have  the 
massive  Hydro  mirrored  building  on  the 
corner.  There  again,  I  am  sure  Ontario 
Hvdro  could  have  been  located  in  many 
other  places  in  the  province  than  on  the 
corner  of  College  and  University.  However, 
I  think  that  was  thrashed  out  before  in  this 
Legislature  a  few  years  ago. 


4544 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


4  p.m. 

They  have  other  buildings  next  door.  I 
was  down  a  few  weeks  ago  and  was  given 
an  opportunity  to  go  through  their  two 
adjoining  buildings.  Since  we  are  looking 
for  space,  the  province  is  looking  for  space, 
and  the  members  here  are  looking  for  space 
so  as  to  be  housed  in  proper  offices,  I  went 
down  to  look  into  the  Ontario  Hydro 
buildings.  The  building  directly  south  of  the 
new  tower  has,  I  think,  only  two  floors  not 
leased  out  yet.  Tne  executive  suite  on  the 
top  floor,  of  course,  is  not  leased  out.  I  do 
not  know  who  will  take  it.  It  is  a  very 
sumptuous  place  with  nice  high  ceilings 
and  built-in  panelling  and,  I  suppose,  it  is 
a  little  more  difficult  to  lease  out.  The  build- 
ing   is    in    good,    satisfactory    condition. 

I  went  into  the  adjoining  building  built 
around  1915  or  1920,  apparently,  the  His- 
torical Society  of  Toronto  has  named  it  as 
a  historical  building.  What  to  do  with  the 
building  now  is  a  real  problem  as  far  as  I 
am  concerned:  if  I  own  a  building  and 
someone  designates  it  as  historical,  what  I 
am  going  to  do  with  it?  In  the  case  of  that 
Hydro  building,  the  cost  of  rebuilding  it 
and  making  it  usable  for  offices  and  so  forth 
is  really  more  than  that  of  having  it  torn 
down  and  building  a  new  building.  This  is 
a  concern  to  me. 

I  am  not  sure  about  that  building— and  I 
suppose  I  would  ruffle  a  few  feathers  of 
some  of  those  in  heritage  and  historical  groups . 
I  believe  in  our  history  as  much  as  anybody, 
but  I  do  not  think  one  needs  a  lot  of  build- 
ings restored  so  that  we  will  know  our  past. 
I  question  the  case  of  that  building,  when 
one  looks  at  what  it  is  going  to  cost  to  have 
it  refurbished  and  rebuilt.  The  stairways  and 
elevators  are  all  on  the  same  hallway;  of 
course,  that  is  against  all  fire  regulations.  An 
addition  would  have  to  be  built  on  the  back 
end  to  allow  for  stairways.  Of  course,  the 
elevators  have  to  be  all  closed  in  with  hall- 
ways around  them  to  avoid  spaces  where  a 
fire  would  go  up. 

I  have  great  reservations  about  that  build- 
ing when  I  understand  that  Hydro  is  going 
to  have  to  pay  $55  or  more  per  square  foot 
to  refurbish  it,  and  then  have  to  look  for 
tenants  to  whom  to  lease  it  out.  I  think  we 
have  had  some  problems  there,  and  I  think 
that  was  some  space  that  probably  could  have 
been  taken  over  by  the  government  prior  to 
Hydro's  doing  anything  with  it  to  use  it  for 
future  space.  It  certainly  is  close  to  here.  I  just 
wonder  if  that  is  a  possibility.  However,  I  do 
realize  there  are  those  who  feel  the  front  does 


look  like  a  historical  building.  I  know  there 
are  some  beautiful  historical  buildings  in 
Toronto.  I  notice  between  here  and  downtown 
there  are  a  number.  I  am  not  sure  that  we 
need  to  reserve  them  all  for  posterity. 

As  far  as  members'  accommodations  here 
go,  we  have  had  many  discussions  and  meet- 
ings with  regard  to  this.  I  know  there  are 
other  people  in  this  Legislature  who  are  more 
familiar  with  the  situation  than  I  am,  as  far 
as  having  meetings  with  regard  to  it  is  con- 
cerned. I  find  it  very  difficult  as  a  whip, 
whenever  the  bells  ring,  to  find  out  where 
everybody  is  located  because  we  have  them 
situated  in  about  four  different  parts  of  the 
building.  I  suppose  the  only  way  to  solve  that 
is  to  win  the  election,  to  have  them  all  in  one 
place,  and  let  everybody  else  do  with  the  best 
they  can  find. 

I  am  sure  it  is  a  problem  for  all  the  mem- 
bers and  all  the  caucuses,  and  is  something 
that  is  going  to  have  to  be  dealt  with  as  soon 
as  possible.  Some  of  the  members  have  very 
small  quarters.  I  myself  had  very  small  quar- 
ters for  some  time  but,  somehow  or  other, 
I  happened  to  be  near  an  area  that  had  a 
very  large  room  and  happened  to  be  there 
at  the  right  time.  Now,  I  must  say,  I  have 
ample  room. 

However,  everyone  is  not  in  the  same  posi- 
tion. It  just  happened  that  the  rooms  were 
there  and  a  number  of  us  were  in  that  corner 
where  four  or  five  of  our  caucus  members 
are,  and  we  now  have  ample  space.  It  is  much 
nicer  to  work  in  than  before.  I  find  myself 
more  content  and  more  willing  to  stay  in  the 
office  when  the  House  is  not  sitting  than  I 
was  when  I  had  a  hole  in  the  wall.  It  was 
about  eight  feet  by  eight  feet  and  had  no 
windows  and  there  was  material  piled  all 
around.  I  know  we  talk  about  whether  there 
should  be  an  addition  on  the  north  side,  and 
whether  this  should  be  torn  down  or  that 
didn't  look  very  satisfactory.  The  property 
the  government  owns  east  of  Bay,  as  I  men- 
tioned previously,  is  something  that  needs 
some  consideration. 

1  don't  envy  the  minister  his  position  with 
all  the  leasing  he  has  to  do.  He  leases  floors 
on  one  street,  and  maybe  five  miles  away  he 
has  another  couple  of  floors  leased  out.  I  can 
see  the  problems  that  creates.  I  just  wonder 
whether  we  should  take  a  new  look  to  see 
whether  in  the  long  range  we  should  be 
having  some  staff  and  some  of  the  offices 
located  in  areas  other  than  downtown 
Toronto. 

The  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications has  most  of  its  facilities  on  High- 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4545 


way  401.  It  seems  like  a  good  logical  place 
for  the  highways  department  to  be  located, 
more  or  less  on  the  outskirts,  but  I  wonder 
whether  there  are  other  offices,  other  minis- 
tries such  as  Agriculture  and  Food  or  North- 
ern Affairs  that  should  be  looking  at  locat- 
ing closer  to  areas  where  they  are  actually 
working,  and  dealing  with  people  and  prob- 
lems in  connection  with  their  offices.  That 
is  something  I  have  concern  about. 

I  really  don't  have  anything  else  right 
now,  other  than  that  I  will  be  asking  the 
minister  some  questions  with  regard  to  tele- 
phones and  some  of  the  contracting,  et 
cetera,  that  I  have  run  across  in  public 
accounts.  That  is  all  for  right  now,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  my  priv- 
ilege to  participate  in  the  opening  statement 
on  these  estimates.  I  want  to  say  at  the 
outset  that  I  consider  this  ministry  to  be  very 
important,  although  it  is  one  which  I  suppose 
is  very  quiet  in  terms  of  public  perception. 
When  you  think  of  government  you  normally 
think  of  the  large  ministries  of  Education, 
Health  and  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions and  so  on.  The  ministry  of  public 
services  is  perhaps  left  behind  in  terms  of 
being  considered  to  be  very  important,  but 
it  is  an  important  ministry  because  it  delivers 
a  lot  of  services. 

As  we  go  through  the  estimates  I  would 
like  to  deal  at  some  length  with  some  of  the 
services,  such  as  providing  courtroom  space. 
The  Ministry  of  Government  Services  is  in- 
volved whenever  there  is  talk  of  a  new 
courthouse  or  trying  to  get  courtroom  facil- 
ities. That  is  an  extremely  important  role  in 
this  province.  There  are  quite  a  few  other 
important  areas  I  intend  to  raise  as  we  go 
through  the  estimates.  I  would  like  to  give 
the  minister  my  list  of  things  I  would  like 
to  deal  with  and  perhaps  we  will  have  an 
oDportunity  to  discuss  them  as  we  go  through 
the  estimates. 

T  am  curious  about  the  status  of  the  east 
of  Bay  project  in  Toronto.  The  whole  area  of 
the  project  has  been  spoken  about  at  some 
length.  Many  of  us  are  not  sure  about  the 
future  of  that  entire  area.  We  would  like 
to  know  what  role  Government  Services  will 
have  in  that  project  and  when  the  min- 
ister believes  there  will  be  a  final  determin- 
ation of  the  status  of  that  project. 

I  wish  to  discuss  the  future  of  several 
courthouses,  starting  with  Hamilton,  of 
course,  because  there  is  a  very  serious  short- 
age of  courtroom  space  in  Hamilton.  I 
think   the   shortage    is   the   equivalent   of   at 


least  two  courts.  There  are  other  areas  too, 
of  course.  The  Cartier  Square  development 
in  Ottawa  is  still  under  discussion.  If  the 
minister  can  unravel  some  of  the  mysteries 
of  that,  I  would  certainly  be  most  grateful. 
4:10  p.m. 

In  connection  with  that,  and  I  am  hoping 
the  minister  will  see  the  connection,  I  would 
like  to  know  the  ministry's  involvement  with 
historical  buildings  and  whether  the  min- 
istry has  had  an  active  role  in  attempting 
to  identify  historical  buildings  for  possible 
use  as  courtrooms,  or  other  government 
offices  if  thev  are  not  suitable  for  courtroom 
space.  As  the  minister  well  knows,  not 
every  building  is  suitable  for  a  courtroom, 
but  as  we  are  now  going  through  this 
phase  in  Ontario  of  taking  a  closer  look 
at  our  buildings  before  we  decide  to  de- 
molish them— and,  where  we  can  determine 
their  historical  significance,  we  are  having  a 
second  or  third  guess  at  what  the  building 
should  be  used  for— that  is  a  very  healthy 
exercise  and  I,  for  one,  am  pleased  to  see 
that. 

It  suggests  to  me  there  is  not  always  the 
need  for  a  restaurant,  that  sometimes  a 
historical  building  can  serve  a  good  function 
as  office  space  or  perhaps  commercial  space 
or,  in  some  instances,  as  a  good  location 
for  some  government  services.  I  am  wonder- 
ing how  active  the  government  is  in  pursu- 
ing those  historical  buildings  in  various  parts 
of  our  province,  particularly,  of  course,  if 
they  can  be  used  for  courtroom  space. 

I  think  we  need  to  have  some  discussion 
about  the  future  of  this  building,  the  future 
of  the  Legislative  Building  here  at  Queen's 
Park,  particularly  the  north  wing,  which  has 
been  under  some  discussion.  The  government 
has— 

Interjection. 

Mr.  Warner:  If  we  put  the  Liberals  into 
the  north  wing,  it  would  definitely  qualify  as 
an  historical  building  housing  artifacts. 

The  government  has  a  legislative  building 
expansion  presentation.  At  the  appropriate 
time,  I  would  like  to  deal  with  that  submis- 
sion because  the  government  brought  for- 
ward three  particular  alternatives  with  re- 
spect to  the  accommodation  which  will  be 
needed  in  the  future.  Part  of  it  hinges  on 
whether,  following  the  1981  census  check, 
the  Legislature  decides  in  its  wisdom  to  ex- 
pand the  membership  of  the  Legislature.  If 
we  follow  the  Camp  commission  reports,  then 
we  are  looking  at  a  sizeable  increase  in  the 
number  of  seats  in  the  Legislature  and,  with 
that,   the   attendant  space  which   would   be 


4546 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


required  by  members.  Even  if  we  accept  the 
status  quo  of  125  seats,  but  accept  another 
recommendation  of  the  Camp  commission, 
that  members  be  entitled  to  one  researcher 
plus  an  assistant,  then  obviously  we  again 
have  a  space  problem.  From  that  come  the 
various  suggestions  as  to  what  should  happen 
with  the  north  wing.  As  I  say,  at  the  appro- 
priate time  I  would  like  to  go  into  detail  on 
that. 

Along  with  that,  I  would  like  to  know  from 
the  minister  what  he  has  been  doing  and  what 
his  thoughts  are  on  a  residence  for  the  Lieu- 
tenant Governor.  The  subject  crops  up  from 
time  to  time  as  to  whether  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  should  have  separate  residence  out- 
side of  this  building.  If  I  understand  my 
history  properly,  this  was  the  situation  at  one 
time.  Those  who  are  much  older  than  I,  such 
as  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk 
(Mr.  Nixon),  could  probably  enlighten  us  on 
that  point.  I  would  like  to  know  if  the 
ministry  has  followed  that  up  and  whether 
it  has  any  specific  suggestions. 

I  would  like  to  talk  about  procurement 
policies,  whether  the  government  has  what 
I  would  think  is  a  more  enlightened  pro- 
curement policy  than  has  been  the  case  in 
the  past  with  respect  particularly  to  small 
business  in  Ontario,  that  is,  small  business 
owned  and  operated  by  Canadians.  I  would 
like  to  know  whether  there  is  a  preferential 
procurement  policy  with  respect  to  Canadian- 
owned  and,  I  would  hope,  Ontario-based 
small  business  and  what  the  ministry  is  doing 
to  try  to  promote  such  a  procurement  policy, 
obviously  in  an  effort  to  aid  small  business 
endeavours  in  Ontario  involved  in  manu- 
facturing and  processing. 

I  would  also  like  to  discuss  something 
which  has  come  up  from  time  to  time— I  think 
the  standing  committee  on  members'  services 
has  dealt  with  it  intermittently— and  that  is 
the  split  jurisdiction  which  exists  within  the 
Legislative  Building  between  the  Speaker  and 
the  Ministry  of  Government  Services.  The 
minister  is  no  doubt  aware  that,  under  the 
previous  minister,  we  had  a  prolonged  dis- 
cussion about  the  future  of  the  part  of  the 
building  which  still  comes  under  Government 
Services  and  the  reluctance  to  turn  it  over  to 
the  Speaker. 

If  we  believe  the  Speaker  represents  a 
neutral  position  with  respect  to  the  Legisla- 
ture and  the  functioning  of  the  Legislature, 
all  the  space  within  the  building  should  come 
under  his  jurisdiction  and  all  members,  no 
matter  what  party  they  belong  to,  whether 
in  government  or  opposition,  should  be 
treated  in  an  equal  and  fair  way  when  they 


come  to  the  Speaker  with  requests  for  use 
of  a  portion  of  the  building.  I  would  like  to 
know  this  minister's  feelings.  We  are  well 
aware  of  the  previous  minister's  feelings  on 
the  subject,  but  I  would  like  to  know  if  this 
minister  is  perhaps  a  bit  more  flexible  than 
the  previous  one. 

Mr.  Chairman,  perhaps  I  am  at  your  mercy 
here,  but  I  have  had  some  difficulty  in  raising 
this  matter  with  other  jurisdictions,  so  I  am 
going  to  try  the  Ministry  of  Government 
Services.  It  seems  to  me  that  within  the  build*- 
ing  all  members  should  have  the  same  treat- 
ment with  respect  to  hearing  the  debates  and 
with  respect  to  the  ringing  of  the  division 
bells.  I  understand  the  government  members 
have  been  equipped,  I  presume  by  way  of 
Government  Services'  action,  with  individual 
bell  systems  in  their  offices  to  acquaint  them 
that  a  division  has  been  called.  I  think  the 
same  should  be  available  to  all  members  of 
the  Legislature. 

Similarly,  the  nice  little  squawk  box  I  have 
in  my  office,  placed  there  because  of  my  posi- 
tion as  caucus  whip,  whereby  I  can  work  in 
my  office,  listen  to  the  debates  and  then  come 
down  here  at  the  appropriate  time,  should  be 
available  to  all  members  of  the  assembly.  I 
think  that  is  legitimately  a  function  of  the 
Ministry  of  Government  Services.  If  I  am 
wrong,  I  am  sure  either  the  minister  or  the 
Chairman  will  correct  me. 

Those  are  the  topics  I  wish  to  discuss.  As 
I  said  at  the  outset  of  my  opening  remarks, 
this  ministry  is  important  because  it  can  take 
an  active  role.  It  can  take  a  leadership  role 
in  the  issues,  whether  it  is  a  courthouse  facil- 
ity which  is  needed,  whether  it  is  a  procure- 
ment policy  or  whether  it  is  protecting  this 
historic  building  in  which  we  are  situated 
now.  Regardless  of  which  issue,  it  can  take 
a  leadership  role  and  can  provide  good,  effi- 
cient service  to  the  people  of  Ontario,  but 
we  need  to  know  from  the  minister  whether 
he  is  prepared  to  take  that  leadership  role. 
Those  are  the  kinds  of  questions  which  I  and 
my  colleagues  will  be  asking  as  we  go  through 
the  ministry  estimates. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  make  some  brief  comments  on  what 
the  member  for  Essex  North  (Mr.  Ruston) 
had  to  say  in  his  opening  remarks.  I  would 
like  to  start  by  saying  how  pleased  I  am  he 
took  the  time  to  go  around  and  look  at  the 
different  buildings.  As  the  minister,  I  am 
always  pleased  when  my  critics  or  other 
members  want  to  go  around  and  look  in  a 
constructive  way  at  what  we  rent  and  lease. 
We   are  only  too  pleased  to  have   them   go 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4547 


there.  I  was  only  sorry  I  could  not  go  along 
with  the  members  when  they  went  to  look  at 
the  old  Ontario  Hydro  building,  but  I  am  sure 
they  were  well  looked  after  by  my  deputy 
and  those  who  attended  from  the  ministry. 

4:20  p.m. 

That  shows  the  interest  of  the  member  for 
Essex  North  and  I  am  pleased  about  that. 
The  member  did  mention  the  number  of 
leases  we  have  in  the  city.  We  ourselves  own 
8,966,338  square  feet  of  space  in  the  down- 
town area  and  we  lease  3,290,325  square 
feet,  made  up  of  220  leases  in  150  separate 
buildings.  From  the  comments  the  member 
made,  if  we  do  come  forward  in  the  future 
with  a  building  and  find  the  capital  to  do  it, 
I  hope  this  means  he  will  be  supporting  us 
for  the  east-of-Bay  property.  From  the  re- 
marks he  made,  I  am  sure  he  would. 

I  am  sure  the  member  will  agree  also  that 
in  order  to  change  a  lot  of  that  leased  ac- 
commodation in  downtown  Toronto,  we 
would  need  a  considerable  increase  in  our 
capital.  We  all  know  that  in  time  of  con- 
straint capital  is  not  forthcoming  as  fast  as 
some  of  us  might  like. 

I  was  pleased  that  members,  including  the 
member  for  Sudbury  East  (Mr.  Martel),  went 
down  to  look  at  the  old  Hydro  building.  No 
doubt  he  will  comment  on  it  when  his  time 
comes  around.  The  member  commented1  that 
the  money  would  be  a  lot  better  spent  tear- 
ing it  down  and  rebuilding  rather  than  put- 
ting it  back  into  good  repair,  taking  into  con- 
sideration energy  conservation  and  the  utiliza- 
tion of  space  on  the  floors. 

Perhaps  I  could  answer  both  the  member 
for  Scarborough-Ellesmere  and  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  at  the  same  time  when 
they  talked  about  accommodation  for  the 
members.  We  did  make  a  proposal  to  the 
Board  of  Internal  Economy.  At  that  time,  we 
had  three  proposals.  The  first  was  to  take 
out  the  top  and  put  one  storey  on  the  west 
wing.  We  found  the  cost  of  that  to  be  quite 
high.  I  was  hoping  to  have  the  cost  here  for 
you.  Perhaps  when  we  talk  about  it  again 
later  on,  I  will  have  those  figures  for  the 
member  for  Sudbury  East.  The  cost  was  high 
and  it  still  would  not  give  us  the  space  we 
feel  we  need  to  meet  the  Morrow  report  and 
others  in  the  future  as  far  as  more  members 
of  the  Legislature  are  concerned. 

The  second  proposal  was  one  my  prede- 
cessor brought  forward.  It  was  to  tear  down 
the  back  section  and  rebuild  it  with  park- 
ing underneath.  I  have  those  figures  here. 
For  the  first  proposal  I  mentioned,  taking 
off  and  adding  one  floor  to  the  present  north 


wing,  the  cost  would  be  just  under  $13  mil- 
lion. It  would  be  15,600  square  feet  and  the 
cost  would  be  $828  per  square  foot.  For  any 
of  you  who  have  anything  to  do  with  cost  of 
construction,  that  would  appear  to  be  away 
out  of  line. 

The  demolition  of  the  north  wing  and  the 
addition  of  the  new  project  my  predecessor 
mentioned  would  give  us  147,000  square  feet 
of  usable  space,  but  would  cost  $44  million 
plus.  The  third  proposal  was  to  carry  on  the 
way  we  are  and  build  a  building  east  of  Bay, 
between  Grosvenor  and  Bay,  to  use  the  land 
up  between  where  the  YMCA  has  purchased 
and  on  out  to  Bay  Street.  This  would  be 
297,500  square  feet,  and  the  estimated  cost 
would  be  reduced  to  $153  per  square  foot, 
which  would  put  it  in  line. 

I  believe  the  member  for  Essex  North 
mentioned  relocating  some  of  the  ministries. 
I  think  one  he  zeroed  in  on  was  Culture  and 
Recreation.  Another  one  was  Natural  Re- 
sources, where  all  their  offices  in  Metro 
Toronto  could  probably  be  together  east  of 
Bay,  and  then  we  could  renovate  the  Whitney 
Block.  It  was  not  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East,  as  he  would  have  us  believe,  but  my 
ministry  that  suggested  that  if  five  or  six 
or  seven  different  groups  of  people  moved  to 
the  Whitney  Block,  this  building  then  could 
be  used  for  the  members.  We  would  then 
have  enough  space  around  in  the  main  build- 
ing for  the  members  that  would  meet  their 
needs  for  some  time  in  the  future. 

The  member  for  Scarborough-Ellesmere 
suggested  that  we  should  go  beyond  the  300 
square  feet  per  member  to  accommodate  re- 
searchers and  so  on  in  the  future.  On  this,  a 
lot  of  people  say,  "Go  back  to  the  drawing 
board  again,"  but  I  would  only  say  to  the 
members  that  there  is  a  limit  to  what  we  can 
do.  Rather  than  just  saying,  "Go  back  to  the 
drawing  board,"  I  would  hope  some  con- 
structive ideas  come  in  on  that  as  well. 

The  member  for  Scarborough-Ellesmere 
asked  about  the  east  of  Bay  project.  He  can 
see  that  we  are  looking  into  the  future  with 
the  possibility  that  that  is  how  we  might  be 
able  to  work  to  get  a  building  there  that 
would  accommodate  the  members  in  this 
building  eventually.  We  have  a  planner  who 
is  working  with  all  the  interested  parties  and 
we  expect  a  report  soon. 

As  to  Carrier  Square  in  Ottawa,  it  is  com- 
ing along  reasonably  well.  We  hope  some 
time  early  in  the  new  year  we  will  have  a 
model  we  can  show  to  the  interested  city 
officials  and  the  National  Capital  Commission 
planners  and  all  who  attended  the  meetings 


4548 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


up   until   this  point   and   we   hope   to   have 
a  meeting  after  that  time  with  the  public. 

When  we  have  the  model  there,  that  prob- 
ably will  show,  at  least  on  the  outside,  some- 
thing of  the  concept  of  the  new  building,  how 
it  is  going  to  sit  on  the  lot,  et  cetera.  It  will 
be  better  understood  by  the  lay  people,  in 
my  opinion,  than  showing  them  all  the 
drawings  we  have  at  the  present  time.  That 
is  basically  where  that  stands,  and  it  seems 
to  be  going  along  relatively  well. 

4:30  p.m. 

The  member  also  asked  what  we  were  do- 
ing with  our  heritage  buildings  and  suggested 
they  could  perhaps,  be  used  for  courthouses. 
I  would  suggest  to  the  member  that  the 
Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  sets  out 
the  priorities  for  courthouses  in  his  ministry. 
If  the  member  for  Victoria-Haliburton  (Mr. 
Eakins)  were  here,  he  would1  have  to  agree 
that  the  training  school  we  converted  into 
court  facilities  in  his  area  has  worked  out 
fairly  well.  We  are  not  finished,  but  in  just  a 
few  months  we  were  able  to  move  in  the 
courts  which  are  now  located  there,  with  the 
alterations  our  people  were  able  to  do. 

Both  members  mentioned  space  for  the 
members.  I  think  I  have  covered  that  before. 
The  Lieutenant  Governor's  residence  has  been 
talked  about  but,  at  the  present  time,  it  is 
felt  it  is  perhaps  best  to  leave  it  in  this  build- 
ing. On  the  possibility  of  having  bells  or 
chimes  in  all  members'  offices,  I  am  told  that 
when  I  was  in  this  building  not  all  offices  had 
them.  You  could  usually  hear  them.  I  do  not 
know  whether  it  is  a  plus  to  have  them  in 
your  office,  or  better  to  have  them  somewhere 
in  the  hall  if  they  happen  to  ring  as  long  as 
they  did  last  Thursday  night.  The  member 
noted  what  happened  a  week  or  so  ago  when 
he  mentioned  to  the  Speaker  about  not  being 
able  to  hear  the  bells.  I  believe  it  was  one 
of  his  members  who  had  a  bit  of  a  problem, 
as  I  do  myself,  with  hearing.  An  extra  bell  or 
chime  was  installed  almost  immediately. 
That  member  came  over  and  thanked  us  for 
doing  that. 

Those  are  some  general  remarks  for  the 
two  leadoff  speakers.  I  am  sure  we  will  have 
more  questions  as  we  get  into  the  votes. 

On  vote  501,  ministry  administration  pro- 
gram; item  1,  main  office: 

Mr.  Martel:  I  have  been  sitting  on  the 
select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns  at  the 
present  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I  have  a 
couple  of  comments  I  want  to  put  on  the 
record  with  respect  to  the  building. 

Let  me  begin  by  saying  to  the  minister  I 
well  recall   the  day   the   three  proposals   as 


outlined  were  put  before  the  Board  of  In- 
ternal Economy.  I  turned  to  my  friend  the 
member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon) 
and  I  nudged  him  as  we  got  to  the  third  pro- 
posal. I  said  to  him,  "That  is  it.  That  is  the 
one  he  wants.  He  is  presenting  it  with  such 
relish  and  such  delight  that  I  am  sure  that 
is  the  one  the  government  wants."  Sure 
enough,  it  was.  It  was  not  to  accommodate 
members.  The  new  proposal  was  to  build  a 
new  building  on  Bay  Street  to  house  some 
civil  servants  across  the  way. 

I  have  been  in  this  building  13  years  and 
it  has  been  a  struggle,  so  help  me,  even  to 
get  half-way  decent  accommodation  for  mem- 
bers of  this  Legislature. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  You  are  lucky  compared 
to  the  days  before  you  came. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  want  to  tell  the  member  I 
was  here  a  short  time  after  him.  I  do  not 
recall  writing  letters  in  this  Legislature,  but 
I  certainly  well  recall  five  of  us  in  an  office 
that  now  houses  the  Sergeant  at  Arms.  There 
were  five  desks  all  one  against  the  other. 
Space  and  accommodation  for  members  have 
always  been  wanting  in  this  place  save,  of 
course,  in  the  last  five  or  six  years.  If  one  is 
a  government  member,  the  choice  is  much 
better  than  if  he  happens  to  be  on  this  side 
of  the  House.  That  still  applies.  As  the 
minister  knows  since  he  visited  my  quarters— 
and  I  speak  on  behalf  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party— there  are  70  or  80  of  us  on  the 
second  floor  in  the  north  wing.  There  are 
still  members  who  have  piddly  little  offices. 

Mr.   Worton:    Piddly? 

Mr.  Martel:  Piddly,  yes.  It  is  a  little  pud- 
dle. 

I  want  to  go  back  to  the  proposal  because 
there  is  something  rotten  in  the  state  of 
Denmark.  I  listened  to  the  three  proposals. 
We  went  along  a  little  better  than  two  years 
ago  with  your  predecessor.  We  said  we 
were  prepared  to  wait  until  the  government 
was  prepared  to  demolish  that  north  wing 
and  make  accommodations  big  enough  to 
accommodate  members  and  the  services  of- 
fered. 

I  looked  at  the  three  proposals,  and  I 
grant  the  first  one  is  out  of  whack.  It  is 
far  too  costly  at  $12  million  or  $13  minion 
to  put  one  floor  over  there.  I  am  the  first 
one  to  accept  that.  What  bothers  me  is  that 
number  three  becomes  so  attractive.  What- 
ever you  are  going  to  put  up  over  there, 
you  could  well  put  up  here,  depending  on 
the  design,  and  house  as  many  people. 

In  fact,  I  suggest  as  a  positive  suggestion 
to    the    minister,    for    a    change    we    should 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4549 


lease  some  of  our  buildings  to  somebody  in 
the  civil  service.  We  might  put  the  Ministry 
of  Northern  Affairs,  which  is  one  of  the 
offices  being  contemplated,  up  on  the  seventh 
floor  instead  of  over  on  the  corner  of  Bay  and 
Wellesley.  In  other  words,  the  additional 
space  that  would  be  left  over  we  could 
give  to  the  various  government  offices  that 
require  it,  but  this  building  is  to  serve  the 
Legislature.  That  does  not  mean  taking  out 
part  of  the  library,  as  is  now  being  con- 
sidered. In  fact,  at  the  Board  of  Internal 
Economy  last  Monday,  we  had  difficulty  in 
ascertaining  where  part  of  Dr.  Land's  new 
group  of  people  are  going  to  go,  because 
we  cannot  find  space  for  them  across  the 
way  in  the  Whitney  Block.  There  is  no 
space  available  there  now  and  he  needs  it. 

The  library  space  is  inadequate.  Some- 
body should  tell  you  it  is  totally  inadequate. 
It  does  not  house  the  people  who  are  there, 
nor  is  it  going  to  house  the  complement  of 
people  who  are  at  present  being  hired  as 
we  expand  the  service  of  the  library  to 
bring  it  into  a  first-rate  library  system  simi- 
lar to  the  one  in  Ottawa.  We  are  moving 
towards  that  end.  There  is  not  sufficient 
space  now  for  them  at  this  very  moment, 
I  say  to  the  minister.  They  are  looking  for 
space   and   they  haven't  got  it. 

To  suggest  we  should  remove  other  serv- 
ices is  crazy.  I  checked  with  the  Hansard 
people.  I  went  to  Ottawa.  The  select  com- 
mittee went  to  Ottawa.  There  is  some  diffi- 
culty with  it.  I  say  anybody  who  is  going 
to  utilize  this  building  in  this  way  to  serve 
the  needs  of  this  Legislature  must  stay  here. 
As  you  go  through  the  list,  tell  me  who  does 
not  serve  the  Legislature  in  this  building? 

As  I  sat  there  on  that  auspicious  day  when 
the  thing  was  unfolding,  I  knew  what  would 
happen.  I  turned  to  the  member  for  Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon)  and  said,  "This 
is  the  one  they  want."  I  must  say  I  did  not 
stay  to  the  end  to  see  if  that  was  the  one 
they  were  going  to  propose,  but  that  was  it. 
The  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  can 
come  in  later  on  and  verify  that.  From  the 
way  it  was  being  presented,  it  was  a  totally 
different  ball  game. 

I  say  to  the  minister  that  his  responsibility 
is  to  serve  the  needs.  There  are  some  things 
that  have  to  go  on  in  this  building.  They 
talk  about  too  much  space  left  over  in  op- 
tion two.  We  know  from  a  select  committee, 
the  Morrow  report,  that  the  existing  building 
has  to  be  brought  up  to  standard.  As  we 
bring  this  building  up  to  standard,  we  will 
have    to    take    from    the    fourth    floor    right 


down  to  the  basement  and  lop  a  third  off. 
For  a  year  at  least  that  is  not  going  to  be 
serviceable.  Then  we  will  go  to  the  east  end 
and  will  lop  off  a  third  there  and  go  right 
from  the  top  to  the  basement.  Then  we  will 
do  the  remaining  part  of  the  building,  which 
is  going  to  take  roughly  another  year.  You 
are  going  to  have  to  house  people  from  this 
building  in  the  extra  space  you  spoke  of 
that  was  going  to  be  surplus  space  which 
you  did  not  know  what  to  do  with.  You  are 
going  to  have  to  house  the  very  people  who 
are  here  if  you  are  going  to  bring  the  rest 
of  the  building  up  to  any  standard. 
4:40  p.m. 

One  just  has  to  look  behind  the  curtains 
in  this  building  to  find  wires  that  are  illegal  in 
the  rest  of  Metropolitan  Toronto.  In  this 
building  they  are  all  nailed  into  the  frame 
because  the  cost  to  refurbish  the  building  is 
going  to  be  so  great.  My  friend  from  St. 
George  and  I  sat  on  the  select  committee  and 
we  know.  I  believe  the  cost  then  to  bring 
this  building  up  to  standard  was  over  $20 
million.  It  has  further  deteriorated. 

I  ask  the  minister,  where  are  you  going  to 
house  that  one-third  you  do  not  have  space 
for  now  when  you  start  to  do  this  building? 
Are  you  going  to  shove  us  over  to  the 
Whitney  Block?  That  is  totally  crazy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  If  we  take  the  second 
proposal,  you  have  to  move  out  for  three  or 
four  years. 

Mr.  Martel:  Right.  You  will  tear  that  down 
and  build  a  new  one,  but  then  you  can  re- 
furbish the  rest  of  this  building.  If  we  take 
your  first  proposal,  we  will  be  out  for  ever. 

Mr.  Ashe:  Hear,  hear. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  for  Durham  West 
won't  have  anything  to  do  with  it.  That 
cannot  be  overcome.  You  are  going  to  have 
to  do  that  anyway.  It  was  recommended  in 
1975  or  1976  that  we  start  to  renovate  this 
building.  It  has  not  improved  since  then. 
You  are  going  to  have  to  find  accommoda- 
tion. The  easiest  way,  of  course,  is  to  tear 
that  old  section  down  and  start  from  scratch. 

Build  a  little  extra  space  and  then  take  the 
Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  out  and  put  it 
on  the  eighth  floor.  Then  take  another  small 
ministry  and  put  it  on  the  seventh  floor  be- 
cause that  is  putting  the  priorities  where  they 
belong.  If  you  want  to  put  an  eight-storey 
building  over  there,  put  it  here  and  serve  the 
Legislature's  needs  first.  I  am  sorry,  but  that 
is  not  being  considerate. 

The  standing  committee  on  members' 
services  had  an  opportunity  to  look  at  this 


4550 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


several  weeks  ago  and  it  is  not  happy  either. 
I  think  it  said,  "Go  back  to  the  drawing 
board."  That  might  not  be  a  bad  idea.  You 
might  take  into  consideration  that  you  are 
going  to  lease  the  remainder  on  a  lease-back 
arrangement  to  some  ministry.  It  is  as  easy 
to  put  the  Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs  on 
the  eighth  floor  here  as  it  is  to  put  it  over 
on  the  corner  of  Bay  Street.  I  would  suspect 
it  is  simpler  because  the  minister  just  has  to 
come  down  the  stairs  and  into  the  Legislature 
to  vote.  I  suspect  that  option  has  not  been 
considered.  Somebody  is  going  to  tell  me: 
"The  design  of  the  building  is  such  that  we 
cannot  do  it.  There  is  that  rock  outside, 
which  is  a  different  type  of  rock." 

We  all  know  that  if  we  tell  an  architect  to 
design  a  building  that  complements  the  exist- 
ing structure,  it  can  be  achieved.  I  am  no 
architect,  so  I  will  not  tell  you  how  it  can 
be  done,  but  I  can  tell  you  architects  who 
can  do  it.  We  have  looked  all  around  us 
and  have  seen  old  buildings  renovated  and 
added  on  to  that  come  out  very  well.  The 
north  wing  is  totally  inadequate. 

Speaking  about  a  little  additional  space, 
shall  I  remind  the  minister  there  are  six  mem- 
bers of  my  party  who  sit  in  little  offices  that 
are  vastly  too  small?  Forgetting  the  members 
for  a  while,  I  have  a  woman's  co-ordinator 
who  is  in  an  office  six  feet  by  seven  feet. 
I  can  show  you  staff  who  are  overcrowded, 
and  not  just  there.  I  was  invited  once  to 
the  Premier's  office  where  I  recall  one  of  his 
staff  showed  me  where  some  of  them  were 
working.  They  were  in  an  old  vault.  They 
still  are  in  an  old  vault.  Can  you  imagine 
the  working  environment? 

Hon.     Miss     Stephenson:     They     are     not 

females. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  not  right  for  either  of 
them.  That  is  why  it  is  not  right  for  a  female 
in  my  office  to  have  a  six  foot  by  seven  foot 
space.  We  talk  about  providing  space  for  the 
civil  servants.  To  hell  with  it.  It  is  time 
the  minister  said,  "No,  we  are  going  to  look 
through  this  whole  shack  and  we  are  not 
going  to  allow  people  to  work  under  some  of 
the  conditions  that  exist  in  this  building." 

The  conditions  are  deplorable.  To  try  to 
cook  the  books  a  little  bit  to  doctor  this 
building  isn't  going  to  work.  We  all  know 
what  Morrow  recommended  and  we  are  mov- 
ing towards  it.  Your  predecessor  recognized 
it  because  in  his  drawings  he  had  space  for 
a  researcher  for  each  member  of  the  Legis- 
lature. That  is  coming  as  sure  as  I  stand 
here.  Society  is  getting  more  complex.  It  is 
more  difficult  to  deal  with  any  problem  and 


members  are  going  to  need  researchers.  Where 
are  we  going  to  put  them?  If  we  are  talking 
of  about  at  least  80  members  in  this  building 
and  probably  90,  exclusive  of  the  cabinet,  we 
are  talking  about  an  additional  amount  of 
space.  When  they  look  at  the  space  the  Legis- 
lature is  going  to  require,  I  would  like  to  go 
over  it  item  by  item  with  whoever  designs 
it  because  there  is  something  wrong  in  the 
state  of  Denmark. 

I  don't  think  we  can  even  start  to  consider 
taking  any  of  the  library  services  out  of  here. 
In  fact,  we  should  enhance  them.  I  don't 
think  we  can  take  Hansard  out.  Mr.  Brannan 
can't  keep  up  with  today's  demands  of  the 
Legislature.  It  is  impossible.  He  is  being 
ordered  from  pillar  to  post  to  produce  yester- 
day's Hansard  for  today's  considerations  of  a 
select  committee.  It  is  totally  impossible.  That 
service  is  going  to  expand. 

I  say  it  is  unrealistic  and  the  books  have 
been  cooked  to  make  it  appear  as  though  we 
need  that  building  over  there  and  that  in  this 
one  our  needs  are  not  that  great.  Well,  they 
are.  I  am  prepared  to  argue  with  the  minister. 
I  am  prepared  to  go  over  the  figures  and,  in 
fact,  I  will  bring  in  my  own  architect,  if  he 
wants  to  go  over  the  figures.  I  have  found 
that  over  the  years— and  this  is  my  fourteenth 
year  in  this  Legislature— the  last  to  be  served 
around  here  have  always  been  the  members. 
The  minister  shakes  his  head.  I  want  to  tell 
him  that  even  to  get  a  tape  recorder  at  one 
time  was  difficult  around  this  place. 

Last  week  I  said  to  the  staff  when  they 
were  looking  into  the  bells,  "Instead  of  that 
stupid  bell  that  make  so  much  noise  it  drives 
all  of  us  crazy,  could  you  put  in  a  chime?'' 
They  said,  "Oh,  no,  we  can't  put  in  a  chime." 
I  said,  "Why  can't  you  put  a  chime  in  the 
main  corridor?"  "We  just  can't  do  that,"  they 
said.  I  said,  "Why  can't  you?"  They  answered, 
"It  has  always  been  done  like  this." 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  If  someone  can't  hear 
the  bell,  how  is  he  going  to  hear  chimes? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  bells  can't  be  heard  when 
they  are  not  ringing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  It  was  not  working. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  tell  me  why.  This  place  is 
so  bound  in  outdated  tradition.  He  complains 
because  he  couldn't  hear  the  bell.  The  bell 
wasn't  working.  You  can't  hear  it  if  it  is  not 
working. 

Interjection. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  could  do  then  as  you  do 
for  cabinet  ministers.  You  could  put  a  chime 
in  every  office.  I  will  tell  you  an  interesting 
story.  When  I  first  became  House  leader,  I 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4551 


was  wandering  around  the  premises  with  Bob 
Fleming.  I  don't  want  to  take  his  name  in 
vain  but  I  think  I  saw  him  come  in  a  few 
moments  ago.  We  happened1  to  be  in  the 
government  House  leader's  office.  There  were 
a  number  of  other  people  with  him  from 
Government  Services.  I  don't  want  to  make 
him  feel  uncomfortable.  I  said,  "Do  you 
know  there  is  a  refrigerator  in  Mr.  Welch's 
office?  He  is  a  House  leader  and  I  am  House 
leader.  Do  you  think  I  could  have  a  refrigera- 
tor?" he  said,  "Why  certainly,  Mr.  Martel. 
What  colour?"  My  colleagues  don't  have  a 
refrigerator. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Have  you  got  one  now? 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes,  I  have  one  now.  That  is 
all  it  took.  If  you  can  find  someone  at  your 
level  in  this  place,  you  can  get  anything  you 
want.  Within  days  there  was  a  refrigerator 
in  my  office.  When  aren't  my  colleagues  en- 
titled to  a  refrigerator? 

Hon,  Miss  Stephenson:  What  for? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  government  House  leader 
had  one.  I  thought  if  he  were  entitled  to  one 
as  House  leader,  I  would  be  entitled  to  one 
too  and,  lo  and  behold,  I  was.  I  had  a  re- 
frigerator. Isn't  that  magnificent?  That  is  the 
way  things  are  done  around  here.  Nothing 
changes  on  merit.  It  is  a  question  of  who  you 
can  catch  with  his  finger  in  the  cookie  jar. 
If  you  catch  somebody  with  his  finger  in  the 
cookie  jar  and  you  are  at  the  same  place, 
you  too  are  entitled. 

4:50  p.m. 

I  well  recall  when  Sidney  Handleman  was 
on  our  select  committee.  He  never  used  to 
be  able  to  get  the  equipment  he  wanted.  He 
went  to  the  cabinet  and  then  came  back.  We 
still  couldn't  even  get  a  portable  Stenorette; 
it  was  impossible,  it  was  a  horror.  Other 
people  had  them.  They  came  to  the  Board 
of  Internal  Economy  and,  lo  and  behold, 
those  who  wanted  could  get  a  portable 
machine.  There  has  been  no  great  run  on 
them. 

It  all  used  to  come  in  a  book  from  Govern- 
ment Services.  If  you  were  at  this  level  in 
government,  you  had  an  office  that  was  big, 
if  you  were  down  one  notch,  you  had  one 
that  was  a  little  smaller.  As  you  got  further 
and  further  away,  they  just  kept  getting 
smaller  and  smaller.  It  is  part  of  getting  up 
there. 

But  we  never  even  fit  in  that  book. 
Members  of  the  Legislature  didn't  fall  into 
any  category,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest. 
We  weren't  even  included.  When  you  wanted 
something  it  was  a  battle  royal  to  get  it. 
Slowly  within   the   Board   of   Internal  Econ- 


omy, we  are  cleaning  out  some  of  that 
problem.  When  members  have  a  require- 
ment, they  can  now  get  the  equipment  they 
require  through  their  caucus  office.  But  the 
battle  to  get  it  was  insurmountable  for  a 
while.  It  is  funny  what  minority  govern- 
ment does. 

The  same  applies  to  this  building.  This 
should  be  the  most  important  building  in  the 
province.  I  was  in  three  legislatures  this  year 
and  none  of  them  was  the  dingy,  drab  facil- 
ities that  we  see  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:   Which  ones? 

Mr.  Martel:  We  saw  those  in  British  Co- 
lumbia, Saskatchewan  and  Quebec.  I  suppose 
I  am  being  selective.  Then  I  went  to  Prince 
Edward  Island  where  they  are  now  refur- 
bishing theirs  after  105  years.  I  can  under- 
stand why  theirs  has  fallen  a  little  behind. 

Where  else  can  you  walk  into  a  building 
where  the  rug  is  kept  down  with  Scotch  tape 
or  binding  tapes?  Go  to  the  other  quarters, 
the  wing  I  come  from,  and  the  whole  rug 
looks  as  if  it  has  been  sewn  together  with 
bands  of  masking  tape— that  is  the  word  I 
am  looking  for.  All  along  the  floor  it  is  held 
together.  Before  the  stairs  were  repaired,  I 
think  I  had  five  assistants  who  fell  on  them. 
Finally,  they  tore  the  whole  rug  out.  It's 
nuts. 

I  use  those  silly  little  examples  to  show 
that  the  priority  in  this  building  has  never 
been  for  the  people  who  occupy  it.  I,  for 
one,  am  fed  up  with  the  nonsense  that  goes 
on  with  respect  to  it.  It  is  obvious  the  gov- 
ernment's intent  now  is  to  dabble  with  this 
building,  move  some  of  the  people  out  of  the 
Whitney  Block  eventually  and  give  that  to 
the  members  of  the  Legislature. 

I  remind  the  minister  we  are  the  ones  who 
are  here  until  nine,  10  and  11  at  night  and 
we  are  the  ones  who  are  in  our  offices  when 
the  House  is  sitting  from  nine  in  the 
morning.  It  is  time  this  building  was  for 
members.  Don't  get  me  wrong.  I  am  not 
talking  about  plush  living  quarters  or  any- 
thing like  that,  but  decent  services  and 
decent  accommodation  to  work  with  the 
people  we  all  have  to  work  with  in  here. 
That  includes  offices  for  cabinet  ministers. 

I  have  been  trying  to  kick  cabinet  min- 
isters out  but  only  for  one  reason— lack  of 
space.  I  think  one  cabinet  minister  sur- 
rendered her  office  a  number  of  years  ago 
because  she  hadn't  been  in  it.  I  believe  that 
was  the  Minister  of  Education  if  I  am  not 
wrong.  She  said  someone  else  could  use  it 
because  space  was  at  a  premium.  Those 
offices  should  be  there  to  do  the  business  of 


4552 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


this  province  appropriately.  I  get  offended 
every  time  I  turn  around  and  see  they  are 
going  to  try  to  hijack  another  building  for 
civil  servants  over  on  Bay  Street. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  Whitney  Block 
is  not  that  far  away. 

Mr.  Martel:  But  the  Whitney  Block  has 
problems.  One  only  has  to  witness  what  went 
on  here  last  Thursday.  One  can't  divide  the 
services.  One  cannot  take  one  half  of  the 
library  from  here  and  slough  it  over  to  the 
Whitney  Block.  That  is  within  the  plans  and 
that  is  unfair. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Move  the  mem- 
bers over  there  instead  of  the  library. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  poses  a  real  problem. 
It  poses  a  problem  for  your  whip  and  my 
whip.  It  poses  a  problem  for  members  who 
want  to  come  in  and  who  have  scheduled 
an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a  half  to  get  in 
and  out.  Why  should  we  be  the  ones  walk- 
ing over  there? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  have  to  go  over 
to  the  Mowat  Block,  which  is  farther  away. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  crazy.  I  say  to  the 
minister  that  the  services  in  here  are  for 
the  members.  They  are  not  for  anyone  else. 
I  am  hard-headed  about  it;  I  really  am.  Even 
at  the  Board  of  Internal  Economy  this  very 
week,  I  am  sure  the  members'  services  com- 
mittee will  be  looking  at  a  couple  of  other 
problems,  one  of  which  deals  with  closing 
down  the  lounge  for  the  members.  We  are 
going  to  close  that  down.  We  can  close  that. 
It  is  a  dungeon;  it  is  the  most  unattractive 
place  in  Toronto.  I  would  not  say  it  was 
sleazy,  mind  you,  but  it  is  an  unattractive 
place. 

The  bill  they  gave  us  to  make  a  few  re- 
pairs was  $80,000.  I  am  not  the  world's 
greatest  carpenter,  but  for  $80,000  I  could 
make  just  about  any  type  of  room  you  want 
down  there.  I  know  enough  about  it.  The 
things  we  suggested  down  there  would  not 
cost  $80,000. 

I  suspect  that  the  same  high-jinks  are 
being  played  with  respect  to  the  building. 
If  we  can  make  it  so  costly,  $340  per  square 
foot,  then  how  in  the  world  could  anyone 
in  his  right  mind  say  yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  It  is  $300. 

Mr.  Martel:  Even  $300  per  square  foot. 
How  could  anyone  in  his  right  mind  say  we 
were  going  to  go  for  $300  when  they  are 
offering  us  double  the  space  somewhere  else 
for  half  the  price?  Somebody  is  going  to 
have  to  convince  me  of  that  too,  unless  you 
are  telling  me  it  is  going  to  cost  $100  million 


to  tear  that  place  down.  That  is  what  it 
boils  down  to,  because  you  say  for  $3 
million  more  than  the  cost  of  rebuilding, 
you  are  going  to  end  up  with  double  the 
space.  That  means  it  has  to  cost  over  $100 
million    to    take    that   building    down. 

I  have  some  friends  in  Sudbury  who  do  a 
lot  of  mining.  They  are  real  experts.  They 
can  blow  as  much  as  they  want,  just  a  little 
bit,  or  a  little  more,  without  damaging  any- 
thing else.  If  you  want  me  to  bring  one  of 
them  down,  we  can  get  rid  of  the  building 
in  a  hurry.  I  do  not  believe  it  can  be  that 
much.  I  simply  do  not  believe  that  for  $3 
million  you  are  going  to  get  double  the 
space.  I  find  that  unacceptable,  unless  you 
are  telling  me  the  difference  is  going  to  be 
in  tearing  this  building  down.  I  think  Green- 
spoon  Brothers  Limited  could  tear  it  down 
in  a  hurry. 

I  recall  saying  to  my  friend,  the  member 
for  St.  George,  when  we  were  doing  the 
Morrow  report  that  it  was  strange,  even 
at  that  time,  we  could  not  get  the  money 
for  this  building.  But  we  could  find  $28 
million,  for  what?  Some  building  down  the 
way.  We  found  how  many  million  for  Hydro? 
Everybody  found  money  in  those  days.  We 
cannot  even  find  money  to  fix  this  building 
up  appropriately. 

Mr.  Warner:  The  ceiling  has  fallen  down. 
It  almost  killed  one  of  the  employees. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  right.  The  place  looks 
like  a  zoo. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  was  there  when 
it  happened. 

Mr.  Martel:  Did  it  hit  the  minister?  I 
will  bet  if  it  had,  we  would  have  a  new 
building  under  construction  right  now. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  did  not  almost 
kill  anyone. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Order.  The  mem- 
ber for  the  Sudbury  East  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  prepared  to  let  anyone 
in,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  know,  but  I  am 
not. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  up  to  you.  I  will  con- 
tinue in  my  place. 
5  p.m. 

The  minister  has  to  tell  me  the  costs  have 
not  been  cooked.  I  want  to  know  how  you 
can  get  double  the  space  for  only  $3  million 
more.  The  only  way  I  can  assess  it  is  that 
the  cost  of  demolition  is  certainly  going  to  be 
high.   Also,   I  want  to  know  precisely  what 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4553 


services  there  will  be.  The  minister  gave  a 
whole  list  in  that  rundown.  What  services 
are  not  involved  with  the  Legislature  and  the 
ongoing  operation  of  this  building?  Perhaps 
John  Thatcher  can  help  you  on  what  services 
are  not  required  in  this  building.  The  first 
one  that  is  off  the  list  as  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned is  the  library.  You  cannot  split  it. 
Dr.  Land  is  having  trouble  right  now  trying 
to  find  a  place.  Finally,  there  are  all  the 
other  lists.  Perhaps  you  can  tell  me  how  they 
do  not  fit  into  the  everyday  workings  of  this 
building  and  what  goes  on  and  how  we  are 
going  to  overcome  that  little  problem. 

I  leave  that  for  a  moment  to  deal  with 
one  other  minor  problem— Burwash. 

Mr.  Huston:  Good  old  Burwash. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  used  to  be  Burwash;  it  used 
to  be  Government  Services.  The  goats  are 
gone.  You  and  I  knew  about  a  year  ago  when 
we  visited  Burwash  that  it  was  just  a  matter 
of  time  for  the  goats  to  go  with  S  chaff ernicht. 
He  is  now  in  Algoma-Manitoulin  trying  to 
pester  the  member  for  Algoma-Manitoulin 
(Mr.  Lane),  thank  goodness.  The  legacy  he 
left  behind  is  a  debt  of  about  $112,000.  That 
has  gone. 

I  am  pleased  this  minister  came  to  Sutton 
and  took  the  time  to  look  at  that  accom- 
modation. He  was  involved  in  the  second 
study  of  the  utilization  of  Burwash.  It  boiled 
down  to  a  point  where  we  have  to  agree  on 
how  we  lease.  I  think  in  the  final  assessment  it 
is  a  case  of  leasing.  As  I  understand  it,  the 
ministry  would  like  to  lease  the  property  to 
the  regional  municipality  of  Sudbury  and  the 
regional  municipality  would  like  to  lease  it, 
but  not  in  one  shot. 

In  other  words,  if  they  take  over  Burwash 
as  of  now,  the  cost  to  the  region  would  be 
about  a  half -million  dollars,  give  or  take  a 
few  bucks,  to  provide  the  services  and  do 
the  maintenance  work.  The  region  certainly 
is  not  in  that  kind  of  position  any  more  than 
the  province  is.  The  province  would  like  to 
get  out  of  that  half  million  they  spend  an- 
nually for  nothing. 

I  suggest  to  the  minister  he  might  approach 
it  this  way,  that  Burwash  be  divvied  up  in 
such  a  way  that  when  the  region  leases  a 
portion  of  it,  the  region  should  bear  the 
responsibility  of  maintenance  for  that  portion. 
As  I  understand  it,  the  first  portion  under 
active  negotiation  would  deal  with  a  training 
centre  sponsored  by  the  Labourers  Inter- 
national Union  of  North  America.  Ultimately, 
a  whole  range  of  training  could  go  on  there, 
including  the  Canadian  Union  of  Public  Em- 
ployees people  who  are  in  need  of  training 


for  operating  heavy  equipment  in  municipali- 
ties. That  is  the  first  phase. 

If  the  second  one  were  to  be  turned  over 
to  Dr.  Newbury  and  the  native  group  from 
Laurentian  University  working  with  native 
people— and  the  member  for  Algoma-Mani- 
toulin is  interested  in  this— and  if  that  took 
eight  or  10  per  cent  of  the  operation,  then  the 
region  would  be  responsible  for  the  mainten- 
ance of  eight  or  10  per  cent  or  whatever  it  is. 
Bit  by  bit,  as  the  region  moved  in  and  took 
over  a  portion,  they  would  bear  the  responsi- 
bility for  the  upkeep  and  maintenance  of  that 
portion.  Ultimately,  we  hope  the  whole  thing 
could  be  taken  over  by  the  region,  but  no 
region  can  afford  a  clout  of  half  a  million 
dollars  just  for  maintenance  with  nothing  in 
return. 

In  addition  to  that,  the  other  thing  the 
minister  could  do  is  have  the  region  look 
after  it  and  maintain  it.  He  knows  what  the 
costs  have  been  over  the  past  four  or  five 
years.  They  could  maintain  it  for  the  min- 
istry and  bill  it.  As  they  took  over  more  and 
more  of  it,  the  billing  to  the  province  would 
diminish.  For  example,  if  they  took  20  per 
cent  in  the  first  year,  the  cost  would  be 
roughly  $400,000  to  the  ministry  and  $100,- 
000  to  the  region.  That  sort  of  lease  arrange- 
ment could  be  carefully  worked  out.  I  think 
the  region  would  be  receptive  to  it.'  I  would 
hope  the  government  and  this  ministry  would 
be  responsive  to  that  sort  of  approach  so  we 
could  take  it  over  bit  by  bit,  reducing  your 
costs  and  increasing  ours  as  we  start  to  lease 
sections  of  it  for  various  programs. 

I  would  mention  a  program  that  is  of 
interest  to  my  friend  from  Algoma  and  my- 
self, which  we  have  been  talking  about  for 
two  or  three  years.  It  is  a  program  for  the 
native  people  as  they  come  out  of  institu- 
tions. They  could  go  there  and  be  helped 
get  back  into  society  properly  with  some 
sort  of  skill  they  could  carry  on  and  make  a 
livelihood  from.  Certainly  they  are  close 
enough.  If  we  ever  get  that  road  over 
through  the  park,  they  will  be  within  an 
hours  drive  of  the  island. 

Mr.  Lane:  It  is  just  a  matter  of  time. 

Mr.  Martel:  Just  a  matter  of  time.  Cer- 
tainly there  are  other  programs.  We  lost  one, 
by  the  way.  The  region  was  going  to  train 
people  who  were  on  welfare  so  that  we 
could  get  them  off  welfare,  but  the  dis- 
cussions were  so  long  and  ongoing  that  they 
leased  an  old  school  in  Sudbury.  I  believe 
the  son  of  the  member  for  St.  George  (Mrs. 
Campbell)    was   involved   in   that.   They  are 


4554 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


now  leasing  premises  in  the  city  of  Sudbury 
and  have  started  to  retrain  people. 

It  is  particularly  difficult  for  the  women 
in  the  Sudbury  area  to  get  any  type  of  re- 
training, but  they  are  doing  it.  They  could 
have  been  there  and  possibly  they  will  end 
up  there.  I  am  not  sure  how  long  a  term 
their  present  lease  is.  Until  we  get  the  basis 
resolved  as  to  how  we  can  work  that  out,  I 
cannot  see  any  regional  municipality  jump- 
ing in  to  take  it  off  the  government's  hands 
when  it  is  going  to  have  to  expend  $500,000 
before  it  even  tries  to  utilize  any  part  of  that 
facility. 

Certainly  the  government  wants  it  off  its 
hands.  The  longer  we  leave  it  there  the  more 
it  deteriorates.  I  appreciate  what  the  minister 
has  done  to  date,  the  second  report  and  so 
on,  but  the  sooner  we  get  a  solution  to  the 
leasing  arrangement,  the  greater  the  pos- 
sibility is  that  we  will  start  very  quickly  to 
lop  it  off  into  sections  and  see  people  util- 
izing it.  I  would  hope  the  minister  could 
give  me  an  indication  that  he  is  prepared  to 
enter  that  type  of  leasing  arrangement  with 
the  region. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 
answer  to  some  of  the  questions  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  has  raised,  I  will  get  back 
to  the  building  here.  It  would  appear  from 
the  member's  comments  he  supports  the 
second  proposal.  I  am  pleased  to  hear  there 
is  someone  to  whom  we  have  made  those 
three  proposals  who  has  supported  one  of 
them.  This  is  a  move  in  the  right  direction. 

There  are  some  costs  that  the  member 
should  know  about.  I  think  he  knows  me 
well  enough  to  know  I  don't  cook  the  books 
or  do  those  sorts  of  things. 

Mr.  Martel:   I  didn't  say  you  were. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Nor  do  my  honour- 
able staff  do  them. 

The  construction  costs  for  phase  two  are 
estimated  to  be  $37.8  million.  As  you  know, 
we  would  have  to  move.  The  member  men- 
tioned moving  the  members  across  to  the 
Wlr'tney  Block,  as  if  it  were  a  long  piece 
away.  If  we  followed  proposal  two,  we  would 
have  to  move  the  members— probablv  the 
closest  accommodation  would  be  the  Whitney 
Block— for  a  period  of  up  to  four  years. 
5:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  only  interim;  the  other 
one  is  in  perpetuity. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Not  really.  There  is 
construction  for  $37.8  million,  the  lease, 
which  is,  I  should  tell  you,  $5,537,000,  and 
the  leasehold  alterations  of  $823,000.  That  is 


how  we  come  to  the  figure  of  $44.16  million. 
That  is  how  we  arrived  at  that.  I  should  just 
mention  we  are  looking  at  a  need  for  32,000 
square  feet  in  this  building.  With  option  two, 
we  would  have  147,000  square  feet  if  we  tore 
down  the  north  wing  and  put  up  the  building 
the  honourable  member  is  suggesting. 

What  the  member  for  Essex  North  men- 
tioned earlier  would  indicate  that  perhaps  he 
was  in  favour  of  putting  some  of  those  min- 
istries in  one  of  our  own  buildings  rather  than 
having  them  scattered  all  over.  It  would  be 
interesting  to  hear  his  comments  on  that. 

As  far  as  the  members  who  have  the  inner 
offices  are  concerned,  the  honourable  member 
knows  we  did  go  around  with  our  interior 
decorator  to  try  to  improve  that  situation.  It 
is  hard.  You  cannot  put  windows  where  there 
is  no  outside  wall  but  we  could  have,  in  all 
fairness,  brightened  up  those  areas  for  those 
people  and  improved  it  in  some  way  in  the 
meantime. 

It  was  said  by  the  honourable  member  that 
he  visited  three  legislatures  throughout  our 
country.  I  visited  two  this  summer.  When  I 
visited  our  rich  relatives  in  Alberta,  I  visited 
the  members'  offices.  I  can  say  they  are  more 
crowded  than  when  I  came  here  in  1971  and 
about  seven  of  us  occupied  what  is  now  the 
government  caucus  office  with  about  two 
secretaries  among  seven  of  us.  They  are  really 
crowded  out  there.  That  is  Alberta,  even  with 
its  heritage  fund  and  all  the  rest. 

I  saw  the  same  thing  in  Manitoba.  I  did 
not  see  anything  like  the  offices  we  have.  I 
suppose  you  could  compare  theirs  with  the 
seven  inner  offices  that  we  have  for  some  of 
the  Liberal  caucus  and  some  of  the  NDP.  I 
believe  the  breakdown  is  three  and  four. 
Even  out  there  they  are  not  as  well  off  as  we 
are.  That  does  not  mean  we  should  not  be 
looking  after  our  members,  and  I  think  we 
have  been. 

I  was  interested  to  hear  the  member  for 
Windsor- Walkerville  say  how  things  have  im- 
proved since  he  came.  I  only  know  that  in  the 
nine  years  I  have  been  here  things  have  sure 
come  a  long  way  since  the  day  seven  of  us 
spent  some  time  in  that  one  office  with  only 
two  secretaries.  Again,  that  is  not  to  say  that 
is  what  everybody  should  be  back  to. 

As  far  as  Burwash  goes,  the  honourable 
member  made  some  comments  about  our 
friend  who  raised  the  goats.  I  am  sure  the 
day  we  were  there  both  of  us  wondered  if 
that  could  ever  make  a  profit.  I  know  I  did 
as  a  part-time  farmer.  I  think  I  made  that 
statement  to  my  colleague,  the  member  for 
Algoma-Manitoulin,  and  to  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East.  I  think  we  all  agreed  on  that. 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4555 


What  the  honourable  member  has  said  is 
along  the  lines  of  what  we  have  been  dis- 
cussing with  the  region,  as  far  as  Burwash 
goes.  We  have  had  discussions.  I  was  in  one 
of  the  meetings  with  a  representative  from 
the  region.  I  believe  that  person  has  had 
meetings  after  that  with  my  staff.  We  were 
waiting  for  the  results  of  the  meeting  of  the 
region. 

As  early  as  today,  I  heard— perhaps  the 
member  for  Algoma-Manitoulin  and  the  mem- 
ber for  Sudbury  East  have  heard  as  well- 
that  the  region  is  going  in  on  Wednesday 
with  the  chairman  of  our  citizens  committee, 
Ross  Smith,  to  look  at  Burwash.  I  believe 
there  are  some  new  councillors  in  the  region 
and  they  have  not  had  an  opportunity  to  see 
it.  I  hope  they  are  able  to  view  it  without  a 
lot  of  snow  on  the  ground.  I  know  I  enjoyed 
seeing  it.  It  is  a  lot  better  than  looking  at  it 
on  paper  and  I  was  pleased  the  two  members 
I  mentioned  earlier  came  along  with  me  and 
my  staff  at  that  time. 

I  am  hopeful  something  can  be  worked  out 
with  the  region.  I  believe  the  region  is  in  a 
better  position  than  we  are,  to  be  the  land- 
lord of  that,  as  we're  so  many  miles  away.  But 
I  am  sure  the  honourable  member  will  be 
keeping  in  touch  with  us  as  to  what  happens 
after  they  meet  on  Wednesday  and  perhaps 
have  a  full  meeting  of  the  region  to  discuss 
it  further. 

Mr.  Martel:  If  I  could  just  speak  to  the 
minister  on  one  more  point  before  I  go  back 
to  committee.  Would  the  minister  be  pre- 
pared to  meet  with  the  members'  services 
committee  with  all  the  figures,  not  just  the 
quick  presentation  that  was  given  to  us  sev- 
eral weeks  ago,  and  possibly  the  Board  of 
Internal  Economy?  I  do  not  want  to  get  us 
into  more  reasons,  but  to  go  over  that. 

I  am  not  convinced  yet,  Mr.  Minister.  You 
tell  me  we  only  need  32,000  square  feet.  I 
find  that  hard  to  accept.  For  example,  I  do 
not  have  a  room  that  my  caucus  can  meet 
in,  save  a  huge  caucus  room  which  has  four 
pillars  running  through  it. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Be  our  guest. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Let's  have  those  removed'. 

Mr.  Martel:  Yes.  If  we  want  a  small  meet- 
ing with  seven  or  eight  people,  I  do  not 
have  a  room  unless  I  lack  the  member  for 
Brantford  (Mr.  Makarchuk)  out  of  his  office. 
That  does  not  happen. 

{Applause.] 

Mr.  Martel:  You  can  pound  your  desks.  It 
is  the  only  way  you  are  going  to  get  your 
jollies,  because  he  is  coming  back. 


We  cannot  even  hold  small  meetings,  so 
when  we  say  32,000  square  feet,  I  want  to 
know  if  that  includes  a  proper  caucus  room. 
Does  it  include  a  caucus  room  like  the  one 
that  members  on  that  side  have  down  in 
room  229,  that  they  took  over  from  the 
kitchen?  It  used  to  be  a  cabinet  office  and 
was  neatly  seconded  by  the  whip  for  Tory 
gatherings.  Would  you  be  generous  enough 
to  lend  it  to  me  whenever  I  ask?  We  do  not 
have  a  room  like  that.  In  fact,  the  Tory 
whip's  office  is  about  a  quarter  of  the  size 
of  all  the  other  space  I  occupy.  You  need  a 
tour  guide  just  to  get  through  it. 

I  want  to  extract  a  commitment  from  the 
minister  that  he  is  prepared  to  sit  down  with 
us  and  show  us  where  they  got  the  figure  of 
32,000.  Will  he  show  us  where  all  the  bodies 
are  going  to  go  and  just  how  he  has  arrived 
at  this  proposal,  before  any  major  commit- 
ment is  undertaken?  I  dispute  some  of  it  and 
most  of  all  I  dispute  that  requirement  of 
32,000  square  feet.  Maybe  he  has  it  and  I 
am  prepared  to  be  convinced;  but  I  am  not 
prepared  to  be  convinced  just  by  someone 
telling  me  that  is  it.  I  guess  I  am  from  Mis- 
souri. Show  me. 
5:20  p.m. 

I  hope  the  minister  is  prepared1  to  meet 
with  the  standing  committee  on  members' 
services  with  all  the  facts  and  figures  to  con- 
vince us  and  then  to  show  us  we  are  not 
going  to  take  people  out  of  this  building 
who  meet  the  needs  of  the  members  and 
have  them  scattered  about. 

I  realize  if  we  tear  that  down  we  are  going 
to  have  to  find  other  space.  I  accept  that,  but 
that  is  only  an  interim  measure.  He  still  has 
not  answered  what  he  is  going  to  do  when 
he  repairs  the  main  part  of  the  building  we 
are  in  now.  It  is  going  to  have  to  be  closed 
off,  possibly  including  this  chamber,  a  whole 
third  at  a  time,  for  a  prolonged  period  which 
is  going  to  stretch  over  a  number  of  years. 
There  is  just  too  much  left  hanging.  I  would 
like  to  extract  from  the  minister  a  commit- 
ment to  meet  with  the  Board  of  Internal 
Economy  if  it  requests  it,  with  all  the  fig- 
ures. I  do  not  mean  a  short  half -hour  meet- 
ing but  a  meeting  where  we  can  go  through 
it  brick  by  brick. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  do  not  know  whether 
all  of  us  have  the  time  to  go  through  it  brick 
by  brick  but  I  would  give  a  commitment 
that  we  would  review  it  with  you.  The  indi- 
cations from  my  ministry  staff  who  have 
worked  on  this  are  we  need  17,000  square 
feet  immediately.  For  future  needs,  they 
estimate  we  need  22,500.  They  are  going  on 


4556 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  assumption  that  practically  all  these  esti- 
mates are  a  little  on  the  heavy  side  and  they 
have  taken  off  20  per  cent  of  that,  bringing 
us  down  to  what  they  feel  is  a  more  realistic 
future  requirement  of  32,000  square  feet. 

Mr.  Martel:  Does  that  include  a  little  heavy 
on  the  costs  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  would  not  think  so, 
because  we  are  able  to  base  that  on  what  it 
is  costing  us  for  other  buildings,  as  I  am  sure 
the  honourable  member  will  realize.  We 
would  welcome  a  meeting  some  time  in  the 
near  future  with  the  Board  of  Internal 
Economy  and  the  members'  services  com- 
mittee as  well. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  be 
brief.  I  would  like  to  draw  the  attention  of 
the  minister  to  some  of  the  debate  we  have 
had  in  the  members'  services  committee  which 
prompted  us  to  send  your  proposals  back, 
requesting  that  you  go  back  to  the  drawing 
board. 

I  think  the  member  for  Yorkview,  who  is 
probably  one  of  the  most  highly  respected 
members  in  this  House,  put  the  matter  clearly 
when  he  said  we  could  not  go  on  with  patch- 
ing off  or  the  little-dab-will-do-you  approach 
to  accommodate  members  and  the  services 
relating  to  them  without  some  major  pro- 
posals. It  was,  of  course,  the  proposal  in  part 
from  the  members'  services  committee  that 
we  should  look,  not  to  tearing  down  the  north 
wing— I  do  not  think  that  is  what  we  felt, 
although  we  will  be  discussing  it  further  on 
Thursday— but  rather  looking  at  a  building  to 
the  rear  of  this  building  which  could  be  de- 
signed in  keeping  with  the  nature  of  this 
building  so  we  could  accommodate,  not  only 
present  needs  but  future  needs,  if  we  are 
going  to  require  a  redistribution  five  years 
down  the  road. 

As  far  as  we  were  concerned,  with  the 
legislative  library,  for  example,  if  you  have 
ever  looked  at  the  stacked— 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Where  would  you  put 
that  building,  back  of  the  parking? 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Back  of  this  building.  For 
the  purposes  of  staff,  we  do  have  under- 
ground parking  over  in  the  Whitney  Block. 
It  should  not  be  such  a  difficult  thing  to  get 
the  parking  underground.  Let  us  have  a  build- 
ing which  will  accommodate  the  needs  of  the 
people  who  work  in  this  building,  namely,  in 
priority,  the  members.  It  has  been  a  difficult 
thing  for  all  of  us  to  get  through  to  various 
Ministers  of  Government  Services  the  whole 
idea  of  the  precincts  of  this  House.  I  think  it 
is  time  you  got  your  staff  together  and  told 


them  what  the  purposes  are  because  I  really 
don't  think  they  understand. 

You  had  previous  staff  who  regarded  this 
building  as  essentially  for  the  government 
side— that  was  clear  in  some  of  the  discussions 
we  had  with  the  Morrow  committee.  The 
whole  philosophy  has  to  change.  They  have 
to  learn,  maybe  step  by  step,  maybe  in  an 
overall  review,  that  this  building  is  a  legis- 
lative assembly  building  and  belongs  in 
priority  to  the  members  elected,  all  of  them 
by  the  same  route,  to  sit  in  this  place. 

When  we  were  going  over  this  booklet,  to 
which  my  friend  the  third  party  House  leader 
referred,  we  saw  in  very  clear  and  carefully 
specified  terms  what  a  deputy  minister  had  to 
have  by  way  of  office:  size,  equipment,  sup- 
port staff  and  other  things.  At  that  point, 
Government  Services  was  of  the  opinion  that 
if  you  were  in  the  opposition  you  didn't  even 
need  shelving.  It  wasn't  in  the  book,  nor  was 
anything  else  for  the  rest  of  us. 

Over  the  years  since  I  have  been  here  a 
bitterness  has  developed  because  of  the  lack 
of  understanding  of  what  this  building  is  all 
about.  It  is  not  a  building  for  the  Tory  party. 
It  is  a  building  for  all  the  members  equally. 
Certainly,  as  you  know,  we  advised  the  min- 
ister not  to  waste  money  painting  windows 
on  blank  walls.  Give  our  members  at  least 
what  middle  management  in  the  bureaucracy 
here  is  entitled  to.  We  have  never  had  that. 

We  talk  about  costs  with  reference  to  this 
building  and  to  any  extension,  but  we  never 
talk  about  the  costs  of  building  east  of  Bay. 
Where  is  the  commitment?  The  commitment 
is  not  to  the  members  in  this  building.  The 
commitment  is  to  further  office  extension  in 
an  area  which  seriously  disturbs  the  people  of 
my  particular  riding.  We  begged  that  the 
then  Minister  of  Government  Services  would 
look  at  the  old  Hydro  building  with  a  view 
to  holding  that  for  purposes  of  relocation 
from  this  building  in  a  set  of  three  phases. 
No  way  would  anybody  listen  to  us. 

5:30  p.m. 

I  frankly  welcome  the  attitude  of  this  min- 
ister in  trying  to  cope  with  what  are  serious 
problems.  The  philosophy  is  interesting, 
though. 

The  members'  lounge  is  in  really  one  of 
the  most  inaccessible  parts  of  the  building 
now  that  we  have  members  scattered  through- 
out the  building.  It  wouldn't  occur  to  the 
minister  or  his  staff  to  suggest  that  perhaps 
we  could  have  the  members'  lounge  where 
the  cabinet  lounge  is,  where  it  would  be 
closer  to  the  members  as  they  are  engaged 
in  this   House.   Oh,  no!  You  lose  money  in 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4557 


the  north  lounge,  so  you  cut  off  the  members' 
lounge.  It  is  the  only  thing  you  or  your  staff 
can  think  of,  and  it  worries  me. 

I  know  the  cost  of  the  stewards  and  the 
rest  are  a  matter  for  Mr.  Speaker,  but  it  is 
exactly  the  same  kind  of  problem.  Mr. 
Speaker  can't  move  the  lounge  up  here  be- 
cause you  won't  surrender  it  to  his  need  to 
service  the  members.  It  gets  back  to  that  old 
tug-of-war.  Surely  your  staff  has  enough  to 
manage  that  they  don't  have  forever  to  hang 
on  tenaciously  to  this  building.  Let  the 
Speaker  look  after  this  building  for  the  pur- 
poses of  the  precincts  of  this  House. 

I  suppose  that  will  come  in  the  year  2000 
or  so,  but  I  say  to  you  it  is  wrong.  When  you 
refer  to  the  various  assembly  buildings,  I  can 
say  I  was  in  the  assembly  building  in  White- 
horse.  I  was  not  in  members'  offices.  I  saw 
very  modest  cabinet  offices  and  I  also  saw 
modest  staff  provisions  so  that  at  least  there 
wasn't  that  difference  among  the  minister,  his 
deputy,  and  the  private  members  in  this 
House.  That  is  a  comparison  that  we  see.  It 
is  all  very  well  to  talk  about  what  members 
have  in  other  places,  but  we  have  to  look  at 
the  corresponding  provisions  for  staff.  That  is 
where  it  is  totally  out  of  gear  here.  I  beg 
your  pardon.  I'm  sorry,  I  didn't  catch  what 
the  minister  is  saying. 

Interjection. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  am  of  the  opinion  the 
cabinet  ministers  are  entitled  to  some  reason- 
able offices  because  of  their  position  and  be- 
cause of  the  people  with  whom  they  have  to 
meet,  but  I  resent  the  fact  that  staff  should 
be  more  important  than  members  in  the 
assembly.  I  think  that  is  the  comparison  I  am 
making.  I  wish  that  something  could  be  done 
about  the  simple  day-to-day  efficiency  of  this 
particular  ministry. 

I  drew  to  your  attention  my  request,  made 
I  believe  in  February  or  perhaps  in  March, 
to  have  someone  come  to  tear  down  these 
hanging  strips  that  your  ministry  sticks  in  my 
window  every  year  to  keep  the  wind  out. 
There  has  been  no  action.  So  when  some  of 
your  ministry  people  were  before  members' 
services,  I  asked  again.  Do  you  have  several 
branches?  Do  you  have  one  branch  in  your 
ministry  that  looks  after  a  westerly  window 
and  another  branch  that  looks  after  a 
southerly  window?  I  wonder  if  perhaps  there 
is  some  regulation.  It  seems  to  me,  as  a  very 
simple  soul,  if  they  come  in  to  tear  the  strip 
off  one  window  they  might  do  the  other 
window  at  the  same  time.  But  they  can't  do 
that.  They  did  one  window  and  I  climbed  up 
on  a  credenza  finally  to  take  the  stuff  off  the 


south  window  because  I  could  not  stand 
looking  at  it  any  more. 

It  is  the  same  thing  with  exterior  lights  at 
both  side  doors.  We  have  steps  which  are 
themselves  dark.  In  the  wintertime,  it  is  hard 
to  see  those  steps.  It  seems  to  me  the  lights 
should  be  cleaned  and  should  have  sufficient 
wattage  to  cast  light  and  not  shadow  on  those 
steps. 

I  am  not  pointing  this  out  to  be  picayune; 
I  am  pointing  it  out  to  say  I  believe  we  could 
increase  the  efficiency  around  this  place.  But 
I  would  like  very  much  to  have  the  minister 
once  more  go  over  the  meaning  of  the 
assembly,  go  over  its  purposes  and  go  over 
what  is  meant  by  the  precincts  of  the  House 
and  the  protection  of  the  privileges  of  mem- 
bers in  this  place,  so  that  he  would  under- 
stand and  perhaps  teach  those  who  do  not 
know  what  this  place  is  all  about. 

If  we  could  get  the  philosophy  accepted, 
if  we  could  get  the  Speaker  properly  in 
charge,  as  he  is  for  the  most  part  in  this 
country,  then  it  seems  to  me  we  could  work 
together.  There  would  be  that  force  speaking 
out  on  behalf  of  the  members,  and  not  always 
on  behalf  of  what  people  in  the  ministry  con- 
sider to  be  good  enough  for  members  other 
than  their  own. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
would  like  to  reply  to  some  of  the  remarks 
made  by  the  member  for  St.  George.  Per- 
haps the  member  was  not  in  the  House  when 
her  colleague  mentioned  earlier  that  he  had 
been  down,  along  with  a  couple  of  other 
colleagues,  to  visit  the  old  Ontario  Hydro 
building.  His  comments,  I  believe,  were  that 
it  probably  is  close  to  a  heritage  building, 
but  it  would  take  a  lot  of  money  to  restore 
that  and  give  us  the  energy  conservation 
that  we  look  for  in  a  building  today,  the 
utilization  of  floor  space  and  things  like  that. 
I  think  the  member  said  it  would  probably 
be  cheaper  to  tear  it  down  and  start  from 
scratch  than  it  would  to  do  the  renovations 
necessary  on  it. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  was  just  looking  at  it 
as  temporary  accommodation.  You  could  take 
one  third  out,  then  another  third  out  and 
then  the  middle  third  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  There  were  a  few  re- 
marks by  the  member  for  St.  George  and 
the  member  for  Sudbury  East  (Mr.  Martel) 
about  the  east-of-Bay  property.  But,  first, 
there  is  another  point  I  would  like  to  make 
to  the  member  for  St.  George.  There  has 
been  a  study  going  on  by  a  planner  for  the 
east-of-Bay  project,  taking  into  consideration 
possible  users   with  the  city,  with  our  own 


4558 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


people  and  so  on,  and  that  study  will  soon 
be  forthcoming. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Can  you  tell  me  how 
many  studies  have  been  done? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  This  was  one  that  is 
quite  neutral.  It  is  being  done  by  an  outside 
firm  and  we  are  all  looking  forward  to  re- 
viewing that  report  to  see  what  it  has. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  But  this  is  not  at  all  the 
type  of  local  autonomy  that  is  used  by  this 
government. 

5:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  There  have  been 
some  comments  by  a  couple  of  speakers  sug- 
gesting that  it  looks  as  though  we  are  trying 
to  steer  everybody  east  of  Bay  Street  to  get 
some  added  space  for  civil  servants,  forget- 
ting about  the  members.  I  do  not  look  at  it 
that  way.  Part  of  my  job  is  to  give  accom- 
modation to  the  ministers  and  to  try  to  do 
it  in  the  way  that  is  most  efficient. 

I  gave  a  commitment  a  while  ago  to  the 
member  for  Sudburv  East  that  we  wouM  go 
over  the  costs  with  the  Board  of  Internal 
Economv  and  the  members'  services  com- 
mittee. If  you  were  in  mv  position  you 
would  see  a  building  costing  $153  a  square 
foot  compared  to  at  least  $300  for  the  one 
the  member  for  Sudbury  East  recommend*. 
I  am  pleased  he  recommended  one  because 
until  this  point,  after  our  presentation,  it 
looked  as  if  the  presentation  had  fallen  on 
deaf  ears  and  we  were  not  getting  a  respond 
other  than  to  go  back  to  the  drafting  board. 

I  have  a  responsibilitv  to  get  space,  where 
I  can,  that  is  reasonable.  Earner  this  after- 
noon your  colleague  mentioned  we  had  min- 
istries in  different  places  within  the  citv.  I 
think  he  was  looking  at  putting  them  closer 
together  or  together  rather  than  having  them 
spread  out. 

The  member  for  St.  George  mentioned 
the  taping  around  her  windows  and  asked 
whom  you  should  call  about  it.  We  have  a 
director,  legislative  services  branch,  in  this 
building,  Mr.  Cameron,  whose  responsibility 
it  is  to  look  after  the  members.  If  you  have 
a  problem  like  that,  I  am  across  the  floor 
from  you  every  question  period  or  as  close 
as  the  telephone. 

T  would  say  to  the  members  that  next 
vear  we  are  anticipating  changing  the  win- 
dows in  the  building.  We  will  not  do  them 
all  in  one  year.  We  realize  we  are  losing 
energy  through  the  windows  and  that  you 
are  getting  drafts.  We  will  be  changing  the 
windows.  Tenders  will  go  out  early  in  the 
new  year,  probably  for  half  of  the  windows. 


The  second  half  will  be  done  the  following 
year. 

We  hope  inconvenience  to  the  members 
can  be  minimized.  We  may  have  to  move  a 
member  out  of  his  or  her  office  for  a  day  or 
two  because  we  are  going  to  take  everything 
right  out.  Hopefullv,  before  they  take  one 
out  they  will  have  the  new  one  ready  to  go 
in.  However,  we  will  be  disrupting  your 
offices,  probablv  for  a  dav  or  two.  The  win- 
dows will  be  fixed.  I  did  follow  through  on 
the  lights  the  member  mentioned.  I  followed 
it  through  the  next  day  and  I  thought  that 
had  been  corrected. 

There  was  some  indication— at  least  I  got 
that  indication— that  we  were  not  doing  any- 
thing around  this  building.  To  do  what  some 
of  the  members  have  said  and  cut  it  off  the 
building  in  wings,  while  we  are  doing  each 
section,  would  be  costly.  We  are  doing  reno- 
vations and  trving  to  upgrade  the  building. 
You  can  see  the  Amethyst  Room  and  you 
can  see  the  second  floor  which  we  have  car- 
peted. We  have  done  the  elevators  in  the 
last  year,  which  I  am  sure  is  good  for  every- 
one. Anvone  who  has  walked  across  through 
the  tunnel  knows  the  improvement  there.  As 
members,  we  saw  improvements  to  the  ante- 
rooms outside  the  Legislature.  That  has  been 
a  welcome  change.  We  even  have  a  ramp 
for  the  handicapped  to  get  into  the  Legis- 
lature. We  are  making  changes  and  we  will 
continue  to  make  changes. 

T  would  like  to  ask  the  member  for  St. 
George  if  she  would  give  me  a  little  bit  more 
of  an  idea  of  what  she  had  in  mind  for  be- 
hind the  building  because  we  would  want 
something  there  that  did  not  distract  from 
the  present  building.  If  we  tore  down  the 
present  building  under  option  two,  we  would 
trv  to  save  as  much  of  the  stone  as  possible 
from  that.  We  are  trying  to  get  additional 
^tone  that  will  match  the  Legislature,  al- 
though we  haven't  got  anv  yet.  We  would 
Hve  to  keep  as  much  of  that  as  we  could, 
veneer  it  and  cut  it  in  two  so  that  it  would 
cover  more  of  the  new  building  and  would 
be  in  keeping  with  the  age  and  character  of 
this  building.  I  would  be  interested  in  what 
the  member  has  in  mind  back  there,  either 
now  or  when  we  meet  with  the  members  to 
go  over  the  three  proposals. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Chairman,  to  re- 
spond to  the  minister,  I  did  say  that  the 
members'  services  committee  will  be  meeting 
on  Thursday.  I  have  sent  out  a  copy  of  the 
minister's  letter  to  all  members,  asking  them 
to  come  forward  with  their  proposals  in 
writing,  if  they  could  make  them.  I  trust  by 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4559 


that  time  we  will  have  a  firmer  position  as 
to  just  what  is  requested  by  the  committee 
as  a  whole. 

My  suggestion  was  simply  as  a  result  of 
a  preliminary  meeting  when  all  of  us  felt 
that  the  proposals  did  not  meet  the  needs 
of  members  and,  therefore,  we  are  prepared 
to  discuss  it.  The  minister  shall  have  that  as 
soon  as  we  have  completed  those  discussions. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  a  member 
of  the  members'  services  committee,  it  comes 
home  to  me  very  clearly  that  we  have  out- 
grown this  building.  That  is  understandable 
over  the  years  since  I  believe  we  are  ap- 
proaching the  centenary  of  this  building. 

We  do  have  members  in  very  substandard 
accommodation,  in  rooms  even  without  win- 
dows. My  colleague  to  my  right  is  one  of 
those.  We  do  have  very  many  members  who 
have  not  what  is  considered  adequate  office 
space  for  their  operations.  If  we  get  to  the 
stage,  which  I  hope  we  will  very  soon, 
where  members  are  provided  with  very 
necessary  assistance  in  the  form  of  research 
persons,  we  will  not  have  space  for  those 
research  people  as  part  of  the  members' 
offices.  It  is  obvious  we  have  outgrown  the 
building  and  if  we  want  to  operate  as  a 
modern,  efficient  Legislature,  we  do  have  to 
look  at  new  proposals. 

The  members'  services  committee  had 
three  proposals  from  Government  Services 
and  it  rejected  all  of  them.  The  main  reason 
they  rejected  them  is  that  it  appeared  they 
were  contemplating  a  patchup  and  renova- 
tion job.  I  don't  believe  a  patchup  and  reno- 
vation job  can  answer  the  modern  needs  of 
members.  That  is  what  has  been  going  on  in 
the  past.  We  moved  a  few  civil  servants  out 
of  this  building  or  out  of  an  adjacent  build- 
ing; we  took  over  space  that  was  designed 
for  completely  different  purposes;  and  we 
tried  to  patch  it  up  to  suit  members'  needs. 

It  seems  to  me  if  we  are  going  to  spend 
money  on  new  buildings— and  one  of  the 
proposals  was  a  new  civil  service  tower  east 
of  Bay— it  should  be  a  tower  designed  for 
members,  to  meet  our  specific  needs  and  to 
provide  us  with  efficient  office  space.  I  don't 
see  why  it  should  be  impossible  to  design 
such  a  tower  and  at  the  same  time  have  a 
building  that  is  compatible  with  this  building. 
I  don't  think  any  of  us  want  to  destroy  the 
park-like  setting  in  which  this  building  is 
located,  but  it  should  be  possible  for  an 
architect  to  design  a  tower  that  could  be 
attached  to  this  building  or  connected  by  a 
tunnel  which  would  fit  in  with  the  contours 
of  this  building. 


In  Europe  one  finds  legislative  buildings 
with  many  additions  that  have  been  built 
over  the  centuries  and,  somehow  or  other, 
they  do  harmonize.  One  does  not  necessarily 
get  the  same  colour  of  stone,  but  one  can 
get  buildings  that  harmonize. 
5:50  p.m. 

It  seems  to  me  if  the  ministry  does  not 
have  architects  with  enough  imagination  to 
develop  an  east  block,  a  west  block  or  maybe 
an  east  and  a  west  block  to  add  to  this 
building,  or  a  single  tower  that  could  be 
compatible,  perhaps  it  should  have  an 
architectural  competition  and  get  us  a  build- 
ing of  which  we  could  really  be  proud.  It 
might  be  a  good  idea  to  have  the  architec- 
tural competition  over  the  next  year,  so  when 
a  new  government  comes  in  after  the  election 
we  will  have  designs  for  a  building  that  is 
designed  to  meet  members'  needs.  I  hope  we 
have  that  kind  of  government  after  the  next 
election. 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  a  member 
of  some  five  years'  standing  in  this  assembly 
I  would  like  to  comment  briefly  on  some  of 
the  issues  being  dealt  with  here  by  the  min- 
ister and  the  members  for  St.  George  and 
Beaches-Woodbine. 

I  have  been  surprised  from  time  to  time, 
and  shocked  more  recently,  at  the  condition 
of  this  building  in  some  respects.  I  happen 
to  be  one  of  those  people  who  was  within  a 
couple  of  minutes  of  the  collapse  of  the  ceil- 
ing underneath  the  main  staircase.  I  noticed, 
coming  up  the  other  day,  there  is  another  big 
crease  down  the  centre  of  the  new  plaster. 
Presumably,  that  does  not  betray  any  weak- 
ness in  the  renovation.  But  it  struck  me  on 
that  occasion  just  how  in  many  ways  we  in 
this  assembly  have  allowed  this  building  to 
deteriorate  in  some  significant  measure,  not- 
withstanding the  improvements  that  have 
been  made,  which  the  minister  has  drawn  to 
our  attention.  I  think  it  important  that  every- 
thing be  done  to  highlight  the  architectural 
and  other  aspects  of  the  historic  and  working 
facility. 

This  summer  and  fall  I  spent  some  time 
travelling  in  western  Canada  and  elsewhere 
in  the  country.  I  was  impressed  by  the  relative 
condition  of  many  other  legislative  chambers. 
It  seems  to  me  our  building  does  not  stand 
the  comparison  very  well.  But  that  is,  I 
suppose,  secondary  to  my  main  point,  which 
is  this  continuingly  intolerable  condition 
whereby  the  jurisdiction  for  the  assembly  of 
the  legislative  building  is  shared  between  the 
Minister  of  Government  Services  and  the 
Speaker  of  the  House.  When  you  think  about 


4560 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


it,  that  is  ridiculous,  untenable  and  unfor- 
tunate. 

I  think  it  a  first  principle  that  a  legislative 
building  should  be  under  the  complete,  the 
absolute  and  the  undisputed  jurisdiction  of 
the  Speaker  of  the  assembly.  To  me,  that  is  a 
transparent,  unchallengeable  reality.  That  it 
is  not  so  in  this  jurisdiction  says  a  lot  about 
the  independence  of  this  Legislature.  As  I 
look  around  and  see  the  changes  that  have 
occurred  here  in  the  past  number  of  years, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  because  of  the  shared 
jurisdiction  there  continues  to  be  a  very  deter- 
mined and  quite  successful  attempt  by  some 
to  make  this  not  a  legislative  building  so 
much  as  an  executive  office  building  con- 
trolled by  the  ever-burgeoning  first  minister's 
domain,  the  lower  centre  of  which  is  located 
in  the  second  floor  of  the  east  wing. 

When  I  think  about  the  proliferation  of 
the  executive  branch,  not  in  terms  of  juris- 
diction and  influence,  which  is  quite  a  story 
in  itself,  but  in  terms  of  the  physical  plan 
here  relative  to  the  principal,  prime  intention 
of  serving  members  of  the  Legislature,  I  am 
quite  appalled.  We  have  seen  a  growth  in 
that  executive  branch  here  in  this  building 
which  I  think  is  unacceptable  in  terms  of 
the  amount  of  space  now  required  to  feed 
the  apparently  insatiable  appetite  of  the 
executive  branch. 

Let  me  say  as  well  that  I  do  not  dispute 
the  right  of  any  minister  to  have  facilities  in 
this  building.  I  think  that  is  a  right  which 
must  be  granted  to  the  Minister  of  Govern- 
ment Services,  to  the  parliamentary  assistant, 
to  the  Minister  of  Energy,  to  the  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications  or 
whatever.  I  think  they  should  have  an  op- 
portunity to  find  physical  space  to  meet  their 
legislative  requirements  here  in  this  building. 
That  does  not  mean  to  me  that  under  that 
umbrella  they  can  justify  all  or  most  of  the 
ministerial  and  executive  traffic  which  some 
see,  with  some  considerable  success  to  effect. 

I'm  shocked  when  I  look  at  the  condition 
of  some  offices  of  members  who  have  served 
here  for  20  or  25  years— the  shabby,  shoddy, 
dvsfunctional  corners  of  the  north  wing— and 
also  the  offices  of  their  staff.  I  am  a  relative- 
ly junior  member  here,  but  I  think  the  con- 
ditions which  the  members  of  my  staff  and 
the  staffs  of  the  members  for  Haldimand- 
No^folk  (Mr.  G.  I.  Miller)  and  Rainy  River 
(Mr.  T.  P.  Reid)  share  in  that  corner  of  the 
first  floor  of  the  north  wing  are  just  intoler- 


able. That  members  of  the  Legislature  of 
any  party  and  their  very  limited  staff  should 
be  relegated  to  such  a  humiliating  and,  as  I 
said,  dysfunctional  environment  is  totally  un- 
acceptable. 

As  one  member  of  the  Ontario  Legislature, 
I  resent  the  implication  that  this  assembly 
might  be  compared  with  its  equivalent  in 
Prince  Edward  Island  or  Tasmania  or  with 
Perth  county  council.  We  are,  as  I  see  it,  an 
important  legislative  assembly.  We  have  an 
extremely  important  role  to  play  in  terms  of 
our  province  and  as  full-time  members  with 
full-time  staff  assistants.  I  am  shocked  at  the 
conditions  in  which  many  members  find 
themselves,  members  of  all  parties  and  many 
with  considerable  seniority  and  standing. 
That  they  should  be  driven  into  near  hovels 
in  the  north  wing,  I  find  totally  objectional. 
At  the  same  time,  the  burgeoning  empire  of 
the  executive  branch,  in  its  multi-tiered,  car- 
peted splendour,  sprawls  ever  widely  across 
the  entirety,  it  seems,  of  the  east  wing.  I 
think  we  are  not  doing  justice  to  the  prime 
function  which  is  a  legislative  assembly 
building. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Have  you  told  the 
other  members  that? 

Mr.  Conway:  I  speak  as  a  private  member 
in  this  debate  and  I  think  the  Minister  of 
Government  Services  would  do  well  to  real- 
ize that.  But  I  find  unacceptable  the  sugges- 
tion that  members  of  the  assembly  should  be 
packaged  off  to  the  Whitney  Block  or  some 
new  complex  on  the  corner  of  Bay  and 
Welleslev  or  the  old  Hydro  building  down- 
town, while  hundreds  of  bureaucratic  min- 
ions reside   in   the  legislative  building  itself. 

Speaking  as  a  private  member,  I  want  to 
reiterate  my  concern  about  the  continuance 
of  the  shared  jurisdiction  here  between  the 
Minister  of  Government  Services  and  the 
Speaker  of  the  assembly,  a  jurisdiction  which 
I  believe  should  not  be  shared.  A  jurisdiction 
over  this  building  should  be  exclusively  in 
control  of  the  Speaker.  I  believe  the  sharing 
of  that  has  facilitated  in  a  physical  sense  the 
unacceptable  growth  in  the  executive  branch 
in  this  facility. 

I  just  wanted  to  take  this  opportunity  as 
one  private  member  to  express,  if  nothing 
else,  my  resentment  over  a  trend  which  I 
think  has  worked  against  the  better  interests 
of  individual  private  members. 

The  House  recessed  at  5:59  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980  4561 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  November  24,  1980 

Transmitting  supplementary  estimates,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  4523 

Point  of  privilege  re  report  in  Toronto  Sun:  Mr.  Williams  4523 

Speaker's    warrant    4525 

Italian  earthquake;  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Mancini,  Mr.  Di  Santo  4525 

Death  of  Jules  Leger:  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  Cassidy  4526 

Pollution  control,  statement  by  Mr.   Parrott  4527 

Rural  electrical  rates,  statement  by  Mr.  Welch  4528 

Rural  electrical  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:   Mr.   Nixon,   Mr.   MacDonald,   Mr.   J. 

Reed    4529 

Housing  authorities'  media  relations,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Nixon  4530 

Boycott  of  Ontario  goods,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Peterson  4531 

Nuclear  waste   disposal,   questions   of   Mr.    Welch:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr.    J.    Reed,    Mr. 

MacDonald     4533 

Sales  tax  exemption,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Eakins,  Ms.  Bryden  4535 

Hospital  funding,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Philip  4535 

Palmerston  property  taxes,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Epp  4536 

School  trustees'  allowances,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:   Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston,  Mr. 

Sweeney   i 4536 

Children's  Aid  Society  funding,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Blundy,  Mr.  McClellan  4537 

Drug  prescription  records,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Breaugh,  Mr.  B.  Newman  4537 

Labour  Relations  Board  rulings,  question  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Van  Home  4538 

Nursing  homes,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston,  Mr.  Conway  4538 

Fire  safety  in  nursing  homes,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  Warner  4539 

OHIP  coverage,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Conway  4540 

Report,  electrical  rates:   Mr.   Welch   4541 

Motion  re  subcommittee  meeting,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  >....  4541 

Employment  Standards  Amendment  Act,  Bill  206,  Mr.  Martel,  first  reading  4541 

Residential  Tenancies  Amendment  Act,  Bills  207  and  208,  Mr.  Philip,  first  readings  ....  4541 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  Mr.   Wiseman   4541 

Recess   4560 


4562  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC) 

Bennett,  Hon.  C.;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Blundy,  P.  (Sarnia  L) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Brunelle,  Hon.  R.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  Development  (Cochrane  North  PC) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches- Woodbine  NDP) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Di  Santo,  O.  (Downsview  NDP) 

McCague,  Hon.  G.;  Chairman  of  Management  Board;  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L) 

Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McCague,  Hon.  G.;  Chairman  of  Management  Board;  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

(Dufferin-Simcoe  PC) 
McMurtry,  Hon.  R.;  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  (Eglinton  PC) 
Newman,  B.  ( Windsor- Walkerville  L) 
Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 
Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 
Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 
Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 
Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 
Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 
Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 
Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 
Van  Home,  R.  (London  North  L) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 

Wiseman,  Hon.  D.  J.;  Minister  of  Government  Services  (Lanark  PC) 
Worton,  H.  (Wellington  South  L) 


No.  121 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Monday,  November  24, 1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears   at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can   be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4565 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF 
GOVERNMENT  SERVICES 

(continued) 

On  vote  501,  ministry  administration  pro- 
gram; item  1,  main  office: 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
member  for  Beaches-Woodbine  (Ms.  Bryden) 
asked  a  couple  of  questions  before  the  House 
recessed  at  six  o'clock. 

We  have  looked  at  her  suggestion  regard- 
ing space  out  in  front  of  the  main  building. 
In  our  opinion,  there  is  not  enough  space  to 
put  two  buildings  in  a  horseshoe  around  the 
park  at  the  front  and  still  have  the  Legislature 
look  proper  as  one  comes  up  University 
Avenue. 

She  also  mentioned  the  possibility  of  re- 
searchers. I  am  told  that  the  space  I  men- 
tioned earlier  this  afternoon,  the  32,000  addi- 
tional square  feet  that  were  needed  for  this 
building,  did  include  every  member  having 
500  square  feet,  which  would  give  enough 
room  for  a  researcher  as  well. 

The  member  for  Renfrew  North  (Mr. 
Conway)  mentioned  a  few  different  areas. 
One  was  the  plaster  on  the  ceiling  going  out 
to  the  north  wing.  I  live  in  a  plastered  house 
myself,  and  I  don't  know  how  from  seeing 
the  odd  crack  one  can  tell  when  it  is  going 
to  fall  down.  It  is  pretty  difficult.  But  I  am 
sure  he  would  agree  that  we  try  to  eliminate 
a  problem  before  it  becomes  a  disaster  as 
that  could  have  been.  The  member  said  he 
was  just  a  couple  of  minutes  away  from  being 
there  at  the  time. 

When  I  first  heard  of  this  I  asked  my 
deputy  if  anyone  had  been  hurt.  We  can  re- 
pair the  building;  the  main  thing  was  to  en- 
sure that  no  one  was  hurt  in  the  accident.  As 
far  as  a  crack  going  into  it  since  it  has  been 
up,  we  will  have  a  look  at  that.  But,  having 
lived  in  a  plastered  house,  I  know  it  is  pretty 
hard  to  eliminate  those  kinds  of  cracks.  I  am 
sure  the  member  must  see  the  odd  crack 
when  he  visits  a  friend  of  mine,  as  he  does 
occasionally,  who  lives  in  a  beautiful  old 
home  in  the  town  of  Perth.  I  am  sure  the 
judge's   wife   and   family   aren't   afraid   that 


Monday,  November  24,  1980 

plaster  is  going  to  fall  down  because  they  see 
a  crack. 

I  was  pleased  the  member  mentioned  the 
county  council  chambers  in  Perth.  I  know  we 
don't  have  the  fanciest  in  the  world,  but  I 
would  ask  the  member  some  time  to  go  and 
have  a  look.  They  did  fix  it  up,  but  it  is  not 
as  fancy  as  some  other  county  chambers  I 
myself  have  seen.  I  don't  think  he  really 
meant  some  of  the  things  he  said  about  the 
condition  of  this  building  when  he  mentioned 
that  he  had  visited  other  legislatures  across 
the  country,  as  I  mentioned  earlier  this  after- 
noon that  I  had.  Maybe  I  am  prejudiced,  but 
I  think  our  Legislature  can  stand  up  to  most 
of  them. 

Some  of  the  designs  are  a  little  different 
from  ours  but,  as  I  walked  through  the  ones 
I  visited,  I  thought  they  could  take  a  few 
lessons  from  us.  For  instance,  the  way  we 
have  our  art  displayed,  from  a  visitor's  stand- 
point as  he  comes  through  the  building,  I 
think  is  very  interesting  and  educational  for 
all  our  visitors  to  see.  When  I  was  in  the  two 
legislatures  I  mentioned,  they  seemed  cold. 
There  were  very  few  pictures,  very  few  things 
on  the  wall  that  would  interest  visitors,  other 
than  a  lot  of  marble  and  so  on. 

When  it  comes  to  members'  accommoda- 
tion, as  I  said  earlier  this  afternoon,  I  feel 
we  do  not  have  to  take  a  second  seat  to  the 
ones  I  have  seen.  That  is  not  to  say  that  in 
the  case  of  the  seven  members  we  have  in 
inner  offices  we  should  not  try  to  eliminate 
those  conditions  as  soon  as  we  can.  I  believe 
that  is  what  we  are  trying  to  do  with  the 
three  proposals  we  brought  in.  Whenever  we 
get  discussing  those  again  with  the  Board  of 
Internal  Economy  and  the  members'  services 
committee,  I  hope  we  will  end  up  with  some 
constructive  ideas  to  add  to  our  own  and 
get  on  with  the  job  of  providing  additional 
space  for  members. 

Mr.  Conway:  The  minister  has  drawn  my 
attention  and  the  attention  of  the  House  to 
a  couple  of  things  which  I  think  deserve  to 
be  responded  to  very  briefly.  I  would  appre- 
ciate some  comment  from  him  because  what 
he  had  to  say,  for  example,  about  art  is  of 
some  interest  to  me. 

Not  too  long  ago  it  was  mentioned  to  me 
that  the  rather  splendid  art  collection,  which 


4566 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


is  now  publicly  housed  in  the  halls  of  this 
particular  building,  is  in  considerable  jeopar- 
dy and  threat  as  a  result  of  little  or  no  con- 
trol. I  was  told  by  one  person,  whose  judge- 
ment on  these  matters  I  would  normally  re- 
spect, that  the  process  by  which  these  very 
valuable,  important  and  attractive  paintings 
are  allowed  to  hang  in  the  hallways  in  the 
worst  of  Toronto's  summer  humidity  without 
very  much  climate  control  will  very  seriously 
and  negatively  affect  the  quality  of  the  art 
work  over  time.  Since  the  Minister  of  Gov- 
ernment Services  brought  that  to  the  attention 
of  the  House,  I  wonder  whether  he  has  a 
view  on  the  prospect  of  problems  in  that 
connection. 

I  want  to  say  as  well  that  he  commented 
about  the  Perth  town  chambers.  It  was  a 
fault  on  my  part.  I  was  simply  suggesting 
the  Lanark  county  chambers  by  reference, 
only  to  suggest  that  we  here  in  this  legis- 
lative chamber  have  an  extremely  important 
mandate  and  jurisdiction.  To  compare  it  with 
^ther  less  immediate  points  of  reference  does 
not  serve  a  very  useful  purpose  as  far  as  I 
am  concerned. 

I  do  not  agree  with  him  and  I  just  want 
to  reiterate  my  feelings  about  the  building. 
I  was  surveying  my  own  empire  back  in  the 
north  wing  over  the  dinner  hour.  I  know 
*-\at  my  assistant  would  be  angry  if  she  knew 
I  was  in  one  way  or  another  invoking  her 
for  part  of  this  debate,  but  the  conditions  in 
which  those  three  assistants  are  forced  to 
manage  in  that  particular  part  of  this  build- 
ing are  intolerable. 

One  imagines  the  executive  washroom  at 
the  ministry  as  being  more  spacious  than  the 
entire  ante-room  of  the  three  members  in 
question  in  the  north  wing.  I  have  to  reiter- 
at3  my  disgust  at  some  of  the  conditions  that 
are  prevalent  here  as  far  as  members  are 
concerned  and  to  reiterate  my  unhappiness 
about  the  very  successful,  skilful  and  deter- 
mined efforts  by  some  to  render  this  legisla- 
tive building  not  so  much  as  a  place  for  pri- 
vate members  as  legislators  as  in  the  first  in- 
stance an  executive  office  building  to  meet 
tin  ever-growing  requirements  of  the  first 
minister. 

I  want  to  conclude  my  remarks  by  simply 
saying  again  that  I  think  much  could  be 
served  if  the  split  jurisdiction  of  this  build- 
ing could  be  ended  in  the  very  near  future 
and  the  Speaker  of  the  assembly,  represent- 
ing each  and  every  one  of  us,  could  be  given 
complete  and  absolute  control  over  a  build- 
ing which  in  most  other  cases  and  most  other 
jurisdictions,  as  I  understand  it,  is  indeed  the 


unchallenged    preserve    of    the    Speaker    as 

well. 

8:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  re- 
gard to  the  member's  remarks  on  climate 
control  and  the  protection  of  our  art,  I  think 
we  are  all  concerned  about  that.  We  have 
spent  a  lot  of  money  over  the  last  few  years 
restoring  it.  We  have  an  art  consultant  who 
has  done  a  good  job  placing  it  and  seeing 
that  it  is  properly  refinished.  As  we  said  this 
afternoon,  for  us  to  put  in  central  air  condi- 
tioning and  do  some  of  the  things  my  pre- 
decessor had  mentioned  would  necessitate 
three  phases  within  the  building  itself  and 
involve  quite  a  heavy  cost. 

Wherever  we  are  renovating  at  the  present 
time,  we  are  putting  in  a  better  system  of  air 
conditioning  than  window  units.  Millions  of 
dollars  would  have  to  be  invested,  and  there 
would  be  a  lot  of  inconvenience  to  the  mem- 
bers here  if  we  went  the  other  route.  If  we 
follow  the  proposal  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  (Mr.  Martel)  made  this  afternoon,  pro- 
posal number  two,  and  have  extra— I  believe 
it  is  147,000  square  feet,  when  we  predicted 
we  need  32,000  to  look  after  the  members— 
we  will  have  some  room  to  move  around,  if 
that  suggestion  is  supported  by  the  members 
of  the  Legislature  and  cabinet. 

Mr.  Conway:  On  that  point,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  wonder  aloud  whether  or  not  any  analysis 
or  any  cost  benefit  has  been  done  by  the  min- 
istry to  see  whether  the  cost  of  a  partially  or 
more  significantly  ruined  art  collection  has 
been  determined  as  compared  to  the  cost  of 
making  this  building  what  it  is  now  being 
asked  to  become,  that  is,  an  art  gallery.  It 
seems  to  me  if  we  are  going  to  display  what 
I  assume  are  hundreds  or  thousands  or  mil- 
lions of  dollars  worth  of  art  here  in  this  build- 
ing, then  we  have  to  at  least  consider  the 
improvements  that  go  along  with  an  art 
gallery  structure. 

Recognizing  the  cost  factor,  and  I  think  we 
are  all  sensitive  to  that,  has  any  analysis  been 
done  about  the  impact  and  the  cost  of  a  par- 
tially or  otherwise  ruined  art  collection  as  a 
result  of  long-time  exposure  to  conditions 
that  are  very  deleterious  to  the  quality  of 
the  materials? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  If  I  could  briefly  speak 
to  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  afternoon  for 
about  two  and  a  half  hours  I  heard  that  my 
number  one  concern  should  be  for  the  mem- 
bers in  this  Legislature.  I  said  a  little  while 
ago  if  we  were  to  do  this  it  would  mean  a 
three-stage  construction  and  members  would 
be  uprooted.  I  know  our  art  collection  is  im- 
portant to  us,  but  I  think  we  are  really  talk- 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4567 


ing  out  of  both  sides  of  our  mouths  if  we 
say,  in  this  case,  the  art  is  more  important 
than  the  members.  Maybe  I  didn't  hear  that 
right.  They  are  both  important,  but  I  think 
this  afternoon  the  message  I  got  was  the 
members  are  number  one. 

Mr.  Conway:  Don't  misunderstand  me.  I 
just  wonder  aloud  whether  you  have  any 
understanding  or  any  feeling  for  the  impact 
of  displaying  very  valuable,  important  and 
historic  Ontario  and  Canadian  art  collections 
over  time  in  a  facility  that  is  not  constructed 
for  that  kind  of  display.  I  am  not  at  all  sug- 
gesting that  you  rush  out  immediately  and 
spend  vast  sums  of  money.  What  I  am  won- 
dering about  is  the  potential  impact  of  ruining 
the  art  collection  by  housing  it  in  a  place  that 
is  not  constructed  for  such  a  display. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  We  will  look  into  the 
member's  suggestion. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  just  a 
couple  of  things.  Perhaps  I  missed  it  along 
the  way,  but  I  am  wondering  whether  the 
minister  said  he  is  now  prepared  to  relinquish 
those  parts  of  the  building  at  present  under 
the  control  of  the  Ministry  of  Government 
Services  to  the  Speaker  of  the  assembly.  Is 
that  what  you  mentioned  in  your  response? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  No. 

Mr.  Warner:  Is  there  any  particular  reason 
why  you  are  not  prepared  to  do  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  feel  very  much  like 
my  predecessors.  I  feel  it  is  working  quite 
well  the  way  it  is.  Some  members  don't 
agree  but  I  happen  to  feel  it  is.  I  guess  it 
really  boils  down  to  your  view  against  mine, 
but  I  think  there  are  pros  and  cons  and  I 
think  the  members  are  well  looked  after 
with  the  Ministry  of  Government  Services 
looking  after  the  portion  as  at  present. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  understand  clearly  now. 
The  double  standard  will  prevail:  the  higher 
standard  for  the  government  members  and 
particularly  ministers,  and  the  lower  standard 
for  the  rest  of  the  members  of  the  assembly. 
I  object  to  that  and  I  will  continue  to  object 
to  that.  Onlv  when  all  of  the  building  comes 
u.nd*r  the  direction  of  Mr.  Speaker  will  each 
of  the  members  of  the  assembly  be  treated 
equally. 

In  my  opening  remarks,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
said  I  would  like  some  discussion  on  pro- 
curement policy  and  the  minister  perhaps 
hasn't  had  a  chance  to  respond  to  that.  I  was 
wondering  if  he  could  open  up  that  discus- 
sion on  what  he  has  done  in  terms  of  a  pro- 
curement policy,  particularly  as  it  relates  to 
Ontario-based  small  businesses. 


Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 
might  be  of  interest  to  the  members  to  see 
where  the  additional  space  went  after  my 
predecessor  talked  about  space,  some  of  the 
secretariats  were  moved  out  downstairs  and 
I  became  Minister  of  Government  Services 
and  was  moved  over  to  the  Whitney  Block. 
We  have  broken  it  down  in  percentages. 
The  Legislative  Assembly  got  an  increase  of 
181  per  cent;  the  Legislative  Library  got  23 
per  cent-  the  assistant  clerks  to  the  Clerk  of 
the  House  got  31  per  cent;  the  Progressive 
Conservative  caucus  got  39;  the  Liberal  cau- 
cus got  30  per  cent  and  the  NDP  got  25  per 
cent.  I  wonder,  in  the  light  of  those  percent- 
ages, if  the  honourable  member  would  be 
better  looked  after  having  someone  else  look 
after  a  larger  portion  of  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Warner:  Come  and  visit  our  little 
closets  in  the  north  wing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  visited  there  with 
your  House  leader,  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  (Mr.  Martel),  and  I  did  make  a  com- 
mitment that  we  would  try  to  improve  the 
look  of  those  offices.  I  went  back  and  talked 
two  or  three  times  with  our  interior  decora- 
tor about  getting  the  work  done  on  those 
seven  inner  offices  and  we  didn't  get  very 
much  support  for  doing  it.  I  know  we  can't 
put  outside  windows  where  they  are,  but  I 
think  in  the  meantime,  when  we  are  talking 
about  possible  extra  space  for  members,  we 
should  have  got  some  co-operation  to  make 
those  offices  a  little  better  for  the  seven 
members.  To  my  knowledge  we  didn't  get 
that. 

Mr.  Conway:  How  do  you  propose  to 
give  them  a  window? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  That  will  be  in  the 
future,  but  a  lot  of  improvements  could 
have  been  made  with  just  a  little  bit  of  help 
from  our  interior  decorator  and  so  on. 

As  for  a  purchasing  policy,  we  don't  have 
a  buy-Ontario  policy  but  we  do  have  a  buy- 
Canada  preference  of  about  10  per  cent.  We 
do  not  have  one  province  to  province. 
8:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  per- 
haps the  minister  misunderstood  my  ques- 
tion. What  I  wanted  to  know  is  whether  the 
ministry  has  a  firm  policy  with  respect  to 
small  businesses  situated  in  Ontario;  that  is, 
do  they  get  preferential  treatment  in  any  way? 
Do  you  make  sure  the  first  opportunity  for 
tendering  for  a  Ministry  of  Government  Ser- 
vices project  goes  to  Ontario Jbased  small 
businesses,  ahead  of  foreign-owned  companies 
or  large  corporations?  That  is  really  what  I 
was    asking.    Do   you  have   some   guideline, 


4568 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


policy    or    some    preferential    treatment    for 
Ontario-based  small  businesses? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  any 
small  business  that  writes,  which  is  not 
already  on  our  list,  asking  to  tender  when 
tenders  come  up  is  added  to  the  list.  Many  of 
the  members  opposite  have  written  to  me 
asking  if  So-and-so  could  be  put  on  our 
tendering  list,  and  this  has  always  been  done. 
In  that  way  we  try  to  include  the  small 
businesses.  As  you  know  now,  we  have  even 
gone  to  paying  interest.  We  hope  there  are 
not  too  many  overdue  accounts,  but  to  help 
all  businesses,  not  just  small  businesses,  if 
there  is  a  case  where  we  have  not  paid  in  the 
allotted  time,  we  pay  the  interest  on  that 
account.  They  do  have  a  chance  to  take  a 
business  approach.  Being  a  businessman  my- 
self, you  have  to  put  your  own  foot  forward 
and  at  least  apply  and  say  you  are  interested 
in  government  work,  if  and  when  it  comes 
up,  and  that  you  are  willing  to  tender  for  it. 

Mr.  Warner:  There  seems  to  be  a  little 
communication  problem,  Mr.  Chairman.  If  I 
am  correct,  in  the  United  States  of  America 
there  is  a  policy  of  the  federal  government 
in  the  country  that  a  certain  percentage  of 
government  contracts  which  go  up  for  tender 
will  be  restricted  to  small  business  operations 
by  their  definition  of  small  business.  What  I 
would  like  to  know  is  whether  or  not  this 
government  has  a  policy  that  a  certain  per- 
centage of  the  work  that  it  puts  out  for 
tender  from  the  Ministry  of  Government  Ser- 
vices will  be  designated  for  small  business, 
preferably  Ontario-based,  but  beyond  that, 
Canadian-based.  In  that  way  there  is  some 
guarantee  that  the  small  businesses,  by  our 
definition  of  small  business,  will  be  guaran- 
teed some  percentage  of  the  business  with 
the  Ontario  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  55  to 
60  per  cent  of  our  purchases  are  made  from 
small  businesses.  This  happens  because  out  in 
the  regions  the  directors  up  to  a  certain  level 
can  buy  locally,  and  do.  So  again  being  a 
small  businessman,  that  percentage  looks 
pretty  good  to  me. 

Mr.  Warner:  But  there  is  no  guideline. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  do  not  know.  I  have 
met  with  my  federal  colleagues  and  my  other 
provincial  colleagues.  I  have  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  meet  with  them  twice,  in  New 
Brunswick  last  year  and  this  year  in 
Winnipeg.  Many  of  these  things  were  dis- 
cussed, but  I  do  not  recall  any  of  them  ever 
saying  they  had  guidelines  similar  to  what 
you  have  mentioned.  Perhaps  they  do,  but  I 
am  not  aware  that  they  ever  spoke  about  it. 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  make  a  few  comments  to  the  minister 
and  elicit  his  consideration  of  the  recom- 
mendations or  suggestions  I  would  make  to 
him. 

In  the  first  instance,  Mr.  Minister,  have 
you  given  any  consideration  at  all,  in  the 
period  you  have  been  the  Minister  of  Gov- 
ernment Services,  to  updating  the  method 
of  voting  in  this  House?  We  rise,  we  bow 
to  the  Speaker  and  we  go  through  that  tor- 
tuous routine.  Maybe  it  is  not  tortuous;  maybe 
it  is  good  for  us  from  the  physical  fitness 
point  of  view. 

When  one  goes  to  the  various  states  in 
the  United  States  and  sees  the  method  they 
use  in  their  legislative  chambers,  one  wonders 
whether  we  are  going  to  stay  in  the  fifteenth 
century  or  whether  we  are  going  to  move 
into  the  nineteenth  century  and  hopefully 
the  twentieth  or  twenty-first  century. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  have  been  listening  to 
the  honourable  member  and  I  feel  this  comes 
under  the  standing  orders  rather  than  this 
particular  ministry. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  If  you  want  to  rule  me 
out  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  quite  all 
right.  I  will  make  a  different  type  of  com- 
ment. 

It  concerns  improvements  to  the  building 
itself.  Is  the  minister  considering  the  pro- 
vision of  an  area  in  the  building  for  the 
fitness  of  members?  I  can  recall  being  on  a 
committee  that  looked  into  it  years  ago  when 
the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and1  Food  (Mr. 
Henderson)  was  the  Minister  of  Government 
Services.  Also,  in  the  last  several  years,  the 
member  for  Armourdale  (Mr.  McCaffrey) 
chaired  a  committee  that  looked  into  the 
provision  of  fitness  facilities  for  the  mem- 
bers. What  has  happened  to  the  studies  and 
recommendations  made  concerning  that? 

May  I  have  your  answers  to  the  few  ques- 
tions I  have  asked? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  am  told  my  prede- 
cessors looked  into  that  and  checked  it  out 
with  the  Management  Board  of  Cabinet,  but 
we  were  never  able  to  get  financing  for  that. 
I  know  the  honourable  member  exercises  reg- 
ularly himself.  Perhaps,  as  we  look  across 
and  see  we  all  have  a  little  tighter  fit  to  the 
suit,  something  like  this  would  be  really  good. 

Over  the  supper  hour,  I  was  talking  to 
one  or  two  of  the  staff  who  jog  every  day. 
My  deputy  minister  does  his  regular  exer- 
cises. I  do  not  know  whether  he  is  trying  to 
tell  me  that  as  minister  I  should  be  doing 
the  same. 

It  would  be  nice  to  have  that  to  keep  us 
all  fit  but,  at  the  present  time,  I  am  told, 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4569 


Management  Board  has  not  seen  fit  to  grant 
us  the  money  for  that.  The  other  reason  may 
be  space  in  the  building.  Perhaps  when  we 
get  settled  on  where  we  are  going  as  far  as 
the  three  proposals  are  concerned,  something 
like  that  might  be  looked  at  in  the  future. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  the  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville  finished? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  That  is  all.  I  cannot  get 
answers  anyway. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I  would  like  to  put  my  spoke 
into  the  wheel  on  that  same  subject  for  a 
moment  or  two.  The  number  of  pear-shaped 
individuals  around  here  is  atrocious.  It  is  dif- 
ficult to  contend  with  this.  As  far  as  I  can 
see,  there  is  hardly  a  single  healthy  or  Atlas- 
like figure  in  the  whole  lot. 

While  I  do  not  think  I  will  be  here  to 
enjoy  it,  you,  as  minister,  can  do  a  great 
service  to  this  assembly  by  having  some  rela- 
tively inexpensive  room  in  the  building  for 
that  purpose  with  a  couple  of  machines  and 
a  bicycle.  We  do  not  need  a  track  or  a  pool; 
we  just  need  a  few  contraptions.  You  supply 
them  in  abundance  to  every  high  school  in 
the  province,  but  we  do  not  seem  to  be  able 
to  get  one  here. 

We  could  take  an  hour  or  two  off  or  slip 
in  between  committee  meetings,  et  cetera, 
and  have  a  spurt  of  exercise.  It  is  enor- 
mously valuable,  stimulating  and  even  makes 
the  brain  work  on  occasion. 

As  I  remember,  there  were  gestures  towards 
Hart  House  at  the  University  of  Toronto  for 
all  of  us  to  take  out  membership  in  those 
facilities.  Some  members  of  this  House  al- 
ready belong  and  play  squash  and  other 
games  there.  In  our  caucus,  I  remember 
signing  a  document  in  a  sense  petitioning  for 
this  particular  scheme.  I  think  it  was  found 
to  be  unduly  expensive,  taking  out  that  kind 
of  membership  for  all  members  of  the  House, 
particularly  when  some  might  not  use  it,  so 
it  came  to  naught. 

8:30  p.m. 

There  is  a  lot  of  emphasis  on  health  and 
health  facilities  these  days  with  people  be- 
ing toned  up  and  the  sight  of  all  the  walkers 
on  the  landscape.  None  of  them  are  col- 
leagues of  mine,  so  far  as  I  can  see.  Very 
few  of  them  even  take  bicycles,  like  certain 
former  mayors  of  Toronto,  as  a  kind  of  exem- 
plary exercise  to  show  us  what  a  bunch  of 
slouchers  we  are. 

In  the  future,  while  I  fall  into  desuetude 
and  begin  to  decline  into  a  sedentary  life, 
as  I  trust  it  will  be,  I  think  you  can  give 
some  stimulation  to  this  place— God  knows, 
something    is    necessary— and    open    a    small 


gym  in  a  room  downstairs  somewhere.  Sure- 
ly there  are  areas  in  that  basement  which 
are  not  being  utilized.  It  may  even  have  the 
beneficial  effect,  instead  of  them  talking  so 
much,  of  actually  getting  rid  of  some  of  that 
excess  energy  in  a  purely  positive  way,  lift- 
ing all  our  burdens  including  that  of  the 
flesh. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
would  say  yes  right  off  the  bat  if  I  was  sure 
the  last  statement  from  the  member  for 
Lakeshore  was  correct.  I  refer  to  the  remark 
that  if  we  had  regular  exercise  in  the  gym, 
it  would  get  rid  of  a  lot  of  the  extra  talking 
—we  would  wear  it  off  in  the  gym  instead 
of  in  here  or  other  places.  Even  although  I 
look  a  little  overweight  I  try  to  get  exercise 
on  weekends  so  I  am  not  opposed  to  it.  We 
will  look  at  it,  although  we  can't  move  very 
far  without  money  from  Management  Board. 
But  we  will  look  into  it  and  see  what  can 
be  done. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  There  is  just  one  further  sen- 
tence: I  always  used  to  think  the  most  bene- 
ficial thing  about  election  campaigns  was  the 
loss  of  avoirdupois  at  the  end  of  the  cam- 
paign. We  can  always  lose  20  pounds,  so  the 
more  campaigns  the  better. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  pursue  this  problem.  The  first  speech 
I  ever  made  in  this  House  back  in  1960  was 
based  on  fitness.  The  government  promised 
to  act  on  that  but  never  has. 

I  cannot  understand  where  we  would 
spend  $600,000  to  try  to  convince  people  not 
to  smoke  and  then  we  ourselves,  as  members, 
cannot  convince  the  minister  and  his  govern- 
ment to  put  aside  some  small  portion  or  some 
small  area  in  this  building  and  the  minimum 
amount  of  equipment.  I  just  don't  under- 
stand what  is  wrong  with  you  people.  Is  the 
minister  not  concerned  for  the  health  and 
welfare  of  his  own  colleagues? 

Mr.  Chairman,  can  I  have  an  assurance 
from  the  minister  that  he  will  pursue  this 
with  his  cabinet  colleagues  so  that  maybe 
in  the  twenty-first  century,  if  not  in  the  im- 
mediate future,  something  will  be  done  in 
here? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
think  I  said  I  would  look  into  it.  I  am  just 
as  concerned  as  all  the  members  in  the 
House  and  as  my  colleagues  over  there.  I 
like  to  see  those  smiling  faces  on  the  other 
side  too.  Perhaps  if  we  exercised,  from  what 
the  member  for  Lakeshore  said,  we  would 
have  a  happier,  healthier  House.  We  will 
look  into  it— perhaps  for  the  clerks  as  well. 


4570 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  guess  as  a 
pear-shaped  contraption  who  has  come  here 
a  little  more  recently  from  the  world  outside, 
I  would  like  to  return  briefly  to  the  state  of 
this  building.  I  get  a  fair  bit  of  exercise  run- 
ning around  the  north  wing  of  this  building. 

Certainly,  there  are  very  serious  space 
problems,  and  some  of  those  have  already 
been  touched  on.  They  are  space  problems  to 
the  extent  that  when  a  parliamentary  intern 
decides  she  wishes  to  come  and  work  in  my 
office  for  two  or  three  months  we  literally 
have  to  find  room  in  a  broom  closet  because 
there  is  nowhere  else.  The  space  problem  is 
so  serious  that  when,  simultaneously,  a  social 
work  student  from  my  riding  wants  to  spend 
as  little  as  one  day  a  week  working  in  my 
office  to  find  out  how  this  place  works  and 
what  we  do  here,  there  is  absolutely  nowhere 
for  her  to  sit  except  by  sharing  a  desk  with 
my  assistant. 

But  space  problems  aside,  the  back  end  of 
this  building  is  positively  seedy.  It  is  so  bad 
it  would  not  be  accepted  in  any  business, 
nonprofit  organization,  local  government  or 
anything  else.  It  would  not  be  accepted  any- 
where else. 

To  start  from  the  bottom  and  move  up,  we 
have  a  carpet  that  has  holes  in  it.  It  has 
patches  of  black  plastic  stuck  over  it  to  repair 
the  holes.  There  are  cigarette  burns  all  over 
the  place.  Last  week,  along  every  join  in  the 
carpet,  were  little  strips  of  invisible  Scotch 
tape.  It  is  invisible  when  you  put  it  on  paper 
but  it  looks  terrible  when  you  put  it  on  the 
carpet.  This  week  they  put  strips  of  the  black 
plastic  Scotch  tape  you  buy  from  Canadian 
Tire  along  every  join  in  the  carpet. 

Then  we  move  up  to  the  walls.  The  walls 
are  yellowing.  I  should  not  say  this  with  my 
colleagues  around  but  I  guess  I  have  become 
used  to  offices  that  do  not  have  windows.  I 
am  prepared,  temporarily,  to  put  up  with  the 
fact  that  there  is  not  a  window  in  my  office, 
but  when  you  look  at  the  dirty,  yellowing 
walls  that  have  nail  holes,  pin  holes  and 
everything  all  over  them  you  have  to  wonder 
what  kind  of  place  this  is. 

Then  you  look  at  the  furniture.  The  method 
by  which  your  ministry  provides  furniture  to 
members  opposite,  Mr.  Minister,  is  just  in- 
credible. 

I  do  not  know  whether  you  ever  tried  to 
get  a  bookshelf,  but  three  weeks  ago,  because 
of  the  burgeoning  volume  of  paper  in  my 
office,  I  decided  it  was  appropriate  to  try  to 
obtain  another  bookshelf  in  order  to  hold 
some  of  the  paper.  It  might  have  been  better 
to  throw  some  of  it  out  but  I  decided  that  a 
little  bit  of  what  the  government  puts  out  is 
worth  keeping  so  we  can  throw  it  back  at  you 


when  the  time  comes.  Mr.  Minister,  you 
would  not  believe  the  hassle  you  go  through. 
The  bookshelf  arrived  right  enough,  but  the 
shelf  that  goes  in  the  middle  was  two  inches 
too  short.  After  some  phone  calls  and  the  like, 
they  took  it  away  and  brought  another  one 
that  is  three  inches  too  short.  To  this  day  I 
have  a  bookshelf  with  a  centre  shelf  that  is 
three  inches  too  short,  and  it  wont  stay  up. 
It  is  useless. 

That  is  just  one  example,  Mr.  Minister.  We 
have  tried  from  time  to  time  to  get  bits  and 
pieces  of  furniture  repaired  or  replaced  when 
problems  arise.  There  are  always  those  kinds 
of  problems. 

Then  we  come  to  the  ceiling,  which  is 
yellowing.  Around  every  one  of  the  air  vents 
in  the  ceiling  there  is  a  big  black  mark  where 
the  soot  that  has  come  out  of  the  air  ducts 
has  deposited  itself  on  the  ceiling. 

I  am  prepared  to  accept  that  we  do  not 
need  plush  offices  like  those  of  the  chairman 
of  Imperial  Oil,  or  even  plush  offices  like 
those  of  some  of  the  aldermen  in  the  city  of 
Hamilton.  But  I  do  think  there  is  a  respon- 
sibility on  the  government  of  the  province  to 
make  sure  the  place  does  not  look  like  a 
dump,  so  that  when  our  constituents  come  to 
see  us— some  of  whom  may  not  even  be  our 
supporters;  Tories  do  come  and  talk  to  me 
occasionally— and  they  look  at  the  surround- 
ings, they  won't  have  to  think  to  themselves, 
"What  kind  of  a  place  is  this?" 

I  hope  you  will  really  try  to  find  a  way  of 
at  least  cleaning  up  the  area  that  is  there  now 
so  we  can  feel  comfortable  in  it,  instead  of 
feeling  we  have  to  cower  in  the  corner  and 
keep  blaming  the  mess  on  your  government. 

8:40  p.m. 

I  want  to  touch  on  one  other  matter  that 
relates  to  the  building.  That  is  the  problem 
of  energy  conservation.  Does  the  minister 
know  that  every  single  night  of  the  week 
in  the  north  wing  the  janitor  comes  around, 
opens  all  the  doors,  turns  on  all  the  lights 
and  leaves  those  lights  on  from  6  p.m.,  when 
he  comes  around,  until  11  p.m.  or  midnight 
when  he  comes  around  to  lock  up  the  doors? 
Every  single  night,  every  office  light  in  the 
north  wing  is  burning  regardless  of  whether 
the  member  is  in  the  building.  I  have  talked 
to  him  about  this  and  he  is  a  very  reasonable 
and  likeable  man.  He  assures  me  this  is  the 
instruction  he  has  received,  that  he  is  required 
to  come  around  every  night  and  to  turn  all 
the  lights  on  and  to  leave  them  on  for  the 
entire  evening. 

I  see  other  examples  as  I  walk  around  this 
building  in  the  evenings,  where  lights  are  left 
on  unnecessarily,  where  energy  is  wasted  un- 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4571 


necessarily.  I  hope  the  minister  will  look  into 
that  and  find  a  way  whereby  we  in  this  House 
can  set  an  example  in  energy  conservation, 
instead  of  being  seen  to  be  wasting  it  in  an 
unnecessary  and  inappropriate  fashion.  I  say 
to  him,  please  make  this  place  a  little  more 
habitable  than  it  is  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  many  of 
the  areas  that  the  honourable  member  has 
mentioned  really  come  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Speaker  and  the  Board  of  Internal 
Economy.  I  think  if  he  talks  to  his  representa- 
tive, his  House  leader,  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East  and  mentions  the  furniture  and 
this  sort  of  thing,  he  will  probably  get  it 
corrected. 

As  to  the  paint,  when  work  needs  to  be 
done  in  that  area,  if  we  are  requested  to  do  it, 
we  will.  We  try  on  a  rotating  basis  to  paint 
the  different  areas.  I  did  say  earlier  this  after- 
noon, perhaps  the  member  was  not  here,  that 
in  regard  to  the  seven  inner  offices,  I  made  a 
commitment  when  I  went  around  with  his 
House  leader  and  I  believe— maybe  not  the 
leader  of  the  Liberal  Party,  but  some  rep- 
resentative was  there- 
Mr.  Nixon:  To  paint  windows  on  inner 
offices. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  mentioned  that,  not 
to  make  windows,  but  to  put  in  artificial  win- 
dows or  something  to  spruce  them  up  a  little 
for  you.  At  that  time,  we  did  not  receive,  or 
our  interior  decorator  did  not  receive,  very 
much  co-operation. 

The  member  was  talking  to  me  about  all 
those  cigarette  burns.  I  do  not  smoke,  but  it 
must  be  people  in  the  offices  who  tramp  them 
into  the  floor,  or  visitors.  I  am  sure  it  is  not 
the  Minister  of  Government  Services  who  is 
doing  that.  Perhaps  a  little  discipline  within 
the  area  would  get  away  from  those  cigarette 
burns. 

As  far  as  the  lights  go,  when  I  was  in  the 
north  wing  there  was  quite  a  hullabaloo,  even 
by  myself  when  I  came  in  at  night.  Whether 
the  House  is  sitting  or  not,  most  members  still 
work  in  their  offices,  at  crazy  times  maybe,  or 
so  our  constituents  would  think.  Some  of  them 
think  we  have  very  short  hours,  but  we  all 
know  they  are  quite  long.  You  can  come 
over  here  at  different  times  and  see  members 
using  those  offices. 

I  think  the  lights  are  on  to  make  sure  those 
members  who  are  coming  in  or  are  there  are 
not  having  to  walk  out  through  the  halls  in 
the  dark,  or  come  into  a  dark  office.  After  all, 
we  do  have  some  ladies  in  all  of  our  caucuses, 
and  it  may  not  just  be  the  ladies  who  are 
nervous  in  the  dark.  Some  of  the  rest  of  us 
cannot  find  our  way  around  as  well.  I  know 


when  I  was  there,  somebody  would  turn  the 
lights  off  and  you  would  hear  a  holler  from 
one  of  the  offices,  "Turn  those  lights  on,"  and 
a  few  adjectives  sometimes  that  did  not  fit 
the  occasion. 

For  the  honourable  member  to  know  what 
we  are  doing  in  energy  conservation  or  other 
areas,  we  are  trying  to  help.  I  think  he  was 
out  of  the  House  this  afternoon  when  I  men- 
tioned that  next  year  we  will  be  starting  out 
on  changing  all  our  windows  in  the  building 
and  it  will  be  a  two-year  program.  As  some 
of  the  honourable  members  mentioned,  a 
draught  is  coming  in  around  some  of  the 
windows.  In  the  north  wing  you  have  a  newer 
section  so  it  is  not  as  draughty  as  in  some, 
other  parts  in  the  front.  We  will  have  the 
windows  replaced  next  year  and  in  the  follow- 
ing year. 

I  think  I  have  covered  most  of  the  areas. 
The  member  should  approach  his  House 
leader  and  the  Board  of  Internal  Economy 
about  some  of  the  problems  he  mentioned. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  re- 
spond to  a  couple  of  items.  With  regard  to 
artificial  windows,  forget  that.  I  really  don't 
need  to  be  fooled,  thank  you  very  much. 

On  the  matter  of  lights,  I  recognize  there 
may  be  some  members  who  would  prefer  to 
come  into  lighted  offices  if  they  know  they 
are  going  to  be  coming  back  later  in  the 
evening.  But  it  really  irks  me  to  leave  my 
office  at  5:30  p.m.  or  6  p.m.,  deliberately  to 
turn  the  light  out,  as  I  always  do,  only  to 
come  back  later  in  the  evening  and  find  the 
light  has  been  turned  on  because  the  janitor 
or  security  person  has  been  instructed  to  turn 
all  the  lights  on. 

That  seems  to  me  to  be  an  absurd  waste. 
I  would  draw  the  minister's  attention  to  the 
"Save"  program  that  has  been  implemented 
bv  the  University  of  Toronto,  one  of  whose 
offices  I  used  to  occupy.  There  the  "Save" 
sticker,  put  on  a  light  switch,  means,  "Don't 
turn  it  on  unless  you  need  it  turned  on."  It 
is  a  very  good  program,  one  I  would  com- 
mend to  the  minister's  attention  for  possible 
implementation  in  this  building. 

There  was  one  other  matter  I  intended 
to  mention  but  which  I  forgot  as  I  talked 
about  the  state  of  the  building.  I  will  be 
very  brief.  It  relates  to  the  state  of  the  win- 
dows, particularly  the  very  large  window 
located  on  the  north  staircase  of  this  build- 
ing, at  the  far  north  end  over  the  north  door. 
Every  time  I  go  out  of  that  doorway  I  look 
up  and  look  out  through  the  window,  seeing 
the  sun,  or  the  stars  or  the  clouds  and  every 
time  my  immediate  reaction  is  that  it  is 
snowing  outside.   That  window  hasn't  been 


4572 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


cleaned  in  37  years  and  there  is  a  large 
population  of  pigeons  living  out  there.  It's 
a  real  mess.  Perhaps  the  minister  could  take 
a  look  at  that  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  have  lived  and  still 
live  on  a  farm.  I'm  sure  the  honourable 
member  opposite  knows  pigeons  do  gather 
and,  if  that  window  is  washed  on  Monday, 
by  the  weekend  it  could  be  that  way  again. 
I  can  say  without  even  checking  that  it  has 
been  washed  in  the  last  37  years,  but  we'll 
check  it  again. 

We  did  have  a  problem  at  the  front  of  the 
building.   We  think  we  have  corrected  that. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  They've  all  moved  to  the 
back. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  One  would  think 
they  were  taking  target  practice. 

On  the  matter  of  lighting,  I  listened  all 
afternoon  to  people  telling  me  whom  I 
should  be  putting  first— and  that  was  the 
members.  Is  it  more  important  for  a  member 
to  come  into  his  or  her  office  and  have  it  lit 
than  to  have  what  the  member  for  Went- 
worth  mentioned?  I  heard  this  afternoon 
from  someone  that  one  of  his  staif  had  trip- 
ped or  fallen.  I  think  it  was  over  a  rug,  but 
it  could  have  been  in  the  dark. 

I've  been  through  the  building  fairly  late 
at  night  at  different  times  and  it  is  seldom 
that  as  one  comes  in  the  east  door  one  does 
not  see  that  there  are  a  fair  number  of  mem- 
bers here,  even  on  weekends. 

We  can  look  into  it,  if  that  is  really  the 
member's  wish,  but  I  have  been  told  again 
this  afternoon  to  look  after  the  members 
and  that  is  what  I  feel  we  are  doing  in  this 
instance. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  know  you  would  agree  with 
me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  is  a  very  stimu- 
lating debate.  Almost  every  comment  back 
and  forth  makes  one  think  of  something  one 
would  like  to  contribute. 

I  was  actually  afraid  that,  in  the  tem- 
porary absence  of  the  member  for  St.  George 
(Mrs.  Campbell),  who  is  busy  about  the 
affairs  of  her  constituency  this  evening,  her 
point  of  view  would  not  be  adequately  put 
forward.  Having  heard  the  member  for  Ren- 
frew North,  I  need  not  have  feared.  I  had 
not  actually  realized  his  accommodation  was 
so  bad.  I  had  the  office  right  next  to  it, 
which  was  a  bit  bigger  than  his,  since  I  was 
a  bit  senior.  I  can  see  it  would  be  inade- 
quate under  many  circumstances. 

8:50  p.m. 

But  I  tell  you,  I  have  difficulty  in  sup- 
porting my  colleague,  and  not  just  the  mem- 
ber for  Renfrew  North  but  others  who  have 


spoken  about  office  accommodation.  I  will 
have  more  to  say  about  it,  but  my  experience 
here  is,  the  better  the  offices,  the  fewer 
people  participate  in  this  House.  I  am  not 
sure  what  the  correlation  is  but  when  you 
have  an  air-conditioned  office,  and  they  are 
air-conditioned  in  the  north  wing,  and  you 
have  easy  telephone  access  to  your  constitu- 
ency, which  is  not  true  for  all  constituencies 
but  is  for  some,  there  is  a  tendency  to  make 
what  you  call  "one  more  call." 

Mind  you,  even  an  important  subject,  a 
gripping  subject  of  provincial  importance  of 
the  type  we  are  discussing  tonight,  you  can 
see  does  not  command  the  attendance  and 
attention  of  the  number  of  members  one 
would  expect.  Even  on  the  government  side 
there  are  a  few  empty  seats  on  an  occasion 
such  as  this.  It  has  to  concern  us.  Frankly, 
it  does  concern  me,  I  say  most  seriously, 
when  we  have  the  kind  of  debates  where 
any  reasonable  person  would  expect  all  mem- 
bers to  attend  if  possible.  I  am  talking  about 
the  inauguration  of  constitutional  debates 
and  certain  of  the  estimates  and  certain  bills 
that  really  are  of  provincial  importance.  Still, 
we  have  somehow  conditioned  ourselves  that 
other  things,  whatever  they  are,  are  impor- 
tant. 

It  is  almost  like  employees  who  have  two 
jobs.  It  never  works  because  they  are  never 
at  either  place  and  each  boss  expects  they 
are  at  the  other  job.  I  do  not  make  that  very 
clear,  but  when  we  defend  ourselves  against 
the  criticisms  that  come  from  the  gallery, 
when  our  friends  and  constituents  come  in 
and  say,  "I  did  not  see  you  in  your  seat," 
or,  "My  God,  there  were  a  lot  of  empty  seats 
and  there  was  even  one  member  reading  a 
newspaper,"— of  all  heinous  things  to  do— we 
have  to  explain  to  everybody  that  we  are 
extremely  busy.  As  the  member  has  already 
said,  we  work  far  into  the  night  and  often  on 
the  weekends  there  are  a  number  of  com- 
mittees functioning.  We  all  know  how  valid 
and  invalid  those  reasons  are. 

In  my  view,  the  excellence  of  office  accom- 
modation leads  members  more  and  more  to 
become  servants  of  their  constituents,  which 
obviously  we  are,  rather  than  legislators, 
which  too  few  of  us  tend  to  be.  While  we 
all  pride  ourselves  in  being  able  to  contribute 
to  a  debate  such  as  this,  even  without  elab- 
orate preparation,  still  it  seems  to  me  we 
tend  to  forget  that  our  first  responsibility  is 
to  be  in  here  arguing  about  different  points 
of  view  and  putting  forward  an  alternative 
on  a  political  basis.  I  think  that  has  to  be 
the  most  important  thing.  After  all,  we  are 
provided  with  constituency  offices  and  secre- 
taries here  and  there  and  all  our  phone  bills 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4573 


are  paid.  We  have  people  to  deal  with  a  good' 
many  of  the  routine  matters. 

A  lot  of  the  very  wise  members,  particu- 
larly those  who  have  survived,  know  when 
they  deal  with  those  matters  themselves  and 
it  is  their  voice  on  the  phone  and  their  sig- 
nature on  the  letter,  with  copies  to  all  and 
sundry  who  might  even  be  remotely  inte- 
rested in  the  subject,  that  that  is  the  way  to 
maintain  the  kind  of  service  that  all  people 
really  appreciate. 

So  I  return  to  the  point:  the  more  elab- 
orate our  facilities  are  as  individual  members 
to  do  that  part  of  the  work,  the  more  our 
duties  as  members  in  this  House  suffer.  I 
simply  put  that  point  and  I  find  I  am  a  bit 
torn.  As  the  honourable  minister  knows  and 
the  member  for  Renfrew  North  knows,  I  have 
a  satisfactory  office,  very  close  to  the  House. 
It  is  not  that  big  but  it  is  big  enough.  As  I 
look  out  through  the  enormous  window  all 
I  can  see  is  the  new  headquarters  for  Ontario 
Hydro.  If  you  know  anything  about  my 
political  background,  you  know  it  keeps  me 
humble. 

I  am  well  provided  for  and  many  members 
are  reasonably  well  provided  for.  Whoever 
built  and  designed  the  north  wing,  except 
for  its  facade  or  outer  structure,  did  not  do 
us  a  service.  The  fact  that  they  even  put  it 
on  a  different  level  with  the  original  plan 
was  a  mistake— I  will  not  say  a  stupid  mis- 
take, because  there  might  have  been  reasons 
-^but  we  feel  we  are  going  up  and  down 
stairs  all  the  time.  The  honourable  member 
talks  about  the  crummy  carpet  and  dirty 
walls.  All  those  things  are  true.  A  few  years 
ago  there  was  a  massive  renovation,  but  the 
place  looked  third  rate  right  away. 

I  worry  about  that  a  little  bit,  but  I  also 
worry  about  the  grand  luxury  of  ministers' 
offices.  I  don't  know  whether  it  ever  occurs 
to  you,  when  you  wade  through  the  broad- 
loom  and  sink  in  the  executive  vibrating 
chair  with  the  big  back  that  almost  curls 
around  your  ears,  that  it  is  really  a  bit  much, 
a  bit  ridiculous.  I  just  put  it  to  you.  I  don't 
spend  a  lot  of  time  in  ministers'  offices,  thank 
goodness.  When  I  get  into  one,  of  course, 
I  will  have  it  replaced  with  nothing  but 
sackcloth  and  ashes,  and  I  look  forward  to 
having  the  opportunity  to  do  that,  but  I  do 
think  you  and  your  colleagues,  in  competing 
one  with  the  other  for  the  very  last  word  in 
luxury  and  services,  are  becoming  a  little  bit 
close  to  the  border  of  the  area  marked 
"ridiculous."  I  just  advise  you,  that  is  one 
member's  opinion. 

I  want  to  say  something  about  the  build- 
ing and  particularly  this  chamber.  I  think 
this  is  a  gorgeous  chamber. 


Mr.  Haggerty:  Except  for  those  television 
lights.  Shoot  them  out. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Well,  there  are  a  few  things 
that  bother  me,  but  it  really  is  a  grand 
chamber.  I  don't  think  anybody  ever  comes 
in  here  but  that  he  or  she  feels  it  is  an  im- 
pressive and  suitable  centre  for  the  meeting 
of  this  assembly.  It  is  much  lighter  than  it 
used  to  be,  the  paintwork  and  so  on  is  all 
good,  the  lighting  has  been  improved,  but 
those  of  us  who  do  spend  some  time  in  here 
find  even  these  lights  get  a  little  bit  bother- 
some at  times. 

I,  for  one,  would  look  forward  some  time 
to  a  rearrangement  of  the  interior.  Nobody 
agrees  with  me  on  this  but  I  do  Want  to  put 
it  forward.  One  of  the  recommendations 
made  by  the  Camp  commission  on  the  future 
of  legislative  representation  was  the  sub- 
stantial increase  in  the  number  of  members. 
We  would  have  smaller  constituencies  and 
the  redistribution  would  be  more  fairly  im- 
plemented, but  the  numbers  would  be  much 
greater.  Of  course,  they  can  add  more  desks. 
I  was  interested  to  see  the  minister's  offi- 
cials provided  us  with  a  plan  with  a  bit  of 
a  fourth  row  over  there— that  would  be  for 
Mickey  and  a  few  others— and  it  was  a  little 
bit  longer  in  the  ends  and  so  on,  so  you  can 
add  numbers  to  this. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  make  the  number  of 
members  smaller.  Former  Premier  George 
Henry  did  this  as  an  economy  measure  in 
1933.  He  reduced  the  House  from  about  120 
members  to  90.  I  believe  there  were  close 
to  30  seats  made  redundant.  You  can  imag- 
ine the  carnage  in  the  Conservative  caucus 
when  that  came  about  and  the  blood-letting 
in  all  parts  of  the  province  when  it  came  to 
nominations  in  the  election.  It  turned  out  to 
be  all  academic  because  that  was  the  elec- 
tion in  which  Mitch  Hepburn  came  forward 
and  all  the  Tories  were  slaughtered  anyway, 
just  as  we  are  going  to  do  in  1981. 

The  concept  of  having  more  members 
here  does  not  bother  me  too  much.  I  think 
it  would  be  an  excellent  idea. 

I  would  also  like  us  to  consider  some 
time,  particularly  if  we  are  going  to  have 
individual  offices,  as  we  have  and  we  will 
have— and  they  are  going  to  get  better  be- 
cause I  know  the  minister  is  going  to  re- 
spond to  the  complaints  from  a  number  of 
members,  valid  as  they  are— that  perhaps  we 
do  not  need  the  individual  sort  of  seat  and 
desk,  individual  microphone  and  indiviual 
everything  that  we  have.  It  is  obviously  re- 
dundant most  of  the  time,  irrelevant,  un- 
necessary, because  there  is  nobody  here.  For 
a  debate  like  this,  I  almost  feel  we  ought  to 


4574 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


go  down  to  a  committee  room  and  we  could 
have  a  much  easier  discussion  without  using 
all  of  these  grand  facilities.  But  it  is  nice  to 
be  in  here.  We  are  elected  as  members  of 
this  House  and  we  like  to  participate. 

I  would  like  to  see  this  all  done  away 
with  and  replaced  by  benches  a  la  West- 
minster. I  suppose  certain  areas  are  reserved 
for  the  leadership  in  the  government  and  the 
opposition,  but  essentially  all  the  members 
are  equal.  If  there  is  not  a  big  crowd,  you 
gather  close  to  the  table  and  the  debate 
takes  place,  instead  of  having  somebody 
dozing  in  the  back  and  somebody  reading 
at  the  end.  I  think  it  would  be  far  better 
for  all  sorts  of  reasons  if  we  could  simply 
make  it  a  better  debating  hall.  You  can 
imagine  there  would  be  plenty  of  room  for 
more  members  and  on  grand  occasions  it 
would  be  even  grander  than  it  is  now. 
9  p.m. 

I  am  aware  that  nobody  agrees  with  that 
concept,  but  having  had  an  opportunity  to 
examine  the  system  at  Westminster  for  a 
period  of  time,  I  was  extremely  impressed 
with  the  different  attitude  and  the  different 
qualities  that  are  possible  in  that  other 
system.  As  the  arguments  go  on  over  the 
years,  there  might  be  an  opportunity  for  us 
even  to  consider  that. 

When  I  was  a  boy  and  sitting  in  this 
gallery,  these  desks  were  arranged  in  a  U. 
There  was  no  public  address  system  at  all 
and  it  seemed  to  be  easier  for  the  individual 
members  to  communicate  without  a  PA  sys- 
tem. They  didn't  bother  with  such  fancy  frills 
as  Hansard  or  anything  like  that  in  those 
days.  We  have  come  a  long  way  since  then, 
until  every  word  that  is  uttered  is  taken 
down  like  a  great  pearl  of  wisdom,  as  it  some- 
times is,  and  preserved  for  all  time. 

Mr.  Conway:  Even  some  of  the  interjec- 
tions. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Yes,  although  not  all. 

I  would  agree  with  the  comments  that  have 
been  made  about  using  all  the  facilities  of 
this  building  for  the  members.  Yet  since  this 
building  is  seen  in  the  eyes  of  everyone,  and 
in  my  own  mind,  as  the  seat  of  government, 
I  believe  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  and  his 
office  and  his  ministers  have  every  right  to  be 
here.  Frankly,  if  I  were  to  think  of  myself  as 
one  of  those  some  time  in  the  not  too  distant 
future,  while  I  would  have  great  respect  for 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  still  feel  our  system  calls  for 
His  Honour's  chief  advisers  to  have  the 
power  to  recommend  to  His  Honour  that  they 
be  provided  with  the  facilities  they  feel  they 
need.  The  members  of  the  House,  through 
their  spokesman,  have  the  right  similarly  to  be 


provided  as  they  see  fit  with  the  facilities  they 
need. 

I  am  not  one  of  those  who  feels  Mr. 
Speaker  has  to  have  complete  jurisdiction 
over  everything  in  the  Legislative  Building. 
I  think  the  cabinet  ministers  still  have  some 
rights.  If  we  lose  the  next  election,  I  might 
change  my  mind  about  that  and  push  you 
right  out,  but  I  do  feel  that  way. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  has  changed  drama- 
tically. In  the  early  days,  the  former  member 
for  Brant  used  to  say,  there  were  no  offices 
for  private  members  at  all  but  the  cabinet 
ministers  had  apartments  in  the  building. 
They  would  bring  the  wife  and  family  down 
and  the  wife  would  be  cooking  flapjacks  in 
the  morning.  This  building  was  far  too  big 
for  the  necessities  of  government  as  recently, 
let's  say,  as  1919,  which  is  just  the  day  before 
yesterday  in  the  chronology  of  history. 

We  have  come  a  long  way  since  then.  I  do 
believe  the  way  to  find  enough  space  in  this 
building  to  house  and  serve  the  private  mem- 
bers adequately  is  to  persuade  some  of  the 
cabinet  ministers  and  some  of  the  legislative 
officers  to  give  over  some  of  the  space  they 
use.  Somebody  pointed  out,  and  it  struck  me 
as  a  good  analogy,  that  we  don't  need  three 
or  four  offices  full  of  busy  little  beavers  up 
the  hall  on  the  second  floor  addressing  next 
year's  Christmas  cards  for  the  Premier,  and 
performing  all  those  important  duties  that  go 
on,  when  they  could  very  well  be  elsewhere 
doing  the  duties  that  the  Premier  and  his 
executive  officers  require. 

Of  course,  I  believe  the  Premier  has  to 
have  his  office.  I  don't  blame  him  for  having 
a  cabinet  meeting  here  and  the  important 
offices  around  him.  But  as  I  walk  up  and 
down  the  hallways  of  the  east  wing,  I  think 
he  has  too  much  space;  I  really  do.  I  think 
it's  a  waste  when  we  are  looking  with  such 
difficulty  for  just  a  few  extra  square  feet  to 
provide  properly  for  private  members. 

I  think  a  reasonable  discussion  is  all  that 
is  needed,  and  you  are  the  man  to  do  it.  Take 
the  Premier  aside  and  explain  to  him  that  you 
will  provide  for  his  acre  and  a  half  of  ladies 
who  are  addressing  Christmas  cards  and 
answering  all  that  great  mail  he  gets.  Tell 
him  they  could  do  it  somewhere  else.  I  really 
think  that  is  so. 

Mr.  Conway:  Let  the  record  show  that  the 
minister  is  laughing. 

Mr.  Nixon:  He's  laughing  at  the  prospect 
of  telling  the  Premier  something;  that's  for 
sure.  He  may  not  disagree  entirely  with  the 
concept. 

I  also  want  to  say  something  about  the  art 
that    has    got    my    colleague    from    Renfrew 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4575 


North  in  such  a  furore  because  the  humidity 
is  just  not  right.  It's  an  interesting  argument, 
but  I  am  really  delighted  that  you  or  some- 
body has  pulled  those  old  chestnuts  out  of  the 
gallery.  I  do  not  really  think  it  is  great  art. 
Maybe  it  is,  particularly  now  that  representa- 
tional art  is  a  bit  more  in  vogue. 

1  see  you  have  even  taken  that  mon- 
strosity down  at  the  end  of  the  second  floor. 
There  is  only  one  other  monstrosity  to  take 
down  and  that  is  the  portrait  of  John  Robarts. 
I  would  be  willing  to  move  in  this  House 
that  we  allocate  $40  or  $50  for  a  new  por- 
trait just  to  replace  that  terrible  thing  that 
is  sitting  there.  When  I  take  my  friends 
there,  even  though  they  are  great  Grits,  they 
do  not  think  we  have  done  John  Robarts  a 
great  service  by  hanging  that  terrible  paint- 
ing. He  looks  like  the  President  of  Egypt 
looking  over  the  great  pyramids.  It  really  is 
terrible. 

The  one  you  must  finally  remove  is  the 
one  across  the  hall.  It  has  to  be  about  35 
square  feet  of  crimson  paint  with  a  yellow 
line  that  looks  like  nothing  more  than  a 
nude  lying  on  her  back  in  the  sand.  You 
just  pull  it  out  some  time.  Of  course,  some 
people  have  more  imagination  than  others. 

There  is  one  minor  complaint  and  it  has 
to  do  with  a  very  fine  painting  that  hangs 
out  on  the  NDP  side  of  the  lobby  here.  It 
is  of  turkeys.  Was  there  something  in  mind 
that  made  your  art  expert  decide  to  hang 
the  turkeys  in  the  NDP  lobby?  It  is  a  very 
fine  painting,  mind  you,  and  they  are  a  hell 
of  a  lot  better  turkeys  than  the  ones  sitting 
in  the  chairs. 

Actually  some  of  those  pictures  are  abso- 
lutely excellent.  My  favourite  of  all  is  the 
one  that  is  opposite  the  door  of  the  gentle- 
men's retiring  room  at  the  end  of  second 
floor.  It  is  enormous  and  it  is  entitled  The 
Foreclosure  of  the  Mortgage.  If  anybody  has 
not  seen  that,  just  spend  some  time  down 
there  because  the  story  will  break  your  heart. 
There  is  a  little  baby  in  the  crib  and  the 
poor  old  daddy  is  absolutely  done  in.  He  is 
in  bed,  the  ladies  are  around,  and  it  is  game 
over  in  a  way  that  could  not  be  portrayed 
in  any  other  way.  I  do  not  know  what  that 
painting  is  worth,  but  if  it  ever  goes  up  for 
auction— I  well  might  bid  on  it;  I  like  it 
just  where  it  is. 

Continuing  in  a  serious  vein,  the  most 
valuable  paintings  we  have,  in  my  view,  are 
the  portraits  of  former  Lieutenant  Governors. 
There  are  a  lot  of  good  ones  of  Speakers  and 
Premiers,  but  the  most  valuable  ones  are  the 
ones  hanging  in  the  music  room  of  the  Lieu- 
tenant Governor's  suite.  Every  time  we  go 
in  there  to  have  a  glass  of  sherry  with  His 


Honour  when  he  is  giving  royal  assent  I 
always  like  to  go  around  and  look  at  those 
portraits.  They  are  truly  excellent  and  I  am 
sure  they  are  valuable.  Of  course,  we  are 
not  concerned  because  their  great  value  is 
that  they  are  here  in  this  building. 

I  also  think  the  portrait  just  outside  the 
door  to  the  left  of  John  A.  Macdonald  and 
the  other  one  of  George  Brown— and  they 
are  very  properly  placed  so  they  can  glare 
at  each  other  a  bit— are  also  the  best  por- 
traits of  those  worthy  gentlemen  I  know  of 
anywhere.  They  are  absolutely  outstanding. 
I  want  to  congratulate  whoever  had  that 
initiative;  I  do  not  recall  its  being  called  for 
from  the  opposition  side,  but  it  should  have 
been.  Whoever  had  the  initiative  to  do  that 
really  did  something,  in  my  opinion,  that  was 
worth  while. 

The  member  for  Scarborough-EUesmere 
was  saying  he  felt  the  government  should 
consider  establishing  an  appropriate  residence 
for  His  Honour.  I  want  to  be  sure  my  views 
are  known  on  that  just  so  there  is  no  mis- 
take. I  think  it  would  be  a  very  serious 
mistake  for  Ontario  to  undertake  that. 

Most  of  us  in  the  course  of  our  various 
responsibilities  have  visited  other  provinces 
and  have  been  impressed  with  the  majesty 
and  the  largess  of  the  governments  and  tax- 
payers over  the  years  in  all  of  the  provinces 
except  this  province.  I  do  not  think  our 
Lieutenant  Governors,  except  for  a  few  ex- 
ceptions, have  publicly  indicated  they  were 
concerned  about  this. 

I  was  quite  pleased  to  hear  our  present 
Lieutenant  Governor,  when  he  was  sworn 
in,  indicate  that  he  wanted  to  provide  a 
maximum  of  service  with  a  minimum  of 
pomp.  I  should  not  paraphrase  his  words, 
but  that  is  the  way  I  understood1  them.  I 
think  that  being  the  gentleman  he  is,  he 
certainly  would  not  suggest  we  should  pro- 
vide him  with  anything  other  than  the  respect 
we  all  agree  the  office  deserves. 

9:10  p.m. 

The  last  Government  House  in  Ontario 
was  constructed  in  1917  and  was  called 
Chorley  Park.  It  was  built  on  a  beautiful 
piece  of  property  in  Rosedale  and,  beginning 
about  1919,  the  Lieutenant  Governors  lived 
there  until  approximately  1936  or  1937.  It 
was  a  political  issue  of  the  day.  Naturally, 
it  was  built  at  the  initiative  of  the  Conserva- 
tive government  in  office  before  1919  and! 
the  building  was  said  to  have  cost  a  little 
over  $1  million.  This  seemed  to  be  an  ex- 
tremely large  amount  indeed,  particularly 
when  it  was  undertaken  during  the  war  years. 


4576 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Looking  at  some  of  the  old  political  com- 
ments I  have  had  a  chance  to  read  over  in 
the  last  year  or  two,  it  was  a  singularly  im- 
portant issue.  The  opposition  parties  in  par- 
ticular somehow  got  themselves  conditioned 
against  the  concept  of  Government  House 
by  criticizing  the  government  for  such  an 
unwarranted  expenditure  in  those  times.  That 
may  be  why  some  Liberals  tend  to  react 
negatively  even  today  to  such  a  suggestion. 
When  the  Liberals  took  over  the  seals  of 
office  in  1934,  it  was  clear  they  did  not  want 
to  continue  with  the  fairly  large  expenditures 
associated  with  the  office.  The  first  indica- 
tion came  when  the  traditional  dinner  held 
at  Chorley  Park  by  His  Honour  for  the  re- 
turning members  and  their  wives  was  boy- 
cotted by  the  Premier  and  also,  under  his 
instruction,  by  the  cabinet.  Although  the  din- 
ner was  planned,  it  was  cancelled  at  the 
last  moment  since  all  the  Lieutenant  Gover- 
nor's advisers  had  indicated  by  their  attitude 
they  did  not  want  it  to  proceed. 

As  the  war  approached,  the  Lieutenant 
Governors  tended  to  move  away  from  some 
of  the  pomp  that  had  been  formerly  asso- 
ciated with  the  office,  and  since  the  govern- 
ment was  particularly  concerned  about  cut- 
ting costs,  the  trappings  of  the  office  tended 
to  be  somewhat  reduced.  During  those  years, 
Chorley  Park  became  a  hospital.  I  understand 
after  the  war,  and  I  did  not  research  this  the 
way  I  should  have,  the  condition  of  the 
building  was  such  that  it  was  considered  wise 
to  have  it  taken  down.  That  was  the  end  of 
Government  House  in  Ontario. 

There  was  a  time  when  a  well  known, 
well-to-do  citizen,  Sigmund  Samuel,  who 
donated  a  beautiful  museum  just  across  the 
road,  also  wanted  one  of  his  residences  to 
be  donated  free  of  charge  to  the  government 
for  use  as  a  Government  House.  On  exami- 
nation, it  was  found  that  the  tax  involvement 
in  this  regard  meant  it  would  cost,  in  a 
capital  way,  a  good  deal  of  money.  It  was 
decided  by  the  Conservative  government  of 
the  day,  I  believe  it  was  Mr.  Drew- 
Mr.  Worton:  No,  John  Robarts. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Robarts  was  not  Premier  when 
Sigmund  Samuel  was  trying  to  give  them  the 
house. 

It  was  decided  by  the  government  of  the 
day  that  it  was  not  going  to  proceed  in  that 
way. 

My  own  feeling  is  that  respect  for  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  this  House  and  this 
province  has  never  been  at  a  higher  level. 
People  understand  the  decisions  and  the 
power  of  government  are  all  enacted  in  the 
name  of  the   Lieutenant  Governor  and  still 


the  power  lies  with  the  people  through  their 
elected  representatives.  Frankly,  I  get  a  bit 
sensitive  when  I  hear  the  Premier  reaffirming 
his  commitment  to  the  concepts  of  the  British 
tradition  and  the  Queen  herself. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Is  this  part  of  Govern- 
ment Services? 

Mr.  Nixon:  It  is  difficult  even  to  object  to 
that.  On  the  other  hand,  since  the  New 
Democratic  Party  already  raised  the  matter 
of  Government  House  when  the  member  for 
Brantford  was  not  in  attendance,  aggrandizing 
the  concept  of  the  office  is  one  we  should 
not  seriously  consider. 

We  should  provide  for  the  expenses  of  the 
Lieutenant  Governor,  of  course,  and  whatever 
else  is  necessary.  As  much  as  I  believe  the 
apartment  the  Lieutenant  Governor  now  uses 
is  a  beautiful  place— I  am  always  impressed 
when  I  go  in  there— essentially,  if  it  became 
completely  necessary,  that  apartment,  which 
used  to  be  the  Speaker's  when  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  was  elsewhere,  could  be  turned 
over  for  the  use  of  the  Speaker,  and  through 
him,  for  the  use  of  all  members. 

I  want  to  conclude  by  saying  I  know  the 
minister  and  his  predecessors  have  been  fool- 
ing around  for  quite  a  while  with  property 
to  the  east  of  Bay  Street.  The  government 
owns  that  whole  block  south  of  Wellesley. 
It  is  not  one  of  the  finest  blocks  in  the  city 
by  way  of  the  buildings  there  now.  It  is  just 
a  matter  of  time  before  one  of  the  ministers 
gets  up  the  energy,  or  the  nerve,  I  suppose, 
to  convince  his  cabinet  colleagues  to  level 
that  block  and  put  up  another  huge  edifice 
for  whatever  purpose. 

I  The  needs  and  requirements  of  Govern- 
ment Services  are  never  fulfilled.  The  minis- 
ter will  find  the  needs  and  requirements  of 
the  members  of  this  House  are  never  really 
fulfilled  and  satisfied,  but  they  do  continue 
to  improve.  We  do  have  buildings  around 
here  that  can  be  used.  If  services  must  be 
moved  out  of  this  building,  and  I  believe  they 
must,  we  have  buildings  already  extant  close 
by,  not  to  be  used  by  the  members  but  by 
those  people  at  present  occupying  space  here 
who  could  very  well  perform  their  services 
without  being  directly  in  this  building. 

I  simply  want  to  draw  to  the  minister's 
attention  again  that  the  old  Hydro  building 
is  even  closer  to  this  centre  of  government 
than  the  block  he  wants  to  build  on  the 
other  side  of  Bay  Street.  It  may  not  be  the 
kind  of  building  you  are  looking  for,  but  I 
notice  Hydro  has  a  sign  outside  saying,  "Will 
remodel  for  tenant,"  or  something  like  that. 
I  am  sure  we  could  have  it  made  over  into 
whatever  we  require  for  those  people  and 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4577 


and  offices  that  might  be  moved  out  of  here 
into  that  other  building.  It  would  be  cheaper 
than  levelling  that  big  block  east  of  Bay 
and  putting  up  another  huge  building. 

I  would  like  to  see  most  of  that  property 
kept  in  park  land,  if  possible  anyway,  but  I 
know  this  is  going  to  be  developing  over  the 
next  few  months  and  years.  I  do  believe  we 
can  provide  for  the  proper  and  growing  re- 
quirements of  the  members  of  this  Legis- 
lature without  ripping  everything  down  and 
without  the  expenditure  of  the  kinds  of  funds 
the  minister  is  talking  about  when  he  talks 
about  the  new  building  east  of  Bay. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we  could,  I 
would  like  to  get  into  each  individual  vote. 
I  think  we've  had  a  pretty  good  discussion  on 
the  needs  of  members.  I  was  looking  over  the 
total  expenditures  of  the  minister's  budget 
and  it  is  $287  million.  We  have  been  talk- 
ing for  about  three  and  a  half  hours  mostly 
on  this  building,  which  of  course  is  a  very 
important  building  because  of  its  location  and 
because  of  the  use  made  of  it. 

I  was  going  to  ask  a  couple  of  questions 
about  this  building  too,  about  the  general 
construction  of  the  roof  and  its  present  con- 
dition and  what  you  are  going  to  have  to  do 
to  maintain  that  condition.  I  haven't  looked 
over  it  completely,  but  I  have  made  a  cursory 
examination  of  it  and  talked  to  some  people 
around  here.  I  am  wondering  about  the 
present  condition  of  the  building,  especially 
the  roof  and  the  supports  to  it,  and  how 
much  remodelling  it  is  going  to  have  to  have 
over  the  next  few  years.  Is  the  minister  aware 
of  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
roof  on  this  main  building  has  to  be  re- 
placed. I  was  just  asking  my  deputy  if  we 
had  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  replacement, 
but  we  have  not  at  the  present  time.  It  would 
be  quite  costly.  I  am  familiar  with  a  large 
building  near  Carrier  Square  in  Ottawa-the 
armouries,  if  anyone  is  familiar  with  it— 
where  the  federal  government  put  a  new 
copper  roof  on.  It  cost  about  three  quarters 
of  a  million  dollars,  I  understand.  With  the 
design  and  architecture  of  the  roof  here,  I 
would  imagine  it  would  be  quite  expensive. 
At  the  present  time,  I  would  have  to  say 
we  do  not  have  an  accurate  estimate  of  the 
cost,  but  it  will  have  to  be  done  soon. 
9:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Chairman,  could  we  go  to 
vote  501  and  then  start  down?  I  know  some 
members  want  to  bring  up  a  couple  of  items 
on  vote  502.  I  want  to  get  into  leasing,  if  I 
can. 


Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  I  put  the  question, 
shall  item  1  carry?  No?  On  item  1,  the  mem- 
ber for  Grey. 

Mr.  McKessock:  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  think 
personnel  services  would  come  under  vote 
501. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  item  1  carry  or  does 
the  honourable  member  have  something 
under  item  1,  main  office?  The  member  for 
Huron-Bruce. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  make  a  very  brief  comment  concerning 
the  building.  We  dealt  with  the  various 
aspects  of  the  building  during  some  of  the 
considerations  in  committee  with  respect  to 
the  Camp  commission  report.  The  commis- 
sion was  appointed  by  this  Legislature  to 
look  into  various  aspects  to  do  with  the 
building.  We  did  do  some  research  and 
spent  considerable  time  with  respect  to  this 
particular  building.  Frankly,  as  far  as  I  am 
concerned,  I  think  it  should  be  a  legislative 
building,  that  is,  a  building  that  houses  the 
chamber,  the  offices  of  the  members  and  all 
the  support  staff  who  go  to  make  up  the 
legislative  process. 

Members'  offices  have  been  mentioned. 
That  was  one  of  the  considerations  in  that 
particular  report.  Certainly,  I  think  a  lot  of 
them  are  inadequate.  The  member  for  Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk  talked  about  his  office  and 
some  of  the  other  offices,  and  the  fact  that 
attendance  in  this  House  sometimes  is  not 
all  that  great  and  is  proportional  to  the 
grandeur  of  one's  office.  If  my  attendance 
in  this  House  was  conditional  on  the  grandeur 
of  my  office,  I  would  be  here  all  the  time 
because  my  office  is  not  all  that  great.  It  is 
functional,  mind  you,  but  barely  so.  How- 
ever, I  never  really  complained  about  that. 

It  has  not  been  an  impediment  to  me  in 
making  one  last  call;  I  am  always  able  to  do 
that  and  carry  on  my  work  in  the  normal 
course.  But  I  think  it  would  improve  the 
working  conditions  if  one  had  more  space, 
and  if  the  circumstances  surrounding  the 
office  were  just  a  little  better.  I  think  a 
little  more  improvement  is  needed  in  that 
respect.  All  things  come  to  him  who  waits  so 
perhaps  those  things  will  come  in  the  next 
little  while. 

I  want  to  mention  the  lights,  which  were 
discussed  previously.  It  seems  to  me  there 
is  a  great  waste  in  terms  of  lighting  in  this 
building.  I  do  not  come  in  often  on  the 
weekend— very  seldom  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
because  I  am  not  here;  I  am  in  my  riding— 
but  on  occasions  I  do  come  in  on  the  week- 
end when  I  happen  to  be  in  the  city  for  one 
reason  or  the  other.  It  seems  to  be  very  good 


4578 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


on  weekends.  The  control  of  the  lighting  is 
quite  good,  but  it  is  not  so  good  during  the 
week. 

When  I  leave  my  office  at  night  I  turn  off 
the  lights.  My  experience  is  somewhat  similar 
to  that  of  the  member  for  Wentworth.  I 
come  back  in  later  at  night  and  he  lights  are 
turned,  on.  I  think  the  minister  makes  a 
point,  but  there  is  no  reason  the  lighting  in 
the  halls  cannot  be  left  on  while  the  lighting 
in  the  members'  offices  is  turned  off.  After 
all,  when  you  come  in  from  the  hall,  the 
light  switch  is  right  inside  the  door.  One 
should  not  be  stumbling  around  in  the  dark 
if  one  is  in  full  possession  of  one's  faculties. 
I  think  there  could  be  something  done  there 
to  have  instructions  left  with  the  supervisory 
people  to  make  sure  the  lights  in  the  mem- 
bers' offices  are  off  after  normal  working 
hours.  That  would  be  a  great  energy  saving. 

I  have  another  matter,  Mr.  Chairman. 
I  think  it  really  comes  under  the  second 
vote,  but  if  the  minister  wants  to  have  me 
deal  with  it  now  I  will  certainly  do  so.  It 
would  save  me  getting  up  again. 

Mr.  Chairman:  We  have  spent  a  consider- 
able amount  of  time  on  item  1. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  a 
couple  of  members  have  mentioned  the  light- 
ing. I  will  undertake  to  look  into  that.  It 
was  my  understanding  that  what  I  mentioned 
earlier  was  the  reason  for  the  lights  being 
left  on,  but  if  the  members  feel  they  should 
be  turned  off  we  will  investigate  and  see 
what  we  can  do.  We  are  all  energy  conscious. 

I  should  just  mention  while  I  am  on  my 
feet,  that  the  Ministry  of  Government  Serv- 
ices has  in  three  years  accomplished  a  16 
per  cent  saving  in  energy,  which  represents 
many  millions  of  dollars  of  savings  to  our 
taxpayers,  which  is  what  we  are  all  interested 
in.  I  just  wanted  members  to  know  that  our 
ministry  is  doing  its  part  on  energy  conser- 
vation and  has  very  heavy  goals  to  meet  in 
the  next  two  or  three  years  to  even  further 
that  saving. 

Item  1  agreed  to. 

Items  2  and  3  agreed  to. 

On  item  4,  personnel  services: 

Mr.  McKessock:  My  point  under  item  4 
pertains  to  when  government  personnel  are 
transferred  from  one  area  to  another.  It  is 
my  understanding  that  if  their  house  is  not 
sold  within  a  period  of  time,  either  they  are 
paid  for  it  or  the  ministry  takes  on  the  job 
of  selling  the  house. 

I  know  of  a  case  recently  where  three 
Ontario  Provincial  Police  officers  and  one 
employee  from  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Re- 


sources were  transferred  from  the  small  town 
of  Markdale.  The  point  I  wish  to  bring  up  is 
the  government  lists  these  houses,  I  believe 
it  is  with  National  Trust  which  then  sublets 
them  out  to  real  estate  firms.  The  firm  is  in 
Owen  Sound  and  the  houses  I  am  referring 
to  are  in  Markdale,  which  is  20  miles  away. 
It  seems  to  me— and  I  have  had  real  estate 
firms  contact  me  on  this  point,— it  would  be 
more  logical  for  the  government  to  give  the 
listings  to  the  real  estate  firm  in  the  munic- 
ipality where  the  houses  are  rather  than  have 
them  listed  with  a  company  in  Owen  Sound, 
which  then  phones  the  real  estate  companies 
in  Markdale  to  find  out  the  prices  of  the 
houses  and  the  Markdale  firms  do  the  work 
on  it  and  yet  do  not  have  the  listing  for  the 
houses. 

A  similar  situation  has  happened  under 
Canada  Mortgage  and  Housing  Corporation 
in  the  federal  government.  At  that  time,  I 
was  also  contacted  by  a  real  estate  firm  ask- 
ing if,  instead  of  having  them  listed  with  a 
firm  in  Owen  Sound,  they  could  be  listed 
with  the  local  firm.  I  contacted  the  federal 
minister  in  charge  of  the  CMHC  and  they 
made  that  change.  They  have  now  listed 
them  with  the  local  firm  rather  than  in  the 
larger  centre  miles  away  from  where  the 
houses  are  for  sale. 

My  question  is,  could  the  minister  do  the 
same  thing  as  CMHC  did  in  that  regard?  If 
personnel  are  leaving  from  any  small  munic- 
ipality that  has  a  real  estate  agent  or  firm  in 
it,  could  these  houses  be  listed  with  them 
rather  than  with  a  real  estate  firm  many 
miles  away? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the 
many  cases  that  we  have  where  employees  are 
transferred  from  one  place  to  another,  we 
have  very  few  complaints  about  this.  What 
happens  is  they  both  get  appraisals  done 
and,  providing  the  appraisal  is  accepted  by 
both,  they  would  have  90  days  for  a  real 
estate  firm  to  sell  that  at  that  price  or  higher. 
If  one  happened  to  come  in  at  $50,000  and 
the  other  at  $52,000,  they  would  probably 
accept  $51,000,  using  that  as  an  example.  If 
the  owner  of  the  house  could  sell  it  at 
$53,000  or  $$55,000,  so  be  it.  He  would  be 
ahead  of  it. 
9:30  p.m. 

After  the  90  days  we  would  guarantee  him 
the  $51,000,  as  I  used  in  the  example.  He 
and  his  wife  would  then  be  able  to  go  out 
and  purchase  a  new  home  in  the  area  they 
were  transferred  to,  as  well  as  getting  their 
relocation  expenses  out  of  that.  Then  we 
would  try  to  sell  that  house  for  the  $51,000 
we  paid  the  person  who  was  transferred. 


NOVEMBER  24,  1080 


4579 


The  member  mentioned  National  Trust. 
In  a  high  percentage  of  the  cases  we  do 
get  the  appraised  value  for  the  house  through 
National  Trust  which  at  this  time  is  our  agent. 
There  are  a  few  cases  where,  when  we  pay, 
say,  the  $51,000,  conditions  change.  Maybe 
it  is  higher  interest  rates  or  employment  in 
that  area.  In  a  few  cases  we  have  to  have  a 
reappraisal  and  have  to  accept  something 
other  than  the  $51,000  we  paid  the  employee. 
All  the  cases  where  we  do  not  get  what  we 
paid  the  employee  for  his  or  her  home  have 
to  be  submitted  to  cabinet  for  approval. 

It  seems  to  be  working  quite  well.  Any- 
one I  have  spoken  to  seems  quite  happy. 
There  seems  to  be  a  problem  sometimes 
trying  to  get  a  house  when  a  person  moves 
from  one  area  to  another.  I  had  someone  in 
Brockville  who  was  transferred  to  an  area 
where  he  had  to  pay  a  higher  cost  for  the 
same  house.  To  get  an  equivalent  house 
where  the  chap  was  being  transferred  to  was 
probably  going  to  cost  $15,000  more.  Those 
sorts  of  conditions  I  think  will  always  happen. 
I  don't  know  how  we  get  around  it.  For 
the  most  part  it  is  working  well. 

Mr.  McKessock:  I  am  sorry  if  I  did  not 
explain  it  well  enough,  but  the  minister  has 
missed  my  point.  I  am  speaking  for  the  real 
estate  agent  in  the  small  town  where  the 
houses  are  for  sale.  The  agents  are  complain- 
ing to  me,  asking  why  the  government  does 
not  list  with  them  rather  than  with  a  real 
estate  agent  in  Owen  Sound.  The  Owen 
Sound  company  calls  Markdale  to  find  out 
what  the  price  of  a  house  is  and  the  Markdale 
company  is  really  doing  the  work  but  it  is 
the  Owen  Sound  company  that  has  the  listing. 
What  the  local  real  estate  company  is  saying 
is  it  would  like  to  have  the  listing. 

The  same  thing  happened  with  Canada 
Mortgage  and  Housing  Corporation,  as  I  men- 
tioned previously.  It  was  listing  its  homes  for 
sale  with  a  company  in  Owen  Sound  and  one 
of  my  small  towns  contacted  me  and  asked 
if  the  government  could  not  list  with  it,  in- 
stead of  with  a  firm  25  or  30  miles  away.  At 
that  time  I  wrote  to  the  federal  minister  in 
charge  of  CMHC  and  he  made  that  change. 
Instead  of  listing  in  Owen  Sound,  it  now 
lists  with  Dundalk,  Markdale  or  Flesherton. 
If  the  town  has  a  real  estate  agent  they  will 
list  with  them  rather  than  taking  it  30  miles 
away. 

My  question  is:  Will  the  minister  consider 
doing  the  same  thing?  Rather  than  have 
National  Trust  contact  a  firm  in  Owen  Sound, 
if  the  houses  are  for  sale  in  Markdale  have 
them  contact  the  agent  in  Markdale  or  Dun- 


dalk or  wherever  and  list  them  there  rather 
than  30  miles  away. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  do. 
Right  now  I  mentioned  we  are  using  National 
Trust,  but  we  do  put  that  out  for  tender. 
It  is  usually  the  trust  companies  that  get  into 
this  because  it  requires  a  fair  bit  of  money 
on  their  part  to  carry  this.  Some  of  the  smaller 
firms  would  not  be  able  to  do  it.  I  under- 
stand they  split  the  commissions  with  the  real 
estate  agents  out  in  the  areas.  But  I  am  told 
they  have  to  be  tied,  in,  in  some  way,  with 
National  Trust. 

You  ask  if  we  would  be  willing  to  look  at 
what  the  federal  people  are  doing.  As  I  men- 
tioned, I  think  this  is  working  quite  well  and 
I  feel  we  should  carry  on  the  way  we  are 
doing  it.  I  have  not  had  any  complaints  other 
than  where  they  go  from  one  district  to  an- 
other where  the  cost  of  an  equivalent  house 
may  be  $10,000  to  $15,000  more.  They  have 
been  living  in  a  three-bedroom  modern  bun- 
galow and  they  want  something  the  same  in 
another  district  but  the  cost  is  higher.  I  have 
some  sympathy  for  that,  but  I  do  not  know 
how  you  would  get  around  it.  It  is  working 
well  and  I  would  not  want  to  give  a  commit- 
ment that  we  go  the  same  route  as  the  federal 
people  at  this  time. 

Mr.  McKessock:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  want 
to  make  one  further  point  I  know  it  is 
working  well  as  far  as  the  personnel  are 
concerned.  It  is  the  real  estate  companies 
that  are  upset.  Another  point  is  that  the  keys 
to  the  house  are  in  Owen  Sound— 25  or  35 
miles  away— and  yet  there  are  real  estate 
firms  right  in  that  town  where  the  houses 
are  that  do  not  have  access  to  the  houses. 

They  are  on  a  multiple-listing  service,  that 
is  right.  They  will  split  the  commission  if 
they  sell  them,  but  they  feel  they  should  be 
listed  in  the  local  towns  where  the  houses 
are  for  sale.  As  I  say,  CMHC  was  doing  the 
same  thing  you  were  doing  up  until  this  year. 
After  I  contacted  the  federal  government 
and  the  minister  in  charge,  giving  the  same 
presentation  as  I  am  giving  to  you  on  behalf 
of  the  real  estate  agents,  they  did  make  that 
change.  They  now  list  in  the  local  munici- 
palities where  the  houses  are  for  sale.  I 
would  ask  if  you  would  consider  doing  that 
as  well. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the 
member  is  having  a  particular  problem  in  his 
area  regarding  that,  if  he  were  to  put  it 
down  in  writing  and  send  it  into  us  we  will 
see  what  we  can  do  to  try  to  correct  this 
situation.  But  I  would  not  igive  the  com- 
miment  at  this  time  that  we  will  go  the 
same  route  as  the  federal  people  have  done. 


4580 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Item  4  agreed  to. 

Items  5  to  10,  inclusive,  agreed'  to. 

Vote  501  agreed  to. 

On  vote  502,  provision  of  accommodation 
program: 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  your  pro- 
gram administration,  do  you  have  any  dif- 
ferent attitude  or  changes  in  policy  with 
regard  to  purchasing  or  lease  buy-back?  You 
are  still  in  the  lease  buy-back  system?  I 
know  in  one  building  in  Windsor  you  are 
leasing  it  back  and  at  the  end  of  25  years 
you  own  the  building.  Are  you  still  following 
that  in  some  areas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
have  three  ways  of  providing  accommodation 
for  ministries  and  agencies  of  the  govern- 
ment: outright  lease;  lease  purchase,  the  one 
the  member  is  talking  about;  and  capital. 
One  only  has  to  look  at  how  much  capital 
we  have  had  in  the  last  few  years.  Perhaps 
the  member  was  critic  when  the  capital  in 
our  ministry  was  much  greater  than  it  is 
today.  We  have  had  to  go  to  lease  purchases 
on  some  of  our  buildings.  We  have  found 
lease  capital  the  best  way  to  go  and  lease 
purchase  very  close  to  it. 
9:40  p.m. 

We  probably  have  the  Kingston  building 
on  a  lease  purchase  and  the  Oshawa  building 
for  Revenue  is  a  lease  purchase.  Those  are 
the  only  two  new  ones  we  have  on  lease  pur- 
chase this  year.  There  may  be  one  or  two 
in  the  future  that  will  go  to  lease  purchase, 
if  Management  Board  agrees.  With  the 
limited  capital  we  have,  I  think  the  member 
will  agree  we  will  either  have  to  go  that 
way  or  to  straight  lease.  But  lease  purchase 
is  better  than  straight  lease. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Chairman,  first  of  all, 
could  I  confirm  that  this  is  the  appropriate 
vote  with  regard  to  the  provision  of  court- 
house accommodation?  Given  that  it  is,  I 
would  like  to  raise  some  questions  with  the 
minister  about  the  provision  of  courthouse 
space  in  the  city  of  Hamilton  for  the  entire 
judicial  district  in  Hamilton-Wentworth. 

From  time  to  time,  my  colleagues  and  I 
have  been  assured  by  your  colleague  the 
Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  that  he  has 
been  pushing  as  hard  as  he  is  able  for  addi- 
tional court  space  in  Hamilton  because  of 
the  seriously  overcrowded  accommodation 
that  exists  at  the  moment.  Particularly,  there 
are  simply  too  few  courtrooms  available  for 
the  use  of  the  judicial  system  in  Hamilton. 
I  wonder  how  loudly  those  pressures  from 
your  colleague  have  been  reaching  your  ears 


and  whether  you  have  been  able  to  respond 
to  them,  whether  you  can  respond  to  us 
tonight  about  the  need  for  court  space  and 
about  your  ministry's  intention  to  provide 
that  court  space  in  the  very  near  future. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Perhaps  I  should  ex- 
plain that  we  now  have  a  five-year  forecast 
we  are  trying  to  follow.  In  order  to  get  a 
priority  we  have  it  go  through  the  policy 
fields.  Each  policy  field  decides  what  capital 
projects  are  going  to  be  brought  forward  in 
that  field.  That  is  not  to  say  if  something 
very  important  comes  up  that  needs  to  be 
done  one  cannot  be  stood  down  and  another 
brought  up  in  its  place. 

I  believe  the  tone  at  the  end  of  your 
statement  was,  "What  is  Government  Serv- 
ices going  to  do  about  it?"  We  seem  to  have 
been  the  people  who  got  it  in  the  neck,  so 
to  speak.  Now  it  is  up  to  the  policy  fields  to 
decide  and  help  us  in  our  five-year  forecast 
as  to  what  they  want  and  what  their  priorities 
are  within  that  field. 

Knowing  that,  and  having  been  in  the 
ministry  for  15  or  16  months  now,  I  know 
the  demands  on  added  court  facilities  and 
changes  to  our  present  courts  are  not  just 
limited  to  Hamilton.  Changes  need  to  be  made 
in  a  lot  of  areas.  We  all  know  within  the 
ministry  that  we  could  probably  spend  all 
the  capital  we  have  just  meeting  that  one 
ministry's  request  of  us.  But  it  is  really 
their  responsibility  to  tell  us  what  their  pri- 
orities are  and  then  we  try  to  meet  that 
priority  for  them.  As  far  as  Hamilton  itself 
is  concerned,  I  will  have  an  answer  here  for 
you  in  a  minute,  about  what  priority  that  is 
given.  Just  bear  with  me  for  a  minute  and 
maybe  we  could  go  ahead  with  another 
member  and  then  come  back  to  that. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  while  the 
minister  is  discussing  court  facilities  and  so 
forth,  he  is  certainly  aware  of  the  Windsor 
situation  and  Windsor's  need  for  additional 
court  space.  I  did  communicate  with  him  and 
he  replied  to  me  by  letter  dated  October  20 
that  he  was  going  to  provide  additional  court 
space  in  the  provincial  public  building  located 
directly  across  from  the  provincial  courts 
building  in  the  city  of  Windsor. 

I  think  the  legal  profession  in  the  com- 
munity does  not  look  upon  it  as  a  pro  tern 
measure.  They  look  upon  the  solution  to  the 
problem  as  requiring  permanent  space  and 
that  is  why  I  did  mention  to  you  the  possi- 
bility of  leasing  the  Steinberg  building  that 
is  directly  across  from  the  provincial  courts 
building.  The  city  would  be  willing  to  buy 
the  building  if  you  would  be  willing  to  rent 
space    in    that   building   because    they   could 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4581 


use  the  building  for  other  purposes.  Also, 
the  new  facilities  would  have  substantial 
room  for  expansion,  as  we  anticipate  expan- 
sion will  be  necessary  in  the  not  too  distant 
future. 

Have  your  officials  looked  into  the  possi- 
bility of  leasing  one  portion  of  the  Steinberg 
building— not  the  whole  building  because  it 
is  not  needed  at  all,  but  one  portion  of  it  so 
that  courtroom  facilities  could  be  established 
there  on  a  permanent  basis?  It  struck  me  as 
strange  that  you  were  going  into  the  provin- 
cial public  building  when  the  various  offices 
in  that  building  seem  to  be  clamouring  for 
additional  space  and  apparently  you  must 
have  dislocated  several  of  the  offices  in  there 
to  provide  that  space  as  a  resolution  to  the 
problem  for  additional  court  space  in  the 
city    of    Windsor. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
were  just  discussing  this.  The  Attorney  Gen- 
eral has  a  backlog  in  the  city  of  Windsor,  as 
you  know,  and  we  are  making  this  space 
available.  It  was  provided  in  the  Ontario 
government  building.  I  think  it  is  good  to 
use  up  our  own  building  at  this  time  when 
this  space  is  available  and  is  surplus.  At 
such  time  as  we  need  it  for  the  other  minis- 
tries that  are  in  that  building,  then  perhaps  a 
suggestion  similar  to  what  you  have  just 
made  would  be  in  line.  I  think  it  would  be 
false  economy  for  us  to  have  space  in  our 
own  building  that  was  not  being  occupied  and 
go  out  and  rent  additional  space,  but  we  will 
keep  your  thoughts  in  mind,  regarding  the 
building  you  mentioned  and  others,  for  such 
time  as  we  need  more  space  or  have  to  move 
them  out  of  our  government  building  there. 

Just  while  I  am  on  my  feet,  I  understand 
that  in  Hamilton,  if  the  member  is  listening, 
we  have  had  no  request,  as  I  understand  it 
from  staff,  to  go  ahead  with  additional  courts 
in  the  Hamilton  area.  That  is  all  I  can  say 
at  this  time. 

Mr.  Warner:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman:  Did  the  minister  say  that  there  was 
no  request  from  the  Attorney  General  for 
additional  court  space  in  the  city  of  Hamilton? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  am  sorry,  I  will  re- 
phrase that.  We  have  had  no  requirements 
given  to  us  from  the  Attorney  General's 
department.  That  is  not  to  say— I  should 
correct  myself— perhaps  he  needs  the  space, 
but  we  have  not  had  any  requirement  saying 
how  many  courtrooms  or  whatever  are  re- 
quired, if  I  can  just  be  corrected  on  that. 
9:50  p.m. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  In  my  questioning  of  the 
minister  concerning  the  court  space  in  the 


Windsor  area,  I  understood  there  was  not 
sufficient  space  in  that  provincial  public 
building.  In  talking  to  various  people  working 
in  the  building,  they  all  tell  me  they  are 
cramped  for  space  in  the  building.  If  there 
is  space  in  there,  all  well  and  good.  I  would 
not,  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagination,  sug- 
gest renting  other  facilities  if  there  are  facili- 
ties available  right  in  one  of  the  provincial 
buildings.  But  my  understanding  is  there  was 
not  sufficient  space  in  there.  If  there  is,  as 
you  or  your  officials  say,  then  that  is  all  well 
and  good,  but  I  am  fairly  positive  you  are 
still  going  to  be  pressured  by  the  legal  frater- 
nity because,  from  my  discussion  with  them, 
the  amount  of  space  there  would  not  be 
sufficient  for  their  needs. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  my  staff 
tells  me  we  do  have  extra  space  in  the  On- 
tario government  building  in  Windsor  where 
we  hope  to  put  in  this  extra  courtroom  to 
take  care  of  the  backlog.  In  the  Windsor  area 
we  are  asking  the  Attorney  General  to  con- 
firm his  needs.  When  we  get  that  informa- 
tion, we  will  be  in  a  better  position  to  say 
if  any  additional  courts,  besides  the  one  in 
the  Ontario  government  building,  are  needed. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  hope  you  will  not  delay 
in  developing  those  facilities,  because  the 
backlog  just  continues  to  grow  in  numbers. 
Where  justice  is  delayed  justice  is  denied. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is 
why  we  are  going  ahead  with  one  courtroom 
in  the  Ontario  government  building  at  this 
time,  to  look  after  some  of  that  backlog,  but 
we  will  be  looking  for  a  report  from  the 
Attorney  General  as  to  his  exact  needs  for 
that  area. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  just  a 
little  taken  aback  by  the  minister's  reply  on 
the  Hamilton  situation.  I  am  not  in  any  sense 
being  critical  of  the  minister,  but  my  col- 
leagues and  I  have  been  assured  over  the 
months  and  over  the  years  by  the  Attorney 
General  that  he  recognizes  there  is  a  serious 
problem  in  Hamilton  with  regard  to  lack  of 
accommodation  for  the  courts.  Indeed  we 
have  had  very  recent  acknowledgement,  cer- 
tainly in  my  interpretation,  from  the  Attorney 
General  that  he  is  aware  that  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  in  Hamilton-Wentworth  is 
being  frustrated  by  the  lack  of  space. 

Yet  we  hear  tonight  the  Attorney  General 
has  not  taken  the  trouble  to  put  together  a 
requisition  for  space,  or  whatever  the  request 
is,  to  go  to  the  minister  in  order  to  rectify 
that.  That  just  horrifies  me,  and  I  wonder  if 
you  could  explain  a  little  more  what  the 
process  might  be.  What  should  the  Attorney 


4582 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


General  have  done  in  order  to  bring  to  your 
attention  the  need  for  space?  Those  of  us 
who  have  the  concerns  of  Hamilton-Went- 
worth  at  heart  might  be  able  to  do  something 
the  Attorney  General  has  failed  to  do,  despite 
the  fact  he  has  given  us  repeated  assurances 
that  he  is  aware  of  the  problem. 

I  find  It  qu'te  incredible  that  there  is  a 
situation  where  there  are  very  serious  crime 
problems  in  parts  of  the  city,  very  serious 
problems  recognized  by  a  lot  of  the  lawyers 
and  a  lot  of  the  assistant  crowns,  where  there 
are  too  many  remands  and  the  courts  are  just 
not  properly  dealing  with  cases  that  come 
before  them,  not  because  of  any  inability  of 
the  co*"-ts  themselves,  but  because  they  just 
do  not  have  room  to  set  up  sufficient  hearings 
and  to  deal  with  justice  in  a  Drope*-  way. 
The*',  we  learn  tonight  that  the  Attorney 
General  has  been  sitting  on  his  hands,  that 
nothing  is  happening. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  He  is  out  there  chasing  all  that 
hockey  violence. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Hockey  violence  may  be  a 
problem  in  some  places,  but  I  have  to  tell 
the  member  for  Huron-Bruce  that  hockey 
violence  is  not  the  greatest  concern  in  the 
c'tv  of  Hamilton  when  people  are  murdered 
at  Hamilton  Place.  Violence  is  a  serious  con- 
cern and  we  need  something  done  about  it. 
Tt  is  the  view  of  the  police,  the  legal  pro- 
fession and  many  of  those  intimatelv  involved 
in  the  administration  of  justice  that  one  of 
the  serious  problems  is  a  lack  of  court  facili- 
ties in  Hamilton.  The  courts  are  overcrowded, 
thev  are  trving  to  prsh  too  many  cases 
through  the  physical  space  that  now  exists 
and  the  problems  in  dealing  with  the  crim- 
inal elements  could  be  overcome,  at  least 
in  part,  if  we  had  more  courtrooms. 

I  hope  the  minister  will  initiate  something 
along  this  line  so  we  can  begin  to  ?ee  some 
progress  in  dealing  with  Hamilton's  crime 
problem.  I  am  horrified  to  learn  the  Attorney 
General  is  not  moving  in  that  direction  when 
he  has  been  telling  us  for  so  long  that  he 
recognizes  the  problem. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  As  I  mentioned 
earlier,  the  Attorney  General  could  probably 
use  our  complete  budget  as  far  as  capital 
goes  in  a  lot  of  areas  in  the  province,  includ- 
ing the  great  county  of  Lanark.  We  are 
usually  law-abiding  citizens,  but  we  could 
use  another  courtroom  as  well. 

I  believe  it  comes  down  to  which  is  a 
greater  priority.  The  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville  was  talking  about  the  problems 
they  are  having  in  his  area.  We  know  what 
the  problems  are  in  Ottawa  and  other  areas. 


There  are  a  lot  of  priorities,  and  in  fairness 
to  the  Attorney  General,  he  has  to  try  to  put 
them  in  some  sort  of  perspective. 

For  the  benefit  of  the  member  for  Went- 
worth,  I  have  been  given  a  note  that  says 
Mr.  B.  McLoughlin  has  been  in  Hamilton 
today.  He  is  the  accommodation  person  with 
the  Attorney  General's  office.  He  was  there 
looking  over  the  situation  as  late  as  today. 
One  has  to  keep  in  mind  that  the  Attorney 
General  has  a  lot  of  demands  made  on  him 
and  has  to  put  them  in  their  priorities.  On 
any  of  these  two,  there  would  have  to  be 
Management  Board  approval.  That  has  not 
been  sought  yet  because  we  have  not  had 
the  demands. 

Mr.  Warner:  We  understand  what  a  pri- 
ority is.  What  is  so  deeply  disturbing  is  to 
learn  the  Hamilton  court  space  is  not  even 
on  the  list  of  priorities.  The  Attorney  General 
clearly  indicated  to  us  he  understood  the 
situation  in  Hamilton  and  that  at  least  two 
extra  courtrooms  were  needed. 

The  problem  of  violence  in  Hamilton  has 
been  brewing  for  some  time.  It  is  deeply 
disturbing  to  the  community  at  large.  The 
minister  may  or  may  not  be  aware  of  the 
murder  that  took  place  at  Hamilton  Place. 
As  a  result  of  that  murder,  the  police  were 
urged  to  crack  down  on  the  Parkdale  gang 
and  some  of  the  other  thugs  in  the  community 
to  try  to  restore  some  law  and  order  to  that 
community. 

In  so  doing,  we  discovered  there  was  a 
tremendous  backlog  of  cases  in  the  courts  in 
Hamilton.  The  Attorney  General  acknowl- 
edged in  a  meeting  we  had  with  him  that 
what  would  help  in  the  Hamilton  situation 
was  the  establishment  of  two  more  courts  to 
try  to  clear  the  large  backlog  that  existed. 

We  now  discover  he  has  done  absolutely 
nothing;  otherwise,  the  extra  court  space 
would  be  on  your  priority  list.  Maybe  it 
would  be  at  the  bottom  of  the  list.  Of  course, 
there  are  courts  needed  around  the  province. 
We  all  understand  that,  but  at  least  he  should 
have  taken  the  initiative  to  forward  the  re- 
quest for  extra  court  space  in  Hamilton  to 
your  list  of  priorities.  He  should  have  done 
that  months  ago;  yet  he  has  done  nothing. 
I  am  quite  shocked. 
10  p.m. 

I  want  the  Minister  of  Government  Services 
to  understand  I  am  not  directing  my  frustra- 
tion at  him.  I  am  hoping  that  message  gets 
through  to  the  Attorney  General  because  the 
situation  in  Hamilton  should  not  be  tolerated 
any  longer;  it  really  should  not.  The  people 
in  Hamilton  deserve  much  better. 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4583 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  Is  the  Windsor  situation 
all  clear  as  far  as  Management  Board  ap- 
proval is  concerned?  Will  you  be  using  the 
provincial  public  building  in  setting  up  the 
additional  courtroom  facilities?  The  city  would 
like  to  know  that  you  will  follow  up  on  this 
rather  than  waiting  for  Management  Board 
to  come  along  and  give  or  not  give  its 
approval. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  What  we  are  doing  in 
Windsor  is  a  little  different  from  the 
Hamilton  situation.  We  have  to  take  the 
Hamilton  situation  to  Management  Board 
when  we  get  the  requirements.  On  the  Wind- 
sor one,  I  am  told,  we  do  not.  The  one  court- 
room I  mentioned  to  the  member  will  be 
finished  and  in  operation  as  soon  as  possible 
to  get  rid  of  the  backlog  that  is  there. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Chairman,  while  we 
are  on  court  houses,  everybody  has  a  problem 
with  courthouses.  This  possibly  speaks  to  the 
quality  of  the  administration  of  justice  in  this 
province  because  it  is  a  problem  that  seems 
to  be  common  everywhere  with  the  exception 
of  the  county  of  Peel. 

As  I  understand  it,  the  minister  has  had 
his  officials  down  at  the  Brant  county  court- 
house. We  don't  want  a  replacement,  al- 
though perhaps  at  some  time  in  the  future 
we  can  use  a  new  one.  We  do  have  a  nice 
building  with  some  historical  significance 
to  it  which  fits  in  well  with  the  landscape  in 
the  square  next  to  Victoria  Park  and  so  on. 
The  building  itself,  however,  is  totally  in- 
adequate for  the  purposes  it  is  supposed  to 
serve  in  terms  of  facilities  for  the  female  staff, 
facilities  for  the  judge,  air  conditioning,  mat- 
ters of  security  or  storage  of  records.  Any- 
thing you  name,  we  ain't  got  it. 

I  was  advised  some  time  ago  that  your 
people  have  been  down  and  certain  archi- 
tects have  been  hired  and  plans  drawn  up 
and  all  the  things  that  were  supposed  to  be 
done  were  on  the  road.  Could  the  minister 
indicate  at  this  time  what  stage  he  is  at  in 
this  matter  and  when  we  may  see  some  car- 
penters, builders,  masons,  plumbers  and  elec- 
tricians on  site  and  the  building  being  reno- 
vated? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
Brant  county  people  have  asked  us  to  look 
at  purchasing  that  building  and  we  will  be 
down  to  look  at  it  in  the  future.  We  have 
had  a  lot  of  requests  from  different  counties 
about  buying  the  court  facilities,  because  in 
most  cases  we  take  so  much  of  the  county 
building  they  feel  we  should  take  the  whole 
operation.  In  some  cases  where  they  are  look- 
ing for  expansion  of  the  courts  that  would 


mean  'we  would  need   almost   100  per  cent 
of  the  occupancy  of  that  building. 

We  are  going  to  have  someone  go  down 
and  have  a  look.  If  memory  serves  me  cor- 
rectly, they  were  not  looking  for  an  answer 
right  away,  but  they  could  put  it  in  their 
long-range  forecast  for  something  down  the 
road,  to  know  whether  or  not  we  were  in- 
terested in  a  possible  purchase  of  that  facility. 
Mr.  Makarchuk:  Whatever  the  situation  is 
—and  it  seems  to  change  from  day  to  day,  or 
new  council  to  new  council— I  think  initially 
they  wanted  something  done  to  the  section 
of  the  building  used  for  the  administration 
of  justice.  There  were  plans  in  the  works  that 
the  ministry  is  going  to  do  some  work  there. 
In  effect,  if  you  had  a  safety  committee  in 
that  building  it  would  probably  condemn  the 
building  and  sav  the  working  conditions  are 
dangerous  and  the  facilities,  particularly  for 
the  female  staff,  are  totally  inadequate.  Some 
arguments  could  be  made  in  terms  of  health, 
and  so  on,  where  the  operations  would  not 
be  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the 
various  Ministry  of  Labour    regulations. 

I  think  the  county  council  is  interested 
and  perhaps  frustrated  because  it  has  been 
waiting  for  a  long  time  to  see  what  you  are 
going  to  do  with  the  building.  The  county 
chambers  are  not  adequate  for  them  so  they 
want  either  you  or  them  to  take  it  over  com- 
pletely. I  suppose  their  wish  is  that  the 
county  chambers  could  be  moved  into  an- 
other building  or  possibly  a  new  downtown 
redevelopment  could  be  fitted  in  there.  So 
there  are  various  things  down  the  line. 

However,  the  building  itself  should  be  pre- 
served and  could  possibly  be  renovated  for 
total  use  as  a  court  building.  As  I  understand 
it,  what  is  in  the  plans  is  that  you  are  going 
to  discuss  purchasing  the  building  and  pos- 
sibly renovating  it.  Is  that  the  rumour  right 
now,  or  is  there  something  reasonably  con- 
crete on  that  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Many  of  the  old  court 
buildings  would  probably  not  meet  the  On- 
tario Building  Code  standards  today.  We  all 
realize  that.  Living  in  an  old  town  as  I  do, 
probably  my  own  in  the  county  would  not 
meet  them  all.  You  should  be  aware  that 
the  major  improvements  in  the  courthouse 
would  be  the  responsibility  of  the  county.  The 
lease  type  improvements,  the  inside  furnish- 
ings and  so  on  of  the  courts,  would  be  ours. 
That  is  the  way  it  is  broken  down.  It  is  too 
early  yet  to  say  whether  we  are  interested. 
We  have  not  had  the  money  to  buy  county 
buildings  since  I  took  over  the  Ministry  of 
Government  Services.  We  have  not  had  the 


4584 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


money  to  purchase  these.  There  were  one  or 
two  purchased  in  the  past. 

We  did  agree  to  go  down  and  tell  them 
our  intentions  of  what  we  would  try  to  do 
in  the  future  so  they  could  plan.  I  suppose 
they  would  like  to  know  whether  we  are 
interested  in  buying  it  all  out.  It  may  be 
that  they  will  not  go  ahead  with  the  im- 
provements if  they  are  going  to  sell  it  to  us. 
They  will  let  us  do  it  when  we  get  it.  I 
am  only  guessing  at  things  like  that,  but 
that  is  probably  what  would  happen. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  the 
minister  may  be  aware,  several  years  ago  his 
ministry,  in  co-operation  with  the  Ministry  of 
the  Attorney  General  and  the  Solicitor  Gen- 
eral, built  a  new  court  facility  in  Orillia  on 
a  leaseback  arrangement.  At  that  time,  when 
the  plans  were  being  discussed,  representa- 
tives from  your  ministry's  property  branch  as 
well  as  from  the  Attorney  General's  depart- 
ment met  with  the  then  mayor  of  the  city 
of  Orillia.  I  had  the  privilege  of  sitting  in 
on  the  meeting,  along  with  some  other  people 
involved  with  the  court  facility. 

It  was  indicated  at  that  time,  because  of 
the  location  on  Front  Street,  which  is  a  very 
busy  thoroughfare,  that  the  government 
would  consider  a  second  entrance  off  a 
street  running  parallel  to  the  back  of  the 
property.  This  satisfied  the  needs  of  the  city 
council  and  those  at  the  local  level.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  was  property  available 
at  the  time  but  I  gather,  because  of  the  cost 
of  the  property  and  I  suppose  because  of 
limited  budgets,  the  ministry  never  went 
ahead  with  the  second  entrance  or  exit.  It  is 
still  causing  some  real  problems  of  heavy 
congestion.  The  property  in  question  is  no 
longer  available;  it  has  been  used  for  other 
purposes. 
10:10  p.m. 

What  I  am  leading  up  to  is  how  do  you 
or  your  ministry  staff  propose  to  resolve  this 
problem?  It  would  seem,  despite  what  your 
staff  says,  there  is  not  really  adequate  park- 
ing on  court  days  when  the  police  are  there 
with  their  cruisers  bringing  the  prisoners  in 
from  Barrie.  It  is  really  a  tight  situation,  I 
think  you  should  be  looking  further  down  the 
road  to  resolve  this  problem  if  you  are  not 
already  doing  so. 

I  suppose  this  leads  into  another  proposal 
that  has  been  given  to  me.  As  you  are  likely 
aware,  there  are  a  number  of  provincial 
offices  in  Orillia,  the  sales  tax  office  which 
is  using  the  existing  building,  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  regional  office,  maybe 
half  a  dozen  of  them.  While  I  am  certain  the 
landlords  who  rent  the  space  to  the  various 


ministries  are  very  happy  with  it,  from  time 
to  time  people  come  to  me  and  say,  "Why 
does  the  government  not  have  a  long-range 
plan  to  locate  all  the  provincial  offices  in  one 
building?" 

I  know  this  is  done  in  some  areas.  I  am 
not  necessarily  recommending  it  at  this  point 
in  time,  but  do  you  have  any  policy  or  any 
long-range  planning,  maybe  three  or  five  years 
down  the  road,  that  there  might  be  a  pro- 
vincial building  in  the  city  of  Orillia  to 
house  all  the  government  offices?  Perhaps 
you  could  give  some  indication  of  just  what 
your  plans  might  be  in  the  foreseeable  or  a 
little  more  far  distant  future.  I  would  be  in- 
terested in  your  comments 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  un- 
derstand the  court  facilities  in  Orillia  are  in 
leased  premises,  not  lease-purchases. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  I  am  sorry,  I  meant 
leased.  I  did  not  indicate  that  you  were  going 
to  purchase  it  eventually. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  My  staff  tells  me  we 
have  looked  into  the  parking  there  and  there 
seems  to  be  concern  among  some  of  the  users 
that  there  is  not  adequate  parking  space.  Our 
formula  or  criterion  for  arriving  at  how  many 
spaces  should  be  available  has  been  met.  It 
is  something  we  can  look  into  and  monitor 
a  little  more  closely.  It  is  in  keeping  with 
the  formula  we  use,  so  many  parking  spaces 
for  the  number  of  people  using  them. 

I  think  at  most  courts  on  a  particular  court 
day,  using  my  own  area  as  an  example,  you 
are  lucky  to  get  within  two  blocks  in  any 
direction  of  the  court.  Again,  that  is  not  to 
say  we  have  a  lot  of  bad  people  in  Lanark 
county.  We  will  look  into  the  parking  area 
situation. 

We  have  not  looked  at  the  consolidation 
of  different  ministries  in  Orillia  because  we 
did  not  think  it  was  large  enough  yet  to  do 
that.  We  are  trying  to  do  it  in  areas  where 
it  seems  feasible.  As  members  know,  we 
just  opened  a  new  Ontario  government  build- 
ing in  Sudbury  a  couple  of  weeks  ago.  I 
believe  we  have  14  ministries  located  in  that 
building.  It  is  something  we  are  working 
towards.  It  has  its  pros  and  cons.  Many 
of  the  people  we  lease  from  at  the  present 
time  are,  I  think,  providing  a  good  service 
to  us.  When  you  consolidate,  all  those  people 
are  looking  for  new  tenants. 

One  of  the  good  parts  about  it  is  that 
everyone  knows  where  it  is  and  it  has  a  high 
profile  in  the  community.  They  are  not  spend- 
ing a  lot  of  time  looking  around  for  one  par- 
ticular ministry  or  the  other,  such  as  they 
would  do  if  you  find  one  ministry  here  and 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980 


4585 


another  somewhere  else.  That  is  one  of  the 
good  things  about  it.  We  are  doing  it  where 
the  numbers  seem  to  warrant  and  where  funds 
are  available,  or  where  we  can  get  someone 
to  take  it  on  a  lease-purchase. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  Just  to  clarify  a  point, 
I  was  not  really  suggesting  that  the  minister 
build  a  government  building.  I  was  thinking 
of  looking  at  expanding  the  leased  facilities, 
if  they  were  available  in  that  particular  area. 
I  was  passing  on  comments  I  have  received 
from  local  people  that  there  would  be  some 
convenience  to  have  them  in  the  area.  It 
might  be  at  this  point  that  there  would  not 
be  additional  space  in  that  general  area,  but 
I  just  draw  it  to  the  minister's  attention  that 
it  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  there  would 
be  some  convenience,  particularly  where  we 
do  have  a  number  of  offices  in  the  area. 

Certainly  it  provides  some  return  on  invest- 
ment for  some  of  the  smaller  landlords  in 
the  area  and  it  might  prove  a  hardship  to 
them.  I  am  not  recommending  it  at  this  point. 
I  am  suggesting  that  perhaps  even  on  a  leas- 
ing arrangement,  you  might  be  taking  a  look 
at  consolidating  the  offices  in  one  area. 

I  am  not  really  that  concerned  about  park- 
ing. As  you  say,  you  do  work  on  the  formula. 
I  do  feel  that  from  a  safety  standpoint,  you 
should  continue  to  monitor  the  exits  and 
entrances— the  one  exit  which  goes  out  into 
a  busy  street— and  perhaps  be  looking  at  some 
point  in  the  future  to  following  up  the 
original  suggestion  that  was  made  that  there 
would  be  a  second  entrance  and  exit.  I  will 
leave  it  with  you. 

Mr.  Deputy  Chairman:  The  member  for 
Huron-Bruce  is  on  a  list  that  Chairman 
Edighoffer  left  with  me.  I  have  others,  so  I 
am  not  asking  you  to  speak.  I  am  just  trying 
to  follow  the  list  which  was  left  for  me. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  have  a  matter  on  the  second 
item  of  the  second  vote. 

Mr.  Deputy  Chairman:  We  are  on  vote 
502.  I  think  we  can  look  at  the  whole  vote 
together. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  In  that  case,  I  am  on  the  list. 
I  just  wanted  to  find  out  what  the  ministry 
has  done  with  respect  to  the  former  Grand- 
view  Training  School.  I  think  it  is  about  two 
miles  south  of  Highway  401,  on  Highway  24, 
near  downtown  Gait. 

I  did  have  some  communication  with  the 
ministry  a  number  of  months  ago  with  re- 
spect to  this  particular  property.  I  know  the 
city  of  Cambridge  came  and  conferred  with 
the  minister.  I  gather  a  number  of  other 
people  came  in  at  the  same  time.  I  think  the 
regional  police  commission  has  taken  up  some 


of  the  property.  I  think  there  were  a  num- 
ber of  other  organizations  interested  in  some 
of  the  property.  I  am  wondering  how  it  sits 
at  the  moment. 

Have  we  made  any  progress  with  respect 
to  this  particular  property?  Will  the  city  of 
Cambridge  actually  get  control  of  that 
property  and  then  make  their  own  deal  as 
best  they  can  with  other  interested  parties? 
What  is  the  situation?  What  will  the  price 
be?  I  gather  it  will  be  market  value  price, 
but  I  am  wondering  what  has  been  accom- 
plished in  the  seven  or  eight  months  that 
this  matter  has  been  on  the  minister's  plat- 
ter, so  to  speak.  Have  we  made  any  progress? 
If  not,  when? 

10:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  just 
about  a  month  ago,  or  less,  I  signed  the 
agreement  of  sale  for  the  regional  police 
force  to  buy  the  front  part  of  the  lot  next  to 
the  highway  or  the  main  street.  As  the  mem- 
ber is  probably  well  aware,  my  predecessor 
and  myself  met  many  times  with  Her  Wor- 
ship and  members  of  her  council.  My  pre- 
decessor mentioned,  as  I  have  mentioned, 
that  there  was  no  way  we  could  sell  that 
property  for  one  dollar.  Her  Worship  came 
back  again  and  again,  after  we  had  said  we 
could  not  accept  that  offer,  with  the  dollar. 

I  told  her  there  was  no  use  in  us  con- 
tinuing the  discussion,  if  that  is  what  it  was. 
We  told  her  we  would  look  at  something 
other  than  market  value.  I  believe  my  deputy- 
had  discussions  with  one  of  the  planners  or 
someone  from  her  staff  and  had  come  in 
with  a  price  that  would  be  for  limited  recrea- 
tional use  for  the  balance  of  the  property 
after  the  regional  police  force  area  was  sold 
off.  That  price  was  considerably  less  than 
market  value,  with  a  stipulation  in  it  that 
if  they  wanted  to  use  the  property  for  other 
than  the  limited  uses,  they  would  have  to 
pay  market  value  at  that  time. 

We  have  had  other  people  who  are  inter- 
ested in  it.  One  group  that  approached  me, 
if  it  were  to  purchase  it,  was  interested  In 
turning  the  area  into  small  apartment  build- 
ing for  senior  citizens  or  some  other  people— 
they  were  apartments  anyway. 

I  understood  the  mayor  was  going  to  make 
a  submission  to  cabinet  about  it.  That  is 
where  it  stands  at  present.  I  would  like  to 
do  something  with  it  as  soon  as  possible,  be- 
cause it  has  been  sitting  there  for  a  con- 
siderable length  of  time.  If  we  do  not  do 
something  with  it  soon,  I  suppose  the  pro- 
vincial auditor  will  be  mentioning  it,  even 
though  we  are  trying  to  work  with  everyone 
concerned  to  come  to  a  suitable  solution. 


4586 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Gaunt:  As  I  understand  it,  the  regional 
police  have  taken  the  front  seven  acres.  You 
are  still  negotiating  with  the  city  of  Cam- 
bridge for  the  remaining  part— the  price  of 
which  has  not  been  exactly  determined.  It  is 
something  less  than  market  value.  Is  that 
the  state  of  the  nation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  That  is  basically  what 
has  happened.  Rut  I  understand  there  was  a 
submission  that  came  in  after— and  I  have 
a  copy  of  it— we  had  said  we  would  take 
something  less  than  market  value.  The  fact 
now  skips  my  mind  but  it  was  quite  a  bit 
under  the  market  value.  Then  the  mayor  and 
council  saw  fit  to  try  to  go  around  Govern- 
ment Services  again  and  make  a  direct  appeal 
to  cabinet  for  the  dollar.  So  until  cabinet 
deals  with  that,  I  do  not  know  where  it 
stands. 

As  soon  as  it  is  dealt  with  and  cabinet 
agrees  that  the  Ministry  of  Government  Serv- 
ices will  handle  it  then  I  would  be  prepared 
—if  they  are  not  interested  and  still  appear 
to  be,  in  my  words,  playing  around  with  us 
on  it— to  put  it  up  for  public  auction. 

Mr.  Worton:  Mr.  Minister,  on  Friday  of 
last  week  I  had  delivered  to  my  residence 
correspondence  and  a  report  made  by  our 
chief  of  police  to  the  board  of  police  com- 
missioners, to  the  crown  attorney,  to  the  city 
administrator,  to  the  judge  and  to  myself  the 
information  I  have  forwarded  to  the  Attorney 
General  with  a  copy  to  you,  Mr.  Minister. 
Rriefly,  it  contains  the  concerns  expressed  by 
the  chief  to  those  people  mentioned  in  regard 
to  the  lack  of  detention  cells  at  the  county 
court  in  Guelph. 

While  we  were  all  pleased  last  week  to 
participate  in  the  opening  of  the  new  pro- 
vincial jail,  the  removal  of  that  provincial  jail 
from  the  rear  of  the  county  buildings  has 
now  left  us  without  any  facilities  close  at 
hand  for  persons  coming  before  the  courts 
for  trial.  There  have  been  instances  in  the 
past  year  that  have  caused  the  chief  of  police 
and  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police  concern 
for  the  safety  of  the  judge,  court  officials  and 
the  public. 

You  are  aware  of  the  good  co-operation 
you  have  had  with  the  county.  You  have 
treated  them  very  fairly  with  regard  to  the 
county  buildings  and  the  old  police  building. 
They  are  at  present  renovating  some  of  their 
offices  and  perhaps  now  would  be  an  appro- 
priate time  for  your  staff  to  work  out  some 
arrangement  whereby  adequate  detention  cells 
or  accommodation  could  be  brought  into 
being  for  the  use  of  that  county  court. 


After  receiving  the  correspondence,  I  talked 
with  the  chief.  I  know  him  well  enough  to 
know  he  does  not  become  alarmed  easily 
and  he  only  reacts  when  there  is  justification 
or  need  for  something  in  the  way  of  deten- 
tion quarters.  I  would  appreciate  very  much 
if  you  would  have  your  staff  and  that  of 
the  Attorney  General  act  on  this  matter  as 
quickly  as  possible.  In  talking  with  you  per- 
sonally, you  indicated  that  situations  of  a  simi- 
lar nature  happen  in  other  jurisdictions.  When 
we  now  have  something  which  is  a  matter  of 
public  knowledge,  I  do  not  think  we  should 
hesitate  too  long  before  doing  something,  be- 
cause of  the  seriousness  of  the  matter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  thank  the  honourable  member.  He 
did  give  me  the  correspondence  earlier  this 
afternoon  during  question  period.  I  will  dis- 
cuss it  with  the  Attorney  General  and  with 
the  Minister  of  Correctional  Services  (Mr. 
Walker),  who  will  be  involved  in  it  as  well. 
Last  Tuesday  we  did  have  the  privilege, 
with  the  member  of  opening  the  new  deten- 
tion centre  in  Guelph.  It  seemed  like  a  pretty 
good  centre,  as  those  kinds  of  holding  areas 
go.  We  will  look  into  it  and  get  back  to 
the  member. 

Mr.  Worton:  I  appreciate  that  considera- 
tion. One  of  the  places  I  visited  quite  often 
was  the  county  jail.  It  will  be  something  out 
of  the  ordinary  now  on  Sunday  morning,  on 
my  way  to  church  across  the  road,  not  to 
get  called  to  the  jail  to  discuss  some  matter 
about  some  person  who  feels  he  should  not 
be  in  jail.  He  calls  on  me  to  tell  me  his 
story.  I  will  now  have  a  little  farther  to  go 
to  do  that. 

While  it  is  taking  away  from  my  original 
intent,  I  must  add  we  are  well  pleased  with 
the  new  facility  for  these  people  in  our  area 
who  do  occasionally  get  off  the  track  and 
into  trouble. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  What  is  the  wish 
of  the  committee?  I  note  the  hour  is  10:30.  I 
have  the  member  for  Haldimand-Norfolk  on 
my  list  yet. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  we 
will  resume  the  review  of  the  estimates  on 
Friday. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  do  not  know  what 
day  they  will  be  on  again. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Whenever  it  is,  I  will 
leave  my  questioning  until  that  time. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  com- 
mittee of  supply  reported  progress. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:30  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  24,  1980  4587 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  November  24,  1980 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  Mr.  Wiseman,  continued 4565 

Adjournment 4586 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Isaacs,  C.  ( Wentworth  NDP ) 

Lawlor,  P.  D.  (Lakeshore  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

McKessock,  R.  ( Grey  L ) 

Miller,  G.  I.  ( Haldimand-Norf oik  L) 

Newman,  B.  ( Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East  PC) 

Warner,  D.  ( Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP ) 

Wiseman,  Hon.  D.  J.;  Minister  of  Government  Services  (Lanark  PC) 

Worton,  H.  (Wellington  South  L) 


No.  122 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  November  25,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  With  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  n^^^>1° 


4591 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 
Prayers. 

REPORT  IN  TORONTO  SUN 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  point 
of  privilege  that  we  were  discussing  yester- 
day regarding  the  defamation  of  my  char- 
acter, I  see  the  member  for  Rainy  River 
(Mr.  T.  P.  Reid)  and  the  member  for  Went- 
worth  North  (Mr.  Cunningham)  are  now  in 
the  chamber.  You  wished  to  give  the  latter 
an  opportunity  to  respond. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  quite  capable  of  look- 
ing after  the  affairs  of  the  chair  myself. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  the 
first  occasion  I  have  had  to  respond  to  the 
member's  matter  of  privilege  raised  on 
several  occasions  in  the  House.  I  have  read 
with  some  interest  the  article  which  appeared 
in  the  Toronto  Sun  of  November  19  and  to 
which  the  member  for  Oriole  has  referred  on 
a  number  of  occasions.  To  the  best  of  my 
recollection,  the  facts  as  stated  in  that  article 
in  the  Toronto  Sun  are  accurate. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  view  of 
these  recent  events,  I  feel  it  incumbent  upon 
myself  to  relate  certain  incidents  that  hap- 
pened in  the  last  week  and  make  a  clean 
breast  of  things  here  in  the  Legislature. 

On  Friday  last,  I  went  downtown  to  have 
lunch  with  a  number  of  other  people  to 
what  I  considered  was  a  respectable  place. 
I  was  in  a  room  with  a  number  of  other 
people  waiting  for  lunch  to  begin,  and  it 
looked  like  a  fairly  respectable  place.  I  was 
sitting  there  minding  my  own  business  when 
all  of  a  sudden  these  people  in  funny  white 
suits  came  out.  I  was  not  sure  whether  they 
were  some  rejects  from  the  Gong  Show  or 
some  people  auditioning  for  Snow  White  and 
the  Seven  Dwarfs,  because  I  thought  I  saw 
Sneezy  and  Dopey  and  Sleepy  in  the  crowd. 

They  had  some  entertainment  that  I  was 
not  aware  they  were  going  to  have.  One 
fellow  got  up  and  did  his  old  imitation  of 
Ed  Sullivan,  and  then  we  started  to  have 
lunch.  At  that  point,  some  ladies  in  various 
states  of  dress  and  undress  got  up  and  started 
dancing  and,  I  think,  singing.  I  can  report  to 


Tuesday,  November  25,  1980 

you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  I  do  not  think  any 
of  them  was  my  waitress  because  my  waiter 
had  a  moustache  and  I  do  not  think  he  was 
among  those  on  the  stage.    , 

In  any  case,  I  was  quite  surprised  to  be 
innocently  involved  in  such  a  display,  and  I 
said  to  my  companion,  Chesty  Morgan: 
"That  is  enough  of  this  nonsense.  This  is 
shabby.  Let's  get  out  of  here  right  after  this 
performance  is  over." 

I  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  in  view  of 
the  recent  events,  I  wanted  to  put  that  on 
the  record  before  it  appeared  in  the  National 
Enquirer  or  anywhere  else. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  heard  the  explanation 
of  an  alleged  breach  of  privilege  by  the 
member  for  Oriole.  We  had  an  earlier  denial 
of  that  by  one  of  the  accused,  namely,  the 
member  for  Rainy  River,  and  we  have  now 
heard  from  the  member  for  Wentworth 
North,  who  confirms  that  what  was  in  the 
newspaper  story  is  an  accurate  reflection  of 
what  transpired  between  the  member  for 
Wentworth  North  and  the  person  who  is 
responsible  for  the  article  that  was  written. 

The  communication  that  no  one  seems  to 
deny  was  not  a  part  of  the  record  of  this 
House.  That  is,  I  am  in  no  position  to  say 
what  was  in  the  article  or  what  was  not  in 
the  article;  therefore  it  was  not  a  part  of  the 
official  record  of  this  House,  and  therefore 
it  is  not  something  upon  which  the  chair  can 
rule.  Never  at  any  time  was  the  communica- 
tion aired  in  this  House,  other  than  portions 
of  it  referred  to  by  the  member  for  Oriole. 

Under  the  circumstances,  I  feel  there  is 
nothing  that  transpired  in  this  House  that 
can  be  seen  as  a  breach  of  the  member's 
privileges  as  a  member  of  this  House.  While 
one  always  regrets  it  when  something  of  this 
nature  arises,  when  it  does  cast  some  reflec- 
tion upon  the  conduct  of  a  member  of  this 
House,  erroneously  or  otherwise,  it  is  most 
regrettable  that  something  like  this  involving 
members  of  this  House  should  have  to  arise. 

The  member  for  Oriole  has  asked  for  an 
apology  from  the  member  for  Wentworth 
North.  The  latter  has  not  tendered  such  an 
apology.  I  am  going  to  give  him  an  oppor- 
tunity to  do  so  if  he  so  desires.  However,  if 
he   desires  not  to,   I  would  have  to  inform 


4592 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  member  for  Oriole  that  he  will  have  to 
take  whatever  action  he  deems  proper,  in 
consultation  with  others  more  knowledgeable 
in  this  field  than  I  am,  outside  this  House. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  I  have  nothing  further 
to  add,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  nothing  further  I 
can  add  to  this  incident.  I  have  said  all  I 
am  going  to  say  on  it.  I  declare  the  matter 
closed  unless  I  get  some  direction  from  this 
House  to  the  contrary,  that  is,  other  than 
what  I  have  already  stated. 
Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Really,  I  have  given  you 
ample  opportunity  to  discuss  this  thing.  I 
have  consulted  with  my  advisers.  Will  you 
please  take  your  seat.  I  have  gone  over  the 
record  on  numerous  occasions  since  the  hon- 
ourable member  raised  the  matter  last  week. 
I  have  discussed  it  with  my  advisers;  I  have 
studied  it  on  my  own.  I  have  come  to  the 
only  conclusion  I  can  reach,  given  the  in- 
formation that  has  been  placed  before  me. 
I  consider  the  matter  closed. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE  AMENDMENTS 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  later  this 
afternoon  I  shall  be  introducing  a  bill  en- 
titled, An  Act  to  revise  and  extend  Protec- 
tion of  Human  Rights  in  Ontario.  It  is 
in  substance  and  effect  an  entirely  new 
human  rights  code  and  represents  the  cul- 
mination of  the  work  begun  some  four  and 
one  half  years  ago  (by  the  Human  Rights 
Code  Review  Committee  under  the  able 
chairmanship   of  Thomas  H.    B.   Symons. 

While  I  do  not  wish  to  overdramatize  the 
situation,  I  believe  this  is  an  especially  im- 
portant occasion,  not  only  for  those  who 
have  worked  so  tirelessly  for  human  rights 
reform  in  Ontario,  both  within  government 
and  elsewhere,  but  also  for  the  people  of 
the  province  as  a  whole  who,  because  of 
their  tolerance,  basic  decency  and  respect 
for  the  rights  of  others,  contribute  so  signif- 
icantly to  the  quality  of  life  in  Ontario. 

Before  turning  to  the  highlights  of  the  bill, 
I  should  like  briefly  to  review  the  history  of 
human  rights  legislation  in  this  province. 
Ontario  was  the  first  jurisdiction  in  Canada  to 
enact  a  comprehensive  code  on  human  rights 
some  18  years  ago.  Important  revisions  have 
been  made  from  time  to  time,  but  until  now 
there  has  not  been  a  comprehensive  review 
of  the  code. 


In  its  report,  Life  Together,  delivered  to 
my  predecessor  in  August  1977,  the  Human 
Rights  Code  Review  Committee  urged  that 
such  a  comprehensive  revision  be  under- 
taken. The  committee's  specific  recommen- 
dations, which  resulted  from  meetings  and 
deliberations  with  groups  and  individuals 
across  the  province  from  all  walks  of  life, 
covered  a  broad  range  of  issues. 

2:10  p.m. 

The  bill  I  am  introducing  for  first  reading 
today  addresses  most  of  these  issues,  as  well 
as  some  others  not  included  in  the  commit- 
tee's report.  Apart  from  important  structural 
changes  to  the  code,  which  now  establishes 
in  part  I  a  clearly  defined  charter  of  rights, 
there  are  some  23  new  provisions  falling  into 
three  broad  categories:  first,  expansion  of  the 
code  to  cover  new  groups  or  classes  of 
persons;  second,  expansion  of  the  code  to 
protect  against  types  of  conduct  not  pre- 
viously prohibited,  and  third,  misc°llaneous 
provisions  relating  in  the  main  to  the  admin- 
istration of  the  code.  Some  of  these  are 
procedural,  some  have  to  do  with  the  struc- 
ture of  the  commission  and  some  are  related 
to   expanding  remedies   for   contravention. 

If  I  may,  I  should  now  like  to  turn  to  the 
highlights  of  the  bill.  As  to  the  expanded 
coverage,  the  following  additions  are  being 
proposed: 

Protection  in  all  areas— employment,  ac- 
commodation and  the  provision  of  poods  and 
services  to  mentally  and  physically  handi- 
capped, and  that  is  very  broadly  defined  in 
the  act.  This  will  also  protect  the  victims  of 
past  injuries,  including  those  who  have  re- 
ceived workmen's  compensation  benefits; 

Alteration  of  the  lower  limit  of  protection 
from  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  age 
from  40  to  18  years  of  age— and  I  shall  re- 
turn to  the  question  of  age  later  in  my  state- 
ment; 

Protection  in  all  areas  of  coverage  to  per- 
sons because  of  their  family  status,  subject 
to  certain  exceptions  in  the  case  of  accom- 
modation to  preserve  legitimate  lifestyle 
preferences; 

Protection  in  employment  to  those  who 
have  been  convicted  of  offences  under  the 
law,  but  who  have  been  rehabilitated,  sub- 
ject to  certain  bona  fide  and  reasonable 
qualifications; 

Protection  on  the  basis  of  marital  status, 
broadly  defined  in  all  areas,  subject  to  cer- 
tain exceptions  in  the  case  of  owner-occu- 
pied  and   limited-size   accommodation; 

Protection  in  accommodation  for  those  in 
receipt  of  public  assistance,   and 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4593 


Protection  in  employment  for  domestic 
workers. 

Turning  to  the  second  category,  that  is, 
the  added  areas  or  activities  that  will  be 
governed  by  the  new  code,  the  following 
are   the  highlights: 

Protection  against  discrimination  in  the 
equal  enjoyment  of  goods,  services  and 
facilities  is  broadened  by  removing  the  limit- 
ing phrase  "available  in  any  place  to  which 
the  public  is  customarily  admitted."  Pro- 
tection is  added  against  discrimination  in 
contracts,  including  the  buying  and  selling 
of  property.  Protection  from  sexual  harass- 
ment is  made  explicit. 

[Applause.] 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Thank  you  very  much. 

Reprisals  by  persons  in  authority  against 
those  refusing  or  rejecting  sexual  solicitations 
is  prohibited.  Tenants  and  employees  are 
given  specific  protection  against  harassment 
because  of  any  prohibited  ground  of  dis- 
crimination by  landlords,  fellow  tenants, 
employers  and  fellow  employees.  Indirect  or 
constructive  discrimination  is  expressly  pro- 
hibited, and  discrimination  because  of  asso- 
ciation with  members  of  a  protected  group 
is  also  prohibited. 

The  third  miscellaneous  category  covers 
a  number  of  significant  administrative,  pro- 
cedural and  structural  matters.  For  example, 
the  human  rights  code  will  bind  the  crown 
and  will  have  primacy  over  all  future  legis- 
lation and  over  existing  legislation  two  years 
after  the  new  code  comes  into  force,  unless 
the  legislation  expressly  states  that  it  ex- 
cludes the  application  of  the  code.  Provision 
is  also  made  to  exempt  public  or  private 
affirmative  action  plans  or  programs  legiti- 
mately designed  to  benefit  particular  classes 
of  persons. 

The  commission's  powers  are  expanded 
and  clarified.  In  particular,  the  commission 
will  have  the  power  to  recommend  the  im- 
plementation of  affirmative  action  plans  or 
programs  to  rectify  systemic  discrimination. 
Recognizing  the  need  to  continue  to  promote 
racial  harmony,  the  new  code  creates  a  race 
relations  division  of  the  commission,  headed 
by  a  race  relations  commissioner. 

The  commission  will  be  given  the  power 
to  refer  complaints  to  boards  of  inquiry  for 
resolution,  with  the  responsible  minister  hav- 
ing authority  to  appoint  such  boards.  The 
commission  will  be  required  to  give  written 
reasons  where  it  determines  that  a  board 
will  not  be  appointed.  In  addition,  persons 
whose   complaints  are  rejected  by  the  com- 


mission will  have  the  right  to  request  that 
their   complaints  be   reconsidered. 

Provisions  are  included  in  the  new  code 
designed  to  expedite  hearings  by  boards  of 
inquiry.  Under  the  new  provisions,  proceed- 
ings must  be  commenced  within  30  days  of 
the  board's  appointment  and  decisions  must 
be  issued  within  30  days  of  the  completion 
of  hearings. 

The  remedial  powers  of  the  boards  are 
expanded  to  permit  boards  to  issue  orders  re- 
quiring landlords  and  employers  to  take 
appropriate  action  to  prevent  future  harass- 
ment of  tenants  and  employees  by  fellow 
tenants  and  fellow  employees;  to  award  dam- 
ages for  mental  anguish  in  appropriate  cases, 
and,  in  appropriate  circumstances,  to  make 
orders  for  access  to  premises  and  facilities 
following  findings  of  discrimination  contrary 
to  the  code.  The  new  code  makes  it  a  con- 
dition of  every  crown  contract  and  subcon- 
tract that  the  contractor  or  subcontractor 
will  not  discriminate  in  employment. 

I  believe  the  bill  addresses  the  major  human 
rights  issues  fairly  and  compassionately.  It 
does  not  represent  the  end  of  reform,  but 
rather  a  new  beginning.  It  will  be  apparent 
that  some  substantive  issues  discussed  in  Life 
Together  have  not  been  dealt  with. 

One  that  has  given  me  and  my  colleagues 
particular  difficulty  is  the  upper  limit  of  the 
definition  of  age.  Members  will  recall  that 
the  member  for  York  West  (Mr.  Leluk)  re- 
cently introduced  a  private  member's  bill 
dealing  with  this  issue.  The  government  ap- 
preciates that  there  are  persuasive  arguments 
for  raising  the  age  limit  to  70  or  beyond  and 
is  very  sympathetic  to  the  concept  of  extend- 
ing the  age  of  mandatory  retirement.  We  have 
great  sympathy  for  the  views  of  those  who 
contend  that  healthy  and  able-bodied  em- 
ployees should  not  be  forced  into  retirement 
against  their  wishes  simply  because  a  particu- 
lar employer  may  have  rigid,  inflexible  and 
universally  applicable  rules  for  the  retirement 
of  all  employees. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  arguments 
against  appearing  to  encourage  personnel 
policies  and  practices  that  would  delay  the 
benefits,  financial  and  psychological,  of  re- 
tirement for  our  older  workers.  In  addition, 
there  are  other  complex  labour  market  rami- 
fications of  extending  the  definition  of  age 
under  the  code,  including  the  effect  that  might 
have  on  younger  members  of  the  labour 
force,  where  rates  of  unemployment  are 
chronically  the  highest. 

The  findings  and  recommendations  of  the 
Royal  Commission  on  the  Status  of  Pensions 


4594 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


in  Ontario,  which  I  believe  will  soon  deliver 
its  report  to  the  government,  I  hope  will  shed 
some  light  on  the  effect  of  a  change  in  the  age 
at  which  employees  may  be  compulsorily 
retired.  I  think  it  would  be  unwise  to  propose 
any  change  on  the  eve  of  the  royal  com- 
mission's report  on  this  important  topic,  but 
the  government  wishes  to  make  it  very  clear 
at  this  time  that  pending  further  discussions 
of  the  issue  before  the  standing  committee, 
where  it  should  be  given  first  priority,  it  is 
prepared  to  introduce  appropriate  amend- 
ments. 

In  addition,  following  receipt  of  the  royal 
commission's  report,  I  will  be  announcing 
the  appointment  of  a  special  adviser  or  ad- 
visers to  review  the  entire  matter  and  to 
make  recommendations  to  me.  An  informal 
consultative  process  similar  to  the  one  adopted 
by  Professor  Weiler  in  his  recent  workmen's 
compensation  study  may  be  appropriate. 

As  I  have  said,  in  the  evolving  field  of 
human  rights  there  can  never  be  an  end  to 
reform.  I  have  characterized  this  as  a  new 
beginning  in  both  substantive  and  symbolic 
terms.  I  have  described  the  substance  of  the 
proposals.  The  symbolic  importance  of  these 
revisions  cannot  be  overemphasized.  I  hope 
the  people  of  Ontario  will  recognize  that  the 
new  code  represents  this  government's  re- 
dedication  to  the  elimination  of  the  corrosive 
effects  of  discrimination  in  our  society. 

Ultimately,  of  course,  the  success  of  laws, 
especially  in  this  sensitive  area,  depends  on 
the  goodwill,  tolerance  and  maturity  of  our 
people.  While  human  rights  laws  are  essential, 
we  are  dealing  in  the  profoundest  sense  with 
matters  of  conscience  and  of  the  heart,  some 
of  which  will  always  remain  beyond  the 
reach  of  any  man-made  law. 

The  other  day  I  had  the  privilege  to  hear 
a  distinguished  visitor  from  the  United  States 
speaking  about  a  related  topic.  He  referred 
to  the  words  of  the  ancient  philosopher  Men- 
cius,  writing  2,500  years  ago  to  the  follow- 
ing effect: 

"The  men  of  old,  seeking  to  clarify  and 
diffuse  throughout  the  empire  that  light  that 
comes  from  looking  straight  into  the  heart, 
first  set  up  good  government  in  their  own 
slates.  Desiring  good  government  in  their  own 
states,  they  first  organized  their  families. 
Wishing  to  organize  their  families,  they  first 
disciplined  themselves.  Desiring  to  discipline 
themselves,  they  first  rectified  their  hearts." 

2:20  p.m. 

I  hope  that  as  we  deliberate  on  this  impor- 
tant bill  in  the  weeks  ahead  we  can  maintain 
this  sense  of  perspective,  and  appreciate  that 


whatever  we  finally  enact  will  depend  for  its 
effectiveness  on  the  rectification,  as  Mencius 
so  eloquently  put  it,  of  our  own  hearts. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated in  the  House  two  weeks  ago,  I  have 
received  the  MacLaren  report,  which  recom- 
mends options  on  permanent  liquid  waste 
treatment  facilities.  I  have  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  examine  the  recommendations  thor- 
oughly and  I  would  like  to  table  this  report 
at  this  time.  The  appendices  will  be  tabled 
as  soon  as  they  are  printed. 

As  the  members  will  remember,  I  referred 
the  issue  of  liquid  industrial  waste  to  the 
standing  committee  on  resources  development 
in  November  1978.  As  a  basis  for  discussion, 
I  put  forward  a  seven-point  program  which 
represented  our  plan  of  attack  on  the  liquid 
waste  problem.  After  an  intensive  review  of 
our  proposals  and  the  problem  it  would  ad- 
dress, the  committee  submitted  its  report.  At 
this  time,  I  would  like  to  remind  the  members 
once  again  how  closely  we  have  taken  their 
advice  in  implementing  our  seven-point  pro- 
gram. It  is  part  of  the  addenda  to  our  report. 

There  were  47  recommendations  by  that 
committee  in  that  report.  A  total  of  38  of 
those  47  either  have  been  completely  imple- 
mented or  are  in  the  planning  stages  of  being 
implemented.  The  rest  are  under  active  con- 
sideration. Obviously  the  committee's  report 
was  of  great  assistance  to  us  and  we  have 
taken  great  direction  from  it. 

There  were  five  specific  options  proposed 
for  establishing  facilities.  In  the  initial  stage 
of  our  plan  for  short-term  facilities,  we  ac- 
cepted the  third  option— joint  public-private 
ownership  of  sites  and  facilities.  We  accepted 
the  committee's  view  that  we  assist  companies 
to  establish  new  technology. 

We  have  accepted  its  views  and  yet  it  is 
with  concern  and  regret  that  I  find  deliberate 
attempts  to  halt  implementation  of  those  op- 
tions. I  need  not  outline  for  this  House  the 
litany  of  events  which  have  frustrated  our 
efforts  to  proceed  with  rational  hearings.  Cer- 
tain actions  have  only  intensified  the  public's 
focus  on  the  not-in-my-backyard  syndrome. 
Lost  in  that  approach  is  the  very  crucial  argu- 
ment that  the  treatment  proposed  is  the  only 
way  to  guarantee  the  safety  that  the  public 
so  earnestly  desires. 

It  is  obvious  from  the  amazingly  consistent 
response  we  have  received  in  every  location, 
and  experience  throughout  North  America 
demonstrates,  that  we  are  encountering  a  kind 
of  social  phenomenon.  My  one  goal  is  to  stop 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4595 


the  landfilling  of  untreated  liquid  waste.  That 
is  not  only  a  strong  commitment  from  me,  but 
of  this  government.  But  quite  frankly,  the 
controversy  surrounding  each  proposal  has 
meant  it  has  taken  too  long  to  implement 
what  I  am  sure  everyone  agrees  is  a  legiti- 
mate objective. 

However,  that  interval  has  been  used  pro- 
ductively. There  has  been  time  for  the  com- 
pletion of  the  MacLaren  report,  and  it  clearly 
indicates  the  pressing  need  for  an  immediate 
solution.  Two  weeks  ago,  I  announced  the 
freeze  on  ministry  activities  and  participation 
in  our  short-term  proposals.  I  wanted  time  to 
assess  our  other  options  and  to  weigh  Mac- 
Laren's  recommendations.  In  reaching  today's 
decisions  I  have  relied  heavily  on  the  stand- 
ing committee's  option  of  government  owner- 
ship and  control  as  well  as  on  the  MacLaren 
report. 

In  its  first  report,  MacLaren  outlined  basic 
criteria  for  assessment  of  site.  It  was  apparent 
there  would  be  extreme  difficulty  in  obtain- 
ing one  site  to  meet  all  criteria.  One  Mac- 
Laren engineer  said:  "Under  the  criteria 
agreed  on,  we  eliminated  all  areas  in  south- 
ern Ontario  within  five  miles  of  any  city, 
town  or  village,  provincial  and  urban  parks, 
all  Indian  reserves,  conservation  authority 
land,  flood  plain  land,  ecologically  sensitive 
land1  and  class  one  and  two  agricultural  land. 
When  we  got  through  there  wasn't  much  of 
the  province  left." 

In  early  June  I  requested  MacLaren  to 
assess  two  additional  sites:  crown  land  in  the 
South  Cayuga  area  and  land  at  Camp  Borden 
previously  suggested  by  the  federal  depart- 
ment, Environment  Canada. 

Besides  a  lack  of  suitable  sites,  it  was 
clear  that  the  public,  as  well  as  members  of 
the  House,  feel  that  only  government  con- 
trol and  ownership  will  guarantee  the  safety 
of  those  facilities.  Today's  report  recom- 
mends the  province  acquire  one  or  more  sites 
on  which  it  would  be  possible  to  construct 
waste  management  facilities.  It  concludes 
that  land  in  South  Cayuga  and  five  other 
areas  has  potential  for  such  a  site;  those  are 
in  Huron  county,  Lambton  county,  Bruce 
county  and  two  locations  in  Simcoe  county. 

The  two  sites  preferred  by  MacLaren  are 
the  one  in  Huron  and  the  one  in  the  South 
Cayuga  area.  Both  are  considered  "viable 
locations  for  the  proposed  facilities,  subject 
to  their  geological  suitability  being  confirmed 
by  field  studies."  MacLaren  states  Cayuga 
offers  an  additional  advantage  because  it  is 
close  to  waste  generators.  I  believe  the  fact 
that  the  government  already  owns  much  of 
the  land  is  another  major  plus.  This  allows 


adequate  government  control  of  the  site,  a 
buffer  zone  can  easily  be  achieved  and  there 
will  be  a  minimal  disruption  in  terms  of 
existing  land  use  and  to  any  residents  as 
well.  The  assembly  of  privately  owned  land 
in  the  other  areas  would  result  in  massive 
expropriation  and  considerable  cost  to  obtain 
the  needed  properties. 

[Before  a  decision  could  be  made,  we 
carried  out  soil  tests  in  Cayuga.  The  engi- 
neering firm  of  Morrison  Beatty  Limited  was 
retained.  Its  report  states  "the  site  appears 
to  be  ideally  suited"  for  what  we  propose. 
Based  on  these  factors,  I  have  decided  that 
land  in  the  South  Cayuga  area  will  become 
the  province's  permanent  liquid  industrial 
waste  treatment  facility.  It  will  have  the 
best  available  technology  and  operate  under 
the  highest  standards. 

One  important  aspect  of  the  government 
ownership  means  we  can  and  do  fully  accept 
the  responsibility  as  a  government  for  the 
operation  of  such  a  site.  The  site  itself  will 
be  run  by  a  newly  formed  corporation  with 
a  board  of  directors  of  two  representatives 
from  the  general  public,  two  members  from 
the  local  community,  two  technical  experts 
and  a  chairman  appointed  bv  th-3  govern- 
ment. They  will  be  resnonsible  for  oversee- 
ing the  development  of  the  facility. 

Called  the  Ontario  Waste  Management 
Corporation,  thh  compsnv  will  be  incorpo- 
rated immediately.  I  will  shortly  introduce 
legislation  to  set  up  a  crown  corporation  and 
it  will  assume  management  and  develop- 
ment responsibilities.  To  handle  short-term 
needs,  construction  will  begin  as  soon  as 
possible  on  the  secure  landfill  site,  a  solidifi- 
cation plant,  a  complete  lab  and  special 
storage  facilities.  The  site  will  ultimately 
contain  an  incineration  unit  and  other  treat- 
ment facilities. 

I  have  accepted  the  MacLaren  recom- 
mendation that  the  site  itself  will  be  100 
acres  in  size  with  a  buffer  zone  of  640  acres. 
Additionally,  we  are  developing  a  further 
control  zone  of  approximately  one  mile  on 
all  sides  from  the  boundaries  of  the  facility. 
Within  the  buffer  zone  around  the  site  no 
residence  will  be  permitted.  In  the  outer 
control  zone  we  will  welcome  farming  on  a 
leaseback  basis  to  demonstrate  the  suitable 
co-existence  of  the  site  and  the  normal 
activity  for  the  area. 

I  have  advised  the  co-proponents  at  Thor- 
old  and  Harwich  that  we  are  withdrawing 
our  participation  from  the  short-term  pro- 
posals. This  new  site  will  replace  the  interim 
storage  proposal  for  PCBs  in  Middleport  as 


4596 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


well.   We   are,   of  course,   prepared  to  meet 
all  our  legal  obligations.  The  South  Cayuga 
site  will  be  designated  to  handle  the  bulk 
of  Ontario's  liquid  wastes. 
2:30  p.m. 

Other  points  I  would  like  to  draw  to 
your   attention   for   this    new  facility   are: 

First,  the  waste  management  corporation 
will  assist  and  supervise  around  the  clock; 
that  is,  24-hour-a-day  security. 

Second,  with  the  lab  facilities  in  place, 
no  wastes  will  ever  enter  that  site  before 
the  contents  are  fully  known. 

Third,  there  will  be  no  radioactive  material 
accepted. 

Fourth,  the  province  will  assume  the  cost 
of  upgrading  and/or  construction  of  the 
necessary  roads  to  reduce  transportation  risks 
to  the  absolute  minimum. 

Fifth,  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  will 
continue  to  fund  research  into  alternative 
technologies,  these  to  be  incorporated  within 
site  when  appropriate. 

Sixth,  the  site  will  be  operated  on  a  break- 
even basis.  The  user  fees  will  act  as  an  in- 
centive to  encourage  industry  to  reduce,  re- 
cycle or  reuse  their  wastes.  The  board  will 
also  investigate  other  ways  to  reduce  waste 
volumes  and  encourage  waste  exchange  pro- 
grams. 

Let  there  be  no  doubt  of  the  urgent  need 
for  this  facility.  Our  health  and  that  of  the 
environment  depend  on  it.  Because  of  that 
need  I  have  come  to  another  difficult  decision. 
Since  the  final  decision  on  site  location  and 
initial  solidification  technology  is  made,  no 
hearing  will  be  held  under  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  or  the  Expropriations  Act  on 
the  few  properties  the  government  does  not 
yet  own. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  make 
only  one  interjection  in  my  statement  to  reply 
to  all  those  from  the  other  side.  It  is  rather 
interesting  that  the  complete  attempt  to  de- 
stroy the  hearing  process  has  gone  on  now 
for  nearly  a  year.  The  decisions  have  been 
made  on  those  sites  well  in  advance  of  the 
hearing  process.  There  is  absolutely  no  one 
on  that  side  of  the  House  who  can  wave  a 
finger  at  our  not  doing  the  hearing  process. 
They  have  shortchanged  it  on  every  possible 
opportunity. 

Much  work  must  still  be  done  to  develop 
this  facility,  but  I  felt  it  was  necessary  to 
inform  the  public  as  soon  as  it  was  possible 
to  do  so. 

The  cost  of  this  facility  is  estimated  at 
approximately  $60  million.  That  is  certainly 


high,  but  the  government  feels  cost  should 
not  be  the  limiting  factor  when  what  we  need 
is  the  best  technology  it  is  possible  to  estab- 
lish. 

Unfortunately,  we  are  not  able  to  look  to 
other  jurisdictions  in  Canada  for  any  guid- 
ance whatsoever,  because  there  is  no  facility. 
There  is  no  plan  in  any  other  jurisdiction  in 
Canada.  However,  as  soon  as  the  board  is  in 
place,  I  intend  to  tour  the  facilities  in  Europe 
with  the  board  so  that  it  can  copy  or,  where 
appropriate,  improve  the  facilities,  so  that 
Ontario  will  have  the  best  facilities  in  the 
world. 

It  is  with  some  pride  that  I  note  the 
leadership  role  Ontario  is  taking  in  tackling 
this  serious  issue,  and  I  fully  intend  to  keep 
it  that  way. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  On  a  point  of  privilege: 
is  the  minister  telling  the  House  today  that 
he  is  going  to  go  ahead  with  this  project 
without  a  hearing  before  the  province- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  That  is  not  a  point  of 
privilege;  it  is  a  question  and  you  will  be 
allowed  to  put  it  at  the  appropriate  time. 
Interjections. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  A  question  on  the  South 
Cayuga  matter  for  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment,  Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  minister 
not  recognize  what  a  farce  is  being  made 
oi  his  own  environmental  assessment  process, 
if  he  is  willing  to  apply  it  for  a  number  of 
important  but  relatively  minor  situations,  and 
yet  unwilling  to  apply  it  to  what  is  to  be, 
in  his  view,  in  many  ways  the  most  important 
environmentally  sensitive  project,  a  matter 
that  will  include  all  the  liquid  waste  gener- 
ated in  the  industrial  portion  of  the  province? 
Does  he  not  recognize  he  is  making  an  ab- 
solute farce  and  a  travesty  of  his  own 
otherwise  reasonable  legislation,  in  trying 
to  exclude  a  hearing  process  in  this  very 
important  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  recog- 
nize that  two  years  ago  the  opposition  critic 
on  that  occasion  made  what  was  an  obvious 
and  clear  commitment  that  this  was  a  mat- 
ter of  crisis  importance.  I  recall  that  dis- 
cussion and  I  am  sure  he  does  as  well.  I  do 
not  think  anyone  questions  the  amount  of 
activity  the  committee  has  put  forward  and 
how  it  has  suggested  what  we  do. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Not  only  did  I  say  it,  the  NDP 
critic  said  it  and  so  did  the  minister. 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4597 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No  one  has  argued  that. 
I  was  not  putting  it  forward  as  an  argument. 
I  simply  put  it  forward  as  the  member's 
statement,  which  I  agree  with.  It  is  a  matter 
of  great  urgency.  This  committee  report 
makes  that  same  point. 

We  have  attempted  with  a  great  deal  of 
effort,  and  rightly  so,  to  follow  those  rec- 
ommendations. As  I  said  in  my  statement 
today,  we  are  now  in  the  process  of  imple- 
menting 38  of  the  47  recommendations.  I 
think  if  the  members  of  this  House  would 
take  this  statement,  the  committee  report- 
it  is  rather  a  small  one— and  read  that  report 
in  detail,  and  I  hope  they  will,  they  would 
find  that  an  unbelievable  number  of  accom- 
plishments  have   occurred  in   two  years. 

I  am  glad  to  recite  that,  but  when  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  says  to  me  that 
somehow  or  other  we  have  short-circuited 
a  system  of  hearing  processes,  I  know  place 
after  place  in  this  province  where  the  mem- 
bers opposite  have  consistently  refused  even 
to  let  the  concept  go  to  a  hearing.  They 
have  made  their  decision  before  the  hear- 
ing. They  do  not  even  want  to  hear  the 
review.  They  make  their  decision  and  as 
soon  as  there  is  a  bandwagon  on  which  they 
feel  comfortable  to  hop,  they  hop  on  to  it 
regardless  of  whether  or  not  they  come  to 
grips  with  the  very  urgent  problem  of  treat- 
ing our  liquid  waste. 

It  is  extremely  important  that  we  do  so, 
and  I  make  no  apologies  whatsoever  for 
attacking  what  is  one  of  the  most  serious 
social  problems  in  this  province  and  getting 
on  with  the  job.  We  are  protecting  the  area 
residents  by  putting  them  on  the  board.  I 
think  that  is  the  way  to  go  and  I  am  proud 
of  taking  that  forceful  action. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Does  the  minister  not  recog- 
nize that  without  a  proper  hearing  under 
his  own  legislation  it  is  going  to  be  very 
difficult  for  him  or  anyone  else  to  convince 
the  people  of  Ontario  that  South  Cayuga 
turns  out  to  be  the  one  most  suitable  site 
in  this  entire  province  for  liquid  industrial 
waste,  when  it  was  not  even  one  of  the  17 
sites  looked  at  originally  by  the  MacLaren 
people  when  they  did  their  interim  report, 
and  when  it  is  obvious  and  well  known  to 
everyone  that  the  main  reason  South  Cayuga 
is  being  used  is  because  it  represents  a  huge 
political  embarrassment  in  the  fact  that  the 
government  finds  itself  in  possession  of  that 
expensive   land   at  this   time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  there  are  many 
things  that  recommend  the  South  Cayuga 
site.  I  will  be  glad  to  discuss  those  in  detail 


any  time  the  House  should  so  wish.  More 
particularly,  I  think  we  should  recognize 
that  a  $425,000  report  was  presented  to  the 
House  just  this  day  to  outline,  to  inform, 
to  tell  as  much  as  is  humanly  possible  about 
why  a  site  is  chosen  and  what  is  necessary 
for  this  province.  That,  I  say,  is  what  the 
report  is  all  about. 

I  must  conclude  that  comment  by  saying 
there  has  not  been  one,  not  one,  positive, 
constructive  suggestion  by  the  members  op- 
posite of  where  a  site  should  be  located; 
not  one  on  the  basis  of  any  recommendation 
whatsoever  except  perhaps  a  casual  remark, 
"Why  don't  you  locate  it  in  South  Cayuga?" 
That  happens  to  be  the  recommendation  of 
one  of  the  members  of  the  Liberal  Party 
in  our  committee  hearings.  They  have  not 
addressed  the  problem;  the  MacLaren  re- 
port has,  and  I  think  we  should  act  on  it. 
2:40    p.m. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Could  the  minister  now  explain  how  the 
people  of  the  province  can  have  any  hope  of 
believing  that  the  minister  believes  in  con- 
sulting the  public,  when  the  announcement 
that  the  South  Cayuga  site  was  being  con- 
sidered came  only  on  October  27,  just  under 
a  month  ago,  and  yet  the  minister  says  in 
this  statement  that  since  that  is  now  a  firm 
decision  there  will  be  no  further  opportunity 
for  the  people  in  the  area  or  the  people  of 
the  province  to  consider  whether  that  is  an 
appropriate  decision  or  to  know  whether  the 
South  Cayuga  site  is  acceptable  on  environ- 
mental grounds?  When  the  people  of  the 
province  have  the  MacLaren  report,  which 
says  it  is  neither  an  optimal  nor  a  minimal 
site,  why  should  they  put  credence  in  the 
word  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
who  issued  a  political  dictate  to  the  Mac- 
Laren report? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  May  I  remind  the  leader 
of  the  third  party  that  the  crown  corpora- 
tion is  being  established.  This  facility  is  not 
going  to  be  run  by  the  Ministry  of  the  En- 
vironment, nor  by  the  province;  it  will  be 
run  by  a  crown  corporation.  Two  out  of  seven 
of  those  people  on  that  crown  corporation 
will  be  from  the  local  community  itself,  a 
rather  unusual  but,  I  think,  justifiable  de- 
cision to  make,  so  that  the  local  people  will 
have  tremendous  input  into  how  that  site  is 
run.  I  think  it  is  extremely  logical  and  appro- 
priate that  the  local  people  will  have  that 
kind  of  input. 

I  think  it  is  also  the  guarantee  the  people 
of  this  province  want,  that  a  crown  corpora- 
tion will  run  the  facility,  because  I  know  the 


4598 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


people  of  Ontario  are  saying:  "We  want  a 
facility  and  we  want  it  now.  The  health  of 
this  province,  the  health  of  the  people  of  this 
province  are  dependent  upon  having  it,"  and 
they  don't  want  the  procrastination  the  mem- 
ber  seems   so   interested  in. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  report  to  the  government, 
Treatment  and/or  Disposal  Sites  for  Liquid 
Industrial  Wastes  and  Hazardous  Wastes, 
dated  August  1979,  indicates  that  using  cri- 
teria, candidate  regions  were  identified  in 
figure  two,  with  the  optimal  areas,  shown  in 
dark  green,  excluding  agriculture  land  in 
classes  one  to  four;  and  in  the  map  that  is 
provided  in  that  report  there  is  no  indica- 
tion that  South  Cayuga  was  even  identified. 
Can  the  minister  explain  to  this  House  how 
he  can  select  it  at  this  time,  how  he  can 
justify  using  class  one  and  class  two  land? 

Of  that  12,503  acres,  90.8  per  cent  is  class 
one  and  class  two  under  the  old  classification, 
and,  under  the  new  classification,  from  class 
one  to  class  four  is  93.3  per  cent.  Can  the 
minister  justify  using  good  agricultural  land 
for  this  type  of  use?  What  is  the  policy  of  this 
government  as  far  as  agricultural  land  in 
Ontario  is  concerned? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
there  is  a  slight  distortion  of  the  figures  on 
the  amount  of  land  that  will  be  used. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  The  distortion  is  not  there; 
it  is  in  this  book. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  There  will  be  a  site 
using  100  acres  of  land.  There  will  be  a  buffer 
zone  around  that  using— 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Just  another  100  acres,  so 
don't  worry  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Read  the  report.  I  do 
not  know  whether  the  member  has  had  a 
chance  to  do  so  yet.  He  has  had  it  all  of  20 
minutes.  If  the  member  will  look  at  the 
report  he  will  find  100  acres  for  the  site,  600 
acres  of  a  buffer  zone  around  it- 
Mr.  G.  I.   Miller:   Six  hundred. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  That's  right.  It  can  and 
will  be  used  for  farming. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Will  be  used  for  farm- 
ing. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Why  don't  you  give  up  100 
acres  to  be  a  horse  pasture? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Will  be  used  for  farming, 
let  me  repeat  as  often  as  necessary.  Last 
night  I  went  to  the  community  of  South 
Cayuga  and  explained  this  concept- 


Mi-.  Roy:  You  didn't  explain.  You  dictated 
to  them. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  little 
difficult  to  be  heard.  Last  night  1  went  to 
the  area  of  South  Cayuga  and  explained  to 
the  people  of  that  community  how  the  buffer 
zone  around  it  will  not  only  be  used  for  farm- 
ing, but  will  also  demonstrate  the  coexistence 
of  farming  and  other  activities.  Indeed,  the 
council  asked  whether  other  activities  would 
be  possible  and  of  course  they  will  be.  We 
will  use  all  of  that  land.  We  intend,  with  the 
Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food,  to  demon- 
strate that  not  only  can  the  land  be  used  for 
its  normal  activity  of  farming  as  it  is  now, 
but  that  it  can  also  be  enhanced  and  im- 
proved. This  will  be  a  very  modern  facility 
that  will  coexist  very  well  in  that  farm  com- 
munity. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Given  that  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
is  claiming  he  is  providing  the  best  facility 
to  the  people  of  Ontario,  why  has  he  ignored 
the  statement  on  page  3-17  of  the  MacLaren 
report  that  says  Huron  is  preferable  to  South 
Cayuga  environmentally?  Why  has  he 
allowed  political  considerations  to  get  in- 
volved with  his  selection  of  the  best  possible 
environmental  site? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
quite  sure  whether  the  members  for  Huron- 
Bruce  (Mr.  Gaunt)  and  Huron-Middlesex 
(Mr.  Riddell)  want  to  associate  themselves 
with  that  remark.  But  let  me  treat  that 
comment  rather  seriously. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  The  going  price  is  $100,000 
an  acre. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  You  mean  there  is  a 
price  you  would  accept?  Is  that  what  you  are 
saying? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  you  get  on  with  your 
answer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Yes,  I  would  like  to, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  think  if  the  member  would 
do  the  House  the  favour  of  reading  on,  and 
putting  it  on  the  record,  there  were  some 
other  rather  significant  circumstances  the 
report  also  talks  about. 

One  of  those  is  the  fact  that  it  will  reduce 
the  transportation  mileage  a  great  deal— a 
very  significant  factor  to  be  considered  when 
we  choose  between  two  sites.  I  would  not 
argue  for  a  moment  that  the  Huron  site  was 
declared  environmentally  preferable  to  the 
South  Cayuga  site.  But  to  counterbalance 
that  and  indeed  add  to  the  advantages  of 
South    Cayuga,    there    is    a    much    reduced 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4599 


transportation  distance;  that  is  a  very  sig- 
nificant factor.  Also,  if  we  went  to  the  Huron 
site  it  would  mean  we  would  have  to  disrupt 
hundreds,  perhaps  thousands,  of  people, 
which  we  will  not  have  to  do  in  the  South 
Cayuga  site.  When  you  put  all  the  factors 
together,  there  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that 
the  South  Cayuga  site  is  the  best  possible 
site  in  this  province. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  A  new  question  on  the  same 
topic  to  the  same  minister,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Would  the  minister  explain  why  it  is  he  feels 
confident  to  choose  this  site  without  a  proper 
environmental  assessment  hearing,  when  in 
fact  the  Dillon  report,  in  looking  at  the  same 
site  for  the  possibility  of  disposal  of  PCBs, 
pointed  out  that  the  site  is  adjacent  to  an 
ecologically  significant  area  along  the  Grand 
River,  pointed  out  that  instead  of  minimizing 
surface  water  or  wetlands  at  risk  that  site 
crosses  Holmes  Creek,  and  pointed  out  that 
instead  of  minimizing  incompatibility  with 
surrounding  and  adjacent  uses  that  site  is 
"not  compatible  with  agriculture  and  scat- 
tered residential  surrounding  the  site"? 

Given  that  the  Dillon  studv  found  this  was 
not  a  suitable  place  for  PCBs,  why  has  the 
minister  now  decided,  without  benefit  of  a 
proper  hearing,  that  this  is  a  suitable  site  not 
onlv  for  PCBs  but  for  all  the  liquid  wastes 
in  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Mac- 
Laren report  is  very  comprehensive,  and  it 
deals  with  all  those  factors.  I  think,  in 
summary,  it  does  sav  the  South  Cayuga  site, 
all  things  considered,  is  the  best  site.  It  also 
makes  it  very  clear,  as  I  said  in  my  state- 
ment, that  no  one  site  meets  all  the  param- 
eters. We  are  well  aware  of  that.  One 
cannot  find  the  perfect  site,  so  one  chooses 
and  uses  the  best  site  it  is  humanly  possible 
to  find  in  Ontario.  The  $425,000  the  gov- 
ernment spent  to  do  that  search,  I  think,  has 
answered  the  question  in  full  detail.  They 
conclude  the  South  Cayuga  site  is  by  far  the 
best. 

Let  me  refresh  the  member's  knowledge 
of  this  particular  survey,  all  things  con- 
sidered. The  original  MacLaren  report  was 
done  from  a  map  survey;  no  one  set  foot  on 
any  land.  Indeed,  sites  were  chosen— and  I 
think  the  critic  for  the  Liberal  Party  on  one 
occasion  drew  to  my  attention  where  a  site, 
supposedly  a  good  site,  really  was  not.  I 
know  the  member  for  Chatham-Kent  (Mr. 
Watson)  identified  the  same  kind  of  error  in 
the  first  MacLaren  report.  The  reason  was 
that  no  one  went  out  and  did  field  tests. 
They  took  a  survey  of  the  province  and  tried 


to  generalize  about  the  areas  they  should 
look  at  in  greater  detail.  I  do  not  think  Mac- 
Laren would  argue  that  they  did  more  than 
that. 

2:50  p.m. 

On  that  basis,  we  then  did  the  obvious 
thing— narrowed  it  down  to  fewer  sites.  The 
executive  summary  is  a  very  small  part  of 
this  comprehensive  report.  The  total  amount 
of  work  that  has  gone  into  searching  for  this 
site  is  enormous.  The  most  exhaustive  search 
that  is  humanly  possible  has  been  carried  out 
by  this  government. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Is  the  minister  now  sug- 
gesting there  will  be  no  need  or  any  pro- 
ject anywhere  to  undergo  an  environmental 
assessment  hearing  as  long  as  there  are  one 
or  possibly  two  reports  done  by  some  con- 
sulting engineers?  Is  he  saying  that  as  long 
as  those  reports  are  presented  there  is  no 
need  to  go  through  the  process  of  cross- 
examination  of  other  experts  with  contrary 
opinions  presenting  their  point  of  view?  Will 
local  citizens  have  no  opportunity  to  question 
the  findings  of  given  consultants,  wise  as 
those  consultants  might  be?  Is  the  minister 
now  suggesting  there  is  no  need  for  that  cross- 
examination  and  presentation  of  contrary 
evidence,  which  is  the  basis  of  the  appeal 
process,  on  any  further  environmentally 
considered  site?  If  not,  why  has  he  chosen 
this  one  to  eliminate  this  all-important  con- 
cept? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  There  is  no  doubt  that  is 
not  the  precedent  being  established  here 
today  at  all.  I  think  it  has  been  said  by  many 
in  this  House  that  the  matter  of  dealing  with 
liquid  wastes  in  this  province  is  of  great 
urgency.  I  accept  that.  I  think  it  is  important 
for  all  of  us  to  understand  how  important 
that  is,  not  only  to  protect  our  environment 
but  to  protect  our  health. 

So  often  the  statement  has  been  made, 
"Not  here."  Around  the  province,  one  finds 
it  is  always  the  answer,  "Not  here."  As  I 
said  in  my  statement,  that  misses  the  very 
significant  point  that  as  long  as  we  keep 
saying  "Not  here"  all  of  us  have  a  real 
problem.  We  are  living  in  jeopardy.  We  must 
treat  our  wastes  and  we  must  do  it  imme- 
diately. The  urgency  of  this  matter  cannot 
be  underestimated;  we  must  proceed.  Today 
I  have  outlined  what  I  believe,  and  I  think 
this  government  believes,  will  provide  the 
greatest  protection  to  the  people  by  estab- 
lishing a  crown  corporation  that  will  have 
one  purpose  in  mind.  It  will  not  only  see 
that  site  is  extremely  well  run  but  that  the 


4600 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


controls  on  it  are  extremely  tight,   that  we 
get  on  with  the  job  and  we  do  it  immediately. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  minister  stated  the  opposition  had  op- 
posed environmental  assessment  hearings  and 
I  would  like  to  ask  him  to  document  any 
instance  in  which  the  opposition  has  opposed 
the  application  of  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act  to  waste  disposal  sites.  Also,  he 
says  that  not  one  constructive  suggestion  has 
come  from  the  opposition,  but  he  has  adopted 
38  out  of  the  43  recommendations  of  the 
committee,  including  our  proposal  for  a  crown 
corporation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  glad 
to  know  the  member  has  recognized  that  I 
have  accepted  a  lot  of  the  recommendations 
of  that  committee,  and  I  appreciate  having 
that  on  the  record.  But  where  the  committee 
has  not  been  positive,  where  it  has  not  made 
any  constructive  suggestions,  is  where  to 
locate  the  site.  It  is  great  to  go  through  the 
rhetoric  that  we  need  one,  but  the  bottom 
line  is  where  it  will  go.  The  committee  has 
never  indicated  that  it  feels  MacLaren  has 
done  a  good  job  on  that  search,  nor  has  it 
said  anything  to  indicate  it  has  a  better 
knowledge  of  where  to  locate  a  site. 

It  is  easy  to  talk  about  it,  but  on  this  side 
of  the  House  we  have  to  do  something.  That 
is  why  we  are  on  this  side  of  the  House  and 
why  we  will  stay  on  this  side  of  the  House— 
because  we  will  do  something. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Could  the  minister  advise  when  he  anticipates 
work  might  commence  on  this  project,  when 
it  might  be  fully  operational;  the  order  of 
the  receiving  and  some  order  of  the  waste 
products  it  will  handle? 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not 
hear  quite  all  of  the  last  part  of  that  question. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  can  fullly  under- 
stand why  the  minister  would  not  have  heard 
all  of  it.  I  did  not  myself.  Would  the  hon- 
ourable member  like  to  repeat  it? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Everybody  has  to 
have  ample  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  this 
House.  It  is  just  a  common  courtesy.  The 
member  for  Mississauga  South. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  minister 
said  he  would  be  doing  some  studying  with 
this  commission  in  preparation  for  the  com- 
mencement of  the  development  of  the  site. 
Would  he  advise  when  he  expects  develop- 


ment to  commence,  when  it  might  be  par- 
tially operational,  fully  operational;  and 
what  the  order  of  the  receiving  of  the  vari- 
ous  waste   products  might   be? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be 
pleased  to  try  to  do  that.  Obviously,  some 
of  these  dates  are  the  tentative  dates  we 
hope  to  be  able  to  meet.  First  of  all,  we 
would  expect  the  corporation  to  be  formed 
early  in  the  new  year  and  the  appropriate 
director  to  be  named.  Once  they  are  named, 
then  I  think  the  only  place  the  corporation 
members  could  go  to  view  the  appropriate 
facilities  would  be  to  Europe.  I  expect  they 
will  do  that  early  in  the  new  year. 

We  have  already  taken  one  member  from 
our  ministry  staff  who  will  be  available  on 
a  full-time  basis  to  assist  the  members  of 
the  corporation.  That  having  been  said,  I 
would  believe  all  of  the  necessary  expropria- 
tion procedures  can  be  completed,  because 
they  are  very  few  in  number,  by  the  end  of 
June.  That  means  we  feel  we  could  start 
on  this  facility  in  early  fall  of  1981.  We 
would  like  to  get  on  with  this  facility  im- 
mediately. I  think  it  will  take  that  much 
time  to  give  the  appropriate  notices  to  the 
present  tenants  to  acquire  the  options  on 
the  land,  but  I  do  believe  we  will  be  par- 
tially operational  in  the  fall  of  1981  and 
certainly  fully  operational  in  the  year  1982. 

NUCLEAR  WASTE  DISPOSAL 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Energy  with 
respect  to  the  disposal  of  nuclear  waste  in 
northern  Ontario,  a  matter  which  seems  to 
be  handled  almost  as  irresponsibly  as  the 
disposal  of  liquid  industrial  waste  in  south- 
ern Ontario. 

A  few  months  ago,  before  embarking  on 
its  program  of  nuclear  waste  disposal  re- 
search in  the  area  of  Forsberg  Lake,  the 
joint  Canada-Ontario  committee  sought  and 
got  approval  from  the  nearest  organized 
municipality,  the  municipality  of  Atikokan, 
before  it  could  go  ahead.  In  comparable  cir- 
cumstances at  East  Bull  Lake  near  Massey, 
that  prior  approval  is  neither  being  sought 
nor  being  given,  but  the  research  into  nu- 
clear waste  disposal  in  the  area  is  already 
under  way. 

Does  this  mean  the  procedure  for  ap- 
proving research  on  sites  as  nuclear  waste 
dumps  in  the  north  has  been  changed  so  it 
no  longer  requires  approval  from  the  local 
elected  people  in  the  nearest  organized  area? 
If  so,  has  that  been  agreed  to  by  the  pro- 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4601 


vincial  government  through  its  membership 
on  the  joint  committee? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  to 
clarify  the  issue,  with  respect  to  the  par- 
ticular interest  of  Massey,  there  was  some 
correspondence  when  the  announcement  of 
the  Atomic  Energy  Control  Board  was  made 
with  respect  to  the  flyovers  and  the  walk- 
overs of  five  particular  unorganized  areas. 
There  was  an  inquiry  from  the  town  which 
I  felt  was  satisfied  when  they  were  assured 
at  this  stage  of  the  game  that  all  that  was 
being  done  at  this  time  was  the  flyover  and 
the  walkover. 

I  think  the  member  perhaps  exaggerates 
the  matter.  At  the  moment,  that  is  all  that 
has  been  done.  It  was  quite  public;  there 
was  consultation— in  so  far  as  those  five 
particular  areas  were  concerned— with  the 
elected  members,  both  federal  and  provincial, 
at  this  stage  for  the  flyover  and  the  walk- 
over. The  town  of  Massey,  if  that  is  the 
particular  municipality  in  which  the  member 
is  interested,  was  provided  with  the  informa- 
tion which  it  requested  for  purposes  of 
clarification  with  respect  to  that  activity. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Are  we  to  take  it  that  the 
joint  committee,  of  which  Ontario  is  a 
member  and  which  in  the  past  worked  by 
unanimous  decision,  has  abandoned  its  policy 
of  seeking  municipal  approvals  prior  to  under- 
taking research  on  nuclear  waste  disposal 
sites  in  northern  Ontario?  If  the  minister 
has  abandoned  this  approach,  why  is  he  no 
longer  carrying  out  the  commitment  to  ensure 
that  northerners  will  be  consulted  before 
decisions  are  made  as  to  where  nuclear 
wastes  will  go  in  their  areas? 

3  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  As  I  said  in  response  to 
the  comments  of  the  member  for  York  South 
(Mr.  MacDonald)  yesterday,  we  will  have 
an  opportunity  to  discuss  the  report  of  the 
select  committee  on  Ontario  Hydro  affairs 
with  respect  to  this  subject.  It  is  unfair  and 
unreasonable  to  assume  the  consultative 
process  has  been  abandoned.  We  are  talk- 
ing, at  this  stage,  of  walkover  and  flyover. 
As  to  the  process  and  all  other  steps  that 
will  be  taken  before  any  final  determi- 
nation is  made  with  respect  to  the  disposi- 
tion of  waste,  that  is  another  matter.  On  the 
basis  of  that,  as  the  member  knows,  the 
area  has  been  confined  to  those  five  sites. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Would  the  minister  not  give  us  a  com- 
mitment that  local  residents  in  a  place  like 
Atikokan  for  instance,  where  Atomic  Energy 
of    Canada    Limited    is    already    doing    test 


drilling,  will  have  the  final  say  as  to  whether 
they  will  accept  nuclear  waste  in  that  com- 
munity or  in  any  other  community  across  the 
province?  Are  we  going  to  find  ourselves  in 
the  same  situation  where  the  ministry  is 
going  to  go  through  the  process  and,  at  some 
point,  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr. 
Parrott)  or  this  minister  is  going  to  say: 
"You  people  are  going  to  get  it.  Never  mind 
the  environmental  assessment,  never  mind 
what  the  local  people  want,  you  are  going 
to  be  stuck  with  it"?  Will  the  minister  give 
us  the  commitment  that  the  local  people  will 
have  the  input  and  will  make  the  decision  as 
to  whether  they  accept  this  stuff? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  men- 
tioned when  I  was  before  the  select  com- 
mittee, I  have  no  difficulty  in  assuring  there 
is  a  full  consultative  process  in  place  with 
respect  to  these  sites.  I  stop  short  of  indicat- 
ing there  is  going  to  be  any  veto  on  the 
part  of  any  particular  community.  That  was 
addressed  to  me  at  the  time  of  the  hearings. 
Certainly,  there  has  to  be  a  full  consultative 
process  and,  ultimately,  a  decision  will  be 
made  taking  into  account  all  the  facts  that 
are  made  public  during  that  process. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  this  in  effect  mean  the  provincial 
government  and  the  Canada-Ontario  waste 
management  committee  has  determined  that 
the  waste  management  disposal  site  will  be 
in  an  unorganized  territory?  Second,  is  the 
minister  not  aware  that  AECL  has  given  a 
guarantee  to  a  municipality  in  Manitoba  that 
the  emplacement  site  for  waste  disposal  will 
not  be  put  there  just  because  that  munic- 
ipality has  agreed  to  research  at  that  site? 
If  that  is  applicable  to  Manitoba,  why  is 
the  Ontario  government  not  fighting  for  the 
same  kind  of  application  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  too 
early  in  the  process  to  indicate  a  final  deci- 
sion has  been  made  with  respect  to  any 
of  these  five  sites.  That  is  the  whole  point 
of  doing  the  experimentation  and  studies  on 
site  suitability.  How  would  the  member,  at 
this  stage  of  simply  a  flyover  and  a  walk- 
over, jump  to  the  conclusion  that  any  deci- 
sion has  been  made  with  respect  to  any  par- 
ticular site? 

Mr.  Foulds:  You  are  changing  the  rules. 
You  are  weaseling  out  of  the  commitment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  made  no  commitment 
and  you  know  it.  Let  the  record  show  that 
is  incorrect. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 


4602 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTRACTED-OUT  SERVICES 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Labour.  The  minister 
is  aware  of  an  Ontario  Labour  Relations 
Board  decision  early  this  month  which  up- 
held the  right  of  the  owners  of  the  Kennedy 
Lodge  Nursing  Home  in  Toronto  to  contract 
out  housekeeping  and  janitorial  services  even 
though  16  members  of  the  service  employees' 
union  at  that  nursing  home  lost  their  iobs  as 
a  result.  Does  the  minister  not  agree  that  the 
right  of  employers  under  the  Labour  Rela- 
tions Act  as  it  now  stands,  to  decide  uni- 
laterally to  contract  out  and  lav  off  wo^k^rs 
as  a  consequence  is  a  fundamental  threat  to 
the  iob  security  that  workers  should  have 
when  thev  have  a  collective  agreement?  Will 
he,  therefore,  undertake  to  make  that  kind 
of  action  by  emplovers  illegal  through  the 
Labour  Relations  Act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  what  the 
decision  dealt  with  at  the  Kcnnedv  Lodge 
Nursing  Home  was  partially  what  the 
member  renorted.  What  the  Onta^'o  Labour 
Relations  Board  said  was  that  following  a 
long  line  of  National  Labour  Relations  Board 
hearings  and  decisions  in  the  United  States 
and,  indeed,  in  this  country,  the  nractice  of 
contracting  out  was  acknowledged  to  be  a 
usual  and  conventional  business  nractice  in 
North  America. 

What  it  then  went  on  to  say  was  that  if 
there  was  evidence  of  activity  that  this  was 
being  used  to  dfccrfnr'nate  against  the  union 
or  to  e^caoe  the  immn  in  any  wav  it  would 
have  come  to  a  different  decision.  But  in  the 
absence  of  such  'widened  it  did  not  feel  that 
svoh  an '  approach  was  inaonronnate  in  the 
light  of  the  practice  in  North  America. 

Mr.  Cassidv:  Given  the  fact  that  16  work- 
ers have  bepn  put  out  of  work  in  that  par- 
ticular case  because  of  contracting  out  at  the 
Oaknd^e "Villa  Nursing  Home.  St.  Raphael's 
Nursing  Home  aiid  Heritage  Nursing  Home 
in  Toronto,  does  the  minister  not  aerTee  that 
to  give  an  employer  the  unfettered  right  to 
lay  off  organized  workers  through  contracting 
out  at  a  time  when  the  workers  have  no 
remedy,  either  through  the  arbitration  route 
or  by  exercising  the  right  to  strike,  is  a  one- 
sided application  of  the  labour  law,  that  it  is 
wrong  to  have  the  law  sO  one-sided  and  that 
it  is  time  we  ensured  through  legislation  that 
employers  cannot  take  workers'  jobs  away 
and  lay  them  off  by  use  of  this  process  of 
contracting  out  during  the  life  of  a  contract? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all, 
the  member  knows  full  well  that  the  issue  of 


contracting  out  comes  up  in  many  contract 
negotiations,  so  the  parties  do  have  an  option 
to  discuss  this  issue  well  beforehand.  Second. 
I  can  only  reiterate  that  contracting  out  of 
business  is  a  normal  business  practice  in 
North  America.  If  the  leader  of  the  third 
party  is  saying  to  this  government  that  we 
should  change  that  practice  in  North 
America,  I  have  to  tell  him  that  is  not  some- 
thing we  can  do.  But  the  Labour  Relations 
Board  clearly  says- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  In  the  middle  of  a  contract, 
when  the  workers  are  defenceless— 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Just  listen  for  a  minute. 
The  labour  relations  board  clearly  said  that 
if  there  was  any  evidence  that  a  company  is 
doing  this  to  escape  its  union  then  it  would 
find'  differently. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Does  the  minister  not  under- 
stand that  his  function  as  the  Minister  of 
Labour,  among  other  things,  is  to  review  the 
decisions  of  the  labour  relations  board,  to 
review  the  way  that  case  law  and  practice  de- 
velop with  respect  to  the  rights  of  employees 
and  employers  and,  where  a  situation  emerges 
which  is  one-sided  or  in  which  the  workers 
are  as  defenceless  as  the  workers  at  the 
Kennedy  Lodge  Nursing  Home  have  found 
out  that  they  are,  to  even  the  balance  and  to 
come  in  with  legislation  that  protects  those 
workers?  Why  should  workers  be  compelled 
to  try  to  negotiate  a  contract  which  their 
employer  will  not  grant  them,  and  why  can 
they  not  have  protection  under  the  law  so 
they  are  not  put  into  the  impossible  position 
of  these  16  workers  who  have  lost  their  jobs 
through  the  neglieence  of  this  government 
and  the  Minister  of  Labour? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  do  not  accept  that  non- 
sensical statement  about  negligence  on  the 
part  of  this  government.  There  is  a  practice 
of  contracting  out  in  North  America,  and 
that  exists  in  this  province.  The  mere  fact 
that  there  was  a  case  before  the  OLRB  con- 
firms the  fact  that  in  some  instances,  namely 
in  the  instance  of  trying  to  escape  a  union, 
redress  is  possible.  . 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  to  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  I 
would  like  to  ask  how  he  could  make  a  pro- 
posal for  Harwich  township  based  on  the 
report  that,  by  his  own  admission,  there 
were  no  visual  inspections  of  the  17  sites, 
and  cause  the  Harwich  township  council  to 
spend  an  estimated  $100,000  in  defence  of 
this   ill-conceived    proposal?    Is    the   minister 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4603 


willing  to  reimburse  the  taxpayers  of  the 
township  of  Harwich  for  up  to  $100,000,  as 
he  was  willing  to  do  for  Browning-Ferris 
Industries? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  again  I 
think  I  covered  that  point  relatively  well  in 
my  statement.  I  said  we  would  accept  all 
legal  responsibilities. 

NELSON  CRUSHED  STONE 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  A  question  to  the  Attorney 
General,  Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral aware  of  the  letter  he  received  on 
October  20,  from  driver-owners  who  are 
working  for  Nelson  Crushed  Stone,  in  which 
there  are  very  serious  allegations  against 
the  management?  Will  the  Attorney  General 
tell  the  House  if  he  is  taking  any  action? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
honourable  member  delivered  a  copy  of  a 
document  dated  October  20  to  me  yester- 
day, which  indicated  that  a  number  of 
driver-owners  in  the  service  of  Nelson 
Crushed  Stone  believe  their  rights  have  been 
infringed.  They  are  alleging  discrimination, 
instigation  and  provocation  and  abuse  of 
power  and  management.  There  are  no  par- 
ticulars of  the  allegations  whatsoever. 
3:10   p.m. 

When  I  received  this  yesterday,  I  asked 
my  staff  if  they  had  any  information  in  the 
ministry  to  assist  me  in  knowing  what  the 
allegations  are.  I  have  not  had  a  report 
back  from  them  so  I  simply  say  to  the 
member,  if  he  has  any  additional  informa- 
tion which  particularizes  the  allegations  not 
particularized  in  this  document,  I  would  be 
happy  to  have  it. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  I  am  amazed  that  the  At- 
torney General  asks  me  to  initiate  an  inves- 
tigation. In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Attor- 
ney General  received  the  letter  on  October 
20,  in  view  of  the  fact  the  practices  of  the 
employer  in  question  were  questioned  in 
this  House  during  the  strike  that  occurred 
last  June,  in  view  of  the  fact  the  allegations 
are  most  serious,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  the 
Ontario  Provincial  Police  have  been  in- 
volved, will  the  Attorney  General- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Please  put  your  question. 
Mr.  Di  Santo:  If  the  Attorney  General  had 
the  decency  to  listen,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
go  ahead  with  my  question,  but  since  he 
does  not  want  to  listen,  I  refuse  to  go  ahead. 

FEDERAL  AID  TO  TRANSPORTATION 

Mr.  Ashe:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 


munications relating  to  a  rather  lengthy 
story  in  yesterday's  Globe  and  Mail  entitled 
"Ottawa  Always  Shortchanging  Ontario  on 
Transportation  Aid." 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Ashe:  Keep  it  up,  you  are  using  up 
the  time. 

Mr.  Speaker,  knowing  that  sometimes  the 
press  takes  a  little  poetic  licence,  could  I 
ask  the  minister  to  substantiate  whether  it 
is  fact  that  the  federal  government  has  re- 
neged on  a  commitment  for  transit  aid  fund- 
ing previously  made  to  the  minister,  and 
whether  it  is  fact  that  the  federal  govern- 
ment is  committed  to  spend  $40  million 
additional  funding  over  and  beyond  the 
urban  transportation  assistance  program  in 
the  Montreal  area?  Is  it  fact  that  the  Liberal 
government  in  Ottawa  has  been  shortchang- 
ing Ontario  on  its  transportation  assistance 
needs? 

Mr.  Eakins:  I  am  glad  you  asked. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  sur- 
prised someone  from  the  other  side  of  the 
House  did  not  ask  a  question  about  this  yes- 
terday. Obviously  the  members  of  the  Liberal 
caucus  would  not  be  interested  in  Ontario 
being  shortchanged  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment. 

I  will  try  to  recall  the  questions  in  the 
member's  question.  I  would  have  to  say  the 
federal  government  definitely  reneged  on 
numerous  commitments  for  transportation 
assistance  within  the  province.  I  read  a  press 
clipoing  this  morning  relating  to  questions 
in  the  House  of  Commons  in  Ottawa  yester- 
day where  Mr.  Pepin  stated  Ontario  was 
getting  $68  million  a  year  in  transportation 
funds  and  could  do  with  it  what  it  wished. 
I  believe  he  would  be  fairly  correct  if  he 
said  the  $68  million  was  over  a  five-year 
period.  Under  UTAP,  Ontario  gets  about 
$16.25  million  per  year,  which  has  to  cover 
grade  separations,  railway  relocations,  transit 
and  such.  If  Mr.  Pepin  wants  to  increase  that 
to  $68  million  a  year  instead  of  $16.25  mil- 
lion, perhaps  I  can  withdraw  some  of  my 
criticism. 

Ther~  was  a  commitment  received.  Mr. 
Pepin  in  a  telex  says  there  is  nothing  in  his 
files  to  indicate  a  commitment  by  Mr. 
Mazankowski  of  the  Clark  government  to 
additional  funding  to  assist  in  the  Milton- 
Streetsville-Mississauga  GO  line.  Unless  my 
filing  system  is  a  lot  worse  than  I  think  it  is, 
I  am  sure  I  can  find  a  copy  of  the  telex  that 
was  received  from  Mr.  Mazankowski. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  He  was  out  of  office  when  you 
got  the  answer. 


4604 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  No,  he  was  not  out  of 
office  when  I  got  the  telex,  but  very  shortly 
after  he  was  out  of  office,  Mr.  Pepin  sent  me 
another  telex  which  I  am  sure  I  can  find  a 
copy  of. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  He  sent  it  to  you  at  Fort 
Lauderdale,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Nothing  wrong  with  Fort 
Lauderdale.  A  beautiful  place;  I  wish  I  was 
there. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  In  fact,  about  32  days 
from  now,  I  hope  to  be  there. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  guess  the  part  of  the  situa- 
tion that  I  feel  most  annoyed  about  is  the 
fact  that  although  Ontario  has  been  turned 
down  in  every  instance  for  funding  of  Union 
Station,  and  the  Bathurst  Street  grade  separa- 
tion project  where  there  was  a  $35-million 
commitment,  and  although  the  additional  $30 
million  promised  by  Mr.  Mazankowski  was 
withdrawn  by  Mr.  Pepin,  now  a  commit- 
ment of  $50  million  has  been  made  for  the 
transit  system  in  Montreal. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  One  of  the  members  who 
does  all  the  yakking  about  wasting  time  in 
question  period  is  the  member  for  Renfrew 
North  (Mr.  Conway). 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  thing 
that  concerns  me  the  most  is  something  in 
addition  to  the  special  $50  million  over  and 
above  UTAP  funding  that  Mr.  Pepin  has 
promised  to  Montreal  and  the  province  of 
Quebec.  He  has  also  said  that  if  Quebec  will 
assign,  say,  $20  million  of  UTAP  funds  for 
transit— remember  these  are  federal  funds  to 
start  with— he  will  double  that  in  addition. 
So  he  says,  in  other  words,  "If  you  will  use 
$20  million  of  my  money  to  build  transit, 
I  will  give  you  another  $40  million." 

Mr.  Breaugh:  How  come  you  can't  get  a 
deal  like  that  for  Ontario? 

Mr.  Wildman:  How  come  Levesque  gets 
more  money  than  you  do?  Is  he  a  better 
negotiator? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  That  is  worse  than  play- 
ing the  slots.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  the 
rationale  in  the  decisions  that  are  made  out 
of  Transport  Canada. 

AIR  QUALITY  LEAD  CRITERIA 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  to  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  Could 


the  minister  advise  us,  having  in  mind  this 
government's  often-repeated  commitment  to 
local  autonomy,  what  was  the  result  of  the 
discussion  in  the  ministry  when  the  com- 
munication was  received  from  the  special 
studies  branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour?  It 
recommended  no  changes  or  additions  to  the 
existing  air  quality  lead  criteria  regardless 
of  the  recommendations  made  by  the  To- 
ronto board  of  health  in  this  area. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Perhaps  the  question 
might  be  more  appropriately  directed  to 
either  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell) 
or  the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie).  We 
do  look  to  those  two  ministries  for  the 
expertise  in  making  decisions  on  health 
matters.  I  thought  the  question  was,  what 
was  our  internal  response.  I  will  be  glad 
to  get  that  and  reply  to  the  member  more 
fully  on  a  later  occasion. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  wonder  if  the  minister,  when  he 
is  looking  into  the  matter,  would  table  in 
this  House  all  the  pertinent  information 
upon  which  any  decision  to  ignore  the  To- 
ronto board  of  health  was  taken  with  refer- 
ence to  lead  criteria? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  will  look  at  all  that 
information  and  I  will  make  a  further  report. 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  any  more  than 
that  at  the  moment. 

3:20  p.m. 

ANIMAL  TRAINING  COLLARS 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  to  the 
Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General,  in 
his  capacity  as  the  cabinet  minister  respon- 
sible for  laving  charges  under  section  402  of 
the  Criminal  Code  of  Canada  which  deals 
with  cruelty  to  animals:  Is  the  minister 
aware  that  certain  pet  shops  are  selling  train- 
ing collars,  which  really  could  be  called 
torture  collars?  These  collars  have  prongs 
on  the  inside  which  dig  into  the  animal's 
skin.  The  one  I  have  was  purchased  by  Tom 
Hughes  of  the  Ontario  Humane  Society.  Does 
the  minister  feel  that  shopkeepers  who  sell 
these  devices  might  be  charged  under  sec- 
tion 402  of  the  Criminal  Code  of  Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  note  the  member 
for  Etobicoke  is  holding  a  device  in  his 
hand.  On  the  basis  of  his  question  and  on 
the  basis  of  what  I  am  able  to  see  from  this 
distance,  quite  frankly,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
really  not  in  a  position  to  judge  whether  or 
not  this  would  warrant  a  charge  under  the 
Criminal  Code. 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4605 


Mr.  Foulds:  If  the  minister  promises  to 
wear  it,  he  will  send  it  across. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  That  sort  of  instru- 
ment might  be  appropriate  to  keep  the 
member's  colleague,  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough-Ellesmere  (Mr.  Warner),  under 
control. 

I  assume  and  I  appreciate  the  question 
has  a  serious  motive,  and  I  will  certainly 
discuss  the  matter  with  Mr.  Hughes  of  the 
humane  society. 

Mr.  Philip:  Since,  it  is  very  difficult,  as 
the  minister  would  admit,  to  successfully 
obtain  convictions  under  that  section  of  the 
Criminal  Code,  and  since  it  is  the  opinion 
of  the  Toronto  Humane  Society  that  a  major- 
ity of  cases  of  abuse  with  this  collar  go  un- 
detected, and  assuming  he  comes  to  the 
same  conclusion  as  the  Toronto  Humane 
Society  that  this  is  a  cruel  device  which  is 
not  needed  for  training  purposes,  will  the 
minister,  possibly  in  co-operation  with  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, consider  banning  these  hideous  torture 
devices  from  sale  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
not  just  sure  at  this  moment  what  avenues 
may  be  open  to  us  in  this  respect  and  what 
might  be  required  legislatively  or  otherwise 
to  ban  the  sale  of  such  instruments,  but  I 
will  certainly  look  into  the  matter  and 
advise  the  member  accordingly. 

DARLINGTON  NUCLEAR 
POWER  STATION 

Mr.  Cureatz:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  to 
the  Minister  of  Energy:  Is  the  minister  con- 
templating the  possible  stretching  out  or  the 
possible  stopping  of  the  construction  of  the 
Darlington  Generating  Station,  which  I  know 
the  mayor  of  Pickering  and  the  new  mayor- 
elect  of  Oshawa  support,  and  which  I  am 
sure  the  member  for  Oshawa  (Mr.  Breaugh) 
also  is  supportive  of? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  cer- 
tainly are  no  plans  at  the  moment  to  alter 
the  construction  schedule  as  far  as  Darling- 
ton is  concerned. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  minister  has  indicated  no 
change  in  the  timetable  is  expected.  Is  he 
not  aware  that  the  predictions  of  energy  load 
increase  from  Ontario  Hydro  have  been 
completely  thrown  into  a  cocked  hat,  since 
the  load  has  not  grown  in  1980  and  it 
appears  that  instead  of  Darlington  not  being 
needed  until  the  year  2000,  it  may  very  well 
be  a  decade  later  than  that  before  Darling- 


ton's output  will  be  needed,  unless  it  is  the 
intention  to  phase  out  the  coal-fired  burners? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  can  only  repeat  that 
there  are  no  plans  for  changing  the  time- 
table. Certainly  it  is  too  early  to  come  to 
any  conclusions  with  respect  to  some  of  these 
preliminary  figures.  I  am  sure  the  board  will 
want  a  little  more  time  to  consider  some  of 
the  long-term  implications. 

As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  getting 
plenty  of  advice  and  encouragement  from 
people  who  can  resist  the  temptation  of  par- 
tisan opportunism  to  encourage  this  govern- 
ment to  become  very  positive  with  respect 
to  the  tremendous  opportunities  this  prov- 
ince has  with  respect  to  its  energy  future 
because  of  its  electrical  capacity,  and  we 
should  see  this  as  a  plus  at  the  moment. 

TOXIC  HAZARD  TESTING 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  It  has 
recently  been  reported  that  10  hospitals  have 
been  selected  for  toxic  hazard  testing  by 
commercial  firms  which  will  report  directly 
to  the  ministry.  This  seems  to  be  a  little  bit 
of  a  breakaway  from  the  intent,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  of  the  Occupational  Health  and 
Safety  Act,  and  I  am  wondering  if  the  hos- 
pitals' joint  health  and  safety  committees 
will  be  involved  in  this  process.  Also,  other 
than  the  air  testing,  which  apparently  is  the 
only  thing  that  will  be  done,  will  the  min- 
ister consider  testing  in  such  other  hazardous 
areas  as  radiation  and  chemicals? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  be- 
ginning some  studies  in  the  area  of  the  hos- 
pital industry.  Radiation,  as  it  relates  to 
workers  in  the  exposure  area,  is  already  dealt 
with  under  the  radiation  protection  branch 
of  the  ministry.  As  to  the  details  of  exactly 
what  stage  that  program  is  in,  I  would  be 
glad  to  look  into  it  and  advise  the  member. 

Mr.  Van  Home:  I  am  wondering  if  the 
minister  would  inquire  at  the  same  time  if 
the  occupational  hygienist  newly  retained  by 
the  Ontario  Hospital  Association  might  also 
be  involved  in  such  a  study. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  That  will  be  up  to  the 
occupational  health  and  safety  division  to 
decide  whether  there  would  be  any  assistance 
rendered  by  such  persons. 

FOREST  FIRE  REPORT 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources. 
Can    the    minister    confirm    reports    of    the 


4606 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Thunder  Bay  media  that  he  has  now  had  in 
his  possession  for  10  days  the  Hughes  report, 
a  review  of  the  past  disastrous  forest  fire 
season  in  northwestern  Ontario?  Can  he  tell 
us  when  he  plans  to  table  the  report  in  the 
House  and  make  it  public?  Can  he  tell  us  if 
he  has  read  it,  and  can  he  assure  us  that  he 
has  not  locked  it  in  his  safe  in  order  not  to 
spill  the  beans? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Supplementary:  That  is  the 
shortest  answer  on  record  from  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  supplementary  is  sup- 
posed to  be  the  result  of  the  answer  to  the 
original  question. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Now  that  the  minister  has 
confirmed  that  he  has  had  the  report  in  his 
possession  for  10  days,  can  he  tell  the  House 
why  he  has  not  made  that  report  public  to 
this  House  and  when  he  will  do  so? 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I  may 
give  the  same  answer  I  gave  to  Mr.  Baugh- 
man  of  the  Lakehead  newspaper:  that  I 
wanted  to  read  it.  I  have  read  it.  I  want  my 
staff  to  comment  upon  it  and  I  want  to  make 
a  statement  when  I  release  it,  which  I  hope 
will  be  in  the  next  couple  of  weeks,  indicat- 
ing those  recommendations  we  propose  to 
follow  and  any  other  comments  that  seem 
appropriate  at  the  time. 

FORT  ERIE  RACETRACK 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations.  Is  the  minister 
aware  that  it  was  almost  one  year  ago  that 
the  matter  of  the  Fort  Erie  racetrack  was 
debated  in  this  assembly,  and  that  the  On- 
tario, Jockey  Club  has  indicated  that  if  there 
is  no  A  meeting  in  August  1981,  there  will 
be  no  B  spring  meeting,  which  essentially 
means  the  track  will  be  closed,  causing 
severe  economic  hardship  in  the  community? 
Has  the  minister  or  the  cabinet  arrived  at  a 
decision  as  to  what  financial  assistance  is  to 
be  generated  to  enable  the  Fort  Erie  race- 
track to  remain  in  operation  for  the  1981 
meet  and  the  ensuing  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all  it 
is  a  misnomer  to  say  the  Fort  Erie  race- 
track issue  has  ever  been  debated  here.  I 
welcome  the  honourable  member's  interest 
in  the  future  of  the  Fort  Erie  racetrack.  It 
is  encouraging  that  someone  from  the  area 
other  than  my  colleague,  the  member  for 
Brock  (Mr.  Welch),  is  interested. 


I  am  relatively  confident  and  optimistic,  as 
I  always  am,  that  the  Fort  Erie  racetrack  will 
function  in  1981  and  in  1982,  in  regard  to 
both  a  B  meet  and  an  A  meet.  But  unless 
the  mountain  comes  to  Muhammad— and  I 
have  a  communique  from  the  mountain,  Mr. 
Whelan,  which  I  have  not  been  able  to  read 
yet;  I  do  understand  he  wants  to  meet  with 
me,  which  is  an  unusual  change  of  events 
and  not  his  normal  attitude  towards  me— 
beyond  1982  there  is  no  one  who  can  guar- 
antee the  fate  of  Fort  Erie  because  the  only 
way  that  track  will  be  viable  is  through 
offtrack  betting. 
3:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  believe  the  date  would  be 
December  13,  1979,  when  the  matter  was 
debated  here  in  a  dialogue  between  the 
minister  and  myself.  I  am  well  aware  of  the 
minister's  long-term  solution  of  offtrack 
betting,  but  my  main  concern  is  inter-track 
betting  by  telephone  from  one  track  to  an- 
other. Can  he  assure  me  that  the  Fort  Erie 
racetrack  will  remain  open  under  the  federal 
scheme  for  thoroughbred  racing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot 
speak  for  Mr.  Whelan's  proposals.  I  suppose 
the  best  description  of  what  he  has  proposed 
would  be  a  form  of  offtrack  betting  that  will 
be  of  no  benefit  to  the  racing  public,  because 
one  would  have  to  put  amounts  one  could 
draw  upon  into  a  non-interest-bearing  de- 
posit account  all  over  the  place.  Personally, 
knowing  something  about  the  racing  industry, 
I  do  not  think  the  federal  government  in- 
tends to  proceed-  with  what  it  has  outlined. 
Rather,  I  think  this  is  a  preliminary  offer  to 
provide  for  offtrack  betting. 

Coming  back  to  the  business  of  Fort  Erie, 
I  want  it  very  clearly  on  the  record,  because 
I  answered  it,  that  I  am  optimistic  Fort  Erie 
will  open  for  the  B  meeting  and  then  the  A 
meeting  in  1981.  It  opened  in  1980  because 
of  the  minister.  In  1982,  the  same  thing  will 
happen.  But  beyond  that,  it  is  all  in  the 
hands  of  the  mountain. 

SUDBURY  NURSING  HOME 

Mr.  Germa:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Health.  Now  that 
the  nursing  home  inspection  branch  has  con- 
firmed that  at  least  on  six  occasions  Sudbury 
Nursing  Home  had  breached  the  regulations, 
a  fact  he  is  aware  of,  is  it  his  intention  to 
lay  charges  against  Sudbury  Nursing  Home 
as  contained  in  the  regulations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  mem- 
ber will  acknowledge  that  I  sent  him  a  very 
lengthy   letter   as   a   result   of  inspections    at 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4607 


the  nursing  home.  It  is  my  custom  to  send 
members  full  reports.  It  was  based  on  the 
infractions  or  deficiencies  noted  and  the 
action  taken  to  date  to  correct  them.  There 
are  no  plans  to  lay  charges. 

On  the  question  of  the  making  of  monthly 
charges  for  laundry  services,  as  a  result  of 
that  inspection  an  audit  is  being  made  of 
all  15  Extendicare  nursing  homes  to  see  if 
that  practice  is  current  in  their  entire  chain. 
If  so,  measures  will  be  taken  that  are  appro- 
priate to  the  degree  that  it  is  happening. 

Mr.  Germa:  Is  the  minister  not  aware  that 
the  same  situation  has  pertained  at  Sudbury 
Nursing  Home  in  the  past  and  that  without 
getting  their  attention  and  putting  a  penalty 
on  them,  the  situation  is  not  going  to  be 
corrected  on  a  permanent  basis? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  have  no  qualms 
about  using  the  prosecution  tool  where  that 
is  appropriate.  We  have  used  it  in  my  time 
as  minister  probably  as  frequently  as  or 
more  frequently  than  at  any  point  in  the 
past.  All  I  am  saying  is  that  where  that  is 
appropriate  and  where  we  cannot  iget  co- 
operation in  any  other  way,  we  will  use  it. 
In  this  particular  case  we  got  co-operation 
and  got  the  correction  of  deficiencies,  and 
it  is  not  appropriate. 

Mr.  Conway:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er. For  the  information  of  the  members, 
can  the  Minister  of  Health  indicate  in  his 
three  years  and  some  odd  months  as  Min- 
ister of  Health  how  many  times  he  has  ini- 
tiated prosecution  and  legal  action  against 
offending  nursing  home  licensees? 

Hon.    Mr.    Timbrell:    Off    the    top    of    my 

head,  no.  In  some  cases,  just  calling  in  the 
owners  to  meet  with  the  administrators  and 
our  legal  branch  is  sufficient.  Threatening  is 
also  very  effective. 

MOTIONS 

COMMITTEE  SITTING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  standing 
committee  on  general  government  be  au- 
thorized to  sit  on  Monday  night,  December 
1,   1980. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

TRANSFER   OF   BILL 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  Bill  Pr48,  An 
Act  to  incorporate  Redeemer  College,  be 
transferred  from  the  standing  committee  on 
social  development  to  the  standing  commit- 
tee on  general  government. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


INTRODUCTION  OF  BILL 

HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Mr. 
Elgie  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  209,  An  Act 
to  revise  and  extend  Protection  of  Human 
Rights  in  Ontario. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

MOTION  TO  SUSPEND 
NORMAL  BUSINESS 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Before  the  orders  of  the  day, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  already  given  notice  to 
you  of  my  intention  to  move  that  the  regular 
business  of  the  House  be  set  aside  in  order 
that  there  be  a  debate  on  the  matter  of  in- 
dustrial waste  disposal. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Proper  notice  has  been 
given.  I  will  listen  to  the  reasons  why  the 
honourable  member  thinks  the  ordinary 
business  of  the  House  should  be  set  aside 
for  up  to  five  minutes. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  view  of  the 
minister's  statement,  I  believe  it  is  very  im- 
portant that  today  this  House  engage  in  a 
full  and  open  debate  of  the  matter  of  indus- 
trial waste  disposal  and,  in  particular,  the 
unacceptable  approach  that  has  been  put 
before  us  today  by  the  minister. 

The  minister  is  blaming  the  people  of  this 
province  for  their  opposition  to  the  ministry's 
previous  ill-conceived  programs.  He  is  at- 
tempting to  punish  the  people  of  this  prov- 
ince by  totally  eliminating  the  public  partic- 
ipation process  on  the  South  Cayuga 
proposal. 

The  news  is  not  all  bad  and  that  is  why  I 
think  it  is  important  that  we  have  a  debate 
today.  We  welcome  the  principle  of  a  crown 
corporation;  we  welcome  the  concept  of  find- 
ing the  best  possible  site  for  a  liquid  indus- 
trial waste  treatment  facility,  and  we  wel- 
come the  minister's  acceptance,  at  long  last, 
that  the  site  should  be  fully  in  government 
hands.  But  we  condemn  the  political  inter- 
ference we  have  seen  so  blatantly  in  the  site 
selection  process. 

This  afternoon  we  cannot  comment  on  the 
matter  of  the  disposal  process  because  the 
second  volume  of  the  MacLaren  report,  or 
at  least  the  executive  summary  we  have  been 
provided  with  today,  leaves  more  questions 
unanswered  than  it  provides  answers  to,  as  to 
what  is  going  to  happen  on  the  site  that  is 
finally  selected  by  whatever  mechanism. 

The  minister  has  his  approach  totally 
wrong.  I  want  to  cite  two  examples  to  illus- 
trate why  that  is  the  case. 


4608 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


In  February  of  this  year,  a  report  prepared 
by  the  hazardous  waste  management  com- 
mittee in  Alberta  put,  as  its  number  one 
recommendation,  that  any  proposal  to  build 
a  treatment  and  storage  facility  should  be 
accompanied  by  a  comprehensive  public  in- 
volvement program  conducted  by  the  propo- 
nent, and  approved  and  monitored  by  Alberta 
Environment.  The  minister  has  totally  and 
utterly  ignored  his  own  legislation,  his  own 
boasting  about  public  participation,  in  coming 
forward  with  the  proposal  today. 

The  second  example  I  wish  to  mention  is 
a  paper  presented  by  David  Estrin,  a  promi- 
nent environmental  lawyer,  to  the  twenty- 
seventh  Ontario  Industrial  Waste  Conference 
on  June  16  of  this  year.  The  paper  is  entitled 
Siting  Hazardous  Waste  Disposal  Facilities 
—How  to  Prevent  Lawsuits  and  the  Not-in- 
My-Backyard  Syndrome.  The  paper  is  full  of 
excellent  proposals  the  minister  could  have 
followed  to  avoid  the  not-in-my-backyard 
syndrome. 

Unfortunately,  the  minister  has  gone 
about  this  initiative  in  a  manner  that  totally 
ignored  the  challenge  that  he  himself  recog- 
nized last  year,  and  that  is  the  need  to  gain 
wid°spread  public  acceptance  of  the  existence 
of  disposal  facilities  and  the  great  need  for 
new  facilities. 
3:40  p.m. 

The  minister  has  implied  that  we  face  a 
crisis,  but  he  has  chosen  the  approach  that 
makes  the  crisis  worse.  He  has  chosen  a  site 
before  all  the  facts  are  in.  The  Morrison 
Beatty  report  he  tabled  today  makes  it  very 
clear  that  the  safety  of  the  South  Cayuga 
site  for  a  liquid  industrial  waste  facility  has 
not  yet  been  established  according  to  engi- 
neering standards.  Tweve  months  more  work 
is  needed  before  we  know  whether  it  is  a 
suitable  site. 

If  we  have  this  debate  this  afternoon,  I 
believe  we  can  put  proposals  before  the 
government  which  will  help  get  us  on  the 
right  track  instead  of  up  a  dead-end  siding 
that  will  lead  to  more  problems  sooner  or 
later.  The  government  has  cut  out  the  public 
participation  process.  We  need  a  full  and 
open  debate  of  this  matter  in  the  House 
today  so  that  we  can  try  to  prevent  further 
waste  of  time  and  money  on  inappropriate 
proposals  and  so  that  the  minister  might  be 
able  to  come  back  within  days  with  a 
revised  proposal  that  meets  with  approval 
from  all  sides  of  the  House.  I  hope  there 
will  be  support  from  all  sides  for  just  such 
a  debate  because  it  is  a  matter  of  over- 
whelming public  concern  in  this  province 
today. 


Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  support 
the  need  for  a  debate  at  this  time  on  the 
matter.  Surely  it  must  be  apparent  that  what 
is  happening  today  is  the  repudiation  by  the 
government  of  its  own  highly  trumpeted 
legislation,  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Act,  which  has  been  hailed  by  many,  especial- 
ly by  members  of  this  government. 

I  can  understand  why  the  minister  would 
want  to  leave  at  this  time,  I  can  well  ap- 
preciate it,  but  given  the  way  in  which  he 
has  trumpeted  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act  as  the  leading  act  of  its  time, 
today  is  an  historic  occasion.  Today  we 
heard  that  the  act  is  to  be  set  aside  because 
of  the  alleged  urgency  of  a  problem  which 
the  minister  himself  has  apparently  been 
resolutely  unable  to  deal  with  over  the  past 
many  years.  Members  on  this  side  of  the 
House  perceive  the  problem.  Today  we  are 
told  its  urgency  is  of  such  a  kind  we  can  set 
aside  the  legislation  of  Ontario,  we  can 
set  aside  the  Environmental  Assessment  Act 
so  that  the  minister  can  go  ahead  and  place 
a  liquid  waste  disposal  facility  in  a  publicly 
owned  area. 

It  is  very  interesting,  when  asked  why  he 
wants  to  set  aside  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act,  he  tells  us  it  is  because  of  the 
urgency  of  the  matter,  because  of  the  delay 
of  the  other  procedure.  The  reason  for  the 
delays  in  the  other  procedures  has  been 
that  the  other  sites  selected  by  the  ministry 
all  turned  out  to  be  selected  for  reasons 
that  were  ill-conceived.  Presumably,  the  min- 
ister himself  is  admitting  that  by  withdraw- 
ing those  applications.  It  was  not  a  geolog- 
ical survey  that  decided  on  Harwich  town- 
ship; it  was  the  fact  those  poor  folks  did 
not  complain  about  an  existing  dump,  so 
maybe  they  would  not  notice  a  slightly 
different  kind. 

The  same  goes  with  most  of  the  selection 
procedures.  Walker  Brothers  Quarries  is  an- 
other example.  Maybe  since  they  are 
already  letting  waste  into  the  place,  nobody 
will  complain  too  much  if  some  more  gets 
in  there.  Because  the  government  has  adopt- 
ed those  criteria,  the  local  people  have 
understandably  demanded  the  full  due  proc- 
ess of  law  and  have  received  that  so  far. 
Similarly,  I  point  out  that  one  of  the  reasons 
things  have  taken  so  long  is  that  the  minis- 
try itself  has  been  so  long  in  recognizing  the 
problem. 

When  Colin  Macfarlane,  who  has  now 
been  made  head  of  the  entire  waste  man- 
agement branch  of  the  ministry,  was  told 
of  the  waste  being  imported  into  the  Upper 
Ottawa    Street    site    in    Hamilton,    he    chose 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4609 


to  do  nothing  about  it,  saying  the  evidence 
came  in  Coke  bottles.  That  was  four  years 
ago  when  much  could  have  been  done.  So  the 
delay  of  which  the  minister  complains,  and 
which  he  claims  is  the  one  reason  for 
setting  aside  the  legislation  of  Ontario,  is  of 
his  own  making.  It  reminds  me  of  the  person 
who  kills  his  mother  and  father  and  then 
throws  himself  on  the  mercy  of  the  court 
on  the  basis  he  is  an  orphan.  The  delay 
which  is  being  used  by  the  minister  to  justify 
this  extraordinary  move,  this  amazing  and 
dismaying  move  to  set  aside  the  Environ- 
mental Assessment  Act,  was  all  of  the  min- 
istry's own  making.  If  people  did  protest,  it 
was  because  they  did  not  trust  the  ministry, 
the  same  ministry  that  presided  over  the 
magic  box  in  Hamilton,  the  same  ministry 
that  pretended  it  knew  nothing  of  what  was 
going  on  in  the  Walker  Brothers  Quarries  and 
then  said  a  week  later,  "Oh,  sorry.  Yes,  it 
does  appear  as  though  we  did  know  what 
was  going  on  in  the  quarry." 

No  wonder  people  have  objected.  There  is 
no  reason  at  all  to  set  aside  the  Environmen- 
tal Assessment  Act.  In  addition  to  that,  the 
people  of  Ontario  are  not  stupid.  They  know 
perfectly  well  that  it  is  too  much  to  say  a 
coincidence  has  occurred  by  which  the  very 
piece  of  land  which  is  a  huge  political  em- 
barrassment to  the  government  just  by  chance 
turns  out  to  be  the  one  place  that  is  optimal 
in  the  whole  of  Ontario  to  put  liquid  waste 
into. 

Nobody  could  believe  a  thing  like  that, 
and  certainly  the  MacLaren  people  who  did 
the  report  do  not  believe  it  either.  They 
didn't  even  choose  it  as  one  of  their  17 
sites  to  look  at.  The  ministry  is  fooling 
absolutely  no  one.  Because  the  ministry  is 
constantly  putting  these  liquid  wastes  and 
PCBs  in  places  like  Middleport  in  Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk  riding,  Smithville  in  Lincoln 
riding,  Harwich  township  in  Kent-Elgin, 
South  Cayuga  in  Haldimand-Norfolk  and  also 
in  Walker  Brothers  Quarries  in  St.  Catha- 
rines riding— or  at  least  partly  in  that  riding 
—and  because  the  second  choice,  if  we  reject 
this,  is  in  Huron-Bruce  riding,  I  am  not  going 
to  suggest  that  they  were  chosen  because 
they  are  Liberal  ridings.  I  would  merely 
point  out  that  the  chance  of  all  those  ridings 
being  chosen  just  at  random  without  political 
consideration  at  all  is  one  in  16,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  remarks 
of  my  friend  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
have  helped  to  substantiate  the  case  that  this 
debate  should  not  proceed  this  afternoon. 
While  he  may  feel  his  remarks  are  well  mean- 
ing towards  some  subjects,  exception  can  be 


taken  to  them  and  exception  will  be  taken  to 
them  by  the  minister.  They  do  not  deal  with 
the  substance  found  in  this  report.  I  submit 
to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  rule  34(c)  says, 
"The  matter  proposed  for  discussion  must 
relate  to  a  genuine  emergency,  calling  for 
immediate  and  urgent  consideration." 

I  think  all  of  the  procedures  in  this  House 
are  geared  towards  meaningful  debate  and  to 
make  this  House  a  meaningful  institution. 
That  meaning  is  achieved  by  notice  being 
given  and  people  being  able  to  prepare.  Let 
me  state  first  that  no  notice  was  received 
of  this  particular  motion  by  this  party  and 
by  the  government  until  about  1:50  p.m. 
this  afternoon. 

I  would  submit  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
not  the  kind  of  thing  that  most  of  us  would 
see  as  an  emergency  in  the  sense  of  some- 
thing that  is  gripping  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  the  people  of  this  province  immediately 
through  the  media  and  elsewhere,  or  as  one 
of  those  kind  of  matters  they  would  believe 
should  be  debated  in  this  Legislature  as  is  the 
case  of  the  special  education  bill  which  was 
due  to  start  at  this  very  time  and  which  is 
not  now  going  to  proceed  because  I  assume 
we  will  proceed  on  this  particular  matter. 

To  protect  the  integrity  of  this  House  all 
I  am  saying  is  that  a  report  has  been  pre- 
sented, an  appendix  has  been  presented  and 
other  appendices  are  still  being  printed. 
Moreover,  we  are  being  asked  to  engage  in 
a  special  debate  on  a  subject  which  has  been 
debated  in  this  House.  It  was  debated  for 
half  the  question  period.  It  has  been  debated 
in  the  estimates.  It  is  a  subject  which  is  of 
concern  to  the  people  of  Ontario  but  which 
is  not  of  an  emergency  nature  that  it  needs 
to  sweep  aside,  without  adequate  notice,  the 
business  of  this  House,  particularly  impor- 
tant business  such  as  the  special  education 
bill  which  was  due  to  be  debated  this  after- 
noon. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  merely  put  that  case  to  you. 
We  have  a  rule  that  calls  for  emergency  de- 
bates, and  that  is  a  very  necessary  procedure. 
Believing  in  the  rules  and  standing  order  of 
this  House  and  believing  in  meaningful  de- 
bate for  all  members,  I  would  have  to  submit 
that  to  proceed  with  an  emergency  debate  of 
this  nature  now,  with  most  members  not 
even  having  a  copy  of  these  reports,  is  not  a 
meaningful  discussion.  While  this  is  a  very 
important  matter,  it  is  not  the  kind  of  emer- 
gency matter  the  people  who  struck  these 
standing  orders  saw  in  rule  34(c). 
3:50  p.m. 

Interjections. 


4610 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  have  listened  with 
great  interest  to  the  presentations  made  by 
the  three  members.  I  would  have  thought 
the  motion  put  forward  by  the  member  for 
Wentworth  (Mr.  Isaacs)  was  based  on  some 
information,  anxiety  or  apprehension  he  had 
prior  to  the  introduction  of  the  comprehen- 
sive and  detailed  statement  made  by  the 
minister,  so  I  would  have  to  say  his  request 
for  an  emergency  debate  was  based  on  other 
considerations. 

On  that  basis,  I  know  of  my  own  knowl- 
edge this  matter  of  the  disposal  of  liquid 
waste  has  been  discussed  over  the  past  sev- 
eral months  on  many  occasions  by  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  and  many  others 
in  the  House.  By  the  minister's  own  admis- 
sion it  is  of  great  urgency  and  it  is  some- 
thing that  obviously  affects  a  good  many 
people,  particularly  in  southwestern  Ontario. 
However,  the  motion,  which  I  was  given 
notice  of  at  10:15  a.m.,  obviously  did  not 
take  that  into  consideration.  It  took  into 
consideration  the  general  problem  with  re- 
gard to  the  disposal  of  liquid  nuclear  wastes. 
I  would  have  to  say  on  that  basis,  it  does 
not  fit  four-square  within  the  rules  of  stand- 
ing order  34. 

THIRD  READING 

The  following  bill  was  given  third  read- 
ing on  motion: 

Bill  167,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Chiropody 
Act. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  a  point 
of  privilege,  I  would  like  to  correct  the 
record,  if  I  might. 

Mr.    Chairman:    In   what   regard? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Earlier  this  afternoon  I 
stated  the  chances  of  a  Liberal  riding  having 
been  picked  at  random  for  some  of  these 
environmental  matters  was  one  in  16,000. 
On  closer  calculation  it  is  approximately 
one  in  4,000.  The  odds  are  about  4,000  to 
one  against  it  happening  by  chance.  I 
wanted  to  be  correct  in  my  figures. 

EDUCATION  AMENDMENT  ACT 

(continued) 

Consideration  of  Bill  82,  An  Act  to  amend 
the  Education  Act. 

On  section  3: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Sweeney  moves  that 
section  3(1)  be  further  amended  by  adding 
after  "pupils"  in  the  seventh  line  "with  pro- 


visions for  parents  or  guardians  to  appeal 
the    committee    decision." 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  to 
correct  an  oversight  in  terms  of  our  discus- 
sions last  week  on  the  appeal  mechanism.  It 
was  drawn  to  my  attention  that  the  appeal 
procedure  is  restricted  or— maybe  this  is  a 
better  way  to  put  it— could  be  interpreted 
to  be  restricted  to  a  student  whose  place- 
ment was  in  question.  Of  course,  we  have 
to  realize  that  initially  a  decision  has  to  be 
made  by  the  placement  committee  to  iden- 
tify a  child  as  an  exceptional  pupil.  The  only 
purpose  of  this  amendment  is  to  provide  a 
parent  or  a  guardian  with  the  opportunity 
to  appeal  a  committee  decision  which  may 
or  may  not  have  identified  the  child  as  an 
exceptional  pupil. 

It  is  fairly  clear  that  until  that  particular 
decision  is  made  the  rest  of  the  legislation 
does  not  have  any  impact  on  a  particular 
pupil.  Therefore,  it  is  important  that  we 
provide  the  parents,  right  at  the  beginning 
of  the  activity,  with  an  opportunity  to  say 
whether  they  agree  or  not  with  the  com- 
mittee decision,  and  that  the  minister  make 
provision,  as  in  my  amendment,  for  the 
parent  or  guardian  to  appeal  that  commit- 
tee  decision. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  is 
this  an  amendment  to  subsection  1  or  2  of 
section  3? 

Mr.   Chairman:    Subsection   1. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Where  is  it  to  be 
placed? 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  used 
the  line  numbering.  If  we  refer  to  the  printed 
version  of  the  bill,  then  we  just  simply  count 
down,  as  I  have  in  my  amendment,  to  the 
seventh  line  of  section  3(1).  It  is  the  first 
line  of  paragraph  5(iii).  The  amendment 
would  then  read:  "committees  to  identify 
exceptional  pupils  with  provision  for  parents 
or  guardians  to  appeal  the  committee  deci- 
sion and  to  make  and  review  placements  of 
exceptional  pupils." 

In  other  words,  the  inserted  clause  would 
relate  to  the  committee's  task  of  identifying 
the  exceptional  pupil.  The  rest  of  it  would 
flow  from  that. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  once  again 
we  are  in  the  realm  of  the  bizarre  because 
the  bill,  as  it  is  before  us  and  as  it  came  out 
of  the  social  development  committee,  already 
has  a  comprehensive  appeal  procedure  in  it, 
and  that  comprehensive  appeal  procedure  is 
section  7. 

Section  7  of  the  bill,  as  it  stands  now  and 
as   it  was  passed  in  the  social  development 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4611 


committee,  contains  provisions  for  appeals 
against  the  three  statutory  powers  of  deci- 
sion-making of  a  local  board  of  education 
placement  committee.  Those  three  areas  of 
decision-making  are  to  review,  first,  the  deci- 
sion of  whether  a  child  is  an  exceptional 
pupil  and,  secondly,  what  specific  special 
education  program  or  special  education 
service  an  exceptional  pupil  shall  receive 
from  the  local  board  of  education.  The  third 
area  of  statutory  power  of  decision  with 
respect  to  this  bill  has  to  do  with  the  des- 
ignation, hard-to-serve  child,  and  whether  a 
board  is  able  to  provide  a  service  for  a  child 
so  designated. 

The  appeal  procedure  in  section  7  of  the 
bill,  as  amended  and  as  before  us,  covers  all 
those  three  powers  of  decision.  Why  the 
Liberal  Party  is  now  moving  amendments 
dealing  with  material  already  covered  in  the 
statute  is  beyond  me.  Well,  it  is  not  really 
beyond  me;  it  is  because  they  want  to  elim- 
inate section  7  as  it  stands  now  and  replace 
it  with  something  that  is  substantially 
weaker.  What  they  are  doing  here  is  saying, 
"We  will  add  a  section  to  the  regulation 
that  will  empower  the  minister  to  set  up 
some  kind  of  appeal  procedure  with  respect 
to  the  first  of  the  statutory  powers,  the  de- 
signation, exceptional  child." 

4  p.m. 

I  made  the  arguments  last  week  and  I  do 
not  intend  to  repeat  them  at  length.  The 
point  is  very  simple.  When  an  act  confers  a 
statutory  power  of  decision  on  some  other 
body,  the  statute  should  also  spell  out  what 
the  appeal  procedures  are  in  the  statute.  It 
is  not  the  minister  that  is  giving  the  statutory 
power  of  decision  to  a  local  board  of  educa- 
tion; it  is  this  Legislature.  It  is  our  responsi- 
bility to  give  the  appeal  procedure  in  the  act 
and  not  leave  it  to  the  minister  through 
regulation. 

Finally,  if  I  may  say  why  I  am  unwilling 
to  leave  the  development  of  an  appeal  system 
to  the  minister  by  regulation,  I  would  simply 
refer  to  Ontario  regulation  704-A,  which  is 
the  existing  regulation  that  gives  the  so- 
called  appeal  to  parents  against  decisions  of 
the  local  placement  committee.  It  is  not  an 
appeal  system.  During  the  hearings  the  min- 
ister was  calling  this  an  appeal  procedure,  an 
appeal  mechanism,  but  it  is  not. 

Let  me  read  the  operative  part  of  the  regu- 
lation that  the  minister  characterizes  as  an 
appeal  system.  "The  parent  or  pupil  may  at 
any  time  apply  in  writing  to  the  chief  execu- 
tive office  of  the  board,"  that  is,  the  local 
board  of  education,   "or  to  the  secretary  of 


the  board  for  a  review  of  the  placement  of 
the  pupil  by  a  committee,  and  shall  state  in 
his  application  the  reasons  for  requesting  the 
review."  All  that  happens  is  the  matter  is 
reviewed. 

That  is  the  kind  of  appeal  system  the 
Minister  of  Education  has  put  into  regula- 
tion now.  I  say  it  is  utterly  irresponsible  to 
place  the  appeal  procedure  into  the  regula- 
tion section  of  the  act.  It  has  to  be  spelled 
out  in  the  statute.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is 
spelled  out  in  the  statute  in  section  7. 

I  want  everybody  to  be  very  clear  about 
this.  I  intend  to  vote  against  any  and  all 
amendments  to  Bill  82  this  afternoon  be- 
cause, in  so  doing,  I  am  voting  for  the  bill 
as  it  was  passed  by  the  social  development 
committee.  That  is  the  procedure  we  are  re- 
quired to  go  through  here  this  afternoon.  In 
order  to  vote  for  the  victories  that  were  ob- 
tained in  the  social  development  committee, 
we  have  to  vote  against  the  minister's  amend- 
ments and  the  amendments  of  the  Liberal 
Party.  In  so  doing  we  are  voting  for  a  com- 
prehensive appeal  system  that  covers  all  the 
areas  of  decision-making  without  any  fudging 
or  fooling  around.  It  provides  a  remedy  if 
somebody  wins  an  appeal,  rather  than  the 
kind  of  nebulous,  go-back-to-square-one  pro- 
posals we  have  had  before  us. 

Before  it  is  too  late,  I  wish  my  colleagues 
in  the  Liberal  Party  would  stop  what  they  are 
doing  this  afternoon  and  go  back  to  the 
position  they  took  in  the  social  development 
committee  with  respect  to  special  education— 
in  fact,  with  respect  to  all  decisions  of  the 
local  boards  of  education  placement  com- 
mittees. There  needs  to  be  an  appeal  proce- 
dure enshrined  in  the  statute.  It  is  there  now. 
Let  us  please  keep  it  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to 
address  this  section.  I  suppose  if  Bill  82  is 
reduced  to  its  most  basic  fundamentals,  there 
are  three  actions.  One,  there  is  the  identify- 
ing of  an  exceptional  pupil.  Two,  there  is  the 
placement  of  the  exceptional  pupil  and, 
three,  there  is  the  service  of  the  hard-to-serve 
pupil.  This  section,  as  amended!  by  my  col- 
league from  Kitchener,  does  nothing  more 
than  clarify  a  situation  that  is  already  exis- 
tent in  the  act.  Should  our  amendments  not 
pass  and  should  the  bill  as  it  came  from  the 
social  development  committee  pass  in  this 
House  this  afternoon,  then  the  most  that 
could  happen  and  the  most  that  could  be 
said  about  my  colleague  from  Kitchener's 
amendment  is  that  it  is  redundant  or  super- 
fluous, but  it  is  not  inconsistent.  In  fact,  if 
our  amendment  should  pass,  then  it  is  neces- 


4612 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


sary  to  indicate  as  early  as  possible  in  this 
bill,  as  was  done  in  section  2,  that  the 
appeal  procedure  be  set  out. 

The  minister  has  powers  under  regulation 
to  set  procedures.  The  purpose  of  the  regu- 
lation is  to  administer,  to  organize  and  estab- 
lish. The  power  to  appeal  comes  from  an- 
other section  of  the  act  later  on.  But  the 
section,  as  it  reads  in  Bill  82  now  before  us 
and  before  amendment  by  my  colleague  from 
Kitchener,  indicates  the  committee  can 
identify  exceptional  pupils  but,  in  dealing 
with  placements  of  exceptional  pupils,  this 
section  allows  the  minister  to  set  up  a  review 
procedure. 

This  section  can  be  interpreted  as  being 
silent  in  view  of  the  sections  that  are  to 
come  later  on  and  with  which  we  will  be 
dealing,  particularly  section  7.  This  section 
is  silent  with  respect  to  the  review  of  the 
identification  process.  My  colleague  from 
Kitchener  addresses  himself  only  to  that  and 
it  is  only  with  that  we  are  concerned  at  this 
time— that  the  identification  process  be  sub- 
ject to  review  and  that  the  placement  be 
subject  to  review. 

iShould  this  section  be  subject  to  interpre- 
tation in  a  court  of  law  some  day,  it  could 
easily  be  read  that  the  identification  process 
is  not  subject  to  review  as  is  set  out.  We  are 
addressing  only  that,  and  it  is  important  later 
on  perhaps.  If  it  is  not  important  later,  it 
becomes  superfluous  but  not  inconsistent  with 
the  tenor  of  the  bill. 

Mr.    McClellan:    If   the   member   had    not 
deleted    the    statutory    rights    provision    last 
week- 
Mr.  Stong:  You  did  not  vote  for  that,  you 
clown. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  would  you 
ask  the  member  to  withdraw  the  unparlia- 
mentary remark? 

Mr.  Stong:  I  withdraw,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  honourable  member 
has  withdrawn  it. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Yes,  in  such  a  graceful 
manner  too. 

The  point  is  that  under  section  2  of  the 
bill,  which  was  changed  last  week,  there 
was  a  very  tough  statutory  rights  provision 
that  would  have  been  the  basis  of  any  litiga- 
tion beyond  the  appeal  tribunal,  so  the 
member  is  simply  backfilling. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  be  very 
clear  about  what  is  happening  here.  Last 
week  this  bill  was  gutted  and  the  strong 
provisions     in     the     previous     clause     were 


watered  down  so  that  the  bill  no  longer  is  a 
bill  that  ensures  the  rights  of  children  to  a 
mandatory  education  commensurate  with 
their  abilities. 

In  the  subparagraph  we  have  before  us  in 
section  7,  we  have  an  attempt  to  establish  a 
wishy-washy  land  of  appeal  rather  than  the 
appeal  system  that  is  already  strongly  built 
into  the  bill  in  this  section.  Perhaps  the  intro- 
duction of  the  amendments  by  the  Liberal 
Party  last  week  and  the  amendment  that  is 
before  us  is  unparliamentary  in  the  sense 
that  we  already  had  that  provision  in  the 
bill.  It  happened  to  be  numbered  7  rather 
than  2  or  3  but  it  was  there.  It  was  a  very 
strong  and  tough  legislated  appeal  pro- 
cedure. 

It  was  clear  that  under  that  aopeal  pro- 
cedure in  section  7,  just  as  in  all  legislation, 
there  would  have  to  be  some  regulations 
devised.  But  those  regulations  would  be  de- 
pendent entirely  upon  the  statutory  authority 
embedded  in  the  bill.  What  we  have  here  is 
an  attempt  to  recover  some  weak  ground 
that  the  Liberal  Party  threw  away  last 
week. 

I  regret  that  because  I  think  in  the  long 
run— certainly  in  the  short  term  but  in  the 
long  run  as  well— what  we  are  doing  in  the 
House  now  is  scrambling  to  find  a  modified 
appeal  procedure  that  will  not,  unfortun- 
ately, serve  the  disabled  learning  children 
of  this  province  as  well  as  the  provision  that 
had  been  passed  and  well  thought  out  by 
the  social  development  committee  previously. 
Therefore,  I  will  join  with  my  colleague 
from  Bellwoods  in  voting  against  this  pro- 
vision. By  the  time  we  get  to  section  7  of 
the  bill,  the  Liberal  Party  and  the  Conser- 
vative Party  will  have  built  their  case  for 
gutting  the  bill  once  again  and  weakening 
it  by  deleting  section  7  or  some  such  action. 

I  cannot  in  conscience  vote  for  a  weaken- 
ing of  the  legislation  as  it  was  initially 
presented  to  the  committee  of  the  whol  > 
House. 

4:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 
was  my  understanding  that  last  Tuesday  at 
the  suggestion  of  the  member  for  Kitchener- 
Wilmot  (Mr.  Sweeney)  we  passed  an  amend- 
ment to  section  2,  which  enshrined  in  that 
section  a  mechanism  for  appeal  of  the 
actions  taken  within  the  function  of  a  com- 
mittee. That  was  in  addition  to  an  amend- 
ment that  had  been  introduced  during  the 
hearings  of  the  social  development  commit- 
tee, introduced  by  my  colleague,  the  mem- 
ber   for    Mississauga    South    (Mr.    Kennedy), 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4613 


which  is  section  3(2)  and  is  numbered  5a 
in  the  reprinted  bill.  I  am  sorry  that  there 
isn't  a  date  on  it,  -but  it  was  reprinted  as 
amended  by  the  social  development  commit- 
tee. It  does  outline  that  there  will  not  only 
be  an  appeal  mechanism,  but  there  must  be 
regulations  developed  in  order  to  ensure  the 
participation  of  parents  and  guardians  in 
that  appeal  mechanism  for  the  placement 
of  children. 

I  can  easily  accept  the  amendment  that 
the  identification  process  be  a  part  of  that 
review  and  appeal  mechanism  most  whole- 
heartedly, but  I  am  wondering  whether  it  is 
appropriately  placed,  as  the  member  has  sug- 
gested, in  section  3(1)  as  paragraph  5(iii) 
or  whether  it  should  be  in  section  3(2)  as 
paragraph  5a  as  in  the  amendment  intro- 
duced earlier  in  the  committee. 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  simply 
like  to  make  two  points  regarding  this  amend- 
ment. The  minister  states  this  is  not  an  ap- 
propriate place  because  it  was  placed  under 
section  3(2)  last  Thursday.  I  suggest  to  the 
Liberal  Party  and  the  Liberal  member  who 
got  up  a  few  minutes  ago  and  said  this 
amendment  was  redundant  and  superfluous— 
those  were  his  words— if  the  section  7  we 
already  have  in  the  bill  stands,  that  we  in 
the  Legislature,  both  opposition  parties,  have 
the  power  to  ensure  that  section  7  of  the 
bill  stands.  All  we  need  to  do  is  vote  against 
the  amendment  to  section  7  that  the  minister 
will  bring  forth  in  this  House.  Vote  against 
it  and  we  have  section  7  of  the  bill  as  it 
came  out  of  the  social  development  com- 
mittee. 

Therefore,  since  you  strongly  believe  that 
section  7  should  stand  and  if  this  amend- 
ment is  redundant  and  superfluous,  I  don't 
understand  why  you  are  putting  it  forward. 
May  I  suggest  to  the  Liberal  member  for 
Kitchener-Wilmot  and  to  the  member  for 
York  Centre  what  they  need  to  do  is  with- 
draw the  amendment.  It  is  indeed  redundant 
and  superfluous.  Withdraw  the  amendment 
and  then  stand  firm  on  section  7  as  you  have 
done  in  the  social  development  committee. 
Anything  less  than  that  is  going  to  be  seen 
to  be  what  it  is,  a  watering  down  of  the 
position  you  as  a  party  took  in  the  social 
development  committee. 

Let's  stop  playing  games.  We  know  what 
the  legislation  is  about.  We  know  what  the 
minister  intends  to  do  through  this  legislation 
and  by  gutting  this  legislation.  Don't  be  ac- 
complices to  what  the  minister  wants  this 
bill  not  to  be.  All  we  are  saying  to  you  is  to 
stand  firm.  We  have  a  good  section  in  this 
bill  which  will  ensure  the  right  to  an  appeal 


procedure  at  all  the  different  levels  where 
decisions  are  made,  whether  it  be  a  decision 
on  programs,  or  a  decision  on  whether  a 
child  is  going  to  be  called  an  exceptional 
child,  or  whether  it  would  be  obviously  a 
decision  to  a  tribunal,  to  the  Ontario  special 
education  board.  We  have  the  best  appeal 
system  that  can  be  set  up.  Take  heart  on  that 
side  of  the  House.  We  have  a  good  appeal 
process.  Let  us  not  try  to  water  it  down  by 
adding  redundant  and  superfluous  clauses  to 
this  bill. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  minister 
suggested  that  the  spirit  of  my  amendment 
might  perhaps  be  better  placed  in  paragraph 
5a  of  section  3(2)  of  the  bill.  When  I  was 
considering  the  amendment,  I  realized  it 
could  have  been  put  either  place.  If  it  were 
to  go  in  5(a),  we  would  probably  have  to  put 
the  word  "identification"  either  before  or 
after  "placements"  on  the  second  line  so  there 
would  be  no  doubt  whatsoever  that  the  right 
of  appeal  would  be  at  both  the  identification 
and  the  placement  level. 

As  I  indicated  at  the  beginning  of  my 
comments,  I  am  attempting  at  this  time  to 
leave  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  anyone  who 
has  to  interpret  this  legislation  that  it  is  at 
both  those  levels  we  want  the  right  of  appeal. 
I  can  accept  that  it  would  be  equally  effec- 
tive in  5(a)  and,  if  that  is  what  the  minister 
is  suggesting,  I  am  quite  prepared  to  agree 
to  that.  I  will  write  that  out  unless  we  can 
accept  it  simply  on  a  voice  vote. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  simply  the 
addition  of  two  words  so  that  it  would  read, 
"governing  procedures  with  respect  to 
parents  or  guardians  for  appeals  in  respect 
of  identification  or  placement  of  exceptional 
pupils  in  special  education  programs."  That 
is  inserting  "identification  and/or."  It  could 
be  both. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  If  the  minister  is  prepared 
to  make  that  amendment,  I  would  be  pre- 
pared to  withdraw  my  amendment. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  would  be  willing 
to  move  that  amendment. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Sweeney  has  with- 
drawn his  amendment.  Any  further  comments 
on  section  3(2)  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  what  is  the 
amendment  that  has  been  withdrawn  and 
removed?  Would  you  read  it  back  to  us 
please? 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  can  read  what  has  been 
withdrawn  but  that  is  all  that  has  taken 
place  so  far.  I  have  nothing  in  writing  before 
me.  The  member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot  has 
withdrawn  the  amendment. 


4614 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  McClellan:  I  had  one  question  that 
does  not  have  to  do  with  the  amendment.  I 
am  sure  the  minister  can  deal  with  it.  It  is 
simply  a  question  of  factual  information.  I 
had  inquiries  from  a  number  of  local  asso- 
ciations for  the  mentally  retarded  asking  if  it 
is  possible  for  a  local  board  of  education  to 
purchase  service  from  an  association  for  the 
mentally  retarded  developmental  centre, 
either  under  the  existing  provisions  of  Bill  82 
or  under  regulations  that  would  be  promul- 
gated, presumably  under  this  section. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  would  have  to 
clarify  that  specifically  but  I  believe  it  is 
possible  at  the  present  time  and  should  con- 
tinue to  be  possible  although  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  activity  going  on  in  discussions 
with  the  Ontario  Association  for  the  Mentally 
Retarded  at  the  present  time  about  the  way 
in  which  those  programs  will  be  provided. 

Mr.  McClellan:  If  I  could  just  pursue  this 
point,  I  am  anxious  to  have  the  power  in 
the  bill  that  a  board  of  education  could 
purchase  service  from  an  association  for  the 
mentally  retarded  developmental  centre. 
Would  the  minister  undertake  to  have  her 
officials  advise  us  where  that  power  rests 
within  Bill  82  so  that  we  can  be  reassured 
on  that  point. 

4:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  keeping  with 
the  withdrawal  of  the  motion  by  my  col- 
league the  member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot, 
and  in  view  of  the  remarks  of  the  minister, 
I  had  tabled  an  amendment  to  this  subsection 
earlier  this  afternoon  that  is  in  keeping  with 
what  the  minister  had  said.  So  I  move  that 
section  3(2) (5a)  be  amended  by  adding— 

Mr.   Foulds:   We  are  still  on  section   1. 

Mr.  Stong:  I  am  sorry.  I  am  moving  an 
amendment  to  subsection  2,  if  it  is  in  order. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Rather  than  hold  up  pro- 
ceedings, I  am  quite  willing  to  return  to  the 
question,  if  I  can  have  an  assurance  from  the 
minister  that  if  that  power  is  not  in  the  bill, 
whatever  action  is  necessary  to  put  it  in 
would  be  taken. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  was  concerned 
about  the  amendment  which  we  were— 

Mr.  Chairman:  This  is  on  subsection  2. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  That  is  what  we 
were  discussing. 

Mr.  Foulds:  We  have  not  reached  the 
introduction  of  that  yet. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Pardon  me.  Yes. 

Mr.   Chairman:    Shall  subsection   1   carry? 


Mr.  McClellan:  Subject  to  coming  back  to 
that  one  point,  yes. 

Subsection  1  stood  down. 

On  subsection  2: 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  have  two  amendments.  I 
think  they  are  very  similar.  One  is  by  the 
member  for  York  Centre  and  one  is  by  the 
minister. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  In  response  to  the 
question  of  the  member  for  Bellwoods,  while 
there  are  co-operative  activities  that  go  on 
voluntarily,  at  present  boards  are  not  able 
to  purchase  services  from  an  association  for 
the  mentally  retarded  under  the  act.  There 
is  now  much  discussion  being  carried  out 
in  order  to  determine  the  most  appropriate 
ways  in  which  co-operatively  to  provide 
services,  and  I  cannot  at  this  time  define 
the  capability  of  a  board  to  purchase  a  par- 
ticular service  from  a  voluntary  agency. 

Mr.  McClellan:  This  represents  a  major 
problem  then.  I  think  a  number  of  people, 
myself  included,  and  certainly  a  number 
of  the  people  within  the  associations  for  the 
mentally  retarded,  are  really  concerned  about 
the  capacity  of  local  boards  of  education  to 
develop  programs  for  developmentally  handi- 
capped children.  Secondly,  a  great  many 
local  associations  for  the  mentally  retarded 
have  developmental  centres  in  place  and  are 
providing  a  very  excellent  program  for  de- 
velopmentally handicapped  children. 

Our  concern  is  that  this  bill  not  place 
things  in  a  state  of  confusion  or  jeopardy.  It 
seems  to  me  it  would  be  sensible  for  the 
minister  to  remedy  what  I  feel  is  a  defect  in 
her  policy,  and  to  make  provisions,  even  if 
it  is  on  a  transitional  basis,  so  that  a  local 
board  is  able  to  purchase  service  from  the 
local  branch  of  the  OAMR.  Are  there  policy 
objections  to  the  purchase  of  service  from  the 
local  OAMR  branch,  or  what? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
policy  at  present  is  that  the  service  is  pur- 
chased or  is  provided  by  the  Ministry  of 
Community  and  Social  Services  programs 
which  are  available  within  those  communi- 
ties, and  which  may  co-operate  and  work  with 
the  OAMR,  but  not  through  a  specific  institu- 
tion established  by  OAMR.  In  fact,  most  of 
the  co-operative  service  carried  on  is  in  the 
opposite  direction;  that  is,  that  educational 
program  is  provided  through  a  local  board 
to  an  OAMR  facility  through  agreements 
which  are  reached  under  the  Education  Act. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  think  we  do  need  to  clarify 
it.  Is  there  a  statutory  inhibition  in  the  pres- 
ent   Education    Act    that    prevents    a    school 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4615 


board  from  purchasing  services  from  a  local 
association  for  the  mentally  retarded?  Do 
they  have  the  authority  at  the  present  time 
to  purchase  such  services?  If  that  is  in  the 
present  act,  then  I  think  we  do  not  have 
difficulty.  If  it  is  not  in  the  present  act,  then 
I  believe  my  colleague  is  asking  that  an 
amendment  be  put  in  this  bill,  which  is 
simply  an  amendment  to  the  Education  Act, 
so  that  authority  clearly  is  in  the  Education 
Act  and  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may, 
I  would  submit  that  the  authority  is  probably 
in  the  act  under  a  broad  interpretation  of  the 
regulation  sections  and  it  becomes  a  policy 
decision  and,  in  a  sense,  an  administrative 
decision  as  well  for  the  ministry  to  decide 
whether  it  will  permit  that  to  happen  in 
those  circumstances  and  situations  where  it 
is  warranted. 

I  do  not  intend  to  belabour  the  point;  I 
simply  wanted  to  raise  it  and  find  out  what 
the  situation  was.  It  would  be  a  money 
amendment  at  any  rate  and  not  within  the 
purview  of  the  opposition  to  move,  but  I 
commend  that  particular  course  of  action 
to  the  ministry  so  at  least  that  capability  is 
there.  It  may  not  ever  have  to  be  exercised, 
but  on  the  other  hand,  it  may,  and  that  flexi- 
bility should  be  afforded  the  ministry. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  if 
the  member  is  suggesting  that  a  local  chapter 
of  the  Ontario  Association  for  the  Mentally 
Retarded  should  be  capable  of  providing  edu- 
cational program  for  handicapped  children 
under  the  purview  of  a  board  of  education, 
I  would  express  to  him  my  concern  that  the 
very  purpose  of  Bill  82  is  to  ensure  that 
school  boards  themselves  will  have  the  capa- 
bility Of  developing  and  providing  the  appro- 
priate educational  or  instructional  program 
for  those  handicapped  children.  In  co-opera- 
tion with  OAMR,  through  all  of  the  discus- 
sions which  are  going  on,  I  am  sure  that  is 
what  is  going  to  happen. 

If  the  member  is  suggesting  that  boards 
would  not  have  to  develop  that  capability  but 
could  rely  on  a  local  voluntary  agency  to 
develop  an  educational  program,  then  I  think 
you  are  missing  the  intent  of  the  bill  com- 
pletely. 

Mr.  McClellan:  That  is  not  what  I  said  at 
all  and  there  is  no  possible  way  that  anybody 
could  take  that  interpretation  from  what  I 
said.  I  am  talking  al>out  transitional,  and 
where  circumstances  warrant— and  I  have  no 
idea  whether  circumstances  ever  would  war- 
rant it.  I  am  simply  saying  that  is  a  flexi- 
bility   that  ought  to   be   afforded  and  I   am 


raising  it  at  the  request  of  a  number  of  repre- 
sentatives from  associations  for  the  mentally 
retarded. 

Yes,  I  understand  the  purpose  of  the  bill. 
Thank  you. 

Section  3(1)  agreed  to. 

On  section  3(2): 

Mr.  Chairman:  Honourable  Miss  Stephen- 
son moves  that  paragraph  5a  of  subsection 
( 1 )  of  section  10  of  the  act  as  set  out  in 
section  3(2)  of  the  bill  be  amended  by  add- 
ing the  words  "identification  and/or"  after 
the  word  "of"  in  line  two  and  before  the 
word  "placements"  in  line  two. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  expert  on  legis- 
lative drafting  in  the  Liberal  Party  has  just 
informed  me  that  one  cannot  use  and/ or 
with  an  oblique  between  them  in  legislation. 
I  stand  corrected.  Whatever  is  the  appro- 
priate form  to  ensure  that  either  or  both 
might  be  included,  I  will  accept. 

Mr.  Stong:  I  tabled  an  amendment  this 
afternoon  dealing  with  this  very  section,  in 
keeping  with  what  you  are  suggesting,  using 
the  words  "identification  of  and"  to  be  placed 
before  "placements." 

4:30  p.m. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  amend- 
ment does  not  scan.  It  would  read,  "in  re- 
spect of  placements  of  identification  and/or 
exceptional  pupils."  Is  that  right? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  No,  it  is  in  line 
two,  "appeals  in  respect  of  identification 
and/ or  placements  of  exceptional  pupils  in 
special  education  programs." 

Mr.  Stong:  In  my  respectful  submission, 
the  amendment  as  offered  by  the  minister 
does  not  conform  to  proper  drafting  in  the 
use  of  the  words  "and/or."  I  would  offer  an 
amendment  to  the  minister  either  using  the 
word  "and"  or  "or."  You  have  to  use  one  or 
the  other  but  you  cannot  have  both.  May  I 
amend  it  to  say  "and"? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Will  the  minister  who 
made  the  amendment  adjust  that? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Yes.  I  have  just 
been  handed  by  legislative  counsel—thank 
you— the  appropriate  amendment. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Honourable  Miss  Stephen- 
son moves  that  paragraph  5a  of  subsection  1 
of  section  10  of  the  act  as  set  out  in  section 
3(2)  of  the  bill  be  amended  by  inserting  after 
the  word  "of"  where  it  appears  for  the  first 
time  in  the  second  line,  "identification  and." 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  again  say  how  super- 
fluous the  amendment  is.  If  you  look  at 
section    7    of   the    bill   dealing   with   section 


4616 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


34(10)(a)  of  the  act,  it  says  very  clearly: 
"The  board  shall  hear  and  determine  appeals 
by  parents  and  pupils  from  any  decision  of 
the  placement  committee."  It  is  already  in 
the  statute.  The  game  here  is  to  move  it 
into  the  regulation. 

Mr.  Stong:  Lest  by  my  silence  I  be  read 
to  acquiesce  in  my  friend's  last  comments, 
just  let  it  be  said  it  is  not  yet  superfluous. 

Mr.  McClellan:  It  will  not  be  superfluous 
once  they  delete  section  7  and  replace  it  by 
the   Mickey  Mouse,  watered-down  version. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  Shall  the  amend- 
ment carry? 

All  those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye." 

All  those   opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Section  3(2),  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  section  3(3): 

Mr.  McClellan:  Do  the  regulations  require 
payment  of  the  cost  of  education  at  elemen- 
tary and  secondary  schools  by  pupils,  or  is  it 
optional? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  beg  your  pardon? 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  are  talking  about  a 
number  of  children  identified  here.  These 
are  children  admitted  to  a  centre,  facility, 
home  or  hospital.  My  question  is  what  do  the 
regulations  require  with  respect  to  this 
group  of  children? 

Hon.    Miss    Stephenson:    I    am   not   at   all 

sure  this  is  within  the  regulation,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. It  is  my  understanding  that  it  is 
the  responsibility  that  the  provision  of  the 
educational  program  will  be  made  under 
the  Education  Act,  which  means  it  is  based 
upon  a  contribution  of  tax  funds. 

Mr.  McClellan:  This  is  the  regulation 
section.  This  subsection  permits  you  to  make 
regulations  with  respect  to  the  payment  of 
the  cost  of  education  for  these  children. 

My  only  question— I  am  sorry  I  put  it  so 
badly— is,  is  this  optional  or  is  it  a  require- 
ment that  the  cost  be  paid? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  not  optional 
in  terms  of  the  educational  program  for  those 
children. 

Mr.  McClellan:  So  it  does  require  you  to 
make  a  payment? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Yes. 

The    Deputy    Chairman:    Any   further   dis- 
cussion on  subsection  3? 
Section  3(3)  agreed  to. 
Section  3,   as   amended,   agreed  to. 


Sections  4  to  6,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 
On  section  7: 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman, 
last  week  I  had  introduced  to  the  House 
proposed  amendments  to  section  7  which 
would  have  deleted  the  entire  section  7  as  it 
appears  in  the  reprinted  bill  and  replaced 
it.  I  would  ask  the  Chairman's  permission 
to  do  the  same  this  week. 

At  this  point,  I  should  like  to  move  that 
my  previous  amendments  dealing  with  sec- 
tion 7  of  the  bill  be  withdrawn  and  the 
following  inserted  in  lieu  thereof— there- 
after follows  five  pages  of  amendments,  which 
pages  are  in  the  hands  of  the  members 
opposite. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  chair  has  no 
amendments  before  it  at  the  present  time.  I 
think  those  amendments  should  be  read  into 
the  record.  You  say  that  the  critics  have 
those.  I  think  they  should  be  read  and 
moved. 

Honourable  Miss  Stephenson  moves  that 
section  7  of  the  bill  be  struck  out  and  the 
following  substituted  therefor: 

7.  (1)  Section  34  of  the  said  act  is  re- 
pealed and  the  following  substituted  there- 
for: 

"34.  ( 1 )  In  this  section, 

"(a)  'board'  includes  the  Metropolitan 
Toronto  School  Board; 

"(b)  Tiard-to-serve  pupil'  means  a  pupil 
who,  under  this  section,  is  determined  to  be 
unable  to  profit  by  instruction  offered  by  a 
board  due  to  a  mental  handicap  or  a  mental 
and  one  or  more  additional  handicaps; 

"(c)  'school'  includes  a  pupil  or  class  for 
trainable  retarded  pupils. 

"(2)  Where  a  principal  considers  that  an 
exceptional  pupil  who  attends  his  school  is, 
because  of  a  mental  or  a  mental  and  one  or 
more  additional  handicaps,  unable  to  profit 
by  instruction,  or  where  the  parent  or  guar- 
dian of  a  pupil  considers  that  the  pupil  is, 
because  of  a  mental  or  a  mental  and  one  or 
more  additional  handicaps,  unable  to  profit 
by  instruction,  the  principal  shall  refer  the 
matter  to  the  appropriate  supervisory  officer 
who  shall  refer  the  matter  to  the  board,  and 
the  board  shall  appoint  a  committee  of  three 
persons,  consisting  of  a  supervisory  officer,  a 
principal  and  a  legally  qualified  medical 
practitioner  who  has  expertise  in  respect  of 
the  mental  or  other  handicap  of  the  pupil, 
none  of  whom  is  a  person  to  whom  the 
matter  has  been  previously  referred. 

"(3)  The  committee  referred  to  in  sub- 
section 2  shall, 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4617 


"(a)  in  accordance  with  subsection  4,  in- 
quire into  the  alleged  inability  of  the  pupil 
to  profit  by  instruction; 

"(b)  determine  whether  the  pupil  can 
profit  by  instruction  or  determine  that  the 
pupil  is  a  hard-to-serve  pupil, 

"and  the  committee  shall  make  a  written 
report  of  its  findings  and  of  its  determination 
to  the  board  and  to  the  parent  or  guardian 
of  the  pupil. 

"(4)  The  committee  shall,  for  the  purposes 
of  its  inquiry,  study  all  existing  reports  in 
respect  of  the  pupil,  hear  the  teachers,  the 
parent  or  guardian  of  the  pupil,  where 
reasonably  possible  the  pupil,  and  any  other 
person  who  may  be  able  to  contribute  in- 
formation bearing  upon  the  matter  and  may, 
with  the  consent  of  the  parent  or  guardian 
of  the  pupil,  and  of  the  pupil  where  he  is  an 
adult  and  capable  of  giving  such  consent, 
obtain  and  consider  in  respect  of  the  pupil, 
the  report  of  an  assessment  conducted  by  a 
person  considered  by  the  committee  to  be 
competent  for  the  purpose. 

4:40  p.m. 

"(5)  Any  costs  incurred  in  respect  of  an 
assessment  or  examination  under  this  section, 
or  in  respect  of  the  obtaining  of  other  evi- 
dence required  by  the  committee  under  sub- 
section 3  or  under  subsection  6  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board  referred  to  in  subsection  2. 

"(6)  Where  the  parent  or  guardian  of  a 
person  in  respect  of  whom  a  determination 
has  been  made  under  clause  c  of  subsection 
3,  or  the  person,  where  he  is  an  adult, 

"(a)  believes  that  by  reason  of  improve- 
ment in  the  condition  of  the  person  or  other 
cause  the  person  has  become  able  to  profit 
by  instruction;  and 

"(b)  furnishes  to  a  supervisory  officer  of 
the  board  in  whose  jurisdiction  the  person 
resides,  evidence  or  information  to  establish 
such  belief, 

"the  board  shall  appoint  a  committee 
constituted  in  accordance  with  subsection  2 
that  shall  review  the  determination  in  respect 
of  the  person  last  made  under  this  section 
and  confirm  or  alter  such  determination  and 
for  such  purpose  the  committee  has  the 
powers  and  duties  of  a  committee  under  sub- 
section 3,  which  subsection  applies  with 
necessary  modifications  to  such  a  review. 

"(7)  Where  a  committee  under  subsection 
3  or  subsection  6  determines  that  a  pupil  is 
a  hard-to-serve  pupil,  the  committee  shall  so 
notify  the  board  and  the  board  shall  con- 
sider the  recommendation  and  determine  that 
the  pupil  is  a  hard-to-serve  pupil  or  that  the 


pupil  is  considered  to  need  placement  in  a 
special  educational  program,  as  the  case  may 
be,  and  shall  notify  the  parent  or  guardian 
of  the  pupil  in  writing  of  its  determination. 

"(8)  Where  the  board  determines  that  the 
pupil  is  considered  to  need  placement  in  a 
special  education  program,  the  board  shall 
refer  the  matter  to  the  appropriate  committee 
established  under  subparagraph  (iii)  of  para- 
graph 5  of  subsection  1  of  section  10  that 
shall  determine,  designate  or  design  an  ap- 
propriate special  education  program  for  the 
exceptional  pupil. 

"(9)  Where  the  board  determines  that  the 
pupil  is  a  hard-to-serve  pupil  and  the  parent 
or  guardian  of  the  pupil  agrees  with  the 
said  determination,  the  board  shall  assist  the 
parent  or  guardian  to  locate  a  placement 
suited  to  the  needs  of  the  pupil  and  reimburse 
the  parent  or  guardian  for  any  expenses  in- 
curred by  the  parent  or  guardian  in  locating 
such  placement. 

"(10)  Where, 

"(a)  the  board  determines  that  a  pupil  is 
a  hard-to-serve  pupil  and  the  parent  or 
guardian  of  the  pupil  disagrees  with  such 
determination  and  believes  that  the  pupil  is 
able  to  profit  by  instruction;  or 

"(b)  the  board  locates  a  placement  under 
subsection  9  and  the  parent  or  guardian  dis- 
agrees with  the  placement, 

"the  parent  or  guardian  of  the  pupil  may, 
within  15  days  of  the  receipt  of  the  notice 
under  subsection  7  or  at  any  time  prior  to 
the  implementation  of  the  placement  under 
subsection  9,  notify  the  board  in  writing  of 
the  disagreement  and  the  board  shall  forth- 
with refer  the  matter  to  the  secretary  of  a 
special  education  tribunal  establishment  under 
subsection  1  of  section  34a,  by  forwarding 
all  the  documentation  outlining  the  special 
education  programs  and  special  education 
services  that  have  been  provided  to  the  pupil 
and  all  existing  reports  and  relevant  material 
in  respect  of  the  pupil. 

"(11)  The  board  shall  reimburse  the  parent 
or  guardian  for  any  expense  he  incurs  in 
connection  with  the  referral  to  and  subse- 
quent hearing  by  the  tribunal  referred  to  in 
subsection  10,  provided  that  such  expenses 
are  approved  by  the  tribunal. 

"(12)  The  special  education  tribunal  shall 
consider  the  referral  and,  after  a  hearing  and 
review  of  the  report  of  the  committee  re- 
ferred to  in  subsection  3  and  the  determina- 
tion of  the  board,  shall  find  that, 

"(a)  the  pupil  is  a  hard-to-serve  pupil; 

"(b)  the  pupil  is  considered  to  need  place- 
ment in  a  special  education  program;  or 


4618 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


"(c)  that  the  proposed  placement  under 
subsection  9  is  or  is  not  suited  to  the  needs 
of  the  pupil 

"and  so  notify  in  writing  the  parent  or 
guardian  of  the  pupil,  the  board  and  the 
minister. 

"(13)  Where  the  tribunal  finds  that  the 
pupil  is  considered  to  need  placement  in  a 
special  education  program,  the  board  shall 
provide  a  special  education  program  and 
special  education  services  for  the  pupil  and 
the  board  shall,  within  60  days  of  receipt  of 
the  notice  under  subsection  12,  inform  the 
minister  of  the  special  education  services  that 
have  been  provided  for  the  pupil. 

"(14)  Where,  under  subsection  12,  the 
tribunal  finds  the  pupil  is  a  hard-to-serve 
pupil  or  that  the  placement  under  subsection 
9  is  not  suited  to  the  needs  of  the  puoil,  the 
board  shall  assist  the  parent  or  guardian  to 
locate  a  placement  or  a  new  placement,  as 
the  case  may  be,  suited  to  the  needs  of  the 
pupil  and  reimburse  the  parent  or  guardian 
for  any  expenses  incurred  by  the  parent  or 
guardian  in  locating  such  placement. 

"(15)  Where,  pursuant  to  an  application  by 
the  board  or  by  the  pupil  or  on  his  behalf  for 
judicial  review  under  the  Judicial  Review 
Procedure  Act,  1971,  the  finding  of  the  special 
education  tribunal  is  set  aside,  the  determina- 
tion of  the  board  under  subsection  7  shall  be 
referred  to  a  special  education  tribunal  for 
a  new  hearing  conducted  by  members  of  the 
tribunal  other  than  those  who  first  heard 
the  matter  if  the  board  or  the  parent  or 
guardian  of  the  pupil,  as  the  case  may  be, 
makes  application  therefor  to  the  secretary  of 
the  special  education  tribunal  by  registered 
mail  within  15  days  after  the  date  of  the 
order  of  the  court  setting  aside  the  finding 
of  the  special  education  tribunal  and  the 
provisions  of  subsections  11,  12,  13  and  14 
apply  with  the  necessary  modification  in  re- 
spect of  a  hearing  by  the  special  education 
tribunal  under  this  subsection. 

"(16)  A  placement  of  a  hard-to-serve  pupil 
under  subsection  9  or  14  shall  be  made  in 
Ontario,  except  where  no  placement  suited 
to  the  needs  of  the  pupil  is  available  in 
Ontario. 

"(17)  Where  a  hard-to-serve  pupil  is  placed 
under  subsection  9  or  14,  Ontario  shall  pay 
the  cost,  if  any,  of  such  placement. 

"(2)  The  said  act  is  amended  by  adding 
thereto  the  following  section: 

"34a  (1)  For  the  purposes  of  subsection  10 
of  section  34  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in 
Council  shall  establish  one  or  more  tribunals 
known  as  special  education  tribunals  and 
appoint  a  secretary  of  such  tribunals. 


"(2)  The  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council 
may  by  order, 

"(a)  establish  the  procedures  that  shall 
apply;  and 

"(b)  authorize  special  education  tribunals 
to  fix  and  assess. costs,  with  respect  to  matters 
dealt   with   by   special   education   tribunals." 

Did  the  member  for  York  Centre  have  a 
comment? 

Mr.  Stong:  I  was  going  to  ask  a  question, 
Mr.  Chairman,  but  the  minister  covered  it  by 
including  in  her  amendment  subsection  2. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  May  the  chair 
ask  two  questions?  If  the  minister  would 
refer  to  page  3  of  your  amendments  the  last 
paragraph  with  the  last  heavy  number  of 
lines,  after  "subsection  7,"  10  lines  from  the 
bottom— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  do 
you  mean  in  section  10  at  the  bottom  of  page 
3? 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Yes,  that  is  right. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Receipt  of  the 
notice  under  subsection  7? 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Yes.  Now  what 
are  the  next  two  words  after  "notice  under 
subsection   7"? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  "Or  any  time  prior 
to  the  implementation  of  the  placement  under 
subsection  9." 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  When  you  were 
reading  it,  you  read,  "or  at  any  time." 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  sorry. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Then  on  page  4,  in 
the  third  line  of  section  11,  it  reads,  "to  and 
subsequent."  Is  that  "any  subsequent"  or  "a 
subsequent."  That  is  line  3  on  page  4. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  reads  "with  the 
referral  to  and  subsequent  hearing  by  the 
tribunal." 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  right,  so  "and" 
is  correct  there. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Yes. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  order  to 
put  our  debate  on  this  section  in  some  kind 
of  perspective,  I  must  go  back  to  the  com- 
mittee hearings  of  September  30,  since  our 
participation  in  those  particular  committee 
hearings  has  been  referred  to  a  number  of 
times  by  other  members  of  this  House.  I  must 
say  that  the  references  to  those  committee 
hearings  have  not  always  been  put  in  total 
perspective. 

First  of  all,  let  us  realize  that  right  from 
the  very  beginning,  going  back  to  last  May 
and1  June  when  this  bill  was  first  introduced, 
I  have   made  it  very  clear  that  there  were 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4619 


two  aspects  of  the  then  current  section  7  of 
the  bill  that  troubled  me  greatly  and  that 
would  have  to  be  changed  before  it  could  get 
my  support.  I  said  we  would  have  to  elimi- 
nate the  exclusion  clause.  I  made  it  very 
clear  that  there  was  no  way  that  we  could 
say,  on  the  one  hand,  that  this  legislation 
was  designed  to  serve  every  single  child  or 
pupil  in  this  province  who  had  a  special  need 
and,  at  the  same  time,  have  an  exclusion 
clause. 

I  made  it  very  clear  that,  in  my  judge- 
ment, what  we  needed  to  say  instead  was 
that  the  school  board  had  a  responsibility 
to  every  single  child  admitted  to  its  juris- 
diction either  to  provide  a  program  to  meet 
that  child's  needs  itself  or  to  find  an  alter- 
native program  someplace  else.  Quite  frank- 
ly, it  does  not  matter  where  else  it  is,  as 
long  as  it  meets  that  child's  needs.  That 
was  the  exclusion  concept. 
4:50  p.m. 

The  other  part  of  section  7  I  insisted 
had  to  be  changed  in  some  way  was  to 
provide  for  an  appeal  mechanism  for  parents 
because  we  spoke  at  that  time  of  the 
number  of  .  parents  in  this  province  with 
children,  particularly  with  severe  learning 
disabilities  and  the  experience  they  had  with 
their  particular  school  boards.  In  many 
cases,  they  tried  but  simply  were  not  able 
and,  in  some  cases,  in  my  judgement,  they 
did  not  try  hard  enough.  In  many  cases, 
they  did  try  but  simply  were  unable  to 
meet  the  child's  needs,  and  we  had  to  use 
such  mechanisms  as  the  vocational  rehabili- 
tation service  of  the  Ministry  of  Community 
and  Social  Services.  Those  were  the  two 
essentials.  There  were  a  lot  of  other  things 
we  talked  about,  but  they  were  the  two 
essentials,  we  still  had  to  deal  with. 

Next  I  want  to  go  to  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  social  development  hearing  of 
September  30,  in  which  on  at  least  three 
occasions  I  clearly  indicated  to  the  minister 
that  I  was  still  concerned  about  these  two 
concepts.  I  introduced  amendments  which, 
in  my.  judgement,  would  speak  to  that  con- 
cern arid  would  have  corrected  what  I  felt 
was  a  flaw  in  the  legislation.  For  any  num- 
ber of  reasons  those  amendments  were  not 
accepted. 

I  am  looking  at  page  47  of  the  committee 
Hansard  of  September  30,  in  which  I  specifi- 
cally plead  with  the  minister  and  say  in 
effect,  "If  you  cannot  accept  my  amendments 
and  you  know  what  it  is  that  I  am  con- 
cerned about,  please  go  back  and  make  an 
amendment  of  your  own  that  will  speak  to 


these*  concerns."  I  note  in  here  particularly, 
"that  there  are  children  who  are  capable  of 
being  educated  but  who  are  not  going  to  get 
what  they  need,  who  are  going  to  be  shunted 
off  and  who  are  going  to  be  excluded  in 
other  ways.  That  is  my  concern." 

On  page  48,  I  refer  once  again  to  the 
amendment  that  was  then  before  us  which 
was  presented  to  the  committee  initially  by 
the  Justice  for  Children  association  and  then 
later,  more  directly,  by  the  member  for  Bell- 
woods  (Mr.  McClellan)  as  an  amendment  of 
his  own.  I  made  reference  to  that  and  I 
said  to  the  minister  I  felt  this  particular 
amendment  was  too  rigid,  just  too  tight.  I 
used  those  exact  words.  I  said  I  would  hope 
that  we  could  deal  with  this  issue  in  some 
more  moderate  way. 

I  once  again  appealed  to  the  minister  to 
take  the  legislation  back  and  to  bring  in  an 
amendment  that  would  speak  to  the  con- 
cerns. I  pointed  out,  however,  that  if  the 
minister  was  unwilling  to  do  so,  then  I  would 
be  left  with  no  alternative— and  that  was 
very  clear  from  my  words— but  to  support 
the  amendment  proposed  by  Justice  for 
Children.  In  fact,  that  is  what  happened  on 
September  30. 

We  are  now  faced  with  a  different  set  of 
circumstances  and  that  must  be  recognized. 
We  are  now  faced  with  an  amendment  to 
section  7  which  the  minister  has  introduced 
and  in  which  she  has  made  some  consider- 
able steps  forward.  I  clearly  indicated  on 
September  30  that  if  the  minister  was  willing 
to  move  forward  on  this,  if  the  minister  was 
willing  to  recognize  the  concerns  that  had 
been  expressed  and  make  some  changes 
to  the  section,  I  would  be  prepared  to  co- 
operate and  to  make  the  bill  on  those  lines. 

We  have  not  yet  gone  all  the  way,  but  we 
have  come  a  long  way.  We  clearly  have 
eliminated  the  exclusion  clause,  and  for  that 
I  offer  my  support  and  co-operation  to  the 
minister.  That  is  what  we  were  asking  for; 
the  minister  has  recognized  it  and  it  is  gone. 

We  clearly  have  a  defined  appeal  mecha- 
nism. As  the  minister  will  note  in  some  further 
amendments  my  colleague  and  I  will  make, 
we  want  to  go  a  little  bit  beyond  it.  But  the 
situation  we  are  dealing  with  here  today  is  a 
significantly  different  one  than  what  we  were 
dealing  with  on  September  30.  We  now  have 
a  version  of  section  7  of  this  bill  which  is 
clearly  different,  which  is  clearly  an  improve- 
ment over  what  the  minister  had  presented 
to  us  on  September  30  and  prior  to  Septem- 
ber 30.  To  suggest  that  the  only  version  of 
this  bill  we  are  looking  at  or  that  we  should 
look  at  is  the  amended  one  that  came  out  on 


4620 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


September   30    is    a   distortion    of   the   possi- 
bilities that  are  available  to  us. 

First  of  all,  I  want  to  draw  to  the  min- 
ister's attention  a  comment  she  made  at  a 
public  forum  to  the  board  of  education  for 
the  borough  of  York  on  Thursday  of  this 
week.  There  are  a  number  of  very  good 
comments  in  that,  but  there  is  one  in  par- 
ticular I  would  draw  her  attention  to  on 
page  6,  and  the  minister  will  recognize  it. 
She  is  referring  to  the  new  legislation  and 
she  says:  "Many  exceptional  children  with 
special  needs  just  have  not  been  able  to  have 
those  needs  met  adequately  in  our  publicly 
financed  schools." 

That  was  another  wav  of  the  minister 
saying  we  needed  something  like  Bill  82  to 
meet  that  very  obvious  need.  She  was  saying 
that  to  the  extent  to  which  school  boards  in 
this  province  had  done  as  much  as  they 
could,  to  the  extent  that  school  boards  in  this 
province  have  the  financial  and  the  human 
resources  to  meet  all  the  needs  of  special 
education  children  in  this  province  it  was 
clearly  not  effective  enough.  She  was  saying 
we  needed  a  piece  of  legislation  that  was 
going  to  do  that,  and  we  have  come  a  long 
way  in  that. 

Last  week  I  introduced  four  amendments 
dealing  with  the  broader  interpretation  of 
hard-to-serve  pupil  in  this  legislation.  In- 
stead of  limiting  the  hard-to-serve  piiDil  to 
"one  who  is  unable  to  profit  by  instruction," 
I  added  words  to  make  it  read  "unable  to 
profit  by  instruction  offered  by  a  board." 
That  was  done  with  care  and  consideration. 
The  point  I  want  to  make  here  now  is  that 
wo  have  under  the  iurisdiction  of  the  boards 
of  this  province  children  who,  for  whatever 
reason,  simply  are  not  getting  an  adequate 
education  as  offered  by  their  boards. 

The  implementation  of  this  bill  over  the 
next  five  years  will  go  a  long  way  towards 
relieving  that.  If  the  implementation  of  this 
bill  goes,  as  the  minister  has  stated  it  should 
and  as  she  believes  it  should  go,  then  we 
will  probably  be  in  a  situation  where  every 
single  school  board  in  this  province  will  meet 
the  needs  of  every  single  student  in  its  juris- 
diction. That  is  the  hope;  that  is  the  promise; 
that  is  the  vision.  I  sincerely  hope  the  min- 
ister is  right,  because  that  would  be  my 
promise.  It  would  be  my  vision  as  well  that 
we  could  in  the  public  schools  of  this  prov- 
ince meet  the  appropriate  needs  of  every 
single  child. 
5  p.m. 

However,  despite  our  best  intentions,  de- 
spite our  best  efforts  to  put  enough  money 
into  it  and  to  put  enough  human  resources 


into  it,  there  is  the  distinct  possibility  there 
may  still  be  some  children  whose  needs  can- 
not be  met  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
board.  Those  children  are  going  to  be  defined 
as  hard-to-serve  children.  Section  7  speaks 
to  them.  By  adding  the  word's,  "offered  by  a 
board"  after  "instruction,"  what  I  am 
clearly  referring  to  is  any  child  for  whom 
the  board  has  done  the  best  it  can,  but  for 
whatever  reason  is  simply  not  able  to  meet 
that  child's  needs,  whatever  those  needs  might 
be,  whether  they  may  be  needs  of  care  or 
educational  needs.  Therefore,  that  is  the 
specific  purpose  of  adding  those  words.  I 
would  suggest  it  is  a  significant  addition.  It 
is  not  just  put  in  there  for  fluff. 

The  other  amendments  I  had  proposed  pre- 
viously concerned  two  different  places— sub- 
section 9  and  subsection  14.  In  both  cases,  in 
the  version  the  minister  gave  us  last  week, 
those  sections  did  relate  to  placement  of  a 
child  someplace  else,  either  by  a  board  or  by 
the  tribunal.  The  purpose  of  my  amendments 
was  to  clearly  indicate  that  either  the  board  or 
the  ministry  would  have  to  fund  those  place- 
ments. In  the  amendment  the  minister  has 
given  us  today,  she  has  responded  to  that  in 
section  (7)  17.  It  now  says:  "Where  a  hard- 
to-serve  pupil  is  placed  under  subsection  9 
or  14,  Ontario  shall  pay  the  cost."  I  am 
pleased  to  see  the  minister  has  incorporated 
that  section  of  my  amendment. 

A  third  point  I  attempted  to  make  in  my 
amendments  was  to  draw  attention  to  the 
fact  that  a  child's  needs  may  not  be  able  to 
be  met  within  the  province.  Therefore,  I 
asked  that  the  words  "in  Ontario"  in  sub- 
section 9  and  in  subsection  14  be  deleted. 
The  purpose  of  that  was  to  allow  the  child 
to  be  placed  outside  Ontario  if  the  best 
efforts  by  school  boards,  the  tribunal  and  the 
ministry  could  not  meet  the  particular  needs 
of  a  child  within  Ontario.  Under  this  legisla- 
tion, the  tribunal  or  the  board  would  not  be 
prohibited  from  going  outside  the  province 
to  find  what  the  child  needs. 

I  notice  in  the  minister's  amended  version 
in  subsection  16  that  she  speaks  to  this  as 
well.  The  minister  says  in  the  amendment: 
"Where  a  placement  of  a  hard-to-serve  pupil 
under  subsection  9  or  14  shall  be  made  in 
Ontario  except  where  no  placement  suited  to 
the  needs  of  the  pupil  is  available  in  On- 
tario." That  speaks  to  the  same  point  I  am 
making  once  again.  I  will  indicate  clearly  to 
the  minister  I  will  support  that. 

I  made  a  fourth  amendment  with  respect 
to  the  rights  of  the  tribunal.  Here  I  was 
referring  to  subsection  10,  in  which  case  it 
was  not  just  the  determination  of  a  hard-to- 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4621 


serve  pupil,  but  also  the  decision  by  the 
board  to  place  a  hard-to-serve  pupil  and 
that  the  parent  or  guardian,  through  the 
tribunal,  would  have  the  right  to  appeal  both 
the  identification  of  a  hard-to-serve  pupil  and 
also  the  right  to  appeal  the  board's  decision 
to  place  that  pupil. 

The  minister,  through  the  amendments 
given  to  us  today,  has  made  that  change  in 
subsection  10  of  this  section  where  in  10(b) 
the  minister  now  has  "the  board  locates  a 
placement  under  subsection  9  and  the  parent 
or  guardian  disagrees  with  the  placement." 
Once  again,  the  minister  has  recognized  the 
amendment  I  placed  last  week  and  has  in- 
corporated it  into  her  own  legislation. 

I  can  say  that  the  amendments  I  made 
available  to  the  minister  which  were  intended 
to  broaden  the  definition  of  what  a  hard-to- 
serve  pupil  is  and  clearly  to  indicate  who  was 
going  to  pay  the  cost,  where  the  service  could 
be  obtained  and,  finally,  to  insist  that  the 
placement  decision  of  a  hard-to-serve  pupil 
should  also  be  open  to  appeal,  and  not  just 
the  identification  of  the  hard-to-serve  pupil, 
have  all  been  brought  forward.  I  will  most 
certainly  support  those  sections  of  the  amend- 
ment. 

In  the  interval,  as  I  read  over  the  version 
of  the  amendment  the  minister  made  available 
to  us  last  week,  I  realize  there  was  an  internal 
inconsistency  by  adding  the  words  "offered 
by  a  board"  in  subsection  1,  but  not  also 
adding  them  in  subsection  2  and  3  where  they 
appear  again.  Therefore,  at  this  time  I  am 
introducing  a  further  amendment  which  I 
believe  the  Chairman  has  in  front  of  him. 
Actually,  it  will  be  an  amendment  to  my 
amendment  because  part  of  it  has  already 
been  done. 

What  I  am  referring  to  is  my  first  amend- 
ment under  section  7.  I  had  moved  that  the 
minister's  amendments  be  further  amended, 
as  she  has  done,  by  adding  "offered  by  the 
board"  after  "instruction"  in  the  sixth  line 
of  section  7(1)  of  the  bill  being  section 
34(l)(b)  of  the  act.  That  has  already  been 
done.  I  would  then  go  on  in  the  fourth  and 
seventh  lines  of  section  7(2)  and  in  the  fifth 
and  ninth  lines  of  section  7(3). 

I  would  draw  to  the  attention  of  the  Chair- 
man and  the  minister  that  those  are  added 
only  to  be  consistent  with  the  change  the 
minister  has  already  accepted  in  section 
7(1)  of  the  bill.  There  is  no  hidden  intent 
there  whatsoever.  I  am  assuming  that  since 
the  minister  has  accepted  the  concept  in  sec- 
tion 7(1),  she  will  equally  accept  the  same 
concept  in  subsections  2  and  3  of  adding 
"offered  by  a  board." 


At  this  time,  I  would  like  to  state  an  under- 
standing and  to  have  the  minister,  at  some 
point  before  the  afternoon  is  over,  assure  me 
that  my  understanding  is  correct.  We  are 
speaking  here  of  a  piece  of  legislation  which 
is  not  intended  to  be  fully  implemented  until 
1985. 

First,  it  is  my  understanding  the  minister 
made  known  to  us  that  school  boards  across 
the  province  would  be  expected— and  there 
would  be  some  kind  of  monitoring  going 
on— to  be  implementing  in  a  phased-in  pro- 
cedure as  much  of  this  legislation  as  they  are 
able  each  year  between  now  and  1985.  In 
other  words,  between  now  and  1985  we  are 
talking  about  a  transitional  period  before  the 
bill  becomes  fully  implemented  and  fully 
effective.  However,  during  that  period  of 
time,  school  boards  do  not  have  the  choice 
to  ignore  this  legislation.  The  school  boards 
are  bound  by  this  legislation  to  the  degree 
they  have  both  the  financial  and  human  re- 
sources to  implement  it.  The  minister  is  going 
to  monitor  it  to  be  sure  they  do  that.  That  is 
my  first  understanding,  if  the  minister  would 
confirm  it. 

Second,  my  understanding  is  during  that 
transition-implementation  period,  the  pro- 
vision now  available  to  parents  and  guardians 
in  this  province  to  go  before  the  vocational 
rehabilitation  board  and  ask  for  assistance  for 
their  children  with  special  needs  will  be  con- 
tinued. As  part  of  it,  I  would  understand  that 
any  child  who  by  1985  was  in  the  process  of 
being  assisted  by  the  vocational  rehabilitation 
board  would  certainly  have  that  continued 
understanding,  if  the  minister  would  clearly 
identify  that. 

5:10  p.m. 

At  this  point,  I  will  let  my  amendment 
stand.  If  the  minister  wishes  at  this  time  to 
correct  anything  I  have  said  or  to  add  to  it, 
then  I  wish  she  would  please  do  so. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  would  direct  a 
word  to  the  member  for  Kitchener- Wilmot. 
The  clerk  has  before  us  some  amendments 
which  I  think  you  tabled  some  time  ago. 
You  have  not  moved  them  yet.  Since  this  is 
such  a  long  and  rather  complicated  amend- 
ment that  the  minister  has  put  forward,  my 
proposal  would1  be  to  move  it  section  by 
section. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  If  I  may,  the  mem- 
ber for  Kitchener- Wilmot  had  produced  some 
subamendments  to  the  amendments  which  I 
introduced  last  Tuesday.  In  discussing  these, 
it  was  felt  it  would  be  less  confusing  for  the 
members  of  the  House  if  those  areas  in 
which    we    could    agree    were    incorporated1 


4622 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


into  an  entirely  new  amendment  This  was 
the  reason  I  suggested  earlier  that  it  would 
be  my  position  that  I  would  withdraw  the 
amendment  I  introduced  last  Tuesday  and 
introduce  the  new  amendment  to  section  7 
which  incorporates  all  but  one  of  the  amend- 
ments the  member  for  Kitchener- Wilmot 
suggested.  He  suggested  this  afternoon  that 
his  were  additions,  made  after  perusing  the 
new  amendment  we  introduced,  in  order  to 
provide  for  consistency. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Since  we  did  not 
get  to  section  7  last  week,  your  amendment 
was  not  formally  put.  Therefore,  there  is  no 
need  to  withdraw  it.  I  simply  have  before 
me  now  the  amendment  you  put  today. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  if 
I  may,  the  list  of  amendments  which  the 
member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot  introduced 
last  week  no  longer  applies  because  they 
have  been  incorporated  into  the  amend- 
ment which  I  introduced  this  week,  except 
for  the  additional  words,  "offered  by  a 
board"  in  two  other  places. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  don't  know 
whether  the  member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot 
agrees  that  this  is  the  case.  If  he  does  not, 
I  am  asking  him  to  hold  the  amendments 
he  may  want  to  make  until  we  come  to  the 
appropriate    sections    of    this    amendment. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  might  be 
simpler  for  everyone  if  I  made  it  clear,  as 
I  attempted  to  do  in  my  overview  of  what 
has  happened  in  the  last  couple  of  months, 
that  I  now  recognize  that  the  second,  third 
and  fourth  amendments  I  have  before  you 
are  no  longer  applicable  because  the  min- 
ister has  included  them  in  her  new  amend- 
ment.  Therefore,   I   withdraw  those   three. 

However,  I  have  indicated  that  the  second 
and  third  parts  of  my  first  amendment  are 
still  applicable.  I  think  the  simplest  thing 
for  me  to  do  for  your  benefit  is  to  cross  out 
what  is  no  longer  applicable,  and  to  leave 
what  is  applicable  there.  I  will  do  that  now. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  while  the 
honourable  member  is  writing,  I  would  like 
an  opportunity  to  speak  both  to  the  amend- 
ment and  to  any  subsequent  subamendments. 
I  will  concede  that  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion has  moved  a  considerable  distance  with 
respect  to  the  so-called  hard-to-serve  child 
who  is  unable  to  profit  by  instruction.  When 
we  were  in  committee,  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation was  insisting  that  the  language  of  the 
old  section  34  of  the  Education  Act  be  re- 
tained and  that  children  not  able  to  profit 
by  instruction  would  be  excluded  and  virtu- 
ally dropped. 


Interjection. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  interpret  the  language, 
"the  board  will  assist  to  locate"  as  meaning 
"dropped."  The  minister  has  moved  some 
distance  and,  regrettably,  so  has  the  Liberal 
Party  but  in  the  other  direction. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  minister's  advance  is  the 
Liberal  Party's  retreat. 

Mr.  McClellan:  That's  right.  We  have  an 
amendment  before  us  and,  regardless  of  what 
the  member  for  Kitchener-Wilmot  will  do,  it 
only  deals  with  one  particular  situation.  That 
is  the  situation  of  the  child  who  is  designated 
a  hard-to-serve  pupil  who,  because  of  a 
mental  handicap  or  a  mental  or  one  or  more 
additional  handicaps,  is  unable  to  profit  by 
instruction.  We  are  still  talking  only  about 
one  group  of  children;  we  are  still  talking 
about  those  children  who  used  to  be  ex- 
cluded under  section  34  of  the  Education 
Act.  That  is  all  we  are  talking  about.  We  are 
not  talking  about  a  comprehensive  appeal 
system  that  covers  all  areas  of  decision- 
making of  a  local  board  of  education  place- 
ment committee.  We  are  only  talking  about 
decisions  that  are  made  with  respect  to 
children  who  are  designated  hard-to-serve 
pupils. 

I  will  concede  that  the  refinements  that 
have  been  made  in  the  area  of  an  appeal 
procedure  for  hard-to-serve  children  have 
been  substantial,  so  that  we  appear  at  this 
time  to  have  an  appeal  mechanism  that  could 
result  in  the  end  in  a  child  actually  getting 
a  program.  I  still  have  concerns  that  the 
procedures  aren't  spelled  out  with  respect  to 
what  happens  when  one  goes  before  this 
tribunal,  but  at  least  most  of  the  areas  that 
were  silent  have  been  filled  in  so  that  the 
dots  have  been  completed. 

The  main  problem  for  us  remains  that  it  is 
an  utterly  partial  appeal  system.  There  is  still 
no  appeal  provision  within  the  amendments 
being  put  forward  by  the  Liberals  and  Con- 
servatives that  deals  with  the  question  of  who 
is  an  exceptional  pupil  and  who  is  not.  There 
is  still  no  appeal  provision  in  the  statute  as 
proposed  by  the  Liberals  and  Conservatives 
with  respect  to  what  kind  of  special  education 
programs  and  special  education  services  an 
exceptional  pupil  will  get. 

All  we  have  is  an  answer  to  the  question 
of  what  happens  to  the  hard-to-serve  pupil 
who  is  unable  to  profit  by  instruction  because 
of  a  mental  handicap.  That  is  what  it  says 
and  that  is  what  it  is.  Don't  try  to  pretend  it 
is  something  it  isn't.  That  is  the  game  that  is 
being  played  here  this  afternoon  and  it  is 
absolutely  infuriating  because  a  fraud  is  being 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4623 


perpetrated  when  you  try  to  say  an  appeal 
system  covers  everybody  when  it  doesn't. 
The  reality  is  in  the  language. 

Before  one  can  appeal  under  what  is  before 
us,  the  board  of  education  has  to  determine 
that  a  pupil  is  a  hard-to-serve  pupil.  That  is 
the  only  group  of  children  that  can  appeal 
under  what  is  in  front  of  us,  that  is,  children 
who  have  been  designated  by  a  board  of 
education  as  hard-to-serve  pupils.  That  is  the 
reality.  That  is  what  the  statute  says,  and  a 
hard-to-serve  pupil  is  defined.  It  is  not  an 
exceptional  pupil  and  it  is  not  an  exceptional 
pupil  who  is  entitled  to  special  education 
services.  It  is  a  pupil  who  is  determined  to  be 
unable  to  profit  by  instruction  offered  by  the 
board  due  to  a  mental  handicap  or  one  or 
more  additional  handicaps.  That  is  a  very 
restrictive  definition.  It  is  very  clear  what  that 
will  mean  in  terms  of  the  operation  of  the 
appeal  procedure.  Let  us  not  have  any  non- 
sense about  this  being  comprehensive  or 
universal  because  it  isn't.  It  is  restricted  to 
that  one  group  of  children. 

It  is  important  that  at  least  that  replaces 
the  old  exclusion  provision  and,  as  I  said,  I 
am  pleased  that  the  minister  has  moved  that 
far.  But  she  has  not  moved  to  provide  an 
appeal  for  the  question:  "Who  is  an  excep- 
tional pupil?"  The  local  board  of  education 
will  define  that. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Sections  2  and  3. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Those  are  regulation  sec- 
tions. If  you  don't  understand  at  this  time 
the  difference  between  an  appeal  procedure 
that  is  in  the  statute  and  one  that  is  left  to 
your  discretion  through  regulation,  I  don't 
intend  to  go  through  it  again.  I  have  gone 
through  it  three  or  four  times  already. 

5:20  p.m. 

We  have  seen  your  appeal  procedure  in 
regulation  704-78  under  the  Education  Act 
I  referred  to  earlier.  You  called  it  an  appeal 
procedure  when  we  were  in  committee.  You 
did  not  call  it  a  review  procedure;  you  called 
it  an  appeal  procedure.  You  insisted  it  was 
an  appeal  procedure  until  it  was  pointed  out 
to  you  what  a  sham  it  was. 

I  think  it  is  our  responsibility  to  put  a 
genuine  appeal  procedure  into  the  statute. 
That  is  precisely  what  the  existing  section 
7,  which  we  passed  in  the  social  develop- 
ment committee,  does.  It  covers  all  three 
areas  of  decision-making:  who  is  an  excep- 
tional pupil,  what  kind  of  special  education 
programs  and  services  a  child  should  get 
and,  finally,  how  to  deal  with  the  so-called 
hard-to-serve    child.    We    have    covered    all 


three  areas  of  decision-making  in  the  bill.  It 
is  right  in  front  of  us.  It  is  eminently  sup- 
portable. 

I  regret  very  much  the  other  two  parties 
do  not  intend  to  support  section  7  as  amend- 
ed by  the  committee.  Rather,  they  intend 
to  try  to  pass  off  this  very  limited  appeal 
system  as  somehow  covering  all  of  the  areas 
which  require  appeal.  If  we  in  the  Legisla- 
ture are  prepared  to  give  such  enormous 
powers  of  decision-making  to  any  outside 
body,  we  have  an  obligation  to  provide  a 
means  of  redress  to  the  citizen  against  wrong 
decisions.  Surely  we  can  all  accept  that 
principle. 

We  say  simply  that  human  beings  are  not 
infallible.  Bureaucrats  are  not  infallible;  they 
make  mistakes.  They  are  likely  to  make  a 
mistake  with  respect  to  whether  some  child 
in  this  province  is  an  exceptional  pupil  or 
not,  and  if  they  make  a  mistake  that  child 
will  not  be  eligible  for  special  education. 
Some  official  of  a  local  board  of  education 
may  make  a  mistake  with  respect  to  which 
special  education  program  a  particular  child 
should  be  receiving  and,  unless  there  is  an 
appeal  procedure,  that  mistake  cannot  be 
corrected.  It  is  as  simple  as  that. 

As  I  said,  we  have  dealt  through  the 
amendment  and  the  subamendment  with 
hard-to-serve  kids,  but  in  the  process  we  are 
wiping  out  the  appeal  system  on  the  other 
two  questions.  It  is  a  nonsensical  retreat  on 
the  part  of  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Kitchener-Wilmot,  however  nicely  he  wants 
to  put  it.  The  minister  simply  is  as  intran- 
sigent as  ever. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  when  Bill  82 
was  originally  introduced  in  the  House,  it 
was  debated  in  principle.  That  principle  was 
to  meet  a  need  which  existed  in  society  and 
that  was  a  need  which  existed  in  children 
who  had  special  needs  in  the  educational 
process.  In  addressing  that  principle,  this 
entire  House  unanimously  passed  Bill  82  in 
principle.  In  other  words,  we  wanted  to 
come  up  with  a  bill  which  met  and  satisfied 
the  special  needs  known  as  exceptional  needs 
in  this  bill. 

The  committee  was  set  up  and  the  bill 
was  sent  to  committee.  The  committee  re- 
viewed the  bill  clause  by  clause.  In  com- 
mittee, amendments  were  made  to  the  bill 
as  an  indication  to  the  House  what  the  com- 
mittee wanted  and  as  a  direction  to  the 
House.  The  matter  is  now  back  before  the 
House  for  reconsideration  on  a  clause-by- 
clause  procedure. 


4624 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Last  week  we  considered  the  rights  section. 
The  rights  section,  as  it  has  been  dubbed 
by  the  party  on  the  left,  dealt  with  issues 
concerning  all  children.  This  was  clearly  in- 
consistent with  the  principle  of  the  bill  be- 
cause the  bill  was  passed  in  principle  to  deal 
with  exceptional  children  with  exceptional 
needs.  So  the  rights  section  was  amended 
by  this  House  in  committee  of  the  whole 
last  week  to  meet  and  satisfy  the  principle 
of  the  bill.  In  fact,  written  into  that  rights 
section  was  that  the  bill  dealt  with  excep- 
tional children.  We  as  a  House  on  the  whole 
met  with  the  principle  and  reviewed  and 
amended  the  bill  to  conform  to  the  principle 
that  this  House  unanimously  passed. 

Not  only  that  but  last  week,  pursuant  to 
the  amendments  by  this  party,  we  included 
words  such  as  "appropriate  program."  We  in- 
cluded the  fact  that  there  should  be  no  extra 
cost  to  the  parents  for  the  appropriate  pro- 
gram and  we  also  enshrined  in  that  rights 
legislation  a  guarantee  of  an  appeal,  which  I 
might  say  without  referring  at  great  length 
to  it,  the  party  on  my  left  voted  against. 

We  now  have  before  us  section  7.  An 
amendment  to  section  7  was  moved  by  the 
minister.  At  the  outset,  in  recognition  of  the 
need  that  existed  in  society,  and  perhaps  be- 
cause of  the  lengthy  delay  and  the  problems 
parents  of  children  with  exceptional  handicaps 
were  experiencing,  confidence  probably  was 
eroded  and  parents  no  longer  had  the  same 
trust  or  expected  the  same  treatment.  They 
did  not  enjoy  the  same  confidence  in  the 
ministry  as  they  would  otherwise  have  done. 

Now  we  have  a  bill  before  us  in  its  present 
form  from  the  committee  that  deals  with 
three  fundamental  procedures.  Number  one  is 
the  identification  of  a  student  as  an  excep- 
tional student,  and  we  also  have  a  definition 
in  the  present  bill  of  what  an  exceptionality 
is.  Not  only  does  the  present  bill  from  the 
committee  deal  with  identification,  but  it  also 
deals  with  placement  in  section  7.  Not  only 
that,  but  it  deals  with  the  hard-to-serve  stu- 
dent whose  needs  cannot  be  satisfied  in  the 
present  system. 

The  minister  has  moved  an  amendment  to 
that  section  which,  in  my  respectful  submis- 
sion, is  almost  a  180-degree  deviation  from 
what  the  committee  had  recommended  for 
this  House's  passage  in  committee  of  the 
whole  House.  In  so  far  as  that  deviation 
occurred  and  in  so  far  as  the  amendment  we 
are  now  considering  deals  with  the  one 
problem  that  is  before  the  House,  that  is, 
setting  up  an  appeal  mechanism  for  the  hard- 
to-serve  children,  the  amendment  is  accept- 


able and  applaudable,  but  it  is  lacking  in  two 
very  significant  areas. 

First,  it  is  lacking  in  the  area  of  identifica- 
tion, setting  up  an  appeal  procedure  and 
guaranteeing  that  appeal  procedure,  indepen- 
dent of  the  minister's  discretion,  for  the 
parents  of  the  child  who  are  not  satisfied 
with  the  placement.  Second,  the  section,  as 
amended  by  the  minister,  does  not  deal  with 
the  placement  and  the  review  of  placement 
of  any  other  child  except  the  hard-to-serve 
child.  The  hard-to-serve  child  is  looked  after 
very  well  and  the  bill  is  extremely  fair  in  that 
regard.  Because  this  amendment  is  a  matter 
of  a  complete  turnabout,  so  to  speak,  we 
almost  have  to  deal  with  it  in  principle  as 
opposed  to  going  through  it  section  by  section 
and  clause  by  clause. 

In  the  light  of  the  remarks  that  were  made 
by  my  colleague  from  Kitchener- Wilmot  (Mr. 
Sweeney),  I  have  amendments  I  want  and 
intend  to  offer  to  this  clause.  As  the  clause  is 
set  up,  it  deals  with  and  serves  only  the  hard- 
to-serve  pupil.  The  thrust  is  directed  toward 
that  segment  of  our  school  population  that 
falls  within  this  definition.  It  sets  up  iden- 
tification; it  sets  up  a  committee  for  review; 
it  sets  up  going  back  to  the  board;  it  sets  up 
a  special  educational  tribunal.  Even  from  the 
educational  tribunal,  one  can  appeal  to  a 
judge  who  can  refer  it  back  to  the  tribunal 
for  reconsideration.  This  is  all  to  deal  with 
the  hard-to-serve  pupil.  Nothing  is  said  in 
this  section  about  the  placement  or  the  iden- 
tification in  terms  of  review.  It  is  because 
this  section  is  silent  in  those  two  regards  that 
I  have  amendments  to  offer  to  the  minister. 

5:30  p.m. 

As  have  other  members,  I  have  been  de- 
luged by  mail,  by  phone  calls,  by  telegrams. 
I  have  met  with  the  York  County  Board  of 
Education  which  has  expressed  its  concerns 
to  me.  Their  first  concern  is  that  in  its  pres- 
ent form  Bill  82  is  overbearing,  unwieldy 
and1  perhaps  unworkable.  This  is  as  it  came 
out  of  the  committee. 

I  accept  the  observations  given  to  me  by 
expert  educators.  I  accept  what  they  say 
about  its  implementation.  It  has  also  been 
brought  to  my  attention  that  the  appeal 
procedure,  as  set  up  in  Bill  82  from  com- 
mittee, overrides  the  responsibility  and  takes 
away  the  responsibility  from  the  Minister  of 
Education  for  providing  education  and  pro- 
viding special  programs.  I  accept  that  as  an 
observation  as  well. 

First  and  foremost,  I  accept  the  statement 
made  in  a  letter  that  was  written  to  me  by 
the  chairman  of  the  York  County  Board1  of 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4625 


Education.  She  said:  "Let  me  make  it  clear 
that  the  York  County  Board  of  Education  is 
not  opposed  to  the  idea  of  universal  accessi- 
bility to  an  appropriate  education  for  every 
child."  I  accept  that.  I  accept  the  fact  that 
this  bill  is  necessary  because  it  meets  a  need 
in  society,  but  the  form  in  which  the  min- 
ister has  introduced  her  amendments  is  not 
acceptable  to  this  member. 

I  might  say  that  at  the  appropriate  time— 
and  I  need  guidance  on  this— there  are  two 
principles  that  section  7  does  not  cover  that 
we  intend  to  offer  as  amendments.  We  will 
offer  as  an  amendment  the  right  to  appeal 
the  identification.  We  will  offer  as  an  amend- 
ment the  right  to  appeal  the  placement,  and 
there  is  already  written  into  this  section,  a 
right  to  appeal  for  the  hard-to-serve  pupil. 
The  appeal  mechanism  is  important.  The 
hard-to-serve  pupil,  under  the  present 
amendment  offered  by  the  minister,  can  go 
to  a  committee,  can  go  to  a  board,  can  go 
to  a  tribunal  and  can  go  to  a  court. 

I  accept  the  observations  of  educators 
and  those  in  the  boards  of  education  who 
fear  an  onslaught.  I  accept  it  in  this  regard 
only  as  an  onslaught  of  litigation.  I  accept  it 
in  only  where  the  exceptionally  gifted  child's 
needs  are  not  met.  Perhaps  that  will  be  the 
source  of  most  of  our  appeals;  perhaps  it 
will  not.  It  is  conjecture  and  a  projection, 
but  I  accept  the  observations  of  educators 
when  they  tell  me  that  is  the  quarter  from 
which  they  fear  the  most  appeals. 

It  is  very  important  that  the  appeal  mech- 
anism for  the  hard-to-serve  child  be  main- 
tained, but  it  is  equally  important  that  appeal 
mechanisms  be  guaranteed  and  set  up  inde- 
pendently at  the  discretion  of  the  minister 
with  respect  to  identification  and  placement. 

My  amendments  to  this  section,  which  will 
be  tabled  at  the  proper  time,  will  set  up  an 
appeal  procedure  so  that  in  the  case  of 
identification  and  placement  the  parent, 
guardian  or  student— the  person  affected1  if 
he  is  an  adult— will  have  the  right  to  appeal 
to  the  minister,  will  have  the  right  to  appeal 
to  the  board  and  will  have  the  right  to  go 
to  a  tribunal.  At  that  point,  his  appeal  de- 
pends on  leave  given  by  the  tribunal  to  go 
further  only  in  relation  to  the  identification 
and  the  placement  of  individual  exceptional 
pupils. 

I  realize  we  cannot  take  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  boards  or  the  ministry  the  right  to 
educate,  the  obligation  to  educate  and  the 
responsibility  to  set  up  appropriate  programs. 
We  do  not  intend  to  do  that.  Also,  it  is  my 
respectful  submission  to  this  House  that  it  is 
distinguishable;  that  in  terms  of  the  identi- 


fication and  placement  process  there  is  a 
distinction  between  that  process  and1  the 
process  of  satisfying  a  child  or  pupil  who 
is  hard  to  serve.  A  pupil  who  is  hard  to 
serve  can  eventually  go  to  court  as  a  right 
to  determine  his  rights  under  the  present 
amendment.  It  is  far-reaching  and  the  min- 
ister has  come  a  long  way.  She  is  to  be 
congratulated  for  that. 

I  am  not  proposing  that  a  parent  or  a 
child  who  wishes  to  appeal  his  identification 
or  placement  be  given  an  appeal  to  the  court 
as  a  right,  but  that  when  the  appeal  proce- 
dure goes  beyond  the  board  or  the  commit- 
tee set  up  by  the  board,  it  be  determined 
by  granting  of  leave  by  the  special  tribunal 
which  is  already  set  up. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  aspect  of  an  ap- 
peal from  identification  and  the  aspect  of  an 
appeal  from  placement  should  be  written 
into  this  section.  I  happen  to  agree  with  the 
member  for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan)— 
unbelievable  as  that  is— that  the  sections  we 
have  passed  now  are  procedural  only  and 
that  the  appeal  mechanism  must  be  set  out 
in  this  section.  It  is  my  intention  to  move 
at  the  appropriate  time  those  amendments 
to  the  minister's  sections  to  guarantee  the 
right  of  appeal  along  the  same  terms  that 
she  has  set  out  already  with  respect  to  the 
hard-to-serve  student. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  in  some 
perplexity   because   of  the   previous   speaker. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  do  not  know  why  "perplex- 
ity" is  such  a  provocative  word  in  this  Legis- 
lature. Over  the  past  few  days  we  have  seen 
a  lot  of  provocation  dealing  with  other  mat- 
ters. 

First,  I  sympathize  with  the  previous 
speaker  and  wish  him  luck  in  his  endeavours. 
Regrettable  though  I  find  it,  I  think  the 
easiest  solution  would  be  to  vote  against  the 
minister's  amendments  and  stick  with  section 
7  as  it  exists  in  the  bill.  That  is  the  easiest 
and  most  straightforward  solution  to  the 
problem.  That  may  very  well  happen. 

I  hope  the  member  for  York  Centre  (Mr. 
Stong)  has  persuaded  himself  to  come  that 
far  because  his  amendments,  as  he  is  pro- 
posing them,  do  not  really  meet  the  needs 
to  which  he  is  speaking.  I  glanced  at  those 
amendments  quickly  and,  although  they 
broaden  the  appeal  procedure,  the  amend- 
ments, as  we  have  received  them,  do  not  tell 
us  what  happens  with  that  appeal  procedure. 
They  do  not  tell  us  what  recourse  the  parent 


4626 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


has  if  he  or  she  is  dissatisfied  with  the  place- 
ment of  the  child. 

However,  I  think  the  previous  speaker  has 
done  the  House  a  great  service  because  he 
has  eloquently  pinpointed,  as  has  my  col- 
league from  Bellwoods,  the  very  grave  weak- 
ness in  the  legislation  as  the  minister  is  now 
proposing  it.  This  is  that  the  appeal  system 
that  is  a  right  for  the  parent  on  behalf  of  his 
or  her  child  is  only  for  the  hard-to-serve 
pupil.  The  principle  we  supported  on  second 
reading— all  parties  in  this  House— must  be 
maintained  in  this  legislation  and  must  not 
be  gutted  by  the  minister's  present  amend- 
ment. That  principle  was  that  all  exceptional 
children-gifted,  mentally  retarded,  hard-to- 
serve  pupils  and  those  many  pupils  across 
this  province  that  suffer  from  the  many,  many, 
different  forms  of  dyslexia— would  have  the 
right  to  appeal.  They  do  not  have  that  right 
at  the  present  time.  They  will  not  have  that 
right  if  the  minister's  amendment  is  carried. 
5:40  p.m. 

The  amendment  the  minister  proposes  is 
weak  in  one  imDortant  section  in  legislative 
terms  even  as  it  refers  to  the  hard-to-serve 
Diipil,  because,  in  subsection  16,  it  ^  pure 
hope  that  is  to  be  legislated  that  the  hard- 
to-serve  pupil  will  receive  a  Dlacement. 
There  is  no  guarantee  in  the  legislation  that 
if  the  placement  is  not  in  Ontario,  the  child 
will  be  placed  some  place  outside  Ontario 
and  the  cost  borne.  As  I  read  subsection  16, 
"a  placement  of  a  hard-to-serve  puoil  under 
subsection  9  or  14  shall  be  made  in  Ontario 
except  where  no  placement  suited  to  the 
needs  of  the  pupil  is  available  in  Ontario." 
It  is  absolutely  silent  on  where  and  how  we 
place  that  pupil.  As  the  minister  amends  the 
clause,  it  does  not  even  legislatively  guaran- 
tee an  appeal  procedure  and  a  placement 
for  the  hard-to-serve  pupil. 

Therefore,  I  cannot  in  any  conscience  sup- 
port the  amendment  as  proposed  by  the  min- 
ister because  it  fails  in  two  important  as- 
pects. It  fails  to  serve  the  specific  needs  of 
the  specific  pupil  defined  in  the  section  and, 
secondly,  the  appeal  system  in  the  bill  fails 
to  guarantee  legislatively  the  appeal  for  all 
the  children  this  bill  was  meant  to  serve  in 
the  first  place. 

I  would  plead  with  my  friend,  if  not  my 
colleague,  the  member  for  York  Centre  (Mr. 
Stong)  to  realize  the  importance  of  what  he 
said  and  to  consider  whether  or  not  the  min- 
ister's amendment,  no  matter  how  it  is 
amended,  can  serve  the  purpose  he  desires 
it  to  serve  because  the  purpose  he   desires 


it  to  serve  is  good,  worthy  and  laudable. 
Frankly,  I  don't  care  about  the  politics  of  the 
situation.  I  don't  care  about  alienating  the 
vested  interest  groups  in  education  across 
the  province  on  this  issue.  I  don't  care  which 
political  party  in  the  province  gets  the  bene- 
fit or  the  credit  for  introducing  the  amend- 
ments or  the  bill  that  serves  exceptional 
children. 

I  don't  want  to  sound  particularlv  righ- 
teous about  it,  but  what  we  should  be  con- 
cerned with  as  legislators  is  whether  the  bill 
serves  the  children  we  say  it  will  serve.  I 
don't  care  who  gets  the  credit,  but  it  is  im- 
portant when  we  are  passing  a  piece  of  legis- 
lation, and  it  is  important  when  we  are  de- 
bating the  clause-by-clause  sections  of  the 
bill  that  we  stick  to  the  purpose,  as  enun- 
ciated in  the  minister's  statement  when  she 
first  made  it  before  the  House  and  as  enun- 
ciated in  the  principle  most  of  us  debated 
on  second  reading,  that  it  supports  the  prin- 
ciples the  social  development  committee 
argued,  formulated  and  forged  during  the 
summer,  and  that  it  supports  the  rights  and 
aspirations  of  the  parents  and  children  who 
have  not  been  served  by  the  educational 
system  of  this  province  for  far  too  long. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
amendments  which  were  introduced  to  sec- 
tion 7  provide  for  a  very  important  activity 
within  this  bill.  The  purpose  of  Bill  82  is  to 
guarantee  an  education  program  for  all  chil- 
dren within  the  province.  If  a  child  is  found 
not  to  be  profiting  by  instruction,  it  is  abso- 
lutely essential  that  the  rights  guaranteed 
under  this  act  be  protected  as  fully  as  they 
possibly  can. 

I  think  we  have  moved  a  very  great  dis- 
tance in  the  provision  of  an  appeal  mechan- 
ism for  that  section  of  the  bill  which  is  some- 
thing all  of  us  consider  extremely  important. 
But  we  have  already  introduced  in  three 
plac°s,  in  section  2  and  in  two  places  in  sec- 
tion 3,  the  provision  of  an  appeal  mechanism 
for  identification  and  placement  of  all  excep- 
tional children. 

It  is  my  understanding  that  the  legal 
strength  of  a  program,  policy  or  mechanism 
established  under  a  regulation  is  equal  to  that 
which  has  been  established  under  an  act.  It 
is  my  understanding  that  the  appeal  mechan- 
ism will  be  just  as  strong  established  under 
the  regulatory  capacity  which  is  provided. 

The  member  for  York  Centre  (Mr.  Stong) 
has  made  some  very  interesting  suggestions 
which  I  think  we  should  consider  incor- 
porating. The  appeal  mechanism,  which  truly 
bears  no  relationship  to  the  review  mechan- 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4627 


ism,  which  was  established  in  regulation  704 
and  which  I  have  promised  to  introduce  to 
all  of  the  members  of  the  House  at  the  time 
of  royal  assent  to  this  bill,  will  provide  for 
three  stages  of  review  and  appeal  of  the 
identification  and  placement  of  all  exceptional 
children.  I  mean  all  of  them,  not  just  those 
who  may  move  on  to  the  stage  which  is  set 
out  in  section  7. 

I  think  this  is  an  appropriate  mechanism 
because  it  does  fully  involve  at  the  very 
initial  level  the  parents  or  guardians  of  the 
child  and  the  child  himself  in  the  provision 
of  information  and  in  the  provision  of  opinion 
and  concept  about  both  identification  and 
placement.  It  does  involve  those  who  are 
responsible  first  at  the  local  level  for  the 
delivery  of  education  and  establishment  of 
educational  program,  and  it  provides  for  a 
mechanism  for  agreement  if  that  can  be 
reached.  If  no  agreement  is  reached,  the 
mechanism  will  ensure  that  the  director  of 
education,  with  the  approval  of  the  board, 
must  refer  that  case  to  a  further  appeal 
mechanism  at  the  regional  level. 

There  is  an  additional  interesting  thought 
which  the  member  for  York  Centre  introduced 
this  afternoon  and  is  proposing  in  an  amend- 
ment. I  would  ask  him  to  hold  that  and 
permit  us  to  incorporate  into  the  regulated 
structure  as  best  we  can,  through  some  con- 
sultation, to  see  if  we  can't  strengthen  the 
appeal  mechanism  as  established  in  sections 
2  and  3(1)  and  3(2)  within  the  bill  which  we 
have  already  passed. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Why  are  you  twisting  in  the 
wind  like  this? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  not  twisting. 
I  am  perfectly  comfortable  with  the  concepts 
that  have  been  introduced.  I  am  indeed 
happy  that  the  members  of  this  Legislature 
are  supportive  of  our  very  strong  feeling  that 
Bill  82  is  an  important  piece  of  legislation 
which  does  require  introduction  but,  in  addi- 
tion, requires  the  full  co-operation  of  all  those 
who  have  responsibility  under  legislation  for 
the  development  and  the  delivery  of  educa- 
tional programs  for  children. 

There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  there 
isn't  any  one  group  within  this  House  that 
has  a  monopoly  on  concern  for  children  with 
exceptionalities,  indeed  for  any  children.  I 
think  that  concern  is  shared  equally  and 
probably  as  deeply  and  is  accepted  by  all 
parties  in  this  House.  But  I  would  remind  the 
members  of  the  House  that  we  do  have  an 
educational  system  which  does,  in  many  in- 
stances, provide  a  very  superior  program.  We 
need  to  ensure  that  educational  system  will 
function  in  co-operation  with  the  legislation 


in    order    to    ensure    that    those    exceptional 
children  are  well  served. 

From  all  of  my  consultations  over  the  past 
two  and  a  half  years,  I  feel  very  strongly  that 
the  kind  of  bill  we  introduced  and  the  kind 
of  amendments  we  have  proposed  will  not  in 
any  way  diminish  the  absolutely  essential  co- 
operation we  require  for  the  delivery  of  that 
educational  program  through  all  of  the 
agencies  involved  in  the  educational  system 
in  this  province. 
5:50  p.m. 

Therefore,  I  would  ask  the  member  for 
York  Centre  (Mr.  Stong),  rather  than  intro- 
ducing his  amendments,  to  hold  them,  to 
allow  us  to  participate  in  examination  of  the 
principles  included  in  that  in  order  to 
strengthen  the  kind  of  appeal  mechanism  we 
shall  be  introducing  in  regulations  and  which 
this  House  will  see  before  this  bill  receives 
royal  assent. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Before  I  recognize  another 
member  of  the  committee,  we  have  a  very 
extensive  amendment  before  the  committee 
and  I  have  listened  carefully  to  them.  Some 
members  are  referring  to  amendments  they 
are  planning  on  placing  to  certain  sub- 
amendments.  I  believe  other  members  have 
suggested  they  may  vote  against  the  com- 
plete amendment.  I  just  wonder  if  I  could 
have  some  guidance  from  the  committee  as 
to  how  they  would  like  to  handle  this, 
whether  they  would  like  to  commence  the 
amendment  section  by  section  or  still  con- 
tinue with  general  debate  on  the  overall 
amendment. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  just  ask 
the  chair  a  couple  of  questions  for  clarifica- 
tion? Bill  82  came  from  the  committee.  The 
minister  has  offered  amendments.  We  have 
amendments  to  the  amendment  by  the  minis- 
ter. I  understand  that  ours  are  voted  on 
first.  We  must  have,  reserved  for  us,  the 
right  to  turn  down  the  minister's  amend- 
ments if  we  don't  agree  with  them,  in  so  far 
as  they  don't  meet  what  We  feel  should  be 
in  this  bill. 

The  difficulty  is  that  if  we  go  through  this 
particular  section  clause  by  clause  and  one 
section  passes,  it  could  very  well  be  that  an- 
other section  of  the  minister's  amendments 
will  not  pass  and  we  will  be  left  with  a 
hotchpotch.  Because  the  amendments  the 
minister  has  introduced  are  such  a  deviation 
from  what  the  committee  said  and  are  com- 
pletely acceptable,  in  so  far  as  they  go,  it 
seems  to  me  that  this  member  at  least  needs 
some  guidance  as  to  what  procedure  we 
should   follow  so   that  we  will  not  end  up 


4628 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


with  an  amendment  partially  acceptable  and 
passed  and  partially  not  acceptable  and 
failed. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are 
ready  for  the  vote  on  the  amendment  from 
the  minister,  if  that  is  all  that  is  before 
us.  If  the  member  for  York  Centre  has  an 
amendment  to  the  amendment,  then  he 
should  move  it.  Otherwise,  I  think  we  should 
proceed  with  the  vote.  I  have  indicated 
what  our  position  is.  We  intend  to  vote 
against  amendments  or  subamendments  in 
order  to  protect  what  is  in  the  bill  now  in 
section  7. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  it 
was  you  yourself,  at  the  beginning  of  this 
discussion  this  afternoon,  who  indicated  that 
section  7  of  this  bill  is  such  a  long,  compli- 
cated one  that  it  should  almost  be  taken  as 
a  bill  itself. 

At  this  particular  time,  the  minister  has 
indicated  that  she  is  prepared  to  take  my 
colleague's  amendments  and  to  determine 
the  extent  to  which  she  can  incorporate  them 
into  her  own  amendments  and  come  back 
to  us  with  an  amendment  which  has  already 
incorporated  some  of  my  amendments.  We 
don't  know  at  this  time  the  degree  to  which 
the  minister  can  do  that.  I  think  what  the 
minister  has  said  is  that  she  is  prepared  to 
look  not  only  at  this  section,  but  also  to  go 
back  and  take  another  look  at  sections  2  and 
3,  unless  I  am  misunderstanding  her. 

Basically,  I  am  suggesting  that  since  it  is 
so  close  to  recess  time  now  we  provide  the 
minister  with  the  opportunity  of  looking  at 
the  amendments  my  colleague  has  proposed 
and  letting  us  know  at  eight  o'clock  the  de- 
gree to  which  she  is  willing  to  accept  those 
amendments.  If  she  means  something  other 
than  that,  I  would  be  willing  to  hear  what 
the  minister  is  saying. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  sorry  I  obvi- 
ously did  not  make  myself  clear.  What  I  was 
suggesting  was  that  we  had  already  intro- 
duced in  section  2  and  in  section  3(1)  and 
(2),  of  this  bill  provisions  for  the  develop- 
ment of  an  appeal  procedure  for  both  iden- 
tification and  placement  that  would  follow 
the  introduction  of  the  act. 

I  was  asking  the  member  for  York  Centre 
to  give  us  the  opportunity  to  look  at  the 
ways  in  which  we  could  incorporate  into  the 
regulations,  which  would  govern  that  appeal 
mechanism,  the  kinds  of  suggestions  he  was 
making,  because  it  is  my  understanding  that 
a  mechanism  established  under  regulation  has 
strength  equal  to  that  which  is  established 
under  legislation. 


Because  we  have  introduced  that  require- 
ment in  sections  2  and  3,  I  believe  there  can 
be  no  doubt— and  I  have  committed  myself 
to  the  members  of  the  House— that  those 
regulations  will  be  available  before  this  bill 
receives  royal  assent  in  order  to  ensure  that 
the  appropriate  mechanism— at  least  a  two- 
staged  and  probably  a  three-staged  appeal 
mechanism  for  identification  and  placement- 
would  be  introduced.  It  was  not  that  I  was 
suggesting  I  could  incorporate  them  into  my 
amendments  at  this  stage.  I  am  sorry  that  you 
misunderstood  that. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  have  listened  carefully  to 
many  of  the  members.  I  get  the  feeling  from 
what  has  been  said  that  we  should  go  through 
it  section  by  section.  That  gives  all  members 
the  opportunity  to  vote  against,  make  amend- 
ments or  vote  for  it.  If  the  committee  is 
agreeable,  we  could  now  start  going  through 
it  section  by  section.  If  the  committee  is 
agreeable,  I  will  call  the  amendment  to  sec- 
tion 7  of  the  bill,  dealing  with  section  34(1) 
of  the  act.  Are  there  any  comments  on 
section  7(1)? 

The  committee  divided  on  Hon.  Miss 
Stephenson's  amendment  to  section  7(1)  of 
the  bill  dealing  with  section  34(1)  of  the  act, 
which  was  approved  on  the  following  vote: 

Ayes  53;  nays  25. 

Section  7(1),  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Mr.  Chairman,  before 
we  adjourn  for  dinner,  I  am  wondering  if  we 
could  have  some  kind  of  agreement  from  the 
House  that  after  eight  o'clock  we  stack  votes 
until  10:15? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  for  procedural 
reasons  we  are  willing  to  stack  the  subsec- 
tions of  section  7,  but  section  7  in  total  must 
be  voted  on  whenever  that  comes  before  we 
can  proceed  with  the  rest  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  order  to  make 
sense  of  what  we  are  doing  here,  that  would 
be  a  reasonable  suggestion  that  we  do  stack 
them  until  10:15  tonight,  dealing  with  sectior 
7  only. 

Mr.  Warner:  No,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  not 
agreeable  to  this  caucus. 

Mr.  Foulds:  We  can  only  stack  the  sub- 
sections in  section  7  until  we  get  to  the  end 
of  section  7. 

Mr.  Chairman:  There  doesn't  seem  to  be 
unanimous  agreement.  I  wonder  if  there 
could  be  some  consultation  over  the  dinner 
hour  and  I  will  ask  the  committee  for  a 
decision  when  we  resume. 

The  House  recessed  at  6:17  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980  4629 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  November  25,  1980 

Point  of  privilege  re  report  in  Toronto   Sun:   Mr.   Williams,   Mr.   Cunningham,   Mr. 

T.    P.   Reid   . 4591 

Human  Rights   Code  amendments,  statement  by  Mr.   Elgie   4592 

liquid  industrial  waste,  statement  by  Mr.   Parrott  4594 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions   of  Mr.   Parrott:    Mr.   S.   Smith,   Mr.   Cassidy,   Mr. 

G.  I.  Miller,  Mr.  Isaacs,  Ms.  Bryden,  Mr.  Kennedy  4596 

Nuclear    waste    disposal,    questions    of   Mr.    Welch:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr.    T.    P.    Reid, 

Mr.    Foulds    , 4600 

Contracted-out  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:   Mr.  Cassidy  4602 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  question  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  McGuigan  < 4602 

Nelson  Crushed  Stone,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Di  Santo  4603 

Federal  aid  to  transportation,  question  of  Mr.  Snow:   Mr.  Ashe  4603 

Air  quality  lead  criteria,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:   Mrs.  Campbell  ,  4604 

Animal  training  collars,  question  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Philip 4604 

Darlington  nuclear  power  station,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Cureatz,  Mr.  Nixon  4605 

Toxic  hazard  testing,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Van  Home  ,  4605 

Forest  fire  report,  questions  of  Mr.  Auld:   Mr.  Foulds   4605 

Fort  Erie  racetrack,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Haggerty  4606 

Sudbury  nursing  home,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Germa,  Mr.  Conway  4606 

Motion  re  committee  sitting,  Mr.  Wells,   agreed  to   4607 

Motion  re  transfer  of  bill,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  , 4607 

Human  Rights  Code  Act,  Bill  209,  Mr.  Elgie,  first  reading  4607 

Motion  to  suspend  normal  business,  Mr.  Isaacs   4607 

Chiropody  Amendment  Act,  Bill  167,  third  reading  4610 

Education  Amendment  Act,  Bill  82,  in  committee  4610 

Recess 4628 


4630  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC) 

Auld,  Hon.  J.  A.  C.;  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Leeds  PC) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches- Woodbine  NDP) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Cureatz,  S.  (Durham  East  PC) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Di  Santo,  O.  (Downsview  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Eakins,  J.  (Victoria- Halibur ton  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Germa,  M.  C.  (Sudbury  NDP) 

Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Kennedy,  R.  D.  (Mississauga  South  PC) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

McGuigan,  J.  (Kent-Elgin  L) 

McMurtry,  Hon.  R.;  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  (Eglinton  PC) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

<York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Stong,  A.  (York  Centre  L) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 
Van  Home,  R.  (London  North  L) 

Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 
Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 


No.  123 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  November  25,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index   of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brarman.  "*fi3*"10 


4833 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8:09  p.m. 
House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

EDUCATION  AMENDMENT  ACT 
(continued) 

Resuming  consideration  of  Bill  82,  An  Act 
to  amend  the  Education  Act. 

On  section  7(1),  section  34  of  the  act: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Before  the  committee  re- 
cessed there  was  some  discussion  regarding 
the  stacking  of  the  votes.  Does  the  commit- 
tee wish  to  deal  with  that  now  or  when  we 
come  to  the  actual  voting? 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  the 
agreement  has  been  that  we  will  stack  the 
votes  for  the  various  subsections  of  section 
34  of  the  act  as  set  out  in  section  1  and  then 
we  will  proceed  from  there  to  deal  with 
each  section  in  turn.  In  other  words,  as  the 
Chairman  may  note,  there  are  17  subsections 
to  section  7.  We  are  going  to  go  from  sub- 
section to  subsection  and  then  stack  them  at 
the  end  so  that  we  will  vote  on  them.  In- 
stead of  voting  on  each  subsection  in  turn, 
we  will  make  the  amendments  and  then  vote 
on  the  whole  package  of  section  7  at  the 
end.  That  is  what  I  understand  the  agree- 
ment to  be. 

Mr.  Chairman:  As  I  understand  it,  the 
agreement  of  the  committee  is  to  stack  any 
votes  on  the  amendments  to  section  7  and 
vote  on  them  at  the  end  of  that  time. 

Mr.  McClellan:  That  is  agreeable  to  us, 
Mr.  Chairman.  The  outcome  of  the  vote  on 
section  7  will  depend  on  whether  we  have 
additional  amendments  to  offer.  I  think  we 
are  all  anxious  to  try  to  get  through  this  bill 
this  evening.  That  sounds  like  a  sensible 
procedure. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  hope  that  is  understood 
by  the  members  of  the  committee. 

On  subsection  2: 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe 
you  have  before  you  an  amendment  which 
reads:  "Moved  by  Mr.  Sweeney  that  Honour- 
able Miss  Stephenson's  amendment  be  fur- 
ther amended  by  adding,  'offered  by  the 
board'  after  the  word  'instruction'  in  the 
fouth  and  seventh  lines  of  section  34(2)." 


Tuesday,  November  25,  1980 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Sweeney  moves  that 
Honourable  Miss  Stephenson's  amendment 
be  further  amended  by  adding  "offered  by 
the  board"  after  the  word  "instruction"  in 
the  fourth  and  seventh  lines  of  section  34(2). 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  would  simply  like  to  say 
that  is  not  helpful  if  the  object  of  the  exer- 
cise is  to  extend  the  right  of  appeal  to  the 
decision  of  whether  a  student  is  an  excep- 
tional pupil  or  whether  an  exceptional  pupil 
has  the  right  to  special  education  programs 
and  special  education  services.  The  reality  is 
that  you  cannot  make  a  silk  purse  out  of  a 
sow's  ear.  You  cannot  turn  this  section  into 
a  broader  section  because  of  the  definitions 
at  the  beginning.  The  section,  as  it  has  been 
put  forward  by  the  minister,  is  limited  to 
dealing  with  the  question  of  appeals  on  be- 
half of  hard-to-serve  pupils.  There  is  no  way 
you  can  broaden  that. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  have  a  question.  I  wonder 
why  the  member  is  offering  the  amendment. 
I  am  curious  about  it. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may 
speak  to  it,  the  definition  of  hard-to-serve 
pupil  in  section  34(1)  was  expanded  to  in- 
clude the  words  "offered  by  the  board"  after 
the  word  "instruction."  I  moved  the  amend- 
ment in  section  34  ( 1 )  and  will  move  it  again 
in  subsection  3  simply  to  have  internal  con- 
sistency. Whenever  we  use  the  expression, 
"unable  to  profit  by  instruction"  we  simply 
add  the  words,  "offered  by  the  board."  That 
is  the  reason  for  it. 

Mr.  Grande:  I  have  a  question  of  the  min- 
ister. That  is,  if  amendments  are  made  to 
section  34(2),  how  closely  are  they  related 
to  the  schematic  visual  representation  the 
minister  gave  us  with  her  first  amendment? 
You  have  seen  that?  Where  you  have 
"PPRC,"  I  would  assume  that  is  a  program 
placement  review  committee.  The  decision 
of  that  placement  committee  would  go  to 
the  school  principal.  If  the  principal  agrees, 
then  the  child  would  be  in  a  special  educa- 
tion program.  My  question  is  what  happens 
there  if  the  parent  disagrees  at  that  stage. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
child  would  already  be  in  a  program,  and  if 
in  that  situation  either  the  principal  or  the 
parent  felt   the   child   was   not  profiting  by 


4634 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


instruction,  the  principal  would  be  bound  to 
refer  that  to  a  supervisory  officer,  and  through 
the  supervisory  officer  to  the  board,  which 
must  establish  a  committee. 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Chairman,  could  the  min- 
ister give  me  an  idea  of  how  many  children  in 
the  system  we  are  talking  about  at  present? 
Are  we  talking  about  the  famous  two  cases, 
whereby  last  year  those  children  would  have 
been  excluded  as  a  result  of  section  34,  or  are 
we  talking  about  a  larger  number  of  children? 
Could  the  minister  give  me  an  idea  of  how 
many  children  we  are  talking  about  in  this 
section? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  give  the  honourable 
member  a  specific  figure.  It  is  certainly  a  con- 
siderably larger  number  of  children  than  the 
two  who  are  currently  excluded.  Indeed,  this 
bill  gives  the  right  to  every  child  within  a 
board's  jurisdiction  to  be  placed  in  a  program 
within  the  school  system.  Obviously,  it  is  a 
much  larger  number,  but  I  really  can't  tell 
the  member  what  the  larger  number  is  at  this 
stage  of  the  game,  and  I  don't  think  the 
member  could  either. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Sweeney's  amendment  to  Hon.  Miss  Stephen- 
son's amendment  will  please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Amendment  stacked. 

On  subsection  3: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Sweeney  moves  that 
Hon.  Miss  Stephenson's  amendment  be 
further  amended  by  adding  "offered  by  the 
board"  after  "instruction"  in  the  fifth  and 
ninth  lines  of  section  34(3). 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  simply  repeat  that  this 
does  not  do  any  more  to  this  subsection  than 
the  same  thing  did  to  the  previous  subsection. 
We  have  a  complete  appeal  system  in  section 
7  of  the  bill  as  it  stands.  This  is  completely 
superfluous  and  unnecessary. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Sweeney's  amendment  to  Hon.  Miss  Stephen- 
son's amendment  will  please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Amendment  stacked. 

On  subsection  4: 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Hon. 
Miss  Stephenson's  amendment  will  please  say 

aye. 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 
In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 


Subsection  4,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  subsection  5: 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Hon. 

Miss  Stephenson's  amendment  will  please  say 
«        » 
aye. 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  5,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 
8:20  p.m. 

On  subsection  6: 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  an 
amendment  that  I  would  offer  on  this  sec- 
tion. However,  I  have  received  a  notice 
from  the  minister  wherein  she  indicates  to 
me  that  the  principle  of  my  amendment  will 
be  adapted— I  do  not  know  if  it  will  be 
here  or  later.  I  am  prepared  to  have  it  stood 
down  at  this  time  until  I  have  an  opportunity 
to  view  the  amendments  the  minister  intends 
to  offer.  They  are  not  here  yet;  they  are  on 
their  way  up  I  understand. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
amendment  will  be  34a  and  the  current  34a 
will  be  renumbered  34b.  That  seemed  to  be 
the  most  appropriate  placement  for  it. 

Mr.  Stong:  I  respect  that  and  I  am  pre- 
pared to  wait.  I  feel  the  amendments  will 
be  acceptable  to  me.  I  have  not  seen  them 
yet  and  I  do  not  want  to  lose  my  position 
in  line  on  this  section. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  possible  that 
we  might  stand  down  the  remainder  of  sec- 
tion 7  until  that  amendment  is  available.  We 
could  proceed  with  the  sections  thereafter, 
about  which  I  think  there  is  little  debate, 
and  then  return  to  section  7. 

Mr.  McClellan:  With  respect  to  the  sug- 
gestion the  minister  has  made,  I  may  or  may 
not  have  an  amendment  to  the  sections  fol- 
lowing section  7  depending  on  what  happens 
to  section  7.  So  if  we  do  stand  down  the 
section,  I  would  want  to  reserve  the  right 
to  move  an  amendment  to  the  sections  fol- 
lowing it.  That  would  be  a  new  section  8, 
and  the  rest  of  the  bill  would  be  numbered 
accordingly.  I'll  agree  to  this  as  long  as  it 
is  understood  that  I  can  move  an  amendment 
to  be  inserted  after  section  7,  should  that  be 
necessary. 

Does  the  minister  know  how  long  it  will 
be  before  we  have  the  amendment? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Five  minutes. 

Section  7  stood  down. 

Sections   8  to   17,  inclusive,   agreed  to. 

On  section  18: 

Mr.  McClellan:  This  is  just  a  factual  ques- 
tion. I  gather  this  is  a  discretionary  power. 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4635 


Can  the  minister  tell  us  what  would  happen 
if  the  board  of  education  refused  to  do  what 
is  set  out  in  section  18?  That  is,  if  the  board 
of  education  refused  to  employ  and  pay 
teachers  to  conduct  an  education  program  in 
a  centre  facility  home,  et  cetera,  despite  a 
clear  need  and  despite  a  sense  on  the  part 
of  the  minister  that  action  is  required,  what 
would  happen? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  boards  of 
education  have  up  to  this  point  been  ex- 
tremely co-operative  in  the  establishment  of 
programs  and  the  payment  of  teachers  be- 
cause they  are  encouraged  to  be  co-operative 
by  the  funding  mechanism  established  to 
provide  that  kind  of  service.  We  have  had 
no  difficulty  in  encouraging  boards  to  partici- 
pate in  that  kind  of  program  in  the  past  and 
I  doubt  we  will  have  any  difficulty  in  the 
future. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Does  the  minister  not  feel 
there  should  be  some  kind  of  fail-safe  pro- 
vision in  there,  that  there  should  be  some 
onus  on  the  ministry  if  a  local  board  does 
refuse  to  take  the  appropriate  action? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  This  bill  puts  an 
onus  on  the  ministry  now  to  ensure  all  those 
pupils  will  be  provided  with  an  educational 
program.  That  is  inherent  in  the  bill.  It  is 
explicitly  stated  very  early  in  the  bill  that 
the  minister  shall  ensure  that  all  exceptional 
pupils  shall  have  a  program  provided  for 
them.  This  part  is  not  excluded  from  that 
assurance,  nor  from  that  responsibility. 

Mr.  McClellan:  It  is  part  of  the  same 
issue.  If  we  had  a  stronger  appeal  procedure, 
if  we  had  section  7  as  it  stands  in  the  bill 
we  would  not  have  to  worry  about  this.  I 
suppose  the  outcome  would  be  the  same. 

Section  17  agreed  to. 

Sections  18  to  24,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

On  section  7(1),  section  34  of  the  act, 
subsection  6: 

Mr.  McClellan:  Before  the  minister  reads 
her  amendment,  could  somebody  arrange  to 
have  some  additional  copies  made?  I  have  one 
copy  of  a  handwritten  amendment  to  section 
7  to  be  moved  by  Miss  Stephenson.  I  wonder 
if  somebody  could  arrange  to  have  some  addi- 
tional copies  made  because  I  don't  want  to 
give  my  only  copy  to  the  pages  while  they 
scurry  off  to  Xerox  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hopefully,  there  will  be 
some  more  available. 

The  committee  could  then  go  to  the  min- 
ister's amendment  to  section  7(3). 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  have  done  that. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  We  had  finished 
section  34(5). 


Mr.  Chairman:  Are  we  ready  to  go  on  with 
section  34(6)?  Oh,  we  are;  fine. 

Mr.  Foulds:  No,  we  are  not.  As  one  mem- 
ber of  the  House  who  happens  to  be  vitally 
interested  in  the  bill,  I  would  like  to  have  the 
proposed  amendment  in  front  of  me  in 
writing.  I  don't  think  that  is  too  much  to  ask. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Madam  Minister,  do  you 
have  that  other  amendment  ready  yet? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  have  one  copy  I 
might  send  to  the  member  for  Port  Arthur, 
but  that  is  all  I  have  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Are  your  staff  incapable  of 
running  a  Xerox  machine? 

Hon.   Miss  Stephenson:   No,  they  are  not 
and  they  have  been  attempting  to  do  this. 
8:30  p.m. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Well,  they  have  not  done  it 
once  yet.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  want  to  make 
this  point  of  order.  I  have  had  to  send  the 
only  copy  of  every  single  amendment  I  re- 
ceived by  a  page-boy  to  have  a  Xerox  copy 
made  for  my  colleagues.  Surely  the  ministry, 
with  all  its  resources,  could  do  us  the  cour- 
tesy of  providing  copies  of  amendments  in 
sufficient  quantity  that  the  members  of  the 
assembly  have  them  when  the  stuff  is  being 
debated. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  You  have  three 
copies  of  the  amendments. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  the  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman:  There  are  125  members  in  this 
Legislature.  We  knew  before  we  broke  for 
the  supper  hour  that  there  were  two  hours  in 
which  there  was  some  agreement  within  the 
"Social  Credit  coalition"  about  what  the 
amendments  to  the  act  were  going  to  be.  I 
do  not  think  it  is  asking  too  much  that  once 
the  decision  had  been  reached  about  what  the 
"Social  Credit  coalition"  agreed  to,  the  gov- 
ernment ministry  should  Xerox  about  20 
copies  of  the  amendments  so  that  they  would 
be  before  members  of  the  House. 

I  know  it  is  normal  to  give  critics  copies 
of  the  amendment.  The  standing  orders  ask 
us  to  have  those  amendments  a  day  or  two  in 
advance.  Most  of  the  time,  we  in  the  opposi- 
tion are  able  to  comply  with  that  standing 
order.  We  recognize  the  particular  difficulty 
the  minister  has  faced  with  this  bill.  Is  it  too 
much  to  ask  that  she  be  prepared  for  some 
kind  of  fallback  position  and  some  kind  of 
compromise?  Is  it  too  much  to  ask  the  min- 
ister and  her  staff  to  treat  this  Legislature 
with  some  courtesy  so  that  the  standing  orders 
are  met? 

The  minister  is  determined  to  remove  from 
the  Legislature  its  right,  with  the  acquiescence 


4636 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  the  Liberal  Party,  to  enact  in  legislation 
certain  things  that  this  party  believes  should 
be  enacted  in  legislation  rather  than  through 
regulation.  We  would  at  least  like  to  see  the 
words  that  are  being  formed  in  the  statute 
while  we  are  debating  it.  I  do  not  think  that 
is  an  unreasonable  request. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman, 
having  been  treated  with  the  utmost  dis- 
courtesy by  the  third  party,  which  will  remain 
the  third  party  forever,  I  would  like  you  to 
know  we  have  worked  very  diligently  with 
the  help  of  legal  counsel  in  order  to  draft 
this  appropriately.  It  was  completed,  I  tell  the 
honourable  member,  at  eight  o'clock. 

Mr.  Foulds:  It  takes  you  25  minutes  to 
Xerox  a  dozen  copies  of  three  pages? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  The  honourable 
member  has  had  his  opportunity  to  speak. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  all 
I  can  say  is  that  we  have  done  our  best  to 
comply  with  the  rules  of  the  House.  We  shall 
continue  to  do  so,  and  we  also  attempt  to  be 
courteous  in  all  situations,  which  is  some- 
thing the  third  party  has  never  heard  of. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  find 
it  very  offensive  that  the  minister  just  adopt- 
ed the  attitude  she  has  taken  with  regard  to 
the  discussion  taking  place.  I  think  the  mat- 
ters raised  by  my  colleagues,  the  members 
for  Bellwoods  and  Port  Arthur,  are  serious. 
We  do,  in  this  party,  consider  this  to  be  a 
very  serious  bill.  We  do  consider  the  issue 
before  us  to  be  a  very  serious  matter.  We 
are  simply  asking  that  the  minister  provide 
us  with  the  requirements  of  the  standing 
orders  of  this  Legislative  Assembly.  If  the 
minister  wants  to  take  the  position  that  this 
is  somehow  or  other  against  her  own  posi- 
tion, I  quite  agree  that  maybe  that  is  true. 
But  I  do  think  the  minister  should  comply 
with  the  rules  of  this  House  just  as  anyone 
else  here  has  to  do. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  might  remind  the  mem- 
bers again  of  standing  order  58:  "When 
time  permits,  amendments  proposed  to  be 
moved  to  bills  in  any  committee  shall  be 
filed  with  the  Clerk  of  the  House  at  least 
two  hours  before  the  bill  is  considered,  and 
copies  of  such  proposed  amendments  shall 
be  distributed  to  all  parties." 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order,  back  to  section 
34(6)  of  the  act.  The  member  for  York 
Centre  is  not  moving  an  amendment? 


Mr.  Stong:  No,  I  am  not,  Mr.  Chairman, 
in  the  light  of  the  amendments  that  have 
come  into  my  possession. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  throw  my- 
self upon  the  mercy  of  the  committee  of  the 
whole.  I  have  before  me  an  amendment  bv 
the  Minister  of  Education  that  was  hand- 
written. It  has  not  yet  been  read  into  the 
record,  is  that  right? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  No,  because  it 
does  not  come  until  the  end  of  the  section. 

Mr.  Foulds:  It  says  here,  "I  move  that 
section  7  of  the  bill  be  amended  by  adding 
thereto  the  following  subsection  3."  It  seems 
to  me  we  passed  subsection  3.  What  did 
you  do,  stand  it  down?  Did  I  miss  that?  Is 
a  new  subsection  3  being  introduced? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  We  are  on  sub- 
section 1. 

Mr.  Chairman:  We  are  on  section  34(6). 

Mr.  Foulds:  All  right,  thank  you. 

Mr.  Chairman:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  a 
short  time  ago  I  asked  the  committee  if  they 
wanted  to  discuss  this  and  they  said  "no." 

All  those  in  favour  of  Hon.  Miss  Stephen- 
son's amendment  will  please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it 

Subsection  6,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  indicated 
that  I  would  be  moving  an  amendment,  but 
I  will  not.  I  withdraw  my  amendment  I 
withdraw  all  the  amendments  that  I  have 
put  through  for  section  7. 

Mr.  Chairman:  You  have  not  actually  put 
any. 

On  subsection  7: 

Mr.  McCIellan:  I  am  quite  nonplussed. 
The  member  for  York  Centre  had  an  amend- 
ment to  subsection  7,  which  he  hoped— 

Mr.  Stong:  Subsection  6? 

Mr.  McCIellan:  I  am  talking  about  the 
amendment  to  subsection  7,  which,  at  least 
before  we  broke  for  supper,  the  member  in- 
dicated would  somehow  transmogrify  this 
section  in  such  a  way  that  it  would  become 
a  means  for  having  appeals  against  decisions 
of  the  local  placement  committee  of  the 
board  with  respect  to  whether  a  child  was 
an  exceptional  pupil  and  whether  the  place- 
ment was  adequate. 

Mr.  Stong:  Subsection  7? 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Yes,  we  are  talking  about 
subsection  7,  right.  The  amendment  he 
drafted  does  neither  of  those  things,  and  the 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4637 


amendment  the  minister  has  submitted  seems 
to  do  even  less.  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  able 
fully  to  understand  the  amendment  that  the 
minister  has  submitted,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  I  cannot  read  all  of  the  handwriting. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Was  it  written  by  a 
doctor? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  not  mine. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  should  hope  not.  It  was 
obviously  written  by  a  doctor,  though,  be- 
cause it  is  utterly  illegible. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Matter  of  fact,  it 
was  written  by  legal  counsel. 

Mr.  McClellan:  It  was  written  by  a  lawyer 
or  a  doctor. 

The  problem  remains  that  it  is,  first,  an 
amendment  to  the  section  that  talks  about 
hard-to-serve  pupils.  Again,  the  amendment 
that  the  minister  intends  to  move,  which  is  a 
replacement  for  the  amendment  that  the 
member  for  York  Centre  was  going  to  move 
to  subsection  7— 

Mr.  Stong:  Now  we  have  a  new  section 
coming  up  which  will  deal  with  it. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Read  it. 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  will  get  into  the  sub- 
stance of  the  debate  when  the  minister  gets 
around— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  How  can  the  mem- 
ber debate  an  amendment  which  has  been 
withdrawn? 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  can  make  any  comment 
that  I  want  to  make  on  any  section  of  the 
bill,  unless  the  minister  somehow— 
8:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  The  section  before 
the  committee  is  34(7)  of  the  act. 

Mr.  Foulds:  That  is  what  my  colleague  is 
commenting  on. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Correct.  The  problem  re- 
mains, as  the  section  stands,  that  it  is  limited 
to  appeals  against  decisions  with  respect  to 
hard-to-serve  pupils  and  nothing  that  has 
been  introduced,  or  is  intended  to  be  intro- 
duced later  on  down  the  pike,  changes  that. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Hon. 
Miss  Stephenson's  amendment  will  please  say 
aye. 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  7,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  subsection  8: 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Hon. 
Miss  Stephenson's  amendment  will  please  say 
"aye." 


All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  8,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Subsection  9: 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  want  to  make  a  comment 
on  this  subsection.  This  is  the  subsection  that 
contains  the  language  that  was  carried  over 
from  a  previous  amendment  that  had  not 
actually  been  moved  by  the  minister,  but  we 
did  discuss  it  in  the  social  development  com- 
mittee. The  language  is,  'the  board  shall  assist 
the  parent  or  guardian  to  locate  placement 
suited  to  the  needs  of  the  pupil." 

I  want  to  point  out  to  the  committee  that 
we  still  have  that  very  nebulous  and  am- 
biguous language,  "the  board  shall  assist  to 
locate."  I  simply  wanted  to  contrast  that  with 
the  provision  in  section  7  of  the  bill,  as 
amended  by  the  social  development  commit- 
tee, which  this  is  intended  to  replace. 

The  Ontario  Special  Education  Board, 
under  Bill  82  as  it  is  printed,  would  have  the 
power  to  design,  determine  or  designate  an 
appropriate  placement  for  a  child  who  had 
been  successful  in  an  appeal  before  the 
tribunal,  and  that  is  a  very  substantial  differ- 
ence. I  realize  the  minister  has  put  forward 
objections  to  the  power  our  amendment  gave 
to  the  Ontario  Special  Education  Board. 
Nevertheless,  we  feel  it  is  really  essential  if 
there  is  to  be  a  meaningful  remedy  out  of  the 
appeal  process.  I  do  not  see  it  as  a  remedy 
that,  having  won  an  appeal,  the  matter  goes 
back  to  the  local  board  of  education  and  the 
board  assists  the  parent  in  locating  proper 
placement.  The  emphasis  is  on  "assist"  not  on 
"locate." 

I  understand  there  have  been  some  changes 
to  the  minister  s  position  and  if  as  a  result  of 
an  appeal  a  person  is  successful  and  a  place- 
ment is  obtained,  Ontario  will  pay  the  cost 
of  the  placement,  but  there  is  still  a  measure 
of  ambiguity  with  respect  to  whether  or  not  a 
placement  will  be  found.  I  still  feel  it  makes 
a  lot  more  sense  to  empower  the  tribunal  with 
the  capacity  to  design,  determine  and  des- 
ignate an  appropriate  placement  upon  the 
successful  outcome  of  an  appeal. 

While  I  am  dealing  with  that,  I  should 
mention  in  passing,  as  I  am  sure  the  min- 
ister and  my  colleagues  in  the  Liberal  Party 
know,  that  if  some  miracle  happens  and  this 
amendment  is  defeated,  we  do  intend  to 
amend  section  13,  which  has  to  do  with  the 
exercise  of  power  of  the  tribunal,  so  that 
our  tribunal  will  make  recommendations  to 
the  minister  and  the  minister  will  implement 
those  recommendations.  At  any  rate,  we  are 
very  far  apart  on  both  language  and  concept 


4638 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


with  respect  to  where  the  onus  should  lie. 
We  do  not  intend  to  support  the  subsection 
in  front  of  us  or  any  amendments  to  it. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Any  further  dis- 
cussion on  section  34(9)  of  the  act? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  I  don't  wish  to  prolong  the 
debate,  but  I  would  like  to  hear  from  the 
minister  on  this  part.  This  is  the  part  that 
in  its  various  versions  and  now  back  again 
before  us  in  this  form,  has  always  worried 
me.  Can  the  minister  categorically  say  that 
when  a  child  is  determined  to  be  hard  to 
serve  there  will  never  be  a  board  in  this 
province  with  which  there  will  be  a  prob- 
lem in  having  that  board  assist  the  parent 
or  guardian  to  locate  a  placement? 

(When  the  child  is  designated  hard  to 
serve,  the  parent  would  like  to  get  the  child 
placed  or  find  a  place  for  that  child  that 
would  best  serve  him,  and  the  parent  ex- 
pects the  board  to  assist  in  that  duty.  The 
board  does  nothing,  except  to  say,  'We  don't 
know  of  any  place.  Do  you?  Why  don't  you 
keep  looking"?  Parents  feel  the  board  is 
doing  nothing  but  checking  periodically  with 
them. 

Can  the  minister  guarantee  that  will  never 
happen  in  Ontario,  that  there  will  never  be 
a  situation  where  a  frustrated  parent  will 
say,  "My  child  has  been  designated  hard  to 
serve  and  the  board,  although  the  act  says 
it  must  assist  me,  is  really  doing  nothing 
active  to  assist  in  placing  my  child." 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
really  do  not  have  the  kind  of  jaundiced 
view  about  all  human  beings  that  seems  to 
pervade  some  of  the  members  opposite.  I 
believe  that  when  boards  are  given  a  respons- 
ibility or  are  designated  that  responsibility 
or  provided  with  that  responsibility  through 
legislation,  they  do  carry  it  out.  I  would 
anticipate  that  all  boards  would  do  that. 
Some,  obviously,  with  more  enthusiasm  than 
others,  but  it  is  obvious  those  given  respons- 
ibility under  this  act  will  carry  out  that 
responsibility. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
make  it  very  clear  I  do  not  take  a  jaundiced 
view  of  this  bill.  I  think  that  most  boards  in 
this  province  will  do  their  level  best  to  live 
up  to  the  spirit  of  this  bill.  But  we  are 
writing  legislation  now  that  covers  every 
contingency.  I  am  concerned  that  some  time, 
some  place,  somewhere,  some  board  will  put 
parents  in  this  situation.  What  recourse  in 
this  legislation  do  parents  have  to  see  the 
board,  which  should  know  a  lot  more  than 
they  do,  being  in  the  business  of  providing 
education,  does  meaningfully  search  for  a 
place  that  serves  their  child? 


This  is  my  point.  When  you  read  on  to 
section  34(10),  there  is  an  appeal  mechanism 
to  the  tribunal,  if  they  don't  agree  the  child 
is  hard  to  serve  or  they  don't  agree  with 
the  placement.  But  what  if  there  simply  isn't 
any,  or  much,  activity  in  trying  to  find  a 
placement?  I  am  not  saying  this  is  going  to 
be  the  rule,  but  it  could  well  be  the  excep- 
tion. What  recourse  do  parents  have? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  par- 
ents have  the  recourse  they  have  at  the 
present  time  about  any  number  of  situations, 
that  is,  to  notify  either  the  regional  office  or 
the  minister.  When  that  happens,  of  course, 
there  is  discussion  immediately  with  the 
board  in  terms  of  discharging  the  responsibil- 
ity which  is  legislated  for  the  board  to 
pursue. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour 
of  section  34(9)  standing  as  part  of  the 
amendment  will  please  say  "aye". 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  9,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  subsection  10: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour 
of  section  34(10)  standing  as  part  of  the 
amendment  will  please  say  "aye". 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  10,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  subsection  11: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour 
of  section  34(11)  standing  as  part  of  the 
amendment  will  please  say  "aye". 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  11,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  subsection  12: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour 
of  section  34(12)  being  part  of  the  amend- 
ment will  please  say  "aye". 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  12  agreed  to. 
8:50  p.m. 

On  subsection  13: 

Mr.  McClellan:  This  is  one  of  the  sections 
that  has  to  do  with  the  remedy  under  a 
successful  appeal  to  the  minister's  tribunal. 
It  is  some  remedy  when  the  way  the  tribunal 
finds  if  the  pupil  is  considered  to  need  place- 
ment is  that  it  is  referred  back  to  the  board. 
I  can  foresee  a  kind  of  perpetual  wheel  of 
litigation  if  that  is  all  that  happens  by  way 
of  remedy.  It  gets  back  to  the  point  I  made 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4639 


a  few  moments  ago.  I  still  feel  it  would  be 
useful  and  helpful  to  empower  the  tribunal 
with  the  capacity  to  determine,  design  and 
designate  where  the  tribunal  felt  that  was 
appropriate. 

It  is  not  something  that  would  be  done 
in  every  circumstance,  but  I  think  it  is  im- 
portant to  have  the  tribunal  established  with 
the  capacity  to  do  that  if  the  circumstances 
warrant  it.  I  point  out  that  the  Social  Assis- 
tance Review  Board  has  the  power  to  do 
precisely  that.  The  way  it  works  in  practice 
is  it  does  not  come  up  with  a  program  out 
of  the  air  or  out  of  the  blue  or  even  really 
on  its  own  initiative. 

What  happens  before  the  Social  Assistance 
Review  Board  is  that  the  parents  usually 
come  before  the  board  with  a  specific  pro- 
gram in  mind.  The  Social  Assistance  Review 
Board  is  given  the  power  in  the  legislation 
to  substitute  its  decision  for  the  decision  of 
the  director  of  the  vocational  rehabilitation 
services  branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services.  This  is  precisely 
what  it  does.  It  makes  a  determination  with 
respect  to  exactly  what  program  will  be 
available  for  the  child  who  wins  an  appeal. 
It  is  a  major  failure  of  this  minister's  amend- 
ment that  that  remedy  is  not  available  to 
the  tribunal. 

I  say  again,  for  the  nineteenth  time,  that 
remedy  is  available  under  the  appeal  pro- 
cedure at  present  printed  in  the  bill.  We 
intend  to  vote  against  this  subsection. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Surely  it  is  reason- 
able to  suggest  that  those  who  should  be 
responsible  for  the  delivery  of  an  educational 
program  should  also  be  made  responsible 
and  accountable  for  the  program  which  is 
delivered. 

It  would  appear  to  me  it  is  much  more 
appropriate  to  have  the  tribunal  hear  the 
appeal  of  the  parents  regarding  a  placement 
for  and  the  designation  of  that  child  to 
determine,  on  the  basis  of  all  the  evidence 
which  is  provided,  that  the  child  is  either 
hard  to  serve  or  does  require  placement  in 
a  special  education  program  within  the 
board's  jurisdiction  or  within  another  board's 
jurisdiction  if  that  board  is  unable.  This  act 
does  provide  for  that  capability  on  the  part 
of  boards. 

If  a  board  is  unable  to  provide  the  pro- 
gram for  a  child,  the  tribunal,  it  seems 
to  me,  has  the  responsibility  to  determine 
where  in  the  province  there  may  be  a  board 
with  that  capability  so  that  the  child  may 
receive  the  benefit  of  that  program.  But  I  am 
not  at  all  sure  that  a  special  tribunal  should 
have    the    responsibility    for    designing    pro- 


grams for  children  for  whom  it  has  only  had 
the  responsibility  of  reviewing  all  the  in- 
formation made  available,  without  having 
had  the  responsibility  of  supervising  that 
child  or  being  in  constant  attendance  upon 
that  child  and  for  whom  there  will  be  no  on- 
going accountability. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  want  to  point  out  to  the 
minister  that  we  are  not  denying  local  re- 
sponsibility. We  are  acknowledging  that 
there  has  been  a  failure  on  the  part  of  a  par- 
ticular local  board  of  education  because  this 
subsection  deals  with  a  situation  where  an 
appeal  has  been  successful.  That  is  not  an 
acknowledgement  of  blame  or  fault,  but  it  is 
an  acknowledgement  that  something  was 
wrong  with  the  process  in  the  first  instance 
at  the  local  level  because  it  is  a  successful 
appeal. 

All  I  am  saying  is  that  I  prefer  the  lan- 
guage of  subsection  12  as  it  is  printed  in  the 
bill,  which  gives  the  special  education  board 
a  threefold  power.  They  can  affirm  the  deci- 
sion of  the  local  board,  if  they  think  the 
local  board  made  the  right  decision,  or  they 
can  rescind  that  decision,  send  it  back  to  the 
local  board,  as  you  have  done,  and  tell  them 
to  make  another  decision.  But,  third,  if  the 
circumstances  warrant,  they  can  rescind  the 
decision  of  the  local  board  and  determine, 
design  or  designate  an  appropriate  program. 

All  I  am  saying  is  that  it  would  be  useful 
if  the  circumstances  warrant  and  if  there  is 
a  major  problem  at  the  local  level,  if  the 
tribunal  had  the  capacity  to  act  as  a  fail- 
safe mechanism  so  that  people  are  not  being 
bounced  around  through  an  appeal  system 
that  has  no  real  remedy.  That  is  the  concern 
I  am  trying  to  bring  to  the  minister's  atten- 
tion. The  language  of  the  statute  as  printed 
in  the  bill  again  is  preferable  to  the  amend- 
ment before  us  and  we  intend  to  vote 
against  the  subsection. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  have  a  question  for  the 
minister.  What  does  the  minister  plan  to  do 
when  she  is  informed  by  the  board  of  the 
special  education  services  that  have  been 
provided  and  if  she  or  her  ministry  finds  that 
those  services  are  inadequate?  Are  you  going 
to  make  that  kind  of  judgement?  Is  that  why 
you  want  to  be  informed? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  reason  for  the 
requirement  that  the  minister  be  informed 
is  to  ensure  that  the  decision  of  the  tribunal 
has  been  carried  out  by  the  local  board.  If 
there  is  some  question  about  it,  obviously 
the  regional  officer  with  responsibilities  for 
special  education  will  also  be  informed  and 
will  be  continuing  to  monitor  that  situation. 


4640 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Foulds:  What  remedial  action  can  you 
take?  You  talk  about  monitoring  and  that 
is  all  well  and  good.  But  what  happens  if 
there  is  a  child  who  needs  education  and 
fails  to  get  that  for  the  three  weeks  to  six 
months  that  it  might  take  to  go  through  the 
appeal  process?  The  board  provides  a  pro- 
gram 60  days  later.  Two  months  later  you 
are  notified  what  the  program  is  and  you 
make  a  decision  and  get  it  down  the  pike 
to  a  regional  officer.  He  looks  at  it  and  says 
it  is  inadequate.  He  can  monitor  it,  and  for 
three  months,  four  months,  five  months  or  six 
months  the  child  has  not  had  an  adequate 
educational  program.  What  remedial  action 
can  you  take? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  If  the  member  will 
read  the  definitions  in  the  early  part  of  the 
legislation,  he  will  note  that  "special  educa- 
tion program"  connotes  inherently  a  con- 
tinuous review  of  the  progress  of  the  child 
through  the  program  as  well.  That  review  is 
going  to  be  carried  out  and  if  the  child  is  not 
progressing  appropriately,  a  review  of  the 
program  will  be  carried  out.  The  entire  situa- 
tion can  be  repeated  at  that  stage,  if 
necessary. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  find  these  reviews  very  in- 
triguing and  interesting,  but  I  am  trying  to 
determine  from  the  minister  what  remedial 
action,  under  this  subsection,  she  can  guaran- 
tee that  the  Ministry  of  Education  will  ensure 
that  the  child  has  some  remedial  education. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  We  are  not  talking 
about  remedial  education;  we  are  talking 
about  special  education  in  this  circumstance. 
Specifically,  the  responsibility  has  been  laid 
upon  the  board  through  this  legislation.  The 
definitions  ensure  that  program  will  be 
established  and  that  there  will  be  continuing 
assessment  and  continuous  review.  All  of  the 
mechanisms  which  are  currently  in  place  in 
many  boards  where  this  system  is  now  func- 
tioning will  be  functioning  right  across  the 
province  for  all  children  within  the  province. 
9  p.m. 

I  have  sufficient  faith  in  the  dedication  of 
teachers  and  in  the  dedication  of  members  of 
school  boards  to  believe  they  will  carry  out 
their  responsibilities  as  they  are  delineated 
within  the  legislation.  I  know  the  ministry 
will  also  carry  out  its  responsibilities;  of  that 
I  can  assure  you.  But  I  have  to  tell  you  that 
as  a  human  being  having  to  deal  with  human 
beings,  I  am  not  sure  you  could  guarantee 
100  per  cent  absolutely  everything  in  any 
circumstance  at  any  time. 

If  you  are  asking  me  to  write  legislation 
which  is  going  to  cover  the  circumstance  of 


one  child  only  in  the  province,  I  have  to  tell 
you  I  don't  think  we  can  do  that.  What  we 
are  attempting  to  do  is  write  legislation  which 
will  guarantee  for  as  many  children  as  we 
have  within  our  jurisdiction  who  have  excep- 
tionalities the  appropriate  educational  pro- 
gram. I  believe  the  kind  of  legislation  and 
certainly  the  concurrent  activity  of  imple- 
mentation through  the  pilot  project  system  is 
one  of  the  ways  in  which  we  are  ensuring 
that  remedy  will  be  available  for  those 
children. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Does  the  member 
for  Port  Arthur  wish  to  carry  this  same 
subject  on  longer? 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  with  due 
respect,  if  this  were  question  period  I  would 
file  dissatisfaction  with  the  answer  supplied 
by  the  minister.  My  question  is  a  fairly 
straightforward  one.  What  do  you  do  when 
you  have  reviewed  a  program  and  the  min- 
istry finds  that  program  is  inadequate  for 
the  special  education  required  by  that  child 
as  defined  by  the  tribunal?  How  do  you 
remedy  that  situation? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  In  that  situation, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  consult  with  the 
special  education  branch  of  my  ministry.  We 
would  review  what  is  being  provided  and,  as 
a  result  of  that  activity,  there  would  be  con- 
sultation with  the  board  in  that  circumstance 
as  there  is  in  many  circumstances  right  now. 

Mr.  Foulds:  After  the  consultation  with  the 
board,  how  do  you  hope  to  ensure  that  the 
program  your  officials  deem  necessary  is 
supplied  by  that  board?  Where  is  your 
authority? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  My  authority  is  to 
review  the  function  of  the  review  process 
within  the  child's  special  education  program 
in  order  to  ensure  that  the  program  is  being 
delivered. 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  only  obligation  under 
this  section  is  that  you  be  informed.  What  it 
says  is  ".  .  .  within  sixty  days  of  receipt  of  the 
notice  .  .  ."  of  the  decision  of  the  tribunal,  the 
miinister  will  be  informed  ".  .  .  of  the  special 
education  services  that  have  been  provided 
for  the  pupil."  The  question  is  still  un- 
answered. What  happens  if  the  program  is 
totally  inadequate?  You  have  absolutely  no 
remedy  at  all.  The  power  lies  with  the  local 
board.  If  the  placement  is  still  inadequate,  the 
parents  have  to  appeal  again.  What  kind  of  a 
remedy  is  that? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  would  draw  the 
attention  of  the  members  to  the  beginning 
of  this  bill  where  there  is  a  statement  which 
plainly  provides  that  the  minister  shall  ensure 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4641 


that  the  children  receiving  special  education 
programs,  shall,  in  fact,  receive  them.  That  is 
a  responsibility  which,  in  our  process  of 
implementation  through  the  pilot  project,  we 
will  be  determining  more  closely  in  terms  of 
form  and  mechanishm.  That  is  in  section  2. 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  bill,  as  I  just  finished 
reading  it,  is  very  clear.  The  minister  will  be 
informed  and  the  minister  has  no  other  power 
under  the  act  or  the  regulations  than  to  be 
informed.  Tell  me  what  your  powers  are  so 
that  you  can  reassure  us  on  this  point. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  At  the  present 
time,  I  prefer  to  utilize  the  powers  of  per- 
suasion, co-operative  activity  and'  consulta- 
tion, rather  than  attempting  to  use  a  large 
mallet  to  kill  a  fly  in  many  instances.  I  be- 
lieve in  this  instance  that  kind  of  activity 
is  probably  going  to  be  more  productive 
than  spelling  out  the  kind  of  pejorative  and 
punitive  legal  remedy,  which  I  believe  the 
members  opposite  wish  to  have  included  in 
this  bill. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  member  for 
York  Centre  tried  to  get  my  eye  some  time 
ago  and1  I  don't  know  whether  he  has  a 
comment  to  make  or  not,  but  let  him  have 
an  opportunity. 

Mr.  Stong:  The  question  I  had  has  been 
answered.  It  was  on  this  point,  but  it  has 
been  answered. 

Mr.  Foulds:  No  one  is  asking  you  on  the 
floor  of  the  Legislature  to  design  a  special 
education  program  for  every  individual  who 
needs  a  special  education  program  in  the 
province. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  accept  the  minister's  thanks 
with  gratitude  that  knows  no  bounds.  I  ask 
the  minister  to  answer  this  simple  question. 
In  those  rare  instances,  and  I  admit  they 
will  be  rare,  where  you  find  the  program  is 
inadequate,  and  where  you  find  the  board, 
for  whatever  reason,  is  incapable  of  providing 
the  program  the  tribunal  finds  should  be 
developed1  for  that  pupil,  what  legislative 
authority  do  you  have  to  ensure  the  program 
is  developed  either  by  that  board  or  by  some 
other  board  so  there  is  either  a  purchase  of 
service  or  a  straight  delivery  of  service? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Since  this  act  em- 
powers the  boards  to  purchase  services  from 
other  boards,  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  if 
they  do  not  have  the  capability,  or  feel  they 
cannot  design  a  program  specifically  for  one 
child1,  they  will  have  the  power  to  purchase 
that  service  from  a  board  which  has  a  pro- 
gram of  that  kind. 


In*  addition  to  that,  as  I  said  very  much 
earlier,  it  would  seem  to  me  appropriate  that 
in  making  its  decision  about  a  program  for 
this  child  the  tribunal  could,  in  consultation 
with  the  board  if  the  board  suggested!  it  did 
not  have  the  capacity  to  develop  that  pro- 
gram, recommend  programs  provided  by 
other  boards. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Shall  subsection  13 
stand  as  part  of  the  bill? 

All  those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  13  agreed  to. 

On  subsection  14: 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  have  the  same  com- 
ments and  the  same  vote. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour 
will  please  say  "aye". 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  14  agreed  to. 

On  subsection   15: 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  would  like  to  ask  a 
question  out  of  idle  curiosity  regarding  the 
new  tribunal  we  are  talking  about  estab- 
lishing. Does  the  Statutory  Powers  Proce- 
dure Act  apply  to  the  proceedings  of  that 
special  education  tribunal? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:   Yes. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Shall  subsection  15 
stand  as  part  of  the  proposed  amendment? 

All  those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye". 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 

Still,  in  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  15  agreed  to. 

On  subsection  16: 

Mr.  Foulds:  This  is  the  subsection  I  spoke 
on  when  I  made  some  remarks  on  the  whole 
series  of  amendments  the  minister  has  intro- 
duced in  this  section.  I  put  the  question  to 
her  as  clearly  and  as  bluntly  as  I  can.  What 
is  there  in  this  subsection  that  allows  the 
hard-to-serve  pupil,  who  cannot  be  served 
in  Ontario,  to  seek  those  services  elsewhere 
and  for  that  to  be  covered  by  the  ministry? 
Where  does  that  happen? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  By  the  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  Foulds:  What  I  want  to  know  is 
where. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  happens  in  sub- 
section 17,  as  a  matter  of  fact. 
9:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  subsection  9,  all  I  find 
is  that  "the  board  shall  assist  the  parent  or 


4642 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


guardian  to  locate"  the  necessary  special 
education.  There  is  no  guarantee  in  that 
subsection  that  it  will  be  located  in  or  out- 
side of  Ontario.  When  I  go  to  subsection  14, 
I  notice  that  "the  board  shall  assist  the 
parent  or  guardian  to  locate  a  placement." 
Then  I  see  in  subsection  16  it  "shall  be 
made  in  Ontario,  except  where  no  placement 
suited  to  the  needs  of  the  pupil  is  available 
in  Ontario." 

What  I  perceive  here  is  a  giant  loophole. 
I  would  like  the  minister  to  allay  my  fears 
and  tell  me  how  that  loophole  is  plugged  so 
that  a  child  who  needs,  and  for  whom  it  is 
determined  he  or  she  needs  the  services  out- 
lined in  the  section,  can  get  them  and  can  get 
them  outside  of  the  province.  What  guaran- 
tee do  we  have  that  placement  will  be  made 
and  the  ministry  will  pick  up  the  costs? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  In  this  subsection, 
we  are  speaking  of  hard-to-serve  pupils  for 
whom  in  all  probability  the  requirements  for 
care  and  treatment  are  uppermost  and  super- 
sede requirements  for  an  educational  pro- 
gram. In  this  province  we  have  a  number 
of  establishments,  institutions  and  facilities  to 
accommodate  that  child. 

With  the  requirement  by  the  legislation 
that  each  board  will  assist  the  parents  to  en- 
sure the  appropriate  placement  of  children 
who  are  so  designated  with  information, 
which  will  be  provided  to  the  boards  by  the 
ministry  and  by  the  other  two  ministries 
potentially  involved— the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services  and  the  Ministry 
of  Health— in  their  search  for  the  appropri- 
ate placement  for  a  child  so  designated  by  a 
tribunal  and  with  the  recommendations  of 
the  tribunal  given  to  the  board  as  well,  there 
is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  those  boards  will 
assist  and  that  provisions  16  and  17  of  the 
act  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Provision  16,  as  I  read  the 
legislative  language  says,  it  "shall  be  made 
in  Ontario."  There  is  nothing  I  see  where 
it  says,  "There  shall  be  a  placement."  Quote 
me  those  words  anywhere  in  this  subsection 
where  it  says  that  there  shall  be  a  placement. 
You  do  not  have  them.  They  are  not  in  the 
legislation. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  not  specifi- 
cally worded  that  way  but  the  spirit  of  the 
bill,  which  the  member  chooses  to  ignore 
constantly,  is  that  kind  of  assistance  will  be 
provided  to  parents  to  ensure  that  place- 
ment will  occur. 

iMr.  McClellan:  Say  one  wants  an  appeal 
and  one  invites  some  great  spirit:  "Oh,  great 
spirit,     come     upon     us.     Thank     you     very 


much."  What  kind  of  appeal  system  is  that? 
When  one  goes  to  court  and  win,  one  wins 
a  judgement  and  something  consequential 
happens.  When  one  goes  to  any  of  the  other 
appeal  bodies  under  any  of  the  other  statutes 
in  this  province  and  one  wins  an  appeal, 
something  consequential  happens,  something 
real  happens.  It  is  not  some  nebulous  atmos- 
pheric entity,  some  spirit  that  descends  upon 
the  waters  and  somehow  solves  the  problem. 
It  is  precisely  this  dilemma  that  makes  your 
amendment  unacceptable. 

We  have  tried  to  come  up  with  language, 
and  it  is  printed  in  the  bill  that  deals  with 
that.  The  only  way  we  could  think  of  to 
deal  with  that— maybe  there  are  other  ways 
—was  to  empower  the  tribunal  with  the 
capacity  to  design,  determine  or  designate 
a  program,  to  recommend  that  program  to 
the  minister  and  oblige  the  minister  to  im- 
plement it. 

I  am  not  saying  that  is  Mosaic  and  has  to 
be  engraved  in  stone.  There  may  be  other 
ways.  I  was  not  able  to  think  of  another  way. 
I  am  sure  there  are  other  ways,  but  what 
the  minister  has  is  utterly  nebulous  and 
guarantees  nothing. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  minister 
says  the  spirit  of  the  legislation  will  prevail. 
I  am  reminded  of  the  Biblical  phrase  about 
the  spirit  being  willing  but  the  flesh  being 
weak.  What  we  have  had  in  the  province  for 
many  decades  is  very  weak  flesh  when  it 
comes  to  the  spirit  of  the  Ministry  of  Edu- 
cation in  meeting  the  needs  of  children  for 
special  education.  I  am  sorry  that  the  minis- 
ter is  such  a  person  of  faith.  I  find  myself 
forced  into  a  position  of  scepticism  which, 
historically,  she  and  her  ministry  have  forced 
upon  us  when  it  comes  to  the  matter  of 
meeting  the  needs  of  special  education. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Hogwash.  Absolute 
balderdash. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Never  mind  privately  mouth- 
ing obscenities  and  insults  at  me. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  do  not  mouth 
obscenities. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Personal  insults,  that  verge  on 
the  unparliamentary,  let  me  put  it  that  way. 

What  we  are  trying  to  do  in  this  legisla- 
tion, what  we  have  constantly  tried  to  do,  is 
to  ensure  that  all  children  in  the  province 
who  have  need  of  special  education  will 
receive  it.  What  we  have  found  in  the  three 
key  subsections  of  this  section  that  the 
minister  is  introducing,  gutting  and  negating 
—section  7  that  was  passed  by  the  social 
development    committee    aided    and    abetted 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4643 


by  her  colleagues  in  the  Liberal  Party— is  a 
guarantee  of  assistance  to  the  parents,  and 
a  guarantee  that  the  placement  shall  be  in 
Ontario;  but  there  is  no  guarantee  that  there 
shall  be  a  placement. 

I  am  afraid  this  subsection  will,  I  hope, 
haunt  members  of  the  Liberal  Party  for 
years  to  come,  because  the  Conservative 
government  is  going  to  use  these  loopholes 
over  the  next  five,  10,  15  or  20  years.  Just 
as  they  have  avoided:  introducing  this  legis- 
lation— 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  To  whom  is  the 
honourable  member  talking? 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  am  talking  to  the  minister. 
Would  you  just  get  the  wax  out  of  your  ears 
and  listen  for  a  change? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  Would  the  member 
address  his  remarks  to  the  chair? 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  am  talking  to  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman:  To  subsection  16. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Subsection  16  is  exactly  what 
I  am  on,  Mr.  Chairman,  because  it  is  sub- 
section 16  that  allows  the  loophole  to  the 
minister  and  her  officials,  and  allows  the 
loophole  because  it  is  referenced  to  subsec- 
tions 14  and  19  which  do  not  plug  that 
loophole.  That  means  children  who  are  hard 
to  serve  pupils  are  not  guaranteed  the  right 
to  an  education.  Let  us  be  very  blunt  about 
that.  That  is  what  this  amendment  by  the 
minister  does.  It  avoids  as  strenuously  as  it 
can  giving  that  clear-cut  right,  assurance  and 
guarantee  to  parents  with  hard  to  serve 
children. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  ask 
the  minister  to  clarify  this:  My  understanding 
of  subsections  9  and  14  is  that,  in  both 
cases,  the  direction  is  to  the  board:  "The 
board  shall   locate   a  placement." 

Mr.  Foulds:  "Shall  assist." 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Just  a  minute.  The  member 
has  had  his  chance  to  blow  off. 
Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  "Assist  the  parent  or  guard- 
ian." I  understand  that  to  mean  it  would  be 
in  co-operation  with  it,  rather  than  the 
board's  unilaterally,  all  by  itself,  going  out 
and  locating  something  and  saying  to  the 
parent  or  guardian:  "There  it  is.  Take  it  or 
leave  it."  That  is  my  understanding  of  that. 

Because  there  would  appear  to  be  the 
possibility  of  misunderstanding  that,  might 
I  suggest  to  the  minister  that  the  wording 
be,  "the  board  shall  locate,"  and  then,  "in 
co-operation  with  the  parent  or  guardian,  a 
placement  suited  to  the  needs  of  the  pupil." 


It  is   my  understanding  that  is  what  those 
words  are  intended  to  mean. 
9:20  p.m. 

But  if  it  is  possible  it  is  going  to  be  mis- 
understood in  the  way  in  which  it  has  been 
described,  that  probably  would  avoid  that 
misunderstanding.  I  certainly  would1  not  sup- 
port a  statement  just  saying  that  the  board 
is  going  to  do  the  location  all  by  itself  with- 
out any  co-operation  or  any  involvement  of 
the  parent  or  guardian.  I  certainly  do  not 
think  that  is  appropriate. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
purpose  of  the  use  of  the  word  "assist"  was 
to  ensure  that  the  board  would,  with  all 
of  the  facilities  and  all  of  the  information 
available  to  it,  provide  help  to  the  parent  of 
that  child  to  find  the  appropriate  place.  It 
would  appear  that  really  is  the  appropriate 
kind  of  language  as  well.  I  am  not  sure  we 
should  suggest,  as  the  member  suggested, 
that  the  board  unilaterally  should  locate  the 
placement.  It  should  be  something  which  is 
done  in  a  co-operative  fashion. 

That  is  what  the  purpose  of  the  wording 
is  in  this  section.  We  thought  for  several 
weeks  about  this  and  we  cannot  think  of  a 
better  word  to  connote  the  kind  of  sup- 
portive co-operation  which  the  board  is  re- 
quired to  provide  by  these  sections  of  the 
legislation.  This  legislation  does  require  that 
they  provide  it.  I  really  cannot  think  of  a 
better  way  to  say  it. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  agree  with 
my  colleague  from  Kitchener- Wilmot  and  I 
did  not  approach  this  bill  with  a  jaundiced 
view  that  some  people  have  of  the  operations 
of  our  educators.  I  also  believe  in  the  pre- 
sumption of  regularity  in  the  carrying  out 
of  the  terms  of  this  bill.  However,  I  can 
ferret  out  that  there  is  no  obligation,  al- 
though it  could  be  read  that  it  would  be 
subject  to  interpretation.  I  agree  with  the 
minister  that  the  spirit  of  the  bill  points  out 
the  obligation  to  the  board  to  be  of  assistance 
and  to  pay  the  costs.  Taken  together,  if  there 
is  a  placement  outside  of  Ontario,  then  I 
feel  the  board  would  be  ordered. 

However,  because  there  is  room  for  argu- 
ment in  subsection  16  and  because  it  is  the 
minister's  clear  intention  that  where  there 
is  no  placement  suitable  in  Ontario  suitable 
placement  outside  Ontario  is  envisaged  by 
this  act,  perhaps  we  should  make  the  lan- 
guage crystal  clear  to  conform  with  her  in- 
tentions. Perhaps  we  should  consider  an 
amendment. 

It  seems  to  me  we  should  include  in  this 
subsection  a  provision  that  where  there  is  no 
placement  possibility  in   Ontario,   placement 


4644 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


outside  of  Ontario  is  encompassed'.  That  is 
the  way  I  read  it— however,  it  is  arguable 
and  to  avoid  an  unnecessary  court  action 
over  the  interpretation  I  think  we  should 
satisfy  members  of  the  last  party  here  and 
make  it  crystal  clear. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 
seems  to  me  that  is  precisely  what  subsection 
16  says:  that  if  there  is  not  a  placement 
suited  to  the  needs  of  the  pupil  within  On- 
tario, placement  will  be  made  outside  the 
province. 

It  does  say  that.  "A  placement  of  hard 
to  serve  pupil  under  subsection  9  or  14  shall 
be  made  in  Ontario,  except  where  no  place- 
ment suited  to  the  needs  of  the  pupil  is 
available  in  Ontario."  That  means  there  will 
be  a  placement. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  must  express  a  modicum 
of  concern  about  this  section  even  as  it  is 
now  written  and  that  I  have  grave  misgiv- 
ings. I  recognize  that  until  the  day  the 
province  is  able  to  provide  for  all  of  the 
programs  necessary  this  section  is  necessary, 
but  I  do  have  grave  misgivings  about  spend- 
ing Ontario  taxpayers'  money  outside  of  the 
province. 

However,  recognizing  the  limitations  which 
may  be  in  place  obviously  for  the  next  one 
or  two  years,  and  may  even  be  in  place  in 
exceptional  circumstances  after  September  1, 
1985,  I  think  it  is  appropriate  that  this  sub- 
section be  in.  I  do  believe  the  section  says 
if  the  placement  cannot  be  met,  if  the  needs 
of  the  pupil  cannot  be  met  by  a  placement 
within  Ontario,  that  placement  will  occur 
outside  Ontario. 

Mr.  Stong:  In  order  to  make  this  sub- 
section crystal  clear,  may  I  suggest  an 
amendment  be  offered  so  that  the  subsection 
would  read:  "A  placement  of  a  hard  to  serve 
pupil  under  subsection  9  or  14  shall  be  made 
in  Ontario,  but  where  no  placement  suited 
to  the  needs  of  the  pupil  is  available  in 
Ontario,  such  placement  can  be  made  out- 
side of  Ontario"? 

Mr.  Foulds:  How  about  "shall"?  How 
about  putting  "shall"  in  there? 

Mr.  Stong:  You  offer  the  amendment.  I'll 
vote  for  it. 

Mr.  Foulds:  You  offer  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Stong:  I  already  have. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  further  comments? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  am  perfectly  will- 
ing to  move  that  subsection  16  be  amended 
by  including  after  the  phrase  "is  available 
in  Ontario"  "a  placement  may  be  made  out- 
side Ontario." 


Mr.  Chairman:  I'm  sure  the  minister  will 
put  that  in  writing. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson  moves  that  subsec- 
tion 16  be  amended  by  adding  after  "in 
Ontario"  in  line  four,  the  following,  "a 
placement   may  be   made   outside   Ontario." 

All  those  in  favour  of  Hon.  Miss  Stephen- 
son's amendment  to  the  amendment  will 
please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

All  those  in  favour  of  section  34(16),  as 
amended,  will  please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  16,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  subsection  17: 

Mr.  McClellan:  That  is  what  we  were  wait- 
ing for. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Oh,  that's  what  you  were 
waiting  for. 

All  those  in  favour  of  section  34(17)  will 
please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Subsection  17,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 
9:30  p.m. 

On  section  7(2): 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  sec- 
tion 7(2)  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

(Section  7(2)  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hon.  Miss  Stephenson 
moves  that  section  7  of  the  bill  be  amended 
by  adding  thereto  the  following  subsection  3: 

"The  said  act  is  amended  by  adding  there- 
to the  following  section: 

"34b(l)  Where  a  parent  or  guardian  of  a 
pupil  has  exhausted  all  rights  of  appeal  under 
the  regulations  in  respect  of  the  identification 
or  placement  of  the  pupil  as  an  exceptional 
pupil  and  is  still  dissatisfied  with  the  decision 
in  respect  of  the  identification  or  placement 
the  parent  or  guardian  may  apply  to  the 
secretary  of  a  special  education  tribunal  for 
a  hearing  for  leave  to  appeal  to  a  regional 
tribunal  established  by  the  minister  under 
subsection  2  in  respect  of  the  identification 
or  placement. 

"(2)  Where  leave  to  appeal  is  granted 
under  subsection  1,  a  regional  tribunal  shall 
be  established  by  the  minister  to  hear  the 
appeal  of  the  parent  or  guardian. 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4645 


"(3)  Notwithstanding  subsection  1,  a  special 
education  tribunal  may  with  the  consent  of 
the  parties  before  it  in  lieu  of  granting  leave 
to  appeal  to  a  regional  tribunal,  hear  and 
dispose  of  the  appeal  of  the  parent  or 
guardian. 

"(4)  The  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council 
may  make  regulations  governing  the  provi- 
sion, establishment,  organization  and  admin- 
istration of  a  regional  tribunal  and  regulating 
and  controlling  the  practice  and  procedure 
before  such  tribunal  including  the  costs  of 
persons  before  such  tribunal. 

"(5)  The  decision  of  a  special  education 
tribunal  or  of  a  regional  tribunal  under  this 
section  is  final  and  binding  upon  the  parties 
to  any  such  decision." 

Mr.  McCleDan:  This  is  the  long-awaited 
compromise  that  is  the  magnificent  achieve- 
ment of  my  colleagues  to  the  right  in  col- 
laboration with  the  minister.  At  face  value  it 
is  an  appeal  system  with  respect  to  the  other 
two  matters,  whether  a  child  is  an  excep- 
tional pupil  or  nOt,  and  what  kind  of  special 
education  programs  and  services  the  child 
will  get. 

There  are  only  a  couple  of  minor  prob- 
lems. First  of  all,  the  parents  need1  permis- 
sion in  order  to  hold  an  appeal.  One  has  to 
get  permission  to  have  an  appeal.  What  kind 
of  a  right  of  appeal  is  that,  when  some 
authority  has  to  grant  permission  to  have 
the  appeal  in  the  first  instance? 

That  is  not  the  only  defect.  There  is  no 
remedy.  It  does  not  say  what  happens  if  you 
win  the  appeal.  What  happens?  Does  the 
spirit  descend  on  you  again?  Does  the  atmo- 
sphere somehow  crystallize?  Does  the  great 
cloud  of  unknowing  somehow  materialize? 
What  happens  if  you  win  the  appeal?  I  will 
tell  you  what  happens  if  you  win  the  appeal: 
nothing.  That  is  the  kind  of  an  appeal  system 
the  other  two  parries  have  managed  to  cook 
up  over  the  supper  hour,  and  what  an  empty 
meal  that  is.  This  is  a  ridiculous  proposition 
to  substitute  for  the  very  clear  appeal  pro- 
visions in  section  7  of  Bill  82. 

Finally,  as  if  it  was  not  enough  that  you 
had  to  beg  for  an  appeal  and  you  had  no 
remedy  if  you  won  the  appeal,  it  has  a  pri- 
vative clause,  subsection  5:  "The  decision 
of  ...  a  tribunal  is  final  and  binding  upon 
the  parties  to  any  such  decision." 

At  least  the  minister  was  gracious  enough 
to  allow  an  appeal  to  the  court  with  respect 
to  the  disposition  of  hard1  to  serve  children, 
and  here  she  has  closed1  it  off.  I  do  not 
know  why  you  would  put  a  privative  clause 
in  this  section.  I  point  out  to  you,  in  case 
you  are  not  aware,  that  your  privative  clause 


is  relatively  meaningless.  There  would  be 
the  right  of  appeal  through  the  provincial 
Ombudsman. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  There  is  always  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  Ombudsman. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Are  you  denying  that? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  No. 

Mr.  McClellan:  It  is  a  serious  defect,  that 
you  would  try  to  put  a  privative  clause  in 
this  section.  At  any  rate,  this  amendment  is 
the  very  essence  of  emptiness.  I  must  con- 
gratulate my  colleagues  on  the  right— after 
weeks  and  weeks  of  deliberation  to  come  up 
with  such  a  significant  product.  But  it  is  too 
ridiculous    to    even    contemplate    supporting. 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  so  far  as  the 
present  section  7  and  its  original  introduction 
as  an  amendment  to  this  bill  went,  it  covered 
extremely  well  the  situations  involving  hard 
to  serve  pupils.  Regarding  the  two  operations 
of  the  bill  that  were  not  covered  by  way  of 
review,  namely  the  identification  and  the 
placement,  the  minister  has  now  introduced  a 
mechanism  for  appeal.  In  principle,  that  is 
acceptable. 

I  do,  however,  have  questions  of  the  minis- 
ter. What  does  she  mean  when  she  refers  to 
a  regional  tribunal?  There  is  no  definition  of 
that  in  the  act  and  it  was  not  envisaged  in 
my  principle.  I  would  like  to  know  what  that 
means.  I  would  also  like  to  know  if  the 
amendments  that  I  had  intended  to  move  did 
give  a  remedy.  The  section  that  is  introduced 
by  the  minister  does  not  direct  the  board  to 
do  anything  in  terms  of  setting  up  the  appro- 
priate educational  program,  so  it  is  lacking  in 
that  sense.  There  ought  to  be  a  remedy  set 
out  in  this  section. 

With  respect,  this  being  the  final  decision, 
we  know,  as  has  already  been  mentioned, 
there  is  an  appeal  to  the  Ombudsman,  but 
there  is  always  an  appeal  to  the  court  on  the 
grounds  of  denial  of  natural  justice,  so  there 
is  no  quarrel  with  that. 

My  two  areas  of  doubt  concern  the  concept 
of  a  regional  tribunal  that  is  introduced  for 
the  first  time  in  this  section,  and  also  there 
ought  to  be  a  power  in  the  regional  tribunal 
or  the  special  tribunal  to  direct  the  boards  to 
set  up  the  appropriate  program,  as  is  done 
with  hard-to-serve  pupils. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
provisions  for  the  examination  of  the  problem 
by  the  tribunal  would  carry  forward  as  they 
do  in  the  previous  section  7  for  children  who 
are  determined  to  require  a  special  education 
program.  The  kinds  of  decisions  which  the 
tribunal  would  make  in  that  circumstance 
would  prevail  in  this  circumstance  for  those 


4646 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


children,    relating    to    program    based    upon 
identification  or  placement  questions. 

The  regional  tribunal  is  very  similar  to  the 
concept  we  had  for  the  provincial  tribunal. 
That  is  that  there  would  be,  perhaps  at  the 
provincial  level,  not  just  one  tribunal  but 
several  sitting  at  a  time.  A  member  of  the 
concerned  association  might  be  one  member, 
a  member  representing  the  school  system  an- 
other, and  one  member  of  the  board  as  chair- 
man who  would  be  as  independent  as  it  is 
possible  to  be,  representing  neither  one  of 
the  special  interest  organizations  nor  the 
school  system  specifically. 

It  was  our  intention  with  the  regional  con- 
cept to  ensure  that  there  would  be  available 
within,  for  example,  the  region  served  by  a 
regional  office,  a  mechanism  whereby  a  tri- 
bunal of  that  sort  could  be  established  to 
serve  the  region.  Since  we  have  six  regional 
offices  we  felt  that  was  probably  the  most 
appropriate  way  in  which  to  establish  the 
idea  of  the  regjonal  special  education  tribunal. 

There  is  a  possibility,  of  course,  that  the 
special  education  tribunal  hearing  a  case  may 
determine  that  a  case  is  so  unusual  it  would 
be  unlikely  that  a  regional  tribunal  would  be 
able  to  find  an  appropriate  remedy.  It  might 
make  the  decision  to  hear  it  themselves  at 
the  provincial  level,  rather  than  at  the  regional 
level.  We  thought  that  responsibility  should 
be  provided  for  the  special  education  tribunal, 
given  the  wisdom  of  those  individuals. 
9:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Stong:  On  that  concept,  I  follow  the 
event  wherein  the  parents,  for  instance,  do 
elect  to  appeal  the  decision  on  the  identifica- 
tion of  their  pupil.  We  realize  it  only  fol- 
lows the  natural  course  that  if  the  appeal 
were  allowed  then  the  previous  decision  is 
upheld  and  that  child  is  either  identified  as 
an  exceptional  student  or  not;  or  if  the 
appeal  is  overturned  then  the  converse  is 
true. 

What  happens  with  respect  to  the  place- 
ment, however?  There  is  no  remedy  set  out 
here  with  respect  to  the  disagreement  of 
the  tribunal  on  the  decision  as  to  where  to 
place  the  student.  What  follows  from  this 
decision  in  that  event?  If  an  appeal  with 
respect  to  identification  is  overturned,  then 
a  child,  by  virtue  of  that  appeal,  can  be 
classified  as  an  exceptional  student  and  fall 
within  the  definition  of  the  act.  There  is  no 
difficulty  there.  Unlike  other  people  in  this 
Legislature,  I  do  not  find  any  difficulty 
in  reading  what  that  means.  But  if  this 
board  allows  the  appeal  of  the  parents  with 
respect  to  the  placement  of  the  child,  what 
remedy  can  it  impose  in  those  circumstances? 


Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  If  the  placement 
of  the  child  is  questioned  and  is  appealed 
and  the  board  determines  that  an  appro- 
priate placement  is  required,  then  the  board 
which  has  responsibility  for  the  child  whose 
case  is  being  appealed  is  told  by  the  tri- 
bunal that  that  program  will  be  established, 
or  that  it  must  purchase  that  program  for 
the  child  from  another  board  as  it  is  set 
out  after  subsection  10— I  believe  it  is  12  or 
13  of  section  7.  Excluding  the  hard-to-serve 
pupils,  the  same  kinds  of  remedies  which  are 
available  to  those  children  determined  by  a 
tribunal  to  require  placement  in  a  special 
educational  program  would  prevail  in  this 
circumstance  as  well. 

Mr.  Stong:  To  make  it  crystal  clear,  again, 
it  seems  to  me  there  ought  to  be  an  addi- 
tion to  this  amendment  that  would  indicate 
that  the  board  can  make  an  order  causing 
the  implementation  of  the  remedies  available 
in  section  7,  if  nothing  more  than  just  to 
make  a  determination.  I  know  the  remedies 
are  set  out  in  this  section  but,  again,  to 
make  it  crystal  clear  that  the  board  does 
have  some  kind  of  remedy  and  can  make  an 
order,  it  appears  to  me  it  ought  to  be  in- 
corporated in  this  subsection  that  the  tri- 
bunal can  make  an  order  against  the  board. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  suppose  subsec- 
tion 13  could  be  duplicated  at  some  point  at 
the  end  of  that  section,  which  would  ensure 
that  the  tribunal,  having  found  the  pupil  to 
need  placement  in  a  special  education  pro- 
gram, requires  the  board  to  provide  that 
program,  and  that  the  board  is  required  to 
notify  the  minister  that  that  order  is  complied 
with. 

Mr.  Stong:  In  the  light  of  the  fact  that 
the  minister  is  establishing  regional  tribunals, 
and  that  there  is  no  definition  of  tribunals, 
section  34a(l),  which  sets  up  the  special 
education  tribunal,  ought  to  have  it  made 
clear  that  that  includes  both  the  provincial 
and  the  regional  tribunals  as  envisaged  by 
this  amendment. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Section  34a(2)  un- 
doubtedly should  have  added  to  it,  "shall 
establish  one  or  more  tribunals  known  as 
special  education  tribunals,  provincial  or 
regional/'  Okay?  The  addition  of  those  three 
words— 

[Failure  of  sound  system.] 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hon.  Miss  Stephenson  moves 
that  section  34a(l)  be  amended1  by  adding, 
after  the  word  "tribunals"  in  line  four,  the 
words  "provincial  or  regional." 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  have  alreadv  covered 
that. 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4647 


Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Yes,  we  have. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  will  have  to  ask  the  com- 
mittee if  it  is  agreeable  to  revert  to  section 
34a(l).  Is  the  committee  agreeable? 

Mr.  Foulds:  What  is  the  request? 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  request  is  to  revert  to 
section  34a(l)  and  add  the  words  "provincial 
or  regional"  in  line  four. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  am  sorry  but  I  can't  find  it 
in  the  welter  of  papers  before  me. 

On  section  34a(l): 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  questions  or  comments? 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  have  a  question.  I  suppose 
one  question  is,  where  the  hell  are  we?  I 
have  before  me  a  sheet  of  amendments  that 
the  minister  introduced  to  section  7.  Under 
that,  if  we  are  amending  the  act  rather  than 
the  bill,  I  want  to  know  whether  we  are 
amending— 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Are  we  amending  this  act? 
Are  we  amending  the  bill  that  is  before  the 
House  or  are  we  amending  the  amendments 
that  the  minister  introduced,  and  which  set 
of  amendments  is  it  that  we  are  amending? 

Mr.  Chairman:  To  answer  the  member  for 
Port  Arthur's  question,  I  asked  if  the  com- 
mittee was  agreeable  to  revert  to  section 
34a(l)  and  it  agreed. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  difficulty  I  have  with  that 
is,  in  the  mimeographed  sheet  I  have  in  front 
of  me,  section  34a(2)  is  the  section  that  reads, 
"Where  a  principal  considers  .  .  ."  Is  there 
another  section? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Is  the  honourable  member 
on  page  five? 

Mr.  Foulds:  It  is  not  on  my  page  five. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Any  questions? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson  Page  five,  which 
was  distributed  to  you  much  earlier  is  section 
34a(l).  For  purposes  of  clarification  we  should 
also  delete  from  line  one,  "subsection  10." 
This  section  should  now  read:  "For  the  pur- 
poses of  section  34  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
in  Council  shall  establish  one  or  more  tri- 
bunals known  as  special  education  tribunals, 
provincial  or  regional,  and  appoint  a  secretary 
of  such  tribunals."  It  does  not  apply  only  to 
subsection  10. 
9:50  p.m. 

Mr.  Chairman:  It  should  read,  "For  the 
purposes  of  section  34."  Delete  "subsection 
10  of." 

All  those  in  favour  of  the  amendment  will 
please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 


In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  section 
7(2),  as  amended,  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

Section  7(2),  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

On  section  7(3): 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I 
may,  we  have  the  addition  requested  by  the 
member  for  York  Centre. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hon.  Miss  Stephenson  moves 
that  section  7(3)  dealing  with  section  34b  be 
amended  by  adding  the  following  subsection: 
"(6)  The  tribunal  hearing  the  appeal  may  (a) 
dismiss  the  appeal  or  (b)  grant  the  appeal 
and  make  such  order  as  it  considers  necessary 
with  respect  to  the  identification  or  place- 
ment of  the  pupil." 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  section 
7(3),  as  amended,  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Section  7(3)  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  That  completes  section  7. 
I  believe  the  committee  agreed  to  stack  the 
votes  and  then  vote.  I  cannot  do  that  yet 
because  we  have  two  stacked  votes  that  have 
to  be  called.  I  would  like  to  remind  the 
members  this  will  be  a  10-minute  bell. 

The  committee  divided  on  Mr.  Sweeney's 
amendment  to  the  amendment  to  section 
34(2)  of  the  act  as  set  out  in  section  7(1) 
of  the  bill,  which  was  agreed  to  on  the 
following  vote: 

Ayes  54;  nays  25. 

The  committee  divided  on  Mr.  Sweeney's 
amendment  to  the  amendment  to  section 
34(3)  of  the  act  as  set  out  in  section  7(1)  of 
the  bill,  which  was  agreed  to  on  the  same 
vote. 

The  committee  divided  on  section  7,  as 
amended,  which  was  agreed  to  on  the  fol- 
lowing vote: 

Ayes  54;  nays  25. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  believe  the  mem- 
ber for  Bellwoods  reserved  the  right  to 
introduce  a  new  subsection  if  those  other 
amendments  carried.  Does  he  still  wish  to 
do  so? 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  hoped 
to  move  an  amendment  which  would  have 
provided  for  a  substantial  appeal  procedure 
with  respect  to  the  remaining  two  items  on 
exceptional  pupils,  the  question  of  what  kind 
of    special    education    programs    or    special 


4648 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


education  services  a  child  would  get.  In- 
stead we  have  the  Mickey  Mouse  proposal 
the  House  has  just  passed,  and  my  amend- 
ment would  be  out  of  order. 

Bill  82,  as  amended,  reported. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Miss  Stephenson,  the 
committee  of  the  whole  House  reported  one 
bill  with  amendments. 
10:10  p.m. 

ASSESSMENT  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  185.  An  Act  to  amend  the  Assessment 
Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
short  opening  statement.  This  is  a  bill  that 
all  members  of  the  House  are  familiar  with 
because  it  is  an  annual  bill  that  we  bring 
in,  When  I  introduced  Bill  185  for  first  read- 
ing on  November  13— 

Mr.  Nixon:  Look  what  the  minister  is 
doing  to  the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order.  Will  the  hon- 
ourable members  please  keep  their  conver- 
sations down?  If  you  are  leaving,  leave 
quietly. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  knew  this  was  not  a 
popular  bill,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  did  not 
realize  they  were  all  going  to  leave.  I 
thought  some  would  stay  around. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  assure  the  hon- 
ourable minister  that  I  am  listening,  if  no 
one  else  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  When  I  introduced  Bill 
185  for  first  reading  on  November  13,  I 
made  some  explanatory  comments  which  I 
would  like  to  expand  upon  as  we  begin  to 
consider  the  bill  in  detail. 

The  majority  of  the  amendments  are  of  an 
administrative  nature.  They  update  and  pro- 
vide further  clarification  on  certain  operating 
provisions  within  the  Assessment  Act.  How- 
ever, the  major  thrust  of  the  bill  is  to  post- 
pone until  December  1981  the  return  of  as- 
sessment rolls  to  full  market  value  and  to 
continue  the  section  86(3)  reassessment  pro- 
gram. 

As  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  1978  the 
government  made  available  to  municipalities 
the  section  86  reassessment  program.  This 
bill  will  ensure  that  assessment  rolls  remain 
frozen  for  a  further  year  and  that  the  section 
86(3)  reassessment  program  is  available  to 
municipalities  and  school  boards  in  unorgan- 
ized territories  to  correct  inequalities  within 
classes  of  properties  without  allowing  tax 
shifts  from  one  class  of  property  to  another. 

Since  its  introduction,  the  section  86(3) 
program  has  been  implemented  successfully 


in  108  municipalities.  Approximately  130 
more  municipalities  will  be  reassessed'  under 
section  86(3)  for  1981  taxation  purposes.  The 
interest  expressed  by  these  municipalities  in- 
dicates substantial  support  for  this  program. 
Indeed,  the  Association  of  Municipalities  of 
Ontario  has  endorsed  the  section  86(3)  pro- 
gram as  a  valuable  first  step  in  the  move  to 
property  tax  reform. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  minister  should  smile 
when  he  says  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  say  to  the  member  for 
Nickel  Belt  that  this  is  very  legitimate  infor- 
mation. 

I  have  no  further  information  to  offer  at 
this  time.  The  members  are  all  familiar  with 
this  bill  because  it  has  been  before  the 
House,  I  believe,  seven  times.  To  go  into 
further  detail  would  probably  be  a  waste  of 
time  on  my  part. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
know  if  I  can  follow  the  minister's  opening 
comments  due  to  the  noise  in  the  Legislature. 

I  will  address  Bill  185,  An  Aot  to  amend 
the  Assessment  Act,  with  some  reluctance. 
It  seems  to  be  an  annual  event  that  has 
been  going  on  now  for  about  five  years.  I 
believe  it  is  annually  since  1975  that  we  have 
brought  in  the  normal  amendment  to  defer 
the  market  value  assessment  and  the  continu- 
ation of  the  section  86(3)  program. 

I  think  the  seed  for  a  market  value  assess- 
ment concept  was  planted  some  10  or  12 
years  ago.  It  was  widely  acknowledged  that 
the  Ontario  property  tax  assessments  con- 
tained many  inequities,  and  through  gov- 
ernment action  they  are,  in  most  municipal- 
ities in  Ontario,  frozen  at  the  level  of  the 
value  shown  on  the  1970  assessment  rolls. 
The  unjust  property  assessment  inequities 
continue  to  grow,  affecting  residential  prop- 
erty taxes  in  almost  every  municipality  in 
Ontario. 

Since  all  assessment  is  the  responsibility 
of  the  province  there  has  been  no  noticeable 
improvement  in  municipal  assessment  prac- 
tices, and  the  ability  to  maintain  equity  is 
a  long  way  off. 

If  one  accepts  the  voluntary  program  initi- 
ated by  the  minister  under  section  86(3)  of 
the  Assessment  Act,  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment's present  policy  of  using  section  86  to 
implement  reassessment  within  classes  of 
property  based  on  the  1975  market  value  is 
not  satisfactory.  It  leads  to  unfair  shifts  in 
property  tax  burdens  in  counties  and  re- 
gions, burdening  some  of  the  municipalities 
that  have  undertaken  reassessment.  More- 
over, this  piecemeal  approach  will  not  create 
a    uniformly    wide    base    for    the    proposed 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980 


4649 


grants  and  cost-sharing  which  was  the  main 
purpose  of  the  assessment  reform. 

I  find  alarming  the  concern  expressed  by 
the  policy  statement  on  market  value  assess- 
ment issued  by  the  Institute  of  Municipal 
Assessors  of  Ontario  in  May  1980.  I  quote 
from  that  statement: 

"Inequities  are  produced  by  the  passage 
of  time  as  property  values  do  not  change 
uniformly  across  all  classes  of  property  or  in 
all  areas  of  municipalities.  Market  value 
assessments  can  be  readily  updated  every 
two  or  three  years  to  prevent  such  inequi- 
ties. Consequently,  market  value  assessments 
would  produce  assessments  that  would  be 
both  equitable  and  demonstrably  fair,  and 
would  no  longer  be  considered  to  be  the 
product  of  an  arbitrary  application  of  some 
remote  process. 

"The  Institute  of  Municipal  Assessors  of 
Ontario  wishes  to  express  its  deep  concern 
regarding  the  serious  inequities  that  presently 
exist  and  continue  to  multiply  as  conse- 
quences of  the  obsolete  assessment  system 
maintained  in  most  municipalities  in  Ontario. 
The  institute  therefore  respectfully  urges  all 
members  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  to 
recognize  the  gravity  of  the  situation,  and 
take  all  necessary  steps  to  provide  the 
remedy  of  implementation  of  market  value 
assessment  throughout  Ontario. 

"Implicit  in  the  market  value  concept  is 
the  historically  socially  accepted  proposition 
that  municipal  taxes  should  be  based  on 
property  values  which  reflect  long-term  rate- 
payer investment  and  commitment.  If  public 
policy  dictates  differentiation  in  the  tax  bur- 
den as  among  ratepayers  or  classes  of  rate- 
payers, such  differentiation  should  be  ap- 
parent and  not  hidden. 

"At  the  present  time,  the  system  hides 
the  fact  the  tax  burden  is  unevenly  distri- 
buted. Equally  important  is  the  fact  that 
these  disparities  are  the  result  of  changes  in 
values  over  many  years  rather  than  a  result 
of  any  stated  policy. 

"At  the  present  time,  due  to  the  variety 
of  mythologies  employed,  the  special  knowl- 
edge and  subjective  judgements  inherent  in 
the  present  assessment  process,  the  statutory 
restrictions  upon  the  disclosure  of  informa- 
tion, the  lack  of  information  available  even 
to  the  assessors  as  the  result  of  the  age  of 
the  records  and  the  disappearance  of  die 
authors  of  these  records,  and  the  further 
statutory  restrictions  upon  the  taxpayer's 
ability  to  compare  his  or  her  assessment  with 
other  assessments  in  the  same  municipality, 
the  municipal  taxpayer  is  simply  unable  to 


determine  whether  he  or  she  is  being  treated 
fairly." 

That  does  not  speak  too  highly  of  the 
minister's  program  in  the  deferment  of  mar- 
ket value  assessment  and  the  continuation 
of  the  section  86(3)  program.  I  suggest  that 
is  an  alarming  statement.  I  think  this  is  the 
indication  the  municipal  assessors  have  been 
trying  to  bring  forward  to  this  government 
for,  I  should  say,  20  years— it  is  15  years 
anway,  that  is  for  sure. 
10:20  p.m. 

It  has  continued  since  1970,  when  they 
had  great  hopes  of  removing  the  inequity  in 
municipal  assessment.  The  previous  Treas- 
urer, Darcy  McKeough,  indicated  over  the 
years  that  some  measures  had  to  be  taken 
to  improve  the  assessment  practices  in  the 
province.  Year  after  year  we  have  seen  the 
minister  bring  in  an  amendment  for  further 
deferment  of  market  value  assessment. 

I  have  said  on  previous  occasions  it  is  a 
rather  tough  area  to  move  into,  but  I  think 
it  could  have  been  done  on  reasonable  terms 
and  on  a  reasonable  basis.  Year  after  year 
as  I  stand  up  here  I  repeat,  the  same  as  the 
minister  repeats  the  introduction  of  the 
amendment  to  the  Assessment  Act,  if  he  had 
made  the  manual  mandatory  across  the  prov- 
ince and  given  it  to  each  municipal  assessor 
it  would  have  been  completed  by  now.  The 
inequities  would  have  disappeared.  We 
would  have  had  market  value  assessment,  or 
revaluation  or  reassessment  of  all  property 
in  Ontario,  whatever  method  the  minister 
wants  to  apply.  It  is  a  problem  that  I  do  not 
think  section  86(3)  is  going  to  resolve  be- 
cause we  come  to  the  apportioned  cost  and 
I  don't  believe  section  86(3)  touches  the  in- 
dustrial or  commercial  assessment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  thought  it  was  just  resi- 
dential property  within  a  municipality  of  the 
same  nature.  The  minister  says  it  does  relate 
to  industrial  assessment. 

I  think  this  is  one  area  where  there  is  dif- 
ficulty in  accepting  market  value  assessment 
because  the  approach  value  taken  for  the 
guidelines  of  the  criteria  established  by  the 
ministry,  which  assessors  have  to  apply,  is 
the  difficulty  as  it  relates  to  residential  prop- 
erty and  the  shifting  of  property  tax  more 
on  to  residential  property  than  applies  to 
commercial  or  industrial  assessment.  That  is 
the  area  the  minister  has  encountered  over 
the  years,  the  matter  of  how  one  arrives  at 
an  assessment  on  industrial  property.  There 
is  no  way  I  know  of,  or  that  even  the  minister 
is  aware  of,  that  can  actually  put  a  true  value 


4650 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


on  industrial  assessment.  They  are  not  being 
sold  every  day.  Perhaps  more  are  going  into 
receivership  now  than  ever.  I  do  not  know 
how  you  can  arrive  at  a  value  there. 

This  is  an  area  the  ministry  should  have 
looked  at  before  getting  into  the  area  of 
market  value  assessment.  They  used  the 
wrong  calculation  some  place  in  arriving  at 
a  fair  value  of  industrial  assessment.  I  sup- 
pose the  minister  could  look  at  the  current 
buildings  going  up  and,  from  the  construction 
costs,  can  arrive  at  a  reasonable  value  on 
industrial  assessment,  but  I  do  not  think 
he  can  find  a  fair  way  to  bring  about  older 
industrial  assessment.  I  suggest  that  is  the 
area  the  ministry  should  be  looking  at. 

I  suggest  to  the  minister  he  can  improve 
market  value  assessment.  I  suggested  to  the 
ministry  staff  it  should  bring  in  market  value 
assessment  at  a  different  rate.  There  have 
been  enough  studies  in  this  area  to  suggest 
market  value  should  be  50  per  cent  of  the 
assessed  market  value.  Why  not  bring  it  in 
at  25  per  cent  and  then  phase  it  in  over  a 
period  of  five  years  and  move  in  that  direc- 
tion? It  may  resolve  some  of  the  problems  in 
the  municipalities. 

It  is  indicated  there  are  180  municipalities 
that  have  requested  reassessment  under  sec- 
tion 86(3).  There  are  some  600  more  munic- 
ipalities that  would  have  to  move  in  that 
direction.  There  are  two  now  in  the  Niagara 
region  that  have  accepted  section  86(3)  for 
reassessment,  the  town  of  Niagara  and  the 
township  of  Wainfleet.  I  tell  the  minister,  that 
is  going  to  cause  a  problem  with  the  regional 
costs  and  apportionment  costs  alone. 

I  think  when  one  or  two  municipalities  re- 
quest revaluation  or  reassessment  in  a  munic- 
ipality under  section  86(3),  it  should  apply 
across  the  whole  region;  or,  if  a  municipality 
applies  it  within  a  county  structure,  the  same 
thing  should  apply.  Reassessment  should  take 
place  in  every  municipality  to  remove  the 
inequities  across  the  whole  region  or  county. 
What  is  bound  to  happen  now  is  not  going 
to  remove  the  unjust  apportionment  costs  that 
may  follow  reassessment  under  section  86(3). 

When  we  look  at  reassessment,  I  think  the 
province  should  be  looking  at  another  area, 
of  revenue  sharing  agreements.  The  province 
should  return  to  paying  the  higher  share  of 
the  educational  tax.  That  is  one  area,  if  you 
move  into  market  value,  in  which,  if  you 
pick  up  60  per  cent  of  the  costs  of  education 
instead  of  51  per  cent,  the  burden  on  the 
property  tax  payer  will  be  reduced.  That  is 
another  area  that  should  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration when  one  looks  at  property  re- 
assessment and  property  tax  reform. 


I  also  think  there  should  be  further  con- 
sideration to  be  (given  to  part  of  a  better 
revenue  sharing  deal,  modifying  the  existing 
transfer  systems  so  as  to  reduce  the  reliance 
on  a  per  capita  formula,  a  policy  that  has  a 
determined  effect  on  those  municipalities 
which  are  not  growing.  In  many  cases— to 
use  the  township  of  Wainfleet,  for  example: 
here  is  a  rural  municipality  that  is  not  going 
to  have  the  industrial  base  or  even  the 
commercial  base.  On  a  reassessment  under 
section  83,  they  could  be  penalized  severely 
under  the  regional  system  of  taxation  for 
other  costs  and  so  on. 

Hon.  Mi*.  Maeck:  But  we  do  not  increase 
their  assessment  rate. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Oh  yes,  there  will  be  addi- 
tional costs  as  it  relates  to  the  apportion- 
ment costs  for  the  roads  and  for  welfare 
services  within  the  municipality,  and  appor- 
tionment costs  for  what— even  library  services 
and  children's  aid. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  do  not  increase  their 
assessment  rates. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  No,  it  is  just  moved  from 
one— the  factor,  whatever  it  may  be,  is  still 
maintained  under  the  present  assessment.  If 
it  is  $4  million  or  $6  million,  that  level  is 
still  maintained.  All  one  is  doing  is  juggling 
the  figures  around.  Someone  comes  along 
and  says,  "This  property  here  may  be 
assessed  at  $1,000  too  high.  We  will  lower 
that  and  we  will  assess  this  one  here 
$1,000."  All  one  is  doing  is  exchanging  the 
value  figures  on  property  which  may  not 
even  be  correct. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  But  the  total  assessment 
remains  the  same. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  still  do  not  think  the  in- 
equities are  going  to  be  removed  under  the 
present  system.  To  remove  any  mistrust  that 
now  exists,  even  under  the  section  86(3) 
assessment,  if  it  is  used  in  certain  munici- 
palities, I  would  recommend  to  the  minister 
that  where  section  86(3)  is  requested  by  a 
municipal  council  for  purposes  of  revaluation 
of  property  of  similar  nature,  the  minister 
consider  contracting  out  the  new  evaluation; 
thus  we  can  bring  in  independent  property 
appraisers  for  the  purpose  of  checking  out  the 
methodology,  and  for  the  use  of  provincial 
assessors.  It  is  time  now  for  the  assessment 
practices  and  the  methodology  to  be  subject 
to  the  scrutiny  of  the  public  and  of  the 
provincial  assessors. 

In  other  words,  let  the  peers— the  tax- 
payers—be the  judge  of  that.  I  suggest  this  is 


NOVEMBER  25,  1980  4651 


an  area  wherein  I  would  consider  contracting  municipality   that   may  be   corrected  by   an 

out,  under  section  86(3),  to  see  how  accurate  independent  appraiser's  approach  to  it. 

the   minister's   policy   or   criteria  for  assess-  On  motion  by  Mr.   Haggerty,  the  debate 

ment  are  in  Ontario.  He  may  find  out  there  was  adjourned, 

are   a  number   of  discrepancies  within  that  The  House  adjourned  at  10:29  .m. 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  November  25,  1980 

Education  Amendment  Act,  Bill  82,  reported  4633 

Assessment  Amendment  Act,  Bill  185,  Mr.  Maeck,  on  second  reading  4648 

Adjournment    4651 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Foulds,  J.  E.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Sweeney,  J.  ( Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 


No.  124 


Legislature  of 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  November  27,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index   of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  ^^SS^10 


4655 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENT  BY  THE  MINISTRY 
RADIATION  SITES 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  comment  on  an  article  in  this  morning's 
Globe  and  Mail  headlined,  "New  Radiation 
Tests  Ordered  by  AECB  for  148  Locations." 

Perhaps  I  might  begin  by  saying  the  only 
law  that  refers  specifically  to  the  permissible 
limits  of  exposure  to  ionizing  radiation  is  the 
Atomic  Energy  Control  Act,  an  act  of  the 
federal  Parliament,  and  more  specifically, 
regulation  P.C.  1978-1195  thereunder.  How- 
ever, since  1975,  various  provincial  govern- 
ments, including  Ontario's,  have  co-operated 
with  federal  authorities  in  programs  to  guard 
against  health  hazards  arising  as  a  result  of 
exposure  to  ionizing  radiation. 

We  have  taken  the  view  that  there  is 
little  purpose  to  be  served  in  arguing  about 
jurisdictional  responsibilities;  rather  our  con- 
cern has  been  to  see  that  there  is  maximum 
co-operation  between  the  two  levels  of  gov- 
ernment and  that  available  expertise  is  shared 
and  effectively  deployed.  The  148  locations 
referred  to  in  the  newspaper  article  are 
located  across  Canada.  Approximately  70  of 
these  are  in  Ontario. 

The  existence  of  this  situation  came  to 
light  in  1975,  following  the  discovery  that  a 
building  on  Church  Street  in  Toronto  had 
high  radiation  levels.  Subsequently  the  list 
of  148  locations  across  Canada  was  compiled 
by  the  Atomic  Energy  Control  Board  from  a 
number  of  sources. 

In  February  1975  a  group  consisting  of 
staff  from  the  AECB,  the  federal  Depart- 
ment of  Health  and  Welfare  and  the  Ontario 
Ministry  of  Health  conducted  a  survey  of  the 
sites  within  Ontario  to  determine  whether 
buildings  or  sites  other  than  the  Church 
Street  location  constituted  health  hazards. 
This  survey  did  not  reveal  radiation  levels 
that  were  likely  to  result  in  exposure  in  excess 
of  the  criteria  permitted  under  the  regula- 
tions enacted  pursuant  to  the  Atomic  Energy 
Control  Act. 


Thursday,  November  27,  1980 

In  1976  the  AECB  established  a  federal- 
provincial  task  force  on  radioactivity.  In  1977 
that  task  force  published  criteria  or  guide- 
lines to  assist  in  deciding  whether  or  not 
decontamination  should  be  carried  out  in  any 
of  the  locations.  These  criteria  or  guidelines 
were  followed  in  carrying  out  decontamina- 
tion procedures  at  the  Church  Street  prop- 
erty in  Toronto,  at  the  various  properties  in 
Port  Hope,  Elliot  Lake  and  Bancroft,  where 
work  is  still  in  progress,  and  at  Deloro. 

Questions  have  now  arisen  concerning  the 
remaining  sites  in  Ontario  and  elsewhere  in 
Canada.  These  concerns  have  been  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  AECB.  My  officials 
have  been  in  close  touch  with  the  president 
of  the  AECB  and  his  officials  to  determine 
the  appropriate  action  to  be  taken.  The  presi- 
dent of  the  AECB  proposes  that  the  survey 
conducted  in  1975  now  be  reviewed  in  the 
light  of  the  criteria  or  guidelines  published 
by  the  federal-provincial  task  force. 

We  are  in  agreement  with  this  proposal 
and  have  indicated  to  Mr.  Jennekens  we  are 
prepared  to  co-operate  in  such  a  review.  I 
understand  that  within  the  next  few  days  the 
Ontario  government  will  be  receiving  a  spe- 
cific written  proposal  from  the  AECB  as  to 
how  this  review  should  be  conducted,  what 
further  action,  if  any,  might  be  undertaken, 
and  what  further  remedial  action,  if  any, 
might  be  required. 

I  might  add  that  based  upon  tests  con- 
ducted at  the  sites  referred  to  in  the  recent 
newspaper  articles,  namely  the  Malvern 
subdivision  in  Scarborough  and  the  property 
on  Davenport  Road  in  Toronto,  there  is  no 
indication  of  health  hazards  to  anyone.  We 
shall,  however,  continue  to  co-operate  in 
the  review  that  the  president  of  the  AECB 
proposes. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  direct  my  first  question  to  the  Minister 
of  Agriculture  and  Food  on  the  subject  of 
South  Cayuga. 

Given  that  the  land  on  which  the  liquid 
waste    plant   in   South   Cayuga   will   be   lo- 


4656 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


cated  is  among  the  best  farm  land  in  Can- 
ada, from  the  point  of  view  of  both  soil 
and  heat  units,  the  amount  of  sunlight  and 
warmth  that  falls  upon  the  land,  and  given 
the  resolution  passed  unanimously  yesterday 
by  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture 
demanding  a  full  justification  of  the  South 
Cayuga  site  and  a  hearing  on  the  matter 
by  the  Environmental  Assessment  Board, 
will  the  honourable  minister  explain  to  this 
House  how  he  can  allow  the  matter  to  pro- 
ceed without  such  a  hearing  and  what  his 
participation  in  the  decision-making  process 
was? 

Did  he  speak  up  against  this  within  the 
cabinet  and  within  those  places  where  the 
decision  was  made,  or  did  he  meekly  ac- 
quiesce to  let  this  happen? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  re- 
sponse to  the  honourable  member  and  the 
resolution  that  passed  at  yesterday's  meet- 
ing of  the  OFA,  I  have  not  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  read  the  resolution  or  to  know 
the   actual  wording  of  the  resolution. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Come  on. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
being  honest.  Apparently  the  member  has 
access  to  something  I  do  not  have,  but  I 
do  not  have  a  copy  of  that  resolution.  How- 
ever, this  morning  I  was  at  the  OFA  meet- 
ing along  with  several  of  my  colleagues 
from  cabinet.  The  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment (Mr.  Parrott)  took  15  minutes  this 
morning  and  went  into  full  detail.  He  told 
the  group  the  background  of  the  environ- 
mental hearing,  the  whole  suggestion. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  That  is  not  the  question  I 
asked  about  your  participation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  My  response  to  the 
question  this  morning  was  that  we,  as  the 
Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food,  identified 
the  type  of  soil  it  was.  We  made  the  Min- 
ister of  the  Environment  aware  of  what  the 
conditions  were.  If  the  member  would  read 
the  announcements  the  Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment made  respecting  this,  it  is  the  in- 
tention there  will  only  be  certain  types  of 
agriculture  grown  around  this  site.  They 
will  not  be  agricultural  products  that  will 
be  consumed  directly  by  the  consumer. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  What  did  you  say  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  It  was  a  full  gov- 
ernment decision  to  put  this  site  in  Cayuga. 
2:10  p.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Since  it  does  appear  as 
though  the  minister  has  simply  acquiesced 
in  this  particular  decision,  can  I  ask  the 
minister  to  confirm  what  was  reported  in  the 


Chatham  Daily  News  of  August  4,  1980? 
Concerning  the  Lambton  site,  which  the 
MacLaren  consultants  were  very  high  on  and 
felt  was  a  very  close  second,  could  the  min- 
ister say  whether  it  is  true,  as  reported  in 
that  newspaper,  that  "following  a  closed 
cabinet  meeting  it  was  decided  not  to  locate 
the  dump  in  the  riding  of  Lambton."  Is 
that  a  fact  or  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  The  member  was 
never  more  wrong  in  his  life.  One  third  of 
the  total  industrial  waste  of  Ontario  is  dis- 
posed of  10  miles  from  my  house,  right  in 
the  centre  of  Lambton,  so  the  member  was 
never  more  wrong.  He  really  does  not  know 
what  is  going  on.  There  are  dry  cellars  in 
the  centre  of  Moore  township,  five  miles 
from  Sarnia,  as  the  member  for  Sarnia  (Mr. 
Blundy)  can  tell  him.  The  member  is  abso- 
lutely wrong.  One  third  of  the  industrial 
waste  of  this  province- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  did  not  ask  the  minister 
about  one  third  of  the  industrial  waste. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  one 
third  of  the  industrial  waste  is  disposed'  of 
within  10  miles  of  my  house.  The  item  is 
wrong;  the  member  is  wrong.  He  really  does 
not  know  the  situation.  He  was  never  more 
wrong  in  his  life. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Could  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
explain  the  differing  treatment  of  urban 
residents  and  farmers  in  the  cases  of  the  pro- 
posed1 industrial  waste  facility  five  kilometres 
from  the  town  of  Thorold  and  the  proposed 
facility  at  South  Cayuga?  Why  is  it  that 
when  the  ministry  and  the  government  in- 
tended to  put  a  liquid  waste  disposal  facility 
in  an  urbanized  area  in  the  Niagara  Penin- 
sula, the  government  was  prepared  to  have 
an  environmental  assessment  that  would  have 
provided  some  assurance  to  people  in  the 
area,  if  it  went  through,  that  the  environ- 
ment was  protected,  but  when  it  is  farmers 
who  are  involved  in  South  Cayuga  there  is 
no  such  assurance  because  the  government 
has  waived  the  necessity  of  having  an  en- 
vironmental assessment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  the 
leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  had 
waited  until  this  morning  and  gone  down  to 
a  meeting  of  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agri- 
culture, he  could  have  had  all  his  questions 
answered.  I  would  suggest  he  ask  that  par- 
ticular question  of  the  Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment. Everybody  at  the  federation  this 
morning  understood  it.  I  will  let  that  minister 
answer  the  question. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4657 


Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  privilege:  This 
is  not  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture; 
this  is  the  Legislature  and  the  government. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  not  a  point  of  privi- 
lege either. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  wonder  if  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture and  Food  is  aware  that  under  the  old 
classification,  90.8  per  cent  of  the  land  in 
South  Cayuga  was  classified  as  one  and  two 
agricultural  land,  and  that  under  the  new 
classification,  93  per  cent  of  the  land  is  classi- 
fied as  one,  two,  three  and  four.  Under  the 
honourable  minister's  own  guidelines  and  the 
recommendations  brought  in  for  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment,  development  of  treat- 
ment or  disposal  sites  for  liquid  industrial 
wastes  and  hazardous  wastes  should  not  be 
using  class  one,  two,  three  and  four  land. 
What  is  the  policy  of  the  minister's  govern- 
ment in  response  to  the  quality  of  the  land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
are  well  aware  of  the  classification  of  the 
land.  I  can  point  it  out  acre  by  acre  to  the 
honourable  member  if  he  wishes.  This  situa- 
tion was  judged  by  government  and  it  was 
decided  that  it  was  a  most  appropriate  site 
to  serve  the  people  of  this  province. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
May  I  ask  the  minister,  in  his  answer  to  the 
initial  question,  do  we  understand— and  I 
assume  we  do— that  much  more  than  100 
acres  will  be  taken  out  of  agricultural  pro- 
duction and  perhaps  much  more  than  740 
acres?  The  minister  is  not  going  to  allow 
edible  food  for  human  consumption  to  be 
grown  in  quite  a  substantial  area  around 
that,  and  perhaps  rightly  so.  My  question  to 
the  minister  is,  how  can  he  justify  that 
volume  of  good  agricultural  land  being  taken 
out  of  production  when  there  is  an  extreme 
shortage  of  class  one  and  two  land  and  many 
of  the  other  sites  are  on  very  poor  agricul- 
tural land? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  honourable  member 
has  not  studied  the  proposal.  The  proposal 
is  for  100  acres  of  land  for  the  actual  site 
for  the  treatment  plant.  The  area  surrounding 
it  will  be  growing  agricultural  crops— not 
crops  such  as  lettuce  and  tomatoes,  but 
agricultural  crops. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Accepting  the  honourable  minister's  state- 
ment that  Lambton  county  accepts  its  share 
of  liquid  industrial  waste,  is  it  not  true  that 
before  the  provincial  government  decided 
on  Harwich  township  as  the  recipient  of  the 
dump,  it  had  been  a  toss-up  between  locat- 


ing in  Harwich  or  expanding  an  existing 
waste  plant  near  the  town  of  Brigden  in 
Lambton?  Is  it  not  true  that  the  minister 
used  his  weight  in  caucus  to  say  there  was 
no  way  that  was  going  to  come  to  Lambton 
county?  If  the  minister's  staff  made  com- 
ments on  the  site  at  South  Cayuga,  would 
he  please  table  any  reports  or  comments 
that  they  made? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
easy  to  understand  that  the  honourable  mem- 
ber really  has  not  studied  the  situation.  Had 
the  honourable  member  been  where  the 
official  critic  of  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture 
and  Food  should  have  been  this  morning, 
he  would  have  heard  the  whole  explanation. 
He  would  have  heard  that  Huron  county  was 
the  first  choice. 

The  Lambton  site  for  industrial  waste 
was  established  in  the  late  1960s.  It  is  one 
of  the  more  up-to-date  sites  in  Ontario. 
Yes,  we  have  had  our  problems  with  it.  One 
has  problems  with  industrial  waste  wherever 
one  is,  but  about  two  years  ago,  Tricil 
Limited  upgraded  their  plant.  None  of  us 
likes  it  and  there  is  no  sense  kidding  our- 
selves, but  it  is  doing  the  job.  There  was 
no  interference  on  my  part  with  the  minister 
in  making  his  decisions  as  to  whether  they 
would  enlarge  the  Lambton  site  or  whether 
they  would  choose  other  sites. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion on  the  same  topic  again  to  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment. 

In  the  honourable  minister's  statement  on 
Tuesday,  he  referred  to  a  new  corporation 
to  operate  the  disposal  site.  He  said  this 
Ontario  Waste  Management  Corporation  will 
be  incorporated  immediately.  He  then  re- 
ferred to  forthcoming  legislation  to  set  up 
a  crown  corporation  to  assume  management 
and  development  responsibility.  Could  I  ask 
the  minister,  are  these  two  different  corpo- 
rations, and  if  so,  could  he  explain  the 
point  of  having  two  different  corporations? 
Could  he  confirm  if  it  is  correct  that  under 
his  general  policy,  a  private  corporation 
would  be  exempt  from  environmental  assess- 
ment whereas  a  crown  corporation  would 
not  be  exempt? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  answer 
to  the  latter  part  of  that  question:  First,  there 
is  no  relationship  to  that  at  all;  it  applies  to 
government  activity. 

Before  I  answer  the  middle  part  of  that 
question,  I  would  like  to  tell  the  honourable 
members  of  the  House  that  I  have  to  put 
a  word  in  to  the  credit  of  the  member  for 
Lambton  and  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food. 


4658 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  don't  let  him 

wander.  You  don't  let  me  get  off  the  topic. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Order.  The  question 
dealt    specifically    with    crown    corporations. 

It    had    nothing    to    do    with  the    previous 
question. 
2:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  It  is  rather  sad  that 
the  one  person  who  has  done  the  most  to 
deal  with  the  problem  should  even  be  re- 
motely criticized.  That  happens  to  be  the 
member  for  Lambton.  He  has  really  done 
his  share. 

However,  on  the  crown  corporation,  one 
would  flow  from  the  other.  It  would  be 
necessary  to  have  the  appropriate  legisla- 
tion in  this  Legislature  to  establish  a  crown 
corporation.  It  does  not  deny  the  possibility 
of  having  a  corporation  formed  which,  when 
the  appropriate  legislation  was  presented, 
would  become  the  crown  corporation  with 
the  appropriate  terms  of  reference  drawn 
forth. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  had  trouble  hearing  the 
answer  to  that  question.  I  would  ask  the 
minister  when  he  stands  again  if  he  would 
accept  that  a  private  corporation  would  be 
exempt  from  environmental  assessment 
whereas  a  crown  corporation  would  not  be 
exempt?  I  want  a  direct  answer  to  that 
when  he  stands  again.  Specifically,  could  he 
also  tell  us  who  will  be  the  shareholders 
of  this  private  corporation?  Is  it  to  be  a 
nonprofit  corporation?  Exactly  how  is  it  to 
be  incorporated?  Who  will  hold  the  assets, 
and  what  will  the  arrangement  be  in  its 
dealings    with    the    government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  shareholder,  ob- 
viously, would  be  the  crown,  and  any  assets 
would  flow  to  the  crown.  For  the  first  part 
of  that  question,  there  was  no  thought  that 
by  establishing  a  private  corporation  it 
would  be  exempt.  That  was  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent question.  I  made  the  statement  on 
Tuesday  that  dealt  with  the  environmental 
assessment  aspect  of  it.  It  had  no  relation- 
ship to  whether  or  not  it  was  or  was  not 
a  private  company.  The  same  terms  apply 
to  both. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Could  the  minister  say 
whether  it  is  the  government's  intention, 
either  through  supplementary  estimates  or 
through  legislation,  to  bring  this  matter  be- 
fore the  Legislature  before  the  House  rises 
about  December  12;  or  is  it  the  govern- 
ment's intention,  having  rammed  the  deci- 
sion on  South  Cayuga  into  consideration 
with  the  MacLaren  study,  now  to  seek  to 
make  the  establishment  of  that  liquid  waste 


facility  a  fait  accompli  with  no  consultation 
whatsoever  with  the  elected  representatives 
of   Ontario  here  in  the  Legislature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  would  be  more  than 
pleased  to  have  this  discussed  in  a  commit- 
tee if  the  members  wish.  If  they  want  to 
refer  it  to  a  committee  for  a  full  discus- 
sion, that  has  been  my  habit  ever  since  I 
became  minister.  I  do  not  think  the  ques- 
tion is  readily  discussed  in  detail  in  the 
question  period  to  the  degree  that  a  matter 
of  such  vital  importance  to  this  province 
can  be  discussed.  If  the  honourable  member 
is  asking  if  I  would  be  happy  to  have  me 
and  my  staff  go  to  a  committee  hearing,  of 
course  I  would.  I  would  go  any  time  the 
members  wish  it. 

As  far  as  coming  to  this  Legislature,  I  am 
here  every  day.  The  member  can  ask  me 
about  it  any  time  he  wishes  to  in  question 
period.  He  knows  that.  I  do  not  know  why 
he  would  not  respond  accordingly. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: If  the  first  corporation,  the  one  the  min- 
ister is  going  to  set  up  right  now  to  get 
things  going,  is  to  have  only  one  share- 
holder, basically  the  crown,  and  that  is  to 
be  followed  by  a  crown  corporation  for 
which  he  will  bring  a  bill  into  the  House,  is 
the  only  reason  he  is  setting  up  the  first 
corporation,  rather  than  coming  directly  in 
with  a  crown  corporation  bill,  simply  to 
avoid  the  possibility  of  having  a  vote  in 
this   Legislature   on  his   crown  corporation? 

They  both,  in  effect,  will  be  owned  by  the 
crown.  What  conceivable  reason  could  there 
be  for  doing  it  in  this  rather  odd  way  with 
two  separate  corporations,  rather  than  sim- 
ply having  the  decency  and  the  honesty  to 
come  before  the  House  with  a  resolution  for 
the  crown  corporation,  and  a  bill  that  we 
can  then  vote  on  in  a  democratic  manner? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  said  no  to  that  ques- 
tion three  times  already.  When  the  crown 
corporation  is  to  be  formed  it  will  be 
formed  because  of  legislation  that  has  been 
introduced  in  this  House,  where  the  mem- 
bers opposite  will  have  their  opportunity  to 
vote  on  it.  As  soon  as  I  am  able  to  receive 
a  phone  call  I  would  like  to  make  a  state- 
ment here  today  about  the  membership  of 
that  corporation,  or  at  least  a  part  of  it.  I 
want  to  have  that  confirmed;  I  believe  it  is 
correct.  But  I  am  more  than  happy  to  serve 
notice  now  about  what  I  think  will  be  a 
significant  statement  forthcoming  in  a  very 
short  period  of  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  it  is  forthcoming  we  will 
ask  for  a  consensus  of  the  House  to  revert 
to  statements. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4659 


Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Can  the  honourable  minister  assure  us  there 
will  be  no  activities  on  the  South  Cayuga 
site  that  mean  the  acceptance  of  any  waste 
on  to  that  site  before  the  crown  corporation 
has  been  considered  and  voted  on  by  this 
Legislature?  Is  he  going  to  use  the  private 
company  as  an  end  run  around  the  House- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  That  is  exactly  what  it  is 
going  to  do  precisely. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  —or  will  he  make  sure  that 
nothing  is  done  that  involves  waste  until 
there  has  been  a  vote  here  on  the  crown 
corporation? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  It  may  disappoint  the 
leader  of  the  Liberal  Party,  but  he  will  have 
to  learn  to  live  with  the  fact  that  there  will 
be  no  activity  on  that  site  until  a  crown 
corporation  is  formed. 

As  I  have  said  for  the  fourth  time,  that 
will  be  an  act  of  this  House.  There  will  be 
no  activity  on  the  site  until  after  June  30 
at  the  earliest,  regardless  of  what  happens; 
that  is,  activity  meaning  the  acceptance  of 
waste.  I  think  that  was  the  reference  point 
the  honourable  member  made.  Under  no 
circumstances  will  waste  be  accepted  there 
prior  to  June  30. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion which  I  want  to  direct  to  the  Minister 
of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  in  his  role  as 
acting  Premier  in  the  absence  of  the  Deputy 
Premier  and  of  the  Premier. 

Could  the  acting  Premier  tell  the  House 
whether  we  can  now  take  it  the  cabinet  has 
approved  in  principle  the  exemption  from 
the  Environmental  Assessment  Act  of  the 
South  Cayuga  liquid  industrial  waste  site? 
Can  he  say  on  what  grounds  it  was  that 
cabinet  decided,  once  again,  to  overrule  its 
own  law  which  was  adopted  five  years  ago 
and  has  yet  to  be  applied  to  any  major 
environmental    project    of    this    province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  am  not  acting  Premier.  I  am  the  govern- 
ment House  leader  and  that  is  the  position 
I  am  speaking  from.  I  would  be  happy  to 
have  the  member's  question  directed  to- 
wards me,  but  I  would  answer  him  by  say- 
ing he  should  direct  that  question  towards 
the  minister. 

I  think  any  minister  of  this  government 
who  presents  a  position  in  a  policy  state- 
ment obviously  does  so  with  the  full  support 
of  cabinet.  If  the  member  wishes  to  have 
the  reasons  for  bringing  forward  that  policy, 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  is  fully 
qualified  and  can  effectively  give  him  the 
reasons  for  what  he  is  doing. 


Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  indicates  this  action  of 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  was  taken 
with  the  full  support  of  the  cabinet,  can  he 
say  whether  the  cabinet  or  the  Premier  con- 
sulted with  the  advisory  group  set  up  to 
adVise  the  cabinet  on  environmental  ques- 
tions, that  is,  the  environmental  assessment 
steering  committee  which  is  headed  by  Dr. 
D.  A.  Chant  of  the  University  of  Toronto? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  same  response  would 
pertain  to  that  question  as  to  the  first  one.  I 
think  the  member  should  refer  that  question 
to  the  minister. 

il  think  I  made  it  very  clear.  First  of  all,  I 
am  not  sure  where  my  friend  studied  parlia- 
mentary democracy,  but  when  a  minister  of 
this  government  stands  up  under  "Statements 
by  the  Ministry"  in  this  House  and  makes  a 
government  policy  statement,  it  has  the  sup- 
port of  the  whole  cabinet.  I  think  he  should 
be  aware  of  that. 

That  minister  takes  the  responsibility  for 
that  statement  and  will  give  him  a  complete 
answer  to  any  kind  of  question  such  as  he 
has  brought  forward,  as  to  whom  he  ad- 
vised and  what  advice  he  got  and  so  forth. 
I  think  if  my  friend  would  ask  the  minister 
that  question  he  will  get  an  answer. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  If  I  can  redirect  my  question 
to  the  Minister  of  the  Environment,  could 
the  minister  tell  the  House,  are  we  to  take  it 
the  cabinet  has  now  approved  in  principle 
the  exemption  of  the  South  Cayuga  project 
from  the  Environmental  Assessment  Act? 
Would  the  minister  tell  us  on  what  environ- 
mental and  technical  data  the  cabinet  made 
that  approval,  to  railroad  approval  and  over- 
ride completely  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act  of  1975? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  answer,  very  clearly, 
is  yes,  cabinet  has  made  that  decision.  In- 
formation was  supplied  to  cabinet  at  great 
length  on  which  it  based  its  decision. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  will  have  an 
opportunity.  We  have  spent  23  minutes  on 
this  question.  I  will  allow  one  final  supple- 
mentary. 

2:30  p.m 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  But  it  is  on  the  matter  of 
who  he  received  advice  from,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Could  the  minister  confirm  that  he  did  not 
receive  advice  on  this  matter  from  the  Waste 
Management  Advisory  Board  and,  further- 
more, that  he  did  not  receive  any  advice  on 
the  matter,  nor  did  MacLaren  from  the 
Grand  River  Conservation  Authority?  As  the 
minister  well  knows  there  is  a  flood  plain  at 


4660 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  Grand  River,  at  least  in  the  control  area 
of  his  project.  Will  he  confirm  that  he  re- 
ceived advice  from  neither  of  those  bodies? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a 
matter  for  the  Waste  Management  Advisory 
Board  to  have  a  referral  from  the  ministry. 
Basically,  they  are  free  to  comment  on  any 
particular  item  they  wish.  But  I  think  it  is 
already  understood  they  are  primarily  in- 
terested in  solid  waste.  That  was,  has  been 
and  will  continue  to  be  their  major  role  in 
advising  us  on  solid  waste.  I  did  not  go  to 
the  committee  and  ask  them  for  their  advice 
on  liquid  waste  because  we  have  a  very  com- 
prehensive study  doing  that.  Whether  Mac- 
Laren  went  to  the  conservation  authority,  I 
do  not  know.  At  that  stage,  we  were  asking 
the  consultants  to  make  their  report.  It  cost 
us  $425,000  and  they  have  done  that. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  With  your  permission,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  have  a  new  question  for  the  Min- 
ister of  the  Environment.  Can  the  minister 
say  what  environmental  and  technical  infor- 
mation was  submitted  to  cabinet  to  justify 
the  exemption  from  environmental  assessment 
of  the  South  Cayuga  project?  On  top  of  the 
MacLaren  report,  was  there  any  other  data 
or  information?  What  was  that  data  or  what 
were  those  reports,  and  will  the  minister 
agree  to  make  that  information  available  to 
the  public  and  to  this  Legislature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
most  people  know  that  top  cabinet  docu- 
ments are  not  subject  to  me  releasing  them 
to  this  House.  Of  course,  there  were  papers 
and  information  for  cabinet's  perusal;  but 
they  were  cabinet  documents  and  they  will 
remain  that  way. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  what  the  minister  is 
saying  is,  "We  know  best  on  the  basis  of  in- 
formation that  we  have  seen  but  that  we  are 
not  going  to  share  with  the  public,  the  Legis- 
lature and  the  people  in  South  Cayuga  or 
anywhere  else,"  will  the  minister  not  agree 
that  the  reason  he  will  not  share  it  is  because 
there  are  no  other  technical  assessments  of 
any  validity  on  that  site;  he  has  not  had  the 
time  to  assess  them;  and  the  only  compre- 
hensive report  he  has  indicates  quite  clearly 
there  is  a  requirement  for  further  field  studies 
to  confirm  the  geological  data  before  it  can 
be  decided  whether  South  Cayuga  is  an  ade- 
quate site?  How  can  the  minister  go  forward 
with  South  Cayuga  when  he  does  not  know 
and  has  not  done  the  technical  studies  to 
justify  it,  and  he  will  not  publish  the  infor- 
mation he  says  he  has? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  With  respect,  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  is  the  Morrison  Beatty  study, 


which  had  specific  information  on  that  site.  I 
tabled  that.  Surely  the  leader  of  the  third 
party  has  seen  that  one,  has  he  not?  I  know 
I  am  not  permitted  to  ask  a  question,  sir.  It 
was  tabled  and  sent  to  him.  I  will  assume  he 
saw  that  technical  data.  That  report  does  say 
there  needs  to  be  further  investigation.  But 
it  is  also  clear  in  my  statement  that  the 
crown  corporation  would  be  charged  with 
the  responsibility  of  making  sure  that  site 
was  totally  suitable  for  the  purposes  in- 
tended, and  that  with  the  public  representa- 
tion on  that  particular  crown  corporation 
they  would  be  able  to  make  that  information 
available  for  the  people. 

I  think  we  have  said  it  often— I  hope  even- 
tually it  will  be  heard— that  corporation  is  as 
open  and  free  with  its  information  as  is 
possible.  There  are  no  conditions  to  be  put 
on  that  crown  corporation  with  regard  to 
dispensing  all— I  mean  all— of  the  technical 
data  for  that  site.  We  have  nothing  to  hide. 
We  want  the  people  to  know  and  they  will 
be  given  every  opportunity  to  have  that  in- 
formation. It  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
crown  corporation  to  make  those  decisions, 
with  local  people  having  a  great  deal  of  input 
into  them. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker,  on  this  subject  of  documents  to  be 
tabled:  The  minister  told  us  the  other  day 
there  were  appendices  to  the  MacLaren 
report.  Anyone  reading  the  report  can  tell 
that  all  we  got  was  a  summary  and  that  the 
meat  of  the  report  is  in  the  appendices. 
Could  the  minister  tell  us,  first,  if  he  has 
read  those  appendices  himself?  If  he  has, 
will  he  make  a  photocopy  of  them  and  give 
us  a  copy  rather  than  force  us  to  wait  for 
these  to  be  printed,  as  he  stated  on  Tuesday? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
have  voluminous  volumes  and  I  will  make 
them  available  as  soon  as  printed,  as  I  said. 
We  are  talking  about  a  matter  of  days.  I  am 
not  going  to  photocopy  literally  hundreds  of 
pages  when  they  are  at  the  printer  and  will 
be  delivered  here  within  days,  when  he  can 
have  as  many  as  he  wants. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Since  the  minister  says  he 
has  nothing  to  hide  and  that  all  the  data  will 
be  shared  with  the  public  of  Ontario,  would 
the  minister  undertake  to  start  now  by 
tabling  all  of  the  information  that  went 
before  the  cabinet,  including  the  political 
rationale  that  justified  an  act  of  crass  political 
expediency? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  answer  is  no. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4661 


FOOD  INDUSTRY  PRACTICES 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food. 
When  I  asked1  the  minister  on  October  21 
about  the  action  he  would  be  taking  concern- 
ing the  report  of  the  Royal  Commission  of  In- 
quiry into  Discounting  and  Allowances  in  the 
Food  Industry  in  Ontario,  he  replied  that  he 
would  not  be  taking  action  until  he  got  input 
from  the  whole  world. 

The  president  of  the  Ontario  Federation  of 
Agriculture  stated  at  the  convention  that  the 
report  is  completely  unacceptable  and  has 
asked  the  government  to  reject  it.  Will  the 
minister  now  assure  us  that  he  will  reject 
this  report  and  bring  in  appropriate  legisla- 
tion such  as  we  proposed  or  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  proposed  to  pro- 
tect the  producers  and  the  small  processors 
and  grocers  of  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
received  one  report  from  the  Ontario  Federa- 
tion of  Agriculture  and  I  have  received  one 
letter  from  a  Liberal  Party  member  support- 
ing the  federation.  I  have  had  no  other  input 
whatsoever.  I  am  waiting  for  that  input. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  wonder  if  the  minister  would  be 
direct  instead  of  dissembling.  When  I  put 
the  same  question  to  him  yesterday,  he  said 
the  letter  for  rejection  of  that  report  had 
gone  to  the  Premier  and  he  was  leaving  it 
totally  to  the  Premier.  Is  he  still  leaving  it 
with  the  Premier,  or  is  he  gathering  and 
soliciting  letters  before  he  makes  up  his 
mind? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  be- 
lieve all  members  of  the  Legislature  got  a 
copy  of  that  report  from  the  federation.  That 
is  the  letter  I  referred  to  the  Premier. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Would  the  minister  re- 
spond to  the  question  of  whether  or  not  he 
is  rejecting  the  report? 

Mr.  Speaker:  He  has  done  that  in  his 
own  way. 

SOVIET  INVOLVEMENT 
IN  POLAND 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs.  As  a 
Polish-Canadian  I  rise  on  a  most  urgent 
matter,  Mr.  Speaker.  In  view  of  the  massing 
of  the  Soviet  troops  on  the  Russian-Polish 
border  and  veiled  threats  of  invasion  of  Poland 
in  the  USSR,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  the 
changes  in  Polish  society  are  a  significant 
development  towards  democracy  and  must  be 
encouraged,   will   the   minister   undertake   to 


introduce  a  resolution  to  the  Legislature  as 
soon  as  possible  expressing  the  support  of 
the  people  of  Ontario  for  the  socioeconomic 
rights  of  Polish  people? 

Would  such  a  resolution  also  express  the 
concern  and  opposition  of  the  people  of 
Ontario  to  the  possible  Russian  intervention 
in  Poland  and  third',  in  case  of  Soviet  inter- 
vention, the  intention  of  Ontario  to  exercise 
whatever  political,  economic  and  other  sanc- 
tions it  can  against  the  Soviet  Union  in  op- 
position to  such  invasion? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suppose 
traditionally  it  would  be  said  that  this  is  a 
matter  within  the  purview  of  the  federal 
government.  However,  my  friend  has  brought 
up  this  question  because  of  his  very  deep 
feelings  about  it.  The  position  of  this  gov- 
ernment and  the  Premier  in  the  case  of  the 
Soviet  intervention  in  Afghanistan  is  well 
known,  and  the  Premier  said  at  that  time  all 
our  fellow  citizens  were  convinced  the  Soviet 
Union  had  gone  too  far  in  regard  to  what 
happened  there.  He  said  that  as  Canadians 
we  must  stand  with  the  free  nations  of  the 
world  in  drawing  the  line  and  making  our 
position  known. 

2:40  p.m. 

As  members  of  this  House  know,  we  put 
that  position  forward,  along  with  the  govern- 
ment of  Canada,  very  vocally  at  that  time. 
In  fact,  even  before  the  government  of 
Canada  had  made  up  its  mind,  we  strongly 
supported  and  recommended  the  boycott 
of  the  Moscow  Olympic  Games. 

I  think  all  of  us  in  this  House  welcome 
the  moves  that  have  been  taken  to  bring 
more  democracy  to  the  institutions  in  Poland. 
I  think  that  move  is  applauded  by  all  of  us 
and  that  all  of  us  would  deplore  any  inter- 
ference, particularly  outside  interference,  to 
cause  those  gains  to  be  turned  back  or  to 
cause  interference  with  them.  I  think  any- 
thing that  caused  that  to  happen  would  be 
the  subject  of  grave  concern  and  would  not 
have  our  support. 

However,  I  think  it  is  premature  to  sug- 
gest that  any  resolution  such  as  my  friend 
has  suggested  be  introduced  here.  Certainly, 
it  is  well  that  we  be  aware  of  that  kind  of 
thing  but,  as  I  say,  I  think  it  would  be 
premature  for  any  resolution  to  be  intro- 
duced at  this  time. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  appreciate  and  thank  the 
minister  for  those  sentiments  but  I  think 
an  ounce  of  prevention  is  better  than  a 
pound  of  cure.  If  he  would  accept  our 
resolution,  expressing  the  sentiments  of  all 
of  us  here,  I  think  it  would  have  a  beneficial 


4662 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


effect  and  may  stop  the  Russians  from  con- 
sidering intervention  in  Poland.  It  is  within 
the  purview  of  the  powers  of  the  Legislature 
to  do  so,  or  the  minister  could,  on  the  other 
hand,  move  towards  sending  these  sentiments 
to  the  federal  government,  which  has  been 
somewhat  at  a  loss  to  express  them.  It  is 
better  to  do  it  now  than  regret  it  in 
bitterness  later. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  was  really  a  statement, 
not  a  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  was  just  going  to  say, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  think  this  House  ever 
passed  any  official  resolution  regarding  the 
Afghanistan  situation.  I  do  not  think  there 
is  anyone  in  Ontario  or  Canada  who  doubted 
our  feeling  about  Soviet  involvement  in  that 
particular  country  and  I  think  at  the  present 
time,  from  the  exchange  that  has  taken  place 
and  the  support  that  I  sense  in  this  House 
and  that  my  friend  senses,  there  is  no  doubt 
where  our  sentiments  are  and  what  they 
would  be  if  any  action  were  to  occur  in 
Poland. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  May  I  suggest  to  the  House  leader 
that  he  inform  the  federal  government  of  the 
feeling  of  the  province  of  Ontario  with 
respect  to  the  discussion  that  has  taken 
place  in  here  so  it  would  know  that  Ontario 
is  definitely  opposed  to  the  proposed  actions 
of  the  Soviet  government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
be  happy  to  communicate  with  the  Depart- 
ment of  External  Affairs  and  inform  it  that 
this  House  certainly  supports  the  kind  of 
progress  and  progressive  things  that  are 
happening  in  Poland  and  would  certainly 
regret  anything  that  would  turn  those  pro- 
gressive steps  back. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask  you 
something  on  a  point  of  order? 

Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  really  nothing  out 
of  order.  If  the  House  in  its  wisdom  wants 
to  pass  a  resolution,  it  would  be  my  respon- 
sibility to  transmit  it  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  May  I  ask  a  point  of  privi- 
lege then  on  a  different  matter? 

Mr.    Speaker:    Have    your  privileges    been 
abused  in  some  way? 
Mr.  Dukszta:  Yes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  hear  it,  but  I  cannot 
think  of  any  conceivable  way  in  which  your 
privileges  have  been  abused  since  you  asked 
the  question. 


Mr.  Dukszta:  I  wonder  if  I  could  ask  the 
House  for  unanimous  consent  for  that  resolu- 
tion to  pass? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No,  you  can  not. 

FEDERAL   AID   TO   TRANSPORTATION 

Mr.  Cureatz:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence 
of  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications (Mr.  Snow)  I  will  direct  my 
question  to  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 
Affairs.  Would  the  minister  relate  this  ques- 
tion to  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications?  As  a  follow-up  to  my  col- 
league the  member  for  Durham  West  (Mr. 
Ashe)  would  the  minister  assure  us  that  he 
would  continue  with  his  federal  counterpart 
to  ensure  the  positive  supply  of  federal  funds 
for  commuter  rail  traffic  in  Ontario?  If  such 
funds  are  obtained,  would  the  minister  en- 
sure that  they  would  be  put  forward  for  the 
extension  of  the  GO  train  system  to  the  city 
of  Oshawa? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  be 
happy  to  pass  that  on  to  my  colleague.  I  can 
tell  you  that  in  this  particular  matter  my 
colleague,  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and 
Communications,  has  the  full  support  of  all 
cabinet  and  all  members  of  this  side  of  the 
House  and,  I  am  sure,  the  other  side,  in 
drawing  to  the  federal  government's  atten- 
tion that  its  promises  to  aid  urban  transit 
have  never  been  fulfilled.  We  want  to  see 
a  little  action  in  that  regard.  Once  that 
action  occurs,  improvements  will  occur  in 
the  system. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
When  the  minister  is  conveying  his  message 
to  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications, will  he  make  sure  that  both 
ends  of  the  GO  system  get  equal  considera- 
tion? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be 
happy  to  pass  that  on,  but  I  just  have  to 
get  a  slight  parochial  comment  in  here.  I 
really  believe  the  western  end  of  the  GO 
system  has  had  a  lot  more  consideration 
than  the  eastern  end  out  where  I  live.  We 
are  looking  for  an  extension  of  the  GO  sys- 
tem to  Agincourt. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  have  heard  from  the  east 
and  the  south.  Now  we  will  hear  from  the 
middle. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  fact 
that  all  these  questions  on  urban  transporta- 
tion coming  from  the  Tory  back-benchers 
are  just  a  parroting  of  what  Sinclair  Stevens 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4663 


asked  in  the  House  of  Commons  the  day 
before? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  I  just  had  lunch  with 
Sine  Stevens,  although  he  was  sitting  at  the 
head  table  and  I  was  not  talking  with  him— 
he  was  two  or  three  seats  removed— I  was 
not  aware  they  were  the  questions  he  had 
asked.  I  am  not  sure  what  the  relevance  of 
that  is. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  The  relevance  is  it  is  an 
orchestrated  Tory  attack. 

GUELPH  TEXTILE  FIRM 

Mr.  Worton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism. 
Gould  he  inform  the  House  what  financial 
arrangements  have  been  made  with  the 
former  owner  of  the  Guelph  textile  firm  in 
relation  to  his  ministry  and  the  federal  min- 
istry? As  I  understand  from  news  reports, 
this  firm  is  going  to  re-establish  effective 
January  1,  and  I  would  like  to  know  what 
amounts  of  money  the  minister  is  putting 
into  this  firmr1 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will 
have  to  get  that  information  for  the  member. 
I  will  report  in  the  morning. 

Mr.  Worton:  I  would  like  to  know,  if  the 
minister  is  considering  refinancing  it— and  the 
paper  does  indicate  that— would  he  take  into 
consideration  as  part  of  that  refinancing,  as 
part  of  the  condition  of  this  firm  getting 
money,  seeing  that  the  former  employees  of 
that  firm  get  their  holiday  pay  and  the  em- 
ployees who  had  NSF  cheques  given  to  them 
in  lieu  of  wages  get  their  money  back? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  seems  reason- 
able. I  will  report  to  the  member  in  the 
morning. 

DURHAM  REGIONAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARING 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  con- 
cerning the  environmental  assessment  of  the 
proposed  liquid  waste  treatment  facility  in 
Ajax.  Can  the  minister  assure  us  that  the 
report  which  I  understand  is  to  be  released 
tomorrow  is  the  report  prepared  solely  by  the 
three-member  panel  of  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Board  that  sat  through  the  hear- 
ing and  heard  all  the  evidence,  or  had  some 
other  people  who  were  not  at  the  hearing 
some  influence  in  the  writing  of  the  board's 
decision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  said 
many  times  that  I   do  not  give  direction  to 


that  board.  They  will  issue  the  results  of 
their  hearing,  and  whether  it  is  a  board 
decision  or  the  three-man  panel  that  heard 
the  matter,  I  do  not  know,  nor  do  I  have 
any  inclination  to  find  out.  It  is  their  busi- 
ness. They  are  at  arm's  length  from  our 
ministry  and  will  continue  to  exist  that  way. 

I  notice  that  the  member's  colleague  has 
already  said,  regardless  of  what  the  decision 
is  he  is  opposed  to  it,  and  I  know  the 
member  is  opposed  to  it,  another  prime  illus- 
tration where  he  demands  a  hearing  and 
then  makes  the  judgement  one  day  ahead. 
The  member  does  not  wait  for  their  decision. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  It  is  absurd  for  the  minister 
to  say  we  are  opposed  to  whatever  the  deci- 
sion is.  What  nonsense. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  if  the  hearing 
had  been  held  under  the  Environmental  As- 
sessment Act  the  legislation  would  have 
required  that  no  member  of  the  board  shall 
participate  in  a  decision  of  the  Ontario 
Municipal  Board  unless  he  was  present 
throughout  the  hearings  and  heard  the  evi- 
dence and  argument  of  the  parties,  but 
because  it  was  held  under  the  Environmental 
Protection  Act,  which  contains  no  such 
guarantee,  there  is  every  possibility  members 
of  the  board  who  have  not  heard  all  the 
evidence  and  who  did  not  sit  through  the 
hearings   have   participated   in   the  decision? 

Does  the  minister  not  think  the  judge  of  a 
matter  should  be  the  judge  who  sat  through 
the  hearings  and  not  somebody  else  who  may 
be  influenced  by  who  knows  what? 

2:50  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  this  is  a  well 
known  procedure.  It  is  not  unusual  for  it  to 
be  followed  by  the  OMB.  I  would  like  to 
comment  on  the  fact  that  the  chairman  of 
that  board  was  complimented  extremely 
highly  by  the  citizen  protest  group,  which 
said  it  had  great  confidence  in  the  chairman 
and  in  the  board,  notwithstanding  the  fact  it 
was  going  to  oppose  it.  That  is  the  kind  of 
comment  that  I  think  gives  due  credit  to 
those  in  opposition.  It  has  confidence  in  the 
board.  I  wish  the  members  opposite  would 
let  it  perform  its  function. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Would  the  minister  confirm  that  the  chair- 
man of  the  panel  which  heard  the  Ajax 
matter  has  resigned?  Would  he  also  confirm 
that  the  reason  the  member  resigned  was 
given  as  interference,  in  the  sense  that  the 
full  board  reversed  the  decision  which  the 
panel  recommended? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  con- 
firm the  former  for  sure.  Yes,  he  has  resigned, 


4664 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


but  the  letter  of  resignation  makes  absolutely 
no  reference  to  that  at  all  and  I  would  be 
absolutely  amazed  if  it  is  true.  I  will  be  glad 
to  table  the  letter  of  resignation  from  that 
particular  chairman.  It  sets  out  very  clearly 
why  he  resigned. 

FARM  BUILDING  MATERIALS 

Mr.  Watson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  In  view  of 
the  confusion  that  exists  at  the  present  time 
with  the  information  bulletin  that  went  out 
regarding  farm  building  materials— the  docu- 
ment said  the  sales  tax  was  to  be  taken  off 
for  renovating  and  constructing  homes  and 
apartments— can  the  minister  tell  us  if  mate- 
rials purchased  for  the  construction  of  farm 
buildings  are  exempt  from  the  seven  per  cent 
sales  tax  on  this  temporary  basis? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  con- 
firm all  the  building  materials  listed  in  the 
bulletin  are  all  exempt,  whether  they  are  for 
agricultural  farms  or  industrial  purposes  or 
otherwise. 

Mr.  Watson:  In  view  of  the  fact  con- 
stituents of  mine  have  not  been  given  this, 
would  the  minister's  office  issue  some  press 
release  indicating  that  farm  building  materials 
are  exempt? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  think  what  the  member 
is  referring  to  is  a  small  sentence  in  the 
bulletin  which  says,  "The  following  build- 
ing materials  which  are  used  for  constructing 
and  renovating  homes  and  apartments  are 
eligible  for  the  exempting."  That  is  what  has 
caused  the  confusion.  It  may  be  that  I  will 
have  to  send  out  another  bulletin  to  clarify 
that. 

Mr.  McKessock:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  if 
this  change  has  been  made  since  the  question 
was  asked  of  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller) 
this  morning  at  the  Ontario  Federation  of 
Agriculture  breakfast? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  think 
if  anyone  had  called  my  ministry  a  week 
ago  he  would  have  been  given  the  same  an- 
swer I  have  given  today.  There  has  been  no 
change  in  this  particular  policy. 

MEDICAL  AND 
DENTAL  PROCEDURES 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence  of 
the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell)  I  would 
like  to  ask  a  question  of  the  government 
House  leader.  After  his  glorious  foray  into 
the  field  of  external  affairs,  I  wonder  if  he 


would  join  me  in  interceding  on  behalf  of  one 
of  my  constituents,  a  Mrs.  Isabelle  Smith, 
who  had  a  medical  and  dental  procedure 
denied  coverage  under  regulation  43  of  the 
Health  Insurance  Act?  Such  a  procedure  was 
necessary,  according  to  the  medical  infor- 
mation I  have  here,  because  she  did  not  have 
a  proper  food1  intake.  In  other  words,  she 
could  not  eat  adequately. 

Does  the  House  leader  not  feel  that  such  a 
procedure  is  necessary  for  the  health  of  an 
individual  in  order  to  eat  adequately,  and 
would  he  intercede  and  see  to  it  that  regu- 
lation 43  of  the  act  is  changed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  obviously 
that  question  should  be  referred  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Health. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  is  going  to  help  me 
and  see  to  it  that  he  gets  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  If  the  member  would  like. 
Is  the  member  not  going  to  be  here  tomorrow 
to  ask  him? 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  He's  not  going  to  be  here 
on  Monday  either. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  think  I  am  in  this  House  more 
often  than  he  is  lately.  My  record  is  better 
than  one  out  of  four. 

By  way  of  supplementary,  instead  of  stand- 
ing up  there  and  getting  smart  is  the  minister 
going  to  intercede  on  behalf  of  this  con- 
stituent of  mine?  Is  he  going  to  see  to  it  the 
Minister  of  Health  gets  this  question  and  is 
he  going  to  put  some  pressure  on  to  amend 
regulation  43  of  the  act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  really  believe  the  duty 
of  interceding  with  the  Minister  of  Health  is 
one  of  the  things  all  of  us  are  elected  to  do 
on  behalf  of  our  constituents,  and  I  am  sure 
my  friend  does  that  very  well.  I  suggest  he 
continue  to  do  that  with  the  Minister  of 
Health. 

URANIUM  MINING  MONITORING 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Is  the 
minister  aware  of  the  problems  some  of  the 
construction  workers  and  electricians  in  Elliot 
Lake  are  having  when  doing  contract  work 
in  the  area  of  the  mine  and  the  mill?  Are 
they  being  monitored  for  their  exposure  to 
radiation?  Can  the  minister  tell  us  what 
arrangements  are  made  for  contracted-out 
workers  in  that  vicinity  to  be  monitored  for 
exposure  to  either  radon  daughters  or  to  the 
poor  uranium  or  yellowcake  in  the  mill? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  It  was  my  understanding 
when  I  visited  that  Elliot  Lake  mine  about 
a  year  ago  the  monitoring  was  the  same  as 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4665 


it  was  with  the  regular  work  force.  If  that  is 
not  so,  I  would  be  glad  to  check  on  it,  but 
I  was  not  aware  of  any  difference  in  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  wonder  if  the  minister 
could  check  into  complaints  by  those  workers 
that  when  they  are  exposed— in  some  cases 
they  are  in  greater  exposure  than  the  miners 
themselves  who  are  being  monitored— the 
mine  safety  branch  of  his  ministry  tell  them 
there  is  no  danger.  At  the  same  time  the 
branch  will  not  provide  them  with  the  ap- 
propriate monitoring  badges  and  so  forth  to 
make  sure  they  have  a  way  of  measuring  their 
exposure.  Will  the  minister  look  after  that, 
please? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  will  certainly  look  into 
it.  I  did  not  get  that  kind  of  story  when  I 
visited  there  a  year  ago  about  lack  of  in- 
spectors and  the  necessity  for  proper  moni- 
toring procedures,  but  I  will  be  glad  to  look 
into  it. 

ASSISTANCE  TO  CANFARM 

Mr.  J.  Johnson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food.  In  view  of  the  fact  the  federal  Min- 
ister of  Agriculture  has  reneged  on  his  com- 
mitment to  financially  support  Canfarm,  will 
the  minister  undertake  to  try  to  convince 
the  federal  government  to  reconsider  this 
decision? 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  What  is  going  on?  Is  there 
an  election  coming  up  and  you  guys  are 
trying  to  get  a  higher  profile?  Or  are  you 
trying  to  prove— 

Mr.  Havrot:  Why  do  you  keep  yapping 
every  day?  Why  do  you  get  up  and  ask 
stupid  questions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
Canfarm  operation  was  set  up— I  am  not  sure 
how  many  years  ago— with  a  grant  from  the 
government  of  Canada.  Was  it  1969?  But 
about  three  years  ago— I  do  not  have  the 
exact  times  here— the  government  of  Canada 
reduced  the  grant.  Last  year  Canfarm  found 
themselves  unable  to  finish  their  year. 

Mr.  Peter  Hannam  retired  as  the  presi- 
dent of  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agricul- 
ture and  took  on  Canfarm  in  the  hope  he 
could  review  it  and  bring  it  back  so  that 
it  would  be  of  service.  Many  thousands  of 
farmers  across  Canada  are  using  this  in  the 
technical  operation  of  their  farms.  Towards 
the  end  of  last  year  I  did  send  a  cheque  for 
$150,000  to  this'  operation  to  help  it  con- 
tinue. Recently  I  received  a  financial  state- 
ment from  this  company  where  they  need 
a    great    deal    of    money,    many    times    the 


amount  of  that  cheque.  I  believe  one  prov- 
ince has  pledged  support.  We  in  Ontario  are 
quite  willing  to  do  our  share  in  conjunction 
with  other  provinces.  We  believe  there  will 
have  to  be  assistance  from  the  government 
of  Canada  to  bring  it  back.  We  believe  it 
is  an  important  service  for  the  people. 

3  p.m. 

The  honourable  member  really  asked  me 
what  pressure  I  will  put  on  the  government 
of  Canada.  I  believe  they  are  as  knowledge- 
able about  the  situation  as  I  am.  I  believe 
they  are  aware  and  I  believe  they  are 
evaluating  their  position.  We  in  Ontario 
stand  by,  ready  to  do  our  share. 

Mr.  J.  Johnson:  It  is  my  understanding 
that  Canfarm  could  continue  to  operate  if 
it  were  to  receive  an  outright  loan  or  grant 
of  $2  million  from  the  federal  government. 
Would  the  minister  work  with  Peter  Hannam 
and  Canfarm  Co-operative  and  see  if  he 
can  arrange  to  help  them  in  some  way  to 
obtain  this  financing  from  the  federal  gov- 
ernment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  I  will  be  very  happy 
to  meet  with  Mr.  Hannam,  as  he  is  well 
aware.  A  year  ago  when  he  came  to  my 
office  and  put  the  overall  situation  before 
me,  I  made  arrangements  for  the  cheque 
to  be  sent  out.  Yes,  I  will  be  glad  to  meet 
with  Mr.  Hannam,  but  I  state  again  that  I 
believe  the  government  of  Canada  is  well 
aware  of  the  problem  and  of  the  services 
being  provided. 

Mr.  McKessock:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  When  the  minister  says  the  Ontario 
government  is  ready  to  do  its  share,  does  he 
mean  on  a  per  capita  percentage  basis  of  the 
farmers  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
believe  about  half  of  the  farmers  using 
Canfarm  are  from  Ontario,  although  I  do  not 
have  the  exact  numbers.  We  have  not  turned 
them  down.  We  are  still  appraising  it.  I 
believe  Alberta  has  suggested— and  I  only 
believe  this,  it  is  not  firm— that  they  will 
put  up  $50,000.  I  believe  that  is  the  only 
commitment.  I  am  ready  to  look  at  the 
usage  of  Canfarm  as  to  the  total  service 
across  Canada. 

UNICEF  CHRISTMAS  CARDS 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  Novem- 
ber 21  the  member  for  Beaches- Woodbine 
asked  me  if  it  is  true  that  the  retail  sales  tax 
is  applicable  to  handling,  shipping  and  post- 
age charges   for  Unicef  Christmas   cards   as 


4666 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


indicated  on  the  order  forms  sent  out  by 
Unicef  this  year. 

The  answer  is  that  the  retail  sales  tax  is 
applicable  for  handling,  shipping  and  postage 
charges  as  part  of  the  fair  value  where 
ownership  transfers  from  delivery  of  goods. 
When  ownership  transfers  before  delivery  or 
shipping,  the  retail  sales  tax  does  not  apply 
to  the  handling,  shipping  and  postage  charges. 
The  sale  of  Unicef  Christmas  cards  falls 
into  the  former  category  and  tax  is  properly 
applicable  to  such  charges. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Supplementary  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  the  minister  has  confirmed  that  this 
government  in  some  cases  applies  the  re- 
gressive sales  tax  to  shipping,  handling  and 
postage  charges  on  mail  orders,  I  would  like 
to  ask  the  minister  if  he  might  not  get  the 
Christmas  spirit  and  bring  in  a  total  exemp- 
tion for  Christmas  cards  that  are  sold  by 
charitable  organizations  in  order  to  encour- 
age this  form  of  fund  raising? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  been 
known  to  have  the  Christmas  spirit  from 
time  to  time,  as  has  the  member  across  the 
floor  and  the  member  for  St.  George  (Mrs. 
Campbell).  I  think  she  gets  it  once  in  a 
while  too. 

It  would  be  a  very  confusing  administra- 
tive problem  to  do  what  the  member  for 
Beaches-Woodbine  has  suggested.  However, 
for  her  information  and  for  the  members  of 
the  Legislature,  to  show  that  we  are  from 
time  to  time  rather  appreciative  of  these 
types  of  charitable  organizations,  I  think  it 
is  only  perhaps  a  week  or  two  ago  that  an 
order  in  council  was  signed  giving  a  re- 
mission of  over  $30,000  in  sales  tax  to 
Unicef  on  purchases  they  had  made  in  order 
to  make  the  Christmas  cards  to  sell,  so  they 
could  collect  the  sales  tax  on  handling  and 
postage. 

BENDIX  CORPORATION 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism.  Is  the  honourable  minister  aware 
that  John  Moynahan,  the  president  of  Local 
195,  United  Automobile  Workers,  learned 
last  week  that  Bendix  has  called  for  return 
to  the  United  States  of  one  set  of  dies  from 
Central  Stampings  Limited  in  Windsor  and 
is  in  the  process  of  asking  for  the  recall  of 
another  set?  Has  the  minister  approached 
Bendix  and  asked  it  to  stop  such  practices? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  could 
not  give  the  honourable  member  a  firsthand 
report  on  the  discussions  with  Bendix.  I  ex- 
pect I  will  be  able  to  do  that  by  the  morning. 


My  staff  is  in  weekly  contact  with  Bendix,  so 
I  will  see  if  it  can  give  me  an  update  on  that 
situation  and  report  to  the  House. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Would  the  minister  use 
his  powers  of  persuasion  and  let  Bendix 
know  that  the  withdrawal  of  such  dies  is  a 
violation  of  the  intent  of  the  auto  trade  pact? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  will  be  pleased  to 
comment  on  that  when  I  get  a  report. 

NOTICE  OF  DISSATISFACTION 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Wentworth 
(Mr.  Isaacs)  has  expressed1  his  dissatisfaction 
with  an  answer  given  by  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  concerning  the 
proposed  Ajax  liquid  waste  treatment  plant. 
This  matter  will  be  debated  at  10:30  tonight. 

PETITIONS 

ANNUAL  REPORT, 

MINISTRY   OF   THE   ENVIRONMENT, 

1978-79 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Pursuant  to  standing  order 
33(b)  of  the  assembly,  the  undersigned 
members  of  the  assembly  hereby  petition 
that  the  annual  report  of  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  March  31,  1979,  which  was 
tabled  in  the  House  on  December  13,  1979, 
sessional  paper  285,  be  referred  to  the  stand- 
ing committee  on  resources  development  for 
such  consideration  and  report  as  the  com- 
mittee  may  determine. 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of  that  referral 
is  specifically  so  that  the  standing  committee 
on  resources  development  can  look  into  the 
intolerable  way  the  Minister  of  the  Envi- 
ronment is  proceeding  with  respect  to  the 
choice  of  South  Cayuga  for  liquid  indus- 
trial waste  disposal  facilities. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  ASSESSMENT 
BOARD  HEARING 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
petition  for  the  Premier  of  Ontario  (Mr. 
Davis).  Would  the  Premier  rescind  a  deci- 
sion of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
(Mr.  Parrott)  and  file  the  province's  own 
environmental  assessment  process,  which  in- 
cludes a  full  environmental  study  under  the 
terms  of  the  Environmental  Assessment  Act 
and  an  independent  public  hearing  by  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Board  before 
proceeding  with  any  such  facility?  The  peti- 
tion was  signed  unanimously  by  the  council 
of   the   region   of   Haldimand-Norfolk. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4667 


REPORT 

STANDING    COMMITTEE 
ON  SOCIAL  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Riddell,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Gaunt, 
from  the  standing  committee  on  social  de- 
velopment reported  the  following  resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts 
and  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry 
of  Labour  be  granted  to  Her  Majesty  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,   1981: 

Ministry  administration  program,  $8,682,- 
400;  industrial  relations  program,  $3,499,- 
000;  women's  program  $993,000;  occupa- 
tional health  and  safety  program,  $25,017,- 
000;  employment  standards  program,  $3,776,- 
000;  manpower  commission,  $1,466,000; 
human  rights  commission  program,  $3,090,- 
000;  labour  relations  board  program, 
$2,918,000. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  Minister  of  the  Envi- 
ronment was  trying  to  get  the  attention  of 
the  chair,  I  think,  for  purposes  of  making  a 
statement.  Do  we  have  unanimous  consent 
to  revert  to  statements? 

Agreed  to. 
3:10  p.m. 

STATEMENT   BY   THE   MINISTRY 

ONTARIO  WASTE  MANAGEMENT 
CORPORATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
make  a  rather  brief  but  I  think  very  im- 
portant statement  to  the  Legislature  while 
all  the  honourable  members  are  here  rather 
than  at  night. 

First  of  all,  I  would  like  to  think  the 
debate  would  be  better  postponed  for  a 
matter  of  two  weeks.  I  am  not  asking  for 
that- 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  minister  is  an- 
ticipating something  that  is  going  to  come 
before  the  House.  If  he  wants  to  make  a 
statement  he  is  free  to  do  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  would  like  to  sug- 
gest, therefore,  that  I  have  two  or  three 
announcements  to  make  at  this  time  which 
I  think  are  extremely  important  and  will 
have  a  profound  effect  upon  that  considera- 
tion. 

The  first  consideration  is  we  would  like 
to  be  able  to  propose  the  names  of  the 
people  who  will  sit  as  the  board  of  direc- 
tors  of  the   crown   corporation. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  It  is  extremely  hard  to  hear  the 
minister.    I    do    not    believe    we    have    had 


copies  of  the  minister's  statement,  as  is  the 
custom.  Could  the  minister  either  take  the 
marbles  out  of  his  mouth  or  speak  into  the 
mike? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  confess  to  having  a 
rather  poor  voice  today.  I  have  been  a  little 
preoccupied  in  the  last  48  hours.  I  have 
been  doing  a  fair  amount  of  verbal  com- 
munication. I  will  try  to  speak  directly  into 
the  mike. 

I  think  the  quality  of  that  board  will  have 
a  profound  effect  on  how  it  is  seen  to  do 
its   normal   functions   and  duties. 

Second,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  this  morning,  the 
very  respected  Dr.  C.  L.  Emery,  the  director 
of  the  Northumberland  County  Federation 
of  Agriculture  was  there.  He  is  a  well  known 
and  accepted  authority  on  environmental 
affairs.  He  proposed  the  resolution  they 
passed  yesterday  be  reconsidered.  The 
assembled  delegates  agreed  to  have  that  item 
reopened  for  further  discussion. 

Dr.  Emery  proposed  that  a  concept  of  a 
crown  corporation  and  government-owned 
facility  as  announced  be  endorsed,  and  that 
in  his  opinion  the  hearing  process  would  not 
resolve  the  issues.  He  said  what  is  required 
at  this  time  is  consultation  and  co-operation 
because  of  the  severity  and  importance  of 
these  urgently  needed  waste  disposal  facili- 
ties. He  then  recommended  an  advisory  com- 
mittee to  the  corporation  be  set  up  under 
the  aegis  of  the  Ontario  Federation  of 
Agriculture,  that  it  be  funded  by  the  On- 
tario government  and  that  it  have  free  access 
to  all  information  in  order  to  make  public 
its  report  and  recommendations.  He  recom- 
mended it  be  able  to  draw  on  whatever 
expertise  it  feels  is  necessary— legal,  tech- 
nical and  medical. 

I  accepted  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agri- 
culture's suggestion  completely.  The  com- 
mittee will  have  full  and  total  access  to  all 
documentation  and  technical  details.  Along 
with  the  corporation  itself,  it  will  be  able  to 
hold  public  hearings  throughout  Ontario. 
This  item  was  referred  to  the  executive, 
which  will  make  a  decision  on  December 
10.  Needless  to  say,  I  hope  it  decides  in 
the  affirmative. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  What  executive? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  Ontario  Federation 
of  Agriculture. 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No.  I  would  not  say 
that  in  the  agricultural  community  if  I  were 
the  member.  The  farmers  have  a  lot  to  do 
with  protecting  the  environment. 


4668 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  So  do  a  lot  of  other 
people. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  You  had  better  believe 
they  have  a  lot. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  would  also  like  to 
announce  today  that  the  most  eminent  en- 
vironmentalist of  our  day  and  of  our  time, 
Dr.  Donald  Chant,  will  serve  as  chairman 
of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  crown 
corporation.  Dr.  Chant  is  an  extremely  well 
respected  environmentalist  and  current 
chairman  of  the  Premier's  (Mr.  Davis)  steer- 
ing committee  on  environmental  assessment. 

After  due  consideration  he  agrees  that  the 
concept  of  this  facility  and  the  site  selection 
need  not  be  subject  to  a  hearing  under  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act.  However,  he 
also  believes  that  hearings  should  be  held 
on  the  merits  of  the  technology  under  the 
Environmental  Protection  Act. 

I  have  also  agreed  that  detailed  geo- 
technical  surveys  will  most  certainly  be  a  part 
of  this  site  development.  I  said  that  earlier 
in  the  statement  today.  That  is  the  end  of 
the  statement,  but  I  would  like  to  table  for 
members  the  curriculum  vitae  of  Dr.  Chant. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  We  are  not  debating  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  that  the  end  of  the  minis- 
ter's statement? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  will  table  it,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Could  I  have  a  copy  of  that 
statement,  Mr.  Speaker?  I  couldn't  hear  it. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  cannot  understand  why  I 
did  not  hear  some  objection  from  the  opposi- 
tion parties.  You  did  agree  to  revert  to  state- 
ments. However,  you  allowed  the  minister  to 
proceed  without  having  a  copy  of  that  state- 
ment. If  I  can  anticipate  the  member  for 
Port  Arthur,  is  it  about  the  lack  of  a  copy 
of  the  statement? 

Mr.  Foulds:  No. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  unusual  to 
have  a  statement  at  the  end  of  questions  as 
we  had  today.  It  is  also  particularly  unusual 
in  that  the  statement  was  germane  to  ques- 
tions that  were  being  raised  over  the  course 
of  the  question  period.  I  would  wonder 
whether  the  Speaker  would  permit  perhaps 
one  question  apiece  from  the  two  opposition 
parties  on  the  statement  that  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  has  just  given. 


Mr.  Speaker:  In  the  same  spirit  in  which 
the  minister  asked  the  House  to  revert  to 
statements  so  he  could  bring  forward  this 
very  important  information,  and  in  that  there 
was  unanimous  consent  to  allow  him  to  do 
that,  do  I  have  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
House  for  one  question  each  from  the  leaders 
of  the  opposition  parties  having  to  do  with 
the  statement? 

Agreed  to. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

ONTARIO  WASTE 
MANAGEMENT  CORPORATION 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  I  could 
not  hear  the  statement,  it  is  difficult  to  know 
what  the  man  said.  For  clarification,  basi- 
cally by  way  of  my  statement,  could  the  min- 
ister confirm  that  what  he  has  just  said  is 
that  there  will  be  an  environmental  hearing 
on  the  subject  of  the  technology  to  be  used 
on  the  site  in  South  Cayuga,  but  not  with 
respect  to  the  qualities  of  the  site  itself? 

Could  he  clarify  that  aspect  of  what  he  just 
said?  Did  he  really  say  Dr.  Chant  feels  there 
is  no  need  for  further  consideration  concern- 
ing the  selection  of  the  site?  Is  that  what  Dr. 
Chant  said?  If  so,  why  is  the  Ontario  Federa- 
tion of  Agriculture  now  going  to  have  hear- 
ings, with  the  minister's  blessing,  about  the 
selection  of  the  site? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  put 
it  in  these  words:  Dr.  Chant  was  asked  about 
this  just  yesterday,  and  that  is  why  1  was 
not  able  to  give  members  an  answer  at  two 
o'clock.  He  has  thought  about  it  very  in- 
tensively because  it  is  a  very  important  matter 
for  him  to  decide  on.  He  has  given  that  a  lot 
of  consideration  and  has  said  he  would  act 
as  chairman  of  that  crown  corporation.  He  has 
said  he  thinks  an  environmental  assessment 
hearing  is  not  desirable,  not  necessary  on  the 
site  itself  in  the  concept  of  a  crown  cor- 
poration operating  that  site. 

In  other  words,  the  site  location  is  finalized. 
Dr.  Chant  believes  it  is  best  that  it  should 
be.  He  has  viewed  in  those  24  hours  at  great 
depth  the  MacLaren  report.  Based  on  that 
assessment,  he  thinks  the  site  discussion,  the 
need1  and  all  of  those  aspects  of  an  environ- 
mental assessment  proposal,  and  no  doubt  a 
hearing,  should  be  waived. 

He  rightly  asks  that  the  technology  of 
that  facility  be  subject,  of  course,  to  the 
scrutiny  of  the  board.  That  was  already 
agreed  to.  There  was  no  question  there  at 
all.  The  technology  will  be  subject  to  the 
scrutiny   of   the    board.    He  wishes   that  the 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4669 


scrutiny  be  done  at  public  hearings.  I  agree. 
It  can  be  done  under  the  Environmental 
Protection  Act,  or  some  similar  assistance  can 
be  given  to  him  in  having  the  public  hear- 
ings. 

He  asked— and  we  had  already  agreed  to 
that  at  the  federation  meeting  this  morning 
—that  there  be  a  geotechnical  survey  of  that 
site.  Again,  it  was  obvious  it  would  be  part 
of  the  board's  original  and  first  activity. 

3:20  p.m. 

Those  are  the  two  conditions  that  Dr. 
Chant  wanted  clearly  identified.  He  will 
serve  as  the  chairman  of  the  crown  corpora- 
tion. I  think  we  are  unbelievably  fortunate 
to  have  a  man  of  that  great  calibre  serve  in 
that  very  vital  role. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  would  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  explain  why  the 
ministry  is  so  obsessed  with  its  desire  not  to 
have  an  environmental  assessment  and  en- 
vironmental assessment  hearing  on  this  par- 
ticular project  to  the  point  that  the  chairman 
of  the  steering  committee,  who  would 
normally  recommend'  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  exemption  should  be  granted,  has  now 
been  brought  into  the  crown  corporation  and 
to  the  extent  that  the  minister  keeps  on 
trying  to  pretend  that  the  environmental 
assessment  would  take  such  a  long  time,  when 
we  have  learned  from  the  people  of  Mac- 
Laren  that  they  could,  now,  with  what  they 
have  in  hand,  prepare  the  environmental 
assessment  in  a  matter  of  two  or  three 
months?  In  other  words,  the  environmental 
assessment  and  the  hearing  could  be  com- 
pleted by  the  June  30  date,  before  which  the 
minister  says,  "Nothing  is  going  to  be  done 
on  that  site." 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  afraid 
the  leader  of  the  third  party  does  not  under- 
stand the  full  implications  of  applying  that 
act.  One  must  look  at  a  lot  of  other  con- 
siderations as  part  of  that  assessment  hear- 
ing. It  is  Dr.  Emery's  belief-and  I  thought 
he  said  it  very  well  this  morning;  I  am 
sorry  some  of  the  members  of  the  third  party 
did  not  take  time  out  to  go  to  the  OFA 
meeting,  or  maybe  one  or  two  did,  I  do  not 
know- 
Mr.  Riddell:  Were  his  proposals  endorsed 
by  the  OFA? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  He  asked  that  his  pro- 
posal be  referred  to  the  executive,  who  will 
make  a  decision  on  endorsing  his  proposals 
at  the  December  10  board  meeting. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  You  put  him  on  the  board 
too. 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  will  come  to  that.  The 
meeting  appropriately,  after  having  passed 
quite  a  contrary  resolution  yesterday— it  is  a 
little  difficult  to  be  heard,  Mr.  Speaker— 
obviously  wanted  the  time  to  consider  and 
wanted  its  executive  to  have  the  time  to 
consider. 

I  think  Dr.  Emery,  in  his  statement  this 
morning,  put  it  extremely  well.  I  have  read 
this  statement  to  Dr.  Emery  because  I  did 
not  want  him  to  have  any  doubt  about  what 
was  being  said  on  his  behalf.  I  have  just 
finished  speaking  to  Dr.  Emery.  He  makes  it 
very  clear— and  he  made  it  extremely  clear 
down  there— that  this  is  not  the  time  to  ques- 
tion that  site;  now  is  the  time  to  get  on  with 
full  discussions  of  solving  that  problem. 

It  is  a  very  serious  environmental  health 
problem.  It  is  not  the  time  for  the  debate  of 
hearings  but  for  the  spirit  of  co-operation.  I 
will  rest  that  verdict  with  the  OFA.  What 
they  are  proposing,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  that— 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  What  have  they  to  do 
with  it? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Does  the  minister 
have  anything  further  to  add  to  the  original 
question?  Let  us  just  ignore  the  interruptions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Right.  The  question  was 
what  would  the  role  of  the  federation  be? 
They  will  organize  that  committee  and  then 
be  an  advisory  committee,  because  what  Dr. 
Emery  said  is  so  true.  There  will  be  four 
people  on  the  crown  corporation  represent- 
ing the  public.  I  am  pleased  that  they 
should  make  up  the  corporation  with  only 
two  technical  experts. 

In  their  wisdom,  the  OFA  said  that  what 
they  need  is  more  technical  advice.  I  think 
that  is  eminently  logical.  Based  on  that, 
we  have  agreed  to  work  in  the  spirit  of 
co-operation  with  the  federation  and  have 
them  advise  the  corporation  on  all  aspects  of 
the  technical  considerations  for  that  site.  I 
think  they  made  a  very  important  move  this 
morning.  I  endorse  it  and  I  hope  it  follows 
through. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  privilege:  I  think  the  rights  of  the  citizens 
in  my  riding  have  been  taken  advantage  of 
by  the  fact  that  they  are  being  treated  as 
third-class  citizens  by  not  being  given  a 
proper  environmental  assessment  protection. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  have  nothing  to  do 
with  protecting  the  rights  of  citizens  of  the 
province.  I  have  a  responsibility  to  protect 
your  rights  as  a  member. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  been 
very  disturbed  about  this  process  of  the 
government    automatically    asking    for    leave 


4670 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


to  revert  to  ministerial  statements  and  so  on. 
As  a  private  member,  any  time  I  am  here 
for  the  rest  of  this  session  and  the  govern- 
ment asks  for  permission  to  revert  to  state- 
ments, I  will  object. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  an  option  and  a 
prerogative  that  is  open  to  the  honourable 
member.  I  hope  he  is  not  suggesting  there 
was  anything  irregular.  I  asked  for  unani- 
mous consent  and  I  got  it. 

MOTIONS 

COMMITTEE  SITTING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice  be 
authorized  to  sit  on  the  afternoon  of  Wednes- 
day, December  3,  1980. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

TRANSFER  OF  BILL 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  Bill  Pr45,  an 
Act  respecting  the  Powers  of  the  Jewish 
Family  and  Child  Services  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto,  be  transferred  from  the  standing 
committee  on  social  development  to  the 
standing  committee   on   general   government. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

DEVOLUTION  OF  ESTATES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker,  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Mr. 
McMurtry,  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  210, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Devolution  of  Estates 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  introduce  today  a  bill  to  amend 
the  Devolution  of  Estates  Act.  Within  the 
past  year,  certain  problems  encountered  in 
attempting  to  deal  with  the  estates  of 
persons  dying  in  Ontario  who  leave  bene- 
ficiaries in  the  Soviet  Union  have  been 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  minister. 

It  appears  that  exorbitant  charges  by  the 
Soviet  government,  or  its  agents,  and  the 
low  exchange  rate  for  conversion  of  dollars 
into  rubles  result  in  a  beneficiary  receiving 
less  than  the  amount  he  should  receive. 
While  it  is  clear  that  Ontario  legislation 
cannot  completely  rectify  such  problems, 
we  Should  attempt  to  prevent  such  abuses 
to  the  extent  this  is  possible. 

The  Devolution  of  Estates  Amendment  Act, 
1980,   contains  a  provision  whereby  a  court 


order  is  required  before  money  can  be  paid 
out  of  an  estate  in  Ontario  to  a  beneficiary  in 
certain  countries  to  be  designated  by  regula- 
tions before  it  is  received  by  the  beneficiary. 
This  provision  is  based  on  legislation  in  the 
United  States,  such  as  section  2218  of  the 
Surrogate  Court  Procedure  Act  of  New  York. 
Under  that  section,  surrogate  court  may  with- 
hold payment  of  money  unless  it  is  satisfied 
that  the  claimant  will  have  the  benefit  or  use 
cr  control  of  it.  The  money  can  properly  be 
withheld  if  it  appears  that  its  full  value  will 
not  reach  the  beneficiary  by  reason  of  various 
fees  and  taxes  and  an  unrealistic  exchange 
rate. 

A  further  provision  in  the  Devolution  of 
Estates  Amendment  Act,  1S80,  requires  a 
person  who  receives  property  in  respect  of 
which  an  order  has  been  made  as  agent, 
solicitor  or  assignee,  to  file  a  report  with  the 
surrogate  clerk  for  Ontario  in  a  form  and 
containing  such  information  as  will  be  pre- 
scribed by  regulation.  Where  the  property  is 
transferred  directly  to  a  foreign  beneficiary, 
the  personal  representative  must  file  such  a 
report. 

INSTITUTE  OF  CHARTERED 

SECRETARIES  AND  ADMINISTRATORS 

IN  ONTARIO  ACT 

Mr.  Belanger  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
Pr41,  An  Act  respecting  the  Institute  of 
Chartered  Secretaries  and  Administrators  in 
Ontario. 

Motion  agreed  to. 
3:30  p.m. 

CITY  OF  KINGSTON  ACT 

Mr.  Ashe,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Watson,  moved 
first  reading  of  Bill  Pr50,  An  Act  respecting 
the  City  of  Kingston. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

HAMILTON  CLUB  ACT 

Mr.   S.   Smith  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
Pr51,  An  Act  respecting  the  Hamilton  Club. 
Motion  agreed  to. 

SIOUX  PETROLEUMS 
LIMITED  ACT 

Mr.  Breithaupt  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
Pr47,  An  Act  to  revive  Sioux  Petroleums 
Limited. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4671 


ANSWER  TO  QUESTION 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the  answer  to  question  403  standing  on 
the  Notice  Paper.  ( See  appendix,  page  4697. ) 

MOTION  TO  SUSPEND 
NORMAL  BUSINESS 

Mr.  S.  Smith  moved,  pursuant  to  standing 
order  34(a),  that  the  business  of  the  House  be 
set  aside  so  that  the  House  may  debate  a 
matter  of  urgent  public  importance,  that  be- 
ing the  statement  made  by  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  regarding  the 
establishment  of  a  toxic  liquid  waste  'dump 
in  South  Cayuga  to  be  approved  without  en- 
vironmental assessment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Proper  notice  has  been  given 
of  this,  and  I  will  hear  the  honourable  mem- 
ber for  up  to  five  minutes  as  to  reasons  why 
he  feels  the  ordinary  business  of  the  House 
should  be  set  aside. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  you  will  re- 
call that  on  Tuesday  a  somewhat  similar 
motion  roughly  bearing  on  the  subject  of 
liquid  waste  was  presented  by  another  hon- 
ourable member  of  the  House.  But  at  that 
time  you  ruled,  correctly  in  my  view,  that 
the  matter  had  not  yet  been  presented  by 
the  honourable  minister  at  the  time  you  had 
received  the  notice,  and  that  therefore  that 
particular  subject  would  not  have  been  a  fit 
subject  for  the  emergency  debate. 

This  would  appear  to  be  the  first  oppor- 
tunity that  has  presented  itself  for  us  to  have 
that  urgent  debate  on  this  matter,  which  I 
said  then  and  believe  now  to  be  in  the 
public  interest— an  extremely  important  matter 
inasmuch  as  the  people  of  Haldimand-Norfolk 
are  going  to  be  subjected  to  this  particular 
facility  being  thrust  into  the  property  that 
has  been  described  in  South  Cayuga  without 
proper  environmental  assessment  hearings. 

The  concern  we  have  is  that  there  is  no 
neighbourhood  in  Ontario  that  can  consider 
itself  safe.  If  the  largest  environmental 
project  of  its  kind  can  be  placed  into  one 
area  without  a  proper  environmental  hear- 
ing, how  can  one  justifiably  demand  such  a 
hearing  in  any  other  situation  which  will 
undoubtedly  be  less  massive  than  this  one? 
We  feel  this  decision  represents  an  impor- 
tant precedent,  an  important  milestone,  and 
is  one  which  should  not  be  allowed  to  pass 
without  our  taking  every  opportunity  to 
show  the  people  of  Ontario  that  what  seems 
on  paper  and  on  the  books  to  be  good 
environmental    legislation    protects     no    one 


when  the  government  of  the  day  wishes  to  be 
high-handed  and  wishes  to  impose  its  will 
on  the  people. 

We  believe  that  in  the  emergency  debate 
we  are  recommending  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
it  would  be  important  for  the  minister  to 
speak  first  for  his  party  to  explain  his  point 
of  view  and  also  to  give  further  clarification 
of  some  of  the  statements  he  made  at  the 
end  of  question  period  today.  We  feel  he 
might  even  be  allowed  to  speak  more  than 
once  if  there  is  concurrence  in  the  House 
on  the  matter,  because  we  believe  the  infor- 
mation he  brought  on  Tuesday  is  of  extreme 
importance  and  has  been  somewhat  confused, 
rather  than  clarified,  by  the  statements  he 
made  a  few  moments  ago. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  this:  Irrespective 
of  whether  the  minister  has  been  able  some- 
how or  other  to  convince  a  prominent  indi- 
vidual to  become  chairman  of  this  particular 
body,  and  irrespective  of  whether  some 
particular  member  of  the  Ontario  Feder- 
ation of  Agriculture  has  accepted  the  job 
of  looking  at  site  selection,  even  though 
the  site  selection  apparently  has  already 
been  finalized  according  to  the  person  who  is 
newly  appointed,  the  people  of  Ontario  are 
not  going  to  be  totally  fooled  by  this. 

They  can  see  as  clearly  as  anyone  else  that 
the  land  in  question  is  held  by  the  govern- 
ment because  of  a  foolish  and  politically 
embarrassing  decision  by  this  government  to 
acquire  at  very  high  cost  a  large  parcel  of 
land  in  one  of  the  areas  of  Ontario  thought 
to  be  suitable  for  an  idyllic,  pollution-free 
housing  environment  just  a  few  years  ago. 
Left  with  this  political  embarrassment  on  its 
hands,  the  government  has  plainly  decided 
to  push  ahead  to  try  to  solve  its  toxic 
waste  problem. 

In  the  old  saying,  if  you  have  a  lemon, 
you  at  least  try  to  make  lemonade.  They 
were  stuck  with  this  piece  of  land  and,  to 
try  to  make  the  best  of  a  bad  situation, 
they  have  decided  to  try  to  push  through 
this  toxic  waste  facility  against  the  wishes 
of  the  people  in  Haldimand-Norfolk  and  to 
do  so  without  any  opportunity  for  proper 
examination  of  the  MacLaren  report  or  its 
appendices  which,  after  all,  are  terribly 
important.  I  wonder  if  even  Dr.  Chant  has 
seen  the  appendices  to  the  report.  They 
have  done  it  without  any  opportunity  to  see 
any  of  the  hydrogeological  studies  that  may 
have  been  ordered  in  other  areas  and,  par- 
ticularly, without  any  opportunity  for  con- 
trary opinions  to  be  expressed  in  front  of  a 
neutral  hearing  officer. 


4672 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


If  the  environmental  assessment  legisla- 
tion in  Ontario  is  to  be  set  aside  in  this 
case,  if  it  is  inadequate,  if  the  minister  feels 
the  board  cannot  do  the  job  and  a  group 
from  the  OFA- 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member's 
time  has  expired. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  —should  do  the  job,  I  say 
no  site  in  Ontario  is  safe  from  this  high- 
handed method  of  imposition  by  the  govern- 
ment. We  must  have  this  debate  as  soon 
as  possible. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  also  want  to 
urge  that  we  hold  an  emergency  debate  today 
on  what  the  government  intends  to  do,  not 
just  with  respect  to  the  choice  of  the  South 
Cayuga  site  but  also  with  respect  to  the 
rationale  that  led  the  cabinet  to  endorse  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment's  proposal  and 
thereby  to  jettison  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act,  as  it  was  passed  in  1975.  The  fact 
is— and  this  is  now  an  emergencv— the  En- 
vironmental Assessment  Act  is  effectively  a 
dead  letter  today  if  the  government  is  al- 
lowed to  continue  with  the  decision  it  an- 
nounced in  the  House  two  days  ago. 

We  are  faced  with  a  fait  accompli  about 
the  choice  of  a  site  when  the  residents  and 
people  in  the  Cayuga  area  had  no  idea  until 
a  month  ago  they  were  even  being  considered 
as  a  site  for  liquid  industrial  waste  disposal. 
We  have  seen  a  systematic  effort  bv  the 
government  to  dismantle  all  the  normal  pro- 
cedural devices  that  exist  to  ensure  there  is 
public  consideration  about  a  project  as  major 
and  all-encompassing  as  this  one. 

The  cabinet  has  now  approved  the  project. 
The  cabinet  has  waived  the  process  not  just 
of  a  hearing  on  an  environmental  assessment, 
but  also  the  environmental  assessment  itself. 
I  really  wonder  what  the  government  is  try- 
ing to  hide  in  this  fantastic  effort  to  avoid 
the  process  of  environmental  assessment,  a 
process  by  which  one  questions  whether  there 
are  alternative  sites,  what  the  technical  con- 
siderations are  and  what  the  environmental 
consequences  could  be. 
3:40  p.m. 

We  could  be  sitting  on  another  environ- 
mental landmine  at  South  Cayuga  without 
knowing  what  those  consequences  are  going 
to  be,  because  the  government  has  decided 
to  waive  these  particular  provisions  of  the 
act.  That  is  what  is  happening  right  now  and 
that  is  why  we  need  to  debate  this  as  a 
matter  of  emergency. 

Not  only  that,  this  is  an  emergency  be- 
cause, from  the  way  the  government  is  pro- 


ceeding, it  seems  clear  it  is  prepared  to  move 
heaven  and  earth  to  try  to  eliminate  any 
public  consideration  through  the  Legislature, 
the  Parliament  of  Ontario,  about  this  particu- 
lar procedure  or  development  until  it  is  well 
down  the  road.  The  government  has  not  an- 
nounced an  intention  to  bring  in  legislation 
to  set  up  the  crown  corporation  before  we 
rise  about  the  middle  of  December.  There  is 
no  indication  it  will  bring  supplementary 
estimates  in  before  we  rise  at  the  middle  of 
December.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  indi- 
cation it  will  be  bringing  to  this  Legislature, 
apart  from  an  emergency  debate,  what  it 
actually  intends  to   do. 

On  the  other  side,  there  is  tremendous 
concern  in  the  area.  Two  hundred  people 
turned  out  on  November  13  in  the  area  be- 
cause they  did  not  know  what  the  devil  was 
going  on  and  they  felt  they  had  a  right  to 
know.  We  have  a  minister  and  a  ministry 
whose  behaviour  in  the  past  have  consistently 
been  that  "we  in  the  Ministry  of  the  Environ- 
ment know  best  and  anybody  out  there  who 
questions  our  expertise  is  simply  wrong."  The 
minister  has  once  again  repeated  that  par- 
ticular position  in  the  attitudes  he  has  struck 
in  the  Legislature  today. 

Finally,  another  reason  for  having  an 
emergency  debate  is  the  bizarre  announce- 
ment today  that  the  watchdog  of  the  en- 
vironmental assessment  steering  committee, 
Dr.  D.  A.  Chant,  a  respected  and  eminent 
environmentalist,  is  now  being  put  into  the 
crown  corporation  and  is  therefore  not  in  a 
position  where  he  and  his  steering  committee 
could  objectively  advise  the  government  over 
whether  or  not  an  environmental  assessment 
was  to  be  held  or  not. 

I  know  the  reason  for  that.  I  suspect  Dr. 
Chant,  having  had  his  committee's  advice 
rejected  in  the  case  of  the  Darlington  nuclear 
power  plant  and  in  the  case  of  the  Elora 
Gorge  decision,  has  just  simply  thrown  up 
his  hands.  Dr.  Chant  has  said,  "Look,  if 
you  can't  beat  them,  I  am  going  to  have  to 
try  to  join  them  and  see  whether  there  is  not 
something  I  can  do  to  prevent  the  most 
harmful  consequences  of  this  particular  pro- 
posal." 

The  Morrison  Beatty  hydrogeological  report 
says  at  least  another  12  months  of  hydro- 
geological  studies  are  required  before  it  is 
possible  to  go  forward  with  that  proposal. 
The  MacLaren  report  likewise  says  very 
explicitly:  "It  is  recommended  that  the  min- 
istry undertake  field  studies,  such  as  con- 
firming geological  data  by  a  series  of  soil 
borings,  et  cetera,  on  the  Huron  and  South 
Cayuga    sites    to    confirm    their    suitability. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4673 


Should  these  sites  prove  to  be  geologically 
unsuitable,  similar  investigations  are  recom- 
mended for  the  Lambton  and  for  the  Bruce 
sites." 

In  other  words,  the  document  the  ministry 
has  offered  as  the  proof  that  South  Cayuga 
is  the  appropriate  place  to  put  this  liquid 
waste  disposal  facility  is  not  confirmed  by 
the  MacLaren  consultants.  They  say  there 
remains  a  possibility,  which  can  only  be  ex- 
plored by  means  of  further  tests,  that  the 
site  will  be  unsuitable. 

I  am  saying  we  need  an  emergency  debate 
because  the  government  should  not  be 
allowed  simply  to  dispose  of  all  of  the  devices 
that  have  been  put  into  place  to  protect  the 
interests  of  this  Parliament,  of  the  people  of 
Ontario  and  of  South  Cayuga.  It  is  time  the 
minister  agreed  to  have  that  assessment  and 
he  can  get  it  done  in  good  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells :  Mr.  Speaker,  I  argued  a 
few  days  ago  against  an  emergency  debate 
on  a  matter  very  much  related  to  this  and,  at 
the  time,  you  found  the  case  had  not  been 
made  for  an  emergency  debate  based  on  the 
particular  motion  that  was  put  forward.  At 
that  time,  I  indicated  to  you  there  were 
several  reports  which  had  just  been  received 
by  members  and  which  we  had  not  had  time 
to  consider  fully— the  MacLaren  and  Morri- 
son Beatty  reports.  Those  reports  have  now 
been  received  and  I  am  sure  the  honourable 
members  have  had  time  to  consider  them. 

Members  have  also  had  time  to  consider  the 
statement  made  by  my  colleague  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment.  I  think,  in  making  a 
ruling  today  on  this  motion,  several  facts 
should  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  first 
fact  is  that  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
has  made  a  very  courageous  statement  and 
has  come  to  grips  with  and  brought  forward 
a  solution  to  a  very  vexing  problem  in  this 
province  and  one  which  no  one  else  seems  to 
want  to  come  to  grips  with.  That  is  the  first 
thing. 

The  second  fact  that  must  be  considered  is 
that  the  statement  the  honourable  minister 
has  made  has  been  misrepresented  by  many 
of  the  people  sitting  opposite  and  that  mis- 
representation is  carrying  on  out  to  the 
general  public  and  needs  to  be  corrected.  I 
think  the  opportunity  to  correct  that  rests  in 
a  debate  in  this  House  today.  In  other  words, 
what  may  not  have  been  an  emergency  a  few 
days  ago  is  now  an  emergency  because  a 
courageous  act  by  a  minister  of  this  govern- 
ment is  being  misrepresented  in  a  manner 
that  is  causing  it  to  be  misunderstood  by 
many  of  the  people  of  this  province. 


It  can  be  argued  that  the  misunderstand- 
ing is  sufficient  to  cause  us  to  say  that  the 
minister  and  the  members  of  this  govern- 
ment should  be  given  an  opportunity— and 
they  can  do  it  exceedingly  well— to  explain 
a1!  the  ramifications  of  this  decision  and  to 
challenge  members  opposite,  if  they  want  to 
criticize  this  particular  solution  to  a  very 
vexing  problem,  to  come  up  with  some 
alternative  solution.  They  should  not  just 
argue  about  negatives.  They  should  not  just 
put  roadblocks  in  the  way  of  progress.  They 
should  not  just  belittle  names  of  people. 
They  should  just  sit  there  and  come  up  with 
some  positive  solutions  as  to  what  they  would 
do. 

Because  we  have  had  an  opportunity  to 
consider  the  reports,  because  this  is  now  a 
matter  of  public  knowledge,  because  there 
is  misunderstanding  about  it,  and  because 
there  is  legitimate  concern  in  some  quarters 
that  can  be  very  adequately  cleared  up  by 
the  minister  and  other  members  of  this  partv 
during  this  debate,  we  would  not  oppose 
this  matter  being  considered.  In  fact,  we 
believe  that  a  case  can  be  made  for  us  to 
debate  this  today  and  that  it  does  fall  within 
the  parameters  of  rule  34(a). 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  listened  with  great 
interest  to  all  the  members  who  have  spoken. 
There  is  unanimous  accord  that  it  is  of 
urgent  public  importance.  I  think  it  is  quite 
obvious  that  due  to  the  nature  of  the  debate, 
it  has  province-wide  implications.  It  deals 
with  a  specific  incident  of  recent  occurrence. 

Lest  I  be  accused  of  being  inconsistent  in 
the  light  of  the  fact  that  I  turned  down  a 
similar  debate,  the  specific  request  to  set 
aside  the  business  of  the  House  was  with 
reference  to  a  specific  occurrence  that  did 
not  have  the  obvious  implications  it  does 
now,  since  members  have  had  48  hours  to 
discuss  the  implications  of  the  statement 
made  by  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  I 
am  going  to  say  that  it  does  fall  within  the 
four  walls  of  standing  order  34. 

(Now  the  only  question  before  the  House 
is,  shall  the  debate  proceed? 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  debate  will  proceed.  I 
want  to  remind  honourable  members  that 
each  one  who  wishes  to  speak  will  be 
limited  to  10  minutes  and  the  debate  will 
conclude  without  any  motion  before  the 
House  at  six  o'clock. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  would  be  very  glad  to  hear  the 
minister  first  if  he  cares  to  say  anything  or 
add   anything,    and   also   to  hear  him  wind 


4674 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


up.  If  not,  I  will  be  happy  to  start.  It  is  up 
to  the  minister.  I  just  want  him  to  have 
that  privilege  if  he  wishes  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  normal  procedure  that 
the  honourable  member  who  moves  the 
motion  will  speak  for  10  minutes  and,  unless 
there  is  some  agreement  to  do  otherwise, 
we  will  be  guided  by  past  practice. 
3:50  p.m. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  been 
told  repeatedly  in  this  House  that  Ontario 
enjoys  the  benefits  of  some  of  the  most 
advanced  environmental  protection  legisla- 
tion on  the  books  anywhere.  I  agree  that  we 
have,  on  the  books,  the  best  environmental 
protection  legislation.  The  problem  is  that 
we  seem  to  have  an  aversion  to  utilizing 
it  to  protect  the  citizens  of  Ontario. 

Never  has  there  been  a  more  blatant  case, 
however,  than  this  one.  The  minister  found 
himself  with  an  interim  report  from  some 
consultants  who  had  looked  at  some  17  sites 
around  Ontario.  They  had  rejected  a  good 
many  other  places  in  the  province  and  had 
looked  at  17  and  come  up  with  about  five 
they  thought  should  be  further  studied  be- 
cause they  would  be  suitable  to  receive 
liquid  waste. 

Plainly  the  minister,  or  some  other  agent 
of  government,  then  instructed  the  consult- 
ants to  go  back  and  look  at  another  site. 
This  was  the  site  held  by  the  government 
as  a  consequence  of  some  exceedingly  foolish 
and  ill-considered  expenditures  of  some  $30 
million  to  purchase  land  for  an  alleged 
town  that  was  going  to  be  built  in  a  district 
called  South  Cayuga.  As  a  result  of  that, 
the  consultants  were  put  in  a  dilemma.  They 
found  themselves  having  to  go  back  on 
what  they  had  done. 

The  meat  of  this  report  is  contained  in 
appendices  which  none  of  us  in  this  House 
has  had  the  opportunity  to  examine  yet.  But 
even  in  the  summary  we  have  been  given, 
they  say  they  did  not  look  at  South  Cayuga 
in  the  first  place  because  it  did  not  meet  their 
criteria.  These  criteria  included  the  avoidance 
of  using  excellent  agricultural  land. 

Then  a  funny  thing  happened.  They  say 
that  while  processing  data  collected  during 
site  visits,  they  came  to  realize  that  none  of 
the  areas  studied  really  met  the  original 
spirit  and  intent.  A  lot  of  the  places  they 
figured  were  grade  five  and  six  agricultural 
land  had  been  upgraded  from  time  to  time 
and  some  of  it  was  up  to  grade  one  and  two 


agricultural  land.  Conversely,  some  of  the 
one  and  two  land  had  fallen  into  disarray 
and  disuse  and  was  now  down  to  five  and  six. 

That  is  what  they  said.  I  don't  blame  the 
member  for  Chatham-Kent  (Mr.  Watson)  for 
laughing;  I  found  it  funny  as  well.  But  that 
is  what  they  say— it  is  on  page  3-15.  They 
say  certain  lands  had  been  significantly  up- 
graded by  local  drainage  work  and  had  be- 
come very  productive  while  other  lands  had 
been  allowed  to  deterioriate.  Logic  dictated 
they  should  not  be  that  concerned  with  agri- 
cultural productivity  and  so  they  decided  to 
forget  about  that  and  look  at  South  Cayuga. 

They  had  what  they  called  revised  or  re- 
fined agricultural  criteria,  which  are  never 
explained.  Using  those,  the  Huron  area  was 
identified  as  the  most  suitable  of  the  five, 
with  Lambton  and  Bruce  being  the  best  al- 
ternatives and  very  close  seconds.  That  is 
what  they  found  once  they  ignored  the  agri- 
cultural criteria.  But,  they  say,  the  primary 
constraining  factor  in  Lambton  is  that  there 
is  existing  agricultural  use  on  the  land. 

So  what  they  did  first  was  eliminate  agri- 
culture as  a  consideration  so  they  could  look 
at  South  Cayuga.  Having  then  looked  at  South 
Cayuga,  they  found  Huron  was  the  best  and 
Lambton  a  very  close  second.  They  decided 
then  to  eliminate  Lambton  on  the  very  agri- 
cultural criteria  they  had  set  aside  in  the 
first  place  to  enable  them  to  look  at  South 
Cayuga 

lit  is  obvious  the  kind  of  backflips  and  somer- 
saults being  done  by  these  consultants  have 
plainly  been  done  in  an  effort  to  keep  what- 
ever is  left  of  their  scientific  reputation  while 
meeting  the  minister's  order,  which  is  to  find 
some  way  to  get  South  Cayuga  accepted  as 
the  place  to  dump  the  toxic  waste. 

All  right.  All  that  has  been  said.  But,  Mr. 
Speaker,  look  at  the  situation.  We  find  our- 
selves with  the  environmental  protection  legis- 
lation being  set  aside  by  the  government.  So 
keen  are  they  to  avoid  their  own  laws  that 
they  have  created  two  corporations  instead 
of  one.  There  will  be  one  corporation  to  get 
them  through  until  possibly  the  next  elec- 
tion, certainly  until  this  House  rises  at  Christ- 
mas, and  then  a  second  corporation  some 
time  in  the  future  which  the  House  will  have 
to  vote  on. 

It  is  evident  there  is  no  need  for  two 
corporations  when  one  will  do.  Both  will  be 
owned  by  the  crown.  There  is  plainly  not  the 
slightest  difference  between  the  two,  but  the 
minister  wishes  to  avoid  a  vote  by  the  elected 
representatives  of  the  people.  Not  only  is  he 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4675 


avoiding  his  own  laws,  which  apply  to  every- 
body else— and  let  me  tell  you,  if  you  are  an 
ordinary  citizen,  you  cannot  even  expand  a 
pig  barn  in  Ontario  without  getting  some  en- 
vironmental approval— but  the  minister  can 
create  this  corporation  and  dump  this  liquid 
waste  without  any  consideration  of  the  kind 
of  legislation  that  is  supposed  to  be  protecting 
all  of  us. 

We  are  told  today  of  some  very  interesting 
developments.  First  of  all,  the  Ontario  Fed- 
eration of  Agriculture  condemned  the  min- 
istry for  its  actions.  Then,  apparently,  some 
particular  fellow  of  this  federation,  some 
chap  from  Northumberland,  undoubtedly  a 
fine  gentleman,  came  up  with  some  proposal 
off  the  top  of  his  head  that  said- 
Mr.  Cassidy:   Probably  a  Tory. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  We  can  speculate  as  to 
whom  he  was  trying  to  rescue  and  for  what 
political  purpose,  but  I  do  not  have  to  say 
that. 

He  came  up  with  a  marvelous  idea  that 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture— not 
the  National  Farmers  Union,  not  the  Chris- 
tian Farmers  Federation,  not  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Labour,  not  any  of  the  en- 
vironmental groups,  not  Pollution  Probe,  not 
any  of  the  special  interest  groups,  not  any  of 
the  conservation  authorities— a  particular 
group  called  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agri- 
culture, for  which  I  have  the  greatest  of 
respect  in  agricultural  matters,  should  set 
itself  up  somehow  by  means  of  a  subcom- 
mittee. This  has  not  even  been  approved  by 
the  OFA;  it  is  just  the  idea  of  one  guy. 

The  ministry  leaped  at  the  proposal  and 
said,  "Whereas  the  board  of  experts  ap- 
pointed by  law  and  the  statutes  of  Ontario 
shall  not  be  permitted  to  examine  the  matter 
and  to  have  public  hearings,  this  group  of 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  shall 
be  entitled  to  go  about  the  province  and 
have  public  hearings  of  some  kind." 

Will  it  be  able  to  compel  people  to  testify 
under  oath?  If  so,  how  can  it  possibly 
happen  unless  the  members  of  the  group  are 
made  royal  commissioners?  I  ask  the  minister 
this.  Would  he  kindly  attend  to  this  question 
for  a  moment?  Will  he  listen  for  a  moment, 
please?  Is  he  intending  to  make  the  OFA 
group  royal  commissioners  or,  under  the 
Public  Inquiries  Act,  will  he  be  intending— 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  yield  to  the  minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  What  I  have  said  to 
the  federation,  and  I  make  that  statement 
a  gain- 


Mr.  S.  Smith:  Just  say  yes  or  no.  Will 
they  be  under  the  Public  Inquiries  Act?  I 
am  sorry,  I  do  not  yield  the  floor. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Does  the  member  want 
the  information? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Just  say  yes  or  no.  Are  they 
going  to  be  under  the  Public  Inquiries  Act 
or  are  they  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Does  the  member  want 
the  information? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  answer  is  yes  or  no, 
Mr.  Minister.  There  is  no  other  answer. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  Has  the  hon- 
ourable member  yielded  the  floor? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  No,  I  have  not  yielded  the 
floor.  I  will  not  yield  for  a  filibuster.  We  will 
hear  when  the  minister  speaks,  Mr.  Speaker. 
We  will  hear  whether  or  not  this  group  from 
the  OFA  will  be  given  subpoena  power, 
whether  groups  will  be  able  to  appear  in 
front  of  the  OFA  and  be  funded  to  bring 
in  experts  and  to  have  money  to  pay  for 
these  experts.  We  will  find  out  whether 
testimony  will  be  compelled  under  oath, 
whether  they  will  have  the  power  of  the 
Public  Inquiries  Act  or  its  equivalent. 

We  will  find  out  when  the  minister  speaks, 
and  then  we  will  presumably  find  out  some- 
thing that  I  am  certainly  waiting  to  hear, 
which  is  why  some  particular  individual  from 
the  OFA  is  to  be  permitted  to  do  what  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Board  is  not  to  be 
permitted  to  do.  What  conceivable  rationale 
can  there  be  for  this  to  happen? 

4  p.m. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  The  honourable 
member's  time  has  expired. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  finish  with  simply  one 
sentence.  Irrespective  of  whether  the  minis- 
ter has  been  able  to  create  a  certain  propo- 
ganda  for  himself  by  getting  Dr.  Chant  by 
some  means  or  other  and  for  some  purpose  or 
other,  by  getting  an  environmentalist  seem- 
ingly to  agree— and  we  will  wait  to  hear  from 
him-the  fact  remains,  if  South  Cayuga  can 
go  without  an  environmental  assessment,  no 
neighbourhood,  no  town,  no  piece  of  farm 
land  in  Ontario  is  safe  from  this  arrogant 
group  of  ministers  and  sooner  or  later,  pref- 
erably sooner,  they  will  be  turfed  out  as  a 
consequence. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  government 
House  leader  said  just  before  we  had  this 
debate  that  he  felt  it  was  appropriate  to  have 
it  because  there  had  been  misunderstanding 
of  the  government's  position.  I  cannot  ima- 
gine how  that  accusation  can  be  made,  be- 
cause the  public,  the  people  I  have  talked  to 


4676 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


since  the  minister's  announcement  on  Tues- 
day, understand  very  clearly  what  has  hap- 
pened. 

They  understand  this  is  an  arrogant  gov- 
ernment; a  government  which  is  high-handed; 
a  government  which  has  moved  from  the 
basis  of  political  expendiency  and,  in  the 
process,  a  government  which  has  torpedoed 
a  piece  of  legislation,  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  of  1975,  which  has  been  the 
mainstay  of  the  speeches  of  Ministers  of  the 
Environment  over  the  course  of  the  last  five 
years,  in  defending  the  environmental  record 
of  the  government  of  Ontario. 

What  is  happening  in  this  regard  is  similar 
to  the  behaviour  of  the  government  in  many 
other  areas  as  well.  We  know  what  is  hap- 
pening with  doctors  opting  out.  We  know 
what  is  happening  with  the  financial  plight 
of  hospitals  trying  to  serve  the  people  of 
Ontario.  This  government  has  tried  to  pre- 
tend no  problems  exist.  We  know  about  the 
government's  refusal  to  provide  adequate  day 
care  facilities  across  the  province.  They  have 
tried  to  come  up  with  $1  million  and  say  that 
solved  the  problem.  We  know  the  difficulties 
in  getting  equality  for  women  in  the  prov- 
ince. The  government  pretends  there  is  no 
problem,  it  simply  ignores  the  realities  of 
Ontario  right  now.  We  know  the  problems  of 
laid-off  workers.  The  government  comes  up 
with  a  bit  of  papier  mache  and  tries  to  pre- 
tend that  is  a  full  and  final  solution,  when 
50,000  workers  have  been  laid  off. 

We  know  in  South  Cayuga  the  people  in 
that  particular  community  had  no  foreknowl- 
edge at  all,  prior  to  August  of  this  year,  that 
their  community  was  even  being  considered 
for  this  liquid  waste  disposal  facility.  They 
did  not  know  for  sure  until  October  27  that 
the  matter  had  been  referred  to  the  Mac- 
Laren  company  for  it  to  report  upon.  It  was 
not  until  two  days  ago  that  they  learned  the 
finger  had1  descended  on  South  Cayuga  and 
that  the  government  had  decided  to  put  the 
liquid  waste  disposal  facility  in  South  Cayuga. 

I  have  to  say  that  the  whole  manner  in 
which  the  government,  both  the  cabinet  and 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment,  has  treated 
this  particular  affair  raises  enormous  ques- 
tions in  my  mind  about  a  minister,  a  ministry 
and  a  government  which  already  had  enor- 
mous credibility  problems  with  respect  to 
the  matter  of  the  environment. 

The  MacLaren  report  was  meant  to  be  an 
independent  appraisal  of  what  sites  were 
appropriate  for  liquid  industrial  waste  dis- 
posal across  the  province,  but  in  the  end, 
because  the  minister  said,  "I  do  not  care 
what  you  suggested1  in  your  interim  report, 


you  have  to  look  at  this  one,"  it  no  longer 
can  claim  to  have  independence.  It  is  a 
$425,000  justification  for  the  site  that  the 
minister  wanted  to  have  chosen.  Even  there, 
let  us  make  it  clear,  the  MacLaren  report  has 
not  said  it  is  the  only  site.  It  has  not  said  it 
is  the  preferred  site.  It  has  said  that  further 
geological  studies  are  required  and  it  has 
said  that  those  studies  may  in  fact,  indicate 
that  South  Cayuga  is  not  the  appropriate  site 
to  go  on. 

The  ministry  paid  some  more  of  the 
taxpayers'  money  to  Morrison  Beatty  Limited 
to  do  a  hydrogeological  study  on  South 
Cayuga.  They  too  say  that  another  12 
months  are  required.  The  ministry,  however, 
has  taken  a  railroading  approach  through 
cabinet  and  through  the  community,  regard- 
less of  the  fact  that  further  studies  are 
required. 

It  is  not  just  the  overriding  of  our  laws 
that  concerns  me,  it  is  also  what  I  feel  is 
the  very  compromising  approach  that  is 
being  taken  to  a  respected  environmental 
expert,  Dr.  Donald  Chant,  in  appointing  him 
to  the  crown  corporation.  I  feel  extremely 
uneasy  about  what  is  being  done. 

If  I  can  put  it  on  the  record,  Dr.  Chant 
is  the  chairman  of  the  environmental  assess- 
ment steering  committee.  That  is  a  com- 
mitte  which  advises  the  Premier,  not  just 
the  minister,  on  questions  respecting  the 
environment  and  which  is  specifically 
charged  with  advising  the  Premier  and  the 
cabinet  from  time  to  time  about  whether 
environmental  assessments  should  take  place. 

The  government  knew  that  in  this  partic- 
ular case  the  question  of  the  overriding  of 
the  environmental  assessment  was  going  to 
be  a  very  clear  issue  in  the  minds,  not  just 
of  people  in  South  Cayuga  but  all  across  this 
province.  What  it  has  done  is  effectively  to 
remove  Dr.  Chant's  ability  to  act  objectively 
in  recommending  whether  the  environmental 
assessment  should  take  place.  There  is  no 
way  we  can  get  around  that.  From  the  mo- 
ment Dr.  Chant  was  asked  to  take  on  the 
position  in  the  crown  corporation,  he  no 
longer  could  act  impartially  as  far  as  the 
environmental  assessment  steering  commit- 
tee's functions  were  involved.  It  seems  to  me 
that  is  another  example  of  this  government's 
willingness  to  go  to  any  lengths  to  try  to 
steamroller  over  the  procedure  which  has 
normally  been  followed  in  the  past. 

I  call  on  the  minister  to  explain  in  this 
debate  why  it  is  he  has  gone  to  such  lengths 
to  try  to  avoid  the  environmental  assess- 
ment process.  He  keeps  claiming  it  will  take 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4677 


year  after  year.  The  facts  are  that  in  the 
case  of  the  Thorold  dump  of  Walker  Brothers 
Quarries,  the  minister  had  a  company  which 
was  engaged  in  breaking  the  law  and  which 
has  now  been  charged  by  the  Ontario  Pro- 
vincial Police— 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Is  that  correct?  Do  you 
want  to  put  that  on  the  record? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  company  has  been 
charged  by  the  OPP.  The  Canadian  Broad- 
casting Corporation  and  others  have  engaged 
in  activity  which  by  any  definition  of  the 
law—although  the  courts  will  have  to  decide 
—look  like  prima  facie  cases  where  the  law 
was  not  being  followed  by  that  company.  It 
has  been  acknowledged  by  the  ministry  that 
the  company  was  accepting  liquid  industrial 
wastes  in  contravention  of  its  own  permit 
for  that  particular  site.  Down  at  Harwich— 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  What  company  has  been 
charged?  I  want  to  know. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  will  have  his 
turn. 

Down  at  Harwich,  the  government  got 
itself  at  loggerheads  with  the  local  council. 
The  fact  is  there  have  been  no  hearings  under 
the  Environmental  Assessment  Act.  The  fact 
is  it  is  not  the  hearing  process  which  has 
caused  the  delay.  It  has  been  the  approach 
of  this  ministry,  the  confrontation  this  min- 
istry has  consistently  sought  regardless  of  its 
assurances  to  the  contrary. 

The  minister  and  the  government  have  a 
credibility  problem  with  respect  to  the  way 
they  are  handling  this  particular  process. 
Now  I  think  it  is  up  to  the  minister  to  ex- 
plain why  he  is  rejecting  the  environmental 
assessment  process. 

Does  he  reject  the  consideration  of  alterna- 
tives which  is  in  that  act?  Does  he  reject  the 
measurement  of  effects  on  the  environment 
which  is  called  for  in  the  assessment  required 
under  that  act?  Does  he  reject  the  need  to 
put  forward  plans  for  protecting  the  environ- 
ment which  is  called  for  in  that  act?  Does  he 
reject  the  need  to  evaluate  alternatives  which 
is  required  in  that  act?  Does  he  reject  the 
requirement  of  the  act  that  no  funding  and 
no  licence  shall  be  given  until  the  environ- 
mental assessment  process  has  been  com- 
pleted? It  is  clear  that  he  does.  Under  those 
circumstances  one  has  to  ask,  what  good  is 
it  to  have  a  piece  of  legislation  if  the  govern- 
ment is  never  prepared  to  use  that  particular 
legislation? 

Experience  in  the  past  where  environ- 
mental assessment  hearings  have  taken  place 
has  further  put  into  question  the  capacity  of 


the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  to  get  the 
story  straight  even  with  months  of  prepara- 
tion. In  the  case  of  the  Nanticoke  project 
and  in  the  case— 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No  assessment  act 
applied  there.  Get  your  facts  straight. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  All  right.  In  the  case  of 
Nanticoke,  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Board  recommended  against  approval  of  the 
proposal.  It  said,  among  other  things,  that 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  had  ac- 
cepted data  and  figures  from  the  applicant 
without  inquiring  fully  into  the  validity.  It 
indicated  the  ministry  had  neither  the  ex- 
perience nor  expertise  properly  to  evaluate 
the  technology  which  was  being  put  forward 
in  that  case.  It  established  that  although  the 
minister  had  a  responsibility  to  evaluate  the 
assessment,  the  ministry  had  blown  its  evalu- 
ation of  the  assessment  and  missed  salient 
data  which  was  very  important  and  which 
led  the  assessment  board  to  reject  that  appli- 
cation. That  was  the  case  of  a  proposal 
which  went  through  the  whole  assessment 
procedure.  I  ask  myself  in  a  case  where— Dr. 
Chant  had  this  for  a  day— the  cabinet  had 
this  for  a  period  of  a  week— 
4:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  A  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker— 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  What's  your  point 
of  order? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  would  simply  like  to 
correct  the  record  to  this  point.  I  believe  the 
member  said  it  was  an  environmental  assess- 
ment hearing  for  that  project.  Is  that  his 
statement?  Was  it  under  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act?  I  just  want  to  know  whether 
that  is  being  put  on  the  record  or  not. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Board  under  the  Environmental  Pro- 
tection Act.  The  minister  is  picking  at  straws. 
The  minister  is  being  picky. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  It  is  an  entirely  different 
procedure. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  fact  is  that  the  ministry's 
own  evaluation  did  not  stand  up  in  that  case. 
The  minister  is  now  suggesting  that  the  En- 
vironmental Protection  Act  should  be  thrown 
out  the  window  in  addition  to  the  Environ- 
mental Assessment  Act.  If  that  is  the  position 
of  the  ministry,  I  suggest  they  bring  in  a 
repeal  act  for  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Act.  If  that  is  what  he  wants  to  do,  he 
should  do  it  up  front  and  not  weasel  around 
with  regulations— 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  The  honourable 
member's  time  has  expired. 


4678 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Cassidy:  I  was  here  in  1975— 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  You  just  know  the  de- 
cision. You  don't  understand.  It's  sad. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  certainly  do  understand.  I 
understand  that  should  apply  to  every  project, 
large  and  small,  and  the  minister  should  not 
exempt  or  waive  the  application  of  the  act 
every  time  there  is  a  major  proposal  coming 
before  the  people  of  the  province. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber's time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Eaton:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  rising  to  dis- 
cuss this  action  of  the  honourable  minister, 
I  want  to  start  by  commending  the  minister 
for  taking  such  action.  I  think  we  all  realize 
the  problem  we  face  in  this  province  in 
handling  liquid  industrial  waste. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Who  has  been  running  the 
store  for  37  years? 

Mr.  Eaton:  It's  a  problem  that  probably 
every  jurisdiction  in  North  America  is  faced 
with  at  this  time  and  one  that  some  jurisdic- 
tions are  taking  action  on.  This  minister  is 
taking  the  leading  action  in  North  America 
to  solve  this  problem.  He  is  a  minister  who 
is  dedicated  to  seeing  the  job  is  carried  out 
properly. 

Some  of  the  actions  of  the  opposition  at 
times  make  the  job  almost  impossible.  I  al- 
ways felt  the  role  of  the  opposition  was  to 
be  critical,  to  put  forth  suggestions  on  what 
could  be  done  in  given  situations.  But  it  has 
become  obvious  the  only  role  the  opposition 
is  playing  in  this  province  is  one  of  obstruc- 
tion. Any  time  there  is  some  suggestion  a 
site  might  be  located  in  a  particular  area  the 
opposition  has  gone  in  and  tried  to  create  a 
scare  before  the  fact.  They  have  utterly  de- 
stroyed the  process  of  trying  to  carry  through 
on  assessment  hearings. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Why  isn't  it  in  Middle- 
sex? 

Mr.  Eaton:  Somebody  said  why  not  Mid- 
dlesex. Middlesex  was  on  the  list  in  the 
MacLaren  report. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  You  screamed  and  cried. 

Mr.  Eaton:  I  did  not  say  a  word  against  it. 
I  took  the  facts  as  we  had  them  and  at  that 
point  there  were  very  few  facts  because  the 
MacLaren  report  just  indicated  possible  sites 
in  this  province.  But  one  of  the  NDP  mem- 
bers came  into  the  riding  and  created  scares. 
The  NDP  came  in  and  gave  complete  mis- 
information. They  put  figures  at  500,000 
times  what  they  actually  were,  as  we  raised 
it  in  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment.  It  was  just  atrocious  misrep- 
resentation of  a  situation. 


Without  the  facts,  without  starting  on  any 
assessment  in  the  area,  they  came  in  and 
suggested  circulating  a  petition— "Let's  get  a 
petition  going  against  having  the  site  come 
here."  That  utterly  destroys  any  process  that 
can  take  place  in  assessing  a  problem  and 
assessing  what  the  impact  might  be,  having 
any  environment  hearings,  because  scare  tac- 
tics are  carried  out  before  any  process  ever 
takes  place.  This  is  a  problem  that  faces 
everybody  in  Ontario  and  everybody  has  to 
deal  with  it  responsibly. 

It  was  refreshing  to  hear  some  of  the  people 
at  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  this 
morning  when  they  moved  a  resolution  to 
try  to  work  with  the  minister,  to  have  people 
involved  in  some  way  so  that  they  could 
know  exactly  what  was  going  on  in  the  proc- 
ess and  exactly  what  was  to  happen.  It  was 
obvious  in  discussions  that  the  minister  had 
with  them  this  morning  they  had  already 
been  fed  misinformation  again  and  someone 
was  already  trying  to  get  a  scare  tactic  go- 
ing in  that  area  to  reject  outright  any  loca- 
tion of  an  industrial  waste  plant.  Before  any 
assessment  could  take  place  or  before  any 
hearing  could  take  place,  they  wanted  to 
have  people  scared  so  they  would  object  to 
having  it  there;  yet  at  the  same  time  they 
want  the  problem  dealt  with. 

This  minister  is  taking  steps  to  deal  with 
the  problem.  He  is  taking  steps  to  work  with 
the  people,  wherever  the  plant  might  be  lo- 
cated, and  there  is  not  even  an  assurance  at 
this  point  that  it  will  be  located  at  the  South 
Cayuga  site.  That  is  the  site  the  minister 
has  chosen.  There  will  be  a  lot  of  work  going 
on  before  it  is  finally  said  that  this  is  where 
it  will  be  located.  That  scare  tactic  still  goes 
on  among  the  members  of  the  opposition. 

It  is  the  responsibility  of  the  opposition,  as 
well,  to  try  to  take  a  look  at  the  facts  prop- 
erly, to  try  to  assess  what  is  needed,  to  try 
to  assess  the  technology  that  is  going  to  be 
applied.  Probably  the  best  technology  in  the 
world  will  be  applied  to  this  site  to  handle 
liquid  industrial  waste  in  this  province.  Surely 
this  is  what  we  want;  this  is  the  way  we  want 
the  waste  handled.  If  we  continued  the  way 
we  were,  with  an  area  suggested  and  imme- 
diately an  attempt  made  to  block  it,  we 
would  never  get  this  technology  developed 
in  Ontario.  There  were  certainly  people  at 
the  federation  meeting  this  morning  who 
said,  "We  must  get  on  with  the  job;  we  have 
a  lot  at  stake." 

The  agricultural  industry  uses  a  lot  of 
chemicals  in  producing  food  in  this  province. 
Those  chemicals  produce  some  of  the  indus- 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4679 


trial  wastes  that  have  to  he  disposed  of  here. 
It  is  in  that  light  they  are  concerned.  They 
want  to  see  industrial  waste  treated.  Cer- 
tainly there  is  going  to  be  emotion  involved 
in  whatever  area  it  will  take  place.  But  I 
think  that  type  of  suggestion  today  shows 
the  responsibility,  particularly  of  the  agricul- 
tural community,  and  they  were  not  limiting 
it  to  their  own  organization  to  be  involved 
in  a  committee.  They  were  suggesting  they 
would  take  the  leadership  to  promote  the 
committee,  but  that  lawyers,  environmental- 
ists and  engineers  be  involved  in  it,  people 
who  would  take  a  responsible  look  at  it. 
Those  people  could  then  pass  on  their  com- 
ments and  their  facts  to  the  public  and  could 
deal  with  the  public  so  there  is  not  suspicion 
cast  by  the  opposition  that  it  is  the  govern- 
ment that  is  doing  it. 

It  really  is  a  belittlement  by  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  when  he  suggests  that  it  is  a 
political  ploy  of  any  kind  on  the  part  of  the 
government  to  have  people  like  that  in- 
volved. Surely  all  the  citizens  of  this  province 
want  to  see  people  involved  in  it,  who  are 
interested  in  seeing  that  the  job  is  carried 
out  correctly.  Members  opposite  destroy  the 
process  by  the  actions  of  people  going  out 
and  starting  their  scare-mongering  before  that 
process  can  be  followed  through. 

Interjections. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:    Order. 

Mr.  Eaton:  This  process  can  be  a  leader  in 
North  America.  It  can  be  an  example  for 
other  jurisdictions  to  follow  in  treating  their 
waste,  and  we  need  that. 

Mr.  Swart:  On  prime  land? 
4:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Eaton:  I  think  anybody  in  this  prov- 
ince should  be  prepared  to  sacrifice  100 
acres  of  prime  agricultural  land  to  see  that 
industrial  waste  in  this  province  is  treated. 
The  importance  of  this  treating  of  industrial 
waste  far  outweighs  100  acres  of  land.  The 
industrial  waste  that  is  being  spread  around 
this  province  at  this  time  by  irresponsible 
people  and  the  blocking  of  the  process  of 
being  able  to  treat  it  by  irresponsible  opera- 
tions could  do  a  lot  more  than  damage  100 
acres  of  land  in  this  province.  It  could  put 
all  kinds  of  acres  out  of  production.  This  is 
what  has  to  be  considered  at  this  time. 

I  would  hate  to  see  the  members  opposite 
do  it  because  where  would  they  put  it?  They 
would  go  to  every  community  and  say,  "We 
can't  put  it  in  your  community."  On  the 
basis  of  facts,  on  the  basis  of  information,  this 
minister  is  taking  leadership  in  doing  what 


needs  to  be  done  in  this  province  in  regard 
to  treating  industrial  waste. 

He  deserves  the  consideration  and  support 
of  the  people  of  this  province  to  do  it,  and 
to  do  it  in  a  rational  way.  I  am  sure  if 
people  look  at  it  rationally  and  not  just  for 
political  purposes,  as  some  people  on  the 
other  side  are  doing,  not  just  for  scare- 
mongering,  this  job  will  be  done,  and  it  will 
be  a  landmark  in  North  America  for  the 
treatment  of  industrial  wastes. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  with 
a  great  deal  of  pleasure  that  I  rise  to  speak 
in  this  emergency  debate  this  afternoon.  We 
have  come  to  the  crossroads  in  the  history  of 
Ontario  when  we  are  beginning  to  deal 
realistically  with  our  wastes  and  trying  to 
manage  them  properly.  I  think  that  is  a  step 
in  the  right  direction,  and  I  would  be  the 
first  to  agree  we  should  be  doing  it  in  a 
proper  manner.  We  have  been  trying  to  deal 
with  this  matter  ever  since  I  came  into  the 
Legislature  in  1975.  Because  the  government 
would  not  bring  forward  proper  policies  and 
guidelines  to  deal  with  it,  we  have  got  into 
a  position  at  this  time  where  we  are  in  a 
panic  position. 

We  are  talking  about  an  area  in  the  riding 
of  Haldimand-Norfolk,  along  the  northern 
shores  of  Lake  Erie,  which  happens  to  be 
represented  by  a  Liberal  member  at  the 
present  time.  I  am  proud  to  be  a  representa- 
tive of  that  area.  I  was  born  and  raised  there 
and  have  made  my  living  there.  I  have 
worked  with  that  soil  from  the  time  I  was  12 
years  old,  and  I  think  I  understand  it  as  well 
as  anybody  in  this  House,  and  maybe  as 
well  as  anybody  in  Ontario. 

We  are  talking  about  12,500  acres  of  soil 
that  is  number  one  and  two  class  land  as 
classified  according  to  the  old  classification— 
90  per  cent  of  it.  It  is  a  resource  we  can 
make  no  more  of.  We  have  no  more  access  to 
it.  If  We  do  not  guard  it  properly,  it  goes 
down  the  drain,  never  to  be  retrieved.  As  I 
drive  from  home  to  Toronto  every  day,  T  see 
the  good  land  being  utilized  along  the  QEW. 
When  I  was  a  boy  it  was  beautiful  orchards, 
beautiful  farm  land.  It  has  disappeared;  it 
has  been  paved  over.  We  have  no  more 
access  to  it. 

The  same  thing  could  happen  with  this 
particular  piece  of  land  we  are  talking  about 
in  Haldimand  county:  12,500  acres  of  class 
one  and  class  two  land.  We  have  already 
established  a  steel  plant  in  my  area,  which 
is  coming  on  stream.  They  own  6,500  acres 
of  land.  They  have  not  even  got  one  plant 
there  at  the  present  time,  with  the  exception 


4680 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  Charles  Jones  Industrial  Limited  and 
Marsh  Engineering.  They  have  the  oxygen 
plant.  But  there  are  3,500  acres  of  land  there 
not  being  utilized.  If  the  government  really 
wants  to  take  a  look  at  some  place  to  be 
utilized  as  a  waste  disposal  site,  that  land  is 
already  zoned  for  heavy  industry.  It  is 
already  being  properly  utilized.  Why  not  take 
100  acres  of  that  land  and  put  the  proper 
equipment  in  and  deal  with  it?  Why  should 
the  industry  of  our  province  not  take  some 
responsibility  for  dealing  with  its  wastes? 

Farmers  recycle  their  waste  and  put  it  on 
the  fields.  It  makes  the  crops  grow  better. 
We  do  not  ask  for  support.  The  Minister  of 
the  Environment,  living  in  the  great  county 
of  Oxford,  must  understand  that.  But  he  has 
not  cared  to  look  at  it.  The  government  has 
12,500  acres  of  land  for  which  it  paid  $2,000 
an  acre.  The  Minister  of  the  Environment 
thinks  it  is  dear;  he  is  getting  criticized  for 
it.  Down  the  road  a  few  years  that  land  may 
well  be  worth  $5,000  an  acre  for  agricultural 
purposes. 

I  will  give  the  honourable  members  an 
example.  In  Norfolk  county— again  going  back 
50  years— one  could  buy  all  the  land  one 
could  get  one's  hands  on  for  $2,500  for  100 
acres.  What  does  it  cost  today?  I  just  had  a 
call  from  one  of  my  constituents  who  was 
buying  164  acres  and  how  much  was  he 
quoted  for  a  farm  credit  loan?  Does  the  min- 
ister want  to  guess?  It  was  something  like 
$750,000,  which  works  out  to  $5,000  an 
acre.  I  am  telling  the  minister  this  because 
it  is  properly  managed.  If  he  lets  them  come 
into  that  area  and  start  this  plant,  although 
it  only  takes  100  acres  as  the  member  for 
Middlesex  said,  what  happens  to  the  land 
around  it?  Can  crops  be  grown  around  it? 
My  understanding  is  that  that  land  goes 
down  the  drain.  The  food  cannot  even  be 
eaten. 

I  agree  we  need  a  bridge  there.  That  is 
being  held  out  like  candy  to  us.  I  agree  we 
need  a  bridge  there,  but  do  we  need  the 
bridge  to  get  from  Port  Colborne  to  the  in- 
dustrial park?  I  have  pointed  out  to  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions (Mr.  Snow)  many  times,  because  we 
have  access  to  an  industrial  park,  we  have 
access  to  Dunnville  and  we  have  access  to 
Port  Colborne.  In  the  meantime,  leave  it  as 
agricultural  land. 

They  should  spend  $425,000  for  a  drain- 
age study  to  improve  the  drainage.  I  have 
been  trying  to  get  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  (Mr.  Henderson)  to  do  just 
that,    to    put    it    under    the    Department    of 


Regional  Economic  Expansion  program,  be- 
cause I  understand  Haldimand  needs  some 
improvement  in  drainage.  It  needs  some 
special  attention  because  they  are  not  getting 
a  return  for  their  dollar.  If  they  could  get 
a  return  on  the  dollar  from  the  land,  they 
could  compete  with  industry  any  time. 

The  minister  is  making  a  mistake.  As  I 
indicated  to  the  Speaker  today,  the  minister 
is  treating  the  people  as  third-class  citizens 
by  not  even  providing  the  rights  of  law 
established  in  this  House.  He  is  going  against 
that  very  grain. 

Now  he  says  that  we  are  going  out  on  the 
street  and  misleading  people.  We  are  not 
misleading  people.  I  would  like  to  read  my 
press  release: 

"The  government's  decision  to  locate  a 
liquid  industrial  waste  site  in  South  Cayuga 
is  irresponsible  and  totally  unacceptable.  Any 
attempt  to  bulldoze  this  decision  through 
this  Legislature  in  the  same  way  that 
regional  government  was  forced  down  our 
throats  must  be  fought  every  step  of  the 
way  and  I  intend  to  do  that." 

As  the  member  representing  the  riding  of 
Haldimand-Norfolk,  I  do  not  just  consider 
my  riding  but  the  rights  of  everybody  in 
Ontario.  The  government  of  Ontario  does  not 
accept  its  responsibilities  when  it  tries  to 
locate  those  sites  within  Liberal  ridings 
to  its  own  political  benefit. 

I  received  a  resolution  from  the  region  of 
Haldimand-Norfolk  today  and  I  would  like 
to  read  it  to  the  minister.  The  reason  I  did 
not  put  it  to  him  in  question  period  was 
because  it  was  addressed  to  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  and  I  knew  the  Premier  was  not 
here: 

"Would  the  Premier  rescind  the  decision 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  and 
follow  the  province's  own  environmental 
assessment  process,  which  includes  a  full 
environmental  study  under  the  terms  of  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act  and  an  inde- 
pendent public  hearing  by  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Board,  before  proceeding  with 
any  such  facility?" 

That  was  supported  unanimously  by  the 
council  of  the  region  of  Haldimand-Norfolk. 
That  is  not  mine.  It  is  from  the  people  who 
represent  that  area.  They  are  just  asking  for 
justice,  the  same  as  anyone  else  in  the 
province  and,  as  I  said  to  the  Speaker,  the}* 
are  not  third-rate  citizens.  We  have  people 
who  live  on  the  other  side  of  the  Grand 
River.  We  have  a  parcel  on  the  Grand  River 
which  is  being  used  by  the  public—a  public 
park,  run  privately.  Doesn't  the  government 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4681 


think  they  should  have  some  protection? 
How  can  they  justify  spending  these  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  dollars  to  protect  their  own 
seats  over  there? 

I  think  the  minister  is  on  the  wrong  track 
and  if  he  does  not  reverse  it,  he  is  going  to 
have  to  go  to  the  people  of  Ontario  and 
explain  it,  because  he  is  wrong.  The  Minister 
of  Agriculture  and  Food  is  not  meeting  his 
responsibilities  to  protect  the  land.  We  have 
asked  him,  in  all  fairness,  to  stand  up  for 
agriculture  because  agriculture  is  good  for 
the  steel  company  of  Nanticoke.  Agriculture 
is  good  for  that  hydro  plant  at  Nanticoke. 
Agriculture  is  good  for  the  Texaco  oil  refin- 
ery there.  Agriculture  is  good  for  Port  Mait- 
land,  which  is  making  plans  to  put  up  hold- 
ing areas  for  storage  of  our  grain  to  give 
it  access  to  the  St.  Lawrence  Seaway. 

4:30  p.m. 

They  are  taking  away  from  that  area  any 
possibility  of  developing  agriculture  in  the 
future  just  because  they  paid  $2,000  an 
acre.  It  may  be  cheap  down  the  road.  They 
are  going  to  have  to  stand  up  and  take  the 
flak.  We  did  not  make  that  decision.  They 
are  the  ones  who  did  and  they  are  going 
to  have  to  stand  by  it. 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to  speak 
against  the  decison  made  by  the  honourable 
minister.  In  doing  so,  I  recognize  he  has 
made  a  couple  of  moves  in  the  right  direc- 
tion. First,  the  waste  is  going  to  be  handled 
by  a  crown  corporation;  second,  the  location 
is  somewhat  removed  from  large  and  per- 
haps even  small  urban  areas. 

What  the  minister  has  done  is  objection- 
able for  two  fundamental  reasons  around 
which  everybody  else's  remarks  have  re- 
volved. First,  he  has  abolished  the  environ- 
mental assessment  procedure,  has  bypassed 
it;  second,  he  is  locating  this  on  prime 
farm  land. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  You  are  the  guy  who, 
more  than  anyone  else,  destroyed  it.  You 
should  be  ashamed  to  rise  in  your  seat  and 
say  that. 

Mr.  Swart:  The  reason  the  minister  gives 
is  that  there  is  such  urgency  at  the  present 
time  and  that  is  why  he  must  abolish  the 
environmental  hearing.  There  is  some  valid- 
ity to  saying  there  is  urgency  at  this  time 
but  we  are  at  this  point  now  through  the 
fault  of  his  ministry  and  his  government. 
There  is  no  mistake  about  it.  He  is  the 
author  of  his  own  misfortune  with  regard 
to  the  rejection  his  government  has  been 
getting  from  the  public. 


The  minister's  actions  in  the  last  two  years 
have  been  totally  inexcusable.  First,  over  the 
two  years  he  has  ignored  his  own  reports. 
He  knows  very  well  that  the  interim  report  for 
The  Development  of  Treatment  and  Disposal 
Sites  for  Liquid  Industrial  Waste,  which  was 
done  by  MacLaren,  makes  specific  recom- 
mendations, and  the  two  sites  he  chose  did 
not  conform  to  any  of  the  recommendations 
made  in  that  original  report.  The  site  the 
minister  has  now  chosen  conforms  only  in 
part,  even  though  that  report  lays  out  30  to 
70  other  sites  that  do  conform  with  the 
criteria  listed  in  this  report. 

I  think  I  am  correct  in  saying— if  not,  the 
minister  can  correct  me  when  he  gets  up  to 
speak— that  the  minister  stated  his  previous 
selections  had  conformed  with  section  three 
of  the  interim  report  on  liquid  industrial  waste 
of  the  standing  committee  on  resources  de- 
velopment. I  say  to  the  minister  categori- 
cally—and I  would  like  him  to  deal  with  it 
when  he  gets  up— that  the  sites  selected  in 
Thorold  and  Harwich  did  not  conform  with 
any  of  the  five  options.  The  number  three 
option,  which  the  minister  quoted  yesterday, 
called  for  joint  public-private  ownership  in 
operation  of  sites  and  facilities.  Where  was 
the  joint  public-private  ownership  in  Thorold? 
Where  was  it  in  Harwich?  It  is  totally  private 
in  Thorold.  It  did  not  conform  with  one  of 
those  five  options. 

This  was  put  before  the  minister  over  two 
years  ago  and  he  frittered  away  those  two 
years.  Now  he  says  he  does  not  have  time 
for  an  environmental  assessment. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  They  are  not  even  on  the  list. 

Mr.  Swart:  I  know.  The  one  we  have  now 
is  not  even  on  this  list. 

The  minister  has  lost  the  support  of  the 
public  and  what  he  has  done  has  been  re- 
jected because  of  his  lack  of  inspection. 

The  minister  replied  to  a  letter  of  mine, 
which  I  wrote  last  June  to  tell  him  there 
were  not  adequate  inspection  officers  in  the 
Niagara  Peninsula,  by  saying— and  he  will 
recall  this— that  the  opposition  parties,  includ- 
ing the  New  Democratic  Party,  had  demanded 
funds  for  the  environment  be  cut  down.  I 
challenge  the  minister  now  to  get  up  in  this 
House  and  name  one  member  on  this  side  of 
the  House  who  asked  that  funds  in  the  Minis- 
try of  the  Environment  be  cut  back.  I  chal- 
lenge him  to  do  that.  He  said  that  to  me  in 
the  letter. 

The  minister  did  not  do  the  inspection.  He 
does  not  know  what  was  going  on  in  the 
area.  This  is  one  of  the  main  reasons  he  has 
been  rejected  by  the  public. 


4682 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


It  is  the  citizens  who  have  had  to  police  the 
minister's  dump  sites  and  where  the  industrial 
waste  was  going.  This  was  true  in  Thorold. 
The  minister  did  not  know  there  were  prob- 
lems there  or  that  there  were  problems  in 
Upper  Ottawa  Street.  He  knew  nothing  until 
ihey  were  brought  to  his  attention.  It  is  no 
wonder  the  public  rejects  his  government's 
attempts  to  dispose  of  industrial  waste.  They 
have  every  right  to  have  such  little  faith  in 
his  government. 

The  minister's  failure  also  has  been  due  in 
no  small  part  to  the  secretiveness  of  what 
he  has  been  doing.  He  had  a  report  on  the 
Thorold  site  last  January  that  told  him  there 
was  liquid  industrial  waste  in  the  boreholes. 
One  of  them  even  was  reported  to  have  had 
paint  in  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  it  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  Swart:  I  have  the  report  here.  It  cer- 
tainly did  say  there  was  paint  in  one  of  the 
boreholes  where  there  was  not  supposed  to 
be  waste  of  any  kind. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Read  that  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Swart:  I  have  the  report  here  and  the 
minister  knows  it. 

The  minister's  failure  has  been  due  to  the 
inadequacies  of  inspection  and  his  doctri- 
naire beliefs  that  he  had  to  let  private  enter- 
prise do  the  whole  thing.  He  has  now  come 
around  after  two  years  to  taking  the  right 
move  in  that  direction,  but  that  was  what 
caused  a  lot  of  the  problems  he  had. 

Everything  the  minister  has  done  up  to 
this  time  in  the  disposal  of  industrial  liquid1 
wastes  has  been  wrong  and  now  it  is  time 
he  did  it  right.  He  cannot  do  it  right  at  this 
site  in  South  Cayuga  without  an  environ- 
mental assessment.  There  must  be  an  en- 
vironmental assessment. 

Finally  I  want  to  deal  with  the  issue  of 
using  prime  land.  I  hope  when  the  minister 
gets  up  he  will  say  how  much  of  the  prime 
land  in  that  area  will  be  prohibited  from 
growing  crops  which  can  go  directly  to 
human  consumption.  I  hope  he  will  make 
that  comment  because  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture and1  Food  did  not  say  that. 

We  know  there  are  640  more  acres  taken 
out  under  the  total  of  something  like  12,600 
acres.  We  know  there  are  going  to  be  about 
75  million  gallons  of  liquid  waste  that  is 
going  to  have  to  be  stored  around  there 
someplace  after  it  is  solidified  or  treated  by 
whatever  process  the  minister  is  going  to  be 
using.  We  know  this  site  is  contrary  to  the 
interim  report  that  was  provided  to  him  by 
MacLaren.  There  are  perhaps  70  other  sites 


in  total,  either  optimum  or  minimum,  which 
they  first  recommended  before  the  minister 
told  them  where  they  should  go  to  bail  his 
government  out  of  the  money  it  has  spent  up 
there. 

It  is  deplorable  that  this  government, 
which  has  done  nothing  to  date  to  preserve 
the  farm  land  in  this  province- 
Mr.  Eaton:  That  is  baloney. 
Mr.  Swart:  I  challenge  the  honourable 
members  over  there  to  name  one  single  major 
development  that  has  been  deferred  or 
stopped  because  it  was  to  be  located  on 
prime  farm  land.  They  simply  cannot  do  it 
in  the  Niagara  Peninsula  or  any  place  else. 
It  is  full  speed  ahead  to  develop  on  the  very 
best  land  in  this  province. 

Even  their  own  document  that  was  put 
out,  their  food  land  guidelines,  should  tell 
them  this  is  not  the  place  to  locate  that  site. 
It  says  such  things  as,  "Lands  are  to  be  avail- 
able for  agricultural  use"— that  is  the  high 
priority  agricultural  land.  On  a  long-term 
basis,  the  type  of  land  use  permitted  should 
only  include  uses  compatible  with  agriculture 
and  so  on.  That  thing  is  no  more  worth  the 
paper  it  is  written  on  than  the  Environmen- 
tal Assessment  Act  if  the  minister  goes  ahead 
and  breaks  this  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  Turner:  Where  would  you  put  it? 

Mr.  Eaton:  You  don't  want  the  job  done. 
That  is  what  it  boils  down  to. 

Mr.  Swart:  The  honourable  members  on 
that  side  of  the  House  have  no  concern  at 
all  about  the  world  food  prices  we  are 
coming  into  at  the  present  time.  They  have 
no  concern  at  all  about  the  lack  of  self- 
sufficiency  of  food  production  in  this  province 
or  in  this  nation.  They  shake  their  heads; 
they  don't  have  any  concern  about  that. 

4:40  p.m. 

Just  two  or  three  days  ago  in  the  paper 
there  was  a  reference  to  a  starvation  alert. 
"The  world  needs  to  go  on  a  global  alert 
because  its  food  stocks  are  so  dangerously 
low,  the  United  Nations  Food  and  Agricul- 
tural Organization  said  Friday."  I  also  have 
another  report  from  the  Globe  and  Mail  of 
September  16. 

The  Acting   Speaker  (Mr.   MacBeth):   The 

member's  time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Swart:  It  forecasts  one  million  dead  in 
Africa  this  year.  Yet  the  government  is  pre- 
pared on  any  pretext  to  go  ahead  with  the 
destruction  of  the  best  land  in  this  province, 
It  is  a  pattern  it  has  followed  for  37  years, 
and  we  in  this  party  are  going  to  do  every- 
thing we  can  to  stop  it. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4683 


Mr.  Ashe:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  indeed  proud 
to  be  able  to  stand  up  so  close  to  a  man 
with  guts.  There  are  really  not  too  many 
people  in  this  particular  House  who  have  the 
guts  of  the  present  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment (Mr.  Parrott).  It  must  be  extremely 
easy  to  sit  over  there  and  constantly  criticize 
until  they  finally  convince  themselves  they 
cannot  have  a  positive  thought  to  save  their 
lives.  That  is  what  goes  on  all  of  the  time. 
They  say  the  government  is  not  doing  this 
and  the  government  is  not  doing  that;  there 
is  liquid  industrial  waste  being  dumped  here 
and  there  is  liquid  industrial  waste  being 
dumped  there;  the  government  is  not  getting 
on  with  the  job;  it  is  not  solving  the  problem. 

What  happens  when  the  government  takes 
an  action  through  a  minister,  through  a 
ministry  or  somebody  who  does  something 
right?  The  first  thing  they  do  is  criticize.  It 
really  does  not  matter  what  the  process  is, 
they  immediately  criticize  it.  They  immedi- 
ately then  use  some  representatives,  whether 
they  be  honourable  members  or  people  re- 
tained to  advise  people  on  the  other  side, 
whether  they  be  leaders  of  the  opposition  or 
others  to  see  if  they  can  go  out  and  disturb 
the  area  in  question. 

It  is  a  matter,  I  suppose,  of  conscience  be 
damned,  of  getting  on  with  the  problem  and 
problem  solving  be  damned.  They  stand  up 
and  say,  "Yes,  we  are  all  in  support  of  a 
better  environment  but,"  and  it  is  in  that  big 
"but"  that  the  political  overtones  really  come 
through.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  saving,  "Yes, 
we  think  this  is  good  about  it.  We  think 
there  is  a  little  weakness  here.  Yes,  we  would 
make  a  very  positive,  concrete  recommenda- 
tion there  that  might  help.  We  will  be  part  of 
a  co-operative  government  process  and  part 
of  a  legislative  process  that  will  end  up  as 
the  best  for  the  people  of  Ontario  and 
that  will  end  up  with  the  problem  being 
solved  that  everybody  acknowledges  exists."  I 
really  have  not  heard  anybody  who  does  not 
acknowledge  the  problem  exists.  But,  no,  that 
is  not  what  they  do  over  there. 

What  happens  when  there  are  hearings? 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  right  in  my  riding,  as 
many  of  the  members  in  this  chamber  are 
well  aware  and  as  some  of  the  people  sitting 
in  the  galleries  right  now  are  aware,  there 
has  been  a  proposal  put  forth  by  the  regional 
municipality  in  which  I  reside  and  part  of 
which  I  represent  to  convert  a  redundant 
sewage  treatment  plant  to  a  treatment  plant 
to  treat  liquid  industrial  waste.  That  was  the 
proposal.  Some  of  the  same  people  I  am 
talking  about  went  out  and  stirred  up  the 
people. 


There  is  no  doubt  people  have  quite  legit- 
imate concerns.  They  want  it  proven  whether 
something  is  right  or  something  is  wrong. 
We  went  that  process.  I  am  very  pleased  to 
say  the  people  of  Ajax  were  much  more 
responsible  and  receptive  to  their  natural 
feelings  than  those  in  some  of  the  other 
areas  which  were  being  proposed  for  an  en- 
vironmental assessment. 

What  happens  there?  The  people  are 
turned  off  and  have  their  minds  made  up 
before  the  process  is  even  allowed  to  happen 
because  things  are  stirred  up  from  within. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Come  down  and  tell  the 
people  of  Harwich  they  are  irresponsible. 

Mr.  Ashe:  How  can  members  opposite  talk 
about  the  problem  there  is  in  having  a  hear- 
ing when  they  are  already  telling  them  it 
does  not  matter  what  the  hearing  says 
because  the  answer  is  no?  Let  us  get  on  and 
be  realistic.  You  cannot  have  your  cake  both 
ways.  You  cannot  have  your  cake  and  eat  it 
too.  One  has  to  be  on  one  side  or  the  other. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  privilege:  I  did  not  at  any  time  tell  the 
people  of  Harwich  they  could  not  have  a 
hearing.  I  fought  for  the  matter  of  their 
having  funding  for  the  hearing.  I  challenge 
the  member  or  any  member  on  that  side  to 
find  where  I  said  that.  Until  he  can  find 
that,   I  demand  he  withdraw  his  statement. 

Mr.  Ashe:  The  member  must  have  a  guilty 
conscience.  I  do  not  know  that  I  was  talking 
about  him  when  I  pointed  over  there,  but  if 
it  makes  him  feel  better,  that  is  fine.  I  will 
acknowledge,  I  do  not  know  if  he  personally 
made  those  kinds  of  statements.  I  will  say 
categorically  that  some  of  the  members  over 
there  made  those  kinds  of  statements  in  his 
area.  I  apologize  to  him  personally  if  he 
did  not. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  I  would  say  again,  no  one 
on  our  side  of  the  House  made  irresponsible 
statements  regarding  Harwich.  Perhaps 
people  did  from  another  party  that  came  in, 
but  not  from  this  party. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  The  honourable 
member  may  speak  for  himself.  I  do  not  see 
how  he  can  speak  for  the  entire  group. 

Mr.  Ashe:  It  is  also  on  the  record  that  I 
feel,  and  I  think  it  has  been  acknowledged  by 
many,  there  is  a  process  in  place.  How  can 
the  member,  or  any  member  in  here,  con- 
sciously get  up  and  say,  "We  have  a  process, 
we  have  law,  we  have  to  live  by  it,"  and  at 
the  same  time  go  out  there  and  say,  "We 
are  opposed  to  it"?  That  is  the  same  as  say- 
ing,  "It   does   not   matter  what  the  process 


4684 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


says.  We  do  not  even  want  the  process  to 
happen  because  our  minds  are  made  up." 

The  member  has  said  that  whether  he 
wanted  the  process  to  happen  or  not,  he  made 
a  conclusion,  and  the  same  thing  has  hap- 
pened in  many  places.  The  answer  is,  the 
problem  is  still  there.  We  have  a  minister 
who  has  the  guts  to  get  on  and  solve  the 
problem.  Let  us  do  it  responsibly  and  let  us 
try  to  get  something  concrete  out  of  it. 
There  are  even  some  suggestions  vis-a-vis  the 
choice  of  that  particular  site. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege:  I  did  not  draw  any  such  conclu- 
sions. I  call  on  the  minister,  who  was  at  a 
meeting  in  Blenheim  in  Harwich  township,  at 
which  I  clearly  said  I  supported  the  law  and 
I  would  not  take  part  in  any  activity  that 
violated  the  laws  of  this  province.  The  min- 
ister was  there  and  heard  me  say  that. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  The  point  has  been 
made. 

Mr.  Ashe:  I  hope  the  Speaker  is  keeping 
track  of  the  time  and  all  of  mine  is  not  being 
used. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  I  have  that  in  the 
back  of  my  mind. 

Mr.  Ashe:  There  have,  of  course,  also  been 
suggestions  as  to  the  choice  of  that  particular 
site.  I  would  even  suggest  that  some  of  the 
innuendoes  that  have  been  put  out  here,  to- 
day particularly  and  I  suppose  to  a  lesser 
degree  on  Tuesday,  would  really  impugn  the 
integrity  of  the  MacLaren  engineering  firm 
and  the  reasons  and  motivations  that  ended  up 
in  its  report. 

Of  course,  that  is  up  to  that  particular 
organization,  which  I  am  sure  has  the  ex- 
pertise and  the  qualifications  to  defend  its 
integrity.  I  am  really  surprised  that  certain 
members  would  even  think  that  low  of  a  pro- 
fessional organization.  I  believe  they  have 
professionals  working  there  and  they  are 
widely  recognized  as  being  a  highly  profes- 
sional organization. 

What  we  are  really  talking  about  here  is 
a  problem  that  has  to  be  solved.  We  are  talk- 
ing about  solving  it  in  a  reasonable  and  re- 
sponsible way.  Once  again,  we  have  the 
rural  community  through  some  of  the  spokes- 
men opposite  saying,  "They  do  not  recognize 
famine  in  the  world;  they  are  going  to  abuse 
100  acres  of  land."  What  rubbish— 100  acres. 
They  say,  "Bring  it  into  the  urban  com- 
munity." But  those  same  people  will  go 
around  into  the  urban  community— again,  the 
town  of  Ajax,  which  I  represent,  is  exactly 
that;  it  is  a  relatively  small  urban  community 


—they  go  in  there  and  say,  "Not  in  the  urban 
community;  put  it  out  in  the  sticks;  put  it  out 
in  the  boondocks."  They  cannot  have  their 
cake  and  eat  it  too. 

There  were  even  advisers  who  came,  for 
example,  into  my  area,  professional  advisers 
who,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  would  not  even  put 
their  own  professional  views  in  front  of  their 
peers  for  examination.  I  suspect  their  actual 
motivations  in  that. 
4:50  p.m. 

Those  suspicions  have  some  validity.  But 
some  of  these  situations  are  suspect  when  it 
is  a  matter  of  you're  agin  it  if  it  is  here, 
maybe  for  the  exact  opposite  reasons.  How- 
ever that  really  is  irrelevant.  It  is  a  matter 
of  always  being  opposed  to  everything  and 
anything.  I  think  it  is  nice  to  know  that  we 
have  a  minister,  a  government  and  a  prov- 
ince that  are  recognizing  the  problem  and 
want  to  solve  it  in  a  reasonable,  fashionable, 
responsible  way  to  the  betterment  of  us  all, 
to  get  away  from  the  irresponsible  dumping 
and  misuse  of  our  lands  going  on  now  in 
the  disposal  of  these  same  products. 

People  do  not  want  to  comprehend  that 
the  problem  does  not  store  itself.  It  does 
not  just  disappear  for  the  two  or  three  years 
some  members  would  want  to  add  to  the 
process.  It  is  here,  now.  I  would  even  go 
so  far  as  to  say  there  are  some  lands  now 
being  degraded  in  this  province  because 
there  is  no  place  to  go.  This  government, 
through  the  guts  of  this  minister,  is  solving 
that  problem  and  it  deserves  the  support 
of  this  Legislature. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  earlier  today 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  stated  in 
this  House  that  Dr.  Chant  "recommends  the 
concept  of  this  facility  and  the  site  selection 
need  not  be  subject  to  hearing  under  the  En- 
vironmental Assessment  Act." 

That  implies  to  me  that  Dr.  Chant  in 
some  way  endorses  the  action  of  the  govern- 
ment in  not  having  an  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act  hearing  for  that  site  selection.  But 
the  fact  is  I  have  just  spoken  to  Dr.  Chant 
and  he  makes  the  following  statement,  which 
I  am  authorized  to  read  in  the  House  to 
correct  the  record.  He  says: 

"I  do  regret  that  the  site  selection  was 
not  subject  to  a  proper  environmental  assess- 
ment hearing,  but  given  that  the  govern- 
ment has  decided  that  the  facility  is  going 
to  be  in  South  Cayuga,  I  am  willing  to 
operate  that  facility  to  make  certain  that  it 
is  the  best  facility  that  money  can  buy." 

I  want  to  make  it  very  plain  that  Dr.  Chant 
does  not  in  any  way  endorse  the  fact  that 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4685 


there  was  not  an  environmental  assessment 
hearing.  He  simply  said  that  given  that  the 
site  is  a  fait  accompli  and  the  facility  is  to  be 
there  because  the  government  has  so  de- 
cided, he  is  prepared  to  operate  the  facility. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  The  opposition  has 
been  placed  on  the  record. 

Mr.  Nixon:  It  concerns  me  that  the  in- 
formation just  put  on  the  record  by  my 
colleague,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  does 
not  fall  directly  in  line  with  the  statement 
made  by  the  minister  earlier  today. 

I  was  very  concerned  that  copies  of  the 
minister's  statement  were  not  available  be- 
cause thev  were  so  important.  The  intent 
of  using  Dr.  Chant  and  Dr.  Emery,  appar- 
ently a  well  known  member  of  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture,  to  carry  the  argu- 
ment is  substantially  unfair.  I  hesitate  and 
do  not  use  the  word  "misleading,"  but  I  feel 
there  was  at  least  an  attempt  to  carry  the 
argument  by  fastening  it  to  the  reputation 
of  these  men  rather  than  having  it  on  its 
own  merits. 

I  represent  a  constituency  right  next  to 
that  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 
We  have  no  problem  whatsoever  co-operat- 
ing in  local  affairs.  The  question  from  the 
minister  and  his  colleagues  is  a  valid  one: 
What  would  we  do  instead?  I  would  say 
the  best  answer  is  that  we,  and  they,  should 
simply  obey  the  law.  If  there  is  a  problem 
with  the  buildup  of  toxic  waste  from  indus- 
try without  a  reasonable  procedure  for  dis- 
posal, I  can  only  assign  some  of  the  blame 
to  the  present  Minister  of  the  Environment. 

The  blame  must  be  shared  with  his  col- 
leagues and  predecessors  going  back  15  years 
because  the  policy  of  the  Conservative  gov- 
ernment has  been  to  vacillate  and  play  pro- 
tective politics  with  an  issue  that  they  knew 
must  be  solved  at  some  time.  The  chickens 
have  come  home  to  roost.  The  toxic  wastes 
are  gathering  in  the  present  minister's  pud- 
dle and  he  must  do  something  about  it.  We 
agree  on  all  sides. 

All  sorts  of  alternatives  have  been  pro- 
posed. One  of  the  most  outlandish  was  to 
store  some  of  these  toxic  wastes  in  Middle- 
port,  the  constituency  of  Brant.  We  debated 
that  in  the  House  and  a  number  of  questions 
were  asked.  The  minister  adhered  to  the 
concept  of  an  environmental  hearing  in  that 
case,  which  was  proper.  In  fact,  it  postponed 
the  breaking  of  ground  for  such  a  temporary 
storage  facility  by  18  to  24  months. 

Now  the  minister  has  simply  forgotten  that 
area  and  I  am  glad,  but  the  alternative  on 
which    he    has    lighted,    putting    the    toxic 


wastes  in  South  Cayuga  without  an  environ- 
mental hearing  is  completely  unacceptable.  I 
cannot  accept  the  argument  that  we  have  no 
time  for  an  environmental  hearing,  a  concept 
that  has  been  intrinsic  in  what  the  minister 
and  other  spokesmen  for  the  government 
have  said.  Deciding  once  and  for  all  the  dis- 
position of  toxic  wastes  is  an  important,  and 
I  might  as  well  say  politically  sensitive, 
matter.  If  the  minister  had  the  guts  to  which 
his  colleague  alluded  in  the  most  previous 
speech,  he  should  certainly  have  undertaken 
to  retain  the  very  best  independent  advisers 
and  consultants  from  any  place  in  Ontario 
and  asked  them  to  come  up  with  their  prin- 
cipal recommendation  for  the  disposal  of 
these  toxic  wastes. 

You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  South  Cayuga 
area  was  not  even  referred  to  in  MacLaren's 
interim  report.  The  only  thing  that  recom- 
mends South  Cayuga  is  that  the  government 
owns  it  and  therefore  can  move  forward 
without  the  problems  that  might  be  involved 
in  an  expropriation  hearing. 

They  have  asked  what  we  would  do,  and 
what  should  be  done  if  MacLaren  has  the 
people  who  are  best  in  this.  It  concerns  me 
that  their  reports,  which  do  not  even  show 
that  South  Cayuga  should  be  the  repository 
for  these  wastes,  do  not  even  show  red  or 
pink  behind  the  crosshatched  blue,  indicating 
that  it  was  considered  previously  as  a  depos- 
itory. There  is  every  indication  that  the 
suggestion  came  from  the  minister  or  his 
officials  and  that  is  what  concerns  me. 

Surely  these  experts  should  be  given  the 
responsibility  for  making  the  recommendation 
and  the  minister  should  then  say:  "Okay. 
Here  is  their  recommendation.  We  will  have 
an  environmental  hearing  and  I  don't  give  a 
damn  if  it  is  a  Liberal,  Tory  or  NDP  riding." 
Frankly,  I  don't  think  he  does. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  get  on  my  high  horse 
about  that  in  spite  of  the  odds  and  diffi- 
culties presented  to  me  and  my  colleagues 
over  these  many  months.  The  minister  asks 
what  we  would  do  and  the  simplest  and 
best  answer  is  to  say  we  would  do  what  the 
government  should  do,  and  that  is  obey  the 
law,  which  calls  for  an  environmental  hear- 
ing. To  proceed  in  any  other  fashion  is  an 
indication  of  the  fiasco  which  has  resulted 
because  of  the  way  in  which  the  minister 
and  his  predecessors  have  dealt  with  this 
problem  over  the  last  15  years,  not  an  indi- 
cation of  good  or  great  political  leadership. 

This  is  what  concerns  me.  If  the  minister 
thinks  that  by  a  show  of  bravado  and  bring- 
ing in  the  names  of  reputations  of  the  federa- 


4686 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tion  of  agriculture  and  Dr.  Chant  he  is  going 
to  ride  roughshod  over  the  opposition,  he  is 
mistaken.  He  knows  the  special  political 
problems  he  faces  in  this  House  with  getting 
approval  for  any  of  the  proposals  that  were 
a  part  of  his  announcement  on  Tuesday  and 
his   additional  announcements  today. 

I  can  assure  him,  and  you  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
all  of  us,  including  our  critic  who  will  speak 
later  in  this  debate,  are  deeply  concerned 
about  the  mess  this  province  has  got  itself 
into  with  industrial  toxic  wastes,  liquid 
wastes,  and  what  we  are  going  to  do  about 
it.  I  do  not  accept  the  contention  that  is 
inherent,  that  there  is  no  time  for  a  hearing. 
We  have  wasted  the  last  six  years  in  the 
muddle  of  the  various  policies  of  the  min- 
ister and  his  predecessor,  but  we  can  get  the 
kind  of  co-operation  in  this  House  called  for 
from  the  last  speaker  if  the  minister  is  to  say 
we  are  in  this  terrible  situation,  toxic  wastes 
are  metaphorically  rising  up  past  our  col- 
lective necks,  and  here  is  the  proposal,  not 
based  on  a  political  situation  under  which 
he  has  to  use  up  land  John  White  bought  by 
mistake— that  has  already  been  put  forward. 

The  area  of  South  Cayuga  has  not  figured 
in  any  of  the  recommendations  from  the  ex- 
perts who  had  the  freedom  to  roam  the 
province  and  come  up  with  a  proposal,  but 
if  he  is  prepared  to  allow  the  experts,  un- 
trammelled by  political  advice,  to  come  up 
with  the  best  recommendation  and  then  hold 
an  environmental  hearing,  I,  for  one,  am 
prepared  to  say  that  is  where  the  stuff  goes 
even  if  it  is  in  my  backyard  in  South 
Dumfries. 

5  p.m. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the  chal- 
lenge that  was  thrown  out  by  the  House 
leader  for  the  Conservative  Party  is  prob- 
ably the  reason  why  it  is  so  important  that  we 
have  this  debate  today  and  why  I  believed  it 
was  so  important  that  we  have  it  on  Tuesday. 
I  don't  think  things  have  changed  substan- 
tially. We  have  to  identify  the  problem,  we 
have  to  look  for  the  causes,  and  then  we 
have  to  get  the  agreement  of  the  people  of 
Ontario  for  the  procedures  and  programs  the 
government  and  this  Legislature  wish  to  im- 
plement. 

The  minister  does  us  some  credit,  and  in- 
deed does  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Welland-Thorold  a  great  deal  of  credit  when 
he  accuses  him  of  being  responsible  for  the 
cancellation  of  the  Walker  Brothers  proposal 
before  the  Environmental  Assessment  Board. 
I  would  be  overwhelmed  if  I  felt  that  we  in 
the  New  Democratic  Party  had  that  kind  of 


power  over  the  people  of  this  province.  I 
want  to  say  to  the  minister  that  it  was  not 
because  of  our  actions  that  the  council  of  the 
city  of  Thorold  and  the  people  of  that  com- 
munity and  the  people  of  the  town  of  Har- 
wich and  the  council  of  Harwich  decided  they 
did  not  want  those  facilities  to  proceed  in  the 
way  the  minister  had  proposed  in  his  role  as 
coproponent  with  those  two  companies.  If 
we  had  that  kind  of  influence  over  councils 
that  are  not  even  dominated  by  members  of 
this  party,  it  would  be  an  impressive  day 
indeed.  That  day  will  come  and  the  day  will 
come  when  we  are  on  that  side  of  the  House. 

Let  us  look  at  the  problems  because  we 
have  very  little  time  in  this  debate.  The 
problems  are  three.  The  first  problem  is  that 
great  volumes  of  liquid  industrial  waste  are 
being  generated  in  this  province.  We  have 
approximately  9  million  kilograms  of  PCBs 
in  Ontario  today.  We  have  62  million  gallons 
a  year  of  liquid  waste  being  produced  by 
industry  in  this  province  today,  and  this 
figure  is  projected  to  go  to  75  million  gallons 
by  1984.  We  have  a  situation  where,  if  the 
US  government  were  to  close  the  border  to 
our  liquid  waste  trucks,  we  would  have  an 
immediate  crisis.  We  recognize  that  problem. 

The  second  difficulty  is  that  the  govern- 
ment has  been  totally  unable  to  get  the  people 
of  this  province  on  its  side  when  attempting 
to  deal  with  this  problem.  That  is  because  of 
a  total  lack  of  credibility  of  this  government 
when  dealing  with  environmental  matters.  I 
want  to  quote  very  briefly  from  a  paper  by 
David  Estrin  entitled  Siting  Hazardous  Waste 
Disposal  Facilities— How  to  Prevent  Lawsuits 
and  the  Not-in-my-Backyard  Syndrome.  The 
paper  was  presented  to  the  Ontario  Industrial 
Waste  Conference  in  June  of  this  year,  and  I 
know  the  minister's  staff  was  there.  Mr.  Estrin, 
who  is  a  well  known  environmental  lawyer, 
says: 

"Dr.  Parrott  has  to  be  congratulated  for 
bringing  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
a  fresh  attitude  of  'Let's  get  something  done 
about  this  grave  problem.'  Unfortunately,  the 
ministry  went  about  attempting  to  implement 
this  initiative  in  a  manner  that  totally  ignored 
the  very  challenge  that  Dr.  Parrott  recognized 
in  a  speech  in  1979— the  need  to  gain  wide- 
spread public  acceptance  of  the  existence  of 
disposal  facilities  and  the  great  need  for  new 
facilities." 

Mr.  Estrin  does  go  on  further  to  explain 
how  it  is  necessary  to  get  public  leaders,  not 
only  in  this  House,  but  out  there  in  the 
community,  to  trust  in  the  credibility  and 
technical  competence  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment,  and  also  says  what  is  so  des- 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4687 


perately  needed  is  a  belief  among  the  mem- 
bers of  the  public  that  the  ministry  is  willing 
to  allow  the  public  to  participate  in  the  de- 
cision-making process.  That  process  includes 
the  siting  decisions. 

|I  want  to  use  the  MacLaren  report,  which 
we  got  on  Tuesday,  at  lunchtime,  to  illus- 
trate the  point  we  are  making  today  in  this 
House.  I  want  to  tell  the  minister  that  al- 
though he  has  said  the  MacLaren  report 
justifies  his  decision,  in  fact  it  does  not  justify 
his  decision.  Further,  I  say  to  him  we  are 
prepared  to  endorse  wholeheartedly  the 
recommendations  contained  in  the  MacLaren 
report.  I  want  to  go  through  them  briefly 
and  read  portions  into  the  record. 

"1.  It  is  recommended  that  the  ministry 
continue  to  actively  encourage  industrial 
waste  generators  to  minimize  waste  volumes 
by  such  techniques  as  process  change,  re- 
cycle, waste  exchange,  on-site  treatment  or  a 
combination  of  these."  We  endorse  that 
recommendation. 

"2.  It  is  recommended  that  the  province 
proceed  as  soon  as  practical  to  acquire  one  or 
more  sites  where  it  would  be  possible  to 
establish  the  following  facilities: 

"(i)  a  secure  landfill; 

"(ii)  a  high  temperature  incineration  com- 
plex .  .  . 

"(iii)  a  physical/chemical  treatment  com- 
plex .  .  ."  We  endorse  that  recommenda- 
tion. We  do  have  some  questions  about  what 
is  meant  by  secure  landfill. 

"3.  It  is  recommended  that  the  ministry 
explore  the  feasibility  of  using  underground 
facilities,  such  as  dry  mines  as  an  alternative 
to  secure  landfilling  of  solid  waste  or  for  the 
storage  of  relatively  innocuous  wastes  .  .  ." 
There  aren't  any  dry  mines  in  South  Cayuga 
and  I  don't  think  the  recommendation  is 
connected  in  any  way  with  what  the  minister 
announced  on  Tuesday.  In  any  event,  we  en- 
dorse it. 

"4.  When  the  ministry  has  selected  a  site 
for  the  establishment  of  waste  management 
facilities,  it  should  consider  the  development 
of  a  deep  well  for  the  disposal  of  residual 
saline  solutions  .  .  ."  We  endorse  that,  but 
not  a  deep  well  in  South  Cayuga  because  it 
has  been  illustrated  before,  in  the  case  of  the 
Nanticoke  deep  well  proposal,  that  area  is  un- 
suitable for  a  deep  well.  Yet  the  minister  has 
not  stated  categorically  there  will  be  no  deep 
well  on  that  site.  Indeed,  by  endorsing  the 
report,  he  is  allowing  us  to  believe  there 
could  be  a  deep  well  on  that  site. 

"5.  It  is  recommended  that  a  generous 
buffer  strip  be  established  around  any  waste 
management  facilities  and  that  the  buffer  be 


used  for  agricultural  purposes  not  directly 
linked  to  the  food  chain  (e.g.,  sod  farming, 
nurseries  and  flowering  seed  production, 
growth  of  Christmas  trees,  et  cetera).  Pro- 
visionally, a  minimum  width  of  500  metres 
is  suggested  for  the  buffer." 

That  recommendation  confirms  exactly 
what  my  colleague  from  Welland-Thorold 
said,  that  the  land,  all  740  acres,  is  likely  to 
be  taken  out  of  food  production,  not  just 
primary  but  secondary  food  production  as 
well,  because  there  aren't  any  animals  that 
eat  sod,  flowering  seeds  or  Christmas  trees 
that  subsequently  go  into  the  food  chain. 

"6.  It  is  recommended  that  Ontario  finance, 
own  and  control  the  facilities  .  .  ."  We  agree. 
We  welcome  that.  The  minister  has  made  his 
best  step  yet  in  dealing  with  the  problem, 
but  it  is  still  not  good  enough. 

"7.  It  is  recommended  that  the  province 
attempt  to  establish  a  waste  management 
facility  on  a  single  site  ..."  We  agree.  We 
concur.  We  endorse  the  minister's  grasp  of 
that. 

The  next  recommendation  is  an  important 
one. 

"8.  Experience  in  Europe  has  shown  that 
some  three  years  may  be  required  to  design, 
construct  and  commission  a  comprehensive, 
central  waste  management  facility.  Until 
such  time  as  the  recommended  facilities  are 
operational,  the  ministry  should  proceed  with 
the  interim  solutions  which  it  initiated  in 
1979  to  alleviate  the  current  situation  with 
respect  to  liquid  industrial  waste  manage- 
ment, viz,  establish  at  least  one  interim  stor- 
age facility  ..."  and  "establish  one  or  two 
solidification  plants  ..." 

We  have  already  addressed  the  problem 
of  the  minister's  1979  announcement  and 
how  that  too  totally  lacked  credibility  be- 
cause the  homework  had  not  been  done 
previously.  Nevertheless,  if  the  minister  is 
suggesting  to  us  the  South  Cayuga  site  is 
going  to  be  a  temporary  facility,  as  well  as 
a  permanent  facility  and  that  there  may  be 
things  done  on  that  site  which  are  not  to  be 
done  in  a  permanent  facility,  then  we  have 
to  Object  very  strenuously  indeed.  It  is  a 
fact  that  from  the  minister's  announcement 
on  Tuesday  we  do  not  even  know  what  he 
plans  to  do  on  that  site,  let  alone  how  it  is 
going  to  be  done  or  how  we  can  be  assured 
it  is  safe. 

Recommendation  nine  talks  about  a  com- 
plete  review   of   the  waybill   system,   which 
is  long  overdue  and  was  not  mentioned  in 
the  minister's   announcement. 
5:10  p.m. 


4688 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  want  to  sum  up  in  one  sentence  by  say- 
ing that  everything  in  the  MacLaren  report 
is  supportable.  Every  recommendation  in 
there  can  be  dealt  with  through  the  environ- 
mental assessment  process  and  in  no  other 
way.  Every  MacLaren  recommendation  can 
only  be  dealt  with  through  our  existing 
legislation.  Let  us  get  on  with  it.  Let  us  get 
the  hearing  started  as  soon  as  possible  in 
the  new  year  so  it  can  be  completed  in 
time   for  the  facility  to   be   operational. 

Mr.  Kennedy:  Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  this 
afternoon  and  on  several  occasions  there  has 
been  more  heat  than  light  addressed  to  this 
issue.  I  have  some  familiarity  with  the 
county  of  Haldimand  and  know  of  the 
texture  of  the  Haldimand  clay  loam  that 
has  made  such  a  contribution  to  this  prov- 
ince's agricultural  production  over  the 
years.  I  also  know  that  in  the  selection  of 
this  site,  as  has  been  pointed  out  but  lost 
along  the  way,  we  are  speaking  in  terms 
of  only  100  acres  for  the  site  with  640 
adjacent  acres  as  a  buffer  zone  and  in  addi- 
tion a  control  zone  of  a  mile  for  safety 
reasons. 

The  impact  on  agricultural  production  in 
the  total  picture  is  so  negligible,  as  has 
been  stated  by  the  member  for  Durham  West 
(Mr.  Ashe),  it  should  not  occupy  the  time  of 
this  House  in  discussion.  If  we  look  at  any 
of  the  recent  agricultural  statistics,  we  will 
see  in  every  crop  an  increase  per  acre  pro- 
duction across  this  province  and  the  reduc- 
tion, if  any,  in  this  is  so  negligible  we  can 
dismiss  it. 

Besides  that,  within  the  control  zone,  agri- 
culture can  be  carried  on.  I  want  to  say  if 
we  do  not  address  this  problem  and  dispose 
safely  of  our  liquid  and  other  industrial 
wastes,  there  will  not  be  any  food  within 
the  food  chain  free  of  impurities.  The  whole 
province  will  have  this  problem  right  across 
its  area  if  we  do  not  come  to  grips  with 
the  problem,  gather  this  material  together 
and  destruct  it  safely. 

The  first  NDP  speaker  mentioned  there 
is  a  problem  of  credibility  with  the  minister. 
This  just  is  not  so.  We  have  in  this  current 
minister  a  man  of  integrity,  of  honesty  and 
ability,  a  forthright  individual  who  has 
devoted  a  great  deal  of  time  to  wrestling 
with  this  problem.  He  has  come  up  with  a 
solution  that  should  be  supported  by  all 
members  of  this  House. 

Over  the  years  we  have  debated  disposal 
of  industrial  wastes  and  selection  of  sites.  I 
well  recall  being  involved  in  a  discussion 
on   one   occasion   a   year  or   two   ago   where 


the  member  for  Windsor-Sandwich  (Mr. 
Bounsall)— and  I  see  he  is  here— said  we 
cannot  have  this  process  going  on  in  the 
builtup  areas.  He  said  what  should  be 
selected  is  a  large  tract  of  land  somewhere 
in  the  less  populated  areas  of  this  province. 
I  say  to  that  member  that  I  followed  him 
in  his  remarks  and  endorsed  that.  Now  this 
has  occurred  and  it  behooves  us  to  come  to 
grips  with  it  and  support  this  site. 

There  are  two  issues  that  seem  to  be  ad- 
dressed. One  is  agricultural  production, 
which  can  be  set  aside,  because  in  the  total 
picture  it  is  not  urgent  or  important.  The 
other  one  has  to  be  risk  and  health.  The 
minister  has  pointed  out  in  his  statement  that 
the  equipment  being  used  will  engage  the 
best  technology  known  anywhere  in  the 
world.  They  are  going  to  go  and  find  it. 
There  will  be  a  process  that  will  ensure  total 
destruction.  If  it  is  totally  destroyed— and 
that  is  what  will  occur— there  is  no  risk  to 
health.  In  addition,  we  have  the  buffer  zone 
and  the  control  zone. 

If  anyone  thinks  I  do  not  have  some  ap- 
preciation of  the  fear  of  any  jeopardy  to  the 
health  of  people,  I  can  set  his  mind  at  rest 
on  that  issue.  I  have  been  there  and  I  know 
all  about  it.  I  know  that  with  the  facility 
there  that  risk  is  eliminated. 

The  other  thing  that  was  brought  up  is  the 
neeed  for  an  environmental  assessment 
hearing.  The  member  for  Brant-Oxford- 
Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon)  indicated  the  minister 
was  in  violation  of  the  law  by  the  action  he 
has  taken.  This  is  simply  not  the  case.  That 
act  was  put  together  to  give  ministerial  dis- 
cretion in  such  situations  as  this  and  it  is 
being  applied.  When  that  bill  was  put  to 
this  Legislature,  there  was  a  lengthy  debate 
and  it  went  through.  As  I  recall  it,  it  went 
through  after  a  great  deal  of  input,  botii 
from  witnesses  who  came  and  from  the 
members.  It  was  not  a  bill  that  was  swiftly 
put  through.  It  was  put  through  with  all 
these  factors  taken  into  account  and  was 
endorsed  by  this  House.  Therefore,  the  min- 
ister is  within  the  law  in  using  this  dis- 
cretionary power. 

The  other  point  I  want  to  make  is  the 
concern  that  there  would  not  be  involvement 
of  the  public.  I  can  assure  the  members, 
again  from  experience,  that  there  will  be  in- 
volvement of  the  public,  both  unofficially  and 
officially,  through  the  makeup  of  the  cor- 
poration that  will  be  conducting  the  affairs 
of  the  facility.  In  that  corporation  are  two 
resident  members  and,  as  has  been  an- 
nounced, a  chairman  with  unexcelled  quali- 
fications to  chair  the  corporation. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4689 


I  do  not  know  in  what  further  direction 
we  could  go,  unless  we  are  again  going  to 
procrastinate  and  not  do  anything.  If  we  do 
procrastinate  we  can  fairly  state,  as  is  the 
case  now  being  demonstrated,  there  will  be 
impurities  in  the  food  produced  in  this  prov- 
ince, not  only  animal  but  plant  as  well.  Plant, 
animal  and  marine  life  will  be  affected  if  we 
do  not  come  to  grips  with  the  situation  and 
get  this   plant  established  and  in  operation. 

I  want  to  congratulate  and  commend  a 
courageous  minister  who  has  not  brought  this 
forward  lightly.  He  has  been  working  with  it 
since  he  took  over  his  present  onerous  office 
which  he  handles  so  well.  He  has  been 
receptive,  open  and  accessible  to  all  groups. 
I  have  heard  this  across  the  province  and  so 
have  the  members  opposite.  Not  only  that,  if 
we  get  this  plant  in  place,  our  technology 
without  doubt  will  ensure  that  Ontario  will 
continue— and  I  emphasize  continue— to  lead 
in  environmental  protection  matters.  The 
spinoff  and  the  benefits  from  what  we  learn, 
achieve  and  put  in  place  to  deal  with  these 
hazardous  wastes  will  be  available  to  other 
jurisdictions,  not  only  in  Canada  but  any- 
where else  in  the  world.  I  think  it  is  a 
problem  that  must  be  addressed  beyond  our 
boundaries  as  well. 

5:20  p.m. 

I  commend  the  minister  for  taking  this 
lead,  for  finding  out  all  the  technical  informa- 
tion that  is  available  and  building  that  in,  as 
well  as  any  improvements  we  can  make,  to 
ensure  the  most  sophisticated,  safe  system 
that  can  be  produced.  We  should,  in  this 
Legislature,  proceed  without  further  delay. 
Certainly,  the  public  have  a  right  to  know 
what  is  going  on  and  that  information  will 
be  available  to  them.  As  I  have  said,  the 
minister  shares  this  and  will  continue  to  do 
so. 

I  have  some  understanding  of  the  concern 
of  the  member  for  that  riding  and  of  the 
people,  but  from  the  experience  that  I,  and 
some  others  here  have  had,  that  fear— perhaps 
if  it  is  a  fear  of  the  unknown  that  will  be 
known— need  not  unduly  perturb  them  be- 
cause there  is  no  way  this  government  is  going 
to  do  anything  to  jeopardize  the  health  of  its 
residents.  On  the  contrary,  if  we  do  not  move 
on  this,  I  submit  we  will  be  jeopardizing  the 
health  of  the  people  of  this  province. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to  speak  to 
a  very  important  issue.  I  am  sure  that  all 
members  on  all  sides  feel  that  this  particular 
problem  is  one  of  quite  long  standing.  I 
must  say  at  the  outset  that  the  government 


should  accept  the  responsibility  for  the  prob- 
lem as  it  exists  today. 

There  has  never  been  any  jurisdiction 
throughout  the  land  that  has  been  in  charge 
of  the  shop  as  long  as  the  government  of 
Ontario.  For  some  of  the  members  to  come 
here  and  suggest  that  we  members  on  this 
side  are  negative  and  all  we  can  do  is  tear 
down  what  the  government  puts  before  the 
House  is  ludicrous  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that 
we  would  not  be  dealing  with  this  problem 
today  if  this  government  had  taken  a  re- 
sponsible position. 

The  member  for  Mississauga  South  can 
stand  in  his  place  and  suggest  that  he  is  a 
responsible  person,  but  when  there  was  go- 
ing to  be  a  test  run  on  burning  PCBs  in 
Mississauga  he  vociferously  opposed  the  re- 
search. We  were  not  talking  about  some  kind 
of  involvement  of  long  standing;  we  were 
talking  about  research  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people  of  Ontario  and  all  of  Canada.  All  that 
member  had  to  do  was  stand  in  his  place  and 
say,  "Yes,  in  the  interests  of  the  people 
across  Ontario,  I  think  we  should  allow  this 
research  to  go  on."  It  is  ludicrous  to  suggest 
that  we  on  this  side  of  the  House  stand  in 
the  way  of  progress  when  a  member  on  the 
government  side  can  take  that  position  and 
then  stand  here  and  try  to  defend  the  position 
of  this  minister. 

I  have  been  very  much  involved  in  the 
concerns  as  they  relate  to  the  toxins  going 
into  the  river  at  Niagara.  My  concern  has  to 
do  with  the  fact  that  there  have  been  many 
governments  in  many  jurisdictions  not  caring 
and  not  doing  the  proper  thing.  Recently, 
SCA  Chemical  Services  Limited  was  dump- 
ing in  the  river.  We  need  solidification  proc- 
esses in  Ontario  so  that  we  don't  put  those 
wastes  in  the  river.  I  say  the  situation  in 
Niagara-Thorold  was  handled  so  badly  that 
the  citizens  of  Thorold  were  up  in  arms 
against  the  Walker  Brothers  site,  and  justi- 
fiably so. 

If  this  government  had  put  in  place  some 
kind  of  ministerial  group  that  would  go  down 
and  look  at  the  situation  and  properly  monitor 
that  site,  we  would  not  have  had  the  opposi- 
tion from  the  citizens 

We  are  still  faced  with  the  dilemma  today 
that  with  all  the  government  money  and  with 
all  their  expertise,  the  citizens  of  this  nation 
still  have  to  band  together  to  defend  them- 
selves against  the  people  they  put  in  place  to 
do  the  job  for  them.  It  just  isn't  happening. 

What  happened  in  Niagara  is  a  disaster. 
In  attempting  to  enter  an  agreement  with 
Walker    Brothers    to    put   in    a    solidification 


4690 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


process,  this  minister  did  not  see  to  it  that  the 
Ontario  Provincial  Police  investigation  was 
accelerated  so  they  could  get  on  with  the 
charges  that  were  going  to  be  laid  or  not  laid. 
It  is  still  going  on.  The  minister  and  the 
Solicitor  General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  have  not 
seen  fit  to  do  what  the  people  are  demanding. 
They  have  put  me  in  an  awkward  position 
because  I  have  been  waiting  for  the  evidence 
to  come  forth  to  understand  what  the  minister 
is  trying  to  do. 

I  refuse  to  sit  here  any  longer  and  wait. 
I  am  suggesting  if  the  minister  had  done  the 
proper  thing,  if  he  had  put  in  place  a 
monitoring  group  at  Niagara  that  was  going 
to  look  at  every  dump  site  down  there,  we 
would  not  be  debating  this  issue  here  today. 
We  would  have  a  crown  agency  in  place 
that  would  be  doing  the  monitoring  and  we 
would  not  have  another  fiasco  like  the  one 
that  happened  in  Niagara-Thorold  with  the 
Walker  Brothers  Quarries  facing  us  today. 
We  would  not  be  in  this  dilemma. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Thank  goodness  for  the 
member  for  Welland-Thorold.  It  is  a  good 
job  he  is  there  to  look  after  things. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Are  there  not  going  to  be 
any  more  speakers  from  the  New  Democratic 
Party?  I  thought  everyone  had  a  chance  to 
speak  to  this  issue.  Why  do  you  clowns 
not  go  out  and  do  your  thing  later? 

In  any  event,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  tell 
you  I  am  taking  a  responsible  position.  When 
the  member  stands  up  and  suggests  it  is  not 
our  role  as  members  of  Her  Majesty's  loyal 
opposition  to  point  out  the  inadequacies  of 
the  government,  I  would  respond  by  suggest- 
ing that  is  the  very  thing  we  are  charged1  to 
do.  This  is  what  we  are  doing  at  this  instant. 
That  government  is  floundering  over  there 
and  refuses  to  listen  to  some  of  the  altern- 
atives that  should  be  entertained  and  that 
have  been  put  forth  by  the  members  on 
this  side.  It  is  unconscionable,  after  that 
fiasco  at  Niagara,  that  now  we  are  going  to 
go  into  another  site,  have  the  citizens  put 
in  the  same  predicament  as  the  citizens  of 
Thorold  and  the  people  of  Niagara  Falls 
and  start  this  process  all  over  again. 

I  wonder  when  this  government  is  going 
to  learn  that  the  citizens  of  Ontario  are 
educated.  They  understand  the  process.  They 
only  want  the  government  to  follow  the  rules 
of  the  game.  This  government  has  been  in 
power  so  long  it  thinks  it  can  take  along 
the  referee  while  it  plays  the  game  and 
changes  the  rules  as  it  goes  along.  We  are 
not  going  to  be  satisfied  with  that  any 
longer.  We  are  going  to  ask  the  government 


to  put  good  legislation  on  the  floor,  let  this 
group  debate  it  and  put  those  regulations  on 
the  books.  We  will  ask  the  government 
plainly  to  live  up  to  the  rules  of  the  game. 
Let  us  not  look  to  run  end  runs  around  the 
rules  as  they  exist  today,  as  the  minister  is 
now  trying  to  do  with  two  different  corpo- 
rations by  circumventing  the  hearings  as 
they  relate  to  this  very  important  site. 

This  site  is  going  to  be  placed  near  the 
Grand  River.  There  we  go  again.  We  are 
going  to  talk  about  waterways  that  might  be 
disturbed.  We  are  talking  about  more  en- 
vironmental impact  on  the  Grand  River,  Lake 
Erie  and  the  flow  down  through  the  Niagara 
River.  That  waterway  will  not  stand  any 
more  pollution  of  any  kind.  The  member  for 
Welland-Thorold  suggested  there  should  not 
be  another  drop.  On  that  score  he  was 
absolutely  right.  We  cannot  afford  to  have 
any  more  liquid  waste  get  into  our  water 
courses.  We  must  go  the  high  road.  We 
must  make  the  kind  of  determination  here 
and  now  that  we  are  going  to  put  in  place 
reasonable  laws  and  regulations  and  that  we 
are  going  to  live  by  them. 

They  were  suggesting  they  did  not  have 
enough  people  to  do  the  monitoring  at 
Niagara.  I  pose  this  question  to  all  members 
of  this  assembly.  With  all  the  advertising 
the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  does,  with 
the  utter  hypocrisy  of  the  advertisements 
that  show  this  beautiful  girl  coming  out  of 
this  nice,  clean  lake,  it  is  utter  hypocrisy  to 
suggest  they  do  not  have  the  money  to 
properly  inspect  landfill  sites  and  industrial 
sites.  It  is  ludicrous  in  the  face  of  the 
millions  they  are  spending  on  these  advertis- 
ing campaigns.  I  say  they  should  be  stopped 
immediately  and  those  dollars  should  be  put 
in  the  hands  of  the  people  who  need  to 
monitor  the  very  thing  we  are  looking  at 
today,  that  is,  the  pollution  of  our  environ- 
ment. That  should  start  immediately. 

The  fact  that  the  OPP  investigation  is  still 
going  on  at  Niagara  speaks  so  well  of  the 
ineptitude  of  the  two  ministers  over  there 
who  should  get  on  with  the  job  so  we  can 
resolve  the  question  of  whether  there  has 
been  some  violation  of  the  regulations  down 
at  Walker  Brothers  Quarries.  I  think  the 
minister  has  lost  credibility.  I  do  not  know 
that  we  are  going  to  allow  him  to  go  about 
the  province  in  other  matters  whenever  there 
is  a  crunch  situation,  deal  on  an  ad  hoc  basis 
with  it  and  put  another  site  in  place  without 
environmental  hearings.  We  may  as  well  de- 
cide here  and  now  that  on  the  very  first  pro- 
posal the  ministry  is  not  going  to  be  directing 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4691 


those    sites    without    proper    environmental 
hearings. 

5:30  p.m. 

The  last  member  who  spoke  for  the  NDP 
made  mention  of  a  couple  of  the  recom- 
mendations by  the  Ministry  of  the  Environ- 
ment. I  only  want  to  read  one.  He  neglected 
to  complete  recommendation  No.  6  which 
reads:  "It  is  recommended  that  Ontario 
finance,  own  and  control  waste  treatment 
disposal  facilities  for  liquid  industrial  and 
hazardous  waste  management"— he  should  not 
have  stopped  there;  he  should  have  read  on 
—"and  that  they  be  built  and  operated  by 
private  sector  contractors,  using  the  best 
available  technology." 

I  think  the  government  has  done  a  gross 
disservice  to  a  proper  blending  of  govern- 
ment and  private  sector  involvement.  It  is 
going  to  put  that  back  many  numbers  of 
years.  I  cannot  imagine  the  Tories,  who  are 
supposed  to  be  proponents  of  free  enterprise, 
putting  themselves  in  a  box  where  they  are 
not  even  going  to  be  able  to  carry  on  with 
their  own  philosophies. 

I  ask  the  member  for  Durham  West  what 
is  he  going  to  do  about  that  when  he  talks 
to  the  private  sector?  How  is  he  going  to 
justify  his  existence  at  all  when  he  cannot 
even  live  up  to  the  fundamental  reason  for 
being  a  Tory?  I  am  completely  surprised1  and 
disappointed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member's 
time  has  expired. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  have  just  about  expired  too, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very  glad 
we  are  having  this  emergency  debate  be- 
cause the  problem  of  the  disposal  of  liquid 
industrial  waste  is  equally  as  serious  as  the 
problem  of  acid  rain.  These  are  the  two  major 
environmental  problems  of  today. 

We  know  the  problem  of  liquid  industrial 
waste  is  a  growing  one  as  more  and  more 
toxic  chemicals  are  used  in  industry.  We  are 
in  great  danger  of  fouling  our  own  nests  if 
we  do  not  take  vigorous  action,  not  only  to 
dispose  of  the  wastes  but  to  reduce  the  use 
of  toxic  chemicals  and  the  production  of  toxic 
substances.  Two  years  ago  the  resources  de- 
velopment committee  told  the  minister  this 
was  a  serious  problem,  that  time  was  of  the 
essence  and  that  the  development  of  a  com- 
prehensive plan  for  action  and  for  the  safe 
handling  and  disposal  of  toxic  wastes  must 
have  a  high  priority.  What  has  happened  in 
those  two  years?  The  minister  has  dithered 
with  reports,  dithered  with  pursuing  blind! 
alleys  by  private   corporations   and  then,   in 


some  cases,  refused  to  co-operate  with  pro- 
posals from  private  corporations. 

Take  the  one  from  D  and  D  Disposal 
Services  which  asked  in  its  most  recent  re- 
quest through  Environment  Canada  for  ap- 
provals to  conduct  tests  of  its  new  diesel 
engine  disposal  method  for  PCBs.  It  could 
not  get  the  minister  to  act  on  its  request  for 
approvals.  It  had  already  raised  the  money 
it  needed  for  the  tests  and  the  building  of 
a  prototype.  It  was  not  asking  for  money, 
but  the  minister  seemed  to  think  that  was 
what  it  was  asking  for  and  delayed  giving 
the  approvals  until  such  time  as  the  whole 
process  was  given  to  an  offshore  company  in 
the  United  Kingdom. 

As  a  result,  a  lot  of  the  rights  for  this 
process  will  be  given  to  that  company.  The 
whole  European  market  will  probably  go  to 
that  company.  We  will  not  have  the  oppor- 
tunity in  Ontario  to  have  this  particular  proc- 
ess developed  and  marketed  from  here  to 
any  great  extent.  Certainly,  we  are  losing  the 
world  rights  to  it. 

The  minister's  statement  in  this  House,  it 
seemed  to  me,  showed  it  appeared  he  had 
finally,  after  two  years,  got  the  message  of 
the  resources  development  committee  which 
was  that  if  he  is  not  able  to  find  adequate 
disposal  plans  in  the  private  sector,  "It  is 
essential  that  the  government  become  directly 
involved."  It  has  taken  a  long  time  for  that 
message  to  get  through  to  him.  It  is  almost 
akin  to  St.  Paul  being  struck  on  the  road  to 
Damascus  that  he  has  finally  seen  that  a 
publicly  operated  corporation  of  a  compre- 
hensive nature  is  the  only  sensible  way  to 
deal  with  this  problem,  because  it  can  moni- 
tor the  whole  thing  without  having  to  hire 
Parrott-troopers  to  monitor  private  com- 
panies. 

It  can  engineer  the  whole  thing  itself  to 
the  highest  standards,  it  can  develop  the  best 
technologies,  it  can  look  after  the  question  of 
aesthetics  and  of  protection  of  any  resident 
who  may  be  within  any  distance  of  the 
plant.  However,  I  think  the  criteria  should 
be  that  whatever  public  facility  is  developed, 
it  should  be  a  considerable  distance  from 
any  heavily  populated  area.  That  should  be 
the  first  criteria. 

The  minister  has  seen  that  government 
involvement  is  essential.  The  one  thing  he 
has  not  seen  is  that  in  site  selection  there 
must  be  public  involvement  and  public  ac- 
ceptance. For  years  the  minister  has  been 
saying  there  is  that  not-in-my-backyard  syn- 
drome. I  submit  the  minister  has  never  tried 
to  make  a  site  selection  process  work.  He  has 


4692 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


never  tried  to  make  a  site  acceptable  to  the 
public. 

Mr.  Eaton:  Not  when  you  go  out  to  a  site 
and  scare  people  before  there  is  any. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  am  asking  for  full  environ- 
mental assessment  so  the  facts  can  come  out. 

I  would  like  to  set  forth  what  must  be  done 
in  order  to  obtain  public  acceptance.  First,  a 
series  of  criteria  for  site  location  must  be 
adopted  which  says  that  no  site  may  be  close 
to  a  heavily  populated  area.  Second,  a  series 
of  standards  must  be  adopted  for  design 
engineering  monitoring  and  aesthetic  appear- 
ance of  the  site.  Third,  complete  information 
must  be  provided  to  the  public  on  the  pro- 
posal. Fourth,  the  local  government  must  be 
consulted.  Fifth,  it  seems  to  me  that  incen- 
tives for  municipalities  must  be  considered 
to  have  a  waste  disposal  site  somewhere 
within  their  vicinity  but  with  adequate  buffer 
zones  around  it.  The  government  has  never 
considered  either  incentives  or  easements  for 
any  property  owners  who  might  be  within  10 
or  15  miles  of  the  site.  We  do  have  easements 
when  Hydro  puts  through  transmission  lines. 
It  seems  to  me  those  things  should  be  con- 
sidered. 

There  must  be  an  adequate  waybill  system 
so  we  know  exactly  what  is  going  into  the 
site  and  can  track  all  waste  from  the  gen- 
erator to  the  disposal.  There  must  be  regis- 
tration of  the  waste  being  generated  in  this 
province  so  that  we  can  plan  the  facilities 
needed  for  the  disposal. 

I  think  if  the  minister  had  proceeded  along 
this  route  of  developing  a  publicly  operated, 
comprehensive  facility  that  could  he  expanded 
and  added  to  as  needs  developed,  it  would 
not  have  been  necessary  to  ever  consider  the 
Ajax  disposal  operation.  We  have  now  gone 
through  a  long  hearing  process  on  that. 
Regardless  of  what  the  decision  is,  it  seems 
to  me  that  now  we  are  going  into  a  publicly- 
operated  facility,  if  it  was  in  the  right  place 
it  could  handle  all  the  waste  that  was  to  be 
destined  for  Ajax. 

Mr.  Watson:  What  is  the  right  place? 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  am  telling  the  minister  how 
he  can  determine  what  the  right  place  is.  He 
must,  of  course,  provide  a  public  education 
system  on  the  standards  that  are  being  set 
and  on  the  criteria  for  the  site  location  and 
then  he  must  conduct  an  environmental  assess- 
ment to  allow  ecological  and  environmental 
dangers  to  be  assessed.  But  also,  no  environ- 
mental assessment  is  worth  anything  in  this 
province  until  public  funding  is  given  to 
citizens'  groups  appearing  before  such  assess- 


ment tribunals   on   a  somewhat  equal   basis 
with  the  proponents. 

This  is  one  of  the  reasons  citizens  have 
been  so  suspicious  of  environmental  assess- 
ment hearings,  mainly,  hearings  under  the 
Environmental  Protection  Act  because  we 
have  not  had  many  environmental  assessment 
hearings.  They  have  not  been  able  to  hire 
their  own  expert  witnesses  or  researchers  ex- 
cept by  digging  very  deep  into  their  pockets 
and  paying  with  after- tax  dollars. 

5:40  p.m. 

If  the  minister  followed  that  pattern,  he 
would  not  have  to  contemplate,  as  apparently 
his  ministry  is  doing,  putting  in  legislation 
that  would  set  aside  municipal  protection 
bylaws.  I  call  them  protection  bylaws  because 
they  are  bylaws  which  say  the  minister  can't 
have  a  waste  disposal  site  in  a  municipality 
because  in  the  past  he  has  not  enforced  the 
regulations  about  such  sites.  He  has  not  pre- 
vented toxic  wastes  from  going  into  sites  not 
licensed  for  toxic  wastes.  He  has  not  moni- 
tored them  adequately.  He  has  not  listened 
to  municipalities  when  they  said  that  they 
wanted  to  discuss  tests  before  their  results 
were  put  into  effect,  as  happened  in 
Mississauga. 

I  don't  blame  municipalities  for  passing 
bylaws  of  that  sort.  Their  past  experience 
with  both  the  private  operators  of  waste 
disposal  sites  and  with  the  ministry's  enforce- 
ment of  the  rules  regarding  them  has  been 
such  that  they  have  no  confidence  in  the 
ministry.  The  minister  must  first  build  up 
confidence  that  he  is  going  to  operate  a 
publicly-operated  waste  site  in  the  interests  of 
all  the  citizens  of  this  province  so  that  the 
location  of  any  site  will  be  acceptable  to 
those  into  whose  area  it  goes. 

After  all,  we  do  have  municipalities  accept- 
ing factories  of  different  kinds- 
Mr.    Speaker:    The    honourable    member's 
time  has  expired. 

Ms.  Bryden:  —airports  and  so  on,  but  they 
are  not  accepted  unless  there  is  an  attempt 
to  persuade  the  public,  to  take  the  public 
into  our  confidence  as  to  how  they  can  be 
made  as  fail-safe  as  possible. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member  for 
Oxford.  The  debate  concludes  at  6  o'clock. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  would  be  quite  happy, 
if  the  member  for  Huron-Bruce  would  like  to 
speak  for  the  next  six  minutes,  and  I  could 
conclude  in  10. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  that  agreed?  The  hon- 
ourable member  for  Huron-Bruce. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4693 


Mr.  Gaunt:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be  fairly 
brief.  The  concerns  expressed  on  this  side  of 
the  House  have  been  amply  debated  during 
the  past  two  hours.  I  think  it's  pretty  obvious 
that  we  have  some  very  serious  concerns 
about  the  ministry's  action  with  respect  to 
this  particular  site,  particularly  the  location 
and  the  manner  in  which  that  was  decided. 

We  feel  the  siting  was  not  properly  done. 
The  site  is  not  the  best  one  in  the  province 
of  Ontario  and  that  belief  is  supported  by  the 
MacLaren  report.  I  have  been  looking  over 
the  guidelines  used  in  selecting  candidate 
regions  and  on  page  313,  number  2  of  the  re- 
port, it  says:  "Avoid  designated  parks,  open 
space  and  conservation  areas."  This  site  is 
very  close  to  the  Grand  River  Conservation 
Authority.  The  report  also  says:  "Maintain  a 
distance  of  eight  kilometres  or  five  miles  or 
greater  between  site  and  urban  or  densely 
populated  areas,  specifically  incorporated 
cities,  towns  and  larger  villages."  This  par- 
ticular siting  is  only  two  kilometres  from 
South  Cayuga  so  the  government  is  also 
violating  this  point. 

"Avoid  Canada  Land  Inventory  lands  de- 
signated as  class  one,  two,  three  or  four  . .  ." 
Thirteen  per  cent  of  the  land  is  class  three; 
50  per  cent  is  class  four;  quite  a  bit  of  the 
land  in  the  control  area  is  class  two;  so  the 
government  is  violating  that  point  as  well. 

"Hydrology:  Avoid  flood  prone  areas  or 
hazard  lands."  Some  of  the  control  area  is  in 
an  area  prone  to  flooding. 

The  simple  point  is  the  government  has 
taken  the  political  route.  It  was  stuck  with  a 
big  chunk  of  land  that  was  an  embarrass- 
ment, and  it  simply  decided  that  this  was 
where  it  would  go  with  the  plant.  The 
decision  is  not  supported  by  the  studies  that 
have  been  done  so  far. 

That  raises  another  point.  I  think  it  was 
said  in  the  House  today  that  the  government 
is  going  to  undertake,  through  its  consultants, 
hydrological  studies  to  find  out  exactly  what 
was  going  on.  What  if  these  studies  show 
this  is  not  appropriate?  What  if  the  tests  show 
something  is  wrong  with  this  particular  site? 
Where  do  we  go  then?  Do  we  start  all  over 
again? 

It  seems  to  me  we  have  certainly  got  the 
cart  before  the  horse  in  this  one.  I  think  that 
is  why  there  has  been  so  much  concern 
expressed  from  the  point  of  view  of  holding 
an  Environmental  Assessment  Board  hearing. 
Surely  to  goodness  such  a  hearing  would 
identify  some  of  these  concerns,  would  give 
the  ministry  and  the  other  experts  associated 
with  this  particular  project  time  to  advance 


their  evidence,  if  they  have  any,  to  support 
the  selection  of  this  particular  site.  To  do  so 
without  an  environmental  assessment  hearing 
I  think  is  a  very  serious  omission  on  the  part 
of  the  minister. 

That  raises  the  other  question  and  the 
other  concern  I  have,  and  it  is  just  as  im- 
portant, perhaps  more  so,  than  the  first  point. 
Frankly,  I  think  we  are  going  to  destroy  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act  by  this  action. 

The  Environmental  Assessment  Act,  when 
it:  was  brought  into  the  Legislature  and  intro- 
duced for  the  first  time  on  March  24,  1975, 
was  proclaimed  as  a  great  new  ground- 
breaking piece  of  legislation.  The  then  min- 
ister indicated  that  without  a  doubt  this  bill 
was  one  of  the  most  important  pieces  of  legis- 
lation ever  introduced  into  this  province. 
What  has  happened?  For  the  most  part, 
projects  have  been  exempted  from  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act.  The  govern- 
ment, time  and  time  again,  has  used  the 
exemption  clause  in  the  act  to  waive  any 
necessity  for  an  environmental  assessment 
hearing. 

Section  3(a)  of  the  act  requires  that  the 
government  submit  all  of  the  activities  or 
enterprises  undertaken  on  behalf  of  Her 
Majesty  in  the  right  of  Ontario  to  an  Environ- 
mental Assessment  Act  hearing.  Section  30, 
however,  exempts;  it  gives  provision  and 
power  to  the  government  to  exempt  if  they 
so  wish. 

We  had  an  extensive  debate  when  this 
legislation  was  going  through  during  which 
some  members  said  that  section,  section  30, 
would  indeed  destroy  this  act  and  its  intent 
if  it  were  misused.  I  suggest  it  has  been  mis- 
used over  the  years  and  continues  to  be 
misused;  and  by  its  action  in  this  case  the 
government  is  going  to  destroy  that  act.  I 
think  that  is  one  of  the  sad  points,  environ- 
mentally, with  which  we  are  going  to  have 
to  deal. 

I  beg  the  minister  to  reconsider  his  position 
in  this  respect,  because  I  think  not  only  is 
the  matter  of  this  plant  and  the  siting  of  this 
plant  at  stake,  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Act  and  its  intent  are  also  at  stake.  If  we 
continue  like  this  we  are  simply  going  to 
destroy  it;  we  might  as  well  wipe  it  off  the 
books. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  real 
honour  to  participate  in  this  debate  today, 
because  there  are  few  debates  of  more  im- 
portance to  the  people  of  the  province  than 
the  one  in  which  we  are  engaged. 

I  want  to  start  by  suggesting  that  if  there 
is  any  confusion  in  the  remarks  I  put  on  the 


4694 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


record  earlier,  I  would  like  them  cleared.  I 
believe  the  members  complained  a  bit  that 
they  could  not  hear,  so   I  have  the  record 
here. 
5:50  p.m. 

It  says  in  Instant  Hansard  of  this  after- 
noon, 1510-3,  about  Dr.  Chant,  "After  due 
consideration  he  agrees  that  the  concept  of 
this  facility  and  the  site  selection  need  not 
be  subjected  to  a  hearing."  That  was  the  first 
one. 

I  skip  down  to  1515-3,  referring  to  Dr. 
Chant,  "He  has  given  that  a  lot  of  considera- 
tion and  he  said  he  would  act  as  chairman 
of  that  crown  corporation.  He  said  he  thinks 
an  environmental  assessment  hearing  is  not 
desirable."  That  is  the  way  it  reads.  It  should 
read  "is  not  necessary."  I  want  to  correct  the 
record  for  that  one  word,  and  that  word  only. 
I  think  that  follows  exactly  what  I  said  in  the 
previous  illustration. 

I  continue  that  it  need  not  be  "necessary 
on  the  site  itself  in  the  concept  of  a  crown 
corporation  operating  that  site"  exists. 

I  think  that  makes  it  very  clear. 

Mr.  Nixon:  What  are  you  reading  from? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I'm  reading  from  the 
transcript  of  Instant  Hansard.  I  don't  want 
any  shadow  whatsoever  on  the  appointment 
of  Dr.  Chant.  He  is  by  far  the  finest  person 
we  could  find. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  He  says  he  regrets  you  didn't 
have  a  hearing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  making  it  clear— 
and  I  am  only  going  to  deal  with  this  one— 
that  Dr.  Chant  said  the  site  selection  need  not 
be  subject  to  a  hearing.  He  may  very  well 
have  said  he  would  have  liked  to  have  a 
hearing,  but  he  also  accepts  that  there  need 
not  be  one. 

Having  put  that  aside,  because  I  think  it's 
awfully  important,  that  board  will  have 
tremendous  credibility. 

They  say  we  have  done  nothing  right  in 
the  last  two  years.  That's  rather  an  interesting 
comment,  for  two  reasons.  We  accepted  38 
out  of  the  47  recommendations  of  the  stand- 
ing committee  on  resources  development.  Are 
members  condemning  that  committee  for 
having  given  me  and  this  government  such 
poor  advice?  I  don't  think  so. 

Let  me  put  on  the  record  just  what  has 
been  accomplished  in  two  years  by  this  gov- 
ernment. We  have  a  new,  updated  and  im- 
proved waybill  system.  We  have  a  site  iden- 
tification study  to  provide  a  list  of  all  the 
sites  all  over  this  province.  We  are  monitoring 


and  testing  those  new  sites  and  the  old  ones 
as  well.  We  have  a  waste  classification  guide- 
line. We  have  a  new  environmental  police 
force. 

We  are  introducing— and  I  will  do  that 
either  tomorrow  or  early  next  week— new 
minimum  fines.  We  had  the  most  progressive 
legislation  one  could  imagine  in  Bill  24. 

We  have  given  funds  to  the  municipalities 
to  upgrade  their  own  landfill  sites.  We  have 
increased  enforcement.  We  have  increased 
public  hearings.  We  have  a  proposal  for 
perpetual  care  under  consideration.  We  are 
funding  new  technology  on  PCB   disposal. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Believe  it  or  not,  I  would  actually 
like  to  hear  the  minister.  I'm  having  great 
difficulty  hearing  him. 

I  would  ask  the  minister  to  kindly  repeat 
slowly  what  he  said  about  introducing  certain 
minimum  standards  tomorrow.  I  did  not  hear 
it  and  I  would  like  to  hear  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  said  tomorrow  or  in  the 
near  future  I  will  introduce  minimum  fine 
legislation.  I  have  already  said  that. 

Let  him  pretend  deafness.  I  think  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  is  deaf  on  many 
occasions. 

This  party  and  this  government  really 
appreciated  the  spirit  of  co-operation  at  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  meeting 
this  morning.  I  do  not  know  what  the  federa- 
tion will  decide.  I  do  not  want  to  infer  it  is 
going  to  make  certain  decisions.  That  meeting 
had  the  kind  of  spirit  and  co-operation  that 
should  be  predominant  in  our  discussions  on 
liquid  industrial  waste.  That's  what  we  need. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Sure,  they  did  it  your  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  member  says  so 
many  things;  and  it  worries  me  that  the  mem- 
bers opposite  apparently  truly  do  not  under- 
stand, with  few  exceptions,  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  as  opposed  to  the  Environ- 
mental Protection  Act.  There  are  great 
differences. 

In  the  last  year  and  a  half,  we  have  had 
60  proposals  for  an  assessment,  but  only  one 
hearing.  That  is  not  a  condemnation  of  the 
act,  that  is  the  greatest  praise  in  the  world. 

What  happens  is  a  proposal  goes  forward. 
The  people  who  make  that  proposal  then  are 
confronted'  with  the  deficiencies  of  that  pro- 
posal and  make  the  adjustments  necessary  to 
make  it  an  environmentally  acceptable 
proposal. 

When  that  occurs,  one  has  the  spirit  of 
co-operation.  On  only  one  occasion  was  it 
deemed  necessary  to  go  to  a  hearing  process. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4695 


The  Environmental  Assessment  Act  never  en- 
visioned a  large  number  of  hearings.  Why? 
Because  that  often  becomes  confrontation. 
We  do  not  believe  in  that  in  this  party,  on 
this  side  of  the  House,  in  this  government. 
We  believe  that  one  should  try  to  listen  to 
the  people,  try  to  understand  the  problem 
and  come  to  solutions.  That  is  what  we  are 
trying  to  do. 

I  have  had  the  experience,  Mr.  Speaker,  far 
too  frequently— and  it  happened  this  morning 
in  a  private  meeting;  I  said,  "Why  did  you 
not  let  it  at  the  least  go  to  the  proposal  stage 
so  you  could  see  what  was  truly  being  pro- 
posed; why  not  wait  until  after  the  adjust- 
ments necessary  in  that  concept  became 
known,  and  then  if  you  still  want  it,  have  a 
hearing?"  He  said,  "I  have  to  accept  that  I 
was  unconditionally  opposed  to  it;  I  took  that 
position  right  from  the  very  beginning  and  I 
really  did  not  care  what  was  said." 

That  destroys  the  act;  and  in  fairness,  that 
has  frequently  been  done  in  the  past. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Who  said  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  It  was  said  at  the  meet- 
ing that  we  held  with  the  Ontario  Federation 
of  Agriculture  after  the  general  meeting.  It 
was  there. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  By  whom? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  It  matters  not.  It  hap- 
pened to  be,  maybe,  a  man  from  Harwich.  I 
am  not  out  to  criticize  that  particular  man, 
but  it  typifies  what  so  often  happens  and  that 
is  the  desire  not  to  understand  the  proposal. 
That  really  is  the  essence  of  what  we  are 
talking  about. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Who  said  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  It  is  really  not  important, 
because  that,  indeed,  is  so  often  what 
happens.  Rather  than  listen  to  the  proposal, 
rather  than  hear  it  through  and  then  decide 
whether  it  is  adequate  and  a  hearing  is  neces- 
sary, they  object  right  from  square  one.  As 
the  member  for  Middlesex  said,  "Let's  go  out 
and  wave  the  flag  when  there  is  not  even  a 
threat,"  that  is  not  the  spirit  of  co-operation 
that  will  make  this  law  work. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  can 
keep  those  people  quiet  for  another  two 
minutes,  I  can  sum  up. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  say  to  you— 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  There  is  a  limit.  Every  trial 
has  a  prosecution  and  defence. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Indeed  it  has.  Every 
person  who  is  accused  gets  an  examination 


for  discovery,  then  a  trial  and  then  a  verdict, 
and  you  have  consistently  denied  that  oppor- 
tunity for  the  Environmental  Assessment  Act. 
If  we  had  the  privilege  on  this  side  of  the 
House  to  see  that  act  work  in  Harwich,  in 
Thorold- 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Who  did  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  You  did  by  your  actions 
here  of  saying  we  are  opposed.  It  just  happens 
to  be  the  case.  You  know  it  is  true,  it  hurts 
and  you  do  not  like  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  hearing  officer  could 
make  the  decision  even  if  he  hears  both  sides 
of  the  case. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Can  you  explain  to  me 
why  in  the  community  of  Thorold,  before  the 
proposal  even  came  to  public  knowledge,  a 
vote  was  taken  and  the  decision  was  90  per 
cent  against.  Now  if  that  is  not  before  the 
trial  even  begins— 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  hearing  officer  is  still 
free  to  make  his  own  decision. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Yes,  indeed  he  is,  against 
the  90  per  cent  vote.  The  sad  part  about  it  is 
that  we  on  this  side  of  the  House  believe 
when  the  people  speak  we  must  listen  and 
we  do. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Have  you  heard  them  in 
South  Cayuga? 

Mr.  Speaker:   Order. 

The  time  for  this  item  has  expired  and  this 
is  the  time  at  which  we  normally  have  the 
statement  by  the  government  House  leader 
to  indicate  the  order  of  business  for  the  next 
week.  With  your  indulgence,  we  will  hear 
him. 
6  p.m. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order:  During 
my  contribution  to  the  emergency  debate 
this  afternoon  I  stated  in  error  that  charges 
had  been  laid  against  Walker  Brothers  Quar- 
ries. I  should  have  said  they  were  being  in- 
vestigated and  mentioned  the  fact  that  the 
ministry  had  withdrawn  from  its  partnership 
with  that  company  in  Thorold. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  to  correct  the  state- 
ment. It  is  not  a  point  of  order. 

BUSINESS  OF  THE  HOUSE 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  pursuant 
to  the  standing  order,  I  would  like  to  indi- 
cate to  the  House  the  business  for  the  rest 
of  this  week  and  next  week. 

Tonight  we  will  be  continuing  with  any 
legislation   not   completed   on   Tuesday,    No- 


4696 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


vember  25,  in  the  order  of  bills  as  shown 
on  today's  business  paper. 

Tomorrow  we  will  conclude  the  estimates 
of  the  Ministry  of  Government  Services  and 
start  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  Reve- 
nue. 

On  Monday,  December  1,  in  the  after- 
noon, we  will  continue  the  estimates  of  the 
Ministry  of  Revenue;  and  in  the  evening  we 
will  also  do  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of 
Revenue. 

On  Tuesday,  December  2,  in  the  after- 
noon, we  will  discuss  any  third  readings  of 
bills  on  the  Notice  Paper;  then  we  will  con- 
tinue with  any  legislation  not  completed  this 
evening,  Thursday,  November  27.  Second 
reading  in  committee  of  the  whole  House  is 
required  on  Bill  191,  which  is  the  Employ- 
ment Standards  Amendment  Act;  then  Bill 
187,  which  is  the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Amend- 
ment Act;  then  in  committee  of  the  whole 
on  Bill  172,  the  Municipal  Affairs  Amend- 
ment Act.  Second  reading  and  committee  of 
the  whole  is  required  on  Bill  200,  Bill  199, 
Bill  Pr36,   Bill  Prl8,  Bill  201,  Bill  204  and 


Bill  177.  In  the  evening  we  will  continue 
with  the  legislation  I  have  just  indicated, 
that  portion  which  is  not  completed  in  the 
afternoon. 

On  Wednesday,  December  3,  four  com- 
mittees may  meet  in  the  morning— adminis- 
tration of  justice,  general  government,  re- 
sources development  and  plant  shutdowns. 
Four  committees  may  meet  in  the  afternoon 
—administration  of  justice,  general  govern- 
ment, social  development  and  plant  shut- 
downs. 

On  Thursday,  December  4,  in  the  after- 
noon, we  will  again  schedule  private  mem- 
bers' ballot  items  35  and  36,  standing  in  the 
names  of  the  member  for  York  Centre  (Mr. 
Stong)  and  the  member  for  Parkdale  (Mr. 
Dukszta).  In  the  evening  we  will  debate  the 
Hydro  affairs  select  committee's  report  on 
nuclear  fuel  waste. 

On  Friday,  December  5,  we  will  continue 
with  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  Reve- 
nue. 

The  House  recessed  at  6:03  p.m. 


ERRATA 


No.  Page  Col.  Line  Should  read: 

113  4299  2  14  On  the  severance  in  question,  Mr.  Gordon 

113  4299  2  47  and    (e)    the    Simcoe   County    Health    Unit. 

None 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4697 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4671)' 


ANSWER  TO  QUESTION 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

PARTICIPATION  HOUSE 

403.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  is  the  date  and 
amount  of  each  and  every  cheque  or  transfer 
of  funds  made  payable  from  the  Treasury  of 
Ontario  to  Participation  House  of  Hamilton 
and  District,  or  to  some  person  or  agency  on 
behalf  of  Participation  House  of  Hamilton 
and  District,  since  April  1,  1980?  What  is 
the  amount  of  additional  funds  provided  to 
those  agencies  which  have  been  providing 
temporary  accommodation  to  residents  of 
Participation  House  of  Hamilton  and  District 
since  the  residents  were  moved  from  Partic- 


ipation House?  What  procedures  are  in  place 
to  ensure  that  Gains-D  cheques  which  are 
normally  deposited  to  the  account  of  Partic- 
ipation House  of  Hamilton  and  District  are 
not  being  so  deposited  while  Participation 
House  is  closed?  (Tabled  November  18, 
1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  The  following  are  the 
dates  and  amounts  of  each  cheque  made 
payable  by  this  ministry  to  Participation 
House  since  April  1,  1980.  Residential  care 
budget  paid  two  months  in  advance,  lifeskills 
paid  quarterly.  Claims  are  paid  to  approved 
expenditures  on  residential  care  budget.  Un- 
expended dollars  in  lifeskills  program  are  re- 
covered at  year-end. 


Cheque 

number  and  date 

632744 

April  9/80 

664403 

May  26/80 

648332 

May  30/80 

699903 

June  30/80 

677630 

July  31/80 

747947 

Sept.  17/80 

790213 

Sept.  30/80 

726532 

Oct.  31/80 

Cheque  number  and  date 

642316  April  9/80 
785777  July  31/80 
740480    Oct.  31/80 


PARTICIPATION  HOUSE 
Reference 

April  and  May  advance 

June  advance 

April  subsidy  and  July  advance 

May  subsidy  and  August  advance 

June  subsidy  and  September  advance 

July  subsidy  and  October  advance 

August  subsidy  and  November  advance 

September  subsidy  and  December  advance 


LIFESKILLS 
Reference 


First  quarter  advance 
Second  quarter  advance 
Third  quarter  advance 


Amount 

$  80,000 
40,000 
50,848 
52,203 
54,535 
46,954 
52,077 
23,092 

$399,709 


Additional  funds  have  not  been  provided 
to  agencies  which  are  providing  temporary 
accommodation  to  the  residents.  Residents 
are  paying  for  their  care  from  the  Gains-D 
Allowance.  In  situations  where  Gains-D  has 
been  discontinued  because  of  the  change  in 
living  situation,  OHIP  is  providing  funds  for 
care.  Supervisory  staff  from  Participation 
House  have  been  providing  attendant  care 
support  and  parental  relief  support  to  other 
facilities  and  families  since  August  22. 


Amount 

$29,733 
27,671 
28,700 

$86,104 

Gains-D  cheques  are  being  used  to  cover 
expenses  of  residents  in  their  present  living 
circumstances.  Cheques  are  mailed  to  Partic- 
ipation House;  the  comfort  allowance  of  $61 
is  then  forwarded  by  Participation  House 
directly  to  each  client  and  the  remainder  is 
paid  out  to  the  person  or  facility  providing 
care  through  a  purchase  of  service  agreement 
with  Participation  House. 


4698  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 


Thursday,  November  27,  1980 

Radiation  sites,   statement  by  Mr.   Elgie   , 4655 

Liquid   industrial   waste,   questions    of   Mr.   Henderson,   Mr.   Parrott   and   Mr.   Wells: 

Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  G.  I.  Miller,  Mr.  Swart,  Mr.  Riddell,  Mr.  Isaacs  4655 

Food  industry  practices,   questions   of  Mr.  Henderson:    Mr.   Riddell,  Mr.   MacDonald  4661 

Soviet  involvement  in  Poland,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Dukszta,  Mr.  B.  Newman  4661 

Federal   aid   to   transportation,   questions   of   Mr.   Wells:    Mr.    Cureatz,    Mr.    J.    Reed, 

Mr.    MacDonald    , 4662 

Guelph  textile  firm,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:   Mr.   Worton   4663 

Durham  regional  environmental   hearing,   questions   of   Mr.   Parrott:    Mr.    Isaacs,   Mr. 

Gaunt    , 4663 

Farm  building  materials,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Watson,  Mr.  McKessock  4664 

Medical  and  dental  procedures,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Roy  4664 

Uranium  mining  monitoring,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:   Mr.  Laughren  4664 

Assistance  to  Canfarm,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  J.  Johnson,  Mr.  McKessock  4665 

Unicef  Christmas  cards,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:   Ms.  Bryden   4665 

Bendix  Corporation,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  B.  Newman  4666 

Notice    of    dissatisfaction   with   answer   to    oral    question   re   liquid    industrial   waste: 

Mr.    Isaacs 4666 

Petition  re  annual  report,  Ministry  of  the  Environment,   1978-79:  Mr.  Cassidy  4666 

Petition  re  Environmental  Assessment  Board  hearing:   Mr.  G.  I.   Miller   4666 

Report,  standing  committee  on  social  development:   Mr.   Gaunt  4667 

Ontario  Waste  Management  Corporation,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott  ,  4667 

Ontario   Waste   Management   Corporation,    questions    of   Mr.    Parrott:    Mr.    S.    Smith, 

Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr.    Riddell    ,  4668 

Motion  re  committee  sitting,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to   4670 

Motion  re  transfer  of  bill,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  4670 

Devolution  of  Estates  Amendment  Act,  Bill  210,  Mr.  McMurtry,  first  reading  4670 

Institute    of    Chartered    Secretaries    and    Administrators    in    Ontario    Act,    Bill    Pr41, 

Mr.    Belanger,    first    reading    i 4670 

City  of  Kingston  Act,  Bill  Pr50,  Mr.  Watson,  first  reading  4670 

Hamilton  Club  Act,  Bill  Pr51,  Mr.  S.  Smith,  first  reading  4670 

Sioux  Petroleums  Limited  Act,  Bill  Pr47,  Mr.  Breithaupt,  first  reading  4670 

Tabling  answer  to  question  403  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells 4671 

Motion  to  suspend  normal  business:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  4671 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980  4699 


Liquid  industrial  waste: 

Mr.  S.  Smith  .* 4674 

Mr.    Cassidy    ■, 4675 

Mr.   Eaton   4678 

Mr.  G.  I.   Miller  , 4679 

Mr.    Swart 4681 

Mr.   Ashe   , 4683 

Mr.    Nixon    ■ 4685 

Mr.   Isaacs    , 4686 

Mr.    Kennedy    , 4688 

Mr.  Kerrio  , 4689 

Ms.   Bryden   4691 

Mr.   Gaunt 4693 

Mr.    Parrott    , 4693 

Business  of  the  House:   Mr.  Wells  4695 

Recess     4696 

Errata    14696 

Appendix:  answer  to  question  403  on  Notice  Paper: 

Participation  House,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:   Mr.  Isaacs  4697 


4700  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Cureatz,  S.  (Durham  East  PC) 

Dukszta,  J.  (Parkdale  NDP) 

Eaton,  R.  G.  (Middlesex  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Havrot,  E.  (Timiskaming  PC) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnson,  J.  (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel  PC) 

Kennedy,  R.  D.  (Mississauga  South  PC) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

McGuigan,  J.  (Kent-Elgin  L) 

McKessock,  R.  (Grey  L) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Turner,  J.  (Peterborough  PC) 

Walker,  Hon.  G.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

(London  South  PC) 
Watson,  A.  N.  (Chatham-Kent  PC) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Worton,  H.  (Wellington  South  PC) 


No.  125 


Legislature  of 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  November  27,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the   back, 
together  Svith  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference  to  a  cumulative  index   of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4703 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 

ASSESSMENT  AMENDMENT  ACT 

(continued) 

Resuming  the  adjourned  debate  on  the 
motion  for  second  reading  of  Bill  185,  An 
Act  to  amend  the  Assessment  Act. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  some 
further  comments  to  make  relating  to  Bill 
185,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Assessment  Act. 
I  hope  I  can  continue  without  repeating  what 
I  said  late  Tuesday  evening  before  the  House 
adjourned. 

I  had  indicated  to  the  minister  and  mem- 
bers the  deficiencies  that  exist  in  local  assess- 
ment practices  over  a  number  of  years.  In 
fact,  I  was  quoting  from  the  policy  statement 
on  market  value  assessment  from  the  Institute 
of  Municipal  Assessors  of  Ontario  which  had 
outlined  the  deficiencies  and  inequities  that 
still  prevail. 

This  summer  we  met  with  the  mayor  and 
some  of  the  council  and  staff  in  Windsor. 
They  had  problems  with  the  resource 
equalization  grants  that  applied  to  that  com- 
munity and  ran  into  further  difficulties  with 
the  assessment  practices  there.  They  found  a 
number  of  inequities  still  existing.  The  mayor 
indicated  they  had  to  hire  two  additional 
staff  members  to  check  on  assessment  prac- 
tices and  assessment  records  within  the  city. 
They  said  they  had  corrected  assessments 
amounting  to  a  little  over  $4  million  that  were 
not  entered  on  to  the  up-to-date  rolls  within 
that  municipality. 

I  won't  go  into  the  details,  but  there  were 
two  full  pages  on  the  areas  they  covered. 
The  exemption  section  under  the  present 
Assessment  Act  was  brought  to  my  attention. 
For  a  new  assessment  I  believe  one  is 
exempted  $2,500  and  that  still  continues. 
They  thought  there  was  quite  a  bit  of  abuse 
in  these  areas  because  people  were  building 
garages  which  were  not  part  of  the  residential 
home.  If  abuses  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Windsor  area,  I  suppose  they  are  going  to  be 
found  across  Ontario.  They  mentioned  the 
$2,500  figure  that  was  frozen  for  a  number  of 
years.  If  one  was  renovating  a  home  or  an 
attic  or  putting  on  a  small  addition,  it  had  to 
remain  within  that  $2,500  factor. 


Thursday,  November  27,  1980 

Inequities  are  still  being  created  under  the 
present  assessment  practices  in  the  province 
and  that  creates  inequities  in  provincial- 
municipal  revenue  sharing.  This  has  been 
spelled  out  by  the  city  of  St.  Catharines,  the 
city  of  Windsor  and  a  number  of  other 
municipalities. 

The  Minister  of  Revenue  (Mr.  Maeck)  has 
adopted  a  new  resource  equalization  grant 
program  this  year.  I  don't  know  how  much 
success  he  is  going  to  have  with  it  this  year, 
but  the  resource  grant  factors  that  were 
applied  in  1979  caused  an  uproar  in  many 
of  the  municipalities  throughout  the  province. 
This  was  particularly  so  in  the  rural  com- 
munities where  there  was  quite  a  shift  in 
property  tax  onto  small  rural  municipalities. 
That  was  after  the  equalization  factors  were 
unfrozen.  I  don't  know  how  successful  the 
present  formula  is  going  to  be  in  the  property 
tax  reform  program  the  government  has  again 
looked  into  for  1981. 

I  notice  the  minister  responsible  in  this 
area,  the  Minister  for  Intergovernmental 
Affairs  (Mr.  Wells),  has  indicated  he  has  now 
appointed  another  committee  to  study  what 
I  guess  is  another  committee's  report.  I  hope 
they  are  going  to  bring  in  some  definite  policy 
or  criteria  the  government  can  follow  to  bring 
some  equity  to  property  tax  reform.  I  don't 
know  if  the  report  is  ready. 

The  minister  indicates  that  report  is  not 
available.  I  think  the  minister  did  indicate 
there  would  be  an  interim  report  but  not  a 
final  report.  Can  the  minister  say  if  there  is 
anything  in  that  area?  What  property  tax 
reform  is  accepted  by  the  minister  respon- 
sible? I  find  it  difficult  to  find  out  which 
ministry  is  responsible  because  there  are 
three  different  ministries  which  may  have 
some  say  in  the  matter.  There  is  the  Ministry 
of  Treasury  and  Economics,  the  Ministry  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs  and  the  Ministry  of 
Revenue. 

From  my  past  municipal  experience  I  do 
not  think  any  changes  have  occurred  in 
municipal  criteria.  The  final  results  of  any 
reassessment  program  occurring  related  to 
municipal  financing  procedure  rests  with  the 
municipal  mill  rate  set  by  each  local  council, 
based  on  every  $1,000  of  assessed  property. 


4704 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Assessment  is  a  lot  like  a  con  game  as  I 
think  I  have  said  before  in  past  years.  We 
can  raise  the  assessment  to  any  factor  we 
want.  We  can  raise  it  to  market  value  assess- 
ment; we  can  raise  it  to  33  per  cent  of  market 
value;  50  per  cent;  75  per  cent.  But  we  have 
to  change  the  mill  rate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  can't  change  it;  the 
municipality  does  it. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  said  municipalities.  That  is 
how  they  get  around  it.  I  said  the  municipality 
may,  and  I  am  sure  they  would,  have  to 
change  the  mill  rate.  One  mill  would  raise 
$70,000  in  my  municipality.  The  mill  rate  at 
market  value  could  be  changed  to  one 
seventh,  which  would  raise  $10,000.  In  the 
past  when  councils  had  reassessment— and  this 
occurred  in  my  municipality  on  a  number  of 
occasions— they  lowered  the  mill  rate  and 
raised  the  assessment.  Then  in  three  years 
they  would  go  back  up  to  $70,000  again,  but 
the  taxpayer  would  not  feel  that  impact  in 
the  first  year.  It  could  be  spread  out  over 
several  years.  One  could  always  generate 
additional  revenue  by  altering  the  mill  rate 
and  raising  the  assessment.  Eventually  they 
would  catch  up. 

Under  the  old  principle  in  municipal 
financing,  once  a  municipality  got  to  a  factor 
of  $100  as  it  related  to  the  mill  rate  and  the 
assessment,  it  was  at  a  dangerous  level.  The 
municipality  was  almost  bankrupt.  But  that 
means  nothing  today  because  it  can  be 
changed  about.  I  think  the  former  Treasurer, 
Mr.  McKeough,  was  trying  to  change  the 
property  assessment  and  lower  the  mill  rate 
so  it  would  not  look  that  bad.  Once  a 
municipality  reaches  a  mill  rate  of  over  $100 
it  is  almost  into  receivership.  This  is  a  difficult 
problem  but  I  think  the  government  brought 
it  on  itself.  There  are  areas  in  which  it  can  go. 

I  would  agree  to  two  recommendations  in 
the  bill.  One  is  that  municipalities  are  re- 
defined to  include  localities.  At  one  time,  a 
police  village,  village,  built  up  area  or  a 
hamlet  fell  under  the  Ontario  Municipal  Act. 
I  see  now  localities  have  been  included  in 
municipalities.  I  suppose  that  includes  areas 
with  unorganized  municipalities.  I  think  that 
is  good.  The  other  key  amendment  to  the 
proposed  bill  relates  to  the  assessment  on  gas 
lines.  I  can  see  there  would  be  some  revenue 
going  back  to  the  local  municipality  and  I 
suggest  this  is  a  reasonable  approach  to  take. 
As  the  official  opposition,  we  on  this  side  of 
the  House  have  always  taken  it  as  fact  that 
market  value  assessment  or  property  tax  re- 
form can  be  implemented  if  an  open-door 
approach  is  available  to  the  public. 
8:10  p.m. 


I  want  to  make  another  reference  to  the 
policy  statement  on  market  value  from  the 
Institute  of  Municipal  Assessors  of  Ontario. 
Here  is  another  interesting  paragraph  which 
says:  "The  advantages  of  market  value  as- 
sessment to  ratepayers  are  (a)  the  ability  to 
judge  equity.  With  the  implementation  of 
market  value  assessment,  all  property  owners 
can  judge  for  themselves,  based  upon  tan- 
gible available  information  whether  assess- 
ments are  fair  and  equal." 

That  is  something  that  is  not  available 
today  to  anybody  who  really  wants  to  get 
into  the  area  of  looking  at  his  assessment,  at 
assessment  practices  being  carried  out  and  at 
the  assessment  formula.  In  other  words,  each 
ratepayer  need  only  know  the  market  value 
of  his  or  her  property  to  know  whether  the 
assessment  is  fair. 

Then  the  statement  refers  to  "(b)  the  ability 
to  exercise  the  statutory  right  of  appeal."  That 
is  rather  important.  It  says:  "In  the  absence  of 
an  open  and  understandable  criterion,  such 
as  market  value  assessment  would  provide, 
the  democratic  rights  of  appeal  provided  by 
the  Assessment  Act  are  impaired." 

I  can  recall  a  few  years  ago  as  chairman 
of  county  assessment  that  when  a  reassess- 
ment was  taking  place  and  completed,  the 
taxpayer  had  a  right  to  go  in  and  look  at  the 
assessment,  how  it  was  arrived  at  and  what 
method  was  used.  We  do  not  see  that  today. 
If  one  hires  a  high  priced  lawyer,  one  can  get 
that  information.  But  there  is  not  much  in- 
formation available  to  the  public  or  the 
pronerty  taxoayer  today. 

If  we  look  at  section  78  of  the  Assessment 
Act,  we  find  it  makes  it  an  offence  for 
assessors  or  municipal  employees  to  provide 
any  information  that  does  not  appear  in  the 
assessment  roll  itself  to  anyone.  The  only 
exception  permits  disclosure  by  a  witness  in 
an  assessment  appeal  or  other  judicial  pro- 
ceedings. This  section,  therefore,  prevents  the 
taxrmyer  from  obtaining  anv  information  as 
to  the  methodology  used  or  the  manner  in 
which  it  has  been  used  in  determining  the 
assessment  of  properties  other  than  his  own. 

Section  90  of  the  Assessment  Act  prevents 
the  comparison  of  an  assessment  under  an 
appeal  with  any  assessment  other  than  the 
assessment  of  similar  real  property  in  the 
vicinity.  The  term,  "similar  real  propertv  in 
the  vicinity,"  is  not  defined.  In  many  cases 
there  is  no  similar  property  in  the  vicinity 
and,  accordingly,  no  basis  whatsoever  for 
comparison. 

That  is  really  interesting  when  one  looks  at 
that.  When  one  applies  section  86(3)  of  the 
act,   I  wonder  what  comparisons   can  really 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4705 


be  made  by  the  property  taxpayer  if  he 
wanted  to  take  a  look  within  a  vicinity  to  find 
out  just  what  his  assessment  was  and  what 
method  was  used  in  arriving  at  a  fair  assess- 
ment on  that  property  when  he  is  not  en- 
titled to  the  information  required  to  make 
even  a  reasonable  appeal  or  judgement  on 
what  has  been  carried  out  by  the  assessors. 

As  I  have  said  before,  the  minister  could 
well  use  the  revaluation  of  property  assess- 
ment—the market  value  concept  may  well  be 
too  high  a  criterion— set  now  by  studies  and 
even  by  the  Blair  Commission  on  the  Reform 
of  Property  Taxation  in  Ontario  at  50  per 
cent  of  market  value,  which  can  change  from 
one  day  to  another.  He  could  consider  lower- 
ing the  benchmark  to  30  per  cent,  then 
phasing  in  the  effects  of  moving  to  market 
value  that  would  parallel  the  equalization 
resources  grant  structures  within  a  five- 
year  oeriod.  I  think  that  is  one  area  that 
should  be  looked  at. 

In  my  opinion,  that  would  reduce  the 
severe  impact  in  its  earliest  stages  and  no 
doubt  would  be  more  acceptable  to  local 
government  and  the  property  taxpayer.  What- 
ever method  one  chooses,  it  has  to  be  fair  to 
reach  a  standard  of  uniform  assessment  prac- 
tice across  this  province.  It  is  of  prime  con- 
cern for  property  tax  equity  within  each 
municipality.  I  suggest  the  minister  could 
have  moved  into  that  area  long  ago. 

Based  upon  those  comments,  we  in  this 
party  will  be  supporting  the  bill  and  its 
amendments.  I  feel  if  we  had  more  informa- 
tion we  would  perhaps  take  a  harder  approach 
to  the  matter  of  market  value  assessment  to 
find  out  just  what  direction  the  government 
is  heading  in  property  tax  reform  in  Ontario. 

It  has  been  promised  for  some  15  years. 
I  do  not  think  we  are  anv  closer  to  it.  We 
are  no  closer  to  removing  the  inequities  with- 
in this  system  or  the  deficiencies  under  the 
present  svstem  as  documented  here  tonight 
and  on  Tuesday  night,  particularly  in  the 
policy  statement  of  market  value  assessment 
bv  the  Institute  of  Municipal  Assessors  of 
Ontario.  I  think  that  pretty  well  tells  the 
story  right  there.  We  support  the  bill. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  Bill  185  we 
have  once  again  the  government's  annual 
admission  that  it  has  no  policy  to  reform  our 
very  unfair  property  tax;  yet  this  is  the  main 
tax  source  for  our  municipalities.  It  is  a  tax 
which  bears  heavily  on  home  owners.  It  is 
a  tax  which  bears  little  relation  to  ability  to 
pay.  It  is  a  tax  which  is  carrying  a  service 
load  for  which  it  is  ill-designed. 

Property  tax  reform  has  been  talked  about 
by   this    government  for  many  years.   When 


it  took  over  the  assessment  function  in  1970 
from  the  municipalities,  it  latched  on  to  the 
market  value  concept  as  the  way  to  bring 
about  equal  treatment  of  taxpayers  with 
similar  property.  But  after  several  false  starts 
on  implementing  this  concept  and  after  the 
expenditure  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  tax- 
payers' dollars  on  these  false  starts,  the  gov- 
ernment arrived  at  what  it  considered  to  be 
a  set  of  market  value  assessments  in  1974. 
These  were  to  go  into  effect  on  January  1, 
1975. 

But  the  government  suddenly  discovered 
that  the  new  values,  the  reassessment,  would 
result  in  a  huge  shift  in  the  tax  burden  from 
commercial  and  industrial  taxpayers  to  resi- 
dential and  farm  taxpayers.  In  adopting  this 
concept,  it  had  failed  to  recognize  there  were 
several  markets  in  the  real  estate  world.  It 
had  failed  to  recognize  these  markets  were 
appreciating  at  different  rates.  Residential 
premises  were  going  up  the  fastest  and,  con- 
sequently, received  the  biggest  hike  in 
assessment.  The  home  owner  was  going  to 
be  stuck  with  a  bigger  share  of  the  tax  bur- 
den; in  many  cases  he  was  already  over- 
taxed. 

We  had  pointed  out  this  possibility  to  the 
government  when  it  first  started  the  process. 
We  had  suggested  it  should  be  studying  the 
effect  on  different  classes  of  taxpayers  as  it 
was  going  through  the  process  by  simulation 
runs.  The  government  largely  ignored  our 
proposal  and  bulled  ahead.  But  when  the 
implementation  date  approached,  it  began 
to  see  hordes  of  angry  home  owners  out 
there  facing  huge  tax  increases  and  an  elec- 
tion looming  at  the  same  time.  So  in  1974 
it  postponed  implementation  for  what  I  think 
were  mainly  political  reasons,  but  presum- 
ably to  give  it  time  to  find  a  substitute  or  a 
modification  of  market  value  assessment  that 
would  prevent  this  shift  to  the  home  owner 
from  the  commercial  and  industrial.  Its 
bankruptcy  in  the  field  of  property  tax  re- 
form is  evidenced  by  the  fact  we  are  going 
through  this  process  for  the  sixth  time  and 
are  facing  the  seventh  year  of  delay  in  im- 
plementation. 

Our  party  realizes  that  property  tax  reform 
is  long  overdue.  We  also  recognize  that  less 
reliance  should  be  placed  on  this  source  of 
revenue  and  more  on  the  more  progressive 
forms  of  taxation  such  as  the  corporation  tax. 
But  we  also  recognize  that  we  cannot  elimi- 
nate property  tax  entirely  or  immediately, 
until  we  build  up  alternative  sources  of  reve- 
nue through  a  new  industrial  strategy  and 
through  a  reformed  overall  tax  system.  We 
believe    an    unreformed   property   tax   means 


4706 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


an  unfair  tax  system  and  so  we  must  move 
in  this  area. 
8:20  p.m. 

We  have,  therefore,  addressed  ourselves 
to  the  development  of  an  alternative  to  the 
government's  flawed  market  value  assessment 
approach.  We  have  come  up  with  a  package 
of  proposals  which,  in  our  opinion,  will  pro- 
duce genuine  property  tax  reform.  It  is  a 
package  that  will  prevent  the  shift  in  tax 
burden  which  the  nervous  Tories  realize  is 
unacceptable.  It  is  a  package  that  will  pro- 
tect the  home  owner  and  result  in  property 
tax  reduction  for  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
low  and  middle  income  taxpayers. 

Our  package  includes  taking  over  60  per 
cent  of  the  costs  of  education,  instead  of  the 
approximately  50  per  cent  now  covered,  and 
a  revamped  and  enriched  property  tax  credit 
system.  Our  property  tax  credit  system  has 
not  been  changed  for  years  and  has  now  been 
put  out  of  date  by  inflation.  Our  package 
includes  assessment  based  on  the  economic 
value  of  the  property,  not  the  speculative 
value  of  the  property. 

My  colleague  the  member  for  Hamilton 
Mountain  (Mr.  Charlton)  has  described  the 
details  of  this  tax  package  in  this  House  on 
several  occasions.  What  is  more,  he  has  sent 
the  New  Democratic  Party  proposals  to  the 
minister.  So  far,  we  do  not  have  any  reply 
back  from  either  the  minister  or  his  officials 
that  has  indicated  they  have  found  any  flaws 
in  the  proposal.  Why  then  do  we  have  this 
sixth  postponement  bill  in  front  of  us  tonight, 
instead  of  a  government  bill  adopting  this 
proposal  for  a  revised  market  value  assess- 
ment system  that  will  bring  true  tax  reform 
and  will  not  shift  the  burden  to  the  home 
owners  from  commercial  and  industrial? 

I  think  the  reason  we  have  not  had  any 
move  from  the  government  in  this  field  is 
perhaps  they  fear  it  might  cost  them  a  little 
bit  of  money  because  they  would  have  to 
enrich  the  property  tax  credit  system  and 
would  have  to  take  over  more  of  the  costs  of 
education.  But  the  property  tax  is  not  really 
geared  to  carry  the  cost  of  services  such  as 
education  to  a  very  large  degree  because  it  is 
not  a  progressive  tax.  It  is  designed  more  to 
provide  services  to  the  home  owner  rather 
than  education  to  the  nation  or  to  the  prov- 
ince. The  cost  of  the  NDP  proposal  might  be 
a  few  hundred  million  dollars- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  remind  the  member 
that  she  should  confine  her  remarks  to  those 
principles  contained  in  the  bill  rather  than 
those  that  are  absent. 


Ms.  Bryden:  That  would  at  least  give  us 
time  to  look  at  an  alternative,  Mr.  Speaker. 
But  I  agree,  and  I  will  be  coming  back  to 
the  fact  that  we  are  having  another  post- 
ponement. 

It  looks  as  if  the  only  way  we  will  get  real 
property  tax  reform  is  to  change  this  timid 
government.  It  looks  as  if  we  have  to  reject 
this  government,  which  undertaxes  corpora- 
tions and  overtaxes  home  owners.  The  gov- 
ernment's procrastination  in  this  field  has  cost 
many  municipalities  millions  of  dollars.  It  has 
caused  us  to  develop  complicated  equalization 
factors  on  which  we  have  to  base  grant 
allocations.  It  has  allowed  thousands  of  well- 
heeled  taxpayers  and  corporations  to  appeal 
successfully  assessments  based  on  ancient 
yardsticks  and  escape  their  fair  share  of  the 
tax  burden.  Municipal  revenues  have  suffered 
as  a  result. 

To  resort  to  reassessment  under  section  86 
of  the  act  is  not  a  solution.  It  does  provide 
additional  equity  within  categories  of  prop- 
erty taxpayers,  but  it  does  not  allow  for 
broader  tax  reform.  It  is  not  a  substitute  for 
the  development  of  a  proper  yardstick  for 
measuring  all  property  values  on  an  equitable 
basis. 

T  would  like  to  question  whether  the 
Liberals  are  in  favour  of  market  value  assess- 
ment. It  was  not  clear  to  me  from  the  re- 
marks of  the  member  for  Erie  (Mr.  Hag- 
gerty)  whether  he  was  or  was  not  in  favour 
of  the  present  unrefined  market  value  assess- 
ment, which  treats  all  markets  as  though 
they  were  the  same.  It  was  not  clear  to  me 
whether  he  was  aware  there  would  be  this 
serious  shift  if  we  did  adopt  the  kind  of  mar- 
ket value  assessment  that  is  being  talked 
about  bv  the  Conservatives.  If  he  is  in  favour 
of  the  Conservatives'  version  of  market  value 
assessment,  he  is  in  favour  of  that  kind  of  a 
•shift.  I  did  not  hear  any  proposals  that  he 
was  prepared  to  put  forward  as  to  how  that 
kind  of  a  shift  could  be  avoided. 

In  the  absence  of  any  government  alterna- 
tive to  the  flawed  market  value  assessment 
svstem,  we  cannot  help  but  support  this  bill 
at  this  time.  As  I  say,  we  would  have  liked 
to  have  been  voting  on  a  bill  that  had  an 
alternative  in  it,  but  I  hope  this  will  be  the 
last  year  we  will  face  such  a  bill.  By  this 
time  next  year,  I  expect  we  will  be  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House  and  able  to  bring  in 
our  own  package  on  property  tax  reform. 

The  other  clauses  in  the  bill,  besides  the 
postponement  clause,  are  mainly  of  a  house- 
keeping nature,  and  I  do  not  object  to  them. 
However,  I  do  object  to  the  lateness  of  this 
postponement  bill.  I  understand  the  ministry 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4707 


has  the  assessment  notices  based  on  this 
postponement  ready  to  mail  with  an  effective 
date  of  next  Tuesday,  December  2.  If  this 
bill  does  not  pass  this  House  before  Decem- 
ber 2,  all  those  notices  will  have  to  be  re- 
done at  a  cost  of  perhaps  $1  million  or  more. 
The  ministry  is  risking  $1  million  of  tax- 
payers' money  by  bringing  this  bill  in  so 
late.  The  minister  has  had  six  previous  ver- 
sions to  copy,  so  it  shouldn't  have  been  a 
difficult  bill  to  draft.  It  seems  to  me  this  is 
indicative  of  the  inefficiency  of  this  govern- 
ment, which  pretends  that  it  is  businesslike, 
is  concerned  about  the  taxpayer's  dollar  and 
is  on  top  of  things.  The  government  cannot 
control  the  length  of  debates  in  this  House. 
Therefore,  it  has  no  guarantee  that  this  bill 
will  go  through  before  December  2.  I  think 
it  should  not  have  been  left  to  such  a  late 
date. 

However,  we  are  prepared  to  support  the 
bill  at  this  time.  I  hope  we  will  not  see  it 
next  year. 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  I  have  a 
pleasant  task.  I  notice  in  the  audience  today 
Mr.  Jack  Lettner,  the  assistant  deputy  minis- 
ter responsible  for  assessment.  I  want  to  take 
this  opportunity  to  congratulate  him  on  his 
position  and  to  wish  him  well  as  a  civil  ser- 
vant of  the  crown  in  his  new  post. 

Secondly,  I  notice  that  we  are  again  at  the 
crosroads,  bailing  out  the  government  at  the 
eleventh  hour  by  postponing  market  value 
assessment  until  next  year  or  some  other 
vear.  We  notice  a  number  of  other  prov- 
inces—I  think  all  nine  other  provinces— have 
had  substantial  reform  as  far  as  assessment 
is  concerned.  This  particular  government, 
despite  the  expenditure  of  millions  of  dollars, 
has  seen  fit  to  postpone  it  again. 

We  are  in  the  Legislature  today  for  some- 
thing that  comes  regularly  about  a  month 
before  Christmas.  The  postponement  of  mar- 
ket value  assessment  comes  as  regularly  as 
Christmas.  I  would  hope  that  sometime  in 
the  near  future,  if  by  chance  we  don't  have 
an  election  next  spring  or  next  fall,  the  gov- 
ernment will  have  the  courage  and  the  fore- 
sight to  bring  in  some  substantial  reform  as 
far  as  assessment  in  this  province  is  con- 
cerned. 
8:30  p.m. 

There  are  a  few  points  I  would  specif- 
ically like  to  draw  to  the  minister's  attention. 
One  is  the  fact  that  appeals  are  often  being 
drawn  to  the  attention  of  the  government 
and  being  taken  to  the  court,  whether  they 
go  to  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board,  before 
some  county  judge  or  someone  else.  There 
are    appeals    that    are    proceeded    with    in 


Ontario.  One  of  the  unfortunate  aspects  of 
those  appeals  is  that  when  someone  appeals 
a  particular  assessment  and  wins  that  appeal, 
that  assessment  is  good  only  for  that  year. 

In  other  words,  the  government  of 
Ontario  may  be  overassessing  someone  by 
100,  200  or  300  per  cent  one  year  and  the 
person  wins  that  appeal.  The  assessment  is 
then  decreased  significantly  for  that  year 
and  the  next  year  the  property  owner  has 
to  appeal  it  again,  and  spend  probably 
hundreds  of  dollars  in  legal  fees,  whereas  the 
assessment  may  amount  to  only  $1,500  or 
$2,000  in  taxes.  Yet  the  individual  has  to  go 
right  back  to  the  courts  the  next  year  to 
have  that  assessment  appealed. 

I  think  that  is  a  most  unfortunate  inequity 
in  assessment  in  this  province.  I  know  the 
minister  is  trying  to  do  an  honest  job  as  far 
as  the  assessment  of  this  province  is  con- 
cerned. I  hope  the  minister  will  look  favour- 
ably upon  some  kind  of  amendment  that  will 
postpone  going  back  to  that  higher  assess- 
ment until  some  complete  reassessment  of 
the  province   comes  into  effect. 

Of  course,  the  other  problem  we  have  in 
this  province  has  to  do  with  the  fact  that 
because  we  have  an  antiquated  assessment 
formula,  we  have  a  considerable  number  of 
appeals,  particularly  by  large  industries  and 
commercial  establishments.  Because  of  this 
antiquated  system  we  have,  they  are  con- 
stantly winning  those  appeals.  As  a  result, 
the  city  of  Toronto  has  lost  millions  of  dol- 
lars because  of  these  various  appeals.  Be- 
cause some  of  the  people  who  are  making 
these  decisions  may  not  be  in  the  same  kind 
of  position  to  have  all  the  facts  before  them, 
the  municipalities  are  losing  money.  I  would 
think  if  we  were  to  total  up  the  amount  of 
appeals  being  won  across  the  province,  we 
would  probably  get  somewhere  between  $20 
million  and  $50  million.  I  am  going  to  ask 
the  minister  to  give  us  the  amount  lost  last 
year  as  far  as  appeals  were  concerned  in 
the  province.  Maybe  he  has  that. 

Anyway,  whether  we  get  it  today  or  not, 
I  am  going  to  place  a  notice  on  the  Notice 
Paper  tomorrow  to  ask  for  the  amount  of 
assessment  lost  by  all  the  municipalities  in 
Ontario  over  the  last  number  of  years,  indi- 
vidually and  collectively.  It  is  substantial 
and  nothing  really  can  be  done  until  we 
have  a  complete  overhaul  of  the  assessment 
system  in  this  province,  because  of  the  anti- 
quated shape  it  is  in. 

The  third'  point  I  want  to  raise  has  to  do 
with  section  86.  We  know,  of  course,  section 
86  of  the  Assessment  Act  was  brought  in  a 
few  years  ago  and  that  has  taken  some  of 
the  heat  off  the  ministry  as  far  as  reform 


4708 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


is  concerned.  Nevertheless,  it  is  kind  of  a 
back  door  form  of  reform  and  the  provincial 
cabinet  had  resisted  the  implementation  of 
section  86  for  a  number  of  years  because  it 
felt  it  was  going  to  come  in  with  a  complete 
reform  package. 

That  was  the  policy  of  Mr.  McKeough 
when  he  was  Treasurer  and  Municipal  Af- 
fairs minister,  but  now  it  appears  that  with 
the  implementation  of  section  86,  assess- 
ment reform  in  this  province  has  been  post- 
poned for  many  years.  I  would  hope  the 
minister,  in  his  closing  comments,  would 
address  himself  to  the  question  of  exactly 
when  in  his  timetable,  as  a  cabinet  minister, 
he  will  bring  in  substantial  assessment 
reform. 

The  final  point  has  to  do  with  the  tax 
grant  for  seniors.  As  you  know,  Mr.  Speaker, 
this  year  the  government  in  its  wisdom  de- 
cided to  change  the  formula  whereby  seniors 
were  going  to  get  money  for  tax  grants.  If 
we  read  the  brochure  the  minister  put  out, 
it  says  these  grants  will  be  paid  directly  to 
seniors  in  the  spring  and  fall  of  each  year. 
Even  today  when  my  office  checked  with  his 
ministry,  we  found  it  is  going  to  be  at  least 
six  weeks  before  some  of  the  people  get  these 
tax  grants.  That  is  beyond  the  spring  or  fall 
of  this  year.  Six  weeks  takes  us  into  1981.  It 
is  not  even  this  year,  let  alone  the  fall  of  this 
year.  I  was  wondering  if  the  minister  would 
expedite  matters  as  far  as  these  grants  to 
seniors  are  concerned— 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  I  think  the  hon- 
ourable member  is  straying  quite  a  distance 
from  this  bill. 

Mr.  Epp:  It  is  a  very  valid  question. 
The  Deputy  Speaker:  It  is  a  question  but 
it  does  not  really  pertain  to— 

Mr.  Epp:  It  has  to  do  with  this  ministry, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  I  would  remind  the 
honourable  member  that  the  bill  to  amend1 
the  Assessment  Act  is  before  the  House  at 
the  moment. 

Mr.  Epp:  You  are  right  again,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  appreciate  the  opportunity  of  drawing  that 
to  the  attention  of  the  minister.  Mr.  Speaker, 
you  have  been  very  kind  and  I  do  hope  the 
minister  is  able  to  address  his  remarks  to  the 
questions  I  have  raised. 

Mr.  Charlton:  This  is  the  fourth  year  I  have 
had  the  opportunity  of  speaking  to  this  post- 
ponement bill.  It  is  the  first  time  in  those  four 
years  that  I  have  not  been  the  critic  and  not 
been  doing  the  leadoflF.  None  the  less,  it  is 
the  fourth  year  in  my  very  short  career  here 
that  I  have  had  to  speak  to  this  postpone- 


ment  bill.    It   is   a  task  which   concerns   me 
quite  substantially. 

My  colleague,  the  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine,  made  the  point  a  number  of  times 
about  what  has  happened  to  property  tax 
reform  in  this  province  over  the  past  10  years, 
so  I  will  not  go  over  all  that.  What  I  would 
like  to  do  is  speak  specifically  to  one  of  the 
sections  of  this  bill  and  to  attempt  to  talk  to 
the  minister  about  some  of  the  things  I  know 
he  is  going  to  say  in  his  wrapup  on  second 
reading,  because  he  said  them  last  year 
and  the  year  before.  I  want  to  talk  about 
section  86. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Never  second  guess  me. 

Mr.  Charlton:  I  am  going  to  anyway.  The 
minister  is  going  to  tell  us,  as  he  did  last 
year,  that  it  is  not  true  this  government  is 
doing  nothing  about  property  tax  reform  and 
assessment  reform.  He  is  going  to  tell  us  the 
section  86  program  is,  in  fact,  reform,  that 
section  86  gives  us  assessments  that  are  better 
than  the  antiquated  system  the  member  for 
Waterloo  North  referred  to.  And  it  is  a  ter- 
ribly antiquated  system  in  those  municipalities 
that  have  not  yet  chosen  to  go  the  section 
86  route. 

Section  86  does  not  deal  in  any  adequate 
way  with  the  intent  of  assessment  and  prop- 
erty tax  reform  in  this  province.  I  refer  the 
minister  in  my  comments  to  the  Smith  re- 
ports of  the  1960s,  the  place  where  all  this 
debate  started  and  the  rationales  that  caused 
this  government,  the  government  this  minister 
now  represents,  to  decide  to  do  property  tax 
reform  in  this  province.  The  intent  was  far 
different  from  any  result  we  get  from  sec- 
tion 86. 
8:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  going  to  refer  very 
specifically  here  to  the  last  part  of  one  of  the 
sections  in  this  bill.  We  are  dealing  with 
section  86  and  what  section  86  is  supposed  to 
mean  to  individual  property  owners  and  to 
the  assessor's  view  of  individual  properties. 
It  reads: 

"Subject  to  subsection  2,  the  assessment 
roll  of  a  municipality  to  be  returned  in  the 
year  1980  shall  be  the  assessment  of  all  real 
property  as  set  forth  in  the  assessment  roll 
returned  in  the  year  1979  for  taxation  in  the 
year  1980  as  amended,  added  to  or  otherwise 
altered  up  to  the  date  when  the  assessment 
roll  for  taxation  in  the  year  1981  is  returned, 
provided  that,  where  the  assessor  is  of  the 
opinion  that  an  assessment  to  be  shown  on  the 
assessment  roll  to  be  returned  for  the  years 
1974  to  and  including  1980  is  inequitable 
with   respect    to    assessment   of   similar   real 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4709 


property  in  the  vicinity,  the  assessor  may  alter 
the  value  of  the  assessment  to  the  extent 
necessary  to  make  the  assessment  equitable 
with  the  assessment  of  such  similar  real 
property." 

I  want  to  suggest  that  this  section  of  the 
Assessment  Act,  a  section  which  has  been 
around  for  some  time  now,  places  an  obliga- 
tion on  the  local  assessor,  on  the  assessment 
commissioner  in  the  region,  on  the  assess- 
ment division  of  the  Ministry  of  Revenue 
and  on  the  Minister  of  Revenue  himself,  as 
the  person  who  is  ultimately  responsible  for 
property  tax  assessment  in  Ontario.  I  want 
to  suggest  that  this  section  of  the  act  is  not 
being  fulfilled  and  has  not  been  fulfilled  in 
any  kind  of  fair,  equitable  and  uniform 
fashion  across  this  province. 

I  want  to  say  to  the  minister  that  I  have 
discussed  this  matter  with  his  staff  and  re- 
ceived extremely  good  co-operation  from  his 
staff.  Their  understanding  of  my  concerns  is 
good  and  their  willingness  to  sit  down  and 
talk  about  the  problems  is  good,  but  the 
good  intent  expressed  in  this  legislation  is  not 
being  lived  up  to  and  the  ultimate  responsi- 
bility is  that  of  the  minister. 

Equitable  with  other  real  property  in  the 
vicinity  means  something  serious  in  terms  of 
the  whole  intent  of  why  this  government  got 
involved  in  property  tax  reform  in  the  first 
place.  Section  86  of  the  Assessment  Act  may 
never  replace  full  and  complete  property  tax 
reform,  but  section  86  has  a  beneficial  role 
to  play  in  this  province.  I  will  grant  the 
minister  that  much.  It  is  not  assessment  re- 
form, though,  in  any  real  sense  and  it  is  not 
even  being  applied  as  it  should  be. 

I  have  raised  with  the  minister's  staff  a 
number  of  matters  in  terms  of  equity  be- 
tween similar  property  and  the  policy  is  not 
clear  to  the  people  in  the  assessment  offices. 
Tt  is  being  done  differently  by  different  peo- 
ple in  the  same  regions  and  in  different  re- 
gions. The  intent  of  section  86  and  in  those 
areas  where  section  86  equalization  was  done 
in  full  was  that  assessments  would  be  equal- 
ized based  on  market  value;  that  a  particu- 
lar year  would  be  picked  as  the  base  year 
and  that  the  market  place  in  that  base  year 
would  be  used  as  the  benchmark  for  market 
value. 

The  minister  will  recall  that  we  went 
through  this  debate  last  year  in  a  committee 
of  this  House  when  my  colleagues  to  the 
right  moved  this  same  bill  out  to  committee. 
They  moved  a  number  of  amendments  to 
section  86  and  we  had  a  fairly  lengthy  de- 
bate around  the  whole  question  of  what  did 
1975  mean  and  how  did  1978  and  1979  sales 


relate  to  the  market  value  of  1975.  It  was 
made  very  clear  in  that  committee  that  one 
could  not  take  the  value  that  was  reflected 
in  the  1979  sale  and  apply  it  to  a  property 
as  the  market  value  when  everything  else 
was  assessed  on  the  1975  base. 

But  it  was  also  made  very  clear  in  that 
committee  that  the  intent  of  section  86  was 
to  use  a  market  base  of  1975,  but  to  reflect 
the  current  economic  situation  in  the  com- 
munity between  similar  properties.  That  is 
not  happening,  or  at  least  it  is  not  happen- 
ing uniformly.  It  certainly  is  not  happening 
regularly  in  the  sense—and  I  know  it  is  diffi- 
cult—that the  assessment  offices  across  this 
province,  although  they  are  probably  doing 
a  continual  analysis,  are  doing  continuous 
updating  from  year  to  year  of  the  changes 
in  the  economic  relationship  of  municipali- 
ties as  a  result  of  new  services,  or  whatever 
the  case  happens  to  be. 

We  had  another  problem,  which  I  have 
also  discussed  with  ministry  staff.  It  is  the 
problem  of  the  factors  themselves  that  have 
been  used  in  the  section  86  program.  The 
way  in  which  the  factors  are  being  used,  in 
my  view,  totally  offends  this  section  of  the 
act  which  is  brought  before  us  tonight.  The 
intent  should  be  clear  since  we  are  debating 
it  here  tonight. 

In  the  section  86  program,  on  an  individual 
property  more  than  one  factor  is  being  used 
to  factor  back  from  market  value  to  current 
assessment  level.  It  is  specifically  done  on 
properties  where  there  is  a  rather  large  com- 
plex, partly  commercial  and  partly  residential. 
Two  factors  automatically  are  being  used  in 
the  assessment  offices  on  those  properties. 

In  cases  of  what  is  essentially  a  residential 
property  but  part  of  that  property  is  com- 
mercial—oh, no,  there  are  no  split  factors.  The 
assessment  offices  I  have  talked  to,  in  that 
instance— because  it  is  a  small  property  and 
it  does  not  matter  who  the  owner  of  that 
property  is  anyway  because  he  is  just  a  little 
individual— say  only  one  factor  can  be  applied 
against  that  property.  But  if  one  can  establish 
that  the  preponderance  of  use  and  the  pre- 
ponderance of  value  in  that  property  is  resi- 
dential, then  only  the  residential  factor  is 
used. 

For  those  who  have  residential-commercial 
use  on  a  small  property  like  that,  thank  God 
at  least  some  of  them  the  residential  factor 
instead  of  the  commercial  factor.  But  there 
are  a  number  out  there  who  got  exactly  the 
opposite— whose  residential-commercial  mix 
property,  because  of  a  slightly  different  split 
in  the  evaluation  and  because  of  a  slightly 
different  location  on  which  that  property  sits, 


4710 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


had  the  commercial  factor  totally  applied 
instead  of  the  residential  factor. 

The  people  out  there  do  not  understand 
that  at  all,  especially  when  two  of  them 
happen  to  be  three  blocks  away  from  each 
other  and  one  got  the  residential  factor  in 
total  and  the  other  got  the  commercial  factor 
in  total.  They  do  not  see  there  is  any  fairness 
in  that.  They  do  not  understand  why  they 
got  one  or  the  other. 

In  the  bigger  sector,  where  the  owners  are 
bigger  and  more  powerful,  they  got  split 
factors  based  on  the  split  on  the  property. 
The  residential  portion  got  the  residential 
factor  and  the  commercial  portion  got  the 
commercial  factor. 

The  government  cannot  have  it  both  ways. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Sure  you  can.  The  Tories  do  it 
all  the  time. 

Mr.  Charlton:  When  this  Legislature  de- 
cided the  province  should  become  involved  in 
total  in  the  property  tax  system,  one  of  the 
main  goals  it  set  out  was  fairness,  equity  and 
uniformity  across  the  province.  Uniformity 
is  the  one  I  am  emphasizing  now.  The  gov- 
ernment cannot  play  different  games  for 
different  people  and  have  a  uniform  system. 
The  minister  certainly  will  never  satisfy  the 
people  out  there  in  the  public  who  ultimately 
are  the  ones  who  have  to  accept  the  tax 
system  as  a  fair  system.  He  is  never  going  to 
satisfy  them  by  playing  three  different  games 
all  in  one  system. 

8:50  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  not  playing  games 
and  you  know  it. 

Mr.  Charlton:  You  are. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  only  guy  playing 
games  is  you. 

Mr.  Charlton:  No,  no.  Even  most  of  the 
minister's  staff  agrees  with  me.  Go  down 
sometimes  and  talk  to  the  guys  who  work  on 
the  street.  Most  of  his  staff  agrees  with  me 
because  they  see  the  unfairness  of  what  they 
are  being  told  to  do. 

My  colleague  from  Waterloo  North  men- 
tioned something  about  appeals  that  are  won 
only  being  good  for  one  year.  That  is  true. 
In  some  cases,  the  assessment  can  come 
right  back  up  the  next  year.  But  in  the  case 
of  split  factors,  where  the  people  with  the 
small  residential-commercial  mixed  properties 
appeal  and  win  their  appeals,  the  assessors 
are  being  instructed  in  every  single  case  to 
appeal  that  decision  to  the  county  judge.  At 
the  same  time,  in  another  sector,  the  assess- 
ment office  is  applying  split  factors  from  the 
outset. 


Nobody  is  playing  games  here,  except  per- 
haps the  minister.  The  minister  can  suggest 
that  I  am  playing  games.  I  am  going  to  sug- 
gest that  probably  he  is  not  playing  games, 
probably  he  does  not  understand  what  is 
going  on.  From  time  to  time,  I  think  it  is 
relevant  for  him  to  take  the  time  to  find  out 
what  is  going  on.  That  does  not  necessarily- 
mean  talking  to  research  staff  he  has  here.  It 
means  going  out  from  time  to  time,  going 
into  the  regional  assessment  offices,  not  to 
talk  to  the  commissioner  but  to  talk  to  the 
guys  on  the  street  and  get  their  views  of  the 
problems  that  are  being  caused  out  there. 

He  does  not  even  have  to  expect  them  to 
come  up  with  the  problems  for  him  because 
they  have  been  laid  out  here  for  him.  All  I 
am  suggesting  is  perhaps,  from  time  to  time, 
he  should  go  out  and  ask  about  some  of  the 
things  that  are  brought  to  his  attention  with 
the  people  who  are  really  confronted  with  it 
out  there  on  the  streets. 

The  intent  of  this  section  of  the  act  is  good. 
It  is  not  being  lived  up  to.  That  is  one  of  my 
objections  about  having  to  deal  again,  for  a 
fourth  time  in  my  case,  with  this  postpone- 
ment bill  while  he  hangs  his  hat  on  the  fact 
that  section  86  deals  with  a  lot  of  the 
problems.  I  am  saying  section  86  is  not  being 
lived  up  to  even  as  it  is  printed. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  think  it 
is  fair  for  us  tonight  to  blame  the  minister 
for  the  mess  that  exists  in  property  taxes  in 
Ontario  today,  because  he  or  his  predecessors 
inherited  a  great  deal  of  that  from  the 
municipalities  at  the  beginning  of  the  last 
decade.  But  I  do  think  it  is  appropriate  we 
blame  the  minister  to  some  extent,  and  his 
cabinet  colleagues  forming  the  government  to 
a  much  greater  extent,  for  not  having  ad- 
dressed the  problem  of  assessment  in  a  much 
more  serious  way. 

As  my  colleague  from  Beaches-Woodbine, 
the  revenue  critic  for  this  party,  indicat°d 
earlier  this  is  the  sixth  time  we  have  had  a 
bill  of  this  kind  before  the  House.  It  seems 
to  me  it  must  be  with  a  bit  of  shame  that  the 
minister  brings  this  bill  forward  yet  again. 
Surely  there  are  better  things  that  could  have 
been  done.  Surely  the  government  is  aware 
that  the  problem  is  so  serious  it  needs  to  be 
solved,  or  at  least  we  need  to  begin  on  the 
path  to  solution  in  a  far  better  way  than 
bringing  in  annual  deferments,  year  after 
year. 

I  was  very  disappointed  that  in  the  min- 
ister's opening  statement  we  did  not  get  an 
inkling  of  where  the  government  is  going 
on  the  matter  of  assessment.  The  minister 
will     be     aware     that     the     Association     of 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4711 


Municipalities  of  Ontario  has  endorsed  the 
section  86  concept  as  a  first  step  on  the  road 
to  full  market  value  assessment.  Yet  there  is 
absolutely  no  indication  from  this  government 
that  section  86  is,  in  fact,  a  first  step  on  the 
road  to  full  market  value  assessment.  At  the 
moment,  there  is  no  indication  that  section  86 
is  a  road  to  anywhere.  All  it  does  is  to 
deal  with  a  particular  crisis  that  exists  in 
some  parts  of  the  province  at  the  moment, 
namely  that  without  section  86,  appeals,  par- 
ticularly from  large  commercial  and  multiple 
residential  owners,  can  cost  the  municipality 
dearly  in  terms  of  assessment. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  section  86  does  help 
to  deal  with  that  one  serious  problem.  It  may, 
indeed,  make  the  system  a  tiny  bit  fairer  than 
it  was  before  for  the  majority  of  home  owners, 
tenants  and  commercial  and  industrial  prop- 
erty owners.  But  if  it  makes  it  a  tiny  bit  fairer 
for  those  people,  it  is  not  making  it  more  fair 
for  them  between  classes.  It  is  only  making  it 
more  fair  within  classes.  Even  then  there  are 
some  serious  problems. 

On  this  matter  of  the  between-classes  com- 
parison, I  really  do  not  understand  why  it  is 
seen  that  there  is  equity  in  a  system  that 
means  many  tenants  are  paying  well  over 
twice  in  terms  of  assessment,  and  hence  in 
terms  of  property  taxes,  that  which  occupants 
of  single  family  homes  are  paying.  It  does  not 
make  sense  to  me  that  the  high-rise  apart- 
ment dweller,  whether  he  is  tenant  or  con- 
dominium owner,  who  with  his  small  box  in 
the  sky  makes  a  lesser  demand  on  municipal 
services  on  an  average  basis  than  the  single 
family  home  owner  with  his  30  or  40  or  50 
feet  of  lot,  should  be  assessed  at  any  higher 
rate  than  the  single  family  home  owner. 
Indeed,  I  think  there  are  very  strong  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  assessing  that  person  at  a 
lower  rate  if  we  insist  on  talking  in  terms  of 
market  value. 

There  are  problems  in  terms  of  the  com- 
parison of  residential  groups  with  commer- 
cial and  industrial  classes  of  property.  I  am 
going  to  take  the  commercial  class.  In  many 
municipalities  commercial  assessment  is  a 
percentage  of  market  value  assessment  ap- 
proximately similar  to  the  percentage  at 
which  the  single  family  residential  assess- 
ment is  made.  The  factors  are  of  the  same 
order  of  magnitude.  In  many  other  munic- 
ipalities there  is  a  60  per  cent  difference. 

However,  in  Flamborough,  for  example, 
single  family  residential  is  at  7.5  per  cent  of 
market  value  and  commercial  is  at  9.9  per 
cent  of  market  value.  That  is  approximately 
a  30  per  cent  difference.  In  the  town  of 
Stoney  Creek,  commercial  is  at  19.7  per  cent 


of  market  value  and  single  family  residential 
is  at  13.6  per  cent  of  market  value.  That  is 
over  40  per  cent  difference.  There  is  no 
rationale  for  that  at  all;  it  is  a  historical 
accident  which  arises  as  part  of  the  program. 
There  are  equalization  factors  in  place 
which  take  into  account  the  overall  differ- 
ence in  magnitude  in  terms  of  the  relation- 
ship of  total  assessment  in  the  municipality 
to  total  market  value  of  property  located  in 
the  municipality.  Those  things  are  dealt 
with  by  the  equalization  factors.  But  that 
basic  unfairness  of  the  different  relationship 
between  classes  is  not  dealt  with  anywhere. 

9  p.m. 

It  means,  and  I  will  be  quite  frank  about 
it,  that  businesses,  commercial  properties 
located  in  the  town  of  Stoney  Creek,  are 
paying  more  than  commercial  properties 
located  in  the  township  of  Flamborough,  in 
the  same  region,  in  terms  of  their  contribu- 
tion to  regional  costs,  even  after  the  appor- 
tionment is  taken  into  account.  There  is 
nothing  fair  about  that.  There  is  nothing 
sensible  about  that.  There  is  nothing  that 
makes  that  the  right  way  to  do  tilings.  We 
have  to  say  where  we  are  going.  We  have 
to  be  prepared.  I  think  it  is  the  responsibility 
of  all  members  of  this  House,  regardless  of 
party,  to  tell  the  people  of  the  province 
where  we  are  going  in  the  area  of  property 
taxes.  It  may  be  the  three  parties  are  going 
in  different  directions. 

It  worries  me  very  greatly  when  I  hear 
the  Liberal  critic  of  the  Ministry  of  Revenue 
read  the  policy  statement  issued  by  the  In- 
stitute of  Municipal  Assessors  of  Ontario  and 
by  inference  associate  himself  with  that 
policy  statement.  I  hope  he  is  not  telling  us 
and  the  people  of  the  province  that  that 
policy  statement  is  the  policy  of  the  Liberal 
Party  of  Ontario  on  the  matter  of  property 
taxes.  If  he  is,  he  is  telling  the  people  of 
Ontario  his  party  is  prepared  to  support,  in 
the  ultimate,  a  system  of  property  taxes 
which  will  mean  over  the  years  an  increasing 
shift  in  the  burden  from  commercial  and  in- 
dustrial properties  to  the  residential  sector. 

We  have  seen  that  happen  in  places  in 
the  United  States  where  they  have  imple- 
mented full  market  value  assessment,  and  I 
know  that  even  the  latest  reports  are  not 
suggesting  a  complete  full  market  value  in 
Ontario.  They  are  suggesting  a  system  where 
the  residential  sector  is  factored  by  50  per 
cent,  but  that  factor  does  not  have  an  im- 
pact in  the  long  run.  In  the  long  run,  the 
impact  of  inflation  on  market  value  of  prop- 
erty, particularly  in  a  time  when  there  is  a 
downturn  in  the   economy,  will  mean  there 


4712 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


is  a  substantial  shift  in  the  burden  from  the 
industrial  and  commercial  sector  to  the  resi- 
dential sector.  It  arises,  very  simply,  because 
of  the  differing  markets  that  exist  for  homes 
and  for  the  other  kinds  of  business  proper- 
ties. 

I  do  not  believe  we  should  be  aiming  for 
full  market  value.  I  do  not  believe  we  should 
be  aiming  in  any  direction  that  fixes  the 
system  somehow  associated  with  the  market 
value  of  the  property.  We  do  not  have  that 
system  today,  if  the  truth  be  told,  because 
industrial  and  commercial  properties,  as  my 
colleague,  the  member  for  Hamilton  Moun- 
tain, has  already  suggested,  are  not  really 
being  assessed  on  the  basis  of  the  market 
value  of  the  building  itself. 

The  Toronto-Dominion  Centre  is  not  really 
assessed  on  its  market  value,  because  the 
Toronto-Dominion  Centre  does  not  have  the 
same  kind  of  relationship  to  the  market  as  a 
private  home.  Hence,  the  assessment  depart- 
ments, quite  rightly,  deal  with  those  kinds 
of  properties  in  a  special  kind  of  way,  and 
that  is  fair;  but  we  are  not  telling  the  gen- 
eral public  that.  We  are  telling  the  general 
public  that  under  a  section  86  reassessment 
that  now  exists,  not  in  Toronto  but  in  a  lot 
of  other  municipalities  around  the  province, 
all  properties  are  assessed  on  the  basis  of 
their  market  value.  We  are  not  explaining 
to  them  what  a  hoax  that  statement  is. 

I  really  hope  that,  probably  not  tonight, 
but  some  time  in  the  next  few  months,  the 
government  will  come  to  grips  with  this 
issue  of  where  we  are  headed  and  will  indi- 
cate to  the  people  of  Ontario  what  its  real 
philosophy  about  assessment  and  about  the 
payment  of  property  taxes  is  going  to  be  in 
the  future,  because  we  have  not  seen  that 
in  the  past. 

I  want  to  say  to  the  government,  too, 
please  do  not  set  up  any  more  studies  or 
commissions  or  anything  else  on  property 
taxes  and  assessments.  There  are  enough 
studies  to  fill  a  moving  van.  What  we  need 
are  some  policy  decisions.  They  are  tough, 
and  they  are  difficult,  but  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  has  one  that  I'm  rather  fond  of 
right  in  his  possession,  and  so  do  assessment 
offices  right  across  the  province.  That  is  the 
one  this  party  produced  last  spring,  and 
while  it  may  not  be  the  final  answer,  in  my 
view  it  is  so  superior  to  any  of  the  answers 
we  have  yet  seen  that  it  should  be  given 
some  very  real  consideration.  We  are  cer- 
tainly doing  that,  and  we  are  going  to  con- 
tinue to  do  that. 

Since  by  this  bill  we  are  extending  the 
section  86  process  for  another  year  and  im- 
plementing  it   in   another   bunch    of  munic- 


ipalities on  January  1,  I  want  to  add  one 
comment  to  the  comments  my  colleague  from 
Hamilton  Mountain  has  already  made  about 
the  failings  of  that  process.  My  comment 
relates  to  the  difficulty  I  have  encountered  in 
terms  of  a  problem  with  some  of  my  constit- 
uents, but  which  is  a  more  general  problem, 
and  that  is  the  inclusion  of  economic  condi- 
tion as  one  of  the  components  when  the  1975 
market  value  is  assessed. 

Economic  condition  is  as  much  a  com- 
ponent of  the  value  of  a  property  as  is  the 
area  of  the  home,  the  size  of  the  lot,  the 
number  of  rooms,  the  style  of  construction— 
all  those  kinds  of  things.  If  economic  condi- 
tions had  changed  uniformly  across  a  munic- 
ipality or  across  the  province,  that  would  not 
really  matter,  but  economic  conditions  are 
not  always  constant  across  a  municipality. 

Sometimes  something  will  happen  in  one 
corner  of  a  municipality  that  makes  a  dramatic 
change  in  the  economic  condition  for  the 
properties  that  are  located  there.  It  can  be 
a  move  in  either  direction.  It  could  be  that 
sewers  came  to  the  property  and  the  develop- 
ment in  the  area  was  booming,  and  all  of  a 
sudden  the  value  of  the  home  that  was 
relatively  low  in  1975  is  much  higher  today. 

My  information  is  that  that  is  taken  into 
account  by  the  assessment  department— and 
that  is  as  it  should  be— and  it  arrives  at  a 
1975  market  value  using  the  economic  con- 
ditions that  exist  in  that  neighbourhood  to- 
day; but  there  is  a  problem  when  we  go  the 
other  way. 

When  there  were  transient  economic  con- 
ditions in  1975,  that  meant  the  speculators 
were  moving  in  and  buying  properties  at  a 
grossly  inflated  price  and  yet  now  that  those 
economic  conditions  have  disappeared  today 
because  the  development  has  not  proceeded 
in  the  way  it  was  expected  to  in  1975  and 
the  market  has  fallen  flat  and  people  now 
can  hardly  give  their  homes  away,  we  seem 
to  be  running  into  a  problem  with  the  assess- 
ment department  in  getting  that  dramatic 
change  in  economic  condition  taken  into 
account. 

I  know  the  minister's  staff  are  aware  of  this 
because  I  know  my  colleague  has  drawn  it  to 
their  attention.  I  know  it  is  a  matter  of  some 
discussion,  but  I  wanted  to  raise  it  with  the 
minister  today  because  at  least  while  we  are 
stuck  with  the  section  86  process— as  we  will 
be  for  one  more  year— I  think  the  criteria 
should  be  clearly  spelled  out  so  that  every- 
body can  understand  how  the  1975  market 
value  is  arrived  at. 

I  happen  to  think  that  economic  condition 
should  be  taken  into  account,  and  I  under- 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4713 


stand  that  many  of  the  minister's  staff  agree 
in  general  with  that  viewpoint.  I  think  assess- 
ment offices  across  the  province  should  be  told 
that  if  there  has  been  a  markedly  different 
change  in  market  value  from  1975  to  1980  in 
one  neighbourhood  which  has  not  occurred 
elsewhere  in  the  municipality,  the  1980 
economic  conditions  should  be  used  when 
arriving  at  the  1975  market  value  assessment. 

9:10  p.m. 

To  put  it  all  on  the  table,  I  should  tell  the 
minister  that  on  behalf  of  a  group  of  my 
constituents  I  have  made  this  argument  before 
the  assessment  review  court  in  the  town  of 
Stoney  Creek  because  I  was  not  able  to  con- 
vince the  assessors  in  private  discussions 
previously  that  this  was  the  way  to  go.  I  was 
not  successful  in  persuading  the  judge  of  the 
assessment  review  court  that  this  was  a  sound 
argument.  The  reason  I  was  not  successful 
was  that  it  is  not  written  down  anywhere. 
Nowhere  does  it  say  how  the  assessment 
department  should  arrive  at  the  1975  market 
value.  If  it  is  written  down  anywhere,  it  is 
certainly  not  known  to  me  and  certainly  was 
not  made  known  to  the  ARC  that  day. 

So  I  think  there  is  a  real  flaw  there.  While 
we  continue  with  this  section  86  process,  we 
should  know  what  the  basic  guidelines  are 
and  they  should  be  applied  uniformly  in 
every  municipality  that  opts  for  a  section  86. 
I  hope  the  minister  will  work  with  his  staff 
and  try  to  deal  with  this  problem  so  that  we 
can  save  some  additional  agony  in  other  areas 
where  it  arises.  I  think  it  can  be  done  quite 
easily.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  major  problem.  I 
happen  to  know  it  has  been  done  in  the 
multiple  residential  sector  in  the  city  of 
Hamilton.  They  managed  to  work  that  out 
and  they  agreed  there  had  been  a  major 
downturn  in  the  market  value  so-called  of 
all  of  those  buildings  across  the  city  of 
Hamilton.  They  worked  that  out  and  that  was 
no  problem. 

But  for  some  reason  we  cannot  get  it 
worked  out  for  this  group  of  home  owners 
who  happen  to  be  caught  with  lots  of  two 
acres  that  had  a  certain  market  value  be- 
cause of  an  apparent  development  in  1975 
which  is  now  clearly  not  going  anywhere. 
That  is  another  story  because  it  then  hap- 
pened to  be  an  Ontario  Housing  Corporation 
project  and  now  it  is  an  Ontario  land  cor- 
poration project. 

If  we  were  not  on  1975,  it  would  not  be 
a  problem.  By  coincidence  that  happened 
to  be  the  boom  year  and  every  year  since 
has  been  a  bust.  These  people  are  trapped 
in  a  most  unfortunate  situation  that  really 
does  need  to  be  solved.   I   think  it  can  be 


solved,  and  I  really  do  not  think  it  is  any  big 
deal.  I  wanted  to  raise  it  because  it  will 
occur  in  other  places  where  section  86  is  be- 
ing undertaken  for  1981  and  perhaps  for 
1982,  if  we  carry  on  in  this  silly  way.  That 
is  an  additional  criticism  of  the  section  86 
process  that  I  wanted  to  make. 

I  want  to  come  back  to  the  matter  of  the 
factors  established  under  section  86,  because 
I  think  those  are  the  seat  of  the  real  inequity 
at  the  present  time.  I  happen  to  think  mar- 
ket value  is  not  the  way  to  go.  Maybe  the 
minister  still  believes  that  is  the  way  to  go. 
Those  kinds  of  things,  I  guess,  will  be  work- 
ed out  in  this  House  at  the  appropriate  time 
when  the  legislation  is  brought  in  to  do 
whatever  it  is  the  government  of  the  day— 
whichever  government  it  is— decides  it  wants 
to  do. 

Even  within  regions,  we  have  at  the  pres- 
ent time  serious  differences  in  the  section  86 
factors,  which  mean  there  is  no  equity  among 
the  classes  in  the  different  municipalities  in 
the  same  region,  in  the  same  county  or  in 
the  same  school  board  district.  While  that 
continues,  I  really  do  not  think  it  is  reason- 
able for  the  government,  for  the  Association 
of  Municipalities  of  Ontario  or  for  anyone 
else  to  say  the  section  86  process  is  fair. 

In  terms  of  solution,  I  really  regret  that 
the  minister  has  brought  this  bill  in  so  much 
at  the  last  minute.  I  think  assessment  is  one 
of  those  complex  areas  where  it  would  be 
valuable,  educational  and  useful  for  all  mem- 
bers of  the  House  to  have  the  ability  to  go 
to  committee,  become  informed  as  to  what 
is  going  on  and  get  an  understanding  of  the 
process.  I  think  that  kind  of  committee  dis- 
cussion, debate  and  recommendations  from 
a  committee  of  this  House  might  indeed 
assist  the  government  in  formulating  a  solu- 
tion to  the  property  tax  crisis  that  is  loom- 
ing. It  is  a  crisis.  It  is  a  very  serious  prob- 
lem today. 

The  government  has  brought  in  this  an- 
nual bill  very  much  at  the  last  minute,  as  it 
did  last  year.  It  therefore  denied  us  the  op- 
portunity to  take  the  bill  to  committee,  to 
talk  about  the  options,  to  look  at  the  things 
that  are  being  done  in  other  jurisdictions  and 
to  formulate  recommendations. 

The  Minister  of  the  Environment  ( Mr. 
Parrott)  was  making  statements  today  and 
last  Tuesday  about  how  helpful  the  report 
of  the  resources  development  committee  on 
liquid  industrial  waste  disposal  had  been  to 
him.  I  do  not  want  to  liken  an  assessment 
to  liquid  industrial  waste  disposal  except  to 
say  that  both  those  areas  are  a  disaster  at 
the    present   time.    Perhaps    consideration    of 


4714 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


assessment  and  the  property  tax  system  by  a 
committee  of  this  House,  listening  to  experts, 
listening  to  different  viewpoints,  might  come 
up  with  a  report  that  is  of  some  assistance 
to  the  minister. 

I  know  we  have  a  problem  in  this  House 
in  terms  of  the  number  of  committees  that 
sit  and  the  amount  of  work  there  is  to  be 
done  because  the  government  is  not  address- 
ing the  issues  of  the  day.  I  happen  to  think 
property  taxes  are  a  very  serious  issue.  I  hap- 
pen to  think  it  would  be  very  worth  while 
to  have  a  committee  of  this  House  find  the 
time  to  get  into  the  issue,  to  talk  to  the  ex- 
perts, to  review  what  might  be  done,  to 
listen  to  the  minister's  staff  and  to  come  up 
with  recommendations.  This  bill  is  clearly 
the  vehicle  to  do  that. 

Next  year  if  we  are  still  here— we  will 
be;  I  do  not  know  about  the  government— 
and  if  it  happens  that  the  minister's  party  is 
still  responsible  for  bringing  in  legislation, 
which  may  or  may  not  be  the  case— it  seems 
to  me  today  to  be  pretty  unlikely— I  sin- 
cerely hope  the  minister  will  make  a  com- 
mitment to  bring  in  the  bill  in  plentv  of 
time  so  we  can  take  it  to  committee,  look 
at  it  and  get  into  some  of  these  things  in 
great  depth.  If  the  government  is  going  to 
continue  to  abdicate  its  responsibility,  then 
perhaps  a  committee  of  this  Legislature 
working  on  the  problem  can  come  up  with 
solutions  the  government  has  so  far  failed 
to  find  anywhere. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  I  was 
describing  the  New  Democratic  Party  altern- 
ative to  the  postponement,  I  said'  the  policy 
of  the  NDP  was  for  the  government  to  take 
over  60  per  cent  of  school  taxes.  I  should 
have  said  65  per  cent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  wonder  if  the  member 
for  Beaches-Woodbine  would  also  like  to 
correct  the  record  when  she  talked  about 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  being  spent 
on  studying  the  assessment  program  in  this 
province.  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  very  good 
figure  either. 

Ms.  Bryden:  That  is  over  10  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  is  not  hundreds  of 
millions. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  try  to  reply  in 
sequence  to  each  speaker  who  was  involved 
in  the  debate.  I  will  deal  with  the  member 
for  Erie  first. 

iHis  first  remark  was  that  he  did  not  see 
any  noticeable  improvement  in  assessment 
in  the  province.  I  would  like  to  draw  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that  since  the  section 
86  program  was  brought  in,  with  those 
programs   in  place   and   the   ones   that  have 


been  on  market  value  for  some  years,  exactly 
half  the  municipalities  in  the  province,  more 
than  400,  have  had  some  work  done  on  their 
assessment.  I  don't  say  particularly  market 
value  as  the  act  describes  it,  but  section  86 
and  market  value  assessment  in  other  areas. 
There  are  about  400  municipalities  at  the 
moment— no,  I  guess  that  is  not  the  right 
way  to  say  it.  When  we  get  the  section  86 
programs  in  place  for  1981— there  are  130 
more  coming  onstream— then  we  will  have 
400.  I  do  not  want  to  mislead  the  member; 
that  means  half  the  municipalities  will  have 
been  dealt  with  in  one  form  or  another  as 
far  as  assessment  is  concerned. 
9:20  p.m. 

The  member  quoted  the  Institute  of 
Municipal  Assessors.  It  has  always  been  its 
policy  that  it  wants  market  value  assessment 
in  Ontario.  I  have  said  in  the  years  I  have 
been  the  Minister  of  Revenue  that  I  agree 
with  that  policy.  I  do  not  oppose  market 
value  as  such.  But  I  have  also  said  that 
market  value  assessment  cannot  come  to  this 
province  without  some  form  of  property  tax 
reform. 

Two  or  three  members  have  asked  whose 
responsibility  it  is.  It  is  the  Treasurer's  (Mr. 
F.  S.  Miller)  responsibility,  as  I  am  sure 
everybody  in  this  House  knows.  They  know 
that  all  the  property  tax  reform  work  was 
done  under  the  former  Treasurer,  the  Honour- 
able Darcy  McKeough.  The  precedent  has 
been  set  and  everybody  knows  that  property 
tax  reform  comes  under  the  Treasurer.  It  is 
his  responsibility. 

However,  when  the  Treasurer  is  working 
on  property  tax  reform  he  obviously  looks 
for  input  from  the  assessment  branch  of  my 
ministry  as  well  as  the  ministry  of  Intergov- 
ernental  Affairs  and  the  Ministry  of  Educa- 
tion, which  are  also  involved.  It  does  become 
a  four-ministry  situation. 
Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Do  the  members  want 
to  talk  about  assessment  or  environment? 
Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Oh.  not  environment. 
The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  I  think 
they  would  rather  talk  about  environment. 
Would  you  please  give  your  attention  to  the 
Minister  of  Revenue. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  apologize,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Mr.    Kerrio:    We    have    to    get    on    to    the 
Vicious  Dogs  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  member  for  Erie  also 
suggested  that  the  section  86  program  should 
be  done  by  region  or  county,  rather  than  by 
municipality.    We    have    taken    the    opposite 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4715 


viewpoint  simply  because  we  want  it  to  be 
a  voluntary  program.  If  we  were  to  go  by 
region,  three  or  four  municipalities  might 
request  it  and  two  or  three  or  four  would 
not  want  it.  We  have  taken  the  opposite 
approach;  we  do  not  want  to  force  it  on 
municipalities. 

The  region  of  Kitchener- Waerloo  is  an 
example.  All  the  municipalities  in  that  region 
have  had  a  section  86  program  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  city  of  Waterloo,  which  was 
the  city's  choice.  If  the  city  of  Waterloo 
were  to  talk  to  the  city  of  Cambridge,  the 
city  of  Cambridge  would  tell  them  that  they 
are  much  better  off  today  assessment-wise 
than  they  were  before  we  did  the  section  86. 

There  is  no  question  we  are  going  to  have 
all  kinds  of  difficulties  in  any  assessment  pro- 
gram. We  are  not  perfect  and  never  will  be. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Some  of  them  are  better  than 
others. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  There  is  no  question 
some  are  better  than  others,  and  some 
assessors  are  better  than  others.  We  are  all 
human,  we  all  make  mistakes. 

The  member  for  Erie,  taking  a  leaf  out  of 
the  NDP  book,  also  suggested  that  the  prov- 
ince should  support  education  up  to  60  per 
cent  to  relieve  the  tax  burden  on  residential 
property  taxpayers  particularly.  I  cannot  say 
I  am  particularly  against  that,  but  I  remind 
all  members  that  when  we  increase  education 
grants  to  the  municipalities  to  relieve  the 
property  taxes,  the  dollars  have  to  come  from 
somewhere.  In  the  NDP  proposal  about  which 
the  member  for  Beaches-Woodbine  spoke,  the 
figure  on  the  cost  for  education  alone  would 
be  something  like  $580  million.  That  money 
would  have  to  be  found.  It  is  not  so  simple 
when  one  is  on  this  side  of  the  House  and 
has  the  responsibility  of  finding  the  dollars. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  You  are  paying  almost  60 
per   cent  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  is  not  quite  so.  We 
are  probably  paying  51  per  cent  if  we  do 
not  take  into  consideration  the  number  of 
dollars  that  go  into  the  property  tax  credit 
program  and  all  the  other  programs  dealing 
with  property  tax  administered  by  my  ministry. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Are  you  forgetting  that  $30 
million  you  owe  the  city  of  Windsor  for  the 
resources  grant? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  not  forgetting  that, 
but  that  is  a  question  the  honourable  member 
will  have  to  talk  to  the  Minister  of  Inter- 
governmental Affairs  (Mr.  Wells)  about,  not 
the  Minister  of  Revenue.  The  Ministry  of 
Revenue  does  not  owe  the  city  of  Windsor 
any    money.    I    do    not    think    the    city    of 


Windsor  is  in  any  worse  shape  financially 
than  any  other  city  in  the  province. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Would  you  like  to  have 
20,000  unemployed  in  your  community? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  is  another  problem. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  Mr.  Minister,  will  you 
please  return  to  answering  the  questions  that 
arose  on  Bill  185? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  thought  I  might  cover 
the  whole  situation  as  I  go,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Samis:  You  are  not  running  for  leader- 
ship, are  you?  The  silent  candidate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  going  to  go  back 
to  the  member's  riding  shortly.  The  member 
for  Erie  also  talked  a  little  about  the  $2,500 
assessment  where  anything  below  that  is  not 
picked  up.  That  is  so,  except  when  we  do  a 
section  86  program.  Those  assessments  are 
then  picked  up  as  part  of  the  overall  package. 
With  any  municipality  that  has  gone  on 
section  86,  those  assessments  up  to  $2,500 
are  picked  up  at  that  time. 

He  talked  a  little  about  equalization  factors 
as  well,  but  that  is  really  not  in  this  bill.  I 
would  be  happy  to  talk  to  the  member  about 
that  at  another  time.  To  touch  on  equalization 
factors  very  lightly,  there  had  been  appeals 
on  some  of  them  but  I  think  it  was  found 
there  was  nothing  wrong  with  the  factors. 
That  is  the  work  this  ministry  does.  Certainly, 
it  was  the  effects  those  factors  produced. 
That  goes  under  another  ministry,  as  we  all 
know. 

Several  members  spoke  about  the  lateness 
of  introducing  this  piece  of  legislation.  I 
must  apologize  for  that.  Part  of  it  is  my 
fault.  I  was  away  the  week  this  bill  should 
have  been  introduced.  I  thought  I  had  ex- 
plained it,  particularly  to  the  critics,  but  ap- 
parently they  do  not  accept  my  explanation. 
However,  I  see  they  did  co-operate  and  allow 
us  to  go  ahead  with  the  legislation.  I  appre- 
ciate it  very  much. 

The  member  for  Waterloo  North  (Mr.  Epp) 
asked  about  appeals.  As  the  member  knows, 
the  appeals  themselves  are  under  the  assess- 
ment review  court,  which  is  under  the  At- 
torney General  (Mr.  McMurtry).  However, 
he  was  concerned  about  the  fact  that  an 
assessment  raised  would  be  raised  again  the 
following  year  after  the  appeal  had  been 
granted.  I  am  informed  by  my  staff  that  is 
not  what  should  be  taking  place.  If  he  knows 
of  any  particular  cases,  I  would  be  happy  to 
look  into  that. 

If  the  assessment  is  set  by  the  appeal 
court  it  is  accepted  by  my  ministry.  If  it  is 
not,  of  course,  we  have  to  appeal  it.  But 
instructions   have    gone   out   from   my   office 


4716 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  once  the  assessment  has  been  set 
through  the  review  court  they  are  not  to 
raise  that  assessment  the  following  year 
unless,  of  course,  something  else  has  been 
done  to  the  property  that  requires  it  to  be 
increased.  If  that  is  happening,  I  would  like 
to  know  about  it  because  I  do  not  believe 
that  once  a  court  sets  a  rate  of  assessment  we 
should  be  changing  it  the  following  year. 
That  would  destroy  the  whole  appeal  pro- 
cess. We  cannot  expect  taxpayers  to  go  into 
court  every  year  and  appeal  the  same  assess- 
ment. I  would  not  want  that  to  happen. 

He  also  wanted  to  know  if  we  knew  what 
the  amount  would  be  in  this  past  year  in 
losses  in  appeals.  My  staff  advise  me  that 
at  the  moment  they  cannot  tell  me  that  but 
I  will  be  happy  to  get  it.  If  the  member  is 
going  to  put  the  question  on  the  Order  Paper 
anyway,  he  will  get  it  then.  I  do  not  have 
it  with  me. 

He  asked  when  I  would  bring  in  sub- 
stantial assessment  reform.  That  is  a  tough 
question. 

As  Minister  of  Revenue,  I  have  been  try- 
ing to  do  something  about  assessment  reform 
for  the  last  three  years  and  I  think  I  have 
done  a  considerable  amount.  I  think  we  are 
moving  into  a  form  of  assessment  reform, 
probably,  as  the  member  for  Waterloo  North 
indicated,  a  little  through  the  back  door. 
With  the  political  climate  in  this  province 
today,  the  only  way  we  are  going  to  get 
reform  is  by  dbing  one  thing  at  a  time.  I  do 
not  think  we  are  going  to  get  an  agreement, 
at  this  moment  at  least,  where  we  are  going 
to  bring  in  a  brand  new  package  and  all  the 
problems  are  going  to  be  solved  in  one  swipe 
of  the  pen.  It  is  not  going  to  happen.  I 
have  resolved  myself  to  that  situation. 
9:30  p.m. 

I  am  prepared,  therefore,  to  work  the 
Band-Aid  approach,  if  members  want  to  call 
it  that,  or  the  piecemeal  approach.  I  am 
going  to  get  some  of  this  work  done  whether 
I  have  to  do  it  one  piece  at  a  time  or  three 
pieces  at  a  time.  It  is  going  to  move.  My 
staff  at  the  moment  are  meeting  with 
Treasury  and  have  been  over  the  past  month 
or  so.  I  understand  they  have  some  proposals 
to  make  to  me  and  the  Treasurer  in  the  near 
future,  probably  in  January.  These  will  be 
considered  and,  of  course,  if  there  are  things 
we  feel  we  can  do— we  will  obviously  have 
to  have  approval  of  the  cabinet  as  well  be- 
fore I  can  make  it  public— but  I  assure  the 
members,  we  are  working  on  property  tax 
reform.  I  would  not  want  members  to  hold 
their  breath  and  expect  it  to  be  a  complete 
reform  package,  because  I  do  not  think  that 


is  going  to  happen.  I  do  not  think  that  would 
be  acceptable  to  the  public  out  there,  even 
if  we  did  want  to  do  it. 

I  was  pleased  to  find  out  this  week  that 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  ac- 
cepted the  recommendation  of  its  tax  and 
assessment  committee  and  on  November  26, 
1980,  passed  the  following  resolution.  I  want 
to  read  this  into  the  record. 

"1.  That  the  taxation  and  assessment  com- 
mittee be  continued  for  another  year. 

"2.  Whereas  section  86  would  bring  more 
equity  to  farm  taxation  and  whereas  most 
municipalities  would  benefit  from  the  feasi- 
bility study,  therefore  be  it  resolved  that 
the  adoption  of  section  86  is  desirable  for 
most  agricultural  municipalities." 

As  I  mentioned  earlier  in  my  statement, 
the  Association  of  Municipalities  of  Ontario 
has  supported  the  section  86  program.  We 
now  have  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agri- 
culture supporting  it.  Even  if  members  oppo- 
site feel  it  is  a  little  bit  lacking,  at  least  it  is 
being  accepted  out  there.  I  think  it  is  doing 
something  to  alleviate  some  of  the  inequities 
that  existed  prior  to  the  section  86  program. 
I  have  said  many  times,  and  the  members 
all  know  it,  it  is  not  the  be-all  and  end-all. 
It  does  not  solve  all  the  problems.  I  never 
expected  it  to.  Certainly  it  goes  a  long  way 
to  solving  a  lot  of  the  problems  that  were 
there  before. 

I  also  want  to  commend  my  staff  on  the 
excellent  work  they  have  been  doing  in  that 
program.  It  has  created  a  lot  of  additional 
work  for  those  people.  They  have  worked 
hard.  I  think  they  have  done  a  reasonably 
good  job.  I  think  they  did  a  good  job  on  the 
open  houses. 

One  of  the  members,  and  I  cannot  re- 
member which  member,  said  no  one  seemed 
to  be  able  to  get  any  assistance.  Maybe  it 
was  the  member  for  Waterloo  North. 

Mr.  Epp:  No,  I  did  not  say  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No?  Somebody  did  any- 
way. He  said  they  could  not  get  any  infor- 
mation on  it.  We  do  have  the  open  house 
whenever  there  is  a  section  86  program  in 
any  municipality.  The  assessors  are  instructed 
to  co-operate.  They  are  instructed  to  give 
all  the  information  necessary.  They  are  also 
instructed  to  give  all  the  information  neces- 
sary to  assist  taxpayers  who  may  want  to 
appeal  if  they  are  not  satisfied  with  their 
assessment.  We  have  tried  to  be  as  co-opera- 
tive as  we  can.  I  will  be  making  a  statement 
tomorrow  in  the  Legislature  about  open 
houses. 

I  wanted  to  speak  a  little  bit  about  high- 
rise  apartments  as  opposed  to  single  family 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4717 


homes,  a  topic  brought  up  by  the  member 
for  Wentworth  (Mr.  Isaacs).  I  know  he 
feels  the  factors  should  be  the  same  for 
commercial  apartments  as  for  single  family 
dwellings.  I  think  that  was  the  point  he 
was  making  to  me.  I  would  only  point  out 
to  him  that  there  has  traditionally  been  a 
difference  between  apartments  and  single 
family  dwellings  which  I  am  sure  he  is 
aware  of.  But  there  are  a  couple  of  points 
I  would  like  to  make  to  perhaps  justify  some 
of  the  difference.  I  believe  the  difference  in 
most  cases  is  spread  too  far;  I  believe  that. 
But  I  have  to  point  out  to  the  member  that 
if  a  person  owns  an  apartment,  that  person 
is  subject  to  deductions  in  other  taxes  than 
property  tax  and  is  subject  to  all  kinds  of 
other  things  that  go  on  within  an  apartment, 
such  as  maintenance.  It  is  a  different  position 
from  that  of  the  single  family  dweller. 

If  I  own  a  house  I  cannot  claim  any  of 
my  expenses  on  my  income  tax,  but  if  I  own 
an  apartment  building,  any  of  those  expenses 
attached  to  that  apartment  building  are  de- 
ductions for  tax  purposes.  So  while  it  might 
look  like  a  large  spread,  it  actually  is  not  as 
large  as  it  first  appears  when  you  take  into 
consideration  that  they  get  tax  breaks  in 
other  ways. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  They  sure  do  not  say  that 
when  they  go  to  rent  review  hearings. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  I  am  sure  they  do 
not.  The  other  thing  is  I  am  not  sure  whether 
they  pass  it  on  to  their  tenants,  but  the 
fact  is  they  have  a  better  chance  of  recover- 
ing some  of  their  money  through  other  taxes 
than  does  the  home  owner.  I  think  that  justi- 
fies some  difference  between  the  factor  in 
single  family  units  and  apartments. 

The  matter  of  economic  conditions  con- 
cerns me  a  great  deal.  This  week  I  met  with 
some  people  from  the  city  of  Hamilton  who 
are  concerned  about  this  very  issue.  These 
people  happen  to  be  hotel  owners  but  I 
guess  it  applies  to  all  areas.  It  does  not  mat- 
ter whether  they  are  hotel  owners,  apart- 
ment owners  or  residential  property  owners. 
I  believe  this  should  be  taken  into  account; 
there  is  no  question. 

I  am  told  by  staff  that  if  an  economic 
change  takes  place  in  a  municipality,  of 
course,  the  assessor  has  instructions  from  this 
office  to  take  that  into  consideration.  Whether 
they  are  doing  so  obviously  has  to  be  looked 
at.  We  do  always  have  the  final  solution  which 
is,  of  course,  to  appeal.  I  would  prefer  to 
have  a  proper  assessment  to  start  with  rather 
than  to  have  half  the  people  in  the  province- 
Mr.  Charlton:  That  is  precisely  why  we  are 
raising  it  here,  Lome. 


Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  appreciate  that  the 
member  was  raising  it  to  be  helpful  and  my 
staff  will  look  into  that.  I  have  given  about 
as  much  information  as  I  can  on  this.  I  again 
want  to  thank  the  members  for  their  co- 
operation. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

DOG  OWNERS'  LIABILITY  ACT 
(continued) 

Resuming  the  adjourned  debate  on  the 
motion  for  second  reading  of  Bill  169,  An 
Act  to  provide  for  Liability  for  Injuries 
caused  by  Dogs. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Speaker,  prior  to  my 
summing  up  on  this  second  reading,  the 
member  for  Huron-Middlesex  (Mr.  Riddell) 
requested  that  he  have  an  opportunity  to 
participate  in  the  debate.  He  was  tied  up  in 
committee  on  November  4,  when  this  was  first 
being  discussed.  I  have  no  objection  to  his 
participating  in  the  debate  at  this  time  if 
it  is  agreeable  to  the  rest  of  the  members  of 
the  House.  I  am  at  your  command. 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  also  ask 
that  the  member  for  Carleton-Grenville  ex- 
tend the  same  privilege  to  me? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sorry,  there  was  an 
agreement  entered  into  without  the  knowledge 
of  the  chair.  As  I  recall  the  last  time  we  dis- 
cussed this  bill,  no  one  else  wished  to  speak 
and  the  member  for  Carleton-Grenville  rose 
to  his  feet  and  adjourned  the  debate.  Is  there 
unanimous  consent  to  allow  someone  else 
to  speak  at  this  time? 

Mr.  Warner:  There  are  two  other  speakers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  we  have  unanimous  con- 
sent to  allow  that  to  take  place? 

Mr.  Roy:  There  are  two  other  speakers.  I 
just  want  to  say  one  word. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  just  said  it.  The  member 
for  Huron-Middlesex,  with  the  understanding 
that  we  will  have  one  other  speaker,  the 
member  for  Cornwall. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  have  a  few  comments, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Well- 
Mr.  Sterling:  Then  I  will  object.  We  will 
be  putting  this  to  the  committee  of  the  whole 
House  after  and  they  can  speak  at  that 
particular  time.  If  they  want  to  open  the 
debate  up  again,  we  have  already  had  nine 
speakers  on  this  particular  piece  of  legisla- 
tion and  I  have  now  heard  four  other  mem- 
bers who  want  to  add  to  it. 
9:40  p.m. 


4718 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Speaker:  You  must  appreciate  the 
Speaker  was  not  a  party  to  these  arrange- 
ments and,  if  we  do  not  have  unanimous 
consent,  I  will  hear  the  windup  from  the 
member  for   Carleton-Grenville. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  allow 
them  to  speak. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  appreciate  the 
opportunity  given  to  me  to  say  a  few  words 
on  this  bill.  Unfortunately,  some  of  us  spend 
a  fair  bit  of  time  in  committee  and,  if  it  hap- 
pens to  be  our  estimates  that  are  on,  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  come  to  participate  in 
the  debate  on  these  bills.  I  did  want  to  say 
a  few  words  because— 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  just  want  to  say  something. 
I  do  not  want  this  to  be  taken  as  a  precedent, 
because  the  member  for  Carleton-Grenville 
had  risen  to  his  feet.  Nobody  had  indicated 
he  wanted  to  speak  at  that  time.  We  do  not 
want  this  to  be  a  precedent  where  we  can 
revert  back  and  open  the  whole  thing  up 
again  just  because  some  member  did  not  hap- 
pen to  be  present  in  the  House  at  the  time. 
With  that  understanding,  I  will  hear  the 
member  for   Huron-Middlesex. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  You 
are  a  very  understanding  man. 

Apart  from  the  concerns  some  of  us  have 
in  the  rural  areas,  I  would  have  to  say  we 
do  welcome  the  bill.  As  the  minister  stated 
in  his  opening  comments,  it  is  probably  long 
overdue.  This  fact  came  home  to  me  as  I 
was  tramping  the  streets  of  Carleton  a  week 
or  so  ago  and  calling  on  homes  where  there 
were  Great  Danes  that  were  just  about  rip- 
ping the  chains  away  from  their  necks  to 
get  at  one,  or  one  would  knock  on  a  door 
and  there  would  be  a  Dalmatian  that  would 
come  pouncing  at  the  door,  showing  its 
teeth  and  hoping  the  door  would  open  so  it 
could  get  hold  of  one.  There  were  German 
shepherds  and  Dobermann  pinschers.  Why 
in  the  world  people  in  urban  centres  would 
want  to  keep  such  large,  vicious  dogs,  I 
fail  to  understand.  I  would  have  to  say,  if 
that  door  was  ever  opened  and  if  the  person 
did  not  have  hold  of  that  dog,  then,  as  sure 
as  I  am  standing  here  talking  tonight,  the 
dog  would  have  had  hold  of  one.  Of  course, 
the  owner  is  then  liable,  as  he  should  be. 

Another  fact  was  brought  to  my  attention 
by  someone  far  more  knowledgeable  than  I 
about  this  business  of  drugs  and  drug  ped- 
dling. If  one  were  to  go  into  the  parking  lot 
surrounding  a  courthouse  where  they  may 
be  trying  some  of  these  people  who  have 
been  peddling  or  handling  drugs  in  some 
way,  invariably  one  will  find  Dobermann 
pinschers    in    the    vans    those    people    drive. 


That  Dobermann  is  there  for  only  one  pur- 
pose, as  far  as  I  am  concerned.  If  a  child 
ever  happened  to  wander  around  there  and 
open  the  door,  I  would  think  that  would  be 
the  end  of  that  child.  It  is  high  time  we  had 
some  legislation  whereby  these  people  are 
going  to  be  liable  for  these  large,  vicious 
dogs. 

I  must  also  speak  of  something  that  irri- 
tates me.  Although  I  do  not  spend  a  great 
deal  of  time  in  urban  centres,  when  I  am 
in  Toronto  I  will  occasionally  take  a  stroll 
through  the  park  and  it  irritates  me  to  see 
these  people  walking  their  dogs  along  the 
street  or  in  the  park  and  the  dogs  will  leave 
their  calling  cards  or  discard  their  waste 
products  of  digestion  against  some  lovely 
trees  that  are  growing  and  kill  the  trees.  I 
say  this  is  wrong.  Believe  me,  I  know  the 
owner  is  not  liable  for  this  kind  of  activity, 
but  I  sometimes  think  maybe  it  would  be 
a  good  thing  if  the  dog  did  take  a  little  nip 
so  the  owner  would  would  be  liable  and 
would  have  to  get  rid  of  that  kind  of  dog. 

I  want  to  come  back  to  the  rural  areas 
Where  farmers  in  many  cases  have  to  have 
dogs  for  one  reason  or  another.  I  am  talking 
about  working  dogs.  I  don't  know  how  many 
members  have  been  on  sheep  farms  or  dairy 
farms  and  have  seen  the  Border  collie  dogs 
working.  It  is  a  sheer  delight  to  walk  in 
there  and  hear  a  farmer  say,"Okay,  collie, 
get  the  cows."  That  dog  will  go  right  back 
to  the  far  end  of  the  farm,  round  the  cows 
up  and  bring  them  up  to  the  walk.  If  one 
cow  happens  to  stop,  the  dog  will  nip  at 
its  heels.  That  is  the  way  that  dog  has  of 
moving  that  animal.  It  has  a  natural  instinct 
to  nip  at  heels.  If  somebody  comes  on  a 
farm  where  that  Border  collie  is  lying  around 
a  building  and  if  he  tries  to  go  into  a  garage 
or  one  of  the  buildings  on  the  farm,  the 
d°g>  by  instinct,  feels  it  has  to  protect  the 
buildings.  If  the  dog  wants  to  keep  the 
person  away,  the  chances  are  it  will  nip  at 
the  heels  of  that  person.  Under  this  bill  that 
person  can  turn  around  and  sue  the  owner 
of  the  dog  and  there  is  a  very  good  chance 
the  owner  will  have  to  get  rid  of  the  dog. 
In  many  cases,  these  dogs  are  very  expensive. 

As  members  know,  farmers  keep  a  lot  of 
gas  on  hand,  maybe  1,000  or  2,000  gallons. 
We  know  that  at  this  particular  time,  when 
we  are  facing  an  oil  crisis  and  gas  prices 
are  high,  people  do  sometimes  wander  in. 
If  they  do  not  see  anybody  around,  it  is  very 
easy  for  them  to  put  a  hose  down  into  the 
intake  pipe,  siphon  out  the  gas  and  away 
they  go. 

I  know  the  bill  says  that  if  someone  is  on 
the    property    to    commit    a    crime    of    some 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4719 


kind,  the  owner  is  not  liable.  But  there  are 
all  kinds  of  people  who  come  on  to  farms. 
There  are  feed  salesmen,  fertilizer  salesmen 
and  salesmen  selling  household  items.  If  they 
come  on  the  property  and  the  dog  happens 
to  be  lying  around  the  building  when  nobody 
is  home,  that  clog  has  the  natural  instinct  to 
guard  what  he  considers  to  be  his  property. 
If  he  happens  to  nip  at  the  person  who  is 
on  the  property,  the  first  thing  one  knows  is 
the  owner  is  liable  and  may  have  to  do  away 
with  his  dog. 

I  can  speak  from  experience.  I  used  to  be 
quite  a  large  sheep  farmer  at  one  time  and 
I  had  to  keep  a  dog  because  there  are  a  lot 
of  people  who  enjoy  what  are  called  hot- 
house lambs.  These  are  50-pound  lambs. 
People  would  come  in  with  their  trucks  with 
the  idea  of  buying  the  lambs.  If  there  is 
nobody  around^and  many  times  the  farmer 
is  at  the  back  of  the  farm  operating  his 
tractor  or  he  and  his  wife  are  away  and 
nobody  is  at  home-then  it  is  very  easy  for 
someone  to  walk  in.  It  happened  to  me; 
they  would  simply  walk  in,  pick  up  these 
50-pound  lambs,  load  them  into  a  truck  and 
away  they  would  go.  I  would  come  back  and 
find  I  was  missing  15  or  20  lambs. 

So  it  was  imperative  to  keep  a  dog.  That 
dog  would  stay  in  the  barn  with  the  sheep, 
and  if  people  wandered  into  the  barn— and 
mavbe  it  was  just  somebody  to  look  at  the 
sheep— the  chances  are  they  were  going  to 
be  nipped  by  the  dog.  Once  again,  they  can 
turn  around  and  sue  the  farmer,  and  the 
chances  are  the  farmer  may  have  to  do 
away  with   a  perfectly  good  dog. 

Another  thing  happened  to  me  when  I 
was  in  the  ag  rep  service  down  in  Essex 
county.  I  dropped  in  on  a  farmer  who  hap- 
pened to  have  what  they  called  SPF  pigs- 
specific  pathogenic-free  pigs.  No  one  is 
allowed  to  go  into  the  barn  where  those 
kinds  of  pigs  are,  because  if  they  do  and 
cany  a  germ  in,  it  spreads  right  through 
the  whole  herd.  They  have  no  resistance 
against  that  kind  of  disease. 

Some  of  those  farmers  kept  a  dog— quite 
often  a  German  shepherd  dog.  I  can  recall 
going  in  as  I  wanted  to  meet  the  farmer, 
but  I  could  not  find  him  around.  I  opened 
the  door  of  a  barn  and  just  as  I  opened  it  a 
German  shepherd  came  flying  out.  If  I  had 
not  been  able  to  close  the  door  immediately, 
that  dog  would  have  had  me  right  by  the 
throat.  But  when  I  stopped  to  think  about 
it,  I  had  no  business  going  in  that  barn.  That 
farmer  had  a  dog  for  the  very  purpose  of 
keeping  people  out  of  the  barn.  I  am  sure 
that   under   this    bill    if   somebody    went   in 


and  opened  the  barn  door  and  was  met  and 
bitten  by  the  dog,  the  owner  would  be 
liable,  and  the  chances  are  he  would  have 
to  lose  a  perfectly  good  dog. 

9:50  p.m. 

These  are  things  those  of  us  who  happen 
to  represent  rural  areas  are  concerned  about. 
I  am  concerned  that  this  act  could  increase 
farmers'  liability  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
decreasing  of  liability  under  Bill  203,  The 
Trespass  to  Property 'Act,  and  Bill  202,  The 
Occupiers'  Liability  Act.  We  spent  a  fair  bit 
of  time  passing  those  two  acts  and,  believe 
me,  they  are  just  about  as  good  legislation 
as  we  can  have.  Again,  these  acts  were  a 
long  time  coming.  Now  for  the  first  time  in 
many  years,  the  fanner  is  not  liable  if 
trespassers  come  on  to  his  farm  and  some- 
how fall  into  the  farm  pond  or  trip  into  a 
groundhog  hole  and  break  a  leg  or  injure 
themselves  in  some  other  way. 

A  farmer  can  post  his  farm  now  and  in- 
dicate exactly  what  kind  of  activities  he 
would  allow  people  to  engage  in  on  that 
farm,  or  if  he  does  not  post  the  farm,  then 
it  is  an  indication  to  those  who  want  to 
trespass  that  is  what  they  are  doing.  They 
are  trespassing.  This  bill  is  going  to  super- 
sede those  two.  In  other  words,  somebody 
could  come  on  to  a  farm  uninvited  and  if  a 
dog  nips  at  his  heels  or  bites  him  the  owner 
is  liable.  That  farmer  does  not  have  the 
kind  of  protection  under  the  Occupiers' 
Liability  and  Trespass  to  Property  Acts  that 
we  hoped  he  would  have  when  we  dealt 
with  those  two  acts.  In  the  case  of  farmers 
who  keep  dogs  specifically  to  protect  their 
premises  against  unwanted  intruders,  Bill 
169  would  negate  the  farmers'  liability  posi- 
tion under  Bills  202  and  203  by  placing  a 
trespasser  in  a  position  to  lay  charges  against 
the  farmer  while  trespassing  on  his  property. 

When  this  bill  goes  to  committee,  my  col- 
league the  member  for  Kent-Elgin  (Mr. 
McGuigan)  is  going  to  move  an  amendment, 
which  I  hope  the  parliamentary  assistant 
will  accept,  to  amend  section  3(1)  of  the  bill, 
which  states:  "Where  damage  is  caused  by 
being  bitten  or  attacked  by  a  dog  on  the 
premises  of  the  owner,  the  liability  of  the 
owner  is  determined  under  this  act  and  not 
under  the  Occupiers'  Liability  Act,  1980.  The 
amended  part  would  add:  "except  where 
entry  to  the  premises  is  prohibited  under  the 
Trespass  to  Property  Act,  1980,  and  where  a 
person  is  deemed  to  have  willingly  assumed 
all  risks  under  the  Occupiers'  Liability  Act, 
1980." 

This  is  something  my  colleague  will  be 
dealing  with  when  it  goes  to  committee.  We 


4720 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


believe  this  clause  will  remove  all  conflict 
between  this  bill  and  the  Occupiers'  Liability 
and  Trespass  to  Property  Acts  as  they  apply 
to  farmers'  liability. 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all  I  want 
to  thank  you  and  the  member  for  Carleton- 
Grenville  (Mr.  Sterling)  for  affording  me  this 
privilege.  I  realize  this  is  not  the  norm  and  I 
do  thank  both  of  you  for  your  indulgence. 

The  reason  I  wanted  to  speak  on  the  bill 
is  that  I  am  under  rather  strong  pressure  on 
the  domestic  front.  I  was  not  here  the  day 
the  bill  was  debated.  As  the  owner  of  two 
canines,  Satch  and  Betty,  and  having  a  wife 
who  is  secretary  of  the  Stormont,  Dundas  and 
Glengarry  Humane  Society  and  also  having 
two  felines  within  the  domicile,  all  five  of 
them  gave  me  very  dire  warnings  that  if  I  did 
not  take  a  stand  on  this  bill,  they  would  not 
let  me  past  the  door  tomorrow  morning.  As 
a  result,  I  did  make  a  strong  commitment  I 
would  speak  on  the  bill.  I  must  say  the  two 
felines  did  express  gratitude  today  that  they 
are  not  included  in  the  provisions  of  the  bill. 
It  is  the  canines  that  are  the  most  worried  of 
all. 

In  general,  there  is  no  question  I  support 
the  general  philosophy  and  the  principles 
contained  in  the  bill.  I  think  there  is  no 
question  but  that  it  represents  a  considerable 
improvement  and  advancement  over  the 
outdated  Vicious  Dogs  Act,  which  I  believe 
goes  back  as  far  as  1931.  Also,  I  would  say 
there  is  little  argument  with  the  principle 
that  the  owner  should  be  civilly  liable  for 
damages  resulting  from  an  attack  by  his  or 
her  dog. 

I  really  think  there  may  be  a  problem  with 
the  whole  question  of  identification  because 
it  is  a  fact  of  life  that  not  all  dogs  are  regis- 
tered or  licensed.  There  still  are  many  munic- 
ipalities that  do  not  have  any  licensing  or 
mandatory  provisions  for  registration  or  licens- 
ing. I  have  a  suspicion  that  even  where  there 
are  mandatory  regulations  on  that,  many 
owners  still  do  not  bother  to  buy  a  licence, 
a  dog  tag  or  anything  of  that  sort.  I  dare 
say  that  upwards  of  one  third  to  one  half  of 
the  dogs  in  municipalities  which  do  have 
that  type  of  bylaw  are  unregistered  and  un- 
licensed. I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  in  my  own 
municipality  of  Cornwall  that  figure  surely 
applies. 

In  rural  and  semi-rural  areas  they  have  the 
added  problem  of  wild  dogs  and  packs  of  dogs 
roaming  about,  as  various  members  mentioned 
in  the  debate  last  month.  In  reality,  when  it 
comes  to  being  able  to  identify  dogs,  I  sus- 
pect we  are  talking  about  only  a  third  or  a 
half  of  the  canine  population  of  the  province 


in  the  sense  that  these  are  the  ones  that  are 
readily  identifiable  with  tags,  buttons  or  that 
sort  of  paraphernalia.  I  have  to  confess  I  do 
not  know  how  to  deal  with  that  problem,  but 
I  think  it  is  a  genuine  problem  with  this  type 
of  law  because  of  the  unknown  population 
we  are  dealing  with. 

As  to  the  provisions  dealing  with  owners 
when  dogs  have  been  identified  as  the  source 
of  an  attack  on  a  child  or  adult,  I  think  there 
may  be  some  problems  in  the  rural  areas  about 
section  32.  In  terms  of  urban  dwellers  and 
people  in  suburbia,  I  think  the  provision  is 
reasonable  and  one  that  can  be  easily  justified. 
As  for  the  provisions  dealing  with  the  possible 
elimination  of  an  offending  canine,  I  think 
the  seven  circumstances  outlined  in  the  bill 
give  the  courts  and  the  owners  of  the  offend- 
ing dogs  sufficient  latitude  and  grounds  to 
ensure  that  a  responsible  and  loving  owner 
need  not  fear  any  real  abuses  by  the  courts  or 
any  undue  severity.  I  would  presume  that  a 
responsible  owner  whose  dog  may  have  been 
provoked  on  a  particular  day  by  someone,  an 
owner  who  has  had  a  hitherto  unblemished 
record  in  terms  of  that  type  of  thing,  really 
does  not  have  to  fear  for  the  destruction  of 
his  beloved  pet.  I  would  assume  the  courts 
would  give  due  consideration— and  I  empha- 
size this— to  the  responsible  owner's  efforts 
to  keep  the  dog  on  a  particular  property-,  well- 
behaved  and  on  a  leash. 

Overall,  I  think  the  bill  is  a  fair  one  and 
avoids  any  heavy-handed  approach.  I  think 
this  bill  stands  out  in  contrast  to  some  of 
the  legislation  enacted  in  certain  municipal- 
ities, including  my  own,  where  they  have 
taken  the  prohibitionist-absolutist  approach  of 
totally  banning  animals  from  certain  public 
areas,  such  as  parks  and  recreation  areas.  In 
my  opinion,  that  type  of  approach  to  dealing 
with  the  problem  is  heavy-handed  and  unfair 
to  the  responsible  dog  owners. 

In  dealing  with  a  law  of  this  sort,  we 
should  consider  another  factor.  There  is  a 
great  deal  that  still  has  to  be  done  in  this 
province  to  instill  a  sense  of  responsibility 
in  some  dog  owners,  especially  those  who 
acquire  dogs  on  a  whim  or  fancy.  They  see 
a  little  pet  in  the  store  at  Christmastime  and 
think  it  would  be  cute.  Two  or  three  or  six 
months  down  the  road,  they  get  tired  of  it 
and  want  to  dispose  of  that  pet.  If  the 
canines  of  this  province  could  speak  on  this 
bill,  they  would  probably  want  some  form 
of  protection  from  those  irresponsible  humans 
who  abuse  their  animals,  people  of  the  type 
I  just  described.  They  cause  so  many  of  the 
problems  that  our  financially  strapped  hu- 
mane societies  have  to  deal  with. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4721 


My  wife  has  been  the  secretary  of  the 
local  humane  society  for  the  past  two  years. 
Our  telephone  is  regularly  used  by  people 
complaining  about  that  type  of  thing.  We 
get  constant  calls  about  strays,  dogs  being 
tied  to  fences  or  posts  and1  being  abandoned, 
ignored  or  left  out  in  the  cold  weather  with- 
out shelter,  food  or  water.  It  makes  one  ask 
sometimes  why  do  people  even  acquire  pets? 
Why  do  they  invest  the  money  if  they  are 
going  to  treat  animals  that  way?  I  think  if 
the  canines  of  the  province  could  speak  out 
on  this  bill  they  would  first  ask  if  we  could 
have  regulations  on  who  could  acquire  a 
canine.  Then  they  would  attach  some  re- 
sponsibility to  the  ownership  of  a  canine. 

Beyond  that,  I  would  just  like  to  say  I 
will  support  this  bill  wholeheartedly. 

Mr.  J.  Johnson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  comment  briefly  on  this  bill.  I  ex- 
press a  concern  for  the  dog  lovers  of  Ontario. 
I  am  concerned  for  the  simple  reason  I  feel 
there  are  many  people  who  own  dogs  and, 
in  their  opinion,  the  dogs  do  not  in  any  way 
constitute  a  danger  to  society.  They  are  good 
dogs  and  they  are  pets.  Through  some  inno- 
cent, unwarranted  circumstance  they  might 
create  a  problem,  so  they  fall  under  this  act. 
It  bothers  me  that  there  should  be  a  poten- 
tial to  destroy  them.  I  cannot  accept  the  fact 
that  we  can  pass  legislation  that  would 
destroy  dogs  without  some  recourse  to  save 
them. 

I  had  a  dog  for  13  years  and  in  that  time 
the  dog  never  touched  anyone,  except  one 
time  when  the  dogcatcher  tried  to  pick  it 
up  and  it  bit  the  dogcatcher.  I  give  the  dog 
credit  because  it  had  sense  enough  not  to 
attack  anyone  else  and  the  dogcatcher  said 
it  just  nipped  him  lightly. 
10  p.m. 

il  find  it  extremely  insensitive  of  govern- 
ment to  introduce  legislation  that  would  take 
all  dogs  into  a  category  where  they  would 
be  classified  as  potential  menaces  because 
possibly  they  made  an  unintentional  mistake. 
If  someone  entered  one's  property  and  the 
dog  bit  him  or  supposedly  attacked  him  in 
doing  what  it  construed  as  its  job,  I  find 
it  hard  to  accept  that  the  dog  should  be 
destroyed.  In  fact,  I  can't  find  it  in  my 
mind  that  they  should  destroy  the  dog. 

Maybe  the  legislation  in  a  sense  is  good 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  legal  recourse  to 
people  who  are  injured  by  dogs  that  should 
not  be  maintained  because  they  have  a  his- 
tory or  nature  of  being  wild  and  uncontroll- 
able. That  is  a  different  possibility.  But 
when  a  dog  has  a  nature  of  being  kind  and 
is  in  no  way  a  menace,   except  in  one  in- 


stance where  possibly,  it  is  not  its  mistake 
if  someone  intrudes  on  the  property,  I 
find  it  extremely  objectionable  that  dog 
should  be  destroyed. 

I  speak  on  behalf  of  dogs.  That  seems 
silly,  but  that  is  the  way  I  feel.  There  is 
something  lacking  in  the  bill  if  a  dog  should 
be  destroyed  because  of  one  mistake.  Many 
dogs  deserve  it,  but  others  do  not.  I  speak 
for  the  dogs  that  should  not  be  destroyed. 

Mr.  Warner:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  If  you  recall,  the  strange  pro- 
cedure we  are  going  through  tonight  is  not 
normal  and  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  stand- 
ing orders  but  has  unanimous  consent  to 
allow  two  individuals  to  participate.  Those 
two  individuals  have  participated.  We  now 
have  a  third  and  presumably  a  fourth.  I 
object  most  strenuously  to  us  continuing  with 
this  bizarre  way  of  conducting  our  business. 
I  would  suggest  it  would  be  more  in  order 
for  the  parliamentary  assistant  to  conclude 
his  remarks,  which  is  the  normal  way  of 
carrying  on. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  The  member  for 
Scarborough-Ellesmere  makes  a  point.  How- 
ever, I  recall  the  discussion  and,  at  first,  the 
request  was  for  one  member  to  speak.  The 
House  agreed  and  others  stated  they  wished 
to  speak.  As  I  recall  the  discussion  at  that 
time,  there  was  no  particular  limit. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  what  you  are 
now  doing  is  setting  a  rather  unusual  and 
unacceptable  procedure  of  being  able  to 
re-open  second  reading  debate  at  any  time 
one  chooses  and  for  it  to  continue.  That  is 
what  we  have  done.  The  last  time  we  sat  we 
had  concluded  second  reading  debate  and 
the  parliamentary  assistant  was  winding  up 
the  debate,  as  is  normal.  Now,  because  some 
members  were  not  present  at  the  time  or  for 
whatever  reason,  we  have  re-opened  second 
reading  debate.  That  is  not  a  proper  way  to 
proceed.  I  would  respectfully  submit  the 
proper  thing  is  for  the  parliamentary  assist- 
ant to  conclude  his  remarks. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  I  would  again  like 
to  advise  the  honourable  member  the  House 
agreed  to  let  other  members  speak. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  does  that  mean 
the  parliamentary  assistant  will  be  allowed 
to  speak  three  times  during  second  reading 
debate,  having  already  spoken  twice?  I 
would  like  a  clarification  of  that.  If  that 
happens  it  will  indeed  be  a  very  grave 
precedent  for  this  House  to  set. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may  on  a 
point  of  order,  I  find  it  somewhat  cynical 
on  the  part  of  the  NDP  that,  having  allowed 


4722 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


this  under  the  process  of  unanimous  consent, 
they  would  now  object.  We  can  do  anything 
we  want  by  unanimous  consent.  One  of  the 
things  we  consented  to  was  to  reopen  the 
debate.  The  parliamentary  assistant  consent- 
ed to  do  that.  I  find  it  somewhat  cynical 
the  NDP  would  let  their  members  speak 
when  somebody  else  wants  to  speak,  then 
say  the  rules  are  being  offended  against. 
The  rules  were  not  offended  against.  We 
can  do  anything  we  want  here  by  way  of 
unanimous  consent.  What  we  have  done  is 
to  revert  to  debate  and,  as  you  have  said, 
we  did  limit  the  number  of  speakers. 

Mr.  Foulds:  The  point  is  that  it  is  my 
understanding  of  the  rules  that  on  second 
reading  each  member  has  the  right  to  speak 
only  once.  The  minister  has  the  right  to 
speak  twice,  first,  at  the  opening  of  the 
debate  and,  second,  on  wrapping  it  up.  The 
parliamentary  assistant  has  already  spoken 
twice. 

Mr.  Roy:  That  is  right.  We  agreed  we 
would  give  him  a  chance  to  wind  up. 

Mr.  Foulds:  I  heard  vaguely  what  the 
reopening  was.  I  did  not  hear  us  agree  to 
allow  him  to  speak  a  third  time.  If  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  is  correct  that  we 
can  do  anything  we  like,  then  I  think  we  are 
setting  some  very  dangerous  precedents. 

Mr.  Roy:  By  way  of  unanimous  consent. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  As  I  under- 
stand it,  the  member  for  Carleton-Grenville 
(Mr.  Sterling)  interrupted  his  remarks  on  one 
occasion,  stating  that  the  member  for  Huron- 
Middlesex  (Mr.  Riddell)  requested  the  oppor- 
tunity to  speak.  So  to  my  knowledge,  his 
remarks  have  been  interrupted.  I  also  believe 
the  chair  at  that  time  stated  it  did  not  want 
this  to  be  set  as  a  precedent. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  indi- 
cated to  the  chair  at  the  time  I  also  wished 
to  make  a  few  comments  on  the  bill.  I  ap- 
preciate very  much  the  member  for  Carleton- 
Grenville  giving  us  the  opportunity.  Normal- 
ly, I  would  not  partake  in  a  debate  like  this 
because  I  am  not  knowledgeable  on  the  sub- 
ject. However,  I  was  contacted  by  the  Essex 
County  Humane  Society  in  my  own  com- 
munity who  wanted  me,  on  their  behalf, 
to  express  their  concerns  about  this  legisla- 
tion. Mr.  Michael  O'SulIivan,  general  man- 
ager of  the  Essex  County  Humane  Society, 
has  asked  me  to  see  that  the  government 
was  informed  of  the  following  resolution 
passed  by  that  council  just  recently.  The 
resolution  reads: 

"Whereas  the  Windsor  Essex  County  Board 
of  Health  investigates  an  average  of  about 


900  dog  bites  annually,  and  whereas  many 
of  these  bites  are  of  a  serious  nature  and 
occur  while  the  dog  causing  the  bite  is  not 
under  the  control  of  any  person,  and  whereas 
the  Vicious  Dogs  Act,  RSO  1970,  chapter 
482,  only  addresses  itself  to  the  question  of 
the  dog  and  not  the  responsibilities  of  the 
owner,  therefore  be  it  resolved  that  the 
city  of  Windsor  request  the  Ministry  of  the 
Attorney  General  of  the  government  of  On- 
tario to  introduce  legislation  to  have  amended 
the  Vicious  Dogs  Act,  RSO  1970,  chapter 
482,  which  now  reads  as  follows,  '1.  Where 
a  dog  is  alleged  to  have  bitten  any  person, 
the  owner  of  the  dog  may  be  summoned  to 
appear  before  a  provincial  judge  to  show 
cause  why  the  dog  should  not  be  destroyed 
and,  if  from  the  evidence  produced  it  ap- 
pears that  the  dog  has  bitten  any  person, 
the  judge  may  make  an  order  that  the  dog 
be  destroyed'. 

"They  would  like  the  act  amended  to  read 
as  follows:  '1.  Where  a  dog  is  alleged  to 
have  bitten  any  person,  the  owner  may  be 
summoned  to  appear  before  a  provincial 
judge  and,  if  from  the  evidence  produced  it 
appears  that  the  dog  has  bitten  any  person, 
the  judge  may  make  an  order  that: 

"(a)  the  dog  be  confined  henceforth  in  a 
way  as  to  be  inaccessible  to  any  person  other 
than  the  owner  or  his  custodian;  and/or 

"(b)  the  dog,  when  off  the  property  of  the 
owner  or  custodian,  be  muzzled  in  a  manner 
that  renders  the  dog  incapable  of  biting 
anything;  and/ or 

"(c)  the  owner  of  the  dog  pay  a  fine  of  not 
more  than  $1,000;  and/ or 

"(d)  the  dog  be  destroyed;  or 

"(e)  where  the  owner  has  previously  been 
convicted  under  this  act,  that  the  owner 
surrender  the  dog  forthwith  to  the  nearest 
public  pound  or  animal  shelter  and  that  he 
be  prohibited  from  owning  any  dog  for  a 
period  not  to  exceed  24  months. 
10:10  p.m. 

"2:  Where  the  owner  of  the  dog  refuses 
or  neglects  to  comply  with  an  order  made 
under  this  act,  he  may  be  summoned1  before 
a  provincial  judge  who  may  order  the  dog 
seized  and  destroyed,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  out  the  order,  a  constable  or 
other  peace  officer  may  enter  the  premises 
where  the  dog  is  kept  and  deliver  it  to  the 
nearest  public  pound  and  the  provincial  judge 
may,  in  addition  to  any  other  penalty  pro- 
vided by  the  act,  direct  the  owner  of  the 
dog  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  proceedings  and 
of  the  destruction  of  the  dog." 

Then  the  society  goes  on  to  say:  "At 
present  the  Vicious  Dogs  Act  contains  only 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4723 


two  sections,  that  is,  section  1  as  it  appears 
on  the  previous  page  without  amendments 
and  section  2  as  it  apears  on  this  page.  The 
act  is  likely  one  of  the  shortest  Ontario 
statutes  in  existence,  but  provides  only  a 
temporary  solution  to  the  problem  of  vicious 
dogs. 

"Recently  a  dog  was  ordered  destroyed 
under  the  act  in  Windsor,  and  the  decision 
was  appealed.  The  dog  was  responsible  for 
biting  at  least  20  persons  according  to  the 
board  of  health  records,  and  according  to  the 
police  department  about  an  additional  33 
persons.  There  is  no  fine  at  present  under 
the  act,  nor  is  there  any  means  of  preventing 
a  person  charged  from  yet  obtaining  another 
dog  if  his  or  her  vicious  animal  has  to  be 
destroyed.  The  society  believes  that  the  pre- 
ceding amendments  to  the  act  would  ade- 
quately deal  with  both  problems." 

These  are  the  concerns  of  the  Essex  County 
Humane  Society  and  I  read  them  into  the 
record  so  that  the  minister  piloting  this  bill 
can  take  them  into  consideration  on  the  clause- 
b>   clause  study. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want  to  make 
a  few  brief  comments  on  this  statute.  In  the 
course  of  my  practice,  I  have  unfortunately, 
seen  individuals  who  have  been  barred  from 
recovering  any  type  of  damages  after  injuries 
which  would  come  under  what  was  called  the 
Vicious  Dogs  Act.  It  dates  back  to  1931  and 
has  remained  unchanged  since  then. 

I  suppose  the  motivating  force  behind  this 
legislation  is  that  our  society  is  becoming 
more  urbanized  and,  as  my  colleague  from 
Huron-Middlesex  mentioned,  people  are  get- 
ting large  animals  which  sometimes  are  not 
suited  to  the  urban  environment.  The  liberty 
of  some  individuals  is  being  threatened  by 
seme  of  these  animals.  It  would  seem  in  1980 
urbanized  Ontario  that  the  old  Vicious  Dogs 
Act  is  not  adequate  and  that  the  principle 
that  a  dog  is  entitled  to  one  bite  is  something 
that  should  no  longer  be  applicable  to 
Ontario. 

During  the  course  of  my  relatively  brief 
legal  career,  I  can  think  of  four  or  five  dif- 
ferent cases  where  people  have  been  denied 
damages  on  the  very  basis  of  that  principle 
and  people,  especially  children,  have  suffered 
very  serious  injury.  I  applaud  the  initiative 
of  the  government  in  bringing  forward  this 
legislation.  I  mention  in  passing  that  I  do  not 
agree  with  all  the  comments  of  my  colleague 
from  Huron-Middlesex.  I  think  some  of  the 
things  he  mentioned  about  some  of  the  con- 
cerns the  farming  community  have  about  their 
animals  are  covered  in  this  legislation. 


I  think  they  are  covered  on  the  basis  that, 
first,  one  is  perpetrating  a  criminal  offence. 
There  is  a  clause  in  the  statute  that  deals 
with  that— section  3(2).  There  are  also  pro- 
visions under  section  4  which  protect  farmers 
who  have  animals  that  are  there  for  a  special 
purpose— perhaps  protecting  pigs  or  sheep  or 
whatever. 

I  thank  the  parliamentary  assistant  for  the 
opportunity  to  make  these  very  few  brief 
comments  and  I  do  think  the  legislation  was 
necessary.  People  in  urbanized  Ontario  today 
cannot  hide  behind  the  principle  we  call 
scienter  under  section  2(3)  of  this  legislation. 
I  think  it  is  time  people  who  have  animals 
accept  their  responsibility.  I  say,  in  closing, 
I  cannot  understand  that  individuals  would 
have  in  their  possession  and  still  under  their 
control  animals,  a  dog,  for  instance,  which 
has  bitten  20  or  30  times.  I  cannot  under- 
stand that.  I  think  the  legislation  is  necessary 
and  it  has  my  full  support. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  debate  goes 
back  to  November  4.  Many  things  have  been 
brought  up  in  this  debate  and  I  will  try  to 
answer  some  of  the  questions  and  concerns 
that  many  members  had.  I  thank  them  for 
participating  and  I  want  to  say  I  listened  to 
their  many  comments.  In  fact,  an  amendment 
I  will  propose  in  committee  really  results 
from  some  of  the  debate. 

The  member  for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt) 
complained  about  the  old  Vicious  Dogs  Act 
expanding  from  one  section  to  two  pages.  I 
want  to  say  to  the  member  that  this  act  is  a 
precis  of  law  and  does  away  with  many 
volumes  of  common  law  in  relation  to  the 
common  law  doctrine  mentioned  in  this  de- 
bate that  a  dog  heretofore  had  its  first  bite. 
It  does  away  with  that  and  also  replaces  the 
Vicious  Dogs  Act  in  terms  of  what  is  done 
with  the  dog  after  it  has  bitten  an  individual, 
but  it  also  creates  new  statute  law  in  re- 
placing that  much  common  law. 

The  member  for  Scarborough-Ellesmere 
(Mr.  Warner)  brought  forward  a  concern 
that  police  and  security  dogs  are  not  covered. 
I  can  assure  him  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
ministry  that  the  act  cover  security  and 
police  dogs  and  that  kind  of  thing.  With 
respect,  I  would  say  to  the  member  that  the 
word  "owner"  bears  its  ordinary  legal  mean- 
ing as  well  as  the  extended  meaning  included 
in  the  definition.  I  really  do  believe  the 
member  is  misreading  that  section.lt  is  our 
intention  that  it  cover  police  and  security 
dogs. 

The  member  also  brought  up  the  case  of 
exotic  animals  which  are  becoming  more 
common,    in    some    of    the    urban    areas    in 


4724 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


particular.  I  want  to  tell  him  that  common 
law  in  relation  to  wild  or  exotic  animals  is 
different  from  the  law  in  relation  to  dogs. 
When  it  evolved  historically,  the  dog  was 
given  a  special  place  in  law.  The  common 
law  is  still  one  of  strict  liability  with  regard 
to  those  kinds  of  animals. 

The  member  for  Kent-Elgin  (Mr.  Mc- 
Guigan)  brought  forward  the  problem  that 
was  again  echoed  tonight  by  the  member  for 
Huron-Middlesex  (Mr.  Riddell)  relating  to 
the  farm  dog.  I  can  only  say  to  them  we 
do  have  legislation  in  place  at  present  which 
places  strict  liability  on  an  owner  of  a  dog 
if  that  dog  attacks  livestock.  I  do  not  think 
these  members  can  argue  a  human  is  less 
than  another  kind  of  livestock.  For  instance, 
if  a  dog  bites  a  lamb  or  a  sheep,  there  is 
strict  liability  in  terms  of  that  bite.  What 
we  are  doing  in  this  legislation  is  saying, 
"Hey,  it  is  the  same  for  humans." 

There  was  concern  about  a  good  cow  dog 
nipping  someone  who  came  into  the  farm 
yard.  The  legislation  says  one's  real  liability 
is  civil  liability.  If  it  nips  somebody  the 
damages  cannot  be  that  great  anyway.  One 
can  get  in  a  civil  suit  what,  in  fact,  the 
damages  were.  Another  thing  is  that  the 
judge,  in  determining  what  is  going  to  hap- 
pen with  the  dog  if  an  application  is  brought, 
can  take  that  kind  of  matter  into  consider- 
ation. 

10:20  p.m. 

The  member  for  Wentworth  (Mr.  Isaacs) 
brought  forward  several  considerations  in 
the  debate.  He  brought  forward  the  problem 
of  identity  of  the  dog,  which  was  also 
brought  forward1  by  the  member  for  Corn- 
wall (Mr.  Samis).  This  act  basically  attempts 
to  attack  that  particular  problem.  It  is  a 
practical  problem,  as  the  member  for  Corn- 
wall outlined  tonight.  If  a  dog  is  free,  off  a 
leash,  out  roaming  and  without  a  tag,  it  is 
very  difficult  to  lay  any  identity  to  that 
particular  dog  if  the  dog  bites  someone.  I 
don't  think  it  would  matter  what  kind  of 
licensing  laws  we  had;  that  problem  would 
still  remain  there,  since  for  most  of  these 
kinds  of  dogs  the  owners  don't  take  the 
necessary  steps  to  buy  a  dog  tag. 

This  is  an  improvement  over  what  now 
exists.  It  says  to  someone,  "You  can't  duck 
out,  and  pretend  you  are  not  the  owner  if 
you  are  harbouring  that  particular  animal 
in  your  residence."  At  least,  the  police  can 
now  say  and  prove  that  the  dog  was  being 
fed  and  kept  in  a  particular  residence.  If 
a  person  is  the  owner  of  that  residence  or 
the  head  tenant,  then  he  is  responsible  for 
that  animal  if  the  animal  is  coming  out  of 


that  door.  There  is  somebody  to  go  after 
in  that  particular  case.  Everybody  can't  duck 
out  and  say,  "It  is  my  brother's  dog,"  or  "I 
was  keeping  it  on  the  weekend  for  whoever." 

The  member  for  Wentworth  stated  that 
the  only  option  for  a  judge  under  section  4 
was  either  to  destroy  or  not  to  destroy.  Un- 
der the  existing  Vicious  Dogs  Act,  what 
happens  when  an  application  is  brought  for- 
ward is  that  the  judge  asks  the  owner  what 
he  is  going  to  do  to  take  care  of  the  dog 
in  the  future,  and  then  he  usually  adjourns 
the  case  and  waits  for  the  case  to  be  brought 
back  on  to  see  if  the  owner  has  followed 
those  instructions.  Be  that  as  it  may,  in 
looking  at  the  legislation  as  it  is  written, 
that  does  not  appear  to  someone  who  is  read- 
ing the  act  and  is  not  knowledgeable  of  the 
way  the  court  system  operates.  That  will  be 
taken  care  of  in  the  amendment  I  have  put 
forward. 

I  think  a  valid  criticism  that  he  brought 
forward  was  the  fact  that  in  effect  the 
owner  is  not  penalized.  It  seems  to  be  the 
dog  which  is  being  penalized  in  being 
destroyed  if  something  happens.  The  owner 
is  penalized  in  terms  of  the  civil  suit.  In 
other  words,  the  ability  of  someone  to  sue 
for  damages  will  be  much  greater  if  this 
particular  bill  becomes  law.  That  is  one 
penalty  he  has  to  bear. 

The  amendment  I  will  be  proposing  in 
committee  also  puts  more  teeth  into  the  act 
in  terms  of  saying  to  an  owner  who  is 
ordered  by  a  judge  to  take  care  of  a  dog  in 
a  certain  way  after  it  has  bitten  someone, 
"Look,  if  you  don't  live  up  to  that  particular 
order,  you  can  be  brought  back  to  this 
court  and  be  fined  under  an  offence,"  and 
there  will  be  a  fine  up  to  $2,000  if  he  does 
not  follow  the  order.  We  have  done  it  that 
way  and  not  just  allowed  them  to  go  through 
a  contempt  proceeding,  because  contempt 
proceedings  are  rather  difficult  legal  matters 
to  undertake  and  tend  to  be  rather  expensive 
to  go  through.  We  hope  those  amendments 
will  take  care  of  some  of  the  concerns  that 
were  raised  by  the  member  for  Wentworth. 

Since  the  member  for  Wentworth  raised 
the  matter  with  Mr.  Bandow  of  the  Hamilton 
Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to 
Animals,  I  did  telephone  Mr.  Bandow  and 
had  a  long  talk  with  him.  As  a  result  of  that 
talk  and  the  member's  comments  I  have  in- 
cluded some  of  these  proposals  in  this 
amendment. 

The  member  for  Erie  brought  forward 
some  of  the  issues  which  the  member  for 
Kent-Elgin  also  raised.  I  wanted  to  draw  to 
his  attention  section  3(2)  in  relation  to  some- 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980 


4725 


one  who  comes  on  to  the  land  who  is  in- 
tending to  commit  a  criminal  act.  He  is  not 
protected  by  this  act. 

The  member  for  Sudbury  brought  forward 
concerns  in  relation  to  the  control  of  dogs 
and  this  was  also  brought  forward  by  one 
of  the  other  members.  Basically,  the  control 
issue  has  been  given  to  the  municipalities  to 
take  care  of.  At  the  present  time  there  is 
an  interministerial  liaison  committee  looking 
into  the  possibility  of  transferring  more 
powers  to  the  municipalities  to  give  them 
more  ability  to  deal  with  that  issue. 

In  dealing  with  the  unorganized  territories, 
regulations  are  in  existence  that  would  take 
care  of  the  situation  in  those  areas. 

To  the  member  for  Lakeshore,  who  men- 
tioned that  this  bill  does  not  deal  with  a 
dog  biting  a  dog,  I  admit  we  have  not  tried 
to  address  that  problem  in  this  act.  I  suggest 
to  him,  or  to  any  other  member  of  the 
Legislature  who  feels  strongly  enough,  per- 
haps that  should  be  contained  in  another 
piece  of  legislation.  It  might  be  a  good  idea 
for  a  private  member's  bill  in  the  future. 
They  would  have  to  relate  to  the  old  com- 
mon law  in  terms  of  the  doctrine  of  having 
the  first  bite. 

I  would  like  to  indicate  the  gratitude  of 
tne  Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  to  Dr. 
Brian  Cochrane  of  Ottawa,  who  wrote  a  book 
on  this  subject  and  as  a  result  has  helped  the 
ministry  in  formulating  some  of  the  policy  in 
this  bill.  I  had  the  pleasure  of  talking  with 
Dr.  Cochrane  about  a  week  ago  and  told  him 
of  the  legislation  and  that  we  had  been  re- 
ferring to  his  book  on  this  subject.  It  is  a 
very  serious  problem  in  many  areas,  and  his 
book  highlights  that  matter.  I  had  the  pleasure 
of  going  to  high  school  with  Dr.  Cochrane. 
I  was  very  happy  to  see  him  take  time  out  to 
attack  this  problem  when  many  professionals 
do  not  do  that  kind  of  extra  thing  for  society. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  glad  the  members  are 
supporting  this  bill  and  I  will  indicate  that 
it  will  go  to  the  committee  of  the  whole 
House. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  committee  of  the  whole  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Pursuant  to  standing  order  28, 
the  member  for  Wentworth  (Mr.  Isaacs)  has 
expressed  dissatisfaction  with  the  answer  given 
by  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr. 
Parrott)  concerning  the  Ajax  waste  disposal 
plant.  The  honourable  member  has  up  to  five 
minutes. 


DURHAM  REGIONAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARING 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  say  at 
the  outset  that  I  very  much  appreciate  the 
minister  being  here  this  evening.  I  look  for- 
ward to  his  response  on  this  matter. 
10:30  p.m. 

I  know  he  probably  regards  it  as  very  tire- 
some that  he  is  asked  to  be  here  yet  again 
for  a  late  show.  We  on  this  side  of  the  House 
sometimes  find  the  late  show  system  a  little 
tiresome  as  well,  but  it  is  the  only  show  in 
town,  and  if  we  wish  to  get  an  expansion  of 
an  answer  in  question  period,  it  is  the  only 
way  we  can  proceed. 

The  question  I  put  to  the  minister  earlier 
today  related  to  the  procedures  of  the  En- 
vironmental Assessment  Board  when  writing 
its  report  as  a  result  of  a  hearing  under  the 
Environmental  Protection  Act.  I  have  no 
knowledge  of  the  procedures  the  board  may 
have  followed.  However,  there  is  substantial 
concern  in  the  community  about  the  possibility 
that  members  of  the  EAB,  who  were  not 
present  during  the  hearing  and  who  have  not 
heard  the  evidence  in  person,  may  have  in- 
volved themselves  in  the  decision  the  board 
has  reached. 

This  is  a  very  serious  issue  of  credibility. 
My  colleagues  and  I— and  my  predecessor  as 
critic  especially,  the  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine  (Ms.  Bryden)— have  been  very  care- 
ful not  to  drag  the  EAB  into  our  political 
debates,  and  I  hope  it  remains  that  way.  I 
hope  the  EAB  can  continue  to  be  seen  by 
everyone  in  Ontario  as  an  impartial  board 
whose  hearings  are  a  very  valuable  and  very 
necessary  part  of  the  environmental  assess- 
ment and  environmental  protection  process. 

The  members  of  that  board,  when  they  sit 
at  a  hearing,  are  in  a  sense  acting  as  judges, 
and  I  think  it  is  a  very  fundamental  part  of 
our  judicial  system  that  decisions  be  made  by 
the  judge  or  judges  who  heard  the  evidence 
and  not  by  people  who  were  not  present  and 
who  may  or  may  not  have  read  some  or  all  of 
the  transcript.  That  provision  is  included  in 
the  Environmental  Assessment  Act,  but  it  isn't 
included  in  the  Environmental  Protection  Act. 

In  the  matter  of  this  particular  hearing,  a 
complication  has  arisen  in  that  the  chairman 
of  the  hearing  resigned  from  the  EAB  during 
the  board's  consideration  of  the  report.  It  may 
be  the  report  we  are  going  to  get  tomorrow 
morning  is  still  the  report  Mr.  Laver  and  his 
two  colleagues  wrote.  If  it  is,  fine,  and  if  the 
minister  can  give  us  that  assurance  tonight, 
I  say  "great"  and  that  is  the  way  it  should  be. 
I  hope  the  minister  will  give  us  that  assur- 
ance because  problems  have  arisen  in  the  past. 


4726 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


This  issue  has  been  raised  in  the  past  and 
I  have  attempted  to  put  it  down,  and  I  hope 
we  can  get  the  assurance  tonight  that  will 
enable  us  to  put  it  down.  I  hope  too,  when 
the  report  appears  tomorrow,  there  will  be 
no  reference  by  anybody  as  to  the  validity 
of  that  decision,  being  the  decision  of  the 
judges  who  heard  the  evidence.  It  is  very 
important,  even  though  the  board's  decision 
is  omV  a  recommendation  because  it  was  held 
under  the  Environmental  Protection  Act,  that 
the  credibility  of  the  EAB  be  retained.  It  is 
very  important  too  that  the  board  give 
reasons  for  its  decision  as  was  suggested  to 
it  by  Mr.  Caplice  when  he  wrote  his  memo- 
randum concerning  the  Glanbrook  environ- 
ment report.  We  need  to  have  trust  in  the 
EAB,  and  I  think  we  can  only  have  that  trust 
if  we  know  the  report  was  written  by  the 
judges  who  heard  the  evidence. 

Just  in  summing  up,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want 
to  say  that  by  coincidence  a  friend,  an  ac- 
quaintance of  mine,  phoned  the  board  today 
and  asked  whether  it  would  hold  a  press 
conference  and  explain  the  report  when  it 
released  the  report  tomorrow.  He  was  not 
aware  of  the  procedures,  and  he  was  told 
by  whoever  he  spoke  to  that  the  board  does 
not  do  that  because  its  members  are  like 
judges:  they  just  present  their  report  and 
the  report  stands  by  itself.  So  even  the 
board  members  recognize  they  are  like 
judges,  and  I  hope  we  can  iget  the  assurance 
tonight  that  they  will  behave  like  judges 
and  only  the  board  members  who  heard  the 
evidence  will  participate  in  the  rendering  of 
the  decision. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  try 
to  respond.  In  fact,  perhaps  we  could  use 
the  five  minutes  at  my  disposal  to  have  some 
questions. 

It  seems  to  me  it  is  essential  that  as  the 
minister  who  has  said  on  many  occasions 
that  it  is   an  arm's  length  board,   I   should 


not  call  it  to  ask,  "What  are  you  doing?"  I 
never  have.  I  think  that  is  very  important. 
That  is  what  the  member  is  asking.  I  have 
never  called  that  board  and  I  have  no  inten- 
tion of  doing  so.  I  see  it  as  a  board  once  a 
year.  We  have  Christmas  lunch  together  as  a 
social  occasion  and  that  is  it. 

The  member  is  asking  me  a  question  to 
which  I  do  not  know  the  answer  and  which 
I  have  no  intention  of  answering  unless  he 
either  writes  to  the  board  or  writes  to  me 
for  that  information.  If  the  member  wants 
to  write  to  me,  I  will  forward  it  to  the 
board  and  the  board  can  respond  to  him.  I 
will  be  glad  to  do  that.  If  he  wants  to  ask 
the  board  directly,  that's  fine.  He  is  a  mem- 
ber of  this  House  and  he  should  have  what- 
ever privilege  goes  with  being  a  member  of 
this  House  as  he  relates  to  that  board.  I  ask 
the  member  please  not  to  ask  me  to  tell  him 
that  I  have  called  the  board  and  inquired 
into  its  internal  workings.  I  think  that  is 
wrong  and  it  would  be  a  mistake  for  me  to 
be  trapped  into  that. 

I  certainly  want  to  put  on  the  record  the 
innocence  of  that  request  of  me.  I  am  not 
making  any  suggestion  that  it  is  a  deliberate 
attempt  to  implicate  me  in  that  decision 
when  I  should  not  be. 

If  the  member  wants  to  write  to  me,  I 
will  be  glad  to  send  it  to  the  board  to  get 
him  the  answer.  I  will  only  refer  the  mat- 
ter. I  think  the  member  could  write  to  the 
board  and  get  a  direct  answer  himself  if  it 
is  legitimate  for  either  of  us  to  have  that 
information. 

I  have  used  all  my  time.  I  would  be  glad 
to  have  the  member  come  back  with  a  ques- 
tion if  that  is  protocol.  If  it  is  not,  I  think 
I  have  stated  the  case  and  I  rest. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  idea  of  this  is  to  allow 
the  member  the  five  minutes. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:37  p.m. 


NOVEMBER  27,  1980  4727 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  November  27,  1980 

Assessment  Amendment  Act,  Bill  185,  Mr.  Maeck,  second  reading  4703 

Dog  Owners'  Liability  Act,  Bill  169,  Mr.  McMurtry,  second  reading  4717 

Debate  re  dissatisfaction  with  answer  to  oral  question  on  Durham  regional  environ- 
mental hearing:  Mr.   Isaacs,  Mr.   Parrott  4725 

Adjournment    4726 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Charlton,  B.  (Hamilton  Mountain  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Haggerty,  R.   (Erie  L) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnson,  J.  ( Wellington-Dufferin-Peel  PC) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Newman,  B.  ( Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP) 

Sterling,  N.  W.  ( Carleton-Grenville  PC) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Warner,  D.  ( Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 


No.  126 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Friday,  November  28,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  Xvith  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can   be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  «^^^> 


4731 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10:02  a.m. 
Prayers. 


SOVIET  VISITORS 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr,  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege:  I  have  in  front  o£  me  an  invitation 
given  to  members  of  the  press  gallery,  by  the 
member  for  Brantford  (Mr.  Makarchuk) 
concerning  visitors  here  from  the  Soviet 
Union.  It  raises  in  my  mind  two  concerns 
regarding  the  Legislative  Assembly.  The  con- 
cern is  not  whether  the  member  for  Brant- 
ford has  the  right  to  have  visitors.  He  obvi- 
ously has  the  right  to  have  anybody  he 
pleases  visiting  him  and  that  is  certainly  not 
at  issue. 

The  issue,  as  I  see  it,  is  twofold.  In  the 
first  place,  a  couple  of  weeks  ago  we  wel- 
comed in  this  assembly  a  dissident  from 
Lithuania,  who  had  escaped  by  means  of 
almost  miraculous  undertaking  and  had  made 
his  way  to  freedom.  I  would  point  out  that 
the  government  of  Canada  does  not,  in  fact, 
recognize  the  annexation  of  Lithuania  by  the 
Soviet  Union,  and  that  de  jure  officially  the 
Lithuanian  representative  in  Canada  is,  in 
fact,  not  the  Soviet  ambassador. 

I  would,  therefore,  given  the  fact  that  a 
member  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  has 
welcomed  a  deputy  from  the  Lithuanian 
Supreme  Soviet,  if,  in  fact,  that  is  the  Par- 
liament of  Lithuania  in  which  that  deputy 
operates,  wish  to  make  it  very  clear  that  the 
government  of  Canada  does  not  recognize 
that  Lithuania  is  anything  other  than  a 
captive  nation.  I  certainly  do  not  recognize 
Lithuania  as  being  anything  other  than  a 
captive  nation  annexed  by  the  Soviet  Union. 
I,  therefore,  wish  it  to  be  very  clear  on  the 
record  that  any  reception  given  to  such  a 
deputy  here  in  her  official  capacity  is  given 
by  only  one  member  of  the  Legislature  and 
does  not  in  any  way  represent  the  view  of 
recognition  by  the  Legislature  itself. 

Secondly,  in  view  of  the  comments  made 
yesterday  by  the  member  from  the  same  party, 
the  member  for  Parkdale  ( Mr.-  Dtikszta ) , 
who  said  we  will  not  tolerate  in  this  Legisla- 
ture intimidation  of  Poland  by  Soviet  tanks 
or  the  present  situation,  the  occupation  and 


Friday,  November  28,  1980 

continuing  struggle,  in  Afghanistan,  it  seems 
to  me  very  important  that  the  Soviet  dele- 
gates not  be .  able  to  go  back  to  .the  Soviet 
Union  and  say,  "That  may  have,  been  ^aid.in 
the -Legislature  and  may.  have  had  apparently 
unanimous  support,  but  really  we  had  a  warm 
official  reception  from,  one  .of  .the  yery^. im- 
portant .members  and.  do  not  worry  about  "it." 

I  as  a  member  -  feel  my  privileges  are 
involved  here.  It  is  my  view  that  the  Legis- 
lature made  it  very  clear  we  do  not  in  any 
way  support  the  Soviet  intimidation  tactics 
with  regard  to  tanks  on  the  border  of  Poland, 
nor  do  we  support  in  any  way  the  invasion 
of  Afghanistan,  nor  do  we  recognize  Lithu- 
ania as  anything  other  than  a  captive  nation 
that  we  all  hope  will  one  day  have  self- 
determination. 

Therefore  I  want  to  make  it  plain,  I  want 
the  assembly  to  make  it  plain  and  I  want 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  on  behalf  of  the  assembly 
to  make  it  plain  that  the  invitation  by  the 
member  for ,  Brantford  is  strictly  his  own 
doing  and  in  no  way  does  it  represent .  the 
feeling  of  anyone  else  in  the  Legislative  As- 
sembly of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  methinks  the 
Leader  ■  of.  the  Opposition  protests  a  bit  .'too 
much  about  what  is,  as  he  has  said,  a  private 
visit  to  a  member  of  this  Legislature.  It  is 
not  one  that  has  been  at  the  invitation  of 
the  Legislature  or  of  any  specific  political 
party. 

The  Leader  of  the  Opposition  will  have 
noted  as  well  that  yesterday  one  of  the 
members  of  our  caucus  got  up  in  this  Legis- 
lature to  ask  the  government  House  leader, 
the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
(Mr.  Wells),  whether  the  government  would 
agree  to  a  unanimous  resolution  by  all  parties 
in  this  House  supporting  what  is  happening 
in  Poland.  The  resolution  expressed  concern 
about  the  possibility  of  Soviet  intervention 
and  indicated  that  we  in  Ontario  believe 
everything  possible  should  be  done  in  order 
to  allow  the  continued  development  of  the 
Polish  society  without  outside  intervention 
from  the  Soviet  Union  or  any  place  else: 

As  a  member,  of  this  Legislature,  I  signed 

-a  statement  last  night;  which  was  also  being 

signed  by  a  number  of ;.my.coljfeague&  ih  the 


4732 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


New  Democratic  Party  caucus,  that  com- 
municates to  those  visitors  from  the  polit- 
ical level  of  the  Soviet  Union,  our  feelings 
about  what  is  happening  in  Poland.  It  ex- 
pressed our  fears  about  what  might  happen 
and  our  very  earnest  and  strong  request 
that  they  take  back  to  their  country  our 
views  here  in  Canada  that  we  do  not  want 
to  see  the  development  of  independent  trade 
unionism  in  Poland  interfered  with  by  the 
Soviet  Union. 

It  seems  to  me  it  is  wrong  to  suggest, 
as  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  seems  to 
do— at  a  time  when  there  have  been  great 
efforts  at  detente  in  western  Europe  and 
when  at  the  same  time  we  are  very  con- 
cerned about  the  actions  of  the  Soviets  in 
countries  like  Afghanistan— that  there  should 
be  an  iron  curtain  erected  by  the  western 
countries  in  blocking  any  kind  of  commu- 
nication between  individuals  on  one  side 
and  the  other.  This  merely  contributes  to  a 
heightening  of  the  kind  of  tensions  that  all 
of  us  in  this  country  should  be  trying  to 
resolve. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  advise  the  House 
that  a  call  came  into  my  office,  either  yes- 
terday or  the  day  before,  indicating  a  group 
from  the  Soviet  Union  would  be  visiting  the 
Legislative  Assembly  and  asking  if  they 
could  be  accommodated  in  the  Speaker's 
igallery.  We  did  agree  to  have  five  seats  in 
the  Speaker's  gallery  set  aside  for  the  dele- 
gation that  was  to  be  here  this  morning. 
I  do  not  see  them  in  the  gallery  at  the 
present   time. 

I  do  not  know  whether  the  assembly 
would  want  the  chair  to  be  selective  in  the 
kind  of  people  we  welcome  here  to  view 
the  proceedings  of  this  Legislature.  It  has 
been  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  Speaker's 
office.  I  did  make  some  inquiries  about 
this  group  and  found  that  there  was  an 
elected  member  of  the  Supreme  Soviet,  a 
deputy   from   Lithuania. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  An  elected  member? 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  what  I  was  told.  If 
the  assembly  wants  the  Speaker  to  be  se- 
lective in  the  kind  of  people  we  do  wel- 
come here,  I  will  be  guided  by  whatever 
instructions  I  receive  from  the  House,  but 
I  must  remind  all  honourable  members  that 
if  somebody  represents  a  government  and 
wants  to  come  to  view  parliamentary  de- 
mocracy in  action,  I  see  no  reason  why  I 
should  deny  him  that  right.  I  do  not  know 
of  any  incident  that  the  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position speaks  of.  It  was  certainly  not 
done  under  the  auspices  of  this  assembly 
or  the  Speakers  office. 


10:10  a.m. 

As  I  say,  I  will  be  guided  by  whatever 
the  House  wishes  me  to  do  but,  if  that  dele- 
gation should  appear,  I  had  intended  to 
draw  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  fact 
it  was  there  and  to  name  the  leader  of  the 
delegation,  who  is  a  young  lady  by  the 
name  of  Gie  Artmane.  That  is  what  I  in- 
tended doing  and  what  I  will  do  unless  I 
hear  otherwise. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

ASSESSMENT  INFORMATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  today  I 
am  pleased  to  announce  to  the  honourable 
members  a  significant  undertaking  by  my 
ministry  to  help  ratepayers  better  under- 
stand their  1980  property  assessment.  Be- 
ginning the  first  week  in  December,  imme- 
diately— 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Better  understanding— 
they  will  understand. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  people  understand; 
some  members  opposite  do  not. 

Beginning  the  first  week  in  December,  im- 
mediately after  the  mailing  of  assessment 
notices,  assessment  offices  will  be  conducting 
a  series  of  open  houses  in  each  of  the  837 
municipalities  in  Ontario.  These  open  houses 
will  give  property  owners  and  tenants  the 
opportunity  to  discuss  their  assessments  with 
assessment  staff  to  gain  clarification  of  areas 
of  misunderstanding  and  generally  to  acquire 
a  clearer  picture  of  what  the  assessment  proc- 
ess is  all  about.  As  well,  these  discussion 
sessions  will  allow  the  correction  of  minor 
information,  such  as  municipal  addresses  or 
the  spelling  of  surnames,  without  the  filing 
of  a  formal  complaint. 

Some  members  will  recall  that  the  Ministry 
of  Revenue  has  conducted  open  houses  in  the 
past  in  those  areas  of  the  province  where 
reassessments  have  occurred  under  section  86 
of  the  Assessment  Act.  Public  response  to 
these  open  houses  has  been  consistently  fav- 
ourable and  I  am  therefore  very  pleased  to 
introduce  this  open  house  concept  on  a 
province-wide  basis. 

Ratepayers  will  be  notified  of  the  times  and 
locations  of  open  houses  in  their  area  by 
means  of  newspaper  advertisements  and  an 
insert  to  be  included  with  their  assessment 
notice- 
Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  —and  a  personal  letter 
from  the  Premier.  No,  strike  that  last  part, 
Mr.  Speaker! 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4733 


I  would  also  point  out  that  these  assess- 
ment open  houses  are  yet  another  clear  indi- 
cation of  this  government's  firm  commitment 
to  improved  public  access  to  government 
programs  and  services  and  enhanced  customer 
service.  My  ministry  has  previously  announced 
a  number  of  significant  initiatives  in  this  area 
and  I  believe  these  assessment  open  houses 
will  be  an  important  addition  to  Revenue's 
customer  service  program. 

INDIAN  SALES 
TAX  EXEMPTION 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
further  statement  on  another  matter.  Last 
week,  in  response  to  questions  from  the 
members  opposite,  I  stated  I  would  be  meet- 
ing with  my  staff  to  discuss  my  ministry's 
requirement  of  Indian  merchants  selling 
tobacco  to  become  registered  under  the 
Retail  Sales  Tax  Act.  As  a  result  of  that 
meeting,  I  have  decided  to  delay  the 
implementation  of  this  proposal  to  Feb- 
ruary 1,  1981.  This  action  is  in  response 
to  requests  from  several  groups  representing 
certain  sections  of  the  Indian  population.  I 
hope  that  in  recognizing  the  seriousness  of 
the  situation  they  will  suggest  viable  alter- 
natives to  stop  the  illegal  sales  of  tax  exempt 
tobacco. 

I  will  be  inviting  comments  and  suggestions 
between  now  and  January  31,  1981,  from  the 
various  groups  known  to  me  to  be  acting  as 
spokesmen  for  Ontario's  Indians  and,  as  well, 
any  other  groups  who  wish  to  meet  with  my 
staff  to  discuss  the  problem. 

For  the  benefit  of  those  members  who  are 
not  familiar  with  the  issue,  let  me  briefly 
review  what  has  happened  up  to  this  point. 
On  November  1,  1980,  the  tobacco  tax  ruling, 
effective  since  1968,  allowing  Indian  mer- 
chants on  reserves  to  purchase  tobacco  with- 
out a  retail  sales  tax  vendor  permit,  was 
changed.  The  change  required  them  to  ob- 
tain the  necessary  registration  as  is  the  case 
with  all  other  tobacco  retailers  in  Ontario. 
I  emphasize  that  this  change  in  no  way  in- 
fringed upon  the  Indians'  right  to  tax  exempt 
tobacco  or  imposed  any  tax  burden  on  Indian 
merchants. 

It  does,  however,  enable  the  ministry  to 
identify  those  few  individuals,  whether  they 
are  Indians  or  non-Indians,  who  are  taking 
advantage  of  the  situation  for  their  own 
financial  gain.  This  change  involves  approxi- 
mately 94  of  the  121  Indian  merchants  selling 
tobacco  on  reserves.  The  other  27  Indian 
merchants  are  already  registered  as  vendors 
under  the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Act. 


Because  of  the  timing  of  the  letters,  and 
the  delay  in  notifying  the  Indian  merchants 
due  to  insufficient  and  inaccurate  informa- 
tion as  to  their  addresses  and  businesses,  the 
effective  date  was  initially  delayed  until 
December  1,  1980. 

Since  1975  there  has  been  a  marked  in- 
crease in  the  tobacco  claimed  to  be  sold  by 
Indians.  For  example,  in  the  1975-76  fiscal 
year,  34.6  million  cigarettes  were  sold  exempt 
to  Indian  merchants.  In  1979-80,  this  figure 
rose  by  762  per  cent  to  297.9  million  ciga- 
rettes. The  projected  sales  for  the  1980-81  year, 
based  on  sales  of  248.2  million  cigarettes  for 
the  first  six  months  of  this  year,  are  508.2 
million.  This  represents  an  increase  of  1,370 
per  cent  over  1975-76.  In  September  of  this 
year  alone,  48.3  million  cigarettes  were 
claimed  as  sold  exempt  to  Indian  merchants, 
which  is  considerably  more  than  the  whole 
year  of  1976. 

Further,  when  looking  at  the  apparent 
consumption  of  tobacco  on  reserves  com- 
pared to  the  rest  of  Ontario,  it  appears  in- 
conceivable that  such  consumption  is  real- 
istic. The  per  .capita  consumption  of  tobacco 
per  annum  in  Ontario  is  approximately  2,500 
cigarettes.  Using  the  statistics  we  have  of 
claimed  exemptions  from  tax,  the  per  capita 
consumption  on  one  reserve  alone  for  fiscal 
year  ending  March  31,  1980  for  example, 
was  132,867.  This  equates  to  14.6  large 
packages  per  day  for  every  man,  woman 
and  child  on  that  reserve.  On  another  re- 
serve the  purported  per  capita  consumption 
increased  from  3,100  in  1976  to  18,121  in 
1979. 

Not  only  are  these  statistics  indicative  of 
a  substantial  tax  loss  for  Ontario,  but  also 
a  substantial  loss  of  income  for  more  than 
100  wholesalers  not  involved  with  these 
exempt  purchases.  Clearly,  the  tax  system 
must  remain  equitable  while  preserving  in- 
dividual's rights.  In  this  vein,  I  have  two 
responsibilities:  First,  to  protect  the  right 
of  the  Ontario  Indian  population  to  the 
consumption  of  exempt  tobacco  on  reserves; 
and  second,  to  ensure  that  all  consumption 
of  tobacco  by  non-Indians  is  taxed  under 
the  Tobacco  Tax  Act. 

In  closing,  I  would  like  to  reconfirm  that 
in  response  to  the  requests  we  have  received 
we  will  further  delay  the  implementation 
of  the  proposed  enforcement  of  the  regis- 
tration requirement  of  Indian  tobacco  re- 
tailers under  the  provisions  of  the  Retail 
Sales  Tax  Act.  Those  interested  in  present- 
ing alternatives  to  eliminate  this  tax  eva- 
sion are  invited  to  do  so.  As  always,  I  and 
my  ministry  are  open  to  suggestions  of  alter- 


4734 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


natives,  and  remain  willing  to  consult  with 
those  who  feel  our  actions  will  unneces- 
sarily have  a  negative  impact  on  their  opera- 
tions. 

STRATFORD  FESTIVAL 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  honour- 
able members  know,  the  federal  Minister 
of  Employment  and  Immigration,  Mr.  Ax- 
worthy, has  denied,  for  the  time  being,  the 
application  for  a  work  permit  by  John 
Dexter.  Mr.  Dexter,  of  course,  is  the  emi- 
nent theatre  director  who  had  been  invited 
by  the  board  of  governors  of  the  Stratford 
Shakespearean  Festival  to  become  the  ar- 
tistic director  of  that  outstanding  festival. 

Mr.  Axworthy  stated  yesterday  that  the 
Stratford  board  had  failed  to  carry  out  a 
thorough  and  reasonable  search  for  a  Cana- 
dian artistic  director  before  Mr.  Dexter  was 
offered  the  position.  Obviously,  it  is  very 
important  to  Stratford,  the  province  and 
the  country  that  the  festival  have  a  full 
and  fruitful  season  in  1981.  The  clear  re- 
sponsibility for  ensuring  that  Stratford  has 
such  a  season  lies  with  the  festival's  board. 

As  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation 
of  the  province  of  Ontario,  I  would  expect 
the  board  to  press  on,  with  dispatch,  in  its 
search  for  Canadian  talent  and  I  would 
encourage  it  to  do  that.  I  would  also  note 
that  I  have  been  in  constant  contact  with 
the  Ontario  Arts  Council  concerning  the 
Stratford  situation.  The  sentiments  that  I 
have  expressed  here  reflect  the  sentiments 
of  that  council. 

In  the  parlance  and  spirit  of  the  theatre, 
the  show  must  go  on. 
10:20  a.m. 

UNIVERSITY  STUDY 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  read  a  statement  this  morning  on 
behalf  of  the  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Uni- 
versities   (Miss    Stephenson). 

"Further  to  my  announcement  of  last 
week  that  a  committee  will  be  formed  to 
study  the  future  role  of  universities  in 
Ontario,  I  am  pleased  to  report  that  the 
terms  of  reference  as  well  as  membership 
of  the  committee  have  been  worked  out. 

"There  are  five  areas  the  committee  will 
consider.  These  are:  To  develop  a  public 
statement  of  objectives  for  Ontario  univer- 
sities in  the  1980s  expressed  in  operational 
terms;  to  relate  the  cost  of  meeting  these 
objectives  to  funding  levels;  to  consider 
modifications  to  the  funding  mechanism 
which   would   provide   appropriate  processes 


to  encourage  voluntary  institutional  adjust- 
ments and  inter-institutional  co-operation  to 
meet  these  objectives;  to  define  more  clearly 
the  appropriate  joint  roles  of  the  individual 
institutions,  the  Council  of  Ontario  Univer- 
sities, the  Ontario  Council  on  University 
Affairs  and  the  government  of  Ontario;  and 
to  recommend  such  other  policy  changes  as 
are  judged  likely  to  improve  the  ability  of 
Ontario  universities  to  meet  the  agreed- 
upon   objectives. 

"As  far  as  the  makeup  of  the  committee 
is  concerned,  I  have  chosen  persons  with 
both  system-wide  and  institutional  knowl- 
edge and  experience  to  serve  as  members. 
They  were  chosen  on  these  grounds  rather 
than  to  represent  special  interest  groups. 
The  members  of  the  committee  will  be: 

"Mr.  R.  J.  Butler,  secretary,  Management 
Board  of  Cabinet;  Dr.  G.  E.  Connell,  presi- 
dent, University  of  Western  Ontario;  Pro- 
fessor J.  S.  Dupre,  University  of  Toronto; 
Dr.  H.  K.  Fisher,  deputy  minister,  Ministry 
of  Education  and  Ministry  of  Colleges  and 
Universities;  Miss  M.  Hamilton,  executive 
vice-president,  Thomson  Newspapers  Limit- 
ed; Dr.  G.  A.  Harrower,  president,  Lakehead 
University;  Mr.  A.  R.  Marchment,  chairman, 
Guaranty  Trust  Company  of  Canada;  Mrs. 
M.  S.  Paikin,  director,  Southam  Incorporated; 
Professor  M.  L.  Pilkington,  York  University; 
Mr.  R.  P.  Riggin,  senior  vice-president, 
corporate  relations,  Noranda  Mines  Limited; 
Dr.  R.  L.  Watts,  principal,  Queen's  Univer- 
sity; Mr.  B.  A.  Wilson,  assistant  deputy  min- 
ister, Ministry  of  Colleges  and  Universities; 
Dr.  W.  C.  Winegard,  chairman,  Ontario 
Council  on  University  Affairs. 

"Dr.  Fisher  will  serve  as  chairman  of  the 
committee.  In  addition,  Dr.  E.  J.  Monahan 
will  serve  as  a  resource  person  to  the  com- 
mittee, and  the  Ministry  of  Colleges  and 
Universities  will  provide  a  secretariat. 

"I  am  sure  honourable  members  will 
agree  that  these  members  have  the  expertise 
to  provide  the  government  with  sound  advice 
about  the  future  of  our  universities.  I  am 
looking  forward  to  receiving  a  preliminary 
report  from  the  committee  by  February  28, 
1981,  so  that  discussions  can  be  carried  out 
with  the  university  community  and  the 
public  at  large.  I  expect  the  final  report 
will  be  completed  by  June  30,  1981." 

SOVIET  VISITORS 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  to  draw  to  the 
attention  of  all  members  the  presence  in  our 
gallery  of  a  delegation  from  the  Soviet 
Union,  headed  by  Miss  Gie  Artmane,  who 
is  a  deputy  of  the  Supreme  Soviet  of  Latvia. 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4735 


She  is   the  leading  actress  of  Latvian  state 
drama  theatre. 

Would  members  please  welcome  them  to 
the  Legislature? 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

INTEREST  RATES 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Premier  on  the  subject  of  interest 
rates.  The  Premier  is  aware,  as  is  the  Trea- 
surer, that  interest  rates  have  now  risen  to  a 
level  as  high  as  or  higher  than  they  were 
last  spring  when  we  had  our  previous  dis- 
cussion in  this  House. 

Given  the  hardship  this  will  undoubtedly 
mean  for  home  owners  and  also  for  small 
businesses  which  are  already  facing  very 
grave  difficulties  in  Ontario,  would  the  Pre- 
mier tell  us  whether  he  has  any  plan,  either 
in  concert  with  the  federal  government  or 
on  his  own,  to  adopt  either  a  plan  which  is 
similar  to  that  which  we  suggested  in  the 
spring  or  a  plan  of  his  own  to  help  home 
owners  and  small  businessmen  cope  with  the 
high  interest  rates  which  seem  to  be  upon 
us  once  again? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  obviously  we 
are  quite  concerned  about  the  question  of 
interest  rates.  We  had  a  discussion  last 
spring  on  this  very  issue.  I  do  not  want  to  be 
provocative  here  on  a  Friday  morning  and 
point  out  that  the  government  of  this  prov- 
ince has  no  control  over  interest  rate  policies 
of  the  government  of  Canada;  nor  will  I 
repeat  at  length  our  suggestions  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada  that,  in  fact,  we  can 
divorce  ourselves  and  our  view  from  the 
interest  rates  charged  in  the  United  States. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  point  out,  though,  that 
at  this  moment  the  prime  rate  is  still  well 
below  that  of  the  United  States,  which  is 
somewhat  unique.  We  could  argue  that  we 
could  still  have  a  more  independent  policy 
with  respect  to  interest  rates  but  that,  of 
course,  does  not  at  this  moment  solve  the 
problem. 

I  have  not  had  the  opportunity  to  discuss  it 
with  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  since 
the  Bank  of  Canada  increased  the  rate  yes- 
terday. We  have  been  monitoring  it  very 
carefully  in  discussions  with  a  number  of 
people  who  have  some  knowledge  of  this, 
including  some  information  from  the  United 
States  where— not  in  any  way  to  minimize  the 
difficulty— there  is  some  expectation  that  per- 
haps interest  rates  now,  in  fact,  have 
plateaued. 

Whether  this  will  turn  out  to  be  the  case 
or  not  and  at  what  rate  they  may  start  to 


diminish,  there  is  some  expectation  of  this  on 
the  part  of  some,  not  of  everybody.  I  noticed 
in  the  news  this  morning  an  economist  from 
one  of  the  banks  suggested  that  the  diminu- 
tion in  rates  might  be  fairly  slow.  There 
are  other  economists  who  suggest  it  may 
happen  more  rapidly.  I  would  say  to  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  that  we  are  keeping 
a  very  careful  eye  on  it  but  I  would  point 
out  to  him  that  while  we  were  having  our 
debates  last  spring,  shortly  after  those  dis- 
cussions, interest  rates  did  in  fact  decrease 
rather  substantially  in  relative  terms.  I  think 
perhaps  it  would  be  somewhat  premature  to— 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Well  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  would  say  it  is  because  of  that 
enlightened  government  in  Ottawa,  I  under- 
stand that.  If  they  were  responsible  for  their 
diminution,  then  one  also  has  to  assume  their 
responsibility  for  their  increases.  I  know  the 
member  for  Brant,  Oxford,  Haldimand,  St. 
George  and  all  of  those  places  would  under- 
stand the  logic  of  that  observation,  but  I  as- 
sure the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  we  will  be 
monitoring  it  over  the  next  period  of  time  to 
see  whether  or  not  they  are  stabilizing,  and 
whether  perhaps  there  is  some  potential  of 
them  being  diminished.  We  will  certainly 
keep  the  House  informed  as  we  gather  this 
information. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Since  the  Premier's  response 
seems  to  be  essentially  that  the  last  time  we 
had  this  problem  he  waited  and  it  went  away, 
therefore  maybe  we  ought  to  do  the  same 
thing  again  this  time,  may  I  ask  what  he 
intends  to  do  to  assist  those  home  owners 
who  have  to  renew  mortgages  now  or  to  assist 
those  small  business  people  who  are  now 
at  the  margin  where  they  might  find  them- 
selves going  out  of  business  and  creating  more 
unemployment  this  winter? 

Even  though  he  and  I  agree  that  Canada 
could  adopt  a  more  independent  policy— in 
fact,  I  tried  to  urge  it  on  him  some  time  ago— 
the  fact  is  that  Ontario  businesses  and  home 
owners  are  going  to  be  suffering.  Why  is  he 
not  prepared  now  to  bring  in  some  measure 
of  relief  for  these  people  so  that  we  can 
keep  up  employment  in  small  businesses  and 
can  keep  as  many  people  in  their  homes  as 
possible?  Why  can  the  Premier  not  introduce 
some  measure  of  relief  now,  rather  than  wait- 
ing to  see  what  happens  in  the  future? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  there  are  two 
issues.  One  is  the  rate  being  charged  the  small 
businessman,  which  is  obviously  of  concern  to 
the  government.  It  does  create  certain  hard- 
ships; no  one  is  minimizing  that.  At  the  same 


4736 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


time  that  increased  cost  in  doing  business 
can,  in  most  businesses,  be  passed  on.  I  do 
not  say  that  is  healthy  or  wise,  but  that  is  an 
avenue  for  them. 

With  respect  to  mortgage  interest  rates,  I 
think  that  is  a  more  complex  issue  in  terms 
of  how  one  approaches  it.  I  think  it  is  fair 
to  state  the  government  has  been  keeping  a 
very  close  eye  on  this.  A  number  of  mortgage 
companies  have,  in  fact,  been  reducing  the 
term  of  the  mortgage  to  allow  home  owners 
a  greater  degree  of  flexibility  to  adjust  if 
interest  rates  happen  to  decrease. 

I  can  only  say  to  the  Leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition we  are  concerned  about  it,  we  are 
keeping  a  careful  eye  on  it  and  the  Treasurer 
and  I  will  be  reporting  to  the  House  over  the 
next  period  of  time  as  we  try  to  determine 
what  route  interest  rates  may  take. 

10:30  a.m. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  Premier  will  recall  in  1975,  approxi- 
mately, when  interest  rates  were  not  nearly 
as  high  as  they  are  at  the  present  time,  his 
government  was  prepared  to  take  action  to 
subsidize  interest  rates  if  they  were  over  a 
certain  percentage.  Would  the  Premier  now 
reconsider  that  same  policy  he  was  ready  to 
put  into  place  then? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  again  I  am 
going  strictly  by  memory,  but  I  would  say 
to  the  member  for  Essex  South  my  recollec- 
tion is  that  the  prime  rate  was  as  high,  if  not 
a  shade  higher  last  spring  when  we  were 
debating  this  than  it  is  at  present.  Our  prime 
rate  is  about  13.5  per  cent.  The  bank  rate  is 
around  14.5  per  cent.  My  recollection  is  it 
was  somewhat  higher  than  that  last  spring. 
I  do  not  think  we  have  passed  the  point  that 
interest  rates  were  at  in  this  country  last 
spring.  We  are  fairly  close  to  it,  but  I  think 
he  is  in  error  in  suggesting  the  rates  are  now 
higher  than  they  were  last  spring. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  There  was  an  election  then, 
you  may  recall. 

NORFOLK  TEACHERS'  DISPUTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence 
of  the  Minister  of  Education  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Premier  on  the  subject  of  the 
Norfolk  secondary  school  dispute.  Is  the 
Premier  aware  the  strike  has  now  resulted 
in  the  loss  of  40  school  days?  The  strike  itself 
has  been  going  on  for  some  months  and  the 
mediator  has  now  come  to  the  conclusion 
the  parties  are  at  an  impasse.  The  mediator 
has  recommended  binding  arbitration  in  the 
matter.  This  has  been  accepted  by  one  party 
to  the  dispute  but  not  the  other. 


Given  the  fact  things  are  at  an  impasse 
and  given  the  fact  the  students  are  obviously 
suffering,  having  been  out  of  school  now  for 
40  school  days,  is  the  Premier  prepared  to 
take  action  to  get  the  children  back  in  the 
classrooms? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  unfortu- 
nately the  Minister  of  Education  is  under  the 
weather  this  morning.  I  will  be  communi- 
cating with  her  later  in  the  day  to  suggest 
she  become  involved  over  the  weekend,  if 
there  is  merit  in  doing  so. 

My  understanding  of  the  issue  at  the 
moment  is  the  Norfolk  Board  of  Education 
is  saying  nothing  today.  They  are  meeting 
this  evening.  Until  they  have  had  that  meet- 
ing it  is  perhaps  wise  not  to  commit  our- 
selves to  any  particular  course  of  action.  That 
is  the  information  I  have  as  of  about  15  or 
20  minutes  ago.  I  say  to  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  that  the  minister  or  I  will  be 
quite  prepared  to  discuss  this  on  Monday 
but  we  think  it  is  wise  to  wait  until  after  the 
Norfolk  board  has  its  meeting,  which  we 
understand  is  this  evening. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Is  the  Premier  ready  to 
recognize,  as  the  members  of  his  own  party 
have  recognized  and  certainly  as  many  other 
citizens  have  recognized,  that  a  system  which 
keeps  children  out  of  school  and  away  from 
their  education  for  40  school  days,  over 
eight  school  weeks,  is  a  system  which  is 
taking  awav  the  fundamental  rights  our 
young  people  ought  to  have?  Is  he  ready 
to  recognize  there  has  to  be  a  better  way 
to  settle  disputes  between  teachers  and 
boards,  no  matter  who  is  at  fault,  and  that 
Ontario  should  forthwith  adopt  a  system  of 
compulsory  arbitration  by  a  court  of  ap- 
pointed arbitrators  who  would  be  assigned 
on  a  rotational  basis,  so  that  we  could  stoj 
making  the  children  the  victims  of  the  labour 
disputes  going  on  in  our  school  system? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Memories  are  very  short 
on  this  issue.  I  can  recall  the  discussions 
with  respect  to  the  presentation  of  the 
present  legislation  in  this  House.  I  can  recall 
vividly— 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  can  remember  when 
the  Premier  did  not  support  Joe  Clark. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  say  to  the  gentle- 
man who  interrupted  that  my  position  over 
the  years  of  supporting  our  national  leader 
is  far  superior  to  the  position  of  his  leader 
in  supporting  his  national  leader.  The  mem- 
ber did  not  find  me— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  —wandering  around  and 
hiding   behind   every   potted  palm   out   here 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4737 


saying  to  others  how  much  I  disliked  our 
federal  leader  and  that  I  probably  was  not 
going  to  vote  for  him.  I  have  been  with  our 
federal  leader  in  every  election.  Where  has 
the  member's  leader  been  in  every  federal 
election? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  The  Premier  buried  the 
hatchet  right  in  the  back  of  his  leader's 
neck. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  wonder  how  much 
interest  there  really  is  in  the  basic  question 
of  the  school  issue.  Will  you  address  your- 
self to  that  please? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  ad- 
dress myself  to  anything  you  say.  I  am  quite 
prepared  to  do  that,  but  the  member  for 
Rainy  River  always  wants  to  put  his  foot  in 
his  mouth  and  I  am  always  delighted  when 
he  does  it,  because  it  gives  me  an  opportu- 
nity to  remind  him  about  the  Ontario  Liberal 
Party,  which  totally  dissociates  itself  from 
the  federal  Liberals  until  the  polls  improve 
and  then  embraces  them  once  again.  He 
knows  that  is  what  happens. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  getting 
back  to  the  school  issue- 
Mr.  Bradley:  Hear,  hear. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  glad  the  member 
for  St.  Catharines  is  interested  in  it.  His 
colleague  was  not.  Mr.  Speaker,  our  mem- 
ories are  very  short  on  this  issue.  No  one  is 
arguing  that  it  would  be  more  desirable  if 
we  did  not  have  these  problems  but  I  recall 
the  debate  in  this  House  when  Bill  100— 
whatever  the  number  was,  I  can  never 
remember  numbers— was  passed. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:   Your  hands  are  tied. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Whose  hands  are  tied? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Yours. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Do  you  know  where  it 
happened?  Do  you  know  the  creator  of  that 
bill?  I  want  to  give  credit  where  credit  is 
due.  It  is  the  Nixon  bill.  It  was  the  Peter- 
borough policy.  It  was  the  Magna  Carta 
enunciated  by  that  distinguished  member  in 
Peterborough  some  years  ago  when  the 
Liberal  Party  of  Ontario  said  the  way  to 
solve  the  problem  was  to  give  the  teaching 
profession  the  right  to  strike.  It  was  his  bill. 
I  give  him  credit.  I  want  to  share  this  with 
him,  the  same  way  as  I  will  give  him  credit 
for  regional  government,  county  school 
boards,  whatever,  I  have  got  it  all  as  a  mat- 
ter of  history. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  What  are  you  going  to  do 
about  it? 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  As  I  say,  memories  are 
very  short.  A  lot  of  members  forget.  I  do 
not  happen  to  forget  because  we  had  situ- 
ations in  my  own  home  constituency- 
Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Let  me  finish.  You  are 
embarrassed. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  am  embarrassed  you  are 
Premier.   Yes,  that  is  an  embarrassment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:   I  know. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  A  supplementary? 
The  member  for  Haldimand-Norfolk. 

Mr.  Nixon:  That  was  the  answer  we  are 
supposed  to  get  to  that  question? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Members  are  not  interested 
in  listening  anyway. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  regard  to  the  welfare  of  the 
students  of  Ontario  and  particularly  the 
students  of  our  ridings,  why  was  it  we  could 
resolve  a  strike  in  the  Premier's  riding  a  few 
years  ago  in  15  days  and  it  takes  40  to  50 
days  in  other  ridings?  Why  is  Bill  100  not 
really  working? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  gives 
me  an  opportunity  to  finish  the  answer  to 
the  question  asked  prior  to  this. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Spare  us. 
Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  say  to  the  mem- 
ber for  Carleton  East,  we  nominated  a  can- 
didate the  other  night- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  This  question  really 
has  nothing  to  do  with  Carleton  East.  Does 
the  Premier  have  a  response? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  certainly  do,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  would  just  point  out  to  the  hon- 
ourable member  that  we  must  recall  the 
situation  before  Bill  100.  I  can  recall  very 
vividly  the  problems  created  within  our 
own  school  system  where  the  teachers  at 
that  point  did  not  have  the  right  to  strike 
but  where  they  did  have  the  legal  right  to 
work  to  rule.  Some  members  will  recall  just 
how  difficult  this  was  within  the  school  sys- 
tem and  how  prejudicial  that  approach  was 
with  respect  to  the  educational  programs  of 
the  people  within  the  system  when  it  was 
not  working  even  though  the  teachers  were 
not  out  on  strike. 

I  would  remind  the  honourable  members 
that  this  creates  in  itself  a  very  significant 
problem.  It  is  very  easy  for  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition,  in  the  simplistic  fashion  in 
which  he  approaches  so  many  issues,  to  say 
let  us  eliminate  this  without  finding  a  better 
alternative.  This  government  always  seeks 
better  alternatives  to  every  single  issue. 


4738 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


10:40  a.m. 

We  do  not  have  a  closed  mind  to  im- 
provements to  any  legislation,  but  I  would 
point  out  to  the  member  that  there  have 
to  be  better  solutions.  It  is  not  just  a  ques- 
tion of  saying  let  us  do  away  with  this. 
This  government  is  concerned  about  the 
education  of  the  young  people  in  the  mem- 
ber's constituency.  The  member  has  raised 
it  with  me  on  a  number  of  occasions.  I 
understand  why,  and  I  expressed  to  him 
my  concern  for  his  constituents,  but  I  say 
to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  the  time 
!has  come  for  him  to  avoid  simplistic— and 
what  he  thinks  are  politically  attractive  for 
the  short  term— solutions  to  very  difficult 
problems. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  wonder  if  the  Premier  is  not  aware  that 
his  original  answer,  indicating  we  should 
wait  for  further  word  from  the  Norfolk 
board,  really  seems  to  be  irrelevant  since 
the  government-appointed  mediator  has 
gone  public  with  what  is  inherently  a  criti- 
cism of  the  system.  The  ball  is  in  his  court. 
The  mediator  said  that  since  he  can  no 
longer  negotiate  with  any  thought  of  get- 
ting an  agreement,  he  is  now  calling  for 
arbitration. 

On  that  important  point,  would  the  Pre- 
mier, as  leader  of  the  government,  if  he  is 
so  fond  and  susceptible  to  the  kind  of 
leadership  I  gave  and  my  leader  continues 
to  give  in  these  important  matters,  not  con- 
sider the  time  has  come  to  accept  a  better 
procedure  than  that  which  we  were  able 
to  work  out  in  this  Legislature  six  years 
ago  and  move  towards  the  courts  of  arbitra- 
tion, which  is  a  part  of  Liberal  policy  and 
which  will  give  the  answers  to  the  problems 
that  have  plagued  this  government  for  too 
long? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  just 
how  consistent  the  two  members  opposite  are, 
the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  and  the  House 
leader,  and  how  they  have  attempted  to  rec- 
oncile their  policies  over  the  years,  but  we 
all  know  the  differences  that  exist,  and  we 
understand  that,  we  appreciate  that.  The 
member  is  smiling  because  he  happens  to 
know  they  exist,  too.  I  am  aware  of  it. 

Mr.  Nixon:  A  strong  united  front  is  not  a 
good  alternative.  You  must  be  in  worse  shape 
than  even  we  imagined. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes.  We  were  in  such 
bad  shape  that  the  Liberal  Party  got  fewer 
votes  a  week  ago  yesterday  than  in  1975.  That 
is  what  weak  shape  we  are  in.  Mr.  Speaker, 
all  I  attempted  to  say  was— 


Mr.  Nixon:  We  were  able  to  pick  up  35 
per  cent  of  the  electorate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Oh,  sure,  but  what  did 
you  get  in  1975?  You  did  better  under  your 
leadership  then. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  Premier  has  no  intention 
of  answering. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  do  have  an  intention  of 
answering  if  the  member  would  not  inter- 
rupt. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  really  do  not  think  the  per- 
son who  asked  the  supplementary  wants  an 
answer.  He  is  carrying  on  a  private  con- 
versation. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Oh  come  on,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  Premier  does  this  every  time  he  gets  up. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  he  would  not  interrupt 
me,  I  would  answer.  I  really  gave  my  answer 
to  the  member's  leader  a  few  moments  ago. 

We  understand  the  seriousness  of  the 
situation.  We  know  the  mediator's  report  is  in. 
As  I  have  said,  the  Minister  of  Education 
is  under  the  weather  this  morning.  I  will  be 
discussing  it  with  her,  but  I  also  informed 
the  members  that  the  Norfolk  board,  for  its 
own  reasons,  is  not  discussing  it,  I  am  told, 
so  far  today.  They  are  having  a  board  meet- 
ing this  evening,  and  I  think  there  is  some 
merit  in  letting  them  have  that  meeting  to 
see  what  may  or  may  not  emerge.  We  have 
never  shirked  our  responsibilities,  as  the 
members  opposite  will  understand. 

SOVIET  VISITORS 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  While  I  am  on  my  feet, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  not  aware  of  this  and  I 
offer  no  observations  with  respect  to  who 
may  be  guests  in  the  gallery.  My  views  on 
these  issues  have  been  made  public  on  many 
occasions.  I  understand  that  whoever  you  in- 
vite into  your  gallery  is  a  matter  of  your  dis- 
cretion, but  I  think  you  know  that  such 
guests  are  not  the  guests  of  the  government. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  that  was  made  quite 
clear  before  you  arrived. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Premier  about  the  arrogance  and 
the  insensitive  decision  of  the  government, 
of  the  cabinet,  to  declare  a  vote  of  no  con- 
fidence in  the  Environmental  Assessment  Act 
of  this  province,  an  act  which  was  ushered  in 
with  great  fanfare  just  five  years  ago.  Can 
the  Premier  explain  how  we  in  the  Legislature 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4739 


can  demand  that  industrial  polluters  like  Inco, 
a  major  source  of  pollution  that  leads  to 
acid  rain,  should  clean  up  their  act  when 
the  government  is  not  prepared  to  abide  by 
the  provisions  of  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act  and  have  an  environmental  assess- 
ment on  the  South  Cayuga  liquid  industrial 
waste  project,  with  all  the  very  serious  con- 
sequences that  project  may  have? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  really 
think  there  is  a  very  significant  distinction. 
Unfortunately  I  was  not  here  yesterday  to 
listen  to  the  discussions  because  I  was  in 
Ottawa.  I  do  draw  a  distinction  between 
Inco,  say,  and  the  crown  corporation  that 
will  be  established  to  develop  what  will  be 
the  finest  system  of  liquid  waste  disposal 
that  is  available  in  North  America. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state  that  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  enunci- 
ated the  position  of  the  government.  No  one 
is  debating  a  hearing  with  respect  to  the 
technical  aspects  of  the  facility  that  will  be 
developed.  But  in  reply  to  questions  both 
from  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  and  from 
the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  with 
respect  to  the  need  to  move  expeditiously  to 
resolve  what  is  a  provincial  problem,  no  one 
disputes  the  concern  expressed  by  the 
member  who  represents  that  area  and  the 
citizens  in  that  community. 

I  think  the  minister  has  made  a  singular 
effort  to  minimize  the  concerns  of  these 
people.  I  do  not  say  for  a  moment  there  are 
not  problems  inherent  in  the  process— I  do 
not  mean  in  the  technology— but  the  process 
of  how  these  decisions  are  arrived  at.  The 
government  made  a  singular  effort  once  again 
to  obtain  the  services  of  Dr.  Chant,  who  I 
think  most  members  in  this  House  would 
acknowledge  is  one  of  the  foremost  environ- 
mentalists in  this  province,  to  be  responsible 
for  the  agency  during  the  development  of 
this  process. 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  All  right.  If  you  do  not 
think  he  is  any  good,  say  so.  I  happen  to 
think  he  is  most  highly  qualified,  and  I  think 
he  will  do  a  first-class  job. 

What  has  to  be  emphasized  is  that  the 
government  made  a  very  calculated  decision 
to  locate  this  in  a  way  such  that  the  land 
which  would  be  affected  would  be  in  govern- 
ment ownership  and  so  there  would  not  be 
people  on  the  periphery  who  might  sense 
they  would  be  adversely  affected.  There  is 
no  question  that  with  respect  to  the  technical 
and  geological  aspects  of  it,  this  will  be 
subject  to  a  hearing.  That  has  been  deter- 
mined. 


This  government  is  as  interested  as  is  the 
leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  or  any- 
one else  in  seeing  that  this  is  environmentally 
safe  for  the  people  not  only  in  the  vicinity 
—and  I  would  remind  the  member  it  is  not 
in  close  proximity— but  for  people  generally 
in  this  province. 

We  want  to  have— and  I  am  sure  we  will 
have— the  finest  system  for  liquid  waste  dis- 
posal available  anywhere  in  North  America. 
That  is  the  objective,  and  I  can  assure  the 
leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  it  is  an 
objective  that  will  be  realized. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Premier  is  saying  the 
technical  processes  that  will  go  on  at  the 
South  Cayuga  site  will  be  subject  to  a  hear- 
ing, but  all  that  we  have  heard  in  the  Legis- 
lature so  far  is  that  there  will  be  some  form 
of  informal  hearing  process.  It  has  been 
talked  about  in  a  vague  way  with  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  but  until 
now  it  does  not  include  the  regional  munic- 
ipality, which  has  voted  unanimously  to  seek 
an  environmental  assessment;  it  does  not  in- 
clude citizens  or  farmers  in  the  area;  it  does 
not  include  concerned  groups  like  Pollution 
Probe.  In  short,  it  does  not  include  all  those 
interested  parties  who  could  take  part  in  a 
hearing  if  one  were  to  occur  before  the  En- 
vironmental Assessment  Board. 

Even  though  the  government  has  agreed 
not  to  refer  that  matter  of  the  selection  of  a 
site  to  the  Environmental  Assessment  Board 
-^we  disagree  with  that  decision— is  the 
Premier  prepared  at  least  to  respond  to  pub- 
lic concerns  about  this  proposal  by  ensuring 
that  the  hearing  and  the  technical  processes 
igo  under  the  Environmental  Assessment  Act 
and  are  heard  before  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Board? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  assure 
the  member  the  hearings  on  the  geological 
and  technical  aspects  of  the  proposed  facil- 
ity will  be  heard  in  a  way  that  will  be  con- 
sistent with  the  desire  of  informing  people 
and  giving  people  an  opportunity  to  make 
representations. 

It  is  also  the  hope  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  and  the  government  that  this 
new  crown  agency  will  have  representation 
from  people  within  the  community.  I  think 
it  is  fair  to  state  that  we  will  have  repre- 
sentation from  the  Ontario  Federation  of 
Agriculture  on  that  agency.  I  think  that  is 
important. 

Before  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  gets  too  excited,  let  us  see  how  this 
process  develops.  We  are  to  a  certain  extent 
pioneering.  No  one  is  minimizing  that.  But 
the  commitment  of  the  government— 


4740 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Ms.  Gigantes:  Pioneer  by  using  your 
Environmental  Assessment  Act.  That  would 
be  pioneering. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  say  to  the  mem- 
ber for  Carleton  East,  if  the  NDP  would 
stop  objecting  to  everything  that  goes  on  in 
this  province,  we  could  make  some  economic 
progress  that  was  environmentally  consis- 
tent. We  are  prepared  to  do  it,  and  we  are 
going  to  do  it  on  this  issue. 

Ms.  Gigantes:   Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege- 
Mr.   Speaker:    Order.   There's   no   point   of 
privilege  here. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  The  Premier  has  suggested, 
by  naming  me,  that  I  am  opposed  to  every 
project  this  government  undertakes.  I  have 
a  suggestion- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  Leader  of  the 
Opposition. 

10:50  a.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Can  the  Premier  clarify  for  this  House  the 
nature  of  the  hearing  that  will  go  on— 
whether  it  will  be  under  the  Environmental 
Protection  Act,  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act  or  some  other  ad  hoc  arrangement? 
Also,  is  he  aware  that  Dr.  Chant  has  said 
there  are  two  conditions  on  his  serving?  The 
first  is  that  the  technology  to  be  used  in  the 
waste  disposal  would  have  to  undergo  a 
public  hearing,  and  the  second  is  there  must 
be  further  extensive  geological  and  hydro- 
geological  studies  of  the  site  as  recom- 
mended by   MacLaren. 

Can  I  ask  the  Premier,  therefore,  whether 
these  additional  studies  which  will  be  done 
will  be  subject  to  the  same  hearing  process? 
This  would  accommodate  those  who  might 
wish  to  bring  competing  experts,  those  who 
might  wish  to  cross-examine  the  consultants 
to  find  out  exactly  how  the  studies  were 
conducted  and  so  on.  They  would  have  the 
opportunity  normally  provided  in  the  en- 
vironmental assessment  process.  Could  he 
answer  as  to  the  nature  of  the  hearing,  not 
only  as  to  the  technology,  but  whether  the 
further  studies  required  will  also  be  subject 
to  that  hearing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
hope  that  at  least  some  members  opposite 
understand  the  complexity  of  this  issue  and 
the  need  to  move  ahead  with  it  expeditiously. 
What  the  ministry  was  and  is  concerned 
about  is  that  if  we  went  through  the  longer 
process— let  us  be  very  realistic:  there  could 
perhaps  be  a  three  to  five-year- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  No. 


Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  wish  it  were  not  so. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  That  is  not  so.  You  show 
me  one  that  has. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  Leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition should  show  me  one  that  has  not. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  will  get  him  many. 
I  was  not— let  me  finish- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  It  could  be  finished  in  one 
year. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  would  not  finish  in 
one  year.  The  member  knows  it  and  I  know 
it. 

I  was  not  part  of  the  discussions  with  Dr. 
Chant  but  I  understand  the  discussions  be- 
tween him  and  the  minister  included  dis- 
cussions of  further  geological  surveys,  ques- 
tions of  the  technology  and  questions  of  the 
physical  location  of  a  plant  on  the  site.  As 
these  are  more  properly  defined  during  the 
course  of  these  discussions— not  only  with  Dr. 
Chant  but  within  the  ministry— we  will 
inform  the  House.  Any  surveys  or  studies 
done  will  be  for  public  documentation. 

We  are  as  anxious  to  have  people  satisfied 
as  to  the  environmental  aspects  of  this  plant 
as  anyone  else.  We  would  take  no  pride  in 
developing  a  significant  facility  if  it  were  not 
environmentally  sound.  Where  is  the  logic  in 
it?  I  know  the  politics  in  it  and  I  am  not 
being  critical  of  the  politics. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  You  only  understand  the 
politics  in  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Certainly  I  understand 
the  politics  in  it. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  am  asking  you  a  technical 
question.  Will  there  be  a  cross-examination 
and   competing   witnesses? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  giving  an  answer. 
There  is  no  question  that  the  discussions  with 
Dr.  Chant  and  the  reason  one  of  the— not 
conditions  because  he  is  not  that  land  of 
person,  but  one  of  the  understandings- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  He  said  they  are  conditions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  do  not  put  them  as  con- 
ditions. One  of  the  understandings  for  his 
assuming  this  responsibility  was  that  there 
were  to  be  hearings  with  respect  to  the  tech- 
nical and  geological  aspects,  not  with  respect 
to  the  decision  as  to  it  being  Cayuga,  Huron, 
Hamilton  West  or  in  Brampton. 

Mr.   Speaker:  New  question. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  There  were  two  questions  from  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition,  two  supplemen- 
taries  from  the  leader  and  I  believe  a  total 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4741 


of  three  or  four  supplementaries  by  members 
of  the  Liberal  Party.  In  the  case  of  my  first 
question  you  have  allowed  one  supplementary 
after  my  second  supplementary  from  the  leadr 
er  of  the  Liberal  Party  and  no  further.  Could 
the  member  for  Wentworth  (Mr.  Isaacs)  not 
at  least  have  a  supplementary  and  could  you 
not  seek  to  deal  equally  with  the  two  parties? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  the  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre  knows  full  well  the  question 
we  are  discussing  now  has  occupied  more 
time— it  is  a  very  important  issue,  but  how 
many  different  ways  can  you  say  the  same 
thing? 

I  think  I  am  doing  a  disservice  to  all  the 
other  members  if  I  allow  an  inordinately  large 
amount  of  time  for  one  issue  at  the  expense 
of  all  other  issues  in  Ontario. 

I  defy  the  member  to  name  one  topic  that 
has  received  more  time  than  this  one.  I  think 
in  the  essence  of  fairness  to  other  members, 
we  must  get  on  to  another  topic. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  accept  your  judgement,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  point  out  the  parties  do  have  the 
choice  of  the  issues  they  wish  to  raise  and 
there  should  be  some  balance  between  the 
two  parties  in  terms  of  treatment. 

PENSIONS  FOR  WOMEN 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Premier  with  respect  to  the 
announcement  by  the  federal  Minister  of  Na- 
tional Health  and  Welfare  a  few  days  ago 
that  she  is  now  prepared  to  make  an  initial 
and  very  hesitant  step  towards  providing 
adequate  pensions  for  women.  Will  the  Pre- 
mier assure  the  House  that  he  is  no  longer 
philosophically  opposed  to  motherhood  as 
he  was  in  1976  and,  specifically,  that  the 
government  is  now  prepared  to  withdraw 
Ontario's  objections  to  the  opting  out  pro- 
vision which  was  put  into  the  federal  law 
in  1976?  That  was  supported  by  eight  prov- 
inces but  cannot  be  implemented  because 
of  Ontario's  and  British  Columbia's  opposi- 
tion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
familiar  with  what  the  Minister  of  National 
Health  and  Welfare  said.  I  will  have  one  of 
the  ministers  deal  with  this  on  Monday.  I 
would  just  make  it  obvious  to  the  leader  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party  that  this  govern- 
ment and  this  Premier  in  particular  have 
never  been  opposed  to  either  motherhood  or 
fatherhood. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Given  that  ringing  endorse- 
ment, will  the  Premier  undertake  to  do  two 
things  on  behalf  of  the  women  of  Ontario, 
both  those  who  work  and  those  who  are  at 


home?*  First,  will  he  undertake  to  ensure 
that,  in  future,  women  who  work  will  not  be 
penalized  with  respect  to  the  benefits  under 
the  Canada  pension  plan  because  they  are 
the  ones  who  bear  children  and  may  spend 
a  certain  number  of  years  out  of  the  work 
force  caring  for  young  children,  as  was  pro- 
posed four  years  ago  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment? 

Second,  will  the  government  undertake  not 
to  block  Madame  Begin's  proposals,  but  to 
take  a  role  of  leadership  to  ensure  that  not 
only  middle  class  housewives  can  contribute 
to  and  benefit  from  the  Canada  pension  plan, 
but  that  there  is  adequate  provision  so  that 
housewives  from  families  of  modest  incomes 
will  be  able  to  benefit  from  the  CPP  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  hope  I  made  it  clear  in 
my  answer  to  the  original  question,  but  I 
will  repeat  it.  I  am  not  familiar  with  what 
the  minister  said  or  what  tentative  steps  she 
may  have  suggested.  I  said  I  would  look  at 
it.  I  v/ill  discuss  it  with  the  ministers 
responsible  for  the  policies  of  this  govern- 
ment and  I  will  have  some  observations  for 
the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  next 
Monday. 

DETERRENT  SENTENCES 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice. 
Since  many  people  in  Ontario  are  concerned 
about  the  nondeterrent  penalties  imposed  by 
judges  for  crimes  against  people  and  prop- 
erty, has  the  minister  taken  any  steps  to 
ensure  that  judges  toughen  their  stand  with 
regard  to  crimes  against  people  and  property? 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
taken  any  steps  to  advise  judges  of  that.  If 
anyone  did,  it  would  have  to  be  someone 
other  than  this  minister.  I  suspect  it  is  not 
the  role  of  the  elected  representative  or  the 
role  of  the  minister  to  direct  judges  on  how 
they  might  deal  with  cases. 

Mr.  Ruston:  I  realize  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral (Mr.  McMurtry)  does  the  appointing  of 
provincial  judges  and  the  federal  government 
appoints  the  county  court  judges.  Is  the 
minister  not  concerned  that  many  people  are 
coming  back  and  committing  these  offences 
for  the  second  and  third  time?  Previously 
they  were  either  given  probation  or  very 
minor  sentences.  Somebody  should  take  a 
little  action  on  this. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  I  can  definitely  say  the 
whole  matter  of  recidivism  is  a  sincere  con- 
cern in  the  justice  field. 


4742 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


UNIVERSITY  STUDY 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  concerning  the  composition  of 
the  university  review  study  committee  she 
announced  on  behalf  of  the  absent  Minister 
of  Colleges  and  Universities  (Miss  Stephen- 
son) this  morning.  From  the  announced  com- 
position of  that  committee,  are  we  to  assume 
the  minister  and  this  government  will  not  be 
taking  the  study  or  its  results  at  all  seriously 
and  have  only  set  up  this  review  committee 
as  a  crumb  to  the  executives  of  Ontario  uni- 
versities, whoever  they  are,  who  asked  for 
this  review,  particularly  inasmuch  as  there 
is  no  representation  from  or  chosen  by  the 
Ontario  Confederation  of  University  Faculty 
Associations  or  the  various  faculty  asso- 
ciations of  Ontario  on  this  review  committee 
and  no  student  representation  at  all  nor  rep- 
resentation from  the  university  support  staff? 
11  a.m. 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  indicated 
in  the  statement  I  read  on  behalf  of  the  minis- 
ter, these  people  were  chosen  for  their  ex- 
pertise in  the  various  fields  necessary  to  bring 
some  decisions  to  the  questions  at  hand.  I 
would  suggest  the  whole  thrust  of  the  ap- 
pointments of  these  particular  people  was 
not  to  represent  special  interest  groups,  but 
to  use  people  with  the  expertise  required  to 
bring  some  decisions  in  this  very  important 
area. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  May  I  direct  my  supplemen- 
tary to  the  Premier  because  it  is  very  clear 
from  the  statement  and  the  supplementary 
they  did  not  want  a  representative  commit- 
tee? Could  I  ask  the  Premier  why  this  gov- 
ernment has  not  constituted  a  committee  in 
the  same  way  as  the  broadly  based,  fully  rep- 
resentative way  in  which  the  secondary 
school  review  project  committee  was  struc- 
tured? That  involved,  on  every  committee, 
representatives  of  the  Ontario  Secondary 
School  Teachers'  Federation  and  its  sym- 
posium involved  the  input  of  high  school 
students  in  Ontario. 

Since  it  has  chosen  not  to  do  so,  why  has 
this  government  decided  that  the  university 
sector— with  problems  similar  to  the  secondary 
school  situation  in  declining  enrolments  and 
serious  disadvantages  with  respect  to  cut 
back  funding-is  so  much  less  important  than 
the  secondary  school  sector  by  the  very  way 
this  review  committee  has  been  constituted? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  great  respect,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  think  the  functions  of  the  two 
are  really  quite  different.  I  was  involved  in 


one  or  two  discussions  with  the  representa- 
tives of  the  presidents  of  the  universities  of 
Ontario  that  led  to  this  particular  decision  and 
the  establishment  of  this  committee. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  state  that  this  is  part- 
ly as  a  result  of  a  request  from  the  committee 
of  presidents  of  Ontario  universities.  As  I 
understand  some  of  the  discussions,  while  en- 
rolments are  obviously  a  part  of  the  concern 
with  respect  to  the  universities  at  this  mo- 
ment, what  I  think  is  of  greater  concern  is 
redefining  the  role  and  the  functions  of  the 
university  within  society  today.  It  is  not  a 
question,  as  it  was  at  the  secondary  school 
level,  of  trying  to  develop  a  policy  or  an 
approach  that  related  to  a  diminution  in 
enrolment.  Here  we  are  attempting,  through 
the  committee,  to  analyse  or  assess  and  to 
provoke  some  discussion  as  to  the  function 
or  the  role  of  the  university. 

Is  it  an  institution  that  should  be  com- 
mitted more  to  research?  Should  there  be  a 
greater  increase  in  funding  for  research? 
Those  will  be  two  of  the  questions  asked.  To 
what  extent  do  universities  conflict  with  or 
duplicate  the  role  or  the  function  of  com- 
munity colleges?  Is  there  a  growing  expecta- 
tion that  the  general  arts,  as  distinct  from  the 
liberal  arts,  are  diminishing  within  the  uni- 
versity community?  Is  there  a  growing 
emphasis,  or  should  there  be,  on  the  profes- 
sional or  practical  aspects  of  a  university 
education? 

Very  many  important  issues  are  being 
questioned  not  only  in  Ontario,  but  through- 
out North  America,  with  respect  to  the  func- 
tion and  the  role  of  the  universities  vis-a-vis 
government  and  vis-a-vis  the  private  sector 
and  society  as  a  whole.  This  is  not  a  case  of 
studying  the  secondary  school  program  rela- 
tive to  declining  enrolment.  This  is  a  differ- 
ent kind  of  study. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  faculty  of  students  had 
no  input  into  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Let  me  finish.  The 
member,  as  an  academic,  should  have  some 
modest  insight  into  this. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  You  are  into  a  philo- 
sophical dissertation  on  education  now. 

ELLIOT   LAKE   SEWAGE 
TREATMENT  PLANT 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs.  Given 
that  the  Elliot  Lake  community  has  had  dis- 
cussions with  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs  with  respect  to  the  construction  of  a 
sewage  treatment  plant  in  addition  to  a  water 
plant,   and  given  the  fact  there  has  been  a 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4743 


delay  in  the  approval  of  this  plant,  which  is 
causing  some  ill  effects  on  the  establishment 
of  some  housing  in  that  municipality  and  on 
the  environment  as  far  as  the  polluting  of  a 
number  of  lakes  is  concerned,  will  the  min- 
ister indicate  to  this  House  what  conditions 
have  to  be  approved  between  his  ministry 
and  the  municipality  and  the  mining  com- 
panies before  the  go-ahead  is  given  to  this 
project? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  par- 
ticular question  was  discussed  in  detail  with 
members  of  the  community,  with  the  mining 
company,  with  Hydro  officials  and  with 
people  from  the  various  departments  of  gov- 
ernments as  late  as  yesterday.  I  believe  my 
colleague,  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Re- 
sources Development  (Mr.  Brunelle)  made  a 
commitment  at  that  meeting  that  the  entire 
issue  would  be  reviewed  and  that  he  would 
get  back  to  them  as  quickly  as  possible. 

Mr.  Epp:  Supplementary:  In  view  of  the 
fact  there  is  an  estimated  cost  of  $22  million, 
and  in  view  of  the  fact  the  cost  is  escalating 
daily  and  the  municipality  has  suggested  it 
is  going  to  assume  about  $11  million  of  this 
cost,  can  the  minister  inform  the  House 
whether  the  ministry,  together  with  the  min- 
ing companies,  would  assume  the  additional 
costs  over  and  above  the  costs  that  the 
municipality  has  presently  assumed,  rather 
than  unload  additional  costs  on  the  munic- 
ipality of  Elliot  Lake? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  one 
of  the  issues  we  will  be  reviewing  in  detail. 
I  would  remind  the  member  that  one  of  the 
causes  and  one  of  the  urgencies  of  coming  to 
a  decision  has  been  the  federal  government's 
decision  to  refuse  any  further  application 
under  the  community  service  contribution 
program,  which  could  mean  a  loss  of  about 
$4  million  to  the  community  of  Elliot  Lake. 
If  he  has  any  influence  with  his  cousins  in 
Ottawa,  I  would  ask  him  to  get  in  touch 
with  them  and  to  encourage  that  particular 
authority  to  continue  that  assistance  to  the 
municipalities  of  this  province.  It  would  help 
us  tremendously. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  this  has 
been  ongoing  for  over  a  year  and  that  one 
of  the  problems  that  has  been  raised  in  the 
past  by  the  mining  companies  is  they  are 
awaiting  authorization  from  Ontario  Hydro 
for  up-front  money?  Is  that  correct  or  not? 
What  is  being  done  to  expedite  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  not 
at  the  meeting  yesterday  so  I  am  not  aware 
of  that  particular  issue.  I  am  sure  that  would 


be   one   of  the  areas  we  will  look  at  very 
carefully. 

DURHAM  REGIONAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARINGS 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Premier  with  regard  to  the 
report  of  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Board  on  the  proposed  Ajax  liquid  waste 
treatment  facility  that  was  released  today.  In 
that  report,  the  board  admits  it  has  varied 
the  report  prepared  by  the  panel  that  sat 
through  the  hearings  and  heard  all  the 
evidence.  Does  the  Premier  think  it  is  con- 
sistent with  our  system  of  justice  that  board 
members  who  were  not  at  the  hearing  can 
have  a  say  in  the  final  decision  that  is 
rendered  to  the  ministry,  to  this  House  and 
to  the  public? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  under- 
stand the  board's  report  came  in  at  8:30 
this  morning.  While  this  government  does 
move  expeditiously,  rapidly,  enthusiastically, 
and  always  pragmatically  and  logically,  I 
must  confess  to  the  honourable  member  I 
have  not  yet  seen  that  report  nor  discussed 
it  with  the  minister.  I  know  he  will  have  a 
reply  to  the  member's  question  on  Monday 
afternoon  at  two  o'clock. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary:  Perhaps  even 
without  having  seen  the  report,  but  with  his 
background  as  a  member  of  the  legal  pro- 
fession, the  Premier  could  comment  on  the 
issue  of  whether  or  not  board  members  who 
did  not  sit  through  the  hearings  and  who, 
therefore,  did  not  hear  all  the  evidence 
should  have  a  right  to  participate  in  the 
decisions  that  are  rendered  by  the  board? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  one  has  to  look 
at  every  situation  on  its  facts.  I  learned  some 
20  years  ago  not  to  express  any  legal  opin- 
ion, drawing  on  my  vast  experience  in  the 
practice  of  law  which  was  for  about  three 
years.  I  have  never  done  it  since  I  have  been 
a  member  in  this  House  and  I  will  not 
presume  to  do  it  this  morning. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Does  the  Premier  not  recognize  the  harm 
that  is  being  done  to  the  environmental 
assessment  process  when  his  government  has 
circumvented  it  in  the  case  of  South 
Cayuga,  while  in  the  case  of  Ajax  the  process 
has  proceeded  with  the  people  giving  testi- 
mony, the  panel  making  one  decision  and  a 
board  of  people  overturning  that  decision? 
Can  he  comment  on  the  fact  the  chairman  of 
the  panel  that  heard  the  case  has  just  re- 
signed? Does  he  consider  that  a  mere  coin- 
cidence,   or    does    he    see    it    as    a    protest 


4744 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


against  the  way  in  which  things   are  struc- 
tured under  his   government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  not 
talked  to  the  chairman  and,  as  I  say,  I  have 
not  read  the  report.  I  know  it  came  in 
around  8:30  this  morning.  I  am  sure  the 
minister  will  be  delighted  to  comment  on  it 
on  Monday  afternoon. 
11:10  a.m. 

ENVIRONMENTAL   ASSESSMENT 
OF  HYDRO   PROJECTS 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
for  the  Minister  of  Energy.  Considering  that 
many  people  in  Ontario  are  becoming  very 
uneasy  about  the  future  of  environmental 
assessment  and  the  application  of  the  Envi- 
ronmental Assessment  Act,  could  the  min- 
ister tell  us  what  the  state  of  progress  is 
regarding  construction  of  the  second  500 
kilovolt  line  necessary  to  bring  power  from 
the  Bruce  B  generating  plant  which  will  be 
coming  on  line  in  a  few  years? 

Will  the  minister  assure  this  House  that 
project  will  follow  Ontario  Hydro's  own 
new  policy  of  subjecting  all  its  projects  to 
environmental  assessment?  Will  he  assure 
us  that  practice  will  be  adhered  to  and  the 
government  will  not  exempt  this  project 
from  environmental  assessment  because  of 
the  urgency  of  time,  which  is  the  excuse 
that  has  been  used  time  and  time  again  re- 
garding these  projects? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will  be 
making  some  statements  in  connection  with 
the  matter  referred  to  by  the  honourable 
member  before  long.  Briefly,  I  can  assure 
him  there  is  no  plan  to  ask  for  an  exemp- 
tion of  that  particular  project  from  the 
process. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  I  wonder  if  the  minister- 
could  then  communicate  to  us  how  he  plans 
to  get  the  power  out  of  Bruce  B,  under- 
standing, as  the  Premier  concurred  with  a 
little  earlier  in  this  question  period,  that  the 
environmental  assessment  process  does  take 
some  time  and  that  the  first  unit  of  Bruce  B 
is  scheduled  to  come  on  line  in  1983,  I 
believe? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  This  matter  was  deferred 
to  provide  some  time  for  Arthur  Porter  and 
the  Royal  Commission  on  Electric  Power 
Planning  to  discuss  the  matter  of  power 
planning.  That  report  has  been  made  public. 
We  will  be  tabling  the  government's  re- 
sponse with  respect  to  that  report  very 
shortly.  Following  that,  there  will  be  some 
indication  as  to  the  procedures  to  be  fol- 
lowed with  respect  to  possible  and  alterna- 


tive  routes,   following   which  there  will   be 
the  whole  process. 

I  agree  with  the  honourable  member  that 
this  is  a  time-consuming  process,  but  it  is 
one  we  want  to  address  as  quickly  as  we 
can,  subject  to  providing  the  opportunity 
for  public  input  under  the  act. 

HOMES   FOR  FORMER 
PSYCHIATRIC   PATIENTS 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Health.  There  is  an 
urgent  situation  in  Parkdale  and  Dovercourt, 
where  upwards  of  1,500  psychiatric  patients 
are  currently  living  in  inadequate  boarding 
houses  without  appropriate  aftercare,  a  situa- 
tion, incidentally,  greatly  worsened  by  the 
closure  of  the  Lakeshore  Psychiatric  Hos- 
pital, a  decision  of  the  minister  which  was 
supported  by  the  Liberals. 

Will  the  minister  indicate  what  action  he 
intends  to  take  based  on  the  Metro  report 
entitled,  "Adult  Residential  Facilities,  Final 
Report  and  Recommendations,"  which  he  has 
had  since  September  6  and  which  recom- 
mends better  licensing  of  such  homes  and 
special  funding  and  programs  for  such  ex- 
psychiatric  individuals? 

Will  he,  as  a  member  of  cabinet,  take 
the  necessary  action  to  see  that  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  commits  itself  to  changing 
the  Planning  Act  in  order  that  ex-psychiatric 
patients  who  need  domiciliary  care  are 
housed  and  treated  in  the  area  of  Metro 
they  come  from? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  be- 
lieve in  the  opening  preamble  to  the  mem- 
ber's question  he  referred  to  1,500  psy- 
chiatric patients.  That  is  not  correct.  They 
are  former  patients. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  said  "ex." 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  No,  I  am  sorry,  I  am 
sure  he  meant  "ex"  or  discharged  patients. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  You  are  the  only  man  I 
know  with  marbles  in  his  ears. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  see.  The  member  is 
so  witty  on  Friday  mornings.  He  really  is. 

In  regard  to  the  last  part  of  the  question,  I 
have  taken  the  position  in  my  own  constitu- 
ency, which  embraces  two  of  the  metropoli- 
tan suburban  municipalities,  that  we  should 
have  more  enlightened  policies  in  the  suburbs 
with  respect  to  group  homes  and  with  respect 
to  being  able  to  look  after  our  own  in  the 
suburbs.  I  support  the  move  in  that  direction. 

In  regard  to  the  Metro  report,  as  I  recall, 
the  final  report  is  either  out  or  about  to  come 
out.  It  recommends  using  the  full  powers 
which  exist  under  the  Public  Health  Act  and 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4745 


the  Municipal  Act  to  license,  inspect  and 
generally  supervise  boarding  homes,  rest 
homes  and  group  homes.  I  fully  support  that. 
My  position  has  been  all  along  that  for  mem- 
bers of  the  general  public  to  supervise  these 
facilities  who  happen  to  be  former  patients 
all  the  authority  needed  rests  now  in  the 
Public  Health  Act  and  the  Municipal  Act. 
It  should  be  completely  and  fully  utilized. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Has  the  minister  seen  the  supplementary  re- 
port forwarded  by  the  Toronto  city  planning 
department  on  the  same  subject  which  sug- 
gested there  should  be  two  levels  of  boarding 
homes  established?  One  would  be  for  the  res- 
idents who  need  extra  levels  of  care  and 
one  for  just  the  regular  residents.  The  extra- 
level-of-care  homes  would  be  formally 
licensed  and  moneys  equivalent  to  the  domi- 
ciliary care  program,  which  is  $15.75  per  day, 
should  be  forwarded  as  such. 

Since  the  minister  is  committed  to  it  now, 
I  would  be  pleased  to  hear  when  he  will 
introduce  the  changes.  Will  he  ask  the  Minis- 
ter of  Housing  (Mr.  Bennett)  to  introduce  the 
changes  in  the  Housing  Act  so  that  we  can 
set  up  group  homes  all  over  Metro  and  not 
necessarily  in  the  area  of  Dovercourt  and 
Parkdale?  If  the  minister  is  committed  to  it, 
can  he  do  this  immediately? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  col- 
league the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  (Mrs.  Birch)  wrote  more  than  a 
year  ago  to  all  of  the  municipalities  urging 
them  to  reconsider  their  position  with  respect 
to  group  homes.  We  have  not  taken  the 
position  that  we  are  going  to  force  a  uniform 
policy  on  every  single  municipality.  We  do 
believe  it  is  better  to  work  with  the  municipal 
governments  and  not  to  use  a  heavy  hand  on 
them. 

Granted,  that  leads  to  a  variety  of  policies, 
some  of  which  I  am  not  entirely  happy  with. 
But  I  think  most  of  the  municipalities,  in- 
cluding the  two  I  represent,  are  giving  the 
issue  a  fair  hearing  and  are  prepared  to  move 
significantly  in  the  direction  of  the  provision 
of  services  in  their  own  municipalities  for  their 
own  people  who  happen  to  be  former  patients 
or  former  clients  in  a  variety  of  government 
institutions. 

Regarding  the  first  part  of  the  question  on 
the  supplementary  report,  I  am  not  sure  we 
are  talking  about  the  same  one.  I  will  check 
it  If  we  are  talking  about  people  who  are 
former  patients,  then  that  is  one  thing;  if  it 
concerns  people  who  are  in  need  of  continu- 
ing care,  then  we  are  probably  talking  about 
possible  changes  to  our  homes  for  special 
care  program.  As  the  member  knows,  this  is 


a  program  which  is  now  under  review  as  to 
its  future. 

ACID  RAIN 

Mr.  Eakins:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
to  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism. 
Realizing  the  importance  of  tourism  to  the 
economy  of  Ontario  and  realizing  that  the 
threat  of  acid  rain  can  greatly  affect  this 
tourism  potential,  would  the  minister  coirir 
ment  on  a  story  in  the  Toronto  Sun  of  last 
Wednesday?  I  quote: 

"Swimmers  risk  the  possibility  of  blind- 
ness in  waters  dying  from  acid  rain,  accord- 
ing to  researchers  at  the  University  of  To- 
ronto. They  found  that  dangerous  bacteria 
immune  to  antibiotics  proliferates  in  acidi- 
fied Ontario  lakes."  It  goes  on  to  say  that 
"their  findings  could  signal  the  end  of  en-- 
joyment  in  the  Muskokas  and  Haliburtons, 
which  are  favorite  recreation  areas/' 

Apparently  these  studies  were  carried  out 
in  the  Sudbury,  Muskoka  and  Haliburton 
areas.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  to 
what  extent  tourism  has  been  affected  to 
date  by  acid  rain  in  Ontario.  How  seriously 
does  the  minister  treat  this  latest  report  or 
does  he  consider  it  alarmist?  A  representa- 
tive of  Resorts  Ontario  has  been  quoted  as 
saying  that  "probably  walking  down  Univer- 
sity Avenue  in  Toronto  does  more  harm  to 
a  person  than  jumping  off  his  dock  at  a 
summer  cottage."  How  seriously  does  he  see 
this  problem?  '■' 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  In  the  longer  term, 
Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  a  very  serious  problem 
and  we  are  concerned.  I  think  this  was  re- 
flected in  Resorts  Ontario's  comment,  al- 
though I  did  not  see  their  response  itself.  I 
think  Resorts  Ontario  and  Tourism  Ontario 
and  all  those  in  the  tourist  industry  are 
expressing  some  concern  over  the  degree  or" 
understanding  of  the  present  state  of  the 
problem  in  Ontario  throughout  the  United 
States.  It  seems  that  as  the  discussion  quite 
properly  gets  to  more  prominence,  we  are 
concerned  and  obviously  Resorts  Ontario  is 
concerned  that  the  American  tourist  will 
believe  the  situation  at  the  present  time  is 
a  whole  lot  worse  than  it  is. 

The  vast  majority  of  our  lakes  are  still 
healthy,  as  healthy  as  they  ever  were,  and 
the  vast  majority  of  our  lakes  still  provide 
the  best  fishing  found  anywhere  in  the 
world.  Resorts  Ontario  and  Tourism  Ontario- 
are  quite  properly  concerned  that  as  the 
issue  reaches  greater  prominence,  as  we 
continue  to  press  the  Americans,  somehow 
they  will  develop  a  perception  that  the  situ- 
ation is  a  lot  worse  than  it  is. 


4746 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


11:20  a.m 

As  we  speak  to  the  people  in  the  industry 
and  we  reflect  upon  this  past  season,  we  see 
that  we  had  our  best  tourism  season  ever  in 
the  province.  The  resorts  in  Ontario  were 
literally  packed  last  summer  and  tourism 
from  the  United  States  was  up  again  in 
1980,  as  it  was  in  1979,  for  the  first  time 
since  1973.  All  those  would  be  indicators 
that  at  the  current  time  it  is  not  affecting 
tourism  from  our  major  American  markets 
and,  as  the  member  knows,  tourism  from 
Europe  and  Japan  is  up  about  15  to  20 
per  cent.  All  those  are  positive  indicators. 

May  I  say  as  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  I  am  more  than  satisfied,  and  in- 
deed gratified,  with  the  leadership  being 
shown  in  North  America  by  the  Ontario 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  in  solving  the 
acid  rain  problem  so  that  this  does  not  grow 
to  a  state  in  which  the  tourism  industry  is 
in  difficulty  by  1990.  They  have  to  do  that 
and  do  that  in  the  context  of  the  sometimes 
overstated  and  hysterical  views  brought  to 
this  Legislature  by  the  member  and  his 
party.  In  point  of  fact,  he  should  be  applaud- 
ing the  leadership  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  minister  is  too 
long-winded. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  If  all  jurisdictions 
were  doing  what  our  Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment (Mr.  Parrott)  is  doing,  we  would 
have  no  problem  whatsoever. 

Mr.  Eakins:  Supplementary:  Could  the 
minister  tell  us  in  dollars  how  tourism  has 
been  affected  to  date?  Could  he  tell  us 
dollarwise  just  how  this  has  been  affected  and 
what  input  he  has  from  the  areas  affected? 
Does  he  have  meetings  with  these  people? 
According  to  the  people  I  talk  to,  tourism 
has  been  affected  to  some  degree.  Could  he 
give  us  a  dollar  figure  on  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Our  tourism  deficit 
for  this  province  in  the  past  two  years  has 
been  reduced  from  about  $600  million  to  $380 
million.  Tourism  this  year  is  up  about  five  per 
cent  in  the  province  and  our  revenues  are  up 
15  per  cent.  I  speak  to  the  people  in  Muskoka, 
as  does  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller).  I 
speak  to  the  people  in  Victoria-Haliburton  and 
the  people  all  through  the  resort  areas.  I 
spent  a  lot  of  time  with  the  Northern  Ontario 
Tourist  Outfitters  this  week  and  all  of  them 
report  this  year  was  the  best  year  they  have 
ever  had. 

Mr.  Eakins:  That  was  not  the  question  I 
asked. 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  is  not  the  answer 
the  member  wanted;  that  is  what  he  means. 
If  he  sends  over  the  answer  he  wants,  I  will 
see  what  I  can  do. 

BLINDED  WORKER 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Mr.  Speaker,  would  you 
keep  the  minister  under  control?  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  The 
minister  is  aware  of  the  case  of  Terry  Ryan, 
a  23-year-old  former  employee  of  Westing- 
house  in  Hamilton,  who  was  blinded  in  an 
explosion  on  November  29,  1979.  The  United 
Electrical  Workers  and  the  Ontario  Federa- 
tion of  Labour  are  concerned  that  the  minis- 
try is  not  taking  its  enforcement  and  prosecu- 
tion responsibilities  seriously  under  Bill  70 
in  regard  to  this  case  for  two  main  reasons. 
First,  the  ministry  originally  refused  to  lay 
charges  in  the  case  and  only  changed  its  mind 
after  the  union  produced  a  detailed  45-page 
report  documenting  a  history  of  unsafe  prac- 
tices in  the  plant.  Secondly,  when  the  charges 
were  finally  laid,  they  contained  four  errors 
of  substance,  including  the  dates  of  the  acci- 
dents, which  were  only  corrected  at  the  insis- 
tence of  the  union.  Can  the  minister  explain 
how  it  is  that  the  prosecutor  in  this  case,  a 
Mr.  Jan  Dolezel  in  the  legal  services  branch, 
made  such  serious  errors  in  the  charges, 
originally  laid  on  August  13,  1980,  that  new 
ones  had  to  be  laid  on  November  17,  1980? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  have 
to  take  the  specific  issue  as  notice  and  re- 
port on  it  later,  but  on  the  general  issue,  I 
think  an  implication  is  being  made  of  some 
reluctance  to  lay  charges.  I  have  to  tell  the 
member  that  is  not  so.  He  and  I  have  talked 
about  this  in  committee  and  the  member 
reads  the  papers,  as  I  do.  He  read  yesterday 
or  the  day  before  that  one  of  the  major  com- 
panies in  this  province  claims  we  are  so 
vigorous  in  enforcing  our  legislation  that  it  is 
having  trouble  getting  people  to  accept  jobs 
as  foremen.  Let  there  be  no  doubt  that  the 
government  and  this  ministry  takes  health  and 
safety  seriously.  I  will  look  into  the  specific 
issue  and  its  details  and  report  to  the  House. 

PETITION 

WHITEDOG  RESERVE  ROAD 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  honoured 
to  present  to  you  a  petition  which  has  come 
to  me  from  the  chief  of  the  Whitedog  reserve. 
It  is  from  the  band  council  and  various  resi- 
dents on  that  reserve  and  indicates  that 
these  people  are  not  in  favour  of  the  con- 
struction of  a  certain  road  from  Redditt  to 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4747 


Sydney  Lake  and  are  supporting  their  chief 
in  doing  whatever  he  can  to  prevent  that 
from  happening.  It  is  my  honour  to  present 
this  to  the  assembly. 

SOVIET  VISITORS 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  privilege,  the  events  of  earlier  this  morn- 
ing, particularly  the  dilemma  that  it  placed 
upon  the  chair,  seemed  to  me  to  be  m 
occasion  which  is  intolerable.  We  must 
avoid  repetitions  of  this  morning  which 
placed  a  member  like  myself  and,  I  am 
sure,  other  members  in  a  position  where,  to 
express  our  concerns  and  beliefs,  we  would 
have  had  to  be  rude.  That  is  intolerable  in 
this  House.  It  placed  you  in  a  position,  sir, 
where  you  had  to  decide  between  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  your  office  and  the  sensi- 
tivities and  the  beliefs  of  many  millions  of 
Canadians.  Acknowledging  with  the  greatest 
of  respect  your  position,  that,  again,  is  in- 
tolerable to  me. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  to  face  the 
realities  of  the  situation.  What  happened  in 
the  gallery  this  morning  will  undoubtedly 
be  a  form  of  propaganda  coup  in  another 
land  by  publication  or  verbal  description 
that  none  of  us  in  this  House  will  ever 
see  or  hear.  Indeed,  what  happened  here  will 
be  very  difficult  for  individual  members  to 
explain   when   they   are   questioned. 

In  a  country  where  the  pride  of  young 
people  is  such  that  at  the  express  wish  not 
only  of  this  Legislature,  but  the  federal 
House,  they  gave  up  the  high  point  of  their 
athletic  careers  and  made  sacrifices  because 
of  a  principle,  I  believe  it  will  be  very  diffi- 
cult to  explain  to  them,  if  questioned,  why 
something  here  today  was,  unfortunately, 
treated  as  business  as  usual. 

I  do  not  believe  it  is  the  position  of 
members  of  this  House  to  play  boy  diplo- 
mat. I  am  not  naive  enough  to  believe  that 
by  being  nice  to  people  we  are  going  to 
make  them  nice  people.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
if  we  are  going  to  be  nice  to  them,  we  will 
wake  up  one  day  and  they  will  be  at  the 
doors  of  the  Legislature. 

Sir,  I  deeply  regret  you  were  put  in  the 
position  you  were  today.  I  deeply  regret  that 
the  obvious  course  for  many  members  would 
be,  unfortunately,  to  show  very  visibly  their 
feelings  by  walking  out.  I  don't  really  think 
the  people  of  Ontario,  particularly  in  regard 
to  this  institution  and  to  this  chamber,  would 
really  have  understood  that. 

By  the  same  token,  I  understand  the  posi- 
tion you  raised,  which  is  that  it  should  not 
be  left  entirely  in  your  hands  and  entirely 


at  your  discretion,  even  though  I  personally 
feel  that  you  are  more  than  capable  of 
handling  it,  as  to  just  who  is  admitted  into 
the  Speaker's  gallery.  I  would  hope  members 
of  the  House  could  communicate  to  you  that 
while,  on  the  one  hand,  the  admission  to  the 
gallery  may  be  something  that  really  must 
be  done,  on  the  other  hand,  the  introduction 
of  persons  in  that  gallery  is  surely  a  matter 
of  profound  discretion. 

It  may  be  that  the  Al  Capones  of  this 
world  have  the  right  to  sit  in  that  gallery, 
but  I  do  not  believe  that  you  should  be 
put  in  the  position  where  they  have  to  be 
introduced  before  the  House.  I  sincerely 
hope  that  members  of  this  House  will  rise 
and  be  helpful  to  you  in  allowing  you  to 
perform  the  duties  of  Speaker  of  this  assem- 
bly, as  you  do  so  well,  and  not  again  place 
you  in  what  I  regard— and  I  regret  very 
deeply— as  a  very  horrendous  position  on  a 
Friday  morning. 
11:30  a.m. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  speaking 
to  the  point  of  privilege,  I  was  the  one  who 
invited  the  Russian  people  to  visit  us  in 
the  Legislature.  I  wish  to  commend  you  on 
your  sense  of  fair  play,  in  the  fact  that  you 
did  acknowledge  their  presence  here,  in  the 
same  way  as  we  have  in  the  past  established 
as  a  practice  acknowledging  the  presence  of 
various  people  here. 

If  the  member  opposite  wishes  us  to  get 
involved  in  making  those  ideological  de- 
cisions as  to  who  is  acceptable  to  be  in  the 
gallery,  perhaps  we  should  do  it  that  way. 
I  will  be  prepared  to  fight  that  battle,  any 
time,  any  place,  on  any  ground. 

There  is  nobody  in  this  world  who  walks 
around  with  clean  hands,  I  want  you  to 
understand  that,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  want  you  to 
understand  that  in  this  world  if  we  are  going 
to  resolve  some  of  the  problems  that  plague 
us,  that  terrify  us,  and  perhaps  even  reap 
some  of  the  economic  benefits  that  under- 
standing brings  about,  we  will  have  to  talk 
to  people  like  the  Russians,  just  perhaps  as 
the  member  says  he  will  have  to  talk  to  the 
South  Africans  or  the  Fascists  from  Argen- 
tina. I  don't  mean  the  member  in  particular, 
but  we  have  had  those  people  in  the 
gallery. 

What  I  want  to  say  is  this  political  party, 
the  NDP,  has  concerns  about  Poland.  Those 
concerns  were  raised  by  my  colleague  in 
question  period  yesterday,  and  this  morning 
we  raised  the  concerns  with  the  people  who 
are  directly  responsible  and  the  people  who 
can  take  the  message  to  the  people  who 
will  be  able  to  do  something  about  it. 


4748 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  want  to  read  into  the  record  exactly  what 
we  presented  to  them:  "We,  the  undersigned 
members  of  the  provincial  parliament  of 
Ontario,  New  Democratic  Party,  do  hereby 
request  the  visiting  members  of  the  Supreme 
Soviet  to  convey  in  strongest  possible  terms 
our  indignation  at  any  possibility  of  USSR 
intervention  into  the  internal  affairs  of  Po- 
land. We  request  that  you  convey  the  follow- 
ing on  our  behalf:  Respect  the  just  demands 
of  Polish  workers  for  democratic  trade 
unions— " 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  What  about  Afghanistan? 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Perhaps  we  should  send 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  to  Poland  as 
the  Minister  of  Labour.  He  would  fit  in  very 
well  there.  To  continue,  "—to  honour  the 
obligations  under  the  Helsinki  accords;  re- 
spect the  territorial  integrity  of  Poland—" 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  would  ask  the  member  for  Brant- 
ford  to  withdraw  any  statement  concerning 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  that  particu- 
lar context,  and  to  do  so  immediately. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Further,  the  report  reads, 
Mr.  Speaker:  "Should  the  USSR  intervene  in 
Poland,  the  New  Democratic  Party  will  do 
everything  in  its  power  to  ensure  that  the 
provincial  and  federal  governments  exercise 
whatever  political,  economic,  and  other  sanc- 
tions against  the  USSR." 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  If  the  member  for  Brantford  is  go- 
ing to  persist  in  suggesting  that  somehow 
or  other  I,  as  a  member  of  this  House,  can 
be  referred  to  as  a  person  who  might  be  as- 
sociated with  a  totalitarian  regime,  I  say  to 
you  that  is  unparliamentary  behaviour  on 
his  part,  and  he  should  be  required  to  with- 
draw that  comment. 

Coming  from  him  especially,  it  is  awfully 
ironic,  as  well  as  unparliamentary,  but  it  is 
still  unparliamentary,  and  I  would  ask  you 
to  demand  that  any  reference  of  that  kind  be 
withdrawn  from  the  record  of  this  House. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  the 
right  to  an  opinion  in  this  House,  as  does  any 
member.  When  a  member  gets  up  in  this 
House  and  says  we  should  eliminate  strikes 
or  put  people  to  work,  then  perhaps  if  we 
look  at  the  situation  in  Poland  we  could  see 
the  parallels.  That  was  the  basis  of  my 
opinion. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  are  you  pre- 
pared to  rule  on  this  matter  and  to  demand 
the  member  be  brought  to  order  and  conduct 
himself  in  a  parliamentary  manner?  If  not, 
I  shall  attempt  with  the  help  of  the  assembly 


to  take  the  matter  to  the  standing  committee 
on  procedural  affairs. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

You  are  placing  the  chair  in  a  very  difficult 
position.  The  original  point  of  privilege  raised 
by  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  is  quite  knowledgeable  about  what 
v/ent  on  before  the  delegation  in  question 
was  about  to  arrive  here.  When  it  was  raised 
by  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  I  told  him 
what  little  I  knew  of  the  incident  and  said 
that  unless  I  had  some  direction  from  the 
House,  I  would  simply  introduce  the  leader 
of  the  delegation  and  the  House  could  do 
what  it  wished. 

They  did  arrive  and  it  was  made  quite 
clear  by  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  they  were 
not  here  at  the  invitation  of  the  government. 
I  made  it  clear  to  the  assembly,  in  advance  of 
that,  that  they  were  not  here  as  guests  of 
the  assembly  or  of  the  Speaker. 

Now  the  minister  has  arisen  and  said  the 
House  should  give  me  some  direction  as  to 
how  T  should  be  governed  when  certain 
groups  visit  this  assembly.  The  member  for 
Brantford  has  suggested  there  should  be  an 
onen  policy  and  any  member  should  have 
the  right  to  invite  a  delegation  of  whatever 
sort  or  variety. 

I  am  not  in  a  position  to  indicate  or  to 
anticipate  how  the  House  might  wish  to 
handle  situations  of  this  kind.  T  am  not 
Solomon  and,  in  the  absence  of  any  direction 
from  the  House,  I  suppose  I  am  going  to 
have  to  be  selective.  I  do  not  know  that 
anvbody  wants  to  be  in  that  position. 

With  regard  to  the  immediate  problem, 
when  the  member  for  Brantford  suggests  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  go  to  Poland  and 
become  Minister  of  Labour,  I  think  that  is 
something  that  is  uncalled  for  and,  in  keep- 
ing with  the  sense  of  fair  play  he  is  speaking 
of  in  giving  equal  time  to  visiting  people,  I 
would  ask  him  to  withdraw  that  comment. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  with- 
draw that  remark.  I  sort  of  wonder  if  they 
would  accept  him. 

However,  I  want  to  point  out  to  the 
House  that  in  the  statement  I  have  just  read, 
we  were  the  only  political  party  to  come  out 
with  a  statement  on  the  Polish  matter  and 
the  concern  about  the  workers  in  Poland. 
The  others  have  not.  We  also  took  the 
message  to  the  people  who  can  directly 
transmit  that  message  to  the  people  in  power 
in  the  Soviet  Union. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  You  have  had  some  com- 
ments on  Afghanistan,  haven't  you? 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4749 


Mr.  Makarchuk:  I  will  discuss  Afghanistan 
with  the  honourable  member. 

I  want  to  conclude  that  if  we  are  going  to 
draw  guidelines,  then  we  will  live  with  the 
guidelines.  I  am  prepared  to  live  with  them, 
but  I  feel  you  are  going  to  find  it  a  difficult 
process  to  say  who  can,  or  who  cannot.  I 
think  the  understanding  is  that  an  elected 
member  of  whatever  parliament  has  some 
right  to  be  introduced  here.  I  am  not  sure 
exactly  where  you  draw  the  line  and  I  am 
prepared,  and  I  am  sure  other  members  of 
the  House  are  prepared,  to  make  your  life  a 
lot  easier. 

However,  if  we  want  to  go  into  decisions, 
T  am  sure  the  people  selected  as  suitable  for 
the  galleries  over  there  or  over  here  probably 
would  not  be  suitable  for  me  and  vice  versa. 
Therefore,  in  order  not  to  have  that  difficulty, 
I  suggest  we  continue  the  same  policy. 

11:40  a.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  general 
point,  it  does  seem  to  me  this  places  you  in 
a  very  difficult  position,  as  the  minister  has 
suggested.  I  think  there  would  obviously  be 
certain  persons  whom  no  one  would  wish  to 
have  recognized  as  being  in  our  galleries  and 
certain  others  who,  although  we  might  accept 
that  they  be  recognized  as  being  there,  we 
would  not  wish  to  have  welcomed  in  the 
sense  of  putting  it  on  the  record  that  we 
welcome  them.  If  I  remember  correctly,  that 
may  have  happened  here  today. 

I  recognize  the  difficulty  of  your  position, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  suspect  there  are  some 
persons  we  would  all  immediately  agree 
should  not  be  allowed  here  and  others  where 
there  might  be  some  difference  of  opinion, 
depending  on  the  extent  to  which  our  country 
recognizes  their  countries  and  that  sort  of 
thmg. 

T  would  think  perhaps  we  need  a  pro- 
cedure for  these  matters.  When  he  is  in  some 
doubt,  the  Speaker,  in  his  wisdom,  might 
consider  the  possibility  of  consulting  with 
the  three  House  leaders  and  rceiving  advice 
that  he,  in  his  own  position,  would  either 
take  or  not  take.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  the 
Speaker  should  feel  free  to  ask  for  that  kind 
of  advice  from  the  three  House  leaders  when 
it  is  a  ticklish  matter  or  when  he  is  not  too 
sure  whether  the  House  would  like  to  have 
those  people  here  or  not. 

In  general,  I  think  our  galleries  ought  to 
be  open.  That  is  a  general  matter.  I  feel  the 
Speaker  has  the  right  to  say,  "I  draw  your 
attention  to  the  presence  in  the  gallery  of 
a  certain  person."  I  am  not  sure  I  would  like 
to  hear  the  words,  "I  want  you  to  welcome 


a  certain  person"  because  that  does  have 
certain  other  connotations.  I  for  one  feel  there 
are  certain  people  I  would  not  even  want  to 
recognize  as  being  here,  because  I  would 
not  even  want  to  be  in  the  same  room  with 
them.  On  the  other  hand,  I  do  not  wish  to  be 
sent  out  of  my  own  House  because  of  their 
presence. 

I  would  think  this  is  not  something  that  is 
subject  to  a  black  and  white,  yes  or  no  an- 
swer, but  something  where  you  need  a  proc- 
ess to  assist  you  in  certain  borderline  situa- 
tions. I  do  not  know  if  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  would 
agree  With  that.  I  would  be  interested  in  the 
minister's  view.  I  think  it  might  be  reason- 
able for  the  Speaker  to  have  some  ability  to 
consult  in  these  ticklish  situations.  That  is  just 
a  suggestion  I  would  make  to  you,  sir. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  there 
is  great  merit,  now  that  this  event  has  oc- 
curred, in  considering  the  remarks  that  have 
been  made  by  my  colleague  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  and 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  to  see  if  there 
is  some  way  others  in  this  House  might  assist 
you  in  the  development  of  a  policy.  I  am  sure 
we  will  put  our  minds  to  it  because  the 
problem  that  has  come  up  today  is  one  we 
would  all  like  to  avoid. 

On  a  point  of  personal  privilege,  I  would 
like  to  draw  to  the  attention  of  the  member 
for  Brantford— and  I  would  be  happy  to 
check  Hansard— that  I  believe  I  put  our 
position  very  clearly  yesterday  in  so  far  as  any 
Russian  involvement  in  Poland  was  con- 
cerned. For  him  to  say  that  his  is  the  only 
party  that  has  made  any  statement,  I  would 
only  say  that  in  answer  to  the  question  I  in- 
dicated very  clearly  that  we  would  certainly 
view  any  involvement  with  great  alarm,  and 
felt  that  through  all  proper  channels  of  the 
Department  of  External  Affairs,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  USSR  should  be  made  aware  of 
our  feelings.  I  think  I  also  reiterated  the 
things  we  and  the  Premier  had  said  and  done 
in  regard  to  Afghanistan. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  could  continue  with  this 
indefinitely. 

Mr.  Dukszta:  I  would  like  to  speak  on  a 
further  point  of  privilege  and  my  own  point 
of  privilege. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  it  related  to  this? 

Mr.  Dukszta:  Very  much  related  to  this, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

The  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  brought  up  the  question  of  who 
comes  to  our  gallery  and  it  is  of  some  im- 
portance. We  do  relate  to  a  number  of  coun- 


4750 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tries  with  whom  we  have  major  disagree- 
ments. There  is  a  value  in  having  a  contact 
with  the  USSR  in  terms  of  what  we  can  do 
to  affect  them. 

I  am  an  ordinary  member  here,  but  I  am 
Polish-Canadian.  I  am  concerned  about  what 
is  going  on  in  Poland  and  I  do  not  see  any 
other  way  of  dealing  with  it  except  directly 
with  people  who  are  threatening  my  country 
of  origin. 

In  the  last  10  years,  I  have  had  intense 
contact  with  a  number  of  people  from  the 
opposite  side  in  connection  with  certain  things 
I  have  done.  I  attempted  to  call  the  Serbsky 
Institute  six  years  ago  on  behalf  of  Leonid 
Pluysch  before  he  left,  the  Mr.  Pluysch  whom 
we  welcomed  once  here  in  the  Legislature.  I 
did  not  get  through  to  the  Serbsky  Institute, 
which  is  a  forensic  institute  in  which  political 
dissidents  are  treated. 

I  was  the  chairman  of  the  Chapter  77 
Committee  which  sent  lawyers  to  the  trials  in 
Prague  and  collected  money  in  an  attempt 
to  influence  directly  the  Czechslovakian 
authorities  on  behalf  of  the  people  who  signed 
Chapter  77.  With  Mr.  Rotenberg  I  attended 
a  vigil  for  the  Jews  in  Russia  in  an  attempt  to 
affect— Mr.  Speaker,  forgive  me,  but  it  is  an 
important  way  of  showing  that  only  by  direct 
contact  with  the  people  in  power,  with  whom 
this  country  has  official  relations,  can  we 
affect  and  give  our  opinions  and  change  their 
points  of  visw  so  they  do  not  attack  Poland 
and  other  places. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member  has 
made  his  point. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  We  don't  have  relations  with 
Latvia,  Jan. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  I  will  be  very  brief.  I  just  want  to  say 
this:  At  the  present  time,  Canada  has  normal 
diplomatic  relations  with  the  Soviet  Union 
despite  very  grave  disagreements  by  this 
country  with  the  actions  of  the  Soviet  Union 
in  Afghanistan  and  fears  of  what  might  hap- 
pen in  Poland. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  in  this  province 
should  not  be  seeking  to  conduct  an  inde- 
pendent foreign  policy.  When  the  govern- 
ment of  Quebec  did  that  in  relation  to 
francophone  nations  a  few  years  ago,  it 
created  enormous  difficulties  for  all  of  us  in 
all  the  provinces  in  Canada.  It  seems  to  me 
that  if  the  leader  of  the  official  opposition  be- 
lieves that  representatives  of  a  country  with 
whom  we  have  normal  diplomatic  relations 
should  not  be  recognized,  he  should  be  urg- 
ing  the   Liberal    government   of  Canada   to 


withdraw  recognition  from  the  Soviet  Union. 
That  is  obviously  preposterous  and  the  pro- 
posal is  too. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a 
point  of  privilege:  My  name  was  mentioned 
by  the  member  for  Parkdale.  He  tried  to 
associate  me  with  his  point  of  view  because 
he  and  I  did  attend  the  same  demonstration. 
That  was  a  demonstration  which  had  con- 
tact with  and  recognition  of  the  authorities 
in  the  USSR,  but  it  was  a  demonstration 
against  those  authorities. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  just  want  to  remind  mem- 
bers, particularly  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion, who  raised  it  initially  this  morning,  that 
he  raised  it  on  the  basis  of  an  invitation,  as  I 
recall.  I  was  not  aware  of  it  until  the  hon- 
ourable member  raised  it. 

I  apprised  the  House  of  what  information 
I  had:  that  my  office  had  had  a  request  to 
provide  five  seats  in  the  gallery,  which  we 
had  agreed  to;  that  I  did  have  the  name  of 
the  leader  of  the  delegation,  and  that  unless 
I  had  some  direction  to  the  contrary  from  the 
House,  I  would  simply  recognize  their  pres- 
ence in  the  gallery  and  name  the  leader  of 
the  delegation.  I  heard  quite  distinctly  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  say,  "That  is  not 
at  question."  So  he  had  full  knowledge  of 
what  I  was  going  to  do  this  morning,  which 
I  said  I  was  going  to  do  unless  I  had  some 
direction  from  the  House. 

Obviously  in  view  of  what  has  been  said 
since  then,  I  need  some  further  direction, 
but  I  want  to  draw  to  the  attention  of  the 
House  the  select  committee  on  the  fourth 
and  fifth  reports  of  the  Ontario  Commission 
on  the  Legislature  where  the  recommenda- 
tion concerning  the  introduction  of  visitors 
is  as  follows:  "The  committee  recommends, 
in  keeping  with  the  recommendation  on  page 
79  of  the  fourth  report,  that  no  announce- 
ments of  visitors  in  the  gallery  in  the  Legis- 
lature be  made,  with  the  exception  of  heads 
of  state,  their  representatives  or  distinguished 
parliamentary  guests,  as  Mr.  Speaker  may 
decide,  and  such  introduction  should  be 
made  by  Mr.  Speaker." 

Other  than  that  I  have  nothing  else  to  go 
on,  but  in  view  of  the  strongly  held  convic- 
tions about  this  particular  item,  which  gives 
us  some  concern  and  is  going  to  give  us  more 
concern  as  time  goes  on,  because  there  are 
a  lot  of  single-party  states  even  within  the 
Commonwealth  Parliamentary  Association,  I 
would  welcome  any  advice.  If  the  honour- 
able members  want  to  refer  it  to  a  standing 
committee  of  this  House,  I  would  be  more 
than  happy  to  be  directed  by  whatever  they 
see  fit. 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4751 


In  the  absence  of  any  direction,  I  will  go 
on  as  I  have  tried  to  do  in  the  past,  the  same 
way  as  my  predecessors  have  tried  to  do. 
But  in  view  of  what  has  been  said  here  to- 
day, if  there  are  any  strongly  held  convic- 
tions, I  am  the  servant  of  the  House  and  I 
will  take  whatever  advice  is  given  to  me  by 
the  majority. 
11:50  a.m. 

REPORTS 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE 

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

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bill  with  certain  amendments: 

Bill  118,  An  Act  respecting  the  Registered 
Insurance    Brokers    of   Ontario. 

Report  adopted. 

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

Ordered  for  committee  of  the  whole  House. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILL 

CITY  OF  ORILLIA  ACT 

Mr.  Rowe,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith, 
moved  first  reading  of  Bill  Pr52,  An  Act 
respecting  the  City  of  Orillia. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS  ON  NOTICE 
PAPER  AND  RESPONSE  TO  PETITION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the  response  to  a  petition  presented  to 
the  House,  sessional  paper  297.  Also,  I  wish 
to  table  the  answers  to  questions  239,  343, 
375  and  399  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper. 
(See  appendix,  page  4762.) 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  supply. 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF 

GOVERNMENT  SERVICES 

(concluded) 

On  vote  502,  provision  of  accommodation 
program: 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  want  to  raise,  under  this 
vote,  questions  with  respect  to  the  court- 
house and  the  progress  of  the  courthouse 
project  on  Cartier  Square  in  the  great  riding 
of  Ottawa  Centre,  about  which  the  minister 


and  I  have  already  had  a  fair  amount  of 
communication. 

I  think  the  minister  will  be  aware  that, 
had  we  had  this  discussion  a  few  months 
ago,  it  might  have  been  rather  heated,  but 
over  the  course  of  the  last  11  months  a 
number  of  decisions  have  been  made  which 
have  been  welcomed  by  the  community  in 
the  process  of  planning  for  a  courthouse 
which  will  be  acknowledged  as  a  fine  build- 
ing and  a  fine  symbol  for  Ontario.  Also,  the 
worthwhile  contribution  to  the  urban  en- 
vironment in  that  area  of  Ottawa  has  been 
substantial. 

I  spoke  at  some  length  in  the  Premier's 
(Mr.  Davis)  estimates  about  the  bungling 
that  took  place  with  respect  to  the  planning 
of  the  courthouse  project  prior  to  a  year 
ago.  As  the  minister  knows,  the  Premier 
made  his  announcement  just  over  a  year  ago 
that  the  courthouse  would  be  built  and 
would  go  into  Cartier  Square.  At  that  time, 
there  had  been  no  effort  to  involve  the  city 
of  Ottawa,  the  citizens  of  Ottawa  or  the 
people  who  would  use  the  courthouse  with 
the  exception  of  the  legal  fraternity  and  the 
judges.  That  was  wrong.  The  government 
has  found  out  it  was  wrong,  has  had  to 
backtrack  and  has  had  to  put  the  whole 
procedure  on  a  better  basis  largely  because 
of  the  contribution  made  by  those  groups  in 
Ottawa  that  I  mentioned. 

Among  other  things,  we  now  have  a  much 
better  site  for  the  courthouse  because  the 
early  decision  to  put  it  cheek  by  jowl  with 
the  United  States  embassy  has  been  rescind- 
ed. A  larger  site  has  been  found.  It  is  now 
possible  for  architects  to  look  at  a  better 
kind  of  building.  What  before  would  have 
looked  like  an  enormous  filing  cabinet  for 
justice  in  the  middle  of  the  block  of  Cartier 
Square  facing  Elgin  Street  now  has  some 
potential  to  be  an  adequate  and  attractive 
building. 

The  minister  is  aware,  however,  there  are 
still  concerns  in  the  area  over  the  plan. 
There  are  still  difficulties,  not  entirely  of  the 
government's  creation,  with  respect  to  the 
way  that  courthouse  fits  into  the  entire 
Cartier  Square  complex  because  of  the  failure 
of  the  National  Capital  Commission  over 
many  years  to  make  adequate  plans  for  the 
future  use  of  Cartier  Square  after  the  tem- 
porary defence  buildings   were  taken  down. 

Some  of  the  problems  that  exist  are  not  of 
this  minister's  or  this  government's  making. 
Some  of  the  problems  relate  to  the  lack  of 
resolution  by  the  federal  government  about 
what  it  wants  to  do  with  the  rest  of  the 
square. 


4752 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


When  we  met  about  a  month  ago— the  min- 
ister was  there— with  the  National  Capital 
Commission  and  all  the  other  government 
agencies  involved,  they  made  it  quite  clear 
they  did  not  know  what  they  intended  to  do, 
but  they  wanted  some  600,000  or  900,000 
square  feet  of  federal  government  buildings 
to  go  in  the  area  immediately  behind  the 
teachers'  college  and  the  proposed  courthouse. 

Frankly,  I  think  that  federal  proposal  is  a 
disaster.  I  am  thinking  with  increasing 
strength  that  what  we  should  be  doing— and 
I  hope  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recre- 
ation (Mr.  Baetz)  might  join  with  this  min- 
ister and  others  in  supporting  it— would  be 
to  urge  strongly  that  the  remainder  of 
Cartier  Square  between  the  armouries  and  the 
courthouse  be  used  as  the  new  home  of  the 
National  Gallery  of  Canada.  It  is  an  excel- 
lent site.  It  has  a  high  degree  of  people 
traffic.  It  is  a  site  that  would  be  accessible 
to  people  from  across  Ottawa-Carleton.  It 
"eems  to  me  it  would  do  the  country,  the 
province  and  the  city  proud  to  have  that 
particular  facility  in  that  place. 

I  want  to  raise  two  things  with  the  min- 
ister. I  would  like  him  now  to  give  publicly 
in  the  House  an  indication  of  how  he  and 
the  government  see  the  planning  procedure 
now  going  forward  with  respect  to  the  court- 
house. I  would  like  him  to  make  some  under- 
takings about  the  uses  to  which  the  public 
areas  in  the  courthouse  will  be  devoted. 

We  have  two  options.  We  can  have  a 
courthouse  that  dispenses  justice  and  does 
nothing  else.  If  the  courthouse  does  onlv 
that,  it  is  not  going  to  be  the  kind  of  build- 
ing that  95  per  cent  of  the  population  of 
Ottawa-Carleton  see  as  being  particularlv  im- 
portant to  their  lives.  It  will  be  a  handsome 
white  elephant  on  one  of  the  most  prominent 
sites  in  downtown  Ottawa. 

We  have  another  option.  There  are  the 
straight  judicial  facilities,  the  courts,  the 
nlaces  for  the  crown  prosecutors  and  judges, 
the  lockups  for  prisoners  and  those  kinds  of 
things  and  the  family  court  facilities  if  they 
go  there.  In  addition  to  those,  the  concourse 
area  and  other  contiguous  or  nearby  areas 
can.  be  used  for  a  wide  range  of  public 
services  that  come  loosely  under  the  heading 
of  justice  for  Ontario  and,  in  certain  cases, 
might  even  be  used  for  provincial  services 
that  ought  to  be  accessible  in  a  downtown 
location. 

Let  me  give  some  examples.  I  have  com- 
municated these  on  many  occasions  to  the 
minister  and  the  Premier,  and  in  letters  to 
a  number  of  other  ministers  of  the  crown.  I 
am  afraid  the  answers  I  have  got  have  until 


now  not  been  satisfactory.  I  am  speaking  in 
this  regard  not  just  with  respect  to  the 
people  of  Ottawa  Centre,  but  for  all  of  the 
Ottawa  area.  It  is  appropriate  to  have  a 
justice  building  which  they  see  as  serving 
all  their  needs. 

As  a  provincial  legislator  and  representa- 
tive of  the  area  for  several  years,  I  think  it  is 
important  as  well  that  this  province  recognize 
that  Ontario's  contribution  to  the  quality  of 
life  in  Ottawa  is  often  ignored  in  Ottawa. 
People  look  to  the  federal  government.  They 
look  to  the  municipal  government,  to  what 
is  happening  at  the  regional  and  city  of  Ot- 
tawa level.  The  provincial  level,  despite  its 
importance  for  people's  lives,  often  gets  third 
place  or  is  totally  ignored. 

One  way  of  turning  that  around  is  to  have 
a  provincial  presence.  We  have  an  outstand- 
ing opportunity  with  the  courthouse  building. 
That  is  why  the  design  of  the  courthouse 
was  important.  That  is  why  it  was  important 
not  to  have  something  taken  out  of  some 
filing  cabinet.  That  is  why  we  want  the  best 
building  we  can  get. 

There  is  a  wide  range  of  provincial  func- 
tions scattered  across  the  city  that  could 
be  located  in  the  courthouse  building.  I 
think  of  the  landlord  and  tenant  function.  I 
think  of  the  rent  review  tribunal,  the  provin- 
cial agency.  I  think  of  the  small  claims 
courts;  I  have  not  had  a  guarantee  those 
small  claims  courts  will  be  located  in  the 
new  justice  buildincr. 
12  noon 

I  think  of  the  offices  of  legal  aid,  not  just 
the  duty  counsel  office,  which  will  be  a  little 
hole  in  the  wall,  but  the  place  to  go  in 
order  to  talk  about  legal  aid.  I  think  of  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, in  so  far  as  it  respects  consumer  pro- 
tection, as  a  judicial  function  as  well.  People 
have  a  right  to  expect  to  be  dealt  with  justly 
in  the  marketplace.  It  seems  appropriate 
that  when  they  look  for  that  justice  they 
should  be  able  to  find  it  in  the  courthouse, 
in  the  palace  of  justice,  in  the  justice  build- 
ing of  the  province  of  Ontario. 

I  have  made  a  number  of  other  sug- 
gestions like  that.  The  various  quasi-judicial 
and  administrative  tribunals  of  the  province 
should,  as  a  matter  of  course,  meet  in  the 
courthouse  building  and  there  should  be 
at  least  some  information  facility  there  which 
can  tell  people  about  their  rights,  for  ex- 
ample, to  appeal  to  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services.  These  are  a  few 
of  the  suggestions  that  I  think  should  be 
very  seriously  adopted. 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4753 


I  believe  as  well  that  the  building  is 
going  to  be  the  most  tangible  symbol  of  the 
Ontario  provincial  government  in  downtown 
Ottawa,  and  it  will  be  there  for  the  next 
50  years,  just  as  the  present  courthouse 
facilities  and  provincial  jail— the  old  Nicholas 
Street  Jail— are  the  most  tangible  evidence 
of  Ontario's  presence  and  have  been  there 
for  the  last  50  years. 

I  think  it  is  time  that  there  was  a  place 
in  downtown  Ottawa  where  it  was  possible 
for  people  to  be  informed  about  provincial 
activities,  to  get  information  about  Ontario 
programs  and  what  they  mean  to  those 
individuals  and  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
see  exhibitions,  displays  and  that  kind  of 
thing  from  time  to  time  about  the  activities 
of  the  government  of  Ontario.  I  think  all  of 
that  needs  to  be  put  in  one  place. 

They  need  to  have  access  to  the  publica- 
tions of  the  province— access  to  Hansard, 
access  to  the  papers  of  this  Legislature, 
access  to  all  of  the  documents,  books,  reports 
and  so  on  which  are  freely  available  for 
people  in  Toronto  if  they  simply  slip  down 
to  Bay  Street  to  the  offices  of  the  government 
printer. 

Ottawa  is  the  second  largest  city  in  the 
province.  Unlike  Hamilton,  which  is  the 
third  largest,  Ottawa  is  not  a  short  hour's 
drive  away  from  the  Bay  Street  information 
facilities.  It  is  a  long  way.  There  is  a  psycho- 
logical distance  between  eastern  Ontario 
and  here,  as  the  minister  representing  Lan- 
ark county  (Mr.  Wiseman)  is  certainly  well 
aware.  One  way  to  bridge  that  would  be 
to  ensure  that  when  the  people  go  into  the 
courthouse  because  they  have  other  business 
they  would  find  that  there  was  information 
about  what  the  government  was  doing,  and 
when  people  involved  with  the  law— who 
obviously  have  a  need  which  is  greater  than 
most  people  for  access  to  government  in- 
formation—go in  there,  they  can  get  that 
information.  When  citizens  want  to  know 
what  is  happening,  they  should  have  a  place 
in  a  convenient  downtown  location  to  get 
that  information  in  a  building  which  says 
"This  is  a  provincial  building." 

I  noticed  that  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman)  has  just  established 
a  tourist  bureau  in  the  Eaton  Centre.  Why 
could  something  similar  not  be  part  of  an  in- 
formation centre  in  the  courthouse?  It  is  close 
to  high  traffic  areas  in  downtown  Ottawa  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  information  about  how 
to  enjoy  holidays  in  Ontario  could  also  be 
there. 

I  have  to  say  that  I  am  a  bit  distressed  at 
the    fact    that    when    I    have    communicated 


these  suggestions  to  the  minister,  he  has  said, 
"I  am  just  responsible  for  the  provision  of 
accommodation.  If  those  ministries  want  to 
do  something  like  that,  that  is  up  to  them  but 
I  am  going  to  wait  until  I  hear  from  them." 
When  I  talk  to  the  individual  ministers,  they 
say,  "If  the  Minister  of  Government  Services 
wants  to  expand  the  courthouse  to  do  that 
for  us,  we  will  certainly  have  a  look  at  it 
but  we  do  not  have  a  new  budget  at  this 
time."  When  I  raise  it  with  the  Premier,  he 
seems  to  take  the  attitude,  "Some  project  up 
in  Ottawa,  265  miles  away,  is  not  of  any 
particular  interest  to  me,  so  I  will  let  the 
boys  handle  it.  I  am  not  going  to  get  per- 
sonally involved." 

Somebody  has  to  take  leadership.  It  seems 
to  me  that  as  a  minister  from  eastern  On- 
tario, this  Minister  of  Government  Services 
is  in  the  position  to  do  so,  since  he  is  also 
the  responsible  minister  for  the  courthouse. 
If  it  is  not  he,  then  he  should  talk  to  his  col- 
leagues the  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Ben- 
nett) or  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recrea- 
tion and  suggest  that  one  of  the  three  of 
them  take  this  ball  and  start  to  run  with  it; 
take  it  to  cabinet  and  get  cabinet  endorse- 
ment even  if  it  costs  $500,000  or  whatever 
it  costs.  It  is  not  a  large  sum  of  money,  it  is 
not  a  great  deal  of  floor  space  in  the  pro- 
posed building,  so  that  it  should  be  possible 
to  bring  in  all  the  quasi-judicial  functions  of 
the  various  ministries. 

It  should  be  possible  to  have  there  an  in- 
formation centre  where  you  can  go  and  get 
information,  the  same  way  you  can  come  to 
the  Queen's  Park  complex  and  talk  to  the 
citizens'  information  branch  here,  which 
comes  under  the  Minister  of  Culture  and 
Recreation.  It  should  be  possible  for  there 
to  be  a  display  area  that  can  show  displays 
about  the  work  of  the  province  of  Ontario. 

People  will  say,  "That's  propaganda  for 
the  Tory  government."  I  would  hope  it  might 
become  propaganda  for  a  government,  which- 
ever political  stripe  it  happened  to  hold.  In 
fact,  it  is  information  about  what  Ontario  is 
doing  and  there  are  times  when  we  should 
not  simply  see  that  as  being  for  one  party; 
it  is  for  a  provincial  government  which  does 
a  damned  important  job  in  Ottawa  and  all 
across  the  province. 

I  would  like  the  minister  to  respond  to 
these  concerns  because  there  is  time  before 
the  planning  for  that  project  gets  too  far  ad- 
vanced for  the  ministry  to  make  a  definite 
declaration  of  principle  and  then  to  imple- 
ment that.  I  have  talked  with  the  architects 
who  were  involved  with  this,  Mike  Kohler 
and  the  other  people,  Harry  Ala-Kantti.  They 


4754 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


are  clearly  very  sympathetic  and1  would  like 
to  have  that  leadership  coming  from  the 
province  and  would  be  very  happy  to  design 
that  in  the  same  way  as  they  are  trying  to 
design  a  building  which  will  be  compatible 
with  the  neighbouring  buildings,  will  work 
with  the  neighbouring  buildings,  will  say  to 
people  in  the  area  that  justice  is  not  some- 
thing that  is  confined  only  to  the  elite.  This 
is  a  building  which  is  accessible  to  all  of  the 
community. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
other  night  we  touched  briefly  on  the  Ottawa 
courthouse  but  I  don't  mind  going  over  it 
again.  I  think  the  honourable  member  may 
have  been  elsewhere.  The  member  has  sat  in 
on  most  of  the  meetings  we  have  had  with  the 
National  Capital  Commission,  the  planners 
for  the  city,  the  mayor,  the  citizens'  com- 
mittee, members  of  the  school  board  as  it  af- 
fects Lisgar  Collegiate,  and  the  member  for 
the  area,  who  happens  to  be  the  member  for 
Ottawa  Centre. 

We  have  had  many  meetings  on  this  topic, 
and,  as  the  member  knows,  no  one  is  rushing 
into  any  particular  building  on  this  site.  Prob- 
ably this  building  will  be  under  more  scru- 
tiny than  any  other  building  that  I  have  been 
associated  with  since  I  have  been  Minister 
of  Government  Services  because  of  the  re- 
sponsibility that  the  National  Capital  Com- 
mission has  for  planning  that  area  of  Cartier 
Square  surrounding  the  capital  buildings  in 
Ottawa. 

We  started  off  with  one  site,  the  site  along 
Elgin,  closest  to  the  teachers'  college.  When 
the  United  States  decided  it  was  going  to 
locate  its  embassy  some  place  other  than 
Cartier  Square,  the  restrictions  put  upon  us 
by  the  National  Capital  Commission,  the 
citizens'  committee,  the  mayor  and  her  plan- 
ners suggested  that  as  you  come  down  Elgin 
Street,  two  thirds  of  the  teachers'  college  be 
visible.  We  had  to  change  the  shape  of  the 
building  or  its  location  on  the  lot  and  look 
into  the  possibility  of  buying  additional  land, 
which  was  at  that  time  going  to  be  used  for 
the  US  embassy. 

Not  only  did  we  have  to  locate  the  build- 
ing on  the  lot  and  show  two  thirds  of  the 
teachers'  college  as  you  come  down  Elgin, 
as  I  mentioned,  but  we  also  had  a  restriction 
from  the  National  Capital  Commission  that  it 
wanted  the  building  located  on  the  lot  in 
such  a  way  that  you  could  stand  in  the  middle 
of  Cartier  Square  and  be  able  to  see  the  Peace 
Tower.  That  meant  we  had  to  put  the  build- 
ing on  quite  an  angle. 
12:10  p.m. 


As  well,  we  were  asked,  and  it  is  not 
finalized  yet,  to  stay  back  from  Laurier  Street 
because  at  some  point  in  the  future  they 
may  want  to  widen  Laurier  Street.  I  think 
there  is  the  possibility  of  a  one-way  street 
there  in  the  future.  We  should  keep  in  mind 
that  is  a  parade  route  along  there,  coming 
from  the  armouries  up  to  the  Parliament 
Buildings  in  Ottawa  for  the  changing  of  the 
guard  and  so  on. 

We  also  were  given  a  directive  that  they 
wanted  as  much  open  public  space  around 
the  building  as  possible.  We  were  told  it 
just  would  not  look  right  if  we  used  up  every 
bit  of  our  lot,  because  right  opposite  it,  across 
the  street,  is  a  park.  There  was  some  concern 
about  that,  so  we  tried  to  address  that  prob- 
lem. As  the  honourable  member  knows,  we 
also  had  a  restriction  as  to  height;  we  could 
not  go  over  85  feet.  I  am  setting  this  back- 
ground because  we  were  trying  to  look  into 
the  possibilities  of  further  public  space  in  the 
building,  keeping  in  mind  the  height  re- 
strictions and  so  on. 

We  do  have  a  responsibility  for  the  At- 
torney General  and  for  the  registry  office.  That 
is  really  why  we  are  building  the  building. 
But  we  have  given  a  commitment  that  we  will 
look  into  the  possibility  of  other  uses,  some 
of  the  uses  the  honourable  member  has  men- 
tioned and  others.  My  staff  are  in  touch  with 
the  ministries  involved  and  we  are  waiting  to 
get  word  back  as  to  whether  or  not  they  are 
interested  in  it. 

I  just  ask  the  honourable  members  to  keep 
in  mind  that  our  space  is  limited.  If  all  the 
ministries  came  back  and  said  they  were 
interested  in  doing  some  of  the  things  the 
honourable  member  has  suggested,  We  prob- 
ably would  not  be  able  to  do  it  on  the  site 
unless  we  got  full  co-operation  from  the  city. 
At  the  present  time  we  are  above  the  guide- 
lines laid  out  by  the  city.  They  are  going  to 
have  to  waive  those,  in  any  event,  with  what 
we  are  proposing  at  the  present  time. 

One  area  the  honourable  member  men- 
tioned was  the  tourist  information  centre.  At 
the  time  that  was  talked  about,  I  don't  think 
we  knew  we  were  going  to  have  a  conven- 
tion centre  in  Ottawa.  I  don't  know  what 
will  come  back  from  the  Minister  of  Industry 
and  Tourism,  Tbut  perhaps  that  would  be 
something  that  would  be  better  located— I 
think  the  honourable  member  would  probably 
agree— in  the  convention  centre,  a  place 
where  perhaps  even  more  people  would  make 
use  of  it.  But  we  are  working  along  and  I 
think   everything  is  working  out  quite  well. 

I  believe  I  mentioned  last  Monday  night 
during   our    estimates   that   we   will   have    a 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4755 


model  some  time  early  in  the  new  year.  Then 
we  can  show  the  citizens,  the  mayor,  the 
National  Capital  Commission  and  all  people 
at  that  time  what  we  have  in  mind,  what  the 
building  will  look  like  from  the  outside,  how 
it  will  be  situated  on  the  lot.  I  would  hope 
we  would  keep  in  mind  the  conditions  the 
National  Capital  Commission  has  asked  us  to 
consider  when  We  are  designing  the  building. 
I  hope  the  people,  when  they  see  the  model, 
will  have  some  clear  understanding  of  what 
it  will  look  like  and  how  it  will  blend  in 
with  the  other  buildings  in  the  immediate 
area. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Will  the  minister  undertake 
that  there  will  be  open  houses  so  that  every 
aspect  of  the  proposal,  the  model  and  every- 
thing else  will  be  discussed  with  the  public 
and  that  the  public  can  be  informed  about 
what  is  going  on?  Will  he  also  tell  the  House 
if  the  question  about  these  other  uses  for 
the  courthouse  has  been  raised  in  cabinet 
and  if  the  question  of  an  information  centre 
for  the  province,  including  information  about 
services  and  access  to  government  publica- 
tions in  a  display  area,  has  been  raised  in 
cabinet?  If  it  has  not,  will  he  undertake  to 
have  the  matter  raised  in  cabinet  so  that 
there  is  a  definite  decision,  rather  than  a 
whole  lot  of  people  saying  maybe  yes,  maybe 
no,  and  leaving  the  whole  situation  in  limbo? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
thought  I  had  made  this  auite  clear  as  far  as 
the  public  were  concerned.  I  know  the  hon- 
ourable member  has  a  little  different  opinion 
on  this,  but  I  felt  it  would  be  hard  to  under- 
stand if  we  showed  the  general  public  what 
I  and  my  deputv  and  all  those  at  the  last 
meeting  saw,  without  having  the  experts— 
the  experts  in  this  case  being  the  architects 
—to  explain  the  drawings  and  sketches  that 
were  on  the  wall.  For  the  average  person 
com  ins;  in  off  the  street,  I  think  it  would  be 
very  difficult  to  understand  those. 

It  is  my  personal  opinion  that  when  they 
see  a  model  of  what  it  would  look  like,  with 
somebody  there  to  explain  it  a  bit  further, 
they  will  better  understand  it.  That  I  have 
said  we  will  do.  At  the  same  time  we  have 
to  present  it,  as  we  always  do,  to  the  city 
officials,  to  the  National  Capital  Commission, 
and  to  all  those  we  have  been  meeting  with 
over  the  months  I  have  been  associated  with 
this  project. 

Concerning  the  other  question  the  member 
raised,  I  think  it  is  too  soon  to  bring  some- 
thing like  that  to  my  cabinet  colleagues  until 
I  am  sure  we  have  responses  back  from  all 
those  ministries   to  indicate  a  yes   or   a  no 


about  their  interests.  At  that  time  I  think 
Management  Board  and  cabinet  will  have  to 
make  a  decision  as  to  cost  and  to  things  re- 
lating to  anything  additional  we  might  want 
to  put  in  that  building. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  conclude 
without  asking  for  a  reply  from  the  minister. 
The  minister  is  wrong  to  exclude  the  public 
at  this  stage.  There  is  a  tremendous  amount 
of  information  that  can  be  put  up  on  walls, 
into  a  display  centre  at  teachers'  colleges 
and  made  accessible  to  the  public. 

The  problem  the  minister  is  demonstrating 
is  that  he  distrusts  the  contribution  the 
public  can  make  at  this  time.  He  is  afraid  of 
the  public.  I  would  ask  the  minister  to  take 
the  public  into  his  confidence.  Let  them  get 
involved;  let  them  make  suggestions  and 
explain  to  them  what  is  happening.  If  that 
had  been  done  a  year  and'  a  half  ago,  the 
ministry  would  not  have  run  into  the  diffi- 
culties they  had  at  the  outset  because  of  the 
secretive  way  in  which  the  initial  planning 
for  the  courthouse  was  done. 

I  urge  the  minister— he  has  come  a  long 
way— to  go  all  the  way  now  and  be  prepared 
to  put  that  information  out  and  make  it 
accessible  to  the  public.  He  will  have  full 
co-operation  from  elected  representatives  and 
from  the  city  of  Ottawa.  I  urge  him  to  take 
that  step  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have 
had  a  little  bit  to  do  with  small  buildings.  I 
have  been  in  this  ministry  for  about  15 
months  now.  I  am  not  discrediting  any  in- 
dividual, but  I  do  know  that  most  individuals 
will  not  be  able  to  understand  it  unless  the 
presentation  is  put  in  the  way  we  had  it  the 
other  day. 

I  am  sure  the  honourable  member  who  just 
spoke  would  not  have  understood  it  nearly 
as  well  as  he  did  if  it  had  not  been  that  our 
professionals  were  there.  I  am  not  saying  the 
people  of  the  province  or  the  people  in  the 
Ottawa  area  could  not  understand  it.  But 
they  can  understand  it  a  lot  better,  in  my 
opinion,  when  they  see  the  model  and  have 
it  at  that  stage. 

The  member  who  just  spoke  disagrees 
with  me,  and  that  is  his  right.  But  I  feel  I 
should  get  it  on  the  record  that  I  am  not 
saying  anything  against  the  people.  They 
would  have  a  better  understanding  and  they 
would  be  able  to  see  there  would  be  very 
few  changes  to  the  outside  after  they  saw 
the  model.  That  is  what  I  am  concerned 
about:  that  they  do  not  see  something  and 
then  see  a  lot  of  changes  later  on. 

If  we  stay  pretty  close  to  what  the  model 
is,  the  people  won't  come  back  later  on  and 


4756 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


say:    "You've    changed    it    completely.    You 
sold  us  a  bill  of  goods." 
12:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a  couple 
of  things  I  want  to  ask  the  minister  on  vote 
502.  I  see  in  public  accounts  for  1979-80 
amounts  to  the  Cadillac  Fairview  Corpora- 
tion Limited  of  $851,000  and  $9,270,000.  I 
assume  those  are  for  buildings  you  are  leas- 
ing in  downtown  Toronto  in  some  areas;  is 
that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Yes. 

Mr.  Ruston:  So  you  paid  Cadillac  Fairview 
over  $10  million  for  1979-80  in  Metropolitan 
Toronto.  At  some  point,  you  might  be  able 
to  give  me  the  information  as  to  how  many 
square  feet  you  are  leasing  from  Cadillac 
Fairview.  I  would  also  like  to  have  a  veri- 
fication of  the  amount  of  the  property  you 
have  at  the  east  of  Bay  project.  I  have  a 
figure  of  18,000  square  feet.  I  would  like  to 
have  that  verified. 

Under  advisory  services,  there  is  an  amount 
of  $683,000,  which  is  down  from  last  year's 
estimate.  What  is  the  main  part  of  that  spent 
on?  On  what  facilities  or  for  what  is  that 
money  used? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  while  I 
am  waiting  for  the  exact  footage  on  the 
east  of  Bay  project  and  how  much  square 
footage  we  are  renting  for  that  figure  from 
Cadillac  Fairview,  I  will  try  to  answer  the 
third  question  first.  That  is  for  services  which 
we  do  for  other  ministries  that  cannot  be 
charged  to  this  particular  vote.  In  a  moment 
I  will  have  the  number  of  square  feet  and 
so  on  in  those  other  two  questions. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Some  time  ago  I  had  a  ques- 
tion on  the  Notice  Paper  with  regard  to 
changing  or  adapting  your  buildings  from 
oil  heating  to  natural  gas.  What  is  the  situ- 
ation on  that  now?  How  many  of  the  build- 
ings you  own  are  now  heated  with  oil  in 
areas  where  there  is  natural  gas  available? 
I  realize,  of  course,  in  some  areas  it  may 
not  be  available.  Many  people  in  Ontario 
would  like  to  have  it,  but  they  do  not  have 
access  to  it.  I  wonder  if  you  can  tell  me  if 
you  have  any  main  buildings  now  still  on 
oil,  and  when  you  expect  to  convert  them 
to  natural  gas? 

While  your  officials  are  looking  these  figures 
up,  we  could  maybe  get  some  other  ques- 
tions rolling.  Another  thing  I  wanted  to  ask 
was  with  regard  to  employees— I  understand 
the  government  now  can  pay  employees 
directly  through  their  banking  system.  Do 
you  have  that  facility  with  your  own  em- 
ployees or  is  that  under  Management  Board? 


In  other  words,  you  can  deposit  their 
cheques  in  their  banking  system.  Is  there 
a  facility  available  to  have  them  deposited 
in  credit  unions,  banks  or  trust  companies, 
or  is  it  only  for  banks  and  trust  companies? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
understand  right  now  we  have  given  our 
employees  the  option  of  whether  they  want 
their  cheques  deposited  directly  into  the 
bank  or  whether  they  would  like  them  de- 
livered to  them  personally.  There  is  still  an 
option  on  that.  In  some  of  the  other  cheques, 
we  do  deposit  them  in  the  bank,  like  pen- 
sion cheques  and  so  on. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Do  you  deposit  into  a  credit 
union  as  well  as  either  a  bank  or  a  trust 
company?  Is  that  facility  available?  I  know 
the  credit  union  would  be  glad  to  have  it. 
I  am  wondering  if  you  have  the  power  to 
do  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  At  the  present  time 
it  is  just  into  the  banks. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  In  the  trust  companies 
too. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Why  would  it  not  be  avail- 
able through  the  credit  unions,  since  they 
are  licensed  under  the  province  and  have 
a  deposit  corporation  where  they  are  guar- 
anteed? Since  the  credit  unions  put  out  the 
same  service,  could  you  not  use  them  too? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  I  am  told  that  after 
January  1  they  will  be  able  to  deposit 
cheques.  Their  cheques  can  be  deposited 
with  any  branch  that  allows  cheques  to  be 
written.  I  believe  that  would  cover  your 
earlier  question. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Do  you  have  any  further 
answers   for   the   member  for   Essex   North? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  If  we  could  go  ahead, 
Mr.    Chairman,   I   will   come  back   to   them. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  want  to  ask  a  few 
questions  about  the  east  of  Bay  project.  I 
gather  a  couple  of  general  questions  have 
been  posed  to  you  already  by  the  member 
for  Scarborough-Ellesmere  (Mr.  Warner).  It 
is  about  a  year  now  since  I  put  a  couple  of 
written  questions  on  the  Notice  Paper  in 
terms  of  the  specifics  of  what  you  are  plan- 
ning east  of  Bay. 

Since  you  decided  in  your  wisdom  to  cut 
off  negotiations  and  interaction  with  the 
city  of  Toronto,  and  basically  went  against 
an  agreement  that  was  made  by  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  with  the  city  of  Toronto  in  1974 
and  decided  to  take  over  the  role  of  sole 
planners  of  this  particular  block  and  take  it 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  city,  you  have  done 
a  great  deal  of  work  on  it.  I  am  wondering 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4757 


if  at  this  time  you  would!  be  willing  to  give 
me  some  very  specific  information  as  to  what 
the  plans  are  and  what  the  state  of  the  east 
of  Bay  project  is  at  the  moment  in  your 
terms. 

For  instance,  what  is  the  square  footage 
you  are  looking  at  in  terms  of  government 
usage  of  towers  onsite?  What  is  the  present 
status  of  discussions  with  the  YMCA  in  terms 
of  the  amount  of  space  it  might  have?  Is 
there  any  provision  at  all  for  housing  on  that 
site,  as  was  an  integral  part  of  the  plan  from 
the  city  of  Toronto,  in  order  to  make  it  more 
ol  a  community  and  keep  housing  in  the 
central  part  of  the  city?  When  was  the  last 
time  you  talked  to  city  officials? 

I  know  you  have  been  essentially  boycotting 
the  past  administration  of  Mr.  Sewell.  It 
seems  to  me  it  was  a  general  policy  directive 
ol  the  Conservative  government,  although  the 
member  for  Wilson  Heights  (Mr.  Rotenberg) 
may  not  agree  with  me.  It  seems  to  me  in- 
teresting that  a  number  of  items  were  given 
very  short  shrift  when  Mr.  Sewell  was  in 
power.  A  good  example  might  be  the  plan  to 
rationalize  the  steam  plants,  something  on 
which  you  had  all-party  agreement  in  this 
Legislature  way  back  before  the  summer,  yet 
there  was  no  announcement  of  it  until  after 
the  municipal  election  was  out  of  the  way.  I 
thought  that  was  pretty  interesting. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  That  was  in  just  before- 
hand. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  think  you  will  find 
it  was  a  day  or  two  after  the  decision  was 
already  made  that  there  would  be  a  new 
mayor.  Have  you  spoken  to  the  new  mayor, 
Mr.  Minister? 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  It  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  new  mayor  or  the  old. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  am  talking  specifically 
about  the  east  of  Bay  area— I  am  referring  to 
your  general  methodology  in  trying  to  under- 
mine John  Sewell  over  the  last  number  of 
years— but  specifically  about  east  of  Bay.  You 
have  left  out  the  whole  city  planning  that  has 
gone  on  since  1974  and  you  have  not  involved 
them.  What  are  you  doing  now  with  the  new 
mayor?  Are  you  going  to  involve  them?  Are 
you  going  to  allow  them  to  play  any  part  in 
turning  that  area  into  a  creative  development 
or  are  you  just  going  to  make  it  another  huge 
bureaucratic  enclave  and  extension  of  this 
place?  I  would  like  to  hear  some  more 
specifics. 

It  is  a  year  since  I  filed  that  question  and 
I  think  it  is  about  time  we  got  some  specifics 
and  not  just  the  generalities  that  were  given 


to    the    member    for    Scarborough-Ellesmere 
earlier. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  The  member  for  Scar- 
borough West  seems  to  indicate  that  I  had 
some  role  in  the  planning  of  Bill  192  whose 
introduction,  he  seems  to  indicate,  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  last  municipal  election. 
I  can  assure  the  honourable  member  and  the 
House  that  that  bill  has  been  in  process  for  a 
number  of  months.  The  bill  was  in  process 
and  consultation  with  the  city  of  Toronto 
administration  without  regard  to  who  was  the 
head  of  that  administration.  Assurance  was 
given  to  Mayor  Sewell,  who  is  still  the  mayor 
of  the  city  of  Toronto,  that  the  bill  would  be 
introduced  and  that  we  would  work  with  him 
and  his  officials.  The  bill  was  before  this 
House  during  his  administration. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  was  not  trying  to 
impute  any  motives  or  give  the  member  for 
Wilson  Heights  a  role.  I  happened  to  be  in 
committee  a  number  of  times  with  him  when 
proposals  brought  forward  by  the  city  of 
Toronto  were  dashed  down  with  some 
regularity.  Let  us  make  it  very  clear  that  the 
municipal  election  was  over  when  the  an- 
nouncement was  made  about  the  steam  plant. 
John  Sewell  may  still  have  been  the  mayor 
but  he  was  a  dead  duck  mayor  at  that  time. 

12:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  A  lame  duck. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  No,  he  was  a  dead 
duck  at  that  point,  not  a  lame  duck. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  With  respect,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  bill  was  introduced  on  November 
14  and  whoever  was  elected  mayor  had 
nothing  to   do  with  it. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Order.  Let's  forget 
the  politics  in  the  city  of  Toronto.  If  die 
member  for  Scarborough  West  wants  to  re- 
turn to  the  estimates,  all  well  and  good.  Is 
the  minister  ready  with  a  reply? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 
The  other  night  we  did  touch  briefly  on  the 
east  of  Bay  project,  but  I  would  just  like  to 
say  that  the  YMCA  will  take  over  the  prop- 
erty they  have  purchased  from  us  around 
August  1,  1981. 

I  do  not  think  the  honourable  member  was 
here  the  other  night  when  I  mentioned  we 
have  three  proposals  for  the  Board  of  In- 
ternal Economy  and  the  committee  looking 
after  space  for  the  members.  We  mentioned 
at  that  time  that  the  third  proposal  did  take 
into  consideration  the  possibility  of  building 
an  office  building  to  square  up  the  balance 
of  the  land  along  Grosvenor  and  up  to  Bay, 
the   part   the   YMCA  is   not  taking.   This   is 


4758 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


only  a  proposal  and  many  of  you  heard 
some  of  the  members  saying  they  agreed 
with  proposal  number  two,  which  is  a  large 
complex  at  the  back. 

The  member  mentioned  what  the  city  had 
done  in  this  planning  and  some  of  the  re- 
strictions they  put  on  the  coverage  east  of 
Bay  in  their  plan  and  some  discussions  that 
I  had  with  the  mayor  then.  We  have,  as  I 
mentioned  on  Monday  evening,  an  outside 
consultant  who  is  bringing  in  a  report  after 
discussions  with  the  city  officials,  planners 
and  other  people  who  showed  some  interest 
in  the  east  of  Bay,  and  we  will  be  seeing 
that  proposal  soon.  We  are  looking  with 
interest  to  see  what  the  planner  has  sug- 
gested. I  hope  to  have  the  square  footage 
that  we  own  east  of  Bay  in  a  few  minutes 
for  the  member  for  Essex  North  as  well. 

I  can  answer  one  of  the  questions  the 
member  for  Essex  North  asked  about  the 
number  of  oil-fired  furnaces  we  have  at  the 
present  time  and  how  many  will  be  changed 
over  to  gas.  Right  now,  about  30  per  cent 
of  our  buildings  are  heated  with  oil  and  the 
rest  is  natural  gas  and  in  some  outside  areas, 
perhaps  a  bit  of  hydro.  Three  hundred  and 
thirty-eight  buildings  will  be  converted  over 
the  next  five  years  from  oil  to  gas,  at  a  cost 
of  $2.5  million.  Based  on  today's  prices  of 
oil  versus  natural  gas,  it  would  seem  we 
will  have  a  saving  of  approximately  $1  mil- 
lion per  year. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  am  sorry,  we  moved 
away  from  east  of  Bay  all  of  a  sudden  there. 
There  are  a  couple  of  things  I  would  like 
to  follow  up  on.  Who  is  the  consultant  you 
have  preparing  this  report  for  you.  and  what 
are  the  parameters  of  his  report?  What  kind 
of  mandate  has  the  minister  given  that  con- 
sultant and  what  form,  specifically,  will  dis- 
cussions take  between  the  city  of  Toronto 
and  the  planning  department  of  the  city  of 
Toronto  in  terms  of  any  of  the  work  he 
might  be  doing?  Is  it  all  just  in  the  formula- 
tion of  his  report,  or  does  it  come  after  his 
report?  What  kind  of  power  does  the  city 
of  Toronto  have  to  have  any  input  into  what 
is  going  on  there? 

Second,  whatever  happened  to  the  wonder- 
ful idea  of  the  bus  terminal  at  that  location? 
Is  that  still  in  the  plans  anywhere?  If  it  is, 
please  get  rid  of  it  as  quickly  as  possible.  It 
is  the  most  ludicrous  place  for  a  major  bus 
terminal  in  the  city  of  Toronto  that  can  pos- 
sibly be  thought  of.  I  would  like  some  assur- 
ance that  is  nowhere  in  the  plans  at  this 
point.  As  I  said,  a  more  sensible  location 
some  place  in  the  Union  Station  vicinity  is 
being  considered  and  government  support  for 


such  a  project  is  being  contemplated  at  this 
time. 

In  the  matter  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian 
Association,  how  much  space  have  you  ac- 
tually provided  for  the  YMCA  in  terms  of 
square  footage  or  the  actual  site  line?  What 
is  the  size  of  the  building  they  are  now  talk- 
ing about?  Is  it  still  the  much  larger  version 
that  was  planned  in  the  city  of  Toronto's 
initial  proposal?  What  input  from  the  city  is 
being  had  in  terms  of  the  YMCA  portion  of 
the  property  there? 

The  east  of  Bay  properties  are  under  the 
ownership  of  the  government,  as  I  understand 
it.  What  is  the  financial  status  of  those  east  of 
Bay  properties?  Are  you  making  or  losing 
money  on  our  investment  in  that  area  at  the 
moment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
planner  is  John  Bousfield  Associates.  The  only 
direction  he  got  from  us  was  to  investigate 
the  possible  uses  for  that  lot  east  of  Bay. 
That  would  include,  and  I  know  has  included, 
discussions  with  city  officials  and  others.  We 
hope  he  will  bring  back  a  proposal  as  to  how 
he  would  see  that  land  east  of  Bay  being 
used.  As  far  as  the  bus  terminal  goes,  that 
was  discussed  a  long  time  ago.  That  is  not  in 
the  plan  at  this  time  as  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned. What  Mr.  Bousfield  suggests,  we  do 
not  know. 

We  will  have  the  actual  square  footage  the 
YMCA  has  purchased  from  us  in  a  moment. 
As  I  understand  it,  though,  it  is  the  L-shaped 
piece  of  property  we  were  talking  about  when 
the  honourable  member  and  I  had  some  dis- 
cussions on  the  subject  in  the  Legislature 
about  a  year  ago. 

I  understand  the  square  footage  is  51,810 
square  feet.  That  was  sold  to  the  YMCA  for 
$2,582,300.  Did  you  get  those  figures?  I 
understand  the  YMCA  now  has  an  architect 
and  the  land  has  been  sold  to  them.  It  will 
now  be  up  to  them  to  negotiate  with  the  city. 
I  know  they  had  many  discussions  with  the 
city  before  we  sold  them  the  land. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  have  two  other  small 
matters  and  then  I  will  move  off  this.  You 
did  not  say  whether,  after  the  planner's  in- 
vestigation, there  would  be  any  liaison  with 
the  city  planning  staff  in  terms  of  what  final 
plan  will  be  presented  to  you.  I  would  like 
to  know  if  that  is  going  to  be  happening  or 
whether  we  are  going  to  be  working  in 
splendid  isolation. 

Has  the  idea  of  housing  on  that  site  been 
ruled  out  from  your  point  of  view?  It  cer- 
tainly sounded  like  that  to  me  last  year.   I 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4759 


want  to  know  if  the  city's  idea  of  housing  on 
that  site  might  be  a  possibility. 

The  other  thing  I  do  not  understand  about 
all  that  is  going  on  here  is  why  the  initial  city 
plan  could  not  have  been  adequate  for  our 
government's  needs.  As  I  understand  it,  in  the 
initial  city  plan  there  were  at  least  two  high- 
rise  towers  for  commercial  office  space 
planned  in  the  city  plan  in  addition  to  the 
YMCA  space,  in  addition  to  the  housing 
space,  in  addition  to  the  small  park  space  and 
other  kinds  of  facilities— including  a  theatre 
as  I  recall. 

12:40  p.m. 

Why  is  it  that  the  two  towers  that  were 
planned  in  the  city's  project  were  not  ade- 
quate for  any  anticipated  growth  in  govern- 
ment space  that  might  have  been  required? 
The  simple  negotiation  for  that  space  could 
have  gone  on  with  the  city's  plan  instead  of 
throwing  out  all  that  work  done  by  the 
community  and  by  the  city  itself  on  an 
understanding  from  the  Premier  in  1974.  You 
throw  all  that  aside  and  instead  set  up  your 
own  planner  to  go  out  and  come  back  to  you 
with  a  plan  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  all 
that  work  that  was  done  before.  Is  it  not 
the  case  that  any  reasonable  expansion  of 
government  space  and  government  services 
could  easily  have  been  handled  in  those  two 
towers  that  were  in  the  initial  plan? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  If  we  had  had  some 
reasonable  working  relationship  with  the 
former  mayor,  we  would  not  have  had  some 
of  these  problems  and  probably  would  not 
have  had  to  go  to  an  outside  consultant. 

I  thought  things  were  going  along  quite 
well  for  quite  a  while.  Anything  I  would  say 
right  now  would  be  guessing  on  what  the 
consultant  or  planner  may  come  in  with.  I 
just  ask  the  honourable  members  to  wait 
and  see,  as  we  are,  what  will  happen  on  his 
plan  for  the  east  of  Bay.  As  far  as  ruling 
out  some  sort  of  housing  over  there  is  con- 
cerned, we  have  not  done  that.  We  never 
did  it  with  the  former  mayor  either.  It  was 
just  the  way  he  handled  things  that  I  think 
could  have  been  handled  a  lot  better  in  this 
instance. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  want  to  share  the 
time  here  with  the  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  have  one  last  com- 
ment. I  think  it  is  unfair.  I  can  pull  out  of 
the  record  the  approaches  to  the  minister 
to  try  to  get  meetings  with  him  on  this  mat- 
ter and  they  were  unsuccessful  in  getting 
your  co-operation  in  having  meetings. 


Has  the  minister  met  with  the  new  mayor 
yet?  When  does  he  intend  to  meet  with  the 
new  mayor?  When  does  he  expect  to  get  in 
touch  with  the  local  authorities  to  involve 
them  instead  of  taking  everything  out  of 
their  hands  and  putting  it  in  the  hands  of 
his  bureaucracy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  The  door  is  always 
open  to  my  office  and  to  my  deputy's  office. 
It  always  has  been;  it  was  to  the  former 
mayor.  But  there  is  a  limit  when  someone 
walks  in  and  if  they  do  not  get  exactly  what 
they  want  they  rush  out  in  disgust  and  say, 
"I  am  going  to  the  press."  That  is  what  hap- 
pened on  a  couple  of  occasions  with  the 
formsr  mayor.  I  only  hope  the  new  mayor 
comes  in.  I  am  a  reasonable  guy,  and  my 
deputy  is  a  reasonable  person.  We  will  sit 
down  and  talk  about  it  in  a  reasonable  way. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  wanted  to  raise  a  few 
issues  which  are  local  issues.  I  would  like 
to  solicit  information  from   the  minister. 

First,  what  is  the  status  of  the  old  Essex 
countv  courthouse  in  the  city  of  Windsor? 
Mr.  Thatcher  is  perfectly  familiar  with  it.  I 
raised  it  some  two  years  ago  with  him  and 
he  was  most  co-operative  in  providing  in- 
formation at  that  time.  But  it  seems  to  be 
in  a  state  of  limbo  at  present.  Could1  I  have 
an  answer  to  that,  Mr.  Minister? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the 
present  time  we  are  waiting  for  the  city  of 
Windsor  to  tell  us  about  their  interest  in 
that  building.  As  soon  as  we  have  that  infor- 
mation I  will  relay  it  to  the  honourable  mem- 
ber either  by  letter  or  personally. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Another  matter:  Would 
the  minister  please  extend  the  parking  for 
handicapped  not  only  to  his  own  ministry 
but  suggest  it  to  other  ministries?  The  park- 
ing; location  for  those  who  are  handicapped 
should  be  as  close  as  possible  to  the  doors 
of  the  facility  they  are  going  to  visit.  I 
notice  the  tourist  reception  centre  in  Windsor 
could  profit  from  that  type  of  suggestion; 
likewise  the  provincial  public  building.  To 
me  the  handicapped  parking  should  be  right 
at  the  east  door  of  the  building. 

I  do  not  necessarily  want  an  answer  from 
the  minister,  but  I  would  suggest  he  extend 
that.  Likewise,  could  he  suggest  that  to  min- 
isters of  other  portfolios?  Take  the  service 
centres  on  Highway  401.  They  do  have  park- 
ing for  the  handicapped  but  it  is  quite  a 
distance  to  walk.  It  could  be  right  next  to  the 
door  even  though  it  may  cause  some  incon- 
venience to  the  bigger  vehicles  that  may  have 
to  pass  by  in  that  area.  To  me  the  parking 
for    the   handicapped   should  be  as   close   as 


4760 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


possible  to  the  building  into  which  the  handi- 
capped are  going  to  go. 

The  minister  is  aware  of  the  employment 
problem  in  Windsor  and  the  problems  we 
have  with  the  auto  manufacturers  and  the 
problem  Chrysler  is  having.  I  would  suggest 
the  minister  show  a  little  preference  for  pur- 
chasing vehicles  from  the  company  that  has 
the  greatest  financial  difficulty  at  the  time— I 
am  suggesting  Chrysler.  I  know  he  has  to 
go  by  tender  and  things  of  that  sort  and  there 
may  be  some  drawback  to  implementing  a 
suggestion  like  that. 

Finally  I  would  mention  the  walks  around 
government  public  buildings.  The  space  be- 
tween the  curb  and  sidewalk  has  cobblestones 
which  are  the  hardest  thing  you  can  think  of 
to  walk  on.  I  have  seen  so  many  ladies 
stumble  as  they  are  walking  from  the  road 
over  that.  I  suggest  you  get  rid  of  those 
stones.  You  cannot  push  a  wheelchair  on  that, 
or  you  push  one  with  extreme  difficulty.  You 
will  say  there  is  a  sidewalk  fairly  close  by, 
which  is  quite  true— I  accept  that.  But  if  you 
go  to  walk  in  there  you  stumble  over  all  of 
those  stones.  A  lot  of  the  stones  are  sub- 
stantially depressed.  To  me  it  looks  like  one 
heck  of  a  mess  in  many  locations. 

I  would  suggest  he  tear  that  all  up  at  some 
time  in  the  not  too  distant  future  and  replace 
it  with  the  regular  type  of  concrete.  If  he  is 
not  going  to  use  concrete,  if  he  wants  to  use 
something  that  is  probably  a  little  cheaper, 
maybe  he  could  even  use  asphalt  in  that  area. 
I  am  fortunate  enough  that  I  do  not  have  a 
physical  handicap;  I  might  have  another  type 
but  it  is  not  physical. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Like  some  other  members  here. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  am  in  good  company 
maybe.  But  I  certainly  would  appreciate  if 
the  minister  would  look  into,  on  a  program 
basis,  eliminating  that  stone  area  between  the 
sidewalk  and  the  curb.  Let  the  individuals  be 
able  to  walk  on,  if  necessary,  a  wider  side- 
walk, instead  of  almost  falling  into  holes  by 
the  side  of  the  sidewalk  or  walking  on  those 
cobblestones  and  running  the  risk  of  spraining 
an  ankle. 

I  have  made  a  few  suggestions  to  the  min- 
ister and  I  would  appreciate  a  reply  to  some 
of  them  at  least. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  The  member  did 
mention  one  area  with  regard  to  the  handi- 
capped. We  will  look  into  that.  A  week  or  so 
ago,  as  I  was  shopping,  I  watched  a  young 
fellow,  probably  better  on  his  feet  than  most 
of  us  in  the  Legislature,  who  drove  into  the 
space  for  the  handicapped.  I  think  we  have  an 
education  job  to  do  there  to  emphasize  that 


they  really  are  for  the  handicapped.  Both  of 
those  parking  areas  were  taken  by  people 
under  20  who  had  good  legs  under  them. 

You  mentioned  one  area.  If  you  have  others 
we  would  be  glad  to  discuss  them  with  our 
colleagues.  As  far  as  the  cars  go,  I  think  the 
member  should  know  it  is  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  (Mr. 
Snow)  who  looks  after  the  purchases.  I  am 
sure  he  will  read  Hansard  with  all  our  debate 
we  have  had  this  morning.  If  both  of  us 
mention  it  to  him,  it  would  be  brought  to  his 
attention. 

As  far  as  the  cobblestones  are  concerned, 
I  have  noticed  those  are  a  little  rough  my- 
self and  we  will  look  into  that  and  see  what 
can  be  done. 

12:50  p.m. 

Vote  502  agreed  to. 

On  vote  503,  upkeep  of  accommodation 
program: 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  your  upkeep 
of  accommodation  program,  are  you  under 
contract  in  the  majority  of  the  buildings  that 
you  own  or  do  you  still  do  some  of  it  with 
your  own  staff  with  regard  to  maintenance, 
janitorial  services  and  so  forth? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  use 
contract  employees  for  the  cleaning  in  almost 
all  buildings  except  this  building  and  some  of 
our  justice  buildings  downtown. 

Mr.  Ruston:  In  your  repairs  and  so  forth  in 
the  buildings  in  which  you  are  making 
changes  to  save  energy  by  replacing  windows 
or  putting  in  whatever  windows  are  necessary 
to  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  heating  sys- 
tem, are  you  putting  in  double  or  triple  glass 
in  older  buildings? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  In  all  the  renovations 
we  are  using  double  and  triple-pane  glass.  In 
all  the  new  ones,  we  are  doing  the  same  thing. 

Vote  503  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  The  member  for  Essex 
North  earlier  asked  for  the  leased  square  foot- 
age space  of  Cadillac  Fairview.  The  leased 
space  is  345,806  feet  at  an  annual  rent  of 
$2,671,900.  We  also  bought  several  million 
dollars'  worth  of  property  from  Cadillac  Fair- 
view  for  highway  purposes  in  the  parkway 
belt. 

Mr.  Ruston:  A  lot  of  that  money  in  the 
public  accounts  would  be  for  property,  not 
just  leasing.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Minister. 

On  vote  504,  supply  and  services  program: 

Mr.  Ruston:  On  publications  and  printing 
services,  do  you  do  any  polling  in  Ontario? 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4761 


Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  No,  Mr.  Chairman.  I 
am  happy  to  say  we  do  not. 

Mr.  Ruston:  You  do  not  have  to  see  how 
popular  you  are  in  the  decisions  you  make. 
That  is  good. 

-  In  collection  services,  is  your  ministry  in- 
volved with  collection  services  for  other  min- 
istries, such  as,  I  assume,  the  Ministry  of 
Community  and  Social  Services?  I  understand 
they  have  a  number  of  problems  with  collect- 
ing from  errant  husbands.  I  guess  most  of 
them  are  husbands.  There  are  not  too  many 
of  the  other  sex  not  paying  up.  I  was  wonder- 
ing whether  you  are  handling  the  collections 
for  them  and  whether  you  have  any  figures 
on  your  collections  so  far  through  your  min- 


istry  and   the    Ministry    of   Community   and 
Social  Services? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  We  do  a  lot  of  collect- 
ing for  some  of  the  ministries  but  that  par- 
ticular area  is  not  part  of  our  responsibility. 
That  would  be  handled  by  the  courts. 

Vote  504  agreed  to. 

Vote  505  agreed  to. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  This  completes  the 
study  of  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of 
Government  Services. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Gregory,  the  com- 
mittee of  supply  reported  certain  resolutions. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1  p.m. 


4762 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4751) 


RESPONSE  TO  PETITION 

KU  KLUX  KLAN 

Petition  to  the  Lieutenant  Governor  and 
the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Ontario;  pre- 
sented by  Mr.  Warner;  sessional  paper  297: 

We  the  undersigned  petition  the  Lieuten- 
ant Governor  and  Legislative  Assembly  of 
Ontario  to  ensure  the  public  protection 
against  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  an  organization 
which  has  clearly  violated  our  human  rights 
legislation  and  hate  literature  laws.  We  peti- 
tion for  an  immediate  prosecution  under  the 
Criminal  Code  in  an  effort  to  end  the  activ- 
ities of  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  in  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  At  the  outset  I  wish 
to  emphasize  that  I  share  the  concern  of  the 
petitioners  with  the  Ku  Klux  Klan.  My  un- 
equivocal opposition  to  the  malevolance  rep- 
resented by  the  Klan  is  a  matter  of  public 
record.  My  stated  opposition  is  buttressed  by 
the  vigorous  and  successful  prosecutions  con- 
ducted by  my  ministry  against  similarly  per- 
verted racist  groups  in  the  past. 

Last  June,  when  a  few  misguided  indi- 
viduals surfaced  to  proclaim  the  re-emer- 
gence of  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  I  publicly  stated 
my  deep  concern,  and  indicated  that  their 
presence  and  activities  would  be  carefully 
monitored  by  the  police.  Let  there  be  no 
doubt:  when  the  Klan  or  its  members  break 
the  law.  they  will  be  prosecuted.  But  let 
there  also  be  no  misunderstanding  about  a 
fundamental  premise  upon  which  the  free- 
dom of  every  resident  of  this  country  rests: 
unless  and  until  the  laws  of  this  land  are 
broken,  the  Klan  cannot  be  prosecuted. 

Indeed,  important  as  prosecutions  of  indi- 
viduals are  once  the  law  is  broken,  rejection 
of  their  odious  ideologv  by  an  informed, 
educated  public  is  by  far  the  most  potent 
weapon  in  the  hands  of  those  who  believe 
in  freedom.  We  should  all  be  active  in  the 
kind  of  public  education  which  reveals  the 
Klan  for  the  violent,  racist  incarnation  of 
evil  that  it  represents. 

I  wish  to  assure  the  petitioners  that  my 
senior  crown  law  officers  are  working  closely 
with  the  police  in  so  far  as  the  activities  of 
the  Ku  Klux  Klan  are  concerned  and  in  par- 
ticular with  respect  to  the  possibility  of 
charges  being  laid  against  individuals  who 
are  communicating  statements  designed  to 
incite  hatred  against  any  identifiable  group. 
Where  criminal  charges  are  warranted  and 
justified,    the    appropriate    recommendations 


to  the  police  concerning  charges  will  be 
made. 

However,  quite  apart  from  the  issue  as  to 
whether  or  not  a  piece  of  written  material 
offends  the  hate  literature  provisions  of  the 
Criminal  Code,  before  any  prosecution  can 
be  launched  it  is  necessary  to  determine  the 
identity  of  the  actual  distributors  of  such 
material.  This  task  is  not  always  an  easy  one 
as  the  individuals  sometimes  hide  behind  the 
name  of  the  organization. 

The  petitioners  can  rest  assured  that  I  will 
continue  to  monitor  closely  the  activities  of 
the  Klan  and  recommend  the  laving  of 
charges  where  any  provisions  of  the  Criminal 
Code  or  such  provincial  statutes  as  the  Tres- 
pass to  Property  Act  are  breached. 

ANSWEHS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

ADVERTISING  IN  ETHNIC  MEDIA 

239.  Mr.  Di  Santo:  Will  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  provide  the  following 
information  to  the  House:  1.  What  is  the 
total  government  advertising  budget  for  the 
years  1979  and  1980  for  the  ethnic  media? 
2.  How  much  of  the  allotted  funds  went  to 
the  printed  media  and  how  much  to  the 
electronic  media?  3.  Will  the  ministry  list  all 
the  radio,  TV  and  publications  and  the 
amount  received,  respectively,  in  1978,  1979 
and  1980?  4.  Will  the  ministry  elaborate  on 
the  provincial  increases?  5.  How  many  adver- 
tising agencies  handle  government  advertis- 
ing for  the  ethnic  media?  6.  What  amount 
of  money  did  they  receive  for  commission  in 
1978,  1979  and  1980?  7.  How  much  adver- 
tising was  given  directly  by  the  government 
without  the  mediation  of  the  agencies? 
(Tabled  June  10,  1980.) 

See  sessional  paper  312. 

WINTARIO  GRANTS 

343.  Mr.  O'Neil:  Would  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  provide  the  following 
information  with  respect  to  the  operation  of 
the  Ontario  Lottery  Corporation.  1.  If  an 
overpayment  occurs  in  the  awarding  of  a  lot- 
tery grant,  how  is  the  government  notified  of 
such  an  overpayment  and  how  is  it  collected? 
2.  How  much  money  in  the  course  of  the  past 
several  years  has  been  due  to  the  government 
by  way  of  such  overpayments?  3.  How  much 
of  the  money  due  by  overpayments  has  actu- 
ally   been    received    by    the    government?   4. 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980 


4763 


When  the  money  is  returned  to  the  govern- 
ment is  it  used  for  other  lottery  grants  or  is 
it  deposited  in  the  consolidated  revenue 
fund?  5.  Does  the  minister  have  discretion  to 
forgive  an  overpayment?  (Tabled  October 
16,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  1.  One  of  the  granting 
criteria  is  that  the  grant  recipient  report  on 
the  success  of  the  project  for  which  the  grant 
was  given.  This  report  includes  a  financial 
statement.  When  it  is  apparent,  usually  from 
the  financial  statement,  that  the  grant  was  in 
excess  of  the  project  needs,  the  recipient  is 
required  to  refund  the  excess  or  request  that 
the  refund  be  forgiven.  Another  source  of 
information  is  the  report  by  internal  audit 
when  they  audit  the  use  of  a  grant. 

The  excess  grant  is  recovered  through 
normal  Ministry  routine;  i.e.,  if  a  cheque  does 
not  accompany  the  project  report,  an  invoice 
billing  the  grant  recipient  for  the  excess  is 
sent  to  him.  In  addition,  the  grant  recipient 
is  billed  automatically  if  he  fails  to  submit 
the  required  report. 

2  and  3.  It  is  difficult  to  state  exactly  how 
much  has  been  due  to  the  government  by 
way  of  such  overpayments,  because  most  of 
the  moneys  repaid  are  received  without  a 
repayment  demand  being  made.  Information 
for  the  two  years  1979-80  and  1980-81  is  as 
follows  : 

1979/80         1980/81 
Voluntary 

repayments  $570,513         $257,700 

Amount  invoiced  $181,798         $424,666 

Repaid 

against  invoice  $113,896         $     2,099 

The  high  billing  in  1980-81  reflects  a 
toughening  attitude  against  recipients  who 
fail  to  report  on  time.  It  should  be  noted 
that  the  grant  recipient  is  automatically  billed 
for  the  full  amount  of  the  grant  and  that  the 
invoice  could  be  cancelled  on  receipt  of  the 
report. 

It  should  be  further  noted  that  of  the 
$424,666  approximately  $314,000  represents 
invoices   issued   in  the  month   of  September. 

4.  The  money  returned  to  the  ministry 
goes  into  the  consolidated  revenue  fund,  out 


of  which  it  was  paid  and  into  which  the 
Wintario  profits  from  the  Ontario  Lottery 
Corporation  are  paid.  It  is  then  available  for 
future  grants. 

5.  Yes.  I  do  have  discretion  to  forgive  an 
overpayment.  However,  the  grant  recipient 
must  demonstrate  the  reasonableness  of  the 
request  for  forgiveness. 

MULTICULTURAL  BROADCASTING 

375.  Mr.  Di  Santo:  Will  the  Ministry  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  table  the  following 
information:  1.  How  many  multicultural  pro- 
grams have  been  broadcast  in  1979?  2.  How 
many  will  be  produced  in  1980,  in  what 
language  and  when?  (Tabled  October  27, 
1980.) 

See  sessional  paper  313. 

EXCLUSION  OF  PUBLIC 
FROM  COURTS 

399.  Mr.  Warner:  What  instructions  will 
the  Attorney  General  be  issuing  to  his  crown 
attorneys  to  oppose  applications  under  section 
442  of  the  Criminal  Code  to  exclude  the 
public  from  the  courts  to  ensure  that  in- 
stances such  as  the  arbitrary  closure  of  the 
court  to  the  public  by  Judge  Garth  Moore  in 
the  case  of  charges  brought  against  Mr. 
Sholomo  Baker  will  not  recur?  In  the  event 
that  no  instructions  are  forthcoming,  will  the 
minister  table  in  the  Legislature  any  govern- 
ment policy  regarding  our  time-honoured 
tradition  of  public  courts  being  fundamental 
to  our  democratic  system  of  justice?  (Tabled 
November  14,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  agree  that  open, 
public  courts  are  essential  and  fundamental 
to  the  administration  of  justice.  Accordingly, 
the  regional  crown  attorneys  have  been  in- 
structed that  it  is  only  in  exceptional  and 
unusual  circumstances  that  crown  counsel 
either  should  consent  to  or  apply  for  an  ex- 
clusionary order  under  section  442  ( 1 )  of  the 
Criminal  Code.  The  ultimate  decision,  of 
course,  is  that  of  the  presiding  judge  in  the 
exercise  of  the  discretion  conferred  by  the 
section. 


4764  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  November  28,  1980 

Point  of  privilege  re  Soviet  visitors:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy  4731 

Assessment  information,  statement  by  Mr.   Maeck   i 4732 

Indian  sales  tax  exemption,  statement  by  Mr.  Maeck  4733 

Stratford  Festival,  statement  by  Mr.  Baetz 4734 

University  study,  statement  by   Miss   Stephenson    4734 

Interest  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Mancini  4735 

Norfolk  teachers'  dispute,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  S.   Smith,  Mr.   G.  I.   Miller, 

Mr.   Nixon ••  4736 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  S.  Smith  4738 

Pensions  for  women,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Cassidy  4741 

Deterrent  sentences,  questions  of  Mr.  Walker:   Mr.  Ruston   4741 

University  study,  questions  of  Mrs.  Birch  and  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Bounsall  4742 

Elliot  Lake  sewage  treatment  plant,  questions  of  Mr.  Bernier:  Mr.  Epp,  Mr.  Wildman  4742 

Durham  regional  environmental  hearings,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.   Isaacs,   Mr. 

S.    Smith    ■ 4743 

Environmental  assessment  of  Hydro  projects,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  J.  Reed  4744 

Homes  for  former  psychiatric  patients,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Dukszta  4744 

Acid  rain,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Eakins  4745 

Blinded  worker,   question  of  Mr.  Elgie:   Mr.   Lupusella   4746 

Petition  re  Whitedog  Reserve  road:  Mr.   S.  Smith  ,  4746 

Point  of  privilege  re  Soviet  visitors:  Mr.  Drea,  Mr.  Makarchuk,  Mr.   S.  Smith,  Mr. 

Wells,  Mr.  Dukszta,  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Rotenberg  4747 

Report,  standing  committee  on  the  administration  of  justice:  Mr.  Philip  4751 

City  of  Orillia  Act,  Bill  Pr52,  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith,  first  reading  4751 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  239,  343,  375  and  399  on  Notice  Paper  and  response 

to  petition:    Mr.   Wells 4751 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Government  Services:  Mr.  Wiseman,  concluded  4751 

Adjournment    4761 

Appendix:  Response  to  petition  and  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Response  to  petition  re  the  Ku  Klux  Klan:  Mr.  McMurtry 4762 

Advertising  in  ethnic  media,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Di  Santo  4762 

Wintario  grants,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:   Mr.   O'Neil   ,  4762 

Multicultural  broadcasting,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Di  Santo  4763 

Exclusion  of  public  from  courts,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Warner  4763 


NOVEMBER  28,  1980  4765 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Bernier,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  (Kenora  PC) 

Birch,  Hon.  M.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development  (Scarborough  East  PC) 

Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Dukszta,  J.  (Parkdale  NDP) 

Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L) 

Gigantes,  E.  (Carleton  East  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

Lupusella,  A.  (Dovercourt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Newman,  B.  ( Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC) 

Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 

Walker,  Hon.  G.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Sendees 

(London  South  PC) 
Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 
Wiseman,  Hon.  D.  J.;  Minister  of  Government  Services  (Lanark  PC) 


No.  127 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Monday,  December  1,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  a^^°10 


4769 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.ni. 
Prayers. 

PEANUT  PLANT 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  matter 
of  privilege.  I  feel  I  would  transgress  the 
privileges  of  the  honourable  members  if  I  did 
not  inform  them,  through  you,  sir,  of  the 
opening  of  an  entirely  new  industry  in 
Ontario.  I  refer  to  the  growing  of  peanuts. 

The  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
(Mr.  Henderson)  cut  the  ribbon  of  a  new 
plant  today  in  the  constituency  of  Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk  and  a  good  deal  of  thanks 
must  be  directed  to  the  government  of  Can- 
ada, the  government  of  Ontario  and  the 
initiative  of  Mr.  James  Picard  and  his  family. 

I  raise  this  only  to  bring  to  your  attention, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  is  a  completely  new 
industry  for  the  farming  economy  of  Ontario 
and  Canada  and  there  is  every  expectation  it 
will  grow  to  be  a  major  one. 

.To  mark  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  present 
you  with  a  bag  of  these  excellent  peanuts.  I 
do  not  know  whether  in  your  well-known 
abilities  you  can,  like  the  loaves  and  fishes  of 
old,  make  these  pass  all  around  the  Legisla- 
ture, but  do  your  best. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  want  to  thank  the  member 
for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  for  this  presentation 
and  I  hope  there  is  no  other  significance  to 
handing  them  out  in  the  Legislature  as  the 
regular  diet  around  here. 

CORRESPONDENCE  FROM 
PRISON  INMATE 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  morning 
I  received  some  correspondence  in  the  mail 
here  at  Queen's  Park  from  one  Anthony 
Genovese,  a  prisoner  at  Millhaven  Peniten- 
tiary near  Bath,  Ontario.  When  my  assistant 
picked  up  this  envelope,  it  was  obviously 
damaged.  As  is  normally  the  case,  he  had  to 
sign  a  small  document  indicating  it  had  been 
received  in  that  condition.  However,  the 
other  end  of  the  envelope  had  obviously  been 
opened.  The  correspondence  from  a  prisoner 
in  a  penitentiary  had  clearly  been  opened 
somewhere  between  Bath,  Ontario  and 
Queen's  Park. 


Monday,  December  1,  1980 

We  are  aware  that  correspondence  from 
prisoners  is  monitored  at  the  prison  site.  I 
was  not  aware,  however,  that  a  member's1 
mail  was  opened  by  someone  at  Queen's 
Park.  We  checked  with  the  government  mail 
services  and  they  deny  all  knowledge  of  it. 
We  are  attempting  to  get  some  information 
from  the  Post  Office  as  to  how  this  unusual 
event  might  have  occurred.  It  seems  apparent 
to  me  that  someone  did  indeed  open  this 
envelope  and  view  the  contents.  The  contents 
contain  some  rather  startling  allegations  that 
I  will  set  aside  for  now  and  deal  with  on 
another  occasion.  , 

When  a  member's  mail  is  opened  some- 
where between  the  point  where  it  is  mailed 
and  where  it  is  received  here,  I  do  feel  my 
privileges  have  been  breached.  I  would  ask 
you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  investigate  this  incident 
to  see  who  opened  this  mail,  for  what  pur- 
poses it  could  conceivably  have  been  opened 
and  who  should  take  responsibility  for  that 
act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  I  can  tell  the  honourable 
member  at  this  point  is  there  is  a  facility 
either  in  the  basement  of  this  building  or  in 
the  Macdonald  Block  for  making  sure  that, 
mail  reaching  all  members  of  this  House  is 
safe  and  does  not  pose  a  potential  threat. 
However,  I  did  not  think  the  inspection  of 
that  mail  included  the  opening  of  it.  I  will 
take  what  the  honourable  member  has  said- 
under  advisement,  attempt  to  determine  how 
it  was  opened  or  intercepted  and  report  back' 
to  him. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

DURHAM  REGIONAL 
ENVIRONMENT  HEARING 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  last  Friday 
the  Environmental  Assessment  Board  re- 
leased its  report  and  recommendations  on 
the  proposal  from  the  regional  municipality 
of  Durham  to  convert  the  Ajax  sewage  treat-: 
ment  plant  into  a  liquid  waste  treatment 
facility.  The  hearing  was  held  under  the 
Environmental  Protection  Act  and,  as  stipu- 
lated in  the  act,  recommendations  have  been 
made  by  the  board  as  a  whole  to  the  min- 
istry's director  of  approvals.  The  project  can 


4770 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


only  proceed  with  a  certificate  of  approval 
issued  by  the   director. 

I  have  discussed  the  issue  with  Mr.  Walker 
Beath,  the  outgoing  regional  chairman,  and 
the  local  MPP,  the  member  for  Durham 
West  (Mr.  Ashe).  As  a  result,  I  have  ar- 
ranged for  a  meeting  Thursday  with  the 
director,  the  member  for  Durham  West  and 
the  new  regional  chairman  who  is  to  be 
elected  Wednesday.  I  expect  to  announce  the 
results  of  that  meeting  in  the  Legislature  on 
Thursday  of  this  week. 

In  making  its  final  report  and  recommen- 
dations, the  board  acted  in  full  accordance 
with  the  procedures  laid  out  in  the  Environ- 
mental Protection  Act  and  was  within  its 
powers.  However,  I  accept  that  in  this 
instance  these  procedures  did  not  encourage 
public  confidence.  Therefore,  I  will  intro- 
duce legislation  as  soon  as  possible  to  amend 
the  procedures  so  that  the  hearing  panel 
itself  will  make  the  final  report  and  recom- 
mendations directly  to  the  ministry. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

ENVIRONMENTAL  ASSESSMENT 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Seven  ministers  are  here, 
Mr.  Speaker.  Let  the  record  show  that  out 
of  26  or  27,  seven  have  deigned  to  come  for 
question  period. 

1  will  ask  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment why  it  is  that  he  and  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  continue  to  go  around  Ontario 
claiming  that  a  hearing  on  the  South  Cayuga 
matter  would  take  three  to  five  years,  when 
the  Canadian  Environmental  Law  Associa- 
tion says  it  could  be  done  in  one  year  and 
when  it  is  obvious  to  me  it  can  be  done  in 
one  year.  May  I  ask  what  basis  the  minister 
has  and  what  proof  he  has  that  a  hearing 
would  take  from  three  to  five  years,  especial- 
ly when  some  of  the  preliminary  engineer- 
ing work  is  already  done?  What  is  his  basis 
and  proof  for  that  statement?  If  he  does  not 
have  any,  would  he  kindly  stop  misleading 
the  people  of  Ontario  by  telling  them  there 
has  to  be  a  three-year  or  a  five-year  delay 
when  it  simply  does  not  appear  to  be  so? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Lead- 
er of  the  Opposition  might  think  it  can  be 
done  in  a  year,  but  I  am  afraid  he  is  just 
not  correct  in  that  assessment.  Let  me  give 
a  prime  illustration:  There  was  a  proposal 
over  a  year  ago  for  an  environmental  assess- 
ment on  two  specific  sites.  The  review  has 
not  been  published  as  yet,  and  the  hearing 
has  not  even  been  set,  so  that  those  hearings 
take  a  very  considerable  period  of  time,  and 
rightly  so. 


Not  only  that,  there  is  a  good  number  of 
appeal  procedures  that  can  be  followed  sub- 
sequent to  that.  Anyone  who  thinks  it  can 
be  done  in  a  year  is  not  looking  at  the 
record  and  has  not  assessed,  for  a  matter  of 
this  type,  the  time  interval  it  requires.  I  am 
sure  if  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  were 
at  all  accurate  in  making  that  assessment, 
he  would  clearly  understand  that  a  year  is 
not  even  remotely  possible. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
will  the  minister  then  take  out  of  the  record 
the  statement,  which  he  and  the  Premier 
have  been  repeatedly  making  publicly,  that 
it  will  take  three  to  five  years?  Will  they 
remove  that  from  the  record  and  leave  truth- 
ful statements  on  the  record  and  simply 
tell  the  people  that  in  the  experience  we 
have  had,  for  instance  in  the  hearing  held 
with  regard  to  the  waterfront  park  on  Lake 
Ontario,  a  complex  matter  indeed,  the  de- 
cision took  some  14  months,  and  in  the  Afax 
hearing,  the  time  from  the  beginning  of  the 
hearings  right  to  the  actual  decision  being 
handed  down  was  about  11  months? 

Why  will  the  minister  not  have  enough 
confidence  in  his  admittedly  very  weak 
position  on  South  Cayuga  to  go  to  the 
people  and  simply  say  he  is  running  rough- 
shod over  the  authority  of  this  province, 
using  his  ministerial  authority  simply  be- 
cause he  feels  the  time  has  come  to  do  it, 
and  not  pretend  that  there  is  the  slightest 
basis  for  claiming  that  a  three-year  to  five- 
year  delay  would  be  involved  in  such  a 
hearing? 

2:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  I  have  answered 
that  question  already,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  No,  the  minister  did  not. 
Where  is  the  proof  it  will  take  three  to  five 
years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Indeed,  there  is  a  lot 
more  proof  for  that  than  there  would  be 
that  it  would  take  a  year.  I  do  not  think 
there  is  any  argument  about  that  at  all. 

Let  me  give  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
an  illustration  of  where  the  member  thinks 
it  can  be  done  quickly.  One  of  the  first  things 
I  heard  of  when  I  was  in  the  ministry  was 
the  Orillia  Light  and  Power  proposal.  That 
has  been  going  on  for  about  two  years  now 
and  the  hearing  date  has  not  been  set. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Does  the  minister  mean  an 
environmental  assessment  hearing  on  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  do  not  think  the 
member  would  be  surprised,  if  indeed  there 
is  a  concentrated  effort  to  delay  the  process, 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4771 


that  there  is  not  much  doubt  about  how  long 
that  can  take. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Will  there  be  an  assessment 
hearing  on  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  I  said  it  is  proposed. 
If  the  member  wishes  to  drag  it  out,  and 
•there  are  many  who  do  for  a  lot  of  reasons, 
it  was  indicated  very  positively  in  both 
Thorold  and  Harwich  that  there  is  a  great 
way  of  dragging  out  procedures.  I  am  not 
going  to  enter  into  any  further  debate  with 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition.  He  just  hap- 
pens  to   be   wrong. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  minister  mentioned  the  light  and  power 
situation.  I  have  had  a  chance  to  talk  with 
people  in  the  area.  They  expressed  enormous 
concern  over  the  delays  within  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  in  processing  the  assess- 
ment after  it  had  been  prepared  in  good 
order  and  submitted  to  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment.  Why  is  the  minister  using  the 
delays  and  the  incompetence  of  his  own 
ministry  as  an  excuse  for  trying  to  knock 
out  a  process,  which  by  now  should  have 
been  made  to  work  effectively  on  behalf 
of  the  protection  of  the  environment  and 
to  reassure  the  public? 

Is  he  not  aware  that  the  MacLaren  com- 
pany, the  consultants  who  studied  the  vari- 
ous sites  for  liquid  waste  dumps  across  the 
province,  told  us  the  environmental  assess- 
ment required  on  South  Cayuga  could  be 
now  prepared  within  a  matter  of  two  or 
three  months?  Given  that,  and  given  the 
fact  that  over  the  weekend  the  minister  is 
quoted  as  delaying  the  arrival  of  liquid 
wastes  at  South  Cayuga  until  1982,  surely 
there  is  time  to  carry  out  an  adequate  en- 
vironmental assessment  that  will  reassure 
people  in  the  area  and  across  the  province 
that  this  government  still  believes  in  the 
protection   of  the  environment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  This  is  another  abso- 
lutely colossal  illustration  of  the  fact  that 
the  member  does  not  understand  the  act. 
I  think  that  is  absolutely  correct  because  of 
what  he  just  said. 

One  thing  I  would  want  to  be  taken  from 
the  record  is  the  word  "dump."  I  wish  the 
member,  in  fairness,  would  remove  that 
word  "dump"  because  that  is  just  not  a  fit 
description  of  this  particular  proposal. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Just  answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  This  is,  indeed,  the 
most  modern,  the  most  up-to-date,  the  best 
facility  it  is  possible  to  devise  any  place  in 
the  world  to  treat  waste.  It  is  not  a  dump. 


Mr;  S.  Smith:  What  has  that  got  to  do 
with  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  It  has  a  great  deal  to 
do  with  it.  If  the  member  confuses  those 
two  issues  he  confuses  the  whole  matter. 
It  might  be  appropriate  to  want  to  continue 
to  call  it  a  dump;  I  can  understand  that,  but 
I  am  going  to  insist  that  we  at  least  do  the 
appropriate  thing  and  call  it  what  it  is. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Yes,  a  dump. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  member  is  wrong. 
I  am  going  to  insist  on  that.  It  is  not  even 
remotely  close.  It  is  the  best  facility  it  is 
possible  to  build  any  place  in  the  world. 
It  is  a  treatment  facility.  If  we  continue  the 
present  practice,  that  is  put  our  waste  on 
our  land  in  a  true  dump  fashion,  then  there 
will  be  very  serious  repercussions  from  the 
status  quo.  It  must  change.  It  is  essential 
that  it  change. 

To  address  more  specifically  the  question 
raised  by  the  leader  of  the  third  party,  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act  itself,  both  in 
its  conception  and  in  its  practice,  was  never 
designed  to  go  to  a  hearing.  It  was  designed 
to  try  to  address  the  many  issues  through 
the  process  of  consultation  in  a  co-operative 
way.  That  is  what  an  environmental  assess- 
ment is  all  about.  We  on  this  side  of  the 
House  fully  believe  that  with  Dr.  Chant  as 
chairman  of  that  particular  corporation— and 
interestingly  enough  in  a  discussion  this 
morning  with  Her  Worship  we  agreed— the 
concept  for  this  facility  is  the  right  way  to 
go,  with  a  corporation  running  it,  and  the 
government  taking  full  responsibility  for  it. 
On  that,  it  is  rather  interesting  that  we  fully 
agree. 

She  knows,  and  rightly  so,  that  Dr.  Chant 
and  the  corporation  will  have  to  satisfy  the 
public  as  to  the  appropriateness  of  that  site. 
Nothing  short  of  that  would  satisfy  any  of 
us  in  this  government.  We  want  the  tech- 
nology discussed  with  full  public  participa- 
tion. That  will  continue,  because  there  is 
nothing  in  that  proposal  that  does  not,  I 
think,  adhere  to  the  terms  of  the  best  tech- 
nical facilities  possible. 

We  are  going  to  assure  the  people  of  that 
area  that  it  will  be  the  best,  that  it  will  be 
technically  safe  and  that  they  will  have  a 
full  opportunity  to  understand  all  of  those 
attributes  of  the  proposal. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  will  stop  calling  the  facility  at 
South  Cayuga  a  dump  when  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment  agrees  to  an  adequate  en- 
vironmental assessment  of  the  proposal. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  not  a  point  of  order. 


4772 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  S.  Smith:  How  does  the  minister  ex- 
pect anybody  to  have  confidence  in  what  he 
says  is  going  to  be  such  a  modern  and  fine 
facility,  well  located  and  everything  else— a 
repository  or  whatever  we  are  going  to  call 
it— if  all  the  public  is  going  to  have  to  go  on 
are  press  releases  issued  by  his  ministry  and 
by  the  crown  agency  and  if  people  will  not 
be  able  to  ask  questions,  cross-examine  wit- 
nesses or  have  competing  witnesses? 

If  the  minister  wants  to  say  that  in  point 
of  fact  hearings  are  not  necessary,  do  I  take 
it  that  among  the  amendments  he  is  going  to 
isuggest  is  the  elimination  of  the  possibility  of 
hearings  in  Ontario?  If  hearings  are  not 
needed  about  this  or  about  Darlington,  what 
conceivable  reason  would  there  be  for  hear- 
ings on  any  environmental  project  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  do  not  want  to  enter 
into  a  flippant  exchange  on  who  will  promise 
what.  I  know  this:  If  the  members  opposite 
would  make  a  concentrated  effort  to  see  that 
the  conditions  of  the  hearing  process  worked, 
particularly  in  many  areas  where  they  could 
have  and  absolutely  refused  to  do  so,  we 
would  all  be  better  served.  But  that  is  an 
aside. 

I  think  the  way  we  can  assure  the  people 
is  the  same  way  it  was  assured  to  the  On- 
tario Federation  of  Agriculture  or  the  con- 
servation council,  that  we  are  putting  the 
very  best  person  it  was  humanly  possible  to 
find,  not  only  in  this  province  but— 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Don't  try  to  hide  behind 
Dr.  Chant. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  not  trying  to  hide. 
Sometimes  it  is  nice  to  get  the  facts  on  the 
record.  I  have  not  heard  one  single  word 
that  anyone  challenges  that  statement.  It  is 
utter  nonsense  that  I  am  somehow  or  other 
hiding  behind  him. 

He  is  the  best  person.  I  think  the  mayor  is 
prepared  to  accept  that  he  is.  Given  the 
licence  she  or  her  appointee  has,  and  the 
fact  the  public  will  have  four  out  of  the 
seven  members  on  the  corporation,  it  is  made 
clear  this  government  wants  very  much  to  be 
able  not  only  to  say,  but  to  ensure  that  this 
facility  Will  become  the  best  in  the  province. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  was  not  really  part  of 
the  question. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Given  that  it  is  the  technical  studies  and  re- 
search which  take  time  in  preparation  for  an 
Environmental  Assessment  Board  hearing,  do 
the  minister  and  his  ministry  intend  to  do 
exactly  the  same  research  and  technical 
studies  they  would  do  if  there  were  to  be  an 
environmental  assessment?  If  they  do,  what 


will  the  minister  do  if  those  technical  studies 
find  the  South  Cayuga  site  is  unacceptable  for 
the  acceptance  of  liquid  industrial  waste? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  answer  that  question.  The  minis- 
try' will  not  do  it;  the  crown  corporation  will 
do  it.  The  commitment  has  been  very  clear 
and  concise:  If  that  site  is  not  totally  safe  for 
the  residents  of  that  community  it  will  not 
proceed.  It  is  that  simple. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  In  whose  opinion? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  In  the  crown  corpora- 
tion's opinion.  I  think  that  should  be  clearly 
put  forward. 

We  are  going  to  a  crown  corporation,  pre- 
dominantly served  by  the  public,  with  two 
from  the  local  area,  that  is  where  the  de- 
cision is  made  that  the  site  must  be  safe  or  it 
will  not  proceed.  That  followed  from  the 
statement  made  here  Thursday.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  I  think  radio  station  CFRB  reported 
it  exactly  that  way. 
2:20  p.m. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  have  a  question  on  a  dif- 
ferent matter  for  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment, Mr.  Speaker. 

The  minister  will  undoubtedly  be  aware 
of  Interflow  in  Hamilton,  the  firm  that  was 
using  its  premises  to  bring  in  all  kinds  of  im- 
ported liquid  wastes  and  shipping  them  to 
the  Upper  Ottawa  Street  site,  contrary  to  the 
certificate  of  approval.  Among  its  other  activi- 
ties, apparently,  was  the  dumping  of  150,000 
gallons  of  extremely  dangerous  and  volatile 
liquid  waste  directly  into  the  Hamilton 
harbour. 

Given  that  the  company  or  someone  must 
undoubtedly  have  been  paid  at  least  $15,000 
to  take  that  waste  away  from  whoever  the 
originator  happened  to  be,  does  the  minister 
feel  it  is  reasonable  that  the  person  who  has 
just  been  convicted  of  having  illegally  dumped 
150,000  gallons  should  have  been  fined  the 
princely  sum  of  $500?  Does  it  seem  sensible 
to  the  minister  that  $500  should  have  been 
settled  upon  as  a  fine  for  dumping  150,000 
gallons  into  the  bay?  If  not,  does  the  minis- 
ter realize  that  plea  bargaining  went  on  and 
that  more  serious  charges  were  put  aside 
when  the  person  who  was  charged  admitted 
some  guilt  with  regard  to  the  regulatory 
offence? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  do  not  think  that  is  an 
appropriate  fine  and  that  is  precisely  why 
I  said  last  week  we  would  bring  in,  for  first 
reading  this  week,  legislation  for  minimum 
fines.  They  are  a  long  way  from  $500. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4773 


Mr.  S.  Smith:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
the  apparent  reason  the  crown  acceded  to 
the  motion  of  not  proceeding  with  the  more 
serious  charges  would  appear  to  be  that  as 
usual,  as  with  every  other  aspect  of  this 
case  of  Interflow  and  Upper  Ottawa  Street, 
the  ministry  was  unable  to  get  it  back 
together  to  make  the  charges  stick.  So  the 
people  of  Hamilton  have  now  had  at  least 
150,000  gallons,  and  maybe  much  more 
than  that,  dumped  into  the  bay  for  the 
princely  sum  of  $500.  When  is  the  minister 
going  to  clean  up  the  act  in  his  ministry  and 
stop  promoting  the  very  people  who  made 
this  mess  in  the  first  place? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  member  has  just 
made  an  absolutely  magnificent  case  for  the 
urgency  of  getting  on  with  the  treatment 
facility  that  we  need  in  this  province  so  that 
it  cannot  happen  again.  I  cannot  think  of 
a  better  reason  for  saying  we  need  a  treat- 
ment facility.  We  need  a  waybill  system,  we 
need  a  site  that  will  address  all  of  those 
issues.  That  is  precisely  why  I  think  we 
should  be  moving  in  the  direction  we  are. 
We  should  do  so  with  the  utmost  haste 
and  we  are  proceeding  just  exactly  that 
way. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  minister 
promised  us  a  while  ago  that  he  would  be 
introducing  legislation  to  tighten  up  on  the 
penalties  under  the  Environmental  Protec- 
tion Act.  That  legislation  is  not  here  yet. 
When  can  we  expect  to  see  it  and  when 
will  he  start  getting  tough  with  the  people 
who  break  the  rules  that  are  designed  to 
protect   the   environment  of  this   province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  really  cannot  under- 
stand how  the  member  can  ask  that  ques- 
tion, after  I  have  said  very  clearly  three 
times  in  this  Legislature,  the  last  time  less 
than  two  minutes  ago,  that  we  would  be 
introducing  that  legislation  this  week.  How 
many  times  must  I  repeat  that  very  simple 
statement?  I  really  do  not  think  it  is  too 
much  to  expect  that  to  be  heard. 

When  will  we  start  to  get  tougher?  We 
started  a  long  time  ago.  I  read  into  the 
record  very  quickly  at  the  end  of  the  debate 
last  Thursday  afternoon  many  of  the  things 
we  have  done.  If  the  member  would  take 
the  time  to  read  about  two  minutes  of  that 
debate,  at  about  5:55  p.m.,  he  will  Jmd  a 
list  of  about  15  things  we  have  done  to  make 
a  much  tougher,  more  stringent  enforcement 
of  the  legislation  to  deal  with  the  problem 
he  says  should  be  dealt  with. 


ENVIRONMENTAL  ASSESSMENT 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment about  the  very  rapid  changes  in  policy 
with  respect  to  liquid  waste  which  have 
been  taking  place  within  the  government 
over  the  course  of  last  week. 

The  minister  has  just  said  that  because 
of  criticism  of  the  Ajax  decision,  because 
the  handling  of  it  did  not  encourage  public 
confidence,  he  is  now  prepared  to  make 
changes  in  the  Environmental  Protection 
Act.  He  has  also  stated— and  this  is  new— 
that  if  the  South  Cayuga  site  is  not  totally 
safe,  then  it  will  not  go  ahead.  On  Friday, 
the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  said  that  there  will 
be  public  hearings.  We  had  that  assurance 
for  the  first  time. 

Will  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  tell 
the  House  what  form  of  public  hearings  the 
government  has  in  mind  and  why  it  is  that 
those  public  hearings  cannot  take  place 
under  the  procedures  established  by  the 
Legislature  through  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Very  simply,  I  think 
the  Premier  said  what,  with  respect  to  the 
Premier,  I  had  said  previously.  When  Dr. 
Chant  was  appointed  to  the  corporation,  we 
discussed  the  conditions.  One  was  that  there 
would  be  a  new  technical  assessment  of  the 
site  and  the  second  was  what  arrangements 
we  would  work  out  for  him  with  the 
boards- 
Mr.  Warner:  The  minister  is  backtracking 
through  sludge. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Not  a  bit.  Go  and  check 
the  records.  I  am  happy  that  he  and  the 
local  people— we  still  listen  to  the  local 
people.  I  read  with  some  interest  over  the 
weekend  an  article  in  the  Chatham  Daily 
News  and  I  would  like  to  put  this  on  the 
record,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  was  a  statement  by 
the  member  for  Kent-Elgin  (Mr.  McGuigan) 
and  he  said,  "Dr.  Parrott's  decision  to  with- 
draw clearly  is  proof  that  the  government 
still  listens  to  the  public."  How  right  he  was. 
Mr.  Cassidy:  In  view  of  the  commitment 
to  listen  to  the  public  which  the  minister 
has  reiterated  now  and  which  he  gave  to 
the  Legislature  at  the  conclusion  of  last 
Thursday's  emergency  debate,  is  the  min- 
ister prepared  and  is  the  government  pre- 
pared to  listen  to  the  Ontario  Federation 
of  Agriculture's  demand  that  there  be  hear- 
ings under  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Act?  Is  he  prepared  to  listen  to  the  similar 
demand  which  is  being  voiced,  not  only  by 


4774 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


people    in    South    Cayuga,    but   by   the   re- 
gional   council   in   that   particular   area? 

Is  the  minister  prepared  to  listen  to  envi- 
ronmental groups  from  across  the  province 
which  are  saying  that  the  procedures  under 
the  Environmental  Assessment  Act  should 
be  followed?  Will  he  bring  in  hearings 
that  respect  the  purposes  of  the  Environ- 
mental Assessment  Act,  which  ensures  that 
the  public  has  a  right  to  participate  and 
ensures  that  the  public  has  the  right  of 
access  to  the  internal  assessments  done 
either  by  the  ministry  or  by  the  crown  cor- 
poration? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Of  course,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  that  has  been  said  many  times  pre- 
viously. The  Ontario  Federation  of  Agricul- 
ture passed  a  resolution.  I  went  down  to 
see  the  federation  of  agriculture  and  I  think 
they  heard  some  testimony  from  some  of 
their  members  who  thought  the  matter 
should  be  reopened,  (given  some  of  the  new 
information  they  had.  That  is  going  to  be 
done.  On  December  10,  they  are  (going  to 
assess   the  proposal  that  I  put  forward. 

I  am  more  than  happy  to  have  the  federa- 
tion discuss  that  matter.  They  see  some  great 
wisdom  in  having  the  technical  advisory 
committee  work  with  the  corporation.  I 
think  that  is  fine.  I  cannot  tell  the  member 
how  important  it  is  that  the  public  know 
what  is  going  on.  We  will  be  more  than 
pleased  to  fulfil  every  requirement  in  that 
regard,  and  if  it  means  a  technical  advisory 
committee,  that  is  great.  If  it  means  that 
there  should  be  information  houses  there, 
that  is  great. 

If  it  means  that  they  want  some  more  in- 
formation, I  am  sure  Dr.  Chant  will  find 
this  government  more  than  prepared  to  fund 
that  kind  of  activity,  no  problem  at  all.  I 
think  we  will  find  that  once  that  facility  is 
in  place  we  will  have  done  in  this  prov- 
ince, in  this  government,  what  will  cause 
everybody  else  to  come  to  us  and  say:  "How 
did  you  do  it?  Is  it  not  great  that  you  have 
those  facilities?  It  will  be  the  best  in  the 
world.  We  only  wish  we  had  the  same." 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  it  appears  that  there  is  a  pretty  clear 
pattern  emerging  on  these  major  projects 
of  avoiding  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Act  at  all  costs— and  I  would  refer  to  the 
Darlington  project,  which  exemption  was 
justified  on  the  urgency  of  time,  and  to  the 
Bradley-Georgetown  corridor  where  the 
avoidance  of  application  of  the  Environ- 
mental Assessment  Act  was  done  for  that 
very  reason,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  min- 
ister   has   stated   here   today   in   the    House 


that   this  particular  project  would  be   dealt 
with  in  a  different  way  because  of  the  ur- 
gency   of    time— I    would    ask    the    minister 
where   we   go   from   here. 
2:30   p.m. 

There  are  two  major  pending  projects. 
One  happens  to  be  the  garbage  site  in  my 
riding,  where  the  courts  have  ruled  that 
environmental  assessment  does  apply  and 
the  minister  has  to  decide  whether  he  is 
going  to  attempt  it.  The  other  one  is  the 
second  line  out  of  Bruce. 

Mr.  Speaker:  This  is  a  speech.  This  is  not 
really  a  question. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  I  would  ask  the  minister 
what  he  is  'going  to  do  about  the  necessity 
for  the  second  line  out  of  Bruce  which  has 
got  to  happen  by  about  1983.  Is  he  going 
to  undertake  the  same  kind  of  pattern  that 
is  emerging  here? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
should  be  very  clear  that  when  this  act  was 
brought  in  it  said  in  section  41(f),  if  the 
member  wishes  to  check  it  out,  that  what 
we  are  doing  is  precisely  what  is  permissible 
under  the  act.  If  someone  says  "Obey  the 
law,"  and  I  will  not  refer  to  anyone  in  par- 
ticular who  said  that,  indeed  we  are  doing 
that.  Let  us  not  be  in  any  doubt  about  that 
whatsoever.  The  act  very  clearly  says  we 
are  in  total  conformity  with  it. 

Mr.  Nixon:  What  about  the  intent  of  the 
law? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  If  the  member  wants  to 
talk  about  the  intent  of  the  law,  then  let  us 
look  at  what  has  happened.  If  he  wants  to 
know  what  has  happened  in  the  past  and 
what  will  happen  in  the  future,  I  think  most 
people  understand  that  what  has  happened 
in  the  past  will  likely  be  the  best  indication 
of  what  will  happen  in  the  future.  There 
have  been,  by  far,  a  greater  number  of 
assessments  of  various  projects  in  the  last 
two  years  than  ever  before.  The  member 
can  be  assured  this  process  is  alive  and  well 
and  working. 

The  great  part  about  it,  and  I  am  going  to 
say  this  dozens  of  times  because  it  may  take 
that  many  times  to  get  through  to  the  mem- 
ber, is  that  the  Environmental  Assessment  Act 
is  very  clearly  one  that  requires  consultation. 
That  has  been  going  on  very  significantly  in 
the  last  two  years,  and  it  will  in  the  future. 
That  act  is  very  much  alive  and  very  much  in 
force,  and  will  continue  to  be  so. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Final  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  If  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Act  is  alive  and  well  and  working,  why  not 
hold  a  hearing  under  it  on  South  Cayuga? 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4775 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  comes 
a  time  when  I  think  I  can  only  repeat  the 
answer  so  often.  I  have  given  it  in  my  state- 
ment, I  have  given  it  in  reply  to  questions 
here  previously,  and  I  would  refer  the  mem- 
ber back  to  Hansard  to  read  it  the  three  or 
four  times  I  have  said  it  on  the  record. 

SOCIAL  STUDIES  CURRICULUM 
GUIDELINES 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another 
question  about  the  capacity  or  the  willingness 
of  the  government  to  listen,  and  in  particular 
to  take  an  impartial  rather  than  a  one-sided 
approach.  This  question  is  to  the  Minister  of 
Education. 

Could  the  Minister  of  Education  explain 
why  it  is  that  over  the  course  of  a  year  and 
a  half  there  has  been  extensive  consultation 
with  groups  such  as  the  Toronto  Board  of 
Trade,  the  Canadian  Manufacturers'  Asso- 
ciation and  local  chambers  of  commerce  on 
the  grade  seven  and  eight  curriculum  unit 
entitled  Social  Reform,  Trade  Unionism  and 
Women's  Suffrage?  Why  is  it  that  business 
groups  such  as  the  CM  A  and  the  chambers 
of  commerce  have  been  extensively  con- 
sulted, but  the  minister  has  repeatedly  re- 
fused to  have  any  form  of  consultation  with 
reputable  labour  groups  such  as  the  labour 
liaison  committee  of  the  Toronto  Board  of 
Education  or  the  education  department  of 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  understanding  there  was  participation  of 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  curriculum  guidelines  which 
were  established  approximately  two  and  a 
half  years  ago,  I  believe,  for  social  studies 
in  that  area.  There  is  a  very  specific  seg- 
ment within  those  guidelines  related  to  the 
development  of  labour  within  Canada  and 
Ontario.  That  was  a  significant  addition  to 
that  curriculum  and  one  in  which  there  was 
a  good  deal  of  participation  and  consultation 
with  organized  labour  in  its  development. 
There  has  not  been  any  consultation  at  all, 
to  my  knowledge,  with  either  the  CMA  or 
the  boards  of  trade.  I  have  not  had  any  con- 
sultations with  any  of  those  groups  on  that 
subject. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary:  I  have  cor- 
respondence here  which  shows  there  was 
extensive  consultation  back  in  1979  with 
various  boards  of  trade  and  chambers  of  com- 
merce, which  put  comments  in  to  the  minister 
such  as  the  following— this  is  a  quote  from 
the  board  of  trade  that  was  passed  to  the 
minister  through  Mr.  Storey:  "The  study  of 
trade  unions  should  not  be  part  of  any  his- 


tory course  unless  the  message  is  that  unions 
ruin  a  country." 

Why  is  the  minister  prepared  to  allow  that 
kind  of  one-sided  consultation  when  consis- 
tently, for  more  than  a  year,  she  has  refused 
to  have  any  kind  of  contact  between  people 
in  the  labour  movement  and  the  people  who 
develop  this  course,  in  order  to  allow  the 
trade  unions  and  people  representing  or- 
ganized workers  across  the  province  to  con- 
tribute to  the  development  of  this  curriculum 
unit?  Why  is  she  so  one-sided? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
afraid  the  one-sidedness  is  in  the  direction  in 
which  the  honourable  member  is  suggesting 
that  it  did  not  happen.  There  was  indeed 
consultation  with  the  labour  movement  in 
that  development. 

I  have  not  consulted  with  the  board  of 
trade  about  this  topic.  We  have  consulted 
with  the  board  of  trade  about  opportunities 
for  teacher  experience  within  the  business 
world  and  with  the  CMA  about  co-operative 
education.  It  has  not  been  specifically  about 
the  curriculum  content  of  the  labour  studies 
segment  of  the  social  studies  program. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  It  is  right  here. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:   That  is  not  what 
my  meeting- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sorry.  That  may  have  been  in  a  communica- 
tion from  those  organizations,  but  it  was  not 
the  matter  under  discussion  when  I  had  two 
meetings  with  the  board  of  trade  about  co- 
operative education,  nor  was  it  in  any  way 
the  topic  under  discussion  at  the  meeting  I 
had  with  some  representatives  of  business  who 
were  not  necessarily  members  of  the  CMA. 

They  wished  to  discuss  the  possibility  of 
including  some  curriculum  related  to  the 
establishment  of  the  entrepreneurial  spirit  in 
Canada  and  in  Ontario.  The  member  does 
not  know  what  he  is  talking  about,  because 
he  was  not  there. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  certainly  do,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  have  here  the  correspondence  signed  by 
Mr.  J.  E.  Doris,  education  officer,  curriculum 
branch,  saying  specifically,  "Subsequently,  I 
sent  them  six  copies  of  our  proposed  support 
document  for  their  study  in  advance  of  our 
meeting  on  February  6"— six  copies  of  the 
proposal  for  this  curriculum  unit,  after  they 
had  communicated  with  the  ministry  and 
suggested  that  Social  Reform,  Trade  Unionism 
and  Women's  Suffrage  should  not  be  part 
cf  the  history  curriculum. 

How  can  the  minister  get  up  in  this  House 
and   say  something  which  she  knows  to  be 


4776 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


untrue,  when  the  documents  indicate  quite 
clearly  that  there  was  substantial  consultation 
with  the  board  of  trade  and  other  business 
groups  while  the  ministry  was  refusing  to 
have  any  contact  at  all  with  representatives 
of  the  labour  movement? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  That  is  not  what  the 
honourable  member  suggested.  He  suggested 
I  had  refused  to  meet  with  them.  I  have  not 
refused  to  meet  with  any  of  them.  I  have  met, 
as  I  suggested,  with  the  board  of  trade  repre- 
sentatives about  a  different  subject,  not  about 
the  curriculum  development  in  that  specific 
area. 

If  they  met  with  the  group  which  had,  in 
fact,  been  responsible  for  the  development  of 
that  curriculum,  that  is  perfectly  fine.  I  can 
understand  there  might  have  been  some  con- 
cern that  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour 
had  not  met  with  the  minister,  because  I  have 
not  met  with  the  OFL.  I  have  met  with  the 
Board  of  Trade  about  other  subjects,  but  not 
about  that  curriculum.  That  is  the  question 
the  member  asked  me. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  have  spent  32  minutes 
on  leaders'  questions.  I  think  that  is  entirely 
out  of  proportion. 

DETERRENT  SENTENCES 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice. 
I  asked  the  minister  on  Fridav  about  sen- 
tences with  regard  to  people  breaking  into 
homes  and  crimes  against  people.  I  wonder 
if  the  minister  is  aware  that  there  is  a  real 
concern  on  the  part  of  many  people,  not 
only  in  the  area  I  am  talking  about— and 
I  am  getting  resolutions  from  many  councils 
—but  right  in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  where 
people  are  getting  fearful  in  their  homes 
because  of  the  number  of  break-ins  taking 
place.  What  is  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Justice  going  to  do? 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
it  is  more  a  question  of  a  police  investiga- 
tion. It  is  certainly  a  matter  for  local  munic- 
ipal police  forces  to  enforce  the  law.  Ob- 
viously they  are  going  to  put  every  effort 
towards  avoiding  any  kind  of  burglaries  of 
this  sort.  I  know  there  are  certain  crack- 
downs occurring  in  a  number  of  cities,  and 
I  am  sure  this  is  one  city  where  it  probably 
has  started,  if  the  pressure  has  developed 
to  this  point. 

Mr.  Ruston:  What  the  minister  says  is 
fine,  and  the  police  are  probably  doing  their 
job.  But  the  concern  the  police  have  is  over 
sentencing.  When  they  do  take  these  people 
to  court  they  are  either  dismissed  or  given 


probation,    or    a    slap    of    the    hand    on    the 
back    of   the   neck;    they  may  not  even   get 
that.    It    is    time    something    was    done    to 
straighten  this  out. 
2:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  The  sentencing  patterns 
in  Ontario  are  established  basically  by  the 
Supreme  Court.  That  percolates  down  to 
the  lower  courts  and  they  take  their  pre- 
cedent from  the  higher  courts.  It  is  a 
matter  of  whether  or  not  the  Supreme 
Court  would  be  changing  its  sentencing 
patterns  to  reflect  what  the  member  is 
suggesting  and  indicating,  that  lengthier 
sentences  would  perhaps  cause  more  deter- 
rence to  this  kind  of  event.  One  thing 
lengthier  sentences  would  do  would  be  to 
take  more  people  off  the  street  who  might 
otherwise  have  been  committing  burglary. 

ITALIAN  EARTHQUAKE 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  to  the  Premier  regarding  the  tragic  catas- 
trophe that  occurred  in  southern  Italy  last 
week.  The  earthquake  left  approximately 
10,000  dead  and  400,000  homeless.  The  latest 
decision  by  the  federal  government  was  not 
to  allow  immigration  into  Canada  of  all  the 
earthquake  victims  who  may  wish  to  apply 
to  come  here  but  only  those  who  had  made 
an  application  prior  to  the  earthquake  and 
those  who  have  close  family  in  Canada.  I 
recognize  that  immigration  is  not  under 
provincial  jurisdiction,  but  will  the  Premier 
join  with  me  in  making  strong  representa- 
tion to  the  federal  government  to  rethink 
its  position?  Would  he  urge  it  to  allow 
entry  into  our  country  of  all  the  earthquake 
victims  who  wish  to  come,  whether  or  not 
they  have  close  family  ties  in  Canada? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  hon- 
ourable member  very  properly  pointed  out, 
the  question  of  immigration  policy  is  the 
responsibility  of  the  government  of  Canada. 
As  I  understand  it,  the  approach  it  has  taken 
is  to  accept  those  who  are  close  relatives 
and  who  have  a  relationship  with  existing 
families  here.  Whether  this  should  extend  to 
a  much  broader  scope,  quite  frankly  I  would 
doubt  the  government  of  Canada  really  has 
given  careful  consideration  yet.  Certainly 
•we  are  quite  prepared  to  discuss  it  here,  but 
I  do  emphasize  to  the  member  that  judge- 
ment will  be  made  by  the  government  of 
Canada. 

Mr.  Grande:  I  hope  I  did  not  hear  the 
Premier  say  he  is  not  going  to  make  repre- 
sentation to  the  federal  government.  Hoping 
I  did  not  hear  that,  in  his  representation  will 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4777 


the  Premier  suggest  to  the  federal  govern- 
ment that  it  allow  sponsorship  of  people  into 
Canada  who  do  not  have  close  family  ties  in 
this  country?  Further,  will  the  Premier 
suggest  to  his  federal  counterparts  that  talks 
should  begin  immediately  with  the  United 
States  urging  that  country  to  follow  a  similar 
procedure? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  really  is 
asking  me  to  try  to  determine  what  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada  might  do  in  relationship 
with  the  United  States.  I  cannot  really  re- 
solve that— 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  He  is  asking  you  to 
use  your  influence. 

Mr.  Laughren:  You  have  a  lot  of  influence 
with  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  no.  I  am  just  saying 
what  he  is  asking  me  to  do.  I  think  it  is  fair 
to  state  the  member  heard  my  answer  cor- 
rectly the  first  time.  I  did  not  say  I  would 
not. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker,  will  the  Premier  consider 
making  the  following  suggestion  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada:  Inasmuch  as  most  of  the 
expenditure  for  schooling,  health  and  so  on 
would  be  a  provincial  expenditure,  will  he 
consider  making  the  suggestion  that  there  be 
an  extended  visitor  status  offered  to  victims 
of  the  earthquake  even  if  they  have  distant 
relatives  in  Canada?  Then  people  could  come 
for  a  period,  let  us  say,  of  two  to  three  years 
while  rebuilding  and  resettlement  is  taking 
place  in  Italy.  They  would  be  able  to  stay 
longer  than  the  usual  time  a  visitor  is  per- 
mitted to  stay  and  be  able  to  take  part-time 
work  and  to  attend  school  here.  This  would 
be  on  the  basis  that  they  would  not  have  to 
pass  the  usual  rigorous  tests  that  permanent 
immigrants  would  have  to  pass.  Would  the 
Premier  be  willing  to  suggest  to  the  govern- 
ment a  more  flexible  extended  visitor  status 
for  some  of  the  victims  of  the  earthquake? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister 
of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Mr.  Wells) 
was  meeting  with  the  committee  this  morning 
related  to  a  number  of  issues.  I  chatted  with 
some  of  them  the  other  day  and  I  would 
think  that  perhaps  at  this  moment  it  is  still 
a  shade  premature  to  make  some  of  these 
judgements. 

From  this  government's  perspective,  we 
will  be  quite  prepared  to  co-operate  with  the 
government  of  Canada  on  any  initiatives.  In 
fairness  to  the  government  of  Canada,  it  has 
already  started  some  initiatives  in  the  area 
of  immigration.  How  far  it  should  be  ex- 
tended is  something  about  which  we  would 


not  want  to  make  a  judgement  without  con- 
sultation with  federal  officials. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  May  I  recommend  the  Premier  to 
consider  sending  a  delegation  of  members 
from  the  three  parties  to  Italy  to  assess  and 
report  on  the  general  situation  in  the  three 
Italian  regions  affected  by  the  earthquake  so 
as  to  determine  in  what  way  the  money 
allocated  by  Ontario  to  the  earthquake  relief 
fund  can  be  spent  as  soon  as  possible  to 
alleviate  the  economic  and  social  problems 
faced  by  the  survivors? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  gov- 
ernment is  working  with  the  responsible 
committee  in  Metropolitan  Toronto.  We 
think  this  is  the  best  vehicle  and  we  will 
continue  to  work  through  it  in  terms  of  what 
assistance  we  may  be  able  to  offer. 

EDUCATIONAL  TELEVISION 

Mr.  T.  P.  Beid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recrea- 
tion in  regard  to  educational  television.  In 
view  of  the  minister's  recent  announcement 
about  extension  of  services  into  Owen  Sound 
and  other  areas,  can  he  indicate  to  us  when 
he  is  going  to  extend  educational  television 
services  to  the  rest  of  northern  Ontario,  par- 
ticularly the  Rainy  River  district  and,  for  my 
friend  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  (Mr. 
Bernier),  Kenora  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated some  weeks  ago  in  the  House,  in  the 
not  too  distant  future  we  are  planning  to 
extend  educational  television  to  one  or  two 
more  areas  via  the  conventional  route.  How- 
ever, as  I  also  indicated  several  weeks  ago  in 
the  House,  it  will  be  difficult  and  uneco- 
nomical to  extend  via  the  conventional  route 
to  areas  that  are  less  populated. 

We  think  those  areas  will  be  better  served 
through  the  new  technology  that  is  going  to 
take  off  with  the  launching  of  the  Anik  C 
satellite.  Essentially,  it  will  follow  the  lines 
we  have  adopted  now  for  the  Rainy  River 
area.  As  I  am  sure  the  honourable  member 
knows,  in  the  Rainy  River  area  we  are  now 
taking  signals  from  the  Anik  B  satellite  that 
are  received  by  a  dish  and  extended  for  a 
small  radius  around  Rainy  River.  We  feel  that 
is  going  to  be  the  most  effective  way  by  far 
to  get  the  excellent  TVOntario  programs  to 
areas  like  Rainy  River  and  all  the  communities 
throughout  northern  Ontario. 

Anik  C  is  not  going  up  until  1983.  In  the 
meantime,  we  will  continue,  on  an  experi- 
mental basis,  as  we  are  doing  in  Rainy  River 
and  some  other  areas  now. 


4778 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  I  would  like  to  add  Lake 
Nipigon  riding  to  the  list  for  my  silent  friend, 
the  member  for  Lake  Nipigon  (Mr.  Stokes). 

Since  Anik  C  is  not  going  to  be  operating 
until  some  time  in  1983  at  least  and  since, 
in  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Parr  of  educational 
television  a  few  months  ago,  he  indicated  al- 
most the  whole  region  could  be  covered  for 
something  in  the  neighbourhood  of  $1  million 
or  $1.5  million  and,  since  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs  has  $400,000  or  more  in  his 
budget  for  this  sort  of  thing,  can  the  minis- 
ter not  speed  up  the  process  so  we  do  not 
have  to  wait  until  after  1983  and  can  be 
serviced  like  most  of  the  province  within  six 
months  or  a  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  I  would  not  want  to  hold 
out  any  specific  promises  along  the  lines  sug- 
gested by  the  member.  What  I  can  say  is  we 
will  try  to  continue  the  experimental  program 
utilizing  the  Anik  B  satellite  that  is  now  in 
about  47  different  locations  across  northern 
Ontario.  It  is  our  hope  we  will  have  federal 
authorization  to  carry  on  with  that  experi- 
ment, which  was  to  have  terminated  in  Feb- 
ruary 1981,  for  another  15  or  18  months  be- 
yond that,  which  will  get  us  very  close  to 
the  launching  of  Anik  C. 
2:50  p.m. 

I  really  think  the  answer  for  the  more 
sparsely  settled  parts  of  this  province,  which 
includes  more  than  just  northern  Ontario  of 
course,  it  includes  eastern  Ontario  as  well, 
really  lies  in  the  new  technology  which  TV- 
Ontario  is  the  world  leader  in  experimenting 
in. 

Mr.  Speaker:  As  a  supplementary  answer, 
just  because  the  member  for  Rainy  River  does 
not  hear  me,  it  does  not  mean  I  am  silent. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  Now 
that  he  has  recognized  the  need  for  a  crown 
corporation  to  deal  with  liquid  industrial 
waste,  what  is  the  minister's  attitude  to- 
wards projects  such  as  Harwich,  Thorold, 
Ajax  or  others  not  yet  in  the  public  domain, 
for  which  private  operators  or  local  govern- 
ments may,  on  their  own,  continue  to  press? 
Is  he  going  to  give  some  words  of  encour- 
agement or  words  to  those  operators  that 
they  need  not  bother  because  the  crown 
corporation    will    handle    everything? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  tried 
to  assess  the  situation,  people  are  extremely 
pleased  that  there  will  be  a  crown  corpora- 
tion; they  are  extremely  pleased  that  it  will 
be  government  run,  if  you  will,  through  the 


corporation  site;  that  there  will  be  lab  facili- 
ties; that  there  will  be  tight  controls  on  the 
gate;  it  will  be  fenced  in  and  it  will  have 
24-hour  surveillance.  All  of  those  things  have 
met  with  a  igreat  deal  of  public  acceptance. 

It  is  easy  to  forget  that  large  portions 
have  caught  the  attention  and  the  approval 
of  the  public  and  there  is  no  doubt  on  any 
side  that  is  true.  I  am  pleased  members 
recognize  that  perhaps  two  thirds  or  more, 
perhaps  75  per  cent,  of  the  proposal  does 
have  a  great  deal  of  public  acceptance  and 
I  am  very  pleased  about  that. 

Having  said  that,  we  intend  to  see  that 
the  site  is  run  to  the  very  best.  If  somebody 
else  wishes  to  apply,  however,  I  cannot  tell 
them  no.  I  think  anyone  would  clearly  un- 
derstand that  we  are  taking  on  that  com- 
mitment in  a  site  that  gives  us  the  greatest 
opportunity  to  do  it  to  the  very  best  and 
I  think  that  is  obviously  a  clear  signal.  If 
the  member  wants  me  to  say  to  someone 
that  they  cannot,  would  not  be  able  to, 
well  of  course  I  do  not  have  that  privilege. 
It  is  their  determination,  but  if  anyone 
should  have  any  trouble  reading  that  sig- 
nal, I  am  afraid  they  are  not  very  attentive. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  On  the  matter  of  the  one  that 
is  of  most  immediate  decision,  why  is  the 
minister  meeting  on  Wednesday  with  the 
chairman  of  the  regional  municipality  and 
with  the  local  member,  when  the  Environ- 
mental Assessment  Board  draft  report,  which 
is  the  report  he  has  said  he  will  take  note 
of  in  future,  so  clearly  recommends  against 
that  proposal?  Is  the  minister  going  to  that 
meeting  to  tell  them  he  thinks  that  project 
should  not  proceed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  sometimes  wonder 
whether  we  need  a  new  sound  system  in 
this  place— and  we  have  just  had  one. 

Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  read  the  paragraph 
which  said  it  very  clearly,  and  I  will  read 
every  word  the  same  as  I  did  before. 

"I  have  discussed  the  issue  with  Mr. 
Walter  Beath,  the  outgoing  regional  chair- 
man, and  the  local  MPP,  the  member  for 
Durham  West  (Mr.  Ashe).  As  a  result,  I 
have  arranged  for  a  meeting  Thursday  with 
the  director,  the  member  for  Durham  West 
and  the  new  regional  chairman  .  .  ."  Not 
any  place  in  that  statement  do  I  say  they 
are  meeting  with  me.  They  are  not  going 
to  be  meeting  with  me  on  Thursday.  I  have 
arranged  the  meeting  between  the  director, 
the  member  and  the  regional  chairman,  who 
is  yet  to  be  named,  and  that  will  occur  on 
Wednesday.  We  will  try  to  announce  the 
results  of  that  meeting  on  Thursday.  He 
asked  for  it  to  be  held  as  soon  as  possible. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4779 


Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  make  sure  I  didn't 
short  change  the  member?  The  regional 
chairman  is  to  be  appointed  on  Wednesday, 
and  the  meeting  will  be  on  Thursday.  The 
regional  chairman  is  to  be  appointed  Wed- 
nesday. 

MINISTRY   SETTLEMENT 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  as  well. 
Wrould  the  minister  reopen  the  settlement 
negotiated  between  his  ministry  and  Evans 
Contracting  Limited  in  Markham,  a  com- 
pany which  contracted  with  his  ministry  to 
construct  a  sewage  lagoon  in  Temagami,  but 
because  of  the  tactics  used  by  officials  in 
the  ministry,  which  are  nothing  less  than 
economic  blackmail,  it  forced  that  company 
to  its  knees?  Will  the  minister  settle  this 
account  with  his  ministry? 

It  has  caused  a  consulting  firm  to  observe 
in  a  letter  to  the  Ombudsman  that  the  min- 
ister is  using  arbitration  as  a  tool  to  soften 
up  claimants  and,  by  tying  up  one's  capital 
in  a  dispute,  the  claimant's  chances  of 
survival  are  lessened.  In  other  words,  by 
dragging  out  a  settlement  artificially,  as  was 
done  in  this  case,  a  small  contractor  with 
modest  means  will  either  go  bankrupt  before 
the  conclusion  of  the  dispute  or  will  be 
forced  to  accept  a  totally  inadequate  settle- 
ment, as  was  done  in  this  case,  reducing 
the  claim  from  $400,000  to  a  little  over 
$100,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
heard  the  member  say  that  was  before  the 
Ombudsman.  I  suspect  he  has  already  con- 
tacted our  office  and  we  have  made  our  files 
available  to  him.  I  think  that  is  the  appro- 
priate course  of  action.  I  do  not  associate 
myself  with  very  many  of  the  remarks  made 
by  the  member,  but  when  it  is  before  the 
Ombudsman  I  think  we  should  let  him  deal 
with  it.  I  am  sure  the  member  would  agree 
that  is  the  way  justice  is  done  in  this 
province. 

Mr.  Stong:  Would  the  minister  assure  this 
House  that  his  ministry  officials  are  not 
employing  tactics  that  are  equivalent  to 
economic  blackmail  in  the  settlement  of  ac- 
counts of  small  contractors  with  his  ministry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  can  assure  the  member 
of  that  very  quickly.  Indeed,  I  have  found 
on  many  occasions  that  an  extra  meeting  is 
held  in  an  attempt  to  explain  the  situation. 
We  are  dealing  in  an  area  where  contractors 
sometimes  do  run  into  difficulties  through 
no  fault  of  their  own,  certainly  through 
no     fault     of     the     ministry     and     through 


no  fault  of  the  consulting  engineers.  I  have 
seen  several  cases  where  that  has  happened. 
That  will  likely  always  happen  when  an  in- 
dividual is  doing  a  contract  where  not  all 
of  the  factors  can  be  identified  when  bidding 
for  a  contract.  If  the  member  wants  assur- 
ance that  my  ministry  will  continue  to  work 
with  those  contractors  in  a  fair  and  equi- 
table manner,  he  has  it. 

HALDIMAND  CHILDREN'S 
AID  SOCIETY 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  final  report 
of  the  operational  review  of  the  Haldimand 
Children's  Aid  Society,  which  indicates  on 
page  three  that  in  March  1979  the  agency 
was  in  a  state  of  crisis.  On  pages  64  and  65> 
it  indicates  it  was  in  violation  of  at  least 
seven  provisions  of  the  Child  Welfare  Act. 

My  question  of  the  minister  has  to  do  with 
the  Butler  family  who  have  had  their  three 
children  apprehended,  taken  into  care  and 
subsequently  denied  any  opportunity  for  the 
provision  of  family  counselling  and,  therefore, 
an  opportunity  for  rehabilitation.  Is  the  min- 
ister familiar  with  this  case?  Also,  can  he 
report  to  the  House  any  action  he  may  have 
taken?  I  would  plead  with  him  to  intervene 
in  this  situation.  Can  he  arrange  that  juris- 
diction be  transferred  in  this  case  from  Haldi- 
mand to  Brantford  so  that  the  kinds  of  serv- 
ices this  family  is  entitled  to  under  the  Child 
Welfare  Act  can  be  provided? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  have 
some  degree  of  familiarity  with  the  case  the 
honourable  member  raises  with  me.  At  this 
point,  though,  I  would  say  my  information  is 
somewhat  preliminary.  I  am  awaiting  the 
results  of  a  further  investigation  on  the  part 
of  my  staff,  which  I  hope  to  receive  within 
the  next  couple  of  days. 

Perhaps  at  this  point  I  would1  indicate  to 
the  member,  as  I  am  sure  he  is  aware,  that 
there  are  some  aspects  of  that  case  which 
are  currently  under  appeal  before  the 
Supreme  Court.  I  would  not  wish  to  discuss 
the  specifics  relating  to  that,  as  the  society 
is  not  at  this  time  doing  so  on  the  advice  of 
its  solicitor.  However,  I  can  assure  the  mem- 
ber, at  least  on  the  basis  of  the  information 
I  have  received,  that  the  suggestion  there 
were  no  attempts  made  to  assist  the  family 
by  way  of  counselling  would  not  appear  to 
be  accurate.  I  have  a  list  of  at  least  eight 
different  occasions  on  which  counselling  of 
one  form  or  another  was  recommended  to 
the  family.  In  some  instances  it  was  begun 
tentatively,  but  in  no   case  was  it  followed1 


4780 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


through.  In  some  instances  the  advice  was 
apparently  not  accepted  by  the  family.  I  can 
answer  that  with  greater  definitiveness  only 
when  I  receive  the  full  report. 

3  p.m. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  In  view  of  the  fact  the  minister  says 
that  counselling  was  not  desired  or  attempted 
by  the  family,  a  statement  I  believe  is  not 
correct— the  family  has  tried  to  obtain  coun- 
selling but  the  point  is  the  counselling  was 
not  as  useful  because  the  children  were  not 
in  the  hands  of  the  family  and  no  counsellor 
was  prepared  to  accept  the  possibility  of 
counselling  them  without  the  children- 
would  the  minister  ensure  that  the  children 
are  available  to  the  family  for  purposes  of 
counselling?  Could  he  also  explain  whv,  when 
this  family  has  been  after  him  for  almost  a 
year  to  resolve  the  case,  it  has  only  been 
recently,  when  the  issue  appeared  in  the 
paper,  that  he  has  started  to  move  and 
examine  it  and  do  something  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  not 
quite  accurate.  I  think  the  honourable  mem- 
ber has  to  recognize  that  where  matters  are 
before  the  courts  for  determination  that  does 
somewhat  limit  my  ability  to  deal  with  cases 
of  the  requested  persons  who  are  litigants 
before  the  court.  Surely  he  understands  that. 
I  also  think  it  is  fair  to  say,  on  the  basis 
at  least  of  the  preliminary  information  I  have, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  yes,  at  the  time  of 
that  operational  review  there  were  some  real 
concerns  about  that  society,  the  evidence  I 
have  seen  to  date  would  indicate  that,  in 
spite  of  that  situation,  in  this  particular 
case  it  would  appear  they  did  handle  the 
case  competently. 

As  far  as  the  member's  request  that  I  in 
some  way  at  this  time  intervene  with  respect 
to  the  question  of  the  children,  I  think  I 
would  have  to  reserve  on  that  until  I  receive 
some  further  legal  advice  myself.  As  he  is 
aware,  I  think,  when  the  case  was  appealed 
to  the  county  court  fairly  recently,  the  result 
of  that  appeal  was  not  only  that  the  matter 
of  the  wardship  of  the  children  was  upheld 
on  the  same  basis  as  I  understand  it,  as  the 
earlier  court  decision,  but  in  addition  to  that 
the  court  took  the  further  step  and  made  the 
provision  for  access  much  more  restrictive. 
In  fact,  I  believe  it  prohibited  access  on  the 
part  of  the  parents  to  two  of  the  children.  I 
do  not  really  think,  faced  with  that  quite 
recent  decision  from  the  court,  it  would  be 
appropriate  for  me  to  take  any  action  at  this 
point  until  I  have  a  fuller  report  on  the 
details  of  the  case. 


Mr.  Speaker:  The  same  minister  has  the 
answer  to  another  question  asked  previously. 

PENSIONS  FOR  WOMEN 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  gather 
on  Friday  in  my  absence  a  question  was 
directed  by  the  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  to  the  Premier,  relating  to  the 
statements  attributed  in  the  press  recently 
to  the  Honourable  Monique  Begin  with 
regard  to  some  proposed  changes  in  the 
Canada  pension  plan. 

First  of  all,  I  want  to  assure  the  honour- 
able member  that  to  date  my  only  knowledge 
of  those  proposals  is  through  the  press  as 
well.  We  have  had  no  formal  communication 
with  the  Minister  of  National  Health  and 
Welfare  on  the  specifics  of  her  proposals. 

The  other  thing  I  would  point  out  is  v/e  do 
have  a  federal-provincial  conference  of  min- 
isters of  social  services  next  week,  beginning 
Sunday  evening  going  over  Monday  and 
Tuesday,  and  I  anticipate  that  will  be  one  of 
the  items  on  the  agenda  for  those  meetings. 

Having  indicated  that  I  am  not  really 
familiar  with  the  specifics  other  than  through 
the  press,  I  think  it  is  important  on  the  basis 
at  least  of  the  press  reports  to  note  that  what 
is  being  proposed  now  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment is  really  something  quite  substantially 
different  from  what  was  proposed  in  1976, 
in  so  far  as  the  proposals  now  suggest  a 
voluntary  contribution  to  be  made  by  any 
spouse  who  is  working  in  the  home.  In  1976, 
there  was  a  dropout  provision  whereby 
persons  might  drop  out  for  substantial  periods 
of  time  for  purposes  of  child-rearing  and  not 
use  those  years  of  low  or  no  income  in  the 
calculation  of  their  benefits. 

It  is  true  at  that  time  British  Columbia 
and  Ontario  had  some  grave  reservations 
about  that  proposal.  One  of  them  was,  under 
the  previous  proposal,  in  terms  of  the  bene- 
fits, recognizing  that  a  substantial  increase 
in  the  subsidy  component  of  the  Canada 
pension  plan  would  have  been  necessary  to 
maintain  them,  because  it  was  a  divergence 
from  the  insurance  principle.  One  of  our 
concerns  was  that  high  income  women  would 
be  subsidized  much  more  substantially  than 
would  low  income  families  or  women.  xr  e 
felt  that  was  an  inequity  in  terms  of  the 
subsidy  by  way  of  public  funds  which  was 
prejudicial    towards    low    income    families. 

The  present  proposal,  at  least  superficially 
on  the  basis  of  very  limited  information 
through  the  press,  would  appear  to  move 
away  somewhat  from  that  principle  I  think. 
It  would  seem  to  be  more  consistent  with 
the  insurance  principle  of  the  Canada  pension 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4781 


plan.  But  I  really  think  I  would  have  to 
reserve  any  further  judgement  on  it  until  I 
have  had  a  chance  to  discuss  it  with  the 
Minister  of  National  Health  and  Welfare,  as 
1  expect  I  will  next  week. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Due  to  the  rambling  nature 
of  the  last  two  answers,  I  am  going  to  allow 
one  more  question  from  the  Liberal  Party 
and  one  more  from  the  New  Democratic 
Party.  The  minister  said  he  had  nothing 
further  to  add  to  his  last  two  answers  until 
he  received  more  information  on  the  federal 
program  and  on  the  children's  aid  program 
in  Brantford  and  some  other  place.  I  will 
hear  one  question  from  the  Liberal  Party  and 
one  from  the  New  Democratic  Party. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  A  question  to  the  Minister 
of  Colleges  and  Universities  please,  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  There  is  nothing  out  of  order. 
It  is  the  responsibility  of  the  chair  to  de- 
termine when  an  answer  has  gone  on  long 
enough  and  whether  a  supplementary  is  ap- 
propriate. I  can  call  the  question  period 
over  if  you  want. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
did  not  think  you  would  do  that. 

UNIVERSITY  STUDY 

Mr.  Sweeney:  I  have  a  question  for  the 
Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities.  My 
reference  is  to  the  statements  of  the  minister 
on  November  18  and  28  and  her  reference 
to  a  study  that  is  going  to  be  done  to  de- 
termine the  objectives  and  the  funding  of  the 
Ontario  universities.  The  opening  in  that 
statement  clearly  says  the  objectives,  as  set 
out  by  the  government  of  Ontario  for  the 
universities,  cannot  be  met  with  the  existing 
level  of  funding  and  that  maybe  now  it  is 
time  to  scale  down  that  objective  to  match 
the  level  of  funding.  In  view  of  that,  just 
how  far  is  the  ministry  or  the  government  pre- 
pared to  scale  down  the  objectives  of  the 
universities  of  Ontario  to  match  the  funding 
they  are  prepared  to  give  to  the  universities? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
reference  the  honourable  member  raises  is,  I 
believe,  contained  in  a  document  produced  by 
the  presidents  of  universities  as  a  committee 
of  the  Council  of  Ontario  Universities.  That 
has  certainly  not  been  the  government  of 
Ontario's  position.  That  is  one  point  of  view 
which  is  being  presented  by  COU  and  it  is 
one  which  will  have  to  be  considered  in  the 
deliberations  of  the  tripartite  committee. 


At  .this  point,  the  government  has  made  no 
commitments  to  any  modification  nor  will  it 
until  it  has  participated  fully  in  these  dis- 
cussions and  until  a  decision  has  been  taken 
within  a  report  which  will  then  be  discussed 
broadly  throughout  the  community  regarding 
the  aspirations,  objectives  and  goals  of  the 
university  system.  There  is  no  commitment  to 
any  modification  at  this  point— only  to  par- 
ticipation within  that  committee. 

ACTIONS  OF  RCMP  OFFICERS 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence 
of  the  Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  I 
wish  to  ask  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Jus- 
tice a  question.  Will  the  Attorney  General  be 
investigating  the  actions  of  certain  RCMP 
officers  who  entered  the  apartment  of  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Bains  approximately  10  days  ago,  in  an 
effort  to  determine  if  charges  of  wilful  damage 
or  any  other  charges  related  to  the  incident 
should  be  laid  against  the  RCMP  officers? 
Will  the  Attorney  General  be  making  a  full 
report  on  this  incident  to  the  assembly  be- 
fore the  week  is  out? 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cannot 
answer  that  question  but  I  will  see  that  the 
matter  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Bains  is  referred 
directly  to  the  Attorney  General.  At  this 
moment,  he  is  attending  a  conference  on 
highway  accidents.  I  am  sure  he  will  report 
in  due  course,  if  not  to  the  Legislature  per- 
haps directly  to  the  member. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  October  24  I 
placed  two  questions  on  the  Notice  Paper  in 
writing,  one  to  the  Minister  of  Education  and 
one  to  the  Premier.  I  was  made  aware  of  an 
interim  answer  from  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion only  on  November  6,  which  requested 
more  time  to  answer  my  two  questions.  In 
an  informal  agreement  with  the  Minister  of 
Education,  I  had  indicated  I  would  accept 
an  answer  from  her  a  week  ago  today,  but 
neither  of  these  questions,  questions  368  and 
369,  has  been  answered  to  date,  although 
they  have  been  on  the  Notice  Paper. 
3:10  p.m. 

In  addition  to  the  flagrant  abuse  by  both 
ministers  of  the  parliamentary  rules  of  pro- 
cedure set  out  for  us,  could  the  record  also 
show  that  both  ministers  have  steadfastly 
refused  to  answer  my  question  so  that  the 
constituents  of  the  good  riding  of  York 
Centre  may  realize  that  both  ministers  have 
relinquished  any  interest  in  unseating  this 
member? 


4782 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  reply  to 
the  point  of  order— I  just  looked  at  it  now 
—I  know  exactly  why  the  honourable  mem- 
ber is  trying  to  ascertain  the  information, 
that  is,  to  protect  his  seat,  knowing  full  well 
he  is  in  great  jeopardy  in  any  event. 

Mr.  Stong:  That  is  not  the  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Oh  yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  Swart:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Five  weeks  ago  I  asked  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  regarding  the  in- 
crease in  the  price  of  ethylene  glycol  in  this 
province.  To  date,  I  have  received  no  an- 
swer. I  realize  sometimes  he  is  reluctant  to 
answer  certain  questions.  Would  you  inter- 
vene on  my  behalf  to  see  if  you  can  get  an 
answer  from  the  minister? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Was  it  an  inquiry  of  the 
ministry? 

Mr.    Swart:   No.   It  was   an   oral   question. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  no  control  over  that 
at  all. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

ITALIAN  CANADIAN  BENEVOLENT 
CORPORATION  ACT 

Mr.  J.  A.  Taylor,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Roten- 
berg,  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  Pr42,  An 
Act  respecting  the  Italian  Canadian  Benev- 
olent Corporation. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

McCOLL  FARMS  LIMITED  ACT 

Mr.  Watson  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
Pr53,  An  Act  to  revive  McCoIl  Farms 
Limited. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

ASSESSMENT  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
211,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Assessment  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  exempt  some  home  improve- 
ments from  assessment  under  the  Assess- 
ment Act.  Home  improvements  are  exempt 
if  the  improvements  do  not  enlarge  the 
living  space  of  the  home  and  if  the  cost  of 
materials  for  the  improvement  does  not 
exceed  $10,000. 

RESIDENTIAL  TENANCIES 

AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  212, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Residential  Tenancies 
Act,  1979. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  revise  the  manner  of  calculating 
interest  on  rent  deposits  under  the  Resi- 
dential Tenancies  Act,  1979. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the  answers  to  questions  280  to  282, 
376,  and  the  interim  answer  to  question  402 
standing  on  the  Notice  Paper.  (See  appendix, 
page  4809.) 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  supply. 
ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF  REVENUE 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  With  your  permisssion, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  move  down  to 
the  front  row. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Feel  free  to  do  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeek:  This  is  probably  as  close 
as  I  will  get  to  the  front  row,  so  I  am  going 
to  enjoy  myself  while  I  am  here. 

I  am  pleased  today  to  present  the  1980-81 
estimates  for  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  and 
once  again  to  have  the  opportunity  to  review 
the  ministry's  operations  with  this  committee. 

One  year  ago,  in  the  introduction  to  my 
presentation  of  the  Ministry  of  Revenue's 
1979-80  estimates,  I  drew  the  committee's 
attention  to  a  number  of  significant  develop- 
ments occurring  within  the  ministry  and, 
again  this  year,  I  believe  a  similar  review  of 
the  ministry's  activity  in  a  number  of  par- 
ticular areas  would  be  of  considerable  bene- 
fit to  the  members  before  we  turn  to  de- 
tailed examination  of  the  estimates. 

Specifically,  I  shall  be  referring  to  four 
items:  The  continued  financing  and  produc- 
tivity improvements  in  the  ministry;  the  suc- 
cessful introduction  of  the  new  Ontario  tax 
grants  for  seniors  program;  a  wide  range  of 
improved  customer  service  tax  simplification 
and  related  administrative  developments 
within  our  tax  revenue  program;  and  signifi- 
cant progress  in  municipal  property-  assess- 
ment. 

I  will  deal  with  the  overall  financing  and 
productivity  improvements  in  the  ministry 
first.  As  all  members  are  aware,  for  the  past 
five  years  the  government  of  Ontario  has 
followed  a  policy  of  restraining  spending  and 
of  reducing  the  size  of  the  public  service. 
This  policy  has  been,  in  part,  a  recognition 
of  the  need  to  fight  inflation,  but  it  also  had 
the  objective  of  improving  the  balance  be- 
tween the  private  and  public  sectors  in  the 
province. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4783 


This  well-established  policy  has  had  con- 
siderable success  and  I  am  pleased  to  be 
able  to  say  that  the  Ministry  of  Revenue 
has  played  its  part.  In  this  connection,  I 
would  like  to  draw  your  attention  to  the 
human  resources  summary  and  expenditure 
summary  tables  at  the  beginning  of  the  brief- 
ing material  you  have  before  you. 

The  human  resources  table  describes 
planned  employment  for  1980-81  compared 
with  last  year  by  major  program.  The  table 
shows  that,  overall,  the  ministry  plans  to 
reduce  its  level  of  staffing  by  42  man-years 
in  1980-81.  I  emphasize  the  word  "planned" 
because,  as  members  will  note,  actual  level 
of  staff  employed  is  likely  to  be  somewhat 
lower. 

The  second  table  to  which  I  referred  de- 
scribes 1980-81  estimates  spending  compared 
to  last  year's  actual  spending,  again  by  major 
program.  This  table  shows  that  for  1980-81 
the  ministry's  estimates  are  down  by  over  $1 
million.  This  reduction  is  clearly  influenced, 
however,  by  lower  total  levels  of  payments 
under  the  Gains  program  and,  for  this  reason, 
I  would  like  to  draw  your  attention  to  the 
chancres  in  spending  in  these  categories  over 
which  the  ministry  has  more  direct  control. 

Salaries  are  down  by  over  $1.5  million  or 
two  ner  cent.  This  reduction  reflects,  in  part, 
the  lower  level  of  staffing  which  I  mentioned 
earlier.  Travel  services  and  supplies  show  an 
increase  of  just  less  than  15  per  cent.  This 
a' *ea  is  subject  to  some  sharp  inflationary  cost 
increases.  However,  a  significant  portion  of 
the  increase  in  spending  has  been  caused  by 
the  investment  of  funds  in  new  systems  and 
methods. 

3:20  p.m. 

The  resrlt  is  that  despite  inflation  and 
higher  levels  of  spending  on  new  systems, 
the  estimates  of  the  ministry  have  increased 
by  only  $1.9  million,  or  less  than  one  per 
cent.  Even  if  we  were  to  include  potential 
salary  award  claims,  the  increase  is  a  modest 
seven  per  cent.  In  view  of  this,  I  believe  I 
am  fully  justified  in  once  more  declaring  that 
the  Ministry  of  Revenue  is  exercising  real 
restraint,  and  that  its  1980-81  estimates  are 
essential  level  lines. 

While  emphasizing  that  the  ministry's  ex- 
penditures are  being  constrained  in  line  with 
overall  government  policy,  it  is  important  to 
stress  that  constraints  have  been  effected 
dcnite  continuing  increases  in  the  volume 
and  complexity  of  program  work  loads.  This 
has  been  accomplished  by  a  concerted  and 
ongoing  emphasis  upon  methods  to  improve 
productivity.  This  improvement  in  operating 
efficiency    has    been    made    possible    by    ex- 


ploiting opportunities  for  investment  in  com- 
puter systems  to  utilize  available  manpower 
resources  more  effectively  and  by  improving 
management  techniques  of  resource  planning 
and  control. 

In  my  statement  last  year,  I  informed 
members  of  what  the  ministry  was  doing  in 
these  management  areas.  I  would  now  like 
to  update  members  on  similar  developments 
over  this  past  year. 

In  1976,  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 
approved  the  introduction  of  the  manage- 
ment by  results  system,  or  MBR  as  it  is 
known  in  short  form,  as  a  basic  tool  to  be 
used  by  all  ministries  in  measuring  and 
reporting  on  how  their  programs  perform 
during  the  fiscal  year  against  stated  objec- 
tives. 

After  two  years  of  experience  with  MBR, 
the  ministry  introduced  zero-base  budgeting, 
or  ZBB,  as  a  complement  to  the  MBR 
system.  It  was  felt  that  a  systematic  method 
of  defining  objectives  and  allocating  resources 
was  necessary  to  obtain  full  benefits  from  the 
MBR  process.  The  result  is  a  system  in  which 
the  ZBB  exercise  rations  the  resources  and 
sets  program  targets,  while  the  MBR  system 
monitors  actual  performance  during  the  year. 
For  1980-81  the  ministry  has  made  much 
progress  in  integrating  the  two  systems, 
such  that  ministry  managers  are  aware  that 
in  addition  to  estimating  costs  and  outputs 
of  programs,  those  estimates  will  be  com- 
pared with  actual  results.  In  other  words, 
the  internal  operations  of  the  ministry  are 
under  close  scrutiny  to  get  the  very  best 
results. 

The  resource  planning  and  management 
systems  used  by  the  ministry  in  preparing  the 
annual  estimates  are  explained  in  more  detail 
in  the  manuals  that  are  included  in  the 
briefing  material  for  members  this  year.  These 
will  explain  what  we  have  done  for  1980-81 
and  what  we  plan  to  do  for  1981-82. 

I  want  to  turn  now  to  the  Ontario  tax 
grants  for  seniors  program.  The  program  for 
senior  citizens  announced  in  the  Treasurer's 
(Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  April  budget  has  had  a 
major  impact  on  ministry  operations  over  the 
past  seven  months.  I  would  like  to  take  a  few 
moments  to  discuss  that  impact  and  the 
current  status  of  payments  under  the 
program,  as  well  as  our  plans  for  the  balance 
of  the  fiscal  year.  To  begin,  I  think  it  is 
worth  while  to  look  at  the  magnitude  of  the 
undertaking.  There  are,  in  this  province,  well 
over  800.000  senior  citizens.  As  of  July, 
820,000  Ontario  residents  were  receiving 
federal  old  age  security  pensions.  In  addi- 
tion, there  were  estimated  to  be  10,000  more 


4784 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


seniors  who  did  not  have  sufficient  Canadian 
residency  to  qualify  for  OAS. 

For  1980,  we  anticipate  paying  up  to 
$550,000  in  property  tax  grants  and  at  least 
$830,000  in  sales  tax  grants.  The  original  esti- 
mate for  grant  payments  under  this  program 
was  $255  million.  However,  it  now  appears 
that  with  the  inclusion  of  seniors  who  do  not 
qualify  for  OAS,  that  figure  will  increase  by 
$2.5  million  more,  which  would  bring  it  up 
to  $257.5  million. 

Obviously,  given  the  scope  of  the  program, 
both  in  terms  of  payments  to  be  made  and 
the  dollar  value  of  those  payments,  the 
central  element  was  the  design  of  a  program 
delivery  system  to  enable  us  to  send  program 
information,  application  forms  and  instruc- 
tions to  those  persons  who  were  potentially 
eligible  for  benefits.  We  then  had  to  receive 
back  those  applications,  process  them  and 
produce  property  tax  grant  cheques.  In  the 
case  of  the  sales  tax  grants,  the  process  was 
somewhat  simoler,  except  for  non-OAS 
seniors,  no  application  was  required. 

I  would  be  remiss  if  I  did  not  mention 
the  fact  that  the  program  would  have  been 
much  more  difficult  to  introduce,  certainly 
within  the  time  frames  we  were  looking  for, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  co-operation  of 
Health  and  Welfare  Canada.  Without  their 
agreement  to  allow  us  to  use  their  old  age 
security  data  as  the  basis  of  our  tax  grants 
master  file,  we  would  have  had  to  construct 
that  file  from  scratch  or,  at  the  very  least, 
from  much  less  complete  information  ob- 
tained from   other   sources. 

Although  this  description  tends  to  simplify 
somewhat  the  various  steps  involved,  we 
created  a  grant  master  file  of  all  Ontario 
pensioners  in  receipt  of  old  age  security  as 
of  July.  To  the  persons  on  that  file,'  we 
mailed  out  at  the  beginning  of  August  a 
pamphlet  giving  basic  program  information. 
In  mid-August  we  produced  727,000  per- 
sonalized property  tax  grant  applications  on 
which  the  name,  address  and  OAS  or  social 
insurance  number  of  each  pensioner  were 
preprinted. 

In  the  case  of  married  pensioner  coup7es 
who  were  currently  receiving-or  at  some 
time  in  the  past  had  received-the  guaran- 
teed income  supplement,  only  one  applica- 
tion was  produced  with  the  names  of  both 
pensioners  printed  on  it.  We  could  not  do 
mis  for  all  couples  because  the  federal  OAS 
file  does  not,  as  a  general  rule,  link  spouses 
unless  the  couple  has  at  some  point  applied 
for  the  supplement. 

Besides  the  program  delivery  system,  the 
next    most    important    element   was    our    in- 


formation campaign.  The  overall  objective 
of  that  campaign  was  to  make  senior  citi- 
zens aware  of  the  grant  program,  what  ac- 
tion they  had  to  take  to  obtain  their  grants, 
and  how  they  could  go  about  getting  addi- 
tional information  if  they  required  it.  Many 
seniors,  however,  rely  on  sons  or  daughters, 
friends,  community  groups  or  information 
centres  to  help  them  complete  forms.  Con- 
sequently, while  our  information  was  tar- 
geted to  persons  over  65,  we  also  wanted 
to  inform  this  larger  group  about  the  pro- 
gram. To  do  this,  we  used  a  variety  of 
information    methods. 

In  early  August,  we  mailed  to  all  OAS 
pensioners  a  pamphlet  outlining  the  major 
features  of  the  program.  The  main  purpose 
of  the  pamphlet  was  not  to  explain  the 
grants  in  any  detail— which  obviously  a 
pamphlet  of  that  nature  cannot  do.  Rather, 
it  was  to  inform  seniors  that  a  property  tax 
grant  application  would  be  mailed  to  them 
shortly  and  their  sales  tax  grant  cheques 
would  be  going  out  automatically  in  Sep- 
tember. These  general  messages  were  rein- 
forced with  television  advertising.  News- 
paper ads  providing  more  specific  informa- 
tion were  placed  in  dailies,  weeklies  and  the 
ethnic  press,  and  the  advertising  part  of  the 
communications  plan  was  rounded  out  with 
radio  spots   and  transit  cards. 

In  addition  to  the  pamphlet  and  adver- 
tising, we  produced  detailed  grant  informa- 
tion guides  and  provided  them  to  members, 
their  constituency  offices,  senior  citizen  in- 
formation centres,  Ministry  of  Revenue  field 
offices  and  other  government  offices.  Infor- 
mation officers  participated  in  more  than  100 
speaking  engagements,  newspaper  inter- 
views, radio  and  TV  interviews  and  open 
line  shows  across  the  province. 

Certainly,  the  success  of  our  advertising 
in  reaching  senior  citizens  was  proved  by 
the  speed  with  which  property  tax  grant 
applications  came  back  to  us  during  the  last 
week  in  August.  By  the  end  of  that  week 
we  had  173,000  applications  returned,  and 
by  September  5,  347,000  applications  had 
been  received.  The  majority  of  these  were 
completed  correctly  and  could  be  processed 
quickly.  In  fact,  we  mailed  205,000  property 
tax  grants  out  on  September  17  and  a  fur- 
ther 125,000  on  October  8.  Of  the  125,000, 
approximately  100,000  cheques  could  have 
been  mailed  earlier  except  for  threatened 
postal  disruptions  and  our  concern  that  if 
parts  of  the  Post  Office  were  shut  down 
as  they  had  been  earlier  in  September,  the 
cheques  could  be  locked  in  for  a  consider- 
able  period   of   time. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4785 


One  difficulty  with  any  new  program  that 
involves  completion  of  a  form  is  that  a  per- 
centage of  people  do  not  fill  it  out  com- 
pletely, do  not  sign  it,  or  they  make  some 
mistake  in  completing  it.  I  think  this  is 
particularly  true  in  the  first  year  of  any 
program  for  two  reasons. 

First,  the  form  is  unfamiliar  to  the  people 
filling  it  in.  Second,  the  designing  of  forms 
and  the  writing  of  instructions  are  more  of 
an  art  than  a  science.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
we  will  change  some  of  the  wording  in  the 
instructions  for  1981.  Certainly,  staff  will 
closely  analyse  the  kinds  of  mistakes  people 
made  this  year  with  a  view  to  changes  that 
will  cut  down  the  errors  next  year.  In  this 
regard,  the  Advisory  Council  on  Senior  Citi- 
zens has  already  made  some  recommendations 
to  me  and  we  will  be  looking  at  those  very 
carefully. 
3:30  p.m. 

Applications  which  could  not  be  quickly 
approved  in  the  vetting  section  where  initial 
processing  was  done  were  put  into  the  pre- 
payment review  unit  for  further  action.  De- 
pending on  the  deficiency  involved,  some  of 
these  applications  could  subsequently  be  ap- 
proved without  the  need  for  any  further  con- 
tact with  the  applicant.  Others,  however,  re- 
quired a  phone  call  or  a  letter  to  obtain 
additional  information  and  some  applications 
had  to  be  sent  back  for  signature  by  the 
applicant,  the  applicant's  spouse,  or  sometimes 
both. 

Of  the  more  than  520,000  applications  re- 
ceived to  date,  close  to  200,000  could  not  be 
approved  in  initial  processing.  In  54  per  cent 
of  these  cases,  the  problem  centred  on  the 
reporting  of  property  tax  or  rent.  The  most 
common  deficiency  in  this  group  was  that 
although  the  application  was  fully  completed 
in  all  other  respects,  the  amount  of  property 
tax  or  rent  incurred  was  not  filled  in  on  the 
form.  In  rental  situations,  a  typical  problem 
with  delayed  processing  was  the  discrepancy 
between  the  rent  reported  on  the  face  of  the 
application  and  the  rent  indicated  on  the 
rental  statements. 

Unsigned  applications  or  applications  for 
married  couples,  where  both  spouses  were 
eligible  but  only  one  of  them  signed  the  form, 
accounted  for  a  further  18  per  cent.  Other 
significant  reasons  for  applications  being  re- 
ferred to  prepayment  review  were  such  things 
as  problems  with  shared  residences,  clarifi- 
cation required  as  to  whether  the  applicant 
was  resident  in  an  institution  and  thereby 
not  eligible,  and  spoiled  or  illegible  appli- 
cations.    Approximately     25,000     applications 


had  more  than  one  deficiency  or  fell  into  the 
miscellaneous  problem  category. 

By  the  middle  of  September,  correctly  com- 
pleted, straightforward  applications  were  be- 
ing processed  on  a  current  basis  and  some 
of  the  staff  resources  in  the  vetting  section 
were  being  shifted  over  to  the  prepayment 
review  unit.  The  process  of  clearing  applica- 
tions out  of  this  unit  into  the  application- 
approved  category,  or  into  the  pending  file 
while  we  awaited  the  return  of  additional 
information  or  documentation  from  the  ap- 
plicant, was  a  good  deal  more  time-consuming 
than  the  simple  vetting  function.  Any  appar- 
ent discrepancy  that  looked  as  if  it  could 
be  cleared  up  by  a  phone  call,  the  staff  tried 
to  handle  in  exactly  that  manner.  Only  after 
they  had  failed  in  two  or  three  attempts  to 
reach  someone  by  telephone  would  they  write 
to  the  pensioner. 

As  of  October  21,  78,000  applications  had 
been  cleared  out  of  the  prepayment  review, 
but  113,000  applications  remained.  Under- 
standably, this  large  number  of  applications 
that  had  not  yet  been  actioned  led  to  a  large 
number  of  inquiries,  most  of  which  had  been 
in  the  branch  at  that  point  for  the  better 
part  of  a  month,  and  some  of  which  had 
been  mailed  by  the  pensioners  in  late  August 
or  early  September. 

In  fact,  the  volume  of  inquiries  had  been 
very  high  since  the  postal  disruption  of 
early  September.  Initially,  when  the  grant 
applications  were  mailed  in  August,  the 
typical  questions  being  asked  of  the  tele- 
phone staff  at  the  information  centre  were: 
"What  can  I  do  if  the  landlord  refuses  to  give 
me  a  receipt?"  "Do  I  need  monthly  receipts 
for  rent  I  have  paid  to  August  or  will  one 
receipt  for  eight  months  do?"  "If  I  don't 
claim  the  grant,  can  I  claim  the  tax  credits 
with  the  income  tax  instead?"  In  other 
words,  the  questions  were  largely  related 
to  how  to  go  about  completing  the  form  or 
to  clarify  some  aspect  of  our  administrative 
policy. 

In  early  September,  when  the  postal 
system  was  shut  down  for  a  period,  and  con- 
tinuing throughout  that  month  and  into 
October  there  was  a  change  in  the  pattern 
of  the  questions.  While  we  still  received 
calls  on  how  to  complete  the  form,  a  grow- 
ing number  wanted  to  know  such  things  as: 
"How  will  you  get  my  cheque  to  me  if  the 
Post  Office  isn't  working?"  "Have  you  got 
my  application?  I  mailed  it  just  before  the 
strike." 

We  could  offer  some  reassurance  on  the 
first  question,  since  the  contingency  plan 
had  been  developed  to  produce  cheques  in 


4786 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


postal  code  sequence,  sort  them  by  assess- 
ment region  and  have  the  ministry's  regional 
assessment  staff  deliver  them  on  a  door-to- 
door  basis.  On  the  second  question,  it  was 
not  always  possible  to  give  a  categorical 
"yes"  or  "no,"  simply  because  the  volume 
of  applications  in  various  stages  of  process- 
ing was  so  high. 

There  was  also  in  this  period  a  group  of 
16,000  old  age  security  pensioners  who  had 
not  yet  received  their  property  tax  grant 
application.  These  are  persons  who  receive 
a  combined  OAS-Canada  pension  plan 
cheque  rather  than  two  separate  pension 
cheques  each  month.  That  particular  com- 
puter file  was  not  available  to  us  as  early 
as  the  main  file  and,  because  of  differences 
in  file  layouts,  we  were  unable  to  incorpo- 
rate it  into  our  system  until  October. 

Despite  the  fact  that  we  had  increased 
the  capacity  of  the  telephone  information 
centre  to  handle  a  much  higher  volume  of 
calls  than  we  ordinarily  received,  which  was 
about  2,700  per  day,  the  system  has  been 
overloaded  many  times  over  the  past  three 
months.  We  are  in  much  better  shape  now. 
Nevertheless,  I  would  point  out  the  best 
times  to  call  are  still  early  in  the  morning  or 
late  in  the  afternoon. 

I  would  now  like  to  turn  to  the  two 
issues  which  have  been  the  substance  of 
some  discussion  since  the  grant  legislation 
was  introduced  on  budget  night.  The  first 
of  these  is  the  fact  that  with  certain  specific 
exceptions,  residents  of  institutions  are  not 
eligible  for  the  property  tax  grant.  Some 
26,000  senior  citizens  reside  in  homes  for 
the  aged  that  are  exempt  from  property 
tax.  Even  though  these  institutions  are 
exempt,  residents  have  been  allowed  to  claim 
both  property  and  pensioner  tax  credits 
since  the  1974  taxation  year. 

Approximately  the  same  number  of  seniors 
are  in  nursing  homes.  They  are  privately 
owned  institutions  and  are  subject  to  prop- 
erty tax.  However,  the  vast  majority  of 
nursing  home  residents  have  the  cost  of  their 
stay  in  the  home  subsidized  under  the 
extended  care  program.  This  is  a  substantial 
subsidy  which  at  current  rates  amounts  to 
almost  $7,000  per  person  on  an  annual  basis. 
Here  again,  nursing  home  residents  had 
been  allowed  to  claim  the  property  tax 
credit  since  it  was  introduced  in  1972  and 
the  pensioner  tax  credit  since  its  introduction 
in  1973. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  withdraw  benefits 
from  any  group  of  people,  irrespective  of 
whether  or  not  there  is  a  rational  case  to  be 
made  for  the  continuation  of  that  benefit  or 


whether  circumstances  have  changed  signifi- 
cantly since  the  benefit  was  introduced.  In 
restructuring  and  enriching  property  tax 
assistance  for  seniors,  we  were  tying  the  new 
grant  directly  to  the  payment  of  property  tax. 
Residents  of  tax-exempt  institutions  are  al- 
ready receiving  a  benefit  by  virture  of  that 
tax  exemption,  which  is  equivalent  to  the 
grants  being  paid  to  seniors  who  live  in 
ordinary  rental  accommodation.  For  nursing 
home  residents  on  extended  care,  the  pro- 
vincial subsidy  is  already  substantial. 

Taken  together  with  the  fact  that  the  com- 
fort allowance  was  increased  by  $10  per 
month  in  May  and  that  the  federal  guaran- 
teed income  supplement  increase  of  $35  a 
month,  starting  in  July,  was  passed  on  in  its 
entirety,  I  do  not  really  believe  criticism  of 
this  aspect  of  the  program  can  be  justified. 

The  other  major  issue,  which  in  part  is  an 
extension  of  the  institution  question,  is  that 
a  total  of  95,000  senior  citizens  will  receive 
less  money  from  the  two  new  grants  and  the 
guaranteed  annual  income  system  enrich- 
ment than  they  would  have  been  entitled  to 
under  the  tax  credit  system.  We  knew  this 
would  happen  when  we  brought  in  the  pro- 
gram. It  results  from  establishing  a  direct 
relationship  between  property  tax  liability 
and  property  tax  relief. 

Just  before  turning  to  our  future  plans  for 
the  tax  grant  administration,  I  would  like  to 
review  the  current  status.  We  have  now  paid 
out  423,000  property  tax  grants  for  a  total 
of  $180  million.  Updates  are  run  on  a  weekly 
basis.  Last  week's  update  will  produce  an 
additional  20,000  grant  cheques  for  mailing 
this  week.  The  backlog  in  the  prepayment 
review  unit  had  been  reduced  to  less  than 
20,000  applications  by  the  beginning  of  this 
week.  This  speech  was  written  last  week,  so 
I  am  talking  about  the  beginning  of  last 
week  really.  These  should  all  have  been 
actioned  by  this  weekend,  which  was  last 
weekend.  Because  I  thought  I  was  going  to 
start  my  debate  on  Friday  of  last  week,  mem- 
bers will  understand  there  may  be  some 
changes  in  the  dates  here. 

By  this  I  mean  each  applicant  will  have 
been  contacted  either  by  telephone  or  letter 
or  that  the  grants  are  in  the  process  of  being 
paid.  There  is  still  a  significant  number  of 
applications  where  processing  is  being  held 
up  pending  the  receipt  of  further  information 
from  the  applicant.  But  as  this  information 
is  received,  these  applications  are  being  pro- 
cessed, together  with  new  applications  which 
are  still  coming  in  at  the  rate  of  300  to  400 
per  day. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4787 


In  addition  to  property  tax  grant  applica- 
tions, we  are  also  processing  eligibility  appli- 
cations from  seniors  who  have  not  been  in 
Canada  long  enough  to  qualify  for  old  age 
security.  Once  their  age  and  residency  have 
been  established,  we  can  pay  them  the  sales 
tax  grant.  If  they  have  indicated  on  the  eligi- 
bility form  that  they  pay  property  tax  or 
rent,  we  will  send  out  a  property  tax  grant 
application,  which  is  then  processed  in  the 
same  manner  as  grant  applications  completed 
by  OAS  recipients. 

3:40  p.m. 

For  1,000  of  the  estimated  10,000  seniors 
in  the  non-OAS  group,  we  were  able  to 
avoid  this  two-stage  application  procedure 
because  they  had  already  established  their 
ages  and  residencies  for  purposes  of  their 
family  benefits  or  Gains  with  our  ministry. 

The  only  identifiable  group  of  potential 
grant  recipients  which  has  yet  to  receive 
property  tax  grant  applications  is  those  per- 
sons turning  65  between  July  and  December, 
thereby  becoming  eligible  for  old  age  security 
after  the  date.  We  picked  up  the  OAS  file 
from  the  federal  Department  of  National 
Health  and  Welfare.  Sales  tax  grant  cheques 
and  property  tax  grant  forms  for  these  persons 
will  be  sent  out  in  early  January. 

With  respect  to  the  sales  tax  grant,  we 
have  mailed  820,000  cheques  to  date  involv- 
ing $41  million  in  grant  payments.  As  eligi- 
bility applications  are  approved,  more  of 
these  grants  will  be  going  out. 

Before  I  move  to  the  next  topic  I  want  to 
mention  that  we  are  currently  working  on  en- 
hancements to  our  processing  system  for  next 
year's  applications.  I  think  two  of  these  new 
features  will  be  of  particular  interest  to 
members.  The  first  is  a  logging  function.  As 
soon  as  a  property  tax  grant  application  has 
been  received  back  from  the  pensioner  and 
before  it  has  been  processed,  an  indicator 
will  be  put  on  the  file  and  we  will  know  the 
application  has  been  returned  to  us.  Second, 
we  will  be  converting  to  a  data  base  system 
with  an  online  inquiry  facility.  When  an  in- 
quiry comes  in,  we  will  be  able  to  access  the 
file  and  immediately  provide  the  caller  with 
the  current  status  of  his  account.  This  should 
be  very  helpful  with  the  next  application. 

I  want  to  return  now  to  the  tax  revenue 
program  within  the  ministry.  My  remarks  re- 
specting the  activities  of  the  tax  revenue 
program  can  be  categorized  in  several  major 
groups:  improved  planning  and  management 
techniques;  tax  simplification  and  improved 
customer  service;  targets  for  further  improve- 
ment, and  investment  in  computer  systems. 


I  will  deal  with  improved  planning  and 
management  techniques  first.  I  spoke  earlier 
regarding  the  ministry's  use  of  zero-base 
budgeting  and  management  by  results  system 
techniques  to  reinforce  the  effectiveness  of 
program  management.  This  combination  has 
allowed  us  to  ration  scarce  resources  and  set 
precise  targets  in  planning  our  operations,  as 
well  as  monitor  ongoing  performance  there- 
after and  take  whatever  correcting  action 
might  be  needed  to  adjust  operations  in  re- 
sponse to  changing  conditions  or  to  meet 
revised  priorities. 

Since  our  adoption  of  the  management  by 
results  system  and  zero-base  budgeting  ap- 
proach several  years  ago,  we  have  success- 
fully designed  and  refined  the  system. 

Ms.  Bryden:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman:  Is  it  customary  for  the  minister  to 
supply  the  opposition  critics  with  a  copy  of 
his  statement? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  I  do  not  think  so. 
Is  the  member  going  to  supply  me  with  a 
copy  of  her  statement  when  she  makes  her 
introductory  remarks?  I  do  not  think  it  is 
necessary.  We  are  not  introducing  a  bill.  It  is 
necessary  if  I  am  introducing  a  bill. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  believe  the  standing 
orders  call  for  ministerial  statements  prior  to 
question  period. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  If  I  have  another  copy 
I  will  be  happy  to  give  it  to  the  member.  It 
is  not  that  I  mind  her  having  it.  Maybe  my 
staff  has  another  copy  of  my  statement.  I 
could  have  it  sent  over  if  she  would  like  to 
have  one.  She  can  put  it  in  her  memoirs. 

Ms.  Bryden:  It  would  be  helpful  in  the 
same  way  as  is  a  ministerial  statement  sup- 
plied before  question  period. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  know  it  does  not  come 
under  the  rules  of  the  House  but  we  will  be 
happy  to  do  it. 

In  my  experience,  this  new  planning  system 
has  now  reached  a  fully  operational  status  in 
the  ministry  and  has  proved  invaluable  in 
planning  the  operation  in  1980-81  which  is 
expressed  in  these  estimates  and  which  we 
will  be  dealing  with  a  little  later. 

To  be  able  to  provide  the  effective  leader- 
ship and  financial  control  required  when 
periods  of  economic  uncertainty  are  coupled 
with  stated  goals  of  expenditure  restraint  and 
staff  cutbacks,  one  must  place  very  real  re- 
liance on  sophisticated  working  mechanisms. 
Without  them  we  would  not  be  able  to  make 
the  advances  we  have. 

If  honourable  members  will  turn  to  the 
expenditure  summary  table  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  taxes  in  vote  802,  they  will  see  some 


4788 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  the  results  of  the  management  by  results 
system  and  zero-based  budgeting  process  in 
this  area. 

You  will  notice  there  is  a  fairly  substantial 
increase  in  the  area  of  services.  This  increase 
is  due  primarily  to  investment  by  the  various 
branches  in  modernizing  existing  and  imple- 
menting new  computer  systems  and  other 
technical  support  facilities.  This  investment 
has  allowed  us  to  effectively  utilize  tech- 
nological resources,  thereby  reducing  our 
reliance  on  increased  human  resources  and 
improving  our  ability  to  handle  growing 
numbers  of  taxpayers  in  the  face  of  staffing 
constraints. 

The  zero-base  budgeting  process  has 
allowed  us  to  monitor  the  activities  in  various 
sectors  and  deploy  our  resources  in  what  we 
ser  as  the  most  efficient  manner.  This  trade- 
off between  investment  and  staff  has,  as  you 
can  see,  resulted  in  an  overall  net  reduction 
in  staff  of  27  man-years.  It  has  also  allowed 
us  to  hold  the  line  on  the  cost  of  collecting 
revenue.  My  colleague  the  Treasurer  has 
estimated  that  1980-81  retail  sales  tax 
revenues  will  approach  $2.6  billion.  The  cost 
of  collection  for  $100  of  this  revenue  will 
remain  unchanged  from  its  1979-80  value 
of  59  cents.  The  cost  of  collecting  $100  of 
corporation  tax,  estimated  for  1980-81  at 
about  $1.5  billion,  will  rise  a  mere  one  cent 
to  47  cents.  From  my  experience,  I  don't 
thmk  you  can  improve  on  investment  ratios 
such  as  these. 

Revenue  has  long  recognized  that  tax 
s:mplification  and  improved  customer  services 
are  mutually  beneficial  to  its  clients  and  the 
ministry.  Tn  March  1978  the  ministrv  moved 
to  intensify  its  program  in  line  with  cabinet 
mstructions.  Management  procedures  were 
introduced  to  accelerate  the  identification  and 
implementation  of  measures  across  all 
programs. 

The  main  achievements:  The  ministry's 
program  touches  virtually  every  aspect  of  its 
dealings  with  its  taxpaying  and  its  senior 
citizen  clients.  Generally  it  is  designed  to 
reduce  customer  uncertainty,  compliance 
costs  and  disputes.  For  the  benefit  of  the 
members,  I  will  be  starting  on  page  30. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  main  areas 
in  which  measures  have  been  successfully 
initiated: 

Tax  banking:  It  provides  small  businesses 
with  a  more  convenient  and  free  way  to  pay 
taxes— via  banks— and  it  is  gaining  wide- 
spread acceptance  at  the  moment.  Tax  filing 
requirements  and  costs  have  been  reduced 
for  large  numbers  of  taxpayers  and  many 
forms  and  procedures  have  been  simplified  or 


eliminated.  Tax  rebate  and  exemption  pro- 
cedures have  been  simplified.  Interest  on  tax 
credits  has  been  increased  to  equal  that 
charged  on  taxes  owing,  which  is  a  much 
fairer  way  of  doing  things.  Information  and 
advisory  services  have  been  extensively  re- 
designed and  expanded  in  all  programs  for 
all  client  groups.  Also,  the  ministry  is  partici- 
pating fully  in  the  access  program. 

Tax  disputes:  A  new  advanced  tax  ruling 
service  reduces  uncertainty  about  taxation 
of  new  corporate  undertakings.  The  new  tax 
appeals  branch  provides  an  improved  system 
in  an  independent  form  for  taxpayers  to 
settle  tax  disputes  and  we  have  targets  for 
further  improvement.  Regulatory  reform  and 
improved  public  services  are  well  estab- 
lished priorities  within  our  ministry.  The 
objective  is  to  maintain  the  momentum 
achieved  .  and)  exploit  new  opportunities. 
Again,  primary  attention  will  be  given  to 
small  businesses,  senior  citizens  and  other 
taxpayers. 

Investment  in  computer  s\  stems:  Pre- 
viously I  mentioned  that  we  have  invested 
heavily  in  providing  enhancement  to  existing 
computer  facilities.  While  the  results,  for  the 
most  part,  go  unnoticed  by  the  tax  filer,  we 
have  developed  some  facilities  that  are  readi- 
ly apparent.  Retail  sales  tax,  for  example, 
has  developed  a  system  that  allows  a  district 
office  staff  to  access  central  computer  ac- 
counting records  via  video  screen.  By  provid- 
ing this  capability,  they  are  able  to  service 
vendors  over  the  counter,  and  telephone 
inquiries  not  only  immediately  but  with  the 
most  current  information  available. 

3:50  p.m. 

Computer  system  enhancements  have  pro- 
vided improved  customer  service  in  other 
areas.  The  gasoline  tax  branch  processes  in 
excess  of  60,000  tax  refunds  in  respect  of 
the  nontaxable  use  of  the  fuel,  particularly 
by  farmers.  Historically,  processing  such 
refunds  was  a  laborious,  time-consuming 
task.  The  new  refund  system  has  not  only 
cut  processing  time,  but  is  capable  of  pro- 
viding cheque  stub  data,  and  detailing  adj- 
ustments and  other  relevant  information,  a 
feature  that  aids  bookkeeping  for  the  claim- 
ant. In  what  might  be  considered  the  in- 
visable  areas  of  systems  development,  all 
branches  have  instituted  revisions  which 
improve  paper  processing  capabilities  and 
reduce  staffing  requirements. 

I  would  like  now  to  turn  to  some  discus- 
sion on  the  municipal  property  assessment. 
Let  me  first  deal  with  the  section  86  re- 
assessment program.  I  am  sure  you  are  all 
familiar   with    the   details    of   this    program, 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4789 


so  I  shall  deal  with  only  a  few  major 
features.  In  1978,  the  government  authorized 
the  Ministry  of  Revenue  to  use  section  86 
of  the  Assessment  Act  to  correct  assessment 
inequities  on  a  municipality-by-municipality 
basis.  Eventually,  this  involves  the  equaliza- 
tion of  assessments  within  property  classes, 
using  market  value  as  the  base. 

This  has  a  number  of  important  features. 
First,  by  equalizing  property  assessments 
between  classes  a  higher  degree  of  equity 
is  achieved  by  the  elimination  of  longstand- 
ing disparities.  Second,  by  equalizing  within 
specific  property  classes,  tax  shifts  from  the 
industrial,  commercial  and  multi-residential 
sectors  on  to  the  residential  properties  are 
prevented.  Third,  by  implementing  equalized 
assessment  within  property  classes,  our 
assessments  become  very  much  more  defen- 
sible, which  in  turn  protects  the  municipal 
tax  base.  Fourth,  because  it  is  implemented 
only  upon  the  request  of  the  municipality, 
the  decision  to  implement  is  under  the 
political  control  of  local  councils  and  the 
scrutiny  of  their  officials.  It  will  be  imple- 
mented, therefore,  only  where  there  is  a 
strong  consensus  on  the  need  for  reassess- 
ment. 

Let  me  turn  to  our  experience  with  the 
program.  In  the  first  year  of  the  program, 
which  was  1978,  14  municipalities  requested 
implementation.  This  included  a  number  of 
municipalities,  such  as  Cambridge  and 
Hamilton,  where  assessment  inequities  were 
severe  and  which  were  threatened  with 
significant  tax  losses  through  appeals.  In  the 
second  year  of  the  program,  in  1979,  the 
number  of  implementations  increased  sub- 
stantially to  93  municipalities  and  one  area 
school  board  in  the  north.  To  date  this 
year,  130  more  municipalities  and  school 
boards  will  be  reassessed  under  section  86 
of  the  Assessment  Act  for  1981  taxation 
purposes. 

Clearly,  since  its  inception  the  section  86 
program  has  continued  to  gain  the  acceptance 
and  support  of  municipalities  and  school 
boards.  The  great  majority  of  mayors  and 
councils  of  municipalities  which  have  re- 
quested section  86  have  expressed  their  satis- 
faction with  the  program  as  an  important 
first  step  towards  comprehensive  property 
assessment  and  tax  reform.  Indeed,  the  Asso- 
ciation of  Municipalities  of  Ontario  endorsed 
the  section  86  program,  urging  all  its  member 
municipalities  to  request  its  implementation. 
Further,  at  the  conference  of  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture  held  this  week  in 
Toronto,  the  delegates  supported  the  imple- 


mentation of  the  section  86  program  in  the 
majority  of  rural  agricultural  municipalities. 

Because  of  the  success  of  open  houses  held 
last  year  and  the  very  positive  response  from 
ratepayers  who  attended  these  sessions,  my 
ministry  is  expanding  its  open  house  program. 
Starting  in  December,  open  houses  will  be 
held  in  every  municipality  throughout  the 
province.  Let  me  briefly  explain  the  open 
house  concept.  Open  houses  are  designed  to 
support  both  the  regular  assessment  process 
and  the  section  86  program.  The  open  houses 
are  held  at  convenient  locations  in  each 
municipality  and  extend  into  the  evenings, 
thus  providing  ratepayers  with  the  oppor- 
tunity to  discuss  their  property  assessments. 

In  advance  of  these  open  houses,  each 
ratepayer  will  receive  with  his  property 
assessment  notice  a  special  information  insert 
announcing  the  dates,  times  and  locations  of 
the  open  houses  to  be  held  in  each  area. 
Open  houses  are  designed  to  bring  ratepayers 
and  assessors  together  in  an  informal  atmo- 
sphere to  answer  any  questions  about  assess- 
ments, particularly  in  the  case  of  new  prop- 
erty assessments  established  under  section  86. 
If  a  ratepayer  can  show  the  assessor  that  a 
correction  should  be  made  to  the  assessment, 
an  amendment  notice  will  be  issued. 

By  taking  advantage  of  this  open  house 
service,  many  ratepayers  need  not  enter 
formal  complaints.  These  open  houses  have 
helped  to  reduce  substantially  the  number  of 
complaints  lodged  with  the  assessment  review 
courts.  As  well,  we  provide  a  useful  forum 
for  discussing  assessment-related  matters  and 
increasing  the  property  owner's  understand- 
ing of  how  his  assessment  is  calculated. 

As  a  further  aid  to  ratepayers,  my  minis- 
try, with  the  co-operation  of  the  Ministry  of 
the  Attorney  General,  will  shortly  publish  a 
pamphlet  on  appeal  procedures.  If  a  property 
owner  feels  it  is  necessary  to  register  a 
formal  complaint  against  his  assessment,  this 
pamphlet  will  clearly  describe  how  to  lodge 
an  appeal  correctly.  The  pamphlet  will  also 
assist  the  ratepayer  in  preparing  supporting 
evidence  for  the  complaint  before  the  assess- 
ment review  court. 

I  might  add  that  when  a  section  86  re- 
assessment is  undertaken  in  a  municipality, 
every  assessed  owner  and  tenant  receives  an 
assessment  notice  which,  among  other  things, 
indicates  the  market  value  of  the  assessed 
property  owned  or  occupied.  Having  the 
market  value  indicated  on  the  notice  in  this 
manner  affords  ratepayers  a  better  under- 
standing of  what  their  assessment  is  based  on. 
Market  value  is  an  easily  understood  concept 
and  provides   them  with  the  opportunity  to 


4790 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


compare  their  market  value  assessment  with 
those  of  similar  properties. 

My  ministry  is  mindful  of  its  responsibility 
to  municipalities  and  school  boards  to  provide 
them  with  up-to-date  information  and  data 
regarding  actual  assessments  and  the  assess- 
ment process.  In  the  past  year  we  have 
undertaken  a  number  of  significant  measures 
to  improve  both  the  level  and  quality  of  this 
information  process. 

First,  we  have  recognized  that  the  basic 
requirement  for  improving  information  serv- 
ices is  a  better  understanding  of  municipal 
and  school  board  needs,  and  particularly  the 
importance  of  full  consultation  before  changes 
are  made.  To  this  end,  we  have  established 
an  advisory  committee  on  assessment  data 
services  headed  by  the  assistant  deputy  min- 
ister and  comprising  nine  representatives 
from  five  important  municipal  and  school 
board  associations.  This  committee  has  been 
operating  for  a  year  and  has  already  agreed 
to  a  set  of  actions  designed  to  meet  a 
number  of  immediate  requirements. 

Let  me  cite  some  examples:  This  year, 
there  will  be  a  number  of  improvements  in 
the  assessment  rolls;  the  1978  roll  format 
will  be  reinstated;  grant  codes  will  be  rein- 
stated; property  descriptions  will  be  ex- 
panded; a  second  roll  and  copy  of  the  voters' 
list  will  be  provided  upon  request.  For  1981, 
section  42s  and  43s,  which  are  supplementary' 
assessments,  will  be  issued  up  to  four  times  a 
year,  the  last  update  not  later  than  Novem- 
ber 15.  Municipalities  will  receive  both  a 
printed  and  taped  copy  of  these  updates. 

The  results  of  the  committee's  efforts  thus 
far  have  been  endorsed  by  the  Association 
of  Municipalities  of  Ontario  and  all  other 
major  municipal  and  school  board  organiza- 
tions. The^e  corrective  actions  are  under  way 
and  the  committee  will  now  turn  its  attention 
to  planning  the  orderly  development  of  infor- 
mation supply  in  the  future. 

We  have  also  recognized  the  need  for 
integrated  planning,  management  and  de- 
livery of  information  through  the  develop- 
ment and  improvement  of  our  systems.  To 
that  end,  a  task  force  has  been  established 
to  develop  a  system  which  is  cost  effective, 
responsive  to  change  and  both  user-  and 
client-oriented.  In  developing  this  system, 
two  key  objectives  are  to  streamline  our 
operations  and  improve  the  quality  and  de- 
livery of  assessment  data  to  municipalities 
and  ratepayers. 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  concludes  my  introduc- 
tory remarks  on  the  1980-81  estimates  for 
the  Ministry  of  Revenue.  I  trust  they  have 
been   of  some   assistance   to  members   in  ex- 


plaining some  of  the  main  elements  and  fea- 
tures of  the  ministry's  operations  as  ex- 
pressed by  these  financial  accounts.  I  shall  be 
pleased  to  provide  them  with  further  in- 
formation in  response  to  the  questions  I 
am  sure  they  will  be  asking  during  the  pro- 
ceedings. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  dealing 
with  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  estimates  this 
year  in  the  time  allocated,  I  think  it  should 
be  shortened  to  some  extent.  We  are  at 
present  dealing  with  the  amendments  to  the 
Assessment  Act  and  the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Act, 
both  of  which  have  had  second  reading,  and 
we  will  continue  with  those  areas  of  debate 
perhaps  tomorrow. 

There  are  other  areas  which  I  thought  are 
perhaps  of  more  concern  to  me  and  to  the 
taxpayers  in  Ontario.  We  are  well  aware  that 
the  minister  is  the  official  tax  collector  for 
the  province.  But  I  think  there  is  another 
person  in  front  of  him  who  calls  the  shot, 
and  that  is  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller). 
It  is  a  good  thing  the  Minister  of  Revenue 
has  rather  broad  shoulders  to  carry  all  that 
heavy  load  cast  upon  him  every  now  and 
then,  particularly  as  it  relates  to  budget  time 
and  mini-budgets. 
4  p.m. 

The  Treasurer  has  stated  the  policy  as  it 
relates  to  interest  rates.  He  did  so  on  June  17 
of  this  year.  In  the  discussion  papers  on  the 
interest  rate  policy,  he  says,  "An  effective, 
national  anti-inflation  strategy  could  create 
the  proper  environment  for  a  strengthened 
Canadian  dollar."  He  goes  on  to  say  mort- 
gage interest  tax  credits  are  one  area  as  are 
mortgage  interest  rate  subsidies.  Then  he  goes 
on  to  mention  tax-exempt  bonds.  I  think 
these  are  three  rather  important  areas  that 
would  have  some  effect  upon  our  present 
economy  in  Ontario. 

On  September  19,  1980,  the  Treasurer 
mentioned  the  joint  ministers  of  finance  con- 
ference that  was  held  in  Ottawa.  It  was  a 
session  for  federal  and  provincial  co-operation 
in  fiscal  and  economic  matters  to  promote 
economic  recovery  in  Canada.  He  talked 
about  fiscal  disparities  within  Canada.  Often 
I  have  heard  the  minister  stand  up  in  the 
House  and  talk  about  the  gloom  and  doom 
that  is  preached  from  this  side  of  the  House 
on  economic  recovery  in  1980.  This  is  what 
the  minister  had  to  say  in  Ottawa: 

"Statistics  on  our  economic  performance 
so  far  this  year  clearly  indicate  that  we,"  that 
is,  the  province,  "are  in  a  recession.  Fore- 
casts for  our  performance  are  not  encourag- 
ing, with  continuing  decline  expected  for  this 
year."    If    anybody    talks    about    gloom    and 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4791 


doom,  it  is  certainly  the  Treasurer  of  the 
province.  He  goes  on  to  say,  "Prospects  are 
somewhat  better  for  the  next  year,  as  the 
expected  recovery  in  the  United  States  will 
boost  Canadian  performance." 

For  the  last  four  or  five  years  I  have  heard 
that  same  comment  here  in  the  House.  We 
will  look  to  the  United  States,  and  if  there  is 
a  trend  and  upswing  in  their  economy,  it  is 
going  to  filter  back  over  on  this  side.  Let's 
not  kid  ourselves.  That  is  not  going  to  take 
place  for  another  couple  of  years  at  the  most, 
because  when  the  automobile  industry  is  in  a 
decline  over  there  it  is  also  in  a  decline  here 
and  tax  revenues  are  lost.  If  we  look  at  the 
automobile  industry  in  the  United  States,  it 
is  in  severe  difficulties  as  it  relates  to  the 
number  of  cars  that  are  coming  in  from 
Japan.  The  Japanese  cars  are  more  competi- 
tive than  the  American  and  the  Canadian 
technology. 

The  Treasurer  goes  on  to  say:  "It  is  the 
next  few  months  that  are  critical,  and  action 
by  government  to  stimulate  consumer  spend- 
ing and  reduce  unemployment  can  help 
ameliorate  the  situation."  I  think  at  that  time, 
in  September,  we  had  some  indication  on  this 
side,  particularly  in  this  party,  that  the  gov- 
ernment was  moving  in  some  area  for  tax 
rebates  or  a  tax  reduction  in  a  certain  sector 
or  the  economy,  and  the  minister  has  brought 
that  in. 

He  goes  on  to  say:  "Ottawa  has  certain 
tax  tools  at  its  disposal  to  boost  consumer 
spending,  but  in  my  view— "this  is  the  Treas- 
urer—"one  of  the  most  effective  ways  to  stimu- 
late consumer  spending  is  via  temporary  retail 
sales  tax  cuts  on  specific  items.  In  this  re- 
gard, I  would  suggest  that  a  federally  as- 
sisted program  of  provincial  sales  tax  reduc- 
tion is  an  option  which  merits  immediate 
consideration." 

The  above  statements  by  the  provincial 
Treasurer  have  no  substance  to  encourage 
the  lagging  economy  here  in  Ontario.  There 
is  not  a  program  of  any  substance  to  provide 
Ontario  residents  with  a  long-range  industrial 
strategy  or  new  job  opportunities  or  to  main- 
tain Ontario's  existing  industries  and  their 
viability.  We,  on  this  side,  expected  the 
Treasurer  to  introduce  a  mini-budget,  provid- 
ing once  again  ad  hoc  measures  to  uplift  our 
sagging  Ontario  economy.  To  reduce  sales 
tax  on  specific  manufactured  goods,  small 
trucks,  building  materials  and  house  furnish- 
ings in  the  hope  of  maintaining  the  present 
employment  climate  in  these  manufacturing 
sectors  is  a  meagre  step  at  this  time.  I  guess 
we  have  no  choice  but  to  support  these  meas- 
ures, meagre  as  they  are.  If  the  government 


is  really  concerned  about  Ontario's  decline  in 
1980  and  perhaps  into  1981,  action  should 
have  been  initiated  much  earlier  in  the  new 
budget  presented  last  April. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  are  really  waiting 
for  the  federal  boys  to  do  something. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Do  not  wait  for  the  federal 
boys.  You  have  been  in  bed  with  them  for 
a  year  now.  You  should  have  been  on  your 
toes  and  you  probably  could  have  got  some 
help.  I  would  not  wony  about  the  federal 
fellows.  It  is  your  job  and  you  have  a 
responsibility  in  this  area. 

Action  should  have  been  taken  in  the 
provincial  budget  introduced  in  April  1980. 
A  program  for  economic  stimulation  would 
now  be  in  effect  and  the  results  would  be 
noticeable  in  maintaining  existing  employ- 
ment and  with  a  possibility  of  new  employ- 
ment opportunities.  At  this  date,  any  bene- 
fit that  may  take  place  would  not  be  a 
benefit  to  the  Ontario  employment  oppor- 
tunities during  Ontario's  cold  winter  months 
that  lie  ahead. 

One  can  be  critical  of  this  minister  for 
allowing  his  government  to  follow  a  similar 
pattern  of  events  and  say  in  the  last  five- 
year  period  there  has  been  too  little,  too 
late.  Industrial  plant  closures  are  at  a 
critical  point  that  will  require  a  joint  effort 
by  both  federal  and  provincial  governments. 
Any  decline  in  manufacturing  is  critical  to 
Ontario  since  it  accounts  for  about  30  per 
cent  of  the  provincial  real  output.  Yet  be- 
tween 1970  and  1979,  Ontario  placed  eighth 
in  Canada  in  average  annual  percentage 
growth  of  manufacturing  investment  and 
eighth  between  1970  and  1978  in  the  aver- 
age annual  percentage  growth  in  estimated 
value  of  manufacturing  shipments  by  prov- 
inces of  origin. 

Economists  have  clearly  stated  that  On- 
tario is  expected  to  lag  behind  the  national 
average  in  manufacturing  growth.  Yet  again 
this  year  we  find  ourselves  in  that  same 
predicament.  I  am  concerned  about  the 
possibility  of  the  boycott  by  Alberta  adding 
further    difficulties    to    Ontario's    economy. 

Because  of  this  consistent  underjaverage 
performance,  real  family  income  in  constant 
1971  dollars  in  Ontario  sank  from  $13,518 
in  1976  to  a  low  of  $12,916  in  1978.  To  put 
that  in  relative  terms,  data  from  the  Depart- 
ment of  National  Revenue  indicates  the 
average  income  by  tax  information  for  1977 
for  Ontario  was  $11,080,  less  than  the  aver- 
age national  income.  Based  upon  these 
figures,  this  government  and  in  particular 
the  chief  tax  collector  of  the  province  should 
show  deep  concern  about  the  direction  this 


4792 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


province  must  take  on  economic  policy  and 
not  continue  a  tax  policy  that  may  well  lead 
into  a  deeper  recession,  if  we  continue  as  we 
are  now. 

If  one  relates  the  above  statements,  they 
do  indicate  that  Ontario  families  are  over- 
taxed with  more  and  more  of  the  family 
income  going  into  some  form  of  provincial 
taxes  such  as  retail  sales  tax,  personal  income 
tax,  taxes  on  petrol,  tobacco,  liquor,  enter- 
tainment, property  tax— and  the  list  can  go 
on.  In  fact,  every  time  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  and  the  Treasurer  reduce  the  pro- 
vincial sales  tax  on  specific  goods,  it  has 
shown  an  economic  stimulation  to  some  de- 
gree that  offset  the  tax  cuts  in  revenue. 

I  was  interested  in  following  some  of  the 
pages  in  the  Province  of  Ontario  Financial 
Report  1980  relating  to  budgetary  review. 
It  says:  "Taxation:  Ontario's  major  tax 
revenue  sources  accounting  for  50  per  cent 
of  the  budgetary  revenue  are  personal  in- 
come tax,  retail  sales  tax  and  corporations 
tax.  Each  of  these  taxes  displayed  a  solid 
growth  during  the  year  as  the  economy 
experienced  a  stronger  performance  than 
had  been  expected.  As  a  result,  the  growth 
rate  of  recorded  personal  income  tax  out- 
distanced both  the  previous  year  and  the 
amount  expected  in  the  1979  budget." 
4:10  p.m. 

It  states  further  here:  "The  federal  govern- 
ment in  an  economic  stimulation  program 
gave  a  general  reduction  of  three  per  cent 
for  a  period  of  six  months.  With  a  healthier 
economy  in  1979-80  the  yield  from  this  tax 
rebounded  to  $2,414,000,000  and  exceeded 
its  budget  by  $119  million.  It  contributed 
17  per  cent  of  the  province's  budgetary 
revenue." 

To  continue  quoting:  "Ontario  levies  both 
an  income  and  a  capital  tax  on  corporations. 
The  tax  is  paid  in  monthly  instalments  with 
final  estimated  payments  due  three  months 
after  a  corporation's  fiscal  year  end.  Some 
growth  in  the  tax  was  expected  as  rates  were 
increased  in  certain  areas  in  the  budget. 
However,  as  the  calendar  year  drew  to  a 
close  and  the  corporate  sector  was  generally 
reporting  sizeable  growth  in  profits,  it  be- 
came evident  that  the  province  would  enjoy 
a  substantial  growth  in  its  corporation  taxes. 
The  cash  collections  for  the  year  were 
$1,616,000,000  which  was  a  26  per  cent  in- 
crease over  the  previous  year  and  $281  mil- 
lion more  than  was  forecast  in  the  budget." 

Based  upon  those  facts,  the  program  of  tax 
rebates  surely  indicates  that  the  consumer  is 
the  key  to  Ontario's  prosperity,  the  hero  in 
Ontario's  economic  scenario.  The  Treasurer's 


mini-budget,  Supplementary  Measures  to 
Stimulate  the  Ontario  Economy,  was  stated 
as  a  short-term  measure. 

Rebates  of  retail  sales  tax  on  the  purchase 
of  light  trucks  and  vans  will  cost  $38  mil- 
lion; retail  sales  tax  for  selected  building  ma- 
terials, effective  until  June  30,  1981,  will  cost 
an  estimated  $94  million;  exemption  of  re- 
tail sales  tax  for  major  household  appliances 
will  cost  $25  million;  exemption  for  retail 
sales  tax  for  residential  furniture  will  cost 
about  $65  million. 

One  would  think  this  tax  exemption  was  a 
big  deal  for  the  consumers  and  that  it  was 
going  to  cost  this  government  some  $222 
million  for  the  items  I  have  mentioned,  while, 
in  the  first  place,  in  the  original  budget  of 
last  April,  the  revenue  forecasts  are  only 
estimated  figures  which  could  go  up  or  down. 

Actually,  the  government  has  little  choice. 
They  may  well  have  to  sacrifice  selected 
retail  sales  tax.  But  in  the  long  run,  if  em- 
ployment remains  stable  and  new  jobs  are 
created,  this  would  create  more  tax  dollars 
through  personal  income  tax.  What  I  am 
saying  is,  if  we  have  higher  employment  we 
have  higher  personal  income  taxes.  When  a 
person  is  employed  and  has  money  in  his 
pocket  he  will  go  out  and  buy  additional 
taxable  consumer  goods  and  the  revenues 
should  increase.  It  is  stated  in  the  Provincial 
Financial  Report  1980  that  this  is  what  hap- 
pened when  the  overall  sales  tax  was  re- 
duced across  the  board  three  per  cent  in 
1978-79. 

Actually,  we  lose  nothing  by  reducing  the 
sales  tax  on  specific  items  for  a  period  of  six 
months.  In  the  long  run  you  would  gain 
additional  revenues.  I  suggest  in  this  area 
we  should  be  looking  at  the  federal  govern- 
ment's participation  in  another  program  of  a 
similar  nature  to  reduce  the  sales  tax  across 
the  board.  Perhaps  this  government  should 
be  reducing  that  sales  tax.  Perhaps  this  gov- 
ernment should  remove  the  inequity  that  is 
there  now  when  it  deals  with  the  specific 
sales  tax  on  certain  consumer  goods. 

If  one  goes  out  to  buy  a  car  or  truck,  it 
has  not  all  been  built  and  manufactured  here 
in  Ontario.  For  example,  if  one  wants  to 
avoid  consuming  too  much  energy  or  petrol, 
and  one  buys  a  General  Motors  half-ton 
truck  with  a  six  cylinder  conservation  type 
of  engine  with  fewer  cubic  inches,  I  under- 
stand that  motor  is  built  in  Mexico. 

(Late  this  summer  I  was  in  Windsor  with 
the  mayor  of  Windsor  and  a  group  of  con- 
cerned people.  One  area  they  were  talking 
about  was  plant  closedowns.  In  the  auto- 
mobile industry,  both  Ford  and  Chrysler  re- 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4793 


ceived  substantial  grants  from  this  govern- 
ment to  create  new  employment.  They  were 
moving  machinery  down  to  Mexico  where 
there  was  cheap  labour.  Look  at  Ford's 
world  car.  It  is  a  small  compact  car.  The 
reason  they  call  it  the  world  car  is  because  it 
has  parts  from  all  over  the  world,  but  it  is 
assembled  here.  Let  me  tell  you,  it  is  tough 
on  a  person  who  goes  out  and  says,  "Should 
I  be  buying  a  car  this  year?" 

Another  area  the  government  should  look 
at  if  it  wants  to  spur  the  economy  is  in- 
terest rates.  If  a  consumer  buys  a  car  today, 
he  will  pay  about  16  per  cent  interest  on 
the  loan  to  finance  that  car.  Not  too  many 
people  are  buying  automobiles  today  for 
that  reason.  It  is  beyond  their  limit.  If  you 
want  to  control  inflation  you  cannot  shove 
all  the  responsibility  on  to  the  worker  in 
Ontario.  If  the  labourer  is  going  to  spend 
money,  he  has  to  be  able  to  borrow  it  on 
reasonable  terms.  In  this  area  the  govern- 
ment has  done  nothing. 

I  was  quoting  from  the  Treasurer's  com- 
ments on  what  he  should  do  about  interest 
rates.  He  talked  about  subsidizing  interest 
rates.  It  was  done  in  one  particular  area, 
the  agricultural  sector.  Again,  is  the  govern- 
ment being  fair  to  the  citizens  all  across 
Ontario? 

He  talked  about  reducing  the  sales  tax 
on  home  furnishings  and  building  materials. 
Many  a  person  today  cannot  afford  to  keep 
a  home  he  bought  two  or  three  years  ago 
because  of  the  fluctuating  interest  rates.  If 
one  goes  out  to  buy  a  home  today,  one  will 
pay  about  15  per  cent  or  16  per  cent  in- 
terest on  a  mortgage.  When  one  looks  at 
a  $60,000  home,  that  person  is  going  to 
have  difficulty  keeping  that  piece  of  prop- 
erty. It  will  take  him  about  25  years  before 
he  gets  any  equity  in  that  property  because, 
for  the  first  20  years,  he  will  be  paying  it 
all  out  in  interest. 

Until  this  government,  along  with  the 
federal  government,  comes  in  with  some 
program  that  will  control  interest  rates,  I 
do  not  think  our  economy  is  going  to  come 
up.  If  we  have  to  depend  upon  the  Ameri- 
can economy  to  bring  us  out  of  this  reces- 
sion, I  do  not  think  that  is  going  to  happen 
either.  They  have  the  same  problem  of  high 
interest  rates  on  the  American  side.  People 
are  not  buying  homes.  If  they  do  not  buy 
homes  they  are  not  going  to  buy  furniture. 
With  almost  every  home  purchased  today, 
the  appliances  are  usually  included.  They 
are  built  into  the  kitchen  cupboard.  If  one 
has  it  painted  a  certain  colour  one  will 
want  the  appliance  the  same  colour.  If  one 


has    an    older   appliance    it   does    not   blend 
in  with  that  new  home.   I  suggest  for  this 
'government,   or  any  government  today,   that 
is  the  problem  right  there. 
4:20  p.m. 

One  thing  I  could  go  along  with  was  the 
Treasurer's  suggestion  of  tax  exemption  on 
bonds.  I  do  not  know  how  many  times  I 
have  stood  up  in  this  House  and  said  that 
tax  exemption  on  bonds  was  one  area  the 
government  should  be  looking  at. 

The  Treasurer  was  very  critical  in  going 
to  Ottawa.  He  said,  "You  fellows  have  to 
do  your  own  homework.  You  have  too  much 
deficit  spending."  One  good  thing  about  the 
federal  government  budget  this  time  around 
was  there  was  no  increase  in  taxes.  The 
Treasurer  said  that  was  one  of  his  sugges- 
tions, but  then  again  he  hollered  back  the 
other  way,  crying  that  we  have  to  have 
more  revenue  from  the  federal  government. 
If  taxes  are  not  increased,  we  will  not  gen- 
erate too  much  revenue. 

I  want  to  make  a  point  about  tax  exemp- 
tion of  bonds.  The  same  thing  can  apply 
here  in  Ontario  because  this  government  has 
overspent  in  the  last  10  years,  not  particu- 
larly this  government,  but  Ontario  Hydro. 
Almost  every  plant  Hydro  has  built  has 
been  financed  by  foreign  money.  I  think  its 
last  issue  was  pretty  well  to  the  Canadian 
sector,  which  is  good.  If  we  have  to  go  to 
the  foreign  market,  and  almost  every  gov- 
ernment is  issuing  bonds  in  this  area,  par- 
ticularly the  United  States  market,  we  are 
paying  15  per  cent  to  17  per  cent  interest 
on  the  money  now— maybe  not  that  high 
but  at  least  12  per  cent  or  13  per  cent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  is  more  than  that. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  more  than  that.  Well, 
it  is  climbing  then;  it  is  going  higher  than  I 
thought  it  was.  If  we  look  at  the  exchange 
on  the  Canadian  dollar,  there  is  a  good  nest 
of  capital  leaving  this  country.  I  have  sug- 
gested before  that  this  is  one  area  this  gov- 
ernment, and  even  the  federal  government, 
should  be  looking  at.  There  are  about  $60 
billion  of  personal  savings  in  banks  alone.  I 
do  not  know  about  the  trust  companies  or 
credit  unions. 

I  think  the  Treasurer  should  expand  on  the 
idea  of  tax-exempt  bonds.  Give  people  here 
that  have  some  wealth  an  opportunity  to 
invest  back  into  our  economy  in  Ontario. 
Give  them  that  tax  break  on  bonds  so  that 
we  do  not  have  to  go  offshore  to  borrow 
money.  In  other  words,  we  can  stabilize  our 
own  banking  and  borrowing  institutions.  We 
do  not  have  to  go  offshore.  I  bet  it  would  be 
of  benefit  to  the  Canadian  public. 


4794 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


If  we  look  at  the  oil  industry  in  Alberta— 
and  forget  about  the  heritage  fund  in  Al- 
berta because  they  have  not  been  doing  too 
much  with  that— much  of  the  money  for 
those  pipelines  has  been  financed  by  offshore 
money.  In  the  long  run  we  pay  for  that.  I 
suggest  here  is  an  area  that  would  reduce  our 
borrowing  on  the  foreign  market.  We  would 
be  able  to  call  our  own  shots.  We  would  be 
able  to  come  in  with  an  industrial  strategy 
program.  We  could  finance  many  of  these 
things  so  that  we  would  not  have  to  depend 
upon  giving  handouts  to  large  multinational 
corporations  to  induce  them  to  stay  in 
Canada  in  the  hope  they  are  going  to  main- 
tain employment  in  this  area. 

I  see  nothing  wrong  with  the  government's 
providing  assistance  to  industry  that  may  run 
into  difficulties.  Just  look  at  the  number  of 
bankruptcies  now  in  Ontario.  They  are  away 
up.  One  of  the  reasons  is  that  industry  cannot 
finance  its  short-term  borrowing;  interest 
rates  are  killing  them. 

Actually,  this  government  is  not  getting  to 
the  crux  of  the  problem.  If  we  can  control 
the  interest  rates  here,  we  can  control  our 
economy.  We  can  put  Canadian  dollars  back 
into  our  system  that  would  be  of  assistance 
to  the  government  and  to  the  economy. 

I  believe  if  work  went  into  this  area,  we 
could  probably  reduce  the  sales  tax  to  five 
per  cent.  Consumer  buying  would  be  main- 
tained and  that  is  the  key  to  the  economy. 
As  long  as  you  put  strings  on  the  consumer 
and  make  purchasing  difficult,  then  you  are 
going  to  have  a  lagging  economv.  You  mav 
run  into  inflation  but  I  do  not  think  you  will 
because  much  of  the  inflation  in  Canada  is 
caused  by  'borrowing  money  offshore.  There 
are  advantages  to  getting  our  own  dollars 
working  for  Canadians  and  people  in 
Ontario.  I  do  not  like  to  have  to  look  to  the 
States  and  say  if  their  economy  is  improving, 
we  are  going  to  get  a  spinoff.  Every  time 
the  bank  interest  goes  up  in  the  United 
States  it  goes  up  here. 

I  thought  the  new  federal  Bank  Act  would 
be  of  benefit  to  us,  that  foreign  banks  could 
come  in,  particularly  the  American  banks, 
and  we  would  have  competition  within  the 
banking  industry.  But  that  is  not  the  case  and 
I  suggest  we  are  moving  in  the  wrong  direc- 
tion. 

Those  are  the  points  I  thought  the  govern- 
ment should  be  looking  at.  I  think  we  have 
to  do  something  in  this  area  that  is  going  to 
be  of  benefit  to  all  of  the  citizens  and  tax- 
payers of  the  province. 

My  last  note  here  says  this  government 
lacks  a  long-term  economic  program  for  the 


province.  It  has  been  on  an  ad  hoc  basis  for 
10  years  or  so.  Every  time  you  get  into  a 
jam,  you  bring  in  a  temporary  measure  and 
hope  it  is  going  to  get  you  out  of  it.  But 
that  does  not  create  the  long-term  job  op- 
portunities or  the  security  that  people  want 
today.  That  security  is  not  there.  I  suggest 
that  a  tax  cut  in  personal  income  would 
provide  a  measure  to  expand  the  economy 
and  provide  Ontario  with  a  more  prosperous 
domestic  economy.  It  would  increase  em- 
ployment opportunities  in  the  province.  I 
would  suggest  an  industrial  strategy  program 
for  Ontario. 

The  minister  talked  in  his  opening  remarks 
about  the  government  policy  on  restraint.  He 
talked  about  zero-base  budgeting.  I  do  not 
know  if  he  is  referring  to  the  general  govern- 
ment policy  or  just  to  his  own  ministry  but 
this  is  an  area  that  we  should  be  looking  at. 
I  have  often  heard  the  Treasurer,  who  is 
your  boss  in  a  sense,  say  we  are  looking  for 
a  zero-base  budget.  You  will  never  meet  that 
goal.  I  do  not  see  how  you  possibly  can  be- 
cause if  you  head  in  that  direction  you  will 
have  more  unemployment  under  the  present 
circumstances. 

The  minister  mentioned  the  senior  citizens' 
tax  grants  and  I  know  the  difficulties  he  is 
having.  There  are  still  a  number  of  persons 
who  have  not  received  their  grants  this  year 
and  I  have  often  wondered  why  he  did  not 
leave  it  the  way  it  was  under  the  tax  credit 
system  where  the  federal  government  did 
much  of  his  homework  for  him  with  very 
little  difficulty  for  the  pensioners  in  the 
province. 

I  imagine  the  cost  of  advertising  this  is 
enormous  and  that  it  has  caused  headaches  in 
the  ministry.  I  do  not  know  if  he  is  ever 
going  to  get  it  ironed  out.  I  do  not  know  how 
he  possibly  can.  I  think  he  said  there  were 
113,000  that  still  have  not— maybe  it  was 
91,000- 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  was  away  down. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  down  to  91,000  or 
something  like  that.  I  remember  our  critic, 
the  member  for  London  Centre  (Mr.  Peter- 
son), speaking  to  the  budget  last  spring,  saying 
there  would  be  115,000  people  getting  less  in 
property  tax  rebate  than  they  received  the 
previous  year.  Many  people  call  my  home  and 
my  constituency  office  telling  me  the  same 
thing— that  they  are  not  too  happy  with  it. 
People  on  lower  incomes  have  received  less 
than  they  received  a  year  ago.  I  do  not  know 
how  you  are  going  to  overcome  that  but  I 
think  if  you  are  going  to  move  into  an  area 
like  this  it  has  to  apply  equity  within  that  tax 
structure. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4795 


4:30  p.m. 

You  try  to  tell  it  to  some  people;  it  is 
rather  difficult.  I  suggest,  with  those  com- 
ments, Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  will  go  through 
the  estimates  vote  by  vote  and  continue  on 
that.  I  do  not  think  we  will  cover  much  of 
the  Assessment  Act  or  retail  sales  tax  be- 
cause we  will  be  getting  into  that  tomorrow 
night. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  my  first 
leadoff  as  Revenue  critic.  I  have  only  had  the 
portfolio  for  a  few  weeks,  so  I  have  not  had 
an  opportunity  to  get  to  know  the  minister 
or  his  officials  very  well.  But  I  would  like 
to  say  that  to  date  the  minister  has  been 
very  co-operative  in  supplying  me  with  any 
information  I  have  requested  and  his  officials 
have  also  been  very  courteous  and  co-opera- 
tive. I  hope  these  relations  will  continue.  I 
think  we  both  respect  each  other's  integrity 
and  point  of  view,  but  of  course  we  differ 
in  some  of  our  approaches  as  to  how  these 
problems  we  face  in  the  ministry  should  be 
dealt  with. 

The  Ministry  of  Revenue  is  really  a  very 
important  ministry  because  everybody  recog- 
nizes that  taxes  are  very  high  and  would  like 
to  see  they  are  collected  in  the  fairest  and 
most  equitable  manner.  I  think  it  is  part  of 
the  ministry's  responsibility  to  see  that  loop- 
holes, as  they  occur,  are  closed  as  rapidly  as 
possible,  because  there  is  nothing  that  de- 
stroys the  equity  of  a  tax  system  more  than 
allowing  people  to  slip  through  the  loopholes. 

This  ministry  differs  from  other  min- 
istries in  two  or  three  respects.  For  one 
thing,  it  has  no  annual  report.  I  think  back 
maybe  10  or  15  years  ago  they  did  produce 
an  annual  report  for  a  couple  of  years,  and 
it  contained  very  useful  statistics  on  the  tax 
collection  process,  the  cost  of  collection, 
some  figures  on  where  the  money  came  from, 
such  as  succession  duties,  and  what  income 
groups  were  contributing  how  much.  I  think 
it  might  be  useful  to  consider  reinstating 
such  an  annual  report.  It  is  true  the  minister 
from  time  to  time  gives  us  the  figures  on 
the  cost  of  collection,  because  he  is  rather 
proud  of  the  fact  that  the  cost  of  collection 
appears  to  ibe  very  low.  Of  course,  when 
you  are  collecting  billions  and  are  in  an 
inflationary  situation,  it  may  be  easier  to 
have  what  appears  to  be  a  low-cost  collec- 
tion. 

Another  way  in  which  this  ministry  differs 
is  that,  according  to  the  minister's  own 
statement,  it  does  not  have  a  policy-making 
function;  tax  policies  are  a  function  of  the 
Treasury.  However,  administrative  activities 
have  a  policy-making  function,  and  I  do  not 


think  -the  minister  can  really  say  he  does  not 
contribute  to  policy.  His  ministry  tells  the 
Treasury  when  a  particular  proposal  is  feas- 
ible and  when  it  would  be  too  costly  to  try 
to  put  in  a  particular  idea  and,  in  effect,  he 
does  have  a  policy-making  function  in  that 
respect.  However,  if  he  had  an  annual 
report,  we  might  also  learn  a  little  bit  more 
about  his  philosophy  as  to  whether  the  tax 
system  should  be  for  raising  revenue  or  for 
achieving  social  and  economic  goals  or  for 
the  redistribution  of  income.  It  would  ap- 
pear, if  he  says  he  has  no  policy-making 
function,  that  he  considers  taxes  are  simply 
for  the  raising  of  revenue. 

Another  way  in  which  the  ministry  differs 
is  that  it  maintains  a  very  low  profile.  I 
must  say  I  was  glad  they  did  not  engage  in 
the  advertising  campaign  that  seems  to  have 
afflicted  the  other  ministries.  It  would  have 
been  rather  ironic  to  have  an  ad  coming  out 
from  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  that  says: 
"The  Ontario  tax  structure  is  beautiful.  Keep 
it  green  by  paying  promptly." 

Mr.  Warner:  I  think  we  are  going  to  see 
an  ad  tomorrow. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  think  that  would  have  been 
a  great  misuse  of  public  funds.  I  am  glad 
the  minister  refrained  from  engaging  in  this 
orgy  of  ministry  advertising  that  is  going  on. 

I  do  find  the  background  material  sup- 
plied to  the  critics  rather  inadequate  in  that 
it  is  simply  cold  dollars  and  cents  figures 
on  expenditures  with  very  miniature  thumb- 
nail sketches  of  what  the  dollars  and  cents 
are  supposed  to  cover.  I  hope  we  will  get 
more  elaboration  from  the  minister  on  some 
of  the  details. 

If  the  minister  published  an  annual  report, 
he  could  also  be  of  assistance  to  organiza- 
tions like  the  Canadian  Tax  Foundation,  for 
which  I  used  to  work  at  one  time,  in  provid- 
ing them  with  information  on  the  incidence 
of  taxes  in  Ontario.  For  example,  what 
sections  of  the  public  pay  the  largest  amount 
of  retail  sales  tax?  How  much  money  comes 
from  the  building  industry?  The  minister 
must  have  had  those  figures  in  order  to 
provide  the  Treasurer  with  an  estimate  of 
how  much  he  was  going  to  lose  when  he 
took  the  sales  tax  off  residential  building 
materials  for  that  short  period  between  now 
and  the  next  election.  Oher  researchers  at 
universities  and  in  other  kinds  of  social 
research  would  also  find  it  useful  to  have 
more  information  from  the  ministry  on  the 
actual  place  where  the  taxes  fall  and  how 
much  revenue  comes  from  each  major  cate- 
gory of  taxpayer. 


4796 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Another  field  in  which  I  think  the  minis- 
try has  a  role  to  play  is  in  providing  us  with 
information  on  tax  expenditures.  I  am  sure 
the  minister  knows  what  tax  expenditures  are. 
There  is  a  definition  that  was  recently  in  a 
Canadian  Tax  Foundation  booklet.  It  says 
that  tax  expenditures  are:  "those  provisions 
in  the  income  tax  which  result  in  lower  in- 
come tax  revenues  owing  to  preferential 
treatment  of  certain  economic  activities,  in- 
come or  individuals.  Tax  revenues  foregone 
l^ecause  of  the  special  provisions  are  in  many 
ways  similar  to  direct  subsidies  and  may  be 
viewed  as  expenditures  made  through  the 
tax  system  or  'indirect'  expenditures." 

That  is  a  definition  of  tax  expenditures. 
There  are  others;  some  are  more  comprehen- 
sive and  some  are  less.  Basically,  they  are  an 
expenditure  of  money  which  is  not  accounted 
for  in  the  Legislature.  We  do  not  know  in 
many  cases  how  much  it  amounts  to  be- 
cause it  is  simply  deductions  from  income  or 
from  corporation  income.  We  do  not  know 
who  is  getting  the  amounts.  We  do  not 
know  whether  it  is  cost-efficient  and  we  do 
not  know  really  what  impact  it  has  on  the 
economy. 

The  federal  government  has  started  to  pub- 
lish this  sort  of  figure.  The  new  system  of 
spending  envelopes,  which  the  Conservatives 
in  Ottawa  inaugurated,  does  include  tax  ex- 
penditures in  the  spending  envelopes.  With- 
out including  tax  expenditures  in  such  a  sys- 
tem of  budget  control,  an  end  run  could  be 
completed  around  budgetary  constraints  by 
expenditures  going  through  under  the  In- 
come Tax  Act.  I  think  it  is  an  area  this  prov- 
ince should  be  moving  into. 

I  will  say  that  the  Treasurer  in  his  mini- 
budget  did  indicate  that  tax  expenditures 
were  being  studied  in  Ontario,  but  they  are 
not  being  published  at  the  moment.  He  did 
say,  and  I  quote  from  his  mini-budget:  "I 
believe  a  more  comprehensive  analysis  should 
now  be  undertaken  and  I  have  instructed 
staff  to  commence  the  review  immediately." 
4:40  p.m. 

He  goes  on  to  say:  "I  would  like  in  so  far 
as  possible  to  concentrate  our  tax  incentives 
more  selectively  in  areas  with  the  greatest 
promise  and  which  offer  the  biggest  poten- 
tial economic  gains.  For  example,  I  believe 
we  should  do  more  to  encourage  exports, 
import  replacement,  research  and  develop- 
ment and  high  technology  industries  such  as 
aerospace,  communications  and  microelec- 
tronics." 

I  may  say  the  provincial  Treasurer  stole 
all  that  from  the  New  Democratic  Party  be- 
cause  we  have   been   saying  that  for  years. 


We  certainly  think  tax  expenditures  play  a 
role  in  this  kind  of  direction  of  the  economy 
and  development  of  an  industrial  strategy. 

'What  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  is, 
what  role  is  his  ministry  taking  in  assisting 
the  Treasury  in  this  study  of  tax  expendi- 
tures and  in  this  attempt  to  use  the  results 
of  the  study  to  achieve  these  economic  goals 
mentioned  by  the  Treasurer?  Obviously,  the 
raw  material  is  in  the  ministry's  files  and 
computers.  I  would  like  to  know  how  much 
he  is  involved  in  providing  this  study  of  tax 
expenditures  and  whether  it  will  be  possible, 
when  some  of  the  data  is  compiled  for  the 
Treasurer,  to  publish  it  for  the  general  public. 
It  would  be  extremely  useful  and  would 
follow  a  pattern  that  is  being  adopted  in 
many  western  countries  now. 

Another  area  where  I  think  the  ministry 
has  an  important  role  to  play  is  in  the  devel- 
opment of  administrative  efficiency  in  our 
tax  collection.  If  we  do  not  collect  taxes  in 
the  best  possible  way,  we  add  to  the  tax 
burden.  The  minister  mentioned  his  esti- 
mates were  down  by  $1  million  but,  if  one 
looks  at  the  Gains  figure,  it  is  down  by  $3 
million  so  that  actually  his  estimates  are  up 
by  $2  million.  He  did  not  mention  the 
amount  of  the  Gains  decrease.  He  did  men- 
tion it  had  decreased. 

I  really  think  the  Gains  is  an  expenditure 
that  should  be  increased.  It  has  been  kept  at 
far  too  low  a  level  for  many  years  anvway 
and  it  should  be  indexed  the  way  the  federal 
old  age  pension  and  guaranteed  income  sup- 
plement are  indexed  rather  than  waiting 
until  the  government  decides  to  increase  it. 

With  regard  to  administrative  efficiency,  I 
would  like  to  know  whether  the  minister  has 
any  figures  on  what  the  move  to  Oshawa  is 
really  going  to  cost.  Has  he  any  amount  in 
this  year's  estimates  for  that  move  and  what 
does  he  forecast  the  final  cost  will  be  of 
that  move?  I  understand  the  move  to  Oshawa 
was  supposed  to  be  part  of  the  province's 
decentralization  system  to  spread  jobs  around 
the  province.  I  very  much  question  whether 
to  move  a  whole  ministry  that  is  already- 
operating  is  an  economical  move  or  whether 
it  would  be  better  to  develop  new  activities 
in  new  areas,  such  as  when  one  sets  up  a 
dental  plan  or  something  like  that.  There 
will  undoubtedly  be  great  relocation  costs, 
disruption  of  present  activities  and  many 
employees  will  either  have  to  be  retrained  or 
will  have  to  look  for  new  jobs  if  they  are  not 
able  to  move  to  Oshawa  or  do  not  wish  to 
commute.  I  am  not  sure  that  is  a  very  pro- 
ductive way  of  increasing  jobs  around  the 
province. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4797 


The  minister  also  mentions  how  much  he 
has  cut  payroll  costs,  mainly  through  intro- 
ducing computers  and  more  electronic  pro- 
cessing. I  wonder  how  much  of  the  actual 
reduction  in  employees  is  due  to  subcontract- 
ing of  work.  I  understand  the  ministry  does 
subcontract  projects  quite  often  when  some 
operation  is  instituted.  I  would  suspect  that 
the  subcontractor's  costs  are  not  charged  to 
wages  and  salaries  but  are  probably  charged 
to  services.  I  would  like  to  have  that  clarified 
for  me.  I  would  also  like  some  information 
on  how  many  subcontractors  were  used  in 
the  last  fiscal  year,  for  what  purpose  and  at 
what  price.  I  would  like  to  know  approxi- 
mately how  many  man-years  of  work  they 
provided  for  the  ministry. 

Some  times  these  staff  reduction  figures 
can  be  a  snare  and  a  delusion  in  that  the 
permanent  staff  goes  down  and  the  contract 
staff  goes  up.  I  think  the  ministries  now 
count  both  those  figures,  mainly  as  a  result 
of  our  protests  over  the  years.  They  used  to 
count  permanent  staff  only.  The  subcontract- 
ing is  another  aspect  that  may  be  reducing 
the  wages  and  salaries  figure  but  may  be  in- 
creasing the  services  figure.  We  would  like 
to  know  more  about  that. 

We  would  also  like  to  know  what  sort  of 
benefits  are  received  by  people  who  are  on 
subcontract.  Does  the  ministry  insist  on  any- 
thing being  provided  in  the  way  of  benefits 
to  employees  who  come  in  through  subcon- 
tracts beyond  the  statutory  requirement  of 
four  per  cent  holiday  pay?  Do  employees 
who  come  in  under  subcontracts  get  any 
other  benefits?  I  would  also  like  to  know 
what  the  benefit  situation  is  for  contract  em- 
ployees. Do  they  get  any  benefits  beyond 
the  four  per  cent  holiday  pay? 

With  regard  to  the  changes  in  retail 
sales  tax  which  came  in  with  the  mini- 
budget,  I  will  leave  most  of  that  discussion 
until  we  are  discussing  the  amendment  to 
the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Act.  It  does  indicate 
that  the  Treasurer  uses  retail  sales  tax,  if 
not  for  economic  and  social  reasons,  for 
political  reasons  since  most  of  the  rebates 
and  exemptions  self-destruct  at  the  end  of 
June  when  we  expect  the  provincial  election 
to  be  over.  I  find  the  proposed  rebates  and 
exemptions  will  undoubtedy  benefit  the  rich 
more  than  the  poor  because  the  larger  the 
expenditures  the  greater  the  tax  relief.  There 
is  no  ceiling  on  the  value  of  whatever 
residential  furniture  or  building  materials 
one  buys  in  order  to  get  the  sales  tax 
exemption. 

I  would  like  to  have  seen  the  minister 
consider  including  in  the  sales  tax  exemptions 


that  were  given  for  this  so-called  stimula- 
tive program  something  that  would  have 
benefited  those  who  have  very  little  purchas- 
ing power  for  houses,  appliances  or  furni- 
ture but  are  buying  things  like  children's 
shoes  and  clothing  and  who  are  still  getting 
sales  tax  exemption  on  the  shoes  only  if 
they  are  $30  or  under.  We  all  know  that 
many  shoes  have  gone  up  beyond  that, 
especially  for  people  who  have  any  diffi- 
culty in  getting  a  good  fit. 

I  know  the  minister  will  say  it  is  up  to 
the  Treasurer  to  decide  whether  additional 
exemptions  should  be  given,  but  I  would 
have  thought  he  might  have  argued  with 
the  Treasurer  that  if  he  is  going  to  benefit 
the  rich,  he  should  also  benefit  those  who 
have  very  minimal  purchasing  power.  That 
might  also  be  stimulating  in  that  those 
people  will  spend  any  money  they  save  on 
additional  items  in  the  economy. 

4:50  p.m. 

I  want  to  spend  some  time  on  the 
property  tax  grants  for  seniors,  on  which 
the  minister  also  spent  a  considerable  time. 
I  think  that  program  has  given  the  ministry 
a  high  profile  this  year  because  the  ministry 
has  been  entrusted  with  the  administration 
of  this  program.  It  is  not  clear  to  me  where 
the  actual  vote  is  for  the  grants  themselves. 
I  am  not  sure  whether  this  comes  under  the 
Ministry  of  Treasury  and  Economics  or  the 
Ministry  of  Revenue.  I  cannot  see  in  the 
estimates  book  any  provision  for  those 
property  tax  grant  expenditures. 

I  feel  that  the  seniors'  tax  grant  has 
developed  into  an  administrative  nightmare. 
I  agree  that  the  seniors  needed  increased 
tax  relief  very  badly.  They  were  promised 
it  in  1977  in  the  election  campaign,  but  they 
did  not  get  any  change  in  their  tax  credits 
until  three  years  later  when  this  program 
finally  came  along;  yet  many  of  them  are 
having  difficulty  maintaining  their  indepen- 
dence and  staying  in  their  own  homes  be- 
cause of  the  rising  burden  of  property  taxes 
on  them. 

What  I  am  quarrelling  with  is  the  govern- 
ment's method  of  delivering  the  increased 
tax  relief  for  seniors  and  turning  it  into  what 
is  a  costly  administrative  nightmare.  I  know 
the  minister  says  that  things  are  improving, 
but  he  does  himself  admit  that  the  telephones 
were  overloaded  and  that  many  seniors  did 
not  fill  out  the  forms  correctly.  In  fact  40  per 
cent  of  the  applications  received  have  had  to 
be  referred  to  the  special  prepayment  unit 
for  further  questions,  processing  and  con- 
tacting of  the  applicants.  That  indicates  that 
the  program  is  an  administrative  nightmare. 


4798 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  do  not  think  it  is  entirely  the  minister's 
fault.  It  is  just  that  when  a  new  system  is 
started  there  are  bound  to  be  a  lot  of  head- 
aches. But  I  question  whether  we  needed  to 
start  the  new  system. 

The  postage  costs  alone  of  the  four  extra 
mailings  to  seniors  for  the  new  seniors'  tax 
grants  amount  to  about  $500,000.  Extra  staff 
to  process  the  applications,  additional  phone 
service,  printing,  advertising,  cheque-writing 
costs,  computer  time  and  auditing  will  likely 
bring  the  total  cost  of  distributing  these 
grants  to  well  over  the  million-dollar  mark. 

In  fact,  I  hope  we  will  obtain  from  the 
minister  exact  figures  during  these  estimates 
as  to  what  has  been  spent  from  the  time  the 
new  grant  system  was  adopted  by  the  Legis- 
lature until  the  present.  Those  expenditures 
should  be  broken  down,  showing  us  the 
amount  spent  for  additional  staff,  telephones, 
advertising,  printing,  mailing,  additional  sup- 
plies, travel,  audit  services,  cheque-writing 
services,  computer  time  and  so  on.  Until  we 
see  that,  we  do  not  really  know  what  the 
cost  of  this  program  is  to  the  taxpayers  of 
this  province. 

The  former  system  of  dispensing  property 
sales  and  pensioner  tax  credits  through  the 
income  tax  system  cost  the  government  noth- 
ing for  postage,  handling  or  cheque-writing. 
It  did  publish  a  few  leaflets  to  inform  people 
of  the  fact  that  there  were  tax  credits  avail- 
able through  the  income  tax  system.  But  it 
cost  us  nothing  in  the  way  of  the  kind  of 
costs  I  have  been  mentioning  for  this  new 
grant  program.  What  is  more,  it  enabled  the 
government  to  direct  the  grants  to  those  who 
needed  them  most  without  a  means  test,  other 
than  what  is  recorded  in  the  privacy  of  the 
income  tax  return.  We  all  make  that  kind 
of  means  report.  If  we  do  not  normally  sub- 
mit an  income  tax  return,  we  could  easily 
submit  one  in  order  to  qualify  for  the  tax 
credit. 

This  fall  the  government  exchanged  that 
efficient  system  of  tax  relief  for  a  costly  new 
delivery  mechanism  which  will  provide  grants 
to  many  who  do  not  need  them  and  take  them 
away  from  many  needy  seniors  who  formerly 
got  them.  It  was  all  done  for  political  reasons. 
The  provincial  government  wanted  to  be  the 
issuer  of  the  cheques  instead  of  having  them 
come  from  the  federal  income  tax  office.  So  it 
sei  up  a  whole  new  distribution  system  in  the 
Ministry  of  Revenue,  regardless  of  the  cost 
and  the  inefficient  way  of  delivery.  That  is  the 
kind  of  government  we  have  been  getting 
from  the  Progressive  Conservative  Party  for 
too  long. 


The  government  tried  to  offset  this  waste 
by  cutting  off  many  seniors  who  had  bene- 
fited under  the  former  tax  credit  program. 
They  included  residents  of  nursing  homes, 
homes  for  the  aged  and  seniors  living  with 
relatives.  Close  to  100,000  seniors  who  get 
no  compensating  increase  through  the  guar- 
anteed annual  income  system  increase  will 
receive  less  money  than  they  got  under  the 
former  tax  credit  program.  That  is  an  indica- 
tion of  this  government's  concern  for  senior 
citizens  who  have  contributed  a  great  deal 
to  our  province  over  the  years. 

It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  many  of  them 
got  a  $35-a-month  increase  from  the  federal 
government  this  spring.  If  we  take  away 
some  of  what  they  gained  from  the  federal 
grant,  they  do  not  go  ahead.  It  does  not 
seem  fair  that  we  should  reduce  their  gain 
from  the  federal  government  when  it  was 
given  to  them  on  the  understanding  they 
needed  this  amount  very  badly.  Besides,  only 
half  or  so  of  seniors  get  the  new  federal 
increase  because  it  only  goes  to  those  who 
receive  both  the  old  age  security  and  the 
guaranteed  income  supplement. 

Residents  of  private  nursing  homes  who 
pay  some  part  of  their  accommodation 
charges  out  of  their  own  pockets  are  being 
particularly  discriminated  against.  They 
should  be  entitled  to  the  same  tax  releif  on 
these  rental  payments  as  other  seniors  who 
pay  rent  in  the  private  sector  in  order  to 
offset  the  property  taxes  that  are  built  into 
the  rent  charged.  The  government  takes  the 
attitude  that  because  residents  of  nursing 
homes  and  of  homes  for  the  aged  are  in  insti- 
tutions which  receive  some  form  of  govern- 
ment subsHv  they  are  not  entitled  to  the 
same  tax  relief  as  other  people.  But  I  submit 
these  payments  to  nursing  homes  for  a  share 
of  the  seniors'  accommodation  are  a  part  of 
our  health  care  system  and  they  should  not 
disentitle  the  seniors  from  receiving  tax  relief 
on  the  amounts  they  pay  out  of  their  own 
pocket  for  the  other  portion  of  the  accom- 
modation. 

The  government  also  planned  to  save 
money  by  cutting  out  all  newcomers  who  had 
not  yet  qualified  for  the  old  age  pension. 
But,  fortunately,  it  was  persuaded,  mainly  by 
the  New  Democratic  Party  pressure,  to 
change  this  part  of  the  original  bill.  How- 
ever, it  seems  to  me  inhuman  and  cruel  to 
take  away  a  benefit  from  seniors  who  had 
been  receiving  it  for  a  considerable  number 
of  years.  I  refer  to  those  who  are  in  nursing 
homes,  homes  for  the  aged  and  chronic  care 
homes  and  who  are  living  with  relatives. 
5  p.m. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4799 


If  one  is  going  to  say  that  some  of  those 
benefits  should  be  restructured,  I  do  not 
think  it  should  apply  to  those  who  have  been 
receiving  them  for  years  and  counting  on 
them,  especially  when  we  know  that  at  least 
two  thirds  of  seniors  live  below  the  poverty 
line.  I  think  if  one  is  going  to  bring  in 
changes  in  the  benefit  system  for  reasons  of 
overall  improvement,  then  one  makes  it 
anply  only  to  the  new  applicants,  while  those 
who  have  been  getting  the  benefits  continue 
to  get  at  least  as  much  as  they  would  have 
if  the  old  system  had  stayed  in.  That  is  the 
humane  tiling  to  do,  not  this  cutting  off  in 
order  to  save  some  money  to  finance  a  scheme 
v/hich  benefits  the  well-off  too  much. 

I  would  like  also  to  refer  to  the  fact  that 
the  first  tax  grant  leaflet  for  seniors  which 
went  out,  the  blue  one,  did  not  mention 
anywhere  that  any  persons  in  institutions 
were  not  eligible  for  the  grant.  Under  eligi- 
bilitv  it  simply  said,  "If  you  are  an  Ontario 
resident  65  years  of  age  or  older,  you  are 
eligible,  regardless  of  income,  for  the  prop- 
erty tax  grant  if  you  pay  property  tax  on 
your  residence  or  rent  for  your  accommoda- 
tion." It  does  not  qualify  the  kind  of  accom- 
modation in  any  way.  It  was  not  until  much 
later  this  fall  that  the  ministry  got  out  a 
new  version  of  its  pamphlet,  to  which  I 
refer  as  the  green  one,  which  did  mention 
the  ineligibility  of  people  in  institutions.  I 
submit  that  when  the  ministry  made  that 
kind  of  mistake,  it  should  have  backtracked 
and  granted  the  tax  grants  to  the  people  in 
institutions  because  their  hopes  had  been 
built  up.  They  had  thought  they  were  shar- 
ing in  this  new  assistance  to  senior  citizens. 

Here  are  some  of  the  other  administra- 
tive problems  under  this  new  program.  First, 
letters,  leaflets  and  advertisements  did  not 
make  it  clear  who  was  eligible,  as  I  have 
just  mentioned.  Because  of  the  confusion, 
some  ineligible  seniors  applied  and  received 
grants  which  they  are  now  being  asked  to 
repay.  Of  course,  the  minister  sent  them 
the  application  grants;  so  in  effect  he  con- 
tributed to  the  confusion. 

I  would  like  to  know  how  many  are 
caught  in  this  situation  and  how  many  wlio 
have  been  sent  cheques  for  which  they  were 
ineligible  are  being  asked  to  repay. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  think  the  member 
should  keep  those  questions  until  we  get 
to  that  vote  because  that  is  when  I  am 
going  to  answer  them  all. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Yes.  I  am  just  giving  the 
minister  a  warning  that  when  that  vote 
comes,   I  would  like  that  information. 


Secondly,  others  suffered  the  disappoint- 
ment of  finding  that  they  did  not  qualify 
for  what  had  been  announced  as  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  government's  1977  election 
promise  to  give  seniors  more  tax  relief  and 
assistance.  Thirdly,  applications  were  not 
processed  in  the  order  received.  As  a  con- 
sequence, many  seniors  became  worried 
that  they  did  not  qualify  when  they  heard 
their  neighbours  were  receiving  cheques, 
but  they  could  not  get  through  on  the 
phones  to  find  out.  Some  in  Toronto  trek- 
ked down  to  Queen's.  Park  to  get  help,  only 
to  find  they  had  to  go  to  77  Bloor  Street 
West.  This  was  not  shown  on  the  informa- 
tion sent  out,  although  subsequently  the 
minister  did  try  to  correct  that  with  an 
advertisement  in  the  newspaper. 

Fourthly,  no  working  copy  of  the  appli- 
cation form  was  supplied.  Even  the  income 
tax  people  supply  working  copies.  If  mis- 
takes were  made,  a  duplicate  could  be  ob- 
tained only  after  an  affidavit  was  filed. 

Fifthly,  inadequate  staff,  inadequate 
phones  and  slow  processing  made  it  difficult 
to  get  questions  answered  or  to  find  out  if 
applications  had  been  received.  Sixthly, 
while  the  minister  reports  that  820,000  initial 
letters  were  sent  out  and  727,000  applica- 
tion forms  were  sent,  he  says  he  is  processing 
only  approximately  520,000  applications. 
What  happened  to  the  other  200,000? 

Hen.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  told  you  some  of  them 
were  married  and  you  didn't  listen  to  me. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Presumably,  you  sent  the  ap- 
plication forms  out  only  one  to  a  couple. 
Since  the  deadline  is  December  31,  1980, 
less  than  a  month  away  now,  he  should  be 
following  up  on  the  "no  responses,"  both  to 
his  initial  letter  and  to  the  mailing  of  the 
forms.  Thousands  may  miss  out  on  this  tax 
relief  because  they  do  not  understand  the 
form  or  are  not  sure  if  they  are  eligible.  Ob- 
viously, this  is  another  administrative  cost 
we  should  incur.  It  will  be  costlv  to  follow 
up  on  all  the  "no  responses,"  but  we  should 
incur  it  because  we  have  adopted  this  in- 
efficient system. 

I  feel  it  would  have  been  much  better  to 
improve  the  income  tax  credit  system— there 
were  things  that  could  be  improved  in  it— 
rather  than  subject  seniors  to  the  many 
hassles  they  have  endured  under  this  new 
program.  Tt  would  have  been  a  whole  lot 
cheaper.  The  minister  has  admitted  he  is 
already  planning  improvements  for  next  year 
in  his  scheme  and,  in  doing  so,  he  admits 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  room  for  improve- 
ment. 


4800 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


With  regard  to  the  seniors  who  are  not  re- 
ceiving old  age  security  at  the  present  time, 
but  who  are  now  eligible  for  this  tax  grant, 
I  would  like  to  know  what  advertising  is 
being  done  to  alert  them  of  their  eligibility 
since  they  are  not  on  the  computerized  mail- 
ing list  the  minister  has  access  to.  He  does 
mention  ads  in  the  ethnic  newspapers,  but  I 
would  like  to  know  if  he  has  gone  beyond 
that  to  ads  on  ethnic  radio  stations,  on 
channel  47,  the  multilingual  TV,  and  letters 
to  ethnic  organizations  acquainting  them  of 
the  eligibility  of  people  who  are  newcomers 
to  the  country,  but  who  are  citizens  and 
landed  immigrants  and  are  entitled  to  this 
tax  relief.  I  think  that  is  all  I  will  say  at  the 
moment  about  the  pensioners'  tax  credit 
program  but,  undoubtedly,  we  will  have  some 
more  discussion  on  it  when  we  come  to  that 
item  in  the  vote. 

With  regard  to  assessments,  the  minister 
says  progress  is  being  made.  I  find  it  hard 
to  consider  section  86  very  much  progress. 
Even  the  minister  admits  section  86  is  a 
temporary  measure,  pending  a  final  solution 
to  the  question  of  how  to  improve  the  assess- 
ment procedure  to  achieve  equity  and  fair- 
ness. Obviously,  as  we  mentioned  in  the 
debate  last  week  on  Bill  185,  the  government 
doesn't  yet  have  an  answer  after  seven  years 
of  postponement  of  market  value  assessment. 

It  doesn't  yet  have  an  answer  to  how  to 
avoid  the  shift  in  the  tax  burden  which  will 
result  from  the  use  of  unadjusted  or  unre- 
fined market  value  assessment  because  of 
differences  in  markets  or  some  properties  for 
which  there  is  really  no  market.  I  don't  know 
what  market  there  is  for  the  Toronto-Domin- 
ion Centre  and  of  course,  the  ministry  has 
worked  out  other  methods  than  market  value 
for  assessing  the  Toronto-Dominion  Centre.  I 
think  we  have  got  to  work  out  other  methods 
for  measuring  the  value  of  properties  where 
speculation  has  occurred  and  where  there 
are  other  factors  affecting  values  besides  the 
actual  use  to  which  the  property  is  being 
put. 

5:10  p.m. 

I  would  have  liked  to  have  seen  some 
measure  for  an  improved  tax  credit  in  the 
mini-budget  the  Treasurer  brought  down.  It 
seemed  to  me  that  might  be  a  way  of  getting 
some  more  purchasing  power  into  the  hands 
of  the  economy.  The  tax  credit  has  not  been 
changed  since  1975.  As  a  result,  its  value  in 
mitigating  the  regressivity  of  the  property 
tax  has  been  greatly  eroded  due  to  inflation. 
Many  people  who  used  to  qualify  for  a  sub- 
stantial credit  get  very  little  or  nothing  now 
under  the  present  tax  credit. 


While  I  think  the  minister's  idea  of  assess- 
ment open  houses  is  a  very  good  idea  to 
bring  to  the  public  an  understanding  of  what 
assessment  is  all  about  and  to  demystify  the 
process,  I  am  sure  the  people  who  come  in 
would  be  very  happy  to  also  come  in  and 
study  how  a  new  tax  credit  would  work  to 
their  benefit.  Not  too  many  of  them  are  able 
to  benefit  from  section  86,  although  within 
the  various  categories  there  are  some  in- 
creases in  equity  as   a  result  of  section  86. 

The  thing  I  don't  like  about  section  86  is 
that  once  you  do  get  some  of  the  inequities 
ironed  out,  you  still  have  not  determined  how 
much  of  the  total  burden  should  be  borne 
by  each  category.  Of  course  we  have  to  recog- 
nize that  as  long  as  we  don't  have  property 
tax  reform  and  a  new  assessment  system,  we 
are  going  to  have  a  continuation  of  the  heavy 
concentration  on  appeals,  particularly  by 
those  who  can  afford  lawyers  and  who  can 
benefit  gready  from  a  successful  appeal.  That 
means  that  our  assessment  system  rules  are 
really  made  by  the  courts,  and  they  work 
entirely  on  a  straight  comparison  basis  rather 
than  any  sort  of  a  philosophy  as  to  how  one 
should  assess  the  use  and  the  value  of  a  given 
property. 

When  we  were  discussing  Bill  185,  I 
mentioned  that  the  government  had  spent 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  on  the  assess- 
ment process.  The  minister  disputed  this 
figure,  but  I  was  referring  to  the  total  ex- 
penditures since  the  provincial  government 
took  over  assessment  in  1970.  It  has  gone 
through  all  sorts  of  exercises  in  producing 
market  value  assessment  figures.  The  total  cost 
in  those  10  years  from  1970  to  1979-80  has 
amounted  to  $403  million,  so  I  would  say 
that  is  hundreds  of  millions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  In  studies? 

Ms.  Bryden:  No.  The  total  cost  of  the 
assessment  branch,  and  there  is  another  $59 
million  in  for  this  year,  I  believe.  I  think 
when  we  get  to  the  assessment  vote  we  will 
discuss  in  more  detail  some  of  the  problems 
in  that  area.  That  is  all  I  have  to  comment 
on  at  the  moment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not 
going  to  make  a  detailed  reply  at  this  time 
because  most  of  the  speeches  made  were  a 
series  of  questions  that  should  properly  be 
put  when  we  get  to  the  votes,  when  I  have 
the  staff  here  for  those  particular  votes,  rather 
than  going  into  them  at  the  moment. 

There  were  some  general  statements  made 
by  the  member  for  Erie  (Mr.  Haggerty).  He 
was  dealing  a  great  deal  with  interest  rates 
and  so  on.  I  suggest  to  the  member  that  in- 
terest rates  in  the  main  are  a  problem  of  the 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4801 


federal  government  rather  than  the  provincial 
government.  I  would  suggest  his  friends  in 
Ottawa  should  be  doing  something  about  the 
interest  rates  rather  than  depending  on  the 
province  to  do  all  these  things. 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Sure  we  did.  It  is  not  a 
bottomless  barrel  where  we  can  just  con- 
tinue to  spend  money. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  They  were  happy  to  get  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Sure  they  were,  at  a  cost 
of  some  $25  million.  However,  if  we  extended 
that  to  every  area  of  the  economy,  you  can 
imagine  what  would  happen.  It  would  break 
the  Treasury.  I  would  just  point  out  to  you 
that  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  while  interest 
rates  are  a  concern,  the  Treasurer  has  been 
dealing  with  the  federal  government  and  sug- 
gesting to  them  that  they  do  something  about 
interest  rates.  He  has  been  critical  of  them, 
but  they  have  done  nothing,  as  they  did 
nothing  in  the  budget,  which  put  us  in  a 
position  where  we  had  to  bring  in  a  mini- 
budget.  You  also  condemn  the  mini-budget 
that  we  had  to  bring  in  because  your 
federal  counterparts  did  absolutely  nothing 
about  the  economy  in  this  country. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  They  did  exactly  what  you 
wanted.  They  made  no  tax  increases. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  They  did  absolutely  no- 
thing. The  member  for  Beaches-Woodbine 
(Ms.  Bryden)  did  bring  up  one  subject  that 
perhaps  I  should  discuss  at  the  moment, 
that  is,  the  matter  of  the  annual  report  from 
the  ministry.  She  is  quite  right.  I  think  the 
last  report  was  in  1972.  It  was  discontinued 
simply  because  there  was  no  demand  for  it. 
Nobody  was  looking  at  it  and  nobody  asked 
for  it,  so  the  minister  at  that  point  in  time— 
which  was  before  I  was  in  the  ministry- 
discontinued  the  annual  report  and  has  taken 
a  different  approach. 

Mr.  Laughren:  You  were  afraid  it  would 
be  referred  to  committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Are  you  in  this  debate? 

Mr.  Warner:  He  is  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Welcome  to  it.  I  am  glad 
to  see  you  here.  I  miss  you  when  you  are  not 
there. 

We  have  adopted  the  policy  of  providing 
information  on  request  rather  than  doing  it 
the  way  the  member  suggested.  I  would  sug- 
gest to  her  that  we  will  supply  any  of  the 
detailed  information  she  wants.  There  is  no 
hesitation  about  it  whatsoever.  All  she  has 
to  do  is  tell  us  what  she  wants  and  if  it  is 
available  within  the  ministry,  we  will  get  it, 
provided  it  is  not  confidential  tax  files  or 
something  like  that. 


The"  decision  was  taken  some  time  ago  to 
discontinue  the  annual  report  simply  because 
no  one  seemed  to  be  interested  in  it. 

Most  of  the  other  points  made  by  the 
member  for  Beaches-Woodbine  are,  I  be- 
lieve, questions  that  will  come  up  as  we  go 
through  item  by  item  in  the  votes.  I  think 
perhaps,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  would  be  wise 
now  to  move  into  the  votes. 

On  vote  801,  ministry  administration  pro- 
gram; item  1,  main  office: 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  with  regard 
to  what  the  minister  just  said  about  making 
information  available  if  we  want  it,  I  won- 
der if  some  organization,  like  the  Canadian 
Tax  Foundation  or  a  professor  at  the  univer- 
sity, asked  for  detailed  information  on  the 
incidence  of  the  retail  sales  tax,  would  his 
ministry  provide  that  kind  of  information  to 
organizations  of  that  sort? 

This  is  why  I  think  you  do  need  an  an- 
nual report.  I  am  sure  our  research  depart- 
ment in  the  NDP  made  great  use  of  that  re- 
port and  I  imagine  tax  researchers  generally 
across  the  country  made  great  use  of  that 
annual  report.  Also,  as  taxes  become  more 
and  more  important  and  are  more  and  more 
analysed  as  to  their  social  and  economic  im- 
pact, it  seems  to  me  we  do  need  that  kind 
of  information.  At  the  moment,  I  do  not 
know  why  the  Treasurer  chose  the  particu- 
lar items  he  did  for  the  sales  tax  rebates, 
except  that  he  says  these  are  the  ones  that 
are  largely  produced  in  Ontario  or  where 
there  will  be  litde  tax  leakage,  but  we  do  not 
know  what  percentage  of  the  retail  sales  tax 
comes  from  each  of  these  items. 

5:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
usual  procedure  is  for  us  to  provide  some 
information  to  the  Treasurer  to  help  him 
make  the  decisions  he  would  eventually 
make  as  to  which  items  he  would  remove 
the  sales  tax  from.  We  have  compiled  within 
our  ministry  information  such  as  the  amount 
of  sales  in  each  different  category,  but  I 
understand  the  Treasurer  also  has  much  of 
that  information  within  his  own  ministry. 
The  Canadian  content  would  not  certainly 
come  from  our  ministry,  it  would  come  from 
Treasury.  We  wouldn't  have  any  record  at 
all  in  our  ministry  of  that  type  as  to  whether 
or  not  they  are  Canadian  content.  That  type 
of  information  would  not  be  provided  by  us 
to  the  Treasurer. 

I  do  understand  that  when  he  made  his 
budget  statement  he  chose  the  ones  he  did 
because  of  the  Canadian  content— the  num- 
ber of  articles  within  that  group  that  would 


4802 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


be  manufactured  primarily  in  Ontario  be- 
cause we  are  removing  the  Ontario  sales  tax. 
It  was  not  restricted  to  Ontario,  but  certain- 
ly they  would  receive  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt  if  there  were  two  different  items  the 
Treasurer  was  looking  at  and  one  had  a  60 
per  cent  Canadian  content  and  the  other  one 
had  20  per  cent.  Obviously,  he  would  have 
gone  to  the  60  per  cent  and  preferably 
Ontario  content  because  it  is  Ontario  tax 
dollars  we  are  granting  the  exemption  from. 
So  it  is  coming  out  of  the  Ontario  budget  as 
we  obviously  want  to  stimulate  the  economy 
in  Ontario. 

Ms.  Bryden:  You  did  tell  him  how  much 
sales  tax  revenue  came  from  the  various 
items  on  which  he  applied  exemptions  or 
rebates.  I  think  that  sort  of  information 
should  be  published  annually—how  much 
revenue  comes  from  building  materials  and 
how  much  comes  from  automotive  equip- 
ment and  the  various  large  sectors  of  the 
economy.  I  think  we  should  know  how  much 
each  is  contributing  to  the  sales  tax  total. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  As  I  indicated,  that  in- 
formation is  available  to  anyone  who  re- 
quests it.  That  is  not  confidential  informa- 
tion. I  see  no  need  for  publishing  an  an- 
nual report  that  will  sit  on  the  shelves  some- 
where and  which  nobody  looks  at.  But  if 
people  are  asking  for  information,  if  it  isn't 
confidential  information,  like  tax  files  and  so 
on,  we  are  prepared  to  give  it.  It  is  there. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wanted 
to  ask  the  minister  if  he  is  familiar  with  the 
problems  the  senior  citizen  tax  grant  has 
caused  not  only  to  senior  citizens  but  to 
each  and  every  one  of  us  operating  a  con- 
stituency office.  Would  we  discuss  that  under 
the  main  office  or  would  that  be  under  tax 
revenues  in  one  of  the  succeeding  votes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  is  under  the  guaranteed 
income  and  tax  credit  vote,  which  is  con- 
siderably down  the  line.  It  is  under  vote  803. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  wish  to  deal  with  the  same 
subject,  but  I  wish  to  deal  with  it  partly 
under  the  main  office.  The  main  office  vote 
speaks  to  the  leadership  of  the  minister.  I 
would  like  to  know  whether  the  minister  is 
accepting  the  responsibility  for  the  blundering 
of  this  program  or  whether  he  is  shuffling 
that  responsibility  off  to  someone  else  down 
the  line.  The  program  has  been  dealt  with  in 
a  rather  unfortunate  way  and  is  a  disaster.  I 
would  like  to  know  whether  or  not  he  intends 
to  accept  responsibility  for  the  unfortunate 
disaster  and  what  plans  he  has  to  make  sure 
that  those  people  who  qualify  and  have  not 
yet  received  their  cheque  will  get  the  money. 


What  plans  has  he  to  ensure  this  type  of 
bungling  will  not  occur  in  the  future? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  is  the  type  of  smart 
alecky  question  I  always  expect  from  you. 

Mr.  Warner:  Explain  that  to  my  senior 
citizens. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  telling  you  that  is 
exactly  what  you  are,  a  smart  alec.  That  is 
the  type  of  question  I  would  expect  from  you. 

Mr.  Warner:  On  a  point  of  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  There  is  no  point  of 
order. 

Mr.  Warner:  There  certainly  is.  On  a  point 
of  privilege,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Chairman:  What  is  your  point  of 
privilege? 

Mr.  Warner:  If  the  chair  is  going  to  rule 
on  that  language,  as  to  whether  it  is  parlia- 
mentary, I  suggest  it  does  so.  I  would  also 
ask  the  minister  to  repeat  those  comments  to 
those  seniors  in  my  riding  who  dutifully  filled 
out  their  forms  in  August  and  September  and 
have  yet  to  receive  their  money.  You  call  me 
a  smart  alec  for  standing  up  and  defending 
them.  They  want  their  money  as  promised  by 
this  government.  I  take  it  from  your  remarks 
that  either  you  do  not  believe  they  have  a 
legitimate  complaint  or  that  you  do  not  intend 
to  fulfil  your  responsibility.  Maybe  the  whole 
thing  is  a  phoney  program. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Does  the  minister  have  any 
comment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  cer- 
tainly prepared  to  answer  a  question  presented 
in  the  proper  manner.  The  member  knows 
very  well  that  my  remarks  referred  to  the 
tone  of  the  question  rather  than  to  the  senior 
citizens  in  the  province. 

If  he  had  been  here  when  I  made  my  state- 
ment, I  covered  all  that.  He  was  not  here. 
Perhaps  he  did  listen  to  it— I  do  not  know- 
but  he  knows  very  well  we  worked  very  hard 
to  accommodate  all  these  situations,  including 
the  request  that  came  from  his  office.  Maybe 
he  could  give  me  a  little  bit  of  credit  for  the 
way  we  tried  to  handle  the  situation  when  we 
were  dealing  with  820,000  senior  citizens  in 
this  province. 

He  knows  very  well  that  a  new  program  is 
not  that  easily  instituted.  We  have  done 
everything  we  can,  and  it  was  not  a  bungling 
job  at  all.  We  have  done  exactly  what  we 
could  do  and  more.  Our  people  worked  on 
weekends.  They  worked  this  past  Saturday 
trying  to  resolve  these  situations.  I  think  it  is 
unfair  for  the  member  to  stand  up  and  take 
the  tone  he  has  taken  to  this  minister  and 
this  ministry  after  all  the  work  we  have  done 
and  the  co-operation  he  has  received  from  us. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4803 


Mr.  Chairman:  I  listened  very  carefully  and 
1  think  the  question  really  relates  to  the 
administration  under  item  1  of  vote  803.  I 
suggest  the  member  pursue  that  under  vote 
803. 

Mr.  Warner:  If  the  chair  would  prefer  that, 
I  would  be  more  than  pleased  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  think  it  best  to  discuss  the 
estimates  in  an  orderly  fashion. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  at  the 
risk  of  offending  the  very  sensitive  minister. 
It  is  with  some  trepidation  I  do  so  for  fear  I 
will  be  cut  off  at  the  knees.  I  have  often 
wondered  why  the  policy  of  the  ministry  pre- 
vents us  from  obtaining  the  information  to 
which  my  colleague  the  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine  (Ms.  Bryden)  was  referring.  I 
would  like  to  be  more  specific  on  the  whole 
question  of  revenues  and  profits. 

I  was  at  the  Ontario  Mining  Association 
dinner  a  week  or  so  ago,  at  which  I  won 
a  football  pool  and  got  the  $9  in  the  mail 
today.  That  is  another  story.  At  that  dinner 
I  was  talking  to  some  of  the  mining  execu- 
tives who  asked  me  what  my  problems  were 
with  the  mining  industry.  Two  hours  later, 
when  we  finally  got  around  to  some  of  the 
more  minor  points,  I  told  them  one  was  the 
inability  to   get  information. 

I  have  always  wondered  how  much  we 
get  in  tax  revenues  from  the  mining  sector 
of  the  province.  I  have  often  v/ondered  how 
much  tax  the  mining  sector  pays  to  Ontario. 
The  figures  we  have,  which  the  government 
will  not  refute,  are  that  in  Ontario  we  get 
less  than  two  per  cent— about  1.1  per  cent— 
of  the  total  value  of  production  returned  to 
the  people  of  Ontario  in  the  form  of  reve- 
nues from  our  nonrenewable  resources  in  the 
mineral  sector. 

I  look  at  Saskatchewan's  value  of  produc- 
tion—and I  am  talking  about  minerals  now, 
not  oil  and  gas— and  the  return  to  the  people 
of  Saskatchewan  is  in  excess  of  20  per  cent— 
22  per  cent.  I  ask  myself  how  it  is  that  in 
Ontario,  which  is  a  resource-rich  province, 
we  receive  about  1.1  per  cent  when  Sas- 
katchewan receives  22  per  cent  as  a  return 
to  its  people  on  a  nonrenewable  resource. 
After  all,  the  term  "nonrenewable"  says  it 
all.  When  it  is  gone,  it  is  gone  and  we  should 
be  getting  the  absolute  maximum  potential 
for  that  resource. 

5:30  p.m. 

This  government  simply  will  not  tell  us. 
It  has  always  said  that  information  is  privy. 
I  have  asked  the  mining  people  if  the}'  have 
any  objections.  They  have  no  objections  as 
long  as  you  don't  single  out  what  Falcon- 


bridge,  Noranda  and  Inco  individually  pay. 
It  would  all  be  in  their  published  statements 
on  profits  anyway.  I  wonder  why  the  min- 
ister would  tell  us  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  wonder  if  the  member 
is  referring  to  the  mining  tax  or  the  corpo- 
ration tax. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mining. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  can't  very  well  give 
him  any  information  on  that  because,  as  he 
knows,  that  comes  under  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources.  I  don't  handle  the  min- 
ing taxes  for  Ontario.  They  do  not  come 
under   the  ministry. 

I  was  checking  with  staff  while  the  mem- 
ber was  speaking  to  see  whether  there  is  any 
way  we  could  break  down  the  amount  of 
corporation  tax  paid  by  the  people  in,  say, 
the  mining  industry  as  opposed  to  some 
other  corporations.  They  tell  me  it  is  rather 
difficult  because  some  corporations  are  into 
mining  and  other  fields  and  they  are  all 
mixed  together.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  split 
them  up. 

I  don't  know  why  the  total  figures  for  the 
mining  tax  would  not  be  available,  but  it 
isn't  really  an  area  that  we  administer. 

Mr.  Laughren:  To  pursue  that  briefly,  how 
in  the  world  does  the  minister  and  the 
government  know  whether  we  are  getting 
an  adequate  return  from  nonrenewable  re- 
sources? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  would  presume  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  would  be 
handling  that  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources  gave  us  the  same  answer  you 
did. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  They  do  collect  the  min- 
ing tax,  do  they  not? 

Mr.    Laughren:    The    Ministry    of    Natural 
Resources  collects  the  mining  taxes— 
Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes. 

Mr.  Laughren:  —which  it  should  not  do 
by  the  way.  It  is  a  conflict  of  interest.  The 
Ministry  of  Revenue  should  collect  the  min- 
ing taxes.  I  do  everything  in  my  power  to 
increase  the  size  of  the  minister's  empire. 
He  should  be  collecting  the  taxes  for  the 
mining  industry  because  then  he  would  have 
a  handle  on  it. 

We  are  continually  getting  this  shell  game. 
When  one  talks  to  the  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources,  he  says:  "Well,  you  can't  sep- 
arate corporation  taxes  from  mining  taxes. 
Go  see  the  Minister  of  Revenue."  When  you 
talk  to  the  Minister  of  Revenue,  he  says: 
"Well,    I  don't  know.    I   don't  have   control 


4804 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


over  the  collection  of  taxes  from  minerals. 
Go  see  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources." 
You  play  one  against  the  other.  The  end 
result  is  that  you  don't  tell  the  people  of 
Ontario  what  we  are  getting  from  our  re- 
sources—not theirs,  ours.  Why  are  you  doing 
that  to  us? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  think  that  was  the 
reason  why  all  of  us  in  the  tax  field  even- 
tually report  to  the  Treasurer.  We  have 
talked  about  this  before.  He  is  the  one  who 
makes  the  final  fiscal  policies,  first  taking  into 
consideration  all  the  taxes.  In  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  the 
Liquor  Control  Board  of  Ontario  collects  the 
liquor  tax  and  reports  to  the  minister.  Then 
the  money  gets  back  to  the  Treasury.  That  is 
the  reason  the  Treasurer  has  to  accept  all  the 
fiscal  responsibilities.  That  is  the  way  the 
system  works. 

Mr.  Laughren:  The  minister  knows  how 
much  money  he  gets  from  liquor  sales  and 
profits  in  Ontario,  doesn't  he? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Surely  resources  are  as  im- 
portant to  Ontario  as  liquor,  yet  the  minister 
does  not  know  that.  Nobody  knows  it.  None 
of  you  knows  how  much  we  get  from  our 
resources.  It  is  not  just  the  Minister  of 
Revenue.  The  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 
does  not  know.  Now  you  have  introduced  a 
third  person  into  the  act,  the  Treasurer,  and 
you  are  right  in  that  he  does  not  know  either. 
The  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs— well,  we 
can  talk  about  him  some  other  d^y.  None  of 
you  knows  how  much  is  coming  back  to  the 
Treasury  from  resources. 

If  you  didn't  know  how  much  was  coming 
back  to  the  Treasury  from  the  sale  of  pop- 
corn or  peanuts,  I  would  say,  "Okay,  it  is  not 
the  end  of  the  world,"  but  here  we  are  deal- 
ing with  a  nonrenewable  resource  and  you 
haven't  got  a  clue. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  know  but— 

Mr.  Laughren:  No,  you  don't  know.  I  will 
put  it  to  you  directly:  Will  you  tell  us  before 
these  estimates  conclude  how  much  the 
people  of  Ontario  get  as  a  percentage  of  the 
value  of  production  in  the  form  of  revenues 
to  the  consolidated  revenue  fund? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  member  is  referring 
again  to  mining.  This  is  how  the  original 
question  started.  I  cannot  give  that  commit- 
ment. You  must  talk  to  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  or  the  Treasurer.  It  is  not 
in  my  jurisdiction  whatsoever. 

Mr.  Laughren:  They  sent  me  to  you. 


Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  they  have  not  sent 
you  to  me  because  it  is  not  in  my  jurisdiction 
and  never  has  been. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  ask 
the  minister  if  he  has  anv  new  policy  on  race- 
track tax.  I  am  sure  he  is  aware  of  the 
difficulties  that  the  Fort  Erie  track  is  now 
encountering  where  there  is  a  good  possibility 
it  may  close  its  doors.  The  tax  revenues  gen- 
erated through  horse  racing  are  estimated  at 
$55  million.  I  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister  last  year  the  fact  that  I  thought  we 
would  have  some  commitment  from  the  gov- 
ernment or  cabinet  that  some  of  that  tax 
should  be  donated  back  to  the  Ontario  Jockey 
Club  and  the  standardbred  racing  association 
in  Ontario  to  increase  their  purses. 

The  horsemen  are  having  difficulties  in 
entering  horses  in  certain  races  because  they 
say  there  is  not  enough  money  for  winning. 
They  feel  the  cost  involved  in  raising  a 
thoroughbred  or  standardbred  horse  does  not 
warrant  their  entry  at  some  tracks  in  Ontario 
because  the  winnings  are  not  that  great.  Has 
the  minister  or  the  cabinet  given  any  con- 
sideration to  giving  back  a  portion  of  the 
racing  tax  to  the  industry  so  it  can  maintain 
a  viable  industry  in  Ontario?  If  the  tracetrack 
at  Fort  Erie  was  to  close  down,  there  will  be 
a  possible  loss  of  400  jobs  and  business  assess- 
ment and  property  assessment  of  about 
$400,000  a  year  in  revenues  that  would  be 
generated  for  the  municipality. 

It  is  one  of  the  best  equipped  and  nicest 
racetracks  in  North  America.  It  certain!}' 
does  add  to  the  tourist  industry  in  that  area, 
but  they  are  having  difficulty  in  maintaining 
it  because  they  say  it  is  not  profitable.  Has 
your  ministry,  along  with  Treasury  and  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, discussed  the  matter  of  providing 
assistance  in  some  form  of  a  grant  to  the 
horse  racing  association  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  I  have  not  discussed 
it  with  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  under  whose 
jurisdiction  it  falls.  I  would  suggest  to  you 
that  under  the  Race  Track  Tax  Act  the  seven 
per  cent  that  is  charged  is  charged  against 
the  winning  tickets.  If  you  are  a  winner,  you 
are  the  guy  I  am  going  to  take  the  money 
from.  I  am  not  taking  it  from  the  municipal- 
ity, nor  from  the  people  who  are  running  the 
racetrack,  but  from  the  winners.  We  collect 
seven  per  cent  of  each  winning  ticket.  It 
would  be  rather  difficult  to  justify  taking 
that  money,  transferring  it  around  and  giv- 
ing it  to  whoever  might  be  having  some 
financial    problems.    Racetracks    come    under 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4805 


the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Here  we  go  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  You  do  not  expect  me 
to  take  authority  or  the  jurisdiction  for 
everything.  It  is  a  question  you  would  have 
to  discuss  with  him.  As  far  as  the  tax  itself 
is  concerned,  as  I  indicated,  it  is  a  tax  on  the 
winner.  If  a  person  wins  $100,  we  are  going 
to  take  $7  away  from  him  before  he  ever 
gets  his  money.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  taxing 
the  people  who  operate  the  racetrack  or  the 
municipality,  or  whomever. 

5:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  quite  agree  with  that  but 
what  I  am  saying  is  the  government  gener- 
ates $55  million  on  winnings  it  takes  from 
a  racetrack.  I  am  saying  if  the  government 
does  not  put  some  new  life  into  the  racing 
industry  in  the  province,  then  someplace 
along  the  line,  it  is  not  going  to  generate 
$55  million  in  tax  revenues  for  the  minister's 
department.  You  may  end  up  with  $30  mil- 
lion next  year.  You  will  lose  $20  million.  All 
I  am  suggesting  is  you  put  some  new  life 
into  the  horse  racing  industiy  in  Ontario. 
Take  some  of  that  tax  that  you  are  generat- 
ing from  winners  and  put  it  back  into  the 
winning  purses  for  the  horses  running  at  the 
track.  That  is  what  you  should  be  doing. 

It  is  not  actually  a  handout  to  the  indus- 
try; you  are  just  giving  some  of  it  back  to 
generate  further  tax  money  for  Ontario.  I  am 
looking  at  Fort  Erie.  You  lost  the  other  track 
iv.  St.  Catharines;  the  Garden  City  Raceway 
there  closed  its  door.  You  are  looking  at 
s^andardbred  horse  racing  at  Flamboro 
Downs  and  Mohawk.  I  don't  know  if  they 
are  back  running  at  Windsor. 

An  hon.  member:  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  They  may  run  into  difficul- 
ty in  Windsor  too,  where  a  few  years  ago 
the  track  closed  the  door  for  the  same  reason, 
that  the  government  did  not  put  some  of 
that  money  back  in  to  keep  the  industry  go- 
ing. I  know  the  Ontario  Jockey  Club  is  not 
having  that  great  a  season  at  times  in  the 
Fort  Erie  area  and  other  smaller  tracks.  I 
suggest,  before  that  track  disappears,  the 
government  should  be  moving  in  that  area 
to  assist  the  horse  owners  in  Ontario  by  giv- 
ing them  higher  purses  so  that  they  will  keep 
running  their  horses  at  these  tracks. 

I  know  the  federal  government  has  come 
in  with  a  program— intertrack  wagering  I 
guess  it  is— where  one  can  call  from  the  Fort 
Erie  track  to  Toronto  if  the  horses  are  run- 
ning at  Woodbine.  Of  course,  one  must  have 
a  credit  card  there  before  they  will  take  that 


phone  call.  In  other  words,  one  is  going  to 
have  to  have  a  little  bank  account  with  the 
Ontario  Jockey  Club  in  order  to  draw  from 
that  account.  I  do  not  know  how  successful 
this  will  be.  But  apparently  the  standard- 
bred  association  and  the  thoroughbred  asso- 
ciation in  Ontario  have  agreed  in  principle 
that  tills  will  provide  additional  assistance 
to  them.  Again,  I  suppose  that  means  more 
revenue  to  your  ministry  and  to  the  govern- 
ment. I  suggest  the  ministry  give  a  little  bit 
back  to  keep  the  industry  going.  If  not,  that 
track  will  disappear  too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  total 
tax  revenue  is  $45  million  a  year  not  $55 
million. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  estimated  at  $55 
million.  That's  probably  what  you  got  last 
year. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  All  right.  I  am  told  that 
some  breeders  already  get  grants  from  the 
government  and  there  are  grants  to  track 
operators. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  That  is  for  E.  P.  Taylor. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  There  are  grants  to  track 
operators  totalling  about  $6  million.  So  a  fair 
percentage  of  the  tax  dollars  we  have  col- 
lected is  going  back.  You  should  understand 
what  happens.  The  $45  million  we  collect 
goes  to  the  general  revenue  fund  and  then 
that  money  is  used  by  other  ministries  in 
whose  jurisdiction  these  things  fall.  I  cannot 
say  directly  that  we  are  going  to  give  back  the 
tax  dollars  we  collect.  That  is  not  the  way 
the  system  works.  We  collect  the  money,  it 
goes  into  the  general  revenue  fund  and  then 
the  minister  who  is  responsible  for  race 
tracks  decides  in  conjunction  with  these 
people  who  are  running  the  tracks,  I  suppose, 
how  much  assistance  is  going  to  be  generated. 
At  the  moment,  it  is  $6  million  a  year. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  am  well  aware  of  that  $6 
million.  I  do  not  know  if  it  is  that  high  or  not, 
but  I  remember  back  in  1970  more  money 
was  given  to  the  horse  racing  associations  in 
Ontario  than  was  given  to  the  housing  pro- 
gram, if  I  can  recall  that  debate. 

The  government  is  providing  some  assis- 
tance now,  but  the  people  who  get  the  most 
benefit  from  it  are  the  top  horse  breeders  in 
Ontario.  E.  P.  Taylor  with  his  line  of  horse 
racing  is  one  of  the  top  recipients  and  maybe 
the  Connie  Smythe  stable.  I  am  talking  about 
the  average  horse  owner  in  Ontario  who  puts 
his  horse  to  race  at  the  track  where  people 
can  bet  on  it.  He  is  the  one  who  should  have 
some  assistance.  The  purses  should  be  higher 
to  encourage  those  people  to  bring  their 
horses  to  race  at  the  track.  If  we  are  going 


4806 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


to  run  races  with  purses  that  were  established 
10  or  15  years  ago,  with  the  cost  of  inflation 
and  that,  it  hurts  this  industry. 

When  we  look  at  the  impact  and  hardship 
it  will  cause  to  the  Fort  Erie  community  if 
that  track  closes— and  if  that  one  closes  we 
will  see  others  close  too— all  I  am  suggesting 
is  some  assistance  should  be  given.  I  know  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions (Mr.  Drea)  is  a  strong  supporter  of  off- 
track  betting,  like  many  of  us,  but  there  has 
to  be  some  provisions  too  so  that  horse  racing 
will  continue  at  these  other  tracks.  In  other 
words,  you  could  have  a  pipeline  for  inter- 
track  betting  from  one  racetrack  to  the  other. 
You  could  have  all  the  horses  running  in 
Toronto  and  still  have  the  betting  done  at  a 
small  room  about  10  by  12  feet. 

I  suggest  you  take  a  good  look  at  this  thing 
because  it  is  going  to  cause  you  some 
difficulties.  I  understand  the  minister  may 
be  in  Fort  Erie  or  Niagara  peninsula  now.  I 
don't  know  what  kind  of  a  package  he  is 
going  to  have  for  them,  but  I  hope  it  is  some- 
thing good  to  keep  the  industry  going.  As  I 
said  last  year,  it  is  better  to  have  half  a  loaf 
than  nothing  at  all. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wonder  if 
we  could  switch  from  the  needs  of  the  horses 
and  horse  breeders  to  the  needs  of  working 
people  in  the  province. 

For  some  time  now  there  has  been  a 
problem  with  the  head  office  policy  of  the 
Ministry  of  Revenue  regarding  the  assessment 
of  mining  installations.  The  regional  mu- 
nicipality of  Sudbury,  the  NDP  in  the  Sudbury 
area,  and  I  believe,  even  Inco,  if  not  Falcon- 
bridge  as  well,  have  all  agreed  that  what  is 
required  is  a  different  kind  of  assessment  on 
the  mining  installations  in  the  Sudbury  area 
and  in  other  mining  communities  as  well. 

There  are  several  options  open  to  the 
minister.  One  is  to  change  the  taxation  sys- 
tem so  that  more  of  the  revenues  are  fun- 
nelled back  to  the  municipalities.  That  would 
be  done  through  the  taxation  process.  The 
other  one  more  directly  appropriate  to  this 
minister  is  the  way  in  which  those  installa- 
tions are  assessed.  There  is  a  system  called 
the  foundation  tax  which  would  tax  the  in- 
dustry differently.  There  is  also  a  way  in 
which  the  underground  equipment  can  be 
taxed.  Right  now,  it  is  not  taxed  and  the 
minister,  I  suspect,  knows  that  a  great  deal 
of  the  machinery  equipment  is  underground 
in  these  mining  installations.  What  is  above 
ground  is  merely  a  shell  covering  up  some 
equipment. 

There  is  an  enormous  opportunity  to  in- 
crease   the     assessment    revenue    from    the 


mining  industry.  I  believe  one  figure  that  has 
been  thrown  about  in  the  Sudbury  area  is 
about  $6  million  a  year  which  could  flow 
back  to  the  regional  municipality  of  Sudbury. 
I  would  use  the  same  argument  for  Timmins 
and  all  those  other  mining  areas  as  well. 
Year  after  year  succeeding  Ministers  of  Reve- 
nue nod  their  heads  sagely  which  the  minis- 
ter just  did— well,  he  nodded  anyway— in 
general  agreement  that  something  maybe 
should  be  done  about  tax  revenues  for 
mining  communities,  but  nothing  innovative 
is  ever  done. 

You  won't  use  the  foundation  tax  process. 
You  won't  use  the  taxation  of  underground 
machinery.  You  carry  blithely  on  in  the  old 
way.  The  mining  companies  would  have  no 
objection  because  they  would  prefer  to  be 
seen  in  a  better  light  in  the  communities  in 
which  they  are  located.  It  is  to  their  interest; 
it  is  good  public  relations  on  their  part.  The 
municipalities,  of  course,  would  be  in  agree- 
ment, but  this  government  simply  won't 
move.  I  don't  know  whether  they  feel  the 
mining  companies  can't  absorb  it— that  is 
total  nonsense— but  year  after  year  they  re- 
fuse to  do  anything  about  it.  I  am  asking  the 
minister  directly  if  he  will  do  something 
about  the  assessment  of  the  mining  installa- 
tions in  those  various  communities  across  the 
province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  recall 
the  first  set  of  estimates  I  had  in  here  when 
the  member  for  Nickel  Belt  brought  up  the 
same  subject.  When  he  finished  talking  he 
said:  "You  and  I  will  sit  down  some  day  and 
discuss  this."  I  am  still  waiting  to  sit  down 
and  discuss  this  with  you. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes.  That's  how  slowly  you 
move. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  is  obvious  you  and  I 
are  a  long  way  apart. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Every  time  I  go  to  South 
River  you  are  never  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  You  wanted  to  sit  down 
and  discuss  it.  You  had  some  sort  of  a  pro- 
posal you  had  written  on  which  you  wanted 
to  bring  me  up  to  date,  but  you  have  never 
come  back  to  me  on  this  thing  until  today. 

However,  my  assessment  staff  have  met 
with  municipal  officials  in  northern  Ontario 
and  groups  of  mining  companies  as  well. 
They  have  their  representatives  and  so  on. 
They  have  worked  out  a  system  that  seems 
to  be  agreeable  to  both  parties.  There  were 
some  problems,  for  example,  mines  that  were 
shut  down  for  a  period  of  time  and  then 
brought  back  into  production  again  as  the 
price  of  ore  changed.  It  is  my  understanding 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4807 


they  have  worked  out  a  reasonably  accept- 
able solution  for  both  the  municipality  and 
the  mines.  If  you  would  like  to  ask  further 
questions  on  it  when  we  are  into  the  assess- 
ment part  of  the  estimates  and  I  have  my 
staff  here,  I  will  be  happy  to  answer.  My 
last  understanding  was  the  assistant  deputy 
minister  and  some  of  the  senior  staff  did 
meet  with  representatives  not  only  from 
Inco,  but  from  Falconbridge  and  a  lot  of  the 
mines  in  the  Sudbury  area  particularly,  along 
with  representatives  from  the  municipalities 
in  the  Sudbury  basin.  It  is  my  understanding 
it  is  reasonably  well  accepted  by  both.  I  will 
check  it  out;  I  could  be  wrong. 

5:50  p.m. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Is  it  a  correct  assumption 
that  will  mean  increased  assessment  revenues 
for  those  mining  municipalities?  They  would 
not  have  agreed  otherwise. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  would  not  make  that 
assumption  until  I  have  had  a  chance  to 
check  with  my  staff  to  see  exactly  what  did 
happen  in  the  meeting. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  might  add  for  the  min- 
ister's information  I  was  talking  about  the 
kind  of  presentation  I  made  on  behalf  of  my 
party  to  the  Blair  Commission  on  the  Reform 
of  Property  Taxation  in  Ontario.  You  do  re- 
call the  Blair  commission  whose  recommenda- 
tions you  embraced  so  completely. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  want  to  ask  the  minister 
about  the  collecting  of  revenue  at  the  race- 
tracks. The  racetracks  in  cities  bordering  on 
the  US  allow  bets  in  both  American  and 
Canadian  money.  Naturally,  the  premium  on 
American  money  is  fairly  great  and,  regard- 
less of  what  people  say,  the  racetracks  are  not 
operating  to  be  anything  other  than  profit- 
making  organizations.  I  just  wonder  how  your 
ministry  is  able  to  have  verified  controls  as  to 
the  amount  of  American  money  that  is  taken 
in  as  opposed  to  Canadian  money  so  that  we 
get  our  fair  share  of  the  tax  revenue,  even 
though  it  is  American  money  and  worth  any- 
where from  15  to  20  cents  on  the  dollar  more 
than  Canadian  money. 

Mr.  Chairman:  That  appears  to  me  to  be  a 
question  for  vote  802.  I  wonder  if  the  min- 
ister wants  to  answer  it  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  was  just  discussing  it 
with  my  deputy  who  informs  me  we  have 
very  accurate  auditing  procedures. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Do  you  carry  out  the 
auditing  procedures  in  both  American  and 
Canadian  money. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  because  we  don't 
collect  anything  except  in  Canadian  dollars. 


My  deputy  tells  me  the  auditing  procedures 
are  very  exact  and  he  doesn't  see  where  there 
could  possibly  be  any  problem  with  the 
amount  of  taxes  we  collect.  I  am  sure  the 
Americans  are  not  going  to  spend  their  dollars 
without  expecting  the  exchange. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  They  get  paid  in  American 
money.  They  bet  in  American  money  and  are 
paid  in  American. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  is  not  something  I  am 
familiar  with.  I  could  try  to  get  the  answer 
for  you  when  we  get  to  that  section,  but  I  do 
not  have  that  answer  at  the  moment. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  wonder  if  the  minister  would 
comment  on  his  interest  in  the  tax  expendi- 
tures so  they  could  possibly  be  published? 
Has  the  Treasurer  involved  his  ministry  in 
carrying  out  the  commitment  he  made  in  the 
mini-budget  to  do  a  more  thorough  analysis 
of  tax  expenditures  so  that  he  can  use  the 
information  for  more  adequate  planning  of 
an  industrial  strategy,  as  we  have  been  telling 
him  for  many  years  he  should  be  doing? 

Actually,  I  am  pleased  the  Treasurer  has 
finally  seen  the  fight  on  the  necessity  for 
tailoring  the  tax  system  to  producing  an  in- 
dustrial strategy  that  will  result  in  develop- 
ment in  Ontario  by  Ontarians  controlling  our 
own  destiny.  I  would  like  to  know  what  the 
ministry  is  doing  in  collecting  data  on  tax 
expenditures  and  whether  there  are  any 
definite  plans  to  publish  any  of  that  data 
which  will  probably  have  to  be  supplied  from 
his  ministry  to  the  Treasurer  at  some  stage 
or  other. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Quite  right,  the  Trea- 
surer did  announce  that  in  his  budget  and  he 
will,  as  he  goes  through  his  examination,  be 
requesting  information  from  us.  I  have  no 
way  of  knowing  at  the  moment  what  infor- 
mation he  is  going  to  require.  Any  informa- 
tion we  have  will  be  available  to  him,  but 
he  will  be  making  the  decisions  again  on 
that  and  we  will  supply  the  information  we 
have  at  our  disposal.  But  I  really  do  not 
know  what  kind  of  information  he  is  going 
to  be  asking  for  at  this  time.  Whatever  we 
have  will  be  available  to  him. 

Ms.  Bryden:  On  the  tax  expenditures, 
does  the  minister  think  we  can  get  informa- 
tion on  exactly  what  the  corporations  in  par- 
ticular are  obtaining  in  the  way  of  deferred 
tax  benefits?  That  is  one  of  the  big  areas 
where  they  have  been  financing  investment 
from  deferred  taxes.  It  would  appear  that  if 
one  keeps  on  financing  new  investments  one 
never  pays  the  deferred  taxes.  Does  the  min- 
ister have   any  figures   on  how  much  there 


4808 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


is  in  the  form  of  deferred  taxes  being  claimed 
under  the  corporation  tax? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  This  is  a  question  that 
comes  up  every  year  in  estimates.  I  cannot 
give  you  that  kind  of  a  figure  because  it  is 
not  filed  in  that  way.  We  do  not  keep  track 
of  what  deferrals  there  might  be  in  any  given 
corporation  and  we  do  not  total  those  things, 
so  there  is  no  way  that  we  could  give  you 
that  kind  of  information.  You  have  to  re- 
member it  is  not  an  exemption;  it  is  a  de- 
ferral of  taxes.  This  question  has  been  raised 
by  your  predecessor  and  others  in  your  party 
and  in  the  Liberal  Party,  and  I  have  never 
been  able  to  provide  that  kind  of  informa- 
tion. 

I  don't  know  whether  or  not  the  Treasurer 
will  request  this  ministry  to  go  through 
every  corporation  tax  file  of  this  province  to 
see  what  has  happened.  I  would  invite  you 
some  time  when  you  are  in  my  ministry 
offices  to  go  up  to  the  floor  where  the  cor- 
poration tax  files  are  and  take  a  look  at  them. 
Then  I  am  sure  you  will  understand  why  it 
would  be  just  impossible  to  go  through  all 
those  files  to  find  out  exactly  the  kind  of  in- 
formation you  are  asking  for.  It  is  one  com- 


plete floor  of  the  building  that  I  am  in  and 
there  is  nothing  but  files  on  corporations 
there. 

Ms.  Bryden:  The  other  kinds  of  tax  ex- 
penditures are  presumably  available  in  some 
form  or  other  in  the  files.  If  the  federal  gov- 
ernment is  able  to  publish  them,  I  am  not 
sure  what  the  federal  government  does  on 
the  deferred  tax  question.  But  if  it  is  avail- 
able in  the  files,  has  the  minister  studied  the 
actual  cost  of  preferential  tax  deductions 
allowed  from  taxable  income,  both  under  the 
personal  income  tax  and  under  the  corpora- 
tion income  tax?  I  suppose  the  personal  in- 
come tax  records  have  to  come  from  Ottawa, 
but  under  the  corporation  income  tax  is  it 
possible  to  get  other  forms  of  deductions 
allowed  which  could  be  considered  prefer- 
ential and  get  some  figures  on  those? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  would  suggest  you  ask 
that  question  again  when  we  come  to  that 
vote.  We  will  see  about  it  between  now  and 
when  we  get  to  that  vote.  I  will  try  to  have 
a  more  explicit  answer  for  you  on  that  ques- 
tion. 

The  House  recessed  at  6  p.m. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4782) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

DRUG  DOSAGES  IN 
PSYCHIATRIC  HOSPITALS 

280.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Health  list  the  names  and  average  dosages 
of  drugs  used  to  sedate  patients  at  psychi- 
atric  hospitals?    (Tabled   October   9,    1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Since  the  range  of 
drugs  used  to  sedate  patients  is  quite  exten- 
sive, a  specific  response  would  be  extremely 
difficult  to  formulate  for  this  question.  The 
Compendium  of  Pharmaceuticals  and  Special- 
ties, which  is  updated  and  revised  annually, 
does,  however,  provide  information  concern- 
ing sedatives.  This  information  includes  the 
names  of  drugs  (both  generic  and  trade), 
their  indications,  contra-indications,  precau- 
tions,  dosages   and  how  these  are  supplied. 

281.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  Minister 
of  Health  provide  any  provincial  guidelines 
used  for  drug  dosages  in  psychiatric  hos- 
pitals? (Tabled  October  9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Psychiatric  hospitals 
at  the  local  level  may  use  the  Compendium 
of  Pharmaceuticals  and  Specialties,  which 
would  serve  to  represent  a  guide  for  starting 
doses.  As  indicated  in  my  response  to  Order 
Paper  question  282,  medication  doses  would 
be  titrated  against  an  individual's  clinical 
response,  giving  consideration  to  side  effects 
and  risks  of  long-term  usage. 

282.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  minister 
provide  any  guidelines  that  the  ministry  may 
know  of  being  used  for  drug  dosages  in 
psychiatric  hospitals  by  the  medical  profes- 
sion in  the  province?  (Tabled  October  9, 
1980.) 


Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  It  is  the  responsibility 
of  the  medical/clinical  staff  to  exercise  judge- 
ment as  to  the  dosages  and  amount  of  medi- 
cation to  be  utilized,  e.g.,  medical  audit 
committees,  pharmacy  and  therapeutics  com- 
mittees, nursing  audits,  peer  reviews  and  the 
use  of  unusual  occurrence  reports  to  assist 
to  monitor  this. 

In  general,  the  dosages  represented  in  the 
Compendium  of  Pharmaceuticals  and  Spe- 
cialties are  conservative,  yet  do  serve  to 
represent  a  guide  for  starting  doses,  follow- 
ing which  medication  would  be  titrated 
against  an  individual's  clinical  response, 
giving  consideration  to  side  effects  and  risks 
of  long-term  usage. 

PHYSICIANS  OPTING 
OUT  OF  OHIP 

376.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Health  indicate  the  total  number  of  doctors 
opted  out  of  OHIP  as  of  September  1980? 
Will  the  minister  indicate  the  number  of 
general  practitioners  and  the  number  of  spe- 
cialists currently  opted  out  of  OHIP,  and 
will  the  minister  indicate  what  percentage  of 
total  physicians  this  represents?  (Tabled 
October  27,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  The  total  number  of 
doctors  opted  out  of  OHIP  as  at  September 
30,  1980,  was  2,045  or  16.6  per  cent  of  the 
total  number  of  physicians  billing  OHIP  on 
a  fee-for-service  basis.  The  September  figure 
of  2,045  comprised  512  general  practitioners 
and  1,533  specialists. 

INTERIM  ANSWER 
On  question  402  by  Mr.  Isaacs,  Hon.  Mr. 
McMurtry    provided    the    following    interim 
answer:  The  answer  to  question  402  will  be 
available  on  or  about  December  12. 


4810  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  December  1,  1980 

Point  of  privilege  re  peanut  plant:  Mr.  Nixon  4769 

Point  of  privilege  re  correspondence  from  prison  inmate:  Mr.  Breaugh  4769 

Durham  regional  environment  hearing,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott  4769 

Environmental   assessment,    questions    of    Mr.    Parrott:    Mr.    S.    Smith,    Mr.    Cassidy, 

Mr.   Isaacs 4770 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Isaacs  4772 

Environmental    assessment,    questions    of    Mr.    Parrott:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr.    J.    Reed, 

Mr.   Isaacs 4773 

Social  studies  curriculum  guidelines,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Cassidy  4775 

Deterrent  sentences,  question  of  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Ruston  4776 

Italian  earthquake,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Grande,  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Lupusella  4776 

Educational  television,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  4777 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs 4778 

Ministry  settlement,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Stong 4779 

Haldimand  Children's    Aid    Society,   questions   of  Mr.    Norton:    Mr.    McClellan,   Mr. 

Makarchuk 4779 

Pensions  for  women,  question  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Cassidy  4780 

University  study,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Sweeney  i4781 

Actions  of  RCMP  officers,  question  of  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Warner  4781 

Point  of  privilege  re  answers  to  questions:  Mr.  Stong,  Mr.  Swart  4781 

Italian  Canadian  Benevolent  Corporation  Act,  Bill  Pr42,  Mr.  Rotenberg,  first  reading  4782 

McColl  Farms  Limited  Act,  Bill  53,  Mr.  Watson,  first  reading 4782 

Assessment  Amendment  Act,  Bill  211,  Mr.  Philip,  first  reading  4782 

Residential  Tenancies  Amendment  Act,  Bill  212,  Mr.  Philip,  first  reading  4782 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  280-282,  376  and  402  on  Notice  Paper,  Mr.  Gregory  4782 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Revenue,  Mr.   Maeck  4782 

Recess 4808 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Drug  dosages  in  psychiatric  hospitals,  questions  of  Mr.   Timbrell:    Mr.   Breaugh  4809 

Physicians  opting  out  of  OHIP,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Breaugh  4809 

Interim   answer:    Mr.    McMurtry    4809 


DECEMBER  1,  1980  4811 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wenrworth  NDP) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Lupusella,  A.  (Dovercourt  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Stong,  A.  (York  Centre  L) 
Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 
Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 
Walker,  Hon.  G.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

(London  South  PC) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 


No.  128 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Monday,  December  1, 1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard   appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative  index  of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling   the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  "^H^*10 


4815 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 
House  in  committee  of  supply. 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF  REVENUE 
(continued) 

On  vote  801,  ministry  administration  pro- 
gram; item  1,  main  office: 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  sure  the 
minister  would  be  disappointed  if  I  did  not 
follow  my  usual  pattern  of  asking  him  about 
his  ministry's  action  on  the  question  of  pro- 
viding equal  opportunity  for  women.  I  would 
like  to  ask  him  whether  he  has  a  full-time 
women's  adviser  under  the  crown  employees 
program.  The  only  statistics  I  have  on  progress 
are  for  1978-79,  because  that  is  the  latest 
report  from  the  women  crown  employees 
office.  I  will  be  questioning  him  on  some  of 
the  statistics  in  that  report,  but  I  hope  he  will 
have  more  up-to-date  figures  that  will  be  more 
encouraging  than  some  of  the  figures  in  that 
report.  Could  he  tell  me,  first,  does  he  have 
a  women's  crown  employees  adviser? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes,  we  do. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Approximately  37  per  cent  of 
the  ministry's  employees  are  women,  but  the 
latest  reports  show  that  the  ratio  of  female 
wages  to  the  wages  earned  by  males  is  only 
62  per  cent  and  has  gone  down  from  63.6  per 
cent  in  1975.  In  1979  it  went  down  to  62  per 
cent.  The  overall  ratio  for  the  entire  public 
service  is  71.4  per  cent,  so  it  is  obvious  that 
in  this  ministry  women  are  concentrated  in 
the  low  paying  clerical  occupations.  I  believe 
about  80  per  cent  of  them  are  in  stenographic 
and  clerical  occupations,  which  perhaps  ac- 
counts for  this  low  ratio  of  female  wages  to 
male  wages. 

The  index  of  segregation  defines  the  pro- 
portion of  employees  who  would  have  to 
switch  occupations  in  order  that  men  and 
women  would  be  proportionately  represented. 
On  the  scale  of  ministries  under  this  index  of 
segregation,  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  comes 
seventh,  which  means  they  are  the  seventh 
worst  as  far  as  equal  opportunity  for  women 
is  concerned. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  seventh  best. 


Monday,  December  1,  1980 

Ms.  Bryden:  No,  the  overall  service-wide 
index  is  64.2.  Anybody  who  is  above  that  is 
worse.  The  Ministry  of  Energy  is  the  worst 
at  83.8  per  cent. 

The  women  crown  employees  office  assess- 
ment of  the  ministry's  programs  has  some 
interesting  comments  that  perhaps  the  min- 
ister could  give  us  his  comments  on  after 
I  give  him  a  few  points  mentioned  here. 

With  regard  to  occupational  changes,  be- 
tween 1977-78  and  1978-79  women's  repre- 
sentation increased  in  the  clerical  module  by 
seven  per  cent,  but  in  the  administrative 
module  by  0.9  per  cent.  In  the  technical  ser- 
vices category,  it  decreased.  Of  course,  that  is 
probably  a  function  of  the  fact  there  are  not 
as  many  technically  trained  women  on  the 
labour  market  as  there  are  men.  There  were 
no  changes  in  the  professional  module  be- 
tween those  two  years,  or  in  the  scientific  and 
professional  services  category. 

With  regard  to  training,  women's  participa- 
tion in  staff  training  was  equal  to  their  share 
of  ministry  employment  in  1978-79,  but  their 
share  of  the  actual  training  dollars  was  lower. 
It  was  about  30  per  cent  compared  to  37  per 
cent  participation  in  the  ministry.  Obviously, 
they  were  not  getting  as  good  training  courses, 
or  not  as  expensive  ones,  as  the  males. 

The  policy  on  affirmative  action  in  the 
ministry  included  some  planning  with  senior 
management  and  the  women's  crown  adviser. 
The  plan  included  the  establishment  of  a 
career  path  plan,  but  the  decision  in  1978-79 
was  to  set  this  up  only  in  one  division  of  the 
ministry  on  a  pilot  basis.  I  would  like  to 
know  if  that  pilot  to  develop  a  career  path 
plan  has  been  expanded  to  more  than  one 
division  of  the  ministry  in  order  to  encourage 
women  to  move  from  the  clerical  module  to 
the  other  modules. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  While  the  member  is 
looking  through  that  I  could  answer  some  of 
her  questions.  If  you  get  ahead  of  me  I  will 
forget  something. 

As  you  indicated,  we  recently  designed  a 
special  program  for  the  advancement  of 
clerical  and  stenographic  staff,  not  in  one 
area  but  in  two.  One  covers  the  taxation  or 
auditor  grades,  and  the  other  is  for  property 
assessor  grades.  I  am  informed  by  staff  that 


4816 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


these    are    attracting   high    interest    and   will 
benefit  women  in  the  ministry. 

To  give  you  a  little  more  background  on 
what  has  been  going  on,  I  can  tell  you  that 
in  the  first  six  months  of  the  1980-81  fiscal 
year  over  70  per  cent  of  the  planning  targets 
we  set  have  been  met.  Six  women  were  suc- 
cessful in  bridging  from  the  clerical  into  the 
tax  auditor  career  path  in  1979-80,  and  four 
women  were  successful  in  bridging  from  the 
clerical  into  the  property  assessor  career  path 
in  1979-80.  Three  women  successfully  made 
breakthrough  moves  into  positions  tradi- 
tionally held  by  men  only;  for  example,  tax 
appeals  officer,  tax  specialist  and  manager  of 
operations  and  control. 

I  should  tell  the  honourable  member  as 
well  that  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  was  the  first 
ministry  in  the  government  to  hire  a  lady 
personnel  officer.  She  is  no  longer  with  us,  she 
has  gone  on  to  better  things.  I  think  she  is 
the  personnel  officer  for  the  borough  of  Scar- 
borough. On  a  personal  level,  until  very 
recently  all  staff  in  my  office  were  female. 

We  are  trying  to  make  an  effort,  but  some- 
times it  is  difficult  to  get  females  to  want  to 
move.  All  of  them  do  not  want  to  accept  the 
additional  responsibility.  There  are  many 
women  in  our  ministry  who  have  a  job  simply 
because  they  need  the  extra  income  to  support 
their  family  but  may  not  necessarily  have  any 
real  objectives  in  a  career.  You  have  those 
kinds  of  people  in  every  ministry,  not  only 
females  but  males  as  well. 

We  are  trying  to  open  up  as  many  avenues 
as  we  can  to  allow  females  to  participate  and 
to  involve  them  in  higher  levels  within  the 
ministry. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  some 
progress  is  being  made  and  that  you  have  had 
some  breakthroughs.  Progress  is  painfully 
slow  throughout  the  government.  Each  year 
we  await  the  report  of  the  women  crown  em- 
ployees office.  I  think  the  reason  it  is  always 
rather  late  in  getting  out  is  that  the  Ministry 
of  Labour  keeps  that  office  in  a  state  of 
penury  and  does  not  provide  it  with  sufficient 
resources  to  get  the  surveys  out  quickly. 
However,  that  is  not  your  responsibility. 
8:10  p.m. 

d  think  you  will  find  that  more  and  more 
women  are  ready  to  move  into  the  less  tra- 
ditional occupations  and1  to  take  on  the 
challenges  and  responsibilities  of  the  better 
jobs.  Certainly,  a  great  many  of  them  are 
realizing  that  the  salary  differential  will  only 
be  changed  if  women  move  into  the  whole 
range  of  professional,  technical  and  manage- 
ment positions.  I  just  hope  your  ministry 
will  keep  on  opening  up  these  career  paths, 


and  also  making  it  possible  for  women  to 
take  the  necessary  training  in  order  to  move 
into  these  occupations. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  In  response  to  the  hon- 
ourable member,  I  might  just  say  we  are 
hopeful  that  when  we  move  to  Oshawa  in 
1982  it  will  open  up  some  new  avenues  for 
females;  we  anticipate  that  will  give  them 
some  advantage.  Plans  take  time  to  take 
hold,  I  am  sure  the  member  is  aware  of  that, 
but  it  is  necessary  to  train  and  counsel  people 
as  well  because  they  just  cannot  step  from 
a  secretarial  job  into  a  managerial  job  with- 
out some  training  and  counselling.  We  are 
doing  that  within  the  ministry.  Hopefully, 
these  things  will  move  a  little  faster  as  we 
go  along;  but  certainly  I  agree  with  what  you 
are  saying. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  not  quite 
clear.  Are  we  dealing  with  all  of  the  sub 
votes  on  801  or  are  we  going  to  deal  with 
them  seriatim? 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  think  the  members  have 
probably  strayed  somewhat  from  item  1  as 
is  the  usual  custom.  I  called  for  item  1  so 
therefore  we  will   go  down  item  by  item. 

Do  you  have  anything  further  on  item  1? 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  understand  that  under  item 
1  we  can  deal  with  all  sorts  of  general 
topics  as  well.  Under  which  item  should  I 
deal  with  the  question  of  subcontracting? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  can  deal  with  it  now 
if  you  want  to. 

Ms.  Bryden:  During  my  leadoff,  I  men- 
tioned that  I  understand  the  ministry  did  a 
considerable  amount  of  subcontracting; 
which  is  different  from  hiring  contract  em- 
ployees, I  believe  that  is  hiring  a  firm  which 
provides  employees  to  perform  a  specific 
function.  I  wanted  to  know  to  what  extent 
subcontracting  was  used  in  the  last  fiscal 
year  and  what  sort  of  projects  were  sub- 
contracted out;  what  the  cost  of  the  major 
subcontracts  were;  how  many  man-years  of 
employment  they  have  provided;  what  sort 
of  benefits  the  subcontractor  provides  or  if 
he  is  under  any  obligation  under  the  contract 
to  provide  employees  with  any  sort  of  bene- 
fits. Those  are  some  of  the  questions  I  had 
on  the  subject. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Our  ministry  does  not  do 
that  much  contracting,  but  there  are  certain 
areas  where  we  do.  For  instance,  the  assess- 
ment division  at  enumeration  time  subcon- 
tracted for  key  punching  and  things  like 
that  because  otherwise  we  would  have  to 
buy  numerous  key  punching  machines  just 
for  that  one  period  of  time.  That  has  been 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4817 


something  which  has  been  ongoing  and  for 
which  the  ministry  has  always  subcontracted. 

The  .  programming  for  the  management 
systems  branch  would  be  subcontracted,  if 
you  want  to  use  that  terminology.  What  we 
do  is  contract  with  a  company  to  do  that 
work  for  us,  I  think  this  is  the  area  you  are 
referring  to.  It  is  the  same  as  the  Ontario 
tax  grants,  that  work  would  be  contracted. 
The  firms  contract  to  do  certain  jobs  for  us. 
These  are  all  what  we  would  consider  to  be 
temporary  jobs. 

The  Ministry  of  Revenue  is  perhaps  a  little 
different  from  most  in  that  new  programs 
have  to  be  developed  from  time  to  time 
within  the  ministry  because  of  a  budget  that 
may  come  down.  If  there  is  a  new  program, 
then  we  have  to  get  that  program  in  place. 

The  Ontario  tax  grant  program  is  an  ex- 
ample. We  do  not  need  people  the  year 
round  to  go  through  the  applications,  but 
we  need  them  during  a  certain  period  of  the 
year  when  those  applications  come  in.  It  is 
the  same  with  the  enumeration  process.  It 
is  done  once  a  year.  For  a  certain  period  of 
time  during  which  enumeration  takes  place 
we  need  extra  help,  but  it  would  not  be 
reasonable  to  hire  permanent  staff  to  do  those 
kind  of  jobs 

That  is  an  ongoing  thing  with  the  Minis- 
try of  Revenue.  Prior  to  our  restraint  program 
on  hiring  civil  servants  this  has  been  a  nor- 
mal function  of  the  Ministry  of  Revenue. 
Those  are  the  only  three  areas  I  can  think 
of  where  we  subcontract.  I  cannot  think  of 
any  others. 

As  far  as  benefits  are  concerned,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  contracts  that  dictates  what 
those  benefits  would  be  to  those  people. 
They  work  for  the  contractor  and  not  for  us. 
There  is  no  direction  within  the  agreement 
we  would  sign  to  have  these  people  do  work 
for  us  to  indicate  what  the  benefits  would  be. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Under  the  subcontractor 
arrangement,  do  these  employees  sometimes 
work  for  two  or  three  years?  Would  the 
periods  be  that  long?  If  so,  would  it  not  be 
advisable  to  have  something  written  into  the 
contract  that  after  working  for  that  long 
period  they  are  entitled  to  more  than  the  four 
per  cent  holiday  pay?  Should  there  not  be 
some  other  benefits? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  I  do  not  think  any 
job  would  extend  to  a  three-year  period.  For 
instance,  the  people  working  on  the  Ontario 
tax  grant  program  will  be  with  us  for  perhaps 
three  months  out  of  the  year,  or  four  at  the 
most  depending  on  how  long  it  takes  us 
finally  to  get  all  the  applications  processed. 


In  the  case  of  the  assessment  division  doing 
the  enumeration,  as  you  know  that  takes  place 
for  a  period  of  less  than  a  month  each  year. 
We  do  not  keep  them  around  for  anywhere 
near  three  years.  It  is  quite  possible  that  when 
we  again  go  into  these  programs  next  year 
the  same  people  may  not  be  doing  the  work 
for  us. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  management  systems 
branch,  programming  computers  and  so  forth. 
When  we  set  up  a  new  computer  system, 
those  people  come  in  and  set  that  system  up 
for  us  but  they  do  not  necessarily  remain. 
Once  the  system  is  set  up  we  do  not  keep 
them  around  any  longer.  We  do  not  keep 
them  for  a  period  of  two  or  three  years,  we 
do  not  even  keep  them  for  one  year.  We  have 
other  people,  who  are  not  necessarily  civil 
servants— I  hope  you  are  not  confusing  them 
with  what  you  term  subcontractors. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  If  I  may  follow  up  on  that 
question:  the  minister  mentioned  contracting 
out,  are  these  contracts  put  out  by  bid  or  by 
tender?  Are  they  competitive?  Is  the  informa- 
tion obtained  kept  confidential  or  could  it 
apply  to  other  forms  of  taxes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Certainly  it  is  tendered. 
As  in  all  contracts  in  government,  an  un- 
successful tenderer  or  bidder  has  the  right  to 
know  what  his  competitors  bid.  This  is  not 
only  in  my  ministry  but  in  any  ministry,  as 
I'm  sure  the  member  is  aware.  If  someone 
tenders  for  a  contract  and  does  not  receive  it, 
that  tenderer  or  bidder  is  entitled  to  find  out 
what  his  competitor  bid  so  in  his  next  tender 
he  has  a  fair  idea  what  the  price  range  is. 

I  am  sure  the  member  is  aware  that  in- 
formation is  not  kept  confidential.  I  do  not 
think  we  publish  it,  but  we  give  it  to  the 
other  unsuccessful  tenderers  if  they  ask  for  it. 

8:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  do  not  recall  seeing  any 
tendering  advertised  in  the  local  newspapers 
like  the  Globe  and  Mail  or  the  Toronto  Star. 
I  was  just  wondering,  is  it  done  by  selected 
bidding  or  by  tender? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  These  are  specialized  jobs 
we  are  talking  about  and  the  tenders  would 
be  by  invitation.  They  would  be  termed  in- 
vitational tenders.  They  might  go  out  to  two, 
three,  four  or  five  people  in  that  particular 
field. 

Ms.  Bryden:  With  regard  to  the  subcontract 
for  the  seniors'  tax  grants,  can  you  tell  us 
how  many  people  were  invited  to  bid  and 
what  was  the  price  of  the  successful  bidder? 
Roughly,  what  did  the  contract  cover;  how 
many   people   and   for   how   long   a  period? 


4818 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


What  were  the  specifications,  in  very  general 
form? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  staff  advise  me  they 
think  there  were  about  four  companies.  If 
you  want  to  get  into  the  details  of  the  number 
of  people  and  so  on,  perhaps  it  should  be  held 
for  that  vote.  The  best  they  can  recall  is  there 
were  at  least  four  people  who  were  invited  to 
bid  on  that  particular  contract. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Can  you  give  us  the  figure  for 
the  successful  contractor? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  do  not  have  that  in- 
formation here;  perhaps  we  can  get  it  for  the 
next  session,  we  do  not  have  it  with  us. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Perhaps  when  we  get  to  that 
vote  we  could  have  the  information.  I  think 
I  did  ask  that,  when  that  votes  comes  up,  we 
would  like  a  full  breakdown  of  the  entire 
administrative  cost  on  the  seniors'  tax  grants. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  think  we  can  do  that. 
I  thought  you  wanted  the  figures  for  all  the 
various  people  who  might  have  tendered. 
You  are  interested  in  the  one  who  got  the 
tender  and  what  it  cost  for  that.  We  can 
get  that  for  you  at  the  proper  time. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Shall  item  1  carry? 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  am  not  finished  yet,  Mr. 
Chairman.  On  the  question  of  contract  em- 
ployees as  opposed  to  those  on  subcontract, 
the  contract  employees,  I  understand,  are 
not  permanent  civil  servants  but  sometimes 
do  stay  for  considerable  periods  of  time. 

Are  they  included  in  the  total  employee 
figure  shown  for  vote  801  in  the  background 
material?  It  shows  233  employees  and  is 
up  33  over  last  year.  Does  that  include  con- 
tract employees? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes.  In  each  vote,  you 
will  notice  civil  servants  and  unclassified 
staff.  Those  are  the  contract  employees. 
They  are  listed  in  the  book. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  wanted  to  make  sure  un- 
classified  did   mean   contract   employees. 

Can  you  tell  us  what  sort  of  benefits  those 
employees  get  and  what  is  the  average 
length  of  contract— the  average  length  of 
stay,  which  would  indicate  how  many  times 
the  contracts  are  renewed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  know  in  my  own  office, 
as  an  example,  all  the  people  are  contract 
employees.  There  are  no  civil  servants  there 
whatsoever.  They  are  on  a  yearly  contract. 
They  get  free  Ontario  health  insurance  plan 
benefits.  They  do  not  contribute  to  a  pension 
plan.  They  get  four  per  cent  for  statutory 
holidays.  I  am  not  sure  if  there  are  any 
other  benefits  available   to  them  but  I  have 


an  idea— and  I  will  have  to  check— that  the 
recent   dental   plant   covers   them. 

Ms.   Bryden:   What  about  sick  leave? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Sick  leave  arrangements 
do  cover  them.  I  am  speaking  now  of  the 
people  in  my  own  office  because  those  are 
the  contracts  I  personally  sign.  I  think  the 
biggest  difference  is  the  fact  they  do  not 
contribute  to  a  pension  plan. 

Just  to  help  you,  I  think  the  benefits  are 
basically  the  same  as  the  benefits  to  which 
your  secretary  in  your  own  office  is  entitled. 
I  think  the  benefits  for  these  people  are 
basically  the  same. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Would  the  benefits  be  the 
same  across  the  whole  ministry  for  all  con- 
tract employees? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  believe  so,  because 
when  I  arranged  the  contracts  in  my  own 
office  I  put  no  special  clauses  in  them.  They 
came  from  the  personnel  office  within  my 
ministry  and  I  had  not  given  any  special 
directions,  it  was  a  regular  contract.  I  am 
sure  they  all  have  the  same  benefits.  I  will 
have  that  checked  out  a  little  further  and 
before  this  debate  is  over;  I  will  confirm  it, 
or  correct  it  if  there  is  anything  wrong  with 
that  statement. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Minister, 
that  should  be  helpful.  Too  often,  in  too 
many  ministries,  the  contract  employees  were 
kept  on,  sometimes  for  very  long  periods- 
five,  six,  even  10  years— and  never  had  the 
opportunity  to  get  into  a  pension  plan,  al- 
though they  were  really  doing  the  same  work 
as  the  permanent  civil  servants  working  be- 
side them.  I  think  it  was  largely  a  means  of 
saving  money  for  the  government.  I  hope 
that  situation  is  not  developing  and  that 
there  is  reasonable  opportunity  for  mobility 
between  contract  jobs  and  permanent  jobs, 
so  that  people  who  do  carry  on  for  a  con- 
siderable period  of  time  will  fairly  quickly 
get  into  a  position  where  they  can  join  a 
pension  plan. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  unclassified  staff  we 
have  in  our  ministry  are  given  an  opportunity 
to  compete.  We  do  not  have  them  around  as 
long  as  you  indicated.  Although  I  will  agree 
with  you  there  are  some  ministries  that  have 
had  casual  employees  or  unclassified  staff  for 
a  great  number  of  years,  it  does  not  happen 
to  be  the  case  in  the  Ministry  of  Revenue. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  has  a  great  number. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  had  that  ministry  in 
mind,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  but  I  do  not  think 
you  will  find  that  is  the  case  in  our  ministry. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4819 


There  is  actually  one  good  thing  about 
having  people  come  on  as  unclassified  staff. 
You  have  a  good  chance  to  evaluate  them 
before  they  do  become  permanent,  and  I  think 
that  is  an  advantage  to  the  ministry  and  to 
the  civil  service  itself.  If  they  turn  out  to  be 
good  staff  they  are  given  an  opportunity, 
when  it  is  available,  to  compete  and  get  into 
the  civil  service.  We  do  that  in  our  ministry. 

Item  1  agreed  to. 

On  item  2,  analysis  and  planning: 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Are  we  covering  item  2  to 
item  7  in  a  broad  discussion? 

I  am  interested  in  the  revenue  research 
indicated  in  your  estimates.  There  is  an  in- 
crease of  more  than  $100,000,  and  this  is 
perhaps  the  only  area  where  you  have  spent 
additional  funds.  Could  the  minister  indicate 
just  what  area  of  research  he  is  talking  about? 
How  many  research  programs  are  there? 

The  other  item  which  interests  me  is  the 
area  of  the  retail  sales  tax  and  other  taxes.  I 
want  to  direct  a  question  to  the  minister  to 
find  out  if  he  has  had  any  dialogue  with 
Treasury  about  cutting  back  on  the  retail 
sales  tax.  I  just  wanted  to  know  if  there  is  any 
dialogue  at  all  between  the  two  ministries  in 
this  area.  I  feel  sometimes  the  government 
ministries  are  not  consulting  with  one  another 
on  particular  areas. 
8:30  p.m. 

Last  January,  I  think  it  was,  the  Ministry 
of  Revenue  had  the  retail  sales  tax  cut  on 
larger  vehicles  to  encourage  consumers  to 
purchase  the  larger  automobiles.  One  wonders, 
sometimes,  where  conservation  comes  into  the 
picture  as  it  relates  to  oil  and  gasoline  in 
Ontario.  I  can  recall  my  colleague,  the  mem- 
ber for  Essex  North  (Mr.  Ruston),  directing  a 
question  to  one  of  the  ministers,  asking  why 
you  do  not  reduce  the  sales  tax  on  auto- 
mobiles where  the  industry  has  shown  it  is 
conserving  energy  through  producing  cars 
that  consume  less  fuel.  It  is  in  direct  contrast 
to  other  government  agencies  or  ministries 
when  one  minister  says  he  will  reduce  the 
sales  tax  on  large  automobiles  and  gas 
guzzlers.  When  the  industry  does  come  in 
with  a  program  to  reduce  energy  consump- 
tion, no  benefit  is  given  to  either  the  con- 
sumer or  the  industry  to  encourage  them  to 
move  in  this  particular  area.  Last  year  when 
the  minister  cut  back  the  sales  tax  on  large 
cars,  the  same  American  automobile  industry 
gave  a  rebate  to  the  consumer.  You  have  seen 
on  television,  "Buy  this  vehicle  from  us,"  from 
Ford,  General  Motors  or  whatever  it  may  be. 
I  think  it  was  from  $300  to  $500  for  different 
sizes  and  makes  of  automobiles. 


The  private  sector  there  gives  an  induce- 
ment to  the  consumer  to  purchase  products. 
Here  in  Ontario  we  do  a  different  thing.  In  a 
sense,  we  have  to  reduce  the  sales  tax  on 
specific  automobiles  or  vehicles  to  encourage 
the  public  to  buy  them.  There  is  no  equity 
between  the  two  systems.  Surely,  if  the  auto- 
mobile industry  in  the  United  States  can  give 
it  to  the  consumer  there,  one  wonders  where 
the  auto  pact  comes  in.  Where  is  the  equity 
in  it?  Should  that  not  apply  to  consumers  in 
Ontario?  Yet  they  pay  fewer  taxes  on  their 
automobiles  there  than  we  do  in  Ontario. 

One  sits  back  and  says,  "Are  you  fellows 
really  trying  to  encourage  the  consumer  to 
buy  goods  in  Ontario  or  are  you  going  to 
tax  them  more  and  more?"  I  can't  under- 
stand your  thinking  over  on  that  side.  If 
you  want  to  get  the  economy  going,  I  don't 
think  this  is  the  way  you  should  do  it.  You 
are  doing  it  on  an  ad  hoc  basis.  You  gain 
nothing  in  the  long  result  because,  if  you 
look  here  in  Ontario,  the  automobile  indus- 
try is  right  down.  The  assistance  you  have 
given  it  has  not  guaranteed  the  jobs  that 
were  supposed  to  be  forthcoming  from  the 
automobile  industry.  They  have  been  laying 
off  more  and  more  people  all  along. 

Mr.  Conway:  Even  in  South  River. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Even  in  South  River.  I  just 
bring  that  to  your  attention.  If  you  had 
some  planning  over  there,  you  could  have 
come  forward  with  an  employment  strategy 
program  and  you  would  not  be  in  the  bind 
you  are  today.  You  won't  listen  to  anybody 
on  this  side  of  the  House.  Sometimes  it  is 
hard  to  get  through  to  any  government  min- 
istry what  we  are  trying  to  convey.  I  would 
like  the  minister  to  give  me  some  informa- 
tion on  the  revenue  research  that  is  being 
done  and  in  what  areas. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Revenue  research  is  not 
in  this  vote  at  all.  It  comes  under  vote  802, 
item  3. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  thought  we  were  on  vote 
802. 

Mr.  Chairman:  We  are  on  item  2,  as  I 
understand  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  are  on  vote  801, 
item  2. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  thought  we  were  carrying 
the  whole  vote. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  have  only  carried 
the  first  item,  but  I  am  quite  happy  if  you 
want  to  carry  the  whole  thing. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  understand  we  are  dealing 
with  each  vote  separately  as  we  go  down 
rather  than  carrying  the  whole  thing.  We 
are  on  vote  801,  item  2. 


4820 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Haggerty:  I  am  sure  I  got  the  indi- 
cation from  previous  speakers  that  this  was 
the  way  we  were  going  to  carry  the  votes, 
that  we  were  going  to  go  through  the  whole 
seven  items  under  801  or  802.  We  have 
been  rambling  from  the  top  to  the  bottom 
and  back  and  forth.  I  don't  think  we  are 
going  to  get  any  place.  If  you  want  to  go 
that  way,  that  is  the  way  it  will  go.  Then 
there  will  be  questions  asked  all  the  way 
through  the  procedure. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  don't  disagree  with  the 
member,  but  neither  do  I  want  to  restrict 
any  questions  from  the  member  for  Beaches- 
Woodbine.  I  thought  that  was  what  we  were 
doing  too. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  only  item  the 
Chairman  has  closed  off  is  item  1  in  vote 
801.  I  gather  the  member  for  Beaches- Wood- 
bine is  fully  entitled  to  talk  on  any  of  the 
items  in  vote  801  except  item  1.  We  are 
looking  particularly  at  item  2. 

Ms.  Bryden:  To  clarify,  we  are  now  deal- 
ing with  all  the  remaining  items  under  vote 
801  together.  Is  that  correct?  Or  are  we 
dealing  with  them  one  at  a  time? 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Which  item  do  you 
want  to  speak  to? 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  want  to  speak  to  several  of 
them,  but  at  the  moment  I  want  to  speak 
to  item  2. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  We  will  take  the 
votes  item  by  item,  unless  we  agreed  to  do 
otherwise.  We  are  now  looking  at  item  2. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  replying  to 
the  member  for  Erie  the  minister  did  say 
this  vote  is  not  the  vote  for  the  branch  that 
does  the  analysis  for  the  Treasurer  of  tax 
effects  and  impacts.  That  was  going  to  be 
one  of  my  questions,  but  he  answered  that. 

However,  I  understand  this  branch  does 
the  zero-base  budgeting  and  the  managing 
by  results  analyses.  I  am  not  sure  whether 
these  processes  are  really  as  effective  as  they 
sound.  Sometimes  one  wonders  whether  the 
staff  that  is  devoted  to  carrying  out  analyses 
of  this  sort  and  monitoring  and  making  sur- 
veys of  the  results  has  ever  had  its  own  cost 
effectiveness  analysed  to  see  whether  it  costs 
more  to  produce  by  zero-base  budgeting 
than  by  the  straight  submission  of  budgets 
and  analysis  of  the  budgets  of  each  branch. 

What  really  bothers  me  is  that  the  people 
administering  zero-base  budgeting  are  sup- 
posed "to  rank  and  compare  the  benefits  to 
be  derived  from  funding  alternative  levels  of 
activity  among  a  range  of  programs  within  a 
fixed  budgetary  allocation."  I'm  quoting  from 


the    ministry's    own    statement    on    zero-base 
budgeting. 

What  I  find  hard  to  understand  is  how  you 
rank  and  compare  the  benefits  if  you  don't 
have  a  philosophy  of  taxation.  How  do  you 
decide  which  alternatives  you  should  pursue 
if  you  don't  know  what  your  goals  are?  This 
is  what  bothers  me  when  the  minister  says  he 
doesn't  make  policy. 

If  his  only  goal  is  to  get  the  cost  of  collec- 
tion down  from  10  cents  on  the  dollar  or  one 
cent  on  the  dollar  to  0.9  cents,  that  is  one 
goal.  But  I  think  there  are  a  lot  of  other  goals 
as  well,  and  I  find  it  hard  to  know  how  you 
apply  the  principles  of  zero-base  budgeting 
without  first  having  a  tax  philosophy  and  a 
tax  goal. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  When  I  stated  that  I  did 
not  make  policy.  I  was  referring  to  the  fiscal 
policy  of  the  province  as  determined  by  the 
Treasurer.  Certainly  I  make  policy  within  my 
own  ministry  and  I  make  policy  within  the 
administration  of  my  own  ministry.  I  did  not 
want  to  misinform  the  member  and  indicate 
that  we  don't  make  any  policies  in  the  Min- 
istry of  Revenue.  That  is,  of  course,  absolutely 
ridiculous.  We  do  have  to  form  policies  in  the 
tax  field  under  the  umbrella  of  the  decisions 
made  by  the  Treasurer.  He  decides  the  fiscal 
policy. 

I  have  said  many  times  that  we  provide 
information  to  the  Treasurer,  the  kind  of 
information  we  might  have  that  he  needs, 
and  we  make  recommendations.  As  the  Min- 
ister of  Revenue,  I  make  recommendations  to 
the  Treasurer,  but  he  has  the  final  say.  He 
can  accept  or  reject  my  recommendations. 
That  is  the  way  the  system  is  set  up.  It  is  no 
different  from  any  other  jurisdiction  I  know  of 
in  this  type  of  parliamentary  system. 

We  do  certainly  make  policy  decisions 
within  the  ministry.  Item  2  goes  beyond  just 
zero-base  budgeting  and  managing  by  results. 
We  also  give  the  ministry  of  the  head  office 
advice  on  taxation  matters  so  we  can  make 
those  kinds  of  decisions.  It  is  not  just  a  matter 
of  sitting  down  with  some  numbers,  without 
any  taxing  policy,  and  deciding  which  pro- 
gram we  are  going  to  do,  what  priority  it  has 
and  which  one  we  are  going  to  cut  out.  It  has 
to  be  based  on  the  taxation  policy  of  the 
ministry  as  well.  Perhaps  that  clarifies  it. 
8:40  p.m. 

Ms.  Bryden:  You  say  they  give  you  advice 
on  taxation  policy,  but  what  are  the  criteria 
on  which  you  judge  your  tax  system?  What  is 
the  minister's  philosophy  on  taxation?  Is  the 
system  there  to  raise  revenue  or  is  it  there  to 
achieve  social  and  economic  goals?  Is  it  there 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4821 


to  redistribute  income  or  is  it  supposed  to  do 
some  of  all  of  those  things? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  does  all  three.  It  is  not 
just  a  matter  of  raising  revenue.  As  I  am  sure 
the  member  knows,  we  use  taxation  policy  for 
social  purposes  in  some  cases.  For  instance, 
one  cannot  consider  the  sales  tax  rebate  on 
automobiles  for  the  handicapped  as  anything 
but  a  social  policy,  so  you  are  quite  right  in 
all  three  statements  you  have  just  made.  It  is 
not  just  a  clear-cut  tax  collecting  ministry.  It 
has  other  fields  as  well. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Some  of  those  goals  are  con- 
flicting goals.  You  cannot  necessarily  redis- 
tribute income  and  at  the  same  time  raise 
large  amounts  of  money,  or  you  cannot  give 
tax  concessions  and  raise  large  amounts  of 
money.  I  think  the  question  really  is,  what 
are  your  priorities?  What  is  the  chief  focus 
of  the  tax  policy  of  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Obviously,  the  chief 
focus  of  this  ministry  has  to  be  the  collec- 
tion of  taxes.  That  is  our  first  priority  and 
it  has  to  be  done  as  equitably  and  as  fairly 
as  we  can.  The  other  items  we  usually  talk 
about  are  not  necessarily  something  that  my 
ministry  thinks  about,  but  it  is  probably  at 
the  request  of  some  other  ministry  or  through 
suggestions  from  within  the  government.  I 
may  get  a  request  from  the  government  as  a 
whole  saying,  "Could  you  look  into  this  situ- 
ation to  see  if  there  is  anything  we  can  do 
from  a  tax  viewpoint  to  assist  these  people 
in  any  given  circumstance?"  Of  course,  that 
has  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  Sometimes 
the  idea  comes  from  our  own  ministry. 

Just  to  get  back  to  the  question  you 
asked!  previously,  the  option  is  ranked  and 
selected  on  the  basis  of  effectiveness  of  tax 
administration.  Just  like  any  other  business, 
we  have  to  know  how  to  administer  the  tax. 
The  Treasury  decides  what  tax  is  going  to 
be  collected  and  who  is  going  to  be  taxed. 
That  is  really  the  basic  difference,  but  within 
our  ministry,  as  I  did  indicate,  we  certainly 
do  form  policy  under  the  jurisdiction  that 
we  are  given  by  this  Legislature. 

Item  2  agreed  to. 

On  item  3,  legal  services: 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  would  like  to  ask  the  min- 
ister if  the  defending  of  appeals  against 
assessments  come  under  the  legal  services 
here  or  whether  that  is  entirely  within  the 
assessment  vote. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  This  vote  includes  any 
legal  counsel  we  might  hire  outside  the  min- 
istry to  defend  our  assessments  in  the  courts. 
Any  costs  incurred  by  our  own  legal  staff, 
other  than  salaries   and  wages  which   come 


from  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General, 
because  they  are  actually  people  who  work 
for  the  Attorney  General  rather  than  the 
Ministry  of  Revenue,  would  be  under  the 
assessment  vote.  They  are  on  the  payroll  of 
the  Attorney  General,  but  any  costs  that 
might  be  incurred  when  they  are  out  in  the 
field  or  anything  like  that,  would  be  under 
the  assessment  vote.  Any  legal  counsel  we 
might  hire  to  defend  assessments,  where  we 
do  not  use  our  own  lawyers  within  the  min- 
istry, are  included  in  this  vote. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  wonder  if  the  minister 
could  tell  us  how  much  of  that  almost  half 
a  million  dollars  is  for  fighting  assessment 
appeals.  I  understand  the  long  delay  in 
implementing  property  tax  reforms  and  the 
archaic  bases  on  which  most  of  the  assess- 
ments in  many  parts  of  the  province  are 
based1  have  resulted  in  a  tremendous  surge 
of  appeals,  particularly  by  large  corporations 
with  lots  of  well-heeled  lawyers.  Naturally, 
the  province  has  had  to  fight  these  appeals 
in  order  to  try  to  preserve  the  total  assess- 
ments of  the  municipality.  The  older  the 
assessment  is  and  the  less  it  is  based  on  any 
sort  of  yardstick  that  can  be  intelligently 
looked  at,  the  easier  it  is  for  these  large 
companies  to  win  appeals  and  to  reduce  their 
tax  load.  Of  course,  the  rest  of  the  tax- 
payers who  aren't  able  to  carry  on  this 
appeal  process  nearly  as  extensively  or  suc- 
cessfully have  to  pay  the  additional  taxes  to 
municipalities.  Can  he  tell  us  how  much  of 
that  close  to  half  a  million  dollars  that  was 
spent  last  year  was  for  assessment  appeals? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  don't  have  that  figure  but 
I  will  get  it  for  you.  I  haven't  got  it  right 
here  at  the  moment.  I  am  asking  my  staff  to 
get  it  for  me.  I  think,  though,  that  you  are 
under  some  misunderstanding  about  the  prop- 
erty that  is  under  appeal.  They  still  have  to 
pay  their  taxes  to  the  municipality.  I  am 
not  sure  whether  you  understand  that.  They 
don't  withhold  payment  of  taxes  until  the 
appeal  is  heard.  They  still  are  subject  to 
paying  the  taxes  and  subject  to  a  refund  if 
they  win  the  appeal. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Yes,  I  understood  that.  But 
once  they  get  their  assessment  reduced,  of 
course,  their  tax  load  goes  down,  whether  it 
may  be  a  couple  of  years  hence  or  not.  There 
has  been  a  very  serious  erosion  of  the  tax 
base  in  some  municipalities,  particularly  in 
Toronto,  where  it  was  based  on  1940  values. 
I  am  sure  many  people  cannot  remember 
what  1940  was  like  in  terms  of  the  value  of 
property  at  that  date. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  There  is  no  question 
about  that.  It  is  one  of  the  concerns  we  have 


4822 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


and  one  of  the  reasons  we  have  brought  in 
the  section  86  program  you  don't  seem  to 
favour  too  well.  If  boroughs  in  Metropolitan 
Toronto  were  to  take  a  section  86  program, 
a  lot  of  the  appeals  that  are  being  lost  would 
not  be  lost  because  they  would  be  assessed 
equitably  with  other  similar  properties  in  the 
vicinity.  They  would  not  then  have  the 
grounds  for  an  appeal  they  have  at  the 
moment  because  of  the  very  things  you  talk 
about—assessments  that  go  back  to  1940. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  understand  the  city  of 
Toronto  has  considered  section  86  but  has 
rejected  it  at  the  moment,  probably  because 
it  creates  as  many  problems  as  it  solves.  You 
are  right  in  that  it  does  solve  some  of  the 
excess  appeal  problem  and  clarifies  the  situa- 
tion to  some  extent,  but  there  is  the  question 
that  many  people's  taxes  go  up  and  some 
people's  taxes  come  down  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  is  what  equity  is  all 
about. 

Ms.  Bryden:  The  politicians  are  always 
nervous  about  any  substantial  changes  of  that 
sort.  Mayor  John  Sewell  and  his  task  force 
produced  an  alternative  to  section  86,  which 
was  their  own  package  of  tax  reforms  and 
which  would  have  greatly  increased  the 
equity  in  the  city  of  Toronto.  Unfortunately, 
he  is  not  there  to  carry  it  out.  It  will  be  in- 
teresting to  see  if  his  successor  adopts  this 
package  and  if  the  package  is  then  imple- 
mented with  the  assistance  of  the  provincial 
government  because  I  think  separate  legisla- 
tion would  be  needed  for  that.  It  includes  an 
improved  property  tax  credit  as  part  of  the 
tax  reform  process. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  city  of  Toronto  has 
not  actually  rejected  section  86.  It  certainly 
has  not  made  the  decision  at  the  moment  to 
move  on  it  either,  but  who  is  to  know  what 
will  happen  now  with  the  new  council? 

If  something  is  not  done  in  Metropolitan 
Toronto  soon,  the  courts  will  just  decide  it 
anyway.  They  will  make  the  shifts  if  we  do 
not.  That  is  what  is  going  to  happen  if  the 
situation  remains  as  it  is  and  assessment 
appeals  are  lost.  It  is  obvious  that  if  it  loses 
many  assessment  appeals,  the  municipality  is 
going  to  have  to  find  the  dollars  it  has  lost 
somewhere  else.  They  will  create  the  shifts 
if  they  do  not  accept  some  program  like  86. 
There  is  no  question  about  that. 
8:50  p.m. 

Ms.  Bryden:  You  are  quite  right  that  the 
shifts  will  occur  if  the  appeals  keep  going  on. 
My  point  about  Mayor  Sewell's  task  force  is 
that  you  must  also  cushion  the  people  who 
will    be    hurt   by   reassessment   from    serious 


hardship.  That  is  why  you  need  more  than 
just  market  value  assessment.  You  need  a 
greatly  improved  property  tax  credit,  par- 
ticularly to  protect  low  and  middle  income 
people.  You  need  other  companion  measures 
that  will  cushion  the  burden. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  do  not  disagree  with 
what  you  are  saying  up  to  a  point.  I  think  you 
have  to  remember  that  when  a  reassessment 
program  takes  place  and  taxes  go  up  for  cer- 
tain people,  those  people  have  been  getting 
a  break  all  these  years  and  all  they  are  being 
asked  is  to  pay  their  share  and  make  it 
equitable.  The  taxes  of  people  who  have  been 
paying  too  much  are  going  to  go  down,  which 
is  also  fair.  While  you  can  generate  a  great 
deal  of  sympathy  for  some  people  because 
their  taxes  go  up,  you  have  to  keep  in  the 
back  of  your  mind  the  fact  that  if  their  taxes 
gc  up  it  means  they  have  not  been  paying 
their  share  of  taxes  over  the  years.  They  have 
had  a  break  for  all  those  years  and  maybe  it 
is  time  they  paid  their  share. 

If  they  are  not  in  a  financial  position  to 
do  it,  then  I  do  not  disagree  with  what  you 
are  suggesting,  that  there  should  be  some 
tax  credits  or  other  means  of  phasing  them 
in  so  it  does  not  hurt  them  too  much  finan- 
cially. It  is  not  fair  to  ask  the  people  who 
have  paid  too  much  in  taxes  to  continue  to 
carry  that  load  so  that  the  other  people  who 
are  not  carrying  enough  get  a  break.  If 
there  is  a  break  coming,  it  should  not  be 
coming  from  those  people  who  are  paying 
too  many  taxes.  It  should  not  be  coming 
through  the  property  tax  system. 

That  is  where  I  differ  with  some  of  the 
people  on  the  opposite  side.  In  the  case  of 
people  who  have  had  a  break  for  years  and 
have  not  paid  their  fair  share  of  taxes,  I  see 
nothing  wrong  with  asking  them  to  pay  their 
fair  share.  My  sympathy  lies  with  the  people 
who  have  been  pacing  too  many  tax  dollars 
over  the  years  because  those  other  people 
weTe  getting  a  break.  Tt  is  time  taxes  went 
down  for  the  people  who  have  been  paying 
too  much  and  it  is  time  taxes  went  up  for 
the  people  who  have  not  been  paying 
enough.    I   think   that  is   reasonable. 

Ms.  Bryden:  There  is  another  factor  in- 
volved. You  say  some  people  have  been 
getting  this  benefit  for  years.  An  individual 
may  have  just  bought  a  house  last  year,  but 
the  tax  benefit  went  to  the  previous  owner. 
Any  tax  benefit  gets  capitalized  into  the 
price  of  the  house,  so  it  is  only  the  first 
person  who  received  the  tax  benefit  who 
really  gets  that.  It  is  very  difficult  to  get 
it  back  from  him.  You  do  have  these  changes 
of   ownership   and   they   are   fairly   frequent. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4823 


When  you  come  to  tax  reform,  I  think  you 
have  to  take  the  bull  by  the  horns  and  pro- 
vide a  system  that  is  not  going  to  cause 
undue  hardship  to  people  who  will  be  af- 
fected by  the  changes. 

Items  3  to  7,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

On  item   8,   communications   services: 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  want  to  ask  the  min- 
ister under  item  8  if  under  communication 
services  he  includes  polls  conducted  by  his 
ministry  as  to  whether  one  tax  would  be 
preferable  over  another  or  any  type  of  poll 
the  ministry  may  conduct  in  an  attempt  to 
assess  the  feeling  of  the  electorate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  This  ministry  has  never 
conducted  any  poll  of  any  type.  We  have 
never  once  had  a  poll. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  it  is 
this  particular  section  the  minister  sends 
information  to  our  riding  offices  about  pro- 
grams and  also  brochures  et  cetera  to  shop- 
keepers and  other  people  who  would  have 
an  interest  in  the  various  programs.  Is  that 
correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  material  for  each 
program  is  covered  under  each  vote,  but  if 
you  want  to  pose  the  question  here  I  think 
it  is  as  good  a  place  as  any,  unless  you  have 
a  specific  question  on  a  specific  vote  or  some- 
thing. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  was  more  interested  in  the 
general  approach  you  follow  in  your  ministry 
when  you  have  a  program  as  to  how  you  go 
about  attempting  to  inform  those  people 
who  would  have  a  direct  interest  in  the 
program.  I  know  we  regularly  receive  infor- 
mation which  we  then  make  available  in  the 
riding  office,  but  that  does  not  necessarily 
mean  that  shopkeepers  in  the  riding  or 
others  would  automatically  be  receiving  the 
information  about  changes  in  the  tax  policy 
and  so  on.  I  was  interested  in  the  general 
way  in  which  you  would  operate  in  attempt- 
ing to  inform  interested  parties  about  new 
programs  or  changes  in  existing  programs. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  have  a  tax  bulletin 
program,  depending  on  which  branch  of  the 
ministry  the  tax  change  is  in.  For  example, 
if  it  happens  to  be  a  sales  tax  change,  all  of 
the  vendors  who  collect  sales  tax  on  behalf 
of  the  province  get  that  bulletin,  which  in- 
forms them  of  the  change  in  administration 
or  the  changes  in  the  policy  or  the  change  in 
the  taxing  statute.  If  it  happened  to  be  a 
change  in  corporation  tax,  then  it  would  go 
out  to  the  corporations  which  report  to  us. 
We  have  a  list  of  all  of  those. 

In  addition  to  all  of  those  people,  we  send 
them  out  to  the  constituency  offices,  to  the 


Queen's  Park  offices  and  to  the  federal  mem- 
bers in  Ontario  as  well.  We  have  a  mailing 
list  of  chartered  accountants  and  legal  firms 
that  deal  in  tax  matters,  and  those  kinds  of 
people  would  always  get  a  copy  of  our 
bulletin.  I  think  we  give  pretty  good  cover- 
age. Obviously,  we  don't  send  out  sales  tax 
bulletins  to  the  people  who  deal  with  cor- 
poration tax  or  vice  versa,  but  we  do  send 
out  all  of  the  bulletins  to  the  members  be- 
cause they  are  liable  to  be  dealing  with  any 
branch  of  our  ministry  so  we  try  to  keep 
them  informed  as  much  as  we  can.  I  think 
that  about  covers  the  way  we  do  it. 

If  it  is  a  rather  urgent  matter,  we  might 
also  put  an  ad  in  the  daily  papers  as  well, 
but  we  don't  do  that  in  every  case.  If  it  is  a 
change  that  is  perhaps  not  really  an  im- 
portant one  and  does  not  have  a  date  that 
someone  has  to  worry  about  or  something 
like  that,  we  do  not  usually  use  the  news- 
papers, though  in  some  cases  we  do.  We 
rarely  use  radio  or  television,  except  in  the 
case  of  the  senior  citizens'  tax  program,  which 
I  think  is  the  first  time  this  ministry  has 
ever  used  television.  We  have  used  radio  on 
one  or  two  other  occasions,  but  not  very  often. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  would  like  to  ask  the  min- 
ister if  the  various  advertising  programs  and 
leaflets  for  the  seniors'  tax  grants  come  under 
this  vote.  If  so,  will  there  be  a  need  for  a 
supplementary  estimate  in  this  vote? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  they  will  come  under 
the  guaranteed  income  and  tax  credit  pro- 
gram. I  think  there  will  be  a  lot  of  discussion 
when  we  get  to  that  one,  so  you  might  just 
as  well  hold  those  questions  until  we  get  to 
that  particular  vote  unless  you  have  an  urgent 
question  you  want  to  ask. 
9  p.m. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  will  wait  until  we  get  to  that 
vote.  I  have  one  other  question  on  tax  bulletins 
which,  while  they  do  carry  the  minister's 
name,  are  not  quite  as  much  the  huckster 
type  of  bulletin  as  some  that  come  from  other 
ministries,  such  as  the  ones  with  the  min- 
ister's smiling  face,  or  large  signs  on  the  high- 
way saying,  "Another  Ontario  government 
project  from  your  friendly  tax  man." 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  The  tax  collector  never 
wants  to  be  recognized. 

Ms.  Bryden:  However,  when  you  do  make 
rulings  for  an  individual  who  writes  in,  do 
you  then  share  with  the  rest  of  the  taxpayers 
the  ruling  you  have  made  in  a  specific  case? 
It  may  apply  to  other  taxpayers  as  well.  Do 
you  cover  that  in  your  bulletins? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  If  you  are  referring  to  a 
corporation  which  may  ask  us  for  an  advance 


4824 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ruling,  the  answer  is  no.  That  would  not  be 
made  public  because  it  would  be  based  on 
private  information  that  corporation  is  giving 
us.  We  then  advise  them  as  to  what  would 
happen  to  them  taxwise  if  they  are  going  to 
do  a  certain  thing  within  their  corporation. 
The  kind  of  information  they  would  give  us 
in  order  for  us  to  give  them  that  kind  of 
advice  would  be  confidential.  It  would  not 
become  public. 

Those  advance  rulings  we  give,  however, 
are  binding.  Once  we  give  an  advance  ruling 
that  ruling  stands.  In  other  words,  we  cannot 
decide  at  a  later  date  we  are  going  to  change 
that  ruling  unless  the  law  has  been  changed. 
Once  we  give  them  an  advance  ruling  we 
stand  behind  it. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  can  appreciate  the  kind  of 
advance  ruling  you  mention  that  may  not 
have  general  application.  I  was  also  thinking 
of  interpretation  rulings,  such  as  whether  a 
certain  item  is  exempt  from  sales  tax.  When 
you  make  a  decision  on  that,  do  you  pass 
that  out  to  the  general  public? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes,  we  do.  We  put  out 
special  bulletins  on  that.  That  goes  out  to 
the  public.  Whichever  tax  it  is  it  is  a  ruling 
that  applies  right  across  the  whole  tax  field. 
That  becomes  public.  If  it  is  a  ruling  we 
think  is  important,  then  we  will  send  out  a 
bulletin  on  that.  We  not  only  send  out  a 
bulletin  when  there  is  a  change  in  the  tax 
statute,  but  if  there  is  a  change  in  the  ruling 
because  of  some  investgation  or  some  flaw 
that  we  found,  then  we  advise  the  people 
who  may  be  affected  by  it. 

Item  8  agreed  to. 

On  item  9,  systems  development  services: 

Ms.  Bryden:  While  this  item  appears  to 
be  only  $832,000,  it  is  actually  an  expendi- 
ture of  $6,752,000  because  a  great  many  of 
the  expenses  are  charged  to  the  other 
branches  that  use  the  management  services 
provided.  Can  the  minister  tell  us  what  the 
figure  of  $4,787,000  covering  services  is  for? 
I  presume  this  is  probably  for  electronic 
equipment  or  things  of  that  nature.  Could 
he  give  us  an  indication  as  to  what  the 
$4.7  million  is  spent  on? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  informed  that  most 
of  that  figure  is  for  computer  costs.  I  guess 
it  is  a  rental-type  payment  we  make.  We  do 
not  necessarily  own  the  computers.  I  am 
told  we  buy  computer  time.  That  is  where 
most  of  this  money  is  spent.  Is  that  enough 
detail? 

Ms.  Bryden:  From  whom  do  you  buy  it? 
Do  you  buy  it  from  several  private  firms  or 


do  you  buy  it  from  other  ministries  of  the 
government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Most  of  it  is  from  Gov- 
ernment Services,  within  the  government  it- 
self. There  are  some  private  data  centres  we 
deal  with  as  well,  but  the  bulk  of  it  would 
be  from  the  Ministry  of  Government  Services. 

Ms.  Bryden:  For  the  seniors'  tax  grants, 
are  the  costs  in  here  for  putting  those  on 
computer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No.  If  you  will  recall, 
these  estimates  were  printed  prior  to  that 
program  coming  in.  You  will  not  find  much 
financial  information  in  this  book  on  that 
program  because  the  estimates  were  printed 
prior  to  that  program  really  being  in  place. 
When  we  get  to  that  vote,  we  will  have  all 
the  financial  data  for  you.  It  is  separate  and 
apart.  I  am  not  sure  what  is  happening  on 
that  at  the  moment.  It  is  not  included  in  this 
set  of  estimates  because  this  was  printed,  as 
you  know,  last  spring.  That  program  was 
implemented  since  then,  so  it  is  not  con- 
tained in  here. 

Ms.  Bryden:  We  could  probably  expect  a 
rather    whopping   supplementary    estimate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  not  sure  at  the 
moment,  but  there  is  no  question  that  the 
cost  of  operating  the  program  under  dis- 
cussion is  not  included  in  the  estimates  we 
are  dealing  with  here.  I  can  probably  get 
that  information  before  these  estimates  are 
over  and  let  you  know  better  what  is  going 
to  happen.  I  presume  it  would  require  sup- 
plementary estimates. 

Item  9  agreed  to. 

On  item   10,  relocation  project: 

Ms.  Bryden:  Under  this  program,  on  the 
move  to  Oshawa  and  the  move  to  Kingston, 
you  will  notice  the  vote  is  up  considerably. 
In  fact,  the  estimated  actual  for  1979-80  is 
$224,000.  The  estimated  actual  for  the 
current  fiscal  year  is  $397,000.  That  is  not 
quite  a  doubling,  but  it  is  a  very  large  in- 
crease. 

First,  I  would  like  to  spend  a  little  time 
on  where  we  are  with  the  Oshawa  move.  I 
understand  an  office  building  is  being  built 
in  Oshawa  and  that  it  is  a  leaseback  deal. 
I  would  like  to  know  what  company  is 
building  it  for  us  and  what  the  per-square- 
foot  rental  is  going  to  be.  I  understand  it  is 
a  25-year  leaseback  deal  with  the  province, 
which  is  going  to  own  the  building  at  the 
end  of  25  years.  Presumably  the  builder  is 
going  to  get  his  money  back  plus  a  profit 
in  25  years. 

I  would  like  to  know  what  it  is  costing 
us  to  operate  this  building  compared  to  the 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4825 


present  space  the  ministry  occupies  in 
Toronto  and  the   square-foot   cost   there. 

Also,  I  would  like  some  information  on 
the  cost  of  relocating  employees  and  what 
provision  is  being  made  to  help  employees 
relocate  in  terms  of  either  purchasing  their 
homes  or  enabling  them  to  commute.  I 
would  like  to  know  whether  there  are  any 
retraining  programs  for  employees  who  do 
not  want  to  move  out  of  Toronto,  who 
have  set  up  their  families  here  and  who 
have  had  long  service  with  the  ministry, 
but  who  do  not  particularly  wish  to  pull  up 
their  roots  and  go  to  Oshawa. 

I  think  we  have  to  look  at  all  the  costs 
of  this  relocation  operation  before  we  can 
judge  whether  it  is  a  wise  decision.  It  may- 
be a  little  late  to  turn  it  around,  although 
perhaps  that  buildng  could  be  leased  to 
someibody  else.  I  presume  we  have  a  firm 
contract  on  it  but  perhaps  the  minister 
could  fill  us  in  a  bit  on  that  Oshawa  re- 
location. 

9:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  was  hoping  you  would 
stop  before  you  have  too  many  questions.  I 
couldn't  remember  them  all. 

First  of  all,  you  asked  who  the  contractor 
is.  Tom  Jones  and  Sons  Limited  of  Thunder 
Bay  is  building  the  building.  You  wanted 
to  know  what  the  annual  rental  is.  Was 
that  one  of  your  questions?  The  rent  will 
be  $3,261,000  over  25  years.  I  cannot  tell 
you  what  the  rent  is  for  the  building  we  are 
in  at  the  moment  because,  as  you  know,  the 
Ministry  of  Government  Services  actually 
looks  after  that. 

I  just  happen  to  have  this  information 
here.  I  do  not  negotiate  with  the  contractor. 
I  do  not  negotiate  as  far  as  the  rent  or  the 
lease  purchase  agreement  is  concerned.  That 
is  all  done  'by  the  Ministry  of  Government 
Services  and  that  information  would  have  to 
come  from  that  ministry.  It  is  a  lease  pur- 
chase contract.  It  is  a  seven-storey  building, 
plus  a  basement.  The  gross  floor  area  is 
461,000  square  feet.  The  total  cost  of  the 
project  is  $33,700,000,  which  excludes  the 
land. 

The  projected  occupancy  date  at  the  mo- 
ment is  June  to  November  of  1982.  That  is 
when  we  expect  we  will  be  in  the  building. 
As  to  some  of  the  costs  of  moving,  we  are 
dealing  now  with  my  ministry  costs  over  a 
period  of  time.  All  this  money  is  not  going 
to  be  spent  in  one  year  by  any  means,  but 
to  give  you  some  idea  of  what  it  is  going  to 
cost  to  relocate  the  staff  of  the  Ministry  of 
Revenue  in  Oshawa,  the  project  team— and 
that  is  a  team  we  have  within  the  ministry 


working  with  the  staff  to  help  them  find 
accommodation  and  so  on  in  Oshawa— are  pro- 
viding staff  with  information  about  Oshawa, 
for  instance,  the  educational  facilities,  the 
recreational  facilities,  the  cost  of  land,  the 
cost  of  housing,  that  kind  of  thing. 

In  other  words,  they  are  orienting  them 
to  the  community  of  Oshawa  with  the  hope 
that  the  majority  of  them  will  move  to 
Oshawa.  We  want  them  to  be  aware  of  what 
is  in  Oshawa  and  the  surrounding  area.  We 
are  dealing  with  more  than  just  the  city  of 
Oshawa.  All  the  other  municipalities  in  the 
Durham  region  certainly  will  be  just  as 
hospitable  to  our  people  as  Oshawa  itself. 
So  it  is  not  just  the  city  of  Oshawa  by  any 
means.  Anyway,  that  project  team  I  have 
talked  about  is  in  the  ministry  and  has  been 
there  for  some  time.  The  estimates  we  have 
been  looking  at  are  related  to  that  team 
particularly:  in-house  staff,  $1.3  million;  staff 
training,  $500,000;  parallel  operations— and 
by  that  we  mean  that  when  we  start  to 
relocate  in  Oshawa,  we  will  have  probably 
two  different  locations  where  the  same  sort 
of  operation  is  going  on.  In  other  words,  we 
will  have  to  maintain  the  operation  here 
until  the  offices  in  Oshawa  are  in  a  produc- 
tive capacity  because  we  just  cannot  suddenly 
quit  and  stop  collecting  taxes. 

It  is  important  that  we  have  an  ongoing 
system,  so  we  are  talking  here  about  parallel 
operations  which  we  think  will  cost  about— 
and  these  at  the  moment  are  very  rough 
figures  obviously— $1.5  million.  Employee  re- 
location is  going  to  cost  about  $3.5  million, 
as  near  as  we  can  estimate  at  this  particular 
moment;  telecommunications,  $500,000;  cou- 
rier, $240,000;  transportation,  $120,000; 
special  equipment,  $550,000.  That  is  a  total 
of  $9,310,000. 

As  I  say,  these  are  very  rough  estimates 
at  the  moment,  but  it  is  the  best  we  can 
come  up  with.  It  gives  you  some  sort  of 
an  idea  of  the  cost  that  we  anticipate  in  re- 
locating our  employees  to  Oshawa  after  the 
building  is  built. 

You  asked  about  staff  who  would  not  be 
moving  to  Oshawa.  Consistent  with  the 
Premier's  commitment  of  June  27,  1980,  the 
Ministry  of  Revenue  is  currently  working 
with  the  Civil  Service  Commission  to  develop 
measures  for  placement  of  those  employees 
not  willing  to  move  to  Oshawa.  We  are 
going  to  attempt  to  find  places  with  some 
other  ministry  within  the  government  here 
in  Toronto  for  those  who  do  not  wish  to 
move. 

Obviously,  a  lot  of  them  are  not  prepared 
to  move,  and  that  is  quite  understandable. 
You  were  quoting  figures  earlier  of  the  num- 


4826 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


her  of  female  employees  there  are,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  Ministry  of  Revenue.  A  big 
percentage  of  the  employees  are  female,  and 
a  big  percentage  are  probably  married  and 
their  husbands  probably  have  jobs  in 
Toronto;  therefore,  they  do  not  want  to  re- 
locate and  move  to  Oshawa.  They  would 
probably  much  sooner  find  another  job  within 
government  here  at  Queen's  Park,  or  in  this 
general  area,  than  to   go  to  Oshawa. 

The  last  survey  that  we  did— and  it  is  not 
recent  any  more— showed  we  have  a  com- 
mitment from  about  50  per  cent  of  the  staff 
who  say  they  will  move  to  Oshawa.  At  the 
moment,  there  are  some  38  civil  servants 
who  have  moved  to  Oshawa  awaiting  our 
transfer  when  the  building  is  completed.  I 
think  you  will  find  that  more  people  will  be 
moving  in  the  spring— people  don't  very  often 
move  at  this  time  of  year. 

I  say  that  because  up  until  two  or  three 
months  ago  I  do  not  think  the  staff  were 
really  sure  we  were  going  to  move.  I  think 
there  was  some  doubt;  they  were  not  really 
convinced  that  we  were  going  to  move.  Now 
that  the  building  is  under  construction,  I 
think  they  now  know  the  transfer  is  going  to 
take  place,  and  I  think  they  will  become  a 
little  more  serious  about  relocating,  although 
there  is  still  quite  a  bit  of  time  before  1982. 

I  do  not  blame  them  for  not  wanting  to 
move  out  there  too  quickly  because  it  means 
they  are  going  to  have  to  commute  from 
there  back  to  Queen's  Park.  Obviously,  some 
of  them  will  wait  until  much  nearer  the  time 
of  the  official  transfer.  The  other  thing,  of 
course,  is  that  some  of  them  will  commute 
from  here  rather  than  pull  up  roots  in 
Toronto,  or  maybe  they  might  live  in  some 
other  community  north  of  Toronto.  Some  of 
them  will  never  move  to  Oshawa;  they  will 
commute. 

AH  in  all,  though,  I  think  the  staff  are 
certainly  aware  that  a  commitment  has  been 
made.  The  building  is  under  construction,  the 
contracts  have  been  signed,  and  there  is  no 
question  that  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  is 
moving  to  Oshawa.  Now  they  have  to  govern 
themselves  accordingly  and  make  their  de- 
cisions as  to  whether  or  not  they  will  go, 
whether  they  want  a  transfer  or  whether 
they  want  to  remain  here  and  commute. 
These  are  decisions  the  staff  will  have  to 
make. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  when  one 
hears  these  figures  of  $9.3  million  costs  for 
moving  this  ministry  of  a  little  over  1,000 
people  to  Oshawa,  one  wonders  whether  it 
was  not  a  rather  costly  pipe  dream  of  some 
previous  provincial   Treasurer,   or  maybe  by 


the  cabinet  as  a  whole,  to  effect  what  was 
known  as  the  thrust  to  the  east,  to  try  to 
decentralize  employment  in  the  Golden 
Horseshoe  area.  They  are  still  within  the 
Golden  Horseshoe  when  they  go  to  Oshawa. 
When  you  think  of  the  dislocation  to  the 
ministry  and  the  fact  that  you  are  going  to 
have  to  spend  $1.5  million  on  more  or  less 
duplicating  services  during  the  transitional 
period,  it  seems  to  me  it  is  a  highly  question- 
able expenditure  of  the  taxpayers'  money, 
particularly  in  this  time  of  restraint. 
9:20  p.m. 

It  is  true  that  Oshawa,  particularly  with 
the  present  auto  situation,  may  be  very 
anxious  to  have  additional  employment.  But 
I  am  not  sure  it  is  going  to  get  very  much 
additional  population  moving  in.  Because  it 
is  within  such  close  commuting  distance  of 
Toronto  it  may  just  lead  to  a  lot  more  com- 
muting. A  great  deal  of  this  commuting  will 
be  done  using  fossil  fuels,  which  we  are 
running  short  of,  rather  than  by  train  or  some 
other  method.  From  that  point  of  view  also, 
it  is  an  additional  energy  cost  if  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  commuting  done. 

I  would  like  to  see  employment  spread 
around  the  province  as  much  as  possible, 
but  to  pull  up  a  ministry  that  has  been 
established  for  many  years  in  one  city  and 
just  move  it  to  another  at  great  cost  to  the 
taxpayers,  I  am  not  sure  whether  that  is  the 
best  way  to  help  the  city  of  Oshawa. 

It  seems  to  me  the  development  of  new 
industries  and  the  use  of  our  natural  re- 
sources in  Ontario  to  develop  more  manu- 
factured goods  and  for  import  replacement 
are  better  ways  to  help  the  development  of 
places  to  the  east,  where  we  would  like  to 
see  population  grow. 

It  looks  to  me  as  if  it  has  grown  in  cost 
far  more  than  was  anticipated  when  this  move 
was  planned.  I  just  think  it  is  another  ex- 
ample of  the  government  not  looking  before 
it  leaped.  Again  it  was  going  along  on  some 
dream  of  trying  to  solve  all  the  problems  of 
the  province  by  a  quick  stab  here  and  a 
Cayuga  purchase  there  and  a  new  town 
somewhere  else,  such  as  up  in  Pickering, 
without  looking  at  the  consequences  and  the 
costs  to  the  taxpayer.  I  think  we  should  hope 
that  if  they  plan  any  further  moves  of  this 
sort  they  will  look  much  more  closely  at  the 
cost. 

The  minister  may  want  to  comment  on  my 
last  remarks.  I  would  also  like  to  get  on  to  the 
Kingston  move,  and  get  some  information 
on  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  sure 
there  are  quite  a  few  of  my  staff  members 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4827 


who  would  agree  wholeheartedly  with  the 
member.  They  do  not  want  to  move  to 
Oshawa  either.  It  was  a  decision  that  was 
taken  before  I  became  Minister  of  Revenue. 
We  have  moved  now  so  far  down  the  line 
that  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  chance  of 
that  move  being  cancelled.  I  think  we  have 
to  accept  that  the  decision  has  been  made. 

I  guess  we  can  be  criticized  for  the  amount 
of  money  that  is  being  spent  in  moving,  but 
I  can  assure  the  member  the  reason  this 
kind  of  money  is  being  spent  is  twofold. 
One  is  to  ensure  that  the  staff  are  looked 
after  properly  and  that  they  are  properly 
compensated  for  having  to  move.  There  is  a 
special  program  in  place  for  the  Ministry  of 
Revenue  staff  who  are  moving  to  Oshawa  that 
does  not  prevail  across  the  civil  service.  We 
have  given  special  attention  to  them. 

The  reason  it  is  costly  is  because  we  are 
trying  to  look  after  the  staff  and  because  we 
must  maintain  the  service  the  ministry  has 
been  given  to  do.  There  is  absolutely  no  way 
we  can  just  close  down  the  Queens  Park 
office  and  take  a  month  or  so  and  move 
everything  to  Oshawa.  We  have  to  have  them 
both  going  at  the  same  time,  so  we  can  have 
a  smooth  transition  between  the  two  areas. 
While  the  member  may  argue  about  the  $9 
million,  I  do  not  think  she  would  argue  that  to 
do  the  job,  we  have  to  try  to  do  it  as  well  as 
we  can,  the  commitment  having  been  made. 

If  I  were  arguing  four  years  ago,  I  might 
have  agreed  with  the  honourable  member 
about  the  move  to  Oshawa.  But  the  fact  is 
that  decision  has  been  taken,  and  it  is  some- 
thing I  will  not  be  able  to  change.  Nobody 
can  change  it  at  the  moment.  The  building  is 
already  under  construction,  the  contract  has 
been  let.  I  might  tell  the  honourable  member 
that  if  she  wants  to  talk  about  Kingston,  she 
is  going  to  have  to  wait  until  she  gets  into 
the  Ministry  of  Health  estimates  because  it 
is  not  my  staff  that  is  moving  to  Kingston. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Yes,  I  just  realized  as  you  were 
speaking  that  for  Kingston  it  is  the  Ministry 
of  Health.  Anyway,  I  think  Oshawa  may  have 
taught  us  some  lessons;  I  hope  it  has.  That  is 
all  I  have  on  that  item. 
.  Item  10  agreed  to. 

Vote  801  agreed  to. 

On  vote  802,  administration  of  taxes  pro- 
gram; item  1,  comptroller's  office: 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  notice  in  this  item  there 
is  a  substantial  increase  in  expenditure.  Could 
the  minister  indicate  the  reason  for  it?  Was 
there  additional  staff  in  this  comptroller's 
office? 


Hon..  Mr.  Maeck:  If  we  go  to  the  third 
page  it  gives  a  better  idea  of  where  the  in- 
creases are.  If  you  look  under  salaries  and 
wages,  there  is  an  increase  of  $65,500.  Em- 
ployee benefits  is  $179,200,  which,  of  course, 
the  ministry  has  no  control  over.  Transporta- 
tion and  communication  is  $148,600.  Services 
is  the  big  item  again  and  that  is  the  money  we 
are  spending  on  computers  to  keep  up  with 
our  program.  The  other  increase  is  $199,000 
for  supplies  and  equipment.  The  total  in- 
crease is  $2,264,500. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  hope  I  heard  you  cor- 
rectly, that  the  transportation  and  communi- 
cation costs  were  $146,000. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  beg  your  pardon? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  What  was  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation and  communication? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  actual  cost  for  1979- 
80  was  $1,883,900.  The  1980-81  estimates 
are  $2,032,500,  which  is  an  increase  of 
$148,600. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  What  does  the  increase  in 
transportation  and  communication  consist  of? 
What  are  we  talking  about  when  we  talk 
about  transportation  and  communication?  Do 
you  have  staff  on  the  road? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Certainly.  We  have  audi- 
tors on  the  road  all  the  time.  We  have  a  lot 
of  vehicles  and  a  lot  of  people  on  the  road. 
The  ministry  is  such  that  they  have  to  go  to 
various  places  to  do  auditing.  We  are  talking 
here  about  the  tax  division.  We  are  not  talk- 
ing about  the  assessment  division.  They  must 
travel  from  one  corporation  to  another  and 
from  one  small  business  to  another.  There 
is  a  great  amount  of  travelling.  When  one 
thinks  that  the  prices  of  fuel,  vehicles  and 
all  that  are  going  up,  it  is  not  hard  to  realize 
an  increase  of  $148,600.  Telephones  are  in- 
cluded in  that  too  and  their  costs  have  gone 
up. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  There  are  regional  offices 
in  certain  localities  in  the  province.  Welland 
has  one,  I  think  there  is  one  in  St.  Catharines 
and  there  are  others.  Is  there  not  someone 
there  who  can  do  the  investigation  and 
auditing  from  that  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  You  have  to  understand 
we  are  not  talking  about  assessment  now.  We 
are  talking  about  the  district  taxation  offices. 
We  have  12  of  those  in  the  province,  so  you 
can  understand  they  cover  a  pretty  big  area. 
When  there  are  only  12  of  those  offices 
throughout  the  province,  they  travel  a  lot 
of  miles  to  get  to  the  people  who  are  in 
their  areas. 


4828 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  do  not  mean  all  this  travelling  originates 
here  at  Queen's  Park.  Most  of  it  originates 
from  those  district  taxation  offices.  We  do 
have  specialists  here  at  Queen's  Park  who 
on  certain  occasions  have  to  go  all  over  the 
province  with  certain  expertise  that  may  not 
be  available  in  a  district  taxation  office.  That 
is  a  completely  different  matter. 
9:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  What  is  the  mileagge  rate 
that  is  allowed  under  this  vote?  Is  it  17 
cents  or  21  cents  per  kilometre? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  think  it  is  the  same  as 
the  one  that  is  consistent  throughout  govern- 
ment—I think  it  is  17  cents  per  kilometre.  By 
the  way,  regarding  my  previous  answer  when 
I  was  referring  to  people  going  out  of 
Queen's  Park,  mostly  those  are  people  from 
the  corporations  tax  branch.  They  go  out  and 
do  auditing  in  the  various  corporations. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  You  said  the  mileage  allow- 
ance is  about  17  cents  per  kilometre.  Is  that 
consistent  with  other  government  agencies 
such  as  regional  governments? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  not  sure  about 
regional  government.  We  have  a  blanket 
policy  in  the  Ontario  government  and  the 
same  rate  applies  to  every  civil  servant  in 
every  ministry. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Is  it  periodically  ad- 
justed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes  it  is.  It  is  usually 
adjusted  at  least  once  and  sometimes  twice 
a  year.  I  believe  that  is  done  through  the 
Civil  Service  Commission,  which  recom- 
mends  it   to   Management   Board. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Is  it  adjusted  every  time 
there  is  an  increase  in  the  cost  of  gasoline? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Not  always.  Sometimes, 
as  you  know,  there  could  be  three  or  four 
increases  during  the  year.  We  do  not  do  it 
that  often.  But  I  would  think  that  it  very 
rarely  goes  beyond  six  months.  If  there  is  no 
major  increase  it  might  go  a  year.  Usually, 
it  is  not  more  than  six  months  that  it  is 
adjusted. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  under 
item  1  we  can  perhaps  take  a  look  at  our 
entire  tax  structure.  The  taxes  are  all  listed 
under  items  3  to  7  but  it  gives  us  a  picture 
of  what  the  Ontario  tax  system  is  made  up 
of  and  what  kinds  of  tax  system  we  have. 
Until  you  look  at  the  actual  revenue  figures 
for  each  tax,  you  do  not  know  whether  we 
have  a  progressive  or  a  regressive  tax  sys- 
tem. We  seem  to  have  a  fair  mix  when  you 
look  at  the  headings  there.  However,  when 
you  start  to  look  at  the  budget  projections 


for  each  of  those  taxes  which  are  collected 
under  this  vote- 
Mr.    Chairman:    You   are   referring   to    the 
administration  costs,  are  you? 

Ms.  Bryden:  Yes.  I  am  referring  to  the 
revenue  costs  and  then  I  was  going  to  ask 
what  are  the  collection  costs  for  each  of  the 
taxes.  I  presume  this  goes  through  the  con- 
troller's office. 

Looking  at  the  budget  estimate  of  the 
revenue  from  each  of  these  taxes,  the  per- 
sonal income  tax  produces  about  37  per  cent 
of  the  total.  The  corporation  taxes  of  several 
kinds,  including  the  insurance  premium  tax 
and  mining  profits  tax,  all  of  which  come 
under  this  ministry,  produce  less  than  half 
of  what  the  personal  income  tax  produces— 
about  17.5  per  cent  of  total  tax  revenue.  The 
commodity  and  the  retail  sales  taxes  pro- 
duce the  balance,  except  for  small  amounts 
from  the  racetrack  tax  and  the  succession 
duties. 

I  think  the  story  that  comes  out  is  that 
in  this  province  we  do  rely  greatly  on  what 
might  be  considered  regressive  taxes.  A  retail 
sales  tax  without  adequate  exemptions  is 
especially  regressive.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a 
fair  tax  system  because  there  is  too  great  a 
reliance  on  the  taxes  on  the  individual.  There 
are  not  enough  taxes  on  wealth,  such  as  suc- 
cession duties  and  gift  tax,  which  this  prov- 
ince has  abolished.  We  really  do  have  a 
tax  system  that  is  skewed  towards  hitting 
the  small  man  more  than  the  wealthy,  and 
that  is  not  what  a  progressive  tax  system 
should  be  doing.  Even  with  our  income  tax, 
while  we  get  a  large  percentage  of  the  total 
revenue  from  it,  we  do  have  one  of  the 
lowest  income  tax  rates  in  Canada.  It  is 
added  as  a  surtax  or  collected  through  fed- 
eral income  tax. 

I  do  not  know  whether  your  ministry 
analyses  our  tax  structure  from  time  to  time. 
I  think  we  should  have  more  reports  on  the 
actual  incidence  of  these  taxes  on  various 
income  groups.  That  is  one  of  the  things  on 
which  I  would  like  to  see  more  research 
done  and  publication  of  the  results.  Have 
you  done  any  of  that  recently?  Do  we  have 
an  idea  how  much  the  different  income 
groups  are  contributing  to  the  total  tax 
revenue? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  kind  of  research 
should  be  done  not  by  this  ministry  but  by 
Treasury,  because  they  are  the  ones  who 
are  going  to  set  the  fiscal  policy,  as  I  indi- 
cated. We  will  give  the  Treasury  any  infor- 
mation we  can  to  help  them,  but  I  do  not 
think  that  would  be  our  responsibility.  Treas- 
ury would  make  those  kinds  of  investigations 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4829 


to  decide  which  way  the  Treasurer  would 
go  in  his  tax  policies.  I  do  not  believe  the 
Ministry  of  Revenue  is  involved  other  than 
to  assist  and  to  provide  them  with  any  in- 
formation they  may  need  to  arrive  at  those 
decisions. 

We  may  not  have  all  the  information 
necessary  to  make  those  kinds  of  decisions. 
We  are  the  ones  who  collect  the  taxes  but 
we  do  not  necessarily  have  a  breakdown  on 
all  the  different  things  that  happen  out  there. 
That  would  come  under  the  Treasurer  (Mr. 
F.  S.  Miller)  rather  than  myself.  Any  infor- 
mation we  might  have  would  be  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  Treasurer,  but  Treasury  are  the 
ones  who  have  to  arrive  at  the  kind  of  thing 
you  are  talking  about  if  there  is  going  to  be 
any  change  in  the  tax  structure  in  the 
province. 

Ms.  Bryden:  You  are  probably  right  that 
they  have  the  income  data  on  which  to  base 
any  analysis  of  the  effect  on  different  income 
groups.  However,  somebody  asked  earlier 
whether  you  ever  took  any  polls.  It  might  be 
useful  to  take  a  poll  as  to  what  kind  of  taxes 
people  prefer  and  see  whether  there  is  any 
bias  in  favour  of  one  kind  of  tax  or  another. 
Most  people  feel  all  taxes  are  too  high  and 
they  would  like  to  see  them  not  only  min- 
imized but  placed  as  equitably  as  possible. 
That  is  the  real  objective,  so  that  taxes  are 
based  on  ability  to  pay.  I  do  not  think  we 
have  that  in  this  province. 

Item  1  agreed  to. 
On  item  2,  special  investigations: 
Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  special 
investigations  branch  intrigues  me.  I  noticed 
the  ministry  had  an  advertisement  in  the 
paper  recently  for  a  senior  manager  of  this 
branch  at  a  salary  of  $35,600  to  $44,800.  It  is 
obviously  considered  a  very  senior  operation. 
I  would  like  to  know  a  bit  more  about  it, 
whether  it  is  our  chief  attack  on  what  might 
be  called  white-collar  crime.  Has  there  been 
an  increase  in  the  number  of  investigations 
it  has  been  handling  in  the  last  year  or  two? 
What  sort  of  cases  does  it  handle?  Do  its 
investigations  end  up  in  prosecutions?  If  so, 
can  we  have  some  figures  on  prosecutions  in 
the  last  fiscal  year  compared  to  the  previous 
year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  have  a  lot  of  informa- 
tion on  this.  Do  you  want  me  to  read  you  the 
whole  thing?  I  do  not  think  I  will.  Basically 
what  happens  is  that  the  special  investigations 
branch  usually  investigates  when  an  auditor 
uncovers  something  of  a  nature  where  charges 
may  be  laid  or  should  be  laid.  The  special 
investigations  branch  might  be  called  in.  They 


might  also  investigate  such  things  as  the 
statement  I  made  in  the  House  the  other  day 
regarding  the  loss  of  tobacco  tax  because  of 
tobacco  going  through  the  Indian  reservations 
and  back  out  to  the  public.  Those  are  the 
types  of  investigations  they  do. 
9:40  p.m. 

In  this  particular  branch  we  have  20  in- 
vestigators. We  had  18  last  year  and  there 
are  now  20.  There  are  five  additional  man- 
agement support  staff  and  a  couple  more, 
for  a  total  of  27.  There  were  four  completed 
prosecutions  up  to  September  30,  1980.  At 
the  close  of  that  particular  period,  there  were 
23  more  in  progress,  which  is  a  total  of  27. 
For  the  full  year  last  year  there  were  41,  so 
it  is  running  at  about  the  same  number  of 
prosecutions. 

There  were  39  investigations,  which  include 
prosecutions,  completed  in  the  period  up  to 
September  30  and  there  are  69  more  in  pro- 
gress. In  the  same  classification  last  ylear, 
there  were  155  for  the  total  fiscal  year,  so 
it  is  maybe  running  a  little  bit  ahead  of  last 
year. 

There  is  one  vendor  currently  serving  a 
three-year  jail  term  in  default  of  paying  a 
$50,000  fine  levied  in  a  case  completed  in 
July  1977.  Not  many  people  go  to  jail  be- 
cause of  these  things;  usually  it  results  in 
fines  and  so  on. 

The  four  prosecutions  by  statute  that  have 
been  completed  are  under  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act.  Last  year  there  were  22  under 
the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Act,  one  under  the 
Corporations  Tax  Act,  three  under  the  On- 
tario's Guaranteed  Annual  Income  Act  and 
two  under  the  Ontario  Home  Buyers  Grant 
Act. 

I  do  not  know  if  you  want  any  more  in- 
formation on  that.  If  you  do,  I  will  probably 
let  you  ask  questions.  I  can  !go  on  and  on 
here,  but  it  is  really  all  just  detail.  Speci- 
fically, it  gives  you  an  idea  of  what  the 
branch  is  there  for.  It  is  a  tough  area  to 
work  in.  Tax  matters,  as  you  know,  are  very 
complicated  and  it  is  not  always  easy  to 
uncover  enough  evidence  to  warrant  laying 
charges.  I  think  they  do  a  pretty  good  job. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  interest- 
ing that  the  minister  mentioned  200  prose- 
cutions under  the  Ontario  Home  Buyers 
Grant  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  just  two. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Two,  oh,  I  am  sorry.  Well, 
even  two  reminds  us  of  one  of  the  major 
administrative  fiascos  of  this  ministry  be- 
fore the  present  minister's  time.  It  was 
certainly  an  area  where  the  ministry  rushed 


4830 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


in  without  adequate  auditing  procedures,  it 
would  appear,  and  a  considerable  number  of 
people  got  'grants  who  were  not  really  en- 
titled  to  them. 

I  hope  the  seniors'  tax  grants  will  not 
develop  into  the  same  sort  of  shemozzle, 
shall  we  say,  where  ineligible  people  receive 
payments  they  should  not  have  got  due  to 
lax  checking  and  inadequate  information 
being  provided  to  the  public,  and  some 
fraud  as  well,  which  is  always  a  possibility 
with  these  programs  if  there  are  not  tight 
controls.  The  home  buyers'  grants  certainly 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  provincial  audi- 
tor, who  criticized  the  administration  rather 
severely.  Apparently,  it  is  still  around  haunt- 
ing us.  There  are  some  prosecutions  going  on. 

The  other  area  the  minister  mentioned 
that  intrigued  me  was  the  prosecutions  under 
the  Ontario  Guaranteed  Annual  Income  Act. 
Could  he  tell  us  if  people  are  collecting 
Gains  fraudulently?  Is  that  the  nature  of 
those  prosecutions?  I  did  not  quite  catch 
how  many  cases  there  were. 

Hon.  Mr,  Maeck:  There  are  only  three 
cases.  Those  cases  arose  out  of  people 
continuing  to  collect  the  Gains  cheques  after 
the  parents  had  died.  I  am  not  referring  to 
senior  citizens  being  prosecuted.  The  parents 
died  and  cheques  kept  coming  and  the  sons, 
daughters  or  relatives  kept  cashing  the 
cheques.  That  is  where  the  prosecutions 
arose. 

For  the  benefit  of  the  members  as  well, 
there  is  one  item  here  that  might  be  of 
interest.  That  is  the  amount  of  revenue  that 
was  brought  back  to  the  province  in  direct 
taxes  through  the  activities  of  this  branch. 
I  am  talking  now  of  up  until  September  30, 
1980. 

In  direct  taxes,  because  of  those  investiga- 
tions, we  collected  $486,416;  in  interest, 
$57,683;  penalties,  $4,062;  fines  $54,896, 
which  is  a  total  of  $603,057  that  came  back 
to  the  revenues  of  the  province  through  the 
investigations  that  this  branch  has  made. 
Last  year,  for  the  whole  fiscal  year,  using 
the  same  categories  that  I  just  mentioned, 
they  were  responsible  for  bringing  back  to 
us  a  total  of  $1,103,438. 

It  is  pretty  obvious  they  are  doing  a  pretty 
good  job  out  there,  but  the  prosecutions,  as 
far  as  the  Gains  thing  was  concerned,  were 
not  senior  citizens  who  were  prosecuted  but 
people  who  retained  the  cheques  after  the 
parents  had  died,  cashed  them  and  were 
using  the  money.  That  is  why  those  prosecu- 
tions resulted. 

Before  I  sit  down,  it  was  pointed  out  to 
me,  and  I  think  it  is  important,  that  besides 


the  fact  that  we  recovered  this  money  is  the 
effect  it  has  on  the  taxpayers  out  there  know- 
ing that  there  is  somebody  who  is  going  to 
see  the  laws  of  the  province  are  enforced. 
It  does  not  necessarily  mean  they  have  to 
harass  everybody  to  do  it,  but  it  is  important 
for  the  public  to  perceive  that  the  province  is 
prepared  to  collect  the  taxes  that  have  been 
legislated.  You  must  have  this  kind  of  group 
out  there  so  the  public  does  not  become  too 
complacent  and  careless.  It  is  important  we 
collect  the  money. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  agree  with  the  minister  that 
you  have  to  keep  a  sharp  eye  on  any  pos- 
sibility of  taxpayer  fraud  because  there  will 
always  be  some  people  who  will  try  to  beat 
the  system.  I  am  wondering  what  percentage 
of  success  you  have  on  the  prosecutions.  Is  it 
difficult  to  obtain  convictions,  to  obtain  suf- 
ficient evidence  in  many  cases? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  do  not  have  the  rate  of 
success.  I  have  only  the  number  of  prosecu- 
tions that  are  in  process,  and  the  ones  that 
we  have  already  completed.  When  we  talk 
about  prosecutions— and  I  am  reverting  to 
my  own  police  experience— a  prosecution  is  a 
prosecution  whether  you  convict  or  whether 
it  is  dismissed.  Regardless  of  whether  you  get 
a  conviction  or  a  dismissal,  it  is  still  a  prosecu- 
tion. I  am  not  sure  of  the  percentage  of 
success.  I  am  told  by  staff  the  percentage  of 
success  in  the  prosecutions  is  very  high,  that 
we  do  not  lose  many  cases. 

9:50  p.m. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minis- 
ter, does  this  special  investigations  branch 
do  spot  checks  on  the  claims  for  property  tax 
credits?  I  am  not  talking  about  the  seniors' 
ones,  but  the  existing  system  under  the  in- 
come tax.  I  think  all  on^  need  do  is  declare 
one  had  a  certain  amount  of  rent  or  property 
tax  and  no  proof  is  required.  Are  spot  checks 
done  in  the  submissions  through  the  income 
tax  for  the  claims  for  Ontario  property  tax 
credit?  If  so,  does  this  branch  do  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  is  done,  but  not  by  this 
branch.  It  is  done  by  auditors  in  the  guaran- 
teed income  and  tax  credit  branch.  This  is 
the  special  investigations  branch.  Those  checks 
are  done  by  auditors  rather  than  the  special 
investigations  branch. 

Getting  back  to  the  prosecutions,  I  am  told 
there  were  two  cases  in  the  fiscal  year 
1979-80.  Out  of  all  the  cases  I  talked  about 
earlier,  there  were  two  cases  where  there 
was  an  acquittal.  In  1980-81— that  is,  the 
present  fiscal  year  until  now— we  have  not 
lost  any  cases.  They  have  a  pretty  good 
record. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4831 


Item  2  agreed  to. 

On  item  3;  revenue  research: 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  asked  the  minister  pre- 
viously what  areas  of  research  we  are  dis- 
cussing here.  What  information  has  he  on 
the  areas  of  research  his  ministry  is  carrying 
out  now?  Are  consultants  used  for  any  of 
these? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  To  be  helpful,  let  me 
give  you  an  idea  of  what  this  revenue  and 
operations  research  branch  does.  It  includes 
the  design  of  research  electronic  systems; 
systems  for  revenue  forecasting;  technology 
research;  coproject  management  services  re- 
search and  other  branches.  It  fills  tax  in- 
formation requests  from  agencies,  groups  and 
individuals. 

Research  is  conducted  into  all  areas  of 
applied  taxation.  Approximately  19  research 
projects  are  currently  under  way  in  that 
branch  of  the  ministry.  Additional  funding  is 
going  into  computer-based  analytic  systems. 
You  will  find  there  is  additional  funding  for 
this  branch  in  here. 

There  is  a  heavy  liaison  with  Treasury  for 
design  and  revenue  impact  estimation.  This 
branch  probably  deals  more  with  Treasury 
than  any  other  branch  within  my  ministry. 
This  branch  supplies  the  type  of  information 
the  Treasurer  requests  in  order  to  make  his 
decisions. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Do  you  have  a  computer 
model  as  it  relates  to  revenue  forecasting? 
If  so,  how  accurate  have  you  been  over  the 
last  10  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  do  have  that.  Let 
me  say  that  we  have  been  more  accurate 
than  some. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Some  what?  Some  other 
ministry-?  What  area  are  we  talking  about 
when  you  say  "than  some"? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  cannot  talk  about  our 
forecasts  before  I  was  in  the  ministry.  Since 
I  have  been  in  the  ministry  the  forecasts 
from  this  branch  regarding  projected  rev- 
enues have  been  very  close.  I  am  told  once 
the  tax  policies  have  been  set,  our  branch 
in  this  ministry  has  about  a  one  per  cent 
error  in  the  projections.  That  is  pretty  close. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  That  sounds  very  reason- 
able. Is  this  your  document  then?  Is  this  one 
that  Revenue  forecasting  has  done? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Is  that  in  the  budget? 
No,  that  is  not  my  document. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  This  is  Ontario  Finances. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  not  mine. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  not  yours? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No. 


Mr.  Haggerty:  Could  it  be  the  Ministry  of 
Treasury  and  Economics? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  You  do  have  some  consulta- 
tion with  the  Ministry  of  Treasury  and 
Economics.  How  close  is  this  then?  For 
example,  if  I  use  the  retail  sales  tax  1979-80, 
the  budget  was  $2,295,000,000  and  you  had 
increased  that.  Your  estimate  was  rather  low. 
In  other  words,  there  is  a  substantial  increase 
in  revenue  generated1  from  the  retail  sales 
tax.  In  this  particular  document,  in  the  re- 
tail sales  tax,  it  is  indicated  that  by  June 
1980  there  had  been  an  increase  in  the  fore- 
casting of  $68  million.  I  do  not  know  if  that 
will  continue  up  until  the  third  quarter  but 
the  point  I  want  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  minister  is  that  since  you  forecast  this 
particular  area  of  revenues  I  think  there 
have  been  some  changes  made  in  one  or 
the  other  documents  that  followed. 

There  was  a  decrease  of  a  projected  $70 
million  in  forecasting  and  with  the  projected 
revenue  in  total  I  believe  the  estimate  would 
be  about  $300  million  over  last  year's 
generated  revenues.  In  other  words,  the 
Treasury  has  about  $300  million  that  it  can 
play  around  with  because  it  has  under- 
estimated its  revenues.  Actually,  when  you 
look  at  the  announcement  made  in  the  mini- 
budget,  you  are  not  giving  the  people  any- 
thing because,  as  I  mentioned  before,  it  was 
only  estimated.  If  you  come  out  with  $25 
million  more  than  last  year,  you  will  look 
good.  You  came  around  and  said:  "We  have 
given  you  this  back." 

Actually,  you  have  not  given  anything 
back  because  you  have  underestimated.  You 
can  juggle  these  figures  around  any  way 
you  want  and  this  is  what  the  Treasurer  is 
doing.  He  is  juggling  these  figures  around 
to  suit  his  own  needs.  He  has  estimated  high, 
knowing  full  well  that  he  is  going  to  come 
in  low,  so  he  has  already  allowed  for  that 
loss  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  Treasurer  has  not 
made  any  secret  of  the  fact  that  he  does  not 
estimate  high  in  revenues.  He  usually  under- 
estimates a  bit  and  I  think  he  has  said  that 
in  this  Legislature.  What  you  have  presented 
is  not  quite  factual.  If  we  are  talking  about 
revenue  he  rarely  estimates  high.  He 
usually  estimates  it  lower  than  what  he 
really  expects.  We  make  projections,  but 
ours  are  based  on  administrative  knowledge 
rather  than  forecast  to  account  for  economic 
forecasts  and  policy  changes.  The  Treasury 
does  not  necessarily  use  our  figures  when 
they  make  their  forecasts  in  policy  papers 
such  as  that  or  even  in  the  budget,  because 


4832 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ours  are  for  a  little  bit  different  purpose 
than  the  Treasurer's  and  the  Treasurer  has 
to  take  economic  forecasts  into  consideration. 
We  do  not  do  that  when  we  forecast.  We 
base  our  forecast  on  administrative  policies 
and  as  things  exist  on  the  day  we  do  th°.t. 
Now,  as  I  say,  we  are  very  close,  within 
one  percentage  point,  but  Treasury  has  to 
use  different  methods  to  arrive  at  its  projec- 
tions. I  must  tell  you  that  their  projections 
are  not  always  the  same  as  ours.  We  supply 
our  projections  to  the  Treasury  but  they  also 
work  out  their  own.  The  Treasury  docu- 
ments and  the  'budget  and  so  on  are  not 
necessarily-  our  figures.  Sometimes  they  might 
be  but  they  are  figures  arrived  at  by  the 
Treasury. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  was  just  wondering  how 
you  can  be  consistent  in  your  revenue  col- 
lecting in  Ontario  if  you  do  not  have  some 
closer  dialogue  with  the  Treasury  depart- 
ment. I  was  hoping  that  you  both  used  the 
same  model  for  forecasting  or  projecting 
revenues. 

10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  we  do  not.  What 
I  am  saying  is  Treasury  adjusts  Revenue's 
forecasts.  We  give  them  our  forecasts.  They 
adjust  them  to  account  for  economic  fore- 
casts and  policy  changes  that  Treasury 
might  make  after  we  give  them  those  figures. 
So  it  is  very  reasonable  to  assume  they 
would  change  our  forecast  to  bring  it  into 
line  with  these  other  two  items  that  I  have 
just  mentioned.  It  is  not  being  inconsistent. 
We  are  giving  the  Treasurer  the  figures  we 
can  give  him,  based  on  the  information  we 
have  at  hand.  Then  he  has  to  add  the  other 
two  elements  I  just  talked  about  in  order 
to  arrive  at  his  forecast.  Therefore,  our  fore- 
cast is  usually  different  from  his. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Is  your  forecasting  by  this 
model  done  on  a  monthly  basis,  or  weekly, 
or  quarterly? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  is  done  on  a  monthly 
basis. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  What  would  that  be  run- 
ning now,  based  upon  the  estimates  of  the 
Treasurer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  You  want  our  forecast 
compared  to  those;  is  that  what  you  are 
asking  me? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  This  is  right.  How  success- 
ful are  the  revenues  coming  in? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  Ontario  forecast  is 
very  close  to  ours,  but  the  mini-budget  came 
in  after.  The  mini-budget  is  now  going  to 
change  the  whole  thing  again. 


Mr.  Haggerty:  I  suppose  the  forecasting  of 
revenues   generated  will  be  down? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Obviously  it  has  to  be. 
Since  the  mini-budget  we  are  not  going  to 
collect  as  much  retail  sales  tax  as  we  intended 
to  collect.  We  are  exempting  all  of  those 
things. 

Ms.  Rryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  agree  with 
the  member  for  Erie  that  it  often  looks  like 
some  of  the  estimates  that  come  out  of  the 
Treasury  are  perhaps  tailored  to  the  circum- 
stances in  order  to  make  the  final  outcome 
look  more  favourable  than  it  might  otherwise 
have  shown  if  the  revenue  estimates  had  been 
a  little  more  accurate.  It  is  very  difficult  to 
know  what  the  Treasurer  puts  into  his  models. 
I  find  it  hard  to  understand  how  the  minister 
can  say  he  puts  in  only  the  administrative 
effects  of  taxes  or  how  they  work  out.  I 
do  not  see  how  you  can  forecast  anything 
without  putting  in  the  economic  situation,  and 
I  do  not  see  how  any  forecasting  system  can 
work  without  adequate  input  of  a  whole  lot 
of  factors  into  the  model.  Some  people  think- 
that  forecasting  is  little  more  than  crystal  ball 
gazing. 

I  used  to  do  tax  forecasting  at  one  time 
when  I  worked  for  the  Canadian  Tax  Founda- 
tion, and  I  know  that  the  more  factors  you 
took  into  account  in  your  model,  and  the 
more  past  history  as  well,  the  better  your 
chances  of  making  an  accurate  forecast.  But 
you  had  to  look  at  changing  circumstances 
and  build  estimates  of  that  impact  into  your 
model  as  well. 

I  do  not  think  the  minister's  model— if  it 
is,  as  he  says,  just  based  on  tax  administration 
-would  be  very  accurate.  But  if  it  is  based 
on  a  proper  model  with  all  sorts  of  economic 
factors  taken  into  account,  then  I  think  it 
might  be  worth  asking  him  if  he  would  tmb- 
lish  it  monthly  as  the  Minister  of  Revenue's 
model  results.  The  University  of  Toronto  has 
a  model  of  the  economy  and  publishes  results 
periodically.  The  Conference  Board  in  Canada 
has  another  model,  and  the  public  can  look 
at  the  results  from  the  different  models  and 
draw  its  own  conclusions. 

I  think  it  would  be  very  useful  if  the  minis- 
try model  did  produce— it  does  produce  a 
monthly  figure— if  those  figures  were  pub- 
lished. Then  the  Treasurer  can  bring  out  his 
quarterly  reports  and  indicate  that  he  has  put 
other  factors  into  his  model.  I  think  the  public 
needs  more  information  of  this  sort  as  to  what 
the  models  are  showing.  Then  we  can  judge 
more  easily  whether  the  figures  are  being 
manipulated  for  aesthetic  reasons  or  budget- 
ary  reasons.    I    would    like    the    minister    to 


DECEMBER  1,  1980 


4833 


comment  on  whether  he  might  not  publish  a 
monthly  report  of  the  results  from  'his  model. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think 
maybe  I  can  explain  this  a  little  better  for 
the  member.  What  I  am  trying  to  say  is  this: 
Our  forecasts  are  based  on  existing  economic 
conditions  and  existing  tax  policies  in  place. 
We  supply  that  information  to  the  Treasurer, 
but  usually  he  is  projecting  ahead,  based  on 
other  economic  policies  he  is  taking  into  con- 
sideration that  we  are  not  looking  at,  or  on 
tax  changes.  Therefore,  his  projection  does 
not  come  out  with  the  same  sort  of  figures 
as  ours  does.  That  is  why  I  say  we  are  within 
one  per  cent  of  being  right  in  our  projections. 
But  our  projections  are  not  based  on  the  same 
projections  he  is  making. 

We  are  basing  our  projections  on  existing 
taxation  policies  and  existing  economic  con- 
ditions. We  are  not  trying  to  guess  what  the 
economic  condition  is  going  to  be  three  or 
four  months  down  the  road,  as  the  Treasurer 
is.  That  is  why  his  figures  could  differ  from 
ours.  We  do  it  on  a  month-to-month  basis. 
We  are  projecting  only  a  month  ahead.  It 
is  not  quite  so  hard  to  do  it  that  way  as  it  is 
if  you  want  to  project  six  months  or  a  year 
ahead. 

Mr.  Peterson:  What  about  $10  licence 
plates? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  wanted  to  talk  about 
$10  licence  plates. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  think  it  would  be  very 
useful  for  the  public  to  know  what  the  pro- 
jection is,  based1  on  existing  taxes  and 
existing  economic  conditions.  That  gives 
them  a  start  to  plan  their  lives.  They  ob- 
viously cannot  know  what  the  Treasurer  has 
in  mind  for  tax  changes.  That  is  a  budget 
secret.  But  it  still  would  be  useful  to  have 
a  projection  of  the  present  situation  available 
on  a  monthly  basis.  We  do  get  those  sort  of 
projections  from  organizations  like  the  Con- 
ference Board  in  Canada  and  some  of  the 
banks.  It  might  be  useful  to  have  the 
Ministry   of  Revenue's   projections. 

I  have  just  one  other  question  on  this 
subject.  In  describing  the  work  of  this 
branch,  the  minister  mentioned  they  have 
19  research  projects  under  way.  I  wonder  if 
he  could  supply  us— maybe  not  right  now— 
with  a  list  of  those  research  projects.  I  think 
it  is  quite  conceivable  that  some  of  them 
might  be  published  and  could  add  to  the 
knowledge  of  our  tax  system.  But  the  way 
the  minister  operates  right  now,  all  this 
valuable  research  is  kept  very  close  to  the 
vest  and  the  citizens  of  Ontario  are  not 
getting  the  advantage  of  it.  I  think  some  of 
it  might  be  very  useful  for  all  of  us. 


Hon.  .Mr.  Maeck:  We  do  not  have  the 
list  of  all  the  projects  here,  but  certainly  I 
would  be  happy  to  supply  the  member  with 
a  list  of  what  we  are  doing. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Has  this  group  undertaken 
tax  expenditure  studies  in  the  past?  Are 
there  any  studies  of  that  sort  or  are  they 
now  preparing  some? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  informed  they 
have  not  done  any  tax  expenditure  studies 
in  the  past,  but  they  are  in  the  middle  of 
one  at  the  moment. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Have  you  considered  whether 
that  might  be  published,  in  the  same  way 
as  the  federal  government  is  now  publishing 
this  kind  of  study? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I 
have  not  given  it  any  consideration  at  the 
moment,  but  I  will.  I  do  not  mean  I  will 
publish  it.  I  mean  I  will  give  consideration. 
10:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Peterson:  You  said  there  was  a  tax 
expenditure  study  under  way.  May  I  ask 
what  area  you  are  studying? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  area  of  retail  sales 
tax  in  conjunction  with  the  statement  the 
Treasurer  made  in  the  recent  budget  when 
he  talked  about  this  particular  item. 

Mr.  Peterson:  May  I  ask  what  advice  you 
gave  to  the  Treasurer  for  his  recent  mini- 
budget  when  he  entered  into  a  tax  expendi- 
ture of  some  $260  million  in  retail  sales  tax? 
What  was  the  advice  of  Revenue  to  the 
Treasurer  in  the  compilation  of  that  mar- 
velous political  response  to  the  economic 
problems  of  the  day? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  You  may  think  it  was 
not  a  good  mini-budget,  but  I  disagree  with 
you. 

Mr.  Peterson:  I  did  not  ask  you  that. 
What  is  your  opinion  on  the  tax  exemption? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  know,  but  that  is  going 
to  be  the  supplementary  question  so  I 
thought  for  a  change  I  would  second-guess 
you. 

I  discussed  these  matters  with  the  Treas- 
urer personally  and  I  approved  each  one  of 
them.  I  gave  them  my  blessing,  so  I  am 
supporting  them  all. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Did  the  initiative  for  those 
tax  expenditures  come  from  Revenue,  from 
Treasury,  from  the  Conservative  Party  office 
or  from  the  field  organizational  staff?  Where 
did  those  suggestions  come  from? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  initiative  came  from 
Treasury,  of  course.  As  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, Treasury  discussed  with  my  staff 
what  the  effects   would  be  and  how  many 


4834 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tax  dollars  it  would'  take  to  implement  cer- 
tain programs.  That  information  was  given 
to  the  Treasurer  and  he  chose  the  ones  he 
felt  would  do  the  most  good  for  the  economy 
of  the  province. 

Mr.  Peterson:  You  will  recall  I  presented 
a  private  member's  bill  to  this  House.  It  was 
passed  on  second  reading,  as  far  as  I  recall, 
with  the  unanimous  support  of  this  House. 
It  said  that,  at  budget  time,  tax  expenditure 
studies  should  be  published  on  every  new 
tax  expenditure  entered  into  by  the  govern- 
ment leading  eventually,  one  would  hope, 
to  a  complete  analysis  of  tax  expenditures  in 
all  areas. 

What  is  your  view  of  that  bill  and  would 
you  feel  free  to  support  it  with  the  great 
weight  of  the  Revenue  officials  you  have 
with  you  tonight? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  not  familiar  with 
the  bill  itself.  I  do  not  see  anything  wrong 
with  the  principle.  I  think  the  Treasurer  has 
already  indicated  in  this  budget  that  he  is 
looking  into  that  very  thing,  but  I  really  do 
not  know  what  your  bill  says  or  what  it 
instructs  the  government  to  do.  I  do  not 
know  the  timing.  It  is  something  one  cannot 
move  into  tomorrow  without  a  lot  of  study. 
I  think  in  principle  there  is  no  disagreement. 

(Mr.  Peterson:  Were  you  not  struck,  as  I 
was  and  as  every  other  right-thinking  citizen 
in  this  province  was,  with  the  blatant  hypoc- 
risy of  the  mini-budget  in  that  the  Treasurer 
made  a  major  pitch  for  tax  expenditures? 
He  was  going  to  use  those  moneys  far  more 
wisely  in  the  future.  He  was  going  to  study 
them.  He  was  going  to  quantify  them.  Pre- 
sumably that  means  having  some  sort  of 
goals  and  objectives.  He  made  a  big  pitch 
about  that,  as  you  recall.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  expended  $260  million  worth  of  tax- 
payers' money  up  to  June  30  of  fiscal  1981 
with  absolutely  no  indication  what  it  would 
do  to  the  economy,  the  number  of  jobs  it 
would  create,  what  it  would  do  for  real 
growth,  what  it  would  do  to  stimulate  con- 
sumption, jobs  or  anything  else  in  this 
province. 

Do  you  not  agree  with  me  this  is  a  back- 
wards approach  to  this  matter?  Surely,  the 
tax  expenditure  study  should  have  some  idea 
of  creating  some  goal  or  objective,  in  the 
absence  of  the  Treasurer  saying  what  that 
will  do  in  terms  of  jobs  or  any  other  stimulus 
to  the  economy,  one  can  only  come  to  the 
inescapable  conclusion  there  was  a  strong 
political  motive  in  that  budget,  particularly 
when  every  other  study  on  retail  sales  tax 
cuts  admits  there  is  no  overall  new  consump- 


tion.   At  best,    it   just   moves    the  timing   of 
purchases  around  a  little  bit. 

That  being  said,  someone  who  would  ordi- 
narily buy  a  van  in  June  or  July,  August  or 
September  would  be  well  advised  to  buy 
that  van  in  June,  particularly  if  he  wants  to 
put  a  refrigerator  in  it.  But  it  creates  no 
new  jobs;  it  just  moves  it  around  a  little  bit. 
Would  you  not  agree  with  that?  Would  you 
not  think,  as  the  serious-minded  fellow  you 
are,  that  there  are  better  ways  to  spend 
$260  million  worth  of  the  taxpayer's  money? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  First  of  all,  I  do  not 
think  it  was  the  intent  of  the  budget  to 
create  new  jobs;  it  was  to  retain  employment 
—to  keep  people  working.  That  was  the  thrust 
of  the  whole  thing;  to  get  some  of  these 
articles  moving  so  that  they  would  be  re- 
placed by  other  articles  and  people  would 
work  during  this  period  of  high  unemploy- 
ment. I  do  not  think  there  was  ever  an  ex- 
pectation, as  far  as  sales  tax  cuts  are  con- 
cerned, of  creating  new  employment.  I  do 
not  think  that  was  in  the  back  of  the  Treas- 
urer's mind;  it  certainly  was  not  in  the  back 
of  my  mind.  What  we  are  trying  to  do  is 
retain  as  many  jobs  as  we  can  during  this 
tough  period  of  the  year.  I  think  you  mis- 
construe the  intent  of  that  if  you  think  we 
are  trying  to  create  new  employment. 

As  far  as  the  other  parts  of  your  remarks 
go,  those  are  questions  you  are  going  to  have 
to  direct  to  the  Treasurer;  it  is  his  decision, 
not  mine.  My  input  with  the  Treasurer  was 
in  the  retail  sales  tax  end.  That  is  what 
affects  me.  At  the  moment,  I  am  sure  the 
Treasurer  has  in  the  back  of  his  mind  some 
plans  after  he  has  got  the  information  that 
he  needs  from  the  studies  that  are  being 
conducted.  He  has  made  the  announcement, 
but  what  the  final  plans  are  going  to  be  or 
how  he  is  going  to  handle  the  situation  will 
be  decisions  he  will  have  to  make.  I  really 
cannot  speak  for  the  Treasurer  on  that.  The 
extent  of  my  involvement  in  the  budget  was 
the  retail  sales  tax  exemptions. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Studies  have  already  been 
conducted  in  these  matters.  I  want  to  direct 
your  attention  to  the  Chapman-Wilson  study 
of  tax  expenditure  measures  in  the  1975 
budget  and  a  variety  of  other  looks  at  these 
kinds  of  things.  No  one  sees  that  it  creates 
any  new  consumption  on  a  long-term  basis. 
I  am  much  happier  with  at  least  your  at- 
tempt—only in  rhetoric  at  this  point— to 
recognize  there  are  some  certain  fundamental 
structural  problems  in  the  economy  and 
that  you  are  going  to  allocate  some  moneys 
for  that  even  though,  as  I  said  before,  the 


DECEMBER   1,  1980 


4835 


programs  are  remarkably  lacking  in  specifi- 
city at  this  time. 

When  revenues  are  so  scarce,  when  you 
and  other  people  in  the  community  are  so 
committed  to  balancing  the  budget,  you 
have  taken  yourself  $260  million  further 
away  from  that  goal  by  these  tax  expendi- 
tures. As  I  said  earlier,  all  they  will  do  is 
steal  from  the  future.  They  will  steal  a  job 
from  August  and  put  it  into  June  or  May  or 
they  will  steal  a  job  from  September  and 
put  it  into  March.  In  the  long-term  health 
of  this  economy  they  will  contribute  nothing. 

It  is  one  more  case  of  stealing  from  the 
future,  which  is  an  easy  political  way  out. 
But  one  of  the  reasons  we  have  the  problems 
in  the  economy  today  is  because  that  has 
been  the  practice  of  your  government,  and  I 
should  say  in  fairness,  various  other  levels  of 
government  at  various  points  in  time.  I  refer 
specifically  to  the  federal  Tory  interregnum 
six  months  or  so  ago.  They  did  the  same 
kind  of  thing. 

I  think  it  is  a  very  superficial  and  silly 
look.  This  time  what  was  striking  about  that 
amount  of  expenditure  was  the  size  of  it— 
$260  million  is  a  significant  amount  of 
money,  particularly  when  by  your  own  ad- 
mission the  import  leakage  is  so  very 
high.  We  have  an  appliance  business  in  this 
province  of  about  $250  million,  as  I  recall. 
About  50  per  cent  of  that  comes  from  out- 
side our  provincial  border.  The  furniture 
business  is  about  a  $1  billion  business  and 
about  half  of  that  comes  from  outside  our 
provincial  borders.  It  is  up  for  grabs  in  the 
building  industry,  and  as  you  know  you 
have  created  a  number  of  problems  in  that 
way.  You  have  included  clay  bricks,  excluded 
calcite  bricks,  then  put  calcite  back  in  and 
caused  a  lot  of  confusion  all  over  the  place. 

It  is  just  like  the  confusion  in  the  up- 
holstery business.  You  have  created  a  num- 
ber of  heart  attacks  in  this  province  for 
people  in  that  business.  It  was  very  poorly 
thought  out.  There  was  another  contradic- 
tion where  in  one  place  restaurant  equip- 
ment was  exempted  and  in  other  places  com- 
mercial equipment  is  not  exempted. 
10:20  p.m. 

There  are  a  lot  of  tiny  things.  Granted, 
these  things  take  time  to  work  out,  but  it  was 
not  terribly  well  thought  out.  Going  back  to 
my  point  about  import  leakage,  40  per  cent 
of  the  vans  will  be  imported  from  outside 
our  borders.  When  you  take  that  $260  mil- 
lion expenditure,  depending  on  how  you 
look  at  it,  around  $100  or  $120  million  of 
that  will  go  to  create  employment  outside 
our  borders  or  stimulate  imports.  That  is  a 


pretty  high  amount  of  money  to  pay  when 
we  are  collectively  so  strapped  for  cash  and 
when  we  are  looking  for  more  creative  ways 
to  deploy  those  resources  rather  than  spend- 
ing them  in  the  willy-nilly  fashion  we  have 
in  the  past. 

I  have  said  a  lot  of  these  things  to  the 
Treasurer  in  a  variety  of  different  ways.  In 
my  judgement,  as  the  Minister  of  Revenue 
you  are  an  important  figure  in  this  com- 
munity. You  have  to  stand  up  for  the  revenue 
side  in  many  ways.  You  are  not  only  our 
chief  tax  collector,  you  are  not  just  an 
expediter  or  a  high  paid  gumshoe,  you  are 
also  a  very  important  decision  maker  and 
you  have  a  lot  of  high  priced  officials  to 
help  you  do  that. 

Meaning  no  disrespect,  but  because  of  a 
perceived  weakness  in  the  Treasury  today- 
arid  I  am  not  the  only  one  who  has  that  view; 
I  have  had  that  view  longer  than  other  people 
but  that  is  the  reality— you  have  a  greater 
responsibility  to  make  sure  consistent  and 
worthwhile  policies  are  carried  out,  particu- 
larly since  your  job  is  to  raise  the  revenue. 
You  have  a  meaningful  and  important  role 
in  the  fiscal  and  tax  planning  of  this  province 
and  I  would  like  to  see  you  be  a  little  more 
parsimonious,  a  little  tighter,  a  little  more 
judicious  in  the  advice  you  give  the  Treasurer 
before  you  allow  such  a  superficial  document 
—as  the  last  mini-budget  turned  out  to  be- 
to  come  back  to  this  House  again. 

Most  serious  observers  see  that  as  a  political 
response  to  economic  problems.  You  did  not 
fool  anybody.  You  may  have  fooled  some 
people  in  Carleton,  I  do  not  know.  It  is  very 
difficult  for  me  to  assess  the  impact  of  that 
budget  on  the  Carleton  by-election.  If  it  had 
any  effect,  I  am  very  sad  because  it  just 
reinforces  all  the  old  principles  about  buying 
people  off  with  their  own  money  that  you 
have  talked  about,  and  I  am  sure  abhorred, 
on  a  number  of  occasions  in  public  when  you 
have  been  forced  to  speak  about  it.  Yet  you 
come  back  here  and  become  party  to  that 
kind  of  old  pork-barrel  scheme. 

I  do  not  like  it.  Perhaps  in  times  of  riches 
and  excess  we  have  some  latitude  with  those 
things,  but  we  are  learning  some  very  im- 
portant lessons  in  this  province  and  this 
country  about  the  excesses  of  the  past.  We  are 
running  debt  servicing  now  that  is  close  to 
10  per  cent  of  the  budget  every  year.  It  is 
almost  the  fastest  growing  part  of  the  pro- 
vincial expenditures  year  after  year.  You  are 
getting  into  more  and  more  trouble  every 
year  trying  to  keep  up  your  budget  alloca- 
tions with  the  proper  percentages  going  to  the 
various    ministries    and    policy    fields.    It    is 


4836 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


something  you  have  to  be  very  concerned 
about. 

I  do  not  think  the  kind  of  action  taken 
was  one  that  served  this  province  very  well. 
It  will  be  looked  back  upon  by  economic  his- 
torians as  one  more  "political  move"— and  an 
expensive  one  at  that— that  achieved  very 
little. 

I  give  the  minister  this  admonition,  a  min- 
ister whom  I  personally  happen  to  like  very 
much.  I  think  he  is  getting  a  good  handle  on 
his  portfolio  and  I  compliment  him  for  that. 
Take  it  one  step  further.  Do  not  be  afraid  to 
stand  up  in  the  inner  councils  of  this  province 
and  fight  for  the  proper  economic  policy.  You 
have  earned  that  right.  You  have  shown  you 
can  manage  this  place;  now  you  can  be  a 


major  figure  in  the  policy  making.  There  is  a 
void  there  and  it  needs  you.  I  just  wanted  to 
pass  that  admonition  or  little  bit  of  advice  on 
to  the  minister  for  his  consideration. 

We  are  running  close  to  the  end  of  the 
time  and  there  may  be  some  other  members 
who  want  to  speak.  But  what  do  you  think 
about  $10  licence  plates?  I  know  you  want 
to  speak  about  them. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Some  other  time  may  be 
more  appropriate.  Are  there  any  more  ques- 
tions to  item  3? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  have  a  question  on  this, 
but  perhaps  we  can  adjourn  at  this  time. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Maeck,  the  com- 
mittee of  supply  reported  a  certain  resolution. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:27  p.m. 


DECEMBER  1,  1980  4837 


CONTENTS 

Monday,  December  1,  1980 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Revenue,  continued,  Mr.  Maeck  4815 

Adjournment    4836 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bryden,  M.  ( Beaches-Woodbine  NDP ) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor-Walkerville  L) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 


No.  129 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  December  2,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the  back, 
together  With  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative  index  of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  a^§§3*>1° 


4841 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2:03  p.m. 
Prayers. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  NEW  MEMBER 

Mr.  Speaker  informed  the  House  that  the 
Clerk  had  received  from  the  chief  election 
officer,  and  laid  upon  the  table,  the  certificate 
of  a  by-election  held  on  November  20,  1980: 

Electoral  district  of  Carleton:  R.  C. 
Mitchell. 

PROVINCE  OF  ONTARIO 

This  is  to  certify  that  in  view  of  a  writ 
of  election  dated  October  6,  1980,  issued 
by  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor of  the  province  of  Ontario  and  ad- 
dressed to  Ross  Coulter,  Esquire,  return- 
ing officer  for  the  electoral  district  of  Carle- 
ton  for  the  election  of  a  member  to  represent 
the  said  electoral  district  of  Carleton  in  the 
Legislative  Assembly  of  the  province,  in  the 
room  of  Sidney  Handleman,  Esquire,  who, 
since  his  election  as  representative  of  the 
said  electoral  district  of  Carleton,  has  re- 
signed his  seat,  R.  C.  Mitchell,  Esquire,  has 
been  returned  as  duly  elected  as  appears  by 
the  return  of  the  said  writ  of  election,  dated 
November  28,  1980,  which  is  now  lodged  of 
record  in  my  office. 

(Signed)  Roderick  Lewis,  chief  election 
officer;  Toronto,  November  28,  1980. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  the 
honour  and  the  pleasure  to  present  to  you 
and  to  the  House  Mr.  Robert  C.  Mitchell, 
the  member-elect  for  the  historic  riding  of 
Carleton,  who  has  taken  the  oaths  and  signed 
the  roll  and  now  wishes  to  take  his  seat. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Let  the  honourable  member 
take  his  seat. 

Robert  Mitchell,  Esquire,  member-elect  for 
the  electoral  district  of  Carleton,  having 
taken  the  oaths  and  subscribed  the  roll,  took 
his  seat. 

CORRESPONDENCE  FROM 
PRISON  INMATE 

Mr.  Speaker:  May  I  have  the  attention  of 
all  honourable  members?  Yesterday,  the 
member  for  Oshawa  (Mr.  Breaugh)  raised  a 


Tuesday,  December  2,  1980 

question  of  privilege  concerning  the  receipt 
of  correspondence  from  an  inmate  of  the 
federal  prison  at  Millhaven  which  had  been 
opened.  The  member  suggested  the  letter 
had  been  opened  somewhere  between  the 
point  where  it  was  mailed  and  where  it  was 
received  here. 

I  have  checked  with  the  Solicitor  General 
of  Canada,  who  is  responsible  for  the  admin- 
istration of  federal  prisons.  The  minister  in- 
formed me  he  has  not  surrendered  the  right 
to  have  mail  addressed  to  members  of  pro- 
vincial Legislatures  opened  and  read.  How- 
ever, I  understand  that  mail  addressed  to 
federal  members  of  Parliament  is  not  inter- 
cepted. I  feel  I  should  also  point  out  that 
mail  sent  from  provincial  institutions  is  also 
subject  to  interception  unless  it  is  mail  di- 
rected to  the  Ombudsman  ot  the  correctional 
investigator    for    Canada. 

I  also  want  to  advise  all  members  that  all 
mail  addressed  to  members  of  the  assembly 
is  scanned  by  (government  mail  services  in 
the  Macdonald  Block.  Mr.  J.  D.  Campbell  of 
the  Ministry  of  Government  Services  assures 
me  that  mail  is  never  opened  in  this  process. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

INTEREST  RATES 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Treasurer,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  Treasurer  may 
be  aware  that  in  his  absence  the  other  day 
I  questioned  the  Premier  on  the  subject  of 
interest  rates.  Given  that  the  interest  rates 
for  mortgages,  as  well  as  for  small  businesses 
—but  let  us  deal  with  mortgages  for  the 
moment— are  reaching  very  high  levels,  and 
there  is  speculation  they  might  go  even 
higher  so  anyone  who  has  to  renegotiate  a 
mortgage  of  about  $40,000  or  $50,000  today 
may  well  be  facing  a  50  per  cent  increase 
in  their  monthly  payments,  will  the  Trea- 
surer tell  this  House  whether  he  is  prepared 
now  to  bring  in  a  program  to  cushion  the 
impact  of  these  heavy  mortgage  rates  on 
home  owners,  as  he  implied  he  might  do 
last  spring?  Or  does  he  feel  that  another 
study  might  suffice,  at  least  for  our  friends 
to  the  left,  as  it  did  last  spring?  Is  he 
prepared  at  this  time  to  take  genuine  action 


4842 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


to    help    the    people    who   are    facing    these 
gigantic    increases    in    their    monthly    pay- 
ments? 
2:10  p.m. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  obviously 
we  are  as  concerned  as  the  member  is.  There 
are  some  experts  who,  in  making  predictions 
of  mortgage  interest  rates,  have  felt  we 
were  likely  facing  a  peak  with  something  of 
a  trough  coming  ahead  of  us.  This  time  last 
year  it  seems  to  me  we  were  in  the  13.5  to 
14  per  cent  range  and  quickly  escalated  past 
that  point,  in  spite  of  such  expert  predic- 
tions. I  have  learned,  therefore,  to  temper 
with  caution  any  acceptance  of  these  predic- 
tions. But  I  am  delighted  to  hear  there  is 
a  likelihood  of  a  slight  reduction  in  the 
near  future. 

The  second  thing  that  is  quite  different 
from  this  time  last  year  is  that  there  is  a 
large  differential  between  the  Canadian  and 
American  rates.  I  am  sure  the  member  is 
aware  that,  in  the  United  States,  interest 
rates  are  as  much  as  four  percentage  points 
higher  than  they  are  in  Canada.  At  the 
banks  we  have  been  able— and  I  might  say 
Ontario  advised  this— to  follow  something  of 
an  independent  Canadian  policy.  In  the 
meantime,  from  all  I  can  see,  using  the  value 
of  the  Canadian  dollar  as  the  measure  of  the 
interest  rate  policy,  they  have  kept  it  very 
close  to  the  84-  to  85-cent  range  through 
interest  rate  administration. 

I  hope  the  rates  will  not  go  higher.  I 
point  out  that,  in  the  study  we  had,  it  was 
indicated  there  was  little  provincial  authority 
and  control,  and  most  of  the  monetary  levers 
are  quite  properly  federal. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  Treasurer  did  produce 
this  lengthy  study,  I  guess  it  was  last  May, 
on  the  matter  with  a  number  of  provincial 
options.  The  government  has  already  acted, 
albeit  inadequately,  at  least  to  cushion  to 
some  extent  the  interest  rates  for  farmers, 
and  that  is  something  they  made  a  big 
thing  about  in  the  recent  by-election. 

Will  the  Treasurer  please  explain  to  the 
people  of  Ontario  whether  he  has  an  actual 
program,  not  just  hopes  or  predictions,  to 
help  those  people  who  are  today  facing  40 
per  cent  and  50  per  cent  increases  in  their 
annual  payments  just  to  be  able  to  keep  their 
homes?  If  a  person  has  to  renew  a  mortgage 
today  he  is  in  serious  trouble  in  Ontario. 

The  Treasurer  has  money  for  vans  and 
refrigerators.  People  will  not  be  able  to 
have  the  homes  in  which  to  park  the  vans 
or  put  the  refrigerators. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  The  honourable  mem- 
ber  obviously  does  not  want  to  paint  any- 


thing like  an  optimistic  picture  on  anything. 
That  is  part  of  his  job. 

The  fact  is,  effective  interest  rates  on 
renewals  and  purchases  last  year  were  less 
than  predicted.  Of  course,  it  has  an  impact. 
In  many  cases,  however,  people  are  renew- 
ing mortgages  that  are  five  years  old,  and 
in  that  period  of  time,  as  the  member  well 
knows,  a  number  of  them  have  seen  the 
value  of  mortgages  remain  constant  or  be 
diminished  while  they  have  had  at  least 
some  nominal  increases  in  salaries. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: In  view  of  the  fact  it  is  the  federal 
Liberal  policy  that  is  giving  these  high  inter- 
est rates  and  in  view  of  the  fact  they  do  not 
appear  to  be  doing  anything  about  it,  will 
the  Treasurer  take  a  second  look  at  the  pro- 
posal this  party  presented  to  the  Treasurer 
last  spring  which,  for  a  cost  of  only  about 
$20  million  to  Ontario,  would  have  provided 
interest  relief  to  families  earning  less  than 
$25,000  a  year?  Will  the  Treasurer  take  a 
look  at  that  policy? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
rule  out  reviews  of  any  policies,  but  we 
should  at  least  have  the  patience  to  watch 
what  continues  to  happen  in  this  field;  I 
think  that  action  and  reaction  by  us  right  now 
is  premature. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  Treasurer  was  a  part  of  the  Conserva- 
tive government  in  1974-75  when  he  and  his 
government  told  the  public  of  Ontario  they 
were  prepared  to  subsidize  interest  rates 
when,  at  that  time,  the  interest  rates  ran 
around  11.75  per  cent  and  12  per  cent.  We 
assumed  he  studied  the  matter  then  and  came 
to  those  conclusions  because  he  thought  the 
matter  was  serious.  Why  does  the  Treasurer 
not  think  the  matter  is  serious  today,  when 
interest  rates  are  hovering  around  15  per 
cent  and  better? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  never  implied  they 
were  not  serious,  Mr.  Speaker.  At  the  same 
time,  I  think  one  has  to  look  at  the  under- 
lying rate  of  inflation  at  any  point  in  history 
and  recognize  that  inflation  is  the  problem 
and  interest  rates  are  the  symptom. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Will  the  Treasurer  comment  on  the  fact  that 
these  questions  from  the  Ontario  Liberal 
Party  were  not  raised  in  any  way  during  the 
recent  weekend  meeting  of  the  federal 
Liberals  in  Ontario;  and  will  he  undertake 
in  going  to  Ottawa  to  take  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith)  with  him,  since 
clearly  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  has  no 
other  influence  on  his  federal  Liberal  col- 
leagues? 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4843 


Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Whether  the  member 
and1  I  like  to  admit  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  may 
be  rather  supportive  of  some  of  the  federal 
Liberals  if  they  are  not  paying  attention  to 
him.  Maybe  the  member  and  I  can  see 
common  ground  in  that.  It  is  interesting  how 
they  really  do  not  want  to  be  related  to  their 
cousins  in  Ottawa  when  problems  like  this 
crop  up  that  were  caused  by  inefficient  man- 
agement of  the  Canadian  economy. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
While  the  Treasurer  is  conveying  that  mes- 
sage, perhaps  he  can  tell  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party  that  he  is  least  at- 
tractive when  he  is  trying  to  be  funny.  I 
want  to  ask  the  Treasurer,  having  gone 
through  with  these  extravagant  programs— 
$260  million  worth  of  sales  tax  relief;  $20- 
odd  million  to  lower  rural  hydro  rates;  an 
unspecified  amount  of  money  to  bring  down 
the  price  of  heating  oil  in  this  province— and 
having  assisted  in  so  many  ways  to  subsidize 
the  consumer,  why  can  he  not  look  at  prob^ 
ably  the  single  most  important  economic 
threat  facing  a  large  number  of  people  in 
this  province  and  spring  loose  some  money 
from  that  to  assist  in  the  mortgage  rate  prob- 
lem right  now  and  in  the  next  two  or  three 
months  when  it  is  going  to  be  worse? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder 
if  the  honourable  member  is  saying  in  public 
what  he  really  feels  in  private.  I  wonder  if 
that  is  the  case. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Are  you  accusing  me  of 
being  hypocritical? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Oh,  never.  The  truth  is, 
I  will  have  the  opportunity  on  December  17, 
along  with  nine  other  provincial  finance 
ministers,  to  discuss  the  problems  with  Mr. 
MacEachen  and  to  tell  him,  whether  the 
member  likes  it  or  not,  he  really  cannot  run 
$14-billion  deficits  and  not  have  inflation  and1 
high  interest  rates. 

Mr.  Peterson:  You  are  spending  $300  mil- 
lion for  other  trifling  incidentals.  You  are  so 
screwed  up  you  do  not  understand  it. 

Interjection. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position have  a  question? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  would  gladly  ask  a  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Speaker,  but  the  Treasurer  is  busy 
talking. 

Mr.  Speaker:  So  is  your  colleague  once 
removed  to  your  left. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  least  we  could  do  is 
keep  the  NDP  quiet  with  another  study  of 
options. 


LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE      . 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 
The  minister  is  undoubtedly  aware  that 
Browning-Ferris  Industries  is  planning  to 
continue  its  plans  for  a  solidification  plant  in 
Harwich  township  and  presumably  is  going 
to  continue  going  in  front  of  the  board  to 
hear  the  matter. 

Since  the  South  Cayuga  plant  supposedly 
is  going  to  take  all  or  almost  all  of  the 
liquid  waste  in  Ontario,  may  I  ask  where  the 
liquid  waste  is  to  come  from  for  the  plant 
that  is  still  being  recommended  by  Brown- 
ing-Ferris? Will  they  get  their  $100,000  if 
they  stop  their  application  now,  or  do  they 
have  to  go  through  the  entire  hearing  and 
then  be  rejected  before  they  get  their 
$100,000?  What  is  the  government's  position 
now?  It  has  withdrawn  from  being  a  co- 
proponent,  but  is  the  government  prepared 
actually  to  oppose  this  particular  application 
by  Browning-Ferris  in  front  of  the  Environ- 
mental Assessment  Board? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
member  is  absolutely  correct  in  that  that 
hearing  is  before  the  review  committee  now. 
It  may  continue,  I  guess.  It  is  their  right. 
I  think  it  is  far  too  premature  to  try  to  an- 
swer the  question  of  where  the  waste  will 
come  from.  It  is  just  not  possible  to  determine 
where  that  waste  will  come  from.  Who  knows 
if  the  site  will  be  approved?  I  really  think  it 
is  a  hypothetical  question  in  that  sense. 

The  more  pertinent  matter  that  was  raised 
was  the  money  and  our  legal  commitment.  As 
I  said  in  the  House  the  other  day,  yes,  we 
will  accept  our  legal  commitment.  I  do  not 
think  that  is  fully  determined  at  the  moment, 
but  we  want  to  fulfil  our  legal  obligations  to 
that  company  or  any  other  company  to  which 
we  make  legal  commitments,  and  in  this  in- 
stance we  will. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Since  the  question  basically 
was  asking  the  nature  of  the  legal  commit- 
ment, is  the  minister  committed  to  giving 
them  $100,000  if  they  withdraw  their  appli- 
cation now,  or  do  they  only  get  the  $100,000 
if  they  see  it  through  and  are  then  rejected 
by  the  review  board?  That  was  the  question. 
I  hope  the  minister  will  address  that. 
2:20  p.m. 

The  other  question  was:  What  is  the 
position  of  the  government  in  front  of  that 
board  now?  The  government  is  no  longer  a 
coproponent:  Is  it  prepared  to  be  opposed? 
Is  the  minister  prepared  to  go  before  the 
board  and   say  the  site  is   now  simply  not 


4844 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


required  and  that  he  is  prepared  to  oppose 
the  Browning-Ferris  application? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  position  of  the 
government  on  that  proposal,  as  it  would  be 
on  any  proposal  before  them,  is  to  review  the 
proposal,  offer  the  comments  of  the  various 
ministries  and  then  put  that  report  out  for 
public  assessment.  At  that  time  the  govern- 
ment's position  on  this  proposal,  or  any  pro- 
posal, would  be  known,  but  not  until  such 
time  as  the  review  is  complete.  This  is  the 
way  all  proposals  are  handled. 

It  is  absolutely  essential  that  a  full  review 
be  completed  before  a  government  position 
is  taken  on  any  proposal.  A  full  review  of  that 
proposal  is  not  complete,  whether  we  are 
proponents  or  not.  It  must  wait  until  a  full 
assessment  review  has  been  completed.  Then 
it  will  be  put  out  to  the  public. 

To  amplify  on  the  matter  of  the  financial 
commitment,  we  are  prepared  to  accept  the 
legal  obligation  we  have.  That  could  very 
well  be  with  or  without  the  completion  of 
an  assessment.  We  have  a  legal  obligation 
to  pay  and  we  intend  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  A  supplementary  to  the  min- 
ister, Mr.  Speaker:  He  says  it  is  the  proce- 
dure for  all  proposals  like  this  to  undergo  a 
review,  the  comments  of  ministries  and  then 
an  assessment,  before  the  government  can 
decide  whether  the  proposal  is  an  acceptable 
one.  Can  he  explain  why  this  is  the  proce- 
dure except  in  the  case  of  the  South  Cayuga 
dump?  Why  is  it  not  also  appropriate  that 
the  South  Cayuga  proposal  would  go  before 
the  process  of  review,  comments  of  minis- 
tries and  assessments,  since  it  poses  the 
same  kind  of  environmental  matter  as  the 
Harwich  dump? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  re- 
spect, I  do  not  think  that  is  quite  a  supple- 
mentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  do  not  think  so  either. 
You  can  treat  it  as  you  wish. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  There  is  one  site  under 
consideration  in  Cayuga.  I  previously  gave 
this  House  the  decision  and  the  reasons  for 
the  decision.  I  want  to  make  it  very  clear 
that  answer  was  contained  in  previous  re- 
sponses. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  the  ministry  is  going  to  undertake  to 
fund,  at  least  in  part,  some  of  the  legal 
obligation  with  respect  to  the  Harwich  mat- 
ter, and  presumably  with  respect  to  the 
Walker  Brothers  matter  as  well,  will  the 
minister  consider  flowing  some  funds  to  the 
citizens  of  Ajax,  in  view  of  the  fact  they 
put  up  such  a   good  fight  throughout  and 


that    project    now    seems    to    be    in    some 
jeopardy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  Mr.  Speaker.  In 
a  meeting  between  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
and  myself,  we  made  it  very  clear  that,  if 
expertise  were  required  before  that  board, 
the  board  would  be  appropriately  funded 
to  see  the  expertise  was  there.  That  position 
stays  on  all  matters  before  the  board.  That 
was  a  policy  statement.  I  do  not  know 
whether  the  board  chose  to  bring  in  some 
witnesses,  but  we  are  not  going  to  flow 
funds  to  that  committee. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  back  to  a  sup- 
plementary to  the  original  question:  Can 
the  minister  at  least  assure  us  that  any 
application  from  private  industry  to  deal 
with  liquid  industrial  waste  will  be  subject 
to  a  full  hearing  under  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act,  1975?  Can  he  assure  this 
so  that  the  suitability  or  otherwise  of  the 
site,  the  operator  and  the  possible  alterna- 
tives can  be  explored  through  full  public 
hearings? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
think  the  question  is  clear  as  to  whether 
we  are  talking  about  liquid  waste  or  vari- 
ous wastes.  I  have  to  refer  repeatedly  to 
statements  I  previously  made  in  this  House. 
I  will  be  glad  to  read  those  into  the  record 
again.  What  we  have  done  in  the  past  is 
very  clear.  We  always  deal  with  matters  as 
they  come  to  specific  issues.  There  is  no 
doubt  we  have  made  a  very  positive  deci- 
sion on  the  one  in  Cayuga.  That  site  is 
the  one  under  investigation  under  the  full 
assessment  method  of  Dr.  Chant  and  that 
corporation- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  Assessment  method  of  Dr. 
Chant?  What  is  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  If  the  member  will  just 

listen.    Under  the  technical- 
Mr.     Cassidy:     What's    wrong    with     the 

assessment  method  of  the  Legislature. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Whatever  the  member 
wants;  I  do  not  care.  That  is  the  site  under 
discussion,  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  appro- 
priate at  this  time  to  answer  the  member's 
hypothetical   question   on   other  sites. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  an  Ottawa  mem- 
ber, it  would  be  extremely  impolite  if  I  did 
not  introduce  the  Honourable  Walter  Baker 
in  your  gallery,  the  federal  House  leader 
for  the  Conservative  Party  of  Canada.  Some 
of  my  colleagues  thought  it  would  be  more 
fitting  if  he  were  sitting  lower  down  here. 
They  thought  he  was  the  member  for 
Carleton    for    a    while.    I    understand   he   is 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4845 


here  to  give  some  advice  to  the  government 
House  leader  at  the  provincial  level. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  like  the 
eminence  grise  of  the  Carleton  by-election 
who  is  here  in  the  House  today. 

J'aimerais  bien  accueillir  le  depute  federal 
de  Carleton.  Bienvenue  dans  notre  Chambre. 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  The  minister 
will  be  aware  that  last  night  the  member 
for  Hamilton  East  (Mr.  Mackenzie),  the 
labour  critic  for  the  New  Democratic  Party, 
moved  in  the  select  committee  on  plant  shut- 
downs and  employee  adjustment  a  motion 
which  would  recommend  severance  pay  of  not 
less  than  one  week's  pay  for  a  year  of  service 
be  granted  to  employees  covered  under  the 
layoff  notice  sections  of  the  Employment 
Standards  Act.  The  minister  will  also  be 
aware  that  the  NDP  motion  was  accepted 
unanimously  by  the  committee  and  is  com- 
ing forward  later  today  in  a  report  to  the 
Legislature. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  recommen- 
dation had  all-party  support  from  both  the 
Conservative  and  Liberal  Parties  as  well  as 
the  New  Democratic  Party,  will  the  minister 
now  undertake  to  add  those  provisions  to  the 
amendments  to  the  Employment  Standards 
Act  which  are  coming  forward  this  evening 
in  Bill  191? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  my  state- 
ment of  October  14  I  indicated  clearly  the 
government  was  not  opposed  to  the  principle 
of  severance  pay.  I  also  went  on  to  indicate 
what  I  thought  were  complex,  honest  and 
straightforward  matters  that  had  to  be  ad- 
dressed in  relation  to  severance  pay.  It  is  my 
understanding  the  committee  deliberately  de- 
cided to  go  a  case-study  route  on  an  imme- 
diate basis  and  that  individual  and  group 
presentations  on  issues— from  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Labour,  the  chamber  of  com- 
merce, experts  in  the  area  and  so  forth— have 
been  delayed  until  a  later  time. 

I  am  surprised  that,  in  the  absence  of 
addressing  themselves  to  those  issues  which 
are  put  directly  and  deliberately  to  the  House, 
the  committee  has  decided  at  this  premature 
stage,  in  the  absence  of  that  information  and 
in  the  absence  of  those  briefs  and  opinions, 
to  present  such  a  resolution  to  the  House.  I 
am  surprised  to  see  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  am  not  sure  who  the  minis- 
ter is  directing  that  criticism  towards,  be- 
cause  the  position  of  our  party  for  a  long 


time  has  been  that  there  ought  to  be  -sever- 
ance pay  in  the  Employment  Standards  Act 
of  Ontario. 

If  the  minister  is  saying  his  Conservative 
colleagues  erred,  why  does  he  not  say  so 
directly?  I  ask  the  question  again.  In  view 
cf  the  fact  that  this  was  a  unanimous  recom- 
mendation, and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we 
on  this  side  of  the  House,  the  NDP,  intend 
to  move  that  motion  when  the  bill  comes 
forward  this  evening,  will  the  minister  now 
agree  to  incorporate  that  in  Bill  191  to  ensure 
that  the  Employment  Standards  Act  of  On- 
tario grants  severance  pay  to  workers  who 
are  laid  off  under  the  act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  am  sure  the  member 
knows  exactly  what  I  was  saying.  What  I 
was  saying  was  there  were  a  great  number 
of  issues  that  had  to  be  addressed.  The  com- 
mittee has  not  addressed  those  issues  and,  in 
the  absence  of  that  information  and  in  the 
absence  of  that  deliberation,  I  think  the  com- 
mittee has  acted  hastily. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Notwithstanding  the  minister's  view  of 
the  performance  of  committee  members, 
including  those  from  his  own  caucus,  the 
fact  is  that  a  committee  of  this  Legislature 
has  passed  the  report  which,  frankly,  We  do 
not  intend  to  allow  to  go  by  this  afternoon 
with  the  report  merely  being  adjourned. 
We  want  to  have  that  matter  debated  here 
and  heard. 
2:30  p.m. 

Since  the  report  is  simply  saying  that  the 
law  should  provide  for  all  workers  what 
government  negotiators  were  able  to  provide 
at  Houdaille  Industries,  so  that  people  could 
have  the  same  coverage  without  having  to 
occupy  the  plant,  should  the  minister  not 
agree  to  accept  that  amendment  as  recom- 
mended unanimously  by  the  committee  and 
give  proper  protection  to  the  people  being 
laid  off  all  over  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  just 
reiterate  that  I,  personally,  and  this  govern- 
ment, have  made  it  very  clear  we  are  not 
opposed  to  the  principle  of  severance  pay. 
Let  us  go  over  it  once  again  very  carefully. 

Mr.  Peterson:  You  are  a  many-principled 
man. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  How  do  you  pay  the 
rent  with  principles? 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  workers  are  being  laid 
off  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  know  the  members 
have  a  propensity  for  and  a  nice  habit  of 
dealing    with    questions    in    the    absence    of 


4846 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


information  and  in  the  absence  of  reviewing 
matters  carefully  and  thoughtfully;  but  that 
is  what  this  government  wants  done  at  that 
committee.  I  said  so  in  that  statement,  and  I 
welcomed  it.  Now  we  want  them  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Does  the  minister  not  realize  that 
the  committee  was  given  responsibility  to 
look  into  the  serious  problem  of  plant  shut- 
downs and  the  effect  on  workers,  and  that 
it  is  the  committee's  job  to  look  into  that 
and  to  make  recommendations?  Rather  than 
lecture  the  committee— that  is  exactly  what 
the  committee  has  been  doing,  carrying  out 
its  responsibility.  It  has  now  asked  the 
minister,  by  unanimous  recommendation,  to 
bring  in  a  recommendation  that  would  assist 
workers  in  plant  shutdowns.  Will  he  not 
respond?  Will  he  not  incorporate  that  into 
his  amendment?  The  timing  is  obvious.  His 
bill  is  up  tonight. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  think  I  have  answered 
that  in  great  detail,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  have 
indicated  that  I  feel  the  committee  has  acted 
hastily  in  the  absence  of  the  information  it 
was  committed  to  gather,  and  I  ask  it  to 
do  that. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  now  seems  to  be  the  appropriate  time 
to  bring  this  into  the  Legislature  for  discus- 
sion, can  I  ask  the  minister  whether  he  does 
not  feel  it  is  the  right  time  when  he  intends 
to  introduce  legislation  to  cover  this  aspect? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Once  again,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  ask  the  member  to  refer  to  my  statement. 
It  indicates  that  I  was  carrying  out  certain 
consultation  processes  and  that  I  expected 
the  committee  to  do  the  same  sort  of  thing; 
to  have  groups  and  individuals  knowledge- 
able in  the  area  and  knowledgeable  about 
the  complex  problems  related  to  severance 
pay  discuss  them  with  the  committee.  They 
should  do  it. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 

Speaker,  I  do  not  believe  my  question  was 

answered  by  the  minister,   and  he  did  not 

tell  us- 
Mr.    Speaker:    That  is   not  a   question  of 

privilege,  and  the  honourable  member  knows 

it. 

PREPAYMENT  FOR  HEALTH  SERVICES 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  asked  a 
page  to  take  some  documents  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Health,  for  whom  I  have  a  question 
respecting  professional  misconduct  by  doctors 
in  the  province;  that  is,  the  specific  item  of 
professional  misconduct,  according  to  the 
regulations     under     the     Health     Disciplines 


Act,  that  makes  it  misconduct  to  refuse  to 
render  a  medically  necessary  service,  where 
payment  of  the  whole  or  part  of  the  fee  is 
received  in  advance  of  the  service  being 
rendered. 

Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  submissions 
by  various  organizations  of  the  professional 
misconduct  practice  where  some  physicians 
are  requiring  payment  for  services  prior  to 
their  delivery?  These  include  gynaecological 
specialists;  ear,  nose  and  throat  specialists; 
anaesthetic  specialists;  and  surgical  special- 
ists. Since  this  is  not  an  uncommon  prac- 
tice and  since  the  minister  is  not  prepared  to 
stop  opting  out,  from  which  this  practice 
flows,  will  he  at  least  take  measures  to  put 
an  immediate  stop  to  this  illegal  practice  of 
demanding  payment  up  front  before  patients 
receive  medical  treatment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be 
glad  to  take  this  up  with  the  college.  I  will 
need  specific  patients'  names  to  file  the  com- 
plaints. It  is  specifically  a  matter  of  pro- 
fessional misconduct  to  demand  payment 
before  the  provision  of  service,  and  I  will  be 
glad  to  pursue  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  the  minister  not  aware 
there  are  already  three  cases  of  misconduct 
that  have  gone  before  the  College  of  Physi- 
cians and  Surgeons  of  Ontario?  Will  the 
minister  say  why  he  has  refused  to  initiate 
an  investigation  of  required  prepayment  for 
medical  services  when  he  was  requested  to 
do  so  by  people  from  the  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association  back  in  1979  and  when 
he  has  had  specific  cases  brought  before  him 
over  the  course  of  the  last  year  or  two,  such 
as  the  one  involving  a  lady  from  Timmins 
and  a  gynaecologist  at  Toronto  Western 
Hospital?  Why  has  the  minister  not  been 
prepared  to  act  in  the  past,  and  why  does 
he  simply  say,  "I  will  act  some  time  in  the 
future"? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  I  think  I  have  pointed 
out  on  every  occasion  I  have  been  asked 
about  this  subject  that  it  has  been  profes- 
sional misconduct  in  the  regulations  under 
the  Health  Disciplines  Act  for  a  number  of 
years.  We  already  acted  on  that  a  number 
of  years  ago. 

Secondly,  for  a  complaint  even  to  be  con- 
sidered and  eventually  to  get  to  the  dis- 
cipline stage,  a  complaint  must  be  filed  by  a 
patient  against  a  doctor.  What  I  am  saying 
is,  where  I  have  specific  complaints,  I  am 
more  than  happy  to  pursue  them  and  see 
that  justice  is  done. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Is  the  minister  prepared  to 
act  then  with  respect  to  the  anaesthetists  at 
the    Toronto    Western    Hospital,    who    have 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4847 


been  sending  out  a  notice  to  certain  patients 
which  says  specifically:  "The  anaesthetic  fee 
for  this  procedure  will  be  $50  in  cash,  money 
order  or  a  certified  cheque.  Kindly  bring 
this  amount  to  the  hospital  on  the  day  of 
your  surgery"?  Surely  that  is  a  violation  of 
the  professional  or  misconduct  provisions  of 
the  Health  Disciplines  Act.  What  action  will 
the  minister  take  to  stop  these  doctors 
demanding  anaesthetic  fees  to  be  paid  in 
advance;  in  other  words,  before  patients  can 
get  the  service? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  That  is  a  more  general 
question  and  one  that  I  think  we  can  pursue 
directly  with  the  anaesthetists  at  Toronto 
Western  Hospital,  with  the  board  there  and 
the  college;  that  is  a  general  form.  As  regards 
the  others,  let  me  repeat,  specific  complaints 
will  be  investigated  in  every  case  and,  where 
the  facts  support  the  complaint,  it  will  go  to 
discipline. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Just  before  I  call  on  the 
member  for  St.  George  (Mrs.  Campbell)  for 
a  new  question,  I  would  like  to  draw  to  the 
attention  of  honourable  members  the  pres- 
ence in  the  gallery  of  Mr.  John  Baxter,  MLA, 
from  the  province  of  New  Brunswick.  He  is 
a  former  attorney  general  for  that  province. 
Would  you  please  welcome  him. 

OHC  RENT  SUBSIDY 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Housing,  Mr.  Speaker.  In  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  Anglican  synod,  con- 
cerned with  the  fact  that  single  employables 
in  Toronto  are  paying  $35  to  $40  a  week  for 
rent  and,  while  classed  as  employable,  many 
of  them  could  not  gain  employment  by  rea- 
son of  ill  health  or  in  some  cases  poor  mental 
health,  passed'  a  resolution  last  September, 
one  part  of  which  follows:  "That  the  eligi- 
bility criteria  for  subsidized  housing  be 
changed  to  allow  singles  to  apply  for  rent 
subsidy  within  Metro  and  city  public  hous- 
ing," and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Metro 
housing  authority  is  operating  under  the 
policies,  as  amended,  of  the  Ontario  Housing 
Corporation,  is  the  minister  prepared  now  to 
authorize  Metro  housing  to  alter  its  policy 
to  permit  these  persons  to  have  access  to 
subsidized1  housing  in  Metro? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  us  look 
at  the  problem  on  a  broader  basis  than  just 
Metro.  If  policies  are  to  be  changed,  they 
shall  be  applicable  to  the  province,  not  singly 
to  this  great  metropolitan  area.  The  eastern 
and  northern  parts  of  this  province  are  en- 
titled to  the  same  consideration  and  recog- 
nition. 


As  far  as  the  mentally  retarded  and  the 
physically  handicapped  are  concerned,  let  me 
emphasize,  if  they  are  single,  regardless  of 
age,  they  are  already  eligible  to  qualify  for 
public  housing  in  any  part  of  the  province. 
In  recent  months  we  have  amended  the 
policy  more  specifically  to  relate  to  the  men- 
tally retarded  where  the  Ontario  Association 
for  the  Mentally  Retarded  shall  assist  the 
local  housing  authority  in  determining  which 
applicants  are  or  should  be  eligible  for  the 
possibility   of  entering  public  housing. 

As  for  the  other  group  of  singles,  regardless 
of  age,  as  was  said  to  the  justice  committee, 
which  is  reviewing  the  Ontario  Housing  Cor- 
poration, those  situations  are  under  review. 
I  want  to  emphasize  to  this  House  very 
clearly  and  very  distinctly  that,  even  though 
this  ministry  and  OHC  might  make  some 
determinations  as  to  changes  in  policy,  we 
also  must  have  the  concurrence  of  our  federal 
partner  the  Canada  Mortgage  and  Housing 
Corporation. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
these  people  are  on  general  welfare  assis- 
tance, is  the  minister  not  aware  that  in  all 
likelihood  they  have  not  had  approval  from 
that  ministry  as  being  disabled,  nor  are  they 
mentally  retarded?  Is  the  minister  aware  that 
there  may  be  mental  difficulties  other  than 
the  retarded?  Will  he  now  take  this  matter 
under  consideration  since  it  is  of  such  con- 
cern? I  would  be  happy  to  have  it  apply 
across  the  province. 
2:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  cannot  emphasize 
any  more  clearly  than  I  have  in  the  initial 
part  of  my  answer  to  the  question,  that 
policy  relating  to  people  eligible  for  public 
housing  is  constantly  under  review,  not  only 
by  my  ministry— may  I  emphasize  again— 
but  indeed  also  with  the  Canada  Mortgage 
and  Housing  Corporation.  They  are  a  senior 
partner;  they  pay  50  per  cent  of  the  cost  of 
providing  public  housing  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  it  on  an  annual  basis.  Whatever 
policy  changes  take  place  will  be  with  the 
concurrence  of  CMHC. 

I  only  offer  the  direct  assurance  to  this 
House  that  it  is  not  the  intention  of  my  min- 
istry to  recommend  to  cabinet  that,  because 
CMHC  will  not  participate  in  the  program, 
100  per  cent  of  the  cost  should  be  absorbed 
by  the  people  of  this  province.  I  think  it  is 
unrealistic  at  a  time  when  we  are  faced 
with  economic  constraints  in  Ontario.  The 
policy  related  to  all  persons— whether  it  be 
the  mother-in-the-empty-nest  situation  or 
other  situations— is  under  review  by  ministry 
and  CMHC  to  find  if  there  is  a  way  to  facili- 


4848 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tate  that  particular  group  within  the  finan- 
cial limitations  of  the  taxpayers  of  this  prov- 
ince and  this  country. 

BLUE    CROSS    ADVERTISING 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Health.  The  min- 
ister may  be  aware  that  Ontario  Blue  Cross 
is  running  a  series  of  advertisements  for  its 
services.  Part  of  that  advertising  program 
is  a  cute  little  thing  about  what  happens 
if  you  break  your  arm  and  how  much  it 
costs  for  treatment. 

In  the  ad  which  they  ran  in  the  travel 
section  of  the  weekend  Toronto  Star,  they 
said:  "Break  it  at  home,  $350;  OHIP  might 
pay  $283."  Since  the  approved  OHIP  fee 
for  this  service  is  $283  and  not  $350,  is  it 
the  minister's  intention  to  prosecute  or  in- 
form Blue  Cross  to  stop  putting  out  this 
land   of  misleading   advertising? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
the  question  should  'go  to  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr. 
Drea)  as  regards  any  possible  question  of 
misleading   advertising. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Since  this  agency  is  run  by 
the  Ontario  Hospital  Association,  whatever 
happened  to  that  grand  agreement  between 
the  ministry,  OHA  and  the  Ontario  Medical 
Association  to  provide  services  such  as  this 
in  Ontario  hospitals  at  the  approved  rate? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  judging 
from  the  fact  that  only  7.5  per  cent  of  all 
claims  on  OHIP  are  at  opted  out  rates 
ranging  from  a  few  percentage  points  up, 
I  would  say  it  is  working  very  well.  There 
is  no  connection  with  the  first  part  of  the 
member's   question. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 
Now  that  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police  in- 
vestigation is  finished  and  allegations  of  im- 
propriety between  the  ministry  and  Walker 
Brothers  have  not  been  substantiated,  is  the 
minister  now  investigating  allegations  of  en- 
vironmental  violations    at   the    site   itself? 

In  his  investigation,  does  the  minister 
have  an  explanation  for  a  pumping  system 
that  has  recently  been  set  up  from  the  leach- 
ate  lagoon  down  into  a  newly  constructed 
well  via  a  pipeline?  Does  this  material  vent 
into  the  nearby  Welland  Canal?  Can  the 
minister  tell  us  what  is  being  pumped  there, 
what  tests  are  being  done  and  what  form 
of  monitoring  is  being  done  on  the  material 


being    pumped    into    this    newly    constructed 
well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  answer 
to  the  first  question  is  yes.  The  balance  of 
the  question  was  very  technical  in  nature 
and  I  will  take  it  as  notice  and  try  to  re- 
spond on  Thursday  or  Friday. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  In  the  minister's  investiga- 
tion, has  he  received  evidence  that  there 
has  been  tanker  traffic  from  the  waste  lagoon 
site,  which  has  now  been  closed,  back  and 
forth  to  the  landfill  site?  Does  the  minister 
accept  the  contention  given  by  the  president 
that  all  that  traffic  in  November  was  for  the 
purpose  of  dust  control? 

When  is  the  minister  going  to  act  in  a 
responsible  way  and  get  the  evidence  for 
which  my  leader  and  I  have  been  asking 
for  over  a  month  and  clear  up  that  matter  of 
investigating  the  alleged  violations? 

When  is  the  minister  going  to  get  that 
done? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  With  respect,  we  did 
clear  up  two  of  the  three  allegations.  I  remind 
the  member  that  they  were  not  made  by  my- 
self, but  they  were  made  by  outside  sources. 
For  the  record,  we  have  cleared  up  two  of 
the  three  allegations.  I  said  the  balance  will 
take  more  time.  I  said  that  before. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  How  much  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  After  all,  it  does  take  a 
considerable  amount  of  effort  to  finalize  all 
those  considerations.  We  have  all  kinds  of 
evidence  already.  The  member  is  asking  new 
questions  today  not  pertinent  to  the  accusa- 
tions made  previously.  I  have  told  the  mem- 
ber I  will  get  that  information  for  him.  I  will 
do  that  and  report  as  soon  as  I  have  it. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
When  the  minister  says  two  thirds  of  the 
problems  have  been  cleaned  up,  or  words  to 
that  effect,  is  he  not  aware  that  there  are 
1,200  to  1,400  drums  buried  in  Walker 
Brothers'  quarry  and  that  he  has  excavated 
perhaps  only  100  of  them  to  date?  Is  he  going 
to  do  the  investigation  of  the  thousand  or 
more  that  remain  in  that  quarry? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  want  to  clear  the  rec- 
ord very  specifically,  Mr.  Speaker.  We 
responded  to  two  out  of  three  of  the  alle- 
gations that  were  made.  As  to  the  other  one, 
we  are  in  the  process  of  getting  more  and 
more  information.  I  think  the  member  knows 
that  and  I  will  respond  to  his  question  along 
with  that  of  the  member  for  Niagara  Falls 
in  due  course. 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4849 


RESIDENTIAL  SERVICES 
FOR  RETARDED  CHILDREN 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social 
Services.  I  have  an  eight-page  memorandum 
dated  September  12  from  the  general  manager 
of  the  ministry's  mental  retardation  services 
division  and  in  section  B  it  reads  as  follows: 

"Under  the  funding  policy  for  residential 
services  for  mentally  retarded  children  ap- 
proved by  cabinet,  parents  of  children  in 
residences"— that  means  residences  for  men- 
tally retarded  children— ''will  be  required  to 
commit  themselves  to  a  monthly  contribution 
of  between  $40  and  $90  a  month"  effective 
the  beginning  of  the  new  year. 

I  want  to  ask  the  minister  how  on  earth 
hif  government  could  add  to  the  burden  of 
parents  suffering  from  having  a  retarded  child 
the  additional  financial  burden  set  out  in  the 
memorandum,  and  would  he  kindly  recon- 
sider what  can  only  be  described  as  the 
imposition  of  a  tax  on  parents  of  mentally 
retarded  children? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it  is 
very  unfair  to  characterize  that  as  a  tax.  It 
was  a  measure  that  was  introduced  after  con- 
siderable discussion  with  the  Ontario  Associa- 
tion for  the  Mentally  Retarded  and  is  being 
done  with  the  support  of  that  agency.  I  think 
it  is  important  in  terms  of  the  range  of  the 
charging  policy  that  the  low  of  $40  is  the 
amount  the  family  would  automatically  be 
receiving  by  way  of  family  allowance  and  the 
child  tax  credits,  so  $40  is  the  minimum. 

For  those  who  are  in  a  position  to  afford 
more,  the  upper  limit  is  $90,  which  was 
calculated  to  be  an  approximation  of  the 
actual  cost  they  would  be  paying  for  the 
normal  provision  of  shelter  and  food  for 
that  child  in  the  course  of  a  month  if  the 
child  were  residing  at  home. 

It  is  tied  as  well  to  the  development  of 
service  plans  for  each  individual  child,  and 
I  would  also  point  out  that  as  a  result  of 
introducing  those  service  plans  we  will  be 
in  a  position  to  significantly  enrich  our 
eligibility  for  federal  cost  sharing  which  has 
not  been  possible  in  many  of  these  programs 
in  the  past.  We  have  also  made  commit- 
ments to  the  Ontario  association  to  ensure 
that  the  enriched  funding  from  the  federal 
cost  sharing  will  be  ploughed  back  or  ap- 
plied immediately  into  areas  of  both  en- 
riching services  in  some  of  the  institutional 
settings  but  primarily  into  the  community 
settings   for  services   to  the   handicapped. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Surely  the  minister  is 
aware,  first,  that  family  allowances  for  chil- 


dren, who  are  in  schedule  one  or  schedule 
two  facilities  are  not  paid  to  the  families; 
they  are  paid  to  the  ministry  itself. 

Second,  does  the  minister  not  understand 
that  according  to  his  table  of  monthly  pay- 
ments in  the  memorandum  a  single  parent 
earning  $12,000  a  year  with  a  child  in  a 
residential  program,  by  my  calculation, 
would  be  charged  under  this  fee  schedule 
$1,080  a  year?  Surely  that  is  an  intolerable 
regressive  tax  on  the  parents  of  a  mentally 
retarded  child  and  there  is  no  other  way  to 
describe  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  First  of  all,  I  can 
assure  the  honourable  member  that  there 
will  not  be  any  double  charging.  I  am  not 
sure  administratively  how  this  is  being 
handled— 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  minister  should  find 
out,  because  that  is  what  his  staff  told  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Listen,  don't  be  so 
hysterical;  just  calm  down  for  a  moment 
and  listen. 

There  will  be  no  double  charging,  I  can 
assure  the  member  of  that,  if  that  is  what 
he  is  implying  by  saying  this  is  being  paid 
directly  to  the  facility.  I  would  also  point 
out  that  it  was  seen  by  the  Ontario  associ- 
ation, following  our  discussion,  to  be  both 
beneficial  for  the  children  and  beneficial 
for  the  services  that  will  be  developed  as  a 
result  of  this  approach. 

2:50  p.m. 

iSurely  the  member  does  not  think  that 
in  instances  where  a  family  does  have  an 
additional  burden  as  a  result  of  the  handi- 
cap with  which  their  child  was  born  it 
ought  not  bear  any  responsibility  whatsoever 
for  the  maintenance  of  that  child  because  it 
happens  to  have  a  handicap.  All  we  are  say- 
ing is  they  ought  not  to  have  any  greater 
costs  than  anyone  else  or  any  greater  cost 
than  if  the  child  were  residing  with  the 
family.  We  are  not  adding  burdens,  we  are 
significantly  relieving  them,  even  at  that 
level  of  assistance. 

LAND-O'-LAKES  HEALTH  CENTRE 

Mr.  McEwen:  I  have  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  Health,  Mr.  Speaker,  which  con- 
cerns the  employees  of  the  Land-O'-Lakes 
Health  Centre  at  Northbrook  in  the  great 
riding  of  Frontenac-Addington.  I  would  like 
to  ask  the  minister  why  the  employees  who 
are  paid  by  the  Ministry  of  Health  are  not 
considered  to  be  government  employees? 
Why  are  they  not  allowed  sick  leave  with 
pay?  Why  are  they  not  allowed  holiday  pay? 
Why  do  they  not  have  deductions  taken  from 


4850 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


their  paycheque  for  unemployment  insurance 
benefits,  Ontario  health  insurance  plan,  or 
the  Canada  pension  plan? 

I  would  also  like  to  know  why  an  em- 
ployee receiving  $33  a  day  for  five  days  a 
week  has  deductions  for  statutory  holidays? 
Why  is  paid  maternity  leave  not  allowed? 
As  employees  do  not  have  UIC  deductions 
taken  from  their  paycheque,  they  are  in- 
eligible for  maternity  benefits  from  the  Un- 
employment Insurance  Commission.  Why 
have  they  not  received  an  increase  in  salary 
since  June  1979? 

The  employees  had  thought  they  were  em- 
ployed by  the  Ontario  government.  How- 
ever, Dr.  W.  J.  Copeman  of  the  Ministry  of 
Health  denies  that  such  is  the  case.  They 
would  like  to  know  just  who  their  employer 
is.  I  would  ask  the  minister  if  he  would 
care  to  enlighten  me,  the  House  and  these 
employees  as  to  whom  these  non-employees 
being  paid  by  his  ministry  are  working  for. 
Why  are  they  being  denied  the  benefits  to 
which  the  majority  of  working  people  in 
Ontario  are  entitled? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  can  understand  why  the 
honourable  member  would  want  to  catch  up 
because  he  has  not  taken  full  advantage  of 
the  question  period.  But.  with  all  due 
respect,  I  think  that  is  really  a  question  for 
the  Order  Paper.  There  are  at  least  seven 
questions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me 
respond  to  the  member's  maiden  speech  after 
/being  a  member  for  five  years— although  he 
has  not  been  here  in  the  session  very  often. 
When  I  called  him  "Silent  Earl"  a  couple  of 
years  ago  I  did  not  think  he  was  going  to 
prove  it. 

I  would  be  glad  to  take  the  question  as 
notice.  The  employees  at  the  Northbrook 
centre  are  not  now  nor  have  they  ever  been 
employees  of  the  Ministry  of  Health.  I  will 
be  glad  to  have  our  staff  contact  the  people 
who  are  the  sponsors  of  the  health  centre  to 
ask  them  to  sit  down  and  deal  with  these 
questions  with  their  staff. 

Mr.  McEwen:  I  wonder  if  the  minister 
could  hurry  this  reply  along.  One  employee, 
the  receptionist,  was  to  give  birth  to  a  baby 
in  January,  but  this  morning  she  was  rushed 
to  the  hospital.  It  is  premature  by  a  month 
and  a  half,  and  the  girl  has  no  way  of  pay- 
ing the  costs  to  continue  the  necessities  of 
life. 

Is  the  minister  aware  this  has  been  happen- 
ing under  his  program  or  is  he  more  inter- 
ested in  trying  to  insult  me  in  some  way? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Does  the  minister 
have  a  response  to  what  he  has  heard  so  far? 


Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  regard- 
ing the  latter  part  of  the  question,  the 
member  makes  it  so  easy  when  he  does  not 
come  here  very  often.  He  comes  only  once  or 
twice  a  year  to  pick  up  his  paycheque.  If 
the  member  is  in  his  riding  as  often  as  he  is 
here  no  wonder  he  cannot  get  the  problem 
straightened  out. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  minister  is  not 
really  answering  the  question. 

ITALIAN   EARTHQUAKE 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs.  Given  the  unequivocal  re- 
fusal of  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  to  my  pro- 
posal yesterday  of  sending  an  independent 
delegation  to  Italy  formed  by  the  three 
parties  of  this  province  and  a  representa- 
tive of  the  Canadian  Red  Cross  Society, 
and  considering  the  Italian  Red  Cross  is 
continuously  sending  SOS  telexes  to  the 
Canadian  Red  Cross  requesting  urgent  aid 
from  the  national  society  in  the  form  of 
funds  or  goods,  can  the  minister  tell  us  in 
what  way  our  provincial  government  is  re- 
sponding to  this  human  appeal  and  to  the 
immediate  needs  of  over  250,000  survivors 
at    present    requesting    our    help? 

Can  the  minister  also  give  us  a  detailed 
report  on  the  situation,  considering  he  has 
had  meetings  with  representatives  of  the 
Canadian   Red   Cross? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
be  happy  to.  Our  meetings  started  at  least 
a  week  ago  when  the  Premier  went  to  the 
headquarters  of  the  National  Congress  of 
Italian  Canadians  and  informed  them  we 
were  making  available  $100,000  from  the 
province  to  their  fund,  which  would  be 
at  the  disposal  of  that  committee  as  to  how 
it  would  feel  it  could  best  be  used  in  this 
tragedy. 

I  have  also  had  discussions  with  the  Red 
Cross.  We  are  still  continuing  those  discus- 
sions. We  have  appointed  a  permanent  liai- 
son person  from  our  ministry  with  the  com- 
mittee here,  headed  by  Mr.  Angelo  Delfino. 
We  have   indicated  complete  support. 

It  is  my  understanding  that  the  need  for 
emergency  supplies  in  Italy  at  this  point  is 
being  fully  looked  after.  I  listened,  as  many 
members  probably  did  yesterday,  to  a  tele- 
phone conversation  from  Christie  Blatchford 
of  the  Toronto  Star  speaking  directly  from 
Rome  when  she  indicated  there  were  supplies 
all  over  the  roads.  One  could  reach  out  and 
get  bottles  of  water.  It  was  raining  on  some 
of  the  supplies.  It  seemed  to  me  the  Italian 
Red    Cross    and    those    relief    agencies    are 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4851 


doing  a  fantastic  job  of  making  those  sup- 
plies available. 

Our  real  purpose  at  this  point  is  to  con- 
sider the  long-term  matter  of  rehabilitation. 
To  that  end,  I  have  indicated  and  the  gov- 
ernment has  indicated  to  the  committee  that 
Ontario  will  strongly  support  what  will  be 
long-term  efforts  to  help  rebuild  the  areas 
that  have  been  devastated.  We  have  indi- 
cated that  to  the  committee. 

If  there  is  any  need  for  emergency  help 
in  the  interval,  we  are  certainly  in  contact 
with  the  Red  Cross  and  that  need  can  be 
met.  It  is  my  understanding  there  is  no 
need  for  money  for  the  Red  Cross  at  this 
minute. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  With  great  respect,  is  the 
minister  aware  of  the  telex  dated  December 
1,  1980,  which  was  sent  to  the  Canadian 
Red!  Cross  by  the  Italian  Red  Cross?  It 
states:  "It  goes  without  saying  that  grateful 
for  the  very  important  help  of  our  sister 
society,  we  have  to  cope  still  with  a  great 
amount  of  problems  and  needs  so  that  we 
continue  to  ask  the  aid  of  the  national  so- 
cieties." 

In  view  of  that,  would  the  minister  con- 
sider increasing  the  amount  of  money  allo- 
cated to  the  relief  fund?  Will  our  govern- 
ment take  the  urgent  step  of  responding  to 
this  immediate  SOS  telex  by  using  our 
Canadian  Red  Cross  as  the  proper  channel 
to  relieve  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
people  who  are  suffering? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  think  I  indicated  the 
answer.  We  will  keep  in  close  touch  with 
the  Red  Cross  to  see  if  there  is  any  more 
help  we  can  provide  to  them  in  any  emer- 
gency sense.  I  have  indicated  to  my  friend 
this  government  will  probably  assist  at  least 
to  the  level  we  did  in  the  Friuli  earthquake 
and  it  could  be  to  a  much  greater  level 
when  the  needs  for  the  restoration  of  the 
communities   become   known. 

I  think  the  member  would  be  the  first  to 
agree  we  must  depend  upon  the  kind  of  ad- 
vice we  get  from  the  committee  here,  made 
up  of  our  Canadian  citizens  of  Italian  origin 
who  are  spending  night  and  day  raising  money 
and  keeping  in  close  contact  with  what  is 
needed.  It  is  with  this  committee  and  these 
people  in  Metropolitan  Toronto  and  Ontario 
that  we  are  working.  Whatever  needs  are 
identified  by  these  committees,  I  am  sure  all 
members  of  this  House  would  want  to  stand 
ready  to  support  the  kind  of  efforts  that  we 
are  making. 
3  p.m. 


OGOKI  LODGE 

Mr.  Eakins:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  address 
my  question  to  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism.  Since  the  continued  operation  of 
Ogoki  Lodge  is  important  to  the  tourism 
industry  of  this  province,  could  the  minister 
confirm  whether  or  not  that  lodge  is  now 
closed,  when  it  closed  and  the  reasons  for  it 
closing,  since  the  federal  and  provincial  gov- 
ernments have  substantial  investment  in  this 
lodge? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
have  to  get  an  update  on  Ogoki.  I  do  not 
happen  to  have  that  information  with  me 
today.  I  will  find  out  for  the  member  and  let 
him  know. 

Mr.  Eakins:  Since  the  minister  thinks  his 
memory  is  always  so  keen  on  so  many  oc- 
casions, could  he  not  recall  that  the  province 
has  substantial  money  in  this  lodge?  This 
summer  the  minister  put  several  thousand 
dollars  into  advertising  it,  and  he  does  not 
know  whether  it  is  closed  or  not? 

Would  the  minister  not  think  it  is  more 
important  to  make  sure  that  this  wilderness 
lodge— which  takes  in  only  30  people  and  last 
year  had  11  per  cent  occupancy— is  more 
important  than  the  millions  he  is  spending 
in  Minaki  Lodge,  and  he  does  not  know  what 
is  going  to  happen  to  that?  Should  not  Ogoki 
be  the  minister's  first  priority? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  May  I  only  say  that  I 
am  pleased  the  member  has  noted  the  support 
we  gave  that  lodge  through  grants  and  ad- 
vertising. It  has  been  fairly  substantial.  I  am 
sure  the  member  appreciates  the  contribution 
we  made  to  that  fine  enterprise.  That  is  not 
the  answer,  sorry  folks. 

The  fact  is— and  the  member  will  find  this 
hard  to  believe— I  am  not  posted  on  a  day- 
to-day  basis  with  regard  to  the  current  busi- 
ness situation  of  a  whole  lot  of  enterprises 
supported  by  the  Ontario  Development  Cor- 
poration—there are  thousands—and  a  number 
of  tourist  establishments  supported  through 
cur  tourism  division. 

We  have  helped  the  firm.  The  member 
knows  we  have  helped  Ogoki,  he  knows  of 
our  commitment  there.  He  is  asking  me 
whether  I  know  it  is  closed.  The  answer  is 
I  have  not  been  informed  in  the  last  few 
days  that  it  has  been  closed.  If  the  member 
is  asking  me  whether  I  will  find  out,  of 
course,  I  will. 

May  I  say  that  one  of  the  benefits  that 
would  be  lost  if  the  member's  party  ever  sat 
or  this  side  of  the  House,  which  it  will  not, 
would  be  the  kind  of  day-to-day  attention 
being  paid  to  that  and  other  matters  by  the 


4852 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs,  which  the 
member's  party  is  committed  to  disband. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  aware  that  there  was  a  notice 
by  the  sheriff  in  the  Thunder  Bay  paper 
several  weeks  ago  seizing  certain  assets  of 
Ogoki  Lodge?  Does  he  know  the  importance 
of  that  seizure  and  the  reasons  for  it?  Would 
the  minister  not  agree  that  one  of  the  things 
that  needs  to  be  looked  at  is  improving  the 
management  of  that  lodge? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sorry,  I  heard  only  about  half  of  that  but  I 
will  read  Hansard  and  get  all  the  informa- 
tion for  the  member.  When  I  get  the  rest  of 
this  information  I  will  report  to  him. 

DOMTAR  DISPUTE 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  Minister  of 
Labour:  Now  that  the  minister  has  had  an 
opportunity  to  meet  with  both  sides  in  the 
Domtar  strike,  could  he  report  to  the  House 
what  hopes  he  has  that  both  sides  will  re- 
turn to  the  bargaining  table?  If  not,  what 
other  initiatives  is  he  prepared  to  under- 
take to  get  them  back  to  the  table? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  meet 
with  both  parties  to  the  dispute  in  Domtar 
and  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  nego- 
tiations could  resume  next  week. 

DISPUTE  AT  AMR  CENTRES 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  in  regard  to  the  Woods 
Gordon  report  that  I  brought  to  his  attention 
over  a  month  and  a  half  ago.  Now  that  the 
minister  has  had  over  a  month  to  obtain  the 
Woods  Gordon  report  commissioned  by  the 
Ontario  Association  for  the  Mentally  Re- 
tarded on  the  subject  of  pay  rates  for  asso- 
ciation employees,  does  he  now  agree  with 
the  general  thrust  of  the  report  that  com- 
munity workers  with  the  mentally  retarded 
are  grossly  underpaid,  being  34  per  cent  be- 
hind the  salaries  of  their  institutional  counter- 
parts who  are  paid  directly  by  the  ministry 
and  at  least  20  per  cent  behind  wages  paid 
by  similar  community  service  organizations? 

Can  the  minister  give  us  his  reaction  to 
the  findings  of  the  Woods  Gordon  report, 
and  can  he  tell  the  House  if  he  has  any 
intention  of  helping  striking  mental  retarda- 
tion workers  in  St.  Catharines  and  locked  out 
workers  at  Participation  House  in  Hamilton, 
whose  wages  average  only  $4.63  per  hour? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  yes,  I 
have.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  apologize  to 
the  honourable  member.  I  think  I  made  it 


clear  to  him  after  my  earlier  response  in  the 
House  that  I  erred,  that  I  had  seen  the 
report  at  that  time.  I  am  not  sure  what 
happened.  It  slipped  my  mind  in  the  course 
of  answering  his  question. 

I  am  aware  of  the  fact  there  are— not 
only  with  associations  for  the  mentally  re- 
tarded, but  with  a  number  of  other  private 
agencies  across  the  province— considerable 
discrepancies  in  terms  of  what  staff  are 
being  paid.  I  reject  that  there  is  necessarily 
a  direct  relationship  with  the  people  work- 
ing in  our  government  operated  facilities. 
One  of  the  things  those  preparing  the  report 
failed  to  do  was  examine  the  job  classifica- 
tions in  the  civil  service  with  which  they 
assumed  there  was  parity  or  ought  to  be 
parity.  They  did  not  examine  our  job  classi- 
fications. 

However,  that  aside,  there  are  discre- 
pancies and  yes,  we  are  in  the  process  now 
of  attempting  to  address  that  problem.  It 
does  go  beyond  associations  for  the  mentally 
retarded.  No,  I  will  not  address  one  associ- 
ation, particularly  one  that  is  in  the  process 
of  a  difficult  labour  dispute,  in  isolation 
from  the  others  across  the  province;  but  we 
are  now  attempting  to  address  that  problem 
systematically. 

Mr.  Bradley:  In  view  of  what  the  minister 
has  just  said,  further  to  his  statement  in  the 
House,  I  believe  it  was  a  week  ago  Monday, 
that  children's  aid  societies  unable  to  meet 
financial  obligations  because  of  unforeseen 
circumstances  may  apply  to  his  ministry  for 
special  help— we  were  talking  there  about 
children's  aid  societies— why  would  he  not 
include  in  this  arrangement  the  St.  Cath- 
arines Mental  Retardation  Association  and 
Participation  House  in  Hamilton  so  they  can 
begin  to  pay  their  employees  wages  at  least 
somewhat  close  to  what  others  are  getting 
paid  for  similar  work  in  the  community? 
If  he  is  prepared  to  do  that  for  children's 
aid  societies,  why  not  for  the  associations 
for  the  mentally  retarded? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  There  are  other  associ- 
ations whose  wage  structure  is  not  above,  in 
fact  is  probably  below,  the  two  agencies  to 
which  the  member  refers.  Surely  the  mem- 
ber understands  if  we  are  going  to  address 
that  particular  issue  the  appropriate  time  is 
not  during  the  course  of  a  labour  dispute. 
When  that  labour  dispute  is  resolved,  then 
we  will  be  dealing  with  them  along  with  all 
the   other   agencies    with   similar  difficulties. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
On  November  17  the  minister  advised  this 
House  he  would  review  the  most  up-to-date 
information    available    to   him    to    determine 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4853 


how  he  might  act  to  be  of  some  assistance 
in  the  Participation  House  dispute.  Can  he 
tell  us  today  what  he  has  done  since  Novem- 
ber 17?  Will  he  at  least  sit  down  with  each 
of  the  sides  in  that  dispute  separately,  as 
the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie)  does 
from  time  to  time,  to  determine  what  the 
facts  are  and  what  the  stumbling  blocks  are 
in  that  particular  dispute? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
the  Minister  of  Labour.  There  are  arbi- 
trators in  the  Ministry  of  Labour  who  are 
available  to  those  parties  to  engage  in  that 
kind  of  effort.  It  is  neither  my  responsibility 
nor  my  area  of  expertise,  and  I  do  not 
intend  to  interfere,  in  my  present  role,  in  the 
collective  bargaining  process  when  there  is 
another  ministry  with  very  well  qualified 
staff  available  to  those  parties.  If  that  is 
what  they  want,  they  know  where  they  can 
go  for  that  kind  of  help. 

PETITION 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
eight  separate  petitions  to  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr. 
Drea)  asking  that  legislation  be  enacted  to 
compel  the  placing  of  individual  price  stick- 
ers on  all  items  for  sale  in  food  stores  that 
use  the  universal  product  code  scanners  at 
the  checkouts. 

NOTICE  OF  DISSATISFACTION 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  pursuant  to 
rule  28(a)  of  the  standing  orders,  I  wish  to 
give  notice  that  I  am  dissatisfied  with  the 
response  of  the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr. 
Elgie )  with  respect  to  my  questions  today 
about  severance  pay  and  intend  to  raise  the 
matter  upon  the  adjournment  at  10:30  this 
evening. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  proper  notice  has  been 
given  pursuant  to  standing  order  28,  and  this 
matter  will  be  debated  at  10:30. 
3:10  p.m. 

CORRESPONDENCE  FROM 
PRISON  INMATE 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  now  had 
the  opportunity  during  question  period  to 
study  the  statement  you  made  on  the  point 
of  privilege  I  raised  yesterday.  I  appreciate 
the  work  you  have  put  into  the  preparation 
of  the  statement,  but  I  still  am  not  clear  as 
to  whether  anyone  has  made  a  determination 
as  to  exactly  who  in  this  one  case  did  open 
this  envelope  which  was  mailed  to  me. 


I  simply  ask,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  you  either 
take  the  matter  under  advisement  a  bit 
further  to  see  if  you  can  determine  that  or, 
if  that  is  not  your  pleasure,  perhaps  it  might 
be  appropriate  to  send  this  matter  to  the 
procedural  affairs  committee.  There  are  a 
couple  of  points  in  your  statement  today 
which  I  would  like  to  raise  and  to  expand 
upon  at  further  length,  but  very  basically  I 
would  still  like  an  answer  to  the  question,  if 
it  is  possible,  as  to  who  exactly  did  open 
this  particular  envelope. 

Mr.  Speaker:  All  I  can  tell  the  honourable 
member  is  who  did  not  open  it.  It  was  not 
opened  by  our  postal  services  here.  It  was 
not  opened  in  the  scanning  process  of  the 
Ministry  of  Government  Services.  If  you  do 
have  a  grievance,  it  happened  outside  this 
building.  If  you  feel  the  information  I 
provided  you  from  the  office  of  the  Solicitor 
General  in  Ottawa  is  unsatisfactory,  your 
grievance  is  with  Canada  Post. 

I  have  given  you  all  of  the  information  I 
have.  I  am  not  an  investigatory  body.  I  have 
assured  myself  it  is  quite  conceivable  it  was 
opened  at  the  source  by  the  Solicitor  Gen- 
eral, who  does  not  deny  they  do  that  and 
will  reserve  the  right  to  continue  to  do  it.  I 
do  not  know  what  further  I  can  do  in  the 
matter.  All  I  can  assure  you  is  that  it  was 
not  intercepted  and  opened  by  anyone  under 
our  jurisdiction  here  in  the  Legislature. 

REPORTS 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
GENERAL  GOVERNMENT 

Mr.  Cureatz  from  the  standing  committee 
on  general  government  presented  the  follow- 
ing report  and  moved  its  adoption: 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bills  without  amendment: 

Bill  Pr45,  An  Act  respecting  the  Powers  of 
the  Jewish  Family  and  Child  Service  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto. 

Bill  Pr50,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Kingston. 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bill  with  certain  amendments: 

Bill  Pr48,  An  Act  to  incorporate  Redeemer 
College. 

Your  committee  would  recommend  that  the 
fees,  less  the  actual  cost  of  printing,  be 
remitted  on  Bill  Pr45,  An  Act  respecting  the 
Powers  of  Jewish  Family  and  Child  Service 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto,  and  Bill  Pr48,  An 
Act  to  incorporate  Redeemer  College. 

Report  adopted. 


4854 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
PROCEDURAL  AFFAIRS 

Mr.  Breaugh  from  the  standing  committee 
on  procedural  affairs  presented  the  com- 
mittee's annual  report  and  moved  its  adop- 
tion. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  report  is 
the  annual  report  done  by  the  procedural 
affairs  committee  on  various  agencies  which 
have  been  before  the  committee.  It  contains 
recommendations  on  these  agencies. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  Breaugh,  the  debate  was 
adjourned. 

SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON 
PLANT  SHUTDOWNS 

Mr.  McCaffrey  from  the  select  committee 
on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment 
presented  the  following  report  and  moved  its 
adoption: 

Your  committee  recommends  that  the  gov- 
ernment immediately  introduce  an  amend- 
ment to  Bill  191,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act,  1974,  applicable  to 
those  companies  required  to  give  notice  of 
intended  layoff  and  closing,  requiring  a  mini- 
mum severance  pay  of  one  week's  wages  for 
each  year  of  employment. 
3:50  p.m. 

The    House    divided    on    Mr.    McCaffrey's 
motion  for  the  adjournment  of  the  debate, 
which  was  agreed  to  on  the  following  vote- 
Ayes  81;  nays  30. 

MOTION 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  standing  order 
72(a)  respecting  notice  of  committee  hear- 
ings be  suspended  for  the  consideration  of 
Bill  Pr53,  An  Act  to  revive  McColl  Farms 
Limited,  by  the  standing  committee  on  ad- 
ministration of  justice  on  Wednesday, 
December  3,  1980. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILL 

MUNICIPAL  ELECTIONS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Foulds  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  213, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal  Elections 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
the   bill   is   to    change   the  polling  day   for 


municipal  elections  in  Ontario  from  the 
second  Monday  in  November  to  the  first 
Monday  in  November  in  an  election  year. 
The  reason  for  the  change  is  to  avoid  any 
interference  by  municipal  elections  with  the 
observance  of  Remembrance  Day. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

THIRD  READINGS 

The  following  bills  were  given  third  read- 
ing on  motion: 

Bill  82,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Education 
Act,  1974; 

Bill  185,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Assessment 
Act. 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

REGISTERED  INSURANCE 
BROKERS  OF  ONTARIO  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  118,  An  Act  respect- 
ing the  Registered  Insurance  Brokers  of  On- 
tario. 

Sections  1  to  5,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

On  section  6: 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  beg 
the  indulgence  of  the  chair.  I  do  not  have 
my  amendment  completely  written  out  and 
I  understand  it  is  going  to  be  difficult;  the 
changes  are  fairly  simple  in  nature.  Do  I 
have  the  agreement  of  the  chair  to  proceed? 
The  minister  indicates  it  would  be  all  right. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  am  sorry;  I  did  not  follow 
that  comment. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  do  not  have  my 
amendment  written  out  yet.  I  ask  your  in- 
dulgence to  permit  me  to  put  the  amendment 
verbally. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  am  sorry;  I  cannot.  It 
must  be  in  writing. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  If  you  want  to  wait 
until  I  finish  writing  it  out,  I  will  supply  it 
to  you. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  this  is  the 
only  section  the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre 
wishes  to  address,  we  could  proceed  to  the 
minister's  amendment  and  then  return  to  that 
item  in  order  to  convenience  the  procedure 
in  the  committee. 

Section  6  stood  down. 

Sections  7  to  24,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

On  section  25: 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  an 
amendment  that  was  substantially  moved  in 
standing  committee.  It  was  left  to  the  legis- 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4855 


lative  draftsman  to  include  a  few  minor  de- 
scriptions. It  was  agreed  to  in  substance  by 
the  standing  committee. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman:  Have  we  got  copies  of  this  pro- 
posed amendment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  No,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  did 
not  provide  copies,  because  it  was  agreed  to 
in  committee,  it  was  just  subject  to  a  legisla- 
tive draft. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  I  just  asked  our  representative 
and  he  has  none. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  But  I  have  it  in  writing. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  It  would  be  nice  to  read  it 
along  with  your  reading  to  see  what  impact 
it  has. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  do  that.  I  would  like  it  to 
be  on  the  record  that  I  was  the  one  who 
was  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre's  putting  his  amendment  in 
any  shape  or  form.  Do  not  take  it  out  on  me 
because  you  lost  one  with  the  chair. 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  understand  the  member 
will  supply  copies. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  You  are  sure  bellicose  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Friendly.  I  also  know  what 
you  are  up  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hon.  Mr.  Drea  moves  that 
section  25  of  the  bill  be  amended  by  adding 
thereto  the  following  subsection: 

"la.  Where  the  manager  or  the  manager's 
designate  appoints  persons  to  make  an  in- 
vestigation to  ascertain  whether  a  member 
has  committed  an  act  of  misconduct  or  incom- 
petence involving  trust  funds,  the  persons 
appointed  shall  include  two  persons  repre- 
senting the  insurers  for  whom  funds  were  or 
ought  to  have  been  held  in  trust." 
4  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr  Chairman,  to  bring  the 
committee  of  the  whole  House  up  to  date  on 
this  matter,  there  was  a  question  involving 
section  24,  the  preceding  section  of  this  bill. 
The  Registered  Insurance  Brokers  of  Ontario 
or  the  named  corporation  in  this  particular 
section  of  the  act,  where  it  makes  a  prima 
facie  case  about  misconduct,  can  obtain  by 
ex  parte  application  in  the  Supreme  Court 
the  right  to  have  a  receiver  appointed.  The 
purpose  is  to  provide  a  speedy  stabilization 
of  the  funds  involved.  They  are  not  commer- 
cial funds  in  the  true  sense,  but  they  involve 
premiums  that  perhaps  were  not  paid.  It  is 
a  stabilizing  and  almost  immediate  protection 
of  the  consumer  because  of  the  sifting-out 
nature  of  the  insurance  field. 


The  Insurance  Bureau  of  Canada,,  on 
behalf  of  the  insurance  companies,  has  a 
substantial  stake  because  it  is  providing  the 
coverage,  on  which  the  trust  funds,  or  the 
missing  trust  funds  or  any  other  defaults 
that  have  occured,  have  a  very  substantial 
impact,  and  it  wanted  to  assure  itself  a 
notice  or  a  presence  before  the  court. 

I  draw  to  the  committee's  attention  that 
section  24(4)  does  provide  for  that  ex  parte 
order  being  continued  upon  notice.  This, 
in  effect,  was  a  compromise  because  the 
original  submission  was  to  provide  notice 
to  all  interested  parties  prior  to  the  court 
application.  The  particular  concern  was  that 
this  would  slow  down  what  literally  might 
have  to  be  an  instant  stabilization  to  provide 
a  proper  remedy. 

On  this  basis,  they  will  be  part  of  the 
investigation.  Therefore,  when  the  application 
is  made  for  the  ex  parte  order,  the  insurers 
for  whom  the  funds  were  held  in  trust  or 
should  have  been  held  in  trust  would  be 
part  of  the  ex  parte  procedure.  It  may  be  a 
minor  technical  point,  but  it  does  provide 
that  we  have  got  around  the  problem  of 
wanting  to  provide  adequate  notice  for  those 
affected  but  not  having  that  adequate  notice 
period,  by  its  very  essence,  delay  the  stabi- 
lization procedure. 

As  I  say,  the  amendment  was  agreed  to 
in  substance,  but  the  legislative  draftsman 
last  week  did  want  another  look  because  it 
does  refer  to  the  corporation.  It  does  refer 
back  to  section  24. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  the 
minister  has  said,  the  matter  was  discussed 
at  some  length  during  the  committee  stage 
in  the  standing  committee  on  administra- 
tion of  justice  last  week.  This  was  a  point 
that  came  up  somewhat  late  in  the  commit- 
tee hearings  and,  to  ensure  accurate  drafts- 
manship so  there  would  be  provision  for  the 
insurance  companies'  representatives  to  be 
involved,  either  directly  or  through  IBC, 
and  yet  not  have  untoward  delay  of  having 
to  give  notice  to  a  great  variety  of  people 
at  the  time  an  ex  parte  application  was 
made,  this  compromise  was  accomplished. 

We  in  this  party  are  quite  prepared  to 
support  this  amendment  at  this  time,  which 
will  complete  the  outstanding  items  agreed 
to  by  the  minister  as  to  amendments  to  be 
brought  before  the  committee  of  the  whole 
before  the  bill  proceeded  to  third  reading. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
have  no  objection  to  the  amendment  placed 
by  the  minister  and,  as  I  understand  it,  it 


4856 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


fulfilled  the  desire  of  the  committee  that 
met  last  week. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Section  25,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

On  section  6: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  moves 
that  section  6  be  amended  as  follows:  Clause 
a  of  subsection  2  be  amended  by  striking 
the  word  "eight"  and  substituting  the  word 
"six"  therefor;  clause  b  of  subsection  2  be 
amended  by  striking  the  word  "three"  and 
substituting  the  word  "six"  therefor  and 
that  the  words  "two  upon  the  nomination 
of  the  Consumers'  Association  of  Canada 
and  two  upon  the  nomination  of  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Labour"  be  added,  following 
the  word  "Council";  subsection  3  be  amend- 
ed by  striking  the  words  "one  quarter"  and 
substituting  the  words  "one  half"  therefor; 
subsection  4  be  amended  by  striking  the 
word  "eight"  in  the  third  line  and  substitut- 
ing the  word  "six"  therefor  and  by  striking 
the  word  ''four"  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  lines 
and  substituting  the  word  "three"  therefor. 

It  appears  there  are  a  number  of  amend- 
ments for  each  subsection.  Does  the  com- 
mittee agree  to  take  it  in  total? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  do  not  think  the 
amendment  comes  as  a  surprise  to  either  the 
critic  of  the  Liberal  Party  or  the  minister.  I 
announced  during  the  committee  session  my 
intention  to  move  it  but,  unfortunately,  I  was 
unable  to  be  at  the  committee  hearing  on 
the  day  we  dealt  with  the  section  in  clause- 
by-clause  consideration. 

Those  members  who  were  present  at  that 
time  will  recall  I  had  a  two-part  argument 
in  favour  of  this  series  of  amendments.  The 
first  part  of  that  argument  was  that  there 
should  be  an  appropriate  and  proper  balance 
in  terms  of  the  representation  on  the  council 
and  that  I  did  not  believe  that  eight  and 
three  was  an  appropriate  balance  of  industry 
and  public  input.  It  seems  to  me,  not  only 
in  this  particular  body  but  also  in  like  bodies, 
we  should  be  moving  to  the  recognition  that 
there  should  be  a  real  balance  between  the 
public  and  the  vested  interest  in  these  orga- 
nizations. That  is  the  reason  for  the  first  part 
of  the  amendment:  it  is  to  create  that  balance 
between  the  private  and  the  public  interest 
in  the  body. 

The  second  principle  contained  in  the 
amendment  I  am  putting  forward  is  that  we 
in  the  Legislature  decide  what  kinds  of 
people  would  properly  constitute  public  rep- 
resentation upon  the  council.  There  has  been 
some  discussion  within  and  without  the  in- 
dustry and,  I  suppose,  the  government,  as  to 


what  would  constitute  in  this  case  represen- 
tation of  the  public  interest  before  the  newly 
self -regulating  body. 

At  this  point  I  have  not  heard  a  clear  ex- 
planation from  the  minister  of  what  he  would 
propose,  nor  from  anyone  else  in  a  position  of 
authority,  but  some  of  the  suggestions  I  have 
heard  tossed  about  in  terms  of  representation 
are  that  the  kinds  of  people  would  be  some- 
thing like  a  representative  from  the  office  of 
the  superintendent  of  insurance,  a  lawyer,  or 
an  accountant. 
4:10  p.m. 

From  where  I  sit  in  this  world  we  know  as 
Ontario,  and  while  I  have  the  greatest  respect 
for  lawyers,  accountants  and  representatives 
of  the  office  of  the  superintendent  of  in- 
surance in  their  professional  capacities,  that 
is  not  what  we  in  Hamilton  Centre  consider 
to  be  representative  of  the  public  and  the 
public  interest.  I  do  not  in  any  way  mean 
that  as  an  attack  on  lawyers  or  anybody  else. 
I  have  had  plenty  of  opportunities  to  vent 
my  obvious  displeasure  with  members  of 
that  particular  profession. 

What  I  have  tried  to  do,  by  way  of  my 
amendment,  is  to  put  into  the  bill  a  guaran- 
tee that  there  will  be  people  chosen  by  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  upon  the 
nomination  and  advice  of  groups  in  the  com- 
munity whom  I,  as  the  member  for  Hamilton 
Centre,  recognize  as  spokesmen  for  signifi- 
cant portions  of  the  public  in  the  province. 
The  two  I  have  chosen  are  the  Consumers' 
Association  of  Canada  and  the  Ontario  Fed- 
eration of  Labour. 

The  members  who  were  in  the  committee 
hearings  will  recall  that  the  chairman  of  the 
Consumers'  Association  of  Canada  in  On- 
tario attended  and  participated  before  the 
committee,  which  shows  the  interest  the  Con- 
sumers' Association  of  Canada  has  in  the 
work  this  body  will  undertake.  I  think  that 
in  the  Legislature  we  should  recognize,  by 
way  of  legislation,  that  principle  of  the  in- 
volvement of  the  Consumers'  Association  of 
Canada.  It  is  a  fine  protector  of  the  consumer 
and,  in  that  sense,  of  the  public  interest  in 
our  province.  It  has  an  enviable  record.  As 
a  legislator,  I  would  like  to  use  what  in- 
fluence I  have  in  the  assembly  to  ensure  there 
will  be  representation  of  that  association  on 
the  body. 

The  other  organization  I  suggest  as  an 
association  that  in  many  ways  reflects  a  sig- 
nificant portion  of  the  public  interest  is  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Labour.  We  have  had 
a  happy  history  in  this  province  of  the  in- 
volvement of  the  Federation  of  Labour  in 
public  policy.  Unfortunately,  the  government 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4857 


has  not  listened  to  it  as  frequently  as  I  and 
many  of  my  constituents  would  have  wished, 
but  it  has  shown  itself  over  the  years  to  be 
a  body  that  has  a  sense  of  social  and 
economic  justice.  It  is  very  tough  in  its 
presentation  of  that  sense  of  the  public 
interest.  It  is  another  organization  that 
should  be  represented,  by  way  of  statute,  on 
the  body  to  protect  the  public  interest  in 
what  is  becoming  a  newly  self-regulative 
part  of  the  industry. 

I  would  ask  my  colleagues  in  the  assembly 
to  support  this.  It  still  gives  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  in  Council,  upon  the  advice  of  his 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, the  possibility  of  appointing  a  couple 
of  other  people  such  as  representatives  of  the 
superintendent  of  insurance's  office,  a  lawyer, 
an  accountant  or  whomever  else  the  govern- 
ment, in  its  wisdom,  defines  as  being  repre- 
sentative  of  the  public  interest. 

I  think  my  amendment  establishes  a  proper 
balance,  a  50-50  balance,  an  equal  partner- 
ship between  industry  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  public  on  the  other  hand.  Also,  it  guar- 
antees we  will  have  a  process  by  which  we 
should  be  able  to  appoint  six  people  who 
can  give  a  broad  and  accurate  representation 
of  the  public  interest.  I  think  it  is  a  good 
amendment.  It  is  an  amendment  that  should 
not  only  be  accepted  in  this  bill,  but  should 
be  accepted  in  like  kinds  of  legislation,  espe- 
cially as  government  in  this  province  tends 
to  move  more  and  more  towards  deregula- 
tion. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  listened 
with  interest  to  the  amendment  as  proposed. 
I  regret  that,  in  my  view,  it  is  not  worthy  of 
support. 

I  understand  that  a  member  of  the  Con- 
sumers' Association  of  Canada  is  likely  to  be 
one  of  the  three  persons.  As  I  recall,  in  the 
hearings  at  the  committee  stage  this  was 
acknowledged  as  a  likely  appointee.  Mrs. 
Anderson,  representing  the  Consumers'  Asso- 
ciation of  Canada,  when  asked  whether  two 
persons  should  represent  the  Ontario  Federa- 
tion of  Labour,  as  I  recall  said  she  did  not 
see  how  that  was  particularly  appropriate.  I 
suggest  it  is  probably  no  more  appropriate 
than  appointing  two  members  of  the  United 
Church. 

I  do  not  know  why  this  group  necessarily 
has  to  be  the  group  singled  out  to  appoint 
persons  who  presumably  have  the  public 
interest  at  heart.  The  tragedy  that  might 
result  is  that  the  OFL  might  suggest  as 
represenatives  a  lawyer  and  an  accountant. 
Then  the  member's  whole  purpose  might  be 
lost. 


I  think  the  present  division,  as  we  move 
into  this  program,  is  satisfactory.  It  is  my 
hope  the  three  appointed  persons  who  are 
not  members  of  the  corporation  will  bring  a 
certain  balance  of  views  to  the  activities  of 
the  corporation.  However,  I  remind  the  min- 
ister that  this  whole  institution  is  to  ensure 
that  a  representative  group  of  members  of 
the  association  is  placed  in  the  responsible 
position  of  self-regulation.  As  a  result,  I  think 
that,  as  a  group  that  is  achieving  responsi- 
bility and  a  certain  status  of  that  responsi- 
bility, the  proportion  of  members  on  the 
council  is  satisfactory  the  way  it  appears  in 
the  draft  bill  and  the  way  it  was  approved 
in  the  committee  stage. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Chairman,  just  to  set 
the  record  straight,  the  member  or  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  Consumers'  Association  of 
Canada,  Ms.  Anne  Brechin,  is  already  sitting 
on  the  board  of  the  Registered  Insurance 
Brokers  of  Ontario  or  the  corporation. 

It  is  my  concern  that  if  there  is  to  be 
self-regulation,  the  majority  of  the  responsi- 
bility must  be  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are 
regulating  themselves.  To  diminish  that  re- 
sponsibility flies  in  the  face  of  the  whole  con- 
cept of  self-regulation. 

Part  of  the  concept  of  self-regulation  is 
public  participation.  This  is  exactly  the  same 
as  was  done  in  the  credit  union  field  when 
the  Ontario  Share  and  Deposit  Insurance 
Corporation,  OSDIC,  was  begun.  It  was  the 
credit  union  movement's  own  regulatory  body, 
one  that  has  a  great  many  powers  this  Legisla- 
ture vested  in  it  for  the  orderly  transaction 
of  business  in  that  commercial  finance  field. 
They  even  include  the  right  to  step  in  and 
intervene  directly  to  protect  the  public  inter- 
est as  well  as  the  public  funds. 

I  suggest  the  OSDIC  formula  has  worked 
extremely  well.  It  has  been  so  successful, 
many  of  the  responsibilities  OSDIC  took  upon 
itself  to  provide  better  public  protection  were 
subsequently  confirmed  by  this  Legislature. 

In  regard  to  the  superintendent  of  insur- 
ance putting  people  on  here,  section  10  out- 
lines the  role  of  the  superintendent  of  insur- 
ance and  his  office  and  of  the  minister.  The 
superintendent  of  insurance,  no  matter  how 
well  intentioned,  cannot  be  a  member  of  the 
board  of  directors  and  at  the  same  time  be 
doing  the  very  essential  inspections  that  are 
particularly  germane  where  trust  funds  and  a 
number  of  other  extremely  significant  financial 
regulations  are  involved. 
4:20  p.m. 

Obviously  the  minister's  role  is  to  be  the 
vehicle  and  to  provide  the  annual  report  of 


4858 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  corporation  not  only  for  public  scrutiny 
but  also  for  scrutiny  by  the  members  of  this 
House,  who  have  vested  by  virtue  of  Bill  118 
the  additional  responsibility  and  obligation 
upon  the  Registered  Insurance  Brokers  of 
Ontario  corporation.  Flowing  from  that  there 
are  additional  responsibilities  put  on  the 
people  who  are  serving  as  directors— either 
directors  representing  brokers  of  the  province 
or  the  public  directors. 

In  terms  of  public  participation,  obviously 
there  is  scope  for  specific  public  participation 
or  in  the  field  of  public  expertise.  That  is  the 
reason  for  wanting  a  lawyer.  The  lawyer  will 
not  be  acting  as  a  vested  interest.  The  lawyer 
who  sits  on  that  board  is  sitting  as  public 
member.  The  person  who  is  the  lawyer  must 
regard  the  public  as  his  or  her  client.  The 
same  holds  true  for  the  chartered  accountant 
who  will  be  on  that  board.  That  person  brings 
to  a  very  significant  area  of  public  partici- 
pation and  public  protection  a  very  skilled 
knowledge  that  must  be  used  on  behalf  of  the 
public,  and  not  on  behalf  of  his  or  her  own 
particular  interests. 

It  also  seems  to  be  somewhat  negative  in 
the  field  of  self-regulation  and  more  responsi- 
bility to  hear  that  people  must  be  brought  in 
as  adversaries  to  protect  against  the  vested 
interest.  I  suggest  with  all  due  respect,  that 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour  has  as 
vested  an  interest  as  anybody  else  who  quali- 
fies as  an  organization  or  group  that  has 
specific  goals  or  specific  programs  in  an  ad- 
vocacy position.  The  designation  of  the  OFL 
does  not  erase  the  vested  interest— which  I 
suggest  is  more  imagined  than  real— but  by 
the  same  factor  makes  vested  interest  abun- 
dantly real. 

Of  course,  that  does  not  pertain  to  the 
Consumers'  Association  of  Canada,  which 
has  a  broader  scope.  Without  getting  into 
the  merits  going  through,  clause  by  clause, 
the  goals  and  objectives  and  advocacy 
methods  and  approach  of  the  Ontario  Fed- 
eration of  Labour,  the  Canadian  Manufac- 
turers' Association  or  the  Canadian  Chamber 
of  Commerce  or  any  one  of  the  386  or  so 
special  or  vested  interest  groups  that  appear 
before  me  in  my  ministerial  capacity  every 
year,  they  all  have  one  thing  in  common; 
that  is,  by  their  structure  and  formation, 
which  reflect  the  goals,  they  are  relatively 
narrow  in  scope. 

I  suggest,  on  the  scope  matter,  the 
broadest  scope  is  that  of  the  Consumers' 
Association  of  Canada.  That  is  why  we  have 
gone  to  that  organization— not  because  its 
goals  or  its  outlook  are  considered  superior 
or  more  popular  or  more  conventional,  but 


because  of  its  plain,  solid  structure  and 
because  it  operates  in  the  public  sphere  with, 
because  of  its  nature,  the  broadest  possible 
scope. 

If  a  person  is  on  the  board  in  the  capacity 
of  lawyer,  that  person's  other  interests  are 
surely  very  secondary  or  even  very  tertiary. 
As  a  professional  person,  that  individual  has 
one  client,  the  public,  and  must  assume  pro- 
fessional responsibility  for  that.  It  is  the  same 
with  chartered  accountants.  It  is  somewhat 
redundant,  I  suppose,  to  ask  that  the  super- 
intendent of  insurance  have  a  person  there. 
It  would  completely  erode  and  destroy  the 
whole  concept  and  the  entire  fabric  of  what 
this  act  is  doing.  It  would  cease  being  a 
model  act  for  self -regulation;  it  would  be  a 
camouflage  for  substitution  of  regulation  in  a 
very  inferior  form.  Therefore,  I  will  oppose 
this  amendment. 

I  do  not  think  this  is  a  debate  on  the 
merits  of  the  individuals  who  might  or  might 
not  appear  on  a  board.  I  think  it  comes 
right  down  to  the  structure,  to  what  is  being 
done  here  and  to  what  would  hanpen  to  the 
structure  and  the  approach  if  these  inhibi- 
tions were  imposed  upon  the  Registered  In- 
surance Brokers  of  Ontario  by  this  series  of 
amendments. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  will  not  take  up 
much  more  time  with  this  obviously  lost 
cause,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  understand  the  argu- 
ments put  by  the  minister  and  by  my 
counteroart  in  the  Liberal  Party  regarding 
the  efficacy  of  moving  to  self-regulation  in 
this  area.  Inasmuch  as  my  amendments 
would  stand  in  the  way,  trip,  halt  or  in  any 
way  stop  the  rush,  I  understand  the  position 
thev  have  taken.  We  have  a  fundamental  and 
perhaps  necessary  disagreement  over  the 
wisdom  of  self-regulation  in  Ontario. 

Frankly,  I  have  a  bit  of  trouble  with  this 
twisted,  upside-down,  topsy-turvy  view  of  the 
world  where  somehow  people  can  claim  that 
lawyers  are  representative  of  the  public  inter- 
est, that  lawyers  are  representative  of  the 
public.  I  cannot  think  of  very  many  other 
bodies  that  are  so  insulated  from  the  public 
for  any  number  of  reasons.  It  mav  be  there 
are  people  in  the  assembly  who  hold  in  much 
higher  esteem  than  I  do  the  group  of  people 
who  call  themselves  lawyers.  I  am  not  one 
of  them. 

When  we  talk  about  the  public  interest,  I 
understand  that,  perhaps  with  the  exception 
of  the  Legislative  Assembly,  there  really  is  no 
group  in  the  province  that  can  claim  to  be 
representative  of  the  public  interest.  I  am 
glad  there  is  going  to  be  somebody  on  from 
the    Consumers'    Association    of    Canada.    I 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4859 


think   it   is   a   good  step   that  there   is   one; 
there  should  be  two. 
4:30  p.m. 

What  bothers  me  is  when  you  look  at 
some  kind  of  a  balance  as  to  who  can 
better  represent  the  public  interest,  we  have 
on  the  one  side  lawyers,  accountants  and 
insurance  brokers  and  on  the  other  side 
workers  and  consumers.  There  does  not 
seem  to  me  to  be  much  of  a  choice  in  terms 
of  which  of  those  two  groups  is  better  able 
to  represent  the  public  interest  or,  indeed, 
if  nothing  more,  at  least  vested  interests  with 
a  slightly  wider  horizon.  I  tell  the  minister 
and  the  critic  from  the  Liberal  Party  that, 
if  I  have  to  take  sides  with  a  division  that 
puts  the  workers  and  consumers  on  one 
side  and  the  lawyers,  accountants  and  in- 
surance brokers  of  the  province  on  the  other 
side,  I  am  quite  happy  to  stand  with  the 
workers  and  consumers  of  the  province.  I 
still  think  there  is  a  serious  imbalance  in 
the  council  membership.  I  do  not  think  my 
amendments  will  totally  destroy  the  min- 
ister's bill. 

To  respond  to  my  colleague  the  member 
for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt),  I  suppose  it 
is  a  disagreement  we  have  had  for  a  number 
of  years  and  will  continue  to  have.  Just 
because  there  are  not  very  many  representa- 
tives of  the  working  class  in  the  Legislative 
Assembly  does  not  mean  we  do  not  have,  on 
our  own  and  through  our  organizations  like 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour,  a  real 
and  important  role  to  play  in  society.  There 
is  an  important  role  for  working  people  in 
the  society,  and  I  think  we  should  encour- 
age attempts  like  this  to  allow  working- 
class  people  to  participate  fully  in  the  coun- 
cils that  make  the  real  decisions  in  the 
province. 

I  do  not  see  any  advantage  in  not  guar- 
anteeing by  way  of  legislation  some  kind  of 
public  representation,  and  that  is  one  of 
the  things  my  bill  tried  to  do.  I  am  saddened 
there  was  not  even  a  subamendment  in 
some  way  to  make  that  more  palatable. 
Frankly,  I  admit  to  the  minister  that  I  do 
not  like  deregulation. 

All  I  can  say  is  that,  considering  some  of 
the  bungling  I  have  seen  within  the  ministry, 
private  industry  cannot  do  a  great  deal 
worse  than  some  of  the  things  I  have  seen. 
As  I  said  earlier,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  regret  the 
imminent  and  inevitable  defeat  of  my 
amendment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  He  slides  by  it  so  nicely. 

First  of  all,  Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  set  the 
record   straight.    It  is   not   the   lawyers,   the 


accountants  and  the  insurance  brokers  of 
Ontario  in  a  confrontation  or,  indeed,  any 
kind  of  adversary  role  with  consumers  and 
workers. 

As  is  his  wont,  the  honourable  member 
conveniently  forgets,  misplaces  or  does  any 
number  of  things,  which  I  am  limited  to 
describe  by  the  parliamentary  procedures 
of  this  House. 

I  remind  the  unlistening  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  that  the  Consumers'  Asso- 
ciation of  Canada  is  already  a  member  of 
the  board;  so  if  he  would  like  to  look- 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  They  would  like  two 
spots  on  the  board. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  just  want  to  put  that  on 
the  record.  If  the  member  wants  to  state 
it  accurately  or,  indeed,  had  the  fortitude 
to  state  it  accurately,  any  adversary  positions 
in  the  concept  of  the  amendments  he  is 
proposing  are  taken  by  the  insurance  brok- 
ers, who  are  taking  on  the  responsibility  of 
being  self-regulating— it  is  not  a  gift  be- 
stowed by  government— by  a  lawyer  under 
the  sanctions  and  obligations  of  that  profes- 
sion, by  a  chartered  accountant  under  the 
sanctions  and  obligations  of  that  profession 
when  acting  as  a  public  member,  and  by 
consumers.  What  the  member  wants  to  add 
is  a  very  vested  interest.  That  puts  it  into 
a  little  bit  of  perspective. 

Indeed,  in  regard  to  the  working-class 
representative,  I  like  that  one;  I  kind  of 
regard  myself  as  one,  and  I  really  think  the 
public  has  some  agreement  with  me.  I  repre- 
sent the  working  class— perhaps  not  the  elite 
that  brings  the  sneer  from  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre,  but  I  suggest  my  record 
will  show  a  great  number  of  things- 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  If  you  are  the  saviour 
of  the  working  class,  we  are  all  in  trouble. 
Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  say  back  to  the  member 
for  Hamilton  Centre,  if  he  had  ever  held  a 
job  in  the  private  sector  for  a  prolonged 
period  of  time,  he  might  be  able  to  comment. 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  worked  as  long  there 
as  I  have  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  That  is  not  very  long  in 
either  place,  and  this  job  is  soon  to  be  termi- 
nated. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Now  you  are  attacking 
young  people  as  well  as  the  workers. 
Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  He  is  here  by  a  margin  of 
11  votes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Fourteen. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  What  do  you  think 
about  older  people? 


4860 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  have  a  great  deal  of 
respect  for  all  people,  and  I  am  not  going  to 
engage  in  the  vituperation  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  usually  likes  to  bring  into 
these  matters,  even  though  he  has  introduced 
them. 

The  public  interest  is  very  well  served  in 
the  structure  of  this  bill.  The  crowning  insult 
to  the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre  should 
be  that  the  senior  person  from  the  Con- 
sumers' Association  of  Canada,  who  sat  in 
the  committee  meetings,  said  the  CAC,  which 
can  speak  for  itself,  was  perfectly  satisfied 
with  this  structure. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
M.  N.  Davison's  amendment  to  section  6  will 
please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Section  6  agreed  to. 

Sections  26  to  47,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

Bill  118,  as  amended,  reported. 

DOG  OWNERS'  LIABILITY  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  169,  An  Act  to  pro- 
vide for  Liability  for  Injuries  caused'  by 
Dogs. 

Sections  1  and  2  agreed  to. 

On  section  3: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Riddell  moves  that 
section  3(1)  be  amended  by  adding  at  the 
end  thereof:  "except  where  the  person  who 
is  bitten  or  attacked  is  deemed  to  have 
willingly  assumed  all  risks  under  section  4(3) 
of  that  act." 

Section  3(1)  would  now  read:  "Where 
damage  is  caused  by  being  bitten  or  attacked 
by  a  dog  on  the  premises  of  the  owner,  the 
liability  of  the  owner  is  determined  under 
this  act  and  not  under  the  Occupiers'  Lia- 
bility Act,  1980,  except  where  the  person 
who  is  bitten  or  attacked  is  deemed  to  have 
willingly  assumed  all  risks  under  section  4(3) 
of  that  act." 

Mr.  Riddell:  On  second  reading  of  this 
bill,  Mr.  Chairman,  several  members  men- 
tioned working  dogs  on  farms.  They  com- 
mented that  these  dogs,  by  natural  instinct, 
do  tend  to  nip  not  only  at  livestock,  for 
which  purpose  they  are  used,  but  also  at 
the  heels  of  people  coming  on  to  the  farm, 
whether  they  be  invited  guests  or  trespassers. 

The  way  the  bill  reads  now,  it  would1 
supersede  Bill  202,  An  Act  respecting  Occu- 
piers' Liability,  and  Bill  203,  the  Trespass  to 


Property  Act.  We  do  not  feel  this  should  be 
the  case. 

We  are  not  saying  farmers  should  be 
exempted.  We  do  not  feel  a  farmer  should 
keep  a  vicious  dog  for  the  purpose  of  guard- 
ing the  homestead  and  attacking  people  as 
they  come  on  to  the  farm.  We  are  trying  to 
protect  the  owner  with  that  working  dog 
who,  by  natural  instinct,  does  tend  to  nip 
at  the  feet  of  livestock  and  would  do  the 
same  thing  with  human  beings. 

4:40  p.m. 

If  the  farmer,  under  the  Occupiers'  Liability 
Act  and  the  Trespass  to  Property  Act,  per- 
mitted snowmobilers  on  to  his  land,  there 
are  some  dogs  that  get  upset  when  snow- 
mobiles cross  the  land  and  they  tend  to  chase 
the  snowmobile  and  to  grab  at  the  legs  of  the 
snowmobiler.  I  have  a  dog  that  does  that  very 
thing.  Whenever  any  one  gets  on  the  snow- 
mobile and  takes  off  across  the  field,  the  dog 
is  there  and  he  is  out  to  grab  you  by  the 
leg.  I  do  not  know  what  it  is  that  upsets  the 
dog  but  he  tends  to  do  that.  I  do  not  feel  that 
an  owner  should  be  liable  if  something  like 
that  happens. 

We  feel  that  the  Occupiers'  Liability  Act 
and  the  Trespass  to  Property  Act  should  come 
into  effect  and  that  these  people  coming  on 
to  the  farm  should  be  prepared  to  assume 
those  risks,  one  of  which  might  be  being 
bitten  by  a  working  dog.  I  think  this  gives 
the  farmers  the  type  of  protection  they  felt 
they  had  under  Bills  202  and  203  but  which 
they  now  do  not  have. 

I  know  the  parliamentary  assistant  is  going 
to  stand  up  and  he  is  going  to  say,  "Yes,  but 
it  is  a  discretion  that  is  going  to  be  made  by 
a  judge."  I  am  not  sure  we  should  put  the 
farmer  to  all  that  time  and  expense  of  having 
to  go  to  court  to  try  to  prove  to  a  judge  that 
the  dog  was  not  vicious  but  by  natural  in- 
stinct bit  the  person  who  came  on  to  the 
property.  I  am  not  too  sure  the  judge  would 
always  hand  down  the  right  decision,  because 
I  am  sure  many  judges  are  not  familiar  with 
working  dogs  and  with  what  working  dogs 
are  expected  to  do  on  a  farm  and  what 
working  dogs  might  do  to  trespassers  or 
people  invited  to  a  farm. 

If  it  is  anything  like  some  of  the  decisions 
that  are  handed  down  by  judges  on  this  so- 
called  new  law  reform  we  have  in  this  prov- 
ince, then  we  are  in  trouble,  believe  me. 
That  is  another  matter  and  something  we  are 
going  to  have  to  discuss  at  some  time  in 
this  Legislature,  but— 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Family  law  reform? 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4861 


Mr.  Riddell:  Family  law  reform— there  are 
farmers'  wives  leaving  their  husbands,  saying 
they  are  going  to  get  half  of  everything.  You 
have  never  seen  the  likes  of  it  in  your  life. 
This  is  something  we  are  going  to  have  to 
address  at  some  time.  That  is  getting  a  little 
away  from  this  bill. 

If  we  go  along  with  this  amendment,  we 
are  giving  the  farmer  the  protection  he  felt 
he  had  under  Bills  202  and  203.  I  might  say 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  sup- 
ports us  in  our  endeavours  to  have  this 
amendment  included  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  speaking  to  this,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  just  want  to  raise  the  point  that 
within  the  next  few  weeks  or  months  many 
of  us  may  be  out  canvassing  for  support  on 
some  of  these  farms.  It  may  be  appropriate 
for  us  to  be  protected  in  some  way  but  it 
looks  as  though  it  would  be  even  more  ap- 
propriate for  the  dogs  to  be  protected  as  we 
may  be  coming  into  their  territory. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  ever  there 
was  a  human  being  deemed— I  use  the  word 
broadly— to  fall  within  the  ambit  of  the 
section  as  proposed,  it  would  be  somebody 
seeking  election,  would  it  not?  I  mean,  they 
are  fair  game  for  a  lot  of  things,  including 
mad  dogs.  I  do  not  mean  mad  dogs  in  one 
sense  of  the  term;  I  mean  dogs  that  are 
maddened  in  another  sense.  We  cannot,  and 
I  am  sure  we  will  not,  support  this  extension 
of  the  act.  My  own  feelings  about  the  Occu- 
pier's Liability  Act  are  fairly  well  known. 
There  seems,  and  I  say  this  regrettably,  no 
end  to  the  coercion  that  is  stipulated  for  and 
the  attempts  to  carve  out  privileged  positions 
vis-a-vis  the  law  in  any  element  or  segment 
of  the  community.  No  one  is  privileged,  what- 
ever it  may  be,  over  against  another  segment 
of  a  civilized  society.  The  earlier  legislation, 
the  particular  move  in  this  direction,  and 
the  attempt  by  the  honourable  member  to 
protect  certain  farmers  against  both  their 
wives  and  their  dogs  strikes  me  as  a  bit  over- 
reaching in  this  particular  context.  The  fact 
the  honourable  member  himself  brought  the 
other  matter  into  play  somewhat  bemused  me. 

We  cannot  give  accord  to  this  particular 
amendment. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
indicate  that  I,  like  the  member  for  Lake- 
shore,  must  oppose  this  amendment,  basically 
for  the  fact  that  the  example  brought  for- 
ward by  the  proponent  of  the  amendment, 
under  the  existing  legislation  as  it  now 
stands,  would  not  penalize  the  farmer-owner 
to  any  great  extent.  The  farmer-owner  would 
be    liable    only    for    the    damages    the    dog 


caused.  If  the  dog  viciously  attacked  some- 
one, then  he  would  be  responsible  for  that 
vicious  attack.  I  think  the  member  has  said 
there  is  no  excuse  for  a  vicious  dog,  be  it  in 
an  urban  setting  or  a  farm  setting,  so  that  the 
potential  liability  is  not  great.  If  the  dog  is 
just  nipping  at  the  heels  of  a  political  can- 
vasser, then  the  political  canvasser  at  best 
can  get  a  new  pair  of  sneakers  for  his  elec- 
tion campaign. 

Mr.  Riddell:   At  whose  expense? 

Mr.  Sterling:  It  might  be  at  the  fanner's 
expense,  if  that  be  the  case,  but  let  us  take 
it  to  the  extreme  of  what  this  amendment 
means.  If  a  small  child  wanders  on  to  that 
property,  across  a  fenced  field  or  whatever  it 
is,  under  the  Occupiers'  Liability  Act  he  is 
deemed  to  have  willingly  assumed  the  risk. 
What  if  the  dog  attacks  that  child  and  mauls 
it?  Is  the  member  saying  the  farmer,  know- 
ingly keeping  a  vicious  dog,  should  be  any 
less  responsible  to  that  child  than  an  urban 
person  would,  keeping  the  same  dog  which 
attacks   a  child  in  those  circumstances? 

That  is  the  greatest  difficulty  I  have  in 
accepting  this  amendment  in  this  particular 
case.  The  Occupiers'  Liability  Act  and  the 
Trespass  to  Property  Act  were  really  designed 
to  give  a  farmer  protection  from  unknown 
dangers  on  his  land.  I  think  all  members 
expect  a  farmer  to  take  reasonable  precau- 
tions on  his  farm  if  he  wants  to  make  it  safe 
for  himself  and  for  his  family,  but  those  who 
are  knowledgeable  in  the  rural  community 
know  you  cannot  take  care  of  every  fence 
and  you  cannot  be  sure  that  every  trap  or 
depression  in  the  ground  is  not  hidden,  et 
cetera. 

Keeping  a  dog  that  has  a  tendency  to  bite 
is  a  different  matter.  It  is  something  that  is 
intimately  personal  to  that  particular  farmer. 
The  act  provides  that  if  the  person  coming 
on  the  land  should  not  be  there,  should  not 
be  in  the  barn  of  the  farmer,  and  is  bitten, 
perhaps  when  he  is  in  an  enclosed  building 
or  something  like  that— I  think  that  was  the 
example  brought  forward  in  the  previous 
debate— then  the  damages  will  be  mitigated 
to  the  extent  that  the  person  should  not  have 
been  there.  He  had  no  business  being  in  the 
barn  or  wherever  it  might  have  been,  and  if 
he  was  there  with  a  criminal  intent,  then  he 
assumes  all  the  risk,  regardless  of  the  results. 

I  do  not  think  it  is  too  much  to  ask  the 
farming  community  to  bear  this  liability 
when  one  considers  the  examples  I  have  put 
forward.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the 
liability  they  would  be  incurring  by  the 
examples    brought   forward   by   the   member 


4862 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


for  Huron-Middlesex  would  not  lead  to  any 
significant  litigation  at  all,  unless  serious 
damage  were  done  to  the  individual  who 
was  bitten.  Therefore,  I  cannot  support  this 
particular  amendment. 

4:59  p.m. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  to 
support  the  bill  which  I  moved,  seconded 
by  the  member  for  Huron-Middlesex  (Mr. 
Riddell).  Most  of  the  arguments  have  been 
mad*\  I  am  not  unmoved  by  the  areruments 
made  by  the  member  for  Carleton-Grenville 
(Mr.  Sterling).  I  do  feel  the  problem  he  is 
trying  to  address  perhaps  should  be  ad- 
dressed in  a  separate  act  that  would  put 
controls  on  the  handling  of  guard  dogs. 

In  my  electioneering  days— I  have  been 
through  only  one  election— I  found  very 
few  of  these  guard  dogs  on  farms,  although 
I  must  admit  there  were  one  or  two  St. 
Bernards.  I  cannot  recall  encountering  one 
of  the  various  exotic  breeds  brought  in 
during  recent  years  and  used  by  security 
companies  and  so  on  to  help  guard  proper- 
ties. This  is  perhaps  going  to  extremes,  but 
it  seems  to  me  they  are  almost  in  the 
category    of   exotic    and    dangerous    animals. 

I  remember  reading  one  time  when  some- 
one was  speculating  on  what  was  the  most 
dangerous  animal  in  the  world.  Of  course, 
one  would  immediately  say,  "It  is  a  lion." 
The  answer  was,  it  was  not  a  lion  but  a 
farm  bull,  because  a  person  approaching  a 
lion  would  expect  a  lion  to  attack,  whereas 
one  would  not  expect  the  bull  to  attack 
because  it  is  rather  unpredictable. 

The  point  is  that  these  guard  doors,  some 
of  the  special  exotic  breeds,  are  predictable. 
They  were  trained  and  bred  for  that  purpose. 
We  do  not  think  farmers  who  keep  working 
dogs,  which  on  most  farms  are  domestic 
animals,  should  be  penalized  because  of 
this  recent  phenomenon  in  our  society.  We 
are  not  unmindful  of  the  things  the  member 
has  said.  We  just  ask  that  he  give  us  his 
serious  consideration. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  two 
points.  At  the  extreme— I  admit  it  is  an 
extreme  situation— the  legislation  could  be 
construed  as  giving  a  licence  to  vicious 
animals  and  vicious  dogs  and— I  will  even 
go  this  far— to  the  training  and  maintenance 
knowingly  and  deliberately  of  such  an  ani- 
mal, and  to  be  relieved  of  the  responsibility 
in  this  context.  Admittedly,  an  overwhelming 
proportion  of  the  farming  community  or  any 
other  community  would  not  do  that  kind  of 
thing.  They  would  not  acquire  animals  of  that 
kind.    But   there   would   be   a   handful   who 


would  do  so.  You  would  draw  it  under  the 
amendment  as  being  able  to  rectify  the 
situation  and  obtain  the  damages  with  re- 
spect to  it. 

The  second  point  I  wish  to  make  is  that 
it  appears  to  be  a  deliberate  move  to  hedge 
against  all  possible  risks  in  the  context  of 
this  legislation.  Damn  it,  we  are  all  exposed 
to  risks  all  around  us  if  we  wish  to  be 
fully  operative  members  of  the  civilized 
community.  I  repeat,  there  is  none  of  us 
Who  can  set  up  a  tiny,  secure  preserve  for 
himself  against  the  ongoing  world  in  which 
we  want  to  enjoy  all  the  benefits  but  do  not 
wish  to  expose  ourselves  to  the  hazards 
that  world  involves. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  one 
of  those  members  who  raised  the  matter  of 
the  farm  working  dogs  during  the  second 
reading  debate.  I  am  still  concerned  about 
it,  but  I  support  the  amendment  put  for- 
ward by  the  member  for  Huron-Middlesex 
(Mr.  Riddell).  The  point  he  is  trying  to 
convey  is  that  under  the  Occupiers'  Liability 
Act  there  is  some  responsibility  upon  the 
person  entering  farm  property.  I  think  that 
is  the  key  to  this.  There  is  a  risk  involved 
when  any  person— a  milkman,  the  mailman, 
or  a  salesman— enters  any  property,  but 
particularly  a  farm  yard. 

I  suggest  it  is  a  reasonable  amendment. 
I  am  trying  to  recall  what  my  household 
insurance  cost  me  today  for  liability  insur- 
ance alone.  It  is  a  very  expensive  item  when 
you  get  the  whole  package  deal. 

Mr.  Eaton:  Liability  only  costs  about  $10 
a  year. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  member  has  awfully 
cheap  insurance,  I  think.  I  would  like  to  see 
it,  if  that  is  what  he  has. 

Mr.  Eaton:  I'll  sell  you  some. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  think  the  liability  insur- 
ance would  be  increased  considerably  if  the 
farmer  had  to  have  additional  insurance  to 
protect  somebody   entering  his  property. 

As  the  member  for  Lakeshore  said,  there 
is  a  risk  for  everybody  today  and  one  risk 
is  entering  strange  property.  I  suggest  it  is 
a  reasonable  amendment.  I  suggested  before 
that  this  piece  of  legislation  will  eventually 
see  signs  on  farm  property,  posted  right  at 
the  entrance  of  the  driveway  or  the  entrance 
to  the  property,  saying,  "No  visitors  or  sales- 
men may  enter."  That  is  what  is  going  to 
happen  with  this  bill.  I  can  see  it  coming. 

There  is  a  risk.  A  dog  does  not  have  to 
bite  or  nip  a  person.  A  farm  dog  sometimes 
may  startle  a  person  coming  on  to  the  prop- 
erty. A  hedge  or  evergreens  might  be  there 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4863 


and  a  person  may  be  just  on  the  verge  of 
taking  the  first  step  on  to  the  property  when 
a  dog  comes  from  behind  and  frightens  him. 
I  suggest  a  dog  does  not  have  to  bite  a  per- 
son, but  an  injury  could  still  occur  to  one 
who  has  been  frightened. 

The  bill  igoes  a  little  too  far.  There  are 
some  dogs  that,  through  breeding  over  cen- 
turies, are  trained  to  become  vicious.  Those 
are  the  dogs  I  would  be  more  concerned 
about.  Normally  a  working  dog  on  a  farm 
is  never  tied  up,  because  nine  times  out  of 
10  when  a  dog  is  tied  up  that  is  when  it 
becomes  vicious. 

Normally,  depending  on  the  owner  and 
the  background,  the  dog  will  not  bite.  It  is 
there  as  a  warning  to  let  people  know  they 
can  just  go  so  far  and  that  is  it. 

Since  my  municipality  went  into  regional 
'government,  we  very  seldom  see  a  police- 
man any  more.  Years  ago  we  could  always 
count  on  a  police  car  going  by  the  place. 
I  live  in  an  area  where  there  are  a  number 
of  farmers  who  live  close  to  the  lakeshore. 
There  are  a  number  of  transients  walking 
the  roads  at  night— looking  for  what?  They 
run  short  of  fuel,  they  are  in  there  trying 
to  siphon  gas  from  the  fuel  tanks  that  are 
located  on  a  farm.  There  are  many  reasons 
why  a  farmer  in  my  area  needs  a  watchdog, 
but  not  one  that  is  vicious.  I  can  see  now 
that  either  he  is  going  to  be  compelled  to 
tie  his  dog  up  completely  or  post  his  land 
around  saying  nobody  is  welcome— even 
politicians  during  election  time. 

It  is  a  reasonable  amendment,  and  I  sug- 
gest that  the  parliamentary  assistant  take  an- 
other look  at  it.  What  this  does,  as  I  inter- 
pret it,  is  put  the  risk  upon  the  person  en- 
tering another  person's  property.  It  is  time 
that  people  in  our  society  had  respect  for 
other  people's  property. 

5  p.m. 

For  example,  I  was  not  very  happy  with 
the  Trespass  to  Property  Act  introduced  in 
and  accepted  by  this  Legislature.  It  is  going 
to  be  costly  for  the  property  owner  to  prove 
that  a  person  is  trespassing.  I  do  not  think 
anybody  should  have  the  right  to  cross  upon 
another  person's  property  without  first  get- 
ting permission,  and  that  should  apply  to 
hunters  and  others. 

Many  people  think  that  because  they  have 
a  hunter's  licence,  they  can  enter  anybody's 
property  within  a  rural  community.  I  sug- 
gest that  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  farmers 
do  have  dogs,  an  area  about  which  no 
thought  has  been  given.  A  number  of  farm- 
ers  have   lost   livestock   over   the   years  be- 


cause  of  people  hunting  on  their  property, 
200  or  300  feet  from  a  building. 

I  consider  this  a  reasonable  amendment, 
and  I  hope  the  parliamentary  assistant  will 
consider  the  amendment  put  forward  by  my 
colleague  the  member  for  Huron-Middlesex. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  always 
interested  in  the  comments  made  by  my 
urban  friends.  The  problem  is,  they  do  not 
have  any  money  in  the  poker  game.  They 
talk  about  business,  about  this  act  and  how 
there  should  be  a  law  for  one  person  and 
something  different  for  somebody  else,  but 
they  do  not  have  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
dollars   invested  in   a   farming   operation. 

As  I  pointed  out  in  second  reading  of  the 
bill,  many  large  operators  keep  thousands  of 
gallons  of  gasoline  on  their  farms;  they  have 
expensive  equipment;  they  have  expensive 
livestock  and  in  many  cases  they  have  a  dog 
to  protect  their  property.  The  parliamentary 
assistant  is  saying,  "All  right,  Mr.  Farmer,  if 
you  want  to  keep  a  dog  to  protect  the  gaso- 
line, equipment  and  livestock"— and  I  made 
mention  of  the  dog  kept  in  the  SPF  [specific 
pathogenic-free]  pig  barn— "then  you  had 
better  be  prepared  to  assume  liability  when 
somebody  comes  on  the  farm." 

Let  me  give  a  personal  example.  I  live  on 
a  highway  between  Exeter  and  Grand  Bend 
which  gets  very  busy  in  the  summer.  There 
is  a  lot  of  tourist  trade.  One  night,  past  mid- 
night, a  car  drove  in.  I  got  up  and  looked 
out  the  window.  The  car  was  parked  under 
the  sentinel  light  with  the  hood  up.  I  thought, 
fine,  they  have  had  some  breakdown  with 
the  car  and  they  are  using  the  light  to  try  to 
repair  it;  so  I  didn't  do  anything.  I  got  up 
the  next  morning  and,  when  I  went  out  to 
the  shed,  I  found  that  every  drop  of  gaso- 
line had  been  drained  from  the  tractors  in 
the  shed. 

Now,  they  were  very  smart.  One  guy 
stayed  and  played  around  under  the  hood 
while  the  other  fellow  went  and  drained  the 
tractors  of  gasoline.  What  if  I  had  had  a 
dog  and  the  dog  had  bitten  that  person?  One 
might  say,  "Yes,  he  came  on  there  with  the 
idea  of  stealing  the  gasoline."  But  try  to 
prove  that  to  the  judge.  The  fellow  would 
simply  get  up  in  court  and  say,  "Yes  I  went 
into  the  shed,  but  I  went  in  to  try  to  find  a 
wrench  to  repair  the  engine."  I  get  up  and  I 
say,  "Oh  no,  he  took  the  gasoline."  It  is  my 
word  against  two  other  people— the  chap 
who  did  work  under  the  hood  and  the  fellow 
who  went  in  and  stole  the  gasoline. 

This  is  just  one  example  of  what  could 
well  happen.  If  we  don't  approve  this  amend- 
ment, we  are  going  to  have  farmers  in  court 


4864 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


trying  to  defend  the  actions  of  their  dogs. 
Why  does  the  member  shake  his  head.  The 
farmer  should  not  be  put  to  that  test.  We 
should  not  expect  him  to  take  the  time  and 
money  to  go  to  court  to  try  to  prove  he  had  a 
dog  that  was  just  carrying  out  the  duties 
expected  of  that  dog;  whether  it  be  a  watch 
dog  to  protect  the  property  or  a  working 
dog  used  for  livestock.  I  hope  the  parlia- 
mentary assistant  will  reconsider  this  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  point  out  again  that  the  section  dealing 
with  the  keeping  of  a  dog  for  purposes  of 
protecting  a  property  is  dealt  with  in  section 
3(2).  If  the  person  is  there  with  criminal  in- 
tention, with  the  intention  of  committing  a 
crime,  then  if  he  is  bitten  it  is  his  own  tough 
luck. 

I  want  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the 
members  the  book  written  by  Dr.  Brian 
Cochrane  of  Ottawa  to  which  I  referred  last 
week,  Your  Pets,  Your  Health,  and  the  Law. 
His  conclusion  is,  and  I  quote: 

"Injuries  due  to  dog  bites  usually  involve 
children.  Dog  bites  occur  in  0.45  per  cent 
of  the  total  population  [in  the  United  States] 
and  one  per  cent  of  all  children.  Children 
between  the  ages  of  four  and  10  are  the 
most  frequent  victims.  Children  are  small. 
They  love  and  trust  animals  and  do  not 
recognize  the  danger  signs  from  a  provoked 
dog.  These  children  will  often  behave  in- 
appropriately with  dogs  that  might  be  sleep- 
ing or  feeding.  You  can  rarely  alter  their  be- 
haviour in  time  to  avoid  being  bitten." 

This  bill  is  intended  to  protect  smaller 
children  who  do  not  recognize  this  major 
danger.  I  cannot  see  why  a  child  who  comes 
on  to  a  farm  property  should  have  any  less 
protection  from  a  dog  than  a  child  who 
comes  into  my  home. 

Mr.  Eaton:  Especially  from  your  dog. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Especially  from  my  dog,  the 
member  for  Middlesex  says. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  find  it  extremely  difficult 
to  support  the  amendment  and  cannot  do  so. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour 
of  Mr.  Riddell's  amendment  will  please  say 
"aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Section  3  agreed  to. 

On  section  4: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  Sterling  moves 
that  section  4(2)  be  deleted  and  the  follow- 
ing substituted  therefor: 


"(2)  Where,  in  a  proceeding  under  sub- 
section 1,  the  provincial  offences  court  finds 
that  the  dog  has  bitten  or  attacked  a  person, 
and  the  court  is  satisfied  that  an  order  is 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  public,  the 
court  may  order, 

"(a)  that  the  dog  be  destroyed  in  such 
manner  as  is  provided  in  the  order,  or 

"(b)  that  the  owner  of  the  dog  take  such 
steps  as  are  provided  in  the  order  for  the 
more  effective  control  of  the  dog." 

Mr.  Sterling  further  moves  that  section 
4(3)  be  amended  by  striking  the  first  three 
lines  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof: 

"(3)  In  exercising  its  powers  to  make  an 
order  under  subsection  2,  the  court  may  take 
into  consideration  the  following  circum- 
stances:" 

Mr.  Sterling  further  moves  that  section  4 
be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the  following 
subsection: 

"(4)  An  owner  who  contravenes  an  order 
made  under  subsection  2  is  guilty  of  an 
offence  and  on  conviction  is  liable  to  a  fine 
not  exceeding  $2,000." 

The  amendments  deal  with  two  subsections. 
I  would  consent  to  take  them  as  one  amend- 
ment. Agreed? 
5:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  basic  in- 
tent of  this  amendment  is  to  make  clear  in 
the  legislation  the  power  of  the  court  not 
only  to  order  the  destruction  of  the  dog,  but 
also  to  order  more  effective  control  of  the 
dog.  Under  the  legislation  as  introduced,  the 
actual  mechanics  of  a  court  proceeding  allow 
a  judge  to  do  it  but  it  is  not  specifically  out- 
lined in  the  legislation  and  is  not  self-evident 
to  a  member  of  the  public  reading  the  act. 
I  think  this  is  a  better  way  of  doing  it. 

It  also  means  an  owner  who  contravenes 
an  order  for  controlling  the  dog  can  be 
brought  back  under  a  separate  offence  and  is 
liable  to  a  fine  of  up  to  $2,000.  This  gets 
around  the  problem  of  going  through  a  con- 
tempt proceeding  if  a  person  disobeys  that 
order;  it  penalizes  the  owner  and  not  the 
dog  specifically  in  terms  of  the  control  of  that 
animal. 

It  is  an  attempt  to  bring  in  those  two 
ideas.  Some  of  these  points  were  brought  out 
in  the  debate  on  the  second  reading  and  I 
reacted  to  that  debate. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  spoke  on 
this  bill  on  second  reading  and  I  recall  com- 
ments made  that  an  alternative  was  required 
to  ensure  that  the  only  choice  was  not  to 
destroy  the  dog.  This  amendment  provides 
an  alternative  for  effective  control  and  then 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4865 


places  responsibility  on  the  owner  if  that 
effective  control  is  not  otherwise  attended  to. 

The  amendments  brought  forward  are  satis- 
factory and  resolve  the  three  stages  in  a  way 
that  will  be  quite  clear  to  any  provincial  judge 
looking  at  the  alternatives  and  the  sequence 
if  the  time  comes  that  a  certain  conviction 
would  be  entered.  The  amendments  make 
good  sense  and  we  can  support  them. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mr.  Chairman,  dogs  under  the 
common  law,  which  means  forever,  never  had 
the  right  to  bite  anybody,  anytime,  even  once. 
Why  the  myth  grew  up  that  they  were  en- 
titled to  do  that  had  something  to  do  with 
responsibility  reposed  in  the  owner  of  the 
animal.  This  amendment  goes  some  distance 
toward  a  rational  responsibility  reposed  in  the 
owner  of  the  animal,  which  was  the  main 
part  of  my  remarks  in  the  previous  session. 
He  has  to  be  held  accountable  on  some  basis. 
If  he  goes  out  of  the  way  and  renders  an 
animal  vicious  in  order  to  protect,  that  flows 
from  him.  Dogs  are  not  necessarily  malicious 
from  birth,  as  are  some  polticians.  They 
do  not  emerge  from  the  womb  growling,  so  to 
speak,  and  seeking  to  nip  the  heels  of  the 
rest  of  the  citizenry.  In  any  case,  this  more 
fully  accords. 

I  am  a  little  puzzled  as  to  exactly  why 
legislation  to  which  long  and  good  considera- 
tion was  given  in  the  first  instance  has  been 
altered  to  this  extent.  I  suspect  animal  lovers 
have  been  in  touch  with  the  minister, 
because  there  is  a  certain  clemency  being 
extended  to  the  dogs  which  previously  did 
not  exist  in  this  legislation.  The  new  clauses 
are  more  palatable,  and  an  obvious  conces- 
sion to  dog  lovers  generally. 

It  is  not  quite  true  that  the  section,  as  it 
stood  previously,  offered  only  one  remedy, 
namely,  the  destruction  of  the  dog.  By  impli- 
cation there  were  other  possibilities  written 
into  it,  but  it  is  better  to  spell  it  out  when 
one  is  dealing  with  it.  The  use  of  the  term 
"effective  control"  of  the  dog  meets  the 
necessities  of  the  legislation  and,  by  placing 
the  penalty  clause  there,  removes  the  omni- 
bus power  of  a  judge  to  drag  someone  before 
him  to  penalize  him  in  some  nonindicated 
way  under  the  broad,  general  provisions  of 
the  Provincial  Offences  Act  should  he  not 
carry  out  to  the  letter  or  in  any  reasonable 
way  the  mandate  given  from  the  bench  for 
the  protection  of  the  public  with  respect  to 
the  known  condition  of  the  dog. 

We  give  full  accord  to  the  changes  that 
are  proposed  in  this  instance. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  did  not  have 
the  benefit  of  reading  the  amendment;  so  I 
can  only  go  by  what  I  heard. 


Do  I  understand  there  are  two  alternatives? 
The  judge  can  order  the  destruction  of  the 
dog  or  the  judge  can  say  to  the  owner,  "We 
want  you  to  control  your  dog  better,"  which 
may  mean  the  farmer  is  going  to  have  to 
keep  the  dog  tied  up.  Am  I  correct  in  the 
assumption  it  means  either  the  immediate 
destruction  of  the  dog  or  the  dog  has  what 
we  may  call  a  second  chance,  provided  the 
owner  is  prepared  to  keep  tight  control  over 
that  dog? 

I  can  support  that  I  think  the  parlia- 
mentary assistant  has  been  listening  to  what 
we  have  been  saying.  He  is  not  as  hard- 
nosed  as  I  thought  he  was. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  It  is  the  other  way  around. 
You  are  giving  ground. 

Mr.  Riddell:  No,  I  am  not  giving  ground. 
I  would  like  to  have  seen  my  original  amend- 
ment passed.  However,  it  is  consoling  to 
know  the  dog  is  not  going  to  be  destroyed 
immediately  if  it  happens  to  bite  somebody 
and  leave  a  bit  of  a  gash  in  the  leg  or  the 
arm.  The  parliamentary  assistant  really  has 
been  listening. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
indicate  to  the  members  opposite  that  I  was 
listening  during  the  second  reading  debate.  I 
do  not  think  any  piece  of  legislation  we 
bring  to  this  House  is  absolutely  perfect  in 
every  possible  way.  I  want  to  indicate  I 
always  will  listen  to  a  debate. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  You  have  been  pretty  obtuse 
on  occasion. 

Mr.  Sterling:  I  have  been  on  occasion,  I 
must  admit.  On  occasion,  I  listen  as  well. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to 
indicate  that  I  support  the  amendment.  I  do 
not  have  a  copy  of  it  before  me,  but  I  think 
it  does  address  one  of  the  points  I  brought 
up,  the  proper  control  of  very  vicious  dogs 
whether  on  a  chain  or  in  a  proper  kennel.  I 
would  prefer  they  be  in  a  kennel. 

I  want  to  congratulate  the  parliamentary 
assistant.  I  believe  he  has  addressed  some  of 
the  concerns  we  had,  and  we  will  support  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Section  4,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Sections  5  and  7,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

Bill  169,  as  amended,  reported. 
5:20  p.m. 

JURIES  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  168,  An  Act  to  amend 
the  Juries  Act,  1974. 

Sections  1  to  6,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 
On  section  7: 


4866 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  Lawlor  moves 
that  subsection  1  of  section  44a  of  the  act, 
as  set  out  in  section  7  of  the  bill,  be  amended 
by  striking  out  "or  without"  in  the  second 
line. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mr.  Chairman,  like  the  owner 
of  the  mad  dog,  I  am  acting  vicariously  on 
behalf  of  my  colleague.  The  subject  is  vicari- 
ous atonement. 

The  section  in  question  will  read,  "Every 
employer  shall  grant  to  an  employee  who  is 
summoned  for  jury  service  a  leave  of  absence 
with  pay."  The  contention  of  my  colleague 
is  that  the  people  who  render  public  service 
as  jurors  ought  not  to  be  mulcted  in  their 
pay,  ought  not  to  end  up  poorer  at  the  end 
of  the  day  for  having  made  this  particular 
contribution  to  the  realm.  It  would  mean  that 
employers  would  have  to  give  recognition 
to  this  particular  area  of  public  responsibility. 

Individuals  are  not  called  upon  all  that 
often  to  serve  on  juries.  Jurors  have  been 
notoriously  neglected  here  in  Ontario  with 
respect  to  the  stipends  they  can  expect  to 
receive.  Many  businessmen,  particularly,  are 
severely  hurt  as  a  result  of  prolonged  sittings, 
both  on  civil  and  criminal  cases  in  the  prov- 
ince. Some  merchants  even  are  threatened 
with  bankruptcy  because  of  very  lengthy 
trials,  and  the  trials  tend  to  get  longer  and 
longer  in  our  courts.  Conspiracy  trials  and 
the  complications  of  the  law  continued  to 
grow,  and  more  people  are  injured1  in  this 
particular  regard. 

Taking  the  whole  position  into  account,  my 
colleague  wishes  to  protect  individuals  in 
the  course  of  public  duty  from  being  hurt 
financially.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  merit  in 
this.  I  will  be  interested  to  hear  what  the 
parliamentary  assistant  says. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Chairman,  before  the 
parliamentary  assistant  responds  to  that,  may 
I  add  something  very  briefly  to  it.  I  concur 
with  part  of  the  amendment.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  I  was  going  to  raise  this  question  with 
the  parliamentary  assistant.  Perhaps  I  can 
describe  a  specific  situation  that  was  brought 
to  my  attention  about  a  week  ago. 

A  lady  called  me  and  indicated  that  her 
husband,  who  earned  approximately  $5  an 
hour  working  in  one  of  the  industrial  plants 
in  our  area,  was  called  for  jury  duty  for,  I 
believe,  four  days.  He  would  then  have  lost 
approximately  $40  a  day  for  four  days.  As 
the  parliamentary  assistant  well  knows,  he 
got  $10  a  day  for  his  services. 

(We  are  not  talking  of  large  sums  of  money 
either  way,  but  I  draw  to  the  parliamentary 
assistant's    attention    that    a    person    who    is 


taking  home  less  than  $200  a  week  today  has 
to  watch  every  single  dollar.  Such  people  do 
not  have  money  put  aside.  They  do  not  have 
a  bank  account  from  which  they  can  draw 
when  this  type  of  emergency  comes  up. 

Quite  frankly,  what  this  wife  and  mother 
was  drawing  to  my  attention  was,  and  she 
said  very  plainly:  "Mr.  Sweeney,  my  family 
simply  can't  afford  to  forfeit  approximately 
$110  in  one  week.  We  don't  have  it.  What 
we  had  to  do  in  that  case  was  to  cut  back  on 
all  our  expenditures." 

What  I  am  trying  to  draw  to  the  parlia- 
mentary assistant's  attention  is  that  in  this 
case— I  suspect  this  is  not  an  unusual  one- 
there  was  a  case  of  genuine  financial  hard- 
ship. I  suggest  the  government  of  the  day 
has  no  right  to  put  its  citizens  in  that  kind 
of  financial  predicament. 

When  this  question  came  up  in  commit- 
tee, the  response  from  the  Attorney  General 
(Mr.  McMurtry),  or  maybe  it  was  the  parlia- 
mentary assistant,  was  that  citizens  are 
expected  to  perform  their  patriotic  duty  and 
from  time  to  time  have  to  make  these 
sacrifices.  Probably  there  are  some  people 
in  our  society  who  could  afford  to  make 
those  sacrifices  but,  at  the  same  time,  there 
are  significant  numbers  of  people  who  can- 
not afford  it.  It  is  as  simple  as  that. 

I  have  one  problem  with  the  amendment, 
though,  and  that  is  the  case  of  the  smaller 
businessman  who  is  faced  with  an  additional 
cost.  If  he  had  several  employees  in  this 
situation,  the  financial  burden  on  the  small 
businessman  could  be  proportionately  equal- 
ly great.  It  seems  to  me,  if  this  amendment 
were  to  be  accepted,  we  would  require  from 
the  government,  through  the  parliamentary 
assistant  or  the  Attorney  General,  some 
mechanism  for  reimbursing  an  employer  who 
could  demonstrate  that  a  financial  hardship 
was  being  imposed  upon  him  or  her  as  a 
result  of  having  to  pay  out  these  employees' 
wages  while  they  were  off  for  any  extended 
period  of  time. 

The  point  I  am  trying  to  make  is  that 
I  agree  very  much  with  the  spirit  and 
principle  of  the  amendment  for  the  reasons 
I  have  given.  At  the  same  time,  I  think  it 
must  be  tempered  with  the  other  side  of 
the  coin,  that  some  employers  can  be 
equally  affected.  If  the  parliamentary  assis- 
tant could  speak  about  any  mechanism  he 
might  have  in  mind  to  deal  with  this  situ- 
ation, I  would  be  pleased  to  hear  it. 
5:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is 
indeed    an    interesting    suggestion.    It    is    an 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4S67 


unfortunate  one  in  that  the  reason  for  it 
is  that  this  government  is  not  paying  jurors 
at  a  proper  rate.  This  is  the  difficulty  and, 
when  one  brings  this  amendment  forward, 
one  is  also  placing  an  unfair  burden  on  an 
employer.  The  day  a  person  is  on  jury  duty, 
he  is  not  working  for  his  employer.  He  is 
working  for  all  of  us,  for  our  society  and 
while  I  do  not  think  he  should  be  at  a  loss, 
neither  do  I  think  it  is  fair  to  shift  the 
burden  automatically  on  to  the  employer. 
This  is  the  problem.  If  this  individual,  who 
should  be  earning  a  certain  rate,  is  going 
to  be  called  for  jury  duty,  it  is  a  privilege. 
Indeed,  it  is  often  the  case  where  someone 
who  is  called  and  is  unwilling  goes  through 
the  system,  comes  out  and  says,  "Gee,  that 
was  an  interesting  experience.  I  am  glad  I 
was  involved  in  it."  We  want  to  encourage 
that,  but  not  at  a  loss  to  the  individual 
juror.  It  is,  in  my  view,  unfair  to  require 
that  there  be  automatic  leave  with  pay  so 
that  we  shift  the  burden  of  the  cost,  which 
could  be  anything  from  $40  to  $100  a  day 
in  many  circumstances  of  persons  employed 
in  clerical  work,  skilled  tradesmen,  or  who- 
ever it  might  be.  Unfortunately,  by  taking 
out  these  two  words  we  do  not  solve  the 
problem  in  the  way  I  think  it  should  be 
solved.  We  shift  the  'burden,  and  unhss 
there  is  compensation  I  do  not  think  we  are 
doing  the  fair  and  proper  thing. 

The  answer  surely  is  to  raise  the  jury 
fees  properly  so  that  the  commitment  to 
public  service  might  be  an  acknowledge- 
ment of  a  few  dollars  less  than  the  average 
daily  pay,  but  should  not  be  the  kind  of 
burden  that  my  colleague  from  Kitchener- 
Wilmot  (Mr.  Sweeney)  mentioned  in  his 
example.  That  could  well  lose  a  family  two- 
thirds  or  three  quarters  of  its  weekly  income. 
That  is  not  a  fair  burden  to  place  on 
anyone. 

I  regret  this  amendment  does  not  place 
the  burden  any  more  fairly,  because  it  shifts 
it  on  the  employer.  There  are  many  employ- 
ers who,  I  am  sure,  make  up  the  difference. 
That,  I  think,  is  first-rate.  But  there  are 
others  who  may  not  be  able  to  afford  to, 
and  we  should  not  presume  that  the  costs 
of  the  administration  of  justice  have  to  be 
handled  in  that  way. 

I  realize  the  importance  of  it,  and  the 
point  that  is  being  made.  I  am  afraid  to  say 
that  I  do  not  think  this  solves  the  problem. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  all  right 
and  passing  sweet  for  the  member  for 
Kitchener  to  plead  the  aspect  of  the  govern- 
ment's not  bearing  its  element  of  responsi- 
bility.   The   juror,    the   employee,    has    been, 


remains  and,  as  far  as  any  moves  that  I  see 
coming  from  any  direction,  would  still  be 
the  goat. 

Down  through  the  ages— and  it  seems  that 
long  since  my  friend  and  I  have  been  here— 
we  have  seen  every  set  of  estimates  under  the 
Attorney  General's  ministry  proposing  to  raise 
jurors'  fees.  For  14  years  they  have  not  been 
raised  by  an  accretion.  They  are  no  Way  in 
line  with  the  market.  It  is  one  of  the  running 
sores  of  the  Attorney  General's  estimates  and 
ministry.  If  there  is  somebody  to  be  victim- 
ized, all  we  are  doing  is  trying  to  lift  the 
burden  off  those  who  are  most  injured  in 
this  context. 

I  despair  of  the  Attorney  General.  That  is 
my  initial  proposition.  From  there  you  say, 
"Where  will  the  weight  fall  in  this  context?" 
In  most  cases  the  whole  of  it  will  fall  on  the 
employer  who  can  bear  the  burden  and  will 
accept  it.  In  most  union  contracts  it  does  so 
at  the  present  time.  So  we  are  not  making 
anything  very  overweening,  and  we  are  at 
least  making  a  gesture  to  alleviate  it. 

Mr.  Worton:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
the  parliamentary  assistant  to  the  Attorney 
General  to  look  at  the  proposals  that  have 
been  put  forth  by  the  member  for  Kitchener 
(Mr.  Breithaupt)  and  the  member  for 
Kitchener- Wilmot    ( Mr.    Sweeney ) . 

Last  week  it  was  brought  to  my  attention 
that  in  the  contract  negotiations  for  a  union- 
ized plant  it  was  indicated  they  would 
receive  pay  while  they  served  on  jury  duty. 
One  gentleman  in  particular  had  waited 
around,  I  believe,  for  five  days  to  be  chosen. 
Out  of  60  jurors  I  believe  they  were  choos- 
ing 12,  and  it  took  five  davs  to  do  that.  The 
contract  in  this  instance  did  not  cover  this. 
He  just  got  the  regular  $10  a  day  for  doing 
that.  The  contract  did  not  cover  those  em- 
ployees of  the  Kitchener  firm  while  they 
were  being  chosen.  I  think  the  Attorney 
General  should  look  at  an  adequate  remuner- 
ation paid  through  his  or  another  ministry 
for  people  who  give  up  their  services  for 
jury  duty. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Chairman,  most  of  the 
arguments  have  already  been  made.  First  of 
all,  I  would  like  to  indicate  that  the  pay  is 
$10  per  day  for  the  first  10  days  and  $40  per 
dav  if  it  goes  beyond  that. 

I  do  want  to  point  out  to  the  member  for 
Kitchener- Wilmot  that,  in  speaking  on  the 
second  reading,  I  expressed  the  very  same 
concern  that  has  been  brought  forward  by 
his  particular  constituent.  That  is,  the  present 
rate  structure  really  does  penalize  the  fellow 
who   is   making   $5   an  hour.    In  most  cases 


4868 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


where  the  person  is  earning  more  than  that, 
he  is  protected  by  a  contract  or  some  other 
way  in  terms  of  being  paid  while  he  is  on 
jury  duty. 

The  Attorney  General  does  not  make  any 
excuse  for  it.  It  was  raised  to  $40  per  day,  I 
think  a  year  and  a  half  ago,  after  the  10-day 
period.  The  Attorney  General  does  not  think 
that  is  enough.  We  are  going  to  raise  the 
issue  again  with  the  people  who  control  the 
purse  strings  of  this  province,  because  I  am 
not  satisfied. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Doesn't  anyone  listen  to 
the  Attorney  General? 

Mr.  Sterling:  They  listen  to  him  quite 
often.  In  this  particular  case  he  has  not  had 
his  way.  Following  the  second  reading,  he 
indicated  to  me  he  will  try  again.  I  will 
bring  forward  to  him  the  comments  made  by 
the  members  of  this  Legislature. 

I  want  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the 
member  for  Kitchener- Wilmot  that  under  sec- 
tion 5  of  this  particular  act,  the  sheriff  can 
excuse  a  person  for  whom  serving  as  a  juror 
may  cause  serious  hardships  or  loss  to  him 
or  others.  He  is  put  on  the  next  session.  That 
postpones  the  inevitable,  but  it  may  be  a 
small  amount  of  solace  that  he  can  postpone  it 
to  a  time  when  he  can- 
Mr,  Kerrio:  Save  some  money. 

Mr.  Sterling:  He  might  be  able  to  save 
some  money  but  he  might  also  be  able  to  get 
time  off  at  a  particular  time  during  the  year 
when  he  is  not  normally  employed  or  what- 
ever. 

The  jurors'  pay  is  controlled  in  the  Ad- 
ministration of  Justice  Act  and  is  the  subject 
of  that  act.  I  agree  with  the  member  for 
Kitchener  in  that  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  duty 
of  the  employer  to  pay.  I  think  it  is  a  duty 
of  the  state.  I  think  the  criticism  is  well 
feunded  in  terms  of  the  amount  a  person  is 
receiving  per  day.  I  accept  that  criticism. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Lawlor's  amendment  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Instead  of  falling  back  and 
simply  reclining  against  that  enormous  defeat, 
I  just  bounce  back  to  the  next  one.  I  have 
an  amendment  to  add  a  section  la  to  the 
legislation. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  Lawlor  moves  that  sec- 
tion 44a  of  the  act,  as  set  out  in  section  7 
of  the  bill,  be  amended  by  adding  thereto 
the  following  subsection: 


"(la)  Notwithstanding  section  39,  a  person 
whose  employment  consists  of  administering 
and  providing  daily  services  to  a  household, 
and  who  does  not  receive  a  wage  or  salary 
for  this  employment,  is  eligible  to  be  paid 
a  fee,  less  the  juror's  fee,  in  an  amount  fixed 
by  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  suf- 
ficient to  pay  the  cost  of  reasonable  home- 
makers'  services  during  the  period  of  the 
person's  service  as  a  juror." 

5:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Lawlor:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  obvi- 
ously an  extension  of  the  principle  we  were 
so  eminently  successful  with  in  the  previous 
amendment.  That  having  gone  through,  the 
sheer  logic  of  the  situation  will  drive  the 
parliamentary  assistant  to  accepting  this.  If 
you  trim  your  sails  properly,  you  will  adjust 
to  the  horizon,  but  some  people  get  lost  in 
the  drink. 

Homemakers  are  increasingly  coming  to  be 
recognized  as  individuals  for  whom  some 
compensation  is  forthcoming.  The  family  law 
legislation  we  put  through  recently  was 
severely  criticized  here  this  afternoon.  Inci- 
dentally, that  is  the  first  severe  criticism  I 
have  heard.  I  have  heard  how  wise  and 
Solomonic  the  judges,  particularly  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  are  in  their  construction  of 
that  new  law  and  how  they  have  broadened 
out  their  rather  narrow  astigmatic  vision  with 
respect  to  the  relationship  between  a  husband 
and  wife. 

I  had  heard  nothing  but  praise  for  both 
the  legislation  and  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
administered  until— glory  be  to  heaven— I 
heard  the  inevitable  carping  dissenting  voice 
that  is  always  in  some  wilderness— the  wild- 
erness of  the  Ontario  Legislature  mostly- 
piping  out.  It  is  the  beginning  of  dissidence 
among  us. 

This  legislation  does  give  recognition  to 
the  housewife,  just  as  family  law  increas- 
ingly tends  to  do.  This  involves  the  business 
of  not  giving  her  a  monetary  value,  thinking 
she  has  obviously  no  worth  in  terms  of  the 
only  thing,  in  a  capitalist  society,  by  which 
we  judge  all  persons,  things  and  the  works 
of  man:  hard  cash  value.  We  are  not  fol- 
lowing our  own  nostrums  in  not  giving  rec- 
ognition to  the  role  of  the  housewife  and 
to  the  fact  that  she,  too,  is  taken  out  of  the 
home  very  often  for  jury  duty  and  locked 
up  for  days  on  end.  The  family  is  deprived 
of  her  services.  A  valuation  may  be  placed 
on  them.  Sometimes  a  family  is  obliged  to 
get  substitute  housekeeping  services  during 
the  time  in  which  the  mother  or  the  male 
or  female  housekeeper  is  excluded  from  the 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4869 


home.  In  this  particular  situation,  my  col- 
league, in  his  broadmindedness  and  imagina- 
tive grasp,  has  brought  forward  this  legisla- 
tion. I  hope  this  House  will  give  accord 
to  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Before  recognizing  another 
member,  I  wish  to  inform  the  committee 
that  the  Speaker  has  requested  that  the 
committee  rise  and  report,  as  he  has  an 
announcement  to  make  to  the  House. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Gregory,  the 
committee  of  the  whole  House  reported 
two  bills  with  amendments. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

SPEAKER'S  WARRANT 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  to  draw  to  the 
attention  of  all  honourable  members  that  I 
have  received  a  letter  as  a  result  of  actions 
taken  by  the  Speaker  on  the  direction  of 
the  House.  I  would  like  to  share  that  letter 
with  all  members.  It  is  addressed  to  me: 

"Re:  Warrant  issued  by  the  Speaker  of 
the  Legislative  Assembly  on  November  24, 
1980. 

"The  purpose  of  this  letter  is  to  outline 
to  you  the  position  taken  by  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission  with  reference  to  the 
above-described  warrant  issued  by  you. 

"The  commission  was  established  by  the 
Securities  Act,  1978,  (the  'Act')  and  its  pre- 
decessors and,  under  section  2,  'is  respon- 
sible for  the  administration  of  (the)  Act.' 
The  commission  in  these  terms  is  autono- 
mous, subject  to  certain  reporting  require- 
ments flowing  from  formal  investigations. 
The  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  (the  'Minister')  answers  for  the 
commission  in  the  Legislature  and  the  com- 
mission is  attached  to  that  ministry  for  the 
purpose  of  budget  and  administrative  serv- 
ices. While  the  commission's  director  and 
his  staff  are  members  of  the  public  service, 
the  members  of  the  commission  are  ap- 
pointed by  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in 
Council.  Since  the  minister  has  no  direct 
statutory  authority  over  it,  the  commission 
thought  it  important  today  to  draw  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  the  commis- 
sion's view  that,  in  its  terms,  the  Speaker's 
warrant  does  not  extend  to  the  commission. 

"This  position  taken  by  the  commission 
has  been  formally  communicated  to  both 
the  Attorney  General,  (the  Honourable  R. 
Roy  McMurtry,  QC)  and  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (the 
Honourable  Frank  Drea)  by  correspondence 
dated,  respectively,  November  28  and  No- 
vember 27. 


"If  you  concur  with  the  commission's  view 
that  your  warrant  does  not  extend  to  it,  it 
would  be  appreciated  if  you  would  issue  a 
formal  clarifying  statement. 

''The  commissioners  appreciate  that,  the 
commission  being  a  creature  of  the  Legis- 
lature, you  may  direct  a  warrant  to  the 
commission.  Assuming  that  this  is  done  and 
that  such  a  warrant  pre-empts  the  act,  the 
commission  has  grave  concerns  and  prior 
to  the  issuance  of  such  a  warrant,  would 
appreciate  the  opportunity  of  bringing  those 
concerns  to  your  attention." 

The  letter  is  signed,  "Yours  truly,  Henry 
J.  Knowles,  QC,"  who  is  the  chairman  of 
the   Ontario   Securities   Commission. 

I  have  carried  out  my  responsibilities  as 
directed  by  the  House.  I  appreciate  there 
is  not  a  question  before  the  House  to  dis- 
cuss at  this  time,  but  I  felt  I  should  share 
the  contents  of  this  letter  with  the  Legisla- 
ture at  the  earliest  possible  moment. 

I  would  also  like  to  remind  the  House 
that  the  justice  committee  that  brought  the 
recommendation  into  the  House  will  be 
meeting  tomorrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 
Since  there  is  no  question  on  this  before 
the  House,  I  see  no  opportunity  to  debate 
the  issue  right  now.  But  I  felt  it  incumbent 
upon  me  to  share  this  communication  with 
members  of  the  House.  It  may  well  be  that 
the  House  leaders  may  want  to  discuss  the 
matter  and  perhaps  offer  some  direction  to 
the  committee  as  to  how  they  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  wonder  if  you  might  not  avail 
yourself  of  the  advice  for  which  you  might 
see  fit  to  ask  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  chair- 
man approaching  the  Speaker  directly  rather 
than  through  the  minister  to  whom  he  re- 
ports. 

At  the  same  time,  you  might  indicate  what 
our  statutes  say  as  far  as  the  powers  of  Mr. 
Speaker's  warrants  are  concerned.  It  was  not 
my  understanding  that  those  warrants  applied 
only  to  those  who  were  servants  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  province,  but  that  they  ex- 
tended beyond  that.  It  would  be  helpful, 
perhaps  not  only  to  the  House  leaders  but 
also  to  all  members,  if  some  review  of  this 
could  be  done  and  you  could  report  to  the 
House  in  this  connection. 

It  concerns  me  that  the  chairman  of  the 
securities  commission  would  correspond  di- 
rectly with  you  rather  than  through  his 
minister. 

5:50  p.m. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  could  I  add 
to  that?  I  support  the  comments  made  by 


4870 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


my  colleague.  I  am  also  concerned  that,  in 
view  of  the  fact  the  committee  will  meet 
tomorrow,  it  seems  to  me  there  should  be 
some  statement  from  the  Speaker— if  I  may 
deign  to  give  him  advice— as  to  exactly  what 
my  colleague  has  said,  as  to  whether  you 
have  discussed  this  matter  with  the  Clerk,  the 
First  Clerk  Assistant  and  those  who  advise 
you  on  these  matters  and  what  your  feeling 
is  in  this  regard. 

The  House  is  not  going  to  sit  again  until 
Thursday.  It  seems  to  me  the  committee 
needs  some  direction  from  yourself  before 
that  time  as  to  your  feeling  in  this  regard.  I 
would  suggest,  if  I  may,  that  some  state- 
ment should  be  forthcoming  this  evening 
between  8  p.m.  and  10:30  p.m. 

(Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  take  it 
from  that  letter,  I  personally  do  not  see  any 
impropriety  in  the  chairman  of  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission  communicating  direct- 
ly with  the  Speaker 

I  think  the  point  made  in  the  letter  is  that 
the  warrant  this  House  issued  was  to  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions (Mr.  Drea)  that  he  produce  certain 
documents.  The  intent  of  that  letter  to  you 
was  that  he  does  not  have  the  authority  to 
produce  the  documents  of  the  securities 
commission  and,  if  this  House  wishes  to 
have  the  documents  of  the  securities  com- 
mission produced  by  Speaker's  warrant  we 
should  ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  issue  a 
warrant  to  the  securities  commission.  I  think 
that  is  it,  purely  and  simply.  That  is  all  he 
is  saying  in  that  communication. 

Mr.  Nixon:  You  mean  the  warrant  was  not 
directed  to  the  chairman  of  the  securities 
commission  and  yet  he  responded. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No.  The  warrant  was 
directed  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations,  asking  that  he  pro- 
duce certain  documents.  I  think  the  intention 
on  the  part  of  the  chairman  of  the  securities 
commission  is  to  point  out  it  is  his  under- 
standing that  under  the  legislation,  he  is  not 
bound  to  report  to  the  minister  in  the  sense 
we  might  imagine  and,  if  this  House  wishes 
documents  in  his  possession,  the  warrants  of 
the  Speaker  should  be  directed  to  the  securi- 
ties commission.  I  see  nothing  wrong  in  his 
pointing  that  out  to  Mr.  Speaker.  I  think  it 
is  now  incumbent  upon  the  House  to  indi- 
cate to  Mr.  Speaker  if  it  wishes  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission  to  produce  documents 
for  the  justice  committee. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  same 
matter  I  must  say  I  am  somewhat  nonplussed, 
as  are  some  of  my  colleagues,  about  the  war- 


rant of  the  Speaker  issued  to  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  being 
replied  to  by  someone  else.  This  is  no  time 
to  get  into  an  argument  about  to  whom  the 
Ontario  Securities  Commission  is  responsible. 
If  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  is  unable  to  respond  to  the  warrant 
because  of  some  advice  he  receives  or  a  view 
taken  by  one  of  the  boards,  agencies  and 
commissions  for  which  he  is  responsible 
under  the  act,  surely  the  proper  communica- 
tion to  the  Speaker  of  the  assembly  is  by 
the  minister. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  want  to  impose  on 
you  in  this  matter,  but  I  would  certainly 
hope  the  government  House  leader  (Mr. 
Wells),  who  has  come  to  the  defence  of  the 
chairman  of  the  securities  commission,  would 
convey  to  his  colleague  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  that  he  fc 
the  person  answerable  under  the  warrant.  If 
there  are  problems  in  connection  with  it,  the 
minister  should  respond  to  the  Speaker,  and 
not  a  member  of  the  Ontario  Securities  Com- 
mission. 

Mr.  Sneaker:  I  have  carried  out  the  wishes 
of  the  House.  The  first  and  only  communi- 
cation I  have  had  in  response  to  the  issuance 
of  that  warrant  has  been  the  communication 
I  jrst  shared  with  the  House.  I  want  to 
remind  all  honourable  members  that  it  is  not 
incumbent  upon  the  chair,  nor  is  the  chair 
considered  competent,  to  rule  on  the  consti- 
tutionality of  any  particular  action  or  the 
legality  of  any  particular  action.  I  am  the 
servant  of  the  House  and  I  await  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  House  as  to  how  the  chair  should 
proceed  further. 

If  there  are  any  contributions  other 
members  might  have  for  the  guidance  of  the 
House  between  now  and  six  o'clock,  I  am 
prepared  to  listen.  I  will  be  conferring  with 
the  Clerk  and  if  there  is  anything  we  might 
do  to  assist  the  House  in  any  way  or  if  you 
have  a  specific  request  you  would  like  to  put 
to  the  chair  and  its  advisers,  I  would  be 
happy  to  take  it  under  advisement.  I  simply 
did  what  I  thought  was  incumbent  upon  me, 
which  is  to  share  the  only  response  I  have 
as  a  result  of  the  issuance  of  warrant. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
suggestion  that  might  assist  in  resolving  this 
matter.  Could  the  government  House  leader 
be  asked  whether  he  would  be  able  to  ensure 
that  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations  would  appear  before  the  justice 
committee  tomorrow  morning  at  its  regularly 
scheduled  time   of   10  o'clock,   in  order  that 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4871 


the  committee  be  able  to  consider  the  views 
of  that  minister,  and  perhaps  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  as  well  through  his 
crown  law  officers,  to  see  whether  a  separate 
warrant  is  appropriate  or  whether,  in  the 
view  of  the  committee— and  then  of  the 
House,  based  on  a  report  that  would  come 
back  to  the  House  perhaps  on  Thursday— the 
warrant  is  sufficiently  precise  that  it  should 
be  responded  to  in  accordance  with  the 
wishes  of  the  committee  and  the  House? 
Possibly  if  that  were  done,  the  difficulty  that 
has  arisen  might  be  resolved. 

Mr.    Speaker:    In   the  minute   and  a  half 
remaining,  I  think  I  should  hear  the  member 


for  Etobicoke,  who  is  the  chairman  of  that 
committee. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it  is  the 
role  of  the  committee  and  its  members  to 
decide  and  request  who  should  appear  before 
it.  We  are  capable  of  making  that  decision 
tomorrow  when  we  meet,  and  I  do  not  think 
there  is  any  onus  on  the  Speaker  to  make 
those  decisions  for  the  committee. 

It  may  well  be  that  we  will  request  the 
presence  of  the  minister  or  some  other 
persons  who  may  assist  us  in  our  delibera- 
tions, but  we  will  make  that  decision  and  we 
will  make  it  tomorrow. 

The  House  recessed  at  5:58  p.m. 


4872  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  December  2,  1980 

Introduction  of  new  member,  Mr.  Davis  4841 

Re  correspondence  from  prison  inmate,  Mr.  Speaker  4841 

Interest  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Laughren,  Mr.  Mancini, 

Mr.   Cassidy,   Mr.   Peterson    4841 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:   Mr.   S.   Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr. 

Gaunt,   Mr.   Isaacs   4843 

Plant   closures    and  termination  entitlements,   questions  of  Mr.   Elgie:    Mr.   Cassidy, 

Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Mackenzie,  Mr.  O'Neil 4845 

Prepayment  for  health  services,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Cassidy  4846 

OHC  rent  subsidy,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mrs.  Campbell  4847 

Blue  Cross  advertising,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Breaugh  4848 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Kerrio,  Mr.  Swart  4848 

Residential  services  for  retarded  children,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.   McClellan  4849 

Land-o'-Lakes  health  centre,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  McEwen  4849 

Italian  earthquake,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:   Mr.  Lupusella  4850 

Ogold  Lodge,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Eakins,  Mr.  Foulds  4851 

Domtar  dispute,  question  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Samis  4852 

Dispute  at  AMR  centres,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Bradley,  Mr.  Isaacs  4852 

Petition,  Mr.  B.  Newman  4853 

Notice  of  dissatisfaction  with  answer  to  oral  question  re  plant  closures  and  termination 

entitlements:    Mr.    Cassidy 4853 

Point  of  privilege  re  correspondence  from  prison  inmate:  Mr.  Breaugh 4853 

Report,  standing  committee  on  general  government:  Mr.  Cureatz  4853 

Report,  standing  committee  on  procedural  affairs:   Mr.  Breaugh  -  4854 

Report,  select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment,  Mr.  McCaffrey  4854 

Motion  re  standing  committee  on  administration  of  justice,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  ....  4854 

Municipal  Elections  Amendment  Act,  Bill  213,  Mr.  Foulds,  first  reading  4854 

Third  readings,  Bills  82  and  185 4854 

Registered  Insurance  Brokers  of  Ontario  Act,  Bill  118,  reported 4854 

Dog  Owners'  Liability  Act,  Bill  169,  reported  4860 

Juries  Amendment  Act,  Bill  168,  in  committee  4865 

Re  Speaker's  warrant,  Mr.   Speaker,   Mr.   Nixon,   Mr.   T.   P.   Reid,   Mr.   Wells,   Mr. 

Renwick,   Mr.   Breithaupt,   Mr.   Philip 4869 

Recess     , 4871 


DECEMBER  2,  1980  4873 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bennett,  Hon.  C;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  C;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  H.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L) 

Eaton,  R.  G.  (Middlesex  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Lawlor,  P.  D.  (Lakeshore  NDP) 

Lupusella,  A.  (Dovercourt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

McEwen,  J.  E.  (Ffontenac-Addington  L) 

McGuigan,  J.  (Kent-Elgin  L) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor-Walkerville  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

O'Neil,  H.  (Quinte  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Sterling,  N.  W.  (Carleton-Grenville  PC) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 

Worton,  H.  (Wellington  South  L) 


No.  130 

Ontario 


Legislature  of 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  December  2,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


t>8r  . 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the  back, 
together  \vith  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can   be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  <^§&>10 


4877 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 
House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

JURIES  AMENDMENT  ACT 
(continued) 

Resuming  consideration  of  Bill  168,  An 
Act  to  amend  the  Juries  Act,  1974. 

On  section  7: 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  we 
are  on  the  amendment  by  the  member  for 
Lakeshore  (Mr.  Lawlor)  to  add  subsection 
(la).  I  certainly  appreciate  that  my  colleague 
was  able  to  be  here  to  move  my  amend- 
ment. Unfortunately,  I  was  unable  to  be 
present  this  afternoon. 

I  think  every  member  of  House  can 
appreciate  why  this  amendment  came  for- 
ward and  why  it  is  worthy  of  support.  The 
sacrifices  that  are  made  by  many  people, 
and  this  instance  by  housewives,  when  they 
are  asked  to  serve  on  a  jury  are  well-known. 
In  today's  world  the  cost  of  homemakers' 
services  is  quite  high.  When  a  housewife 
wishes  to  sit  on  a  jury  and  does  so  for  a 
week  or  longer,  it  is  quite  a  major  sacrifice 
for  her  and,  of  course,  for  her  family.  I 
have  had  brought  to  my  attention  a  couple 
of  situations  with  which  I  certainly  sym- 
pathized. 

In  the  case  of  one  woman,  her  husband's 
job  took  him  away  from  the  city,  away  from 
his  home,  usually  a  week  at  a  time,  so  that 
meant  if  she  was  serving  on  a  jury  she 
needed  to  have  someone  there  to  care  for  her 
three  school-age  children  and  to  attempt 
to  run  the  household  in  a  reasonable  fashion 
when  there  was  no  other  adult  present.  Of 
course,  that  means  a  considerable  sacrifice, 
for  which  the  $10  a  day  is  very  little  help 
—the  present  juror's  fee  is  $10  a  day  for 
those  first  10  days  of  jury  duty.  That  is  very 
little  help  for  a  housewife.  She  is  looking, 
I  suppose,  at  a  figure  roughly  of  $30  to  $40 
a  day  to  provide  homemakers'  services  in 
the  city  of  Toronto.  I  don't  know  what  it 
would  be  in  other  locations. 

We  should  also  consider  the  similar  plight 
a  single-parent  mother  would  find  herself 
in   if   she   were    asked   to   serve   on   a   jury. 


Tuesday,  December  2,  1980 

One  can  easily  imagine  that  it  creates  an 
extreme  hardship  for  the  single-parent 
mother  when  she  leaves  the  home.  There 
is  no  other  adult  to  rely  on  and,  especially 
if  there  are  school-age  children  or  pre- 
schoolers involved,  it  becomes  a  very  difficult 
situation. 

I  am  a  very  strong  believer  in  the  jury 
system,  which  is  an  essential  part  of  our 
system  of  justice.  I  believe  we  must  do 
everything  we  can  to  strengthen  that  system. 
I  don't  think  we  should  impose  artificial 
barriers.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  $10  a 
day  is  a  barrier  for  many  people.  If  a  person 
wishes  to  serve  on  a  jury,  there  is  no  wav 
homemakers'  services  can  be  supplied  for 
$10  a  day.  That  is  unreasonable,  unfair  and 
not  in  keeping  with  our  spirit  of  justice. 

If  we  wish  to  support  our  justice  system 
as  a  way  in  which  their  peers  can  judge  those 
who  have  had  a  charge  laid  against  them, 
and  if  we  wish  to  ensure  that  barriers  are 
not  put  in  the  way  of  ordinary  citizens  who 
wish  to  perform  their  duty  to  fellow  citizens 
in  their  community,  then  it  only  makes  good 
sense  to  accept  the  amendment  I  have  placed 
before  the  committee.  I  expect  that  the  prin- 
ciple behind  the  amendment  was  just  an 
oversight  on  the  part  of  the  government,  so 
I  am  more  than  pleased  to  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  patch  up  what  has  likely  been  an 
oversight.  Thus,  I  look  forward  to  unanimous 
agreement  on  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Sterling:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  made  the 
argument  during  second  reading  of  this  piece 
of  legislation  that  no  justice  system  could 
ever  try  to  repay  each  member  of  the  pub- 
lic who  participated  in  it.  Our  feeling  was 
that  if  we  had  an  amendment  to  pay  these 
kinds  of  expenses  for  housewives  who  had  to 
leave  their  children,  what  about  the  small 
businessman  who  has  to  leave  his  business? 
Does  he  get  repaid  for  the  loss  he  incurs 
when  he  goes  to  court? 

That  was  the  argument  I  put  forward 
during  second  reading  and  I  hold  to  that 
argument.  I  would  oppose  the  amendment  on 
that  basis.  Unfortunately,  the  member  for 
Scarborough-EUesmere  (Mr.  Warner)  was  in- 
volved in  a  committee  this  afternoon  and  was 
not  able  to  be  here  during  the  debate.  We 


4878 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


covered  basically  the  same  area  when  we 
were  talking  about  the  other  amendment  that 
was  put  forward  by  the  member  for  Lake- 
shore  (Mr.  Lawlor).  The  arguments  were  laid 
out  clearly  at  that  time. 

Under  the  Administration  of  Justice  Act, 
the  Lieutenant  Governor  now  has  the  au- 
thority to  do  exactly  what  he  would  have 
with  this  amendment.  If  the  member  would 
refer  to  the  revised  statutes  of  Ontario,  1970, 
section  7  of  that  act  says:  "The  Lieutenant 
Governor  in  Council  can  make  regulations 

"(a)  requiring  the  payment  of  fees  for  any 
thing  required  or  authorized  to  be  done  by 
any  person  in  the  administration  of  justice, 
and  prescribing  the  amount  thereof; 

"(b)  providing  for  the  payment  of  fees  and 
expenses  for  services  in  connection  with  the 
administration  of  justice; 

"(c)  providing  for  any  special  provision 
considered  necessary  in  respect  of  the  terms 
of  employment,  remuneration,  and  benefits  of 
persons  employed  by  the  municipalities  in 
the  administration  of  justice  before  January 
1,  1968,  and  becoming  employed  by  Ontario 
on  that  day,  or  any  class  thereof." 

I  am  saying  the  cabinet  already  has  the 
power.  As  I  mentioned  in  the  debate  this 
afternoon,  if  a  housewife  comes  and  serves 
on  a  jury  she  is  paid  $10  per  day  for  the 
first  10  days  and  $40  per  day  thereafter.  The 
Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  is  trying 
to  seek  approval  from  the  cabinet  to  in- 
crease those  amounts,  especially  for  the  first 
two  weeks,  because  it  does  affect  a  certain 
class  of  individual  who  is  not  earning  a  great 
deal  of  money. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  It  is  not  even  minimum  wage. 

Mr.  Sterling:  I  agree  with  the  member  for 
Niagara  Falls;  I  couldn't  agree  with  him  more. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Let  us  do  something  about  it. 

Mr.  Sterling:  I  think  we  should  do  some- 
thing about  it  and  I  hope  he  will  bring 
pressure  to  bear  on  this  government  to 
change  those  areas.  I  am  saying  the  Attorney 
General  is  trying  to  bring  those  pressures  to 
bear  to  change  this  part  of  our  justice  sys- 
tem around. 
8:10  p.m. 

When  one  brings  forward  any  kind  of  fee, 
it  is  an  expenditure  that  must  be  considered 
with  all  the  other  priorities  and  expenses  of 
this  government.  I  am  not  in  a  position  either 
to  defend  or  priorize  those  particular  ex- 
penditures. 

The  amendment  brought  forward  by  the 
member  for  Scarborough-Ellesmere  through 
his  friend  the  member  for  Lakeshore  should 
be  dealt  with  in  terms  of  a  blanket  fee  that 
is   paid  to   every  juror  who   appears   during 


the  day.  To  make  specific  expense  allow- 
ances for  this  or  that  type  of  occupation,  in 
my  view,  is  not  correct.  I  do  not  know  how 
one  measures  one  against  the  other.  There- 
fore, I  would  oppose  this  amendment  at  this 
time.  I  would  indicate  I  have  no  idea  of  the 
financial  implications  of  the  type  of  amend- 
ment put  forward. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Chairman  may  I  say 
briefly,  because  I  do  not  want  to  prolong  it, 
it  is  obvious  the  parliamentary  assistant  is 
going  to  vote  against  motherhood.  That  is 
his  right  and  privilege.  I  would  point  out  to 
him  that  the  rates  have  not  been  increased. 
He  can  talk  all  he  wants  about  there  being  a 
provision  in  some  other  act.  We  are  not 
dealing  with  some  other  act.  We  are  dealing 
specifically  with  the  Juries  Act.  We  are 
dealing  with  wording  which  is  specific  to 
homemakers.  That  is  the  subject  at  hand.  It 
is  not  the  more  loosely  worded  section  he 
quoted  from  some  other  act.  We  have  an 
opportunity  tonight  to  improve  the  lot  of 
those  housewives  who  serve  in  the  interest  of 
their  community  and  who  should  be  rewarded 
by  being  able  to  provide  homemakers' 
services.  He  chooses  to  ignore  that  plight 
and  to  vote  against  motherhood.  He  can  go 
right  ahead  and  do  so. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Lawlor's  amendment  to  section  7  will  please 
say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Section  7  agreed  to. 

Sections  8  and  9  agreed  to. 

Bill  168  reported. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  reported  one  bill 
without  amendment. 

MUNICIPALITY  OF  METROPOLITAN 
TORONTO  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  182,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipality  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill 
would  accomplish  three  things,  two  of  which 
concern  transit  matters.  The  bill  proposes  an 
amendment  to  section  79a  of  the  act  that 
would  give  area  municipalities  the  same 
power  on  local  roads  that  Metro  now  has 
with  respect  to  Metro  roads  to  designate 
lanes  for  buses  and  other  transit  vehicles. 
This  was  requested  by  the  city  of  Toronto 
with  the  support  of  Metro  and  the  Toronto 
Transit  Commission. 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4879 


Another  change  in  the  proposed  amend- 
ment to  section  79a  would  permit  councils  to 
define  vehicles,  in  addition  to  TTC  vehicles, 
which  can  use  reserve  transit  lanes.  This 
flexibility  is  desirable  because  of  the  several 
types  of  transit  vehicles  that  might  be  given 
preferential  use  of  such  reserve  lanes,  de- 
pending upon  the  local  circumstances. 

The  second  proposed  transit  amendment 
would  permit  the  Toronto  Transit  Commission 
to  operate  a  transit  consulting  service  beyond 
the  boundaries  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  on  a 
self-financing  basis,  either  directly  or  through 
a  subsidiary.  The  amendment  would  provide, 
further,  that  any  TTC  capital  investment  in  a 
subsidiary  for  this  purpose,  beyond  a  total  of 
$100,000,  would  require  the  approval  of  the 
Metropolitan  council.  The  TTC  is  increasingly 
recognized  around  the  world  as  a  valuable 
source  of  transit  operating  expertise.  Accord- 
ingly, as  requested  by  the  Metropolitan 
council,  the  proposed  amendment  would  per- 
mit the  TTC  to  participate,  for  instance,  with 
the  Urban  Transportation  Development  Cor- 
poration and  the  private  sector  in  Ontario's 
effort  to  gain  a  portion  of  the  growing  urban 
transit  market  in  other  parts  of  Canada  and 
abroad. 

The  bill  also  proposes  amendments  that 
would  permit  Metro  council  to  delegate  to 
officials  the  power  to  issue  certain  permits 
and  approvals  under  various  sections  of  the 
Municipal  Act.  These  include  approvals 
respecting  minor  encroachments  on  to  roads, 
the  use  of  boulevards  during  construction,  the 
placement  of  objects  on  sidewalks  and  the 
planting  of  trees.  The  amendment  would  per- 
mit council  to  place  terms  and  conditions  on 
the  exercise  of  such  delegated  authority  and 
would  provide  for  an  appeal  to  council  from 
a  decision  made  by  an  official  in  these 
respects,  should  there  be  an  objection  by  the 
applicant,  the  resident  or  ratepayers. 

These  are  the  amendments  contained  in 
Bill  182. 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  glad  to  speak 
on  this  bill  and  indicate  that  we  are  going  to 
support  it.  Part  of  this  act  addresses  itself  to 
the  principle  of  equality,  the  right  of  the 
lower  municipalities,  such  as  the  city  of 
Toronto,  North  York,  Etobicoke,  York,  East 
York  and  Scarborough  to  the  same  kind  of 
authority  as  is  vested  with  Metro  council. 

These  rights,  as  the  House  leader  and  Min- 
ister of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  has  in- 
dicated, refer  to  the  reserved  lanes  on  Metro 
roads  for  Metro  council  and  for  the  local 
roads  for  the  local  municipalities.  The 
problem  is  that  we  have  to  wait  sometimes 


months,  and  sometimes  years  and  years,  before 
the  government  sees  the  wisdom  of  giving 
equal  rights  to  the  lower  municipalities.  This 
is  particularly  ironic  since  the  people  who 
make  decisions  at  the  Metro  level  are  often 
the  same  people  who  make  decisions  at  the 
local  level. 

Somehow  or  other  the  government  feels 
those  at  the  Metro  level  possess  some  kind  of 
greater  ingenuity,  some  kind  of  greater 
maturity  or  some  kind  of  greater  wisdom. 
When  they  wear  one  hat  at  the  Metro  level, 
they  are  able  to  make  these  greater  decisions 
for  the  greater  good  of  Metro,  but  when  they 
are  at  the  local  level,  they  do  not  possess  the 
kind  of  talent  necessary  to  make  those  wise 
decisions  for  the  local  areas  or  the  residents 
within  the  local  areas. 

I  am  particularly  pleased  that  the  govern- 
ment saw  the  wisdom  of  endorsing  what  the 
minister  has  indicated  had  been  a  request  by 
the  city  of  Toronto  by  giving  this  same 
authority  to  the  area  municipalities.  I  would 
hope  the  government  would  exercise  its  pre- 
rogative and  provide  other  municipalities 
across  the  province  in  a  regional  sphere  or  a 
regional  form  of  government  with  the  same 
kind  of  latitude  and  permit  them  to  have  the 
same  kind  of  authority  possessed  at  the  senior 
level. 

As  far  as  the  transit  consulting  service  is 
concerned,  we  have  no  difficulty  supporting 
that.  It  does  seem  odd,  however,  that  a  public 
institution  is  going  to  compete  with  private 
enterprise.  But  we  see  more  and  more  of  this 
going  on  and,  as  the  minister  has  indicated, 
the  TTC  is  in  an  excellent  position  to  provide 
the  expertise  often  sought  by  other  provinces 
and  other  nations.  We  endorse  that. 
8:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  too  are 
going  to  support  the  bill.  I  will  not  go 
through  it  all  again.  It  is  obviously  logical 
in  terms  of  the  Toronto  Transit  Commission 
that  the  power  the  Metro  council  already 
has  to  reserve  special  lanes  for  buses  should 
be  granted  to  the  area  municipalities.  We 
do  not  have  the  same  surprise  in  this  caucus 
that  public  sector  businesses  would  be  com- 
peting with  private  sector.  We  have  been 
telling  people  that  for  some  considerable 
time  now. 

We  did  have  some  concerns  with  section  3 
of  the  bill  which  deals  with  the  granting  of 
authority  to  officials.  We  understand  the  bind 
that  big  government  causes  for  politicians. 
We  have  seen  it  here.  I  suppose  our  concern 
grew  out  of  the  further  delegating  of  au- 
thority and  the  tendency  to  lose  sight  of 
accountability  on  occasion. 


4880 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


We  may  have  considered  opposing  that 
particular  proposal  if  it  were  not  for  the 
inclusion  of  the  appeal  procedure  which  is 
set  out  in  the  act.  It  is  an  appeal  directly 
to  council  as  opposed  to  some  of  the  things 
that  we  lack  here  on  occasion.  An  appeal 
to  the  full  council  would,  as  we  see  it,  force 
accountability  and  recognition  of  the  fact  of 
what  is  occurring  back  on  to  the  shoulders 
of  council.  We  have  concerns  there  and  we 
want  to  express  them  in  terms  of  the  gen- 
eral direction  that  government  tends  to  take. 
The  delegating  of  authority  from  those  who 
are  accountable  is  not  always  the  best  ap- 
proach to  be  taking. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  thank  my  friends  for  their  support  of 
this  bill.  We  have  always  believed  that 
equal  rights  and  equal  power  should  apply 
at  upper  tiers  and  lower  tiers.  I  think  the 
only  question  is  that  there  is  a  division  of 
powers  in  a  true  regional  municipality. 
Rather  than  exercise  certain  powers,  the 
lower  tiers  decide  to  give  them  to  the  upper 
tier.  In  Metropolitan  Toronto  there  are 
local  roads  in  each  of  the  cities  and  boroughs. 
Metro  decided  to  establish  the  bus  lanes  on 
the  Metro  roads  and  had  provision  for  that. 
This  extends  that  power  to  the  local  munic- 
ipalities. 

We  did  worry  at  first  when  the  suggestion 
that  TTC  establish  a  consulting  firm  was 
first  broached  to  us  that  it  would  be  com- 
peting with  private  enterprise,  the  private 
section.  But  when  one  looks  around  in  the 
transit  field,  one  soon  realizes  that  all  the 
successful  transit  operations  are  publicly 
owned  operations  and  the  expertise  lies  in 
publicly  owned  systems.  Therefore,  because 
the  TTC  ranks  probably  first  among  public 
transit  systems  in  North  America,  perhaps 
even  the  world,  it  has  a  great  expertise  it 
could  put  together,  particularly  with  the 
Urban  Transportation  Development  Corpo- 
ration, to  provide  that  Ontario  and  Metro 
Toronto  can  sell  to  Canada,  North  America 
and  the  whole  world  expertise  in  transporta- 
tion that  can  benefit  those  areas  and  also 
benefit  this  system  here  and  this  province. 

I  am  happy  that  this  bill  is  to  be  sup- 
ported. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY 
OF  PEEL  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  200,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Regional 
Municipality  of  Peel  Act,  1973. 


Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
very  brief  comment  on  this  bill.  I  think  it  is 
self-explanatory.  The  first  section  is  being 
enacted  at  the  request  of  the  region  and 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  cities  in  the 
region. 

Section  1  of  the  bill  realigns  the  boundary 
between  the  cities  of  Brampton  and  Misssis- 
sauga  so  that  it  will  now  coincide  with  the 
southerly  limit  of  the  northern  link  of  the 
parkway  belt  west  design  area.  The  alteration 
has  been  effected  by  a  series  of  reciprocal 
annexations  of  small  parcels  of  land  to  and 
from  both  cities.  As  I  say,  it  is  agreed  to  by 
Brampton  and  Mississauga,  and  this  will  put 
the  exchange  into  effect. 

Also,  section  2  is  being  enacted  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  regional  municipality  of  Peel. 
Section  2  of  the  bill  provides  that  the 
regional  council  may  establish  a  transporta- 
tion system  for  the  handicapped  without 
interfering  with  the  rights  of  the  area 
municipalities  to  operate  public  transit  sys- 
tems. The  region  wishes  to  institute  a  system 
of  transportation  for  the  handicapped.  At  the 
present  time,  transportation  in  the  region  is 
carried  on  by  the  cities  in  the  region.  The 
present  wording  of  the  bill  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  if  the  region  established  this  the 
legality  of  the  local  transportation  systems 
might  be  in  question.  This  corrects  any  mis- 
understanding that  might  occur. 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  feel  both  these 
amendments  are  reasonable  and  sensible.  We 
have  no  difficulty  in  supporting  both  of  them 
since  they  were  requested  by  the  region  and 
endorsed  by  the  municipalities. 

With  respect  to  the  annexations  or  the 
boundary  changes,  I  presume  consideration 
has  been  made  as  to  any  services  that  are 
crossing  the  boundaries.  If  there  are  such 
services— water  and  sewers  and  so  forth— I 
hope  this  has  all  been  worked  out.  Maybe  the 
minister  will  want  to  address  that  matter 
when  lie  winds  up. 

As  far  as  service  to  the  handicapped  is 
concerned,  I  am  glad  transportation  for  the 
general  public  is  remaining  at  a  local  level, 
because  we  often  find  when  things  go  regional 
the  costs  are  astronomical  and  that  more 
money  can  be  saved  when  they  are  at  the 
local  level.  As  far  as  autonomy  is  concerned, 
my  experience  has  been  that  most  munici- 
palities would  prefer  to  have  things  at  the 
local  level  rather  than  at  the  regional  level. 
With  respect  to  the  particular  service  that  is 
going  to  be  provided  for  the  handicapped, 
we  find  no  difficulty  in  supporting  this. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  also  have 
no  serious  difficulty  with  the  bill.  I  just  have 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4881 


a  couple  of  points  on  the  trading  of  prop- 
erties between  the  two  municipalities.  They 
both  seem  to  have  agreed  to  this.  The  mem- 
ber who  was  just  speaking  said  he  hoped  the 
question  of  services  and  taking  care  of  any 
services  that  at  present  exist  has  been  thought 
about  and  dealt  with. 

I  would  suggest  to  the  minister  that  I  hope 
as  well  that  any  tax  benefits  or  disbenefits 
that  will  result  from  the  trading  of  property 
in  terms  of  the  ratepayers  involved  will  be 
sorted  out  and,  if  by  no  other  method,  the 
minister  will  take  care  of  it  under  the  amend- 
ments we  are  going  to  make  to  the  Ontario 
Unconditional  Grants  Act  later  this  session. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to  speak 
on  the  bill  mainly  because  I  see  that  the 
member  for  Cochrane  South  (Mr.  Pope),  the 
minister  without  a  food  terminal,  is  in  the 
chamber.  I  know  he  would  be  very  concerned 
as  to  whether  there  is  a  particular  defect  in 
this  bill  because  the  people  in  Timmins— even 
though  I  realize  this  is  not  a  bill  that  deals 
with  Timmins— are  getting  increasingly  rest- 
less about  the  fact  that  no  bill  such  as  this 
has  been  introduced  by  the  member  for 
Cochrane  South,  the  minister  without  a  food 
terminal,  which  would  allow  the  city  of 
Timmins  to  build  a  food  terminal  and  charge 
the  northeastern  region  of  Ontario  to  pay  for 
the  operating  costs.  I  am  wondering  if  the 
minister  could  give  us  some  guidance  as  to 
whether  the  member  for  Cochrane  South,  the 
minister  without  a  food  terminal,  is  going  to 
be  taken  off  the  hook  from  his  campaign 
promises  made  in  earlier  years. 
8:30  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe 
we  are  dealing  with  a  bill  concerning  the 
regional  municipality  of  Peel.  I  would  rather 
limit  my  remarks  to  that  tonight  than  run 
the  risk  of  being  called  out  of  order  for 
dealing  with  some  other  section  of  this 
province. 

If  there  are  any  problems  concerning 
sewers,  et  cetera,  I  think  section  14  of  the 
Municipal  Act  lets  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Board  deal  with  them  if  they  arise.  I  would 
have  to  believe  that  the  city  of  Brampton 
and  the  city  of  Mississauga  looked  into  these 
arrangements  before  they  came  to  us  and 
suggested  this  realignment.  The  change  in- 
volves about  450  acres  of  the  city  of  Bramp- 
ton and  207  acres  of  the  city  of  Mississauga. 
I  believe  before  it  came  to  us  these  problems 
would  have  been  taken  care  of.  If  they  were 
not,  as  I  say,  they  can  be  taken  care  of 
under  the  sections  of  the  Municipal  Act 
which  would  allow  the  OMB  to  take  care 


of  that.  I  am  happy  the  members  are  sup- 
porting the  bill. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered1  for  third  reading. 

ONTARIO  UNCONDITIONAL 
GRANTS  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  199,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Ontario  Un- 
conditional Grants  Act,  1975. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  will 
bring  the  Ontario  Unconditional  Grants  Act, 
1975,  up  to  date  by  reflecting  a  shift  in 
emphasis  away  from  areas  of  local  govern- 
ment restructuring  to  areas  where  annex- 
ations and  amalgamations  are  taking  place. 
The  bill  proposes  to  provide  the  Minister  of 
Interprovincial  Affairs  with  the  authority  to 
provide  special  assistance  to  municipalities 
affected  by  annexations  and  amalgamations 
under  the  municipal  boundaries  negotiation 
legislation  now  before  the  House. 

I  believe  we  should  let  the  legislation  con- 
cerning annexations  and  amalgamations, 
which  is  called  the  municipal  boundaries 
negotiation  legislation,  be  distributed  a  little 
more  widely  before  this  House  deals  with  it. 
It  is  not  my  intention  to  deal  with  that  bill 
before  we  leave  here  for  Christmas.  How- 
ever, this  act  and  the  changes  here  will 
bring  into  line  with  that  new  boundaries 
legislation  some  of  the  things  in  the  grants 
section  which  are  necessary  for  the  new 
negotiation  procedures  concerning  annex- 
ations and  amalgamations  to  work. 

These  amendments  to  the  Ontario  Uncondi- 
tional Grants  Act  also  enable  the  minister  to 
vary  mill  rates  to  phase  in  areas  affected  by 
the  process,  that  is,  affected  by  the  change 
in  boundaries  and  annexation  or  amalgama- 
tion. In  addition,  the  bill  proposes  to  give 
the  minister  more  flexibility  by  authorizing 
him  to  pay  additional  grants  to  a  munic- 
ipality in  circumstances  which  would  result 
in  an  undue  increase  in  property  tax  rather 
than  solely  in  cases  where  a  municipality  has 
experienced  a  loss  in  revenue. 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  will  support 
this  bill,  but  we  find  the  government  seems 
to  be  giving  greater  latitude  to  itself  than 
was  originally  evident  in  the  bill.  However, 
there  are  municipalities,  particularly  in  Brant- 
ford  where  we  had1  discussions  of  annex- 
ations and  so  forth,  where  there  may  be 
reason  to  have  unconditional  grants  provided. 

A  few  years  ago  the  government  had  a 
study  chaired  by  the  now  Deputy  Minister 
of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  which  recom- 
mended more  unconditional  grants.  The  gov- 


4882 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ernment  seems  to  have  seen  the  wisdom  of 
that  and  has  now  moved  about  one  one- 
hundredth  of  an  inch  toward  the  uncondi- 
tional grant  side  of  things.  I  suppose  that 
is  something  for  the  government  to  do.  They 
are  to  be  complimented  on  making  a  great 
move  toward  unconditional  grants.  I  am  sure 
they  will  take  a  big  step  backward!  in  the 
next  few  months  if  they  get  the  opportunity. 
For  the  moment,  we  will  compliment  them 
on  the  move  they  are  making. 

.  Mr.  Charlton:  We  are  all  being  particularly 
supportive  this  evening.  We  sincerely  hope 
the  government  will  respond  in  kind  later  this 
evening  when  we  are  dealing  with  Bill  191. 
We  are  also  going  to  support  this  bill.  As  has 
been  suggested,  the  legislation  proposed  in 
this  bill  loosens  up  and  slightly  broadens  the 
approach  the  government  can  take  under  the 
unconditional  grants  structure,  moving  the 
effects  of  amalgamations,  annexations  and  any 
problems  that  evolve  from  those  actions  into 
section  6(2)  of  the  act. 

If  we  pass  this  bill  for  third  reading  to- 
night, I  suppose  the  minister  will  look  kindly 
on  any  requests  from  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
resulting  from  any  problems  that  evolve  in 
the  annexations  and/or  trades  we  just  passed 
in  the  previous  bill. 

Mr.  Nixon:  My  colleague  mentioned  there 
were  already  some  changes  in  boundaries 
accomplished  by  act  of  Legislature,  but  not 
under  the  general  legislation  to  which  the 
minister  referred.  These  pertain  to  the  city  of 
Brantford  and  the  township  of  Brantford 
situation. 

I  regret  to  report  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
in  those  changes  there  was  one  section, 
referred  to  as  the  Greenbrier  section  of  the 
township  of  Brantford,  that  is  now  incor- 
porated into  the  city  of  Brantford  and  is 
facing  a  100  per  cent  increase  in  municipal 
taxation.  It  is  expected  that  over  a  period  of 
about  seven  years  taxes  will  double  beyond 
certain  increases  associated  with  inflation  and 
the  improvement  of  services  that  might  be 
made  available. 

I  hope  the  minister  will  make  plans  for 
applying  the  benefits  of  this  bill,  perhaps 
retroactively  since  it  seems  to  me  there  are 
phases  and  areas  in  the  Brant-Brantford  ra- 
tionalization that  require  a  more  generous 
disposition.  So  far,  there  has  not  been  any 
tremendous  outcry  from  the  citizens  because 
the  phasing  in  of  these  tax  increases  is  going 
to  take  place  over  five  to  seven  years.  As  the 
program  gets  underway,  after  the  first  two 
years  there  is  certainly  going  to  be  a  strong 
outcry  from  the  citizens  who  find  their  taxes 
going  up  at  an  inordinately  unfair  rate. 


The  minister  in  presenting  this  bill  is 
almost  putting  the  cart  before  the  horse.  He 
is  initiating  tax  changes  before  the  general 
legislation  that  will  form  the  vehicle  upon 
which  boundaries  may  be  changed.  I  hope  he 
will  remember  we  have  had  an  ad  hoc  change 
in  the  Brant  area.  I  would  hope  that  at  least 
the  concepts  in  this  bill,  as  well  as  the  min- 
ister's well-known  generosity,  will  be  brought 
to  bear  in  the  best  interests  of  the  taxpayers, 
particularly  in  the  Greenbrier  area  of 
Brantford. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  in  sup- 
port of  the  bill  although  not  without  reserva- 
tions. I  read  the  bill  carefully.  I  read  through 
sections  1  to  5  and  detected  a  major  defect. 
There  is  no  reference  whatsoever  in  the  bill 
to  grants  for  municipalities  that  establish  a 
food  terminal.  When  the  minister  responds,  I 
wonder  if  he  could  give  us  some  indication 
when  the  city  of  Timmins  finally  gets  its  food 
terminal,  so  the  member  for  Cochrane  South 
(Mr.  Pope),  the  minister  without  a  food 
terminal,  will  finally  be  able  to  see  his  1975— 
or  was  it  1977?— election  promise  come  true. 
The  people  of  Timmins  are  getting  increas- 
ingly restless  and  I  fear  for  the  safety  of  the 
minister. 
8:40  p.m. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
make  a  few  comments  concerning  this  legisla- 
tion. I  do  not  find  in  Bill  190  any  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  government  to  equalize  or 
minimize  the  loss  of  revenue  over  the  years 
as  a  result  of  unconditional  grants  to  the 
municipality  from  which  I  come.  The  min- 
ister is  aware  that  the  city  of  Windsor  has 
been  shortchanged  by  some  $30  million  over 
a  period  of  time  and  has  beseeched  the  min- 
ister to  attempt  to  resolve  the  problem  and  to 
pay  back  to  that  community  in  a  programmed 
manner  the  moneys  that  are  owing  to  it. 

As  a  result  of  the  city  not  receiving  the 
unconditional  grants  that  in  its  estimation 
it  was  entitled  to,  the  taxes  in  the  munic- 
ipality had  to  be  substantially  higher  than 
they  were.  I  hope  the  minister  can  find  some 
way,  if  not  in  this  legislation  then  in  some 
other  legislation  that  he  may  introduce  in 
the  not  too  distant  future,  to  overcome  the 
problem  his  government  has  created  for  the 
ctiy  of  Windsor. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me  just 
respond  to  my  friend  from  Windsor  first.  I 
think  that  he  would  have  to  agree  that  we 
have  tried  to  make  amends  and  I  think  we 
have  done  that  to  some  degree  in  the  last 
couple  of  years.  We  have  provided  Windsor 
with  something  perhaps  not  quite  up  to  its 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4883 


complete  expectations,  but  certainly  it  is  a 
step  in  the  right  direction  towards  rectifying 
some  of  the  problems. 

I  have  to  tell  him  that  there  is  no  way 
that  we  can,  as  he  puts  it,  pay  back  what 
the  city  feels  it  was  owed  over  the  past 
number  of  years.  I  think  we  have  to  look  to 
the  future  and  I  can  assure  him  that  in  de- 
vising the  grants  for  next  year,  we  will  pay 
very  close  attention  to  the  suggestions  he  has 
put  forward. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Will  you  do  more  than 
just  pay  attention  to  it?  Will  you  send1  a 
cheque? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  will  pay  very  close 
attention. 

In  responding  to  my  friend  from  the  Sud- 
bury area,  I  would  like  to  say  that  I  think 
he  should  have  great  faith.  I  am  sure  that 
if  the  member  from  Timmins  or  for  Coch- 
rane South  has  proposed  that  a  food  ter- 
minal be  established  up  there,  it  will  be 
established.  I  would  think  the  member  for 
Nickel  Belt  will  stand  up  in  this  House  at 
some  future  date  and  thank  the  minister  verv 
much.  He  is  looking  very  carefully  after  all 
those  things  in  that  particular  area  and  I 
am— 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  have  been  getting  letters. 
I  have  been  getting  hundreds  of  letters  from 
constituents. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  The  member  has  been 
listening  to  the  wrong  people.  Since  it  has 
general  relevance  to  the  province,  it  may  be 
that  something  in  this  bill  will  help  him  in 
that  long  quest  to  get  the  food  terminal 
there,  which  I  am  sure  will  come  to  fruition. 

Mr.  Bradley:  What  have  you  done  for  St. 
Catharines? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  St.  Catharines,  Niagara 
Falls,  the  peninsula— they  are  always  well 
looked  after,  always  well  looked  after.  I  ap- 
preciate the  comments  about  the  Brant- 
Brantford  township  amalgamation  and  I  will 
be  happy  to  look  into  any  particular  small 
problems  that  may  have  arisen  as  a  result 
of  that  legislation  because  we  certainly  felt 
that  that  marked  a  milestone  in  developing 
the  new  process.  If  in  so  doing  there  was  a 
slipup  in  the  way  the  grants  were  handled 
or  the  accommodation  for  the  various  areas 
—if  we  can  rectify  that,  we  will  certainly 
look  into  it. 

I  thank  the  honourable  members  for  sup- 
porting this  bill. 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  All 
those  in  favour  of  the  motion  will  please  say 
"aye" 


Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Pope  has  some 
papers  to  pick  up  because  that  sloppy  House 
leader  from  the  NDP  has  just  knocked  them 
over,  and  I  apologize  for  him,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  all  this  confidential  mail 
I  am  trying  to  read. 

EMPLOYMENT  STANDARDS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  191,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Employment 
Standards  Act,  1974. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  hon- 
ourable members  are  aware,  on  October  14 
the  government  proposed'  a  five-point  pro- 
gram to  respond  to  the  labour  adjustment 
problems  caused  by  plant  closures  and  lay- 
offs. Part  of  this  program  involved  the 
amendment  of  the  Employment  Standards 
Act  with  respect  to  manpower  adjustment 
committees  and  fringe  benefits.  Bill  191  pro- 
poses these  legislative  changes. 

Mr.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  wonder  if  we  might  be  informed 
if  the  shutdown  committee  has  shut  down? 
Would  it  not  make  sense  if  the  members 
of  the  plant  shutdown  committee  were  to 
be  here  to  listen  to  the  minister? 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  Is  the 

committee  still  working?  That  is  up  to  the 
committee  chairman.  I  would  assume  that 
somebody  might  inform  them,  but  whether 
they  want  to  be  here  or  down  there  is  up  to 
that  committee. 

Will  the  minister  please  proceed? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  would  like  to  point  out 
that  the  present  manpower  adjustment  com- 
mittees are  established  on  a  voluntary  basis 
with  the  Ministry  of  Labour  cosponsoring  the 
committees  along  with  Canada  Employment 
and  Immigration.  They  are,  in  my  view,  an 
important  means  by  which  employers  carry 
out  their  corporate  social  responsibilities  to 
their  employees. 

The  committees  have  had  considerable 
success  in  assisting  displaced  persons  to  find 
alternative  employment.  In  cases  in  which 
committees  have  been  established,  more  than 
60  per  cent  of  the  employees,  and  some- 
times many  more  than  that,  have  obtained 
alternative  employment  through  their  efforts. 
In  most  cases  employers  are  willing  to  co- 
operate  to   establish   these   manpower   com- 


4884 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


mittees,  although  there  are  cases  where  they 
are  not.  Some  refusals  are  explicable,  for  ex- 
ample, where  a  company  has  a  joint  labour- 
management  placement  program  of  its  own 
where  the  employees  have  found'  alternative 
employment,  or  in  the  case  of  bankruptcy, 
where  the  plant  has  been  closed  and  em- 
ployees have  dispersed. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  have  been  cases 
in  the  past  in  which  committees  would  have 
been  beneficial,  but  the  employer  refused 
to  participate.  For  example,  in  the  61  cases 
of  complete  closure  my  ministry  recorded 
between  January  1  and  September  30,  there 
were  eight  refusals  to  participate  in  man- 
power adjustment  committees.  Of  the  13 
partial  closures,  there  were  two  refusals.  The 
present  legislation,  that  is  section  40(5)  of 
the  Employment  Standards  Act,  does  not 
clearly  establish  the  minister's  authority  to 
require  participation  in  these  committees  in 
cases  where  employers  refuse. 

In  Bill  191,  I  am  proposing  to  repeal  the 
existing  section  40(5)  and  replace  it  with  a 
provision  that  would  empower  the  minister 
to  require  participation  in  and  contribution 
to  the  expenses  of  committees  in  appropriate 
cases.  In  taking  such  action,  I  would  rely 
on  the  advice  of  my  special  adviser  on  em- 
ployee adjustment  who  will  work  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  federal  authority.  I  should  also 
point  out  that,  unlike  the  present  provision, 
this  authority  would  extend  to  all  termina- 
tions, individual  as  well  as  mass. 

I  would  like  to  emphasize  that  unjustified 
nonparticipation  in  manpower  adjustment 
committees  is  comparatively  rare.  I  recognize 
that  mandatory  legislative  instruments  are 
not  in  themselves  the  best  means  to  foster 
and  promote  co-operation.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  believe  such  an  authority  is  war- 
ranted where  co-operation  is  not  forthcom- 
ing. Quebec  has  legislative  authority  similar 
to  the  type  I  am  proposing  and  it  is  my 
understanding  that  the  minister  has  not  had 
to  invoke  this  authority  so  far.  I  sincerely 
hope  the  existence  of  the  legislation  pro- 
posed in  this  bill  will  be  sufficient  incentive 
to  promote  full  co-operation  in  the  important 
work  of  the  manpower  adjustment  com- 
mittees. 

The  second  issue  Bill  191  addresses  is  that 
of  fringe  benefits.  As  I  have  said  in  my 
statement  of  October  14,  in  several  recent 
plant  closures,  employees  found  themselves 
without  legal  entitlement  to  pension  and 
other  benefits  to  which  they  would  have 
been  entitled  had  notice  been  given. 

The  intent  of  the  Employment  Standards 
Act  is  clear,  namely,  to  ensure  that  the  re- 


quired notice  is  given.  The  basic  principle 
established  in  Bill  191  is  that  an  employee 
terminated  with  pay  in  lieu  of  notice  should 
continue  to  receive  benefits  to  which  he 
would  have  been  entitled  under  the  particular 
contract  of  employment  as  though  notice  had 
been  given.  To  ensure  the  effectiveness  of  the 
provisions,  the  bill  deems  employees  to  be 
actively  employed  during  such  a  period,  a 
stipulation  frequently  required  to  qualify  for 
pension  and  insurance  plans. 

Finally,  the  bill  provides  that  the  payment 
of  contributions  due  during  the  period  that 
notice  should  have  been  given  can  be  en- 
forced under  part  13  of  the  act. 

It  is  my  conviction  that  these  amendments 
will  help  to  facilitate  the  adjustment  process, 
and  to  alleviate  the  hardship  of  employees 
who  are  terminated  without  notice. 
8:50  p.m. 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  begin  by  saying  something  I  have  said  on 
more  than  one  occasion  these  last  few  weeks. 
That  is,  I  would  remind  members  that  when 
this  House  reopened  on  October  6  we  all 
looked  forward  to  a  clear  and  definitive  state- 
ment from  the  government  as  to  what  it  was 
planning  to  do  to  help  all  of  us  here  in 
Ontario,  particularly  the  workers  in  this 
province  who  find  themselves  in  the  very 
unpromising  position  of  being  persona  non 
grata  in  plants  that  have  been  closing  or  an- 
nouncing their  intent  to  close. 

We  were  all  looking  forward  to  the  govern- 
ment taking  some  definite  action  to  indicate 
how  we  could  live  with  the  phenomenon  of 
plant  closure  or  industrial  dislocation.  "Indus- 
trial dislocation"  is  beginning  to  be  a  bit  of  a 
pet  phrase  around  here.  It  is  something  to 
which  we  ought  to  give  more  than  just  a  little 
bit  of  lip  service. 

Members  will  recall  the  press  conference 
that  our  party  held  on  October  3,  and  also 
the  press  conference  held  by  the  third  party 
prior  to  the  opening.  Both  of  us  outlined  pro- 
posals for  solutions  to  alleviate  this  problem. 
In  a  sense,  it  was  like  the  air  of  anticipa- 
tion prior  to  groundhog  day.  Would  the 
groundhog  not  see  its  shadow  and  have  the 
courage  to  stay  out,  or  would  it  see  its  shadow 
and  duck  underground  again.  In  fact,  when 
the  fall  session  did  open  on  October  6,  we 
did  not  see  or  hear  any  definite  action  the 
government  was  prepared  to  take.  We  had  to 
prod  it  to  get  some  kind  of  emergency  debate 
going  on  this  theme.  We  further  had  to  prod 
it  into  a  select  committee,  which  we  now 
have,  on  plant  closures. 

Our  party's  feelings  toward  some  of  these 
problems   related   to   plant    closure   and   job 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4885 


termination  are  reflected  in  our  private  mem- 
bers Bill  154,  which  is  also  an  act  to  amend 
the  Employment  Standards  Act.  As  we  see  it, 
if  we  do  not  bring  these  amendments  on  the 
table  at  this  time,  with  the  proposed  recess 
coming  in  another  week  and  a  half  and  with 
the  possibility  of  this  House  not  coming  back 
to  do  business  until  some  time  in  the  late 
winter  or  early  spring— and  with  what  is  often 
referred  to  as  the  possible  spring  election— we 
do  not  have  any  guarantee  that  this  House 
can  do  anything  definite  to  address  itself  to 
these  problems  unless  we  do  it  right  now. 

We  are  aware  of  what  happened  earlier 
today  when  the  division  bells  rang  and  some 
of  the  members  on  my  left  felt  we  were  being 
a  little  unresponsive.  We  were  certainly  not 
responsive,  in  their  view,  to  the  demands  and 
needs  of  people  in  the  work  force  I  have 
referred  to  who  find  themselves  terminated. 

It  was  our  feeling,  depending  on  the  ruling 
this  evening,  that  unless  we  got  that  debate 
on  the  floor  this  afternoon  we  may  well  not 
have  the  opportunity  to  proceed  with  it 
further.  As  it  stands,  we  are  getting  a  bit  of 
a  crack  at  it  now  but  certainly  nothing  in 
depth.  So  our  move  this  afternoon  should  not 
be  interpreted  as  one  which  would  speak 
against,  or  in  any  way  negate,  the  theme  of 
what  was  discussed  at  the  closure  committee 
last  evening,  and  what  was  included  in  the 
report.  That  is  the  whole  theme  which  ad- 
dresses itself  to  severance  pay. 

I  want  it  clearly  understood,  and  I  want  it 
on  the  record,  that  our  party  has  suggested 
that  on  more  than  one  occasion.  In  no  way, 
and  it  should  not  be  so  interpreted,  should  it 
be  considered  that  we  are  backing  away  from 
that  theme  of  severance  pay  as  something 
absolutely  and  totally  in  need  of  debate  at 
this  time. 

If  we  do  not  do  it  now,  if  we  let  this  House 
rise  a  week  on  Friday  and  members  disappear 
back  into  the  hinterlands  of  their  ridings  to 
wait  for  something  to  happen  in  the  spring,  I 
would  be  prepared  to  wager— if  one  legally 
could  in  such  a  parliamentary  setting  as  this, 
and  I  do  not  see  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  here  to 
suggest  otherwise— having  had  that  moment  of 
jest,  I  would  be  prepared  to  bet  very  seriously 
that  we  would  never  get  back  to  this  theme 
until  after  the  next  provincial  election.  That 
is  just  too  far  away.  We  have  to  address  our- 
selves to  the  problem  and  we  have  to  address 
it  right  now. 

In  so  far  as  Bill  154  was,  in  part  at  least,  a 
suggestion  for  ways  of  amending  the  problem, 
I  would  like  to  suggest  that  when  this  bill 
gets  to  committee,  if  it  does,  we  would  very 


much  like  to  move  some  amendments  that 
would  address  themselves  to  the  inadequacies 
of  the  existing  Employment  Standards  Act. 

Very  briefly,  our  amendments,  which  we 
hope  to  get  to  this  evening,  address  them- 
selves to  the  theme  of  termination  notice.  In 
the  first  instance,  we  would  suggest  that  the 
notice  as  it  now  exists,  in  section  1,  would  in 
effect  double  the  present  legislation;  in  other 
words,  two  weeks  for  employees  of  less  than 
two  years,  four  weeks  for  employees  of  two 
to  five  years,  eight  weeks  for  employees  of 
five  to  10  years,  and  16  weeks  for  employees 
of  10  or  more  years  of  service. 

Some  people  have  suggested  this  is  not 
going  to  assist  a  company  because  it  would 
tip  the  hand  of  that  company  in  the  market- 
place if  such  increased  termination  notice  had 
to  be  given.  I  would  ask  the  question  very 
simply.  To  what  are  we  addressing  our- 
selves? To  the  lot  or  concern  of  the  employer 
only?  Or  do  we  have  to  address  ourselves  to 
the  concern  of  the  employee?  If  we  agree  the 
present  termination  notice  is  too  short,  I 
would  submit  that  by  doubling  it,  even  then 
we  may  not  be  doing  total  service  to  the 
employee. 

Let  me  digress  for  a  moment  to  point  out 
that,  in  so  far  as  the  activity  of  the  plant 
shutdowns  committee  is  concerned,  in  the 
last  few  weeks  a  considerable  number  of  wit- 
nesses have  presented  themselves  to  us  who 
have  indicated  that— I  am  speaking  now  from 
the  side  of  the  union  people  or  the  workers— 
by  and  large  the  termination  notice  was  as 
the  law  demanded:  nothing  more,  nothing 
less.  I  think  we  had  one  exception  to  that, 
but  by  and  large  the  employers  were  sticking 
to  the  word  of  the  law.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  had  only  one  instance  of  an  employer 
suggesting  to  us  that  the  notice  period,  if  it 
had  been  changed  or  altered,  would  perhaps 
have  adversely  affected  him  in  the  market- 
place. 

I  would  submit  again  that  in  other  in- 
stances we  have  had  a  significant  number  of 
employers  presenting  themselves  to  us  and 
indicating  that  their  results  in  the  market- 
place in  the  past  year,  the  past  two  or  three 
years,  or,  in  some  cases,  five  or  six  years, 
and  their  success  as  marketers  in  terms  of 
profit,  both  gross  and  net,  was  very  much  on 
the  plus  side. 
9  p.m. 

In  other  words,  we  had  few  instances  of 
bankruptcy  or  businesses  just  plain  not  being 
able  to  succeed  in  the  marketplace.  Without 
naming  names— they  are  on  the  record  in  the 
committee  hearings— by  and  large,  people 
who  have  pulled  out  or  determined  they  are 


4886 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


not  going  to  stay  here  are  people  who  have 
been  darned  successful.  I  submit  to  the  min- 
ister that  the  arguments  about  the  increased 
notice  affecting  the  employer  or  the  market 
are  not  good  arguments  and  we  could  not 
accept  them  as  valid  for  not  changing  the 
notice  period. 

Beyond  that  we  have  also  included  or 
would  move  later  on  that  the  notice,  as  it 
applies  to  the  size  of  the  employee  groups, 
would  be  changed.  In  this  instance,  I  would 
point  out  we  would  not  only  seek  to  change 
the  existing  Employment  Standards  Act  in 
section  40,  but  also  to  make  an  amendment 
by  which  we  effectively  change  one  of  the 
regulations  which  would  apply  to  that  sec- 
tion. It  would  be  out  of  order  for  us  to  make 
a  move  on  the  regulations  so,  therefore,  we 
would  have  to  include  an  amendment  that 
would  effectively  change  that  section  of  the 
act. 

Having  said  this,  I  would  like  to  get  back 
to  the  minister  and  his  few  comments  about 
Bill  191.  What  he  has  suggested  in  so  far 
as  employers  participating  in  manpower  ad- 
justment committees  are  concerned  and 
making  it  at  his  discretion  that  they  "shall"— 
I  think  that  is  one  of  the  operative  key 
words  in  his  amendment— is,  I  would  submit, 
almost  too  little  and  too  late. 

The  government  has  really  got  the  world 
by  the  tail  if  it  wants  to  use  it.  I  am  not 
sure  why  it  had  to  bring  in  such  a  Caspar 
Milquetoast  amendment  at  this  time  when 
it  should  have  flexed  its  muscles  and  said, 
"Hey,  the  legislation  is  there  and  we  are  go- 
ing to  make  you  guys  use  it."  It  makes  me 
a  little  bit  more  than  upset  when  we  have 
to  come  here  time  after  time  and  deal  with 
this  type  of  legislation  which  is  like  putting 
a  Band- Aid  on  a  major  piece  of  surgery.  It 
is  there.  Surely  our  brain  surgeon  in  this  in- 
stance does  not  have  to  come  to  us  but 
should  have  taken  it  upon  himself  to  do  the 
job.  However,  he  has  done  it.  He  has 
brought  this  amendment  in.  We  are  not  go- 
ing to  speak  against  it.  I  am  simply  suggest- 
ing it  is  too  late  and  too  little. 

As  far  as  the  entitlement  is  concerned,  my 
understanding  of  the  second  part  of  his 
amendment  is  that  he  had  the  opportunity 
to  use  his  influence  and  the  legislation  as  it 
now  exists.  Although  I  am  not  an  expert  on 
legislation  by  any  means,  my  understanding 
is  that  if  it  was  not  there  in  fact,  it  was 
there  in  intent.  If  it  is  there  in  intent,  surely 
the  minister  could  and  should  have  used  the 
intent  to  make  sure  such  entitlements  come 
to  employees  who  have  been  terminated. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  submit  that,  given  the 


proper  opportunity  and  given  this  bill  being 
referred  to  committee,  we  will  be  making 
amendments  in  the  most  sincere  way.  The 
work  of  the  plant  shutdowns  committee  has 
been  unique  in  many  ways,  unique  in  the 
sense  we  started  off  with  a  problem.  We 
started  off  with  little  direction,  with  a  time 
line  on  us  that  demanded  we  act  relatively 
quickly,  and  with  the  prospect  of  this  House 
terminating  because  of  an  election  within  the 
next  few  months.  We  started  out  with  all 
kinds  of  handicaps  and,  in  spite  of  that,  I 
think  we  have  come  up  with  a  relatively  clear 
indication  of  where  we  must  go  if  we  are  to 
do  the  job. 

As  I  see  it,  one  of  the  basic  things  to  which 
we  must  address  ourselves  is  a  handful  of 
definitions.  For  example,  what  is  closure?  The 
minister  and  I  spoke  very  briefly  about  this 
in  the  corridors  of  this  building  today.  We 
must  address  ourselves  to  the  ramifications 
and  definitions  of  that  word,  in  the  short  term 
and  the  long  term. 

I  would  hate  to  see  us  get  sidetracked  here 
tonight  in  a  bit  of  posturing,  or  posturing 
such  as  we  had  earlier  in  the  day  with  one 
party  accusing  the  other  party  of  trying  to 
defeat  the  purpose  or  attract  the  fancy  of  the 
labour  movement.  Let's  forget  about  that. 
Let's  get  on  with  the  business  of  addressing 
ourselves  to  ways  and  means  of  assisting  those 
people  who  find  themselves  without  a  job  or 
with  the  prospect  of  finishing  a  job  within  a 
very  short  period  of  time,  with  nowhere  else 
to  go. 

If  we  do  not  address  ourselves  to  those 
basic  things,  we  are  doing  a  disservice  to  the 
community  we  are  purporting  to  serve  and 
we  are  doing  a  disservice  to  ourselves  because 
we  are  not  being  honest  if  that  is  the  way 
we  are  going  to  go.  Let's  address  ourselves  to 
the  intent  of  this,  and  to  the  broader  issue  of 
how  we  are  going  to  accommodate  the  further 
needs  of  people  who  find  themselves  without 
a  job  because  some  board  in  Milwaukee  or 
wherever  has  decided  to  close  its  plant  in 
Ontario  and  leave  our  people  without  jobs. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  I  saw 
the  amendments  to  the  bill  that  the  Min- 
ister of  Labour  presented  to  this  House  a 
short  while  back,  I  really  did  not  know 
whether  to  laugh  or  cry,  quite  literally.  I 
finally  decided  we  have  to  thank  the  Lord  for 
small  mercies  because  what  we  are  getting  in 
this  bill  is  pretty  damned  small.  I  am  not  sure 
how  serious  the  government  would  be  about 
even  these  Band- Aid  measures  if  it  were  not 
faced  with  a  rising  tide  of  concern  across  this 
province. 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4887 


I  want  to  make  it  very  clear  that  unlike 
my  colleague  who  just  finished  speaking  for 
the  Liberal  Party,  I  feel  very  comfortable  and 
happy  standing  onside  with  the  labour  move- 
ment on  this  particular  issue  because  the 
labour  movement  has  started  to  raise  an  effec- 
tive lobby  across  this  province  in  terms  of 
what  is  happening  to  its  members.  I  really 
do  not  see  any  other  groups  in  our  society 
raising  the  issues  and  trying  to  do  something 
about  them. 

I  am  not  sure  what  we  would  have  received 
in  the  way  of  amendments  had  the  minister 
not  been  under  pressure  from  rising  public 
awareness  and  a  rather  massive  demonstration 
the  Ontario  Federation  of  Labour  planned 
and  which  drew  one  of  the  bigger  crowds  out 
in  the  front  here.  I  think  he  got  a  feeling  for 
the  concerns  of  workers  across  this  province, 
because  one  thing  that  sure  as  blazes  is 
coming  through  in  the  plant  shutdowns  com- 
mittee hearings  we  are  having  now  is  that 
major  decisions  in  terms  of  branch  plants  in 
this  province  are  not  being  made  in  this 
province  or  this  country.  Canadian  manage- 
ment has  darned  little  input  into  the  decisions 
being  made.  The  major  companies  are  not 
getting  hurt;  the  ones  that  have  come  before 
us,  with  one  exception,  have  not  been  hurt 
one  iota.  It  is  the  workers  involved  in  those 
plants  where  the  shutdowns  occur  who  are 
getting  hurt. 

9:10  p.m. 

I  wish  every  member  in  this  House  had 
been  able  to  sit  in  today  when  we  had  the 
people  from  Essex  International,  the  wire 
company  from  the  town  of  Dunnville  before 
us,  to  listen  to  the  words  that  came  from  the 
heart,  from  the  women  employees  and  the  two 
committee  members  who  appeared  before  our 
committee.  If  anybody  thinks  we  have  a 
responsible  corporate  entity  in  that  case,  he  is 
going  to  have  his  illusions  sorely  tried.  I  know 
it  even  got  through— if  their  words  are  true 
and  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  they  are  not— 
to  a  couple  of  the  colleagues  of  the  minister 
over  there. 

Before  us  we  had  women  like  Mrs.  Riches, 
who  had  19%  years  in  that  plant,  whose  hus- 
band is  on  disability  and  who  is  the  bread- 
winner in  that  particular  home.  She  was  let 
go  on  short  notice  without  so  much  as  a  shake 
of  the  hand.  She  had  her  wire  drawing 
machine  moved  out  from  under  her  within  10 
minutes  of  starting  it  up  to  get  it  warm  one 
morning.  She  is  out  and  has  not  a  penny  of 
pension,  not  a  penny  of  severance  pay.  She 
got  the  magnificent  additional  sum  of  one 
month's  coverage  of  her  Ontario  health  insur- 


ance   plan    premiums    from    that    particular 
company. 

Where  are  the  jobs  for  people  who  have 
reached  the  wrong  side  of  the  age  gap  and 
who  have  been  in  a  plant  19%  years?  She 
says:  "I  have  not  be  able  to  find  a  job,  and 
most  of  the  people  in  this  plant  have  not. 
What  am  I  going  to  do  with  the  bills?  Where 
is  the  Christmas?  How  do  we  keep  up  the 
payments  on  our  OHIP?  What  do  I  do  in 
teims  of  the  very  limited  income  my  husband 
draws  on  disability?"  We  do  not  have  answers 
for  her. 

Some  of  the  SKF  employees  with  24,  25 
and  26  years  were  before  us  and  said  the 
pensions  they  would  get  when  that  plant 
closes  down,  because  of  an  overseas  decision 
and  not  because  it  was  in  that  bad  financial 
shape,  will  not  begin  to  pay  the  rent  where 
they  live  now.  They  are  in  their  50s.  Where 
are  they  going? 

The  Coombs  family  from  Armstrong  Cork 
receives  $81  a  month  pension  after  12%  years 
and  $181  pension  after  20  some  years  for  her 
husband,  and  there  is  no  employment  in  the 
Lindsay  area.  I  ask  the  minister  what  does 
this  particular  bill  do  for  any  of  those  people? 

Just  maybe  in  the  case  of  Essex  Interna- 
tional the  mandatory  employment  committee 
will  give  some  hope,  although  I  suggest  to 
the  minister  it  would  be  false  hope.  There 
has  been  almost  nobody,  barring  a  few  of  the 
men  employees  with  specific  skills  in  that 
plant,  who  have  found  any  employment.  The 
manpower  adjustment  committee  is  going  to 
do  darned  little  for  them.  I  would  like  to  take 
a  look,  because  the  mandatory  adjustment 
committee  is  supposedly  one  of  the  key 
provisions. 

What  happened  in  terms  of  Armstrong 
Cork  in  the  Lindsay  area,  which  is  another 
area  where,  like  Dunnville,  there  is  not  em- 
ployment for  the  people?  What  happened  in 
this  situation?  Where  they  did  have  a  man- 
power adjustment  committee,  there  were  54 
salaried  employees,  of  whom  38  requested 
assistance  and  17  were  placed.  There  were 
217  hourly  rated  employees,  of  whom  119 
requested  help  and  29  were  placed.  One  Was 
moved  to  Windsor  where  there  is  already 
some  20  per  cent  unemployment.  Another 
problem  with  this  kind  of  transfer  is  that 
people  are  just  not  able  to  cope  with  moving 
from  small-town  rural  Ontario  to  a  town  that 
already  has  serious  labour  problems. 

I  do  not  know  what  the  minister  thought 
he  was  giving  us  in  mandatory  manpower 
adjustment  committees.  I  will  not  say  it  is 
worthless,  but  it  is  not  going  to  help  the 
problem  very  much,  and  for  almost  all  the 


4888 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


cases  which  have  been  before  us,  it  has  not 
helped.  The  minister  and  his  officials  like  to 
hold  out  Ford  as  a  success  story.  There  has 
been  some  success  in  the  Ford  Motor  Com- 
pany operation.  I  am  not  sure  it  is  anywhere 
near  as  much  as  the  minister  likes  to  make 
out,  but  in  the  Ford  case  at  least,  those  are 
people  who  have  some  specific  skills  and  who 
live  in  the  industrial  triangle  where  there 
may  be  some  small  hope  of  finding  employ- 
ment. I  suggest  to  the  minister  that  to  hold 
out  the  manpower  adjustment  committee  as 
one  of  the  answers  to  the  problems  we  are 
facing  is  playing  on  people's  hopes.  I  am  not 
very  proud  of  it. 

In  terms  of  the  extension  of  benefits  to 
cover  the  period  of  time  when  they  get  pay 
in  lieu  of  notice,  the  facts  are— whether  the 
minister  wants  to  accept  them  or  not— that 
most  ordinary  Canadians  who  ever  thought 
about  it  figured  they  got  that  kind  of  cover- 
age anyhow.  The  minister  is  doing  nothing 
more  than  plugging  a  loophole,  one  that 
should  have  been  plugged  a  long  time  ago. 
It  is  a  rather  sad  effort  to  assist  people  who 
are  being  hurt  because  of  the  plant  shut- 
downs in  this  province. 

It  is  obvious  the  answers  are  much 
broader  and  the  action  needed  is  much 
broader  than  we  have  in  this  bill.  Maybe 
we  should  be  thankful  for  small  mercies,  but 
there  has  to  be  a  little  bit  more  to  it  than 
we  see  here.  Certainly,  that  was  the  intent 
behind  the  motion  that  was  debated  and 
passed  in  the  plant  shutdowns  committee. 

Tonight  we  are  dealing  with  a  Band-Aid 
bill  of  the  minister's.  Can  we  add  something 
to  it?  Can  we  give  it  some  meaning?  Can  we 
leave  one  little  additional  bit  of  help  for 
people  who  end  up  out  of  work?  Is  there  a 
better  opportunity  than  when  this  bill  is  on 
the  floor  of  the  House  tonight?  For  that  rea- 
son we  hassled  and  argued  it  out  in  the  com- 
mittee and  made  the  recommendation  we 
did.  From  the  minister's  comments  this  after- 
noon, I  gather  he  is  not  prepared  to  accept 
it 

The  minister  must  find  himself  in  a  diffi- 
cult position.  He  has  told  us  constantly  that 
in  principle  he  is  not  against  such  a  move. 
Whether  the  minister  realizes  it  or  not,  we 
moved  in  the  committee  from  a  blanket  one 
week,  and  the  scare  that  gives  to  small  busi- 
nesses, to  cover  only  those  who  are  covered 
under  the  shutdown  provisions  of  the  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act,  which  in  effect  is 
more  than  50  employees  in  an  operation.  I 
do  not  know  what  there  is  in  that  recom- 
mendation that  scares  the  minister  so  much. 
We  certainly  will  be  moving  such  an  amend- 


ment when  we  get  into  committee,  to  add  at 
least  some  hope  for  workers  in  this  bill.  Even 
that  is  not  a  heck  of  a  lot. 

If  the  members  of  this  House  had  all  been 
able  to  listen  to  the  people  from  SKF,  from 
Outboard  Marine,  from  Essex— where  they 
did  not  get  so  much  as  a  handshake  or  "We 
hope  you  will  have  a  successful  future"— 
they  would  be  ready  to  be  a  lot  tougher  on 
the  minister  in  this  legislation. 

The  minister  himself  might  have  been  a 
little  bit  more  forthright  in  some  protection 
for  workers  in  this  province,  protection  that 
the  hearings  have  also  shown  is  sadly  lack- 
ing. I  would  hope  he  is  willing  to  see  the 
amendments  to  this  bill  that  have  been  sug- 
gested here  tonight.  That  would  be  precious 
little  justice  for  the  workers  involved  as  an 
immediate  interim  measure,  but  at  least  they 
deserve  that. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  have  an  opportunity  to  make  some  com- 
ments on  Bill  191,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act,  1974,  introduced  by 
the  Minister  of  Labour. 

For  several  weeks  I  have  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  sit  on  the  plant  shutdowns  and  em- 
ployee adjustment  committee.  We  have  had 
before  us  government  officials,  government 
ministers,  labour  unions  and  representatives 
from  the  management  side  of  corporations. 
We  have  appreciated  the  information  that 
has  been  brought  before  the  committee,  even 
though  some  of  the  information  has  pointed 
out  to  us  rather  drastically  the  hardships 
placed  before  employees  once  their  jobs  are 
terminated. 
9:20  a.m. 

There  is  a  basic  philosophical  thought 
within  the  government  party  that  we  here  in 
Ontario  must  attract  jobs  no  matter  what  the 
sacrifice  of  the  workers  may  be,  without  re- 
gard to  what  would  happen  to  them  after  a 
corporation  decided  to  leave  or  without  re- 
gard to  what  would  happen  to  a  small  com- 
munity. We  have  had  local  officials  from 
communities  such  as  Hanover— we  had  the 
mayor  of  Hanover— and  the  town  of  Lindsay. 

We  can  no  longer  afford  to  do  that.  We 
can  no  longer  afford  to  think  that  just  be- 
cause a  plant  opens  up,  just  because  a  rib- 
bon is  cut  by  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis),  that 
plant  is  necessarily  going  to  bring  direct, 
long-term  benefits  to  the  people  of  Ontario. 
The  profits  from  the  plant,  the  dividends,  the 
equipment  and  machinery,  which  can  be 
written  off  for  tax  purposes,  can  all  be  ship- 
ped out  of  the  country  at  almost  a  few 
weeks'  notice  and,  in  some  cases,  at  a  few 
moments'  notice. 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4889 


When  we  had  the  Minister  of  Industry 
and  Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman)  before  our 
committee,  many  of  us  took  the  opportunity 
to  question  him  as  best  we  could  on  some  of 
the  things  Ontario  had  that  were  able  to 
attract  industry.  Many  of  the  things  we  were 
able  to  mention  to  the  minister  were  directly 
quoted  by  myself  from  the  famous  fact  book 
he  put  out  approximately  eight  or  10  weeks 
ago.  It  states  basically  why  and  how  to  set 
up  business  in  Ontario,  Canada.  The  minis- 
ter, in  this  fact  book— he  does  not  give  the 
page;  it  is  about  a  third  of  the  way  through 
the  fact  book— goes  on  to  state,  and  I  quote 
the  following,  "Lower  labour  costs:  In  1978, 
our  average  hourly  pay  for  workers  in  indus- 
trial production  was"— and  I  am  giving  the 
US  figure- 
Mr.  Laughren:  What  is  your  position  on 
the  minimum  wage? 

Mr.  Mancini:  I  am  still  quoting.  I  am 
sorry,  I  was  interrupted.  I  should  have  ig- 
nored the  interjection.  I  will  start  the  quote 
from  the  fact  book  again.  It  says,  "Lower 
labour  costs:  In  1978,  our  average  hourly  pay 
for  workers  in  industrial  production  was 
US$6.15  an  hour— 37  cents  an  hour  less  than 
the  US  average,  from  33  cents  to  $1.81  less 
than  the  rate  in  the  Great  Lakes  states  ad- 
joining Ontario."  So  we  can  see  from  the 
minister's  own  fact  book  there  is  evidence 
that  corporations  have  advantages  in  settling 
in  Ontario.  Salaries  is  one  of  them. 

The  minister,  in  his  fact  book,  goes  on  to 
state  the  minerals  we  have  and  the  timber, 
and  he  says,  concerning  the  matter  of  energy, 
which  is  a  very  vital  matter  these  days,  and 
I  quote  again:  "Secure  energy  resources: 
Ontario  provides  20  per  cent  of  all  its  primary 
energy  requirements.  Sixty  per  cent  comes 
from  other  parts  of  Canada  and  the  remainder 
is  secured  from  neighbouring  US  sources- 
more  reason  for  corporations  to  settle  within 
the  province  of  Ontario." 

On  the  area  of  research  and  development, 
under  the  title  of  "incentives,"  the  minister 
tells  corporations  that  companies  may  write 
off  100  per  cent  of  current  and  capital  ex- 
penditures on  R  and  D  in  the  year  of  the 
outlay,  a  direct  benefit  to  any  corporation 
which  does  research  and  development. 

There  are  many  benefits  which  corporations 
enjoy  by  settling  in  Ontario  and,  because  of 
those  benefits,  these  same  corporations  should 
be  in  a  financial  position  and  should  be  made 
to  give  proper  notice  of  layoff,  proper  sever- 
ance pay  and  guarantees  of  pensions. 

We  also  had  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S. 
Miller)  appear  before  the  committee.  It  was 
just   a   few   days   before   he   introduced   the 


famous  mini-budget.  I  was  surprised  at  the 
lack  of  information  the  Treasurer  volunteered 
to  the  committee.  He  came  basically  with  no 
prepared  statement,  no  plan  as  to  how  he  was 
going  to  encourage  employment  in  Ontario 
and  no  in-depth  thought  as  to  what  should 
happen  to  workers  if  they  are  terminated.  He 
came  in,  answered  the  few  questions  we  put 
to  him  and  hurried  off  to  another  meeting. 
I  do  not  criticize  him  for  hurrying  off  to 
another  meeting,  but  I  am  sure  that  if  the 
former  Treasurer,  Darcy  McKeough,  had  ap- 
peared before  that  committee,  we  might  not 
have  liked  what  he  said  but  at  least  he  would 
have  had  the  knowledge  and  ability  to  give 
us  his  own  views  in  concrete  terms.  He  would 
have  told  us  where  he  stood  on  the  position. 

We  have  heard  from  the  corporations,  as 
I  have  stated,  and  from  the  unions  which 
represent  the  workers  at  these  corporations. 
We  went  through  the  case  study  of  Armstrong 
Cork.  We  had  placed  before  us  facts  that 
told  us  Armstrong  Cork  is  a  subsidiary  of  an 
American  corporation,  Armstrong  World, 
which  last  year  enjoyed  profits  in  excess  of 
$66  million.  We  were  told  by  the  manager  of 
the  Armstrong  Cork  plant  in  Lindsay  that  one 
of  the  main  reasons  the  plant  was  going  to 
be  closed  was,  "because  technology  had 
passed  us  by." 

How  can  it  possibly  be  that  a  corporation 
can  make  a  $66-million  profit  after  taxes  and 
allow  a  substantial  plant  in  Lindsay,  which  is 
servicing  the  Ontario  and  Canadian  markets, 
to  allow  technology  to  pass  it  by?  We  must 
conclude  that  the  technology  it  was  buying 
or  the  expenditure  it  was  making  to  upgrade 
facilities  was  done  in  other  areas. 

We  went  on  and  heard  the  case  study  of 
SKF,  another  huge  multinational  corporation 
with  extensive  profits,  with  interests  all  over 
the  world.  It  had  a  ball-bearing  plant  in 
Scarborough  which  it  is  closing.  I  may  add 
the  company  headquarters  are  in  Sweden. 
When  the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie)  gets 
back  possibly  he  can  answer  my  question.  I 
am  sorry;  I  did  not  notice,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
he  was  hiding  behind  your  chair— I  mean, 
standing  behind  your  chair— 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  never  hide. 

Mr.  Mancini:  —but  since  he  is  listening 
so  intently,  I  want  to  ask  the  Minister  of 
Labour  if  he  knows  the  requirements  of  plant 
closures  in  Sweden. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 
9:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Mancini:  SKF  is  a  huge,  multinational 
corporation  that  has  done  well  over  a  period 


4890 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  time.  They  have  a  plant  in  Scarborough 
serving  the  domestic  market  and  therefore 
avoiding  any  tariffs  that  might  impede  their 
ability  to  sell  within  the  domestic  market. 
Now,  they  are  going  to  close  up  the  opera- 
tion and  serve  the  domestic  market  by  creat- 
ing jobs  and  placing  the  industry  outside  of 
Ontario  and  Canada.  I  say  that  is  wrong. 
I  say  if  these  corporations  want  to  serve  our 
domestic  market,  they  have  to  share  the  pie 
with  Ontario  workers.  I  would  like  to  hear 
some  comments  on  that  from  the  Minister  of 
Labour. 

We  have  heard  other  case  studies,  such 
as  the  closure  of  the— what  was  the  name  of 
that  plant? 

Mr.  Hodgson:  Did  you  forget? 

Mr.  Eakins:  There  are  so  many  of  them; 
how  do  you  keep  track? 

Mr.  Mancini:  That  is  right.  The  members 
opposite  do  not  even  have  a  list.  It  is  the 
Essex  International  plant  at  Dunnville.  We 
had  five  employees  before  the  committee  who 
had  many  years  of  service.  Most  of  these 
employees  were  females.  As  we  already 
heard  from  one  of  the  previous  members, 
they  were  the  sole  supporters  of  their  fami- 
lies and  were  being  paid  low  wages,  around 
the  $4  mark.  These  are  the  people  laid  off 
or  terminated,  basically  without  notice.  Basi- 
cally, they  are  not  even  given  a  handshake 
as  they  leave  the  door  after  19  or  20  years' 
service.  People  say:  "Why  can't  they  move? 
Why  can't  they  get  a  job  some  place  else?" 
How  do  you  expect  women  who  are  the  sole 
supporters  of  their  families  to  move?  They 
may  have  a  disabled  husband  at  home;  they 
may  have  a  family  at  home.  How  can  we  ex- 
pect them  to  leave  communities  like  Dunn- 
ville and  go  some  place  else  and  make  a 
new  start?  That  is  not  the  answer  for  those 
people. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Your  friends  the  multi- 
nationals, Remo. 

Mr.  Mancini:  We  voted  for  the  leader  of 
the  third  party's  motion  today.  He  did  not 
even  vote  for  his  own  motion.  We  were  will- 
ing to  vote  today  on  what  the  committee 
passed  unanimously  last  night,  but  the  two 
other  parties  were  not. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  If  you  stop  speaking,  we  will 
put  our  motion  here  and  we  will  vote  for  it 
here. 

Mr.  Mancini:  The  member  for  Hamilton 
East  (Mr.  Mackenzie)  spoke  before  I  did. 
He  could  have  put  the  motion. 

We  saw  the  best  example  today  of  why 
the  Employment  Standards  Act  needs  to  be 


improved.  The  case  cannot  be  made  more 
clearly  than  it  was  today. 

I  feel  I  have  come  to  know  the  Minister 
of  Labour  on  a  fair  basis  over  the  past  three 
or  four  years.  I  know  he  wants  to  be  a  com- 
passionate man.  I  know  he  wants  to  be 
thought  of  as  a  fair  man.  But  when  we  see 
amendments  introduced  to  the  Employment 
Standards  Act  that  merely  make  an  employ- 
ment adjustment  committee  mandatory,  that 
make  it  mandatory  for  benefits  to  be  paid 
during  the  layoff  notice,  we  have  to  place  the 
responsibility  on  the  minister's  front  doorstep 
and  ask  him  if  he  went  to  the  cabinet  with 
more  and  came  out  with  this.  If  he  did,  he 
should  resign  and  give  the  responsibility  to 
someone  who  can  extract  more  from  the 
cabinet.  Or  did  the  Minister  of  Labour  go 
to  the  cabinet  and  ask  only  for  this?  If  that 
is  the  case,  then  he  should  also  resign,  be- 
cause he  is  not  carrying  out  his  responsibility 
to  the  working  people  of  Ontario. 

The  select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns 
and  employee  adjustment  is  going  to  con- 
tinue to  sit  for  another  two  weeks.  We  are 
going  to  have  our  interim  report  ready.  We 
already  have  a  motion  before  the  House  which 
was  approved  unanimously  by  that  commit- 
tee. I  hope  that  by  the  time  we  adjourn  all 
of  our  hearings  and  have  our  final  report 
written  by  February  5,  we  will  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  debate  it  in  the  House  as  soon  as 
we  get  back.  The  Minister  of  Labour  will 
have  had  possibly  three  or  four  weeks  to  look 
over  the  report  before  the  House  is  called 
back.  We  would  expect  him  to  have  other 
amendments  to  the  Employment  Standards 
Act  prepared  and  tabled  on  the  first  day  we 
return  in  1981. 

He  has  supported  the  concept  of  the  select 
committee.  I  believe  if  the  committee  comes 
up  with  reasonable,  feasible  and  affordable 
ideas,  it  is  his  responsibility  to  accept  them 
and  put  them  into  legislation  so  workers  who 
are  terminated  at  least  have  some  type  of 
recognition  for  the  years  of  service  they  have 
given  their  company. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Does  any  other  mem- 
ber wish  to  participate  in  the  debate?  The 
member  for  Quinte. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  is  this,  Mr.  Speaker? 
Sudden  discovery  of  the  fact  that  there  are 
four  million  people  who  work  in  Ontario? 
They  are  ignored  by  the  Liberal  Party  until 
an  election  is  imminent. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  The  member 
for  Quinte. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  especially 
interesting  in  this  plant  closure  committee  to 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4891 


have  the  leader  of  the  third  party  come  down 
and  to  see  how  very  little  he  has  to  lend  to 
the  actual  committee  meetings. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  have  yet  to  see  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith)  down  there. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  Perhaps  the 
honourable  member  will  return  to  the  bill. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  I  certainly  will.  Our  leader,  for 
a  long  time,  has  shown  his  great  interest  in 
the  workers  of  this  province,  along  with  all 
the  members  of  our  party. 

It  was  interesting  this  afternoon  to  see  the 
finagling  that  was  going  on  between  that 
party  over  there  and  that  party  down  at  the 
other  end.  It  was  really  interesting  to  see 
them  going  over  to  the  government  House 
leader  and  to  the  minister  and  going  into  the 
government  House  leader's  office- 
Mr.  Eakins:  Pulling  up  the  sheets. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  Pulling  up  the  sheets  a  little 
farther;  getting  in  bed  a  little  deeper. 

I  just  wonder  what  sort  of  an  arrangement 
they  have  made  as  regards  how  this  bill  is 
going  to  be  handled.  Look  at  that  fellow 
there. 

An.  hon.  member:  It's  a  big  bed;  you  can 
get  in  too. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  No,  I  do  not  want  to  get  into 
bed.  I  would  rather  discuss  it  here  in  the 
open. 

Interjections. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Please  do. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  one  gets  all 
those  interruptions  from  over  there,  it  is  very 
hard  to  keep  on  the  subject. 

The  committee  has  been  very  interesting. 
I  think  both  our  critic  and  the  member  for 
Essex  South  have  given  members  some  of  the 
background.  I  think  when  this  resolution  was 
brought  forward  last  night  and  I  asked  that 
it  be  placed  before  this  Legislature,  it  was  a 
unanimous  decision,  all  except  for  the  chair- 
man. The  chairman  tried  to  rule  the  motion 
out  of  order,  but  all  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee voted  that  this  should  be  put  before 
the  Legislature  this  afternoon. 

It  was  our  fear  then,  and  it  is  still  our  fear, 
that  the  Minister  of  Labour  would  not  have 
permitted  a  change  to  come  about  in  this 
legislation.  This  is  one  of  the  reasons  we 
wanted  it  discussed  this  afternoon.  One  thing 
it  did  do  was  get  those  fellows  in  the  third 
party  into  bed  with  the  Conservatives  again; 
so  we  may  possibly  have  an  amendment 
approved  this  evening. 
9:40  p.m. 

Mr.  McEwen:  They  only  have  one  pillow. 


Mi*.  O'Neil:  Yes,  they  only  have  one  pillow, 
but  they  sure  have  been  snaring  it. 

I  think  our  critic  has  put  very  well  the 
amendments  we  will  propose  so  that  the 
workers  in  this  province  will  be  covered  and 
will  be  given  proper  severance  pay  when 
they  are  given  notice  of  termination.  It  will 
be  very  interesting  to  see  what  sort  of 
arrangement  the  people  in  the  third  parry 
and  the  government  have  made.  We  hope 
this  amendment  is  supported  and  goes 
through  this  evening. 

I  was  also  very  interested  in  the  com- 
ment made  by  the  Minister  of  Labour  this 
afternoon  in  this  Legislature,  saying  he  was 
for  this  in  terms  of  support,  as  the  members 
of  his  party  and  this  committee  are.  As  I 
suggested  to  him  this  afternoon,  if  he  and 
his  party  do  not  approve  the  amendments 
to  this  particular  bill,  it  will  mean  the  work- 
ers of  this  province  may  not  be  covered  for 
another  year  or  two. 

As  I  say,  we  look  forward  in  the  hope 
that  he  and  his  party  will  support  the  amend- 
ments that  will  be  put  forward. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  ad- 
dress myself  to  Bill  191,  An  Act  to  amend 
the  Employment  Standards  Act,  1974.  I  want 
to  support  my  colleague's  comments  and  the 
amendments  he  will  be  moving  later  on. 

On  October  3  of  this  year  our  leader 
issued  a  press  release  indicating  what  mea- 
sures the  government  should  follow  in  pro- 
viding additional  protection  for  employees 
where  plant  shutdowns  occur  and  layoffs 
follow.  It  must  provide  fair  levels  of  sev- 
erance pay  for  employees  who  are  laid  off 
and  make  pensions  a  right,  not  a  privilege, 
for  workers.  He  has  made  these  suggestions 
before  and  we  will  be  moving  some  amend- 
ments to  the  bill. 

There  has  been  some  discussion  about 
Essex  International  in  Dunnville.  That  in- 
dustry has  floated  about  the  province.  I 
think  it  came  from  southwestern  Ontario  to 
Dunnville.  Now  I  understand  it  is  moving 
back  there.  One  of  the  reasons  is  that  they 
are  looking  for  the  cheapest  labour  they  can 
possibly  find  in  any  industry. 

I  also  want  to  talk  about  the  Armstrong 
Cork  closure  at  Peterborough,  where  a  num- 
ber of  employees  will  be  losing  their  jobs. 
If  something  like  this  happened  on  the 
American  side  they  would  not  permit  an 
industry  like  that  to  close  its  doors  and  move 
out.  No,  they  would  not.  They  would  be 
putting  embargoes  on  their  good's. 

I  suggested  to  the  minister,  even  to  the 
committee- 
Interjection. 


4892 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Haggerty:  If  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  (Mr.  Martel)  would  keep  quiet,  he 
might  learn  something. 

They  pull  out  of  this  country  and  move 
back  to  the  United  States.  With  the  ex- 
change on  the  American  dollar  and  the 
lower  wages  paid  to  employees  in  the  United 
States,  they  can  well  afford  to  pull  out  of 
Ontario,  go  back  there,  produce  the  same 
goods  and  ship  them  back  across  the  border 
here.  In  this  instance  I  suggest  the  com- 
mittee should  consider  suggesting  to  the  gov- 
ernment that  embargoes  be  put  on  such 
goods  when  a  multinational  corporation  pulls 
out  of  Ontario  and  goes  back  to  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  It  was  federal  Liberal 
policy  that  got  the  textile  industry  in  trouble, 
you  dummy. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  We  on  this  side  also  sug- 
gested in  that  press  release  that  the  plant 
closures  should  be  justified.  I  do  not  think 
the  measures  put  forward  in  the  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Employment  Standards 
Act,  where  a  committee  would  be  set  up  by 
employees  and  management  with  perhaps 
some  guidelines  by  the  ministry,  are  quite 
strong  enough.  I  do  not  think  that  is  going 
to  resolve  some  of  the  problems  employees 
are  facing  today,  particularly  when  there  is 
a  plant  shutdown.  There  have  to  be  stronger 
measures  than  that  to  justify  the  plant 
closures. 

Also,  I  think  pensions  in  the  province 
should  be  protected  and  portable  so  workers 
can  move  from  one  industry  to  another. 
They  should  have  been  portable  and  pro- 
tected long  ago;  perhaps  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East  will  recall  I  have  suggested 
this.  I  suggest  the  government  has  been  lax 
in  this  area  over  the  years.  They  have  never 
considered  any  of  these  options  in  the  area 
of  pensions.  It  is  to  be  hoped  the  govern- 
ment and  the  Minister  of  Labour  will  bring 
in  further  amendments  to  the  Employment 
Standards  Act  to  include  portable  pensions, 
secured  and  guaranteed  in  Ontario. 

I  understand  the  pensions  from  one  par- 
ticular plant  that  closed  its  doors  in  Ontario 
are  located  in  Quebec.  I  do  not  know 
whether  pensions  in  Ontario  are  protected 
in  Quebec,  but  I  suggest  that  funds  gener- 
ated by  employees  here  in  Ontario  should 
remain  within  the  boundaries  of  the  province 
so  that  they  are  well  protected. 

I  support  the  basic  principle  of  this 
amendment  bill  but  when  my  colleague 
moves  the  amendments,  it  is  to  be  hoped  we 
will  have  a  much  stronger  and  more  work- 
able bill. 


Mr.  M.  Davidson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to 
withdraw  a  remark  I  made  regarding  the 
member  for  Erie.  It  was  in  the  heat  of  listen- 
ing to  his  remarks.  I  would  prefer  to  say 
just  that  his  comments  regarding  the  textile 
industry  are  totally  misinformed. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  in- 
tend to  reiterate  the  very  eloquent  remarks 
of  my  colleague  the  member  for  London 
North  which  I  support  wholeheartedly. 

It  is  not  often  that  I  find  myself  moved 
by  members  of  the  New  Democratic  Party, 
but  I  thought  a  number  of  things  the  mem- 
ber for  Hamilton  East  said  tonight  were  of 
some  importance  to  this  House,  as  much  as 
I  hate  to  admit  that  publicly. 

I  share  the  view  that  this  is  a  token  con- 
tribution to  the  main  problem  facing  people 
in  these  situations  today.  It  is  one  very  small 
step  for  mankind,  almost  to  the  point  of  be- 
ing insignificant.  The  major  lack  here  is  in 
the  area  of  pensions.  I  regret  very  much  the 
failure  of  the  government  to  address  these 
problems  long  before  now.  They  constantly 
hide  behind  the  Haley  commission  on  pen- 
sions. It  has  never  been  established  for  sure 
that  Mrs.  Haley  even  lives,  let  alone  runs  a 
commission  looking  into  pension  reform  in 
this  province.  The  last  I  heard  is  that  by 
December  15  she  will  publish  10  volumes. 
That  may  or  may  not  be  the  truth,  because 
she  is  now  about  a  year  or  a  year  and  a  half 
late.  There  has  always  been  some  excuse— 
another  study,  another  commission,  another 
select  committee  looking  at  things,  before 
some  action  can  be  taken. 

If  we  have  let  down  the  people  who  work 
in  this  province  in  any  way,  it  is  in  the  area 
of  pension  reform.  There  have  been  a  number 
of  suggestions.  The  member  for  Hamilton 
East  brought  in  a  private  member's  bill.  It 
was  imperfect  in  a  number  of  details,  but 
nevertheless  it  spoke  eloquently  of  the  need 
for  some  pension  reform,  something  I  sup- 
port very  strongly.  But  the  government  has 
always  said,  let's  wait  and  have  a  study  or 
more  study  or  whatever.  That  is  the  way  we 
have  principally  let  down  the  people  in  this 
province. 

I  suggested  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  a  year 
and  a  half  ago  that  at  least  we  should  start 
with  the  disclosure  provisions,  by  enforcing 
a  higher  degree  of  disclosure  for  pensions  in 
this  province.  He  agreed.  He  thought  it  was 
a  wonderful  idea  and  said  he  would  wait  for 
Haley.  Then  he  said,  when  confronted  again, 
"If  Haley  does  not  come  down  with  some 
specific  suggestions  this  fall,  I  personally 
will  give  my  guarantee  to  bring  in  legislation 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4893 


forcing  disclosure  of  pension  benefits."  He 
made  that  solemn  promise  of  full  disclosure 
to  this  House,  and  I  am  sure  my  colleagues 
recall  that.  It  is  now  a  week  and  a  half  to 
the  end  of  the  session,  and  we  have  yet  to 
see  that  legislation. 

There  have  been  some  great  acts  of  leader- 
ship in  this  area— one  was  by  Saskatchewan, 
another  was  by  Quebec— and  we  are  falling 
rapidly  behind.  There  are  a  number  of  areas 
in  which  we  could  start  that  would  not  dis- 
rupt the  work  place  or  our  competitive  posi- 
tion, when  you  compare  it  with  the  com- 
peting jurisdictions  with  which  we  have  to 
compete,  not  only  in  our  own  country  but 
also  the  areas  to  the  south. 
9:50  p.m. 

I  say  to  the  minister  as  strongly  as  I  can, 
this  is  fine,  it  is  okay,  we  will  support  it. 
There  is  nothing  the  matter  with  it  as  far  as 
it  goes,  but  he  is  not  addressing  the  real 
problems.  I  am  concerned  and  I  want  to  take 
this  opportunity  to  say  it  to  him  publicly  and 
in  the  House,  where  he  has  no  alternative 
but  to  listen,  that  as  presumably  the  fair  man 
he  thinks  he  is  and  certain  others,  albeit  a 
diminishing  group,  think  he  is,  he  has  an 
obligation  to  move  quickly,  fairly  and 
equitably. 

There  is  no  one,  from  the  industry  to  the 
beneficiaries  or  anywhere  in  between  across 
the  whole  pension  spectrum  today,  who  thinks 
we  have  intelligent  up-to-date  laws  in  this 
province.  That  is  an  area  in  which  he  can 
operate,  and  it  costs  the  government  of  this 
province  and  the  taxpayers  nothing;  it  does 
not  erode  our  competitive  position  in  any  way. 
But,  as  the  legislators  of  those  trusteed 
moneys,  we  must  make  sure  those  moneys, 
which  will  respond  only  to  legislation  by  this 
House,  are  fairly  and  equitably  dealt  with  so 
that  a  number  of  issues— the  portability,  the 
early  vesting,  all  those  issues— can  be  dealt 
with  fairly  and  in  a  hurry. 

It  is  interesting  that  John  Grant,  the  chief 
economist  at  Wood  Gundy,  said  just  the  other 
day  in  an  address  to  the  Ontario  Economic 
Council  that  the  lack  of  early  vesting  and 
the  lack  of  portability  of  pensions  is  cutting 
down  on  the  mobility  of  labour  and  is  a  con- 
tributing factor  to  our  eroding  competitive 
position  here.  He  believes,  as  generally  a  free 
market  economist,  that  a  high  degree  of 
mobility  among  labour,  to  which  a  contribu- 
tion would  be  made  by  earlier  vesting  and 
portability  of  pensions,  would  be  a  good  thing 
for  this  province.  Let  us  assume  he  is  right. 
It  is  not  only  good  for  them,  it  is  good  for 
the  beneficiaries  of  those  pensions,  and  I 
would   say   tantamount  to   a   legal  right.   It 


should  be  a  legal  right,  because  clearly  it  is  a 
moral  right. 

Before  I  sit  down,  I  want  to  ask  the  min- 
ister to  please  take  the  recess  period  to  look 
at  the  Haley  commission.  If  it  does  not  come 
down,  then  I  will  come  over  to  his  office  in 
the  recess  and  give  him  any  advice  I  can 
possibly  contribute  to  that  overbloated  bu- 
reaucracy he  has  over  there.  I  will  do  what- 
ever I  can,  but  I  can  assure  him  the  most 
pressing  area  requiring  reform  in  this  province 
is  the  one  that  is  not  getting  it.  Everybody 
benefits;  nobody  suffers. 

As  far  as  I  can  determine  from  my  distant 
vantage  point,  the  only  impeding  point  is  the 
failure  of  the  government  to  act.  God  only 
knows  why  he  is  so  slow  to  act  in  the  most 
important  things.  I  want  to  tell  the  minister 
tonight  that  as  Minister  of  Labour  he  has  a 
responsibility,  even  though  I  gather  it  falls 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations,  but  the 
Minister  of  Labour  must  work  with  him  and 
he  must  force  him  to  act.  He  has  been  avoid- 
ing the  House  lately.  I  assume  he  has 
problems  of  his  own— God  knows  what  they 
aie— but  in  fairness,  he  has  an  obligation  to 
make  sure  that  this  single  greatest  injustice 
in  this  whole  area  which  my  colleagues  have 
spoken  so  eloquently  about  tonight,  and  my 
friends  to  the  left  have  mentioned  a  little  bit 
tonight,  is  addressed.  I  urge  the  minister  to 
do  it  and  I  urge  him  to  do  it  quickly. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  name  of  the 
game  is  quite  obvious.  I  want  to  tell  you  this 
afternoon  we  had  a  fiasco;  and  I  am  going  to 
come  to  it,  because  hypocrisy  prevails  to  my 
right  as  never  before. 

Last  night,  the  select  committee  given  the 
mandate  to  look  into  plant  shutdowns  moved 
an  amendment  and  presented  a  report  which 
said  workers  are  entitled  to  severance  pay. 
Three  times  during  the  discussions,  I  indicated 
to  my  friends  to  my  right— and  right  of  the 
Tories,  I  must  say— if  we  had  a  report  coming 
in  today  that  would  indicate  to  the  minister 
where  the  committee  wanted  the  government 
to  go  on  this  particular  issue- 
Mr.  Mancini:  You  are  always  having  tea 
with  Tom  Wells. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  for  Essex  South 
was  not  even  around,  he  was  busy  else- 
where. 

Mr.  Mancini:  On  a  point  of  order- 
Mr.  Martel:  We  heard  the  point  of  order 
this   afternoon.   He  was  in  hospital,   getting 
his  back  in  shape. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  What  is  the  point 
of  privilege? 


4894 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege:  Earlier  today  the  member  for 
Hamilton  East  (Mr.  Mackenzie)  made  men- 
tion to  the  people  who  were  at  the  com- 
mittee that  I  was  absent  on  Monday.  He 
made  it  sound  as  if  I  was  purposely  absent. 
The  member  for  Sudbury  East  has  done  it 
again.  He  has  told  the  chamber  I  was  absent 
from  the  committee  without  informing  the 
chamber  I  was  in  hospital  Sunday  night  and 
was  unable  to  be  in  the  chamber  on  Monday 
for  a  very  legitimate  reason.  I  resent  the  fact 
he  would  not  properly  inform  the  House  as 
to  why  I  was  absent. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  had  a  consensus  in  the 
committee  that  we  would  bring  the  report 
forward  so  the  minister  would  understand 
the  feeling  of  the  select  committee  that  sev- 
erance pay  should  be  included  in  this  piece 
of  legislation.  That  would  give  the  govern- 
ment an  opportunity  to  respond.  We  indi- 
cated that,  because  we  moved  the  motion, 
we  were  prepared  to  move  the  motion  in 
the  House  if  need  be.  We  were  hoping  the 
government  would  understand  the  feeling  of 
an  all-party  committee  on  which  there  are  at 
least  five  Conservatives. 

Mr.  Mancini:  You  voted  against  your  own 
motion. 

Mr.  Martel:  Who  has  the  floor?  Me  or  him? 

Interjections. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  Order. 

Mr.   Martel:    We  wanted  the   government 

to  have  an  opportunity- 
Mr.  Mancini:  You  voted  against  your  own 

motion. 

Mr.  Martel:   Will  you  throw  him  out? 

Mr.  Mancini:  That's  the  long  and  the 
short  of  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  I'd  take  the  gavel  you're  offer- 
ing me,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  it  would  bounce. 
No,  I  will  not  say  that.  It  would  be  too 
unkind. 

We  hoped  tonight,  when  we  debated  the 
bill,  the  minister  would  indicate  the  govern- 
ment was  prepared  to  move  on  severance 
pay.  We  all  know  there  are  plants  that  are 
going  to  close  down  in  January.  The  min- 
ister knows  it;  we  know  it.  There  is  no  pro- 
tection for  those  people.  We  also  know  if 
we  come  back  with  a  report  next  February, 
it  will  be  too  late  for  those  workers. 

We  came  into  the  House  this  afternoon 
and  the  game  was  on.  Let  me  tell  how  the 
game  is  on.  We  could  debate  a  report  until 
hell  froze  over  and  it  would  not  have  re- 
solved a  damned  thing.  Nothing.  We  could 
talk  until  the  air  was  blue  but  it  would  not 


resolve  the  problem  of  workers  in  this  prov- 
ince come  January.  They  wanted  to  debate 
a  report— big  score— so  we  would  not  get  to 
the  amendment  the  New  Democratic  Party 
has  prepared  and  that  would  have  seen  this 
come  to  a  head.  It  would  have  allowed  them 
to  vote  for  severance  pay.  But  they  do  not 
want  it  that  way.  They  want  it  both  ways. 
10  p.m. 

Remember  Firestone?  We  moved  things 
like  that,  and  our  friends  were  sympathetic 
with  the  workers,  but  they  voted  against  all 
seven  points  moved  by  my  colleague  the 
member  for  Oshawa  (Mr.  Breaugh).  They 
were  for  portability.  They  were  for  all  those 
things,  but  when  it  comes  time  to  move  into 
the  House  to  vote  on  it,  where  are  they? 
They  are  putting  up  speaker  after  speaker 
so  the  amendment  cannot  be  placed.  I  told 
the  press  that  this  afternoon.  I  told  my 
friends  in  the  press  this  afternoon  that  they 
want  it  both  ways.  They  want  to  say:  "Well, 
the  New  Democrats  are  supporting  the  gov- 
ernment. They  don't  want  to  debate  the  re- 
port." But  I  tell  you,  the  report- 
Mr.  Van  Home:  On  a  point  of  privilege, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Before  the  member  for  Sud- 
bury East  gets  himself  totally  wrapped  up  in 
his  own  rhetoric  and  forgets  a  fact  or  two, 
I  would  like  to  point  out  that  he  said  very 
clearly,  just  a  few  moments  ago,  that  we  did 
not  want  severance  pay.  I  would  remind  him 
that  we  introduced  on  October  6  a  private 
member's  bill,  Bill  154,  of  which  section 
6(a)  very  clearly  pointed  out  that  we  were 
proposing  severance  pay.  In  fact,  his  state- 
ment is  totally  wrong  and  erroneous.  I  would 
ask  that  he  correct  the  record. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  nice  to  be  able  to  be  on 
both  sides  of  everything.  Do  members  re- 
member Bill  70,  the  health  and  safety  bill? 
Do  my  friends  remember  that?  Their  litera- 
ture in  Sault  Ste.  Marie  said  all  of  the 
workers  will  be  under  Bill  70  except  agri- 
cultural workers.  On  the  very  day  the  by- 
elections  were  being  held  in  Sault  Ste.  Marie, 
they  voted  group  after  group  out  of  the  bill. 
Here  we  are.  It  was  the  same  thing  with 
Firestone  last  June.  They  are  for  severance 
pay.  They  are  for  everything,  but  when  it 
comes  to  a  vote,  where  it  is  going  to  im- 
plement that,  they  refuse  to  let  it  get  to  the 
House.  They  refuse  to  let  us  come  to  the 
House.  Here  we  are  tonight  with  a  bill  before 
us  with  respect  to  severance  pay  and  they 
have  put  up  speaker  after  speaker  because 
they  do  not  want  to  get  to  the  amendment. 
They  do  not  want  to  get  to  the  amendment. 
They  have  put  up  seven  speakers  in  a  row. 
All  of  them  have  said  nothing. 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4895 


The  member  for  London  Centre  (Mr.  Peter- 
son) talked  about  pensions.  There  will  be  a 
bill  in  the  House  on  Thursday  on  pensions 
and  he  talked  for  10  minutes  about  that.  I 
understand  the  bill  will  be  in  sometime 
Thursday.  The  minister  is  here  and  they  talk 
claptrap.  They  do  not  want  to  vote  on  sever- 
ance pay,  because  they  want  it  both  ways. 
They  want  to  be  for  severance  pay  when 
there  are  people  at  the  committee,  but  when 
it  comes  to  the  House,  no  deal.  They  are  out 
of  the  ball  game.  They  do  not  want  a  vote 
on  it.  They  want  to  be  able  to  accuse  the 
New  Democrats  of  being  in  bed  with  the 
Tories,  but  they  will  not  allow  it  to  come  to 
a  vote. 

For  sheer  hypocrisy,  those  beggars  take 
the  cake.  My  colleagues  have  prevailed  upon 
me  to  continue.  With  that  in  mind,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  will  attempt  to  continue  this  little 
tete-a-tete  that  you  and  I  are  having. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Hopefully,  you  will  return  to 
the  principle  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  are  talking  about  sever- 
ance pay,  on  An  Act  to  amend  the  Employ- 
ment Standards  Act  and  the  shortcomings  in 
the  bill.  Let  us  get  to  the  government  side, 
because  they  are  not  much  better.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  last  evening  as  we  debated 
this  amendment  in  the  committee,  we  de- 
cided that  to  accommodate  those  fellows 
over  there,  we  would  meet- 
Mr.  Mancini:  They  are  your  friends. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  for  Essex  South 
voted  on  it.  Oh,  the  member  was  away,  was 
he  not?  He  had  a  bad  back  and  I  do  not 
want  the  member  to  strain  himself. 

We  moved  an  amendment  to  accommodate 
the  member  for  Peterborough  (Mr.  Turner) 
and  the  member  for  Sault  Ste.  Marie  (Mr. 
Ramsay),  who  I  think  was  there  last  eve- 
ning when  we  voted  on  it,  and  the  member 
for  Durham  East  (Mr.  Cureatz),  who  wanted 
an  amendment  to  modify  it  so  we  would  not 
damage  the  small  entrepreneur  in  Ontario. 

We  will  move  to  accommodate  the  concern 
of  the  government  and  the  small  business 
community.  We  will  accept  or  move  an 
amendment  which  says  we  will  abide  by  the 
Employment  Standards  Act  and  the  regula- 
tions thereto,  which  would  start  with  50  to 
200  workers— that  is  where  the  bottom  line 
would  be  with  respect  to  severance  pay.  That 
would  not  hurt  the  corner  grocer  store;  that 
would  not  hurt  restaurateurs  and  small  Ontario 
businesses  employing  under  50.  It  is  where 
notice  has  to  be  served  that  we  want  to  move 
an  amendment  with  respect  to  severance  pay. 
That  accommodates  what  the  government 
would  like  to  bring  in. 


There  might  be  a  few  who  may  not  want 
to.  I  suspect  that  great  free  enterpriser,  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller),  would  oppose  it 
and  I  suppose  also  the  fellow  who  occupies 
seat  number  one,  the  globe-trotting  mandating 
mandarin  from  Toronto.  His  nose  will  be  out 
of  joint  because  we  would  have  an  amend- 
ment that  would  accommodate  the  rest,  but 
it  does  not  accommodate  those  free  enter- 
prisers who  do  not  feel  corporations  have  a 
responsibility. 

My  colleagues  have  indicated  that  for  the 
last  three  or  four  weeks  we  have  listened  to 
worker  after  worker  in  this  province.  Workers 
from  SKF  Canada  Ltd.  with- 

Mr.  Mancini:  Standing  shoulder  to  shoulder 
with  the  Tories. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  is  a  worker  who,  when 
the  company  closes  in  a  year,  will  be  59 
years  of  age.  He  has  32  years  with  the  cor- 
poration and  will  have  a  pension  of  $229,  but 
that  pension  will  be  reduced  by  six  per  cent 
a  year  for  five  years  because  he  has  to  take 
a  deferred  pension.  If  you  take  30  per  cent 
oft  his  pension,  he  is  down  to  about  $160. 

I  am  giving  reasons  why  we  think  this  bill, 
because  even  that  is  not  going  to  help- 
Mr.  Breithaupt:  Call  the  vote. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Liberals  did  a  fine  job. 
We  could  have  been  through  the  amendments 
except  they  were  playing  games,  which  they 
indicated  earlier  they  would  want  to  do  this 
afternoon. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  You  have  spoken  for  20 
minutes. 

Mr.  Martel:  And  I  intend  to  speak  for  20 
more. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  We  can  all  go  then. 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  don't  you?  You  haven't 
contributed  anything  else.  If  you  leave  we 
might  get  down  to  the  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker,  that  particular  individual  at  59 
years  of  age  will  have  a  pension  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  $160. 

Mr.  Nixon:  You  spent  three  quarters  of  an 

hour  consulting  with  your  Tory  friends  this 

afternoon  while  the  bell  rang. 

Mr.  Martel:  Does  he  have  the  floor? 

Mr.  Nixon:  It  was  tea  for  two.  Tell  us  what 

the  Tory  House  leader- 
Mr.  Martel:  I  have  to  correct  the  Liberal 

House  leader;  it  was  the  Tory  whip's  office. 

I  want  him  to  be  correct. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  a  bunch  you  are.  You 
filibuster  for  an  hour.  You  are  a  bunch  of 
hypocrites,  that  is  what  you  are.  A  full  hour 
with  seven  speakers  you  put  on. 


4896 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Nixon:  Each  one  spoke  five  minutes. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  see  in  committee,  Mr. 
Speaker,  women  such  as  those  who  were  in 
this  afternoon.  After  nineteen  and  a  half 
years,  they  get  no  notice.  They  have  been 
to  the  Minister  of  Labour  to  find  out  if  there 
is  a  little  game  going  on,  because  they  gave 
one  notice  for  a  temporary  shutdown  and  then 
moved  on  to  a  permanent  shutdown.  We  do 
not  know  if  they  should  be  called  back  to 
justify  that  position. 
10:10  p.m. 

In  fact,  we  just  moved  for  a  Speaker's 
warrant  this  afternoon  requesting  that  firm 
to  give  us  the  pleasure  of  their  company, 
because  since  November  7  they  have  re- 
fused to  come.  They  have  been  saying  since 
then,  "We  cannot  find  the  right  official  to 
appear."  So  we  moved  yet  another  Speaker's 
warrant,  which  will  be  discussed  with  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  ask  Essex  International  to  bring 
forward  their  accountants,  their  books  and1 
their  papers  so  we  can  have  a  chat  with 
them.   That  is  the  sort  of  response  we  get. 

But  the  most  insidious  part  of  the  whole 
thing  is  that  we  have  looked  at  SKF,  at 
Outboard  Marine  and  at  Armstrong  Cork  and 
the  scenario  is  the  same.  Each  company 
started  five,  six  or  seven  years  ago  to  dis- 
mantle its  operations  in  this  province.  SKF 
and  Outboard  Marine  in  particular  started 
to  minimize  what  they  were  producing  in 
parts.  They  started  to  rationalize  their  pro- 
duction. As  they  cut  back  line  after  line 
they  will  reach  a  point  where  it  will  no 
longer  be  as  profitable  for  them  to  operate 
in  this  province  as  they  would  like. 

fit  is  intriguing  that  SKF  is  going  back  to 
Europe,  when  we  heard  of  the  Red  scares 
that  the  chairman  of  that  company  told  us 
about.  The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 
(Mr.  Grossman)  said  companies  will  not 
locate  in  Ontario.  SKF  is  going  back  to 
where  the  laws  are  much  tougher  than  in 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Laughren:  What  were  the  Premier  and 
Deputy  Premier  doing  just  now?  Closing  out 
a  plant? 

Mr.  Martel:  What  in  God's  name  is  this? 
The  Premier  and  the  Deputy  Premier  in 
tuxedos? 

Mr.  Eakins:  Elie,  have  you  ever  got  into 
bed  with  a  bow  tie  like  that? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Martel:  In  each  of  those  operations, 
over  a  number  of  years,  the  company  has 
deliberately  dismantled  a  successful  operation 
in  this  province  until  they  reached  the  point 
where  they  said  it  was  no  longer  profitable, 


or  sufficiently  profitable  for  them  to  operate. 
Yet  they  are  going  back  to  operate  in  juris- 
dictions where  the  labour  legislation  is  much 
tougher  than  Ontario. 

What  is  happening?  We  have  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  saying,  "We  cannot 
get  too  tough  because  the  climate  for  invest- 
ment will  not  be  right,"  but  the  workers  be 
damned.  They  can  do  without  severance  pay. 
They  can  do  without  jobs.  They  can  have  no 
protection  under  legislation.  Even  this 
minuscule  thing  we  have  before  us  does 
nothing. 

What  is  it  in  the  Deputy  Premier's  lapel? 
A  Christmas  tree? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  think  the  chair  has 
given  the  honourable  member  ample  oppor- 
tunity on  numerous  occasions  to  return  to 
the  principle  of  this  bill.  All  I  have  heard 
so  far  is  what  is  not  contained  in  the  bill. 
The  member  knows  that  is  clearly  out  of 
order. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  problem  is 
that  when  one  looks  at  this  bill  it  will  do 
nothing  to  help  the  workers  in  the  province. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  just  proved  my  point. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  not  my  bill.  If  it  was 
my  bill  it  would  do  something  for  the  work- 
ers in  the  province.  In  fact,  that  is  what 
we  attempted  to  do  today,  and  it  is  what 
my  friends  to  my  right  have  worked  at  mak- 
ing sure  does  not  occur.  That  is  allowing  the 
moving  of  an  amendment  to  bring  severance 
pay  into  the  province  to  protect  the  laid-off 
workers,  and  they  do  not  want  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  any  other  member  wish 
to  speak  to  the  bill?  If  not,  the  Minister  of 
Labour. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  was  hoping  to  get  a 
bouquet  to  wear  in  my  lapel,  Mr.  Speaker, 
but  the  present  owner  refused  to  give  me 
one. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  not  in  the  bill  either. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  have 
been  many  topics  covered  tonight,  both  in 
your  presence  and  without  your  presence, 
which  ranged  far  and  wide.  I  think  I  have 
an  obligation  to  speak  to  some  of  the  points. 

The  government,  in  what  I  felt  was  a 
very  thoughtful  way,  last  October  14  sug- 
gested a  variety  of  approaches  that  it  saw 
as  important  to  try  to  cope  with  the  reality 
of  the  situations  and  the  hardships  that  were 
facing  people  in  this  province. 

The  Pension  Benefits  Amendment  Act  that 
my  colleague  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial    Relations    (Mr.    Drea)    will    be 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4897 


bringing  in  later  this  week  will  address  in  a 
realistic  way— and  in  a  way,  I  might  say, 
that  no  other  province  has  done— some  of  the 
vital  issues  that  have  faced  workers  in  plant 
shutdowns.  I  think  that  is  to  be  commended, 
not  criticized. 

I  am  proposing  tonight  in  this  legislation 
to  deal  with  what  were  to  me  and  my  min- 
istry and  to  this  government  two  areas  of 
obvious  importance.  One  was  the  need  to  be 
able  to  require  manpower  adjustment  com- 
mittees in  those  situations  where  they 
seemed  appropriate.  We  felt  that  was  im- 
portant and  we  felt  it  was  important  to 
extend  it  beyond  the  situation  of  mass  ter- 
minations. That  is  what  this  amendment 
does.  It  may  be  "a  poor  wee  thing,"  as  my 
friend  from  Sudbury  East  says  but  it's  mine 
own.  I  think  it  is  a  very  important  step  to 
improve  a  situation  that  faces  displaced 
workers    in    this    province. 

The  second  element  of  tonight's  bill  simi- 
larly was  one  that  came  to  my  attention  dur- 
ing some  of  the  closures.  I  can  think  of 
situations  in  Bendix  and  in  the  Firestone 
closures  where  there  were  workers  within  a 
few  weeks  or  a  month  or  two  of  being 
eligible  for  certain  benefits,  yet  they  did  not 
have  the  luxury  of  being  eligible  for  them 
under  the  present  legislation.  I  proposed 
therefore  that  they  be  deemed  to  have 
worked  during  a  period  of  pay  in  lieu  of 
notice,  so  that  they  might  be  eligible  for 
those  benefits.  I  think  that  too,  although 
some  may  call  it  "a  poor  wee  thing,"  is  a 
major  thing  and  is  a  big  step  in  the  right 
direction. 

We  also,  felt  there  needed  to  be  an 
improved  response  and  a  co-ordinated  inter- 
ministerial  response  to  plant  closures.  We 
have  done  that.  Steps  are  under  way;  Mr. 
Joyce  is  appointed;  and  the  committees  will 
soon  be  starting  to  act  in  a  more  formal  way. 
Finally,  we  asked  a  select  committee  of 
this  Legislature,  in  a  very  thoughtful  and 
considered  way,  to  look  at  a  number  of 
problems  that  we  found  a  little  difficult  to 
solve  in  any  hasty  way.  We  hoped  that  out 
of  that  committee  would  come,  for  example, 
a  thoughtful  analysis  of  the  problems  relat- 
ing to  severance  pay  as  We  saw  them,  and 
that  some  relevant  advice  might  come  from 
those    thoughtful    considerations. 

We  heard  of  a  committee  that  decided 
first  of  all  to  look  at  a  case-study  approach 
and  then  to  go  on  and  hear  from  interested 
groups  and  individuals  and  experts  in  the 
area  so  they  could  reach  those  considered 
opinions.  But  now  we  have  before  us  an 
amendment  which  has  been  brought  to  the 


House*    before     those     considerations     have 
taken  place. 

Mr.  Martel:  By  an  all-party  committee 
report. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Let  me  tell  my  friend, 
that  is  because  there  is  nobody  in  this  party 
opposed  to  that  principle.  He  is  not  going 
to  get  anybody  back  here  to  say  it  was 
against  his  principle  because  it  is  not.  What 
we  did  ask  of  that  committee  was  a  thought- 
ful, careful- 
Mr.  Cassidy:  Workers  can't  live  on  prin- 
ciple. They  have  to  have  laws. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  The  honourable  member 
should  just  be  quiet. 

What  we  asked  of  that  committee  was  a 
thoughtful,  concerned,  informed  analysis 
based  on  evidence  put  before  the  committee 
by  people  who  had  a  right  to  be  interested 
in  the  problem.  The  members  over  there  have 
not  done  that.  I  think  they  did  a  disservice 
to  this  Legislature  by  not  doing  that.  I  say 
that  openly  and  without  hesitation.  I  think 
they  did  a  disservice  to  this  Legislature 
without  giving  that  issue  the  thoughtful  con- 
sideration and  public  input  it  deserved. 

I  think  the  public  and  those  interested  will 
know,  when  they  see  the  types  of  amendments 
that  have  been  introduced  tonight,  who 
really  cares  about  the  problems  that  are  facing 
people  out  there  in  the  work  place.  It  is  my 
submission,  and  it  will  be  before  the  com- 
mittee, that  each  of  these  amendments  clearly 
is  out  of  order.  We  will  know  who  has  the 
sincere  interest  and  who  is  playing  games. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  committee  of  the  whole  House. 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 
10:20 

EMPLOYMENT  STANDARDS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  191,  An  Act  to  amend 
the  Employment  Standards  Act,  1974. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  move  an  amendment  to  Bill  191. 

Mr.  Chairman:  On  what  section? 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  On  section  1. 

Mr.  Chairman:  And  the  member  for  London 
North,  on  what  section? 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  a 
series  of  amendments.  The  first  is  to  section  1 
of  the  bill. 

On  section  1: 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  London 
North. 


4898 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Interjections. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  would  ask  the  Chairman  to 
find  out  where  the  amendment  fits  in  that 
particular  section. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  For  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East's  information,  there  are  a  num- 
ber of  amendments  that  have  been  filed.  The 
member  for  Hamilton  East  has  one  for  sec- 
tion 1(1)  and  the  member  for  London  North 
has  amendments  for  1(1),  1(2)  and  1(3).  The 
member  for  London  North. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  had 
asked,  the  member  for  Hamilton  East  has 
moved  his  amendment  to  section  l(l)(5c) 
which  says- 
Mr.  Roy:  That  is  still  after  our  one. 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  it  is  not.  It  is  much  before 
section  4. 

Mr.  Nixon:   Section  1(5)  is  before  1(4)? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order,  what  section  is  the 
amendment  by  the  member  for  Hamilton 
East? 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Section  l(l)(5c). 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  member  for  London 
North,  what  section  is  your  amendment  in? 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Section  40  of  the  act,  that 
is,  section  1(1)  of  the  bill  is  the  section  I 
have  amendments  for. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  Section  1(1).  Right. 
The  member  for  London  North. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  As  I  understand  it, 
the  request  from  the  member  for  London 
North  is  to  amend  section  1(1). 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman:  Does  the  amendment  of  the  mem- 
ber for  London  North  come  prior  to  section 
l(l)(5b)?  If  that  is  the  case,  then  clearly  he 
has  precedence;  if  not,  then  the  member  for 
Hamilton  East  has  precedence,  as  he  should 
have,  because  this  was  his  amendment  origin- 
ally last  night. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  The  amendment,  of 
course,  has  not  been  put,  but  the  order  that 
was  placed  on  the  table  repeals  1(1)  and 
replaces  the  complete  section. 

Mr.  Van  Home  moves  that  section  40(1) 
be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the  following 
subsection: 

"Subsection  1  of  section  40  of  The  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act,  1974,  being  chapter 
112,  is  repealed  and  the  following  sub- 
stituted therefor:  No  employer  shall  lay  off 


or  terminate  the  employment  of  or  lay  off 
an  employee  who  has  been  employed  for 
three  months  or  less  unless  the  employer 
gives  two  weeks'  notice  in  writing  to  the 
employee  if  his  period  of  employment  is  less 
than  two  years;  and,  further,  four  weeks' 
notice  in  writing  to  the  employee  if  his 
period  of  employment  is  two  years  or  more 
but  less  than  five  years;  and,  further,  eight 
weeks'  notice  in  writing  to  the  employee  if 
his  period  of  employment  is  five  years  or 
more  but  less  than  10  years;  and,  further,  16 
weeks'  notice  in  writing  to  the  employee  if 
his  period  of  employment  is  10  years  or  more 
and  such  notice  has  expired." 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  a  point 
of  order:  If  I  might  refer  you  to  Canadian 
parliamentary  procedures,  Bourinot  states  on 
inadmissible  amendments,  at  page  35  that 
an  amendment  is  out  of  order  if  it  is  beyond 
the  scope  of  the  bill  or  beyond  the  scope  of 
the  clause  or  clauses  under  consideration. 

Members  know  full  well  the  substance  of 
this  bill.  It  deals- 
Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  should  stick  to 
medicine. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  did  not  do  badly  in 
medicine  either,  and  I  would  like  to  talk  to 
the  member  about  that,  too.  He  may  need 
some  help. 

The  matters  raised  in  this  amendment  by 
the  member  for  London  North  are  not  rele- 
vant to  the  clauses  raised  in  the  bill  that  is 
before  the  House  tonight.  The  length  of 
termination  is  not  a  matter  that  is  raised  in 
the  bill  before  us  tonight,  nor  in  any  clause 
of  that  bill.  The  matters  raised  relate  to 
manpower  adjustment  committees,  wages  and 
wages  in  lieu  of  notice  and  benefits  ensuing 
therefrom.  They  have  nothing  to  do  with 
this  matter,  and  the  amendment  is  totally 
out  of  order. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  It  appears  there  is 
further  discussion  and  it  is  now  10:30  of  the 
clock. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  reported  progress. 
10:30  p.m. 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Mr.  Speaker:  Under  standing  order  28,  a 
motion  to  adjourn  is  deemed  to  have  been 
made.  I  will  listen  to  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  for  up  to  five  minutes. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  raised  this 
notice  of  dissatisfaction  because  of  what  the 
Minister  of  Labour  had1  to  say  in  the  House 
today  when  he  argued  that  the  efforts  we 


DECEMBER  2,  1980 


4899 


have  been  making  in  this  House  in  order  to 
get  severance  pay  were,  in  his  words,  pre- 
mature. The  minister  has  given  a  whole  series 
of  reasons  which  in  my  mind  are  completely 
unjustified,  and  I  think  the  minister  should 
have  been  prepared  today  to  agree  to  have 
the  amendments  that  we  have  been  trying 
all  day  to  bring  into  this  Legislature,  but 
which  have  been  blocked  by  a  systematic 
effort  on  one  side  by  the  government  and 
on  the  other  side  by  the  Liberal  Party  in  the 
opposition. 

I  want  to  say  I  am  ashamed  of  the  be- 
haviour of  the  official  opposition.  They  claim 
they  have  been  trying  to  bring  this  matter  to 
a  vote.  This  afternoon  they  rang  the  bells 
for  about  half  an  hour  in  a  spurious  effort  to 
sidetrack  the  House  when  we  could  have 
been  getting  on  with  the  legislation.  This 
evening  for  a  full  hour  they  put  up  speaker 
after  speaker  in  an  effort  to  prevent  the 
House  getting  to  vote  on  or  to  consider  the 
amendment  from  the  member  for  Hamilton 
East  (Mr.  Mackenzie),  which  would  have  had 
the  effect  of  ensuring  before  this  House 
rises  in  a  week  and  a  half  that  we  put  into 
the  law  books  under  the  Employment  Stand- 
ards Act  a  severance  pay  provision  that  will 
protect  workers  threatened. 

The  minister  gave  a  series  of  reasons.  I 
took  the  trouble  to  go  back  to  the  state- 
ment he  made  at  the  beginning  of  October. 
The  minister  said,  "We  have  not  consulted 
enough."  The  fact  is  the  Ontario  Federa- 
tion of  Labour  and  working  people  across 
the  province  have  spoken  and  said  clearly 
they  want  to  have  severance  pay.  If  the 
minister  says  he  has  not  had  time  in  eight 
weeks  to  garner  opinions  from  management 
groups  across  the  province,  it  suggests  to 
me  the  government  has  not  been  doing  its  job. 

The  minister  said,  "We  have  to  dot  all  the 
is  and  cross  all  of  the  t's"  The  fact  is  that 
is  done  right  here.  The  minister  said,  "The 
government  is  not  opposed  in  principle  to 
the  idea  of  severance  pay."  Then,  for  God's 
sake,  surely  he  should  be  prepared  to  debate 
the  matter  here  If  he  has  any  amendments, 
he  should  bring  them  here  into  the  Legis- 
lature rather  than  engage  in  a  continuing 
effort  to  prevent  this  House  making  a  deci- 
sion on  severance  pay  before  we  rise  around 
the  middle  of  December. 

The  minister  says  there  are  reasons  that 
still  have  to  be  sorted  out:  for  example,  mini- 
mum service— that  is  sorted  out  right  here; 
for  example,  the  ceiling— the  numbers  of 
years  are  specified  here;  for  example,  unem- 
ployment insurance— that  is  a  federal  ques- 
tion;  for   example,  impartial   closure— that  is 


covered  here;  for  example,  small  businesses— 
they  aire  excluded;  for  example,  the  question 
about  management— surely  the  priority  is  to 
ensure  that  the  working  people  of  this  prov- 
ince who  are  affected  by  layoffs  and  who  do 
not  have  the  financial  resources  of  people  in 
management  positions  should  be  protected 
now. 

I  suggest  that,  rather  than  duck  for  cover, 
the  minister  should  have  been  prepared  to 
state  in  the  House  that  the  government  is 
now  ready  to  translate  principle  into  practice. 
The  workers  of  this  province,  who  have  been 
laid  off— more  than  50,000  workers  affected 
by  permanent  closures  and  shutdowns  since 
the  beginning  of  this  year— cannot  live  on 
principles.  They  cannot  live,  feed  their 
families,  pay  their  mortgages  and  look  for 
jobs  just  on  the  words  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour.  They  cannot  survive  with  promises 
that  are  not  translated  into  action.  They 
cannot  survive  on  the  concern  which  keeps 
on  coming  in  such  torrents,  such  floods  from 
the  Minister  of  Labour,  but  which  is  not 
translated  into  action. 

I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  time 
even  now  for  the  minister  to  respond  to  the 
concerns  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  about 
working  people  across  the  province  and  to 
say  under  the  Employment  Standards  Act, 
"Yes,  we  are  going  to  do  it;  it  is  only  fair 
that  v/orkers  should  get  at  least  one  week  of 
severance  pay  for  each  year  of  service  when 
they  are  affected  by  a  layoff  or  shutdown." 

It  is  not  enough.  It  is  a  modest  proposal. 
We  should  go  beyond  that,  but  the  least  we 
could  do  now  is  to  lock  that  into  legislation 
before  this  House  rises.  I  call  on  the  minister 
to  reverse  the  position  he  enunciated  in  the 
House  today  and  to  say,  "Yes,  the  govern- 
ment is  prepared  to  do  it  now."  We  owe  it 
to  the  workers  of  the  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  think  I  dealt  at  some 
length  tonight  with  the  matters  raised,  but  I 
take  exception,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  comment 
that  my  concern  is  reflected  in  a  torrent  of 
tears  and  little  else.  I  have  to  say  in  that 
area  the  member  has  "the  poor  wee  thing," 
because  my  record  of  putting  my  concerns 
into  legislative  and  other  action  is  pretty 
clear  and  on  the  record.  The  member  had 
better  stand  up  and  be  counted  if  he  is  go- 
ing to  say  things  like  that  because  he  is  on 
the  wrong  wicket. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  stand  up  to  be  counted, 
and  I  say  bring  in  that  legislation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Sit  down,  you  are  on  the 
wrong  wicket  now,  so  sit  down. 


4900 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Cassidy:  Your  own  members  sup- 
ported it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  made 
the  position  of  this  government  very  clear.  I 
think  that  committee  deserved  to  give  the 
issue  greater  consideration  than  it  has  given 
it.  They  have  an  obligation  to  hear  a  variety 


of  viewpoints  that  exist  out  there  in  society 
and  then  to  reach  their  conclusions.  If  the 
members  opposite  think  saying  that  means 
there  is  less  interest  and  less  concern  in  this 
government  for  the  working  people  of  this 
province,  then  they  are  trying  to  play  a  game 
on  the  wrong  wicket.  That  concern  is  here. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:35  p.m. 


DECEMBER  2,  1980  4901 


CONTENTS 


Tuesday,  December  2,  1980 

Juries  Amendment  Act,  Bill  168,  reported 4877 

Municipality  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Amendment  Act,  Bill  182,  Mr.  Wells,  second 

reading   4878 

Regional  Municipality  of  Peel  Amendment  Act,  Bill  200,  Mr.  Wells,  second  reading  4880 

Ontario  Unconditional  Grants  Amendment  Act,  Bill  199,  Mr.  Wells,  second  reading  ....  4881 

Employment  Standards  Amendment  Act,  Bill  191,  Mr.  Elgie,  second  reading  4883 

Bill  191,  in  committee 4897 

Debate  re  dissatisfaction  with  oral  question  re  plant  closures  and  termination  entitle- 
ments: Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Elgie 4898 

Adjournment    4900 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Charlton,  B.  (Hamilton  Mountain  NDP) 

Davidson,  M.  (Cambridge  NDP) 

Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  and  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Hodgson,  W.  (York  North  PC) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McEwen,  J.  E.  (Frontenac-Addington  L) 

Newman,  B.  ( Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

O'Neil,  H.  (Quinte  L) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Sterling,  N.  W.  (Carleton-Grenville  PC) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Van  Home,  R.  (London  North  L) 

Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 


No.  131 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  December  4,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference  to   a   cumulative  index  of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


4905 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Thursday,  December  4,  1980 


The  House  met  at  2:01  p.m. 
Prayers. 

ESTIMATES 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
message  from  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  signed  by  his  own  hand. 

Mr.  Speaker:  John  B.  Aird,  the  Lieuten- 
ant Governor,  transmits  supplementary  esti- 
mates of  certain  additional  sums  required  for 
the  service  of  the  province  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1981,  and  recommends  them  to  the 
Legislative  Assembly,  Toronto,  December  4, 
1980. 

CIRCULATION  OF  LETTER 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  rising 
on  a  point  of  personal  privilege.  I  would  like 
to  say  that  a  letter  is  circulating  with  the 
heading,  "The  St.  George  NDP  Riding  Asso- 
ciation," signed  by  John  Goyeau.  I  will  read 
the  operative  paragraph: 

"After  37  years  of  Conservative  govern- 
ment, and  with  a  sitting  MPP  rapidly  losing 
effectiveness  due  to  age  and  ill  health,  the 
time  is  ripe  for  an  NDP  gain  in  St.  George." 

My  age  is  not  in  question.  It  is  a  matter 
of  public  knowledge.  My  effectiveness  is  un- 
doubtedly a  matter  of  judgement.  However, 
I  would  like  to  point  out  to  this  House  that 
as  late  as  yesterday,  with  the  concurrence  of 
no  less  a  person  than  the  Solicitor  General 
cum  Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  I  am 
able  to  say  that  virtually  single-handedly— 
and  he  states  that  is  no  exaggeration— I  forced 
the  establishment  by  the  Attorney  General 
of  the  liaison  committee  dealing  with  con- 
flicts in  the  family.  I  am  delighted  to  say, 
from  my  knowledge  of  its  consideration  of  the 
matter,  that  that  committee  is  operating  very 
effectively  in  this  serious  area. 

I  was  also  delighted  to  have  on  the  record 
yesterday  that  as  a  result  of  my  protests,  the 
police  college  has  amended  its  curriculum  to 
give  insight  to  police  officers  in  the  very 
delicate  fields  of  both  racial  relations  and 
family  violence. 

I  regret  that  those  are  the  only  two  re- 
cent personal  achievements  of  mine. 


Mr.  Breithaupt:  Just  one  busy  day. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  have  not  resolved  the 
problems  of  acid  rain  or  plant  layoffs  or  the 
economy. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  But  she  is  working  on 
them. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  The  honourable  member  is 
right.  I  am  going  to  turn  my  sights  next  on 
those  problems. 

I  must  say  the  NDP  has  always  boasted  of 
being  the  party  of  issues.  It  has  boasted 
across  this  province  of  being  the  party  con- 
cerned more  than  any  other  party  with  the 
rights  of  women.  I  sat  through  a  debate  the 
other  night  on  the  labour  bill.  I  had  the  un- 
pleasant misfortune  of  hearing  the  House 
leader  of  that  group  characterizing  the 
Liberals  as  hypocrites. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Would  the  honour- 
able member  please  take  her  seat?  You  have 
made  your  point.  I  do  not  know  how  much 
more  you  can  say  to  express  your  displeasure 
as  to  what  has  been  said  about  you  outside 
the  House,  but  in  the  interests  of  getting  on 
with  the  business  of  the  House,  I  am  not 
sure  how  much  longer  I  should  allow  the 
member  to  continue.  I  think  you  have  made 
your  point  quite  adequately. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  conclude.  I  shall  be  short.  I  would 
just  like  to  say  that  as  far  as  my  ill  health 
is  concerned,  I  found  that  to  be  an  outr 
right  He.  However,  I  cannot  say  that  in  this 
House,  so  I  went  to  that  other  antiquated 
figure,  Mark  Twain,  to  draw  to  the  attention 
of  the  House  what  he  said  when  his  death 
was  reported.  He  said,  "The  report  of  my 
death  is  greatly  exaggerated." 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  What  is  the  member 
for  Haldimand-NorfohYs  point? 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
brief  here  from  the  region  of  Haldimand- 
Norfolk.  I  want  to  explain  the  brief. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  You  are  out  of  order 
in  explaining  anything  at  this  time. 


4906 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

PENSION  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  later  today 
■I  will  be  introducing  for  first  reading  the 
Pension  Benefits  Amendment  Act,  1980. 

As  honourable  members  of  this  House  are 
aware,  the  report  of  the  Royal  Commission 
on  the  Status  of  Pensions  in  Ontario  is  due 
for  release  in  a  matter  of  weeks.  While  the 
entire  matter  of  pension  plans  will  be 
reviewed  after  release  of  that  report,  recent 
economic  developments  make  it  necessary  to 
address  certain  problems  immediately. 

I  refer  to  the  problem  of  plant  shutdowns 
and  the  subsequent  hardship  to  employees 
who  fail,  by  a  narrow  margin  of  time,  to 
qualify  for  all  the  pension  benefits  negotiat- 
ed in  good  faith  with  their  employers.  An- 
other problem  occurs  when  an  employer 
decides  to  terminate  a  pension  plan  leaving 
accrued  liabilities  not  fully  funded. 

The  proposed  Pension  Benefits  Amend- 
ment Act  will  accomplish  two  things: 

First,  at  the  time  of  termination  of  a 
pension  plan,  employees  who  are  at  least 
45  years  of  age  and  have  at  least  10  years 
of  continuous  service,  or  who  have  been  a 
member  of  a  pension  plan  for  at  least  10 
years— the  45-and-10  rule— would  be  entitled 
to  exercise  one  of  the  following  options: 
2:10  p.m. 

To  receive  an  immediate  benefit  in  accor- 
dance with  the  terms  set  out  in  the  plan; 
where  the  pension  plan  provides  for  early 
retirement,  to  receive  a  deferred  benefit  pay- 
able at  an  early  retirement  age;  to  transfer 
a  pension  benefit  credit  to  the  plan  of  a 
new  employer,  provided  the  terms  of  the 
new  plan  allow  the  transfer;  to  transfer  the 
pension  benefit  credit  to  a  registered  retire- 
ment savings  plan;  or  to  allow  the  employee 
to  elect  other  forms  of  annuity,  for  example, 
joint  and  survivor  benefits. 

Second,  in  the  event  that  a  pension  plan 
is  terminated  and  assets  are  insufficient  to 
meet  accrued  liabilities  under  the  45-and- 10- 
year  rule,  the  employer  will  be  liable  to  fund 
the  difference  between  the  amount  of  vested 
benefits  and  the  value  of  assets  in  the  plan. 

A  guarantee  fund  will  be  established  to 
provide  protection  for  specific  pension  bene- 
fits for  members  of  single  employer  plans, 
where  an  employer  is  insolvent  and  unable 
to  meet  the  financial  commitments  to  con- 
tinue funding  the  plan.  In  this  event,  the 
situation  would  be  examined  by  the  Pension 
Commission  of  Ontario  to  determine  if  this 
is  an  insured  event  under  the  act.  Decisions 
by  the  commission  of  what  constitutes  an  in- 


sured event  under  the  act  would  be  subject 
to  appeal. 

The  guarantee  fund,  which  would  be  ad- 
ministered by  the  pension  commission,  would 
be  financed  through  an  annual  premium  from 
employers  with  pension  plans  not  fully 
funded.  The  fund  will  initially  be  guaranteed 
by  the  Treasurer  of  Ontario.  Pension  plans 
and  increases  to  pension  benefits  that  have 
been  in  effect  for  less  than  three  years  are 
not  covered  by  the  guarantee  fund. 

Under  these  amendments,  employers  will 
also  be  required  to  provide  plan  members 
with  specified  information  on  a  regular  basis 
about  the  members'  entitlements.  In  addition, 
members  wanting  more  detailed  information 
about  the  plan  will  be  able  to  request,  and 
obtain,  specified  documents  and  information 
of  a  statistical,  actuarial  or  financial  nature. 

The  security  of  employees'  pension  benefits 
is  a  matter  of  grave  concern  to  all  of  us,  and 
we  believe  the  proposed  amendments  will 
significantly  lighten  the  burden  of  economic 
insecurity  on  those  who  may  be  affected  by 
plant  shutdowns  and  the  termination  of  pen- 
sion plans. 

Effective  today,  the  amendments  cover  all 
plan  terminations.  In  order  that  the  govern- 
ment may  be  able  to  enact  regulations  and  the 
commission  process  claims  under  the  guaran- 
tee fund,  we  ask  for  swift  passage  of  these 
amendments. 

DURHAM  REGIONAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARING 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  update  the  House  on  the  results  of 
today's  meeting  of  the  member  for  Durham 
West  (Mr.  Ashe),  Ajax  Mayor  Bill  McLean, 
the  new  regional  chairman,  Gary  Herrema, 
and  the  ministry's  director  of  approvals,  Tom 
Cross. 

As  I  told  the  members,  the  meeting  was  to 
discuss  the  Environmental  Assessment  Board 
recommendation  to  proceed  on  the  proposal 
to  convert  the  Ajax  sewage  treatment  plant 
into  a  liquid  waste  treatment  facility.  Since 
the  regional  municipality  of  Durham  is  the 
proponent  of  this  project,  I  felt  it  should  have 
the  opportunity  to  discuss  the  matter  with  the 
director  before  he  made  a  decision  on  the 
board's  recommendations.  In  the  normal 
course,  Mr.  Cross's  decision  could  take 
some  time,  as  he  would  need  further  details 
on  several  of  the  conditions  of  approval  re- 
commended by  the  board.  Concern  was  ex- 
pressed at  that  meeting  that  the  matter  be 
cleared  as  soon  as  possible  because  of  the 
controversy  that  now  exists  in  the  community. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4907 


The  consensus  of  the  meeting  was  that  the 
region,  as  it  is  the  proponent,  should  recon- 
sider its  position.  So  it  is  my  understanding 
that  at  its  December  10  meeting,  council  will 
be  asked  to  consider  a  motion  to  withdraw  its 
application.  I  will  keep  the  members  in  this 
House  informed  as  to  further  progress. 

ITALIAN  EARTHQUAKE 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  great 
pleasure  today  to  inform  the  House  that  the 
government  has  decided  on  behalf  of  the 
people  of  Ontario  to  offer  significant  additional 
financial  help  in  the  amount  of  $500,000  to 
assist  in  the  rehabilitation  and  reconstruction 
of  those  areas  of  Italy  that  have  been  affected 
by  the  terrible  earthquake  of  Sunday,  Novem- 
ber 23  last,  and  subsequent  quakes. 

The  honourable  members  will  recall  that 
last  week  we  announced  as  a  first  gesture, 
special  assistance  of  $100,000,  which  was 
pledged  to  the  Southern  Italy  Earthquake 
Fund  Committee.  The  contribution  that  I 
have  just  mentioned  will  also  go  to  that 
committee  and  this  brings  our  total  commit- 
ment—this is  the  commitment  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Ontario  to  that  committee— to  $600,- 
000  to  date. 

At  this  time  I  would  like  to  draw  to  the 
attention  of  the  House  the  members  of  the 
committee,  who  are  sitting  in  the  gallery: 
Mr.  Angelo  Delfino,  Rocco  Lofranco,  Fred 
Zorzi,  Elio  Rosati,  Johnny  Lombardi,  Lau- 
reano  Leone,  Antonio  Mazzotta,  Paul 
Ariemma,  William  Villano  and  Tony  Frino. 

I  think  the  efforts  of  this  committee  and 
the  many  who  are  working  with  it  show 
real  dedication  and  hard  work  in  organiz- 
ing quickly  and  effectively  a  massive  relief 
effort.  The  result  of  their  work  is  a  great 
tribute  to  the  community  they  represent. 
More  than  $950,000  has  been  raised  through 
private  and  corporate  donations  alone  in  just 
the  past  few  days.  That  is  exclusive  of  the 
government  pledges.  Once  again  the  people 
of  Ontario  have  shown  their  generosity  and 
willingness  to  help  friends  and  neighbours 
in  need. 

I  have  communicated  personally  with  some- 
one who  has  just  returned  from  the  earth- 
quake area  to  substantiate  my  belief  that 
the  really  emergency  supplies  were  being 
received.  That  was  confirmed  by  this  per- 
son. The  work  of  this  committee  and  the 
money  pledged  by  this  government  and 
other  governments  is  going  to  be  very  im- 
portant in  the  long-term  rehabilitation  and 
renovation  of  those  towns.  That  is  very  sig- 
nificant at  this  time. 


I  think  all  honourable  members  will  want 
to  assure  that  this  community  and  Ontario 
continue  to  show  the  great  generosity  they 
have  already  shown  to  those  who  are  rais- 
ing funds  for  what  will  be  a  very  long-term 
program  of  rehabilitation.  It  must  not  be 
forgotten  in  the  months  ahead  as  the  mem- 
ory of  this  very  tragic  quake  goes  a  little 
further  from   our  minds. 

Our  commitment  will  not  be  limited  only 
to  dollars  and  cents.  We  will  work  closely 
with  the  committee  in  the  next  few  months 
to  make  sure  reconstruction  efforts  receive 
all  the  necessary  help  so  that  those  towns 
and  villages  now  in  ruin  will  again  become 
vibrant  communities. 

In  the  coming  weeks  I  am  sure  there  will 
be  people  from  those  30  towns  and  villages 
that  suffered  destruction  who  may  decide  to 
leave  their  native  Italy  and  establish  a  new 
life  here  in  Canada.  I  know  all  those  who 
choose  Ontario  will  be  assured  a  welcome 
to  their  new  home. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  say  on  behalf  of  the  Liberal  caucus,  we 
are  gratified  by  the  many  hours  of  work 
and  effort  put  forward  by  the  committee. 
We  congratulate  them  for  their  efforts.  We 
also  congratulate  the  government  for  seeing 
to  it  that  a  long-term  relief  fund  has  been 
put  in  place.  We  know  this  money  will  be 
put  to  good  use  and  will  assist  many  people 
who  have  lost  their  homes  and  livelihoods 
and  many  things  they  have  cherished.  We 
sincerely  hope  the  victims  are  assisted  in 
every  way  possible.  Without  further  ado, 
we  commend  the  government  for  its  efforts 
to  assist  the  earthquake  victims  in  southern 
Italy. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  with  all  other 
people  in  Ontario  I  have  been  following 
with  anguish  the  reports  coming  back  from 
southern  Italy  in  the  wake  of  the  earth- 
quakes, wishing  we  knew  what  more  we 
could  do  to  help  the  300,000  people  in  vil- 
lages and  towns  affected  by  the  disaster. 

I  also  commend  the  fact  that  Ontario  will 
be  increasing  its  contribution  to  the  earth- 
quake relief  fund.  I  hope  we  can  do  more 
and  that  every  effort  will  be  made,  with  the 
co-operation  of  the  committee,  to  ensure 
that  the  assistance  so  badly  required  is  there 
in  the  hands  of  people  who  need  it  at  the 
very  earliest  opportunity. 

2:20  p.m. 

I  had  the  opportunity  to  meet  with  the 
National  Congress  of  Italian  Canadians  at  its 
annual  meeting  in  Hamilton  the  other  day 
to  express  sentiments  similar  to  these.  I  com- 


4908 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


mend  the  committee  for  the  excellent  work 
it  is  doing.  I  trust  the  hearts  of  all  people 
in  Ontario  will  continue  to  reach  out  to 
people  in  Italy  and  that  the  concern  of  all 
of  us  in  Ontario  will  continue  to  be  reflected 
in  a  more  generous  contribution  to  this  relief 
fund  than  we  have  ever  made  before  in  the 
case  of  a  natural  disaster  outside  Canada. 

SPEAKER'S  WARRANTS 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  to  advise  the 
House  that  in  accordance  with  the  authority 
given  me  by  an  order  of  the  House  that 
passed  on  October  28,  1980,  I  have  issued 
two  warrants  for  certain  documents  requested 
by  the  select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns 
and  employee  adjustment. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

NAKINA  FIRE 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Premier  having  to  do 
with  the  continuing  inquest  and  disposition 
of  the  matter  arising  from  the  tragic  and 
disastrous  fire  at  Nakina  16  months  ago. 

Since  the  Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry) 
has  ordered  that  the  inquest  continue  in 
spite  of  charges  laid  by  the  parents  against 
two  of  the  employees  of  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources— the  minister  has  been 
absent  for  a  few  days,  so  I  could  not  ask 
him— would  the  Premier  not  feel  that,  what- 
ever the  results  of  the  inquest,  it  is  going  to 
be  necessary  that  a  broader  and  further  ex- 
amination into  responsibility  and  culpability, 
perhaps  criminal  if  not  otherwise,  will  have 
to  be  undertaken? 

Is  he  aware  the  standing  committee  on  re- 
sources development  had  some  brief  discus- 
sions about  this  which  ended  in  a  report  to 
this  Legislature  which  has  yet  to  be  debated 
and  passed,  although  it  is  a  brief  report, 
simply  enabling  them  to  retain  legal  counsel? 

Is  it  the  Premier's  intention  to  assist  his 
members  on  the  government  side,  dealing 
with  this  matter  in  committee,  to  go  forward 
with  an  investigation,  or  does  he  feel  that, 
whether  or  not  the  inquest  continues,  some 
further  review,  perhaps  even  by  Lieutenant 
Governor's  warrant  or  commission,  might  be 
undertaken  so  that  the  matter  could  be  ex- 
amined  impartially   and  at  arm's   length? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  a  little 
concerned  about  some  of  the  words  used  by 
the  acting  Leader  of  the  Opposition.  He 
perhaps  did  not  intend  them.  I  am  never  one 
to  make  that  sort  of  judgement  or  make  that 
sort  of  suggestion. 


The  government  quite  obviously  is  con- 
cerned about  this  matter.  As  I  understand  it, 
at  the  initiative  of  parents  certain  charges 
have  been  laid  and  the  Attorney  General 
obviously  felt  the  inquest  should  also  pro- 
ceed. I  think  it  would  be  premature  to  pre- 
judge what  the  inquest  may  or  may  not 
determine.  I  have  no  way  of  judging  what 
the  inquest  itself  will  determine.  From  the 
government's  standpoint,  we  are  as  anxious 
as  anyone  to  have  full  information  and  full 
public  understanding  of  this  tragic  event. 

I  have  made  no  predetermination  of  the 
suggestion  about  whether  the  route  to  go, 
depending  on  the  findings  of  the  inquest,  is 
by  the  committee  of  this  House.  Perhaps  the 
opportunity  to  discuss  this  by  members  of 
the  House  when  the  report  is  debated  might 
provide  some  insight  as  to  what  other  mem- 
bers feel  as  to  a  route  that  might  be  pursued. 
I  emphasize  this  because  I  think  the  hon- 
ourable member  wants  the  process  to  move 
ahead.  I  do  not  sense  from  his  question  he 
feels  the  inquest  should  be  terminated  nor 
am  I  in  a  position  to  prejudge  what  the  find- 
ings of  that  inquest  would  be. 

This  is  a  matter  the  government  will  con- 
tinue to  assess.  Whatever  misunderstanding 
there  is,  or  if  there  is  not  full  information— I 
understand  it  has  all  been  given  to  the  in- 
quest—we are  as  anxious  as  anyone  to  have 
this  information  in  the  public  domain. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  hope  the  Premier  is  not  un- 
duly worried  about  the  words  I  use.  I  cer- 
tainly take  full  responsibility  for  them. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  simply  want  to  clarify  this 
fact.  The  inquest  has  been  going  on  for 
more  than  a  year.  There  was  a  lengthy  in- 
terruption, since  one  of  the  lawyers  indi- 
cated there  was  an  indication  of  partiality 
on  the  part  of  the  coroner.  This  went  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Ontario  and  the  judge, 
signing  his  opinion,  said  there  was  an  ap- 
prehension of  bias.  I  think  that  is  quite 
clear. 

After  the  inquest  had  been  resumed  for 
just  a  few  days,  some  of  the  parents  with- 
drew from  the  inquest— whatever  that  means 
—and  put  forward  charges  themselves  against 
employees  of  the  government  of  Ontario. 
It  is  not  like  an  ordinary  inquest. 

I  would  submit  also  that  if  we  are  going 
to  give  some  responsibility  to  a  committee 
of  this  House  to  review  the  matter,  it  will 
have  to  be  done  within  the  next  few  days, 
if  that  is  the  course  we  want  to  follow.  The 
report  is  before  the  House.  I  personally  feel 
the  inquest  is  not  working  as  satisfactorily 
as  those  parents,  and  perhaps  the  public  at 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4909 


large,  would  wish.  I  am  not  at  all  convinced 
that  a  committee  of  this  House  is  going  to 
give  the  kind  of  review  and  disposition  that 
all  of  us  would  seek. 

I  would  simply  say,  since  I  have  an  op- 
portunity to  do  so  in  this  question,  that  the 
Premier  ought  to  be  considering  the  alter- 
native of  a  royal  commission,  in  a  matter 
that  has  dragged  on  for  16  months  and  must 
be  a  tremendous  burden  for  many  of  the 
people   associated  with  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  take  no- 
tice of  the  fact  that  the  acting  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  himself  has  expressed  reser- 
vations as  to  whether  a  committee  of  the 
House  would  be  the  proper  instrument. 

Mr.  Roy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
follow  up  on  my  colleague's  questions: 
Could  the  Premier  advise  on  the  effective- 
ness of  an  inquest,  which,  as  my  colleague 
has  said,  has  already  been  challenged  once 
in  the  courts?  The  parents  have  now  with- 
drawn, and  criminal  charges  have  been  laid. 
I  appreciate  that  the  criminal  charges  have 
been  laid  by  individuals— which  is  quite 
proper  under  the  Criminal  Code. 

The  question  I  want  to  ask  the  Premier 
is,  how  effective  in  this  ambiance  can  an 
inquest  be,  especially  when  certain  people 
charged  under  the  Criminal  Code  are  not 
now  compellable  witnesses  in  this  inquest? 
I  wonder  how  effective  an  inquest  can  be. 
It  could  be  a  problem. 

I  might  just  refer  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  to 
section  22  of  the  Coroners  Act,  which  states, 
"Where  a  person  is  charged  with  a  criminal 
offence  arising  out  of  a  death,  an  inquest 
touching  the  death  shall  be  held  only  upon 
the  direction  of  the  minister,  and,  when 
held,  the  person  charged  is  not  a  compel- 
lable witness."  I  would  just  put  that  to  the 
Premier,  and  possibly  he  can  refer  the  ques- 
tion to  his  colleague  the  Attorney  General. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  refer 
a  part  of  the  question  to  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, who  I  think  would  like  to  give  certain 
information  to   the  honourable   member. 

I  would  also  make  this  observation.  The 
member  raised  a  question— and  I  am  not  sure 
the  Attorney  General  heard  it— which  I  find 
an  interesting  one;  that  is,  the  question  of 
how  much  validity  there  is  in  an  inquest  being 
held  at  the  same  time  as  certain  people  have 
been  charged.  One  might  raise  another  ques- 
tion: How  much  purpose  is  there  in  a  royal 
commission,  when  the  people  who  might  be 
the  subject  of  discussion  before  it  have  also 
been  charged? 


The. Attorney  General  wants  to  give  some 
information  regarding  one  or  two  of  the 
parents  who  also  have  an  interest. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  redirect  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not 
hear  the  entire  question,  but  I  think  I  heard 
the  substance  of  it.  I  believe  the  member 
for  Ottawa  East  is  concerned  about  the  fact 
that,  charges  having  been  laid,  the  individuals 
who  have  been  charged  would  not  be  com- 
pellable witnesses. 

I  just  wanted  to  inform  the  House  that  the 
two  accused  have  already  both  given  evidence 
at  length  at  the  inquest.  They  have  already 
testified,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  on  more  than 
one  occasion,  but  their  testimony  has  been 
concluded.  This  was  a  factor  I  took  into  con- 
sideration when,  as  Solicitor  General,  I  di- 
rected that  the  inquest  continue. 

I  should  also  point  out  that  over  the  week- 
end, while  I  was  considering  this  matter,  the 
families  of  two  of  the  young  people  who 
died  in  the  fire  sent  me  telegrams  requesting 
me  to  direct  that  the  inquest  proceed.  They 
believed  it  would  be  important  to  have  the 
recommendations  of  the  inquest  jury.  I  think 
it  is  important  that  the  members  appreciate 
that  as  well.  While  not  the  overriding  factor, 
the  matter  of  their  concerns  in  this  respect 
was  obviously  of  great  importance  to  me. 

2:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
and  I  direct  it  to  the  Attorney  General,  al- 
though he  could  deflect  it  to  the  Premier 
if  he  so  wishes:  Is  the  Attornev  General  aware 
tli  at  the  most  recent  hiatus  in  the  inquest 
occurred  because  of  questions  being  asked 
about  the  adequacy  of  the  Ontario  Provincial 
Police  investigation?  The  question  I  would 
like  to  ask  the  Attorney  General  is,  what 
forum  do  we  have  for  a  public  accounting 
and  questions  that  legitimately  arise  about 
the  adequacy  of  an  OPP  investigation  in  such 
circumstances  if  it  cannot  be  determined  by 
an  inquest,  by  this  Legislature  or  presumably 
even  by  a  criminal  case  in  which  other  em- 
ployees of  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources 
are  involved? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  I  think  it  is  obviously 
in  the  public  interest  that  this  inquest  be 
allowed  to  conclude.  After  the  inquest  has 
been  concluded,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  the  rec- 
ommendations have  been  tabled  by  the 
coroner's  jury,  then  it  is  up  to  the  House  to 
discuss  further  whether  or  not  any  further 
hearing  would  be  in  the  public  interest,  but 
I  think  it  is  premature  to  speculate  as  to  the 
value  of  that  at  this  time. 


4910 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  want  to  direct  a  question  to 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  having  to  do 
with  his  decision  to  go  ahead  with  the  liquid 
waste  dump  at  South  Cayuga  without  an  en- 
vironmental assessment.  What  is  he  going  to 
do  about  the  fact  that  the  regional  munic- 
ipality of  Haldimand-Norfolk  has  a  bylaw, 
numbered  5000-93-H,  which  designates  the 
land  for  the  liquid  waste  site  as  an  agricul- 
tural A  zone,  and  which  states,  and  I  quote 
from  section  421  of  the  bylaw: 

"No  person  shall,  within  any  agricultural 
A  zone,  use  any  land  or  erect,  alter  or  use  any 
buildings  or  structures  for  any  purposes  ex- 
cept one  or  more  of  the  following  uses:  an 
agricultural  use  or  a  home  occupation  farm 
industry,  cemetery  or  church"? 

How  does  the  minister  qualify  it?  As  a 
cemetery? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Perhaps  the  acting  leader 
will  again  refer  to  the  facility  in  its  proper 
term- 
Mr.  Nixon:  A  repository. 
Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  honourable  member 
should  refer  to  it  as  what  it  is  and  it  is  no 
dump.  I  think  the  member  should  start  to 
make  the  necessary  adjustments  in  his  think- 
ing to  understand  those  will  be  the  best 
facilities  the  world  has  ever  seen.  That  might 
not  be  a  bad  place  to  start. 

As  far  as  dealing  with  the  bylaw,  the  land 
use,  I  am  sure  there  are  the  appropriate  pro- 
visions within  our  act  and  within  the  powers 
of  the  Legislature  that  we  can  deal  with  that 
problem  when  it  becomes  necessary. 

Mr.  Nixon:  As  a  further  problem  associ- 
ated with  this,  I  would  ask  the  minister  to 
consider  a  letter  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Tony 
McQuail,  RR  1,  Lucknow,  Ontario,  and  I 
quote  one  sentence: 

"Before  any  site  can  be  approved  for 
development,  it  will  be  necessary  to  follow 
the  environmental  assessment  procedures, 
which  allow  for  full  public  participation 
through  a  hearing  process,  as  well  as  a  com- 
prehensive review  of  alternative  technologies 
and  sites."  It  is  signed,  "Yours  truly,  Harry 
Parrott." 

What  has  happened  since  the  minister 
wrote  to  him  about  his  concern  for  an  indus- 
trial waste  treatment  and  disposal  site  in 
the  Huron  area?  What  is  the  difference?  Is 
it  one  justice  for  one  part  and  not  for  an- 
other, or  what  is  the  minister  trying  to  do? 
Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  In  the  discussion  that 
took  place  a  week  ago  today,  the  member 
and  I  had  a  rather  interesting  discussion  on 


whether  we  were  obeying  the  law  and  I 
think  he  did  become  persuaded  that  indeed 
we  were.  It  is  section  41(f),  if  the  member 
wishes  to  check  it  out. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  intent  of  the  law  is  to 
have  a  hearing.  The  minister  may  set  it 
aside. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  intent  of  the  law 
is  very  specific.  There  is  not  only  the  intent 
of  the  law  at  stake  here,  but  there  is  the 
safety  of  our  environment  which  is  going  to 
be  protected.  There  is  a  real  problem  which 
must  be  dealt  with,  and  we  are  going  to 
deal  with  that  problem.  There  is  no  doubt 
we  must  deal  with  that  problem. 

Members  are  more  than  content  on  that 
side  of  the  House  to  procrastinate  as  much 
as  they  possibly  can  because  it  might  seem 
to  them  to  be  wise  to  do  so.  They  are  wrong. 
There  is  a  problem  that  must  be  dealt  with; 
it  must  be  dealt  with  with  the  best  tech- 
nology possible.  We  are  going  to  take  all 
of  those  precautions.  We  are  going  to  do 
the  best  we  can,  and  five  years  from  now 
members  opposite  will  be  saying,  "Thank 
goodness  somebody  took  that  kind  of  direct 
action." 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  the  minister  has  said  he  makes  prom- 
ises about  environment  assessment  on  one 
hand  and  then  uses  a  loophole  in  the  act  in 
order  to  avoid  fulfilling  his  promises  on  the 
other,  can  the  minister  now  inform  the 
House,  since  he  has  avoided  the  question 
for  at  least  two  days  running,  what  precisely 
is  the  nature  of  the  hearing  that  he  intends 
to  see  take  place  with  respect  to  the  South 
Cayuga  project?  What  assurance  is  there 
that  interested  parties  will  be  able  to  look 
at  the  evidence,  to  participate  in  the  hear- 
ings and  to  enjoy  the  rights  that  they  would 
have  if  an  environmental  assessment  took 
place,  as  we  believe  it  should? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me 
say  to  you  first  of  all  that  had  the  leader 
of  the  third  party  and  some  of  his  members 
made  such  a  concentrated  effort— and  he 
does  not  have  to  look  very  far,  just  a  little 
bit  behind  and  to  his  right,  to  find  a  prime 
illustration—had  they  made  an  effort  to  make 
the  Environmental  Assessment  Act  work,  I 
think  we  would  all  be  better  served  by  it. 
They  find  it  convenient  to  do  what  they 
want,  wherever  they  want,  and  are  not 
necessarily  consistent  around  this  province. 
I  have  not  yet— 

Mr.  Roy:  Why  does  the  minister  say 
different  things  on  different  days? 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4911 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  It  happens  to  be  the 
truth.  The  member  for  Ottawa  East  does  not 
always  like  to  hear  the  truth.  Nevertheless, 
once  in  a  while  we  have  to  put  the  facts 
on  the  record. 

I  have  not  yet  met  with  Dr.  Chant.  I  will 
be  doing  so  in  the  very  near  future.  That 
was  one  of  the  conditions  that  he  talked 
about  that  we  said  we  would  discuss.  I  will 
do  that  in  the  appropriate  time;  I  will  meet 
with  him  and  we  will  answer  the  question 
more  appropriately  later. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  minister  appears  to  be  levelling 
an  accusation  against  the  member  for 
Welland-Thorold  (Mr.  Swart).  Is  that  the 
minister's  intention?  If  so,  he  should  speak 
clearly  and  accuse  the  member  for  Welland-- 
Thorold of  obstructing  the  environmental 
assessment.  That  is  an  untruth  and  the  min- 
ister should  withdraw  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  If  I  were  that  far  away 
from  reality,  it  did  not  take  the  leader  of 
the  third  party  long  to  figure  out  my  indefi- 
nite reference.  He  was  absolutely  correct. 
I  did  refer  to  the  member  for  Welland- 
Thorold. 

Mr.  Swart:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  would  inform  the  minister  when 
he  accuses  me  of  impeding  the  environmental 
assessment  hearing  in  Thorold  that  it  was  in 
fact  not  impeded  by  me  at  all,  but  by  some 
4,000  people  who  voted  against  the  project 
there  simply  because  of  the  breaking  of  the 
environmental  law  by  Walker  Brothers. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  That  is  correcting  the 
record;  it  is  not  a  violation  of  your  privileges. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  the  Premier:  In  view  of  the 
resolution  that  was  presented  to  the  Premier's 
desk  last  week,  and  in  view  of  the  brief  to 
the  members  of  the  Legislature  regarding  the 
South  Cayuga  hazardous  waste  disposal 
scheme,  would  the  Premier  rescind  the  de- 
cision of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
and  follow  the  province's  own  environmental 
assessment  process,  which  includes  a  full 
environmental  study  under  the  terms  of  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act,  an  inde- 
pendent public  hearing  by  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Board,  before  proceeding  with 
any  such  facility? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  honour- 
able member,  in  his  usual  thoughtful  fashion, 
did  in  fact  provide  me  with  the  latest  mate- 
rial from  the  regional  municipality.  I  have 
not  yet  had  an  opportunity  to  peruse  it.  I 
certainly  shall  do  so. 


As  I  conveyed  to  the  member  when  he 
had  a  number  of  his  constituents  here  at 
lunch  a  day  or  two  ago,  I  share  their  con- 
cern and  the  concern  of  the  honourable  mem- 
bers with  respect  to  the  responsibility  that 
any  government  must  have  on  issues  of  this 
sensitivity.  I  assured  them— and  the  member 
will  corroborate  this— that  we  intend  to  work 
closely  on  the  new  agency  with  people  within 
the  region  and  with  representatives  from  the 
regional  municipality  itself.  We  would  make 
every  effort  to  see  there  was  public  informa- 
tion. 
2:40  p.m. 

As  the  minister  has  said,  it  will  be  the 
finest  facility.  I  took  some  time  to  explain, 
and  I  think  one  or  two  understood,  that  we 
expect  agricultural  uses  could  take  place 
right  up  to  the  100-acre  site  of  the  plant  it- 
self. I  noticed  one  or  two  of  the  member's 
constituents  nodding  in  agreement  that  this 
probably  could  take  place. 

I  want  to  assure  the  member  so  he  can 
convey  to  his  constituents  that  we  understand 
their  concerns.  We  are  sympathetic  to  the 
problems  they  raised.  At  the  same  time,  it 
is  a  major  provincial  problem  that  we,  as  a 
government,  feel  is  a  matter  of  responsibility 
that  we  have  to  resolve.  As  I  said  to  the 
member's  constituents  then,  and  I  repeat  it 
now,  I  give  them  every  assurance  that  this 
facility  will  be  environmentally  safe.  There 
will  be  no  hazards  to  people  who  live  in  the 
surrounding  community  and  it  will  be  a 
model  for  all  North  America  in  the  treatment 
of  this  very  serious  problem. 

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

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  ask 
one  further  supplementary? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No. 

Interjections. 

[Applause.] 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  started  to  think  they  were 
banging  their  desks  for  me. 

SPEAKER'S  WARRANTS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Premier  about  the  government's 
handling  of  the  Speaker's  warrants  with  re- 
spect to  the  Re-Mor  affair. 

Is  the  Premier  aware  of  the  activities  of 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  and  of  the  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  who  appear  to  be 
trying  to  obstruct  the  execution  of  the 
Speaker's  warrant  that  the  justice  committee 
requires  for  its  investigation  of  the  Re-Mor 


4912 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


affair?  Is  it  the  intention  of  the  government 
to  produce  the  required  documents  and  to 
comply  with  the  warrant  that  has  been 
unanimously  endorsed  by  the  justice  com- 
mittee? It  should  have  every  bit  as  much 
force  with  respect  to  the  members  of  the 
government  as  it  has  for  any  other  citizens 
of  the  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  under- 
stand this  is  to  be  a  matter  for  some  dis- 
cussion at  3:15  or  whenever  this  question 
period  is  over. 

Mr.  Peterson:  The  sooner  the  better  for 
you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  for  London 
Centre  (Mr.  Peterson)  is  apparently  far  more 
knowledgeable  about  these  trust  things  than 
I  am.  He  should  tell  us  all  about  it.  I  do 
not  know  much  about  it.  Or  the  member 
for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt)  can  do  so. 
They  know  far  more  about  these  things 
than  I  do. 

I  take  exception  to  what  the  leader  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party  suggested  in  the 
early  part  of  his  question.  No  one  on  this 
side  of  the  House  is  obstructing  the  fair 
play,  the  equity  and  the  preservation  of  the 
system.  We  will  have  an  opportunity  to  de- 
bate this  later  on  this  afternoon.  This  gov- 
ernment has  nothing  whatsoever  to  hide  in 
terms  of  the  material  requested. 

I  say  to  the  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party— and  I  look  to  the  member  for 
Lakeshore  (Mr.  Lawlor),  the  member  for 
Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick)  and  some  of  those 
who  have  some  sensitivity  as  to  the  legal 
process  in  this  province— he  should  reflect 
very  carefully  on  what  it  is  he  is  attempting 
to  do. 

We  have  nothing  to  hide.  The  Ministry 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  has 
nothing  to  hide.  We  do  feel  we  have  an 
obligation  to  see  the  proper  judicial  processes 
are  allowed  to  proceed  in  this  province. 
We  will  have  a  chance  to  debate  that  this 
afternoon.  That  is  when  we  will  discuss  the 
issue. 

I  resent  the  presumption  of  the  leader  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party  in  suggesting  we 
are  obstructing  anything.  It  is  time  he  grew 
up  and  understood  that  in  government 
people  do  have  a  responsibility.  If  he  were 
any  kind  of  man  at  all  he  would  stand  up 
and   apologize. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Before  the  Premier  carries 
on  any  further,  is  he  not  aware  that  the 
reason  the  justice  committee  was  seeking 
this  documentation  was  that  it  was  bungling 
by  the  government  which  led  to  the  licens- 


ing of  the  company?  It  should  not  have  oc- 
curred and  the  government  is  responsible 
for  the  problems  that  have  been  suffered 
by  the  investors  who  were  bilked.  Surely 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  or  the  Attorney  General  should 
not  be  seeking  to  substitute  their  opinions 
for  the  opinion  of  the  Legislature.  If  the 
government  has  nothing  to  hide,  why  does 
the  Premier  not  say  now,  "Yes,  we  will  pro- 
duce the  documents;  we  will  have  them 
now."  What  is  he  trying  to  hide? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  leader  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party  has  really  made  a  slip. 
Here  he  is  accusing  us  of  obstructing— 
which  is  totally  untrue— saying  he  wants  the 
committee  to  have  an  opportunity,  but  he 
has  already  prejudged  the  issue  in  his  own 
mind;  he  has  already  said  here  this  after- 
noon that  the  government  was  at  fault.  How 
much  of  an  impartial  judgement  is  the  com- 
mittee going  to  make  when  the  leader  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party,  leading  that 
great  group  at  the  committee,  has  already 
made  up  his  mind  as  to  what  happened? 

If  this  documentation  is  provided,  the  lead- 
er of  the  New  Democratic  Party  is  going  to 
be  the  most  disappointed  man  in  this  Legis- 
lature. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
While  the  Premier  makes  his  low  and  con- 
venient bows  to  the  arcane  procedures  asso- 
ciated with  sub  judice,  does  he  not  under- 
stand that  the  members  of  the  committee 
and  all  the  members  of  this  House  should  be 
concerning  themselves  with  those  citizens 
who  invested  in  these  companies  and  lost 
their  savings? 

How  are  we,  as  a  committee,  to  find1  out 
where  the  responsibility  lies  unless  these 
papers  are  provided  to  the  committee?  I 
would  think  the  Premier  should  apologize  for 
obfuscating  the  issue  in  such  a  serious  way. 
If  he  is  not  prepared  to  make  these  papers 
available,  he  had  better  see  that  the  Harold 
Ballard  suite  is  dusted  out. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  only  make 
this  observation  to  the  acting  leader  of  the 
Liberal  Party,  who  really  got  into  this  trap 
in  1975  and  has  paid  a  political  price  for  it 
ever  since,  much  to  our  regret  on  this  side 
of  the  House- 
Mr.  Nixon:  Was  that  the  Fidinam  trap? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  was  just  the  way  the 
honourable  member  did  it.  He  really  is  not 
that  kind  of  person;  I  have  never  believed  it. 

Mr.  Nixon:  But  the  Premier  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  fine.  I  say  to  the 
acting  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party,  it  is  for 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4913 


the  very  reason  that  we  are  anxious  to  pro- 
tect those  people  who  have  been  affected  in 
this  situation  that  the  Attorney  General  is 
being  very  careful  to  see  their  rights  are  not 
prejudiced.  That  is  part  of  this  issue.  If  the 
members  on  that  side  of  the  House  want  to 
forget  about  them,  then  those  of  them  who 
are  lawyers  do  not  understand  the  sensitivity, 
which  I  think  is  extremely  unfortunate. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Your  sensitivity  is  very  con- 
venient. It  only  comes  forward  when  you 
want  to  protect  yourselves.  This  sub  judice 
you  dragged  here  for  10  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  say  this  to  the  acting 
leader  of  the  Liberal  Party,  if  this  material 
is  produced  he,  too,  is  going  to  be  disap- 
pointed because,  as  in  every  issue  he  tried  to 
raise  five  years  ago,  he  will  find  it  has  no 
substance.  That  has  been  his  fatal  political 
flaw  in  the  last  six  years  as  a  politician  in 
this  province. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  in  view  of  the  degree  of  self- 
righteousness  that  the  Premier  has  borrowed 
from  the  Attorney  General  in  expressing  his 
party's  alleged  desire  to  protect  the  justice 
system  in  this  province,  is  he  not  concerned 
about  the  contempt  of  his  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  for  the  jus- 
tice committee  of  this  assembly  in  not  follow- 
ing deadlines  set  by  that  committee? 
2:50  p.m. 

Is  the  Premier  not  concerned  about  what  I 
thought  was  the  principle  of  nonpolitical 
direction  of  the  police  in  Ontario?  Is  he  not 
concerned  about  the  way  in  which  his  At- 
torney General  is  misusing  the  Ontario  Pro- 
vincial Police,  and  his  office,  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  public  interest  in  this  province? 
Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
Attorney  General  would  like  to  reply  to  that 
allegation  as  to  the  misuse  of  the  police. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
ask  the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre— or, 
should  I  say,  the  guttersnipe  from  Hamilton 
Centre- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  It  does  no  one  any 
service  in  this,  the  highest  court  in  the 
province,  where  we  are  supposed  to  conduct 
ourselves— 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  This  is  not  a  court. 

Mr.  Speaker;  I  happen  to  think  it  is. 
This  is  not  a  place  for  any  member  to  get 
up  and  complain  of  the  actions  of  another 
while  engaging  in  the  same  thing  himself. 
I  would  like  you  to  withdraw  that  last  com- 
ment. 


Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  No,  I  will  not.  Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Are  you  prepared  to  with- 
draw the  comment?  I  will  give  you  the  floor 
if  you  withdraw  the  unparliamentary  com- 
ment. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  What  about  the  un- 
parliamentary  comment  the  member  made? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  deal  with  that,  but  the 
immediate  problem  is  the  use  of  the  word 
"guttersnipe." 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  All  right,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, I  will  attempt  to  find  some  other  term 
that  would  be  more  parliamentary. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  will  withdraw  that 
one. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Now,  what  is  your  point  of 
privilege? 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  the  member  for  Hamilton 
Centre  has  made  a  very  serious  allegation 
against  the  Attorney  General  of  this  prov- 
ince dealing  with  his  integrity.  I  would  like 
this  issue  to  be  dealt  with  by  the  House  as 
a  whole,  in  whatever  forum  he  would  like 
to  choose.  The  allegation  is  that  I,  as  At-  \ 
torney  General  of  this  province,  have  direct- 
ed the  Ontario  Provincial  Police  to  somehow 
abuse  or  misuse  their  responsibilities  in  this 
matter.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  that  is  an 
outrageous  statement.  He  has  attacked  the 
integrity  of  the  Attorney  General.  I  ask  that 
this  be  dealt  with  in  the  proper  forum  unless 
the  member  is  prepared  to  withdraw  that 
remark  immediately. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Subject  to  my  check- 
ing Hansard  to  be  absolutely  certain  what 
it  was  I  heard,  I  think  I  heard  the  member 
for  Hamilton  Centre  accuse  the  Attorney 
General  of  misusing  the  OPP.  In  fairness, 
and  so  we  can  get  on  with  the  business  of 
the  House,  I  ask  you  to  withdraw  the  com- 
ment in  a  spirit  of  generosity.  Let  us  get 
on  with  the  business  of  the  day. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
prefer  you  to  take  the  time  to  study  the  uses 
of  the  words- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  prefer  that  the  hon- 
ourable member  withdrew  the  imputation  of 
motives.  I  would  prefer  he  withdrew  it 
right  now. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  you 
have  ruled  that  is  an  unparliamentary  use  of 
the  English  language  and  I  withdraw  it  on 
that  basis. 


4914 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


RENT  REVIEW 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Housing  regard- 
ing the  crisis  in  accommodation  which  has 
raised  housing  prices  in  Toronto  to  the 
point  where  the  average  family  needs  an 
income  of  $37,000  a  year  to  afford  an  aver- 
age house,  and  where  people  on  modest 
incomes  are  increasingly  having  no  choice 
but  to  be  tenants. 

Is  it  the  government's  intention  to  keep 
rent  control  to  protect  tenants  in  Ontario, 
or  is  the  government  considering  the  re- 
moval of  rent  controls  if  it  wins  a  majority 
in  the  next  election,  as  was  hinted  by  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  in  his  speech  to 
the  Housing  and  Urban  Development  Asso- 
ciation of  Canada  a  few  weeks  ago  in 
Ottawa? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
this  Legislature  has  made  itself  very  clear 
about  the  issue  of  rent  control  or  rent  re- 
view in  Ontario.  It  has  been  clearly  indi- 
cated by  some  in  the  private  sector  as  hav- 
ing a  detrimental  effect  on  the  production 
of  rental  accommodations.  There  is  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  also  in  the  private  sector 
as  to  whether  it  truly  does  or  does  not  have 
that  effect. 

I  am  not  aware  of  the  Treasurer's  re- 
marks, but  I  can  tell  the  member  that  this 
House  has  spoken  clearly  in  relation  to 
legislation  under  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea),  who 
answers  for  rent  review.  I  think  it  is  clear 
it  is  staying  in  place. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  is  saying  the 
Legislature  has  spoken  clearly,  which  of 
course  is  correct.  Can  I  have  an  assurance 
from  the  Minister  of  Housing  that  it  is  the 
government's  intention  to  keep  rent  review, 
or  is  he  trying  to  duck  that  question  right 
now  because  the  government  is  hoping  to 
get  rid  of  rent  review  by  the  back  door  in 
the  unlikely  event  that  it  ever  got  re-elected 
to  this  Legislature  with  a  majority? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  We  will  be  re-elected 
as  the  government  of  this  province  at  the 
time  we  shall  choose.  As  in  every  other 
issue  we  have  dealt  with  in  this  province 
in  respect  to  the  general  welfare  of  the 
people  of  Ontario,  it  will  be  dealt  with  in 
the  way  most  expeditious  for  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

ITALIAN  EARTHQUAKE 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
to  the  Premier.   Our  feelings   concerning  the 


long-term  moneys  that  the  government  has 
made  available  for  the  earthquake  victims 
in  southern  Italy  have  already  been  expressed 
and  are  on  record.  However,  I  am  very  sad 
and  very  disappointed  to  have  been  informed 
that  this  government  has  not  made  a  single 
penny  available  for  short-term  relief,  while 
other  governments  have,  such  as  the  federal 
government  which  has  made  $300,000  avail- 
able immediately  to  the  Red  Cross  for  short- 
term  relief.  The  government  of  Alberta  has 
made  $100,000  available  immediately  to  the 
Red  Cross  for  short-term  relief.  The  govern- 
ment of  British  Columbia  has  made  $50,000 
available. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  has  not  asked 
a  question  yet. 

Mr.  Mancini:  I  would  like  to  know  why 
the  Premier  of  Ontario  has  not  done  the 
same.  Why  has  he  not  made  money  immedi- 
ately available  to  the  Red  Cross  for  short- 
term  relief? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  really 
unfortunate  that  the  honourable  member 
would  not  just  quietly  discuss  this  with  either 
the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 
(Mr.  Wells)  or  myself  before  he  made  that 
sort  of  statement.  I  said  in  this  House,  if 
memory  serves  me  correctly,  that  we  would 
have  $100,000  available  for  immediate  relief 
to  the  Canadian  Red  Cross.  Does  the 
member  recall  that? 

Mr.  Mancini:  No. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  should  ask  one  or 
two  of  his  colleagues  about  it.  At  the  request 
of  those  same  citizens  who  were  in  the 
Speaker's  gallery  just  a  few  minutes  ago,  I 
went  to  the  committee  rooms  on  Ossington 
Avenue.  If  memory  serves  me  correctly,  that 
is  the  right  street.  There  were  representa- 
tives there  from  the  Canadian  Red  Cross 
and  there  were  representatives  of  the  com- 
mittee, the  same  group  of  people  who  were 
in  the  Speaker's  gallery. 

They  said  to  me:  "Mr.  Premier,  in  order 
to  assist  us  in  the  development  of  the  fund- 
raising  campaign,  rather  than  having  that 
allocation  go  to  the  Canadian  Red  Cross  for 
the  immediate  purpose,  would  you  please 
have  that  allocation  go  to  the  citizens'  com- 
mittee?" I  took  the  advice  of  the  Italian 
Canadians  who  are  responsible  for  this  and 
we  made  that  commitment  of  $100,000  to 
them. 

Mr.  Mancini:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.    Speaker:    No.    A   new    question.    Will 
you  take  your  seat? 
3  p.m. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4915 


FOOD  PRICES 


Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations.  I  am  sure  the  minister  is  aware 
that  retail  food  prices  have  risen  by  171  per 
cent  since  1971.  He  prdbably  knows  the 
projection  for  next  year  by  all  authorities  is 
for  the  greatest  increase  in  decades,  perhaps 
the  greatest  increase  ever.  The  latest  projec- 
tion by  the  Agricultural  Economics  Research 
Council  of  Canada  and  officials  of  the  De- 
partment of  Consumer  and  Corporate  Affairs 
is  for  an  increase  of  18  per  cent  to  20  per 
cent  next  year.  In  view  of  that,  what  new 
measures  is  the  minister  prepared  to  take  to 
protect  the  consumers  against  this  increase, 
particularly  against  price  gouging  by  the 
middleman's  markups  on  the  farm-gate 
prices,  which  will  expand  as  a  result  of 
worldwide  food  shortages? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker, 
let  us  get  rid  of  this  alarmist  nonsense:  there 
is  not  going  to  be  a  worldwide  food  shortage. 
Second,  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  relatively 
pessimistic  forecast  about  the  prices  of  food 
in  1981— indeed,  I  mentioned  it  in  my  esti- 
mates—is the  fact  that  climatically,  particu- 
larly in  major  food  processing  areas  of  the 
United  States,  1980  was  a  dreadful  year,  not 
only  in  terms  of  crops  but  also  in  terms  of 
animals  that  had  to  be  prematurely  put  on 
the  market  or  were  unfit  to  put  on  any 
market  because  of  very  peculiar  climatic 
conditions. 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  in  Ontario 
the  prices  will  not  go  as  high  as  the  federal 
minister  has  forecast.  He  was  talking  about 
the  national  situation.  The  reason  they  will 
not  go  as  high,  and  indeed  the  solution  to 
this  particular  problem,  is  already  in  the 
very  competent  hands  of  many  thousands 
of  people  in  Ontario,  the  farmers  of  this 
province,  who  have  always  produced  to  the 
highest  standards  of  agriculture  regardless 
of  climatic  and  other  intrusions.  I  draw  to 
the  attention  of  the  House  that  the  truth  of 
the  matter  is  the  average  Canadian  and  par- 
ticularly the  average  Ontarian— because  he  or 
she  is  better  than  the  average  Canadian- 
eats  better  for  less  than  just  about  anybody 
else  in  the  world. 

Mr.  Swart:  How  can  the  minister  be  so 
ignorant  about  the  world  food  situation  that 
he  does  not  know  that  the  United  Nations 
Food  and  Agricultural  Organization  has  de- 
clared a  world  alert  on  it?  How  can  the 
minister  be  so  unconcerned  about  Ontario 
when  Judge  Leach  in  his  report  on  super- 


market discounting  said  he  was  concerned 
about  the  concentration  in  the  food  in- 
dustry? 

Does  the  minister  not  know  that  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture,  which  is 
an  Ontario  organization,  shows  that  while 
farm-gate  prices  in  the  last  year  went  up 
less  than  11  per  cent,  the  markup  from 
there  to  retail  went  up  more  than  15  per 
cent?  How  can  he  say  there  is  no  need 
for  government  intervention?  Why  does  the 
minister  not  implement  the  constitutional 
power  of  the  government  by  establishing  a 
fair  prices  commission  and  give  some  needed 
price  protection  to  the  consumers  at  this 
time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  suppose  a  member  is 
always  frustrated  when  his  private  bill  is 
not  going  to  get  on  during  the  session, 
which  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  this. 

I  am  abundantly  aware  of  the  concerns 
of  the  United  Nations  about  a  food  situa- 
tion. I  also  draw  to  the  member's  attention 
that  part  of  the  problem  with  world  food 
is  that  some  of  beautifully  centralized 
and  operated  farm  organizations  in  the  east- 
ern part  of  the  world  cannot  even  grow 
corn,  wheat  or  grain  for  their  people.  Fur- 
thermore, a  few  to  the  south  of  here,  who 
have  a  peculiar  standard  of  how  they  ap- 
proach state  control,  have  not  done  very 
well  in  a  number  of  commodities  either. 

The  people  who  will  save  the  world  in 
terms  of  food,  and  indeed  the  people  who 
in  an  unglamorous  and  ordinary  way  have 
been  doing  it  for  so  many  years,  are  the 
agricultural  producers  of  this  country.  It 
would  be  magnificent,  and  I  would  be  the 
first  to  take  a  bow,  if  I  could  turn  back 
the  clock  to  sunshine  every  day,  to  50-cents- 
a-ga]lon  (gasoline  to  transport  food,  to  such 
little  things. 

Already  this  year,  there  have  been  three 
price  increases  for  canned  vegetable  con- 
tainers. To  start  suggesting  there  should  be 
no  increase  or  that  something  is  happening 
beyond  the  farm  gate  is  absolutely  ridicu- 
lous. The  farmers  of  the  province  need 
higher  prices  and  in  many  areas  deserve 
higher  prices. 

Second,  it  is  a  matter  of  record  that 
profits  in  the  food  processing  industry  are 
at  an  all-time  low.  That  is  a  subject  of  great 
concern  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food  (Mr.  Henderson)  and  myself  regarding 
the  Canadian  canning  industry.  I  regret  this 
did  not  come  up  during  private  members' 
hour  when  I  could  have  dealt  with  it  more 
extensively,  but  I  appreciate  the  opportunity 
today. 


4916 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


FARM  PRODUCTS 
APPEAL  TRIBUNAL 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  pork- 
barrel  question  for  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food,  since  it  is  the  time  when  new 
appointments  are  going  to  be  made  to  the 
Farm  Products  Appeal  Tribunal.  Can  the 
minister  explain  to  this  House  the  reason  he 
appointed  two  of  his  constituents  to  serve  on 
the  tribunal  this  year,  neither  of  whom  have 
any  claim  to  fame  in  the  agricultural  com- 
munity? They  have  no  agricultural  experi- 
ence. One  is  the  reeve  of  Petrolia  and  the 
other  is  a  housewife  from  Corunna.  What 
possible  motive  does  the  minister  have  for 
these  appointments,  other  than  the  fact  they 
are  from  Lambton  county  and  both  voted 
Tory? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cer- 
tainly cannot  apologize  because  good  people 
come  from  Lambton  county.  I  am  proud  of 
the  fact  they  come  from  Lambton  county.  The 
honourable  member  can  look  at  the  list  of 
board  members.  I  could  read  it  out.  The 
member's  caucus  even  had  the  nerve  to  phone 
the  clerk  of  the  town  of  Petrolia  to  see  if 
there  were  any  reasons  Mr.  R.  L.  Boyd 
should  not  be  on  the  board.  They  are  getting 
pretty  low.  These  people  are  top  citizens  of 
Lambton.  They  can  publicize  it  wherever  they 
like.  They  will  render  fair  decisions. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Does  the  minister  feel  resi- 
dence in  Lambton  county  and  political  affilia- 
tions are  sufficient  qualifications  to  warrant 
special  privileges  by  the  Minister  of  Agricul- 
ture and  Food  of  Ontario?  What  criteria  will 
the  minister  be  using  for  new  appointments 
to  the  Farm  Products  Appeal  Tribunal  next 
year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  This  minister  is  not 
going  to  hold  any  prejudice  against  a  person 
because  he  is  a  Progressive  Conservative  or 
because  he  comes  from  Lambton  county. 

RURAL  ELECTRICAL  RATES 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Premier,  based  on  a  news 
report,  three  paragraphs  of  which  I  will  read 
to  him.  It  is  from  the  Kingston  Whig  Stand- 
ard, dated  October  24: 

"Former  energy  minister  James  Taylor  says 
the  latest  hike  in  rural  hydro  rates  is  evi- 
dence that  Premier  Davis  does  not  have  the 
political  power  to  control  Ontario  Hydro. 

"Ontario  Hydro  has  announced  an  increase 
in  the  face  of  Davis's  statements  and  com- 
mitments to  the  Legislature  and  to  rural 
people    of    Ontario,    said    Taylor,    MPP    for 


Prince  Edward-Lennox  and  former  member 
oi  the  Davis  cabinet.  Ontario  Hydro  has 
flouted  his  wishes." 

The  third  paragraph  is  a  direct  quote  from 
the  honourable  member,  "Four  provinces- 
British  Columbia,  Quebec,  Nova  Scotia  and 
Newfoundland— have  instituted'  uniform  res- 
idential power  rates." 

Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  the  question? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  this:  Since  the  minister  asked  Hydro  to  give 
him  a  report,  and  on  page  four  Hydro  re- 
ported that  this  system,  namely  Hydro,  has 
the  greatest  differential  among  customers  of 
all  publicly  owned  supply  utilities  across 
Canada  and  substantially  greater  differential 
than  any  other  energy  supplier,  and  since 
Hydro  has  also  said  it  will  not  reduce  the 
differential  beyond  15  per  cent,  is  the  Premier 
going  to  confirm  the  views  of  the  member  for 
Prince  Edward-Lennox  that  Hydro  is  laying 
down  policy  and  he  is  tagging  along,  or  is  he 
going  to  lay  down  policy  and  insist  that  Hydro 
live  up  to  it? 

3:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  sure 
the  very  distinguished  member  for  Prince 
Edward-Lennox  when  he  was  Minister  of 
Energy  was  quite  able  to  deal  with  Ontario 
Hydro  and  they  always  accepted  his  direction. 
That  was  the  case  then,  and  it  is  the  case  now. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Hydro  mugged  him  and  you 
mugged  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  What  was  that  again? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Just  ignore  the  inter- 
jections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  so  hard  to  ignore  the 
interjections.  In  spite  of  what  the  honourable 
member  may  quote  from  that  great  news- 
paper in  Kingston,  in  spite  of  what  he  may 
read  from  the  very  factual  report  from 
Ontario  Hydro,  the  government  has  made  it 
abundantly  clear— and  this  is  the  bottom  line 
that  he  cannot  ignore  with  all  of  his  rural 
constituents— that  in  1981  the  differential  as 
between  the  rural  and  urban  customers  will 
be  reduced  by  30  per  cent. 

I  know  that  will  not  have  much  impact  in 
York  South,  but  in  the  rural  parts  of  Brampton 
it  is  a  very  significant  accomplishment.  The 
fact  that  they  are  all  under  the  Brampton 
utility  now  of  course  becomes  irrelevant. 

I  say  to  the  honourable  member  that  he 
should  know  better  than  anyone  in  this  House 
on  that  side— not  on  this  side— the  complexi- 
ties of  dealing  with  the  absolute  reduction  of 
the  differential.  If  he  reads  the  report  very 
carefully,  he  will  find  there  are  areas  in  On- 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4917 


tario  where  the  urban  rate  is  higher  than  the 
rural  rate.  So  we  get  around  to  the  rather 
complex  problems  in  a  rural  area  right  next 
door  to  an  urban  area,  where  the  rural  rate 
is  lower  than  the  urban  rate,  of  how  to  reduce 
the  differential. 

I  say  to  the  member  that  we  will  meet  our 
commitment.  We  are  doing  it  by  30  per  cent 
in  1981.  He  can  make  all  the  speeches  he 
wants  out  in  rural  Ontario,  where  his  party 
has  been  listened  to  with  such  enthusiasm 
for  generations,  but  he  will  make  no  mileage. 
He  will  not  get  a  single  vote,  because  the 
rural  people  know  this  government  looks 
after  their  interests  better  than  any  other 
party  in  this  province.  He  knows  that  too. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Let's  get  all  the  farmers  in 
here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That  is  right. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Now  that  the  Premier  has 
done  his  electioneering,  I  hope  he  will  ad- 
dress the  question  I  put  to  him.  The  question 
was,  when  he  requested  Hydro  to  reduce  the 
differential  and  Hydro  in  effect  said,  "Go 
chase  yourself.  You  can  reduce  it  if  you  want, 
but  we  suggest  you  don't  go  below  15  per 
cent  in  that  reduction,"  was  it  not  flouting  his 
policy?  Is  the  Premier  laying  down  policy 
and  Hydro  following  it,  or  is  Hydro  laying 
down  policy  while  he  is  tagging  along  with 
whatever  it  dictates? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  give  the  honourable 
member  full  credit.  He  has  become  an  ex- 
pert on  most  matters  in  the  few  years  he  has 
spent  in  this  Legislature- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  There  was  not  any- 
thing different  in  the  supplementary  question 
from  what  was  contained  in  the  original 
question.  If  the  Premier  is  going  to  emulate 
the  member  for  York  South,  that  will  take 
up  the  rest  of  the  question  period. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  said  to  him  before 
there  are  some  things  about  the  honourable 
member  I  would  emulate,  though  never  his 
political  philosophy,  never  his  logic,  never 
his  approach  to  the  issues,  but  in  some  re- 
spects I  might. 

I  will  come  back  to  what  I  guess  was  at 
the  basis  of  the  question.  The  report  from 
Ontario  Hydro,  as  I  recall  reading  it,  very 
rapidly  of  course,  made  the  problem  fairly 
clear-cut.  It  is  not  a  question  of  us  ordering 
Ontario  Hydro  to  reduce  the  differential. 
Quite  obviously,  Ontario  Hydro  will  reflect 
government  policy. 

What  Ontario  Hydro  is  outlining  in  the 
report  is  that  it  has  a  modest  complicating 
factor,  that  is,  the  role  of  the  municipal  dis- 
tributing systems  in   this  province,  which  is 


the  concern  of  the  Ontario  Municipal  Elec- 
tric Association.  I  know  the  member  would 
totally  ignore  them  but  we,  as  a  government, 
will  not.  I  have  given  an  undertaking  to  the 
OMEA  that  we  will  not  interfere  with  the 
rate  structure  until  we  have  had  consulta- 
tions with  them.  They  know  the  direction  we 
are  going,  but  it  has  to  be  reconciled. 

I  know  the  member  likes  to  deal  in  con- 
frontation, those  have  been  his  party's  tactics 
for  generations,  but  they  do  not  happen  to 
be  the  tactics  of  this  government.  We  will 
find  a  workable  solution,  and  in  the  interim 
—I  repeat  it— we  are  reducing  the  rate  dif- 
ferential by  30  per  cent  in  1981  consistent 
with  the  commitments  this  government  gave 
to  the  rural  people  of  this  province. 

ALBERTA  OIL  PROJECTS 

Mr.  Peterson:  A  question  of  the  Premier, 
Mr.  Speaker:  In  view  of  the  mothballing  of 
the  two  major  synthetic  oil  projects  in  the 
west,  the  last  news  of  which  was  Alsands 
yesterday,  and  in  view  of  the  important 
economic  concerns  of  this  province  not  only 
about  supply  but  also  the  potential  spinoff 
and  economic  benefits  to  the  industry  in 
Ontario,  I  am  sure  the  Premier  is  most  con- 
cerned about  this.  Can  he  share  with  this 
House  what  his  view  of  the  situation  is  and 
what  he  plans  to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it 
is  a  very  fair  question.  I  thought  I  had 
partially  answered  it  for  the  honourable 
member  the  other  day.  In  the  closing  re- 
marks of  my  statement,  I  quite  obviously  up- 
set the  member  for  London  Centre  (Mr. 
Peterson)  because  I  reminded  him  of  the 
position  of  his  leader  on  so  many  of  these 
issues.  I  hope  he  learned  something  in  the 
last  three  weeks.  He  cannot  go  around  having 
the  leader  of  his  party  taking  position  A  in 
geographic  location  B,  position  C  in  geo- 
graphic location  X,  and  expect  to  get  away 
with  it.  The  member  really  cannot  expect 
that  to  happen. 

I  am  concerned  about  this.  I  have  com- 
municated to  the  Prime  Minister  of  this 
country  and  to  the  Premier  of  Alberta  that 
I  would  hope  they  would  find  some  more 
common  ground  with  respect  to  the  solution 
of  the  energy  pricing  problems.  I  have  com- 
municated this  to  both  first  ministers.  This 
does  have  a  potential  impact  upon  the  econ- 
omy of  this  province,  not  just  in  terms  of 
the  production  of  the  pipe  and  other  equip- 
ment but  also  in  terms  of  security  of  supply. 

The  Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  Welch)  and 
the   Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism   (Mr. 


4918 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Grossman)  have  made  speeches.  I  have  made 
it  abundantly  clear  that  we  want  to  see  an 
energy  policy  that  makes  sure  those  two 
major  projects  move  ahead.  That  is  the 
general  direction  of  the  things  we  have  said 
and  will  continue  to  say. 

I  say  to  the  member  for  London  Centre, 
it  does  not  help  in  terms  of  the  general 
perception  of  this  province  by  people  out 
west  when  the  leader  of  his  party  says,  as 
he  said  not  too  many  months  ago,  "Give 
Alberta  not  another  nickel."  That  will  not 
solve  the  problem. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Recognizing  that  no  one 
listens  to  the  Minister  of  Energy,  and  send- 
ing the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 
out  there  is  like  putting  itching  powder  in 
one's  jockey  shorts,  why  does  the  Premier 
not  go?  Why  does  he  not  go  and  take  a 
statesmanlike  delegation  out  to  that  prov- 
ince, and  try  to  lend  his  good  office  to  break 
this  logjam? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  find  it  very  unfortunate 
that  the  member  for  London  Centre  believes 
no  one  listens  to  the  Minister  of  Energy  in 
this  province.  The  honourable  member  may 
not  listen  but  he  should,  because  he  would 
learn  something.  It  would  be  good  for  him  to 
accumulate  a  little  knowledge  the  minister 
would  be  prepared  to  share  with  him.  Ninety 
per  cent  of  the  people  in  this  province  not 
only  listen  to  but  also  agree  with  every  word 
spoken  by  the  Minister  of  Energy-in  fact, 
99  per  cent;  is  that  better? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  can  only  repeat  what 
I  said  when  the  member  asked  me  this  the 
other  day.  This  government  is  most  anxious 
to  see  some  solution  to  the  energy  pricing 
problem.  The  solution  lies  between  the  gov- 
ernments of  Canada  and  Alberta.  We  are 
anxious  to  see  those  projects  proceed.  Quite 
obviously  it  is  in  our  economic  interest  to 
see  them  proceed,  as  well  as  it  is  in  terms  of 
security  of  supply.  I  make  no  bones  about 
it,  and  that  is  the  direction  we  are  taking. 

SPECIAL  OCCASION  PERMITS 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations:  Can  the  minister  explain  why 
once  again  his  officials  are  starting  to  harass 
the  legions  and  other  veterans'  clubs  inas- 
much as  they  are  not  permitting  them  to 
operate  their  turkey  rolls  or  feather  parties 
as  they  have  done  for  years?  In  fact,  what  he 
is  doing  is  preventing  the  members  of  those 
clubs  from  buying  drinks  and  taking  them 
over   into   the    area   where   they   are   playing 


the  games  of  chance.  Can  he  tell  me  why 
this  practice,  which  has  been  in  effect  for 
years,  is  going  to  be  cut  off  again  this  year? 

3:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  bliss- 
fully unaware  of  any  of  my  officials  going  to 
shooting  rolls  or  turkey  rolls  or  whatever  it 
is.  In  fairness,  I  have  had  a  communication 
from  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk 
(Mr.  Nixon)  which  I  was  answering.  It  was 
a  somewhat  detailed  communication. 

The  simple  and  fundamental  rule,  and  I 
do  not  know  why  there  is  an  upset  about  it, 
prevails  almost  everywhere.  We  are  not  talk- 
ing about  people  standing  up  and  holding 
their  glasses;  we  are  talking  about  selling  the 
beverages  a  little  bit  away  from  the 
gambling.  The  reason  for  that  is,  first,  we 
have  had  a  number  of  complaints.  Not  every- 
body who  likes  to  shoot,  or  whatever  it  is, 
has  the  manual  dexterity  to  hold  a  bottle  of 
beer  and  a  glass  at  the  same  time  without 
spilling  it.  There  have  been  complaints  about 
spillage. 

Second,  when  there  is  a  special  occasion 
permit  in  conjunction  with  a  Monte  Carlo 
event— and  I  presume  that  is  what  the 
member  is  talking  about— we  have  had  some 
difficulty  in  the  past  with  control  of  the 
funds.  The  funds  from  the  bar  must  go  to 
the  charity  for  which  a  Monte  Carlo  event 
has  been  established. 

All  we  ask  is  a  little  physical  separation 
in  answer  to  a  number  of  complaints,  par- 
ticularly by  females,  that  there  is  a  little  too 
much  spillage  around  the  gambling— people 
spill  drinks  on  their  dresses. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  for  oral  questions 
has  expired.  I  would  like  to  remind  all  hon- 
ourable members  that  we  had  four  leaders' 
questions  and  six  other  original  questions. 
Perhaps,  if  you  each  individually  reflect  upon 
it,  you  will  know  where  the  60  minutes  went. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  Premier  took  30  minutes. 

Mr.  Speaker:   I  said  everybody. 

REPORTS 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
GENERAL  GOVERNMENT 

Mr.  Cureatz  from  the  standing  committee 
on  general  government  reported  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry  of 
Treasury  and  Economics  be  granted  to  Her 
Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31, 
1981: 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4919 


Ministry  administration  programs,  $3,869,- 
300;  Treasury  program,  $2,911,000;  fiscal 
policy  program,  $4,060,000;  economic  policy 
program,  $134,258,000;  central  statistical 
services  program,  $1,201,000;  Ontario  Eco- 
nomic Council  program,   $956,000. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
PROCEDURAL  AFFAIRS 

Mr.  Breaugh  from  the  standing  procedural 
affairs  committee  presented  the  committee's 
report  and  moved  its  adoption. 

The  committee's  report  is  as  follows: 
Your  committee  has  met  jointly  with  the 
standing  committee  on  members'  services  to 
consider  the  matter  of  an  "electronic 
Hansard"  and,  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
members'  services  committee,  recommends: 
That  the  Speaker  assume  responsibility  for 
the  immediate  introduction  of  permanent  and 
continuing  television  and  radio  coverage  of 
the  Legislature,  under  his  authority  and  con- 
trol. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  you  well 
know,  following  the  recommendations  of  the 
Camp  commission  and  subsequently  the 
Morrow  committee,  this  matter  has  been 
under  consideration  by  several  of  the  stand- 
ing committees  of  the  House,  members' 
services  and  procedural  affairs  being  the  last 
two  to  have  a  kick  at  it. 

It  was  our  consensus,  arrived  at  over  two 
sets  of  meetings- 
Mr.  Sweeney:  We  cannot  hear  you. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  I  rarely  have  a  complaint  that 
people  cannot  hear  me.  I  will  try  to  speak  up. 

We  have  met  joindy  on  two  occasions  now. 
We  have  put  to  the  members  there  all  the 
reports  that  have  accumulated  over  the  years 
on  this  particular  matter.  We  arrived  at  the 
consensus  position  now  before  the  House 
simply  by  saying  that  we  recognize  there  are 
financial  considerations  to  which  we  must 
address  ourselves.  A  number  of  problems  will 
arise  but  the  House  had  never  clearly  spoken 
on  this  one  matter;  we  attempted  to  put  to- 
gether a  resolution  that  does  just  that. 

We  have  concurrence  now  from  the 
majority  of  the  members  of  both  these  stand- 
ing committees  on  this  resolution.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  I  may  say  in  this  morning's  debate  I 
did  not  hear  anyone  speak  against  the  prin- 
ciple enunciated  here.  The  concerns  about 
costing,  implementation  and  how  it  would  be 
done  are  all  there,  and  we  all  recognize  that, 
but  we  did  feel  it  was  time  a  recommenda- 
tion of  this  kind  be  presented  to  the  House 
and   the    members    had    the    opportunity,    at 


some  point,  to  debate  this  resolution  and  to 
vote  on  it. 

I  am  tempted  to  seek  unanimous  consent, 
for  I  feel  it  is  that  close,  but  I  will  not.  In- 
stead, Mr.  Speaker,  I  shall  move  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  debate. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  Breaugh,  the  debate 
was  adjourned. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE 

Mr.  Philip  from  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice  reported  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Solicitor  General  be  granted  to  Her  Majesty 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1981: 

Ministry  administration  program,  $3,619,- 
000;  public  safety  program,  $14,368,100; 
supervision  of  police  forces  program,  $7,931,- 
100;  management  and  support  services  pro- 
gram, $31,109,700;  operations  program, 
$134,704,800. 

Mr.  Philip  from  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice  presented  the  follow- 
ing report  and  moved  its  adoption: 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bills  without  amendment: 

Bill  Pr41,  An  Act  respecting  the  Institute 
of  Chartered  Secretaries  and  Administrators 
in  Ontario; 

Bill  Pr49,  An  Act  to  revive  Gradore  Mines 
Limited; 

Bill  Pr51,  An  Act  respecting  the  Hamilton 
Club; 

Bill  Pr53,  An  Act  to  revive  McColl  Farms 
Limited. 

Report  adopted. 

Mr.  Philip  from  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice  presented  the  follow- 
ing report  and  moved  its  adoption: 

Your  committee  requests  that  the  House 
authorize  Mr.  Speaker  to  require  that  all 
material  required  through  the  provisions  of 
the  Speaker's  warrant  of  November  24,  1980, 
be  delivered  to  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice  forthwith  and  no 
later  than  Friday,  December  5  at  9  a.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Mr.  Philip  moves  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  debate. 

Those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was 
not  sure  whether  the  chairman  of  the  justice 
committee    wanted    to    address    this    matter. 


4920 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


There  are  a  number  of  matters  I  would  like 
to  address  in  relation  to  this.  In  particular,  I 
think  there  are  three  specific  issues  related  to 
this  very  important  debate:  (1)  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  standing  committee  on  administration 
oi  justice,  (2)  the  sub  judice  rule  and  (3)  my 
concerns  as  Attorney  General  with  respect 
to  the  Speaker's  warrant. 
3:30  p.m. 

First,  I  would  like  to  address  the  issue  of 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice.  In  Votes  and  Pro- 
ceedings for  Friday,  March  14,  1980,  the 
standing  committee  on  administration  of  jus- 
tice was  ordered  established  "with  power  to 
examine  and  inquire  into  all  such  matters"— 
I  think  the  next  words  are  important— "as  may 
be  referred  to  them  by  the  House,  with 
power  to  send  for  persons,  papers  and  things 
as  provided  in  section  35  of  the  Legislative 
Assembly  Act." 

Mr.  Speaker,  regarding  the  resolution  of 
the  standing  committee  on  administration  of 
justice  requesting  you  to  issue  a  warrant  and 
the  subject  matter  of  that  warrant,  I  say  with 
respect  it  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with 
anything  that  has  been  referred  to  that  com- 
mittee by  this  House. 

On  November  18,  1980,  Mr.  Bradley  pre- 
sented the  following  petition,  and  I  quote: 
"Pursuant  to  standing  order  33(b),  the  under- 
signed members  of  the  Legislature  hereby 
petition  the  annual  report  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  for  the 
year  ending  March  31,  1980,  tabled  in  the 
Legislature  on  October  6,  1980,  be  referred 
to  the  standing  committee  on  administration 
of  justice  for  immediate  and  urgent  considera- 
tion." 

Standing  order  33(c)  states:  "Where  a  peti- 
tion is  presented  under  clause  (b),  the  Speaker 
shall  inform  the  House  of  the  receipt  of  the 
petition  and  of  the  referral  of  the  report  to 
the  committee  requested.  The  chairman  of 
the  committee  to  which  the  report  is  referred" 
—and  again  I  would  like  to  stress  the  follow- 
ing words— "shall  then  arrange  with  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  the  allocation  of  time 
for  the  examination  of  the  report." 

It  is  very  clear  in  the  order  establishing 
the  standing  committee  on  administration  of 
justice  that  the  only  power  the  committee 
has  is  "to  examine  and  inquire  into  all 
such  matters"— again  stressing  the  follow- 
ing words— "as  may  be  referred  to  them  by 
the  House."  It  is  also  clear  by  standing 
order  33(c)  that  the  only  jurisdiction  of  a 
committee  to  which  a  report  is  referred  is 
"the  examination  of  the  report." 


It  is  abundantly  clear  that  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice  is  not 
examining  the  report  referred  to  it  by  the 
House  but  is  engaged  in  an  investigation  of 
such  matters  that  have  not  been  referred  by 
this  House  to  any  committee. 

Quoting  directly  from  a  memorandum  from 
Mr.  Roderick  Lewis,  Clerk  of  the  House,  to 
Mr.  Philip,  the  chairman  of  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  committee,  dated  September 
5,  1978:  "There  is  the  well-established  rule 
of  procedure  that  committees  of  the  House, 
whether  standing,  select  or  whole  House,  may 
only  deal  with  those  matters  which  are  spe- 
cifically and  formally  referred  to  them  by 
the  House." 

Bourinot's  Parliamentary  Procedure,  fourth 
edition,  at  pages  469  and  470,  states:  "It  is 
a  clear  principle  of  parliamentary  law  that  a 
committee  is  bound  by,  and  is  not  at  liberty 
to  depart  from,  the  order  of  reference.  This 
principle  is  essential  to  the  regular  dispatch 
of  business;  for,  if  it  were  admitted  that  what 
the  House  entertained,  in  one  instance,  and 
referred  to  a  committee,  was  so  far  con- 
trollable by  that  committee,  that  it  was  at 
liberty  to  disobey  the  order  of  reference,  all 
business  would  be  at  an  end;  and,  as  often 
as  circumstances  would  afford  a  pretence, 
the  proceedings  of  the  House  would  be  in- 
volved in  confusion." 

It  is  my  respectful  submission  that  the 
proceedings  of  this  House  are  in  this  current 
confusion  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the 
members  opposite,  simply  because  they  have 
sufficient  numbers,  are  running  roughshod 
over  the  rules  of  this  assembly  by  camouflag- 
ing the  real  intent  and  purpose  of  an  investi- 
gation under  cover  of  a  pretence  of  sup- 
posedly examining  the  annual  report  of  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions. The  committee  is  not  even  referring 
to  the  annual  report.  Indeed,  it  seeks  to 
operate  without  any  terms  of  reference  pass- 
ed by  this  House;  it  is  free  to  make  its  own 
terms  of  reference,  change  those  terms  of 
reference  from  day  to  day  at  the  whim  of 
its  members  without  any  control  by  this 
House. 

I  say,  with  respect,  the  whole  procedure, 
so  enthusiastically  supported  by  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith),  is  simply 
a  farce. 

It  is  beyond  me  why  a  committee,  which 
pretends  to  call  itself  the  administration  of 
justice  committee,  would  choose  a  surrepti- 
tious procedure  to  investigate  a  particular 
matter  rather  than  by  coming  before  this 
House  with   a  proper  resolution  outlining  a 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4921 


proper  investigation  into  a  particular  matter 
with  proper  terms  of  reference. 

As  Attorney  General,  I  am  simply  appalled 
at  the  lack  of  understanding  of  the  members 
opposite  of  the  proper  procedures  of  this 
House  and  at  how  the  present  improper  pro- 
cedures are  totally  unfair  to  this  House,  the 
members  of  this  House,  civil  servants  and 
members  of  the  public  who  may  be  required 
to  attend  before  the  committee  and  produce 
certain  documents. 

It  is  my  view  that  this  Legislature  is  the 
highest  court  in  this  province  and  as  such 
should  conduct  its  business  with  the  utmost 
fairness  to  everyone  concerned.  I  regret  to 
say  it  is  also  my  view  that  this  House,  at 
this  time,  is  not  conducting  its  business 
fairly. 

It  is  my  submission  that  any  committee 
of  this  House  acts  unfairly  when  it  purports 
to  examine  an  annual  report  of  a  ministry 
but,  in  the  place  of  that  examination,  it 
decides  to  investigate  what  is  a  very  im- 
portant issue,  no  one  is  denying  the  impor- 
tance of  this  issue,  but  it  is  unfair  when  it 
does  so  without  any  authority  from  this 
House  and  without  any  specific  terms  of 
reference. 

The  result  is  that  witnesses  are  called  and 
documents  are  required.  I  ask  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  very  sincerely  to  place  yourself  in 
the  position  of  a  member  of  the  public  who 
is  required  to  attend  before  such  a  commit- 
tee which  is  operating  without  any  terms  of 
reference  whatsoever.  That  member  of  the 
public,  a  civil  servant  or  a  minister  can  be 
examined  on  any  matter  and  can  be  request- 
ed to  produce  any  document  in  any  area 
which  the  committee  chooses  to  investigate 
since  that  committee  is  not  controlled  by  any 
terms  of  reference  from  this  House. 

Under  those  circumstances  the  procedures 
of  this  House,  I  say  with  respect,  are  simply 
out  of  control  and  in  confusion.  As  Attorney 
General,  I  am  saddened  that  the  elected 
representatives  of  the  public  of  this  province 
in  the  highest  court  of  this  province  would 
allow  the  procedures  to  disintegrate  to  the 
point  where  the  public  can  very  easily  lose 
confidence   in   the   democratic  process. 

3:40  p.m. 

I  am  requesting  that  the  members  oppo- 
site who  decided  to  refer  the  annual  report 
of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations  to  the  committee  with  no  in- 
tention of  examining  that  report,  but  inves- 
tigating an  entirely  different  matter,  simply 
come  forward  in  this  House  with  an  appro- 
priate resolution,  with  appropriate  terms  of 
reference  for  investigating  the  matter,  which 


again  I  say  is  a  very  important  matter  to  be 
investigated  in  the  best  interests  of  the  pub- 
lic of  this  province. 

Since  there  are  no  terms  of  reference 
enabling  the  committee  to  do  what  it  is 
purporting  to  do,  I  submit  with  respect  that 
the  committee  simply  has  no  right  to  the 
documents   requested. 

Beauchesne's  Parliamentary  Rules  and 
Forms,  fifth  edition,  at  page  198,  under 
the  heading  "The  Power  of  Committees  To 
Send  For  Papers,"  says:  "Committees  may 
send  for  any  papers  that  are  relevant  to 
their  order  of  reference/'  The  committee's 
mandate  is  to  examine  the  report  of  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations. Again,  I  state  simply,  the  documents 
requested  in  the  warrant  are  not  relevant 
to  the  committee's  mandate.  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  say  to  you  with  respect,  you  should  not 
issue  a  warrant  for  the  production  of  docu- 
ments that  are  not  relevant  to  a  committee's 
terms  of  reference. 

Second,  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  com- 
ments on  the  sub  judice  rule,  or  perhaps 
more  accurately,  as  a  result  of  the  proceed- 
ings in  this  House  in  the  past  week,  the 
lack  of  any  sub  judice  rule. 

The  sub  judice  rule  is  contained  in  stand- 
ing order  19(d),  which  states:  "In  debate, 
a  member  shall  be  called  to  order  by  the 
Speaker,  if  he  .  .  .  refers  to  any  matter  that 
is  the  subject  of  a  proceeding  (i)  that  is 
pending  in  a  court  or  before  a  judge  for 
judicial  determination,  or  (ii)  that  is  before 
any  quasi-judicial  body  constituted  by  the 
House  or  by  or  under  the  authority  of  an 
act  of  Legislature,  where  it  is  shown  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Speaker  that  further  ref- 
erence would  create  a  real  and  substantial 
danger  of  prejudice  to  the  proceeding." 

Mr.  Speaker,  that  rule  makes  you  the 
final  arbiter  of  the  application  of  the  sub 
judice  rule.  That  certainly  was  the  view 
expressed  in  the  Speaker's  ruling  of  July  8, 
1977.  At  page  57  of  Votes  and  Proceedings 
for  that  date,  the  Speaker  said: 

"The  House  however  has  imposed  restric- 
tions on  itself  and  one  of  these  restrictions 
is  that  great  care  is  exercised  in  discussing 
matters  before  the  court,  so  that  statements 
here  do  not  deny  justice  to  the  parties  in- 
volved in  the  courts.  Standing  order  16(a) 
places  a  duty  on  the  Speaker  to  exercise 
discretion  over  debate  in  matters  before  the 
courts." 

The  Speaker  adopted  parts  of  a  House 
of  Commons  committee  report  and  stated 
he  saw  no  reason  why  similar  principles 
ought  not  to  guide  members  of  this  House. 


4922 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  of  Commons  report  stated: 
"Your  committee  has  given  consideration  to 
the  role  of  the  Speaker  in  the  application 
of  the  convention.  It  is  submitted  that,  while 
there  can  be  no  substitute  for  the  discretion 
of  the  chair,  in  the  last  resort  all  members 
of  the  House  should  share  in  the  respon- 
sibility of  exercising  restraint  when  it  seems 
called  for. 

"Your  committee  recommends  that"— and 
again  I  stress  these  words— "the  Speaker 
should  remain  the  final  arbiter  in  the  matter, 
that  he  should  retain  the  authority  to  prevent 
discussion  of  matters  in  the  House  on  the 
ground  of  sub  judice,  but  that  he  should 
only  exercise  this  discretion  in  exceptional 
cases  where  it  is  clear  to  him  that  to  do 
otherwise  could  be  harmful  to  specific  indi- 
viduals." 

I  have  tried  to  impress  upon  the  members 
of  this  House  that  compliance  with  the  com- 
mittee's request  for  all  the  documents  as  set 
out  in  the  warrant  and  the  discussion  of  the 
all-encompassing  issues  in  committee  would 
seriously  prejudice  the  trial  of  charges  al- 
ready before  the  courts  and  the  very  im- 
portant ongoing  criminal  investigation.  The 
irony  of  this  whole  matter  is  that  the  bene- 
ficiaries of  such  committee  proceedings  could 
very  well  be  the  persons  already  charged  or 
who  may  be  charged  and  the  detriments  will 
flow  to  the  public  in  that  the  crown's  ability 
to  prosecute  wrongdoers  will  be  impaired. 

In  the  House  on  November  24,  as  reported 
at  page  4525  of  Hansard,  Mr.  Speaker,  you 
said:  "I  beg  to  inform  the  House  that  even 
though  the  Legislative  Assembly  Act  makes 
it  discretionary  with  the  Speaker  as  to 
whether  or  not  he  should  issue  a  warrant,  I 
feel  that  in  view  of  the  clear  direction  of  the 
House  on  Thursday  last,  the  warrant  should 
issue.  It  will,  therefore,  be  served  this  after- 
noon." 

It  is  once  again  very  clear  that  the 
rules  passed  by  this  House  and  intended  to 
govern  the  proceedings  of  this  House  are 
being  shunted  aside  with  the  effect  that  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  are  unable  to  enforce  the  sub 
judice  rule.  As  Attorney  General,  I  regret 
that  what  this  House  has  entrusted  to  you 
can  so  easily  be  taken  away. 

I  find  it  difficult  to  find  a  set  of  circum- 
stances that  would  be  more  deserving  of  the 
application  of  the  sub  judice  rule.  Criminal 
charges  have  been  laid  against  the  company 
and  individuals  involved  in  the  very  investi- 
gation of  documents  to  which  the  warrant 
refers.  Second,  there  is  a  very  important 
ongoing  investigation.  A  preliminary  inquiry 
on  the  criminal  charges  was  due  to  proceed 


when  the  warrant  was  issued,  and  a  number 
of  civil  actions  have  been  commenced  against 
the  crown  and  the  former  registrar  of  the 
Mortgage  Brokers  Act. 

My  concern  is,  however,  mainly  with  re- 
spect to  the  criminal  charges  and  the  ongoing 
criminal  investigation.  It  is  my  submission 
with  respect  to  criminal  matters  that  in  view 
of  the  sub  judice  convention  such  matters 
should  not  be  referred  to  in  the  House  or 
in  a  committee  of  the  House.  Beauchesne's 
Parliamentary  Rules  and  Forms,  fifth  edition, 
states  at  page  118:  "The  sub  judice  conven- 
tion has  been  applied  consistently  in  criminal 
cases.  The  precedents  in  criminal  cases  are 
consistent  in  preventing  references  to  court 
cases  before  a  judgement  is  rendered."  At 
page  119,  it  says  that  the  special  committee 
on  the  rights  and  immunities  of  members 
recommended  with  respect  to  the  sub  judice 
convention  that  "the  Speaker  should  remain 
the  final  arbiter  in  the  matter,  but  should 
exercise  his  discretion  only  in  exceptional 
cases."  I  strongly  suggest,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
this  is  an  exceptional  case  and  that  your  dis- 
cretion should  not  be  overruled  by  this 
House. 
3:50  p.m. 

I  would  now  like  to  turn  more  specifically 
to  some  of  my  concerns  with  respect  to  the 
Speaker's  warrant  which,  by  resolution  of 
the  committee,  is  sought  to  be  amended.  In 
the  first  place,  the  warrant,  as  framed,  is  far 
to  broad  in  scope.  That  problem  stems 
simply  from  the  fact  that  this  House  has  not 
passed  terms  of  reference  for  the  committee's 
investigation.  Again,  this  is  what  we  have 
been  requesting  the  House  to  do.  Since  the 
warrant  is  virtually  a  blanket  demand  for 
every  scrap  of  paper  in  existence  within  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions with  respect  to  certain  companies  and 
individuals,  grave  concern  has  been  express- 
ed by  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission 
because  of  the  effect  the  required  production 
of  documents  will  have  on  the  commission's 
responsibilities  to  the  public  of  this  province 
in  the  securities  field. 

I  strongly  support  the  position  of  the  com- 
mission and  will  quote  a  couple  of  paragraphs 
from  a  letter  dated  November  28  which  I 
received  from  the  chairman  of  the  commis- 
sion: 

"The  Speaker's  warrant  and  its  terms 
undermine  the  ability  of  the  commission  to 
effectively  administer  the  act  [the  Commodity 
Futures  Act,  1978]  by  requiring  the  dis- 
closure of  evidence  and  information  required, 
seized  or  given  in  response  to  requests  to 
members  of  the  commission  and,  in  particu- 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4923 


lar,  its  investigative  staff.  The  integrity  of 
the  commission,  and  through  it  the  integrity 
of  the  capital  market  system,  is  at  stake. 

"It  is  the  commission's  view  that  the  un- 
fettered examination  of  all  material  demanded 
in  the  Speaker's  warrant,  in  the  event  that 
such  a  warrant  is  directed  to  and  binding 
upon  the  commission,  will  destroy  substan- 
tially the  commission's  ability  to  function,  in- 
hibiting the  free  flow  of  information  among 
(a)  various  branches  of  the  government,  (b) 
the  other  provinces  and  territories  of  Can- 
ada, (c)  the  parallel  agencies  in  the  United 
States  and  elsewhere  and  (d)  various  other 
law  enforcement  and  surveillance  agencies, 
without  whose  assistance  effective  investiga- 
tion would  be  impossible.  They  could  no 
longer  afford  to  pass  sensitive  information  to 
the  commission  and,  within  the  commission's 
immediate  sphere,  preliminary  or  informal  in- 
vestigations would  be  inhibited  by  the  knowl- 
edge that  confidentiality  could  not  be  main- 
tained. It  would  give  encouragement  to  those 
wishing  to  resist  the  commission  in  the  proper 
exercise  of  the  powers  given  to  it  by  the 
Legislature." 

I  also  suggest  the  warrant  is  far  broader 
than  is  needed  for  the  committee's  delibera- 
tions. Although  the  committee  has  been  given 
no  terms  of  reference  by  this  House,  I  recog- 
nize that  the  main  concern  of  the  committee 
appears  to  be  a  desire  to  investigate  the  role 
in  which  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  is  placed  in  having  issued 
a  mortgage  broker's  licence  to  Re-Mor  Invest- 
ment. As  the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre 
(Mr.  M.  N.  Davison)  put  it  in  the  committee 
on  November  19,  "There  is  absolutely  no 
other  way  open  to  the  Legislature  now  to  get 
to  the  bottom  of  this  and  to  find  out  why  the 
ministry  was  so  negligent  in  licensing  and  in 
registering  this  company." 

I  pause  to  note  that  one  member  of  the 
committee  already  appears  to  have  made  up 
his  mind  that  the  ministry  was  negligent  with- 
out seeing  any  of  the  documents  or  without 
hearing  from  any  witness.  I  can  hardly  criti- 
cize the  member  who  said  that,  because  his 
own  leader  repeated  the  position  virtually 
intact  this  afternoon.  The  leader  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party  had  already  judged  the 
matter. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Come,  come. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Are  you  saying  you  acted 
responsibly?  Are  you  trying  to  say  you  are 
whitewashed? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  The  minister  never 
gave  a  single  reason  why  it  should  have  been 
registered. 


Hon,  Mr.  McMurtry:  It  may  be  that  a  com- 
mittee will  find  this  company  should  not  have 
been  registered,  but  I  suggest  such  a  con- 
clusion should  only  be  made  after  review  of 
all  the  facts.  In  my  view,  it  is  very  unfair  to 
public  servants  involved  to  have  a  member 
of  a  committee  prejudge  an  issue  before  the 
committee  even  commences  its  proceedings. 

May  I  underline  my  position,  Mr.  Speaker? 
I  agree  that  the  circumstances  surrounding 
the  issuing  of  the  registration  to  Re-Mor  In- 
vestments are  relevant  matters  for  investiga- 
tion by  this  committee.  I  can  assure  this 
House  that,  by  our  opposition  to  the  warrant 
we  are  not  attempting  to  conceal  any  actions 
by  any  ministry.  If  the  mortgage  broker's 
licence  should  not  have  been  issued,  or  if 
there  was  negligence  or  sloppy  administrative 
procedures,  the  principle  of  ministerial  re- 
sponsibility will  not  be  shirked.  These  matters 
should  be  investigated  and  recommendations 
made  for  the  future. 

I  have  no  objection  to  the  desires  of  the 
committee  to  investigate  the  role  of  the 
ministry  or  to  have  the  documents  relevant 
to  the  registration  of  this  company.  My 
concern  is  simply  with  the  timing  for  the 
production  of  the  documents.  Let  me  try 
once  again  to  explain  my  concerns. 

As  Attorney  General,  I  cannot  be  satisfied 
with  only  the  civil  aspects  of  the  ministry's 
role,  and  this  is  important.  I  would  be  remiss 
in  my  responsibilities,  and  so  would  the 
crown  law  officers  and  the  police,  if  there 
were  no  criminal  investigation  of  the  circum- 
stances surrounding  the  issuance  of  the 
licence  by  the  ministry.  That  investigation, 
as  I  have  continually  advised  the  members 
opposite,  is  taking  place  and  has  been  taking 
place.  The  warrant  was  issued  many  weeks 
ago  with  respect  to  documents  from  the 
ministry,  and  the  police  have  been  requested 
to  give  top  priority  to  this  part  of  what  really 
is  a  mammoth  overall  criminal  investigation. 
It  is  my  view  that  only  the  police  can  do  a 
proper  investigation  and  that  an  investigation 
by  the  committee,  before  the  criminal  in- 
vestigation is  completed,  would  seriously 
undermine  the  criminal  investigation. 

I  am  simply  requesting  once  again  that 
the  committee  delay  its  investigation  until 
the  police  have  completed  their  investigation 
of  this  particular  issue.  At  the  end  of  that 
investigations,  if  no  criminal  charges  are  laid, 
all  the  documents  with  respect  to  the  circum- 
stances surrounding  the  issuance  of  the 
licence  will  be  available  to  the  committee. 

The  chairman  of  the  justice  committee  in- 
dicated to  me  yesterday  afternoon,  if  my 
memory  is   correct,   that  the  committee  will 


4924 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


be  sitting  again  on  Wednesday  next  to 
pursue  this  matter.  As  part  of  the  statement 
I  attempted  to  read  to  the  committee  yester- 
day but  was  prevented  from  doing— I  do  not 
have  a  copy  of  it  before  me— I  indicated 
that  the  criminal  investigation  may  well  be 
completed  by  Wednesday  of  next  week,  at 
least  as  far  as  this  aspect  of  the  matter  was 
concerned. 

I  repeat  what  I  have  stated  to  the 
members  opposite.  I  am  prepared,  as  is  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, to  appear  before  that  committee  when 
it  meets  on  Wednesday  next,  because  I  think 
we  probably  will  be  in  a  position  by  that 
time  to  resolve  these  issues.  Without  going 
through  the  whole  unhappy  history,  I  can 
say  I  have  been  attempting  for  two  weeks 
to  have  crown  counsel  address  the  com- 
mittee to  resolve  these  issues. 

Again,  I  repeat,  I  am  quite  prepared  to 
give  a  personal  undertaking,  on  behalf  of 
myself  and1  on  behalf  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations,  that  we 
will  appear  once  again  before  that  committee 
on  Wednesday  next.  I  am  confident  that  the 
issues  pertaining  to  the  criminal  investigation, 
which  are  of  fundamental  importance,  can 
be  resolved  at  that  time.  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  that  is  an  undertaking,  with  the  great- 
est respect,  sir,  that  you  should  take  into 
consideration  in  making  any  decision  with 
respect  to  amending  your  Speaker's  warrant 
at  this  time. 

I  am  prepared  to  do  that  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  civil  proceedings  will  be  out- 
standing for  some  time.  I  am  quite  content 
to  entrust  the  committee  with  the  responsi- 
bility of  dealing  with  the  matter  in  such  a 
way  as  not  to  prejudice  the  civil  proceedings 
that  are  before  the  courts  or  any  of  the  out- 
standing criminal  charges. 

I  am  simply  requesting  the  members  of 
this  Legislature  and  particularly  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committee,  to  give  the  police 
the  opportunity,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  to  con- 
clude their  investigation  by  Wednesday  next. 
If  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  and  I  appear,  I  hope  we  will  be 
able  to  resolve  the  matter  in  which  it  is  most 
interested.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
there  are  no  terms  of  reference,  I  would  still 
be  prepared  to  see  that  happen. 
4  p.m. 

As  I  have  already  indicated,  yesterday  I 
tabled  a  statement  which  contained  two  pro- 
posals: (1)  that  the  committee  request  of  the 
Speaker  that  compliance  with  his  warrant  be 
delayed  for  one  week,  during  which  time  I 
will  again  appear  before  the  committee  and 


advise  the  committee  as  far  as  is  humanly 
possible  how  long  it  will  take  the  Ontario 
Provincial  Police  to  complete  the  aspects  of 
its  investigation  which  concern  the  committee; 
that  is,  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  is- 
suance of  the  licence  by  the  ministry  and 
(2)  that  the  committee  request  of  the  Speaker 
that  his  warrant  be  confined  to  this  commit- 
tee's area  of  concern;  that  is,  documents  re- 
lating to  the  issuance  of  the  licence  by  the 
ministry.  This  request  is  made,  I  stress  once 
again,  to  alleviate  my  concern  that  compliance 
with  the  warrant  as  worded  at  present  will 
not  only  impair  the  integrity  of  the  overall 
OPP  investigation,  the  rest  of  which  investi- 
gation will  take  several  months,  but  also 
undermine  the  ability  of  the  Ontario  Securities 
Commission  to  superintend  the  financial  com- 
munity of  the  province. 

My  last  volley,  as  it  were,  in  this  very 
important  battle  to  uphold  the  integrity  of  the 
administration  of  justice  and  the  procedures 
of  this  House  is  to  warn  those  who  would 
persist  in  demanding  documents  before  the 
criminal  investigation  is  completed  that  they 
run  the  risk  of  jeopardizing  the  criminal  in- 
vestigation to  the  extent  that  evidence  to 
support  criminal  charges  may  not  be  avail- 
able. That,  simply,  is  the  risk.  If  that  happens, 
the  losers  will  be  the  members  of  the  House, 
the  administration  of  justice  and  the  public  of 
this  province,  and  the  winners  certainly  will 
be  those  who  may  have  been  involved  in 
some  wrongdoing. 

I  have  been  in  this  House  only  a  little  more 
than  five  years,  but  I  urge  the  members  to 
consider  how  important  this  debate  is  and  the 
important  principles  related  to  it.  In  my  ex- 
perience I  have  not  before  participated  in  a 
debate  as  important  as  this  one,  because  very 
fundamental  principles  that  have  been  en- 
shrined for  many  years  and  protect  all  the 
citizens  of  this  province  are  very  much  at 
stake  in  this  debate. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  entering  into 
this  debate,  it  is  imperative  that  I,  as  a  re- 
sponsible member  of  this  House,  give  very 
serious  consideration  to  those  statements  made 
by  the  Attorney  General.  It  is  unfortunate 
perhaps  that  those  statements  were  not  made 
prior  to  the  issuance  of  the  warrant  but,  of 
course,  that  lay  in  the  lips  and  the  hands  of 
the  Attorney  General. 

We  are  dealing  with  a  matter  that  has 
great  seriousness— tremendous  ramifications,  I 
am  informed  by  a  person  not  privy  to  that, 
but  I  accept  that  the  ramifications  are  very 
wide.  We  are  also  dealing  with  the  matters  of 
the  responsibilities  of  legislators.  We  do  have 
in  our  government  the  three  arms:  the  execu- 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4925 


tive  branch,  the  legislative  branch  and  the 
judicial  branch.  Without  question,  none  of 
us  here  would  wish  in  any  way  to  encroach 
upon  the  judicial  branch.  That  is  not  our 
function. 

The  Attorney  General  spoke  about  fairness. 
Unfortunately,  those  of  us  fixed  with  responsi- 
bility, particularly  in  the  opposition  ranks, 
must  often  perforce  come  to  a  conclusion  not 
being  privy  to  all  the  things  in  which  we  are 
engaging  that  are  unfair.  At  this  time,  I  re- 
gret that  any  unfairness,  going  by  the  At- 
torney General,  would  appear  to  be  somehow 
the  unfairness  of  the  opposition  parties  in 
trying  to  do  their  job  in  this  Legislature  for 
the  protection  of  the  public  of  the  province, 
particularly  in  the  investment  field. 

May  I  now  address  the  sub  judice  rule?  The 
Attorney  General  has  invoked  the  sub  judice 
rule  on  many  occasions  and  he  has  em- 
barked upon  the  advice  to  his  colleagues  that 
they  should  not  speak  in  the  House  because 
matters  have  been  sub  judice. 

If  I  may  give  some  of  the  examples  we 
have  seen  of  the  Attorney  General's  ruling 
on  sub  judice— which  is  really  what  it 
amounted  to— let  us  go  back  to  the  Browndale 
issue.  For  years,  the  opposition  tried  using 
all  of  the  appropriate  methods  to  get  the  in- 
formation about  the  Browndale  matter.  It  was 
not  unfair  that  we  were  stonewalled  right  up 
to  the  time  when  the  Attorney  General  could 
find  it  within  his  heart  to  bring  charges. 

Subsequent  to  the  charges  being  laid,  this 
opposition  dropped  all  the  inquiries  that  were 
the  subject  to  police  investigation  leading  to 
charges  and  cases  in  the  courts.  However, 
we  did  take  the  position,  that  point  having 
been  reached,  that  it  was  open  to  us  to  in- 
quire about  a  contract  entered  into  subsequent 
to  all  of  the  matters  before  the  courts.  I  think 
it  is  important  that  we  understand  this. 

The  Attorney  General  rose  and  defended 
the  position  that  this  was  sub  judice.  The 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 
(Mr.  Norton)  rose  to  say  on  the  advice  of  the 
Attorney  General  that  this  was  sub  judice 
and  he  could  not  address  any  statements  or 
answer  any  questions  in  this  House. 

We  did  not  believe  it  was  sub  judice.  I 
would  point  out  that  neither  of  those  two 
ministers  thought  it  was  sub  judice  because 
the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices, who  was  tongue-tied  in  this  House, 
walked  out  the  door  and  discussed  the  matter 
with  the  press.  That  is  the  way  in  which  the 
sub  judice  rule  is  being  operated  in  this 
House. 

4:10  p.m. 


Let.  me  say  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt, 
I  am  not  prepared  to  enter  into  a  criminal 
investigation.  That  investigation  properly 
belongs  to  the  professionals,  the  police  and 
the  crown  law  officers. 

It  is  true  we  are  concerned  with  the 
proprieties  surrounding  the  matter  of  licences 
and,  as  I  should  think  the  Attorney  General 
would  understand,  surrounding  the  fact  of 
whether  or  not  a  decision  was  made  by  the 
Ontario  Securities  Commission  at  a  certain 
point  in  time  that  might  have  been  preju- 
dicial. The  difficulty  is  that,  without  having 
access  to  the  documents  we  have  requested, 
we  are  not  in  a  position  to  come  to  a  con- 
clusion. Perhaps  it  is  because,  at  this  point 
in  time  and  with  the  recommendation  to  the 
House  of  the  Attorney  General,  he  would 
have  the  carriage  of  the  matter,  the  timing 
of  the  matter  and  control  of  what  it  is  the 
committee  of  this  House  is  going  to  look  at. 

The  Attorney  General  has  made  a  great 
deal  of  his  concerns  about  the  way  in  which 
the  committee  will  operate.  At  some  stage  the 
terms  under  which  the  committee  would 
operate  should  become  very  much  a  part  of 
the  discussion,  but  I  do  not  wish  to  take  the 
time  to  read  this  somewhat  lengthy  document. 

Needless  to  say,  the  committee  members— 
and  I  was  not  one  of  those  present— very 
thoughtfully,  as  I  understand  it,  met  with 
a  crown  law  officer  to  determine  a  way  to 
protect  the  documents.  It  was  my  informa- 
tion that  the  crown  law  officer  was  satisfied 
with  the  conditions  under  which  the  com- 
mittee would  operate.  I  think  it  is  important 
that  we  understand  that,  because  my  in- 
formation is  that,  save  and  except  the  date 
of  Tuesday,  December  2,  he  was  satisfied. 

The  Attorney  General  has  built  a  smoke- 
screen around  this  entire  issue.  He  has  quoted 
from  Beauchesne,  but  he  is  not  distinguish- 
ing between  cases  and  investigations.  I  think 
it  is  important  we  understand  that  just 
because  somebody  starts  some  kind  of  in- 
vestigation the  matter  is  then  before  the 
courts. 

The  Attorney  General  has  made  much  of 
the  fact  that  the  committee  does  not  have 
terms  of  reference.  However,  he  agreed  that 
if  we  will  do  what  he  tells  us  to  do  and  be 
good  little  boys  and  girls,  he  will  then  make 
these  documents  available  to  us  in  his  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  As  a  former  judge, 
surely  the  member  understands  what  the 
Attorney  General's  responsibilities  are. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  As  a  former  judge,  I  am 
speaking. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  As  a  former  judge,  she 
understands  very  well. 


4926 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  The  member 
for  St.  George. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  They  may  not  believe  I  am 
taking  this  seriously,  but  I  assure  you  I  am, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Renwick:  If  my  colleague  will  agree, 
I  have  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Speaker. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  What  is  your  point 
of  order? 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt 
my  friend  the  member  for  St.  George  but, 
as  the  debate  is  of  extreme  gravity  and 
extremely  important  to  us,  it  may  well  be 
that  the  Speaker  may  wish  to  recess  the 
House  for  five  minutes  until  the  Attorney 
General  returns. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  A  suggestion  has 
been  made  by  the  member  for  Riverdale. 
However,  I  do  not  believe  it  is  the  custom 
to  recess  the  House  when  someone  has  to 
leave  the  House  for  any  matter;  so  I  will 
recognize  the  member  for  St.  George. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
intend  to  go  on  at  length.  I  would  like  to 
point  out  that  police  do  not  investigate 
matters  of  judgement  or  matters  of  propri- 
ety. I  could  give  my  assurance  to  the  At- 
torney General,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
that  once  I  see  the  documents  and  under- 
stand what  the  documents  disclose,  then  I 
am  prepared,  as  I  stated  in  the  committee 
when  the  matter  of  counsel  arose— since  I 
cannot  make  a  determination  any  longer 
based  on  what  the  Attorney  General  says;  I 
have  to  look  at  the  papers— to  assure  every 
member  of  this  House  that  there  is  absolutely 
no  way  that  I  will  become  involved  in  the 
criminal  investigations  that  are  ongoing  and 
the  material  relating  to  them.  I  want  to  see, 
however,  if  there  are  relations  I  should 
understand. 

I  cannot  accept  the  Attorney  General's  re- 
quest. It  is  unfortunate.  The  Attorney  Gen- 
eral has  said  again  in  the  House  today— 
and  I  hope  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
will  clarify  it— that  he  requested  to  have  his 
crown  law  officers  speak  to  the  committee. 
To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  on  one  oc- 
casion he  himself  attended  with  a  crown  law 
officer  after  the  committee  had  adjourned. 
The  committee  normally  adjourns,  as  the 
minister  well  knows,  at  one  o'clock  on  Wed- 
nesday. 

4:20  p.m. 

Yesterday,  it  is  true  the  Attorney  General 
sent  word  that  he  would  like  to  address  the 
committee  at  two  o'clock.  The  committee  was 
engaged  in  this  debate  at  10  o'clock  in  the 


morning.  He  would  have  been  welcome  at 
that  time.  The  critics  for  the  Solicitor 
General's  estimates  were  not  present  and 
when  they  got  to  the  meeting  in  the  after- 
noon, having  already  voluntarily  curtailed 
their  estimates  time,  they  did  not  wish  to 
curtail  it  further.  I  think  that  is  something 
the  Attorney  General  ought  to  understand. 

So  far  as  the  sub  judice  rule  goes,  there 
are  obvious  areas  that  are  sub  judice.  At  this 
time,  however,  those  areas  of  basic  concern 
to  the  committee  ought  to  be  of  concern  to 
the  entire  Legislature  for  the  protection  of 
people  and  the  insurance  of  faith  in  our 
investment  control  mechanism  in  this  prov- 
ince. Those  matters  should  be  examined  by 
this  committee;  it  is  a  responsibility,  and  I 
think  the  Attorney  General  very  well  under- 
stands they  are  not  subject  to  the  sub  judice 
rule. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Does  any  other  mem- 
ber wish  to  participate? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  was  asleep  at  the  switch.  I  expected  some- 
one from  the  New  Democratic  Party  might 
choose  to  speak  in  rotation. 

I  rise  to  speak  to  the  matter  that  is  before 
the  House,  not  because  I  bring  particular 
expertise  or  specific  knowledge  that  others 
do  not  have  but  because  I  feel  the  issue  be- 
fore the  House  is  one  of  truly  profound  im- 
portance. In  my  five  years  in  the  Legislature, 
I  can  think  of  no  other  issue  offhand  that 
goes  so  basically  to  the  roots  of  the  integrity 
of  the  system  and  the  protection  of  indi- 
viduals who  are  involved  in  the  justice  sys- 
tem of  this  province. 

I  cannot  understand  what  the  member  for 
St.  George  (Mrs.  Campbell)  is  trying  to  say 
in  the  distinction  she  purports  to  make.  She 
understands,  as  I  am  sure  do  most  of  the 
members  of  this  Legislature,  there  are  certain 
fundamental  protections  in  our  society  in 
terms  of  fair  trials  for  those  persons  who  are 
accused  of  criminal  offences.  The  members 
know  that  in  this  matter  criminal  charges 
have  been  laid,  and  a  criminal  investigation 
is  going  on  at  the  present  time.  I  cannot 
understand  why  they  would  take  the  posi- 
tion they  would  not  be  willing  to  listen  to 
what  I  believe  is  the  very  reasonable  and 
articulate  position  that  was  put  forward  by 
the  Attorney  General  on  the  question  of  the 
timing  of  the  release  of  those  documents  or 
the  delivery  of  those  documents  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

I  do  not  wish  to  make  this  a  partisan  argu- 
ment, but  I  suggest  the  honourable  members 
are  more  motivated  by  a  wish  to  embarrass 
the  government  in  some  way. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4927 


I  agree  that  the  position  of  integrity  this 
government  is  taking  in  this  debate  is  not  the 
easiest  one  to  put  forward,  because  it  does 
leave  open  to  some  individuals,  if  they  choose 
to  be  less  responsible  than  others  in  this 
Legislature,  to  try  to  raise  doubts  in  the 
minds  of  others  that  there  might  be  some- 
thing that  is  being  covered  up.  That  is  clearly 
not  the  case.  When  the  time  comes  that  the 
honourable  members  see  the  material,  I  am 
sure  they  will  be  satisfied  of  that. 

I  implore  the  honourable  members  to  take 
very  seriously  the  issue  that  is  at  stake.  It  is 
a  question  that  goes  to  the  basic  matter  of 
the  rights  of  Ontario  citizens,  not  just  the 
individual  or  individuals  charged  in  this  case 
but  also,  it  seems  to  me,  to  the  roots  of  the 
rights  of  every  Ontario  citizen.  If  we  are 
prepared,  through  impatience  or  whatever, 
to  ignore  the  reasonable  position  put  forward 
by  the  Attorney  General  in  terms  of  the 
timing  of  the  presentation  of  these  docu- 
ments, we  are  prepared  to  put  at  risk  some- 
thing as  fundamental  as  a  fair  trial. 

I  just  raise  this  with  those  members  of  the 
Legislature  who  happen  to  have  some  back- 
ground in  the  law. 

Mr.  Worton:  All  those  common  people. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  No.  It  certainly  is  not 
intended  as  an  offence  to  anyone  else.  I  am 
simply  suggesting  that,  if  one  were  defend- 
ing someone  accused  of  a  criminal  offence, 
and  attendant  upon  that  matter  being  before 
the  courts  the  kind  of  publicity  that  might 
well  prejudice  that  client's  right  to  a  fair 
trial  were  to  take  place,  then  surely  one 
would  move  before  the  court  to  have  the 
matter  dismissed.  One  would  seize  every 
reasonable  legal  opportunity  to  have  that 
case  dismissed. 

I  suggest  to  the  members  they  may  well 
be  creating  that  kind  of  opportunity  in  the 
cases  that  are  before  the  court  at  present  or 
about  to  come  before  the  court.  The  very 
individuals- 
Mr.  Roy:  You  always  put  the  position  at 
its  worst. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  say  to  the  member,  he 
must  be  careful.  He  really  must  be  careful 
and  look  at  this  thing  as  seriously  as  he 
ought  to. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  This  is  a  Legislature 
—not  a  law  school. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  What  the  honourable 
member  is  stating  over  there  is  his  own  lack 
of  understanding  of  how  serious  this  matter 
is.  The  member  is  dealing  with  a  matter  of 
basic  civil  rights  in  this  province.  I  fear  he 
does  not  understand  what  he  is  doing. 


I  suggest  he  is  putting  himself  in  a  posi- 
tion where  the  very  individuals  who  have 
been  harmed  through  this  transaction,  what- 
ever it  involved,  those  individuals  on  whose 
behalf  he  is  trying  to  act,  may  be  the  ones 
who  suffer  if  it  becomes  impossible  for  the 
accused  to  be  prosecuted.  He  may  even 
jeopardize  other  matters,  the  civil  proceed- 
ings before  the  court.  He  really  must  think 
carefully  about  what  he  is  doing. 

Ultimately  it  would  appear  that,  if  the 
members  opposite  choose  not  to  accept  the 
reasonable  position  the  Attorney  General  has 
put  forward,  and  choose  not  to  wait  a  short 
time  until  the  sensitive- 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  How  long?  How  long? 
Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  That  Attorney  General 
has  said  he  will  meet  with  the  committee 
and  discuss  that.  I  do  not  know  the  precise 
period  of  time. 
4:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  appears  clearly  the  heavy 
responsibility  is  going  to  rest  with  you  in 
the  resolution  of  this  matter  at  the  conclu- 
sion of  today's  debate.  It  is  clear,  as  has 
been  indicated,  and  is  known  to  the 
members,  that  you  do  have  some  discretion 
in  this  matter  and  that  the  legislation  is  per- 
missive in  terms  of  the  exercise  of  this  dis- 
cretion. It  is  clear  to  me  also,  sir,  that  you 
may  have  to  see  yourself  today  as  the  pro- 
tector of  the  rights  of  Ontario  citizens. 
Otherwise,  I  think  what  is  at  risk  may  be  the 
very  integrity  of  our  system  of  justice  in  this 
province  and  it  is  vitally  important  that  the 
members  understand  that.  That  is  what  is  at 
risk.  We  must  be  very  careful  in  how  we 
deal  with  that  because,  as  a  result  of  an  act 
that  could  be  performed  today  in  this  Legis- 
lature, we  might  literally  undermine  that 
criminal  justice  system. 

It  is  a  very  heavy  responsibility  when  we 
consider  the  many  centuries  of  effort  that 
have  gone  into  building  up  a  system  of 
justice  we  have  inherited  that  does  protect 
accused  persons.  When  we  consider  that 
wars  have  been  fought  to  continue  to  have 
the  kinds  of  freedoms  that  this  country  en- 
sures to  its  citizens- 
Mr.  Roy:  Don't  get  carried  away. 
Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  My  friend  is  the  one 
who  should  not  get  carried  away.  It  is  a 
very  risky  thing  that  he  does. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  urge  that  when  the 
time  comes  that  you  consider  the  exercise 
of  your  discretion  in  the  interests  of  the 
citizens  of  this  province  and  in  the  interest 
of  protecting  a  criminal  justice  system  that 


4928 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


does    respect  the  rights   of  individuals  to   a 
fair  trial. 

I  fail  to  understand  the  lands  of  distinc- 
tions that  the  member  for  St.  George  (Mrs. 
Campbell)  was  trying  to  make.  I  simply 
have  no  response  to  her  on  those,  because 
I  think  the  very  thing  she  pursues  is  the 
thing  that  is  creating  the  risk.  The  Attorney 
General  has  put  forward  a  very  reasonable 
position;  it  is  one  in  which,  if  it  does  not 
appeal  to  some  of  the  members  opposite 
for  political  reasons,  I  would  urge  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  weigh  the  argument  of  the 
Attorney  General  very  carefully  in  your 
deliberations  before  you  exercise  your  dis- 
cretion in  this  matter. 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  matter  is 
not  one  which  has  come  before  this  House 
or  committees  of  this  House  in  very  recent 
days;  it  has  been  before  this  Legislature 
and  committees  of  this  Legislature  as  far 
back  as  last  spring. 

Members  will  remember  that  the  matter 
of  the  collapse  of  these  companies  was  first 
raised  during  consideration  of  the  estimates 
of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations.  At  least  I  know  it  was  raised 
in  the  justice  committee  in  June  by  certain 
members,  including  the  member  for  Kitch- 
ener (Mr.  Breithaupt),  and  was  discussed  at 
some  length  at  that  time  by  the  member 
for  Lincoln  (Mr.  Hall)  and  others.  The  Min- 
ister of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions (Mr.  Drea)  commented  to  a  certain 
extent  at  that  time,  as  did  certain  of  his 
officials  as  well. 

Then  on  October  7,  of  this  year,  a  ques- 
tion was  raised  in  the  House  concerning  the 
potential  responsibility  of  the  Ministry  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  in  the 
matter  with  respect  to  the  money  that  was 
lost  by  various  people.  On  November  4,  the 
matter  was  raised  again  in  a  question  which 
essentially  asked  what  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment was  going  to  do  to  compensate 
these  individuals  for  their  losses.  On  Novem- 
ber 6,  the  matter  was  raised  once  again  and 
on  November  7  yet  again. 

On  Thursday,  November  13,  a  question 
was  raised  in  the  House  and,  on  a  supple- 
mentary question  by  the  member  for  Kitch- 
ener, the  minister  was  asked  to  table  many 
of  the  materials  that  are  the  subject  of  this 
warrant.  He  was  asked  to  table  these— he 
shakes  his  head— by  the  member  for  Kitch- 
ener. At  that  time,  when  he  was  asked  to 
table  some  of  these  materials,  he  indicated 
initially  a  willingness  to  do  so.  I  believe  he 
said,  "Certainly  I  hope  to  do  it  tomorrow 
but  not  later  than  Monday." 


Subsequent  to  that,  I  suppose  there  was 
a  consultation  with— the  term  used  was  "law 
officers  of  the  crown"— the  people  from  the 
Attorney  General's  ministry.  On  Monday, 
November  17,  the  minister  was  asked,  I 
believe  by  the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre 
(Mr.  M.  N.  Davison)  on  that  occasion,  to 
refer  the  issue  to  the  committee,  and  he 
indicated  an  unwillingness  to  do  so. 

This  went  on  and  on  until  eventually,  on 
November  18,  the  minister  was  asked  to 
table  all  materials  with  respect  to  Re-Mor, 
Astra  and  Mr.  Montemurro.  The  minister 
responded  that  the  matter  was  sub  judice 
because  there  was  civil  litigation  going  on, 
but  he  had  a  consultation  with  the  Attorney 
General's  ministry. 

What  I  am  pointing  out  in  my  initial  re- 
marks is  that  this  is  not  a  matter  of  very 
recent  import;  it  is  a  matter  that  has  been 
discussed  publicly  and  in  this  House  for 
some  time.  It  was  subsequently  referred  to 
the  justice  committee.  On  the  first  occasion 
I  moved  three  particular  motions:  first,  that 
the  committee  deal  with  this  matter;  second, 
dealing  with  the  witnesses  the  committee 
would  like  to  see  and  question;  and,  third, 
regarding  the  materials  we  felt  would  be 
required. 

I  am  going  to  quote  very  briefly  what  we 
saw  as  the  parameters  of  this  investigation. 
I  indicated  at  the  time  that  through  this  par- 
ticular motion  we  would  like  to  examine  the 
role  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  and,  in  particular,  the  regis- 
trar of  mortgage  brokers  in  relation  to  the 
issuance  of  a  mortgage  broker's  licence  to 
Re-Mor  Investment  Management  Corporation. 
Through  this  motion,  we  would  also  like 
to  examine  the  role  of  the  Ministry  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  and,  in  par- 
ticular, the  registrar  of  loan  and  trust  corpora- 
tions in  relation  to  the  denial  of  a  provincial 
trust  company  charter  to  a  trust  company 
to  be  incorporated  by  Mr.  Carlo  Montemurro 
and  the  subsequent  registration  and  monitor- 
ing by  the  registrar  of  Astra  Trust  Company; 
also  the  role  of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  and,  in  particular,  the 
Ontario  Securities  Commission  in  relation  to 
investigations  pertaining  to  C  and  M  Financial 
Consultants  Limited,  Re-Mor  Investment 
Management  Corporation,  Astra  Trust  Com- 
pany and  other  related  companies.  These 
were  the  parameters  established  in  terms  of 
what  we  felt  would  be  suitable  for  the  com- 
mittee to  investigate  at  that  time. 

The  motion  was  made  that  documents  be 
produced.  That  is  history  at  the  present  time. 
Subsequently,  a  motion  was  proposed  by  the 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4929 


member  for  Hamilton  Centre  to  the  effect 
that  a  Speaker's  warrant  should  be  used  to 
secure  these  materials.  It  was  the  view  of 
the  member  for  Hamilton  Centre  that  these 
documents  would  not  come  before  the  com- 
mittee unless  a  Speaker's  warrant  were  issued. 
Subsequently,  the  members  of  the  commit- 
tee, at  least  in  majority,  agreed  to  that  motion. 

I  look  forward  with  interest  to  the  con- 
tribution of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  to  the  debate  this 
afternoon  and  the  comments  he  might  have. 
I  recognize  we  have  not  had  co-operation  as 
far  as  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General 
is  concerned  in  the  production  of  these  docu- 
ments. We  have  discussed  certain  matters 
with  Mr.  Morton  of  that  ministry.  We  have 
seen  that  subsequent  to  our  discussions  we 
have  had  no  documents  at  all  produced  to 
the  committee— not  a  single  document.  Trying 
to  obtain  a  room  in  this  building  for  the 
committee's  use  in  terms  of  the  storage  of 
documents  was  a  very  difficult  proposition  in 
itself.  So  it  appeared  to  many  members  of 
the  committee  that  a  roadblock  was  being  put 
up  wherever  we  attempted  to  have  compli- 
ance with  the  Speaker's  warrant  and  the 
wishes  of  the  majority  of  the  committee,  and 
that  is  true. 
4:40  p.m. 

We  continue  to  share  the  concern  about  the 
security  of  the  documents  in  question.  As  a 
consequence,  the  chairman  of  the  committee, 
the  member  for  Etobicoke  (Mr.  Philip),  the 
member  for  Hamilton  Centre  (Mr.  M.  N. 
Davison)  from  the  New  Democratic  Party, 
Mr.  Morton  from  the  Attorney  General's 
ministry  and  I  met  and  agreed  to  certain 
recommendations  with  respect  to  documents 
produced  pursuant  to  the  warrant  of  the 
Speaker  issued  and  served  on  Monday,  No- 
vember 24. 

It  is  important  to  know  how  careful  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  were  about  the  security 
of  these  documents  and  how  agreeable  we 
were  to  protecting  that  security.  As  I  go 
further  in  my  remarks,  it  is  interesting  to  note 
the  items  agreed  to,  particularly  the  first  one: 

"1.  All  documents  should  be  produced  to 
the  committee  by  Tuesday,  December  2, 
1980."  Which  of  course  they  were  not. 

"2.  An  inventory  of  all  documents  will  be 
taken  by  officials  of  the  Ministry  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations.  However, 
the  taking  of  such  an  inventory  should  not 
delay  the  production  of  documents  and  may 
lake  place  after  their  production. 

"3.  Each  party  should  designate  the  mem- 
bers who  will  represent  the  party  for  the 
duration  of  the  hearings  on  this  matter. 


"4.  Only  those  members  designated  to  rep- 
resent their  party  during  the  hearings  on 
this  matter  should  have  access  to  the  docu- 
ments. 

"5.  A  member  from  each  party  should  be 
designated  as  responsible  for  authorizing  re- 
searchers to  have  access  to  the  documents. 
Such  authorization  is  to  be  made  in  writing, 
in  advance,  to  the  chairman  and  clerk  of  the 
committee. 

"6.  Photocopies  of  original  documents  in 
the  possession  of  any  court  may  be  provided 
to  the  committee  in  lieu  of  the  original 
documents  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
warrant."  In  other  words  we  were  not 
asking  for  the  originals. 

"7.  The  original  documents  produced  to 
the  committee  may  be  relinquished  to  the 
Attorney  General,  the  Solicitor  General  or 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  on  the  written  request  of  the  min- 
ister, provided  that  a  photocopy  of  such 
original  documents  is  made  and  substituted 
therefor. 

"8.  The  Attorney  General,  the  Solicitor 
General  and  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  shall  designate  in 
writing  those  persons  from  the  ministries 
who  shall  have  access  to  the  documents 
produced  to  the  committee. 

"9.  The  Solicitor  General  will  provide 
officers  from  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police 
to  ensure  the  security  of  the  documents  on 
an  around-the-clock  basis. 

"10.  All  original  documents  and  original 
photocopies  of  documents  shall  remain  in 
the  committee  documents  room  and  may  not 
be  removed  except  as  provided  in  item  7 
above. 

"11.  All  members  of  the  committee  and 
authorized  party  researchers  shall  sign  a 
book,  indicating  a  description  of  the  material 
inspected  and  the  date  and  time  of  inspec- 
tion. 

"12.  A  member  of  the  committee  or  an 
authorized  party  researcher  may  make  a 
photocopy  of  any  original  document  or  any 
original  photocopy  for  use  during  the  hear- 
ing of  the  committee.  Such  photocopies 
shall  be  stored  in  the  filing  cabinet  in  the 
committee  documents  room  and  shall  not  be 
removed  from  the  room  except  as  provided 
in  item  13  below.  A  record  shall  be  kept  of 
all  documents  which  are  photocopied  and 
all  photocopies  shall  bear  the  signature  of 
the  member  or  authorized  party  researcher 
making  the  photocopy,  of  the  OPP  officer 
present  and  the  date. 


4930 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


"13.  An  OPP  officer  shall  accompany 
photocopies  of  documents  transported  to  and 
from  the  hearings  of  the  committee." 

Committee  members  were  prepared  to  be 
very  careful  about  the  security  of  these 
particular  documents;  we  agreed  to  those 
provisions— a  reasonable  response  on  the  part 
of  members  of  this  particular  committee. 

We  also  agreed  we  would  listen  to  sub- 
missions from  any  officials,  presumably  from 
the  Attorney  General's  ministry,  regarding 
the  advisability  of  referring  to  certain  docu- 
ments once  these  documents  were  produced. 
They  may  well  wish  to  express  some  con- 
cerns. There  is  nothing  to  preclude  the 
officials  from  the  Attorney  General's  minis- 
try from  expressing  their  concerns  at  that 
time  to  the  committee  after  the  documents 
have  been  produced. 

We,  as  a  committee,  have  bent  over  back- 
wards to  accommodate  the  Ministry  of  the 
Attorney  General  in  reference  to  the  security 
of  these  particular  documents.  Thanks  to 
the  roadblocks  put  in  front  of  us,  the  public 
has  the  impression  the  government  is  at- 
tempting some  sort  of  coverup.  Many  of  us 
represent  ridings  where  a  number  of  people 
have  been  adversely  affected;  some  are 
widows,  and  some  are  people  who  do  not 
have  a  heck  of  a  lot  of  money  and  their  life 
savings  have  been  lost.  These  people  think 
the  government  is  attempting  to  cover  up 
incompetence  or  negligence  or  political  in- 
fluence or  some  inappropriate  activity.  That 
is  the  perception  in  the  minds  of  these 
people  who  have  lost  the  money. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  I  wonder  how  much  you 
have  contributed  to  that. 
Interjections. 

Mr.  Bradley:  I  think  it  would  be  wise  for 
those  members  who  are  interjecting  to  call 
these  people  on  the  telephone  and  give  the 
government  position  to  them. 

The  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations,  as  I  have  mentioned  previously, 
initially  seemed  willing  to  provide  the  mate- 
rials. I  appreciated  that  comment  he  made  in 
the  House— I  believe  it  was  on  October  13— 
and  he  has  not  indicated  to  the  committee, 
at  least  when  I  have  been  sitting  on  it,  that 
as  a  minister  he  would  be  opposed  to  pro- 
viding the  documents  except  with  the  cau- 
tions placed  in  front  of  him  by  the  officials 
of  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General. 

We,  as  members  of  this  committee,  hoped 
the  government  would  be  co-operative.  We 
felt  it  would  admit  there  had  been  some 
initial  problems  but  the  documents  would  be- 
gin to  appear  by  this  hoped-for  December  2 


deadline.  When  it  appeared  there  would  be 
no  co-operation  with  the  committee  in  this 
regard  to  provide  the  documents  by  Decem- 
ber 2,  1980— indeed,  none  has  been  forth- 
coming—I  felt  compelled  then  to  propose  the 
motion  that  is  the  subject  of  this  report,  that 
a  definite  deadline  be  placed  on  the  produc- 
tion of  these  documents. 

i  thought  that  was  somewhat  moderate . 
because  there  are  some  in  the  committee 
who  felt  the  deadline  was  too  generous  in 
view  of  the  lack  of  co-operation  experienced 
with  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General. 
Indeed,  an  amendment  was  placed  before  the 
committee  which  would  have  provided  a 
tremendous  penalty  for  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  if  he  did 
not  comply  with  the  Speaker's  warrant. 

That  amendment,  although  it  had  the 
sympathy  of  probably  the  majority  of  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  in  terms  of  wanting 
to  ensure  the  documents  would  be  produced, 
was  not  passed.  It  was  rejected  by  the  ma- 
jority, I  think  in  keeping  with  a  spirit  of  still 
wanting  to  be  co-operative  and  still  hoping 
the  minister  would  make  an  attempt  to  pro- 
vide these  documents,  or  perhaps  persuade 
the  Attorney  General  to.  So  that  land  of 
hammer  approach  was  avoided  by  the  com- 
mittee, looking  for  the  good  faith  of  the 
ministers. 

This  is  an  interesting  part.  I  found  this 
rather  gratifying.  I  do  not  wish  to  divide  and 
conquer  or  anything  of  this  nature,  but  I 
found  it  interesting  that  my  motion  received 
the  support  not  only  of  the  members  of  the 
opposition  parties  but  also,  if  my  memory  is 
correct,  of  five  members  of  the  Progressive 
Conservative  Party.  They,  I  think— and  I 
give  them  credit— were  attempting  to  be  fair 
to  the  wishes  of  the  committee. 

Subsequent  to  the  Attorney  General's  com- 
ments and  so  on  there  may  be  a  different 
view,  but  I  give  credit  to  those  members  of 
the  committee.  So  often  we  in  the  opposition 
characterize  these  members  as  being  people 
who  are  simply  carrying  out  the  government's 
wishes.  If  I  am  correct,  the  member  for 
Timiskaming  (Mr.  Havrot),  the  member  for 
Algoma-Manitoulin  (Mr.  Lane),  the  member 
for  Burlington  South  (Mr.  Kerr),  the  member 
for  Middlesex  (Mr.  Eaton)  and  the  member 
for  Durham- York  (Mr.  W.  Newman)  voted 
for  that  motion.  These  individuals  deserve 
credit  for  wanting  to  facilitate  the  committee. 

If  the  committee  were  to  avoid  dealing 
with  this  matter,  as  the  Attorney  General  has 
suggested,  or  if  we  were  to  postpone  dealing 
with  this  matter  because  of  ongoing  criminal 
investigations,  we  would  be  placing  the  Legis- 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4931 


lature  in  the  position  of  not  being  able  to 
proceed  at  any  particular  time  with  investi- 
gation of  certain  matters  because  the  At- 
torney General  or  someone  else  in  the  gov- 
ernment says  there  are  criminal  investigations 
going  on.  This  could  be  used  in  any  instance. 
It  concerns  me  as  a  legislator  that  we  would 
not  have  the  opportunity  then  to  discuss 
matters  the  public  expects  us  to  discuss. 

Only  in  very  recent  days  have  we  seen 
any  kind  of  conciliatory  attitude  on  the  part 
of  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General. 
Initially  it  was  sub  judice;  initially  it  was  ir- 
responsible. The  minister  suggested  even 
today  that  production  of  these  documents  for 
the  committee  would  be  irresponsible.  I  think 
he  has  not  abandoned  that  position. 
4:50  p.m. 

The  only  time  we  have  seen  a  conciliatory 
attitude  is  when  the  opposition  has  been 
prepared  to  play  it  tough,  to  be  strong  in 
pursuing  its  particular  goals.  Then  we  start 
to  get  a  conciliatory  attitude:  "Yes,  maybe 
we  will  provide  some  of  the  documents— 
maybe  a  week  from  now,  maybe  when  the 
investigations  are  finished."  We  start  to  get 
that.  I  suppose  it  is  a  step  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, but  it  is  certainly  a  long  way  from 
what  we  in  the  official  opposition,  and  I  am 
sure  in  the  other  opposition  party,  are  pre- 
pared to  accept. 

What  we  have  to  ask  ourselves  ultimately 
is,  what  about  those  people  who  have  suffered 
as  a  result  of  the  licensing  of  this  company? 
They  are  asking  their  legislators  to  pursue 
this  matter  and  not  to  let  them  down.  They 
expect  from  their  government  some  kind  of 
protection  when  they  are  dealing  with  a 
company  licensed  by  that  government.  That 
is  why  some  of  them  have  been  forced  to  go 
to  lawyers  to  take  certain  actions  to  attempt 
to  secure  what  they  feel  is  justifiably  theirs, 
to  secure  some  compensation  from  those 
whom  they  feel  might  be  responsible.  In  my 
view  these  people  should  not  have  to  go  that 
route;  indeed,  it  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
legislators,  if  there  is  negligence  or  some 
other  unfortunate  activities  have  taken  place, 
to  provide  compensation  through  the  political 
process  somewhere  down  the  line  to  these 
people. 

In  my  view  and  as  an  opposition  member 
I  recognize  the  government  side  may  not 
accept  my  perception  of  this,  the  Attorney 
General  constantly  has  placed  roadblocks— 
for  what  he  feels  are  legitimate  reasons  no 
doubt;  we  do  not  feel  they  are  legitimate 
reasons— in  front  of  the  committee  when  we 
have  tried  to  obtain  what  we  feel  are  the 
required  documents.  This,  in  effect,  leads  the 


people  of  this  province  to  ask  the  question, 
"What  have  you  got  to  hide?" 

Mr.  Ren  wick:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
make  a  few  remarks  about  the  matter  that  is 
before  us.  There  is  no  need  for  me  to  go  into 
it  at  any  great  length  because  of  the  com- 
ments made  this  afternoon  by  the  Attorney 
General  and  by  the  member  for  St.  Catha- 
rines (Mr.  Bradley)  with  respect  to  the 
background  of  the  matter.  Of  course,  the 
House  had  the  opportunity,  on  Thursday 
evening,  November  20,  to  canvass  the  ground 
which  led  to  the  original  issuance  of  the 
Speaker's  warrant,  I  believe,  on  Novem- 
ber 24. 

The  first  thing  we  should  bear  in  mind  is 
that  this  is  not  an  occasion  where  any  par- 
ticular form  of  words  is  going  to  persuade 
either  side  to  alter  its  fundamental  position. 
I  want  at  some  point  to  deal  as  best  I  can 
with  what  appears  to  be  the  position  of  the 
Attorney  General  in  the  closing  remarks  of 
his  comments.  I  would  also  like  to  bear  in 
mind  the  importance  this  matter  has  to  the 
members  of  the  House.  Particularly,  I  want 
to  pay  tribute  to  the  member  for  St.  Catha- 
rines and  to  the  member  for  Ottawa  Centre 
(Mr.  Cassidy).  In  the  face  of  severe  ob- 
stacles over  a  long  period  of  time,  they  have 
tried  to  bring  before  this  assembly  and  a 
committee  of  this  assembly  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  to 
examine  the  role  of  his  ministry  with  respect 
to  the  matters  before  the  justice  committee 
and  the  resolution  the  member  for  St.  Catha- 
rines (Mr.  Bradley)  put  to  the  committee, 
and  which  he  read  a  few  minutes  ago,  about 
the  precise  areas  of  concern  to  be  investi- 
gated. I  pay  that  tribute,  because  it  needs  to 
be  very  clearly  stated  that  that  is  the  exer- 
cise of  responsible  government.  The  minister 
is  responsible  to  this  House  and  to  the  com- 
mittees of  this  House  with  respect  to  the 
work  of  the  House.  I  want  to  emphasize  that 
point,  because  that  is  the  process  through 
which  the  Speaker  issued  his  warrant. 

I  say  again  to  the  members  of  the  House— 
and  I  speak  to  my  colleagues  in  the  Conserva- 
tive Party  as  well  as  in  the  two  opposition 
parties— that  we  are  speaking  about  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  processes  of  the  House.  That 
is  not  in  any  way  to  derogate  from  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  judicial  system  of  the  province 
or  the  integrity  of  the  ministers  of  the  crown 
who  are  charged  with  the  operation  of  the 
judicial  system  in  a  responsible  government. 

I  do  want  to  put  as  concisely  as  I  can  how 
I  see  the  situation  on  the  basis  of  the  facts  as 
outlined  by  the  member  for  St.  Catharines 
and  by  my  colleague  the  member  for  Hamil- 


4932 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ton  Centre  (Mr.  M.  N.  Davison).  Those  facts 
—and  by  no  means  are  all  the  facts  known- 
raise  a  serious  question  to  which  the  minister 
must  respond.  It  is  not  an  allegation  that 
something  is  wrong.  It  is  a  recognition  that 
the  facts,  as  known,  require  an  explanation 
by  the  minister,  and  by  nobody  else,  to  the 
committee  of  the  House,  which  is  what  we 
are  asking  for. 

Citizens  of  the  province  have  lost  substan- 
tial sums  of  money  and  the  minister  has 
played  a  role  with  respect  to  the  events  lead- 
ing up  to  those  losses,  in  the  sense  delin- 
eated in  the  resolution  put  by  the  member 
for  St.  Catharines,  which  he  quoted  today 
and!  which  is  in  the  record  from  the  debate 
on  November  20.  That  is  the  situation. 

I  specifically  want  the  House  to  understand 
that  if  we  follow  the  course  recommended 
by  the  Attorney  General,  it  will  be  years 
before  the  minister  will  be  required  to  dis- 
charge his  responsibility  to  the  House.  That 
is  totally  unacceptable  to  this  party  and,  as 
I  understand  it,  to  the  Liberal  Party.  We 
cannot  afford  the  luxury  of  destroying  the 
integrity  of  this  institution  by  waiting  for 
years  before  the  minister  discharges  his  re- 
sponsibility to  answer  the  facts  before  us 
and  to  give  an  explanation,  not  only  to  the 
members  of  the  House  but  also  to  the  public 
of  Ontario.  That  is  what  we  are  asking  for. 
As  the  Attorney  General  well  knows,  it  will 
take  years,  if  it  is  not  possible  in  the  orderly, 
proper  conduct  of  its  business  for  the  parallel 
work  of  this  House  to  go  on  at  the  same 
time  as  the  investigation  by  the  police  or 
anyone  else  who  may  be  involved. 
5  p.m. 

My  colleague  the  member  for  St.  Catharines 
read  into  the  record  this  afternoon  the  very 
careful  and  meticulous  guidelines  for  the 
protection  and  security  of  the  documents. 
They  were  not  negotiated  directly  with  the 
Attorney  General,  but  a  representative  of  his 
ministry  was  present  when  they  were  nego- 
tiated. If  the  Attorney  General  and  his  senior 
advisers  want  to  propose  variations  or  to 
tighten  up  the  security  or  otherwise  deal  with 
the  security  arrangements  for  the  documents, 
they  know  very  well  they  only  have  to  con- 
tact my  colleague  the  member  for  Etobicoke 
(Mr.  Philip),  who  is  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee, to  work  out  those  arrangements.  That 
is  a  very  fair  and  proper  arrangement. 

It  can  only  work,  of  course,  if  the  Attorney 
General,  Solicitor  General  and  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  re- 
spect the  committee;  in  return,  the  committee 
will  respect  the  ministers.  Both  sides  have 
taken  an  intransigent  position  because  of  the 


way  in  which  this  matter  has  polarized;  how- 
ever, it  is  quite  within  the  capacity  of  the 
committee  of  this  assembly  to  secure  the 
documents,  to  have  them  available  and  to 
have  access  tightly  controlled  as  was  out- 
lined in  the  guidelines  read  into  the  record 
this  afternoon. 

I  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  make  any 
recommendation,  to  my  colleagues  or  any- 
one else,  or  to  satisfy  myself  that  it  is  possible 
to  accede  to  the  second  proposal  made  today 
by  the  Attorney  General  at  the  end  of  his 
statement,  which  was  contained  in  the  pro- 
posal he  filed  with  the  justice  committee 
yesterday.  That  is  the  proposal  that  the  com- 
mittee request  the  Speaker  to  confine  the 
warrant  to  this  committee's  area  of  concern, 
the  documents  relating  to  the  issuance  of  the 
licence  by  the  ministry.  This  request  is  made 
to  alleviate  my  concerns,  said  the  Attorney 
General  who,  went  on  to  express  those  con- 
cerns. 

I  looked  at  that  very  carefully.  When  a 
body  is  charged,  as  the  justice  committee  is 
charged,  with  the  responsibility  of  carrying 
out  this  matter,  one  of  the  first  things  it  re- 
quires is  the  production  of  documents.  I  do 
not  need  to  talk  to  my  friends  in  the  pro- 
fession about  the  importance  of  that  step  in 
any  proceeding. 

It  is  then  for  the  committee  to  decide, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  law  officers  of  the 
crown,  which  of  those  documents  are  perti- 
nent to  the  matters  before  the  committee  as 
set  out  in  the  resolution,  which  is  the  terms 
of  reference  for  the  committee.  The  resolu- 
tion I  am  referring  to  is  the  one  put  forward 
by  the  member  for  St.  Catharines. 

I  am  not  in  a  position  to  accept  item  two 
of  the  Attorney  General's  proposals.  I  am  ask- 
ing him  if  he  will  accept  the  very  careful  ar- 
rangements that  can  be  made  to  provide  for 
the  production  of  these  documents  seen  by 
the  committee  to  be  relevant  to  its  considera- 
tions; other  documents  can  be  turned  back 
speedily  and  quickly  to  those  who  require 
them,  because  obviously  that  is  the  nature 
of  the  production  of  documents. 

That  is  a  reasonable  position  rather  than 
an  intransigent  position.  It  is  a  very  fair 
position,  and  I  think  it  can  be  carried  out 
within  the  guidelines  as  outlined  to  the 
House  this  afternoon  by  the  member  for  St. 
Catharines,  or  by  other  tighter,  more  care- 
fully worded,  restructured  or  redrawn  guide- 
lines that  will  have  the  confidence  of  every- 
body. 

I  am  very  reluctant  on  all  occasions  for  the 
House  and  its  committees  to  sit  in  camera. 
However,  if  it  is  essential  for  the  purposes  of 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4933 


this  operation  for  the  committee  to  sit  in 
camera  and  make  its  report,  then  I  think  the 
committee  or  the  House,  although  reluctant, 
may  do  that. 

I  am  simply  saying  to  the  minister  and 
to  the  government  that  they  must  have  con- 
fidence in  the  committee.  I  think  that  can  be 
worked  out.  To  my  mind,  that  evidence  of 
confidence  would  go  quite  a  long  way  to 
restore  the  deterioration  that  has  been  set- 
ting in  around  this  issue  because  of  the  lack 
of  respect  for  the  committee  of  the  assembly 
which  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  course 
of  events  up  to  the  present  time.  That  is 
well  worth  considering. 

I  say  to  the  Attorney  General  and,  if  the 
Attorney  General  is  too  close  to  the  game,  I 
say  to  the  Deputy  Premier  (Mr.  Welch),  that 
perhaps  he  in  his  wisdom  might  indicate  to 
his  colleague  that  is  not,  after  all,  an  un- 
reasonable position  for  the  committee  to  take. 
I  think  that  will  protect  everybody's  interests, 
and  I  think  it  will  protect  them  very  well. 

I  want  to  refer  to  the  first  part  of  what 
the  Attorney  General  has  said.  At  first  blush, 
one  would  have  thought  it  meant  something. 
All  it  means,  of  course,  and  I  state  what  he 
said,  "The  committee  request  of  the  Speaker 
that  compliance  with  the  warrant  be  delayed 
for  one  week  during  which  time  the  Attorney 
General  will  again  appear  before  the  com- 
mittee and  advise  the  committee,  as  far  as  it 
is  humanly  possible,  how  long  it  will  take 
the  OPP  to  complete  the  aspect  of  their  in- 
vestigation which  concerns  the  committee; 
that  is,  the  circumstances  surrounding  the 
issuance  of  the  licence  by  the  minister." 

I  want  to  point  out  clearly  that  I  do  not 
understand  it— I  never  have  understood  it 
throughout  this  debate— but  there  seems  to 
be  some  misunderstanding  of  the  very  clear 
and  precise  ambit  of  the  resolution  put  by 
the  member  for  St.  Catharines  (Mr.  Bradley) 
that  is  not  limited  just  to  that  one  procedural 
device.  The  committee  has  wider  responsi- 
bility. It  is  quite  difficult  to  suggest,  in  some 
way,  that  is  the  only  matter  the  committee 
has  before  it.  I  am  not  going  to  read  the 
resolution  again.  I  read  it  last  week,  and 
the  member  for  St.  Catharines  read  it  again 
today,  but  apparently  the  minister  and  his 
advisers  have  never  yet  referred  to  the 
actual  terms  of  reference  which  the  commit- 
tee has  before  it  and  which  are  its  responsi- 
bility  to    discharge. 

The  particular  suggestion  of  the  Attorney 
General  is  that  he  will  simply  come  and  tell 
us  the  investigation  is  going  to  take  longer. 
That  is  what  he  is  going  to  tell  us  a  week 
from  now.   There  is  no  way  in  which  that 


can  be  read  in  any  other  sense.  He  said,  he 
".  .  .  will  again  appear  before  the  com- 
mitte  and  advise  the  committee,  as  far  as  it 
is  humanly  possible,  how  long  it  will  take 
the  OPP  to  complete  the  aspect  of  their 
investigation  which  concerns  the  committee." 
That,  of  course,  is  very  close  to  the  day 
when  this  session  of  the  assembly  is  planned 
by  the  House  leaders  to  prorogue.  I  find  that 
is  not  any  middle  ground  at  all. 

The  sum  and  substance  of  the  solution  to 
this  problem  lies  within  the  remarks  I  made 
a  few  minutes  ago  with  respect  to  the  guide- 
lines, and  the  security  with  respect  to  the 
documents  and  the  way  in  which  that  can 
be  done.  Reasonable  men,  when  faced  with 
matters  like  that,  can  find  that  solution 
within  the  framework  as  already  worked  out 
in  a  preliminary  way  by  the  chairman  of  the 
justice  committee,  the  member  for  Etobicoke. 

I  want  to  say  this  because  it  has  been  a 
diversion,  and  therefore  I  want  to  deal  with 
it  simply  as  a  diversion,  but  it  must  be  dealt 
with;  it  is  the  surprising  position  taken  by 
the  Ontario  Securities  Commission  with  re- 
spect to  its  responsibility  and  the  way  in 
which  it  sees  its  responsibility.  There  is 
nobody  in  this  House  who  wishes  to  inter- 
fere in  any  way  with  the  integrity  of  the 
financial  markets  of  this  province  or  the 
operations  of  the  securities  commission  any- 
where else.  That  is,  if  I  may  say  so,  an 
inconsequential  argument.  I  say  to  the  new 
chairman  of  the  Ontario  Securities  Commis- 
sion, this  illustrates  if  not  a  lack  of  respect 
then  a  lack  of  understanding  of  the  processes 
of  the  House  and  the  commission  had  better 
learn  and  understand  these  processes. 
5:10  p.m 

I  sat  through  the  proceedings  of  the  com- 
mittee that  dealt  with  the  Securities  Act.  I 
have  said  on  other  occasions  that  this  was  a 
government  bill  worked  out  with  the  finan- 
cial community  in  which  this  assembly  played 
no  part.  Not  a  single  amendment  proposed 
in  committee  with  respect  to  this  bill  was 
ever  accepted  or  considered.  It  was  a  gov- 
ernment bill  worked  out  with  the  financial 
community.  In  the  definition  section,  I  want 
to  point  out  it  states  very  clearly  that  the 
minister  "is  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  or  such  other  member 
of  the  executive  council  to  whom  the  ad- 
ministration of  this  act  may  be  assigned." 

The  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  is  the  minister  responsible  for  the 
administration  of  the  act.  The  act  then  out- 
lines how  to  set  up  the  commission,  including 
a  statute  that  provides  very  clearly  that  there 
shall  be  a  commission,  that  it  will  be  a  con- 


4934 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


timiing  commission  and  that  the  commission 
is  responsible  for  the  administration  of  the 
act.  Responsible  to  whom?  To  themselves? 
No;  of  course  not.  To  the  minister.  Who  is 
the  minister  responsible  to  the  House?  I  do 
not  want  to  have  a  continuing  argument  with 
the  securities  commission  about  where  their 
responsibility  lies.  Let  us  get  that  clear  and 
perhaps  the  minister  could  reference  the  area 
at  some  time  with  respect  to  the  investiga- 
tions carried'  out  by  the  commission  and 
the  obligation  of  the  commission  to  furnish 
the  minister  with  the  information.  I  am  not 
going  to  go  into  that  at  any  great  length. 

I  refuse  to  be  trapped  into  a  lawyer's 
niggling  game  about  what  the  English  lan- 
guage means  in  that  statute.  I  do  not  want 
anybody  to  misunderstand  that.  The  Speaker's 
warrant  runs  to  the  minister.  There  is  ab- 
solutely no  need  for  the  Speaker's  warrant 
to  run  to  the  commission.  The  minister  is 
responsible  for  that  commission  and  is  an- 
swerable in  this  assembly  to  the  extent  of  the 
role  they  may  or  may  not  have  played  in 
connection  with  this  matter. 

I  want  to  say  to  the  Attorney  General  and 
the  Deputy  Premier  (Mr.  Welch)  that  the 
resolution  of  the  matter  lies  in  the  good 
faith  and  co-operation  of  the  committee  with 
the  officials  of  the  ministries  concerned,  in 
this  case,  the  Solicitor  General,  the  Attorney 
General  and  primarily,  of  course,  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  That 
kind  of  co-operation  and  good  faith  will 
strengthen  the  protections  provided  to  the 
citizens  of  the  province  and  will  perhaps  clear 
up  for  all  time  whether  the  people  who  have 
lost  the  money  can  look  to  the  government 
loi  reimbursement.  That  is  what  it  is  about. 

The  Deputy  Premier  and  I  were  in  the 
House  during  the  disaster  at  the  Prudential 
Finance  Company  some  years  ago.  The  credi- 
tors of  that  company  endeavoured  to  sue  the 
government  and  were  unable  to  get  standing 
to  do  so.  That  may  have  disappeared.  I  am 
not  suggesting  that  possibility  does  not  exist. 
But  that  kind  of  lawsuit  will  cost  the  credi- 
tors a  fortune  to  institute  and  carry  through 
to  conclusion. 

In  the  case  of  the  civil  suits,  apart  from 
any  suits  in  which  the  government  may  be 
involved,  there  is  no  chance  of  any  money 
being  recovered  from  the  fraudulent  empire 
which  collapsed.  None  of  that  is  going  to 
go  back  to  the  creditors.  They  are  entitled, 
as  creditors  who  have  lost  their  money,  to 
understand  from  the  government  whether  it 
has  any  role  to  play  which  would  lead  one 
to  believe  that  perhaps  there  has  been  some 
negligence,    oversight,    mistaken    judgements 


or  whatever  it  may  be  that  would  impose  an 
obligation  on  the  government  to  respond  to 
those  creditors.  That  is  the  purpose  of  the 
exercise.  It  is  not  a  trial.  That  is  all  it  is:  to 
look  at  the  role  of  the  minister.  It  is  not  for 
the  purpose  of  condemning  anybody.  It  is 
to  find  out  what  did  take  place  in  the  circum- 
stances of  a  situation  where  the  facts  call 
for  a  response. 

The  response  was  to  be  made  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  assembly.  The  response  must 
be  made  with  the  care  and  attention  I  have 
tried  to  indicate  the  committee  will  exercise 
with  respect  both  to  the  documents  and  the 
witnesses  who  are  called  before  that  com- 
mittee in  the  course  of  its  hearings. 

Let  me  end  this  part  of  my  remarks  with 
this  note.  As  I  said  on  November  20,  if  the 
committee  does  not  get  the  documents  it 
does  not  eliminate  its  responsibility.  Just 
because  it  does  not  get  the  documents  does 
not  discharge  the  committee.  The  committee 
still  has  its  responsibility  under  the  rules. 

I  want  to  close  by  saying  that  the  Attor- 
ney General,  in  his  three  remarks  about  the 
sub  judice  rule  and  the  attack  on  the  juris- 
diction of  the  committee,  has  indicated  quite 
clearly  he  disagrees  with  rulings  made  by  the 
chair  in  this  whole  matter.  That  is  what  it  is 
all  about. 

If  he  wants  to  challenge  the  chair,  let  him 
go  ahead.  If  he  wants  to  change  the  rules 
some  day,  let  him  come  to  the  standing 
committee  on  procedural  affairs.  But  the 
rules  of  this  House  have  not  been  violated 
under  any  circumstances.  I  want  to  make 
that  clear.  Everything  has  been  done  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  rules— not  the  Attorney 
General's  interpretation  of  the  rules,  but  in 
accordance  with  the  interpretation  of  the 
rules  made  by  the  officers  of  this  assembly 
headed  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House,  who  is 
responsible  to  this  House. 

I  am  prepared  to  dismiss  the  three  major 
points  that  occupied  so  much  of  the  Attorney 
General's  time  as  mere  rhetoric  because  the 
decisions  of  the  chair  are  contrary  to  each 
of  the  positions  he  put  about  those  matters. 
With  those  remarks  and,  as  I  say,  seeking  to 
find  out  whether  the  two  proposals  put  by 
the  Attorney  General  could  be  dignified  as  a 
movement  on  his  part  to  some  reasonable 
rapprochement  with  the  committee,  I  have 
had  to  dismiss  them  for  the  reasons  I  have 
given. 

In  dismissing  them,  I  call  upon  him  per- 
sonally, in  his  role  as  Solicitor  General  and 
Attorney  General  and  now  as  counsel  to  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions,   to    meet    with    the    chairman    of    the 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4935 


justice  committee  and  whoever  else  they 
want,  with  the  Speaker  of  the  assembly  and 
Clerk  of  the  assembly,  to  work  out  the  best 
possible  guidelines  for  the  security  and  pro- 
tection of  those  documents. 

I  have  tried  to  listen  to  the  world  unfold- 
ing today  to  see  whether  there  was  some 
movement  by  the  Attorney  General  which 
could  have  led  to  some  flexibility  and  re- 
sponse from  the  committee.  I  think  the  com- 
mittee has  been  flexible  in  its  response  and 
in  the  guidelines  it  has  endeavoured  to  draw 
up.  I  call  now  on  the  Attorney  General  to 
co-operate  as  the  minister  of  the  crown 
responsible  in  the  House  for  the  work  of  the 
committee. 

It  is  essential  for  the  Attorney  General  to 
reconsider  his  position  and,  if  he  will  not 
reconsider  it,  for  the  Deputy  Premier  and 
the  other,  wiser  heads  in  the  cabinet  to  pre- 
vail and  not  allow  this  intransigence  to 
develop  into  the  kind  of  confrontation  which 
the  Attorney  General  appears  to  enjoy  in 
fighting  with  the  committees  of  the  House. 
It  is  a  matter  of  fundamental  respect.  To  the 
extent  it  has  been  shaken  in  any  way,  that 
matter  has  to  be  re-established.  I  suggest  the 
gesture  must  come  from  the  Attorney 
General. 
5:20  p.m. 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  The 
member  for  Cochrane  South. 

Mr.  Martel:  Is  the  minister  going  to  talk 
about  the  food  terminal? 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  I  have  the  speech  here  if 
the  member  would  like  to  hear  it  again.  He 
ignored  it  last  time. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  This  is  the  minister  of  free- 
dom of  information,  isn't  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  The  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  ought  to  know.  Let  him  tell  us  about 
his  public  opinion  poll. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Yes,  freedom  of  information. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  Order,  please.  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  feel  com- 
pelled to  enter  this  debate  because  there  have 
been  allegations  with  respect  to  the  integrity 
of  some  of  the  ministers  of  this  government. 
In  spite  of  the  denials  by  various  previous 
speakers,  these  are  allegations  that  have  been 
raised,  not  by  the  public  at  large,  but  by 
members  of  the  parties  opposite.  Let  us  be 
clear  about  that. 

I  sat  in  the  House  today  and  heard  ex- 
pressions such  as  "coverup,"  "stonewalling," 
"What  have  you  got  to  hide?"  I  have  read 
in  the  newspapers  of  this  city  the  allegations 
of  the  member  for  St.  Catharines.  So  let  us 


not  say  this  is  the  general  public  perception; 
it  has  been  a  perception  orchestrated  by  the 
opposition  parties  for  their  own  partisan 
political  purposes.  They  want  to  impugn  the 
integrity  of  the  Attorney  General  and  of  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, in  spite  of  his  efforts  to  help  the  in- 
vestors. They  want  to  impugn  the  integrity 
of  the  staff  of  that  ministry  and  of  the  On- 
tario Provincial  Police.  Nothing  is  beyond 
their  net. 

They  make  all  sorts  of  allegations,  parlia- 
mentary and  unparliamentary.  Even  if  they 
are  withdrawn,  allegations  are  made  never- 
theless. They  say  they  want  an  explanation 
from  the  ministers.  They  want  to  hear  their 
legal  advice.  The  truth  is,  they  do  not  believe 
the  advice  or  explanations  anyway;  so  what 
is  the  point  in  engaging  in  that  kind  of  dis- 
cussion? They  do  not  want  to  believe  it. 
They  will  not  believe  it.  They  are  going  to 
pursue  this  matter  in  spite  of  the  explana- 
tion. 

They  say  they  want  to  hear  the  Attorney 
General,  yet  they  refused  to  hear  him  when 
he  appeared  before  the  committee.  Let  us 
forget  about  the  nonsense  of  them  wanting 
to  listen  to  anybody.  They  want  to  embark 
on  a  political  witch-hunt.  That  has  been  their 
aim  all  along  and  it  is  what  they  are  going 
to  pursue.  It  will  not  matter  what  anyone 
says,  whatever  explanation,  whatever  legal 
advice  they  receive;  they  want  to  embark  on 
a  political  witch-hunt.  That  is  the  truth  of 
the  matter.  They  do  not  care  if  they  under- 
mine the  judicial  system  of  this  province  to 
do  it.  They  want  to  score  points. 

Mr.  Bradley:  Tell  that  to  the  people  who 
lost  their  life  savings. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  I  am  getting  to  the  mem- 
ber for  St.  Catharines. 

They  want  to  undermine  the  justice  sys- 
tem that  has  served'  the  people  of  the  prov- 
ince well.  They  want  to  undermine  the  work 
of  the  police  forces  as  they  carry  out  their 
detailed  investigations.  They  have  made  alle- 
gations about  the  Attorney  General  today 
and  his  role  with  the  Ontario  Provincial 
Police.  They  made  allegations  about  the 
police  themselves.  It  is  consistent  with  their 
efforts  in  the  last  six  months  vis-a-vis  the 
police  forces  of  the  province. 
Mr.  Bradley:  Nonsense. 
Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  It  is  consistent.  Don't 
worry.  We  will  get  to  that  issue  soon  enough. 
They  say  that  we  do  not  care  about  the 
investors  who  invested  their  good  money  in 
these  organizations.  If  that  is  so,  why  have 
we  carried  out  comprehensive  investigations? 
Why  have  charges  been  laid  and  investiga- 


4936 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tions  been  carried  out  if  we  do  not  care? 
They  do  not  understand,  they  do  not  want  to 
understand  and  they  do  not  want  to  tell  the 
people  in  their  areas  that  we  have  carried 
out  those  investigations  and  laid  those 
charges. 

We  have  heard  talk  in  this  assembly  about 
the  production  of  documents,  about  in  camera 
hearings.  If  the  doctors'  income  issue  is  any 
example,  I  do  not  believe  in  the  in  camera 
hearings.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  when  we 
talk  about  production  of  documents  and  when 
we  talk  about  compelling  attendance  of  not 
only  the  ministers  but  also  their  staff,  Mr. 
Montemurro  and  whoever  else  they  want  to 
bring  in  later  on,  they  are  not  talking  about 
getting  an  explanation  from  the  minister. 
They  are  talking  about  having  a  trial  in  a 
committee  of  this  House.  They  want  to  have 
a  trial. 

I  want  to  quote  from  the  record.  These 
quotations  have  to  be  read,  because  I  think 
they  are  appropriate  to  bear  in  mind  as  we 
examine  this  issue: 

"In  fact,  all  of  our  law  is  oriented  and 
based  on  the  fact  of  the  recognition  of  the 
value  of  the  individual  human  being  in  deter- 
mining and  protecting  his  freedom  before 
the  law,  his  freedom  before  us,  his  freedom 
before  that  giant  branch  of  government  which 
is  the  judiciary. 

"The  paramount  consideration  is  not  the 
freedom  to  sell  the  news  and  not  the  freedom 
to  market  events,  but  to  protect  the  rights, 
the  dignity,  the  freedom  and  the  reputation 
of  each  and  every  one  of  us  here  and  each 
and  every  one  of  us  out  there." 

And  again:  "We  must  protect  the  indi- 
vidual prior  to  his  trial/' 

And  again:  "Are  we  going  to  opt  for 
freedom  of  the  individual  to  support  his 
civil  rights,  opt  to  support  the  individual  in 
the  eyes  of  his  peers  until  such  time  as  it  is 
shown  that  view  is  uncalled  for,  or  are  we 
going  to  opt  for  the  freedom  of  the  news- 
papers and  television  and  so  forth  to  sell 
their  newspapers  or  sell  their  programs  on 
the  back  of  what  is  possibly  an  innocent 
citizen?" 

And  again:  "We  assume  in  this  country 
that  there  is  innocence  until  guilt  is  proven. 
However,  the  publication  of  the  identity  and 
the  charges  against  an  individual  before  a 
trial  begins  often  makes  him  guilty  in  the 
public  eye  ahead  of  time.  There  may  be 
circumstances  where  he  may  have  been 
subject  to  false  arrest  or  where  a  mistake 
may  have  been  found  that  removes  the 
necessity  for  a  trial  or  charges  may  be  with- 
drawn because  of  lack  of  evidence. 


"The  consequences  for  the  individual  and 
the  family  have  been  well  outlined  by 
members  of  this  Legislature.  They  include 
the  family  itself  suffering  in  terms  of  its 
standing  within  social  groups;  the  children 
in  school  being  subject  to  abure  by  other 
children  who  are  making  judgements  based 
on  publication  of  charges  and  the  individual's 
name;  the  unnecessary  effect  on  those  in  the 
family  who  might  be  ill;  the  guilt  by  associ- 
ation that  the  family  feels;  attacks  of  a 
verbal  or  physical  nature,  telephone  calls  and 
things  of  this  kind,  all  of  which  are  suffered 
unnecessarily  if  charges   are  withdrawn. 

"The  accused  himself  may  face  mental 
and  emotional  instability,  may  perhaps  con- 
template suicide,  may  face  the  loss  of  a  job 
or  a  chance  for  promotion,  his  reputation 
may  be  destroyed  and  he  may  be  unwanted 
in  service  organizations  and  other  organiza- 
tions which  he  may  wish  to  join." 

Very  noble  words,  Mr.  Speaker.  They 
were  spoken  on  April  19,  1979,  by  the 
member  for  York  Centre  (Mr.  Stong),  the 
member  for  Sarnia  (Mr.  Blundy)  and  the 
member  for  St.  Catharines  (Mr.  Bradley). 
We  are  talking  about  individual  civil 
servants  and  individuals  in  this  province 
whom  the  members  opposite  want  to  compel 
to  attend. 

There  have  been  arguments  raised  about 
the  sovereignty  of  Parliament,  and  I  agree 
the  Legislature  is  supreme.  We  have  a  re- 
sponsibility as  a  Legislature,  as  a  matter  of 
fundamental  respect  for  the  citizens  of  this 
province,  to  be  cautious  and  careful  in  the 
exercise  of  our  legislative  power.  I  would  like 
again  to  quote  a  couple  of  paragraphs  for  the 
members  of  this  House. 

".  .  .  the  doctrine  of  supremacy  of  Parlia- 
ment has  attributes  of  fundamental  impor- 
tance to  this  commission: 

"(1)  In  a  matter  of  pure  law,  as  long  as  it 
stays  within  the  power  conferred  on  it  under 
the  BNA  Act,  the  Legislature  has  power  to 
take  away  or  curtail  any  of  the  rights  that  an 
individual  may  have,  and  in  strict  law  it  is 
not  required  to  provide  any  compensation  for 
the  rights  taken  away  or  curtailed." 

We  also  believe:  "The  ultimate  control 
of  the  legislative  power  of  the  Legislature 
of  Ontario,  within  its  constitutional  limits, 
rests  with  the  electors.  In  theory  the  direct 
exercise  and  control  of  power  in  the  Legis- 
lature is  in  the  charge  of  the  elected  rep- 
resentatives who  are  responsible  for  the 
policies  of  our  legal  and  government  system." 

Interjections. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4937 


The   Acting   Speaker:    Order,   please.   The 
member  for  Cochrane  South  has  the  floor. 
5:30  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  It  does  not  matter,  Mr. 
Speaker.  They  never  have  listened.  I  under- 
stand. 

"Under  our  parliamentary  system  a  direct 
curtailment  of  liberties  of  individuals  without 
their  personal  consent  and  without  remedial 
compensation  by  a  law  enacted  by  the  Legis- 
lature is  presumed  in  theory  to  be  justified  in 
the  general  interests  of  the  community.  In 
theory,  this  is  a  premise  upon  which  the 
democratic  process  under  the  parliamentary 
system  is  based.  The  reasoning  is  that  a 
majority  of  the  elected  representatives  who 
come  from  all  areas,  that  groups  and  interests 
in  the  community  are  subject  to  the  restrain- 
ing influences  of  a  vocal  and  informed  oppo- 
sition and  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Legis- 
lature are  in  public,  are  reported  and  com- 
mented upon  by  responsible  and  informed 
media  of  general  communication.  It  is  pre- 
sumed that  the  majority  of  the  legislators  will 
work  within  the  standards  of  justice  and 
propriety  generally  recognized  throughout  the 
community  so  as  to  avoid  onerous  actions 
taking  away  or  changing  the  rights  of  an  in- 
dividual or  group,  unless  clearly  justified  in 
the  general  interest." 

Further  along: 

"Where  the  Legislature  unnecessarily  gives 
up  control  and  fails  to  provide  proper  safe- 
guards for  the  rights  of  the  individual  there 
is  the  possibility  of  an  'unjustified  encroach- 
ment' on  those  rights." 

And  again: 

"Such  authority  is  generally  conferred  to 
be  exercised  in  particular  circumstances  as  a 
matter  of  convenience  or  it  may  be  exercised 
having  in  mind  policy  considerations  .  .  . 
Therefore  the  exercise  of  administrative  au- 
thority may  be  a  departure  from  the  principle 
that  legislative  power  should  be  exercised  or 
controlled  by  the  Legislature  and  also  a  de- 
parture from  the  basic  constitutional  concept 
of  the  rule  of  law  .  .  .'* 

Again  further  along: 

"Where  power  is  conferred  to  take  away 
or  change  rights  of  individuals  without  all 
practical  safeguards,  the  mere  existence  of  the 
power  undermines  the  security  of  all  rights 
that  may  be  affected  and  is  an  encroachment 
on  those  rights.  Sir  Ivor  Jennings,  discussing 
the  possible  contraction  of  the  'freedom  of 
the  individual'  during  the  war,  said:  \  .  . 
Individually  liberty  is  not  so  much  a  question 
of  legal  remedies  as  of  government  power. 
There  has  been  no  limitation  of  the  remedies 
available  to  the  citizen  but  his  liberty  has 


been  restricted  because  governmental  powers 
have  increased.' 

"The  term  'right'  could  be  substituted  for 
'remedies'  in  this  quotation  .  .  ." 

The  very  important  matters  of  the  liberties 
of  the  individual  within  this  province  were 
further  discussed.  The  most  essential  and 
fundamental  characteristic  of  the  courts  of 
justice  is  that  they  be  independent.  The 
Magna  Carta  of  the  British  judicial  sys- 
tem, the  Act  of  Settlement,  was  won  only 
after  hundreds  of  years  of  struggle  and  two 
revolutions  to  secure  protection  against  arbi- 
trary power  exercised  by  or  on  behalf  of  the 
crown. 

The  caption  of  the  act  in  its  recitals  not 
only  describes  its  purpose  but  constitutes  in 
some  measure  a  declaration  of  the  rights  of 
the  individual. 

It  is  also  important  that  impartiality  reign 
in  the  courts,  and  I  wish  to  quote  from 
Viscount  Cave: 

"My  lords,  if  there  is  one  principle  which 
forms  an  integral  part  of  the  English  law,  it 
is  that  every  member  of  a  body  engaged  in  a 
judicial  proceeding  must  be  able  to  act 
judicially;  and  it  has  been  held  over  and  over 
again  that  if  a  member  of  such  a  body  is 
subject  to  a  bias  (whether  financial  or  other) 
in  favour  of  or  against  either  party  to  the 
dispute  or  is  in  such  a  position  that  a  bias 
must  be  assumed,  he  ought  not  to  take  part 
in  the  decision  or  even  sit  upon  the  tribunal. 
This  rule  has  been  asserted,  not  only  in  the 
case  of  the  courts  of  justice  and  other  justice 
tribunals,  but  in  the  case  of  authorities  which, 
through  in  no  sense  to  be  called  courts,  have 
to  act  as  judges  of  the  rights  of  others. 

"From  the  above  rule  it  necessarily  follows 
that  a  member  of  such  a  body  as  I  have 
described  cannot  be  both  a  party  and  a  judge 
in  the  same  dispute,  and  that  if  he  has  made 
himself  a  party,  he  cannot  sit  or  act  as  a 
judge,  and  if  he  does  so  the  decision  of  the 
whole  body  will  be  vitiated." 

We  have  tried  to  embody  these  important 
principles  in  our  justice  system:  trials  shall 
take  place  in  public,  decisions  will  be  based 
on  evidence  and  judicial  notice  of  that 
evidence,  reasons  for  decisions  will  be  given, 
an  opportunity  to  answer  charges  will  be  pro- 
vided throughout  the  proceedings,  and  a  right 
to  appeal  is  available. 

We  have  recognized  these  important 
principles  in  our  parliamentary  traditions 
through  the  ages.  Why?  Because  in  1487, 
Henry  VII,  to  punish  without  a  jury  the  mis- 
demeanours of  sheriffs'  juries,  as  well  as  riots 
and  unlawful  assemblies,  set  up  a  body.  It 
got  its  name  from  the   council   chamber  at 


4938 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Westminster  where  it  met.  By  the  end  of  the 
sixteenth  century  it  fell  into  disrepute,  be- 
cause individuals  were  not  being  provided 
with  information  on  the  charges  preferred 
against  them,  or  given  a  right  to  answer  those 
charges  fully,  or  to  meet  their  accusers 
publicly,  to  meet  all  the  information  brought 
before  them  publicly  and  refute  it,  if  they 
wished.  Because  it  met  in  camera,  it  lost  its 
credibility.  It  had  to  meet  in  open  court.  It 
also  lost  its  credibility  because  it  tried  to 
coerce.  In  the  same  way  coercion  is  being 
exerted  by  the  Speaker's  warrant,  it  tried  to 
coerce  individuals  of  society  to  appear  before 
it  and  to  make  confessions.  It  tried  to  coerce 
confessions  and  documents  out  of  them.  That 
body  was  the  Star  Chamber,  which  is  exactly 
what  this  committee  is  becoming. 

The  member  for  St.  George  indicated  she 
believes  there  are  areas  in  which  the  sub 
judice  rule  applied  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
she  says  she  does  not  believe  the  Attorney 
General's  explanation  anyway;  so  she  wants 
it  all  before  her.  Some  logic.  With  the  op- 
position parties  in  control,  disorder  reigns. 
Government  is  government  by  the  opposition. 
It  will  do  anything  it  wants.  It  will  abuse  its 
members.  It  will  go  on  witch-hunts.  It  will 
distort  political  points.  It  does  not  matter  if 
the  people  are  trampled  on  in  the  conse- 
quence. It  does  not  matter  to  them  at  all. 

We  believe  the  rights  of  the  individual  are 
important.  The  rights  are  to  have  justice,  to 
have  a  fair  trial,  to  be  heard  first  and  fore- 
most in  the  judicial  forum  where  the  public's 
rights,  including  the  victim's  rights,  will  be 
determined  according  to  a  tried  and  true 
procedure,  according  to  the  rules. 

We  also  believe  in  the  rights  of  society  to 
a  thorough  and  complete  investigation  by  the 
police  who  have  the  experience  in  these  in- 
vestigations, without  hasty  disclosure  which 
would  prejudice  intelligence  sources,  prej- 
udice information,  prejudice  the  preservation 
of  documents  and  other  physical  evidence, 
prejudice  the  techniques  to  be  used  in  in- 
vestigation and  prejudice  the  specific  criminal 
activities  we  wish  to  investigate. 

I,  too,  will  be  happy  when  justice  has  its 
day,  when  the  wrongdoers  are  punished,  when 
after  a  fair  and  full  trial  all  documents  in  the 
hands  of  this  government  and  the  federal 
government  are  in  the  hands  of  this  com- 
mittee. The  acting  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
today  indicated  it  was  not  appropriate  for  a 
committee  of  this  House  to  get  involved  in 
the  Naldna  matter  because  it  was  before  the 
courts. 

Mr.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  said  in  question  period  there  were 


procedures  such  as  a  royal  commission  which 
would  be  better  than  the  committee  approach. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  The  member  said  a  com- 
mittee of  this  House  was  not  the  appropriate 
forum  for  that  and  asked  the  Premier  to  con- 
sider a  royal  commission  or  some  other  or- 
ganization. We  will  see  when  Hansard  comes 
out,  my  friend. 

Then  we  had  the  member  for  Ottawa  East 
(Mr.  Roy)  who  said,  "How  much  validity  will 
we  have  for  an  inquest?  How  much  validity 
can  there  be  in  continuing  an  inquest  when 
criminal  charges  have  been  laid?"  They  have 
already  dismissed  a  House  hearing  and  an 
inquest  procedure  where  criminal  charges 
have  been  laid.  Criminal  charges  have  been 
laid  in  this  case  and  yet  they  want  to  con- 
tinue with  Star  Chamber  activities  down  in 
the  other  room.  That  is  the  truth.  They  want 
to  charge  after  the  bad  guys.  They  do  not 
want  to  leave  it  to  the  police,  who  have  some 
experience  in  the  investigation  end  of  this. 
They  do  not  want  to  leave  it  to  them.  They 
do  not  want  to  leave  it  to  the  courts  to  deter- 
mine on  the  basis  of  fair  and  due  process. 
They  want  to  charge  after  the  bad  guys  and 
they  do  not  care  whom  they  hurt  in  the  mean- 
time, whether  it  be  the  investors  or  anyone 
else.  That  is  the  truth  of  it. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  Minister  without  Portfolio  has 
referred  to  the  actions  of  a  committee  of  this 
House  as  equivalent  to  the  notorious  Star 
Chamber.  I  think  that  is  an  allegation  he 
should  immediately  withdraw  as  it  is  not 
worthy  of  a  minister  of  the  crown  to  describe 
a  committee  in  that  light. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  In  conclusion,  I  believe 
these  activities  are  calling  into  question  the 
processes  of  the  legal  system  of  this  province. 
I  want  to  say  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
when  I  was  at  Waterloo  Lutheran  University 
the  first  political  leader  I  met  was  Andrew 
Thompson.  I  spent  an  evening  with  Andy 
Thompson  and  a  few  other  people  discussing 
the  political  processes  of  this  province.  The 
only  advice  he  gave  was  that  the  mistake  his 
party  had  made  in  the  immediate  preceding 
time  was  to  run  on  a  scandal  a  day,  to  try  to 
allege  that  the  crown  and  the  government  of 
this  province  was  on  a  consistent  basis  in- 
volved in  the  kinds  of  things  members  op- 
posite have  accused  this  government  of  today. 
I  say  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  he  is 
too  nice  a  man  to  suffer  that  same  fate. 
5:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Foulds:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  believe  a  previous  member  asked 
you  to  rule  whether  the  minister  should  with- 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4939 


draw  the  allegation  against  the  committee  and 
its  members  in  reference  to  the  Star  Chamber. 
Am  I  correct  in  that?  Did  you  make  a  ruling? 

The  Acting  Speaker:  Yes.  I  am  going  to  rule 
in  the  negative,  because  I  feel  the  record  will 
speak  for  itself  in  regard  to  what  was  and 
was  not  said.  The  member  did  not  push  for 
the  ruling  or  press  for  it.  If  you  are  now  ask- 
ing for  my  ruling,  it  is  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  are  you  aware  of 
the  proceedings,  the  history  and  the  processes 
of  the  Star  Chamber? 

The  Acting  Speaker:  Yes,  I  realize  the  Star 
Chamber  does  not  have  an  enviable  record. 
The  member  suggested  this  committee  might 
be  acting  like  the  Star  Chamber. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Might  be?  I  would  suggest  that 
is  a  very  serious  allegation  for  any  member 
of  this  Legislature  to  make  against  fellow 
members,  either  individually  or  collectively. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  I  do  not  agree  with 
the  member. 

Mr.  Foulds:  One  of  the  fights  of  parlia- 
mentary democracy  since  the  time  of  Henry 
VII  has  been  to  reverse  the  processes  and 
secrecy  surrounding  the  operations  of  the 
Star  Chamber. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  I  have  heard!  the  rep- 
resentations of  the  member  for  Port  Arthur 
in  the  matter.  The  allegation  was  not  made 
against  any  one  member  nor  was  it  im- 
punging  the  integrity  of  any  one  member,  but 
suggesting  that  an  entire  group  in  this  House 
was  acting  in  such  and  such  a  manner.  I 
feel  it  is  the  right  of  the  member  to  express 
that  opinion  if  that  is  the  way  he  feels.  The 
record  will  speak  for  exactly  what  was  said. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  it  is 
very  important  that  the  people  of  Ontario 
gain  a  genuine  understanding  of  what  has 
been  going  on  in  this  House  concerning  this 
topic  over  the  last  several  months.  I  person- 
ally have  spent  more  hours  discussing  this 
particular  matter  and  thinking  about  it  than 
on  any  of  the  other  more  urgent  matters 
before  the  province  and  the  official  opposi- 
tion. It  is  a  particularly  interesting  and  diffi- 
cult matter.  The  opinions  I  shall  express 
have  been  reached  after  very  considerable 
thought  and  with  every  bit  of  sensitivity  I 
am  able  to  muster  concerning  the  importance 
of  the  judicial  process  and  our  very  respected 
police  forces  in  Ontario. 

What  we  are  seeing  is  a  possibly  sincere 
view  being  expressed  by  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral (Mr.  McMurtry)  regarding  what  he 
thinks  would  be  the  harm  done  to  the  judicial 
process  if  the  committee  is  able  to  obtain 
the  documents  it  has  asked  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 


to  obtain.  I  suspect,  however,  after  reviewing 
several  months  of  dialogue  on  this,  after 
listening  to  the  arguments  put  forward  and 
considering  other  aspects  of  this  case,  that 
what  we  are  really  seeing  is  a  government 
dressing  itself  in  the  cloak  of  judicial  and 
investigative  responsibility  and  doing  so  in 
a  rather  clumsy  attempt  to  avoid  serious 
embarrassment. 

I  ask  you  to  consider  the  origin  of  this 
matter,  Mr.  Speaker.  We  have  had  a  situa- 
tion where  hundreds  of  investors  have  found 
themselves  losing  in  many  instances  their 
entire  life  savings.  In  many  instances,  these 
are  elderly  and  handicapped  people  who 
have  lost  their  life  savings  in  what  I  suppose 
can  best  be  regarded  as  a  scam.  Interest- 
ingly, the  front  for  the  scam,  a  trust  com- 
pany, is  under  federal  licence,  but  while 
the  federal  government  appears  to  have 
licensed  the  front  for  the  scam,  the  provincial 
government  licensed  the  scam  itself. 

You  might  say,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  is 
the  kind  of  thing  that  could  happen;  there 
might  have  been  a  lot  of  evidence  brought 
in  front  of  the  people  responsible  for  giving 
out  these  licences  in  favour  of  this  particular 
mortgage  company.  Yet  the  province  itself 
takes  pride  in  the  fact  that  it  knew  better 
than  to  license  the  trust  company.  Since  the 
same  principals  and  individuals  were  in- 
volved, one  would  have  to  wonder  why  it 
would  not  know  better  than  to  license  the 
mortgage  company. 

In  carrying  that  one  step  further,  the  of- 
ficials had  in  front  of  them  by  their  own 
admission  a  judgement  by  a  respected  judge 
in  this  province,  pointing  out  that  in  its 
previous  incarnation  the  mortgage  company, 
operated  by  these  same  individuals— and  I  re- 
call the  words  used  by  the  judge— "treated 
the  investors'  money  without  regard  to  fidu- 
ciary obligations,"  in  other  words,  as  though 
it  was  their  own  money.  They  did  with  it  as 
they  liked  without  keeping  in  mind  the  re- 
sponsibility one  has  to  investors. 

One  can  only  say  it  is  frankly  incredible 
that  not  13  days  after  one  mortgage  com- 
pany, operated  by  these  same  people  that 
the  province  refused  the  trust  company 
licence  to,  goes  under  and  has  this  state- 
ment made  about  it  by  the  judge,  the  min- 
istry licensed  the  same  people  in  another 
mortgage  company  to  do  the  same  thing 
over  again. 

Understandably,  we  in  the  opposition  have 
been  asked  by  hundreds  of  people  who  are 
now  ruined,  whose  lifetime  of  hard  work  and 
saving  has  simply  gone  down  this  dastardly 
drain,  to  do  something  to  help  them.  We 
asked    several    months    ago    of    the    minister 


4940 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


responsible,  "Will  you  try  to  help  these 
people?"  and  the  minister  told  us  repeatedly, 
"This  is  not  for  us.  This,  you  understand,  is  a 
federal  matter.  It  is  covered  by  deposit  insur- 
ance of  the  trust  companies  and,  since  they 
thought  they  were  putting  their  money  in  a 
trust  company,  it  is  really  a  matter  we  can  do 
nothing  about  provincially.  We  had  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  It  will  all  be  handled  by  certain 
federal  authorities,  including  the  deposit  in- 
surance company."  Basically,  he  washed  his 
hands  of  any  provincial  responsibility  in  this 
matter. 

We  in  the  opposition  believe  we  have  a 
serious  responsibility  to  ascertain  whether 
there  was— and,  frankly,  this  is  the  only  thing 
that  entered  my  mind— abysmally  bad  judge- 
ment and  very  poor  quality  control  exerted 
by  the  people  who  hand  out  these  licences. 
That  was  the  question  I  had  in  my  mind.  I 
may  be  a  little  naive,  but  it  honestly  never 
entered  my  mind  that  the  people  who  handed 
out  the  licences  might  have  somehow  been 
influenced  by  some  dishonest  practice  to  hand 
out  the  licence.  I  honestly  felt,  in  this 
instance,  it  was  simply  massive  incom- 
petence. 

We  wanted,  therefore,  to  have  this  incom- 
petence drawn  to  light  so  that,  as  the  member 
for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick)  pointed  out, 
there  would  be  some  recourse  open  to  these 
investors  who  lost  their  money,  there  would 
be  some  recourse  open  to  these  elderly  people 
so  they  could  come  to  the  province,  and  the 
government  would  have  to  admit  that  it  did, 
indeed,  have  something  to  do  with  it,  whether 
merely  through  incompetence  or  whatever, 
and  that  it  had  something  to  do  with  the 
law.  That  is  what  we  were  after. 

We  asked  question  after  question,  but  we 
were  given  no  answer.  Finally,  we  asked, 
"All  right,  will  you  show  us  the  documents 
that  were  in  the  hands  of  the  people  when 
they  decided  to  give  out  the  licence?"  The 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions (Mr.  Drea)  said,  "I  will  be  hapoy  to  do 
that."  He  went  further  than  that.  He  said, 
"When  you  get  them,  you  will  see  how  wrong 
you  are.  It  will  blow  you  out  of  the  water," 
or  one  of  the  characteristic,  colourful  phrases 
for  which  he  is  well  known. 
5:50  p.m. 

We  waited  for  the  documents  and,  lo  and 
behold,  the  Attorney  General  apparently  ad- 
vised the  minister  he  was  not  to  release  the 
documents.  We  could  not  have  those  docu- 
ments. We  are  now  speaking  six,  seven  or 
eight  months  after  the  fact,  with  all  the  time 
that  has  passed,  after  time  to  investigate, 
after  discussions  in  estimates,  after  weeks  of 


telling  us  the  province  could  not  possibly 
have  been  negligent  and  could  not  possibly 
have  been  responsible  for  any  of  this. 

First,  we  were  told  it  could  affect  the  case 
against  Mr.  Montemurro.  Then  we  were  told 
it  was  a  civil  case.  Then  we  were  told  it  was 
sub  judice.  Finally,  they  trotted  out  the  argu- 
ment that  those  very  documents,  and  pre- 
sumably the  people  who  issued  licences  based 
on  those  documents,  were  now  themselves, 
according  to  what  was  said  by  the  Attorney 
General,  apparently  the  subject  of  a  criminal 
investigation.  Six,  seven  or  eight  months  after- 
wards we  were  told  it  was  far  from  the 
province's  having  no  responsibility  at  all,  far 
from  being  ready  to  blow  us  out  of  the  water 
if  we  ever  saw  the  documents. 

It  suddenly  turned  out  we  were  to  believe 
the  very  people  who  issued  those,  or  had 
something  to  do  with  the  documentation 
which  went  into  the  decision  to  issue  them, 
might  themselves  now  be  the  subject  of  pos- 
sible criminal  charges.  We  were  told  we  could 
not  look  at  any  of  those  documents,  that  we 
would  have  to  wait.  The  Attorney  General 
says,  "If  you  wait  a  week,  I  will  tell  you  how 
long  I  think  the  investigation  might  have  to 
go  on."  It  has  already  gone  on  eight  months. 
What  great  news  will  we  be  given  in  one 
week's  time? 

There  is  a  contradiction  in  what  the  min- 
ister has  said.  If  he  were  here,  perhaps  he 
would  correct  it.  Somebody  might  ask  him  to 
do  so.  In  Instant  Hansard  he  said  something 
different  from  what  is  in  his  printed  text. 
What  he  said  in  Instant  Hansard  today,  as 
opposed  to  the  printed  text  he  issued  is  this, 
"As  part  of  the  statement  which  I  attempted 
to  read  to  the  committee  yesterday  but  was 
prevented  from  doing  so,  I  said  that  the 
matter,  and  I  don't  have  a  copy  of  it  before 
me,  but  I  indicated  that  it  may  well  be  by 
Wednesday  of  next  week  that  the  criminal 
investigation  would  have  been  completed,  at 
least  so  far  as  this  aspect  of  the  matter  was 
concerned." 

That  is  interesting  because  later  on  in  the 
printed  text  he  does  not  say  it  would  have 
been  completed  by  Wednesday.  He  said 
simply  that  by  next  Wednesday  he  would  be 
in  a  position  to  tell  us  when— I  think  he  used 
the  term  "as  best  as  humanly  possible  to 
determine"— the  investigation  of  these  matters 
might  be  completed.  So  there  is  a  contradic- 
tion. I  am  not  sure  if  he  is  saying  it  will  be 
finished  by  next  Wednesday,  or  if,  by  next 
Wednesday  he  will  be  in  a  position  to  tell  us 
when  it  will  be  finished.  He  said  both  during 
the  course  of  his  statement.  I  ask  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  draw  this  to  his  attention. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4941 


Why  should  we  stand  back  after  all  these 
months?  Why  should  we  stand  back  and 
permit  the  government  essentially  to  cover  it- 
self so  it  need  not  suffer  embarrassment?  Let 
the  record  be  clear.  No  one  on  this  side  of 
the  House  accused  anyone  in  the  ministry  of 
dishonesty  in  the  issuing  of  this  licence.  Let 
us  be  clear.  It  is  the  Attorney  General  of 
Ontario  who  has  come  into  this  House  and 
said  there  is  a  criminal  investigation  into  the 
issuance  of  the  licence  and  into  the  docu- 
ments pertaining  to  the  issuance  of  the 
licence. 

It  is  he,  therefore,  who  is  suggesting  that 
in  the  very  issuance  of  the  licence  there  might 
have  been  criminal  activity.  Not  a  soul  on 
this  side  of  the  House  has  ever  made  that 
suggestion.  We  see  only  prima  facie  evidence 
of  massive  incompetence.  Whether  the  in- 
competence can  be  explained  by  corruption 
is  not  something  we  have  ever  suggested.  It 
is  conceivable,  but  it  is  certainly  not  what  we 
have  suggested.  If  it  turns  out  that  way  from 
the  criminal  investigation,  we  will  be  as 
shocked  as  anybody  else.  The  fact  of  the  mat- 
ter is  we  have  never  made  any  such  accu- 
sation. Let  the  record  be  very  clear  on  that. 

What  we  do  say,  however,  is  there  seems 
to  be  massive  incompetence  and  the  explana- 
tion for  that  incompetence  will  have  to  be 
gained  by  other  investigations.  We  do  not  see 
a  committee  of  the  House  as  the  proper  place 
to  conduct  a  criminal  investigation.  Clearly, 
that  is  not  the  function  of  a  committee  of  the 
House.  A  committee  of  the  House  should  dis- 
cover if  the  interests  of  the  public  of  Ontario 
were  being  well  protected  by  the  people  who 
report  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations.  That  is  our  job.  It  is  too 
bad  if  people  in  the  Ontario  Securities  Com- 
mission think  they  are  somehow  above  such 
scrutiny,  or  if  people  within  the  ministry  do 
not  wish  to  come  under  such  scrutiny.  We 
are  the  highest  court  in  this  province  and  we 
have  every  right,  every  duty  and  every  obliga- 
tion to  look  into  the  way  in  which  the  min- 
ister has  or  has  not  been  protecting  the 
interests  of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Instead  of  this  clumsy  attempt  to  cover  up 
any  embarrassment  which  it  might  have  to 
suffer,  the  government  would  be  much  better 
off  simply  to  tell  us  that  some  of  the  docu- 
ments we  want  to  see  and  some  of  the 
witnesses  we  want  to  speak  to  are  very 
material  to  the  question  of  whether  crim- 
inality intervened  in  the  issuance  of  the 
licence.  All  they  have  to  do  is  say  that  is  one 
of  the  problems  and  we  will  understand.  We 
have  no  obligation  to  stand  down  in  the  face 
of  a  police  investigation;  it  is  not  an  obliga- 


tion of  this  House  to  stand  down  simply 
because  an  investigation  is  going  on.  We 
have  no  obligation.  However,  most  of  us  wish 
to  be  co-operative  and,  if  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral would  flag  certain  documents,  tell  us 
about  certain  witnesses  and  share  certain 
information,  the  committee  might  well  agree 
that  those  documents  should  be  examined 
under  tight  scrutiny  and  tight  security  and 
only  in  camera.  We  can  understand  that  and 
we  are  prepared  to  co-operate  with  the 
police. 

The  matter  has  been  going  on  for  eight 
months.  Any  person  with  common  sense  must 
ccme  to  one  of  two  conclusions  about  the 
police  investigation  with  regard  to  the 
issuance  of  the  licence.  One:  the  police  have 
been  trying  for  eight  months  to  find  evidence 
of  criminality  in  the  issuance  of  the  licence 
and  have  failed  to  do  so.  If  that  is  the  case, 
I  hardly  think  we  ought  to  wait  another 
eight  months  in  case  they  manage  to  find 
evidence  later  on.  Two:  the  police  have  not 
been  trying  for  a  very  long  time  to  make  the 
connection  and  want  to  start  to  do  so  now 
that  we  have  declared  our  interest  in  finding 
out  whether  there  was  incompetence  or 
negligence  in  issuing  the  licence. 

As  we  seek  to  find  out  whether  there  was 
incompetence  or  negligence,  we  will  perhaps 
speak  to  some  of  the  same  people,  ask  some 
of  the  same  questions  and  look  at  some  of 
the  same  documents,  as  a  policeman  might 
in  his  search  for  the  answer  to  the  question 
of  whether  there  was  criminality  in  the 
issuance  of  the  licence. 

We  are  prepared  to  do  nothing  that  would 
impede  the  access  of  the  police  to  witnesses 
or  information.  We  are  prepared  to  allow  the 
Attorney  General  to  flag  that  information,  to 
hear  any  such  people  in  camera  and  to  have 
consultation  with  the  law  officers  of  the  crown 
before  speaking  to  any  such  witnesses  so  that 
the  law  officers  may  advise  us  of  certain  lines 
of  questioning  that  may  be  counter-productive 
to  police  investigation. 

We  are  prepared  to  be  co-operative,  but 
there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the 
Legislature  of  Ontario,  elected  as  we  have 
been  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  people 
of  Ontario,  should  be  party  to  any  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  government,  however  clothed 
in  the  fine  silk  of  alleged  respect  for  the 
system  of  justice,  to  cover  up  its  potential 
embarrassment  at  having  failed  to  protect  the 
people  of  Ontario  from  dreadful  and 
heinous  losses.  We  have  a  right  and  we  will 
exercise  that  right  in  the  committee  of  the 
Legislature. 

The  House  recessed  at  6  p.m. 


4942  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  December  4,  1980 

Transmitting  Estimates,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor   4905 

Point  of  privilege  re  circulation  of  letter:  Mrs.  Campbell  4905 

Pension  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.   Drea 4906 

Durham  regional  environmental  hearing,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott 4906 

Italian  earthquake:   Mr.  Wells,  Mr.  Mancini,  Mr.  Cassidy 4907 

Speaker's   warrants 4908 

Nakina  fire,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  McMurtry:   Mr.   Nixon,  Mr.   Roy,  Mr. 

Foulds     4908 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions   of  Mr.   Parrott  and  Mr.   Davis:   Mr.   Nixon,   Mr. 

Cassidy,   Mr.   G.   I.   Miller 4910 

Speaker's   warrants,   questions  of  Mr.   Davis   and  Mr.   McMurtry:    Mr.    Cassidy,   Mr. 

Nixon,   Mr.   M.   N.   Davison  4911 

Rent  review,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Cassidy  4914 

Italian  earthquake,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  Mancini 4914 

Food  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Swart  4915 

Farm  Products  Appeal  Tribunal,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Riddell  4916 

Rural  electrical  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  MacDonald  4916 

Alberta  oil  projects,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Peterson  4917 

Special  occasion  permits,  question  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Makarchuk  4918 

Report,  standing  committee  on  general  government:   Mr.  Cureatz 4918 

Report,  standing  committee  on  procedural  affairs:   Mr.  Breaugh  4919 

Reports,  standing  committee  on  administration  of  justice:  Mr.  Philip  4919 

Recess 4941 


DECEMBER  4,  1980  4943 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bennett,  Hon.  C;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and'  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McMurtry,  Hon.  R.;  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  (Eglinton  PC) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Pope,  Hon.  A.;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Cochrane  South  PC) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Walker,  Hon.  G.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

(London  South  PC) 
Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 


No.  132 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  December  4,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at   the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service. 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  agg^^o10 


4947 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE 

(continued) 

Resuming  the  debate  on  the  motion  for  the 
adoption  of  the  report  of  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  administration  of  justice. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  On  a  point  of  order, 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  believe  the  New  Democratic 
Party  had  finished  speaking  and  the  natural 
rotation  comes  to  us. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  my  recollection  that  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith)  had 
just  completed  his  remarks  at  six  o'clock. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  is  not  here, 
but  shortly  before  he  walked  out  in  a  huff 
earlier  this  afternoon  while  the  member  for 
St.  George  (Mrs.  Campbell)  was  speaking— 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Why  don't  you  grow 
up? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  am  trying  as  best  I 
can.  I  did  not  know  that  the  Conservative 
Party  had  such  an  antipathy  towards  youth.  I 
think  it  is  well  that  we  in  the  under-geriatric 
age  group  are  represented  in  the  assembly. 

Shortly  before  the  Attorney  General  walked 
out  in  a  huff  during  the  comments  of  the 
member  for  St.  George,  he  referenced  during 
his  20-odd-page  statement  his  point  of  view 
that  this  was  one  of  the  most  important  de- 
bates that  had  taken  place  during  the  period 
in  which  he  was  a  member  in  the  assembly. 
I  suspect  in  a  number  of  ways  I  agree  with 
the  comments  he  made  in  that  single  regard. 

I  think  it  is  an  important  debate  for  two 
reasons.  First,  I  hold  the  opinion  that  the  last 
best  hope  for  the  Re-Mor  victims  in  terms  of 
getting  justice  is  the  justice  committee  of  this 
assembly.  I  think  the  record  has  shown  in  this 
province  that  in  like  situations  there  is  no 
effective  remedy  for  them  before  the  courts. 
That  has  been  the  history.  If  we  should  talk 
about  the  history— not  of  the  justice  system 
and  the  courts  in  this  province— of  the  central 
player,  Mr.  Carlo  Montemurro,  I  do  not  think 
they  have  a  lot  better  chance  through  that 
approach  either. 


Thursday,  December  4,  1980 

Second,  this  is  an  important  debate  in  that 
it  raises  and  perhaps  decides  the  question  of 
supremacy  in  this  tiny  room  in  this  obscure 
world  of  ours,  the  Legislative  Assembly.  Is  the 
government  of  the  day  responsible  to  the 
Legislature  or  is  the  Legislature  responsible 
to  the  government?  I  think  that  is  a  funda- 
mental and  important  question,  even  if  it  is  a 
question  that  is  not  on  the  lips  of  everybody 
in  the  province.  It  seems  to  me  we  come 
down  to,  in  the  words  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, whether  the  Legislature  is  the  highest 
court  in  the  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  It  is  a  court.  They  want  to 
have  a  trial. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  think  those  were  the 
words  he  used.  If  I  am  wrong  I  will  apologize. 
Or  does  the  final  power  reside  in  the  Premier's 
cabinet?  I  think  that  is  an  important  dis- 
tinction. 

In  simple  and  kind  terms— something  I  am 
not  noted  for,  being  a  lowly  and  simple 
guttersnipe  from  Hamilton— I  believe  this  is 
a  case  in  which  the  Legislature  has  seen  in- 
justice in  the  province  and  sought  a  remedy 
for  that  injustice.  In  very  simple,  kind  and 
basic  terms,  that  is  what  the  opposition  has 
been  doing;  that  is  what  the  opposition  is 
about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  Do  you  think  there  is  such 
a  thing  as  an  impartial  committee  hearing? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  If  the  member  for 
Cochrane  South  (Mr.  Pope),  the  minister  with- 
out food  terminal,  will  hold  his  peace  I  will 
turn  my  attention  to  him  in  just  a  moment 
and  make  some  comment  on  his  inane,  un- 
informed and  bizarre  remarks  before  the 
supper  hour. 

The  Legislative  Assembly  saw  injustice  and 
sought  to  provide  a  remedy  to  correct  that 
injustice.  The  government  has  sought  to  de- 
fend its  actions  in  this  matter.  Simply  stated, 
that  is  what  has  happened  on  the  two  sides 
of  the  House.  I  think  my  comments  are  in 
kind  terms. 

The  government  has  put  forward  what  can 
be  described,  I  think  fairly,  as  a  legalistic 
argument.  Not  only  is  it  legalistic,  it  is  a 
shifting  argument  and  a  shifting  case.  If 
there  has  been  any  change,  it  has  not  been 


4948 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


a  change  of  attitude  but  simply  a  move- 
ment over  the  period  from  one  variety  of 
tactics  of  delay  to  another. 

I  think  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  govern- 
ment has  never  in  this  session  expressed  its 
concerns  in  human  terms,  but  always  in  the 
same  legalistic,  stuffy,  dry  terms. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  Were  charges  laid? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Were  charges  laid  in 
the  Re-Mor  case?  No. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  But  Mr.  Montemurro  was 
not  having  any. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  No.  Have  charges 
been  laid  against  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  or 
any  of  his  staff  in  the  Re-Mor  case?  No. 
Have  charges  been  laid  against  anybody 
else  in  the  Re-Mor  case  yet? 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  But  that  is  what  you  really 
want. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  No.  They  have  not 
been  laid.  That  was  one  of  the  inaccuracies 
that  resulted  from  the  colossal  misinforma- 
tion the  member  for  Cochrane  South  is  so 
attuned  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  He  just  said  it. 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  must  admit  to  not 
having  the  necessary  academic  credentials  to 
fully  appreciate  the  government's  intricate 
cleverness  in  its  myriad  legalistic  arguments. 
As  a  parliamentarian,  I  am  impressed  in  a 
certain  sense.  As  a  parliamentarian,  I  admire 
chutzpah  and  nerve.  That  is  what  we  have 
seen  from  the  government  in  its  hiding  be- 
hind those  incredible  arguments.  Frankly,  I 
admire  the  quickness  of  mind  with  which 
the  government  has  shifted  ground  in  its 
arguments  on  this  issue  over  the  past  two 
months.  It  is  really  a  sight  to  behold.  Those 
members  should  be  up  for  Olympic  medals 
in  the  dash. 

My  motivation  in  this  matter— and  let  me 
clarify  it  for  people  like  the  absent  Attorney 
General— has  always  been  a  motivation 
caused  by  the  human  element.  Last  night 
when  I  went  back  to  my  constituency  office 
to  do  my  clinic  three  of  the  constituents  who 
came  to  see  me  were  three  of  the  Re-Mor 
victims. 

I  think  about  the  people  who  have  spoken 
on  this  matter  today  on  the  other  side  of  the 
House— the  gentle  Premier  who  didn't  want 
to  be  involved;  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations;  the  Attorney 
General  and  Solicitor  General;  the  Minister 
without  food  terminal  from  Cochrane  South. 
I  don't  think  they  spend  very  many  of  their 
Wednesday  evenings  in  their  constituency 
offices  talking  to  people  who  are  among  the 


324  who  were  ripped  off.  If  they  had,  maybe 
there  would  have  been  a  more  human  face 
to  the  concerns  expressed  by  people  such  as 
the  Attorney  General  in  the  debate  today. 
That  does  not  seem  to  be  the  focus  of  their 
concern. 

I  cannot  let  go  by  the  remarks  made  by 
the  member  for  Cochrane  South.  I  think  his 
ill-informed  remarks  show  clearly  what  is 
wrong  with  the  government's  position  in  this 
case.  He  put  before  us  in  this  House  a  posi- 
tion based  on  a  dry  and  damned  near  irrele- 
vant legal  argument  that  shared  in  his  capac- 
ity as  understudy  to  the  Attorney  General 
that  degree  of  patronizing  arrogance  that  the 
Attorney  General  is  so  famous  for. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  Tell  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  to  his  face 
that  you  want  him  charged  criminally. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I'll  come  back  to  the 
allegations  of  the  member  for  Cochrane 
South  that  charges  have  been  laid  in  the 
Re-Mor  matter.  I  would  be  quite  happy  to 
come  back  to  that  inaccuracy. 
8:10  p.m. 

Comments  that  could  only  have  been 
motivated  from  his  colossal  ignorance  about 
the  matter  form  part  of  a  consistent  pattern 
we  have  seen  in  this  assembly  since  nearly 
the  first  day  of  this  fall  session,  of  coverup,  of 
hiding,  of  weasling  away  from  everything  we 
have  tried  to  do  in  the  opposition  to  bring 
this  matter  to  public  light.  The  member  for 
Cochrane  South  finds  no  difficulty  in  asso- 
ciating himself  with  that.  I  think  it  would  be 
great  if  the  member  for  Cochrane  South  was 
concerned,  as  he  says,  about  the  victims  of 
the  Re-Mor  scandal,  but  I  dare  say  he 
probably  cannot  even  name  a  single  victim. 

I  was  reflecting  over  the  supper  hour  on 
the  speech  the  member  for  Cochrane  South 
made,  a  continual  series  of  quotations  that 
formed  his  dry,  uncaring  dissertation  in  de- 
fence of  what  is  clearly  an  indefensible  posi- 
tion his  government  has  taken.  Frankly,  if  I 
could  be  of  some  use  as  a  speech  writer  to 
the  member  for  Cochrane  South,  it  might 
have  been  quite  appropriate,  in  terms  of  look- 
ing for  sources  to  quote  in  this  indefensible 
position  his  government  is  in,  to  suggest  he 
need  not  have  looked  so  far  away  in  time  nor 
in  physical  distance,  but  could  have  looked 
only  a  few  years  away  and  only  few  miles 
away  to  a  former  president  of  our  southern 
neighbour,  a  fellow  by  the  name  of  Richard 
Nixon.  I  think  he  could  have  found  some  very 
good  lines  that  he  could  have  brought  to  the 
defence  of  his  position  and  his  government. 
The  matters  raised  by  the  Attorney  General 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4949 


also  form  part  of  that  continuing  pattern  of 
trying  to  deny  the  justice  committee  of  this 
House  and  the  opposition  in  this  Legislature 
a  chance  to  deal  with  and  to  try  and  find  out 
what  had  happened  in  the  Re-Mor  case.  Due 
to  the  obvious  ignorance  on  the  other  side 
of  the  House,  it  might  be  wise  to  go  back  in 
time  a  little  bit  and  let  members  know  what 
brought  us  to  the  point  where  we  have  to 
deal  with  the  resolution  now  before  us. 

Back  in  the  mid-1970s,  Mr.  Montemurro 
and  his  associates— Mr.  Montemurro  being  a 
fellow  with  something  less  than  a  spotless 
reputation  in  terms  of  protecting  the  interests 
of  people  in  this  province— tried  to  get  a 
licence  to  set  up  a  trust  company  in  Ontario. 
They  were  unsuccessful  in  getting  such  a 
licence  from  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.  They  went  down  the 
street— the  street  being  the  distance  between 
here  and  Ottawa— and  were  able  to  get  such 
a  licence  from  the  federal  government,  so 
they  were  able  to  set  up  shop  as  a  trust  com- 
pany in  Ontario. 

Some  time  later  and  as  part  of  a  series  of 
corporations  this  fellow  Montemurro  had  set 
up  across  the  province,  they  got  from  the 
Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions registration- 
Mr.  Speaker:  If  I  could  interrupt  the  mem- 
ber at  this  time,  I  want  to  remind  him  we 
have  allowed  an  awful  lot  of  leeway  in  this 
debate  since  3:30  this  afternoon.  The  actual 
question  before  the  House  deals  specifically 
with  the  time  that  something  should  take 
place.  It  surely  does  not  go  back  to  the  year 
1970  to  resurrect  all  that  has  gone  before. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  will  move  quickly 
through  a  very  brief  description  of  the  his- 
tory, Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  not  have  bothered 
to  waste  the  time  and  I  would  not  have 
thought  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  put 
this  on  the  record,  except  that  clearly  so 
many  members  across  the  way  do  not  under- 
stand it.  If  they  do  not  understand  how  we 
got  to  this  position,  I  do  not  know  how  they 
can  with  any  sense  of  confidence  vote  on  the 
matter.  If  I  stray  from  the  topic,  Mr.  Speaker, 
please  bring  me  to  order  and  I  will  try  to  be 
brief  in  putting  the  background  on  the  record. 
They  were  allowed  by  the  minister  to 
register  a  company  called  C  and  M  Financial 
Consultants.  Almost  from  the  early  days  of 
its  existence  C  and  M  came  under  the  scru- 
tiny of  various  parts  of  the  Ministry  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations,  specifically 
the  Ontario  Securities  Commission,  which  I 
think  is  quite  relevant  to  what  is  happening 
in  this  debate. 


The  securities  commission  finally,  in  No- 
vember 1978,  put  a  cease-trade  order  on 
Mr.  Montemurro's  company,  C  and  M  Finan- 
cial Consultants,  on  the  grounds  it  was  a 
mortgage  company  trading  in  securities  and 
all  of  the  inherent  problems  in  that. 

By  February  1979,  the  question  had  moved 
into  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ontario  and  the 
Supreme  Court  had  appointed  a  receiver  for 
the  affairs  of  C  and  M,  after  finding  out  it 
had'  been  trading  in  securities  without  being 
registered  for  that  purpose. 

'On  February  21,  1979,  about  two  weeks 
after  the  Montemurro  company,  C  and  M, 
had  been  put  into  receivership,  the  ministry 
went  ahead  and  registered  Re-Mor.  That  is 
how  we  have  come  to  where  we  are  today. 

The  central  issue  before  us  and  the  ques- 
tions to  which  we  could  not  get  answers 
dealt  with  that  fact.  Why  was  it  one  arm  of 
the  ministry  was  shutting  down  C  and  M 
which  had  been  registered  under  the  Mort- 
gage Brokers  Act,  while  another  branch  of 
the  ministry  was  giving  the  same  guy  a 
licence,  a  registration,  to  set  up  another 
company?  That  is  an  amazing  decision.  That 
is  a  really  incredible,  almost  unbelievable 
decision  for  the  ministry  to  have  made.  The 
reason  it  is  unbelievable  is  because  of  the 
wording  of  the  legislation  under  which  the 
registration  was  granted. 

The  Mortgage  Brokers  Act,  if  I  may  read 
briefly  from  section  5(1)  says,  "An  applicant 
is  entitled  to  registration  or  renewal  of  reg- 
istration by  the  Registrar  except  where,  (a) 
having  regard  to  his  financial  position,  the 
applicant  cannot  reasonably  be  expected  to 
be  financially  responsible  in  the  conduct  of 
his  business." 

If  I  could  break  there  for  a  moment,  the 
C  and  M  swindles  eventually  ended  up  in 
what  is  now  going  before  the  courts  as  a 
$3.8  million  fraud  case.  That  came  as  early 
as  1978.  In  November,  the  ministry  was  in- 
volved in  shutting  that  down  for  that  pur- 
pose. That  is  financial  responsibility. 

It  continues,  "(b)  the  past  conduct  of  the 
applicant  affords  reasonable  grounds  for  be- 
lief that  he  will  not  carry  on  business  in 
accordance  with  the  law  and  with  integrity 
and  honesty." 

We  come  back  to  exactly  the  same  point. 
The  same  people  who  had  been  involved  in 
the  C  and  M  swindle  who  obviously  showed 
they  were  unable  to  conduct  their  business 
in  accordance  with  the  law  or  with  integrity 
or  honesty  are  then,  two  weeks  later,  given 
a  licence.  Both  of  the  conditions— and  it  only 
takes  one— were  breached.  Yet  the  minister 
and  his  people  granted  that  registration. 
That  is  what  brings  the  case  before  us.  That 


4950 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


action  perhaps  made  it  inevitable  that  324 
people  would  lose  $6  million. 

If  I  can  come  to  the  difficulties  we  faced 
in  the  Legislature  in  trying  to  find  some 
justice  for  our  constituents  in  this  matter, 
we  raised  this  issue  with  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  the 
first  day  we  were  able  to  after  the  opening 
of  the  fall  session.  His  response  was  he  was 
not  going  to  go  ahead  and  do  anything  to 
help  these  people.  We  raised  the  matter  with 
the  minister  again  and  again  in  the  intervening 
months.  We  asked  him  if  he  would  explain 
to  us  why  on  earth  they  gave  this  registra- 
tion. He  never  explained';  he  never  even 
tried  to. 
8:20  p.m. 

One  day  I  was  so  beside  myself  as  to  how 
to  readdress  the  question  which  I  had  asked 
so  many  times,  I  even  asked  the  minister  if 
he  could  identify  one  single  activity  by  Mr. 
Montemurro  that  would  lead  him  to  believe 
Mr.  Montemurro  would  have  been  financially 
responsible  in  this  matter  and  would  have 
conducted  his  business  with  honesty  and 
integrity  and  in  accordance  with  the  law. 
Even  when  asked  in  the  reverse  form,  the 
minister  could  not  identify  one  single  oc- 
casion, one  single  activity  or  action  that 
would  make  him  believe  Mr.  Montemurro 
could  have  been  expected  to  do  that. 

The  324  people  still  do  not  have  their 
money.  What  did  they  do?  They  had  to  an- 
nounce their  intention  to  sue  their  own  gov- 
ernment to  try  to  get  the  money  back.  Clearly, 
they  were  not  going  to  get  it  back  in  any 
other  way.  They  have  gone  ahead  and  given 
that  notice  of  intention  to  sue  and  I  think 
that's  shameful. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Would  the  honourable  mem- 
ber like  me  to  refresh  his  memory  as  to  the 
content  of  the  motion? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
think  my  remarks  in  this  important  matter 
have  strayed  any  further  than  the  remarks  of 
the  Attorney  General  earlier  this  afternoon. 
Nor  have  I  used  any  unparliamentary  lan- 
guage. I  thought  I  was  being  kind. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Not  so.  Not  so. 

Mr.  Hodgson:  That's  a  change. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  We  talk  straight  in 
Hamilton  Centre.  We  know  what  to  call  what 
has  gone  on  here. 

The  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  consistently  refused  to 
give  us  any  information.  Finally,  the  matter 
was  referred  to  the  justice  committee  of  the 
assembly  which  was  the  appropriate  place  for 
it  to  go.  I  sat  here  and  listened  very  carefully 


as  the  Attorney  General  gave  his  dissertation 
on  why  the  Legislative  Assembly's  justice 
committee  was  not  properly  charged  with 
that  responsibility. 

The  Attorney  General  and  I  have  been  in 
this  House  for  the  same  five  years.  I  have 
participated  in  the  affairs  of  this  House  and 
its  committees;  it  is  too  bad  the  Attorney 
General  did  not  have  the  same  opportunity 
before  being  elevated  to  the  cabinet.  It  is 
clear  to  me  that  he  completely  misunder- 
stands how  the  parliamentary  process  works 
and  what  it  is  about. 

The  justice  committee  met  to  deal  with  it 
and  again  requested  that  the  ministry  give  us 
the  information.  Earlier  in  the  debate,  three 
motions  were  moved  by  the  member  for  St. 
Catharines  (Mr.  Bradley)  to  try  to  get  some 
basic  information.  When  it  was  apparent  that 
no  other  information  would  be  forthcoming, 
the  justice  committee  moved  a  motion  asking 
for  your  warrant,  Mr.  Speaker,  which  you 
were  kind  enough  to  grant  to  us. 

I  honestly  believed  that  when  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  re- 
ceived a  warrant  for  those  documents,  he 
would  turn  them  over.  When  I  read  the 
warrant,  I  was  impressed.  "Elizabeth  II,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  of  the  United  Kingdom,  of 
Canada  and  her  other  realms  and  territories, 
Queen,  head  of  the  Commonwealth,  defender 
of  the  faith;  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations,  greetings  .  .  ."  and  then 
set  forward  the  documents  required  by  the 
committee. 

I  really  believed  the  minister  would  do  that. 
I  did  not  know  there  was  some  process  by 
which  the  minister  and  his  government  could 
escape  the  production  of  those  documents.  I 
really  believed  the  committee  would  have  the 
advantage  of  those  documents  in  its  work, 
work  the  committee  will  have  to  do  whether 
or  not  it  gets  the  documents. 

Even  though  this  committee  and  its  repre- 
sentatives met  with  representatives  of  the 
Attorney  General's  office  and  worked  out  a 
very  complex  and  very  clear  set  of  guide- 
lines as  to  how  this  would  be  dealt  with 
before  the  committee,  and  even  though  a 
deadline  was  set  without  disagreement  from 
anybody  in  the  government,  either  members 
of  the  Conservatives  or  members  of  the 
bureaucracy,  that  the  papers  would  be 
turned  over  on  December  2,  at  midnight  on 
Tuesday  night  we  did  not  have  the  docu- 
ments, As  of  that  hour  I  believe,  even  if 
no  one  else  around  here  believes,  that  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations was  at  least  in  contempt  of  the  stand- 
ing committee  on  the  administration  of 
justice.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  he  will 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4951 


be  in  contempt  of  your  warrant  in  this  mat- 
ter, Mr.  Speaker. 

The  justice  committee  then  went  ahead 
and  moved  a  motion  in  plain  and  simple 
language  that  you  now  have  before  you  in 
the  House  requiring  that  those  documents 
be  produced  by  9  o'clock  tomorrow  morn- 
ing, some  12  hours  from  now. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Attorney  General 
has  come  forward,  at  that  committee  meeting 
and  today  in  this  debate,  with  a  compromise 
position.  The  Attorney  General's  alleged 
reasonable  compromise  is  that  the  whole  mat- 
ter of  compliance  be  delayed  for  a  week, 
which  is  part  one.  Part  two  is,  what  happens 
at  the  end  of  that  week?  The  Attorney  Gen- 
eral graces  the  administration  of  justice  com- 
mittee with  his  presence,  a  rare  thing  indeed, 
and  will  explain  to  the  committee  and  advise 
the  committee  as  far  as  it  is  humanly  pos- 
sible how  long  it  will  take  the  Ontario  Pro- 
vincial Police  to  complete  that  part  of  its 
investigation  which  concerns  the  committee. 
One  month,  one  year,  10  years?  Who  knows? 

That  is  not  a  reasonable  compromise.  The 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions is  under  a  Speaker's  warrant  for  the 
production  of  documents  and  the  Attorney 
General  comes  forward  with  a  suggestion 
that  would  not  have  been  a  compromise  posi- 
tion a  month  and  a  half  ago.  In  real  terms 
he  says  that  the  committee  is  unlikely  ever 
to  get  those  documents  if  we  follow  along 
with  this. 

The  second  part  of  the  Attorney  General's 
request  is  that  we  allow  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral and  his  designates  a  chance  to  sift 
through  the  evidence  and  the  documenta- 
tion; to  take  out  the  vast  majority  of  docu- 
ments from  the  files;  to  edit  in  any  way 
they  choose  the  information  which  will  be 
supplied  to  the  committee.  I  would  not  be 
surprised  if,  in  the  process,  there  were  even 
certain  tape  recordings  and  a  certain  secre- 
tarial person  should  happen  to  put  his  or 
her  foot  in  the  wrong  place  while  replaying 
the  tapes.  The  most  incredible  kind  of  in- 
formation could'  come  to  that  committee. 

The  committee  cannot  deal  with  docu- 
ments that  are  edited  by  the  government. 
The  committee  needs  all  of  those  documents. 
We  cannot  be  asked  to  accept  some  edited 
version  of  the  documentation.  That  is  why  it 
is  necessary  that  the  committee  receive  all 
of- 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  No  one  said  that. 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  That  is  exactly  what— 
Hon.    Mr.    Grossman:    I    know   you    can't 
understand  it.   Ask   Mr.   Renwick  to  explain 
it  to  you. 


The"  Deputy  Speaker:    Order.   Order. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  The  member  for  St. 
Andrew- St.  Patrick,  the  boy  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism,  has  said  that  my  view 
of  what  the  Attorney  General  has  put  for- 
ward as  a  compromise  position  is  not  the 
facts.  Well,  let  me  read  it  so  there  can  be 
no  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  the  min- 
ister and  his  fine  friends  across  the  way. 

Mr.  Hodgson:  What  was  your  majority? 

The  Deputy  Speaker:   Order. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Fourteen,  and  I  know 
every  single  one  of  them  are  fine  people. 

Mr.  Hodgson:  Did  you  say  1,400? 

Mr.   M.   N.   Davison:   Fourteen  votes,  my 
friend.  We  waste  no  effort  in  the  fine  riding 
of  Hamilton  Centre. 
8:30  p.m. 

I  am  quoting  from  the  Attorney  General's 
statement  earlier.  "Two,  the  committee  re- 
quest of  the  Speaker  that  his  warrant  be  con- 
fined to  this  committee's  area  of  concern,  i.e., 
documents  relating  to  the  issuance  of  the 
licence  by  the  ministry.  This  request  is  made 
to  alleviate  my  concern,"  et  cetera. 

"Documents  relating  to  the  issuance  of  the 
licence  by  the  ministry";  that  is  what  the 
Attorney  General  wants  to  give  us.  Those  are 
the  edited  documents.  WTiat  are  the  docu- 
ments requested  by  the  committee  and  re- 
quested by  the  Speaker's  warrant?  They  are 
considerably  different.  They  include  all  cor- 
respondence, interdepartmental  memoranda, 
memoranda  to  file,  application  forms,  notes, 
files  and  such  other  documents  that  are  in 
the  possession  of  any  agency,  board,  commis- 
sion, registry  branch  or  division  of  the  Min- 
istry of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations 
relating  to  Carlo  Montemurro  and  his  related 
companies,  particularly  C  and  M  Financial 
Consultants  Limited,  Re-Mor  Investment 
Management  Corporation,  Canada  Metal  Re- 
cycling Labs  and  the  Astra  Trust  Company. 

The  justice  committee  has  asked  for  what 
may  well  be  five  truckloads  of  documents. 
The  Attorney  General,  in  his  reasonable  com- 
promise, is  going  to  give  us  something  he  can 
probably  write  on  the  back  of  a  matchfolder. 
He  cannot  expect  the  committee  to  deal  with 
that  kind  of  information;  that  is  not  a  com- 
promise. 

The  Attorney  General,  as  I  said  earlier,  has 
been  involved  in  this  pattern  of  obstructing 
the  work  of  the  committee  and  obstructing 
the  work  of  the  opposition  in  getting  to  the 
facts  in  this  case.  That  is  unacceptable  to  us 
in  the  opposition  parties. 

I  think  we  have  been  overly  kind  with  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 


4952 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tions.  More  than  a  week  ago,  he  received  a 
warrant  from  the  Speaker  of  this  House  with 
which  he  has  failed  to  comply.  I  do  not  know 
how  people  in  the  rest  of  the  province  view 
these  things,  but  where  I  come  from  in  the 
north  end  of  Hamilton  that  is  contempt.  That 
is  what  I  think  the  minister  and  this  govern- 
ment are  involved  in.  I  think  they  have  an 
obligation  to  produce  those  documents  and 
to  produce  them  forthwith.  The  motion  before 
this  committee  by  way  of  report  clearly  states 
that  those  documents  should  be  produced  no 
later  than  nine  o'clock  tomorrow  morning. 

I  wanted  to  add  to  that  original  motion  in 
the  committee  an  amendment  that  on  the 
failure  to  comply  with  that  order  of  the 
House— and  judging  from  the  past  perform- 
ance of  the  minister  and  his  friends  this 
would  be  quite  possible— the  minister  be  cited 
by  the  Speaker  for  contempt  of  the  House. 
Unfortunately  that  amendment  was  not 
carried.  There  were  only  four  votes  to  be 
mustered  in  the  committee  for  it. 

My  concern  is  that  we  are  running  against 
the  clock  in  this  matter.  The  assembly  will 
rise  on  December  12.  We  have  very  little 
time  left  to  get  those  documents.  I  think  it  is 
important  we  conclude  this  debate  shortly 
this  evening,  have  a  vote  on  the  motion  and 
then  get  the  documents  so  that  the  committee 
can  start  to  do  its  work. 

This  is  my  final  comment  in  this  matter. 
We  have  heard  a  lot  about  who  is  going  to 
be  hurt.  We  have  heard  a  lot  of  claptrap 
about  how,  through  this  studv  by  a  respect- 
able and  properly  constituted  committee  of 
this  assembly,  in  some  way  this  Montemurro 
fellow  may  get  off  the  hook.  The  only  people 
who  are  going  to  be  hurt  if  the  committee 
does  not  go  ahead  and  do  its  work  are  the 
324  Re-Mor  victims,  the  people  whom  this 
government  seems  so  willing  to  forget  all 
about,  to  write  off  completely. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  That  is  not  true. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  say  to  the  Minister 
of  Energy,  if  that  is  untrue,  how  many  people 
does  he  know  are  involved?  How  many  people 
is  he  defending  tonight  in  the  Legislative 
Assembly? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  That  is  not  fair. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  can  read  him  a  list 
of  40  people  I  am  concerned  about  who  have 
come  to  me  personally. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  It  is  not  fair  to  suggest 
we  are  not  concerned  about  those  people. 

Mr.  N.  M.  Davison:  If  he  is  concerned 
then  he  should  quit  trying  to  hide  behind 
this  dry  legalistic  claptrap.  Give  us  the 
documents   so  we   can   do   our  work   in   that 


committee,  work  that  is  going  to  have  to  go 
on  whether  the  government  continues  to 
obstruct  us  or  not.  The  government  is  under 
a  Speaker's  warrant  to  provide  that  informa- 
tion to  this  committee.  Within  the  next  two 
hours,  it  is  going  to  be  under  a  further  order 
to  provide  those  documents  by  nine  o'clock 
tomorrow.  If  those  documents  are  not  pro- 
vided, there  are  people  over  there  who  are 
going  to  be  in  contempt  of  the  Legislative 
Assembly  and  who  are  going  to  be  dealt 
with. 

As  I  put  it  earlier,  this  motion  has  to  pass 
in  the  Legislative  Assembly  this  evening, 
because  the  administration  of  justice  com- 
mittee and  its  hearings  are  the  last  best  hope 
for  the  Re-Mor  victims  and  constitute  the 
onlv  way  in  which  we  will  find  out  what 
really  happened  in  the  Ministry  of  Consumer 
and'  Commercial  Relations  in  this  unbelievable 
act  of  registration  of  Re-Mor.  It  is  the  only 
channel  through  which  these  324  people  can 
get  some  money  back.  It  is  not  their  fault 
they  were  ripped  off  and  they  deserve  some 
form  of  compensation.  The  committee  is  the 
body  through  which  they  have  some  hope 
of  getting  it  and  I  think  the  government 
would  be  wrong  and  arrogant  in  the  ex- 
treme to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  work  of 
that  committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  unlike 
the  previous  speaker,  I  will  try  to  be  reason- 
ably brief  and  to  the  point— and  reasonable. 
I  must  say  I  sat  in  this  Legislature  for  the 
previous  speaker's  maiden  speech  and  it  was 
a  pleasure  hearing  his  swan  song. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Do  you  want  to  come 
and  run  in  Hamilton  Centre? 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  do  want  to  ad- 
dress this  debate,  which  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral has  quite  properly  described  as  one  of 
the  most  important  debates  that  has  oc- 
curred, at  least  in  my  five  years  here.  The 
reason  I  want  to  participate  this  evening  is 
because  I,  like  many  other  members  of  this 
assembly  and  other  parliaments,  have  par- 
ticipated on  many  occasions  at  public  forums 
on  public  platforms  where  I  and  others  spoke 
up  in  defence  of  liberties  that  others  less 
fortunate  than  us  do  not  have. 

I,  like  others,  have  stood  on  platforms  and 
in  this  assembly  defending  with  as  much 
force  as  possible  this  democracy  and  the  sys- 
tem we  live  under.  There  are  a  lot  of  mem- 
bers of  this  assembly  who  can  give  very 
eloquent  speeches  in  defence  of  our  demo- 
cracy, the  previous  speaker  this  evening 
excepted. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4953 


I  have  listened  as  many  members  of  all 
three  parties  represented  here  tonight,  and 
representatives  of  parties  in  all  assemblies 
in  this  country,  have  eloquently  spoken  in 
favour  of  the  virtues  and  traditions  that  have 
made  this  the  great  and  free  country  it  is. 
Some  of  us  find  it  is  very  easy  to  make 
those  speeches  when  the  going  is  easy.  But 
the  true  test  comes  not  when  some  of  us 
are  requested  to  speak  in  front  of  a  rally, 
not  when  we  speak  to  an  audience  of  people 
who  have  lived  under  totalitarian  govern- 
ment and  we  go  there  and  assure  them  that 
we  in  this  country  have  the  protections  that 
many  other  countries  do  not  have— those 
speeches- 
Mr.  Roy:  Take  the  smile  off  your  face 
when  you  are  saying  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  There  is  no  smile 
on  my  face.  I  say  to  the  member,  tomorrow 
morning  when  he  is  in  court  practising,  and 
standing  up  and  defending  the  traditions 
and  defending  the  accused,  he  will  be  re- 
lieved that  this  system  has  protected  the 
rights,  not  only  of  the  accused  the  member 
will  be  representing  for  remuneration  tomor- 
row morning,  but  of  those  people  whom  the 
accused  person  has  harmed.  The  protection 
to  which  that  person  is  entitled  was  hard 
won  in  this  country,  even  though,  thank- 
fullv,  there  was  no  war.  It  is  a  hard-to- 
protect  right  and  it  slips  away  easily. 

8:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  sav  to  my  friend  from 
Ottawa  East  who  will  not  be  with  us  to- 
morrow, and  I  say  to  others  who  have  had 
the  privilege  of  practising  in  the  law  courts 
as  have  I,  we  have  seen  many  examples 
where  our  system  has  been  stretched  to  its 
very  limits  in  order  to  ensure  freedom,  the 
rights  of  the  accused,  the  right  to  a  fair  trial 
and  the  right  to  full  and  complete  remedy 
in  the  courts  of  people  who  have  been 
aggrieved  by  someone  who  has  committed  a 
criminal  offence. 

I,  like  other  lawyers,  have  watched  and 
been  involved  in  trials  in  which  someone  who 
likely  was  guilty  went  free.  Why  does  that 
happen?  Because  our  system  and  the  Ameri- 
can system,  I  might  add,  with  well-known 
cases  like  the  Miranda  case  in  the  US  and 
many  in  Canada  which  my  colleagues  who 
have  practised  more  recently  than  I  could 
call  to  mind,  have  built-in  protections  that 
are  sometimes  difficult  for  the  victim  of  a 
crime  to  swallow.  But  it  is  the  price- 
Mr.  Roy:  The  same  bull  that  we  heard— 
Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  My  friend  from 
Ottawa  East,  QC,  may  think  it  is  bull  but 


it  is  the  first  lesson  he  learned  in  law  school. 
He  probably  tells  his  clients  the  same  kind 
of  "bull"  but  when  it  comes  to  this  assembly, 
when  he  visits  us,  he  calls  it  bull.  It  is 
unbecoming  to  the  member's  profession, 
though  not  unbecoming  of  the  member. 

Mr.  Roy:  It  is  bull  coming  from  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  for  Ot- 
tawa East  shows  his  class  when  the  chips 
are  down. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  system  is  being 
tested  on  the  merits  of  this  case.  It  is  not 
easy  for  us  on  this  side  of  the  House  to  stand 
up,  understanding  the  politics  of  of  the  situ- 
ation. One  does  not  have  to  be  terribly  ex- 
perienced to  understand  the  politics  here 
in  terms  of  what  is  popular  in  Hamilton. 

My  colleague  the  Minister  of  Energy,  the 
Deputy  Premier,  has  to  face  on  a  daily  basis 
many  constituents  who  have  a  difficult  time 
understanding  why  these  documents  cannot 
be  delivered',  why  the  problem  cannot  be 
remedied  right  away.  It  is  not  popular  or 
easy  for  us  to  take  the  difficult  position  that 
time  is  required;  justice  has  some  built-in 
reservations,  checks  and  balances,  and  a 
certain  process  that  must  be  protected.  It  is 
easy  for  everyone  to  mouth  his  dedication 
to  democracy,  but  sometimes  that  dedication 
is  tested. 

The  test  comes  for  a  government,  indeed 
for  all  legislators,  when  in  the  face  of  what 
are  admittedly  difficult  politics,  they  must 
say  time  is  required. 

I  have  never  heard  of  this  company.  I  do 
not  know  the  people  involved.  I  do  know 
some  of  them  have  been  charged  and  I  am 
confident  that  far  too  many  innocent  people 
have  been  harmed.  All  of  that  makes  this  a 
key  test  for  this  system  because  we  have  to 
show  some  resilience  in  order  to  stand  up  to 
these  very  difficult  politics. 

No  one  over  here  is  happy  about  having 
to  look  at  those  people  and  say,  "Time  is 
required."  Why  is  time  required?  Time  is 
required  to  conduct  a  full  investigation. 

Interjections. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  opposition  says, 
"What  have  you  been  doing  for  eight 
months?"  That  tells  me  one  thing.  It  tells  me 
some  members  of  the  opposition  have  sud- 
denly decided  enough  time  has  passed,  in 
their  judgment,  for  the  investigation  to  have 
been  completed. 

They  have  listened  to  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral, who  is  charged  with  certain  parts  of  the 
administration  of  justice  in  this  province,  re- 


4954 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


port  that  the  investgiation  is  not  complete. 
Yet  some  members  of  this  assembly  take  it 
upon  themselves  to  deem  the  investigation  is 
complete  and  therefore  to  call  down  records 
which  form  part  of  an  investigation  that  may 
lead  to  criminal  charges.  Some  members  of 
this  assembly  have  decided  in  their  own 
judgement,  for  whatever  reasons— I  don't  want 
to  be  nasty  enough  to  speculate  those  are 
political  reasons— that  the  investigation  has 
gone  on  long  enough  and  now  they  want  the 
documents. 

When  those  charged  with  the  investigation 
and  the  administration  of  justice  in  this  prov- 
ince say  those  documents  are  prematurely 
issued  at  this  time,  the  production  of  those 
documents  could  threaten  the  prosecution 
the  members  opposite  surely  want  to  see 
launched,  if  appropriate. 

I  believe  the  precedent  here  is  terribly  im- 
portant. Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  you  to  think 
about  the  precedent  being  established.  We 
have  been  dealing  with  these  events  in  the 
context  of  a  specific  investigation  and  in  the 
context  of  a  minority  government. 

Let  me  pose  a  scenario  in  which  there  is 
a  majority  government,  in  which  the  com- 
mittees are  obviously  controlled  by  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  day,  in  which  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission  has  an  investigation 
underway— nothing  more  than  an  investigation 
—and  someone  in  the  government  comes  to 
realize  a  member  opposite,  or  someone  who 
is  not  yet  a  member  but  is  about  to  run  for 
a  party  opposite  against  the  government  mem- 
ber, is  named  somewhere  in  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission's  files.  Nothing  has 
been  shown;  nothing  has  been  proved. 

Let  me  just  picture  the  scenario.  A  govern- 
ment-controlled majority  could  force  through 
this  same  route  a  Speaker's  warrant  from  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  to  disclose  files  that  are  con- 
fidential in  forming  part  of  an  investigation 
and  that  information  would  come  out.  Mr. 
Speaker,  you  and  I  are  in  politics.  We  all  are. 
We  understand  the  implications  of  that.  Some- 
one's name  would  be  besmirched.  His  political 
chances   would  be   irreparablv  harmed. 

They    would    be    harmed   because    people 
sitting  in  this  assembly  decided  they  wanted 
to  see  all  the  confidential  files  of  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission. 
8:50  p.m. 

What  is  there  that  should  stop  this  com- 
mittee, or  any  other  committee,  from  getting 
a  Speaker's  warrant  for  all  the  files  currently 
at  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission?  This 
committee  could  say  it  is  not  satisfied  with 
the  conduct  of  the  Ontario  Securities  Com- 
mission, it  is  not  satisfied  that  it  checked  out 


the  principals  of  these  companies  in  every 
other  file  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission 
has,  and  it  wants  to  see  every  file  and  wants 
it  all  produced,  including  information  sup- 
plied to  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission  on 
a  confidential  basis  by  police  forces  literally 
throughout  the  world.  That  is  a  very  severe 
precedent. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I'd  rather  hear  from  George 
Kerr. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  The  member 
for  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  is  speaking.  I 
wish  all  of  you  would  give  him  the  courtesy 
of  listening. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Let's  listen  to  something  in- 
telligent for  a  change. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 
Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
previous  speaker  talked  about  the  fact  that 
this  government  was  relying  on  what  he 
termed  dry  legalistic  arguments.  Sometimes 
it  is  the  dry  and  legalistic  arguments  and 
laws  which  are  the  sole  protections  our 
people  have.  One  never  knows  when  our 
democracy  slips  back.  The  democracy  in 
this  province  will  not  disappear  tomorrow. 
This  will  not  become  a  totalitarian  state  to- 
morrow morning.  Little  by  little  some  of  the 
checks  built  into  our  system  to  ensure  that 
somewhere  down  the  road  every  citizen  of 
this  province— notwithstanding  the  political 
discomfort  it  gives  the  government  of  the 
day  to  provide  that  protection— has  that  pro- 
tection, will  be  eroded. 

It  is  not  politically  comfortable  for  this 
government  to  stand  here  and  be  pictured 
as  defending  a  whole  bunch  of  people  who 
are  subjects  of  an  investigation,  but  it  is  our 
responsibility  not  to  give  in  to  the  politics 
of  it  and  to  ensure  that  there  is,  in  fact,  a 
full  set  of  laws  here  in  place  with  all  the 
checks,  all  the  balances  and  all  the 
mechanisms  to  ensure  that  precipitate  action 
is  not  carelessly  undertaken. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  remind  you  what  the 
issue  is  tonight.  The  Attorney  General  has 
asked  for  a  few  more  days,  when  he  might 
be  able  to  report  to  this  committee- 
Mr.  Bradley:  He  has  had  a  month.  All  of 
a  sudden  he  is  forced  against  the  wall. 

Hon.   Mr.    Grossman:    Sure,  wipe  away   a 
whole  bunch  of  protections  because  you  need 
the  documents  Friday,  not  next  Wednesday. 
If  our  democracy  is  so  frail  because  cer- 
tain members  of  this  assembly- 
Interjections. 
The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4955 


Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  Attorney  General 
has  asked  for  the  opportunity  to  come  to  the 
committee  next  week.  He  believes  at  that 
time  the  situation  will  have  been  clarified.  I 
simply  urge  it  upon  the  members  of  this 
assembly.  I  understand.  I,  like  every  mem- 
ber of  this  assembly,  have  had  people  come 
into  my  constituency  office,  obviously  not  on 
this  matter,  but  on  a  whole  host  of  matters. 
I  know  what  it  is  like  to  look  across  at  people 
who  are  threatened,  who  have  lost  money, 
Whose  lives  are  suddenly  made  insecure,  and 
to  try  to  work  out  a  remedy  for  them.  I 
know  what  the  human  tug  is;  I  understand 
that. 

There  are  certain  times  when  our  system 
requires  us  to  take  a  deep  breath  and  con- 
sider the  cost  of  immediate  gratification.  I 
do  not  want  to  deny  the  opposition  mem- 
bers, particularly  members  of  the  legal  pro- 
fession, their  opportunity  to  try  to  explain 
what  they  are  doing  to  the  legal  and  par- 
liamentary system  of  this  province. 

I  do  not  know,  somewhere  down  the  road, 
whether  or  not  the  events  of  this  week  and 
tonight  will  prove  to  have  been  important. 
I  do  know  a  couple  of  things.  (1)  Sooner  or 
later,  all  the  information  in  this  case  will  be 
made  available.  (2)  When  legislators  calmly 
make  decisions- 
Mr.  Bolan:  What  nonsense. 
Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  As  a  lawyer,  the 
member  for  Nipissing  ought  to  close  it 
there.  Some  of  his  members  are  actually 
listening.  I  do  not  expect  to  change  their 
minds  but  I  hope  that  maybe,  just  maybe, 
they  will  listen  a  bit  and  contemplate— 

Mr.  Roy:  It  is  a  struggle  to  listen  to  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  understand  that 
does  not  happen  in  the  member's  caucus.  A 
fiat  is  handed  down  every  Tuesday  and  that 
is  the  way  it  goes. 

I  just  hope  that  for  a  few  moments,  per- 
haps even  for  the  last  hour  and  a  half,  every 
one  can  forget  the  partisan  politics  involved 
here  and  take  one  step  back.  I  say  to  the 
members  opposite,  particularly  from  the  legal 
profession  who,  strangely,  have  been  inter- 
jecting most,  and  I  say  this  as  a  lawyer,  not 
a  legislator,  it  is  incumbent  upon  them  to 
listen  to  the  argument  and  if  they  have  a 
counterargument,  take  their  turn  in  the 
speaking  order  and  make  the  counterargu- 
ment. Let  us  at  least  have  a  decent  argument 
on  the  process. 

The  subject  matter  of  this  evening's  debate 
should  not  be  the  entire  history  of  the  trust 
company  and  the  cast  of  characters,  all  of 
which    has    been    discussed    for    months    in 


committee.  The  subject  matter  of  this  eve- 
ning's debate  is  what  price  for  getting  those 
documents  Friday  instead  of  next  Wednes- 
day. That  is  the  topic  this  evening.  What 
price  getting  the  documents  tomorrow  morn- 
ing instead  of  next  Wednesday?  The  price  of 
getting  those  documents  on  Friday  instead  of 
five  or  six  days  later,  next  Wednesday,  is 
quite  severe.  I  do  not  know  of  very  many 
countries  that  have  intentionally  stripped 
away  their  democratic  protections.  They 
trickle  away. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Thanks  to  Pierre  Trudeau. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  for 
Nickel  Belt  is  right.  It  happens  over  a  num- 
ber of  years.  Each  move  seems  harmless 
enough. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Ask  John  Rodriguez.  He'll 
tell  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  for 
Essex  South  destroys  what  this  place  is  all 
about.  WTiy  doesn't  he  knock  it  off?  I  know 
he  is  talking  about  an  NDP  member  but  he 
destroys  the  integrity  of  this  evening's  de- 
bate. He  ought  to  knock  it  off.  His  remarks 
are  not  helpful  to  the  process.  Tonight's  de- 
bate is  important. 

Mr.  Roy:  You're  distorting  the  issue,  that's 
what  you're  doing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  issue  is  not  be- 
ing distorted,  with  respect,  Mr.  Speaker.  The 
issue  is  what  price  Friday  instead  of  next 
Wednesday.  We  must  balance  that  off.  I  do 
not  know  at  which  point  various  things  done 
in  Ottawa  by  the  Prime  Minister  have  strip- 
ped our  democratic  process  of  certain  pro- 
tections; time  will  tell.  I  am  not  very  close 
to  this— 

Mr.  Roy:  Give  us  one  example. 

Mr.    Bolan:    What    about    the   price    of   a 
hearing  in  Cayuga? 
9  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  members  opposite 
will  yap  about  everything  but  the  debate 
tonight.  They  stay  totally  away  from  the 
merits  of  the  issue.  It  might  turn  out  to  let 
Merle  Dickerson  come  back. 

Built  into  this  system  is  the  right  of  the 
Speaker  to  make  the  decision  that  lies  before 
him,  and  he  has  to  make  it  tonight  or  to- 
morrow morning.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  simply  want 
to  put  this  proposition  to  you.  You  may  wish 
to  take  the  position  that  you  are  simply 
bound  by  the  decision  of  this  House,  what- 
ever it  shall  be  this  evening.  I  want  to  say 
that  those  people  who  value  this  democracy, 
and  surely  everyone  in  this  House  does,  want 
every   single   check,   hurdle,   lever— whatever 


4956 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


word  one  uses— kept  in  this  system.  I  hope, 
Mr.  Speaker,  you  will  not  take  the  position 
that  you  are  not  a  moderating  factor,  that 
you  are  not  a  final  lever  or  mechanism  or 
hurdle,  but  that  you  are  there  to  sit  blindly 
by  if  you  see  some  part  of  our  democratic 
system  being  threatened. 

I  hope  you  will  accept  your  responsibilities 
as  encompassing  being  the  court  of  last  re- 
sort, the  last  mechanism  that  listens  to  the 
arguments  and  hears  the  vote  of  the  House. 
I  do  not  know  what  the  vote  of  this  assembly 
might  be  this  evening,  but  whatever  it  is,  I 
hope  you  will  not  take  that  as  an  irrevocable 
direction  you  must  follow.  I  have  always 
believed  the  Speakers  role  is  larger  and 
greater  than  that.  It  is  not  one  that  should 
be  exercised  often,  regularly  or  even  at  ran- 
dom. It  is  a  right  that  ought  to  be  exercised 
on  those  rare  occasions  when  the  Speaker 
says: 

"I  understand  what  has  happened  in  this 
assembly,  I  understand  the  political  motiva- 
tions, the  legitimate  motivations,  the  emo- 
tionalism with  which  this  debate  has  been 
held,  but  I  also  understand  that  as  Speaker 
I  am  guardian  of  this  parliament.  I  am  guard- 
ian of  a  system  that  surely  protects  the 
differentiation  and  the  separation  of  the  judi- 
ciary from  the  legislative  branch.  As  Speaker, 
I  am  guardian  of  the  rights  of  all  citizens, 
even  when  the  elected  parliament  overreacts. 
As  Speaker,  if  I  am  to  handle  this  delicate 
democracy  fairly  and  impartially,  my  job  is 
to  exercise  a  degree  of  moderation  and  com- 
mon sense  over  the  deliberations  and  the 
request  before  me  to  execute  a  warrant  on 
Friday  instead  of  next  Wednesday." 

It  seems  to  me  the  Speaker's  job  in  this 
assembly  is  multifold,  but  one  of  those  jobs 
is  to  ensure,  as  far  as  possible,  that  justice 
prevails  in  this  assembly,  that  fairness  for 
all  citizens,  even  when  the  going  gets  tough, 
prevails,  and  that  the  integrity  of  this  system 
is  protected. 

I  reflect  back  now  on  the  proposal  to  put 
a  bill  of  rights  in  the  constitution.  It  seems 
to  me  that  this  evening's  discussion  and  the 
events  of  the  past  couple  of  weeks  speak 
eloquently  to  the  need  to  build  as  many 
protections  as  possible  into  the  constitution 
and  into  a  bill  of  rights  in  that  constitution. 

There  are  some  occasions  when  political 
imperatives— indeed  to  be  fair  to  some  of 
the  members  opposite— human  imperatives, 
result  from  people,  friends  and  neighbours 
they  know,  who  are  frustrated.  They  cannot 
understand  why  the  documents  from  these 
people  who  cheated  them  cannot  be  pro- 
duced. Those  imperatives,  political  or  legiti- 


mate human  imperatives,  must  be  put  aside 
and  stood  up  to. 

I  say  once  again  it  is  not  a  comfortable 
position  for  us.  We  on  this  side  of  the 
House  who  are  responsible  for  the  executive 
branch  of  this  government,  and  the  party 
with  the  most  seats  in  this  parliament- 
Mr.  Mancini:  Ogold  Lodge  is  closing, 
Larry. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  That  puts  the  hon- 
ourable member's  contribution  to  this  debate 
in  perfect  perspective. 

I  worry  much  more  about  our  democracy 
closing  a  bit- 
Mr.  Mancini:  I  worry  about  the  people  in 
South  Cayuga.  For  you  to  stand  here  and 
make  that  kind  of  a  statement  after  you  and 
the  cabinet  did  that  to  the  people  of  South 
Cayuga,  you  should  be  embarrassed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  cameras  are  not 
on,  forget  it.  You  have  been  told  a  hundred 
times  to  wait  until  the  camera  is  on. 

Mr.  Speaker,  this  sort  of  thing  never  hap- 
pens at  those  times  when  troops  are  in  the 
streets,  when  people  are  being  jailed'  without 
due  process.  It  is  never  those  obvious  times 
when  our  democracy  is  tested.  It  is  these 
kinds  of  times.  Even  when  it  is  politically 
uncomfortable  and  even  when  it  tugs  the 
heart  strings  of  the  members  from  that  area 
who  have  friends  and  neighbours  who  have 
lost  money,  that  is  when  our  system  is  tested. 
It  is  easy  to  give  speeches  about  democ- 
racy; it  is  easy  to  give  speeches  about  the 
constitution;  it  is  easy  to  talk  about  a  bill 
of  rights;  it  is  easy  to  talk  about  how  we  all 
believe  in  the  system  and  are  prepared  to  go 
to  the  wall  for  it.  But  this  is  a  little  test  of 
whether  we,  as  legislators,  are  prepared  to 
put  up  with  some  emotional  heart  tugs  and 
some  political  imperatives  in  order  to  protect 
our  system. 

If  this  House  fails  to  stand  up  to  that  test, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  perceive  your  role  as  the  last 
moderate  check.  I  believe  you  are  not 
obliged,  whatever  the  vote  this  evening,  sim- 
ply to  execute  the  result  of  this  vote,  but 
to  exercise  your  responsibility  to  protect  this 
parliament  and  this  democracy  over  which 
you,  in  part,  preside.  I  make  that  urgent  and 
fervent  plea  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  do 
so  in  the  fervent  hope  that  the  Draconian 
events  which  could  result  every  time  one  little 
brick  of  our  democracy  is  taken  away  do  not 
occur. 

I  hope  I  have  overstated  the  case,  quite 
frankly.  I  pray  I  have  overstated  it,  but  it 
is  our  job  to  stand  up  at  this  difficult  time, 
we  as  legislators  and  you  as  Speaker,  to 
protect  our  democracy  in  the  face  of  political 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


495T 


and  emotional  heat  and  pressure.  This  is  the 
true  test.  It  is  not  the  speeches  at  banquets; 
it  is  not  the  speeches  at  rallies;  it  is  whether 
one  is  prepared  to  stand  up  and  be  counted 
when  the  heat  gets  turned  on.  I  hope  this 
assembly  and  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  will  meet 
that  challenge. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  the  member 
for  Niagara  Falls,  I  suppose  I  represent  as 
many  people  as,  or  more  people  than,  any 
other  jurisdiction  in  Ontario  that  has  been 
harmed  by  this  involvement  by  these  com- 
panies. 

Mr.   Sweeney:   According  to  the  minister, 
you  are  not  supposed  to  be  concerned  about 
them. 
9:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  am  very  seriously  concerned 
as  it  relates  to  those  people  I  represent.  I 
think  that  we  are  all  lavvocatos,  if  I  may  use 
the  expression,  or  advocates  for  the  people 
we  represent.  I  would  like  to  say  to  the 
speaker  who  spoke  before  me  that  the  subject 
matter  is  very  clear  to  me  even  though  I 
have  not  attended  that  great  university  where 
lawyers  are  turned  out  who  are  supposed  to 
be  able,  in  all  senses,  to  address  themselves 
to  this  very  serious  problem. 

I  have  seen,  in  this  highest  court  of  the 
land,  something  transpire  that  is  very  difficult 
to  believe.  I  saw  something  debated  here 
and  voted  on,  and  then  retroactive  legislation 
put  into  place  to  cover  for  an  inadequacy  of 
the  government.  I  ask  the  House,  if  a  gov- 
ernment can  perform  that  kind  of  task  in 
order  to  make  up  for  an  inadequacy,  how 
can  we  then  talk  about  a  true  democratic 
process?  What  we  are  talking  about  here  is 
representing  the  people  who  were  harmed. 
In  all  the  time  I  have  been  the  member  for 
Niagara  Falls  I  have  never  had  as  many 
people,  on  a  given  subject,  hurt  in  the  man- 
ner that  these  people  were  hurt.  I  am  sure  if 
I  described  the  hurt  that  was  done,  I  do 
not  infringe  on  the  sub  judice  of  the  situa- 
tion. 

As  I  understand  it,  we  should  not  talk 
about  the  facts  that  would  take  away  from 
the  case  that  is  being  made  by  the  courts 
against  Mr.  Montemurro  and  Mr.  Luciani. 
This  I  understand,  and  this  I  do  not  propose 
to  do.  The  thing  that  is  clearly  before  us, 
easily  delineated,  is  the  fact  that  we  want 
the  record  so  we  can  examine  the  position 
of  the  minister  who  granted  the  licence. 

We  understand  exactly  where  the  line  is. 
We  shall  not  stray  across  it.  We  want  to 
find  out  why  this  government  gave  a  licence 
to   a   group  of  people  after  they  had  gone 


bankrupt  in  another  firm.  It  was  very  obvious 
to  us  that  maybe  that  should  not  have  been 
given.  We  want  to  understand  the  workings 
of  a  government  that  would  do  such  a  thing. 
We  want  to  examine  how  we  can  further 
protect  people  in  the  future  so  it  does  not 
happen  again.  We  do  not,  shall  not  and  will 
not  become  involved  in  the  case  against  the 
people  in  those  other  companies.  That  is  not 
hard  to  understand.  Whether  we  have  been 
to  law  school  or  not,  no  one  should  have 
to  explain  that  to  us;  it  is  all  understood. 

I  ask  again,  why  does  this  become  so  in- 
volved, so  entangled  and  so  hard  to  describe? 
I  only  want  to  speak  to  the  subject  matter 
for  a  few  minutes.  I  cannot  believe  what  has 
happened  to  those  people  I  represent. 

I  saw  a  case  of  a  young  man  and  woman. 
The  young  lady  was  a  nurse  in  Niagara  Falls, 
New  York.  The  husband  was  working  in 
Canada.  They  lived  on  his  wages  and  were 
putting  hers  into  a  trust  account  there.  They 
found  out  there  was  some  question  about 
whether  foreign  deposits  were  protected.  I 
think  as  the  minister  has  described  it,  they 
may  have  been  protected,  and  I  hope  so,  but 
there  was  great  concern  expressed  by  that 
young  couple  as  to  whether  their  funds  were 
protected  because  they  were  in  foreign 
currency. 

In  many  other  instances,  older  people  have 
lost  their  life  savings.  There  are  literally  hun- 
dreds of  them.  I  feel  that  this,  the  highest 
court  in  the  land,  can  deal  in  a  very  fair 
manner  with  those  people  who  have  been 
harmed,  and  in  particular  as  it  relates  to  how 
astute  this  government  was  in  the  issuing  of 
the  licence.  We  should  see  to  it  that  it  does 
not  happen  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to 
speak  very  briefly.  I  do  so,  not  as  a  legal 
expert  or  a  lawyer  who  can  speak  about  the 
niceties  of  the  sub  judice,  or  whatever,  but 
as  a  political  scientist  and  historian  and  as 
one  who  has  made  a  rather  long  life  study 
of  our  parliamentary  system.  In  this  way,  I 
suspect  I  join  forces  with  some  members 
opposite,  perhaps  the  member  for  Renfrew 
North  (Mr.  Conway)  who  is  equally  a  his- 
torian and  a  political  scientist.  I  would  not 
even  try  to  touch  on  all  the  points  made  in 
this  debate,  but  I  would  like  to  speak  for 
just  a  few  minutes  in  a  sense  of,  perhaps, 
sweet  reasoning. 

I  think  at  times  we  touch  on  subjects  in 
this  House  that  really  do  rise  above  partisan 
politics.  Therefore  I  would  hope  to  enlist  my 
colleagues  and  members  of  this  House  on  all 
sides  that  we  might  consider  the  issue  before 
us  as  gentlemen  who  have  a  common  interest 


4958 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


which  is  to  maintain,  develop  and  strengthen 
the  parliamentary  system  in  this  great  prov- 
ince of  ours. 

I  do  not  for  a  moment  suggest  the  justice 
committee  has  acted  in  any  way  like  the  court 
of  Star  Chamber.  We  know  that. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Why  don't  you  tell  that 
idiot  friends  of  yours? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  He  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Yes,  he  did. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  think  it  is  unparlia- 
mentary to  use  that  kind  of  language.  Would 
the  member  please  withdraw  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  As  my  friend  the  member 
for  Renfrew  North  knows  as  well  as  I  do, 
throughout  the  development  and  evolution 
of  our  great  parliamentary  system  there  has 
been  nothing  more  crucial  than  that  fine 
division  of  respective  responsibilities  and  juris- 
dictions of  the  executive  council,  the  parlia- 
ment and  the  courts.  This  has  been  central 
throughout  the  centuries. 

As  my  friend  from  Renfrew  North  also 
knows,  there  has  never  been  a  darker  period 
in  the  British  parliamentary  system  than  in 
the  days  of  the  Tudors  when  Parliament  and 
the  King  did  try  to  usurp,  through  that  famous 
or  infamous  court  of  Star  Chamber,  the  juris- 
diction of  the  courts.  It  was  the  darkest 
period  in  our  parliamentary  history.  We  all 
know  how  that  rather  tragic  episode  ended, 
with  the  beheading  of  King  Charles  I. 

I  would  simply  hope  that  we  here,  in  a 
nonpartisan  fashion,  address  ourselves  to  the 
major  question  before  us.  Frankly,  as  an  in- 
dividual member  for  Ottawa  West,  I  have 
been  persuaded  by  that  very  articulate, 
reasoned,  impassioned  argument  that  the  chief 
law  officer— and  that  is  what  the  Attorney 
General  is— made,  the  appeal  he  made  to  us, 
to  act  in  a  sensible  fashion  here  today.  If 
the  Attorney  General  had  not  committed  him- 
self to  appear  before  this  committee  no  later 
than  next  Wednesday,  I  would  not  be  up  here 
on  my  feet  defending  the  position. 
9:20  p.m. 

It  seems  to  me  what  we  are  really  faced 
with  here  in  the  light  of  the  tremendous 
dangers  the  Attorney  General  has  presented 
here,  the  tremendous  hazards  if  we  are  to 
proceed  tonight  in  the  fashion  of  the  motion 
before  the  House— if  we  are  to  proceed  in  that 
fashion  and  to  risk  those  hazards— is  that  we 
must  weigh  that  against  not  stonewalling  for- 
ever, nor  trying  to  cover  up;  and  nobody  in 
this  House— not  me,  nobody  over  there,  no- 
body over  here— wants  to  cover  up.  We  must 
compare  those  tremendous  hazards  that  he  has 
articulately  placed  before  this  House,  with  a 


three-day  leeway,  a  three-day  mortgage  of 
time  in  order  that  he  can  appear  with  some 
of  the  proper  documents  to  present  to  the 
committee. 

I  have  listened  all  afternoon  and  I  have  not 
heckled.  I  have  not  interjected  but  have 
listened  as  one  who  is  deeply  interested  in 
the  parliamentary  system  to  see  what  our 
Attorney  General  had  to  say.  I  must  say,  as 
an  individual  member  of  this  House,  I  frankly 
find  it  extremely  difficult  to  understand,  I 
simply  cannot  comprehend  the  risk  for  this 
House  if  we  are  to  postpone  our  decision  for 
three  days  as  compared  to  the  risk  if  these 
documents  have  to  be  presented  to  this 
House  tomorrow  morning  at  nine  o'clock.  I 
simply  cannot  comprehend  it. 

I  suspect  that  men  and  women  of  intel- 
ligence and  intellect  across  the  House  and  on 
this  side,  along  with  me,  cannot  comprehend 
these  enormous  hazards  if  we  allow  the 
Attorney  General,  as  he  has  pleaded  here  this 
afternoon,  a  few  more  days  to  present  those 
documents  that  that  committee,  in  its  wisdom 
and  judgement,  wants  and  should  have.  What 
is  the  hazard  of  delaying  another  two  or  three 
days?  I  simply  cannot  comprehend  that  at  all. 

Finally,  I  would  once  again  say  there  do 
come  times  to  go  beyond  partisan  politics.  In 
this  House  we  are  all  practising  politicians. 
We  know  that  and  we  all  know  what  that 
implies  but  surely  an  important  element  and 
dimension  of  practising  politicians  is  that  at 
certain  times  in  history  they  go  above  and 
beyond  partisan  politics  and  exercise  good 
judgement  and  leadership  as  leaders  of  this 
province  and  as  statesmen.  I  would  think  that 
surely,  if  there  ever  was  a  time,  this  is  that 
occasion  when  all  of  us  should  go  beyond 
partisan  politics. 

My  plea  would  be  especially  to  members 
across  the  House.  In  times  of  minority  govern- 
ment the  decision  rests  over  there  and  that 
is  where  the  decision  rests  tonight.  I  would 
plead  to  the  members  opposite  tonight  to  vote 
as  statesmen,  as  leaders  of  this  province,  and 
not  to  follow  the  partisan  politics  and  partisan 
positions.  If  we  do  that,  I  am  convinced  the 
parliamentary  system— many  hundreds  of  years 
old  and  over  a  hundred  years  old  in  this 
province— will  be  stronger  and  better  than 
ever.  My  plea  would  be  that  we  rise  above 
partisan  politics  and  that  the  members  op- 
posite exercise  their  leadership  tonight  and 
we  will  go  on  to  greater  heights  from  here  on. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  sat  here  all  after- 
noon and  listened  to  a  variety  of  members, 
especially  the  lawyers  on  the  government 
side,  state  the  government  case.  Considering 
the    exchanges    that   have    flown    across    the 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4959 


floor  of  this  House,  starting,  I  suppose,  with 
question  period,  which  was  somewhat  lively, 
I  must  say  there  was  some  electricity  in  the 
air.  I  can  tell  the  Christmas  season  is  upon 
us  because  of  the   electricity  of  this  place. 

I  have  listened  closely  to  the  approach 
taken  by  the  Attorney  General  in  his  state- 
ment and  I  have  listened  to  the  Minister  of 
Community  and  Social  Services  (Mr.  Norton), 
who  spoke  about  the  rule  of  law,  due  pro- 
cess and  so  on.  Then  I  listened  to  the  mem- 
ber for  Cochrane  South,  and  I  had  some 
difficulty  understanding  what  he  was  saying 
because  he  was  reading  cases  most  of  the 
time.  I  thought  he  was  reading  his  bar  ad- 
mission notes  in  the  House. 

I  listened  to  the  Minister  of  Culture  and 
Recreation,  who  spoke  last.  I  must  say  his 
contribution  may  have  been  the  most  helpful 
this  afternoon  and  evening.  I  listened  to  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  who  gave 
quite  a  performance  in  distorting  the  process 
that  has  taken  place  and  distorting  the  moti- 
vation in  what  the  justice  commitee  is  at- 
tempting to  do  in  this  case. 

I  do  not  intend  to  be  very  long,  and  I 
do  not  think  I  will  be  able  to  convince  any- 
one. I  want  to  say,  though,  that  if  one  had 
sat  here  and  not  been  familiar  at  all  with 
the  issue,  certainly  one  would  have  some 
concern.  If  we  listened  to  the  approach  taken 
by  the  government  members,  the  impression 
is  left  that  somehow  the  members  of  the 
justice  committee— these  irresponsible  oppo- 
sition members— were  attempting  to  under- 
mine due  process  and  the  rule  of  law. 

I  have  talked  to  my  colleagues;  I  have 
expressed  concern  during  the  course  of  this 
debate.  I  have  asked:  "What  are  we  doing? 
Are  we  attempting  to  get  involved  in  the 
case  where  the  individuals  are  in  fact 
charged,  where  there  has  been  a  preliminary 
hearing  held?  Are  we  attempting  to  get  in- 
volved in  that  sort  of  process?" 

My  colleagues  assure  me  that  is  not  the 
case,  they  are  not  involved  in  that  sort  of 
process.  I  asked:  "Are  any  other  charges  laid 
against  any  other  individuals  in  this  case 
that  the  hearing  by  the  justice  committee 
will  undermine?  Are  any  other  individuals 
charged?"  I  am  told  there  are  no  others. 

I  look  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations,  and  as  far  as  I  know 
there  are  individuals  who  are  charged  with 
fraud  who  have  had  a  preliminary  hearing, 
and  who  have  been  committed  for  trial.  That 
is  what  I  understand.  But  there  have  been 
no  charges  laid  as  far  as  the  issuing  of  a 
licence;  there  have  been  no  charges  laid 
against  anyone  in  the  ministry.  That  is  what 


the  justice  committee  is  attempting  to  under- 
stand. 

What  about  my  colleagues  on  this  com- 
mittee? Have  they  forced  you,  Mr.  Speaker? 
I  listened  to  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism.  He  was  begging  with  you.  He  was 
contorted.  I  wondered  what  he  was  attempt- 
ing to  perform,  hoping  that  somehow  you 
would  not  issue  these  warrants,  that  some- 
how the  justice  committee  had  misguided 
you  in  some  way. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  They  are  already  issued. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  are  already  issued,  my 
colleague  tells  me.  It  is  true.  But  there  is 
some  reluctance  in  obeying  the  warrants. 
We  can  feel  it  from  that  side. 

With  some  measure  of  admiration  I  pay 
tribute  to  my  colleague  the  member  for  St. 
Catharines,  who  throughout  this  process  has 
had  one  question  in  mind,  that  is,  what  has 
happened  at  the  level  of  the  issuance  of  the 
licence?  My  colleague  throughout  has  been 
constant  and  he  has  been  direct  in  his  moti- 
vation; that  is  what  he  wants  to  know.  He 
has  his  constituents,  as  we  have  heard  here 
before  and  I  do  not  intend  to  get  into  that, 
who  have  lost  their  life  savings  in  this  pro- 
cess. They  want  to  know  why.  That  is  their 
interest  and  he  has  been  direct  and  constant 
in  his  motivation. 

9:30  p.m. 

I  want  to  say,  as  well,  I  listened  this 
afternoon  with  a  great  deal  of  admiration  to 
the  presentation  made  here  by  the  member 
for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick).  I  thought  it 
was  excellent.  I  thought  he  covered  every 
issue— the  question  of  due  process,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  minister's  statement  —  and  I 
thought  he  did  it  with  excellence  and  depth. 
He  took  a  thorough  approach  to  this  im~ 
portant  problem. 

I  join  this  debate  because  often  when  we 
in  this  Legislature  are  discussing  a  variety  of 
issues,  and  I  think  this  is  an  important  issue, 
basically  what  we  have  is  a  situation  where 
there  in  a  conflict  between  the  role  to  be 
played  by  members  of  this  assemly,  the  role 
we  are  sworn  to  play  though  we  are  mem- 
ers  of  the  opposition— we  have  a  job  to  do 
here— and  the  tools  are  at  our  disposal;  in 
other  words,  the  warrant  you  have  issued, 
Mr.  Speaker,  and  the  right  of  the  public  to 
know  about  this  public  business  that  has 
gone  on  in  this  particular  situation.  That  is 
one  of  the  issues. 

Brought  on  by  that  issue,  the  other  conflict 
is  the  right  of  due  process.  It  is  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  It  is  the  independ- 
ence of  the  judiciary  and  the  protection  of 


4960 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  rights  of  the  individuals  within  this  com- 
munity. There  are  times  when  there  is  a 
conflict.  There  still  may  be  a  conflict  here. 
If  we  were  to  listen  to  the  government  mem- 
bers, especially  the  lawyers  this  afternoon 
and  this  evening,  the  members  of  the  justice 
committee  would  be  under  the  impression 
that  by  proceeding  as  we  are,  somehow  we 
are  going  to  undermine  that  whole  criminal 
process,  somehow  we  are  going  to  undermine 
certain  individuals  who  should  or  should  not 
be  charged.  The  investigation  is  not  com- 
plete. I  ask  myself,  is  that  really  the  case? 
Is  that  what  is  happening? 

When  it  comes  to  the  question  of  sub 
judice,  the  rule  of  law,  as  the  Attorney 
General  has  said,  we  have  rules  in  this 
assembly  that  prohibit  us  from  dealing  with 
matters  at  present  before  the  court.  We  ask 
ourselves  the  first  question,  in  the  matter  of 
the  issuance  of  the  licence,  how  was  it  a 
licence  was  issued  in  these  circumstances? 
Is  this  a  matter  now  before  the  courts  I 
ask  the  House,  is  that  before  the  courts? 
It  is  not  before  the  courts. 

Hon.   Mr.   Welch:    Civilly. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  member  for  Brock,  I  think, 
mentions  it  is  before  the  civil  courts. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Two  civil  actions. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  say  to  the  minister,  are  we 
talking  about  a  civil  action  or  are  we  talking 
about  a  criminal  process?  Not  one  of  his 
colleagues  all  afternoon  talked  about  the  civil 
process.  We  are  talking  about  the  rule  of 
law.  We  are  talking  about  the  liberty  of  the 
individual.  We  are  talking  about  a  criminal 
process.  We  are  not  talking  civil  law  at  this 
point. 

One  of  the  things  of  great  concern  to  the 
members  on  this  side  is  the  fact  the  rule  of 
law,  the  question  of  sub  judice,  has  been 
abused  here  time  and  again,  as  my  colleague 
the  member  for  Riverdale  has  said.  Time  and 
again,  issues  have  been  put  on  the  back 
burner  because  the  government  knows,  as 
anybody  knows,  time  is  on  its  side.  If  it 
can  put  off  an  issue  for  a  period  of  time, 
there  will  be  no  issue  left  and  the  public 
will  not  be  interested. 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  and  your  predecessors 
in  the  chair  have  put  a  narrow  restriction  on 
the  use  of  sub  judice.  We  are  very  careful 
on  this  side  that  it  is  not  thrown  up  before 
the  members  of  this  assembly  every  time  we 
are  looking  at  the  government's  performance 
in  relation  to  a  particular  issue. 

When  I  hear  my  colleague  the  member 
for  Ottawa  West  talking  about  compromise, 
I  say  to  him   that   I  hope  we   arrive   at  a 


compromise,  because  when  he  talks  about 
the  rule  of  law  and  sub  judice,  I  want  to 
mention  how  sometimes  that  rule  is  used 
conveniently  by  some.  It  is  used  conveniently 
and  employed  in  some  instances  when  it 
should  not  be.  There  are  other  times  when 
there  seems  to  be  no  question  that  inter- 
ference on  the  part  of  a  minister  is  allowed. 
For  instance,  I  say  to  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation,  who  is  in  charge  of 
the  Ontario  Heritage  Act,  how  does  he 
consent  in  November  1979  to  a  prosecution 
of  the  church  in  Ottawa  in  relation  to  what 
is  called  the  Clegg  House?  In  his  consent  at 
that  time  he  stated  that  it  should  be  left  to 
the  courts  for  determination.  Yet  on  Decem- 
ber 2,  1980,  he  sent  a  telex  to  Ottawa  urging 
the  city  of  Ottawa  to  negotiate  an  out-of- 
court  settlement  with  the  church.  How  is 
that  for  interference  in  the  due  process? 
Where  is  that  great  defender  of  public  free- 
dom, that  man  who  raises  sub  judice?  How 
is  that  for  a  conflict  of  interest?  What  is 
the  member  for  Ottawa  West  doing  when 
he  does  that  sort  of  thing  to  the  act? 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Stick  around  here  and 
you'll  get  the  answer.  You  are  never  here 
for  the  question  period. 

Mr.  Roy:  Any  time  the  minister  wants  me 
to  answer  a  question,  I  will  answer  it.  In 
fact,  if  there  are  a  few  more  performances 
like  tonight's,  I  will  answer  all  his  questions, 
because  he  will  be  on  this  side. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  You  are  not  going  to  be 
checked,  Albert,  because  you  aren't  coming 
down  here. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  find  it  highly  improper  that  in 
November  1979  a  minister  in  charge  of  an 
act  would  consent  to  a  prosecution  and  in 
December,  when  the  prosecution  is  coming 
up  before  the  courts,  he  would  tell  the  same 
people  to  settle  out  of  court.  Where  is  the 
Attorney  General  to  involve  the  sub  judice 
rule? 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  You  won't  be  around  next 
year,  Albert. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  hear  the  member  for  Cochrane 
South,  who  likes  to  talk  about  the  rule  of 
law.  What  about  the  rule  of  law  in  Cayuga? 
What  is  his  government  doing  about  a  hear- 
ing for  the  people  in  that  area? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  want  to  remind  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  that  the  two 
citations  he  has  given  to  the  House  are  really 
not  a  part  of  the  motion  that  is  before  the 
House- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  They  certainly  are. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  They  are  not. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4961 


Mr.  T.   P.  Reid:   Mr.   Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  order- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Sit  down.  You  sit  down. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  They  talked  about  the  sub 
judice  rule  all  day,  and  that  man  over  there 
just  threw  it  out  the  window. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Here  is  what  we  are 
debating: 

"Your  committee  requests  that  the  House 
authorize  Mr.  Speaker  to  require  that  all 
material  required  through  the  provisions  of 
the  Speaker's  warrant  of  24  November,  1980 
be  delivered  to  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice  forthwith  and  no 
later  than  Friday,  5  December,  at  9  a.m." 

We  have  allowed  a  lot  of  leeway  in  the 
background  to  this  particular  issue.  But  we 
are  not  debating  Cayuga  or  talking  about  a 
heritage  thing  over  in  Ottawa.  Get  that 
straight. 

9:40  a.m. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  members  oppo- 
site have  talked  all  afternoon  and  all  even- 
ing about  the  fact  that  what  we  are  doing 
here  with  this  resolution  is  undermining  due 
process.  In  fact  we  were  undermining  the 
rule  of  law.  Apparently,  we  are  undermining 
the  whole  criminal  process  according  to  the 
members  opposite.  I  have  great  difficulty 
understanding  why  it  is  that,  if  the  justice 
committee  should  be  allowed  to  view  docu- 
ments and1  investigate  what  they  have  under- 
taken to  do,  it  should  somehow  affect  the 
criminal  investigation.  My  colleague  the 
member  for  St.  Catharines  mentioned  the 
precautions  they  are  prepared  to  accept.  It  is 
not  a  criminal  charge  that  has  been  laid;  it 
is  a  criminal  investigation  that  is  going  on. 

One  has  to  wonder,  as  my  leader  did,  how 
it  is  that  criminal  investigation  has  not  taken 
place  over  the  last  eight  months.  Is  it  a  last- 
minute  decision  to  have  it?  I  fail  to  under- 
stand how  an  investigation  by  members  of 
the  justice  committee  can  contaminate  the 
criminal  investigation  in  any  way  if  it  is 
done  with  caution.  If  there  is  some  dupli- 
cation and  they  are  advised  to  go  in  camera, 
my  colleague  the  member  for  Riverdale  said 
they  are  prepared  to  do  so  if  necessary. 

I  fail  to  understand  how  these  people  have 
so  distorted  the  whole  issue.  Why  has  a 
government  ministry  issued  a  licence  13 
days  or  so  after  the  company  had  ap- 
parently gone  bankrupt?  Why  did  the  gov- 
ernment give  a  licence  in  these  circum- 
stances? How  can  the  investigation  con- 
taminate a  criminal  investigation?  What  is 
there  to  say  this  investigation  by  the  com- 


mittee* will  somehow  undermine  the  crimi- 
nal  investigation? 

I  hope  there  is  a  compromise.  I  feel  one 
can  be  worked  out  with  a  certain  amount  of 
goodwill,  especially  on  the  part  of  the 
Attorney  General.  Somehow  I  suspect  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations takes  his  orders  from  the  Attorney 
General. 

In  the  past,  the  Attorney  General,  by 
invoking  the  sub  judice  rule,  has  shown 
and  has  convinced  many  of  my  colleagues 
that  at  times  he  is  employing  the  rule 
in  a  fashion  that  is  too  facile.  The  issue 
is  being  delayed  and  members  are  being 
denied  an  opportunity  to  review  such  issues. 
I  am  sure  that  with  a  certain  amount  of 
respect,  the  members  of  the  justice  com- 
mittee will  show  a  similar  respect. 

I  fail  to  understand  how  members  of 
the  justice  committee  who  would  be  look- 
ing at  certain  documents  would  somehow 
be  contaminating  these  documents  for  a 
criminal  investigation.  We  have  heard  such 
a  distortion  of  the  issue  this  evening.  For 
instance,  it  was  said  that  if  the  justice 
committee  looks  at  these  documents,  the 
criminal  investigation  will  not  be  able  to 
continue.  That  is  not  so.  The  lawyers  of  this 
House  who  have  done  so  are  distorting  the 
facts  when  they  take  it  upon  themselves  to 
paint  the  members  of  the  justice  committee 
as  people  who  are  prepared  to  run  rough- 
shod over  the  rights  of  the  people  and  the 
accused  in  this  province. 

Many  of  my  colleagues  across  the  House 
have  invited  me  to  join  in  this  debate.  They 
ask:  "Do  you  have  anything  to  contribute? 
Are  you  not  ashamed  of  what  you  are  doing?" 
I  have  spoken  to  my  colleagues  on  the  justice 
committee  from  all  parties.  Perhaps  the 
minister  should  speak  to  some  of  the  col- 
leagues from  his  party  on  that  committee  who 
voted  in  favour  of  the  motion  and  who  he 
is  selling  down  the  river  today.  These  people 
are  prepared  to  show  some  compromise.  They 
are  not  people  who  are  prepared  to  ride 
roughshod  over  the  rights  of  certain  indi- 
viduals; they  are  people  who  are  concerned 
about  what  has  happened  to  many  of  the 
small  people  in  this  province. 

If  that  investigation  looks  at  what  has 
happened,  at  how  it  was  that  certain  in- 
dividuals were  able  to  get  a  licence  in  these 
circumstances— if  these  people  are  allowed  to 
investigate  these  circumstances  and  if  that  is 
called  a  witchhunt,  as  the  member  for  Coch- 
rane South  has  said,  then  count  me  in;  I  am 
on  a  witchhunt  too,  because  I  am  joining  with 


4962 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


these  people.  What  they  are  doing  is  in  good 
faith. 

We  in  the  opposition  have  a  job  to  do.  The 
members  on  the  government  side  did  not  do 
the  administration  of  justice  any  great  favour 
by  some  of  the  comments  they  made.  I  say 
to  them,  if  a  compromise  is  not  reached,  I  am 
satisfied  it  will  be  because  certain  individuals 
on  the  other  side  are  not  prepared  to  show 
a  certain  amount  of  good  faith  and  objectivity 
on  this  point. 

The  members  opposite  should  be  allowed 
to  do  their  job,  and  I  want  to  put  on  record 
that  in  no  way  should  criminal  charges  be 
undermined  by  the  legislative  process,  but 
at  the  same  time,  the  legislative  function,  the 
role  of  members  of  this  assembly,  should  not 
be  stopped  in  a  facile  or  easy  fashion.  The 
members  opposite  should  not  put  up  road- 
blocks in  a  minute,  as  if  they  think  the  sub 
judice  rule  is  something  magic.  The  honour- 
able members  have  invoked  it  too  often,  and 
it  is  small  wonder  that  many  members  on 
this  side  are  cynical  about  that  process. 

I  trust  that  a  compromise  will  be  arrived 
at.  I  think  it  is  going  to  be  in  our  best 
interest.  But  for  the  honourable  members 
opposite  to  suggest— and  I  do  not  say  this 
to  the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation 
(Mr.  Baetz),  but  to  some  of  his  colleagues— 
that  somehow  these  people  here  are  prepared 
to  undermine  the  whole  process,  is  a  distor- 
tion of  the  facts.  My  colleagues  are  acting  in 
good  faith  as  much  as  anyone  opposite. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  not  a  new 
matter  that  is  before  the  justice  committee, 
nor  is  it  a  new  matter  before  the  House.  It  is 
not  something  we  have  invented  to  provide 
extra  work  for  ourselves  during  the  recess, 
nor  is  it  a  matter  that  is  being  raised  in  the 
Legislature  for  the  first  time. 

The  matter  has  been  dealt  with  by  the 
justice  committee  and  by  this  House  in  ques- 
tion after  question  for  the  past  eight  months; 
so  it  should  not  come  as  a  surprise  to  either 
the  Attorney  General  or  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  that  the 
justice  committee  has  some  real  concerns 
about  the  operations  of  one  ministry  in  one 
particular  instance  and  that  we  want  to  look 
at  that  and  that  alone. 

The  Attorney  General  has  questioned  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  committee.  He  tried  to 
convince  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  somehow 
our  committee,  in  examining  the  annual  re- 
port of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations,  could  not  deal  with  the 
very  specific  matter  of  the  action  or  inaction 
or  of  the  competence  or  possibly  incompetence 
of  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 


Relations    in    the    issuance    of    a    particular 
mortgage    broker's    licence. 

One  must  wonder  where  the  minister  has 
been  during  the  past  few  years  as  committee 
after  committee  deals  with  very  specific  and 
concrete  issues  via  the  very  route  of  sending 
the  annual  report  of  a  ministry  to  a  stand- 
ing committee  for  investigation.  One  of  the 
great  accomplishments  of  minority  govern- 
ment has  been  that  we  have  been  able  to  find 
out  for  the  public  things  that  a  government, 
of  whatever  party  and  whoever  was  in 
power,  might  rather  keep  behind  closed 
doors. 

9:50  p.m. 

One  of  the  credits  that  the  press  have 
given  this  minority  government  is  that  it  has 
been  more  open  government.  I  can  recall  that 
one  of  our  press  correspondents,  one  of  our 
better-known  columnists,  devoted  a  whole 
column  to  this.  He  said  one  of  the  things  that 
does  happen  under  a  minority  government 
and  with  the  operation  and  expansion  of  the 
standing  committee  system  that  we  have 
evolved  over  the  last  five  years  is  that  certain 
bureaucrats  are  more  on  their  toes  and  that 
certain  high-ranking  civil  servants  can  no 
longer  feel  easy  during  the  summer  and  be 
able  to  say:  "Thank  heavens,  I  can  go  to  the 
cottage  on  Friday  afternoon.  I  do  not  have 
to  worry  about  what  is  going  on."  Certain 
politicians  cannot  take  certain  actions  with- 
out first  realizing  that  the  anual  report  of  a 
ministry  can  be  sent  to  a  committee  and  the 
actions  of  that  minister  or  the  actions  of  his 
top  civil  servants  can  be  questioned  and 
examined  and  the  public  can  find  out. 

One  must  wonder  where  the  minister  has 
been  during  the  past  few  years  as  com- 
mittees have  done  this.  In  a  very  specific  way, 
we  have  examined  certain  ministerial  actions 
and  the  actions  of  certain  boards  and  com- 
missions via  this  route.  As  a  result  of  sending 
the  annual  report  of  a  ministry  to  committee 
for  study,  we  have  been  able  to  show  that 
the  justice  system  has  been  expanded. 

While  the  Attorney  General  in  the  past  has 
argued  that  certain  committee  activities  verg- 
ed on  sub  judice,  he  has  never  once  tried 
to  present  the  spurious  argument  that  the 
committee  could  not  investigate  any  matter 
under  its  jurisdiction  by  sending  the  annual 
report  of  a  ministry  to  the  standing  com- 
mittee. He  certainly  had  opportunities  and 
his  officials  have  often  wanted  committees, 
particularly  the  justice  committee,  or  in  one 
case  the  resources  committee,  to  refrain  from 
examining  certain  things  that  were  embar- 
rassing   to    this    government.    The    Attorney 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4963 


General  surely  realizes  this  has  been  the  prac- 
tice and  a  very  successful  one. 

A  recent  case  I  can  recall  from  personal 
involvement  and  experience  was  the  inquiry 
of  the  resources  committee  into  the  actions  of 
the  Ontario  Highway  Transport  Board.  An 
even  more  recent  examination  was  that  of 
the  Ontario  Housing  Corporation  where  the 
annual  report  of  the  ministry  was  referred 
to  committee.  The  minister  in  his  foggiest 
fantasies  never  thought  of  bringing  out  the 
spurious  argument  that  the  committee  could 
not  examine  those  specific  questions  at  that 
time. 

The  process  the  Attorney  General  wishes 
to  attack  has  resulted  in  a  secretive  govern- 
ment opening  up  to  the  taxpayers.  In  the 
case  of  OHC,  it  resulted  in  making  public  an 
operations  manual  that  members  of  this 
House  had  asked  for  over  years  and  the 
government  had  kept  secret.  That  operations 
manual  had  rules  and  regulations  governing 
the  daily  lives  of  thousands  of  people  in  this 
province.  Only  through  sending  an  annual 
report  to  a  committee  was  that  operations 
manual  made  public.  Only  through  sending 
an  annual  report  to  that  committee  was  it 
possible  for  the  legal  aid  lawyers  for  the 
various  tenant  activist  groups,  for  the  various 
tenant  advocacy  groups  and  for  social  work- 
ers to  go  to  that  ministry  or  to  the  housing 
authority  and  say:  "Here  are  the  rules  by 
which  you  govern.  Here  is  where  we  say 
Mr.  Smith  or  Mrs.  Jones  is  not  in  violation 
of  that  rule." 

Surely  that  has  expanded  the  justice 
system.  Surely  it  is  the  right  of  people  to 
know  what  rules  govern  their  lives  and  to  be 
able  to  argue  according  to  the  rules.  That  is 
openness  and  that  is  justice.  But  that  is  the 
kind  of  thing  the  Attorney  General  is  attack- 
ing in  his  opening  statement  on  this  debate. 

Likewise,  in  the  case  of  the  Ontario  High- 
way Transport  Board,  the  result  was  changes 
in  bringing  about  a  much  fairer  and  more 
apparently  honest  system  in  the  operations  of 
a  quasi-judicial  body. 

I  have  talked  to  people  in  the  industry 
who  listened  with  great  intensity  at  those 
hearings.  They  have  recognized  the  improve- 
ments in  that  board  as  a  result  of  using  the 
very  procedure  the  minister  is  attacking.  They 
have  recognized  that  this  quasi-judicial  body 
now  is  more  open  and  that  justice  not  only 
is  done  but  appears  to  be  done,  which  is 
equally  important.  That  is  the  process  which 
the  Attorney  General  as  the  chief  law  en- 
forcement officer  of  this  province  has  been 
attacking  in  the  first  few  pages  of  his  opening 
statement. 


For  "the  Attorney  General  to  state  that  a 
procedure  that  has  resulted  in  greater  justice 
for  those  appearing  before  quasi-judicial 
bodies  is— and  I  use  his  word— "surreptitious" 
procedure  is  simply  ill  informed  at  best,  or 
irresponsible  at  worst,  on  the  part  of  the 
chief  law  enforcement  officer,  whose  re- 
sponsibility it  is  to  spread  and  expand  the 
justice  process  in  this  province. 

Members  on  the  other  side  of  the  House 
have  made  the  argument  that  the  release  of 
certain  documents  might  seriously  be  sub 
judice.  Members  of  the  justice  committee 
have  heard  this  argument  time  and  time 
again.  We  are  aware  of  the  sub  judice  rule. 
We  have  studied  the  rulings  of  the  British 
House  of  Commons  as  well  as  of  the  Cana- 
dian House  of  Commons.  We  know  that  in 
case  after  case  and  in  study  after  study  the 
rule  has  been  that  the  members  of  the 
elected  body,  the  Legislative  Assembly,  the 
Parliament,  are  the  ones  who  must  decide. 

We  have  read  in  case  after  case  that  in 
the  interests  of  democracy,  if  there  is  any 
error  to  be  made,  one  must  take  a  chance  on 
erring  on  the  side  of  openness.  That  is  what 
the  cases  have  said  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons in  both  Canada  and  Great  Britain.  That 
is  what  the  committees  that  have  studied 
this  particular  problem  have  come  forward 
with. 

The  argument  of  sub  judice  was  used  by 
the  Attorney  General's  officers  at  the  time 
of  the  inquiry  by  the  resources  committee 
into  the  operations  of  the  transport  board. 
At  that  time,  the  Liberal  transportation  critic 
and  myself  wanted  to  look  into  certain  opera- 
tions we  considered  to  be  unjust  or  certainly 
appeared  to  be  unjust.  There  was  an  outcry 
by  the  public,  and  particularly  by  the  in- 
dustry, that  certain  things  be  looked  at,  not 
because  they  were  necessarily  absolutely  un- 
fair, but  because  there  were  suspicions  and 
because  openness  would  possibly  clear  the 
names  of  those  who  were  being  talked  about 
behind  closed  doors  and  at  various  con- 
ventions. 

We  did  that.  The  Attorney  General's  office 
at  that  time  charged  that  the  committee 
might  well  be  guilty  of  violating  the  sub 
judice  rule.  We  argued  we  were  not  and 
that  we  could  behave  in  a  responsible  man- 
ner. Members  on  this  side  of  the  House  are 
arguing  now  that  we  are  going  to  have  the 
same  problem.  I  challenge  these  members 
to  show  me  one  instance  where,  in  the  case 
of  the  justice  committee  or  any  other  stand- 
ing committee,  we  have  ever  violated  the 
rule  of  sub  judice.  I  ask  members  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House  to  come  up  with  one 
example    where    anyone's    rights    have    been 


4964 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


seriously  injured  as  a  result  of  the  inquiries 
conducted  by  standing  committees.  I  ask 
members  on  the  other  side  of  the  House  to 
weigh  the  other  side  of  how  justice  has  been 
expanded  as  a  result  of  some  of  the  inquiries 
by  committees  using  the  process  we  have 
discussed. 

10  p.m. 

The  government  called  wolf  at  the  time, 
but  there  was  no  violation  of  the  sub  judice 
rule  during  the  hearings  on  the  transport 
board.  Nor  have  there  been  violations  at  any 
other  time.  If  the  government  is  to  use  the 
sub  judice  argument,  it  must  show  at  least 
one  case  where  this  has  happened.  It  cannot 
come  up  with  a  single  instance.  Whenever 
the  government  starts  to  sweat,  it  finds  one 
of  the  most  convenient  fans  is  a  fan  manu- 
factured by  a  company  called  sub  judice.  It 
certainly  takes  the  heat  off  the  government. 

The  Attorney  General  is  requesting  that 
the  committee  delay  its  investigation  until 
the  government's  investigation  is  completed. 
If  we,  as  parliamentarians,  accept  the  argu- 
ment that  any  time  something  is  under 
investigation  by  the  government  we  must 
cease  our  investigations  as  a  parliament  and 
as  a  committee,  I  suggest  that  will  be  the 
easiest  rule  to  stop  any  kind  of  investigation 
or  anything  that  is  controversial  and  even 
mildly  potentially  damaging  or  uncomforta- 
ble to  the  government. 

Any  time  any  body,  any  government 
agency,  or  any  government  ministry  finds  the 
heat  is  on,  it  can  always  say,  "It  is  under 
investigation;  you  cannot  look  at  it."  I  sug- 
gest that  is  more  damaging  to  the  justice 
system  than  anything  that  has  been  argued 
in  the  imagination  of  the  Attorney  General. 

There  seems  to  be  certain  misapprehen- 
sions and  misconceptions  on  the  government 
side  of  the  House.  They  somehow  say  it  was 
the  Liberals  and  New  Democrats  who  moved 
this  motion  and  are  responsible  for  it.  In 
truth,  I  am  able  to  count  as  well  as  you  are, 
Mr.  Speaker.  I  sat  in  the  chair  as  the  count 
was  taken  in  that  committee,  and  I  know  there 
were  a  number  of  members  on  the  govern- 
ment side  of  the  House  who  voted  for  what 
is  before  us  tonight.  To  say  we  are  being 
irresponsible,  while  their  own  members  con- 
veniently are  not,  is  beyond  my  compre- 
hension. 

What  really  happened  in  that  committee 
was  that  certain  government  members  saw 
there  was  a  reasonable  course  of  action  being 
taken  by  the  committee.  Outside  the  influ- 
ence of  those  people  in  the  heirarchy  of 
their  party— the  ministers  and  the  cabinet— 
they  made  rational   decisions   based  on   the 


evidence  that  was  before  our  committee. 
They  voted  with  the  Liberals  and  New 
Democrats  as  a  committee,  not  as  partisan 
people,  but  as  somebody  who  said:  "We  have 
something  that  seems  reasonable.  It  is  a 
reasonable  compromise.  It  is  only  fair  that 
we  go  ahead  with  this." 

If  members  on  that  side  of  the  House  and 
the  minister  are  censuring  us,  they  had  better 
talk  to  their  own  members  who  voted  for 
this.  They  voted  with  us  and  they  saw  the 
reason  in  it.  I  say  to  the  members  who  did 
vote  that  way,  if  they  are  going  to  vote 
differently,  they  had  better  go  back  to  their 
constituents  and  explain  why  they  are  going 
to  do  a  flip-flop  tonight. 

I  would  like  to  read  to  the  members 
exactly  what  the  Attorney  General  has 
promised  this  House  and  the  justice  com- 
mittee, because  there  seems  to  be  some 
misapprehension  that  somehow  the  Attorney 
General  is  actually  promising  to  do  some- 
thing very  specific  for  the  justice  commit- 
tee. Some  members  seem  to  think  we  are 
going  to  obtain  these  documents  mystically 
or  some  other  way  on  Wednesday  if  we 
somehow  delay  the  motion  tonight.  I  would 
like  to  read  from  the  speech  of  the  minister 
earlier  today  because  I  do  not  want  to  mis- 
quote him.  I  want  some  of  his  own  mem- 
bers to  understand  exactly  what  he  has 
promised. 

I  am  quoting  from  page  1555-2,  of  Instant 
Hansard,  December  4,  1980.  He  said,  "I  am 
quite  prepared  to  give  a  personal  under- 
taking on  behalf  of  myself  and  on  behalf  of 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  that  we  will  appear  once  again 
before  that  committee  on  Wednesday  next, 
and  I  am  confident  that  the  issues  pertaining 
to  the  criminal  investigation  which  are  of 
fundamental  importance  can  be  resolved  at 
that  time." 

That  is  an  understanding,  with  the  great- 
est respect,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  should  take 
into  consideration.  I  am  asking  you  to  take 
into  consideration  that  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  has  really 
promised  us  nothing.  For  eight  months  now, 
the  minister  has  promised  us  information  on 
the  very  thing  we  want  to  look  at,  and  he 
has  not  produced  it.  What  is  there  to  say 
the  Attorney  General  will  produce  anything 
more  in  three  or  four  days? 

The  minister's  promises  in  the  past  have 
not  been  all  that  well  received,  and  indeed 
have  not  always  been  kept.  The  minister  has 
somehow  indicated  we  should  be  satisfied 
with  this  pie-in-the-sky,  Utopia-will-come- 
tomorrow  suggestion  that  we  will  get  what 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4965 


we  want  next  Wednesday.  The  question  we 
must  ask,  as  a  committee  and  as  a  Legisla- 
ture, is  what  happens  on  Wednesday  when 
the  minister  comes  before  us  and  says:  "I'm 
terribly  sorry,  old  chap,  but  the  investigation 
is  still  going  on.  I  really  can't  produce  the 
documents.  I  have  countless  reasons  why  I 
cannot  give  you  what  you  are  asking  for"? 
What  happens  on  Wednesday?  Are  we  going 
to  be  back  here  again?  Are  we  going  to 
recycle  what  has  amounted  to  a  very  time- 
consuming  debate,  which  is  distracting  us 
from  other  matters  of  importance  before 
this  Legislature? 

I  am  alarmed  at  the  way  in  which  the 
government  has  operated  in  this  particular 
instance.  I  am  alarmed  that  the  minister  to 
whom  the  warrant  was  issued  has  been  al- 
most completely  invisible.  I  am  alarmed  that 
the  chief  law  officer  of  the  government,  a 
law  officer  who  should  be  acting  on  behalf 
of  all  parties  and  not  just  the  cabinet,  has 
been  acting  as  the  chief  legal  adviser  or 
lawyer  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations. 

Surely  if  there  were  reasons  why  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations could  not  produce  certain  documents, 
it  was  his  obligation  to  say  to  the  Speaker 
and  to  the  committee:  "I  want  to  meet  with 
you.  I  want  to  igive  you  certain  reasons.  I 
want  to  sit  down  and  reason  with  you." 
The  minister  has  not  done  that.  Everything 
has  been  through  the  circuitous  route  of  the 
Attorney  General's  office.  When  I  say  circuit- 
ous route,  I  certainly  mean  that.  The  At- 
torney General  has  tried  to  convey  the  im- 
pression to  the  public  that  he  had  attempted 
to  appear  before  the  committee  to  give  his 
reasons,  and  we  would  not  listen  to  him. 

That  is  very  far  from  the  truth.  What 
happened  was  that  the  minister  appeared 
—perhaps  conveniently  or  perhaps  simply 
through  accident— after  the  committee  had 
no  longer  any  business  to  deal  with.  In 
fact,  there  was  not  a  quorum  before  that 
committee  when  he  and  some  of  his  officers 
appeared.  At  that  time,  he  said:  "I  would 
like  to  sit  down  and  I  would  like  to  present 
some  information  to  you." 

It  would  have  been  irresponsible  for  me 
to  sit  down  at  that  time  with  the  minister 
and  hear  that  land  of  presentation  in  the 
absence  of  many  of  the  people  who  were 
most  concerned,  in  the  absence  of  at  least 
one  of  the  people  who  had  moved  the  origi- 
nal motion,  in  the  absence  of  the  justice 
critics,  and  somehow  pretend  that  an  un- 
official meeting  was  really  official,  that  it  had 
somehow  turned  into   an   official   committee 


meeting,  because  the  Hansard  people  hap- 
pened still  to  be  there  10  minutes  after 
we   normally   would   have   adjourned. 

There  was  no  quorum,  and  it  would  have 
been  as  irresponsible  for  me  to  sit  down  with 
the  minister  at  that  time  and  listen  to  his 
arguments  as  it  would  be  for  you,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  call  a  meeting  on  your  own,  at 
midnight  or  at  two  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
and  pretend  that  was  a  legitimately  consti- 
tuted meeting  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of 
Ontario. 
10:10  p.m. 

After  that,  the  Attorney  General  had  sev- 
eral days  in  which  he  could  have  reported 
to  the  Speaker,  to  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee or  through  the  clerk  to  me,  that  he 
wanted  a  meeting  with  us.  We  received1  no 
such  correspondence.  Instead,  what  happened 
was  late  one  evening  the  clerk  of  my  com- 
mittee, after  several  attempts  to  reach  offi- 
cials in  the  Attorney  General's  office,  finally 
was  able  to  reach  someone  who  said  the 
Attorney  General  would  like  to  meet.  At 
that  time  it  was  fairly  clear  the  committee 
had  agreed  to  deal  with  matters  of  substance 
relating  to  the  Solicitor  General's  estimates. 

The  critics  of  the  Solicitor  General  had 
been  very  obliging  to  the  House,  to  the 
House  leaders  and  to  the  justice  committee, 
and  had  cut  a  great  number  of  hours  off 
their  estimates,  even  though  they  had  done 
a  considerable  amount  of  preparation  and 
had  a  large  number  of  important  issues  to 
raise.  At  that  time  it  seemed  only  reasonable 
that  the  two  critics  should  have  a  say  as  to 
whether  they  would  have  all  of  their  esti- 
mates destroyed,  not  at  the  request  of  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions, to  whom  the  Speaker's  warrant  had 
been  issued,  but  on  the  request  of  his  attor- 
ney, his  legal  adviser  or  whatever  capacity 
the  Attorney  General  has  been  serving  in 
this  one-sided  exercise  of  dealing  only  with 
and  giving  information  only  to  one  side  of 
this  House. 

For  us  to  have  made  a  decision  to  cut  off 
the  Ministry  of  the  Solicitor  General's  esti- 
mates at  that  time  would  have  been  irrespon- 
sible to  those  people  and  indeed  to  certain 
people  who  were  in  the  audience  or  in  the 
galleries  of  the  committee  at  that  time,  be- 
cause they  knew  certain  issues,  issues  of  sub- 
stantial concern  to  them,  were  to  be  brought 
up.  These  were  issues  such  as  women's  rights, 
the  rights  of  certain  individuals  who  were 
being  brutalized  by  this  society  and  by  cer- 
tain underworld  elements  in  it,  and  they  had 
come  long  distances  to  hear  the  questions 
and  to  supply  evidence  to  the  committee  on 
those. 


4966 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Both  ministers  have  had  all  kinds  of  time 
to  deal  with  the  committee  and  with  the 
Speaker.  Suddenly  last  Friday,  the  Attorney 
General,  speaking  to  me  in  the  presence  of 
the  clerk  of  my  committee,  said,  "Mr.  Chair- 
man, there  may  be  problems." 

"What  are  the  problems?"  I  asked. 

He  said,  "It  is  possible  that  the  securities 
commissioners  may  resign  if  you  go  ahead 
with  this." 

I  said,  "Is  that  a  threat?" 

He  said:  "Oh  no.  I  have  no  real  control 
over  them.  They  are  very  upset.  They  feel 
somehow  that  you  are  asking  them  to  be 
in  violation  of  their  own  act." 

I  said  to  the  Attorney  General  at  that 
time,  again  in  the  presence  of  the  clerk  of 
my  committee:  "Mr.  Attorney  General,  can 
we  agree  that  this  is  not  a  matter  that  we 
need  to  explode?  This  matter  for  which  we 
need  quiet  reasoning.  Would  you  agree  that 
nothing  will  be  said  publicly  until  such  time 
as  we  can  sit  down,  rationalize  and  reason 
through  this  predicament  we  are  now  in,  be- 
cause the  justice  committee  clearly  has  bent 
over  backwards  to  secure  documents  in  a 
reasonable,  rational,  secure  and  safe  way, 
in  a  way  that  is  acceptable  to  the  Attorney 
General  and  the  Solicitor  General?" 

At  that  time,  the  minister  said:  "I  will 
do  my  best.  I  will  try  to  persuade  the  securi- 
ties commission  not  to  do  anything  unreason- 
able." 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  can  imagine  how  shocked 
I  was  when  I  read  in  the  newspaper  only  the 
following  day,  or  it  may  have  been  Sunday, 
the  headlines,  "Securities  Watchdog  May  Re- 
sign." It  appeared  over  an  article  that  said 
Mr.  Bray  is  a  civil1  servant  and  so  forth, 
while  the  other  commissioners  are  part-time 
commissioners  who  do  not  rely  on  the  On- 
tario Securities  Commission  for  their  liveli- 
hood. It  also  said  a  showdown  upon  the 
matter  would  come  on  Tuesday  when  the 
warrant  was  returnable,  and  the  reluctance 
of  the  commissioners  to  turn  over  the  ma- 
terial stemmed  from  several  concerns. 

Basically,  the  gist  of  this  article  was  the 
threat  by  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission 
to  the  justice  committee  that  if  we  continued 
to  proceed  with  our  inquiry  all  hell  would 
break  on  the  stock  markets  of  this  land, 
there  would  be  runs  on  our  dollar  and  there 
would  be  a  lack  of  confidence  in  Ontario.  We 
would  be  responsible  for  it  because  the  se- 
curities commission  would  resign  en  masse. 

Then,  without  any  consultation  with  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  or,  from  what  I 
can  find  out  in  putting  the  pieces  together, 
without  even  any  consultation  with  the  Min- 


ister of  Consumer  and  Commercial1  Relations, 
there  was  an  attempt  by  the  securities  com- 
mission to  meet  with  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  You 
kindly  invited  me  and  the  clerk  of  the  com- 
mittee to  be  in  attendance. 

At  that  meeting,  the  chairman  of  the  secur- 
ities commission  said:  "We  are  sorry;  I  never 
really  said  that.  Perhaps  I  was  misquoted.  I 
really  did  not  want  in  any  way  to  blackmail 
you.  I  am  really  not  threatening  to  resign.  I 
accept  the  role  of  the  Legislature."  That  is 
kind  of  an  unusual  way  in  which  to  operate. 
Surely  if  the  securities  commission  had  any 
problems,  it  should  have  gone  to  the  min- 
ister. The  minister,  clearly  responsible  under 
section  1  and  section  12  of  the  act,  should 
have  come  to  the  Speaker  and  then  to  the 
committee.  But  that  did  not  happen.  Instead, 
we  have  this  kind  of  cloak-and-dagger  stuff 
that  is  going  on  in  the  background. 

I  asked  the  minister:  "How  does  one 
justify  this  kind  of  activity?  That  certainly  is 
not  open  government.  That  is  not  direct  gov- 
ernment. What  kind  of  confidence  can  the 
public  have  when  they  see  this  kind  of 
wheeling  and  dealing?"  Then  I  found  out, 
through  a  statement  the  minister  wanted  to 
release,  and  through  some  information  from 
the  Liberal  Party,  that  the  leader  of  the 
Liberal  Party  had  been  invited  to  a  private 
meeting  along  with  a  couple  of  other  people, 
including  the  critic  for  that  ministry,  to  meet 
with  the  Attorney  General  to  discuss  some 
of  the  concerns  and  problems  he  had.  Is  that 
the  appropriate  route  to  take? 

I  am  pleased  that  the  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  clearly  assures  us,  as  do  other  mem- 
bers I  have  spoken  to  in  that  party,  that  they 
promised  the  minister  nothing.  They  said 
they  were  willing  to  listen,  and  that  was  an 
appropriate  action  for  them  to  take.  I  am 
clearly  convinced'  from  everything  I  have 
heard  from  the  Liberal  Party  that  in  no  way 
were  they  negotiating  anything  behind  the 
scene.  I  am  clearly  convinced  that  the  Lib- 
eral Party  in  that  instance  acted  in  a  very 
mature  and  highly  responsible  manner.  But 
I  am  not  so  convinced  about  the  responsi- 
bility and  maturity  of  the  minister  in  acting 
in  that  manner. 

Surely,  if  the  minister  had  some  concerns 
and  wanted!  to  meet  people,  he  should  have 
asked  the  chairman  of  the  committee  to  call 
together  all  three  parties  to  deal  with  that. 
As  chairman  of  the  committee,  I  would  cer- 
tainly have  consulted  with  my  committee 
and  opened  myself  to  that  kind  of  thing. 
That  is  the  kind  of  open  way  in  which  to 
deal  with  it.  I  would  have  considered  it  un- 
usual, because  I  do  not  consider  the  Attor- 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4967 


ney  General  was  the  person  to  contact  the 
committee  in  the  first  place.  The  warrant 
was  issued  on  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial    Relations. 

The  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  issued  a 
statement  that  clearly  showed  he  also  felt 
the  method  of  operation  by  the  Attorney 
General  in  this  matter  was  somewhat  unusual, 
to  say  the  least.  He  said  the  statement  filed 
by  the  Attorney  General  with  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice  con- 
tained an  erroneous  implication  which  must 
be  corrected  immediately.  I  am  pleased1  the 
Liberal  Party  came  to  me  after  that  hap- 
pened and  shared  with  me  that  information 
long  before  it  issued  that  statement. 

I  would  like  to  go  through  exactly  what 
happened  at  that  meeting,  because  I  think 
that  is  fairly  clear  in  the  release  by  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition.  He  says,  "It  is 
correct  that  at  the  Attorney  General's  request 
my  colleagues  and  I  met  with  some  of  the 
Attorney  General's  officials  and  with  the 
chairman  of  the  Ontario  Securities  Commis- 
sion on  Monday  evening,  December  1." 

10:20  p.m. 

On  the  one  hand,  there  is  the  Ontario 
Securities  Commission  trying  to  go  through 
the  back  door  to  meet  the  Speaker.  Then 
on  Monday  evening  they  are  going  hand  in 
hand  with  the  Attorney  General— who  has  no 
direct  responsibility  for  them  in  any  case; 
no  sign  again  of  the  phantom  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations— to  see 
what  they  can  do  with  the  Liberal  Party. 
The  stated  purpose  of  the  meeting  was  to 
be  informed  of  certain  details  of  criminal 
investigations  under  way  and  to  hear  the 
concern  about  the  Speaker's  warrant  for  the 
production  of  documents  to  the  committee 
for  the  administration  of  justice. 

The  Leader  of  the  Opposition  says,  "My 
colleagues  and  I  agreed  to  hear  the  submis- 
sions without  comment  as  to  our  position." 
I  suggest  that  is  the  very  position  I  or  my 
leader  would1  have  taken  in  that  kind  of 
situation.  It  was  a  responsible  position  for  the 
Liberal  Party  to  take. 

"We  were  given  to  understand  that  the 
concern  of  the  Ontario  Securities  Commission 
and  the  status  of  criminal  investigations  were 
such  as,  in  effect,  to  preclude  any  legislative 
inquiry,  at  this  time  and  for  the  feasible 
future,  into  the  government's  performance 
with  regard  to  the  administration  of  the 
statutes  relevant  to  the  operations  of  Astra 
Trust,  Re-Mor  Investment  Management 
Corporation  and  related  companies." 

The  Liberal  Party,  in  a  meeting  with  the 
Attorney  General  and  the  Ontario  Securities 


Commission,  concluded  by  that  meeting— 
and  I  use  the  words  of  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition— "in  effect  to  preclude  any  legis- 
lative inquiry  at  this  time." 

Now  we  are  told  that  somehow,  mys- 
tically, we  can  have  this  legislative  inquiry 
in  three  or  four  days  if  we  vote  against  this 
tonight.  I  wonder  how  it  is  that  the  Attorney 
General  can  meet  with  the  Liberals,  suggest 
it  is  a  long  time  off  or  some  distance  into  the 
future  and  then  suddenly  jazz  up  that  inves- 
tigation. One  can  only  conclude  that  he  must 
have  tremendous  powers  of  investigation. 
They  have  had  eight  months  to  investigate. 
On  Monday  it  is  still  a  long  way  off  and  now, 
tonight,  it  is  only  three  or  four  days  off. 

The  issue  here  is  fairly  clear.  The  issue  is 
between  open  government,  which  I  think  is 
just  government,  and  closed  government, 
which  is  the  government  that  some  would 
impose  on  this  Legislature  and  this  House. 

We  have  come  a  long  way  in  five  years 
with  the  committee  system. 

Today  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  said: 
"The  member  for  London  Centre  (Mr. 
Peterson)  is  apparently  far  more  knowledge- 
able about  these  things  than  I  am  and  he 
can  tell  us  about  it.  I  do  not  know  much 
about  it.  But  no  one  on  this  side  of  the 
House  is  obstructing  the  fair  play,  the  equity 
and  the  preservation  of  the  system.  We  will 
have  an  opportunity  to  debate  this  later  this 
afternoon,  and  the  government  has  nothing 
whatsoever  to  hide  in  terms  of  the  material 
requested." 

If  this  is  the  case,  why  hide  it  from  a 
very  responsible  body,  the  justice  committee, 
that  has  never  violated  sub  judice? 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  Oh  no. 

Mr.  Philip:  The  Minister  without  Portfolio 
says,  "Oh,"  but  it  was  members  on  his  side 
of  the  House  who  voted  for  this.  Members 
have  acted  responsibly  on  that  committee. 
It  was  not  just  Liberals  and  New  Demo- 
crats; it  was  Conservatives,  Liberals  and 
New  Democrats  who  brought  in  the  motion 
we  have  here  today.  If  the  minister  is  say- 
ing we  are  behaving  irresponsibly,  I  am 
saying  he  is  attacking  the  very  members 
right  behind  him  who  voted  for  this. 

I  would  like  the  members  to  listen  to 
what  the  Premier  had  to  say.  He  said:  "We 
have  nothing  to  hide.  The  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  has  noth- 
ing to  hide.  We  do  feel  we  have  an  obliga- 
tion to  see  that  the  proper  judicial  processes 
are  allowed  to  proceed  in  this  province.  We 
will  have  a  chance  to  debate  that  this  after- 
noon." 


4968 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  judicial  process  of  this  House  is  not 
in  question.  No  one  on  this  committee  is 
investigating  anything  directly  related  to 
something  before  the  courts.  The  member 
for  Ottawa  East  (Mr.  Roy)  clearly  showed 
that.  The  member  for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Ren- 
wick)  has  clearly  demonstrated  that  in  his 
speeches.  We  have  a  very  narrow,  unfair 
mandate  as  to  what  it  is  that  we  are  after. 

The  importance  of  this  debate  is  not  that 
any  time  the  government  says  something  is 
under  investigation  it  can  hide  it  from  the 
public.  The  matter  before  us  is  whether  a 
government  can  say,  not  that  we  stop  when 
a  matter  is  sub  judiee,  but  that  we  stop  when 
a  matter  is  merely  under  investigation.  Sure- 
ly that  is  not  what  the  public  of  Ontario 
wants. 

I  have  had  letters  during  the  last  few 
days  saying  over  and  over  again:  "We  are 
the  ones  who  have  lost  our  life  savings.  We 
are  the  ones  who  want  to  know  if  the 
ministry  has  acted  in  a  responsible  way.  We 
know  the  courts  will  handle  the  other  mat- 
ters of  a  legal  nature  and  a  judicial  nature. 
We  know  you  are  not  set  up  as  a  court  and 
that  the  Legislature  is  not  behaving  in  that 
way." 

No  one  can  say  the  chairman  of  the 
justice  committee  has  ever  behaved  other- 
wise. When  there  was  an  inquiry  into  the 
alleged  actions  of  one  member  of  this 
House,  a  member  on  the  government  side  of 
the  House,  nobody  protected  his  rights  more 
than  the  chairman  of  the  justice  committee. 
No  one  argued  that  the  justice  committee 
should  not  act  as  a  court.  Even  the  mem- 
ber will  tell  you  that.  He  came  to  me  per- 
sonally and  said  I  had  handled  it  in  a  way 
that  was  fair  and  that  protected  his  rights. 
That  member,  I  notice,  has  not  spoken  to- 
night. If  that  member  were  to  speak,  he 
would  get  up  and  say  that  the  justice  com- 
mittee certainly  did  not  do  anything  that 
denied  his  rights.  Indeed,  I  have  always 
argued  that  a  committee  of  the  Legislature 
should  not  go  all  the  way  that  certain  com- 
mittees have  gone  in  the  United  States 
where,  under  Joe  McCarthy,  individual  civil 
liberties  and  rights  were  violated. 

The  former  minister  on  that  side  of  the 
House  knows  that.  He  knows  my  views  on 
that.  The  government  knows  my  views  on 
that.  To  suggest,  as  did  one  member  on 
that  side  of  the  House,  that  somehow  we 
were  a  kangaroo  court  is  simply  irrespon- 
sible. We  have  never  behaved  that  way, 
we  never  will  and  we  are  certainly  not  doing 
so  in  this  instance.  What  we  are  trying  to 
do    is    simply    say    we    believe    in    an    open 


government.  We  believe  the  public  has  a 
right  to  know  the  actions  of  the  ministers 
when  it  comes  to  competence  or  incompe- 
tence in  certain  matters.  That  is  the  only 
thing  before  the  justice  committee. 

The  committee  met  the  officials  of  die 
Ministry  of  the  Attorney  General  and  we 
dealt  with  some  very  specific  courses  of  pro- 
posals that  would  secure  the  safety  of  the 
documents  we  would  be  handling.  Judging 
from  the  comments  of  some  of  the  members 
on  that  side  of  the  House,  it  seems  fairly 
clear  they  are  not  aware  of  the  strict  security 
measures  we  proposed. 

These  guidelines  with  respect  to  the 
documents  produced  pursuant  to  the  war- 
rant the  Speaker  issued  and  served  on  Mon- 
day, November  24,  1980,  were  procedural 
rules  that  we  developed  in  the  presence  of 
Mr.  Morton  from  the  Attorney  General's 
office  and  in  the  presence  of  the  two  people 
who  proposed  the  motion  and  myself.  They 
were  rules  we  took  back  to  the  committee 
and  were  approved  by  members  of  the  com- 
mittee, including  the  Conservatives.  So  if 
those  measures  were  inadequate,  then  the 
onus  was  on  members  on  that  side  of  the 
House  and  on  the  Conservative  Party  to  say 
so  at  that  time,  but  they  did  not  The  rules 
are  very  clear.  All  documents  should  be 
produced  in  committee  by  a  certain  date, 
namely,  Tuesday,  December  2,  1980. 

10:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  The  House  has  one 
of  two  courses  open  to  it.  Either  the  honour- 
able member  who  has  the  floor  will  move 
the  adjournment  of  the  debate  or  I  require 
a  motion  from  the  government  House  leader 
to  sit  beyond  10:30  p.m. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  House 
agreed  to  sit  until  10:45  p.m. 
[Applause] 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  assuming 
that  applause  was  not  only  from  the  Liberal 
and  New  Democratic  members  but  also  from 
the  other  members  of  the  justice  committee 
who,  no  doubt,  voted  for  what  the  com- 
mittee had  proposed  and  are  entirely  in 
support  of  it. 

I  do  not  know  if  the  quality  of  my 
speech  has  improved  as  the  night  goes  on 
but,  certainly,  the  power  of  my  voice  has 
not. 

I  was  dealing  with  the  security  measures 
we  proposed.  I  would  like  to  go  over  them. 

"1.  All  documents  should  be  produced  to 
the  committee  by  Tuesday,  December  2, 
1980. 

"2.  An  inventory  of  all  documents  will  be 
taken   by   officials   of  the   Ministry   of  Con- 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


sumer  and  Commercial  Relations.  However, 
the  taking  of  such  an  inventory  should  not 
delay  the  production  of  documents  and  may 
take  place  after  their  production." 

That  is  an  important  role,  because  the 
problem  Mr.  Morton  pointed  out  to  us  was 
fairly  clear.  He  said,  "It  is  important  that 
the  inquiry,  either  by  the  Solicitor  General 
or  by  the  Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations,  not  be  impeded."  That  is 
why  we  agreed  that,  while  we  would  not 
be  delayed  by  the  taking  of  the  inventory, 
we  would  allow  the  ministries'  officials,  under 
the  same  security  measures  we  were  impos- 
ing on  ourselves,  to  take  an  inventory  and, 
where  required,  to  photocopy  certain  docu- 
ments and  leave  only  the  photocopy  in  our 
files. 

Anyone  knows  when  one  is  dealing  with 
a  security  problem  the  more  people  who 
have  access  to  documents  the  greater  the 
security  problem.  That  is  why  we,  as  a 
committee,  agreed  that  each  party  should 
designate  members  who  would  represent  the 
party  for  the  duration  of  the  hearings  on 
this  matter  for  the  simple  reason  that  there 
would  be  no  irresponsible  accidents  and  no 
negligent  questions  would  be  asked.  Only 
members  designated  to  represent  the  party 
were  to  have  access  to  the  documents.  We 
clearly  limited  the  access  to  those  docu- 
ments. 

A  member  for  each  party  would  be  desig- 
nated as  the  person  responsible  for  author- 
izing the  researchers  to  have  access  to  those 
documents  so  that,  if  there  ever  were  a  leak, 
be  it  a  serious  one  or  an  inconsequential  one 
but,  none  the  less,  a  leak  of  some  sort  that 
gave  some  concern  to  the  government,  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  or  the  Speaker,  we 
would  clearly  identify  who  was  responsible 
by  the  procedure  we  established.  That  surely 
was  a  manner  of  ensuring  greater  security 
for  the  documentation. 

Photocopies  of  the  original  documents  in 
the  possession  of  any  court  could  be  provided 
to  the  committee  rather  than  the  original 
documents.  Thus  we  overcame  the  problem 
of  interfering  or  hampering  any  court  pro- 
ceedings in  any  way. 

We  also  agreed  that  any  original  documents 
produced  by  the  committee  would  be  relin- 
quished to  the  Attorney  General  or  the  Solic- 
itor General  or  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  upon  the  written 
request  of  that  minister,  with  the  stipulation 
that  the  photocopies  remain  in  the  hands  of 
the  committee. 

The  Solicitor  General  would  provide  offi- 
cers of  the  Ontario  Provincial  Police  to  ensure 


the  security  of  the  documents  on  a  round- 
the-clock  basis,  so  that  those  documents 
clearly  would  be  secured  by  the  police  force. 

(All  original  documents  and  original  photo- 
copies of  the  documents  should  remain  in  the 
committee  documents  room  and  would  not 
be  removed  except  with  the  consent  of  one 
of  the  ministers. 

Another  requirement  of  the  committee  was 
that  all  members  of  the  committee  and  the 
authorized  party  researchers  would  sign  a 
book  indicating  a  description  of  the  material 
inspected  and  the  date  and  time  of  the 
inspection. 

These  rules  we  developed  are  clearly  so 
strict  that  some  of  them  gave  some  of  us 
some  apprehension,  but  we  developed  them 
as  a  way  of  making  sure  that  the  Attorney 
General  and  the  Solicitor  General  could 
never  indicate  that  we  were  not  concerned 
about  the  security  of  these  documents  and 
about  the  possibility  that  might  create  some 
problem  in  the  court  system. 

We  even  suggested  that  the  OPP  officer 
should  accompany  photocopies  of  documents 
being  transported  from  the  room  right  up  to 
the  hearing  room.  I  do  not  know  what  more 
security  one  could  possibly  ask  for.  I  dare  say 
that  if  we  had  diamonds  down  in  that  room 
they  would  not  get  that  kind  of  security. 

On  June  13,  one  of  the  members  of  this 
House  fairly  clearly  brought  forth  some  in- 
formation which  I  think  bears  repeating.  He 
asked:  "Mr.  Simpson,  may  I  ask  you  what 
criteria  Mr.  Weinstein,  the  registrar  of  the 
Mortgage  Brokers  Act,  would  look  to  in 
assessing  the  efficacy  of  an  application  such 
as  Montemurro's  in  the  context  of  Re-Mor? 
What  criteria  does  he  look  to  under  the  act?" 

iMr.  Simpson  stated:  "The  criteria  are 
clearly  set  out.  I  don't  have  one  of  our 
registration  statutes  in  front  of  me.  They  are 
standard  in  all  the  registation  statutes  and 
relate  to  matters  of  a  likelihood  of  being  able 
to  carry  on  business  with  financial  solvency 
and  responsibility." 

[Applausel 

Mr.  Philip:  The  member  for  Wentworth 
North  (Mr.  Cunningham)  never  received  such 
applause  for  his  speech  when  he  originally 
delivered  it.  I  hope  he  is  around  to  hear  it 
now. 

Mr.  Simpson  went  on  to  say:  "They  look 
at  the  past;  whether  the  individual  has  been 
bankrupt;  has  the  individual  been  charged 
with  anything,  convicted  of  offences.  They 
look  at  a  whole  range  of  matters  in  order 
to  make  the  determinations  under  the 
general  headings  provided  in  the  statute. 
They  size  up  what  the  situation  is,  and  what 


4970 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  situation  is  likely  to  be  concerning  the 
matters  being  carried  on.  They  make  a  de- 
termination in  the  light  of  all  of  these  circum- 
stances." 

10:40  p.m. 

It  was  in  June  1980  that  this  question  was 
asked.  The  justice  committee  and  indeed  the 
Legislature,  has  been  dealing  with  it  since 
then.  It  is  not  a  new  issue  that  is  before  us; 
it  was  clearly  an  issue  then  in  June  1980. 
Even  before  that  we  were  asking  the  ques- 
tions: "What  is  the  obligation?  What  are 
the  requirements  of  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  in  dealing  with  a 
situation  such  as  this?"  Those  are  the  ques- 
tions this  committee  is  dealing  with  now.  It  is 
not  a  matter  that  is  before  the  court;  it  is  the 
action  of  this  minister  that  we  wish  to  in- 
vestigate. 

To  suggest  that  the  committee  is  acting 
improperly  in  carrying  out  this  mandate  and 
in  investigating  the  very  questions  that  were 
asked  in  June  1980,  and  trying  to  find  out 
why  the  government  may  or  may  not  have 
followed,  those  very  courses  of  action  that 
Mr.  Simpson  clearly  laid  out  it  should  be  fol- 
lowing, I  say  is  absolutely  irresponsible  on  the 
part  of  the  government.  If  there  was  no  im- 
propriety in  the  question  asked  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Wentworth  North  on  June  13,  1980, 
then  how  can  the  government  say  there  was 
an  impropriety  in  the  very  same  question 
the  justice  committee  is  asking  at  this  time? 

What  we  are  dealing  with  is  the  right  of 
the  committee  to  investigate  a  matter  that  is 
clearly  within  its  jurisdiction.  The  Attorney 
General  and  Solicitor  General  has  somehow 
suggested  we  should  develop  Draconian 
methods,  we  should  go  back  to  the  old  days 
before  1975  when  committees  had  no  juris- 
diction and  the  public  could  be  kept  in  the 
dark,  when  inquiries  by  the  representatives 
of  this  Legislature  could  actually  get  the 
information  for  their  constituents.  To  go 
back,  to  subvert  the  evolution  of  the  com- 
mittee system  because  we  want  to  do  some- 
thing that  was  clearly  within  our  mandate 
and  clearly  asked  for  in  June,  I  say  is  simply 
overkill. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Philip:  I  am  finding  it  very  hard  to 
speak,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  all  the  interjections 
from  members  in  the  House.  If  I  had  known 
I  was  to  give  a  five-hour  speech,  I  would 
have  prepared  a  five-hour  speech. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  If  we  are  going  to  sit 
any  longer  this  evening  we  will  need  further 
authorization. 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  In  order  to  allow  the 
member  for  Etobicoke  (Mr.  Philip)  to  wind 
up  and  perhaps  to  summarize  his  con- 
clusions in  a  pithy  way,  I  would  move  that 
the  House  sit  for  another  10  minutes. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Welch,  the  House 
agreed  to  sit  until  10:55  p.m. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Is  that  issue  debatable,  or  do  we 
just  pass  on  and  let  the  member  speak? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No.  It  is  not  debatable. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  am  sorry  it  isn't,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  On  a  point  of  order, 
Mr.  Speaker:  Would  it  be  inappropriate  right 
now  to  draw  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
question  315  in  my  name  on  the  Order 
Paper,  which  was  promised  to  be  answered 
by  November  30,  has  not  yet  been 
answered? 

Mr.   Speaker:   You  just  did. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  I  did?  May  I  then 
draw  your  attention  to  question  367  on  the 
Order  Paper,  also  in  my  name,  which  was 
promised  to  be  answered  by  November  20? 
That  was  a  question  relating  to  the  total 
advertising  expenditures  for  the  government. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  really  don't  interrupt 
another  member  when  he  is  speaking. 

Mr.  Cunningham:    I  am   sorry,  sir. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  perfectly 
pleased  to  allow  the  member  for  Wentworth 
North  to  interrupt  me.  He  and  I  have  been 
close  colleagues.  We  have  had  some  interest- 
ing discussions  in  various  establishments  in 
Washington  and  other  places.  We  were 
both  members  of  the  select  committee  on 
the  highway  transportation  of  goods. 

Since  the  member  for  Wentworth  North 
has  been  denied  the  privilege  of  making  a 
point,  I  think  in  fairness  to  him  I  will  make 
a  point  for  him.  He  has  kindly  provided  me 
with  a  letter,  which  I  think  illustrates  one  of 
the  problems  we  are  facing  and  what  the 
public  thinks  of  what  we  are  about. 

It  is  addressed  to  Mr.  Eric  Cunningham, 
MPP  for  Wentforth  North,  P.O.  Box  128, 
Parliament  Buildings,  Queen's  Park,  Toronto. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  is  the  postal  code? 

Mr.  Philip:  It  has  no  postal  code.  It  is  a 
typewritten  letter,  as  members  were  in- 
quiring, single-spaced,  with  a  very  small 
typeface.  It  says:  "I  am  an  investor  and  I 
have  invested  money  with  Astra  Trust.  The 
previous  year,  when  the  certificate  matured, 
Mr.  [So  and  So],  then  the  trust  company 
manager,  advised  me  that  Re-Mor  was  a 
branch  office  of  Astra  Trust  and  would  pay 


DECEMBER  4,  1980 


4971 


0.5  per  cent  more  interest  per  year  and  he 
could  sell  me  a  certificate  at  14  per  cent  per 
year,  whereas  Astra  only  paid  13.5  per  cent 
per  year. 

"I  asked  what  the  difference  was  between 
the  certificates,  and  he  told  me  there  was 
no  difference  between  them,  other  than  the 
mortgage  certificate  could  be  held  up  to 
three  months  more  than  the  term.  I  would 
receive  interest  for  every  day  of  it  and  the 
certificate  would  be  insured  and  principal 
and  interest  guaranteed. 

"Four  months  later,  in  March,  I  re- 
ceived a  letter  from  Re-Mor  telling  me 
that  my  money  was  invested  in  real  estate 
in  Buffalo.  Approximately  two  or  three 
weeks  later,  I  again  received  a  letter  from 
Re-Mor  telling  me  the  mortgage  was  in 
error  and  interest  could  not  be  paid  until 
this  matter  was  straightened  out."  If  some- 
one told  me  he  had  invested  my  money  in 
Buffalo,  I  would  certainly  have  second 
thoughts  at  that  time,  but  the  writer  of  that 
letter  aparently  did  not. 

The  letter  continues:  "Since  interest  was 
not  due  until  November,  I  found  this  very 
strange.  Upon  receiving  that  letter,  I  went 
to  the  Astra  Trust  office  in  Burlington  and 
I  asked  the  teller  for  the  manager,  Mr. 
Bentz.  I  was  then  told  he  had  resigned  but 
that  the  supervisor  was  on  the  premises  and 
I  asked  to  see  him  and  he  invited  me  into 
an  office. 

10:50  p.m. 

"Then  I  showed  him  the  letter  from  Re- 
Mor  and  asked  him  what  it  was  all  about. 
He  said,  'I  am  sorry' "—excuse  me,  Mr. 
Speaker;  I  am  going  to  take  a  drink  of  water 
because  this  letter  is  so  bad,  it  really  kind 
of  breaks  me  up—"  'I  am  sorry  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  this,'  I  asked  him  what 
he  meant  by  that,  because  I  bought  the 
certificates  there,  and  I  also  told'  him  that 
Mr.  Bentz  told  me  that  Re-Mor  was  a 
branch  office  and  the  certificate  would  be 
insured,  and  the  principal1  and  interest  guar- 
anteed. He  then  told  me  Mr.  Bentz  should 
not  have  told  me  that,  because  it  isn't  a 
branch  office. 

"I  then  asked  him  if  Mr.  Bentz  was  moon- 
lighting because  he  sold  me  the  certificate 
in  his  office,  and  he  said,  'No,  not  really.' 
I  then  said,  'Astra  Trust  is  responsible  for 
any  loss  I  incurred  since  Mr.  Bentz  was  the 
manager  here  and  must  have  been  bonded.' 
I  asked  him  to  have  the  matter  straightened 
out  and  send  me  a  letter.  I  heard  nothing 
about  the  matter  until  May  9,  when  I  was 
informed  the  company  went  bankrupt. 


"Dear  Mr.  Cunningham^  I  am  a  merchant 
and  my  $10,000  investment  represents  many 
hours  of  hard  work,  and  I  thank  you  very 
much  for  your  concern  with  this  matter,  and 
I  hope  that  you  can  help  me  and  other 
investors  regain  our  money." 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  have  listened  to  what 
really  amounts  to  two  speeches,  as  have 
members  of  the  House  who  have  been  here 
during  all  of  it.  One  was  probably  worth 
listening  to  and  the  latter  part  I  hope  you 
found  at  least  entertaining.  I  now  yield  and 
will  sit  down. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  this 
hour  I  am  not  going  to  burden  the  members 
by  making  a  speech.  I  am  merely  going  to 
move  an  amendment  to  the  motion  before 
the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moves  that 
the  motion  for  the  adoption  of  the  report  of 
the  standing  committee  on  administration  of 
justice  be  amended  by  deleting  from  the 
recommendation  of  the  committee  the  words 
"Friday,  5  December"  and  substituting  there- 
for the  words  "Mondlay,  8  December";  and 
that  the  documents  required  by  the  warrant 
be  delivered  in  confidence  to  a  subcommit- 
tee of  the  justice  committe  composed  of  two 
representatives  from  each  of  the  parties  with 
one  vote  for  each  party. 

Shall  the  motion  carry? 

Mr.  Nixon:  A  point  of  clarification,  Mr. 
Speaker:  It  should  be  understood,  and  I 
hope  there  is  agreement  on  all  sides,  that 
the  matter  delivered  to  the  subcommittee  in 
confidence  may  then  be  handed  on,  by  the 
subcommittee's  vote,  to  the  full  committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Under  the  same  condi- 
tions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  That  is  agreeable. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  that  clarification  or  adden- 
dum understood? 

Agreed? 

I  declare  the  motion  carried. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Do  you  want  to  put  the 
question?  We  just  agreed  to  the  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  thought  it  was  agreed 
unanimously. 

All  those  in  favour  wiH  please  say  "aye". 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Report,   as  amended,  adopted. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  although  I 
have  not  had  a  chance  to  discuss  this  further 
with  the  House  leaders,  I  wonder  if  I  can 
have  the  indulgence  of  the  House,  since  we 
have  now  finished  this  part  of  routine  business, 


4972 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


to  extend  our  sitting  for  five  minutes  more 
so  that  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  can  introduce  the  bill, 
which  has  an  effective  date  of  today,  regard- 
ing pensions. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  House 
agreed  to  sit  until  11  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  want  me  to  go 
through  the  routine  proceedings? 

Mr.  Nixon:  By  agreement  we  can  go  to 
introduction   of  bills. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

PENSION  BENEFITS  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  214,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Pension 
Benefits  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

BUSINESS  OF  THE  HOUSE 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  In  the  few  minutes  re- 
maining, Mr.  Speaker,  perhaps  I  could  out- 
line to  the  House  the  order  of  business. 
Rather  than  outline  it  for  the  whole  week,  I 


would  like  to  outline  the  business  for  to- 
morrow and,  with  the  consent  of  the  House, 
only  for  next  Monday  and  Tuesday.  Next 
Tuesday,  I  will  indicate  the  further  order  of 
business  for  the  House  from  Wednesday  on. 

Tomorrow,  in  the  House  we  will  continue 
the  consideration  of  the  estimates  of  the 
Ministry   of   Revenue. 

On  Monday,  December  8,  we  will  conclude 
the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  Revenue 
and,  if  any  time  permits  in  the  afternoon,  we 
will  continue  the  budget  debate. 

On  Tuesday,  December  9,  in  the  afternoon, 
we  will  have  second  reading  and  committee 
of  the  whole  House,  as  required,  on  Bill  187, 
Bill  209,  Bill  192,  Bill  193,  Bill  177,  Bill  205, 
Bill  190,  Bill  188,  Bill  189,  Bill  201  and  Bill 
204.  In  the  evening,  we  will  continue  with 
legislation  that  has  not  been  completed  in  the 
afternoon.  As  I  mentioned  earlier,  I  will 
then  indicate  to  the  House  the  order  of 
business  to  be  followed  after  next  Tuesday. 

At  this  time,  it  is  considered  the  House  may 
meet  on  Wednesday  afternoon  in  addition  to 
the  regular  sittings  next  week. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:59  p.m. 


DECEMBER  4,  1980  4973 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  December  4,  1980 

Report,  standing  committee  on  administration  of  justice:  Mr.  Philip,  continued  4947 

Pension  Benefits  Amendment  Act,  Bill  214,  Mr.  Drea,  first  reading  „ 4972 

Business  of  the  House,  Mr.  Wells  4972 

Adjournment    4972 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Bolan,  M.  (Nipissing  L) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  C;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Fould's,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Gregory,  Hon.  M.  E.  C;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Mississauga  East  PC) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Hodgson,  W.  (York  North  PC) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Pope,  Hon.  A.;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Cochrane  South  PC) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 

Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 


,  f—  No.  133 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Friday,  December  5,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  With  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative  index  of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  <^H^>10 


4977 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  a.m. 


Prayers. 


STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

WINE  CONTENT  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  the 
Wine  Content  Act  was  first  enacted  in  1972 
it  allowed  the  Liquor  Control  Board  of 
Ontario  to  regulate  the  amount  of  imported 
grapes  or  wine  brought  into  the  province 
for  use  in  the  manufacture  of  Canadian 
wine.  However,  the  act  contains  a  sunset 
clause  and  the  most  recent  extension  of  the 
legislation  is  due  to  expire  as  of  December 
31,  1981.  After  this  expiry  date  Ontario 
wine  manufacturers  will  not  be  able  to  use 
imported  grapes  or  wine  for  blending  in 
the  production  of  domestic  wine  unless  the 
legislation  is  extended. 

Both  the  Wine  Council  of  Ontario  and 
the  Grape  Growers'  Marketing  Board  have 
requested  that  a  decision  be  made  at  this 
time  regarding  an  extension  of  the  act  to 
August  31,  1984.  This  would  allow  Ontario 
wine  producers  to  plan  for  the  continued 
use  of  imported  grapes  and  wine  for  not 
only  the  current  vintage  year,  but  also  for 
the  1982  and  1983  vintages.  I  strongly  rec- 
ommend renewal  of  the  act  as  quickly  as 
possible  in  light  of  the  production  require- 
ments of  the  wine  producers  of  Ontario. 

Later  this  morning  I  will  be  introducing 
the  Wine  Content  Amendment  Act,  1980. 


DEATH  OF  PORTUGUESE 
PRIME  MINISTER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  behalf 
of  the  Ontario  government,  members  of  this 
House  and  the  people  of  Ontario,  I  would 
like  to  express  to  the  people  of  Portugal, 
and  particularly  to  the  Portuguese  commu- 
nity here  in  Ontario,  our  very  deep  sorrow 
for  the  tragic  and  untimely  death  of  the 
Prime  Minister  of  Portugal,  Dr.  Francisco 
Sa  Carneiro,  and  other  members  of  his  party 
who  died  yesterday  in  a  plane  crash. 

Dr.  Sa  Carneiro  was  first  elected  Prime 
Minister  of  Portugal  one  year  ago  and  was 
re-elected    last    October.    He    was    a    very 


Friday,  December  5,  1980 

promising  young  politician  who,  in  a  life 
devoted  to  public  service,  had  already 
made  significant  contributions  to  his  country. 
He  will  be  particularly  remembered  and' 
mourned  by  the  community  here  in  Ontario 
because  he  visited  Metropolitan  Toronto  a 
few  years  ago  and  is  remembered  by  many 
Canadians  of  Portuguese  origin  who  live  in 
this  area. 

On  behalf  of  all  the  people  of  Ontario, 
I  would  like  to  express  our  most  heartfelt 
condolences  to  all  those  who  are  touched 
by  this  tragic  event. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  cer- 
tainly like  to  add  a  word  to  the  sentiment 
expressed  by  the  government  House  leader. 
I  want  to  associate  ourselves  with  his  com- 
ment and  to  say  what  a  tragic  event  this  is, 
particularly  since  all  of  us  were  so  pleased 
to  see  the  return  of  democratic  government 
to  Portugal.  Anything  which  in  any  way 
threatens  the  ongoing  stability  of  the  way 
things  are  developing  there  is  of  great  con- 
cern not  only  to  Portuguese  Canadians,  but 
to  all  Canadians  and  citizens  of  the  free 
world. 

It  is  a  personal  tragedy  for  the  late  Prime 
Minister  of  Portugal  and  his  family,  and  we 
wish  to  offer  our  condolences  and  very  sin- 
cere hopes  that  the  process  of  democratic 
government  will,  none  the  less,  continue  to 
nourish  in  Portugal  forever  despite  this 
dreadful  tragedy. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  behalf  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party,  I  would  like  to 
add  my  words  of  condolence  to  the  family 
of  Dr.  Sa  Carneiro  and  also  express  our  grave 
concern  at  the  tragic  loss  in  Portugal  of  a 
promising  politician  in  an  election  campaign. 
We  join  in  the  words  that  have  been  put 
forward  by  the  government  House  leader. 


Mr. 


ORAL  QUESTIONS 

S.   Smith:    Mr.   Speaker,   I  would  like 


to  direct  a  question  on  the  financial  affairs  of 
Ontario,  but  I  am  not  sure  what  minister 
might  answer.  I  suppose,  in  the  absence  of 
the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis),  the  Treasurer  (Mr. 
F.  S.  Miller),  the  Minister  of  Revenue  (Mr. 
Maeck)  or  anybody  else,  I  will  direct  a 
question   to   the  Deputy  Premier.   The   title 


4978 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


must  mean  something.  He  should  do  some- 
thing to  merit  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  If  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  would  like  to  have  a  full  and 
complete  answer,  it  is  my  understanding  the 
Treasurer  and  Minister  of  Economics  is  on 
his  way. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  am  standing  on  my  feet  at 
the  moment.  Whether  he  is  on  his  way  or 
not  is  not  much  help  to  me.  I  am  here  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  do  not  have  a  question 
yet.  We  have  had  a  reaction  to  a  question. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  It  is  a  reaction  to  a  warning 
of  a  question. 

Mr.    Kerrio:    A    Friday   morning   question. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  It  is  the  second  to  last 
Friday;  let  us  be  reasonable. 

1  INTEREST  RATES 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  could  the 
Deputy  Premier  tell  us  whether  his  govern- 
ment has  any  intention  whatever  of  taking 
action  to  protect  Ontarians,  particularly  those 
who  run  small  businesses,  those  who  work 
for  small  businesses  and  those  who  face 
enormous  increases  in  their  mortgage  pay- 
ments who,  as  a  result  of  the  tremendous 
increase  in  interest  rates,  are  going  to  face 
bankruptcy  or  the  loss  of  their  homes?  Will 
the  Deputy  Premier  tell  us  whether  the 
government  intends  simply  to  continue  to 
preside  over  the  decline  in  the  character  of 
economic  life  in  Ontario  or  whether  it  has 
some  plan  to  assist  the  people  of  this  prov- 
ince and  to  reverse  Ontario's  economic  de- 
cline in  the  face  of  these  high  interest  rates? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  knows  that  during  the 
course  of  this  week  he  has  directed  this 
same  question  to  both  the  Premier  and  the 
Treasurer.  He  has  had  answers  from  both 
of  them  that  have  clearly  indicated  the  con- 
cern of  Ontario.  The  situation  is  being 
monitored.  There  was  also  my  interjection 
that  the  Treasurer  himself  could  be  here  to 
give  the  answer  if  the  Leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition really  wanted  an  answer. 

In  fact,  I  am  surprised  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  is  here.  I  thought  he  would  be 
home  resting  because  I  know  he  is  going 
to  be  in  St.  Catharines  this  evening  and 
the  four  or  five  people  who  will  be  there  to 
greet  him  are  looking  forward  to  his  ar- 
rival at  Sir  Winston  Churchill  School.  But  I 
can  assure  him  under  the  circumstances 
there  is  really  nothing  that  can  be  added 
to  answers  already  given  to  this  same  ques- 
tion in  this  House  this  very  week  by  both  the 
head   of  government  and  the  Treasurer. 


Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary:  Notwith- 
standing the  obvious  nervousness  on  the 
part  of  the  Deputy  Premier,  since  we  are 
going  to  nominate  an  excellent  candidate 
in  his  riding  tonight,  one  who  will  win  the 
seat  for  the  Liberal  Party— I  can  understand 
why  his  mind  would  constantly  go  back  to 
that  event  because  of  the  clear  trepidation 
which  he  will  associate  with  it. 
10:10  a.m. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  If  I  could  ask  the  Deputy 
Premier  momentarily  to  bring  his  mind  back 
from  that  feared  event  in  his  riding  to  the 
question  being  asked  in  this  House,  I  would 
ask  him  to  recognize  that  each  time  I  have 
asked  the  question  I  have  been  faced  with  a 
government  that  refuses  to  take  the  slightest 
action,  other  than  waiting  to  see  what  is 
going  to  happen. 

May  I  ask  him  now  will  the  government 
take  some  action  to  protect  the  small  busi- 
ness people?  Is  it  not  alarmed  by  the  fact 
there  were  three  to  four  times  as  many  bank- 
ruptcies in  Ontario  this  year  as  there  were  in 
the  whole  of  Canada  10  years  ago?  Does  the 
government  really  like  to  preside  over  On- 
tario as  it  becomes  the  bankruptcy  capital  of 
this  nation?  Will  it  take  action  when  people 
are  being  hurt  with  regard  to  high  interest 
rates?  The  government  has  helped  some 
farmers.  Will  it  now  help  some  business 
people  and  some  home  owners  as  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  obvi- 
ous the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  does  not 
really  want  an  answer.  He  simply  wants  to 
posture  on  this  matter.  I  remind  him  that  he 
has  had  responses  from  the  Premier  and  the 
Treasurer  this  week.  He  knows  the  Treasurer 
is  going  to  be  here,  but  he  conveniently 
thought  he  would  ask  the  question  before  he 
got  an  answer  again.  As  soon  as  he  gets  a 
second  question,  he  can  rush  out  to  the  tele- 
vision cameras  and  get  it  all  on  television 
without  any  benefit  of  response.  I  know  the 
tactic. 

I  would  remind  the  member  not  to  get 
carried  away  with  all  the  cars  he  sees  near 
the  school  he  is  going  to  tonight  because 
they  are  all  going  to  the  Pen  Centre  to  do 
their  Christmas  shopping. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  would  have  expected  a 
supplementary  from  the  NDP  at  least  asking 
for  a  study  of  options  again,  but  I  guess  they 
do  not  want  another  study. 

Some  hon.  members:  What  is  your  position? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Apparently  the  NDP  and 
the  Tories  believe  it  is  strictly  federal  and 
nothing  can  be  done  in  the  province.  I  dis- 


DECEMBER  5,1980 


4979 


agree.  I  believe  the  province  can  take  action; 
yes,  indeed  it  can. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  will  ask  a  question  of  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Could  the  minister  explain  to  this  House 
why  in  the  case  of  the  region  of  Durham, 
even  though  the  region  was  a  proponent  of 
the  proposed  waste  facility  in  the  first  place 
and  is  now  apparently  in  the  process  of 
changing  its  mind,  the  opinion  of  the  region 
is  to  rule  and  the  region  will  be  able  to  get 
out  of  this  particular  facility,  whereas  in  the 
matter  of  the  region  of  Haldimand-Norfolk 
the  region  was  never  consulted  and  simply 
had  the  matter  rammed  down  its  throat? 
Could  it  possibly  be  related  to  the  fact  that 
in  one  case  the  region  is  represented  in  the 
minister's  caucus  while  in  the  other  the 
region  is  represented  in  my  caucus? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
member  knows  full  well  that  the  proposal  in 
Ajax,  as  he  said,  was  just  a  proposal  from 
the  regional  municipality.  That  is  a  matter 
of  record  and  that  is  the  way  it  is.  They  can 
determine  what  they  choose  to  do. 

With  regard  to  the  second  part  of  his 
question,  the  member  again  conveniently 
wishes  to  forget  some  basic  facts.  There 
was  no  question  why  that  particular  site 
was  chosen.  It  was  chosen  after  a  great  deal 
of  careful  consideration  by  a  very  extensive 
review  of  this  province  by  MacLaren.  There 
was  a  great  deal  of  effort,  properly  docu- 
mented. I  want  to  say,  as  calmly  as  I  can, 
that  the  member's  insinuation  that  this  was 
motivated  because  of  one  caucus  or  another 
is  totally  incorrect.  It  happens  to  be  the 
best  site,  and  that  is  why  it  was  chosen. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: The  Minister  of  the  Environment  is  pre- 
sumably the  only  person  in  Ontario  who 
now  believes  that  by  coincidence  the  one 
site  that  John  White  and  the  Premier  bought 
for  this  pollution-free  community  on  the 
shores  of  Lake  Erie  turns  out  to  be  the  best 
site  in  Ontario  for  liquid  waste. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  You  do  not  even  believe 
that  last  statement. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  do  not  believe  it.  I  cer- 
tainly do  not  believe  it,  but  the  minister 
apparently  does. 

Since  the  minister  is  the  only  person  who 
believes  that  site  is  the  best  one,  when  it 
was  not  even  one  of  the  17  that  was  being 
looked  at,  would  he  recognize  now  that  it 
is  possible  to  have  hearings  done  on  that 
site  without  taking  three  years  and  the  other 


nonsense  he  has  been  speaking  of?  We  can 
have  reasonably  brief  hearings  and  get  the 
matter  dealt  with  without  destroying  the  en- 
vironmental assessment  legislation  which  has 
been  trumpeted  about  this  province  for  the 
last  five  years  but  seems  to  protect  no  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  re- 
peat what  the  Deputy  Premier  has  said.  I 
am  afraid  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
this  morning  is  devoid  of  new  questions.  He 
is  recycling  a  few  old  ones.  It  is  just  a  re- 
cycle program  he  is  on.  He  received  those 
answers  before.  If  he  does  not  choose  to 
accept  those  answers,  of  course  it  is  his 
right.  But  the  rules,  I  thought,  were  against 
repetition,  and  this  is  a  repetitive  question. 

Perhaps  I  should  send  over  the  MacLaren 
report.  He  apparently  has  not  read  it  because 
if  he  had,  he  would  not  have  made  the  state- 
ment he  did  during  the  posing  of  the  question. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
The  minister  has  already  indicated  over  the 
last  two  weeks  that  the  government  intends  to 
ride  roughshod  over  the  Environmental  As- 
sessment Act  with  respect  to  the  project  in 
South  Cayuga. 

We  now  are  led  to  understand  by  the 
minister  that  the  government  also  intends  to 
ride  roughshod  over  the  Planning  Act.  Rather 
than  complying  with  the  Planning  Act  as  the 
government  normally  does  in  the  case  of 
government-owned  land,  it  intends  to  ignore 
it  or  to  override  it  in  the  case  of  the  land-use 
designation  for  the  proposed  liquid  industrial 
waste  site  in  South  Cayuga. 

Would  the  minister  inform  the  House 
whether  the  government  intends  to  ignore  the 
provisions  of  the  Planning  Act?  Or  does  the 
government  intend  to  pass  legislation  that 
would  suspend  the  regional  municipality's 
power  to  zone  that  part  of  its  territory  in 
South  Cayuga?  If  so,  when  is  that  legislation 
going  to  come  before  the  Legislature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that 
too  is  almost  a  repeat.  If  the  member  looks 
at  the  appropriate  legislation,  there  is  a 
vehicle  there.  He  should  know.  He  has  quoted 
the  Planning  Act.  He  should  read  it.  I  will  be 
glad  to  send  him  another  copy.  The  appro- 
priate mechanism  is  in  the  Planning  Act  and 
other  legislation. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Another  loophole;  that  is 
what  it  is.  You  are  the  minister  of  loopholes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  can  assure  the  member 
we  have  not  run  roughshod  over  anyone.  I 
have  not  heard  in  this  House  any  suggestions 
whatsoever  of  how  the  opposition  would  deal 
with  this  very  significant  problem.  I  really 
tried  to  search  for  one  in  what  was  said  in 


4980 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  emergency  debate.  I  have  looked  at  that 
debate  rather  extensively.  There  is  not  one 
single  proposal.  I  think  if  we  talk  about  run- 
ning roughshod  over  it,  we  should  also  talk 
about  what  somebody  would  do  about  it.  The 
opposite  side  would  do  nothing.  It  is  far  too 
important  a  problem  for  us  to  do  nothing 
about  and  we  are  going  to  do  something.  We 
are  in  the  process  of  treating  the  problem  and 
we  will  do  the  best  that  it  is  humanly  pos- 
sible to  do. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  minister  has  indicated  to  the 
House  this  morning  that  the  government  is 
not  running  roughshod  over  the  people  of 
Ontario.  Why  is  he  not  willing  to  accept  the 
legislation  as  it  is  and  provide  it  for  the 
people  of  the  region  of  Haldimand-Norfolk 
who  have  requested  a  hearing?  Why  will  he 
not  give  them  the  opportunity  to  go  to  a  fair 
hearing  without  it  being  hammered  to  them 
as  he  is  doing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  For  two  obvious  reasons. 
One,  we  are  working  well  within  the  act. 
The  member  may  not  like  that,  but  it  happens 
to  be  the  very  point  of  the  act.  This  act  says 
we  can  exempt  an  environmental  assessment 
process  if  we  choose.  That  happens  to  be  the 
law.  It  has  been  the  law  for  five  or  six  years. 
In  my  time  in  office,  there  have  been  far  more 
processes  proceeded  with  than  previously. 
That  also  happens  to  be  a  fact.  All  of  them 
are  important  or  they  would  not  be  under  the 
environmental  assessment  process.  Members 
opposite  make  light  of  the  Samuel  Smith  Park. 
We  happen  to  think  that  was  an  important 
one.  The  extension  of  highways  has  been  im- 
portant on  occasion.  Those  are  all  important 
projects  that  have  been  under  the  act.  They 
just  want  to  ignore  that  fact  of  life  that  has 
been  in  this  act  for  a  long  period  of  time.  It  is 
convenient  to  do  so. 
10:20  a.m. 

Even  more  important,  indeed  much  more 
important,  as  has  been  obvious,  what  they 
want  is  not  to  live  with  the  terms  of  the  act; 
they  want  to  use  that  as  a  convenient  place 
in  which  to  destroy  any  possible  way  of 
dealing  with  the  problem.  They  are  not 
interested  in  solutions;  they  want  to  see  this 
thing  go  on  forever  so  they  can  make  polit- 
ical hay.  I  really  am  convinced  that  is  all 
they  are  interested  in. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Why  is  it  that  whenever  problems  arise  in 
regard  to  liquid  industrial  waste  disposal,  be 
it  our  request  for  hearings  in  the  South 
Cayuga  incident  or  be  it  the  problems  they 
are  having  in  Niagara  Falls,  New  York  right 


now,  the  minister  immediately  raises  the 
spectre  of  illegal  dumping  of  liquid  waste  in 
the  woods,  streams  and  fields  of  this  prov- 
ince? Does  the  minister  have  so  little  faith 
in  the  liquid  waste  producers  in  this  prov- 
ince, with  whom  his  officials  met  on  October 
27,  that  he  thinks  they  are  going  to  engage 
in  those  kinds  of  illegal  practices? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  may 
have  been  one  or  two  responses  of  that  kind, 
but  it  certainly  has  not  been  the  usual 
response.  I  do  not  remember  giving  that  as 
a  response  this  morning  at  all.  I  do  not 
know  why  it  is  part  of  the  supplementary 
question.  There  was  no  talk  this  morning  in 
this  House  about  illegal  dumping.  I  do  not 
know  where  the  member  comes  from  with 
that   particular   supplementary   question. 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Minister  of  Labour  which  relates 
to  the  Ontario  Chamber  of  Commerce  brief 
submitted  to  cabinet  on  Wednesday,  Decem- 
ber 3,  1980.  The  brief  states  on  page  seven, 
"It  has  been  estimated  that  if  severance  pay 
was  awarded  on  the  basis  of  one  week's  p&v 
for  every  year  worked,  the  annual  cost  to 
business  in  the  province  would  be  over  $700 
million." 

Does  the  minister  realize  that  this  estimate 
by  the  chamber  of  commerce  is,  on  the  most 
conservative  estimate  possible,  equal  to 
75,000  workers  being  laid  off  and  entitled  to 
severance  pay  next  year?  Does  the  minister 
agree  with  that  estimate?  Does  he  not  agree 
that  if  75,000  workers  are  to  lose  their  jobs 
next  year  due  to  shutdowns  and  layoffs  there 
is  even  more  urgency  in  getting  an  adequate 
severance  pay  provision  written  into  the  law 
of  Ontario  before  the  House  rises  next  week? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
government's  position  on  severance  pay  has 
been  made  very  clear.  The  Deputy  Premier 
and  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  have 
already  outlined  it  in  great  detail,  so  it  seems 
repetitive  to  go  over  it  again.  If  the  member 
wishes  me  to  do  so,  I  will. 

Mr.   McClellan:   Answer  the  question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  will.  Just  hang  on,  my 
friend.  The  member  always  likes  what  he 
wants  to  hear  said  first,  but  if  he  does  not 
mind  I  will  do  it  my  way.  Is  that  okay  with 
him? 

The  government  remains  unopposed  to  the 
principle  of  severance  pay.  It  thinks  the  com- 
mittee did  not  do  justice  to  the  Legislature 
nor  to  the  public  in  reaching  conclusions  be- 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4981 


fore  it  had  gone  through  the  process  it  had 
originally  agreed  upon.  We  are  not  comment- 
ing upon  the  validity  of  the  concept  of  sever- 
ance pay  because  we  have  no  fundamental 
objection  to  that;  so  get  that  off  the  record 
again. 

Secondly,  I  am  aware  of  the  brief  from  the 
chamber  of  commerce,  but  I  personally  am 
unable  to  authenticate  the  figures  they  have 
used.  I  have  heard  the  figure  of  $700  million. 
I  think  that  would  refer  to  all  cases  of  ter- 
mination, but  the  amendment  the  member 
proposed  earlier  this  week  would  have  con- 
fined it  to  situations  of  mass  terminations. 
Those  are  the  very  sorts  of  questions  we 
expected  that  committee  to  look  at.  Please 
let  them  do  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary:  Since  the 
committee  representing  all  parties  has  said 
quite  explicitly  to  the  government  that  it  is 
time  to  act  now,  and  since  the  chamber  of 
commerce  estimates  indicate  there  may  be 
75,000  workers  hit  by  shutdowns  next  year 
as  compared  to  about  46,000  so  far  this  year— 
in  other  words,  they  are  suggesting  the  prob- 
lem is  going  to  get  worse  rather  than  be 
alleviated  next  year— does  the  minister  not 
agree  it  is  time  to  act  on  the  recommendation 
of  all  parties  on  the  plant  shutdowns  com- 
mittee and  to  initiate  the  amendment  to  Bill 
191  which  will  ensure  that  workers  who  are 
hit  by  mass  layoffs  will  at  least  be  entitled 
to  one  week's  pay  for  every  year  of  service 
as  a  matter  of  severance  and  as  a  matter  of 
right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  us  get 
back  to  some  of  the  asides  the  member  made. 
I  do  not  accept  that  there  are  46,000  laid 
off.  The  member  knows  the  position  of  the 
Ministry  of  Labour  on  the  figures  it  has  be- 
fore it.  They  would  indicate  there  are  con- 
siderably fewer  people  than  the  number  the 
member  used  who  are  either  on  indefinite 
layoff  or  who  have  permanently  lost  their 
positions  as  a  result  of  plant  closures. 

Let  me  now  say  again  for  the  member's 
benefit  that  this  government  has  no  objec- 
tion fundamentally  to  the  principle  of  sever- 
ance. It  remains  anxious  to  hear  the  thought- 
ful consideration  that  the  committee  was 
supposed  to  give  to  the  issue,  which  it  now 
expects  that  committee  to  do. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  minister  must  recognize  that  if  these  laid- 
off  employees  do  not  get  severance  pay,  they 
will  become  a  burden  at  some  point  on  the 
public  sector.  The  government  has  made  a 
great  fetish  of  reprivatizing  the  economy. 
Does  the  minister  not  think  this  is  an  area 
where  he  should  transfer  something  from  the 


public  sector  to  the  private  sector  and  let  it 
accept  its  responsibility  by  providing  sever- 
ance pay? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  look 
over  the  record  of  the  more  recent  shutdowns 
and  some  of  the  earlier  ones,  I  find  no  evi- 
dence that  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  sever- 
ance pay  was  not  given.  We  are  talking  about 
application  of  the  principle  universally  and 
mandatorily  in  legislation.  I  am  saying  that 
the  committee  had  an  obligation  to  review  it 
thoughtfully  and  to  hear  all  points  of  view 
before  reaching  decisions.  We  still  expect  that 
committee  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  do  the  Liberals 
not  have  any  supplementaries  on  this 
question? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  questions  are  really 
repetitive. 

TREATMENT  OF 
HANDICAPPED  PATIENTS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence 
of  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrel!),  I 
have  a  question  for  the  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Social  Development.  I  would  like  to  bring 
to  her  attention  the  bizarre  treatment  of  a 
native  Indian  named  Fred  Selby,  who  has 
been  in  the  Queen  Elizabeth  Hospital  in 
Toronto  because  of  muscular  dystrophy.  Mr. 
Selby  had  Ins  wheelchair  taken  away  for 
the  months  of  August,  September  and 
October  of  this  year  because  of  a  disciplin- 
ary decision  by  the  hospital  authorities  re- 
lated  to   his   drinking. 

Will  the  minister  investigate  the  case?  Is 
the  government  willing  to  condone  the  taking 
away  of  the  use  of  a  wheelchair  for  three 
months  from  a  patient  as  an  acceptable 
means  of  discipline  in  a  hospital,  and  will 
the  minister  inform  the  House  what  recourse 
to  their  human  rights  handicapped  and  dis- 
abled people  have  when  they  are  treated 
that  way  in  provincial  institutions  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  the  problem  the  honourable  mem- 
ber has  brought  to  my  attention.  I  will 
certainly  speak  to  the  Minister  of  Health 
and  see  if  he  is  aware  of  it.  I  am  sure,  like 
myself,  he  would  be  very  distressed  if  such 
were  the  case.  I  can  only  assure  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House  I  will  look  into  it  imme- 
diately. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary:  Would  the 
minister  also  investigate  how  a  patient, 
namely,  Mr.  Selby,  could  be  transferred 
against  his  will  to  a  nursing  home,  largely 
occupied  by  psychogeriatric  patients,  who 
were    much   older   than   he   and   who   were 


4982 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


certainly  far  more  impaired  in  mental  func- 
tion? Further,  could  the  minister  assure  the 
House  that  handicapped  and  disabled 
patients  will  have  some  recourse  in  cases 
like  these,  where  inappropriate  placements 
are  being  made,  that  there  will  be  legislation 
in  the  Human  Rights  Code  amendments  or 
by  some  other  means  to  give  patients  that 
recourse,  and  that  an  appropriate  placement 
can  be  found  in  the  case  of  this  particular 
patient,  who  has  not  only  lost  his  wheel- 
chair for  three  months  but  has  also  been 
put  into  an  entirely  inappropriate  setting? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  I  think  it  would  be  very 
inappropriate  for  me  to  make  comments  on 
the  information  just  presented  because  I 
have  no  facts  at  the  moment.  I  have  indi- 
cated that  we  will  have  an  investigation 
immediately  to  find  out  the  true  facts  of  the 
case.  I  lam  sure  the  honourable  member  is 
aware  that  there  will  be  amendments  in  the 
Human  Rights  Code  that  will  indeed  provide 
those  kinds  of  safeguards  for  the  handicapped 
people  of  this  province. 
10:30  a.m. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Surely,  at  the  very  least,  if  the  minijster 
is  not  prepared  to  make  a  comment  beyond 
the  commitment  she  has  made  to  investigate, 
she  can  make  a  commitment  to  us  here  in 
the  House  that  she  will  undertake  to  find 
a  proper  placement  for  Mr.  Selby,  who  has 
been  punished  in  the  Queen  Elizabeth  Hos- 
pital and,  secondly,  as  a  further  punishment 
sent  to  an  inappropriate  placement  at  the 
nursing  home  for  psychogeriatrics  in  ques- 
tion. 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
have  already  indicated  I  would  like  to  have 
further  information  about  the  whole  inci- 
dent before  I  comment  any  further.  If  the 
facts  that  have  been  brought  to  my  attention 
are  true,  yes,  we  will  make  sure  there  is  a 
more  appropriate  placement  for  this  gentle- 
man. 

DIOXIN  TESTING 
Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment.  In 
the  light  of  recent  evidence  concerning 
levels  of  dioxin  found  in  herring  gull  eggs 
throughout  the  Great  Lakes,  will  the  min- 
ister act  to  have  a  ban  on  the  manufactur- 
ing of  2,4,5-T  in  the  United  States?  Will 
he  also  investigate  his  own  ministry's  moni- 
toring of  the  Niagara  River  to  be  able  to 
tell  us  why  it  has  not  shown  signs  of  dioxins 
that  are  going  from  the  upper  Niagara  to 
Lake  Ontario  without  being  reported  by  his 
ministry?   Thirdly,   is   the   minister   going  to 


have  someone  attend  at  two  o'clock  this 
afternoon  at  the  hearings  in  Lewiston,  New 
York,  to  see  if  we  can  convince  them  to 
reopen  the  hearings  on  SCA  Chemical  Waste 
Service  Inc.  and  do  his  job  because  I  am 
sick  of  doing  it  with  limited  resources  on 
behalf  of  the  people  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  really  cannot  believe 
this  question,  Mr.  Speaker.  That  too  was 
answered  some  time  ago.  Surely  the  mem- 
ber remembers  asking  me  the  question. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  The  minister  is  not  finding 
the  dioxin.  What  are  his  people  doing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  One  cannot  find  what 
ain't  there.  It  is  that  simple. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  It  is  in  Lake  Ontario  and  in 
the  river. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  If  the  member  reads 
the  report,  he  will  see  the  level  of  dioxin 
in  herring  gull  eggs  is  significantly  being 
reduced.  Does  the  member  agree  with  that? 
That  is  part  of  somebody  else's  report.  This 
is  not  my  report.  I  am  only  repeating  for 
the  member  what  is  in  that  report.  The 
level  of  dioxin  in  the  herring  gull  eggs  is 
markedly  reduced,  dropped,  lessened.  That 
is  good  news.  We  are  monitoring  and  we 
can  measure  to  one  part  per  trillion  of  the 
water  supply.  We  have  measured  and  there 
is  no  level  of  dioxin  in  the  water  supply. 
Surely  the  member  does  not  want  me  to 
go  out- 
Mr.  Kerrio:  Somebody  has  to  do  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Would  the  member 
listen  for  a  minute?  We  have  the  only  pro- 
vincial lab  in  Canada,  as  we  should  have, 
opened  at  great  expense  to  measure  for 
dioxin.  We  have  done  those  measurements 
which  show  no  measurable  amount  of  dioxin 
in  the  drinking  water.  Does  the  member 
want  me  to  take  those  measurements  and 
then  somehow  or  other  say,  "We  do  not 
believe  them.  There  has  to  be  something 
there  because  we  have  to  prove  there  is 
bad  news?"  What  nonsense! 

The  member  knows  we  have  measured. 
If  he  had  listened,  if  he  had  called  the  lab 
or  done  anything  besides  shouting  from  that 
crazy  position  of  his,  he  should  have  known 
that  there  is  no  dioxin  in  the  drinking  water 
of  that  area.  That  happens  to  be  fact.  He 
may  not  want  the  facts. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Is  the  minister  going  to  the 
hearings   this  afternoon? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Alarmists. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Let  me  come  to  the 
last  one,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  just  cannot 
believe  it.  The  Deputy  Premier  is  so  right. 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4983 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  There  is  a  big  meeting 
tonight. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Yes,  there  is  a  big 
meeting  tonight,  so  maybe  we  can  under- 
stand the  reason  for  the  questions  this  morn- 
ing. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  Premier  (Mr.  Davis) 
will  go  as  a  private  citizen. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  May  I  repeat  the  an- 
swer I  gave  to  the  member  a  while  back? 
We  have  been  to  Albany.  We  raised  the 
question  directly  with  the  commissioners. 
He  knows  that.  We  sent  a  telegram  instantly 
to  the  member's  party  in  Ottawa  and  we  are 
still  waiting  for  an  answer.  All  we  had  was 
an  acknowledgement.  That  telegram  said 
very  clearly  that  we  believe  those  hearings 
should  be  reopened  because  of  the  threat 
of  TNT. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Have  him  there  at  two  o'clock. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  member  does  not 
like  to  hear  the  facts  on  this  particular 
matter. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  certainly  do. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  He  is  not  listening  to 
them  or  he  does  not  understand  them.  It 
is  one  or  the  other.  We  sent  that  telegram 
not  only  to  the— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Now  the  minister  is  becom- 
ing repetitive. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  You  are  right,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  am  indeed.  May  I  also  say  that  we 
sent  it  to  the  commissioners  and  to  the  federal 
minister.  We  are  demanding  that  those  hear- 
ings prove  to  us  there  is  no  threat  from  the 
TNT  at  that  site.  We  demanded  that.  Why 
do  they  not  listen  to  what  is  being  said? 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  am  going  and  I  want  to 
know  if  the  minister  is  sending  someone. 
Beyond  that,  is  the  minister  embarrassed  by 
the  fact  that  at  Ajax,  Ontario,  he  is  going  to 
dump  8.8  million  gallons  into  Lake  Ontario? 
He  cannot  go  over  and  point  a  finger  at  the 
Americans  because  he  is  going  to  add  to  the 
pollution  of  the  Great  Lakes  system  himself. 
Is  that  intimidating  the  minister? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  not  quite  sure  what 
the  member  is  saying  in  that  last  question. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  am  suggesting  he  is  going  to 
dump  into  Lake  Ontario  from  the  Ajax  facility 
and  the  people  are  against  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Having  made  two  state- 
ments in  the  House,  I  cannot  believe  that  this 
was  not  very  specifically  cleared  up  yesterday. 
The  proposal  is  under  reconsideration  by  the 
region.  It  is  that  simple. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  better  believe  it;  they  are 
going  to  turn  it  off. 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Fair  enough.  I  cannot 
add  to  what  the  statement  said  yesterday.  If 
the  member  does  not  wish  to  hear,  there  is 
very  little  I  can  do  about  it. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  the  minister  not  realize  that  the  reduc- 
tion in  the  dioxin  levels  in  seagulls'  eggs  has 
not  occurred  as  a  result  of  any  actions  of 
his  ministry  and  it  is  not  known  why  that 
reduction  has  occurred?  There  could  be  a 
further  increase  at  some  point  in  the  future 
unless  someone  starts  taking  some  positive 
action  to  ensure  that  the  sites  causing  the 
problem  are  cleaned  up? 

While  the  minister  is  to  be  commended 
for  his  testing  laboratory,  will  he  at  least  ask 
the  federal  minister  if  he  can  sit  in  on  the 
meetings  the  federal  minister  has  now 
scheduled  so  he  can  establish  some  formal  and 
informal  contact  with  his  colleagues  from 
New  York  state  so  these  problems  can  be  ad- 
dressed on  a  joint  level  rather  than  always 
having  to  go  through  the  federal  government? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  sorry  to  be  so 
repetitive,  but  maybe  I  can  again  tell  you 
that  we  have  been  there  during  these  discus- 
sions and  not  through  the  minister  in  the 
federal  government.  If  I  were  still  waiting 
on  him,  I  am  afraid  I  would  be  sitting,  waiting 
and  doing  nothing. 

The  member  asks  what  Ontario  has  done. 
Nc  dioxin  has  ever  been  produced  in  this 
province.  There  is  no  way  we  will  permit  it 
to  be  produced.  That  is  a  fact  of  life.  It  is 
banned  now.  The  member  asks  what  more  we 
can  do.  We  are  the  watchdog  on  that  river. 
Tell  me  where  there  is  any  other  jurisdiction 
that  can  even  offer  to  do  that.  We  have  com- 
pletely banned  it.  There  is  no  possibility. 

I  would  support  the  ban  on  dioxin  through- 
out the  world.  We  have  done  it  here  in 
Ontario.  There  is  nothing  more  we  can  do 
that  has  not  already  been  done  by  us  except 
to  be  the  watchdog.  We  will  fulfil  that  role 
enthusiastically  because  we  have  the  tools  to 
do  it.  I  only  wish  other  jurisdictions  could 
tell  me  that  in  their  own  jurisdictions  they 
have  the  facilities  to  do  the  lab  tests  we  can 
do  in  Ontario.  It  is  unfortunate  they  have  not. 
If  they  had,  maybe  they  would  be  as  con- 
cerned and  as  serious  about  this  issue  as  we 
are. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
would  the  minister,  in  conjunction  with  the 
stated  intentions  of  the  federal  Minister  of 
the  Environment,  consider  taking  legal  action 
against  Dow  Chemical  of  Midland,  Michi- 
gan, as  well  as  Hooker  Chemicals  and  Plas- 
tics of  Niagara  Falls  because  of  the  environ- 


4984 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


mental  degradation  they  have  caused  in  this 
province  over  the  last  30  years? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  As  a  matter  of  fact,  just 
before  I  came  here  this  morning,  I  received 
a  phone  call  on  that  type  of  matter  from  John 
Roberts,  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  for 
the  federal  government.  He  asked  if  we  think 
it  is  a  good  idea  for  him  to  proceed  by  ap- 
propriate channels  through  the  US  Secretary 
of  State  and  on  his  own  behalf  and  with 
reciprocal  agreement.  We  are  unconditionally 
in  agreement  that  such  action  should  be 
taken.  If  they  want  any  assistance  of  a  tech- 
nical nature  from  us,  I  have  said  previously 
they  are  welcome  to  have  any  of  our  facilities 
put  at  their  disposal.  We  think  that  is  right. 

I  noticed  not  long  ago  the  federal  govern- 
ment on  a  totally  unrelated  issue  said  it  did 
not  think  the  province  should  deal  with  a 
foreign  country.  I  think  the  member,  being 
the  fair-minded  person  he  is,  would  agree 
with  that  principle. 
10:40  a.m. 

If  that  is  what  the  member  is  asking— 
and  I  think  that  is  exactly  what  he  is 
asking— I  say  unconditionally  that  Ontario 
will  not  only  give  lip  service  to  that  but  will 
put  our  full  resources  at  the  disposal  of  the 
federal  government  as  it  pursues,  with  our 
total  support,  any  action  against  any  com- 
pany in  the  United  States.  Fair  enough? 

EXEMPTIONS  FROM  MINING  ACT 

Mr.  Foulds:  In  the  absence  of  the  Minister 
of  Natural  Resources  (Mr.  Auld),  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 
Resources  Development  about  exemptions  to 
section  113(1)  of  the  Mining  Act. 

Can  the  minister  confirm,  as  I  believe  a 
report  of  the  Ombudsman  states  to  the  em- 
ployees of  Canadian  Smelting  and  Refining 
in  Cobalt,  that  an  exemption  to  section  113 
of  the  Mining  Act  has  been  granted  to  Silver- 
fields  division  of  Teck  Corporation  in  Cobalt? 
Not  only  that  but  can  he  confirm  that  a 
blanket  exemption  is  prepared  and  there  is 
a  recommendation  to  cabinet  that  "would 
exempt  all  lands  in  the  Cobalt-Gowanda 
area  from  the  provisions  of  section  113  of  the 
Mining  Act"? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
familiar  with  the  matter  the  member  has 
raised.  I  would  be  pleased  to  look  into  it 
and  either  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 
or  myself  will  provide  an  answer. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Supplementary:  As  a  former 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources  and  as  a 
member  of  the  cabinet,  would  the  provincial 
secretary  not  agree  that  such  an  exemption 


is  a  precedent-setting  one  for  the  cabinet? 
All  previous  exemptions  to  section  113  have 
been  specific  as  to  mine  and  site. 

Will  the  provincial  secretary  have  the 
Minister  of  Natural  Resources  comment  on 
the  allegation  that  the  specific  exemption 
to  section  113  to  Silverfields  in  Cobalt  is 
contrary  even  to  the  present  guidelines  of 
the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  for  grant- 
ing such  exemptions?  Why  was  such  an 
exemption   granted? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  will 
also  be  taken  into  consideration. 

HOUSING  AUTHORITY  COSTS 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  to  the  Minister  of  Housing.  I  appreciate 
receiving  from  the  minister  the  costs  that 
are  incurred  by  reason  of  the  transfer  of 
the  package  from  Bloor  Street  to  Yonge 
Street  to  establish  the  Metropolitan  Toronto 
Housing  Authority.  Could  the  minister  ad- 
vise the  House  who  is  paying  the  $337,000 
nonrecurring  costs  and  the  annual  cost  in- 
creases recurring  in  the  sum  of  $553,000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
have  the  entire  breakdown  with  me  this 
morning.  The  entire  cost  is  absorbed  by 
provincial  and  federal  taxpayers.  We  split 
the  costs  of  operation  of  our  public  housing 
portfolio  on  a  50:50  basis  between  the  min- 
istry reporting  for  the  Canada  Mortgage  and 
Housing  Corporation  and  the  Ministry  of 
Housing  through  the  Ontario  Housing  Cor- 
poration. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Supplementary:  Does  the 
minister  not  view  it  as  rather  strange,  at  a 
time  of  restraints  when  hospitals  are  closing 
and  when  other  services  to  people  are  being 
cut  back,  that  he  would  engage  in  this  kind 
of  expenditure  for  what  are,  in  essence,  ad- 
ministrative  costs? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  would  be  pleased  to 
supply  to  the  House  a  complete  breakdown 
on  the  cost  factors  related  to  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  Housing 
Authority  or  any  of  the  housing  authorities. 
I  am  in  the  process  of  doing  that  right  now 
and  will  commence  giving  them  at  10  o'clock 
next  Wednesday  morning  in  the  final  two 
hours  of  my  estimates.  In  presenting  the 
breakdown,  I  am  prepared  to  analyse  the 
member's  question  in  full  and  give  details. 
I  am  ready  to  supply  them  to  this  House. 

We  have  gone  into  the  process  of  estab- 
lishing housing  authorities  across  the  prov- 
ince. There  are  some  adminfstrative  costs 
in  doing  that.  For  a  long  period  of  time  we 
have  heard  from  the  members  in  the  Metro 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4985 


area  and  in  other  areas  of  the  province, 
that  Ontario  Housing  Corporation  should 
not  be  administering  the  local  responsibility; 
that  in  some  way,  shape  or  form,  this  gov- 
ernment under  this  administration  should  try- 
to  transfer  those  responsibilities  back  to  the 
local  people,  to  those  people  who  are  nomi- 
nated by  the  federal,  provincial  and  munici- 
pal governments. 

In  fairness,  in  trying  to  deliver  the  serv- 
ices at  the  local  level,  where  there  is  the 
best  understanding  of  the  services  required 
by  the  taxpayers  of  that  community,  we  have 
taken  this  direction  in  establishing  the 
Metropolitan  Toronto  Housing  Authority,  the 
Ottawa-Carleton  Housing  Authority  and 
others.  I  do  not  have  the  specific  details  of 
the  exact  breakdowns  the  member  speaks  of 
this  morning,  but  I  am  prepared  to  get  them. 
I  think  this  is  money  well  invested  on  behalf 
of  Canadian  and  Ontario  taxpayers  in 
making  sure  there  is  a  degree  of  autonomy 
at  the  local  level  which  the  honourable 
members  have  constantly  asked  for. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Before  the  minister  goes  on  too  long  about 
local  autonomy  and  local  participation,  would 
he  explain  why  in  all  the  new  housing  au- 
thorities established  by  the  ministry  there  has 
been  consistent  opposition  by  the  provincial 
government  to  participation  on  the  board  of 
those  housing  authorites  by  the  people  who 
know  the  problems  of  public  housing  best, 
that  is,  the  tenants  who  live  in  Ontario 
Housing  across  the  province?  Will  the  gov- 
ernment now  undertake  that  in  every  hous- 
ing authority  there  will  be  at  least  one  or 
two  representatives  of  tenants  who  can  be 
authentic  spokespeople  for  those  who  live 
in  public  housing  across  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  It  is  rather  interesting, 
Mr.  Speaker,  that  a  member  of  his  party 
happens  to  be  the  chairman  of  the  justice 
committee  which  is  reviewing  the  Ontario 
Housing  Corporation's  annual  report.  I  have 
said  to  that  committee,  and  I  repeated  it 
again  on  Wednesday  past  at  the  estimates 
for  the  Ministry  of  Housing,  that  while  I  do 
not  suggest  tenants  who  are  going  to  repre- 
sent a  specific  cause  be  put  on  the  board, 
tenants  who  represent  causes  of  general 
interest  in  that  community  can  certainly 
seek  nomination  to  the  board  through  the 
municipal,  provincial  or  federal  level. 

Just  to  put  things  in  their  true  form,  if 
the  member  would  look  at  what  I  have  said 
over  the  last  number  of  months  and  if  he 
would  look  at  the  Ottawa-Carleton  Housing 
Authority  and  some  of  the  others  across  this 
province,  including  the  Metropolitan  Toronto 


Housing  Authority,  there  happen  to  be 
people  who  are  classified  as  tenants  under 
that  particular  portfolio. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: To  get  back  to  the  question  asked  by  the 
member  for  St.  George,  granted  it  is  a  good 
thing  to  have  local  authority  in  these  matters, 
the  question  is— and  I  am  still  waiting  for  an 
answer— why  the  heck  should  it  cost  a  third 
of  a  million  dollars  to  make  the  transfer  and 
a  half  a  million  dollars  a  year  in  recurring 
expenditures  in  additional  administrative 
costs  just  to  switch  the  authority  from  the 
province  to  Metro?  Why  is  it  going  to  cost 
us  an  extra  half  a  million  dollars  a  year  to 
do  that  when  there  is  not  a  whole  lot  of 
public  housing  being  built  that  I  can  see? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are 
times  when  I  wonder  why  the  leader  of  the 
Liberal  Parry  does  not  take  his  own  advice 
in  his  own  professional  occupation.  I  told 
the  member  for  St.  George  very  clearly  and 
very  distinctly  I  would  secure  those  figures 
and  report  to  the  House.  Obviously,  I  do  not 
want  the  House  to  hold  budget  estimates  of 
my  ministry  at  every  question  period  of  this 
House.  Now  that  I  am  before  the  estimates 
committee,  I  would  be  prepared  to  supply 
that  information  in  detail. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Etobicoke 
with  a  new  question. 

Mr.  Philip:  My  new  question  was  to  the 
Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Mr. 
Wells),  but  I  will  pass  to  the  member  for 
Riverdale  so  he  can  ask  his  question. 

CANADA   METAL  PLANT 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  to  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  and 
relates  to  the  public  meeting  held  last  night 
in  Riverdale  under  the  auspices  of  the  Min- 
istry of  the  Environment  with  respect  to  the 
extension  of  the  control  order  against 
Canada  Metal  Company  Limited.  Will  the 
minister  make  certain  that  the  decision  is 
made  before  this  House  rises  for  the  Christ- 
mas recess  or  for  the  prorogation,  and  will 
he  take  into  consideration  the  seven  items 
mainly  related  to  the  requests  and  demands 
made  by  the  community  on  his  ministry  to 
provide  for  adequate  assurance  of  health 
standards  and  health  tests  in  the  Riverdale 
area  to  ensure  that  low-level  blood  is  not 
affecting  the  children  and  adults  in  that 
area? 
10:50   a.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Yes,  I  will  certainly  try 
to    make   that   decision,    although   that   is   a 


4986 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


decision  the  director  must  make.  I  think 
the  member  is  aware  of  that. 

I  noted  at  that  hearing  last  night,  which 
was,  as  you  clearly  said,  at  our  instigation, 
that  it  is  a  contract  problem  and  not  a  lack 
of  commitment  on  the  part  of  the  company 
to  do  it.  The  contractors  have  run  into  prob- 
lems. I  trust  we  are  agreed  on  that.  That 
does  not  change  the  bottom  line,  which  is 
whether  there  needs  to  be  an  extension. 
We  will  try  to  give  the  member  that  deter- 
mination before  this  House  rises. 

With  regard  to  the  demands  for  health 
standards,  as  I  said  to  the  member  for  St. 
George  (Mrs.  Campbell)  the  other  day,  I 
think  that  question  more  appropriately 
should  go  to  my  colleague  the  Minister  of 
Health  (Mr.  Timbrell).  I  have  just  recently 
written  to  him  about  that  specific.  With  the 
Ministry  of  Labour  and  the  Ministry  of 
Health,  we  need  to  determine  those  stan- 
dards. We  believe  the  standards  will  be  met 
with  this  new  equipment. 

Once  the  company  has  met  the  standards, 
then  I  think  it  is  for  others,  rather  than 
ourselves,  to  determine  the  level  those  stan- 
dards must  meet  in  order  to  protect  their 
health.  At  the  moment,  the  company  is 
meeting  the  standards  which  are  set  to  pro- 
tect health.  I  guess  we  can  conclude  that 
the  health  of  the  people  around  that  area  is 
being  protected,  but  that  whole  matter  of 
the  appropriate  levels  should  be  and  is 
under  review  by  the  Minister  of  Health  and 
the  appropriate  people  in  the  Ministry  of 
Labour. 

Mr.  Renwick:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
will  the  minister  refresh  his  memory  about 
a  question  I  asked  him  over  a  year  ago  and 
on  which  we  have  pressed  the  minister  on 
a  number  of  occasions  privately,  that  is, 
whether  or  not  he  will,  in  conjunction  with 
the  Minister  of  Health,  the  University  of 
Toronto  and  the  Hospital  for  Sick  Children, 
design  and  carry  out  a  study  in  that  area 
with  respect  to  the  effect  of  low-level  lead 
on  children?  Will  he  finally  give  us  an 
undertaking  that  study  will  take  place  in 
the  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  What  I  am  trying  to 
say,  is  that  that  study  on  health  is  not  one 
I  think  my  ministry  should  lead.  We  do  not 
have  the  expertise  per  se  on  health,  that  we 
have  on  how  to  meet  the  standards  that 
have  been  established. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Nobody  has  expertise  on 
health;  that  is  the  problem.  The  Minister  of 
Health  does  not  have  any  expertise.  If  you 
ask  him  for  information,  he  does  not  have 
any. 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Within  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  and  within  the  Ministry  of  Health 
they  have  that  expertise.  I  wrote  to  my  col- 
leagues and  I  think  that  kind  of  study  is  be- 
ing done.  It  is  not  as  though  it  is  a  unique 
one  here  in  this  province.  The  establishing  of 
standards  to  meet  the  health  needs  of  the 
citizens  on  the  various  components  is  a  uni- 
versal study.  It  goes  on  continuously.  As  we 
get  new  information,  we  update  our  standards. 
We  have  done  that  many  times.  It  is  not  a 
simple  matter  to  resolve  what  is  the  appro- 
priate standard  for  the  thousands  of  chemi- 
cals, metals,  et  cetera,  that  must  be  estab- 
lished to  establish  the  health  risks  of  all  of 
these  components.  I  really  believe  that  among 
the  three  ministries  we  have  assessed  that 
and  we  will  continue  to  update  that  infor- 
mation. 

At  the  moment,  the  standards  are  such  that 
we  believe  and  the  experts  in  the  ministries 
believe  that  health  is  being  protected,  but 
that  is  under  continuous  review.  I  have  just 
recently  written  to  my  two  colleagues  to  see 
if  something  further  can  be  done. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  the  third  time  the 
minister  has  said  that.  The  Minister  of  In- 
dustry and  Tourism  has  the  answer  to  a 
question  asked  previously. 

GUELPH  TEXTILE  FIRM 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
the  answers  to  two  questions  previously  asked. 
Last  week  the  member  for  Wellington  South 
(Mr.  Worton)  asked  a  question  regarding  the 
financial  arrangements  being  made  with  the 
former  owner  of  a  Guelph  textile  firm  in  re- 
lation to  support  my  ministry  or  the  federal 
government  might  be  providing  for  that  firm. 
I  would  like  to  confirm  this  morning,  not- 
withstanding news  stories  to  the  contrary  in 
the  local  media  in  Guelph,  no  financial  ar- 
rangements whatsoever  have  been  made  be- 
tween that  firm  and  the  Ontario  Development 
Corporation. 

BENDIX  CORPORATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  last  week 
the  member  for  Windsor- Walkerville  (Mr.  B. 
Newman)  raised  a  question  regarding  the  re- 
call of  two  sets  of  dies  by  Bendix  Corporation 
from  Central  Stamping  Limited  in  Windsor. 
The  removal  of  those  sets  of  dies  is  another 
consequence  of  the  slump  in  the  auto  industry. 
To  reduce  excess  capacity,  Bendix  decided  to 
produce  in-house  the  backing  plate,  which  is 
part  of  the  brake  system,  I  am  told,  and  the 
brake  shell.  Both  activities  were  being  sup- 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4987 


plied  outside  its  own  system  by  Central 
Stamping. 

It  is  my  understanding  the  set  of  dies  used 
to  manufacture  backing  plates  was  removed 
approximately  seven  weeks  ago.  The  set  of 
dies  used  to  manufacture  brake  shells  is 
scheduled  to  be  removed  this  month.  At  this 
time,  I  am  told,  Bendix  has  no  plans  to  recall 
any  of  its  other  sets  of  dies  from  Central 
Stamping.  In  addition,  Bendix  has  indicated 
it  does  not  intend  to  lower  the  proportion  of 
Canadian  content  in  its  outside  sources.  We 
will  continue  to  monitor  this  situation. 

The  member  also  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  removal  of  these  sets  of  dies  was  a  vio- 
lation of  the  auto  pact.  The  answer  to  that 
question  is  no,  since  the  automotive  assembly 
companies,  not  the  parts  manufacturers,  are 
the  signatories  to  the  auto  products  trade 
agreement  and  letters  of  intent,  the  two 
documents  commonly  referred  to  as  the  auto 
pact. 

I  should  remind  the  member,  'and  I  know 
he  is  aware  of  this,  we  have  been  on  record 
for  some  time  as  being  opposed  to  the  low 
levels  of  Canadian  value  added  required 
under  the  auto  pact  in  automotive  assembly 
by  the  federal  government  and  the  letters  of 
intent.  More  than  seven  months  have  passed 
since  we  last  raised  this  issue  and  called 
upon  the  federal  government  to  raise  the 
CVA  requirements  from  the  current  level.  In 
most  cases,  it  is  currently  60  per  cent.  We 
have  advocated  100  per  cent  of  Canadian 
sales.  That  is  the  only  thing  that  can  solve 
this  kind  of  problem. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARINGS 

Mr.  MoGuigan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  for  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment. In  light  of  the  fact  that  on  Tuesday 
a  divisional  court  ruled  that  the  certificate 
of  approval  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  for  the  Ridge  Landfill  Corpo- 
ration in  Harwich  was  null  and  void,  because 
a  hearing  was  not  held  when  the  old  certifi- 
cate was  renewed  with  substantial  changes, 
will  the  minister  ensure  proper  hearings  are 
held  in  the  near  future  if  the  corporation 
applies  for  a  new  certificate  of  approval? 

Since  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  has 
withdrawn  its  participation  from  the  Brown- 
ing-Ferris Harwich  solidification  proposal 
which  the  company  intends  to  proceed  with, 
and  since  the  proposal  was  originally  to  go 
through  hearings  under  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act,  will  the  Minister  assure  this 
House  and  the  residents  of  Harwich  town- 
ship that  a  full  hearing  under  the  Environ- 
mental Assessment  Act  will  still  take  place? 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  try 
to  be  brief.  On  the  first  question,  it  is  a 
pretty  important  decision  that  was  rendered 
by  the  court.  The  last  time  I  checked,  which 
was  late  yesterday,  the  ministry  did  not 
have  the  written  decision.  I  want  to  see  it 
personally  and  I  would  not  like  to  make  any 
comment  about  that  decision  of  the  court 
until  such  time  as  we  have  had  the  chance 
to  review  it. 

With  regard  to  the  renewal  of  certificates, 
I  do  not  think  there  is  any  doubt  that  on 
a  renewal  the  court  decision  is  quite  signifi- 
cant to  that  renewal  as  well.  I  think  they 
were  related  questions  and  that  I  should 
not  make  any  further  comment  until  I  have 
had  a  full  opportunity  to  look  at  the  court 
decision. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Since  the  minister  evaded 
answering  the  question  posed  by  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  in  the  House  on  Tuesday, 

I  will  ask  the  question  again.  Because  the 
ministry's  proposed  mega-liquid  industrial 
waste  facility  in  South  Cayuga  will  be  han- 
dling the  lion's  share  of  the  liquid  industrial 
wastes  generated  in  the  province,  does  the 
minister  not  agree  that  the  Browning-Ferris 
solidification  proposal  may  be  a  redundant 
operation  with  respect  to  the  solidification 
of  inorganic  liquid  wastes  generated  in  the 
province? 

If  this  is  so,  can  he  assure  that  if  the 
Browning-Ferris  proposal  is  acceptable,  no 
inorganic  liquid  wastes  will  be  accepted 
either  from  outside  the  province  or  outside 
Canada? 

II  a.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  that  we  would 
only  put  into  any  solidification  process, 
wherever  it  would  be  located,  the  appro- 
priate chemicals  that  go  with  appropriate 
treatment.  There  has  to  be  a  certain  mix 
for  the  solidification  process  to  work  cor- 
rectly. I  hope  the  member  accepts  that.  It 
is  very  important  to  have  the  proper  mix 
of  those  chemicals  to  be  combined  in  the 
solidification  process  or  it  will  not  work.  I 
think  it  would  be  inappropriate  of  me  to 
suggest  we  would  have  a  process  that  would 
not  have  the  appropriate  chemicals  in  it. 
We  would  not  want  that  to  happen.  It  is 
absolutely  fundamental  to  the  process  itself. 

That  being  the  case,  I  want  to  also  say 
that  it  is  the  full  intent  of  this  government 
to  have  our  facilities  in  place  so  that  we 
can  look  after  all  of  the  wastes  in  Ontario 
in  the  appropriate  technical  fashion  accord- 
ing to  the  best  standards  in  the  world.  That 
in  place,  I  believe  other  jurisdictions  should 
follow    the    lead    we    are    establishing    and 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


clearly  have  at  the  moment.  We  will  con- 
tinue to  be  in  the  lead.  I  would  hope  other 
jurisdictions  would  recognize  their  social 
obligations  to  deal  with  their  waste  as  well 
as  we  are  doing  it  in  this  province. 

FLOOD  DISASTER  RELIEF 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs. 
It  has  now  been  several  months  since  the 
minister  first  received  correspondence  from 
the  mayor  of  Etobicoke  asking  for  provin- 
cial assistance  to  compensate  those  residents 
of  Rexdale  who  suffered  from  a  very  serious 
flash  flood  on  July  28,  which  created  a  great 
deal  of  damage  in  that  area.  When  will  the 
minister  reply  to  the  borough  and  residents 
as  to  what  assistance  the  provincial  govern- 
ment is  prepared  to  give  to  them  in  that 
rebuilding? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  al- 
ready replied  verbally  to  the  mayor  explain- 
ing to  him  the  kind  of  assistance  that  could 
be  available  if  the  flood  qualified.  In  other 
words,  since  this  is  for  damage  to  private 
property,  if  the  damage  qualified  as  a  disas- 
ter, it  could  be  declared  a  disaster  area  and 
they  would  then  be  eligible  for  the  disaster 
assistance  fund,  which  would  be  on  a  match- 
ing dollar-for-dollar  basis. 

The  mayor  and  I  have  been  having  some 
discussions  on  this,  but  I  have  not  heard 
back  from  him.  I  think  there  was  some  mis- 
understanding in  the  beginning  that  there 
was  some  direct  grants  available  from  the 
government.  Of  course,  the  only  grant  that 
would  be  available,  if  it  was  declared  a 
disaster,  is  if  money  was  raised  locally  it 
Would  then  be  matched  dollar  for  dollar. 
I  am  really  waiting  for  another  answer  from 
the  mayor. 

Mr.  Philip:  Do  I  take  it  from  the  minister's 
answer  that  what  the  minister  is  proposing 
is  a  matching  system  similar  to  what  was 
given  in  the  area  of  his  own  borough  of 
Scarborough  when  a  similar  disaster  hap- 
pened? Would  it  be  possible  for  the  min- 
ister to  write  to  the  mayor  and  council  and 
clearly  state  his  understanding  of  the  pres- 
ent state  of  affairs  at  this  time  so  that  we 
could  have  something  on  record  of  these 
nice  conversations  that  are  going  back  and 
forth  and  something  on  record  to  know 
exactly  what  the  government's  position  is? 

Furthermore,  would  the  minister  accept 
my  invitation  to  meet  with  the  two  alder- 
men and  myself  sometime  before  the  Christ- 
mas holiday  so  that  we  can  discuss  exactly 
what  is  going  on,  since  these  conversations 


back  and  forth  seem  to  be  dragging  on  and 
not  producing  very  much? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  will  be  happy  to  write 
to  the  mayor.  I  think  the  member  and  the 
aldermen  should  talk  with  the  mayor;  then 
they  should  communicate  back  to  us  whether 
a  matching  grant  type  of  arrangement  is  the 
thing  for  which  they  are  really  looking.  That 
is  the  only  kind  of  help  it  would  be  pos- 
sible to  give— I  just  put  the  proviso— pro- 
vided it  does  qualify  for  declaration  as  a  dis- 
aster. 

HOUSING  CONSTRUCTION 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Housing.  Given  the  fact 
that  the  Premier  assured  the  people  of 
Ontario  in  his  charter  for  Ontario  only  a 
short  three  years  ago  that  90,000  new  hous- 
ing units  would  be  constructed  in  Ontario 
over  a  10-year  period,  and  since  that  com- 
mitment has  never  been  met  and  less  than 
half  those  units  are  being  constructed,  how 
does  the  minister  reconcile  the  present  dismal 
failure  to  construct  new  units  with  that  com- 
mitment and  assurance  the  Premier  gave 
the  people  of  Ontario  three  years  ago? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  at  the 
time  the  Premier  made  the  statement  the 
housing  industry  was  flourishing.  The  expan- 
sion of  population  in  Ontario  was  also  in 
that  direction.  The  need  for  housing  was 
apparent  and  there  seemed  to  be  a  very 
optimistic  view  by  the  industry  and  by  gov- 
ernments at  the  federal  and  provincial  levels 
that  we  would  continue  to  require  that 
number  of  housing  units. 

Then  some  degree  of  logic  set  in  with 
both  the  private  sector  and  governments.  The 
market  was  analysed  in  relation  to  need  and 
capacity.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  1970s,  the 
industry  continued  to  build  a  very  substantial 
number  of  units  and  found  themselves  with 
a  large  inventory.  As  a  result,  some  of  them 
collapsed  and  went  out  of  business.  Canada 
Mortgage  and  Housing  Corporation  became 
heir  to  some  of  those  properties.  In  relation 
to  the  market  situation,  the  private  sector 
industry  adjusted  its  requirements  accord- 
ingly. 

I  would  like  to  make  a  comment  relating 
to  some  of  the  units  required  in  the  rental 
sector.  Over  the  last  18  months  I  have  said 
several  times  that  some  real  shortfalls  are  to 
be  encountered  in  major  municipalities  in 
Ontario  and  across  Canada.  The  fact  remains 
that  when  we  had  the  assisted  rental  pro- 
gram, multiple-unit  residential  buildings 
and  the  Ontario  rental  construction  grant 
program,  we  were  able  to  encourage  a  num- 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4989 


ber  of  people  in  the  private  sector  to  get 
into  moderately  priced  and  low  rental  ac- 
commodation. As  a  result  of  a  number  of 
programs  that  have  been  taken  out  of  exist- 
ence by  the  last  two  federal  governments, 
with  only  the  MURB  being  reintroduced, 
there  is  not  the  incentive  for  the  private 
sector  to  get  back  into  the  rental  construc- 
tion field. 

I  will  be  meeting  with  Mr.  Cosgrove  again 
this  week  and  early  in  1981  to  review  further 
requirements  in  the  rental  field.  I  have  been 
saying  not  only  to  the  federal  minister  but 
to  the  private  rental  section,  the  mortgage 
section  and  the  building  section  that  there 
must  be  some  new  incentive  programs  to 
get  rental  construction  starts  under  way  in 
1981  for  use  in  1982. 

REPORT 

STANDING   COMMITTEE  ON 
RESOURCES   DEVELOPMENT 

(Mr.  Lane,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Villeneuve, 
from  the  standing  committee  on  resources 
development  presented  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  be  granted  to  Her 
Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31, 
1981:  ministry  administration  program, 
$6,112,000;  agricultural  production  program, 
$105,386,000;  rural  development  program, 
$11,150,000;  agricultural  marketing  program, 
$14,977,000;  agricultural  education  and  re- 
search program,  $31,665,000. 

And  be  it  further  resolved  that  supply  in 
the  following  supplementary  amount  for  the 
same  ministry  be  granted  to  Her  Majesty  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1981:  agri- 
cultural production  program,  $6,900,000. 

MOTIONS 

COMMITTEE  MEETINGS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice  be 
authorized  to  sit  on  Monday  afternoon,  De- 
cember 8,  1980,  for  consideration  of  its  re- 
port on  the  Ontario  Housing  Corporation. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  standing 
committee  on  general  government  be  author- 
ized to  sit  on  Tuesday  afternoon,  December 
9,  1980,  for  consideration  of  Bills  Pr42  and 
Pr46. 

Motion  agreed  to. 
11:10  a.m. 


INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

WINE  CONTENT  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
215,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Wine  Content  Act, 
1976. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

FARM   PRODUCTS  PAYMENTS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson  moved  first  reading 
of  Bill  216,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Farm 
Products   Payments   Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  section 
3  of  the  present  Farm  Products  Payments 
Act  sets  out  the  circumstances  on  which  a 
producer  may  apply  for  payment  from  a  fund. 
The  new  subsection  provides  that  a  producer 
is  not  entitled  to  payment  from  the  fund  in 
circumstances  set  out  in  section  2.  Section  7 
of  the  act  provides  grounds  for  the  suspension 
or  revocation  of  or  the  refusal  to  issue  or 
renew  a  licence  under  certain  acts  listed  in  the 
section. 

The  addition  to  the  Live  Stock  and  Live 
Stock  Products  Act  is  complementary  to  the 
amendments  to  that  act  enacted  by  the  re- 
vised statutes  of  Ontario,  1980,  chapter  5. 
Section  3(8)  of  the  act  authorizes  the  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  in  Council  to  make  regu- 
lations. The  amendment  enlarges  the  au- 
thority to  make  the  regulations. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  minister  is  going  through 
the  entire  bill.  The  purpose  of  this  is  just  to 
give  a  brief  outline  as  to  the  principle. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  I  have  one  more  line, 
Mr.  Speaker.  The  Ontario  Egg  Producers 
Marketing  Board  is  authorized  to  make  pay- 
ments to  producers  described  in  the  section. 

HIGHWAY  TRAFFIC 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Foulds  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  217, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Highway  Traffic  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Foulds:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  is 
specifically  directed  to  allowing  those  who 
have  lost  their  drivers'  licences  or  have  had 
their  drivers'  licences  downgraded  for  medical 
reasons  to  have  an  appeal  system  and  to  be 
able  to  submit  during  that  appeal  specific 
medical  evidence  on  their  own  behalf.  It 
differs  from  the  amendments  put  forward 
by  the  minister  recently. 


4990 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  would  like  to  table  the 
answers  to  questions  285  to  288,  306,  400, 
401,  404,  406,  408  and  410  on  the  Notice 
Paper.  (See  appendix,  page  5006.) 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  supply. 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF  REVENUE 

(continued) 

On  vote  802,  administration  of  taxes  pro- 
gram: 

Item  3  agreed  to. 

On  item  4,  corporations  tax  and  other  taxes: 
Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  on  item  4.  Is  the  ministry  contem- 
plating any  further  changes  in  the  corpora- 
tion tax  to  be  much  more  parallel  with  the 
federal  tax?  Instead  of  having  two  tax  pro- 
grams for  corporations,  so  that  they  file  one 
return  for  the  province  and  one  for  the 
federal  government,  is  there  some  way  we 
can  complete  the  paralleling  of  the  two,  so 
as  perhaps  to  have  the  federal  government 
collect  the  corporation  taxes  as  is  done  in 
some  other  provinces? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  member  will  prob- 
ably recall  that  in  1977,  I  believe  it  was,  we 
brought  in  a  completely  new  Corporations 
Tax  , Act  which  is  consistent  in  most  cases 
with  the  federal  Corporations  Tax  Act.  We 
have  already  done  all  that. 

The  only  exceptions  are  the  areas  where 
our  needs  differ  from  the  federal  govern- 
ment's. In  the  main  and  in  principle,  almost 
all  of  the  Corporations  Tax  Act  in  Ontario  is 
now  consistent  with  the  federal  tax.  That 
work  has  already  been  done. 

Item  4  agreed  to. 

On  item  5,  gasoline  tax  and  other  taxes: 
Mr.  Haggerty:  Item  5  says  "and  other 
taxes."  I  believe  it  was  last  Monday  that  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions (Mr.  Drea)  was  visiting  members  of  the 
Fort  Erie  council.  I  wonder  if  the  minister 
could  inform  the  Legislature  if  any  proposals 
have  been  given  to  assist  racetracks  in  On- 
tario, in  particular  the  Fort  Erie  racetrack. 
Perhaps  a  portion  of  the  horse  racing  tax 
could  be  given  back  to  the  racing  industry  to 
increase  the  purses.  Has  any  decision  been 
made  by  any  of  the  ministries? 


Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  item  really  should 
come  under  retail  sales  tax,  but  I  am  pre- 
pared to  tell  the  member  there  have  been 
some  consultations  going  on.  However,  that 
is  a  question  the  member  would  have  to 
direct  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations,  under  whose  jurisdiction 
racetracks  fall.  I  understand  there  are  some 
conversations  going  on  at  the  moment  to  see 
if  something  can  be  done. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Have  any  of  the  ministers, 
such  as  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  or 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations,  consulted  with  the  Minister  of 
Revenue  on  this  matter,  or  is  the  minister 
left  out  in  the  dark  until  a  decision  is  finally 
made  and  then  he  comes  in  and  makes  the 
changes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  have  been  involved  in 
some  of  the  conversations,  but  I  am  not  at 
liberty  at  the  moment  to  give  the  member 
any  other  information.  That  information  must 
come  from  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations. 

Item  5  agreed  to. 

Items  6  and  7  agreed  to. 

Vote  802  agreed  to. 

11:20  a.m. 

On  vote  803,  guaranteed  income  and  tax 
credit  program;  item  1,  administration: 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  want  to  deal  with  the  tax 
grant  for  seniors.  I  have  had  a  number  of 
inquiries  at  my  constituency  office,  my  office 
at  Queen's  Park  and  my  home.  There  are 
people  who  still  have  not  received  their  tax 
grant.  I  understand  the  minister  did  say  in 
his  opening  statement  that  there  were  a  good 
number  of  persons  who  have  not  yet  received 
them.  One  of  the  questions  which  apparently 
arises  is  that  further  inquiries  would  have  to 
be  made  to  the  federal  income  tax  division  to 
get  additional  information.  I  may  be  wrong 
in  that,  but  I  thought  that  was  one  area  in 
which  the  minister  was  lacking  information. 

A  year  or  so  ago,  persons  applied  for  then- 
tax  rebate,  property  tax  credit,  sales  tax 
credit  and  so  on,  using  the  little  pink  sheet 
enclosed  with  their  income  tax.  Pretty  well 
everybody,  particularly  the  pensioners,  under- 
stood for  a  number  of  years  how  to  fill  it 
out.  Normally  when  they  filled  out  that  ap- 
plication, they  had  somebody  there  who 
would  assist  them.  This  year,  the  difficulty 
was  that  many  of  them  did  not  understand 
all  the  questions  on  the  questionnaire  they 
were  required  to  answer.  I  think  this  is 
what  caused  some  difficulty.  Again,  I  suppose 
when  the  federal  government  was  doing  it, 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4991 


there  was  no  cost  involved  to  the  province 
of  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  The  minister  says  there  was 
some.  I  do  not  think  you  would  have  the 
problems  that  happen  now  if  you  had  follow- 
ed the  same  procedure  there  and  had  in- 
creased your  formula  for  those  persons  who 
would  be  recipients   of  the   grant. 

The  Treasury  critic  for  the  Liberal  Party 
outlined  this  in  the  budget  debate,  last 
April.  He  drew  the  attention  of  the  govern- 
ment to  some  of  the  discrepancies  that  would 
take  place  following  the  introduction  of  the 
new  proposals  for  tax  grants  for  senior 
citizens.  He  outlined  a  couple  of  cases  and 
he  said,  "Let  us  take  the  case  of  single 
pensioners  with  incomes  of  about  $6,000— 
and  remember  that  means  they  are  not 
eligible  for  Gains— who  are  perhaps  fortunate 
to  be  living  with  .  .  ."  their  chilcren.  They 
are  probably  contributing  or  would  like  to 
contribute  to  their  upkeep.  "They  claim  no 
property  tax  credit  and  therefore  would  not 
be  eligible  for  a  grant. 

"Under  the  old  system  those  pensioners 
would  have  received  no  property  tax  credit, 
a  sales  tax  credit  of  $43.10  and  a  pensioner 
tax  credit  of  $110,  for  a  total  of  $153.10. 
Under  the  Treasurer's  new  system,  they 
will  receive  no  property  tax  grant  and  a  sales 
tax  grant  of  $50."  He  goes  on  to  mention 
a  couple  of  other  examples. 

Just  to  show  some  of  the  discrepancies 
that  have  taken  place  under  your  new 
proposals,  it  has  been  brought  to  my  atten- 
tion that  under  the  old  scheme,  some  of  the 
senior  citizens  in  my  area  received  higher 
tax  credits  in  1979  than  they  have  this 
year.  They  still  own  the  same  piece  of 
property,  and  they  still  have  to  live  under 
the  same  conditions  and  so  on.  It  is  hard  to 
explain  to  them  why  they  get  less  this  year. 
Is  this  new  scheme  fair,  is  there  equity  in 
it? 

When  I  look  at  persons  on  low  incomes, 
such  as  widows  who  have  their  old  age 
pension,  and  maybe  Gains  as  a  supplement, 
they  may  not  pay  quite  $500  a  year  in  taxes. 
The  previous  year  they  got  almost  $500.  In 
some  cases,  this  year  they  will  be  receiving 
$100  to  $120  less  than  they  did  the  year 
before.  It  is  difficult  for  those  persons  on 
that  income.  Maybe  you  should  have  applied 
the  tax  credit  to  other  low  income  areas 
too,  such  as  those  persons  who  are  not  65 
but  are  in  the  grey  area  and  need  assistance 
in  maintaining  their  homes. 

I  think  the  critic  from  the  NDP  mentioned 
the  people   living  in  senior   citizens'  homes 


for  the  aged  and  other  institutions— I  should 
say  foster  care  programs  under  the  homes 
for  senior  citizens  in  the  region  of  Niagara. 
Some  of  them  contribute  to  their  portion  of 
the  cost,  and  there  are  other  persons  who 
enter  into  a  home  but  pay  nothing.  Those 
are  subsidized  for  pretty  well  all  the  cost. 

I  think  in  an  area  like  this,  a  person  who 
is  contributing  to  the  cost  of  maintenance  in 
foster  home  care  or  the  homes  for  the  aged 
in  the  region  should  receive  the  tax  grant. 
They  are  paying  their  share.  For  those 
persons  who  are  not  contributing  to  the  cost 
of  maintenance,  I  think  you  are  right  in 
saying  they  should  not  receive  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Maybe  I  could  answer 
some  of  the  questions.  If  we  get  too  many 
piled  up  at  once  I  may  forget  something.  The 
member  was  asking  about  the  applications 
for  which  people  have  not  received  cheques. 
There  are  still  some  44,000  applications  that 
—but  everyone  has  been  contacted.  We  are 
waiting  for  information  on  some  of  them. 

Mr.   B.   Newman:    Not  everyone. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Anyone  who  has  an  ap- 
plication in  has  been  contacted.  How  can 
you  be  sure  their  application  has  not  been 
in? 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I'll  talk  to  you  later. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  For  the  applications  that 
are  on  file,  everyone,  according  to  what  my 
staff  have  told  me,  has  been  contacted.  Some 
of  the  applicants  had  to  be  asked  for  signa- 
tures or  the  application  had  to  be  returned 
because  the  forms  were  wrong,  and  so  on.  I 
am  not  suggesting  everyone  has  received  his 
cheque  by  any  means.  I  am  saying  for  the 
44,000  applications  that  are  in,  those  people 
have  been  contacted  by  telephone  or  by  some 
other  means.  If  someone  knows  that  an  ap- 
plication is  in,  it  is  pretty  obvious  that  he 
has  been  in  contact  with  us,  or  he  would  not 
know  the  application  is  there. 

This  has  been  a  very  difficult  program  to 
administer  because  in  the  whole  program  we 
have  had  almost  200,000  applications  that 
were  not  properly  filled  out.  It  has  been  a 
very  massive  program;  a  total  of  526,000 
applications  have  been  received.  Roughly  40 
per  cent  of  the  applications  that  came  in  had 
mistakes  in  them.  But  when  it  was  done 
through  the  federal  income  tax  people  there 
was  a  mistake  rate  of  68  per  cent,  so  we 
have  not  done  that  badly  when  it  comes  right 
down  to  it.  Our  figures  indicate,  from  the 
federal  people  themselves,  that  income  tax 
returns  filed  by  people  in  this  age  group  to 
the  federal  government  had  a  68  per  cent 
mistake  rate. 


4992 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


It  has  been  a  rather  difficult  situation  for 
us.  It  is  the  first  year  we  have  had  the 
program  in  effect  and  we  have  found  ways 
and  means  that  we  can  improve  it  for  the 
next  time  around.  I  hope  members  will  bear 
with  us  on  this.  We  have  done  the  very  best 
we  can.  We  have  tried  to  get  back  to  people 
as  quickly  as  we  could.  We  had,  as  discussed 
before,  problems  with  telephones,  not  being 
able  to  get  the  lines,  and  that  sort  of  thing. 

I  anticipate,  now  that  seniors  and  other 
people  who  assist  seniors  in  filling  them  out 
are  familiar  with  the  forms,  that  we  will 
probably  not  have  the  same  problems  with 
them  next  year.  The  other  thing  is  that  we 
will  have  a  longer  period  of  time  to  work 
before  the  cheques  go  out  than  we  did  this 
year.  We  made  every  attempt  to  get  as  many 
of  them  out  as  we  could  by  October  1,  simply 
because  that  is  about  the  time  of  year  when 
the  final  tax  bills  come  in  from  the  munic- 
ipalities. We  wanted  them  to  have  the  money 
in  their  hands  to  assist  in  the  payment  of 
those  property  taxes.  We  have  had  a  great 
number  of  difficulties,  but  we  look  towards 
improving  that  system  and  I  think  we  will. 

I  could  give  some  more  figures  here  but  it 
would  only  serve  to  confuse  the  issue.  I 
mentioned  in  my  opening  statement  that  18 
per  cent  of  the  applications  we  received  were 
not  complete— simply  did  not  have  a  signa- 
ture on  them.  We  had  to  get  back  to  these 
people.  We  had  to  send  the  application  back, 
they  had  to  sign  it  and  we  pointed  out  the 
other  mistakes  whatever  they  might  be.  In 
some  cases  we  had  to  send  them  a  new  ap- 
plication because  the  old  one  was  beyond 
use.  That  sort  of  thing  happens.  It  is  a  case 
of  educating  the  people  who  are  filling  out 
the  forms  to  do  them  as  properly  as  they 
can.  We  have  tried  not  to  rush  these  appli- 
cation forms.  We  want  to  do  it  thoroughly. 
11:30  a.m. 

The  members  will  recall  when  the  ministry 
was  in  the  Ontario  home  buyers'  grant  situa- 
tion, before  my  time  as  minister.  Those  appli- 
cations were  rushed  through  and  not  properly 
investigated.  That  is  not  a  secret  around  this 
House.  I  do  not  want  to  go  through  that 
situation.  I  want  the  applications  to  be  proc- 
essed properly.  It  may  take  a  little  longer  but 
I  hope  the  people  who  receive  the  money  will 
not  have  difficulties  later  on,  waiting  for  us 
to  ask  them  to  return  it.  We  want  to  do  it 
right. 

The  member  suggested  the  other  program 
did  not  cost  us  any  money.  That  is  an  error. 
The  Ontario  tax  credit  program,  in  total, 
cost  us  $4.4  million  a  year.  We  paid  one  per 
cent  to   the  federal   government  to  do  that 


work  for  us.  As  far  as  the  area  of  senior  citi- 
zens is  concerned,  the  share  we  paid  the 
federal  people  to  process  the  applications 
when  they  went  through  the  income  tax 
system  was  a  little  over  $2.2  million. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  How  much  is  it  costing  you 
now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  can  get  into  that  now  if 
you  want,  or  you  can  wait  until  I  answer  all 
the  other  questions. 

I  am  not  trying  to  be  negative  about  this 
in  any  way,  but  these  kinds  of  programs  do 
involve  a  lot  of  work.  As  an  example,  the 
federal  furnace  conversion  grant  that  was  an- 
nounced will  not  be  delivered  for  a  whole 
year.  We  have  moved  into  this  one  fairly 
quickly  for  such  a  massive  program.  That 
has  created  some  difficulties;  there  is  no  ques- 
tion about  that. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Doesn't  the  fact  that  you 
moved  in  quickly  tell  you  something? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No.  I  must  advise  the 
member  we  had  been  contemplating  this  for  a 
year  or  two. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  You  could  not  have  goofed 
as  much  as  you  did  if  you  had  been  planning 
it  for  over  two  years. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  It  has  been  under  dis- 
cussion by  my  ministry  for  some  length  of 
time.  I  can  recall  preparing  a  brief  to  cabinet 
at  least  one  and  a  half  or  two  years  ago  re- 
garding senior  citizens  in  homes  for  the  aged 
and  nursing  homes,  as  an  example,  whereby 
there  would  have  been  a  removal  of  the 
property  tax  credits  in  that  regard  because  we 
felt  those  people  are  being  subsidized  through 
other  means  and  are  not  paying  property 
taxes. 

We  have  been  working  on  this  for  some 
time.  It  is  not  something  that  was  done  with 
a  snap  of  the  fingers  by  any  means.  It  is  still 
a  very  long  and  detailed  program  and  there 
are  going  to  be  difficulties.  I  hope  we  will 
resolve  most  of  them  by  the  time  the  appli- 
cations go  out  next  year. 

You  wanted  to  know  what  the  costs  of  this 
program  were.  These  costs  include  expendi- 
tures already  approved  by  Management  Board 
together  with  a  submission  for  additional 
funds,  which  is  pending  approval.  The  costs: 
general  administration,  which  includes  post- 
age, supplies,  furniture,  printing  of  forms,  et 
cetera,  $788,500;  planning  and  liaison  staff, 
$148,500;  communications  and  inquiries, 
$1,404,900;  application  processing,  data  entry 
and  filing,  $793,100;  benefits  control, 
$590,300;  computer  systems,  $1,323,000.  That 
is  a  total  of  $5,048,300,  less  the  expected  re- 
duction in  the  federal  administration  costs  we 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4993 


were  paying  before,  which  was  $2,070,000, 
to  be  exact.  The  total  administrative  cost  of 
this  particular  program  is  $2,978,300.  This 
includes  advertising  costs  of  $934,000. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Was  that  $934,000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That's  right. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Does  the  member  for 
Dovercourt  have  a  point  of  order? 

Mr.  Lupusella:  No,  it  is  a  supplementary 
question,  if  I  may  have  your  indulgence  and 
the  indulgence  of  the— 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  honourable  member 
was  asking  questions  and  the  minister  wanted 
to  answer  something.  There  is  ample  time. 
The  member  for  Erie. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  A  figure  of  $934,000  for 
advertising  is  just  out  of  this  world,  is  it  not? 
How  many  are  receiving  the  benefits? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  A  total  of  820,000  senior 
citizens. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  That  is  almost  a  dollar  per 
capita,  I  guess;  quite  a  bit  of  mailing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Seventy  cents. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Seventy  cents;  not  too  bad. 

Can  the  minister  tell  me  whether  he  has 
collected  the  cheques  issued  in  error  to  the 
40  senior  citizens  of  St.  Anne's  Tower  for 
Senior  Citizens  in  Toronto?  Was  that  ever 
returned  to  the  Ministry  of  Revenue?  How 
many  cheques  were  issued  in  error  in  situa- 
tions similar  to  the  St.  Anne's  Tower  resi- 
dence? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  My  staff  will  get  that  for 
me  in  a  moment.  In  the  meantime,  I  thought 
the  member  would  like  a  breakdown  on  the 
advertising.  I  might  as  well  give  him  that 
information  while  we  are  here. 

The  total  amount  of  advertising:  news- 
papers, which  included  the  ethnic  press  and 
all  the  weeklies,  as  the  members  know,  were 
$418,109;  television  was  $231,614;  radio  was 
$245,899;  transit,  which  is  the  transit  cards 
on  the  buses  and  so  on,  was  $24,078;  and 
display  materials,  posters,  those  kinds  of 
things,  $15,000.  This  gives  a  total  of 
$934,700. 

There  were  83  in  ethnic  advertising,  which 
did  not  include  radio  or  television  advertising. 
It  was  newspapers  only.  There  were  83  of 
them  and  they  were  in  all  daily,  weekly  and 
semi-monthly  papers  in  the  province.  I  must 
say  the  total  sounds  like  a  lot  of  money  for 
advertising,  but  this  was  a  brand  new  pro- 
gram and  the  senior  citizens  had  to  be  made 
aware  of  what  was  going  on. 

We  tried  to  restrain  our  advertising  budget, 
but  I  think  members  will  agree  that  adver- 


tising was  necessary  in  this  particular  pro- 
gram. I  don't  think  I  have  received  much 
criticism  from  members  opposite  because  of 
the  advertising  program,  as  they  will  agree 
the  message  had  to  be  got  across  to  the  re- 
cipients. 

There  are  820,000  senior  citizens,  not  all 
of  them  eligible  for  Ontario  tax  grants  but 
all  of  them  eligible  for  the  retail  sales  tax 
grants. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  They  didn't  use  your  ap- 
plication to  get  the  sales  tax. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  but  they  had  to  be 
advised  what  the  program  was  all  about.  If 
someone  does  not  get  the  retail  sales  tax 
grant,  he  would  like  to  know  why  he  did  not. 
They  had  to  be  told  they  were  eligible.  All 
senior  citizens,  as  the  member  knows,  were 
eligible  for  retail  sales  tax  grants.  Had  we 
not  advertised,  some  might  not  have  received 
them  through  mistakes  or  other  reasons  and 
would  never  have  known  the  difference.  It 
was  important  initially  that  the  program  be 
well  advertised. 

I  do  not  anticipate  we  will  spend  anywhere 
near  this  kind  of  money  on  advertising  next 
year.  We  will  probably  revert  to  the  kind  of 
advertising  we  used  to  do  with  the  Ontario 
tax  credit  program,  which  just  draws  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  things  are  happening.  We 
probably  will  not  go  to  TV  and  radio  adver- 
tising any  more.  We  will  probably  use  news- 
paper advertising  as  we  did  with  the  Ontario 
tax  credit  program.  I  do  not  anticipate  that 
we  will  be  spending  this  kind  of  money  each 
year  on  advertising.  This  is  the  initial  cost, 
the  startup  cost,  to  make  everyone  familiar 
with  the  program. 

11:40  a.m. 

The  member  asked  one  other  question:  the 
number  of  pensioners  who  were  paid  in  error 
to  December  1.  I  think  this  may  include 
more  than  St.  Anne's.  But  this  is  the  total,  I 
understand.  Yes,  there  were  two:  St.  Anne's, 
and  St.  Hilda's  Towers  Inc. 

The  number  who  were  paid  in  error  was 
71.  The  number  of  recoveries  we  started 
action  on  was  64.  I  do  not  know  at  this 
precise  moment  how  many  have  paid  it  back. 
When  I  say  recovery  actions,  that  does  not 
mean  we  are  suing  them,  or  anything  like 
that.  We  are  making  a  reasonable  attempt 
to  get  the  money  back. 

I  indicated  earlier  in  the  House  it  is  not 
our  policy  to  harass  senior  citizens,  but  I 
have  a  lot  of  faith  in  the  senior  citizens  of 
this  province.  I  think  if  most  of  them  have 
received  money  and  they  do  not  feel  entitled 
to  it,  it  will  be  returned. 


4994 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Haggerty:  I  have  one  final  question 
and  I  will  yield  to  the  other  members. 

The  ministry's  advertisement  sent  out  to 
senior  citizens  says:  "What  will  you  receive 
next  year?  Starting  in  1981  you  will  receive 
the  property  tax  grant  in  two  instalments. 
Early  in  1981  a  cheque  for  one  half  of  your 
1980  grant  will  be  automatically  mailed  to 
you.  Later  that  year  you  will  receive  an 
application  form  which  when  processed  will 
make  up  the  balance  of  your  annual  grant." 

Could  the  ministry  not  be  more  specific 
than  "early  in  1981"?  Should  that  not  be 
done  by  regulation,  or  something  of  that 
nature,  to  say  they  will  receive  the  first 
portion  of  the  grant  in,  say,  March  or  April 
of  1981? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes,  I  would  agree  with 
what  the  member  is  saying.  At  that  time,  we 
had  not  decided  exactly  when  those  grants 
would  be  mailed  out.  We  will  be  setting  a 
date.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  staff  are  now  dis- 
cussing that  very  matter.  We  have  to  work  it 
in  such  a  way  that  we  clear  all  the  other 
things  on  our  plate,  and  are  able  to  do  it, 
and  get  the  thing  out  properly.  I  am  guess- 
ing at  the  moment,  but  I  would  think  it 
might  be  in  March.  I  am  not  sure  at  the 
moment,  though.  We  will  come  to  that 
decision  and  we  will  announce  it  ahead  of 
time  so  they  will  know  when  to  expect  it. 
To  answer  the  other  part  of  the  question, 
of  course,  it  is  imperative  that  we  have  a 
new  application  each  year  so  we  know  what 
their  property  taxes  were,  or  how  much  rent 
they  paid,  to  evaluate  the  amount  they 
should  receive. 

One  of  the  other  points  the  honourable 
member  raised  in  his  initial  question  was 
that  some  people  are  getting  less  of  a  grant 
now  than  they  were  under  the  other  program. 
That  is  quite  true.  That  is  happening.  But 
if  we  look  at  it  in  the  proper  perspective- 
Mr.  Haggerty:  They  are  the  ones  who— 
Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  that  is  not  so.  They 
can  get  all  their  taxes  back  if  their  taxes  are 
less  than  $500;  that  is  the  first  thing.  If  they 
are  only  paying  $200  or  $300  they  get  all 
their  taxes  back.  The  member  mentioned 
those  with  more  than  $6,000,  who  would  not 
be  covered  by  the  guaranteed  annual  income 
system,  and  so  on.  The  way  the  program 
is  worked  out  as  far  as  property  tax  is  con- 
cerned is  that  those  people  who  may  not  be 
eligible  for  Gains  or  the  guaranteed  income 
supplement  have  as  much  or  more  money 
at  their  disposal  after  the  payment  of  taxes 
as  the  other  people  who  get  the  $500.  I  am 
referring  to  people  on  Gains  who  get  the 
$500. 


Mr.  Haggerty:  Does  the  minister  know 
what  is  going  to  happen  in  this  area?  I  will 
tell  him.  I  have  already  had  some  feedback 
on  it.  Where  there  are  local  councils  saying 
they  want  to  do  some  local  improvements  on 
a  street,  there  may  be  a  number  of  senior 
citizens  resident  there.  If  they  want  storm 
sewers  and  gutters  put  in  they  have  to  pay 
for  that  under  local  improvements,  and  they 
must  have  the  signatures  of  the  property 
owners.  What  is  going  to  happen  now  is 
they  are  going  to  come  back  and  say:  "You 
can  get  $100  or  $120  more  a  year.  You  can 
apply  this  against  this  local  improvement." 

Does  the  minister  see  what  is  going  to 
happen?  If  somebody  gets  the  $500,  they 
are  going  to  have  to  spend  maybe  $2,000  on 
local  improvements  to  get  it.  This  is  what 
will  happen.  The  feedback  is  coming  to  me 
already.  They  are  already  telling  people  they 
can  get  the  local  improvements  because  they 
can  get  $120  from  the  provincial  govern- 
ment to  play  around  with. 

Sometimes  when  we  give  a  grant  it  could 
encourage  some  other  government  body  to 
spend  it  in  the  wrong  direction.  That  is  what 
happened  when  the  minister  first  came  out 
with  the  tax  rebate  program  a  few  years  ago. 
It  was  given  directly  to  the  municipalities;  of 
course,  that  was  like  a  little  golden  egg 
sitting  there.  They  said,  "If  we  raise  the  mill 
rate  so  much  this  year,  we  have  this  little 
nest  egg  coming  from  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment that  can  offset  it."  A  few  years  ago, 
it  encouraged  municipalities  to  spend  more— 
beyond  their  means  in  many  cases.  This  is 
one  of  the  reasons  they  have  such  hi  eh  taxes 
today.  Some  of  them  have  the  Cadillac  ap- 
proach instead  of  the  Ford  approach. 

The  minister  says  he  is  not  quite  sure 
when  he  is  going  to  send  out  the  first  tax 
rebate  cheque  in  1981;  he  is  only  guessing. 
Could  I  guess  and  say  before  the  announce- 
ment of  the  next  provincial  election?  Would 
I  be  hitting  it  pretty  close? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  is  quite  possible. 
The  member  can  guess  that  if  he  wants  to. 
I  might  guess  that  it  would  not  be.  It  is 
obviously  going  to  come  out  before  the  next 
provincial  election,  unless  something  happens 
in  this  House  in  the  next  week  and  we  end 
up  trudging  through  the  snow  with  our  high 
boots  on  in  northern  Ontario  campaigning.  I 
suspect  the  announcement  will  come  out 
before  the  next  election. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  announcement  is 
already  out  that  early  this  coming  spring 
senior  citizens  are  going  to  get  half  of  what 
they  received  this  year,  and  then  they  will 
be  asked  to  fill  in  another  application  form 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4995 


and  we  will  balance  the  books  when  we 
receive  those  other  applications.  It  is  an- 
nounced for  the  spring;  no  question  about 
that.  The  exact  date  remains  to  be  deter- 
mined. But  I  do  not  think  it  will  be  very 
long  before  We  will  be  able  to  tell  members 
the  exact  date  the  cheques  will  be  going  out. 

I  want  to  be  sure  this  time  around,  when 
the  cheques  go  out,  that  we  are  prepared  to 
get  them  out  to  everybody;  so  we  do  not 
have  the  same  kind  of  problems  we  had  in 
the  last  administration.  I  would  like  to  see, 
when  we  mail  these  cheques,  that  all  the 
senior  citizens  in  the  province  get  their 
cheques  basically  at  the  same  time.  We  all 
know  they  belong  to  golden  age  clubs  and 
senior  citizens'  clubs,  and  they  live  in  senior 
citizens'  buildings  and  all  the  rest  of  it.  If 
one  gets  a  cheque  and  the  other  does  not, 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  pressure  on  all  the 
members  in  this  House,  and  on  the  ministry, 
as  to  why  did  they  not  get  theirs  when  Mrs. 
Smith  down  the  hall  got  hers. 

I  would  certainly  like  to  prevent  that  by 
getting  all  the  cheques  out  at  one  time. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  The  problem  is  it  is 
four  months  out.  It  doesn't  matter  if  it's  a 
couple  of  weeks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  You  will  get  your  turn. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  know,  but  I'm  in 
good  spirits  today. 

Hon.   Mr.   Maeck:    Christmas   spirit,   is   it? 

That  is  my  goal  as  far  as  getting  those 
cheques  out  is  concerned:  I  want  them  all  to 
be  out  at  the  same  time. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  minister's 
admission  that  there  are  a  considerable 
number  of  payments  to  people  who  were  not 
eligible,  and  the  fact  that  many  cheques  did 
not  get  out  for  months  and  people  were  very 
confused  as  to  when  they  were  going  to  get 
them,  indicate  to  me  that  the  administration 
of  this  program  is  paralleling  the  administra- 
tion of  the  home  buyers  grant  by  the  Min- 
istry of  Revenue  three  or  four  years  ago. 
That  was  considered  one  of  the  administra- 
tive fiascos  of  this  province  because  all  sorts 
of  people  were  paid  who  should  not  have 
been  paid.  I  think  we  may  have  only  looked 
at  the  tip  of  the  iceberg  on  this  one. 

I  still  want  to  have  a  complete  total  of 
the  cost  of  this  program.  The  minister  says 
it  is  valuable  to  advertise  to  the  people  about 
the  new  program  so  they  will  know  what  is 
happening.  It  did  not  have  to  happen;  the 
minister  is  simply  changing  the  distribution 
system  and  incurring  millions  of  dollars  to 
change  that  system.  It  is  true  he  was  paying 


the  federal  government  something  for  the 
collection  through  the  income  tax  system, 
but  he  still  has  to  pay  that  for  all  the  people 
under  65  who  will  still  be  getting  tax  credits 
or  who  have  to  pay  a  large  amount  of  it.  But 
he  incurred  millions  of  extra  expenditure  in 
advertising,  computer  time,  printing,  con- 
tracts for  services,  telephones,  mailing, 
cheque  writing  and  auditing,  and  we  still  do 
not  have  a  total  figure  for  all  those  services. 
What  we  want  is  coverage  of  each  one  of 
those  by  item. 
11:50  a.m. 

I  asked  for  that  information  in  my  opening 
remarks.  I  asked  for  a  breakdown  of  the  costs 
of  telephone  service,  of  the  contract  for 
services,  of  printing,  stationery  and  supplies, 
of  the  advertising  and  mailing  and  so  on. 
We  want  to  know  exactly  what  it  is  costing 
the  taxpayers  of  this  province  simply  to 
change  the  distribution  system  to  get  more 
political  capital  out  of  issuing  these  cheques. 

The  minister  has  to  remember  he  is  spend- 
ing all  this  money  to  give  the  seniors  a  total 
net  increase  of  $39  million  in  property  tax 
exemption,  according  to  the  Treasurer's  own 
statement  in  his  budget,  and  $9  million  in 
sales  tax.  So,  for  $48  million  worth  of  ad- 
ditional help  to  seniors,  we  are  spending 
millions  of  dollars  in  taxpayers'  money  in 
administration.  I  want  to  know  what  that 
administration  is  actually  costing  the  tax- 
payers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  read 
out  a  complete  list  of  what  and  how  much 
those  expenditures  were.  I  do  not  know  what 
more  the  member  expects  to  get.  I  have  in- 
dicated to  her  that  the  total  expenditures 
were  $5,048,300  minus  the  administrative 
costs  we  have  paid  to  the  federal  government. 
If  we  subtract  that  $2,000,070,  the  total  cost 
as  far  as  the  administration  is  concerned  is 
$2,978,300.  I  think  I  have  given  her  that 
information. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Plus  the  advertising. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No.  The  advertising  is 
included  in  there.  It  is  all  in  there. 

I  read  them  out  in  detail.  If  the  honourable 
member  wants  to  know  how  many  stamps  I 
bought  and  how  many  pieces  of  paper  I 
bought,  I  think  that  is  a  rather  ridiculous 
request.  She  does  not  ask  that  from  any  other 
ministry.  Certainly  she  would  not  expect  me 
to  come  here  equipped  with  17,000  pieces 
of  paper  and  89,000  stamps  or  whatever  to 
break  it  down  in  that  sort  of  detail. 

I  have  broken  it  down  into  general  admin- 
istration, and  I  have  said  it  includes  postage, 
supplies,    furniture,    printing    of    forms,    et 


4996 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


cetera,  of  $788,500.  I  have  said  we  paid 
$148,500  for  planning  and  liaison  staff; 
$1,404,900  for  communications  and  inquiries; 
$793,100  for  application  processing,  data  entry 
and  filing;  $509,300  for  benefits  control;  and 
$1,323,000  for  computer  systems— which  gives 
the  total  I  have  already  given.  I  have  sub- 
tracted the  amount  of  money  we  will  no 
longer  have  to  pay  to  the  federal  government 
to  administer  the  Ontario  tax  credit  program 
ao  it  relates  to  senior  citizens.  I  do  not  know 
what  else  the  member  wants  beyond  that. 

The  other  point  she  is  making  has  been 
argued  many  times.  I  have  answered  the 
questions  in  the  House  many  times.  She  has 
indicated  this  is  the  same  sort  of  fiasco,  as 
she  terms  it,  as  the  Ontario  home  buyers 
grant.  She  has  said  that  in  statements  to  the 
press  and  so  on.  I  do  not  see  any  grounds  for 
that  whatsoever.  I  talked  about  71  appli- 
cations, and  she  says  that  is  a  great  amount. 
Out  of  526,000  applications,  I  do  not  see 
how  the  member  could  expect  there  would 
not  be  some  disallowed.  I  do  not  see  that  as 
a  fiasco  at  all. 

I  indicated,  when  I  was  replying  to  the 
member  for  Erie  (Mr.  Haggerty),  that  we 
were  being  particularly  careful  with  these 
applications  so  that  when  we  do  process  them 
we  can  hope  to  assume  they  are  right.  In  the 
case  of  the  Ontario  home  buyers  grants,  thev 
were  handled  too  quickly  and  no  investigation 
was  made.  That  is  whv  we  had  the  problems 
afterwards  in  demanding  the  money  back, 
because  people  got  the  money  who  should 
not  have  got  it.  That  is  surely  a  matter  of 
making  sure  the  applications  are  handled  in 
a  proper  fashion. 

That  is  what  we  are  trying  to  do  and  that 
is  why  there  has  been  some  delay  in  the 
cheques  going  out  to  some  of  the  senior 
citizens.  If  we  were  not  careful  in  the  han- 
dling of  the  applications,  we  would  have  the 
same  kind  of  problems  that  the  member  in- 
dicated with  the  Ontario  home  buyers  grants. 
That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  avoid. 

Ms.  Bryden:  While  the  minister  has  given 
us  some  of  the  costs,  he  hasn't  given  us  the 
number  of  additional  employees  who  had  to 
be  hired  and  he  hasn't  given  us  the  printing 
costs  or  the  postage  costs  broken  out,  which 
are  a  very  important  part.  I  estimated  the 
postage  costs  were  $500,000  just  to  send  out 
all  these  extra  letters. 

As  far  as  his  net  total  is  concerned,  sub- 
tracting the  costs  that  used  to  be  paid  to 
the  federal  government,  has  he  renegotiated 
that  deal  with  the  federal  government  or  is 
he  just  making  an  estimate  of  how  much  he 
may  be  able  to  cut  down  on  his  payments 


to  the  federal  government?  All  the  income 
tax  forms  will  still  have  to  be  processed, 
except  for  people  over  65,  regarding  the 
Ontario  property  tax  credits.  It  seems  to 
me  rather  strange  he  would  be  getting  that 
large  a  reduction  from  the  federal  govern- 
ment as  an  offset. 

As  to  whether  it  is  an  administrative 
fiasco,  just  the  fact  that  about  40  per  cent 
of  the  applications  had  to  be  put  into  the 
prepayment  unit  for  further  information  in- 
dicates this  kind  of  program  is  costly  and 
difficult  to  administer  with  a  lot  of  senior 
citizens  who  aren't  used  to  filling  out  forms 
in  many  cases,  and  who  weren't  given  a 
working  copy  of  the  form.  There  were  so 
many  reasons  why  they  didn't  get  their 
cheques,  but  the  fact  is,  they  didn't  get 
their  cheques  until  months  after  other 
people  got  them.  There  was  great  confu- 
sion, unhappiness  and  uncertainty  among 
senior  citizens. 

The  whole  fiasco  could  have  been  avoided 
if  the  government  had  improved  the  prop- 
erty tax  credit  system  through  the  income 
tax,  provided,  as  it  had  been,  through  in- 
formation centres'  assistance  to  seniors  in 
making  out  the  income  tax  forms,  and  could 
have  avoided  what  appears  to  be  a  large 
expenditure  of  money  for  no  purpose  what- 
soever, except  a  political  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  To  answer  the  first  part 
of  the  member's  question,  she  wanted  to 
know  about  the  staff.  The  cost  of  the  staff 
is  included  in  the  figures  I  read  to  her;  so 
this  is  not  additional.  I  gave  her  the  total 
cost  of  the  program  from  the  administration 
viewpoint,  and  not  the  extra  money  that  is 
being  sent  out  to  seniors. 

Ms.  Bryden:   What  about  the  staff? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Dealing  with  perma- 
nent staff  first,  the  new  complement  is  36 
and,  with  transfers  within  the  ministry  which 
is  another  six,  there  is  a  total  permanent 
staff  of  42.  The  contract  or  temporary  staff 
who  have  been  processing  the  applications 
and  so  on  will  be  there  while  the  applica- 
tions are  coming  in  and  will  be  gone  when 
the  applications  are  finished.  In  man-years, 
it  is  89.  In  numbers,  the  contract  staff  at 
peak  period  was  236.  When  most  of  the 
applications  came  in,  we  had  236  contract 
staff  processing  applications  and  doing  other 
work,  being  supervised  by  the  permanent 
staff  I  mentioned  earlier. 

Two  or  three  times  the  honourable  mem- 
ber mentioned  the  40  per  cent  mistakes  in 
the  applications.  I  don't  know  whether  she 
heard  me  when  I  was  replying  to  the  mem- 
ber for  Erie.  Last  year,  when  this  was  being 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4997 


done  through  the  federal  income  tax  system, 
the  mistake  rate  was  68  per  cent.  We  prob- 
ably didn't  hear  about  it,  and  she  didn't 
hear  about  it,  because  they  were  dealing 
with  the  federal  government.  But  she 
shouldn't  think  for  one  moment  the  senior 
citizens  didn't  have  problems  when  they  had 
to  file  their  income  tax  returns  to  get  the 
property  tax  credit. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Does  that  include  the 
26,000  who  haven't  got  theirs  yet? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  has  nothing  to  do 
with  this  at  all  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  That  is  a  major  mis- 
take, is  it  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Why  doesn't  the  mem- 
ber wait  his  turn  and  ask  his  questions  like 
everybody  else? 

12  noon 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  enjoy  annoying  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  can  see  that.  I  am 
prepared  to  answer  the  member's  question 
when  his  turn  comes,  but  surely  he  will 
allow  me  to  answer  his  colleague's  questions. 
He  is  interrupting  the  answers  to  his  own 
colleague's  questions.  That's  what  he  is  do- 
ing. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  It  was  just  a  supplementary 
question. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  happy  to  answer 
a  supplementary  any  time.  But  I  just  want 
to  point  out  that  mistakes  were  being  made 
when  they  had  to  apply  through  the  income 
tax  system.  It's  not  something  new.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  our  mistake  rate  on  applica- 
tions is  lower  than  when  they  had  to  do  it 
the  other  way.  Obviously  it  should  be  lower. 

The  forms  we  have  used  are  a  lot  less 
complicated  than  the  income  tax  forms  that 
had  to  be  filled  out  to  take  advantage  of  the 
property  tax  credit  program.  That  was  one 
of  the  reasons  we  decided  to  go  with  this 
program:  to  eliminate  the  need  for  most 
senior  citizens  to  file  an  income  tax  return. 
They  don't  have  to  file  one  as  long  as  they 
are  l>elow  a  taxable  income.  That's  elim- 
inated. They  don't  have  to  do  that  any  more. 

We  were  hopeful  that  this  sort  of  form 
and  this  sort  of  program  would  make  it 
easier  for  them.  That  was  one  thing.  The 
other  reason,  if  the  member  will  recall  what 
I  said  in  my  statements  and  what  I  said  in 
the  House  on  many  occasions— as  a  matter 
of  fact,  in  answers  to  questions— is  that  we 
wanted  to  get  the  money  to  the  senior 
citizens  at  the  time  their  property  taxes 
were  due.  We  couldn't  do  that  through  the 
federal  system.  I  negotiated  with  the  federal 


people  to  try  to  arrange  that.  They  couldn't 
do  it.  They  said  there  was  no  way  they  could 
possibly  accommodate  what  we  wanted  to 
do,  which  was  very  simply  to  get  the  cheques 
out  in  time  for  when  the  interim  tax  bill 
comes  in  in  the  spring,  so  they  would  have 
some  money  to  help  pay  the  taxes,  and  in 
the  fall  when  their  final  tax  bill  comes  out, 
so  they  would  have  some  assistance  to  pay 
their  property  taxes. 

That,  to  me,  is  a  very  logical  reason  why 
we  would  change  this  program  to  accommo- 
date them.  That  is  what  we  are  trying  to 
do.  If  there  are  some  political  marks  in  it, 
fair  enough;  we  are  all  politicians.  But  the 
basic  reason  was  to  provide  a  better  service 
to  the  seniors,  and  I  regret  there  have  been 
some  problems  with  the  applications.  I  would 
have  liked  to  see  them  100  per  cent  perfect, 
but  we  are  never  going  to  attain  that.  We 
are  going  to  improve  next  year  on  the  pro- 
cedures we  used  this  year;  there  is  no  ques- 
tion about  that.  But  we  will  always  have 
people  filling  in  their  applications  wrong, 
and  we  will  have  to  deal  with  those.  That's 
what  we  are  doing  now  with  the  ones  we 
are  still  working  on.  I  think  the  member  will 
find  as  time  goes  by  that  this  will  be  a  very 
good  program  and  it  will  ibe  an  easier  pro- 
gram for  the  senior  citizens  to  deal  with 
than  the  one  they  had  in  the  past. 

Ms.  Bryden:  One  comment:  The  Treasurer 
in  his  mini-budget  contemplated  rather 
obliquely  a  tax  credit  for  home  heating  fuels 
or  the  hope  of  getting  such  an  arrangement 
with  the  federal  government.  Seniors  un- 
doubtedly have  home  heating  if  they  own 
their  own  homes  and  they  will  have  to  put 
in  an  income  tax  form  to  obtain  a  credit  of 
that  sort;  so  we  may  not  be  eliminating  the 
need  for  income  tax  forms  for  seniors.  How- 
ever, that  is  just  a  comment.  I  will  let  some 
of  my  colleagues  ask  their  questions. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the 
first  instance,  I  express  my  thanks  to  the 
minister's  staff  for  the  way  they  have  ex- 
pedited problems  we  confronted  them  with 
from  my  constituency  office.  They  were  most 
courteous,  very  pleasant  to  talk  to  and,  when 
they  were  able  to  give  us  an  immediate 
answer,  they  did  so.  If  they  couldn't  they 
called  back,  which  we  really  appreciated. 
Having  said  that,  I  can  assure  the  minister 
that  not  everyone  has  heard  from  his  ministry 
who  has  filed  an  application  form  for  this 
senior  citizens'  tax  grant. 

The  question  I  am  confronted  with  by 
constituents  is  how  long  they  are  still  able 
to  apply  for  the  tax  grant.  Some  of  them 
just  won't  believe  there  is  $500  waiting  for 


4998 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


them.  It  just  doesn't  sound  right;  there  is 
some  hook  in  the  whole  deal  and,  up  until 
the  time  they  find  that  other  friends  or 
relatives  of  theirs  have  obtained  the  money, 
they  are  extremely  cautious  and  hesitant 
to  apply. 

I  would  like  to  ask  five  or  six  questions 
and  I  would  prefer  an  answer  to  each  one 
as  I  ask  and  then  to  continue  up  until  the  time 
I  complete  my  questioning.  It  will  not  be  too 
long. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  they  have 
until  December  31,  1981,  to  get  their  appli- 
cations in.  We  are  still  receiving  applications; 
the  member  is  quite  right.  Two  hundred  or 
300  applications  a  day  are  still  coming  in 
from  people  who  have  not  taken  the  time  to 
apply  up  to  this  time. 

I  think  the  member  is  correct  that  there 
is  some  hesitation  on  the  part  of  some  people. 
Some  of  them  perhaps  still  think  the  income 
will  be  taxable,  for  example.  But  it  is  not 
taxable;  there  is  an  agreement  with  the 
federal  government.  People  will  pay  no  in- 
come tax  on  this  money;  it  is  a  grant.  There 
really  are  no  strings  attached  to  it. 

If  what  we  are  saying  today  ever  gets  into 
the  media,  perhaps  some  more  people  will 
be  informed.  That  is  one  of  the  very  reasons 
why  we  tried  to  have  this  advertising  cam- 
paign to  make  as  many  points  as  we  could. 
However,  not  everybody  reads  advertising; 
not  everybody  watches  television  or  listens 
to  the  radio. 

There  are  those  who  are  still  waiting  for 
application  forms  who  had  their  birthday 
after  July  1.  They  will  get  their  applications 
in  January.  They  are  eligible  for  the  grant  for 
this  year. 

We  had  to  do  this  in  a  way  that  was  per- 
haps worrisome  to  some  people  whose  appli- 
cations contained  a  mistake.  But  we  did  set 
aside  the  ones  where  there  was  a  problem 
and  processed  the  ones  that  were  correct.  I 
remind  members  those  applications  that  were 
correct  were  processed  in  a  three-  to  four- 
week  period,  which  is  not  a  bad  turnaround 
for  a  new  program. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  One  of  the  problems  we 
are  confronted  with  is  that,  on  getting  in 
touch  with  the  minister's  office,  they  generally 
tell  us  just  to  wait  until  the  end  of  the  month. 
When  the  party  still  has  not  heard,  they  tell 
us  to  wait  another  two  weeks.  When  they  still 
have  not  heard,  they  get  very  distressed  at 
that.  The  first  thought  that  goes  through 
their  mind  is  that  maybe  the  application  has 
not  even  reached  the  minister's  office.  Maybe 
they  inadvertently  did  not  mail  the  applica- 
tion. 


What  answer  can  we  give  to  the  con- 
stituent who  says,  "You  have  already  told  me 
three  times  just  to  wait  for  a  short  while  and 
I  will  receive  my  $500"?  How  do  we  rely 
to  a  question  like  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  am  informed  by  my 
staff  that  there  are  14,000  applicants  who 
will  get  cheques  dated  December  8.  They 
may  not  have  been  contacted,  but  their 
cheques  have  been  processed  and  are  ready  to 
go  out  on  December  8.  Those  people 
may  not  have  been  contacted  because  there 
was  really  nothing  wrong  with  their  appli- 
cation. But  the  14,000  are  part  of  the  overall 
number  I  gave  earlier. 

My  suggestion  to  the  member  is,  if  he  has 
anyone  who  is  concerned,  we  are  now  in  a 
position  to  be  able  to  give  him  an  answer 
pretty  quickly  as  to  where  that  application 
is  and  what  is  holding  it  up.  I  suggest  the 
member  can  call  my  office  if  he  wants  to, 
or  any  of  the  numbers  we  have  given  out. 
But  there  should  be  no  reason  now  why  staff 
cannot  give  the  member  a  quick  response  as 
to  where  an  application  is. 

There  is  always  the  possibility  that  an 
application  was  never  received.  We  did  have 
two  mail  interruptions.  There  is  always  that 
possibility.  I  think  it  is  well  worthwhile  in- 
quiring. I  would  think  within  a  couple  of 
days'  turnaround,  staff  could  tell  the  mem- 
ber where  the  application  is,  what  we  are 
waiting  on  if  anything  or,  if  the  cheque  has 
been  mailed,  when  it  was  mailed  out. 

We  are  down  now  to  few  enough  applica- 
tions that  we  can  handle  that  kind  of  re- 
quest. We  could  not  do  it  originally  because 
there  were  just  too  many  applications  in  the 
system.  But  we  have  eliminated  most  of  them 
now,  and  it  is  much  easier  to  give  relatively 
quick  information  on  those  files. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  It  was  this  week  that  my 
staff  did  inquire  and  were  told  to  wait  an- 
other week.  That  was  for  the  third  time.  It 
may  not  have  been  the  same  individual, 
but  it  was  the  third  time  we  have  been  told 
to  wait  a  little. 

12:10  p.m. 

I  appreciate  the  magnitude  of  the  prob- 
lem. I  know  we  cannot  come  along  and'  re- 
solve a  lot  of  these  overnight.  As  I  said  in 
my  first  comments,  the  ministry  staff  has 
been  most  co-operative,  but  we  would  have 
preferred  in  the  first  instance  if  we  were  told, 
"It  may  take  six  weeks,  not  another  month." 
If  we  had  told  the  constituent  that,  then  he 
would  have  felt  that  much  better  because,  as 
I  said  earlier,  he  wonders,  "Did  they  get  my 
application?"     As     the    minister     mentioned, 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


4999 


there  would  be  no  problem  in  tracing  it  and 
informing  us  as  to  the  stage  at  which  the 
application  happens  to  be  resting  right  now. 

Is  there  any  provision  for  an  individual 
who  may  not  pay  any  rent  but  is  providing 
services  to  a  senior  citizen?  In  other  words, 
if  there  are  two  seniors  living  together,  the 
home  owner  and  another  senior  who  acts  as 
the  custodian  taking  care  of  that  elderly 
individual  but  who  does  not  pay  or,  if  she 
does  pay,  pays  a  minimum  amount  of  rental, 
is  she  covered?  One  case  we  have  is  where 
the  lady  paid  only  $20  a  month  rent  but  pro- 
vided services  that  might  have  been  worth 
$150  a  month,  and  that  is  excluding  meals 
and  so  forth. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  think  that  is  covered 
now.  If  someone  is  providing  services  in 
lieu  of  rent— and  that  is  what  the  member  is 
suggesting— if  that  is  made  known,  that  person 
will  be  eligible  to  receive  property  tax  grants 
on  that  basis. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Would  they  have  to  pro- 
vide the  receipts  from  the  home  owner  for 
that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  think  they  would  have 
to  have  some  sort  of  receipt  for  the  services 
rendered  in  lieu  of  rent  because  of  the  In- 
come Tax  Act  and  so  on. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  do  not  question  the 
need  for  the  receipts,  but  I  would  like  to 
follow  up  on  that.  Rather  than  12  receipts, 
one  for  each  month,  would  one  receipt  for 
the  total  of  the  year  be  satisfactory? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  would  be  satisfac- 
tory. If  the  ministry  were  to  receive  a  letter 
from  the  owner  indicating  the  person  was 
providing  a  service  in  lieu  of  rent  valued  at 
so  much  for  the  year,  that  would  be  sufficient. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  That  takes  care  of  the 
problem  I  had  with  several  of  my  constitu- 
ents. It  was  kind  of  difficult  to  try  to  con- 
vince the  home  owner  in  this  case  that  she 
has  to  provide  a  receipt;  she  is  afraid  it  is 
going  to  affect  her  own  income  tax  if  she  has 
to  declare  that  she  is  receiving  $100  a  month 
in  services  from  the  individual  as  income  for 
income  tax  purposes.  At  least  I  have  the 
answer  for  that  from  the  minister. 

What  happens  if  an  individual  passes  away 
in  the  middle  of  the  year?  Is  there  entitle- 
ment to  the  complete  grant? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  are  not  sure  whether 
the  federal  government  would  advise  us  of 
that  information.  If  we  were  advised  that 
someone  had  passed  away  in  the  middle  of 
the  year,  obviously  there  would  be  entitle- 
ment to  the  grant  for  the  period  of  time  up 
until  the  person  passed  away. 


Mr.  B.  Newman:  It  is  prorated  on  a 
monthly  basis? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  is  right.  Whether 
it  be  rent  or  whether  it  be  taxes  would  not 
make  any  difference,  but  I  doubt  very  much 
that  we  would  even  become  aware  of  it,  to 
be  quite  honest,  because  I  doubt  very  much 
if  that  kind  of  information  would  be  passed 
on  from  the  federal  government. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  try  again 
as  I  did  earlier.  I  will  change  the  tone.  The 
message  may  be  the  same,  but  I  will  change 
the  tone. 

There  is  no  question  in  anyone's  mind 
that,  if  there  were  any  positive  program  that 
could  be  brought  forward  to  assist  senior 
citizens,  all  of  us  should  support  such  a 
program.  I  think  the  minister  knows  well,  as 
do  other  members  of  the  House,  that  many 
senior  citizens  in  our  province  continue  to 
have  difficult  problems.  They  continue  to  go 
through  difficult  times. 

A  large  part  of  the  problem  is  that  many 
seniors,  when  they  reach  65,  or,  as  one 
member  in  this  Hou^e  would  have  it,  70, 
reach  a  plateau  in  their  income.  Some  of 
them  have  nothing  more  than  the  old  age 
security,  or  perhaps  the  Gains.  That  is  a 
fixed  amount.  Inflation  erodes  those  dollars. 
Taxes  increase  on  their  homes;  there  are 
sales  taxes,  food  costs,  whatever  it  is.  In 
total,  the  cost  of  living  increases.  The  seniors 
find  it  increasingly  difficult  to  cope  with 
that.  Anything  a  government  can  do  or  the 
Legislature  voting  unanimously  can  do  to 
make  the  lot  of  the  life  for  seniors  a  little 
better  is  to  be  applauded. 

What  bothers  me  is  that  I  firmly  believe 
the  problems  the  ministry  has  experienced  in 
this  program  could  have  been  avoided.  I 
acknowledge  that  no  program  is  going  to 
work  perfectly;  there  will  be  mistakes.  People 
will  leave  off  needed  information  when  they 
fill  out  forms;  no  question  about  that.  But  I 
think  the  failure  rate  was  unacceptably  high, 
for  a  very  basic  reason.  I  believe  the  program 
was   brought   forward  prematurely. 

The  minister  himself  acknowledged  that 
v/e  are  looking  at  approximately  800,000 
seniors  in  this  province,  some  of  whom  will 
not  qualify  but  most  of  whom  will.  It  is  a 
brand-new  program.  The  800,000  seniors  are 
scattered  throughout  the  entire  province, 
some  in  small  rural  communities  and  others 
in  very  large  centres  like  Toronto.  People 
who  are  unfamiliar  with  the  program  will 
take  time  to  become  accustomed  to  what  is 
required  of  them.  The  forms  themselves,  to 
be  filled  out  and  sent  in,  have  to  be  done 


5000 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


properly.  They  must  be  explained  in  a  lot  of 
cases.  Seniors  will  need  help  with  that  in 
some  cases.  The  technical  machinery  required 
to  make  sure  the  program  functions  is  a 
problem  for  the  ministry  and  likely  a  head- 
ache as  well.  It  is  something  the  ministry 
has  to  do  a  lot  of  work  on  to  ensure  that  it 
works  properly.  That  takes  time;  no  question 
about  it. 

The  minister  and  I  both  know  that  in 
September  we  had  an  election  scare.  Rumours 
started  to  float  around  that  there  would  be 
or  could  be  a  fall  election.  The  rumours  were 
unsubstantiated  but,  none  the  less,  rumours. 
People  get  a  little  edgy.  Will  there  be  an 
election  or  not?  The  government  obviously 
in  a  minority  position  begins  to  get  a  little 
edgy  about  it;  maybe  there  will  be  an  elec- 
tion this  fall.  Either  the  Premier  would  call 
it— it  has  always  been  my  theory  from  the 
day  after  the  1977  campaign  that  the  Premier 
will  determine  when  the  election  will  be 
held;  maybe  the  polls  showed  the  Premier 
this  was  the  time  to  go  in  September  1980- 
or  perhaps  they  thought,  when  the  Legisla- 
ture reconvened  in  early  October,  the  com- 
bined opposition  parties  would  move  a  vote 
of  no  confidence  and  trigger  an  election. 
Either  one  of  the  two  scenarios  was  possible. 
The  Premier  could  call  the  election  in  Sep- 
tember or  at  the  beginning  of  October,  or  the 
opposition  parties  could  gang  up  on  the  gov- 
ernment and  force  an  election. 

So  what  can  each  ministry  do  in  an  effort 
to  help  secure  some  potential  votes?  One 
thing  is  to  bring  forward  a  program  that  will 
be  popular  with  the  people  of  Ontario.  How 
can  the  government  be  more  popular  than  to 
hand  out  money?  The  minister  could  go  as 
far  as  to  have  his  picture  on  the  cheques 
that  go  out. 

12:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  was  thinking  about  that. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  imagine  that  crossed  the 
minister's  mind.  It  is  a  tempting  suggestion; 
perhaps  even,  "Greetings  from  Lome  Maeck," 
or  "Help  yourself  to  some  Maeck  monev." 
It  is  mind  boggling  to  think  of  the  possibili- 
ties to  exploit  that  situation. 

None  the  less,  the  basic  fact  is  that  giving 
away  money  is  a  popular  thing  to  do.  Not 
only  that,  but  how  could  a  government  go 
wrong  by  giving  away  money  to  senior  citi- 
zens, who  are  amongst  the  most  deserving 
people  in  our  province?  Surely  it  is  not 
possible  to  go  wrong  while  giving  away 
money  to  deserving  senior  citizens. 

While  the  program  may  not  be  ready  in 
the    technical    aspect    to    avoid    unnecessary 


problems  in  the  mechanics,  let  us  bring  it 
forward  now  just  in  case  there  is  an  election. 
Wouldn't  it  be  delightful  to  think  that  several 
hundred  thousand  seniors  would  receive 
money  from  the  government  of  Ontario, 
otherwise  known  as  the  Progressive  Conserva- 
tive Party,  in  the  midst  of  an  election  cam- 
paign, with  or  without  the  minister's  picture 
and  signature?  What  better  tactic  than  that 
in  the  midst  of  a  campaign? 

That  is  why  it  was  done.  You  and  I  know 
that,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  minister  knows  that. 
The  election  scare  caused  the  program  to 
come  forward  prematurely.  It  was  not  ready 
to  go. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  wonder  if  the 
honourable  member  would  come  to  his  ques- 
tion. This  is  not  necessarily  a  period  for 
making  speeches  but  to  inquire  into  the  esti- 
mates of  the  Ministry  of  Revenue.  I  have 
allowed  a  fair  amount  of  latitude,  but  there 
are  other  people  on  my  list  who  are  waiting; 
so  if  you  would  come  to  the  questions. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  know  you 
wanted  some  background  for  the  question. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  do  not  mind  a 
reasonable  amount  of  background,  but  not 
necessarily  a  speech. 

Mr.  Warner:  The  question  is  one  I  at- 
tempted to  raise  during  the  main  office  vote. 
Who  accepts  the  responsibility  for  having 
brought  this  program  forward  prematurely?  Is 
it  the  minister,  is  it  cabinet  or  is  it  some 
other  person  who  is  responsible  for  that  de- 
cision? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  do  not  necessarily 
agree  with  the  member  that  it  was  brought 
forward  prematurely.  If  he  wants  to  stroke 
that  part  of  the  question  out,  I  will  accept 
the  responsibility  for  bringing  in  the  program. 
I  do  not  necessarily  agree  it  was  premature. 

Mr.  Warner:  You  do  not  believe  it  was 
premature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No.  I  do  not  know 
whether  you  were  here  when  we  were  dis- 
cussing this  matter  earlier.  We  talked  about 
the  fact  there  had  been  some  mistakes.  It 
works  out  to  about  40  per  cent  of  the  appli- 
cations being  improperly  filled  out  in  one 
form  or  another.  I  did  advise  the  members 
of  the  Legislature  that  when  it  was  being 
done  by  the  federal  government  through  the 
income  tax  system,  there  was  a  mistake  rate 
of  68  per  cent,  and  that  has  been  in  place 
for  years.  There  will  always  be  mistakes  in 
these  kinds  of  situations. 

I  do  not  think  it  was  premature.  If  one 
looks  at  our  record,  most  of  those  cheques 
did  get  out  in  time  to  assist  those  people's 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


5001 


property  tax  bill.  The  prime  purpose  was  to 
get  the  money  in  their  hands  in  time  to  assist 
with  the  property  tax  payments  for  the  mu- 
nicipality, whether  one  agrees  with  that  or 
sees  it  as  a  political  thing. 

We  are  all  in  politics  around  this  room.  I 
am  quite  sure  if  the  member  were  sitting  on 
this  side  of  the  House,  if  he  were  contem- 
plating bringing  in  a  program  such  as  this 
and  if  he  thought  he  smelled  an  election  in 
the  air,  he  would  do  exactly  the  same  thing 
as  we  have  done.  Let  us  not  play  games. 

Mr.  Warner:  If  we  were  on  that  side  of  the 
House,  we  would  have  such  stable  programs 
the  little  political  gimmicks  would  not  be 
necessary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  admit  there  have  been 
a  lot  of  mistakes  in  the  application  and  in  the 
administration— I  have  never  denied  that— but 
I  still  find  mistakes  were  being  made  on  the 
old  program  as  well.  It  is  not  something  we 
are  going  to  avoid  in  the  future.  I  hope  we 
will  reduce  that  number  of  errors,  but  we  will 
never  get  to  the  point  where  there  will  be 
none. 

Mr.  Warner:  The  federal  Liberals  are 
equally  capable  of  making  errors  and  running 
programs  as  are  the  Ontario  Conservatives. 

Mr.  Ruston:  I  have  a  question  with  regard 
to  the  grants.  Apparently  the  minister  is  now 
sending  letters  out  to  people  who  have  not 
yet  received  their  cheques,  telling  them  their 
application  is  being  considered.  One  of  those 
letters  has  already  been  received  by  someone 
in  my  area,  and  I  am  wondering  if  that  is 
necessary.  When  these  applications  are  being 
processed,  can  you  not  do  a  lot  more  than 
send  out  a  letter  saying  it  is  being  considered? 
Surely  they  are  all  being  considered.  I  was 
under  the  impression  some  time  ago  they 
would  all  be  processed  by  November  30,  but 
apparently  that  is  not  the  case  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  reason  for  that  letter 
is  that  there  is  some  concern  among  senior 
citizens  as  to  whether  or  not  we  have  ever 
received  the  application.  There  were  a  couple 
of  mail  stoppages  and  other  things  during  that 
period  when  we  were  receiving  applications 
and  sending  out  cheques.  There  are  quite  a 
few  seniors  who  are  concerned  because  they 
have  not  heard  from  us  and  they  were  not 
sure  we  had  received  their  application.  We 
thought  we  should  make  sure  they  were  aware 
we  had  received  them  and  were  processing 
them. 

In  almost  every  case  of  that  kind  there  is 
some  mistake  in  the  application.  We  have 
tried  to  get  in  touch  with  those  people  to 
correct  it,  but  we  want  to  acknowledge  that 


we  have  it  so  they  can  at  least  be  assured  it 
is  going  to  be  processed.  That  is  the  reason 
for  it.  I  do  not  think  there  are  that  many  of 
them,  but  we  have  done  this  in  some  cases. 

Mr.  Ruston:  About  how  many  do  you  feel 
are  now  in  the  offices  of  your  ministry  being 
processed?  Do  you  have  a  ball-park  figure 
of  how  many  are  yet  to  be  sent  out? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  think  earlier  in  the  de- 
bate I  indicated  there  was  still  something 
like  44,000.  I  indicated  that  of  those  there 
are  14,000  applicants  who  will  get  cheques 
dated  December  8,  so  it  is  gradually  being 
cut  down.  I  am  told  there  are  another  11,000 
cheques  to  go  out  on  December  15  as  well, 
so  they  are  in  various  stages  of  process. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  critic 
of  the  NDP  claimed  the  property  tax  credit 
program  was  a  fiasco.  I  do  not  want  to  use 
the  same  language.  I  just  want  to  say  that 
people  are  getting  into  constant  red  tape. 
First  there  is  the  problem  of  identifying  the 
application  and  then  the  delay  in  processing 
the  application  until  the  money  goes  out  to 
the  applicant. 
12:30  p.m. 

I  realize  the  minister  is  aware  of  the 
difficulties  encountered  in  the  administration 
of  this  program.  I  also  realize  his  goodwill  in 
trying  to  improve  the  program  next  year  or 
in  the  future.  The  reason  I  am  standing  up 
today  is  to  raise  a  few  questions  to  make  sure 
those  improvements  will  take  place  and,  also 
because  I  do  not  want  people,  in  the  near 
future,  to  get  into  the  same  frustrating  process 
they  have  been  getting  into  this  year:  (1)  the 
number  of  phone  calls  made  by  constituents 
to  your  ministry;  (2)  the  difficulties  of  locating 
the  department  to  which  application  should 
go. 

I  think  the  major  problem  people  en- 
countered in  asking  questions  about  the  delay 
of  payments  was  the  location  of  the  appro- 
priate department.  The  minister  should  give 
us  certain  guarantees  now  in  order  that  this 
problem  will  not  happen  again.  I  am  talking 
about  constituents  directly  contacting  the  de- 
partment looking  after  the  applications. 

I  want  to  talk  about  myself.  I  have  called 
your  ministry  several  times  in  a  month  about 
certain  constituents  of  mine,  and  the  inability 
of  ministry  employees  to  locate  the  applica- 
tions. I  hope  the  minister  will  give  us  guaran- 
tees that  the  average  individual  affected  by 
this  program  will,  in  the  future,  be  able  to 
get  in  touch  with  your  ministry  to  make  sure 
he  or  she  knows  the  different  steps  imple- 
mented in  his  or  her  application,  and  will  get 
immediate    answers   in   relation   to   the   final 


5002 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


processing  of  the  application,  that  is,  the  grant 
payment. 

I  do  not  want  senior  citizens  applying  for 
this  program  to  get  into  the  same  red  tape  as 
they  do  at  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board.  Their  usual  reply  is,  "I  am  sorry,  we 
will  have  to  locate  the  file.  We  do  not  know 
anything  about  it.  We  do  not  know  what  type 
of  decision  has  been  taken  in  relation  to  the 
particular  issue  before  the  Workmen's  Com- 
pensation Board.  You  will  have  to  wait." 
Waiting  for  the  administration  of  this  pro- 
gram, this  year,  has  taken  more  than  a  month, 
after  inquiring  myself  on  several  occasions 
through  your  ministry. 

I  do  not  want  to  say  it  is  a  fiasco.  I  think 
this  type  of  red  tape  should  not  occur  in  the 
future  when  your  ministry  plans  a  different 
administrative  process  to  make  sure  that  pay- 
ment will  go  out  immediately.  If  a  constituent 
or  a  senior  citizen  gets  in  touch  with  your 
ministry  staff  directly  they  should  know 
immediately  where  the  file  is  and  what  type 
of  problems  are  encountered.  If  there  are 
mistakes,  that  is  fine.  At  least  they  should 
know  a  mistake  has  taken  place  and  when 
the  file  is  located  by  your  employees  in  your 
ministry,  eventually  they  can  get  new  in- 
formation either  by  phone  or  other  means. 

I  hope  the  minister  will  give  us  this  type 
of  guarantee.  We  do  not  want  further  red 
tape  on  something  that  the  public  at  large 
is  relying  upon.  In  the  case  of  senior  citizens, 
eventually  the  money  will  be  very  useful  to 
pay  property  taxes  and  so  on,  and  they  should 
not  have  to  wait  months  and  months,  spend- 
ing so  much  time  on  the  phone  without 
getting  a  reply. 

I  want  some  form  of  guarantee  or  improve- 
ment, if  I  may  use  that  word,  so  that  in  the 
near  future,  when  claimants  inquire  about 
their  applications,  at  least  the  employees  in 
your  ministry  will  be  able  to  locate  their 
applications  immediately  and  the  claimants 
will  be  able  to  find  out  what  type  of  mistake 
has  been  made  in  them. 

You  mentioned  that  a  lot  of  people  were 
making  mistakes  when  filling  out  their  income 
tax  forms  before  this  program  came  into 
effect.  Of  course,  now  the  Ministry  of  Revenue 
is  facing  the  same  type  of  problem— a  figure 
of  68  per  cent  was  used  and  you  mav  correct 
me  if  I  am  wrong— with  people  filling  out 
applications  for  income  tax  purposes.  You  are 
faced  with  the  same  number  now,  the  same 
percentage  of  people  making  mistakes  in 
filling  out  the  application.  Am  I  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Less  than  that. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Less.  A  little  bit  less?  How 
much? 


Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  would  say  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Forty  per  cent.  Even  though 
there  is  an  improvement  on  that,  the  fact 
remains  that  a  lot  of  people  are  affected  by  it. 
This  year,  we  have  been  faced  with  more  than 
100,000  people? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Two  hundred  thousand. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  Two  hundred  thousand 
people  made  mistakes  on  the  application  and 
that  is  why  the  big  load  has  been  increasing 
on  that  ministry. 

I  also  want  to  ask  the  minister  what  he  is 
doing  in  relation  to  those  who  receive  the 
application  for  the  property  tax  grant  and 
who  do  not  return  the  application  for  some 
reason  or  other.  I  refer  particularly  to  senior 
citizens  who  are  sick  or  very  old,  and  who  are 
unable  to  fill  out  the  application;  therefore, 
they  do  not  send  back  the  application  which 
was  previously  sent  to  them  by  the  ministry. 
I  want  to  know  what  the  minister  or  his  min- 
istry is  doing  to  trace  those  applications  in 
order  that  senior  citizens,  or  other  people 
who  are  unable  for  one  reason  or  another  to 
fill  out  the  application,  may  at  least  be  con- 
tacted by  the  ministry  to  be  asked  why  they 
did  not  fill  out  the  application. 

For  example,  I  was  asked  by  a  senior 
citizen  who  is  90  years  old  to  help  with  the 
application  on  her  house.  She  told  me  she  did 
not  know  how  to  fill  out  the  application,  and 
could  not  get  out  at  all  even  to  mail  it.  I  did 
the  work  for  her.  I  was  glad  that  I  was  just 
passing  by  her  place  during  the  summer  when 
she  was  sitting  on  her  verandah,  and  she 
called  to  me.  I  did  the  work  for  her  and  was 
able  to  mail  the  application  for  her. 

I  am  just  wondering  how  many  people,  as 
a  result  of  these  problems,  did  not  return 
their  applications  to  the  ministry.  Maybe  the 
applicant  has  a  serious  problem  and  cannot 
fill  out  the  application  or  is  unable  as  a  result 
of  a  disability  to  mail  out  the  application  for 
the  grant. 

I  want  to  know,  and  I  want  a  guarantee 
that  the  minister  is  going  to  follow  up  on 
those  applications  that  are  not  returned  to 
his  ministry,  to  make  sure  everyone  will  be 
able  to  get  the  tax  credit. 

I  also  would  like  to  show  the  minister  my 
dismay  at  the  fact  that  this  program  is  not 
incorporating  disabled  people.  I  am  just  think- 
ing of  injured  workers  who  are  either  100  per 
cent  disabled  or  partially  disabled  with  severe 
disabilities  that  they  encountered  on  the  job 
and  were  compensable  accidents,  as  a  result 
of  which  they  are  unable  to  go  back  to  the 
labour  market. 
12:40  p.m. 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


5003 


I  guess  those  individuals  can  be  compared 
to  the  people  who  reach  the  age  of  65  but 
are  unable  to  go  back  to  the  labour  market  to 
make  further  earnings.  I  want  to  know  from 
the  minister  whether  the  cabinet  or  govern- 
ment is  contemplating  the  expansion  of  these 
programs  to  those  disabled  people,  starting 
with  those  who  are  100  per  cent  disabled 
and  receiving  100  per  cent  disability  pension 
from  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board. 
Surely  we  are  100  per  cent  sure  those  people 
will  not  be  able  to  go  back  to  the  labour 
market.  They  are  on  a  fixed  income.  They  will 
be  receiving  their  pensions  from  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Board  based  on  100  per 
cent  disability,  and  eventually  the  Canada 
pension  plan  if  they  are  entitled  to  it. 

The  property  tax  credit  should  be  ex- 
tended to  those  people  and  also  to  those 
who  are  severely  injured,  who  are  receiving, 
for  example,  a  50  per  cent  pension  from  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board,  are  unable 
to  return  to  the  labour  market  and  are  re- 
ceiving just  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board  pension  and  the  Canada  pension  plan 
if  they  are  entitled  to  it. 

Why  is  such  a  program  not  extended  to 
those  who  are  in  great  need?  Maybe  the 
guideline  that  should  be  used  is  the  principle 
of  whether  they  are  able  to  go  back  to  the 
labour  market.  As  long  as  they  are  unable  to 
go  back  to  the  labour  market,  they  should  at 
least  be  incorporated  in  this  program  to  get 
the  property  tax  credit  to  alleviate  their 
economic  hardship,  taking  into  consideration 
that  property  taxes  have  been  skyrocketing  in 
the  last  few  years. 

I  hope  the  minister  will  give  me  some 
answers  in  relation  to  this  to  make  sure  people 
will  be  able  to  get  an  answer  about  locating 
their  applications  when  they  get  in  touch  with 
this  ministry,  with  the  follow-up  principle  for 
those  who  did  not  return  their  applications 
and  the  extension  of  this  type  of  benefit  to 
disabled  people  across  the  province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  member  has  posed 
two,  three  or  four  questions  here.  He  wants 
assurances  that  in  future  we  will  be  able  to 
locate  an  application  and  advise  an  applicant 
what  stage  his  application  is  at  in  the  min- 
istry. What  we  are  doing  for  1981  is  putting 
in  a  new  system  that  will  identify  each 
application  received  and  what  area  of  process 
it  is  in.  In  effect,  we  will  be  able  to  accom- 
plish what  you  are  requesting. 

I  still  have  to  come  back  to  defend  the 
Ministry  of  Revenue's  administration  program 
because  I  think  members  will  recall,  if  they 
think  back  a  bit,  that  we  also  administer  the 
guaranteed  annual  income  system  for  senior 


citizens.  There  have  not  been  problems  of 
any  amount  in  that  program.  When  we  get 
this  one  set  in  properly,  I  am  hopeful  this 
program  will  run  as  efficiently  as  our  Gains-A 
program. 

Members  know  they  can  phone  for  Gains 
information  and  usually  get  the  information 
on  the  phone  at  the  time  they  call.  So  can 
people  other  than  members,  if  they  call  that 
particular  branch  of  my  ministry.  This  pro- 
gram may  not  be  quite  as  efficient  as  that  one 
because  there  are  more  technical  problems 
with  this  one  but  I  would  hope  we  would 
become  efficient  enough  to  give  an  answer 
quickly  as  to  where  that  application  is,  why 
it  has  not  moved  and  when  a  cheque  can  be 
expected. 

We  had  great  difficulty  this  time  around 
because  once  it  got  into  the  system  it  was 
very  difficult  for  us  to  locate  it  in  the  pro- 
gram. We  are  going  to  correct  that  so  we  will 
be  able  to  pull  the  file  while  it  is  being 
processed  at  any  place  within  the  system  to 
give  people  who  telephone  an  answer  as 
quickly  as  possible.  I  assure  the  member,  we 
are  going  to  do  that.  We  learn  by  experience 
and  certainly  we  will  improve  that. 

I  am  sure  the  member  knows  that  the 
extension  to  disabled  persons  and  so  on  is 
not  within  my  jurisdiction  as  Minister  of 
Revenue.  As  a  cabinet  minister,  I  do  some- 
times become  involved  in  those  decisions. 
The  type  of  people  the  member  is  referring  to 
are  eligible  for  the  Ontario  tax  credit  program 
at  the  moment,  so  they  are  getting  some 
assistance.  In  some  cases,  they  could  be  some 
of  those  your  critic  has  been  complaining 
about  who  may  get  less  under  this  program 
than  under  the  Ontario  tax  program. 

I  have  a  great  deal  of  sympathy  for  this 
subject.  I  agree  those  persons  are  not  going 
to  be  productive  any  longer.  They  have  no 
opportunity  to  get  out  on  their  own  and  get 
a  job.  In  effect,  they  are  in  the  same  condi- 
tion and  position  as  those  65  and  over,  as  are 
all  disabled  people.  I  have  a  great  deal  of 
sympathy  for  those  people.  I  feel  we  should 
be  doing  as  much  as  we  can  to  assist  them. 

All  I  can  do  is  assure  the  member,  if  and 
when  the  matter  comes  up  for  discussion 
within  cabinet,  that  his  views  will  be  taken 
into  consideration  because  I  agree  with  what 
he  said.  It  will  not  be  the  first  time  I  have 
said  it,  because  I  have  some  real  sympathy 
for  those  people,  although,  as  I  say,  they  are 
entitled  to  the  Ontario  tax  credit  grant,  which 
they  still  get.  In  some  cases  they  might  get 
just  as  much  under  that  program  as  the  new 
one. 


5004 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  don't  know  if  there  is  any  other  question 
I  have  not  covered. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  There  was  another  question 
in  relation  to  those  who  received  the  applica- 
tion but  the  application  was  not  sent  back  to 
your  ministry  for  one  reason  or  another.  What 
type  of  follow-up  is  your  ministry  using  to 
trace  them  to  make  sure  the  application  will 
be  filled  out  and  that  you  are  alerted  if  they 
need  any  assistance  or  that  there  are  certain 
problems  affecting  them?  Something  should 
be  done  about  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  agree  there  could  be 
people  out  there  who  have  not  submitted 
their  application. 

Mr.  Grande:  There  are. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  If  you  want  to  be 
technical,  sure  there  are,  there  are  bound  to 
be.  Our  problem  is  that  in  a  lot  of  cases  we 
sent  out  two  applications  to  one  family.  They 
only  send  one  back  so  we  have  no  way  of 
comparing  the  numbers  we  receive  with  the 
numbers  we  send  out,  simply  because  of  the 
fact  some  are  married  and  we  do  not  have  any 
way  of  identifying  the  applications  that  are 
not  returned  to  us. 

The  only  thing  we  could  do  is  more  adver- 
tising on  that  aspect.  I  think  we  will  still  have 
to  do  a  bit  of  advertising  for  the  ethnic 
people,  the  landed  immigrants  and  so  on,  to 
find  them  as  well.  I  am  sure  there  are  some 
who  have  not  yet  come  to  us  for  information 
about  the  program.  We  have  no  records 
within  the  ministry  to  find  those  people,  so 
we  will  have  to  do  a  bit  more  advertising  in 
that  regard. 
12:50  p.m. 

I  do  not  know  how  to  reach  the  people  you 
are  referring  to.  We  had  the  same  problem 
with  the  Ontario  tax  credit  program.  We 
know  there  are  people  who  never,  ever  filed 
an  income  tax  return  to  be  eligible  for  the 
Ontario  tax  credit.  If  it  were  just  a  simple 
case  of  sending  out  applications  and  expect- 
ing everyone  to  return  them,  everyone  being 
eligible,  it  would  not  be  so  tough.  But  the 
fact  is  the  way  the  system  is  set  up,  we  do 
send  out  applications  to  a  husband  and  wife, 
if  they  are  both  65,  but  they  have  to  send 
only  one  back  to  us.  So  we  lose  one  in  the 
process  and  it  would  make  it  very  difficult. 

I  think  the  only  way  we  are  going  to  get 
these  people  is  through  more  advertising  or 
perhaps  through  community  groups  and  so  on. 
They  might  know  who  the  senior  citizens  are 
in  their  areas— the  Golden  Age  clubs  or  senior 
citizens'  clubs  or  those  groups  that  assist 
them.  They  could  be  very  helpful  in  locating 
those  who  have  not  at  the  moment  filed  for 


their  property  tax  grants.  I  do  not  see  any 
other  way  at  the  moment.  We  will  certainly 
look  into  it  and  see  if  there  is  a  way  we  can 
do  it.  I,  as  much  as  you,  want  to  see  everyone 
who  is  eligible  apply  for  it.  They  are  entitled 
to  it  and  I  would  like  to  see  them  get  it,  so 
we  will  do  everything  we  can. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  I  understand.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I  would  like  to  ask  a  last  question.  Why 
is  the  minister  sending  two  applications  for 
families?  How  difficult  is  it  for  him  to  get  a 
list  of  those  receiving  old  age  security  and 
mail  out  the  application  to  them?  Surely  he 
must  have  a  list  of  those  who  are  receiving 
old  age  security.  I  really  do  not  understand 
why  he  is  sending  out  two  applications  when 
we  can  easily  reach  the  senior  citizens  who 
are  in  receipt  of  old  age  security.  Will  the 
minister  please  explain  why  he  is  sending  out 
two  applications  and  why  he  does  not  use 
the  general  list  of  those  receiving  old  age 
security?  Why  does  he  not  mail  just  one 
application  so  at  least  he  can  follow  the  num- 
ber of  people  filling  out  the  application  and 
those  who  do  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  is  our  problem.  We 
do  use  the  old  age  security  list  the  federal 
people  supply  us  with  but  that  list  does  not 
match  up  husband  and  wife.  Thus  we  have 
no  way  of  knowing  who  is  married  to  whom 
when  we  get  the  list.  The  only  way  we  can 
be  sure  to  cover  everybody  is  to  send  an 
application  to  each  one  on  the  list.  The 
instruction  when  they  receive  them  is  that  if 
they  are  husband  and  wife,  they  need  only 
send  one  back.  It  is  because  the  computer 
tape  might  identify  them  as  being  married 
but  it  does  not  say  to  whom.  That  is  our 
problem. 

Mr.  Lupusella:  A  last  comment,  Mr.  Chair- 
man: I  hope  the  minister  will  be  able  to  find 
other  ways  of  reaching  them.  I  do  not  have 
alternative  ideas  at  this  point  but  I  hope  he 
will  analyse  the  problem  and  will  find  a  way 
of  reaching  everybody. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Certainly  we  will  do  our 
very  best. 

Mr.  Worton:  Mr.  Chairman,  can  the  min- 
ister say  if  during  the  past  seven  years  of  the 
operation  of  the  tax  credit  through  the  income 
tax  there  have  been  any  studies  done  to 
indicate  how  a  return  of  this  rebate  could  be 
made  with  fewer  problems?  In  other  words, 
the  government  actually  is  giving  money  back 
to  people  which  it  has  collected.  Is  there  no 
simpler  method?  My  feeling  in  dealing  with 
people  is  that  regardless  of  age,  they  seem  to 
freeze  when  they  see  a  cross  to  put  here  or  a 
mark  to  put  there  or  a  figure  to  put  here. 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


5005 


Have  any  alternative  programs  been  put  forth 
to  see  if  there  is  a  simpler  method? 

The  other  thing  I  would  like  to  raise,  does 
the  minister  feel  there  is  any  income  level 
where  it  could  be  cut  off  so  that  some  of 
those  with  smaller  pensions  or  those  with  dis- 
abled pensions  could  be  helped?  The  federal 
government  has  about  an  $18,000  cutoff,  I 
think,  where  family  benefits  are  concerned. 
The  Treasurer  was  well  intentioned  when  he 
said  all  of  these  have  contributed  to  it  and 
everybody  should  qualify.  But  I  think  you 
and  I  know  it  is  still  only  money.  It  is  the 
medium  of  exchange. 

If  some  of  that  money  could  be  put  to  the 
benefit  of  people  with  social  service  incomes 
or  disablement  pensions,  it  would  be  of  far 
greater  assistance  than  giving  it  to  a  number 
of  people  who  really  don't  need  it.  You  must 
have  some  idea  of  that  number— whether  it  is 
10  per  cent  or  15  per  cent  or  20  per  cent— in 
an  income  bracket  of  $10,000  or  more. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  did 
look  at  various  ways  and  means  of  administra- 
tion, prior  to  implementing  this  program.  My 
instructions  to  my  staff  at  the  time  the  de- 
cision was  taken  to  implement  this  program 
were  to  bring  in  as  simple  a  program  as 
possible,  bearing  in  mind  that  we  were  deal- 
ing with  senior  citizens  in  the  province  and 
that  some  of  them  would  have  great  difficulty 
in  filling  out  forms.  The  member  is  quite 
right.  Some  of  them  do  have  a  real  problem. 

We  did  bring  out  a  form  we  feel  is  almost  as 
simple  as  we  can  make  it  and  still  have  some 
check  on  what  is  going  on.  We  are  responsible 
to  the  provincial  auditor  and  to  the  public 
accounts  committee  of  this  Legislature  for  the 
proper  handling  of  money,  whether  we  bring 
it  in  or  send  it  out.  There  is  certain  informa- 
tion we  really  have  to  have  in  order  to  justify 
the  payment.  I  think  the  form  we  have  is 
about  as  simple  as  we  can  make  it. 

One  of  the  things  that  disturbed  me  at  the 
time  I  first  saw  the  form  was  the  request  for 
the  assessment  number.  That  is  why,  if  the 
member  has  seen  the  instruction  sheet,  we 
have  not  asked  for  it  this  year.  We  say,  "If 
you  have  it,  please  give  it  to  us;  if  not,  save 
it  and  put  it  on  next  year's  return." 

The  reason  we  want  that  is  so  we  don't 
have  to  bother  anybody.  If  we  want  to  do  an 
audit,  we  can  call  the  municipality;  we  can 
get  the  mill  rate.  We  already  have  the  assess- 


ment on  file;  we  can  do  an  audit  to  find  out  if 
they  are  really  putting  in  the  right  amount  of 
tax.  It  prevents  us  from  having  to  ask  them 
for  tax  receipts.  We  put  that  number  in  to 
simplify  the  procedure,  yet  that  is  a  burden 
to  some  people.  When  many  people  get  the 
assessment  notice,  it  is  gone.  That  is  why  I 
instructed  staff  not  to  press  this  year  for  the 
number  but  to  ask  people  to  be  sure  to  save 
it  for  next  year's  return.  That  is  the  reason 
that  is  there. 

If  the  member  goes  down  the  application, 
he  will  find  there  is  a  good  reason  for  every- 
thing on  it  to  be  there.  We  do  have  to  have 
enough  reliable  information  on  those  forms 
to  satisfy  the  provincial  auditor  and  to  satisfy 
the  public  accounts  committee  of  this  Legis- 
lature. We  did  look  at  various  ways  of  imple- 
menting this.  But  basically,  to  keep  it  very 
simple,  we  had  to— not  only  for  that  reason  but 
for  others— eliminate  income.  That  leads  into 
the  member's  second  question. 

In  the  Ministry  of  Revenue,  we  do  not  have 
the  income  of  individuals.  That  is  filed  with 
the  federal  people.  As  long  as  they  were 
administering  the  program,  they  had  that  in- 
formation at  their  fingertips,  because  the 
people  filed  an  income  tax  return  at  the  same 
time  as  they  made  the  application.  Anything 
dealing  with  income,  any  adjustments  we 
would  make  that  would  require  us  to  know 
what  the  income  of  the  person  is,  would  be 
a  very  difficult  thing  for  us  to  do.  We  would 
have  to  ask  them  for  their  personal  income, 
and  if  we  wanted  to  audit  we  would  have  to 
go  back  to  the  federal  people  to  find  out 
whether  in  fact  that  was  what  their  income 
was. 

Mr.  Worton:  Unless  you  establish  a  figure 
of  $20,000  or  $18,000? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes,  but  how  do  we  prove 
that  is  what  they  made?  That  is  the  problem. 
We  don't  have  that  information  on  our  files 
any  more.  That  is  one  advantage  of  it  being 
done  by  the  federal  government.  When  they 
were  doing  it,  they  had  those  kinds  of  figures 
at  their  disposal  and  they  could  easily  verify 
income  as  far  as  the  application  was  con- 
cerned. 

Vote  803  agreed  to. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  com- 
mittee of  supply  reported  certain  resolutions. 

The  House  adjourned  at  1  p.m. 


5006 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  4990) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

HOMES  FOR  FORMER 
PSYCHIATRIC  PATIENTS 

285.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  minister  list 
the  rest  homes  and  boarding  houses  to  which 
discharged  psychiatric  patients  are  referred? 
(Tabled  October  9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  It  is  not  a  ministry 
policy  to  discharge  persons  from  our  psychi- 
atric hospitals  to  boarding  homes  or  rest 
homes.  We  recognize  that  persons  being  dis- 
charged often  require  assistance  to  locate 
suitable  accommodation,  and  as  such  en- 
deavour to  provide  that  assistance.  In  doing 
so  we  elicit  the  help  of  appropriate  social 
service  agencies  in  the  person's  community. 
These  agencies  provide  information  regard- 
ing all  forms  of  housing,  and  offer  several 
alternatives  to  individuals. 

UNLICENSED  PRACTITIONERS 

286.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  minister 
provide  the  number  of  "unlicensed  prac- 
titioners" at  work  in  Ontario  psychiatric 
hospitals?   (Tabled  October  9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  There  are  no  "un- 
licensed practitioners"  at  work  in  Ontario 
psychiatric   hospitals. 

PHYSICIANS'  QUALIFICATIONS 

287.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  minister 
provide  a  breakdown  of  physicians'  qualifica- 
tions in  psychiatric  hospitals?  (Tabled  Oc- 
tober 9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  The  breakdown  of 
physician  qualifications  in  psychiatric  hos- 
pitals can  be  best  addressed  by  referring  to 
three  specific  categories. 

First,  there  are  those  practitioners  who  are 
certified  in  the  specialty  of  psychiatry  and 
who  have  their  Royal  College  fellowship  in 
psychiatry  (FRCP(C))  and  who  have  ob- 
tained their  licentiate  of  the  Medical  Coun- 
cil of  Canada  (LMCC). 

Second,  there  are  those  practitioners  with 
a  hospital  practice  licence,  who  may  also 
have  their  Royal  College  fellowship  in 
psychiatry  but  have  not  yet  obtained  their 
licentiate  of  the  Medical  Council  of  Canada. 
These  individuals  are  on  the  special  registry 
and  may  only  practice  in  a  hospital  setting. 


Finally,  there  are  those  who  are  general 
practitioners  who  have  training  in  psychiatry 
but  who  have  not  obtained  either  their 
FRCP(C)  or  their  LMCC. 

INVOLUNTARY    ADMISSIONS 

288.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  minister 
identify  the  procedure  used  to  notify  rela- 
tives in  case  of  involuntary  admission  to 
psychiatric  care?  (Tabled  October  9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Part  of  the  normal 
admission  process  is  to  contact  relatives 
wherever  possible,  to  notify  them  of  the  ad- 
mission and  to  obtain  background  history.  In 
most  instances  the  relatives  are  invited  to 
visit  the  centre  to  meet  the  attending  psychi- 
atrist and  primary  therapist  for  a  discussion 
of  the  presenting  problems  and  to  initiate 
plans   for  the  post-hospitalization  period. 

The  individual's  competence  to  make  a 
decision  with  regard  to  release  of  informa- 
tion, and  notification  of  relatives,  is  an  area 
that  is  assessed  prior  to  the  above  action 
being  taken.  Needless  to  say,  the  wishes  of 
the  competent  patient  must  govern  any  noti- 
fication that  the  hospital  makes  to  members 
of  the  family. 

LEGAL  AID 

306.  Mr.  Warner:  1.  Will  the  Attorney 
General  table,  for  each  of  the  last  12  months 
and  for  each  of  the  provincial  courts  at  which 
duty  counsel  are  stationed:  (i)  the  number 
of  accused  persons  interviewed;  (ii)  the 
number  represented  by  duty  counsel  in:  (a) 
bail  hearings,  (b)  appearances,  and  (c)  trials; 
(iii)  the  number  represented  in  trials  who 
plead  guilty  and  the  number  who  plead 
not  guilty?  2.  Will  the  minister  table, 
for  each  of  the  last  12  months  and  for  the 
York,  Windsor,  Ottawa,  Hamilton,  London, 
Sudbury  and  Thunder  Bay  areas  of  the 
Ontario  legal  aid  plan,  information  on  the 
average  length  of  time  taken  to  process  legal 
aid  claims  by  persons  accused  of  criminal 
offences  who  are:  (i)  remanded  in  custody, 
and  (ii)  on  bail?  3.  Will  the  minister  table 
information,  for  each  of  the  last  12  months 
but  for  the  York  region  of  the  Ontario  legal 
aid  plan  only,  on  the  numbers  of:  (i)  persons 
accused  of  criminal  offences;  and  (ii)  persons 
seeking  assistance  in  connection  with  civil 
disputes  of  all  kinds,  who:  (a)  made  in- 
quiries in  person;    (b)   were  given  summary 


DECEMBER  5,  1980 


5007 


legal  advice;  (c)  were  referred  to  other 
agencies;  (d)  made  formal  applications  for 
a  legal  aid  certificate;  (e)  were  awarded  such 
certificates;  (f)  were  refused  such  certifi- 
cates; and  (g)  subsequently  had  such  cer- 
tificates withdrawn  or  discontinued?  Will  the 
minister  also  provide  this  information  in  per- 
centage terms?  (Tabled  October  10,  1980.) 
See  sessional  paper  317. 

HALTON  REGIONAL  LANDFILL  SITE 

400.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  criteria  are  under 
consideration  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Environ- 
ment related  to  the  possible  exemption  of 
the  proposed  Halton  regional  landfill  site 
from  the  requirements  of  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act,  1975.  Why  would  the  min- 
ister give  any  consideration  to  such  an  ex- 
emption? When  does  the  minister  expect  to 
announce  that  the  exemption  will  not  be 
granted?  (Tabled  November  18,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  question  appears 
to  confuse  a  decision  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  is  required  to  make  under 
section  35  of  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Act,  1975,  with  an  exemption  order  made 
under  section  30  of  the  act  or  an  exempting 
regulation  made  under  section  41  of  the  act. 
A  decision  will  be  made  under  section  35 
very  soon  and  it  will  be  announced  forthwith 
after  it  is  made.  The  answers  to  the  three 
parts  of  the  question  are  as  follows: 

1.  The  criteria  under  consideration  are 
those  raised  in  the  over  80  written  sub- 
missions made  by  the  parties  to  the  proposed 
hearing  and  other  interested'  parties; 

2.  The  minister  is  required  to  do  so  by  an 
order  of  the  divisional  court  requested  by  the 
town  of  Milton  and  by  section  35  of  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act;  and 

3.  This  question  assumes  that  a  particular 
decision  will  be  made  and  therefore  cannot 
be  answered. 

BAYCOAT  PLANT  EMISSIONS 

401.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  is  the  nature  and 
amount  of  airborne  emissions  from  the  Bay- 
coat  Limited  plant  located  on  Lanark  Street 
in  Hamilton?  (Tabled  November  28,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Baycoat  emits  a  total 
of  280,000  cfm  of  oven  exhaust  from  its  Nos. 
1,  2  and  3  paint  lines.  The  exhaust  contains 
1,750  to  8,100  ppm  hydrocarbons  (60  per 
cent  ketones,  alcohols  and  esters  and  40  per 
cent  aromatic  solvents).  The  oven  exhaust 
from  No.  4  line  is  completely  oxidized/in- 
cinerated. 


STORAGE  AND  TRANSPORTATION 
OF  PESTICIDES 

404.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  quantity  of  2,4,5- 
T  and  2,4,5-TP  is  stored  in  Ontario?  How 
has  this  quantity  fluctuated  during  the  last 
12  months?  What  controls  exist  for  the  trans- 
portation of  2,4,5-T  and  2,4,5-TP  across 
Ontario's  provincial  and  international  bound- 
aries? (Tabled  November   18,   1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  quantities  of 
formulated  products  held  by  vendors  (whole- 
sale, retail  class  one  and  two),  agencies  and 
exterminators  throughout  Ontario  are  listed 
in  the  appended  table.  A  total  of  21,728 
gallons  of  formulated  products  is  currently 
being  stored  in  either  one-,  five-  or  45-gallon 
drums. 

In  addition  Ciba-Geigy  Canada  Limited 
and  Niagara  Chemical  have  reported  that 
they  hold  a  total  of  560  pounds  of  2,4,5-T 
acid  (technical)  and  3,550  pounds  of 
2,4,5-T  isooctyl  ester   (raw  material). 

The  reduction  over  the  past  year  has  been 
approximately  5,000  gallons  by  MNR  and 
Hydro  and  about  62,000  pounds  of  technical 
material  by  Pfizer  C.  and  G.  Inc.  By  sales 
outside  the  province,  Ontario  Hydro  has 
greatly  reduced  its  stocks  of  2,4,5-T,  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  has  eliminated 
its  entire  stock  and  Pfizer  C.  and  G.  Inc.  has 
eliminated  its  entire  technical  stock. 

In  Ontario  the  intra-provincial  transporta- 
tion by  road  of  2,4,5-T  and  2,4,5-TP  are 
regulated  by  the  Pesticides  Act,  1973.  The 
legislation  requires  that  pesticides  be  secured 
in  a  manner  sufficient  to  prevent  their  escape 
or  discharge  from  transporting  vehicles. 
Further,  it  is  mandatory  that  schedule  two 
products,  which  include  these  herbicides, 
shall  not  be  transported  together  with  food 
or  drink  intended  for  human  or  animal  con- 
sumption, household  furnishings,  toiletries, 
clothes,  bedding  or  similar  commodities, 
unless  separated  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
prevent  contamination.  In  addition,  it  is  re- 
quired that  vehicles  carrying  bulk  shipments 
of  pesticides  shall  bear  placards  warning  of 
the  presence  of  pesticides. 

In  addition,  the  movement  of  any  pesti- 
cides in  Canada  whether  intra-  or  interpro- 
vincially  or  internationally,  fall  within  the 
federal  Pest  Control  Products  Act,  1969  and 
the  newly  enacted  Transportation  of  Danger- 
ous Goods  Act,  1980.  The  federal  require- 
ments complement  the  existing  provincial 
statutes. 

Total  quantity  of  formulated  products  held 
by  vendors,  agencies  and  exterminators: 


5008 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


QUANTITIES 

( gallons ) 
2,4,5-T    2,4,5-TP    Mixtures*    Total 

Vendors     2,431         1,725        9,696       13,852 

Ontario 

Hydro       180  490  30  700 

MTC  -  -         5,200         5,200 

MNR  0 

Extermi- 
nators**   123  -         1,853         1,976 

Total  2,734        2,215       16,779      21,728 

'*  Represents  1:1  and  2:1  mixtures  of  2,4-D/ 
2,4,5-T 
**  Includes  operators  and  custom  sprayers 

PAYMENTS  TO  CONSULTANTS 

406.  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Minister 
of  Government  Services  advise  the  House, 
re:  the  two  contracts  to  the  consulting  firm 
of  H.  Sutcliffe,  what  were  the  original  terms 
of  the  contract?  What  was  the  original  con- 
tract price?  What  were  the  expanded  terms 
of  these  two  contracts?  How  much  additional 
money  was  paid  over  and  above  the  original 
contract?  (Tabled  November  21,   1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Contract  1:  This 
contract  awarded  June  27,  1979,  was  for  a 
legal  survey  and  land  titles  expropriation  plan 
for  the  north  half  of  lot  12,  concession  one, 
township  of  Burt,  in  the  district  of  Timis- 
kaming.  The  original  estimate  for  this  work 
was  $7,500.  The  project  proved  more  difficult 


than  anticipated  because  of  the  lack  of  any 
monumentation,  the  destruction  of  original 
blazes  and  flooding  along  the  Blanche  River. 
Therefore,  additional  payments  of  $3,500 
were  authorized. 

Contract  2:  This  contract  awarded  October 
12,  1979,  was  for  a  legal  survey  and  land 
titles  expropriation  plan  for  part  of  lot  11, 
concession  one,  township  of  Burt,  in  the  dis- 
trict of  Timiskaming.  The  original  estimate 
for  this  work  was  $1,500.  Access  to  the  site 
was  hampered  because  the  river  was  blocked 
by  timber  and  the  configuration  of  the  river 
required  the  inclusion  of  more  territory  on 
the  plan  than  had  been  anticipated.  There- 
fore additional  payments  of  $236  were 
authorized. 

408.  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Minister 
of  Community  and  Social  Services  please 
provide  the  terms  of  reference  and  the 
original  agreed  upon  price  for  the  consultant, 
Bailey  and  Rose?  Please  provide  the  ex- 
panded or  changed  contract  and  the  amount 
of  additional  funds  that  was  paid  to  Bailey 
and  Rose?  (Tabled  November  21,  1980.) 

See   sessional  paper   318. 

INTERIM  ANSWER 

On  question  410  by  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid,  Hon. 
Mr.  McCague  provided  the  following  interim 
answer:  It  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  a 
response  prior  to  the  end  of  the  current 
legislative  session. 


DECEMBER  5,  1980  5009 


CONTENTS 


Friday,  December  5,  1980 

Wine   content  legislation,  statement  by   Mr.   Drea 4977 

Death  of  Portuguese  Prime  Minister:  Mr.  Wells,  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy  4977 

Interest  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:   Mr.   S.   Smith   4978 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.   Parrott:    Mr.   S.    Smith,   Mr.   Cassidy,   Mr. 

G.   I.  Miller,  Mr.  Isaacs   4979 

Plant   closures    and   termination   entitlements,   questions    of   Mr.   Elgie:    Mr.    Cassidy, 

Mr.    Swart 4980 

Treatment    of    handicapped    patients,    questions    of    Mrs.    Birch:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr. 

McClellan 4981 

Dioxin  testing,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Kerrio,  Mr.  Isaacs,  Mr.  Gaunt  4982 

Exemptions  from  Mining  Act,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Foulds  4984 

Housing   Authority   costs,    questions    of   Mr.    Bennett:    Mrs.    Campbell,    Mr.    Cassidy, 

Mr.    S.    Smith 4984 

Canada  Metal  plant,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Renwick  4985 

Guelph  textile  firm,  question  of  Mr.  Grossman:   Mr.  Worton  4986 

Bendix  Corporation,  question  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  B.  Newman  4986 

Environmental  hearings,  questions  of  Mr.   Parrott:   Mr.   McGuigan   4987 

Flood  disaster  relief,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:   Mr.  Philip   4988 

Housing  construction,  question  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Epp  4988 

Report,  standing  committee  on  resources  development:   Mr.  Villeneuve 4989 

Motions  re  committee  meetings,  Mr.   Wells,  agreed  to   4989 

Wine  Content  Amendment  Act,  Bill  215,  Mr.  Drea,  first  reading 4989 

Farm  Products  Payments  Amendment  Act,  Bill  216,  Mr.  Henderson,  first  reading  ....  4989 

Highway  Traffic  Amendment  Act,  Bill  217,  Mr.  Foulds,  first  reading  4989 

Tabling  answers   to   questions   285-288,   306,   400,   401,   404,   406,   408   and   410   on 

Notice   Paper:    Mr.   Wells 4990 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Revenue,  Mr.  Maeck,  continued 4990 

Adjournment    5005 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Homes  for  former  psychiatric  patients,  question  of  Mr.   Timbrell:   Mr.   Breaugh  5006 

Unlicensed  practitioners,  question  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Breaugh  5006 

Physicians'  qualifications,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:   Mr.  Breaugh  5006 

Involuntary  admissions,  question  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Breaugh  5006 

Legal  aid,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:   Mr.  Warner  5006 

Halton  regional  landfill  site,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs 5007 

Baycoat  plant  emissions,  question  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs  5007 

Storage   and  transportation   of  pesticides,   questions    of  Mr.   Parrott:    Mr.    Isaacs  5007 

Payments  to  consultants,  questions  of  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  5008 

Interim   answer:   Mr.   McCague 5008 


5010  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bennett,  Hon.  C.;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Birch,  Hon.  M.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development  (Scarborough  East  PC) 

Brunelle,  Hon.  R.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  Development  (Cochrane  North  PC) 

Bryd'en,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L) 

Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C.;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Lupusella,  A.  (Dovercourt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputy  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

McGuigan,  J.  (Kent-Elgin  L) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy  and  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 

Worton,  H.  (Wellington  South  L) 


No.  134 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Monday,  December  8,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back. 

An  alphabetical  list  of  members  of  the  Legislature  of  Ontario,  together  with  lists  of 
members  of  the  executive  council,  the  parliamentary  assistants  and  the  members  of  all  standing 
and  select  committees,  also  appears  at  the  back  as  an  appendix. 

Reference  to  a  cumulative  index  of  previous  issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  ^SB^10 


5013 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 
Prayers. 
STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 
DEATH  OF  DON  O'HEARN 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  with 
deep  regret  and1  a  sense  of  profound  per- 
sonal loss  that  I  learned  earlier  today  of  the 
death  of  Donald  O'Hearn,  a  gentleman  and 
a  journalist. 

Donald  was  associated  with  Queen's  Park 
for  more  than  four  decades,  earning  the 
reputation  of  a  distinguished  political  com- 
mentator. He  was  an  observer  but  he  was 
also— and  I  speak  personally  here— a  partici- 
pant in  many  respects.  Through  the  years 
Premiers,  Leaders  of  the  Opposition,  mem- 
bers of  the  House,  civil  servants  and  press 
gallery  colleagues  have  turned  to  Don  as 
a  confidant,  respectful  of  his  wit  and  wis- 
dom, his  knowledge  and  his  insight.  To  the 
thousands  of  faithful  readers  across  Ontario, 
Don's  name  was  synonymous  with  Queen's 
Park. 

For  those  of  us  fortunate  enough  to  know 
him  personally,  he  will  always  be  remem- 
bered as  an  independent  and  fiercely  proud 
individual.  For  us,  too,  the  familiar  figure, 
the  brown  fedora  always  at  the  correct 
angle,  on  occasion  the  kid  gloves  and 
umbrella  in  hand,  was  very  much  a  part  of 
Queen's  Park. 

Don  preferred  his  earlier  days  here  when 
fife  was  somewhat  less  hectic  and  there  was 
more  time  to  devote  to  forming  the  kind  of 
respect  and  friendships  that  survive  partisan- 
ship and  heated  debate.  Don  used  to  say 
of  the  Legislature  in  recent  years,  "The 
fun  has  gone  out  of  the  place,"  and  perhaps 
there  are  some  days  when  some  of  us  might 
agree  with  that.  Perhaps  we  could  all  take 
a  lesson  from  our  predecessors  who  knew 
somewhat  better  than  us  when  to  put  our 
differences  aside  and  when  to  stop  taking 
ourselves  quite  as  seriously  as  we  do  on 
some  occasions. 

He  was  every  inch  a  newspaperman,  often 
impatient  with  change  brought  about  by  the 
demands  of  electronic  journalism.  Don  set 
some  difficult  standards  and  from  among  his 


Monday,  December  8,  1980 

peers  only  those  who  measured  up  qualified 
for  his  respect  and  friendship.  Don  O'Hearn 
has  left  behind  enough  stories  and  legends 
to  fill  a  very  large  book.  It  is  very  sad 
that  he  did  not  write  his  memoirs,  because 
he  was  somewhat  of  a  legend  himself.  In 
the  retelling  of  stories  by  colleagues  from 
across  Canada  who  mourn  his  loss,  we  will 
all  be  reminded  that  he  worked  hard  and 
played  hard.  In  many  ways,  Don  was  the 
last  of  an  era  in  which  he  and  his  col- 
leagues like  Jack  Pethick  and  Roy  Green- 
away  left  an  indelible  mark  and  were  as 
colourful  and  well  known  as  the  people 
they  wrote  about. 

Don  was  a  wise  man  who  never  hesitated 
to  share  his  wisdom  with  others,  particu- 
larly young  reporters  and  neophyte  politi- 
cians taking  their  first  steps  through  the 
maze  of  Queen's  Park.  I  can  attest  to  this 
personally  as  can,  I  am  sure,  many  other 
current  members  of  the  Legislature. 

To  his  family  I  take  this  opportunity  to 
extend,  on  my  behalf  and  on  behalf  of  his 
many  friends  and  colleagues  at  Queen's 
Park,  our  very  deepest  sympathy  at  this 
very  sad  time.  Don  O'Hearn  will  be  missed. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  colleagues 
in  the  Liberal  Party  and  I  want  to  join  in 
the  expressions  of  sympathy  put  before  the 
House  by  the  Premier.  We  are  very  sad- 
dened at  the  news  of  Don  O'Hearn's  death. 
He  has  been  a  fixture  in  the  press  gallery 
and  in  this  building  and  in  politics  for  many 
years.  Probably  he  was  well  known  and 
respected  even  before  the  Premier  was 
elected.   His  record  does   go  back. 

He  has  not  always  been  exactly  prescient 
in  his  predictions.  I  recall  at  the  beginning 
of  1962,  as  was  his  custom,  he  wrote  an 
article  picking  out  the  man  of  the  year.  The 
choice  was  difficult  in  1962.  He  had  to  pick 
two,  Bob  Macaulay  and  Bob  Nixon.  I  think 
probably  in  his  view  we  were  both  some- 
what disappointments,  but  I  can  recall  his 
active  interest  not  only  in  reporting  politics 
but   also   in   politics   itself. 

We  knew  on  this  side  that  he  had  been 
very  ill  during  the  last  few  weeks.  I  know 
that  many  of  his  old  friends  were  able  to 
chat   with  him   even,   I    guess,   just  a  week 


5014 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ago.  He  was  able  to  respond  with  much  of 
his  vigour  and  knowledge  of  the  current 
scene.  He  will  certainly  be  missed.  I  am  not 
sure  I  agree  entirely  with  the  Premier,  who 
was  quoting  Don,  in  his  absence,  as  saying 
perhaps  it  wasn't  as  much  fun  around  here 
as  it  was.  I  think  there  is  a  tendency  for 
people,  as  they  grow  older,  to  think  things 
perhaps  are  less  fun.  It  is  sad  and  difficult 
to  realize  that  happens  when  really  the 
procedure  here  and,  I  suppose,  the  fun,  if 
you  want  to  call  it  that,  goes  forward.  Don 
would  be  the  very  best  person  to  observe 
that  and  write  about  it  with  feeling,  pre- 
science and  humour.  He  certainly  will  be 
missed,  and  we  will  miss  him. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  As  a  former  newspaperman, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  join  in  the  comments 
made  both  by  the  Premier  and  the  for- 
mer leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  and  extend 
my  condolences  and  the  condolences  of  the 
New  Democrats  to  Mr.  O'Hearn's  family.  I 
say,  "as  a  former  newspaperman,"  because 
Don  O'Hearn  was  one  of  a  vanishing  breed 
now  of  parliamentary  reporters,  both  in  this 
parliament  and  in  the  Parliament  of  Can- 
ada, who  stuck  to  their  craft  as  a  lifetime 
career,  rather  than  holding  to  it  only  for  a 
period  of  years  before  going  on  into  other 
metiers,  such  as  public  relations  or,  dare  I 
say,  such  as  politics. 

I  think  the  nation  and  the  province  is  the 
poorer  for  not  having  had  more  newspaper- 
men who  continued  to  hold  to  that  avoca- 
tion, to  that  career  for  a  lifetime,  for  being 
deprived  of  the  kind  of  wisdom,  knowledge 
and  sense  of  continuity  of  events  which 
only  comes  when  a  person  stays  in  the 
newspaper  field  for  a  lengthy  period  of  time 
as  Don  O'Hearn  did. 

In  his  latter  years,  when  as  a  member  I 
got  to  know  Don  O'Hearn  for  the  last  eight 
or  nine  years,  he  continued  to  have  a  strong 
influence  in  portraying  what  happened  in 
this  Legislature,  particularly  in  the  smaller 
communities  of  Ontario  which  carried  his 
column  through  the  Thomson  press.  He  was 
here  when  my  colleague  the  member  for 
York  South  (Mr.  MacDonald),  who  had  not 
yet  been  elected  to  this  Legislature,  was 
working  in  the  national  office  of  the  Co- 
operative Commonwealth  Federation.  Don 
O'Hearn  began  his  lifetime  career  in  this 
Legislature  back  in  the  1940s  and  had  that 
continuity  which  too  many  of  us,  too  often 
don't  have. 
2:10  pan. 

I  would  like  to  say  to  some  of  the 
members  of  the  gallery  that  I  hope  one  or 
two  of  them  will  see  fit  to  stick  around  to 


do  to  the  Ontario  Legislature  what  Don 
O'Hearn  attempted  to  do  and  that  men  like 
Charlie  Lynch  or  Bill  Wilson  have  done 
in  Parliament  at  the  national  level.  It  is  an 
honourable  calling.  It  is  a  craft  and  a  call- 
ing which  Don  O'Hearn  fulfilled  with  dedi- 
cation, with  zeal,  with  vigour,  with  a  sense 
of  fun.  He  always  thought  it  was  important 
and  he  was  right  to  do  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  not 
ask  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party 
to  identify  those  journalists  in  the  gallery 
that  he  would  like  to  see  stay  here  for  some 
35  or  40  years.  I  am  sure  one  of  them  is 
the  distinguished  columnist  for  the  Toronto 
Sun. 

I  assure  the  House  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  that  anything  I  might  say  would  not 
reflect  my  own  personal  point  of  view.  I 
really  do  have  fun  most  days  of  the  week 
in  this  Legislative  Assembly,  and  I  want  to 
make  that  clear. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  was  detecting  a  certain 
deterioration. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  no.  Greying  of  the 
hair  a  little  bit,  but  intellectual  deteriora- 
tion I  have  not  yet  experienced. 

Mr.  Nixon:  No.  It  is  the  things  that  the 
Premier  can't  help  that  I  worry  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  understand  that,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  the  next  statement  does  give 
me  a  certain  sense  of  satisfaction  and  I 
know  that  will  be  disturbing  to  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith)  and  some 
members  opposite. 

URBAN   TRANSPORTATION 
DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  take  a  few  moments  to  comment  on 
Saturday's  announcement  out  of  Vancouver- 
it  was  early  Saturday  morning  and  some  of 
us  left  there  late  Friday— by  the  Minister  of 
Municipal  Affairs,  Mr.  William  Vander  Zalm 
that  British  Columbia's  Urban  Transit  Au- 
thority has  been  given  the  green  light  to 
proceed  immediately  with  the  design  and 
construction  of  a  22.4-kilometre,  advanced 
light  rapid  transit  system  for  greater  Van- 
couver. The  cost  to  the  BC  government  will 
be,  as  reported,  $650  million,  a  cost  to  be 
shared  between  the  BC  government,  66  2/3, 
and  the  municipalities,  33  1/3. 

The  Ontario  Urban  Transportation  Devel- 
opment Corporation  will  provide  the  tech- 
nology and  assume  responsibility  for  the  im- 
plementation of  the  project  as  prime  con- 
tractor. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5015 


I  have  not  included  in  my  statement  some 
of  the  rhetoric  used  by  some  members  oppo- 
site in  days  gone  by.  I  have  not  even  got 
a  phrase  in  here  to  the  Leader  of  the  Oppo- 
sition, saying,  "I  told  you  so."  That  is  not 
in  my  statement. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  If  the  Premier  keeps  trying, 
he's   got  to   do  something  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  to  say  to  the 
member  for  Niagara  Falls  it  is  just  one  other 
clear  indication  of  the  foresight,  the  wisdom, 
the  logic  and  the  intelligence  of  the  existing 
government  and  why  we  will  be  here  for 
another  10  years  in  spite  of  what  the  people 
opposite  do. 

This,  I  am  sure  all  members  will  agree— 
I  can  see  the  delight  opposite— is  a  most  im- 
portant and  encouraging  decision;  it  is  a 
decision  that  justifies  the  faith  this  govern- 
ment has  maintained  in  the  intermediate- 
capacity  transit  system  development  pro- 
gram. 

Our  aim  has  been  to  promote  not  just  a 
superior  technology  that  would  satisfy  the 
immediate  future  requirements  of  urban 
transit  in  Canada  but  also  an  industry  in  this 
country  that  would  provide  skilled  employ- 
ment opportunities  and  attract  manufactur- 
ing investment  dollars,  as  well  as  providing 
an  affordable,  innovative,  efficient  alterna- 
tive to  rapid  transit  for  cities  of  all  sizes. 

Mr.  Martel:  Socialism  is  great,  isn't  it? 
Too  bad  the  Premier  wouldn't  get  a  little 
more  involved. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  to  say  this  to  those 
in  the  New  Democratic  Party:  They  were 
not  quite  as  critical  in  the  development  of 
this  as  others,  but  I  can  recall  a  few  things 
said  by  that  party  too  with  respect  to  this. 

Mr.  Martel:  Now  if  we  could  get  some 
mining   equipment  for   Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  a  bad  cold  today; 
don't  interrupt  me. 

For  example,  in  the  greater  Vancouver 
region  this  technology— designated  as  ad- 
vanced light  rapid  transit,  or  ALRT— will 
provide  both  regional  and  downtown  rapid 
transit  along  routes  that  include  under- 
ground, some  at-grade  and  some  elevated 
alignments,  and  will  be  served  by  short, 
compact  trains,  powered  by  linear  induction 
motors  which  will  provide  fast,  quiet,  fre- 
quent, all-weather  transit  at  all  times  of  the 
day  or  of  the  night.  It  will  go  around  cor- 
ners, Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  am  waiting  for  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  to  find  his  way 
around  this  corner.  I  do  not  know  how  he 
is  going  to  do  it. 


Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  He  has  already  gone 
around   one   too   many. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  would  never  say  he  has 
been   around  the  bend. 

The  selection  of  Ontario's  ICTS  tech- 
nology by  the  BC  government  and  its  tran- 
sit agency  and  planners  leaves  no  doubt 
about  the  merit  of  this  technology  and  the 
value  of  this  government's  investment  in 
this  kind  of  industrial  development. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Why  the  money-back  guar- 
antee? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Just  wait. 

Mr.  Speaker,  further  proof  of  this  merit, 
if  it  is  still  needed,  is  the  fact  that  the 
American  federal  government's  Urban  Mass 
Transit  Administration  (UMTA)  undertook 
an  evaluation  of  UTDC's  capacity  to  supply 
and  deliver  equipment.  Such  an  evaluation 
is  a  prerequisite  to  bidding  for  any  major 
contracts  in  the  United  States.  It  was  a  30- 
day  evaluation;  it  was  prolonged,  detailed, 
exhaustive— I  could  hardly  stand  the  pres- 
sures—and the  UTDC  qualified  to  undertake 
prime  contract  responsibility  for  de'ivery  of 
complete  rapid  transit  systems.  As  a  result, 
we  are  currently  negotiating  with  Los  An- 
geles, Detroit  and  Miami  for  similar  sales 
of  similar  systems.  If  we  are  successful,  I 
will  be  delighted  to  take  the  House  leader 
of  the  Liberal  Party  with  me  to  either 
Miami,  Los  Angeles  or  Detroit  to  turn  the 
sod. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I've  had  these  offers  before. 
You  always  back  out.  You  never  deliver. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  This  is  an  offer  I  know 
he  will  accept. 

Mr.  Bradley:  Has  the  Social  Credit  bailed 
you  out  again? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  anybody  really  needs 
bailing  out,  it  is  the  member  for  St. 
Catharines.  He  should  just  wait  some  two 
months  from  now.  He  is  in  trouble.  I  am  even 
prepared  to  lay  a  wager. 

I  am  also  happy  to  say  that  this  first  com- 
mercial application  outside  of  Ontario  of  our 
transit  technology  is  also  evidence  of  its 
national  scope  involving,  as  it  does,  the  co- 
operation of  two  provincial  governments,  a 
west  coast  municipality  and  even  possibly 
the  federal  government,  which  recently  stated 
it  was  prepared  to  consider  participation  in 
the  Vancouver  project  as  an  industrial  de- 
velopment initiative.  To  this  end,  because 
there  will  be  joint  employment  benefits  re- 
sulting from  the  construction  and  assembly 
of  rolling  stock  and  operating  technologies, 
UTDC  and  the  BC  authority  will  work  out 
suitable  and  equitable  production  elements. 


5016 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  would  like  to  add  that  this  kind  of  co- 
operation underlines  that,  despite  political 
differences  which  all  too  often  dominate 
people's  thinking,  we  in  this  country  do  have 
a  real  and  working  spirit  of  Confederation. 

Perhaps  one  aspect  of  the  agreement  de- 
serves particular  attention  since  it  has  been 
a  featured  aspect  of  news  reports.  I  refer 
to  the  so-called  "money-back  guarantee." 
This  is,  in  fact,  a  $300-million  bond  that  will 
be  posted  by  the  government  as  a  guarantee 
that  the  trains  will  perform  reliably.  It  is,  in 
the  vernacular  of  the  trade,  very  simply  a 
performance  bond  such  as  is  sought  and 
given  on  all  these  undertakings.  Such  bonds, 
as  members  will  be  aware,  are  part  of  stan- 
dard business  practice  for  contracts  of  this 
type.  In  turn,  that  means  the  potential  for 
the  export  of  our  technology  and  the  growth 
of  a  national  industry  is  within  our  reach, 
and  that  means  jobs  and  investment,  as  I 
noted  earlier. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Hamilton  rapid  transit 
project,  which  was  authorized  earlier  this 
year,  is  proceeding.  If  the  regional  munic- 
ipality approves  the  design  and  the  routes 
now  under  study,  we  shall  be  able  to  move 
into  the  construction  stages  within  the  next 
12  months,  and  I  invite  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition,  and  one  of  the  members  opposite 
who  has  never  been  that  helpful,  to  join  me 
once  again,  he  in  his  role  as  Leader  of  the 
Opposition,  me  as  Premier  of  the  province, 
when  the  sod  or  whatever  is  turned  for  one 
of  these  systems,  in  Hamilton,  some  12 
months  from  now. 

I  hope  therefore,  the  day  is  not  far  away 
when  this  outstanding  example  of  Canadian 
knowhow,  development  and  technology  will 
be  in  place  in  both  the  east  and  west  of  this 
country  and  available  for  export  to  many 
other  nations  of  the  world. 
2:20  p.m. 

HEALTH  PROTECTION  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  table  today  a  discussion  paper  on  the 
proposed  Health  Protection  Act  for  the  infor- 
mation of  the  honourable  members.  This 
paper  is  being  circulated  to  local  boards  of 
health  and  municipalities  across  the  province. 
It  represents  the  second  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment of  a  new  act  to  replace  the  existing 
Public  Health  Act,  which  was  originally  writ- 
ten approximately  100  years  ago. 

The  proposed  Health  Protection  Act  also 
reflects  my  ministry's  policy  of  shifting  em- 
phasis from  acute  institutional  care  by  de- 
veloping health   care  delivery  strategies  fo- 


cused on  disease  prevention  and  other  pro- 
grams based  in  the  community. 

As  the  honourable  members  will  recall,  my 
staff  completed  the  first  stage  of  the  Health 
Protection  Act  project  earlier  this  year,  with 
the  development  of  a  package  of  core  public 
health  proposals  to  be  included  in  the  new 
act. 

Incorporating  these  core  programs  into 
legislation  not  only  will  provide  a  clear  legis- 
lative mandate  for  the  delivery  of  public 
health  services  in  the  province  but  also  will 
remove  many  of  the  existing  inequities  in 
program  delivery.  In  so  doing,  it  will  pro- 
vide access  for  all  Ontarians  to  what  public 
health  authorities  consider  to  be  a  basic  level 
of  service. 

Following  the  development  of  the  core 
proposals,  a  series  of  meetings  was  held 
across  the  province  to  introduce  the  concept 
to  local  municipalities  and  boards  of  health. 
These  meetings  were  held  in  Toronto,  Ottawa, 
London,  Hamilton,  Owen  Sound,  Trenton, 
Sudbury,  Timmins  and  Thunder  Bay.  All  the 
meetings  were  well-attended  and,  without 
exception,  representatives  of  municipal  au- 
thorities and  boards  of  health  members  en- 
dorsed the  concept  of  core  public  health  pro- 
grams. The  distribution  of  this  discussion 
paper  I  am  tabling  today  marks  another  step 
in  the  consultation  process  which  has  been  a 
vital  part  of  the  development  of  the  new 
public  health  legislation. 

{Following  consideration  of  the  discussion 
paper,  we  will  be  holding  a  conference  in 
late  January  with  local  municipal  representa- 
tives and  members  of  boards  of  health.  At 
that  meeting,  we  will  not  only  receive  their 
comments  on  the  discussion  paper  but  also 
discuss  in  detail  the  proposals  for  the  new 
Health  Protection  Act.  My  staff  will  then  be 
in  a  position  to  refine  these  proposals  in 
preparation  for  the  third  stage,  namely,  the 
introduction  of  the  new  bill  into  the  Legisla- 
ture which,  as  I  have  indicated1  on  a  number 
of  occasions,  is  planned  for  the  spring  session. 

MINISTRY  OF  HEALTH 
ANNOUNCEMENT 

Mr.  O'Neil:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  on  a  point 
of  privilege.  On  November  27  of  this  year, 
the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell)  visited 
my  riding  to  announce  the  expansion  of  the 
home  care  program  to  include  the  chroni- 
cally ill.  The  announcement  was  made  by 
him  at  the  Belleville  General  Hospital,  which 
is  in  my  riding,  and  the  announcement  con- 
cerned a  large  portion  of  my  riding  which  is 
in  Hastings  county. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5017 


The  announcement  reads:  "Belleville,  No- 
vember 27:  A  program  to  enable  the  chroni- 
cally ill  people  to  be  cared  for  at  home  will 
soon  be  expanded  in  the  counties  of  Hastings 
and  Prince  Edward.  The  program  was  an- 
nounced today  by  the  Health  Minister, 
Dennis  Timbrell,  Clarke  Rollins,  MPP  for 
Hastings-Peterborough,  and  James  Taylor, 
MPP  for  Prince  Edward-Lennox." 

I  would  like  to  point  out  to  the  minister 
that,  when  fellow  colleagues  of  his  visit  my 
riding,  they  usually  have  the  courtesy  and 
good  common  sense  to  notify  me.  They  are 
also  usually  aware  of  whose  riding  they  are 
in.  When  the  minister  uses  an  announcement 
such  as  this  to  play  politics  with  the  sick  and 
elderly  of  my  riding,  I  feel  it  is  a  real  slight 
to  the  people  of  Quinte  who  have  demo- 
cratically elected  me  as  their  representative- 
might  I  say  by  700  votes  in  1975  and  more 
than  7,000  in  1977. 

I  find  this  announcement  by  the  minister 
to  be  totally  lacking  in  judgement,  mislead- 
ing and  not  becoming  of  a  minister  of  this 
government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  thank 
the  honourable  member  for  adding  that  extra 
emphasis  to  the  announcement.  When  he 
joins  the  Progressive  Conservative  Party  and 
is  prepared  to  support  the  Ministry  of  Health, 
rather  than  always  trying  to  cut  it  down— at 
one  point  his  party  tried  to  slash  our  budget 
by  $50  million— then  I  will  add  the  member's 


STATEMENT  BY  LEADER 
OF  THE  OPPOSITION 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  privilege:  The  Attorney  General  (Mr.  Mc- 
Murtry)  has  a  bit  of  the  flu.  I  am  very  con- 
cerned. I  am  sure  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion will  either  want  to  apologize  for  or 
perhaps  alter  what  he  is  reported  to  have 
said  on  Friday  evening. 

I  will  just  quote  what  he  said;  I  am  not 
going  to  fuss  about  it.  Members  can  make 
whatever  determination  they  want.  He  said: 
"While  the  possibility  exists  that  the  docu- 
ments could  be  'laundered'  before  the  opposi- 
tion sees  them,  he  is  maintaining  a  scientific 
scepticism"— whatever  that  means— "and  won't 
'blame'  anyone  before  the  fact." 

I  am  not  objecting  to  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  already  having  made  up  his  own 
mind  on  this  situation.  However,  I  take 
issue  with  him  on  behalf  of  those  public 
servants  who  have  the  responsibility  for 
dealing  with  this  issue  that  is  before  the 
committee.  The  suggestion  by  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  that  these  documents  may 


be  laundered  before  they  reach  the  com- 
mittee is  a  very  questionable  observation  to 
make  about  the  senior  law  officers  of  the 
crown  in  this  province.  I  invite  him  to  either 
say  he  did  not  make  it  or  that  he  would 
apologize  for  it. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very 
happy  to  have  the  opportunity  to  correct 
that.  The  question  I  was  asked  by  a  reporter 
was  whether  I  was  certain  we  would  be 
getting  all  the  documents  or  whether  some 
would  have  been  selected.  The  reporter 
asked  whether  some  might  be  given  to  the 
police  for  their  purposes  and  some  given  to 
the  committee.  I  said  I  had  no  way  of  know- 
ing whether— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  You  knew  exactly  what 
the  arrangements  were. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  am  going  to  answer  the 
Premier's  point. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Did  the  member  use  the 
word   "launder"? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Yes,  I  am  going  to  give  it 
to  the  Premier  in  a  moment.  He  should  just 
listen  for  a  moment. 

I  said  it  was  always  possible  that  docu- 
ments could  be  laundered.  But— and  the 
operative  point  is  this— I  was  making  no 
accusations.  I  also  stated  that  at  no  time 
was  I  suggesting  this  would  happen.  I  was 
simply   saying— 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:   Withdraw  it. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Are  you  a  psychiatrist  or 
a  lawyer? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  If  members  want  to  hear 
it,  they  might  as  well  hear  it. 

The  question  I  was  asked  was  whether 
they  could  be  laundered.  The  answer  was, 
''Yes,  it  could  be,  but  I  am  making  no  such 
accusation  whatsoever."  TTiat  is  what  the 
discussion  was. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  may  just  add  to  that  state- 
ment regarding  the  beginning  of  the  con- 
versation. The  conversation  was,  "Are  you 
sure  you  are  going  to  get  all  the  documents, 
because  a  certain  minister  of  the  crown"— 
I  am  now  quoting  a  journalist— ''is  going 
around  saying,  'Those  Liberals  will  be  sorry 
they  asked  for  those  documents,  because 
they  are  only  going  to  find  Liberal  names 
and  no  Conservative  names.'"  That  was  the 
preface  to  the  question:  "Do  you  think  they 
could  be  laundered?"  I  said,  "Maybe  they 
could,  but  I  am  making  no  accusations." 
I  just  thought  I  would  give  members  the  full 
context.  It  was  a  certain  minister  of  the 
crown. 


5018 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Just  to  clear  that  up, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  not  say  "Liberals."  I 
said   "other   parties." 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Other  parties,  yes.  Now 
we  have  it  on  the  record  from  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations 
what  he  was  brouhahaing  to  the  press. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARINGS 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  ask  a 
question,  if  I  might,  of  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment.  It  has  to  do  in  particular  with 
his  interview  on  last  nights  CTV  News.  In 
that  interview  he  said,  and  I  quote:  "We 
have  made  a  concentrated  effort  in  the  last 
year  and  a  half  for  the  hearing  process  to 
work  and  it  has  not."  He  also  said,  "The 
greatest  effort  has  been  made  to  have  the 
hearing  concept  work,  and  that  concept  has 
not  worked." 

I  ask  the  minister  to  recall  that  on  June  5 
of  this  year  we  had  an  interesting  set-to  in 
committee.  He  practically  had  apoplexy 
asking  me  to  swear  allegiance  to  the  hearing 
process.  He  said,  "Will  you  say  that  you 
believe  in  the  board  and  its  process?"  Again, 
"Will  you  say  that  you  believe  that  the 
process  will  do  well,  not  only  for  the  con- 
stituents of  Harwich,  but  for  the  other  hear- 
ings that  are  equally  important?"  I  stated, 
"Yes,  I  believe  in  the  board  and  its  process." 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  a  question  here 
some  place? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Yes.  Can  the  minister  ex- 
plain what  has  happened  since  June  5,  1980, 
when  he  believed  so  deeply  in  the  process, 
and  last  night,  when  he  said  the  process  has 
been  a  failure  and  he  no  longer  believes  in 
hearings? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  a 
great  deal  has  happened  in  that  time.  On  that 
occasion— and  I  do  recall  it  well— the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition  eventually  did  say  he  be- 
lieved in  the  process.  What  has  happened  in 
those  five  or  six  months  is  that  he  and  the 
members  of  his  party  have  consistently  made 
a  very  conscious  and  significant  effort  to 
make  it  not  work.  That  is  what  has  happened 
in  the  last  six  months.  It  is  that  simple. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  minister  not  only  has 
lost  faith  in  the  process  of  hearings,  appar- 
ently, but  now  has  given  up,  it  would  seem, 
on  the  judicial  process  as  well.  Browning- 
Ferris  Industries  in  Harwich,  which  had  its 
licence  quashed  in  the  courts,  is  continuing 
to  operate  with  his  permission  under  an 
expired  licence  which  he  now  says  the  com- 


pany should  continue  with  even  though  the 
township  went  to  court  and  won  its  case 
against  the  company.  Will  the  minister  explain 
what  process  he  does  believe  in,  if  he  does 
not  believe  in  hearings  and  now  subverts  the 
judicial  process  as  well? 
2:30  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  should  take  that  back.  It  is  not 
a  supplementary  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagi- 
nation, but  let  me  address  the  question  never- 
theless, Mr.  Speaker. 

We  will  accept  the  decision  of  the  court.  I 
had  a  meeting  with  BFI  this  morning;  the 
company  will  accept  the  decision  of  the  court. 
It  is  that  simple.  Again,  if  the  leader  would 
only  try  to  understand  the  issue  rather  than 
make  all  these  accusations  that  sound  so  nice 
but  have  no  foundation,  it  would  help  all  of 
us  understand  the  issue. 

We  will  not  be  appealing  that  decision. 
When  I  have  a  chance  to  see  that  particular 
decision  in  writing,  and  we  are  pressing  to 
get  that  particular  decision,  we  will  abide 
by  that  decision. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supplementary 
to  the  Premier  on  the  question  of  hearings: 
Since  it  was  the  Premier  a  week  and  a  half 
ago  who  said  there  would  be  hearings  in 
connection  with  the  South  Cayuga  dump, 
and  since  we  have  been  unable  to  determine 
from  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  what 
the  nature  of  any  hearings  would  be,  could 
the  Premier  perhaps  share  with  the  House 
what  will  be  the  nature  of  the  hearings  with 
respect  to  the  proposed  liquid  waste  facilities 
in  South  Cayuga?  Will  they  be  carried  out  by 
some  independent  body  or  tribunal,  and  what 
access  will  the  public  have  to  all  the  material 
on  which  any  hearings  will  be  based? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  go 
back  to  what  I  said  to  the  honourable  member 
a  few  days  ago.  I  will  only  recall  for  his 
purposes  the  fact  that  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  has  undertaken  certain  conver- 
sations with  Dr.  Chant,  who  has  assumed  the 
responsibility.  Part  of  those  discussions,  al- 
though I  was  not  privy  to  them,  related  to  the 
fact  that  some  of  the  technical  aspects  would 
be  available  for  public  discussion.  I  am  not 
sure  I  am  right  in  this,  but  I  think  the  Minis- 
ter of  the  Environment  and  I  are  meeting 
Dr.  Chant  this  afternoon,  when  I  expect  this 
matter  will  be  further  explored. 

The  point  that  has  to  be  made  is  that  the 
hearings  as  envisaged  by  the  act  will  not  be 
proceeding,  but  the  opportunity  for  the  public 
to  have  an  awareness  of  the  technology,  the 
information  et  cetera  has  never  been  in  any 
doubt. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5019 


I  know  the  position  of  the  honourable 
members  opposite  with  respect  to  this  issue, 
but  I  remind  them  of  something  else.  I  will 
restate  it,  in  case  they  did  not  hear  it  from 
either  the  minister  or  me.  This  facility  will  be 
the  finest  anywhere  in  the  world.  It  will  not 
be  an  environmental  hazard  to  anyone, 
whether  50  feet  away  or  two  miles  away.  It 
is  the  most  creative  and  imaginative  solution 
to  a  problem  that  is  besetting  all  of  North 
America,  and  this  province  will  be  in  the  lead. 
When  we  are  finished,  we  will  have  a  plant 
here  that  will  be  an  example  for  every  other 
jurisdiction  in  Canada  and  in  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker; 
perhaps  I  might  ask  it  of  the  Premier  be- 
cause of  his  comments  just  now:  Since  SCA 
also  says  that  its  plant  is  the  most  modern 
and  will  be  an  example  for  all  of  North 
America,  and  since  there  will  be  hearings 
there,  will  the  Premier  admit  that  the  reason 
the  Minister  of  the  Environment  has  not 
gone  to  those  hearings  to  represent  the  inter- 
ests of  Ontario  is  that  he  would  be  awfully 
embarrassed  if,  while  he  was  on  the  witness 
stand,  SCA  were  to  say,  "Are  you  not  doing 
the  same  sort  of  thing  on  your  side  of  Lake 
Erie,  with  the  effluent  going  into  Lake  Erie, 
and  can  we  come  to  your  hearings  to  make 
objection  or  to  raise  questions  just  the  way 
you  have  come  to  ours  in  New  York  state?" 
Would  the  minister  not  look  just  a  little 
foolish  trying  to  protect  Ontario's  interests 
in  New  York  state  when  we  do  not  even  have 
hearings  when  we  are  proposing  the  largest 
toxic  facility  of  this  kind  on  our  side  of  the 
Great  Lakes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  answer 
only  one  part  of  the  question,  and  the  hon- 
ourable member  can  redirect  the  more  techni- 
cal aspects  to  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment. 

I  must  say  to  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
that  I  have  yet  to  find  him  in  a  position 
where  he  can  at  any  time  say  the  Minister  of 
Environment  is  caught  in  an  embarrassing 
position.  If  anyone  is  caught  on  issue  after 
issue,  in  embarrassing  positions,  changes  of 
positions  or  laundering  documents,  it  is  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  this  province  and 
not  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 

URBAN  TRANSPORTATION 
DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Premier  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  sale  by  the  Urban  Transportation 
Development  Corporation  to  British  Colum- 
bia. We  are  pleased  to  see  this  sale  taking 


place,  but  we  are  a  little  concerned  that  the 
mayor  of  Vancouver  was  on  the  radio  today 
saying  he  feared  they  are  buying  a  pig  in  a 
poke.  Since  it  does  appear  it  took  a  $300- 
million  performance  bond  to  get  this  sale,  will 
the  Premier  kindly  table  in  the  House  the 
exact  conditions  of  the  contract  and  the  exact 
conditions  of  this  performance  bond  so  we 
will  know  what  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario  are 
going  on  the  hook  for?  In  particular,  since 
the  Premier  refers  to  this  as  simply  standard 
business  practice,  does  he  remember  it  was 
not  standard  business  practice  in  dealing  with 
Babcock  and  Wilcox? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  a  note 
from  somebody  in  the  press  gallery  about 
that  latter  matter,  and  I  do  not  think  the  two 
are  related.  I  say  that  with  great  respect  to 
the  gentleman  who  sent  me  the  note.  Per- 
haps he  also  sent  it  to  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  No,  he  did  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  do  not  care  whether 
the  member  gets  his  notes  from  Harold  or 
Jimmy  or  whoever  he  gets  his  notes  from. 
I  do  not  care. 

I  can  only  say  that  the  provision  of  a  per- 
formance bond  for  a  contract  of  this  nature 
is  standard  within  the  industry.  We  will  be 
delighted  to  table  it  when  the  bond  is  for- 
malized. I  will  even  support  the  establishment 
of  a  select  committee  of  the  Legislature  to 
determine  that  the  bond  was  not  laundered 
before  it  was  signed,  if  it  will  make  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  happier. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  Premier  might  do  well 
to  talk  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  and  ask 
him  why  he  told  the  press  the  documents 
will  all  have  Liberal  names  and  not  Con- 
servative names.  He  might  just  ask  the 
minister  what  he  meant  by  that  comment. 
The  Premier  might  launder  his  mind  when 
he  comes  into  this  place  and  makes  his  own 
statements  in  this  House.  It  is  a  bit  like 
brainwashing   but   slightly   different. 

May  I  ask  the  Premier  whether  he  knows 
if  UTDC,  which  will  act  as  a  contractor 
and  will  subcontract  out  the  manufacture  of 
the  various  components  of  this  system,  will 
be  receiving  from  the  various  subcontractors 
a  performance  bond  so,  if  it  is  found  that 
the  reason  the  system  may  have  some  diffi- 
culties is  a  problem  with  one  of  the  sub- 
contractors, the  people  of  Ontario  will  not 
end  up  on  the  hook  for  money  and  the 
money  will  be  recovered  from  the  other 
manufacturers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  can  only  make  one 
observation.   I  understood  it  was  the  Lead- 


5020 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


er  of  the  Opposition's  profession  that  did 
mind-laundering,  not  mine.  I  will  not  pursue 
that  any  further  here  this  afternoon.  I  sense 
his   embarrassment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  think  that  has  been 
washed  long  enough  on  both  sides. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  bow 
to  your  total  wisdom  on  most  issues. 

Mr.    S.    Smith:    You   and  your  innuendos. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  is  there  in  print.  The 
member  had  a  chance  to  apologize  and  he 
would  not.  Here  it  is.  I  will  send  it  over 
to  him  to  read. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order:  Does  the  Premier 
have  a  reply? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  have 
an  answer  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Van  Home:  You  are  boring. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  the  member  for 
London  Centre  has  the  gall  to  refer  to— 
London  North?  Who  said  I  was  boring? 

Mr.  Peterson:  I  think  you  are  boring. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  If  I  am  boring,  where 
does  that  put  the  member?  Worse,  I  know. 
2:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  assure  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  that  this  contract  entered 
into  by  UTDC  with,  I  assume,  the  greater 
municipality  of  Vancouver  or  whatever  au- 
thorities, probably  the  government  of  British 
Columbia,  Which  will  contain  a  performance 
bond  where  obviously  some  of  the  work  will 
be  done  by  firms  in  other  parts  of  Canada, 
that  those  firms  will  follow  the  normal 
business  practice. 

I  know  it  bothers  the  honourable  mem- 
bers to  see  this  thing  succeeding.  It  upsets 
them;  I  know  that.  Here  we  have  the 
member  from  a  riding— and  I  will  not  refer 
to  the  member,  because  he  will  not  apolo- 
gize either— who  refers  to  this  as  a  great 
turkey.  I  have  to  say,  this  great  turkey 
has  emerged  as  one  of  the  great  economic 
pluses  of  this  country.  Are  the  honourable 
members  going  to  change  their  minds?  Yes, 
we  will  make  sure  the  interests  of  the  tax- 
payers of  Ontario  are  well  protected. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  Mr.  Speaker,  can  the 
Premier  confirm  newspaper  reports  that  in 
addition  to  the  $300-million  performance 
bond,  there  is  also  a  commitment  on  his 
part  that  certain  component  parts  of  the 
Urban  Transportation  Development  Corpo- 
ration rail  service  will  be  manufactured  in 
British  Columbia.  If  this  is  true,  does  he 
not  feel  the  performance  bond  is  greater 
than  the  $300  million,  given  the  loss  of  jobs 
that  will  create  in  this  province? 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
know  where  the  honourable  member  learned 
his  arithmetic,  but  there  will  be  an  agree- 
ment or  an  understanding  with  the  govern- 
ment of  British  Columbia.  Obviously  the 
guideway  system  is  going  to  be  built  in 
British  Columbia,  because  that  is  where  it  is 
geographically  located.  Certain  other  aspects 
of  the  vehicle  itself  may  be  assembled  in 
British  Columbia,  but  I  have  to  say  to  the 
honourable  member,  if  he  starts  from  zero  and 
if  this  means  X  hundred  jobs  in  Ontario  and 
X  hundred  in  British  Columbia  so  that  there 
is  a  net  plus  of  several  hundred  jobs,  how  can 
he  say  this  leads  to  a  loss  of  jobs? 

I  took  the  old  math,  and  in  the  old  math 
that  sounds  to  me  like  a  plus,  not  a  diminu- 
tion. I  say  to  the  honourable  member  that 
there  will  be  a  plus  in  numbers  of  jobs.  Be- 
cause it  is  the  person  or  the  group  putting  up 
the  money  where  the  facility  is  being  built, 
it  will  be  another  province  in  Canada  where  a 
certain  amount  of  the  work  will  be  done. 
That  is  how  we  get  these  things  accomplished, 
and  I  do  not  think  it  diminishes  the  obligation 
for  or  the  practice  of  the  industry  to  provide 
a  performance  bond  for  the  total  facility. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  the  honourable  mem- 
ber should  get  his  colleague  out  of  the  way. 
How  can  I  talk  to  him  when  he  is  interrupt- 
ing and  ignoring  these  pearls  of  wisdom  as 
I  speak? 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  supple- 
mentary. Given  the  fact  that  $100  million 
of  Ontario  taxpayers'  money  has  been  spent 
on  this,  do  we  recover  our  development  costs 
with  this  sale? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
checked  the  rules  very  carefully.  I  am  not 
going  to  be  provocative  this  Monday,  but  I 
would  just  say  to  the  member  who  asked 
the  question  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  rules 
that  obliges  a  member  of  this  government  to 
answer.  I  would  be  delighted  to  answer  if 
the  honourable  member  would  do  himself  and 
this  House  a  service  first;  if  he  will  make  a 
very  simple  apology  to  the  member  for  Oriole 
(Mr.  Williams),  I  will  be  delighted  to  answer 
his  question. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  I  have  nothing  for  which 
to  apologize  whatsoever,  and  I  ask  the 
Premier  to  answer  that  question. 

Interjections. 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
of  the  Premier  in  respect  of  severance  pay 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5021 


for  workers  who  are  affected  by  layoffs  and 
shutdowns  over  the  course  of  this  winter. 
Since  the  recommendation  of  the  select  com- 
mittee on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  ad- 
justment was  unanimously  endorsed  by  the 
Conservative  members  as  well  as  the  Liberals 
and  the  New  Democrats;  since  that  was  seen 
as  an  interim  recommendation  to  take  us 
over  the  winter  to  protect  workers,  and  since 
the  government  has  repeatedly  said  it  is  not 
opposed  in  principle  to  the  idea  of  severance 
pay,  will  the  Premier  now  undertake  that  the 
legislation  for  severance  pay  will  be  brought 
forward  by  the  government  this  week  so  it 
can  adopt  it  before  Christmas  to  protect  work- 
ers this  winter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  govern- 
ment's position  is  quite  clear.  As  the  Minister 
of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie)  has  said  and  as  I  have 
said,  we  do  not  have  a  philosophical  or  ide- 
ological problem  with  the  principle  of  sev- 
erance pay.  My  recollection  of  the  discussion 
and  the  understandings  that  were  reached 
was  that  we  appointed  a  committee  of  this 
House  with  specific  responsibility  to  deal  with 
this  particular  issue  and  associated  issues. 

We  have  had  an  interim  report,  and  I  am 
not  being  critical  of  the  committee  except  to 
make  this  observation,  that  there  are  yet  a 
number  of  groups  who  have  points  of  view  to 
express,  concerns  to  be  registered  and  per- 
haps constructive  suggestions  to  be  made  as 
to  how  this  might  best  be  dealt  with.  The 
government's  preference,  quite  obviously  one 
that  will  be  maintained  and  I  think  is  the 
wise  course  to  follow,  is  to  have  the  com- 
mittee continue  to  deal  with  this  situation. 
The  committee  is  going  to  finish  its  hearings 
by  February  5,  and  the  government  will 
then  have  the  report  from  it  dealing  with 
these  issues. 

I  have  discussed  this  with  people  who  have 
conflicting  points  of  view.  Once  again,  it  is 
not  a  straight  philosophical  problem.  The 
problem  is  in  developing  a  solution  that  is 
workable  and  does  not  have  an  inhibiting 
effect  on  the  growth  and  investment  in  in- 
dustry in  this  province.  We  saw  that  coming 
out  in  the  committee's  deliberations.  That  is 
still,  by  far,  the  preferable  route  to  go. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Can  the  Premier  then  explain 
why  it  is  the  government  is  acting  in  such  an 
inconsistent  way?  Last  Thursday  it  was  pre- 
pared to  bring  forward  proposals  for  pension 
protection  of  workers,  inadequate  proposals 
but  proposals  none  the  less,  which  have  had 
no  more  discussion  within  the  select  com- 
mittee on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  ad- 
justment than  the  question  of  severance  pay. 
Why  is   it  he  is  prepared  to  move  on  the 


pension  proposal  in  the  next  week  and  not  on 
severance  pay?  Is  it  the  fact  that  govern- 
ment has  caved  in  to  the  representations 
being  made  by  the  business  lobby  and  the 
chambers  of  commerce? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  New  Democratic 
Party  may  cave  in  to  representations  made  to 
it.  We  do  not  work  that  way  on  this  side  of 
the  House. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Oh,  come  on. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  say  to  the  member  for 
Oshawa  that  he  is  one  of  the  greatest  cave-in 
artists  I  know. 

I  say  to  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party  that  in  the  minister's  opening  statement 
we  made  it  very  clear  that  the  pension  bill 
that  would  be  brought  in  is  an  interim  solu- 
tion. We  also  made  it  quite  clear  that,  while 
we  were  not  objecting  in  principle  to  the 
concept  of  severance  pay,  we  saw  a  workable 
solution  to  the  pension  issue  but  we  wanted 
the  general  community  to  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  discuss  the  question  of  severance 
pay  with  the  committee.  That  was  clearly 
understood  at  the  time  the  committee— which, 
incidentally,  the  member  insisted  be  struc- 
tured and  which  we  agreed  to;  that  was  the 
understanding  at  the  time  the  committee  was 
structured. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
supplementary  question  of  the  Premier.  Is 
he  considering  the  date  on  which  the  House 
approved  the  severance  pay  and  having  it 
made  retroactive  to  that  date  rather  than 
having  it  set  up  from  some  date  in  the  future? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  that 
is  one  of  the  considerations  that  I  would  hope 
the  committee  in  its  wisdom  would  give  us 
some  advice  on.  During  the  intervening 
period  of  time— and  we  are  not  talking  of  a 
very  long  period  of  time,  when  the  committee 
can  complete  its  activities;  we  are  talking  of 
some  two  months,  by  and  large— I  would 
hope  the  committee  might  have  some  recom- 
mendations, in  the  hope  that  the  actual  prob- 
lem in  that  period  of  time  would  be  very 
limited  in  any  event. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Can  the  Premier  explain  to 
me  and  to  workers  across  the  province,  since 
there  is  a  strong  likelihood  there  will  be  some 
plants  that  will  be  shut  down  by  their  owners 
over  the  course  of  the  next  two  or  three 
months,  there  will  be  workers  who  will  be 
put  out  in  the  street  with  notice  but  no  other 
means  to  look  for  another  job  at  a  time  of 
unemployment  running  at  seven  per  cent  or 
so,  can  he  say  how  those  workers  will  meet 
their  bills,  buy  their  Christmas  presents,  pay 
their  food  bills  at  Dominion  Stores,  pay  their 


5022 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


mortgages  or  their  rents  on  the  basis  of 
promises  and  declarations  in  principle  from 
the  government  if  those  promises  are  not 
backed  by  the  interim  solution  of  legislation 
proposed  by  the  select  committee  on  plant 
shutdowns?  Why  is  he  not  prepared  to  bring 
in  that  interim  solution  now? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Once  again,  I  will  not 
repeat  all  that  I  said,  which  I  thought  was 
fairly  clearly  understood  some  six  weeks  ago 
when  the  committee,  which  I  think  by  and 
large  at  the  suggestion  of  the  member  and 
some  other  members  opposite,  was  appointed 
to  deal  with  this  issue.  The  principle  of  pen- 
sions has  always  been  with  us.  The  short- 
term  solution  for  the  pension  situation  is 
easier  to  determine. 

The  question  of  severance  pay  as  a  statu- 
tory requirement  is  a  new  principle  here  in 
this  province;  I  do  not  say  it  is  a  negotiated 
agreement.  I  have  to  tell  the  member  it  will 
be  new  when  it  happens  in  any  jurisdiction 
in  North  America.  With  great  respect,  the 
member  can  shake  his  head  but  I  have  not 
learned  of  any  others  that  have  it. 

I   say   to  the   leader  of  the   New  Demo- 
cratic Party,  it  is  an  issue  where  we  were 
quite    genuinely    anticipating    the    construc- 
tive advice  from  the  select  committee. 
2:50  p.m. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  You  have  the  advice.  They 
say  to  do  it  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  With  great  respect,  the 
member  has  talked  to  me  about  hearings; 
he  has  made  a  great  issue  of  South  Cayuga. 
I  have  to  tell  him,  if  that  is  the  kind  of 
hearing  he  envisages  the  select  committee 
to  have,  then  he  is  just  contradicting  what- 
ever he  has  said  about  South  Cayuga. 

I  have  to  tell  him,  there  are  individuals, 
small  businessmen,  small  companies— I  am 
not  talking  about  the  multinationals,  the 
chamber  of  commerce  or  the  Canadian 
Manufacturer's  Association— who  have  been 
told  and  who  are  most  anxious  to  acquaint 
the  members  of  this  House  with  their  con- 
cerns. They  were  working,  I  guess,  under 
the  misguided  feeling  that  the  members  of 
this  House  were  fair-minded,  objective  and 
trying  to  treat  it  responsibly.  Now  he  is  say- 
ing those  people  will  not  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  express  a  concern  or  a  point  of 
view.  All  I  am  saying  to  the  member  is 
there  is  a  distinction. 

ASBESTOS  LEVELS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Labour  about  the 
standards  for  exposure  to  asbestos  in  work 


places  which  were  published  the  other  day 
and  are  now  going  before  the  advisory  com- 
mittee   for    consideration. 

Will  the  minister  tell  the  House  how  he 
can  justify  proposing  a  standard  of  one 
fibre  per  cubic  centimetre  for  work-place 
exposure  to  chrysotile  asbestos,  in  the  light 
of  the  ministry's  own  admission  in  the  re- 
port on  asbestos  in  public  buildings  last 
spring,  that  ''as  with  all  other  carcinogens, 
safe  levels  of  exposure  to  asbestos  are  un- 
known"? 

If  there  are  no  known  safe  levels  of  ex- 
posure to  asbestos,  why  is  he  proposing  a 
level  of  one  fibre  per  cubic  centimetre? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all, 
I  think  the  member  should  have  acknowl- 
edged that  even  the  two-fibre  standard  we 
have  today  is  the  lowest  in  North  America. 
Indeed,  it  is  quite  a  bit  lower  than  that  of 
our  neighbour  to  the  east,  the  province  of 
Quebec.  In  spite  of  that,  we  have  evaluated 
the  evidence,  accepting  that  we  just  do  not 
have  the  scientific  evidence— and  the  mem- 
ber knows  that— to  know  what  exactly  is  a 
safe  level.  Nevertheless,  we  are  making  a 
move  towards  a  reduced  level— not  without 
a  lot  of  objection,  I  have  to  say,  including 
objections  from  some  of  our  neighbouring 
provinces.  But  we  have  made  that  decision 
and  we  are  proceeding  with  it. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Can  the  minister  say  whether 
there  is  any  scientific  basis  for  the  finding 
his  ministry  is  proposing  that  there  is  some- 
how a  safe  level  of  exposure,  particularly  in 
the  light  of  the  opinion  of  the  British  advisory 
committee  on  asbestos  that  a  one-fibre  level 
of  chrysotile  asbestos  would  mean  an  excess 
number  of  deaths,  and  in  the  light  of  the  US 
National  Institute  on  Occupational  Safety  and 
Health,  which  reported  last  April,  "There  is 
no  level  of  exposure  below  which  clinical 
effects  do  not  occur"? 

If  those  are  the  findings  of  the  most 
eminent  British  and  American  authorities, 
what  is  the  scientific  basis  for  the  minister's 
findings  that  a  one-fibre  standard  is  ade- 
quate? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  am  really  surprised  that 
there  is  some  suggestion  we  are  not  acting 
appropriately.  We  are  moving  ahead  with 
the  reduced  standard  in  the  face  of  the  Royal 
Commission  on  Asbestos  sitting  to  review  this 
very  matter  in  very  broad  ways.  In  spite  of 
the  fact  that  there  is  a  royal  commission  sit- 
ting, we  are  nevertheless  moving  to  reduce 
the  level  of  asbestos  in  the  work  place. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: The  minister  is  proposing  a  different 
standard   for   chrysotile,    amosite   and   croci- 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5023 


dolite.  Can  the  minister  explain  why  he  is 
proposing  a  different  standard  for  these  three 
different  kinds  of  asbestos  when  the  evidence 
we  have  from  Dr.  Selikoff,  the  most  re- 
nowned expert  on  asbestos  in  North  America, 
is  that  there  is  no  difference  in  the  hazards 
from  these  three  major  types? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  confess 
I  do  not  have  a  deep  understanding  of  the 
scientific  basis  for  the  difference.  But  the 
member  knows  that,  in  every  country's  stan- 
dards, there  is  a  variation  in  the  levels  with 
different  types  of  asbestos  because  of  the  per- 
ceived difference  in  the  hazard  of  different 
types  of  material.  That  is  the  basis  upon 
which  we  are  proceeding.  I  hope  he  will  agree 
we  axe  proceeding  in  the  right  direction. 

UNIVERSITY  FUNDING 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Uni- 
versities. Given  the  minister's  statement  of 
a  few  weeks  ago  that  there  was  no  significant 
decline  in  the  funding-support  for  universities 
and  colleges  in  this  province;  given  the  well- 
known  fact  that  there  is  a  tremendous  short- 
age in  this  province  and  in  the  whole  country 
of  people  in  the  areas  of  economics,  com- 
puter science  and  commerce;  given  the  Uni- 
versity of  Toronto  has  indicated  it  is  going 
to  have  to  reduce  its  enrolment  in  these  very 
high-demand  courses  because  it  cannot  afford 
to  teach  the  students  wanting  to  enrol,  and 
it  was  not  optimistic  that  other  universities  in 
Ontario  would  be  able  to  absorb  the  students 
because  they  have  the  same  financial  problems 
the  University  of  Toronto  has,  will  the  minis- 
ter not  now  agree  in  the  universities  of  this 
province  we  have  a  significant  underfunding 
problem  with  respect  to  accessibility  and  en- 
rolment in  those  very  courses  where  there 
is  the  greatest  demand? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  the  word  I  used  was  "dramatic," 
rather  than  significant.  There  is  at  this  time 
—and  the  honourable  member  is  very  well 
aware  of  it— a  committee  that  has  been 
established  to  examine  the  ways  in  which 
our  universities  in  this  province  may  more 
appropriately  meet  the  perceived  needs  of 
our  society  and  its  students  over  the  next 
decade,  in  the  relatively  short  term,  the 
medium  term  and  the  long  term. 

In  addition  to  that,  the  Ontario  Council 
on  University  Affairs  will  continue  in  the 
very  short  term  to  discharge  its  responsi- 
bility in  making  recommendations  to  the 
minister  regarding  levels  of  funding  and  the 
distribution  of  those  levels  of  funding  that 
are  made  available. 


Mr.  Sweeney:  Given  that  the  report  and 
brief  given  to  the  minister  shows  on  page 
two,  with  respect  to  student  enrolment  and 
accessibility,  the  current  public  policy  con- 
cerning accessibility  to  universities  appears 
to  be  that  all  residents  with  a  secondary 
school  honours  diploma— that  is  an  average 
of  60  per  cent— would  have  accessibility; 
given  those  figures  plus  the  fact  that  the 
University  of  Western  Ontario  is  now  going 
to  put  a  4,000  limit  on  first  year  and 
Queen's  University  is  going  to  put  a  10,000 
limit;  given  that  the  minister  has  said  her- 
self that  the  first  two  purposes  of  her  study 
were  to  get  a  public  statement  of  objectives 
and  then  to  relate  the  costs;  and  given  that 
the  minister  is  going  to  have  a  broadly 
based  committee- 
Mr.  Speaker:  There  are  a  lot  of  "givens" 
in  there. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  —given  all  these  problems 
and  that  the  minister  says  we  are  going  to 
get  the  answers  to  them,  how  can  she 
exclude,  for  example,  from  that  committee 
faculty  members  and  students  to  help  to 
solve  these  very  clear  problems? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
committee  that  has  been  established'  has  a 
major  role  to  assume  at  this  time,  and  that 
is  to  examine  the  overall  position  of  the  uni- 
versity system  within  this  province  and  its 
relationship  with  government.  Those  are  the 
areas  in  which  I,  as  minister,  have  some 
responsibility.  There  will  be  opportunity 
for  full  and  detailed  discussion  of  that  com- 
mittee's report  throughout  the  entire  uni- 
versity community.  I  anticipate  that  will 
be  done. 

There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  there  are 
representatives  on  that  committee  at  present 
who  are  very  sensitive  to  student  positions. 
There  are  representatives  with  current  par- 
ticular relationships  to  faculties  within  the 
province.  There  is  no  one  appointed  to  repre- 
sent a  specific  constituency  within  the  educa- 
tional system.  The  members  of  that  com- 
mittee are  to  provide  a  broad  view  of  the 
university  system  and  government's  respon- 
sibility   within    that   university   system. 

SUPERMARKET  PRICING  SYSTEM 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations.  The  minister  will  recall  that 
he  rejected  legislation  announced  on  August 
1  of  this  year;  that  he  had  come  to  an  agree- 
ment with  the  supermarkets  and  the  retail 
council  to  keep  price  tags  on  individual 
products  in  the  supermarkets.  But  the  min- 


5024 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ister  will  also  recall  that  he  found  out  in 
his  food  monitoring  program  for  August, 
the  month  after  this  commitment  was  made, 
that  the  percentage  of  items  without  prices, 
tags  or  designation  went  up  from  12.2  per 
cent  to  slightly  more  than  15  per  cent. 

May  I  inform  the  minister  that  last  Thurs- 
day evening  eight  members  of  Consumers  in 
Action  did  a  survey  in  Loblaws  on  Main 
Street  in  Brampton  and  found  more  than 
50  per  cent  of  the  products  without  individ- 
ual price  tage.  They  included'  such  things 
as  soup,  cat  food,  tomatoes,  Kleenex,  pasta, 
cornflakes,  all  cereals,  et  cetera.  Does  the 
minister  not  realize  that  supermarket  chains 
are  thumbing  their  noses  at  the  minister  and 
removing  prices  by  attrition?  What  is  he 
•going  to  do  about  it? 
3  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  yet 
to  see  a  supermarket  chain  that  thumbed  its 
nose  at  me. 

Mr.  McClellan:  They  are  laughing  too 
hard. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Take  them  out  to  lunch. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  might  go  to  lunch  with 
them.  At  least  it  is  an  improvement.  At  least 
it  is  Canadian,  instead  of  helping  Buffalo. 

However,  what  the  honourable  member 
says  is  true.  I  believe  in  the  month  of  Au- 
gust there  was  a  commitment  from  the 
supermarket  industry  not  only  to  keep  the 
prices  on  but  also  to  put  the  prices  that  had 
been  taken  off  back  in  the  five  or  seven  test 
stores.  We  do  get  some  queries  or  concerns 
from  time  to  time  about  people  finding 
prices  not  on.  We  draw  it  to  the  attention 
of  the  supermarkets  and,  in  all  fairness,  I 
must  say  they  have  been  putting  them  on. 

Unfortunately,  I  did  not  hear  the  name 
of  the  store.  If  the  member  wants  to  give 
it  to  me,   I  would  be  very  glad  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Swart:  May  I  send  over  the  docu- 
mentation on  this  in  that  store  from  the 
survey  being  made? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  He  can  distribute  that 
to  somebody.  I  don't  need  it.  I'll  take  the 
member's  word  for  it.  Just  tell  me  the 
name  of  the  store. 

Mr.  Swart:  The  minister  says  to  the  best 
of  his  knowledge  they  are  putting  them 
back  on.  Why  has  he  refused  to  meet  with 
Cathy  Farrell  of  the  CBC  who  is  investigat- 
ing this  matter?  She  has  repeatedly  asked 
to  meet  with  the  minister.  She  has  docu- 
mentation from  all  over  the  province  with 
more   than    1,200  signatures. 

Is  it  not  true  that  the  minister  agreed  to 
have  certain  products,  such  as  these,  with- 


out price  designations  on  them?  When  is 
he  going  to  stop  being  a  flunky  for  the 
supermarket  chains  and  bring  in  legislation 
to  require  the  chains  to  price  each  indi- 
vidual item  and  retain  price  consciousness 
and  price  awareness  for  the  consumers? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  If  only  I  could  live  this 
well  at  the  racetrack,  I  would  be  a  man  of 
independent  means.  It  just  so  happens  that 
I  have  with  me  a  little  document  concern- 
ing the  letters  Cathy  Farrell  of  the  CBC 
got  and  which  she  was  good  enough  to 
hand  over  to  me.  Out  of  the  first  500,  only 
19  had  specific  references  or  complaints 
concerning  a  price  not  being  on.  The  rest 
of  them  were  general  letters  that  said,  "I 
don't  like  the  universal  product  code."  The 
UPC  really  has  nothing  to  do  with  whether 
prices  are  on  or  off. 

Mr.  Swart:  It  has  a  lot  to  do  with  it. 
That  is  why  they  are  taking  them  off. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Out  of  the  first  500,  only 
19  were  specific.  The  stores  involved1  in 
those  19  matters  have  received  letters  con- 
cerning the  individual  complaints.  I  com- 
pliment the  honourable  member  for  what 
he  has  done  today.  If  he  would  do  as  much 
in  pointing  out  to  the  world  that  that  com- 
mitment has  been  made,  I  think  it  would 
go  a  long  way  towards  reassuring  the  pub- 
lic. One  of  the  problems  in  most  of  the 
letters  we  received  is  that  the  writers  are 
unaware  that  the  commitment  has  been 
made. 

Mr.  Swart:  You  are  the  one  who  is  sup- 
posed to  enforce  it.  That  was  your  opinion, 
not  ours. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Even  the  member's 
buddies  in  Saskatchewan,  the  Sweden  of  the 
north,  are  coming  to  see  me  as  to  how  we 
did  it  when  they  cannot  with  all  their  legis- 
lation or  their  proposals. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Is  the  minister  aware  that  the  use 
of  the  computerized  checkout  saves  the  store 
1.2  per  cent  in  its  labour  costs,  that  within 
three  years  those  savings  would  pay  for  the 
computerized  checkout  and  for  that  the  re- 
tailer certainly  has  an  obligation  to  keep  the 
individual  price  tag  on? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  over  the  past 
year  or  18  months  both  the  ministry  and 
other  organizations  have  done  some  very  ex- 
haustive analyses.  I  would  like  to  correct  the 
honourable  member  when  he  referred1  to 
labour  costs,  because  the  concept  is  that  the 
big  saving  is  not  on  labour  in  the  store,  but 
on  labour  in  the  warehouse  and  by  inventory. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5025 


There  is  no  question  it  leads  to  the  more 
efficient  utilization  of  labour.  That  is  why  in 
the  work  we  did  we  insisted  that  whatever 
the  expansion  of  that  technology— certainly 
we  have  no  quarrel  with  it  being  used  in  the 
warehouse  and  so  forth— up  to  the  checkout 
counter,  not  only  must  it  be  apparently  bene- 
ficial to  the  consumer  but  also  the  con- 
sumers must  want  it.  As  a  result  of  the  very 
exhaustive  survey  this  ministry  did,  which 
was  tabled  at  the  end  of  June,  we  pointed 
out  the  consumers  did  not  want  it  and  the 
industry  has  acted  accordingly. 

EMPLOYMENT  IN  LIQUOR  STORES 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  regarding  how  to  get  a  job 
in  the  liquor  stores  of  Ontario.  Will  the  minis- 
ter inform  the  House  when  he  is  going  to 
implement  a  policy  in  his  ministry  whereby 
individuals  who  wish  to  obtain  employment 
in  the  liquor  stores  of  the  province  may  do 
so  by  being  hired  through  Canada  Man- 
power rather  than  having  to  go  through  the 
local  designator  of  Tory  patronage  in  the 
ridings  of  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Makarchuk:  The  minister  would  like  to 
protect  the  consumers  the  same  way. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Why  is  the  member  always 
asking  for  a  favour?  Ha,  ha,  ha. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  The  favour  asked  was  for 
guys  in  the  region. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  tell  you,  the 
next  person  who  comes  here  on  Friday 
around  my  seat,  I  am  calling  Wally,  the 
policeman. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Is  that  a  threat? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  No.  But  it  should  produce 
interesting  results. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  applica- 
tion forms  are  on  file  in  the  liquor  store.  A 
person  walks  in,  gets  one,  fills  it  out  and 
sends  it  to  the  personnel  department  in  To- 
ronto. 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  If  the  member  for  Niagara 
Falls  is  accusing  me  of  allocating  jobs  in  the 
liquor  store,  let  him  stand  up  and  say  so. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  No. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  If  the  member  for  St. 
Catharines  wants  to  say  I  do  it,  let  him 
stand  up  and  say  so. 

Mr.  Bradley:  Is  the  minister  denying  to 
this    House   that   the   local   person  who   dis- 


penses patronage  on  behalf  of  the  Progressive 
Conservative  Party  in  the  ridings  across 
Ontario  has  no  say  in  who  is  hired  in  the 
liquor  stores  in  this  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Yes. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Your  nose  is  getting  longer 
by  the  minute.  His  nose  is  going  to  hit  the 
microphone. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  some  of 
the  buffoons  will  be  quiet,  I  will  elaborate. 

The  first  jobs  on  a  permanent  basis  now 
go  to  temporary  employees  as  a  result  of  the 
labour  agreement  with  the  Liquor  Control 
Board  of  Ontario  employees'  union.  Second- 
ly, applications  for  temporary  employment 
are  obtained  in  the  local  liquor  store  and  are 
processed  through.  If  anybody  has  an  alle- 
gation in  here  that  somebody  interfered  with 
the  hiring  process  since  I  have  been  the 
minister,  I  would  like  him  to  table  it. 

FOOD  INDUSTRIES  PRACTICES 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Some  five  weeks  ago,  the 
Premier  was  in  receipt  of  a  letter  from 
Ralph  Barrie,  the  president  of  the  Ontario 
Federation  of  Agriculture,  dated  October  7, 
with  reference  to  the  Leach  commission  and 
its  report  into  discounts  and  allowances.  One 
paragraph  of  that  letter  stated:  "The  first 
step  is  that  the  federation  wishes  to  request 
you,  the  Premier  of  the  province  and  the 
leader  of  the  government,  to  refuse  to  accept 
the  report  of  the  said  Leach  commission." 
3:10  p.m. 

Since  most  people  have  condemned  this 
report  as  inadequate  and  since  the  Minister 
of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Mr.  Henderson) 
copped  out  totally  in  commenting  on  it  and 
the  criticism  of  it  from  the  opposition  parties 
during  consideration  of  his  estimates,  saying 
the  matter  now  rests  with  the  Premier, 
would  the  Premier  mind  informing  the  House 
as  to  whether  he  replied  to  that  letter?  If 
he  did,  what  Was  said?  Specifically  what  was 
said  to  Mr.  Barrie  with  regard  to  his  pro- 
posal that,  instead  of  accepting  the  Leach 
report,  he  should  respond  to  five  specific 
recommendations  they  made? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
there  are  actually  about  a  dozen  questions 
there. 

I  will  check  to  see  whether  I  have  as  yet 
replied.  It  is  a  fairly  large  report.  I  must 
confess  I  have  read  some  of  the  highlights 
but  have  not  totally  digested  the  report  yet; 
so  I  may  not  have  replied  to  Mr.  Barrie  as 
yet.  If  I  have,  I  will  be  delighted  to  share 
that  reply.  If  I  have  not,  I  shall  be  doing  so 
and  when   I   reply   I   will  share  it  with  the 


5026 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


member  for  York  South.  At  that  time  I  will 
share  with  him  whatever  observations  I  have 
shared  with  Mr.  Barrie. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  May  we  have  some  as- 
surance we  will  have  that  sharing  process 
engaged  in  before  the  House  lifts? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  never  seen  this 
House  lift,  but  before  the  House  prorogues,  if 
I  am  in  a  position  to  share  and  join  in  the 
sharing  process,  I  will  be  delighted  to  do  so. 
If  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  share  prior  to  the 
lifting  or  proroguing  of  the  House,  then  I 
will  personally  undertake  to  share  with  the 
member  whenever  I  do  it.  If  I  have  to  travel 
far  afield  to  find  the  honourable  member 
between  Christmas  and  New  Year's— up  at 
York  University  or  wherever  he  is  doing  his 
sabbatical— I  will  find  the  honourable  mem- 
ber and  share  the  information  with  him. 

PUBLIC  SERVICE  GRIEVANCES 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Mr.  Speaker,  a  question  to 
the  Chairman,  Management  Board  of  Cabinet, 
with  a  request  that  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Elgie)  listen  too,  because  both  of  them 
may  wish  to  get  involved  with  the  answer. 

Can  the  Chairman  of  Management  Board 
say  whether  it  is  true  that  his  ministry  re- 
cently investigated  the  financial  effects  of  the 
Graham  Cook  forgeries  only  to  find  that,  in 
addition  to  almost  bankrupting  some  com- 
panies, the  forgeries  have  increased  in  num- 
ber from  55  to  169? 

Hon.  Mr.  McCague:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
sorry  but  I  missed  the  first  part;  the  reference 
to  what? 

Mr.  Van  Home:  I  am  trying  to  determine 
whether  it  was  Management  Board  that 
further  investigated  the  Graham  Cook  forger- 
ies in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  the  employee 
in  question  was  a  member  of  the  public 
service  when  he  ran  into  some  difficulty. 
There  were  violations  of  the  Construction 
Safety  Act.  I  put  the  question,  in  the 
chairman's  absence,  to  another  one  of  the 
ministers  last  week  and  was  told  by  the 
Minister  of  Labour  the  case  had  been  investi- 
gated and  the  employee  in  question  was  re- 
instated. 

My  question  is  not  so  much  about  the  rein- 
statement but  rather  about  the  forgeries 
themselves  and  the  investigation  by  Manage- 
ment Board  or  another  ministry.  Have  these 
forgeries  been  investigated?  Has  the  number 
of  forgeries  reported  grown  to  169  rather  than 
the  55  that  was  originally  indicated? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  answer 
that  question  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 
First  of  all,  the  facts  should  be  clear.  There 


were  some  allegations  against  an  employee 
at  the  ministry  in  the  construction  safety 
division  in  Windsor.  It  was  investigated  and, 
as  a  result  of  that,  he  was  discharged.  He 
grieved  at  discharge  before  the  Crown  Em- 
ployees Grievance  Settlement  Board,  the 
board  appointed  under  my  colleague  the 
Chairman  of  Management  Board,  and  it  over- 
turned the  dismissal.  That  decision  was  ap- 
pealed by  my  ministry  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
which  upheld  the  decision  of  the  Crown  Em- 
ployees Grievance  Settlement  Board  and  the 
employee  was  reinstated. 

As  to  whether  there  are  any  further  in- 
vestigations going  on,  I  am  not  at  liberty  to 
reveal  that  and  I  have  no  personal  knowledge 
of  them.  I  will  be  pleased  to  look  into  it.  I 
will  not  assure  the  member  I  will  report  to 
the  House,  because  it  depends  on  what  stage 
tlie  investigations  are  at— if  they  are  going 
on;  I  do  not  know  that  they  are. 

Mr.  Van  Home:  While  the  minister  is  do- 
ing that,  will  he  attempt  to  determine  whether 
the  fatal  accident  involving  a  16-year-old 
volunteer  worker  on  a  construction  site  in 
August  1977  was  related  to  one  of  those 
forgeries?  If  that  was  the  case,  can  he  come 
back  to  the  House  and  give  us  some  indica- 
tion as  to  what  his  ministry  might  do  to 
preclude  this  sort  of  thing  happening  in  the 
future? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Just  so  we  get  the  air 
perfectly  clear  here,  the  particular  gentle- 
man the  honourable  member  referred  to  was 
discharged  ibv  my  ministry;  he  was  fired. 
He  grieved  that  firing  and  the  decision  of 
the  ministry  was  overturned  by  the  Crown 
Employees  Grievance  Settlement  Board. 
The  decision  of  that  board  was  upheld  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Ontario.  Let  us  not 
leave  any  slight  suggestion  that  there  is 
anything  improper  going  on  here.  He  was 
discharged  and  that  decision  was  overturned 
at  two  levels  of  appeal. 

I  am  not  aware  of  any  further  investiga- 
tions going  on  in  that  case.  Certainly  they 
could  not  go  on  with  regard  to  events  that 
preceded  that  particular  charge,  since  these 
had  been  dealt  with.  If  there  is  anything 
going  on,  whether  or  not  I  report  to  this 
House  will  depend  on  the  stage  things  have 
reached.  I  can  give  the  member  no  other 
commitment  than  that. 

OHIP  BILLING  BY  PHYSIOTHERAPISTS 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Health  concerning 
the  problems  facing  certain  private  physio- 
therapy clinics.  Can  he  indicate  why  his 
ministry,   after   15  years,   continues  to  deny 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5027 


Ontario  health  insurance  plan  billing  privi- 
leges to  new  private  physiotherapy  clinics 
when  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board 
is  granting  billing  privileges?  Will  the  min- 
ister indicate  to  this  House  what  he  intends 
to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrtell:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  an- 
swer may  be  a  little  lengthy;  so  I  warn  you 
in    advance. 

First  of  all,  let  us  look  at  the  back- 
ground. Until  the  mid-1960s,  the  only  in- 
sured service  at  all  was  in  the  hospitals 
under  the  original  hospital  insurance  plan. 
In  the  mid-1960s,  it  was  the  decision  of 
the  minister  of  the  day,  Dr.  Dymond,  to 
allow  for  some  billing  by  private  practices 
to  relieve  the  pressure  that  existed  at  that 
time  on  some  hospitals  in  some  areas  of  the 
province.  Even  those  practices  that  are 
allowed  to  bill  OHIP  directly  today,  are 
allowed  under  the  existing  policy,  which  is 
basically   hospital-oriented. 

Second,  it  was  the  Ministry  of  Health 
that  recently  reopened  the  discussions  with 
the  Ontario  Physiotherapy  Association  with 
a  view  to  trying  to  resolve,  after  admittedly 
many  years,  the  question  of  whether  there 
should  be  more  or  whether  there  should  be 
any  private  practices  billing  OHIP  directly. 

The  honourable  member  knows  I  met 
earlier  today  with  representatives  of  a  group 
of  physiotherapists.  I  pointed  out  to  them 
that  we  are  meeting  on  Wednesday  of  this 
week— and  when  I  say  "we,"  I  mean  repre- 
sentatives of  my  ministry  staff— with  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Ontario  Physiotherapy 
Association.  I  have  frequently  stated  it  is 
my  hope  we  can  bring  these  matters  to  a 
head  by  the  end  of  the  calendar  year  and 
resolve,  one  way  or  the  other,  where  we  go 
from  here  in  the  future. 

I  also  indicated  to  them  that  as  far  as  I 
am  concerned  the  range  of  options  is  as 
wide  as  one  can  imagine.  They  submitted 
to  me  that  every  physiotherapist  should 
have  the  right  to  bill  OHIP  on  referral  from 
a  physician.  I  indicated  that  is  one  extreme. 
The  other  extreme  would  be  that  perhaps 
we  would  move  towards  having  no  physio- 
therapists billing  OHIP  directly,  and  in- 
stead, like  co-operative  services  and  many 
others,  they  would  all  be  based  in  hospitals, 
particularly   in   outpatient  clinics. 

The  negotiations  are  continuing,  and  I 
hope  it  will  be  possible  to  resolve  this 
matter  by  the  end  of  the  calendar  year. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Given  that  this  is  a  matter 
of  public  access  to  the  health  care  system, 
does  the  honourable  minister  not  think  the 
public  should  be  involved  in  the  discussions? 


Does'  the  minister  not  think  he  has  a  respon- 
sibility to  state  government  policy  on  these 
matters  rather  than  holding  closed-door 
negotiations  with  one  of  the  groups 
involved? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  There  is  one  group  in- 
volved, which  represents  all  physiotherapists 
in  the  province.  Even  the  group  with  whom  I 
met  today  made  it  very  plain  it  was  not 
asking  to  meet  with  me  to  embarrass  the 
Ontario  Physiotherapy  Association  or  to  usurp 
its  efforts.  They  wanted  to  make  it  very 
plain  that  they  see  we  must  negotiate  with 
one  body,  namely,  the  Ontario  Physiotherapy 
Association.  That  is  what  we  are  doing  and 
that  is  what  we  are  going  to  do. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker:  I 
wonder  whether  the  honourable  minister  can 
tell  the  House  if  it  is  his  intention,  in  pre- 
paring budgets  for  the  coming  year,  to  re- 
move the  inequities  that  have  been  referred 
to  in  the  original  question  so  that  he  will  be 
able  to  deal  with  the  physiotherapists  on  a 
uniform  and  just  basis,  recognizing  the  con- 
cept that  their  requirements  are  uniform  and 
they  should  be  under  OHIP  in  a  uniform 
way? 

Hem.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  pointed 
this  out  to  the  group  of  physiotherapists,  and 
I  remind  the  honourable  member  that  basi- 
cally whatever  evolves  as  new  government 
policy  must  be  based  on  public  need  and  the 
assessment  of  the  public's  needs.  I  pointed 
out  to  them  that  because  one  has  the  ability 
to  operate  a  laboratory,  one  cannot  set  up  a 
laboratory  anywhere  in  the  province  and 
demand  we  accept  the  billings.  I  pointed  out 
to  them  that  just  because  they  have  the 
ability  to  operate  a  private  hospital,  nursing 
home  or  whatever,  they  cannot  just  set  it 
up  and  demand  that  the  government  pay 
them.  Any  question  with  respect  to  the  pro- 
vision of  physiotherapy  services,  laboratory 
services,  hospitals,  nursing  homes  must  be 
based  on  an  assessment  of  public  need. 
3:20  p.m. 

LIQUOR  REGULATIONS 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  direct 
my  question  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations.  Is  the  minister  con- 
sidering withdrawing  or  amending  the  regula- 
tions which  have  been  uneven  over  the  last 
two  years  and  which  have  so  seriously  dis- 
rupted the  fund-raising  operations  of  a  num- 
ber of  service  clubs  across  the  province?  I 
am  referring  particularly  to  the  uneven  ap- 
plication of  the  rule  that  says  one  cannot 
take  a  drink  to  a  gaming  table.  The  honour- 


5028 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


able  minister  smiles,  but  it  was  raised  last 
week  when  he  indicated  he  was  afraid  they 
were  going  to  spill  their  drinks  on  the  gaming 
table. 

I  would  ask  the  minister  if  he  is  not  aware 
that  what  he  designates  as  Monte  Carlo 
nights  are  okay  out  in  Scarborough,  where 
he  and  his  friends  attend  in  white  tie  and 
tails,  but  in  the  rest  of  the  province,  where 
they  are  referred  to  as  turkey  rolls,  the  regu- 
lation appears  absolutely  preposterous  and 
ridiculous  and  is  bringing  his  regulations  into 
disrepute. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  the 
same  as  the  silly  letter  the  honourable  mem- 
ber wrote  to  me  the  other  day  and  I  thought 
I  explained  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  want  an  intelligent  answer. 
Hon.   Mr.  Drea:  The  member  got  a  very 
intelligent  answer,  if  he  would  only- 
Mr.  Nixon:  It  has  not  arrived. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  gave  the  member  a  very 
intelligent  answer  the  other  day. 

Mr.   Nixon:   That  the   minister   was   afraid 
they  would  spill  their  drinks  on  the  table? 
Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  did  not  say  I  was  con- 
cerned about  the  spilling  of  drinks,  I  said 
we  had  a  number  of  complaints.  The  ap- 
plication is  even  across  the  province.  I  have 
spoken  to  the  Liquor  Licence  Board  of 
Ontario  about  the  interpretation  of  the  things 
we  want.  I  spoke  to  them  on  Friday.  Did  it 
go  well  on  Friday  night,  I  ask  the  member 
for  Brantford,  who  was  over  here  hustling 
on  Friday? 

Mr.   Makarchuk:    I   was  not  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:   He  was  not  there. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  do  not  know  whether  that 
word   is   unparliamentary  or  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  applica- 
tion is  very  even.  I  took  steps  on  Friday, 
particularly  at  the  liquor  licence  board,  with 
individual  inspectors,  which  I  think  indeed 
has  been  some  of  the  problem.  It  is  very 
clear  that  the  bar,  or  the  place  where  the 
drinks  are  being  sold,  is  to  be  physically 
separated.  That  does  not  mean  a  partition  or 
whatever,  just  a  physical  distance. 

There  is  another  reason  for  this,  and  I  am 
not  talking  about  anything  in  the  member's 
area  when  I  say  this.  One  of  the  problems 
when  we  first  introduced  Monte  Carlo  was 
that  some  hall  operators  attempted  to  put  an 
admission  fee  in  both  for  a  bingo  and  for  a 
Monte  Carlo  and  to  run  a  bar  somewhere 
else  in  the  building,  keeping  the  bar  proceeds 


for  themselves.  It  is  government  policy  that 
if  one  has  a  Monte  Carlo  and  a  liquor 
licence,  the  proceeds  from  the  bar  must  go 
to  the  same  place  as  those  from  the  Monte 
Carlo. 

The  reason  for  the  physical  separation  is 
because  of  a  number  of  complaints.  We  also 
want  to  make  sure  that  the  bar  proceeds— in 
the  member's  area  there  has  never  been  an 
abuse  but  there  has  elsewhere— go  to  the 
same  charity  the  proceeds  from  the  Monte 
Carlo  are  supposed  to  go  to. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Is  the  minister  not  aware  that 
the  abuse  does  not  come  from  the  com- 
munity to  the  ministry,  but  from  the  min- 
istry to  the  community?  That  is  a  fact,  and 
these  people  who  have  operated  very  well 
and  accepted  individual  turkey  rolls  and 
Monte  Carlo  nights  for  years,  have  all  of  a 
sudden  had  the  minister's  people  come  in 
and  disrupt  them  and  stop  them.  It  is  ex- 
tremely embarrassing,  and  if  the  minister 
thinks  he  can  fix  up  one  for  my  good  friend 
the  member  for  Brantford  he  had  better  fix 
them  all  up. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Two. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Two. 

Mr.  Nixon:  That  is  what  I  mean,  it  is 
uneven.  If  the  minister  is  interested,  it  is 
okay. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:   They  were  in  your  area. 
Mr.  Nixon:  You  have  already  closed  them 
down. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  have  not.  Mr.  Speaker, 
this  is  a  little  bit  silly.  The  two  places  were 
Branch  90  of  the  Legion  and  Norbrant  Opti- 
mists Club.  If  the  member  was  not  at  both, 
I  guess  he  was  at  home  and  I  cannot  help 
that. 

The  application  of  the  law  is  unifonn.  It 
is  in  terms  of  community  betterment.  The 
member  says  it  has  been  going  on  for  years, 
but  we  have  not  had  Monte  Carlo  under 
licence  in  this  province  for  more  than  two 
years. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  As  much  as  I  appreciate  the  hon- 
ourable minister's  involvement  to  resolve  the 
problem  for  the  two  clubs  in  question,  can 
he  at  this  time  give  some  assurance  that  his 
officials  will  stop  acting  in  the  arbitrary  way 
they  have  in  the  past  and  allow  the  veterans' 
service  clubs  to  operate  as  they  have  done  in 
the  past  without  bringing  the  society  down 
and  without  corrupting  the  community  or 
without  creating  any  problems  whatsoever? 
Why  does  he  allow  his  officials  to  persist  in 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5029 


harassing  them?  If  it  is  not  one  damned 
thing  it  is  something  else  from  day  to  day. 
Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  officials 
do  not  harass  anybody.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  is  a  matter  of  record,  and  this  comes  from 
the  United  States  so  it  must  be  true,  that  we 
have  the  best  control,  the  best  mechanisms, 
the  best  programs  for  social  gaming  in  this 
province  that  exist  anywhere  in  North 
America.  Would  the  honourable  member 
believe  that  last  year  between  $135  million 
and  $145  million,  because  our  figures  are  not 
yet  up  for  the  fiscal  year,  were  donated  to 
charity  by  those  devices? 

PETITION 

OHIP  BILLING  BY  PHYSIOTHERAPISTS 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to  table 
a  petition  signed  by  1,120  residents  of  the 
province  of  Ontario  addressed  to  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly: 

We,  the  undersigned  residents  of  Ontario, 
have  had  occasion  to  utilize  physiotherapy 
outpatient  services  as  a  part  of  a  prescribed 
medical  treatment  program.  Each  of  us  has 
reason  to  believe  that  the  OHIP  insurance 
coverage,  as  it  pertains  to  physiotherapy  out- 
patient services,  is  failing  to  serve  the  citizens 
of  Ontario  in  a  reasonable  and  responsible 
manner.  We  submit  that  it  is  our  personal  ex- 
perience that  OHIP  has  failed  to  meet  our 
essential  needs  in  one  or  all  of,  but  not 
necessarily  limited  to,  the  following  situations: 

1.  In  certain  circumstances  we  have  been 
caused  to  pay  from  personal  and  means  other 
than  OHIP  for  medically  prescribed  treat- 
ments which  are  within  our  rights  to  have 
within  the  terms  of  the  OHIP  plan.  The 
reason,  as  we  understand  it,  is  that  although 
any  registered  physiotherapist  may  treat  a 
patient  on  referral  from  a  medical  prac- 
titioner, only  a  very  limited  number  are  al- 
lowed to  bill  the  OHIP  plan  on  our  behalf  in 
terms  of  regulations  made  under  the  Health 
Insurance  Act. 

2.  In  certain  cases,  because  we  had  no 
personal  means  of  payment  outside  of  OHIP, 
we  have  been  caused  to  attend  treatments  at 
facilities  which  were,  in  our  opinion,  over- 
crowded and  which  were  probably  not  con- 
ducive to  earliest  recovery  as  a  result  of 
overcrowding.  This  overcrowding  is  present, 
in  our  estimate,  only  because  other  physio- 
therapy practitioners  available  within  the 
community  are  prevented  from  billing 
OHIP  on  our  behalf. 

3.  In  certain  cases,  we  were  caused  to 
travel    past    one    or    more    available    physio- 


therapy clinics  at  significant  personal  cost  and 
hardship  in  time  and  travel  in  order  to  reach 
a  clinic  approved  for  OHIP  billing. 

4.  In  certain  cases,  we  have  been  caused 
to  accept  treatments  from  persons  who  at  least 
failed  to  inspire  our  confidence  while  pro- 
fessionals of  equal  standing  were  available 
within  the  community  but  could  not  bill 
OHIP. 

In  view  of  these  points,  we  respectfully 
request  attention  by  the  Legislative  Assembly 
towards  resolutions  to  these  failings  of  the 
health  insurance  plan  which  affect  our  physi- 
cal welfare  and  inhibit  freedom  of  choice  as 
to  the  practitioner  we  might  utilize. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  was  a  very  detailed  ex- 
planation. I  will  have  to  look  at  it  to  see 
whether  it  falls  within  the  four  walls  of  a 
legitimate  petition. 

REPORT 

LEGISLATIVE  LIBRARY 

Mr.  Speaker  presented  the  annual  report  of 
the  director  of  the  legislative  library  research 
and  information  services  for  the  fiscal  year 
1979-80. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BELLS 

NURSING  HOMES  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Warner  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  218, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Nursing  Homes  Act, 
1972. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

3:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
the  bill  is  to  establish  statutory  fire  safety 
requirements  for  nursing  homes.  The  bill 
requires  the  licensee  of  a  nursing  home 
to  ensure  each  room  in  the  home  is  equip- 
ped with  a  heat-  and  smoke-activated  fire 
detection  device,  a  warning  light  and  a 
sprinkler  system. 

The  bill  also  requires  that  fire  safety  and 
fire  evacuation  procedures  be  developed 
for  each  nursing  home.  Members  of  the  staff 
of  the  nursing  home  are  required  to  be 
trained  in  these  procedures  and  residents  of 
the  home  are  required  to  be  provided  with 
information  setting  out  the  procedures  to 
be  followed  in  case  of  a  fire. 

REPRESENTATION  ACT 

Mr.  Breaugh  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
219,  An  Act  respecting  Representation  in 
the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Ontario. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


5030 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose 
of  the  bill  is  to  increase  the  number  of 
members  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  of 
Ontario  from  125  to  180.  The  bill  provides 
for  the  establishment  of  a  select  committee 
of  the  assembly  to  consider  and  make  rec- 
ommendations concerning  electoral  districts 
for  Ontario. 

FIRE  DEPARTMENTS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Breaugh  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
220,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Fire  Departments 
Act. 

Motion    agreed    to. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
the  bill  is  to  enable  full-time  firefighters  to 
bargain  with  municipal  councils  on  behalf 
of  retired  firefighters  with  respect  to  pen- 
sions, pension  increases  and  other  benefits 
for  retired  firefighters.  The  current  provi- 
sions of  the  act  do  not  provide  any  means 
for  negotiating  the  pensions  and  benefits  of 
retired  firefighters  with  municipal  councils. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

House  in  committee  of  supply. 

ESTIMATES,  MINISTRY  OF  REVENUE 

(concluded) 

On  vote  804,  municipal  assessment  pro- 
gram;  item    1,   administration: 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Chairman:  I  have  a 
number  of  things  I  would  like  to  raise 
quickly  with  the  honourable  minister  under 
this  vote. 

First  of  all,  we  have  had  a  number  of 
discussions  over  the  last  couple  of  years 
about  policy  matters  in  the  property  assess- 
ment area.  I  suppose  I  should  say  that  at 
least  on  la  number  of  issues,  the  minister 
has  been  particularly  receptive  and  I  think 
we  have  actually  worked  out  some  accom- 
modations and  some  changes  have  occurred. 

But  I  want  to  raise  a  matter  with  him 
that  has  been  of  concern  to  a  number  of 
us  for  a  fairly  long  time  now.  I  think  it 
was  first  raised  in  this  Legislature  in  1974. 
It  is  the  matter  of  what  happens  with  the 
small  commercial  tenants  in  shopping  malls. 
The  assessment  that  is  placed  against  their 
premises  in  the  mall  quite  often  puts  a  hard- 
ship on  all  small  tenants  that  is,  in  many 
instances,  unbearable,  and  many  have  gone 
under  as  a  result. 

I  do  not  know  how  familiar  the  minister 
is   with   exactly  what   occurs   but  he  knows 


what  happens  in  large  malls.  The  developer 
of  the  mall  looks  for  a  couple  of  major 
anchor  tenants-AVoolco,  Loblaws,  Eaton's, 
Dominion  or  whatever  the  case  happens  to 
be—because  they  will  attract  people  to  the 
mall.  The  owner  of  the  mall  will  rent 
premises  for  $3,  $3.50  or  $4  a  square  foot 
to  those  large  anchor  tenants  because  he 
desperately  wants  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  small  tenants  who  are  occupying  the 
smaller  premises  throughout  the  rest  of  the 
mall  are  paying  prices  anywhere  up  to  $30 
a  square  foot  and  in  some  instances,  prob- 
ably here  in  Metro  where  I  am  not  quite  as 
familiar  with  the  rents,  even  more  than  that. 

The  minister  is  also  aware  that  in  rental 
malls  like  that,  the  mall  is  being  valued 
economically  based  on  the  rents.  What  is 
happening  is  that  the  small  tenants  who  are 
being  forced  to  pay  $30  a  square  foot  to  get 
in  there  are  also  paying  business  taxes  and, 
through  their  rents,  realty  taxes  that  reflect 
the  $30  a  square  foot.  In  very  pure  eco- 
nomic terms  and  in  terms  of  the  theory  of 
how  those  assessments  are  developed,  the 
assessment  division  is  probably  correct  in  the 
pure  sense,  in  the  appraisal  sense  and  in  the 
value  sense. 

I  want  to  suggest  to  the  minister  that  in 
the  same  way,  when  we  are  talking  about 
retail  sales  tax,  income  tax,  corporations  tax 
or  any  other  kind  of  tax,  this  government  has 
a  responsibility  to  look  at  the  tax  systems  it 
sets  up,  to  look  at  their  impact  and  where 
the  incidence  of  their  effect  is  occurring.  It 
should  attempt  to  see  that  the  taxes  it  levies 
and  the  taxes  it  causes  to  be  levied,  since  it 
is  actually  the  municipalities  in  this  case 
which  levy  the  tax,  are  fair  and  in  the  best 
interests  of  the  whole  society— those  minori- 
ties in  society— and  of  the  development  of 
the  economy  in  this  society. 

We  have  seen  it  in  other  taxes  where  cer- 
tain tax  breaks  are  given  for  specific  sectors 
of  the  economy  because  that  tax  would  cause 
a  particular  hardship.  There  are  all  kinds  of 
ways  of  dealing  with  this  kind  of  problem, 
and,  as  I  say,  it  h  a  probl em  that  has  been 
around  for  a  number  of  years  now.  It  is  a 
problem  that  was  originally  raised  in  this 
Legislature,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  in 
1974  and  is  a  problem  that  this  government 
has  to  deal  with  at  some  point  in  some  land 
of  effective  way.  The  minister  knows  as  well 
as  I  do  that  the  real  backbone  of  the  econ- 
omy in  this  province  is  the  small  business 
sector.  This  government  should  be  doing 
everything  in  its  power  to  see  that  the  small 
business  sector  is  treated  as  fairly  as  possible 
and  encouraged  as  much  as  possible. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5031 


I  have  a  letter  here  from  a  Mr.  Donald  S. 
McKechnie  in  Ottawa  who  wrote  to  his  own 
member  of  the  Legislature  and  has  not  re- 
ceived any  satisfactory  response  yet.  I  will 
send  the  minister  a  copy  of  his  letter,  but  I 
want  to  suggest  to  the  minister  that  the  com- 
plaints he  lays  out  are  very  real  and  have  to 
be  dealt  with.  I  would  like  to  suggest  to  the 
minister  that  in  order  to  deal  with  this  prob- 
lem we  need  to  sit  down  and  carefully  look 
at,  not  so  much  how  one  comes  up  with  the 
total  market  value,  the  economic  value  for  a 
mall,  but  how  one  spreads  that  assessment 
across  the  various  tenants  in  that  mall. 
3:40  p.m. 

I  do  not  think  it  very  fair  for  the  minister, 
his  ministry  and  the  people  in  his  assessment 
division  to  take  the  same  attitude  and  the 
same  approach  as  a  mall  owner  takes  to  de- 
termine the  distribution  of  costs  within  the 
mall. 

The  minister's  people  know  very  v/ell  from 
the  analyses  they  do  that  what  I  suggest 
about  the  rent  differential  between  the  large 
anchor  tenants  and  the  smaller  tenants  is  a 
very  true  and  real  economic  fact  of  Jife  out 
there.  That  does  not  suggest  that  the  minister 
has  to  follow  the  same  discriminatory  game. 
The  large  anchor  tenants  who  have  the  rent 
of  $3  and  $3.50  per  square  foot  do  not  need 
additional  encouragement  from  the  minister 
to  be  there,  but  certainly  the  small  business 
tenants  of  that  mall  do. 

We  have  to  find  some  way  of  distributing 
the  assessment  of  mall  properties  and  the  like 
that  is  better  than  the  present  pure-economic, 
tied-to-rent  approach  to  dividing  that  assess- 
ment once  you  have  come  up  with  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  cannot 
disagree  with  some  of  the  points  the  member 
for  Hamilton  Mountain  is  making,  but  I 
would  remind  him  that  attempts  have  been 
made  to  get  some  agreement  among  the 
tenants  in  these  shopping  malls.  The  House 
might  recall  that  before  I  was  minister  a 
committee  was  formed  to  try  to  discuss  this 
matter,  as  the  honourable  member  perhaps 
has  indicated  in  a  round-about  way.  He  is 
saying  something  should  be  done.  We  took 
that  approach,  but  we  could  never  get  that 
committee  to  come  to  any  sort  of  agreement. 
We  were  never  able  to  get  anything  out  of 
that  committee,  other  than  a  lot  of  discussion. 

I  am  told  by  my  staff  that  rents  are  set  by 
the  owners  on  the  basis  of  bargaining,  as  I  am 
sure  the  member  is  aware.  It  really  boils  down 
to  whatever  the  traffic  will  bear  in  that  situa- 
tion. But  the  allocation  of  assessment  among 
the  tenants  is  calculated  on  the  basis  of  fair 
market  value— not  necessarily  totally  on  the 


rent,  as  the  member's  remarks  would  indicate. 
We  feel  this  has  the  effect  of  evening  out,  at 
least  to  a  certain  degree,  over  the  complete 
shopping  centre. 

There  is  another  thing  one  has  to  take  into 
consideration.  We  have  talked  about  anchor 
stores  and  so  on,  the  major  stores  such  as 
Eaton's  and  Simpsons  and  all  of  the  large 
ones.  The  reason  they  get  the  deal  they  do 
obviously  is  simply  because  they  are  the  star 
attractions.  If  they  were  not  there,  the  smaller 
stores  would  have  very  few  customers  to  deal 
with.  I  am  sure  the  member  is  aware  that  is 
how  they  get  that  advantage  with  the  de- 
veloper. Without  an  anchor  store  or  a  large 
chain  store  of  some  kind,  the  other  small 
centres  just  would  not  exist  because  there 
would  not  be  enough  traffic  created.  It  is  the 
large  department  stores  that  create  the  traffic 
that  the  small  stores  take  advantage  of. 

The  member  knows  we  continue  to  look 
at  these  situations  and  try  to  rectify  them.  I 
don't  know  if  we  can  go  much  further,  unless 
we  get  back  into  the  committee  type  of  dis- 
cussion whereby  we  can  get  some  sort  of 
agreement.  Staff  advise  me  they  feel  the  way 
it  is  set  up  at  the  moment  is  as  fair  as  they 
can  get  it. 

Mr.  Charlton:  If  I  could  just  comment 
further  on  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  minister  is 
correct:  the  rents  do  not  exactly  reflect  the 
assessments,  but  the  differential  between  the 
rents  the  small  tenants  pay  and  the  large 
tenants  pay  is  not  adequately,  not  com- 
pletely, dealt  with  in  the  approach  to  fair 
market  assessment  of  each  unit. 

My  point  is  simply  this:  The  minister  has 
just  admitted  quite  clearly,  as  I  suggested 
in  the  first  instance,  that  the  landlord,  the 
owner  of  the  mall,  the  developer,  is  offering 
the  low  rent  to  the  anchor  tenant  as  a  benefit. 
He  has  to  make  that  up  somewhere  else 
in  the  rents  to  the  small  tenants.  Being  next 
door  to  the  anchor  tenants  has  some  advan- 
tages to  the  small  tenants. 

On  the  other  hand,  because  you  have  ad- 
mitted that  those  rents  do  not  necessarily  in 
any  way  reflect  the  real  value  of  the  space, 
because  there  is  an  economic  consideration 
being  made  here  in  terms  of  who  would  get 
in  as  opposed  to  the  value  of  the  property, 
I  am  suggesting  to  you  that  you  should  be 
ignoring  who  paid  the  rents. 

You  have  to  use  the  rents  to  determine  the 
total  value  of  the  property,  but  you  should  be 
ignoring  the  deals  that  landlords  make  in 
order  to  get  certain  people  in  there.  You 
should  be  dealing  with  the  total  value 
of  the  property  and  breaking  up  the  total 
assessment  that  you  come  up  with,  based  on 


5032 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


what  people  actually  occupy  in  the  mall,  as 
opposed  to  this  supposed  fair  market  value. 
The  fair  market  value  is  being  distorted  by 
the  deals  that  are  being  done  by  the  landlords, 
the  developers,  in  order  to  suit  their  economic 
needs,  not  the  needs  of  the  tenants  necessarily 
at  all. 

I  am  suggesting  to  you  that  if  the  landlord 
feels  the  need  to  give  an  advantage  to  the 
large  tenant  in  order  to  get  him  there,  then, 
based  on  your  committed  support  of  the 
small  business  sector  in  this  province,  the  first 
thing  that  should  be  popping  into  your  head 
is  that  since  the  landlord  is  giving  an  ad- 
vantage to  that  big  tenant,  how  can  you  help 
some  assistance  to  flow  the  other  way.  I  am 
suggesting  to  you  that  if  you  ignore  the 
economic  deals  made  in  the  best  interests  of 
the  landlord  and  just  look  at  the  total  value 
of  a  mall  and  break  it  up,  based  on  what 
people  actually  use  in  occupying  that  mall, 
you  will  be  doing  a  great  service  to  the  small 
business  community  in  the  malls  across  this 
province. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  What  you  are  suggesting 
to  us  then  is  we  should  be  doing  it  by  the 
square  foot  rather  than  taking  into  con- 
sideration any  rent  at  all. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Square  foot  and  an  appro- 
priate amount  of  the  common  area. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  My  staff  tells  me  that  we 
still  work  out  a  fair  market  rent  for  the 
anchor  tenants.  We  do  not  accept  necessarily 
what  they  pay  in  rent  as  their  portion  to- 
wards the  taxes. 

Mr.  Charlton:  I  understand  that  but  the 
differential  does  not  get  totally  taken  care  of 
in  the  adjustments. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  point  is  well  made. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  know  the 
minister  has  had  some  problems  in  assessing 
apartments  with  regard  to  the  time  that 
elapses  until  the  time  the  house  is  occupied. 
Some  of  the  municipalities  have  complained 
considerablv  over  this  as  they  want  to  be 
able  to  collect  taxes.  People  move  in  and 
might  be  there  for  nine  months  or  some- 
thing, whatever  the  case  might  be.  Then  they 
would  get  a  notice  later  that  their  taxes  were 
due  for  nine  months  or  whatever,  where 
normally  a  lot  of  the  places  would  get  a  tax 
demand  every  three  months.  They  get  this 
large  tax  demand  all  at  one  time  because  the 
assessment  was  far  behind  for  the  municipali- 
ties to  get  out  their  notice. 

I  was  wondering  if  you  have  that  problem. 
I  know  I  received  a  letter  from  you  which,  I 
think,  you  sent  out  to  most  of  the  municipali- 
ties with  regard  to  that  matter.  I  do  not  have 


it  before  me  now.  What  is  the  status  of  that 
now?  Are  you  getting  caught  up  with  that,  or 
does  it  have  to  do  with  the  amount  of  build- 
ing that  is  going  on? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  In  the  letter  I  wrote  to 
you,  I  said  the  process  that  we  will  be  fol- 
lowing within  the  ministry  now  is  that  it  will 
be  updated  four  times  a  year.  I  do  not  think 
they  will  run  into  the  period  of  nine  months 
any  mere.  When  we  are  doing  this  addi- 
tional assessment  that  we  pick  uo  as  we  go 
along,  if  we  do  it  four  times,  I  think  it  will 
resolve  most  of  the  problems  you  have  been 
referring  to. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Do  you  make  up  the  voters' 
lists  for  all  the  municipalities?  I  noticed  in 
some  of  the  voters'  lists— we  get  a  copy,  of 
course,  from  each  municipality— some  will 
have  a  very  correct  and  precise  address,  but 
other  municipalities  will  really  have  hardly 
any  address  at  all  on  the  list.  I  am  wondering 
whether  that  is  because  of  the  way  the  enu- 
merators fill  it  out.  It  is  very  difficult  in  some 
rural  arsas  or  where  they  might  have  a  num- 
ber, but  it  does  not  mean  too  much  because 
there  might  be  a  box  holder  or  something. 
Being  in  a  semi-rural  area,  I  notice  in  some 
of  the  municipalities  there  was  quite  a  dif- 
ference in  the  actual  addresses.  If  one  wants 
to  send  a  letter  to  someone  it  is  more  diffi- 
cult to  do  this  with  some  municipalities  than 
with  others. 
3:50  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  believe  the  cause  of 
that  would  be  the  difference  in  the  enumera- 
tors. They  are  supposed  to  provide  us  with  a 
proper  mailing  address  because,  obviously, 
we  need  to  know  exactly  where  they  live. 
Some  of  them  will  go  to  the  extreme  and  put 
down  the  lot  and  concession  number  if  it  is 
a  rural  area.  But  that  does  not  help  much  if 
one  wants  to  send  a  letter  to  them.  If  there 
are  municipalities  where  the  address  is  not 
sufficient  to  receive  a  letter,  I  would  like  to 
know  about  it  because  the  address  should  be 
sufficient  so  they  could  receive  their  mail 
properly.  I  know  some  enumerators  take 
down  considerably  more  information  than 
others.  Some  of  them  go  to  extremes  and  take 
down  information  that  is  not  of  much  value, 
but  as  long  as  the  addresses  we  get  are  suffi- 
cient for  those  who  receive  mail,  we  are 
rather  happy  about  that. 

If  there  are  some  municipalities  in  a 
riding  where  the  address  is  not  proper,  there 
could  be  another  reason.  Our  enumerators, 
on  the  average,  miss  about  five  per  cent  of 
the  people.  I  am  talking  about  personal 
contact.  They  go  back  once  or  twice  or  three 
times.    I    forget    what    the    procedure    is.    If 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5033 


they  are  not  there  on  that  last  visit  they 
leave  the  enumeration  information  and  ask 
them  to  fill  it  out  and  mail  it  in,  so  some  of 
those  addresses  could  be  given  by  the  people 
themselves.  There  could  be  some  mistakes 
there. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  congratulate  the  minister  on  his  announce- 
ment about  holding  province-wide  assess- 
ment open  houses  to  demystify  assessment 
notices  sent  out  to  taxpayers  and  tenants.  I 
would  like  to  ask  him  if  he  might  not  also 
be  prepared  to  explain  to  taxpayers  and 
tenants  when  the  property  tax  credit,  which 
is  needed  to  give  tax  relief  to  low-  and 
middle-income  earners,  will  be  revamped.  It 
has  not  been  changed  in  the  past  five  years 
and  it  is  now  largely  eroded  by  inflation.  Has 
the  minister  considered  indexing  that  prop- 
erty tax  credit  and  has  any  work  been  done 
on  bringing  forward  a  new  proposal  for  a 
property  tax  credit  to  present  to  the  Trea- 
surer (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  have  long  passed 
the  section  of  the  vote  that  deals  with 
property  tax  credits.  However,  I  thfnk  the 
member  knows  that  in  the  past  it  has  not 
been  the  policy  of  this  government  to  index. 
We  do  not  anticipate  we  will  be  doing  any 
indexing  unless  there  is  a  change  in  policy 
across  the  government.  We  have  not  been 
indexing.   It  has  not  been  our  policy. 

We  look  at  the  Ontario  tax  credit  program 
from  time  to  time.  If  there  is  a  change  in 
that,  and  I  presume  the  member  is  referring 
to  whether  it  is  going  to  be  raised  rather 
than  any  other  change- 
Ms.  Bryden:  The  flat  rate,  Mr.  Minister, 
plus  the  percentage  increases. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  But  you  are  really  talk- 
ing about  the  funding. 

Ms.  Bryden:  It  doesn't  take  account  of 
the  tax  increase. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  Ontario  tax  credit 
is  based,  as  you  know,  on  income  so  it  does 
change  with  the  person's  role  in  society.  If 
he  starts  to  make  more  money,  of  course,  he 
gets  less;  if  he  is  in  a  poor  position  where  he 
is  making  less  this  year  than  he  was  last 
year,  obviously  he  Will  get  more  help.  There 
is  a  fluctuation  there.  I  presume  the  member 
is  talking  about  the  overall  injection  of  addi- 
tional funds  into  that  program.  That  would 
be  a  decision  the  Treasurer  would  necessarily 
take  rather  than  the  Minister  of  Revenue. 
When  it  is  budget  time,  he  would  decide 
whether  there  are  additional  funds  that 
should  go  into  that  particular  program. 


Vote  804  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Chairman:  This  completes  considera- 
tion of  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry  of 
Revenue. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  com- 
mittee of  supply  reported  certain  resolutions. 

CONCURRENCE  IN  SUPPLY 

First  Clerk  Assistant:  Mr.  Edighoffer  from 
the  committee  of  supply  reports  the  follow- 
ing resolutions: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  government 
ministries  named  be  granted  to  Her  Majesty 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,    1980. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Dispense? 

Reading  dispensed  with.  (See  appendix  A, 
page  5055.) 

Resolutions   concurred  in. 

BUDGET  DEBATE 
( continued ) 

Resuming  the  adjourned  debate  on  the 
amendment  to  the  motion  that  this  House 
approves  in  general  the  budgetary  policy  of 
the  government. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  I  am  indulging  in  a  bit  of 
last-minute  preparation.  Perhaps  my  speech 
will  sound  like  it,  but  that  has  never  deterred 
me  before  and  it  is  not  going  to  deter  me 
this  time. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  it 
is  a  pleasure  to  participate  in  this  debate 
once  again.  I  commend  you  for  the  way  in 
which  you  conduct  your  onerous  responsi- 
bilities. I  do  not  always  get  recognized  for 
a  supplementary  in  question  period,  but  I 
recognize  full  well  that  is  right  and  proper.  I 
really  have  no  complaints  and  I  commend 
you  for  the  excellent  way  in  which  you 
preside. 

There  is  always  a  good  opportunity  for 
me  to  advance  some  of  my  pet  peeves  and 
theories,  either  in  the  throne  debate  or  in 
the  budget  debate.  I  am  participating  now 
in  the  budget  debate  and  I  have  a  brief 
commentary  on  the  province's  budgetary 
management.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  not  getting 
any  better.  Of  course,  the  honourable 
members  would  not  expect  me  to  say  any- 
thing else,  would  they? 

1  know  when  Mr.  McKeough  was  the 
Treasurer  he  said  he  was  going  to  balance 
the  budget.  We  were  going  to  have  a 
balanced  budget  in  this  province  by  1982 
or  1983,  mark  you.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
we  are  getting  further  away  from  it.  We  are 
going  into  hock  this  year  for  just  a  shade 


5034 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


over  $1  billion.  It  is  hard  to  say  what  will 
happen  next  year,  but  since  Mr.  McKeough 
made  that  promise,  the  budgetary  affairs  of 
this  province  have  not  got  any  better.  In- 
deed, I  think  in  many  respects  they  have 
got  worse. 

I  am  going  to  talk  in  very  brief  terms 
today  about  an  industry  that  I  consider  to 
be  very  important.  I  also  want  to  deal  to  a 
greater  extent  on  the  topic  that  was  going 
to  be  my  subject  had  I  been  able  to  partici- 
pate in  the  private  members'  hour.  Since 
we  have  had  two  emergency  debates  on  two 
successive  Thursdays,  that  means  I  am 
going  to  be  bumped  from  that  opportunity. 
If  one  cannot  do  it  one  Way,  one  does  it 
another  and  that  is  exactly  what  I  am  going 
to  do. 
4  p.m. 

I  want  to  mention  the  province's  worsen- 
ing position  financially  and  the  energy  prob- 
lems that  we  face  in  this  province,  which 
appear  to  be— and  I  think  are,  in  reality- 
much  more  severe  than  in  many  other  parts 
of  the  country.  Because  we  are  the  most 
industrialized  province,  energy  impacts  on 
this  province  perhaps  more  than  any  other 
when  the  world  price  for  oil  shoots  up  as 
it  has  been  doing  in  the  last  five,  six  or 
seven  years. 

First,  I  want  to  speak  about  the  dairy 
industry  because  in  my  part  of  the  province 
the  dairy  industry  is  very  important.  In  my 
riding  of  Huron-Bruce,  I  have  a  lot  of  gooa 
dairy  farmers  who  are  top  producers  in  their 
field,  and  I  think  it  is  only  fitting  I  should 
put  on  the  record  some  of  the  facts  related 
to  the  dairy  industry  in  this  province.  The 
dairy  industry  is  economically  and  political- 
ly important  in  all  the  provinces,  obviously, 
but  especially  so  in  the  Maritimes,  Quebec, 
Ontario  and  British  Columbia. 

Just  to  give  the  House  an  idea  of  its 
magnitude,  the  dairy  industry  directly  has 
sales  of  $2.5  billion,  which  is  about  one 
per  cent  of  Canada's  total  gross  national 
product.  Milk  and  dairy  beef  represent  the 
single  largest  section  of  the  Canadian  food 
system  and  direct  employment  in  the  dairy 
industry  is  estimated  at  145,000,  which  is 
1.3  per  cent  of  the  total  Canadian  work 
force. 

A  dollar  of  gross  sales  in  the  dairy  indus- 
try generates  $3  of  sales  in  the  economy. 
In  comparison,  $1  brings  only  $2  in  the 
motor  vehicle  and  aircraft  industry.  A  dollar 
of  net  income  in  the  dairy  industry  gener- 
ates $5  of  income  in  the  economy.  When 
one  compares  that  with  the  motor  vehicle 
industry  and  the  aircraft  industry,  the  com- 


parison figure  is  $1  generating  $3.60  in  the 
economy. 

I  think  the  dairy  industry  is  one  of  the 
strongest,  if  not  the  strongest,  sectors  in  the 
Canadian  agricultural  picture  at  the  mo- 
ment. We,  of  course,  do  have  supply  man- 
agement in  the  dairy  industry  which  has 
brought  a  great  deal  of  stability  to  it.  I 
would  certainly  say  that  back  in  the  early 
1960s  and  mid-1960s  it  was  obvious  some- 
thing had  to  be  done,  and  I  think  the  supply 
management  program  has  been  very  suc- 
cessful. Undoubtedly  there  are  problems, 
but  there  always  will  be  with  these  things. 
Obviously,  up  until  now,  they  have  been 
worked  out  rather  well. 

The  Canadian  dairy  farmers  are  among 
the  most  productive  and  efficient  in  the 
world.  Forty-six  per  cent  fewer  dairy  farm- 
ers now  produce  virtually  the  same  volume 
of  milk  as  was  produced  in  1971.  On 
average,  Canadian  milk  producers  now  pro- 
duce enough  milk  for  275  consumers  com- 
pared to  only  60  in  1961,  an  increase  in 
productivity  of  460  per  cent,  which  I  think 
is  a  credit  to  the  dairy  industry  and  a 
credit  to   the   agricultural  industry. 

I  want  to  turn  now  to  the  subject  of  my 
resolution  on  the  Notice  Paper,  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  I  may  do  so.  I  put  a  resolution  on  the 
Notice  Paper  which,  in  the  normal  course 
of  events,  would  have  been  debated  last 
Thursday,  but,  because  of  the  emergency 
debates  we  have  had  in  this  House,  it  is 
now  obvious  that  it  will  not  be  debated  in 
private  members'  hour.  Hence  I  am  going 
to  deal  with  it  today  in  the  budget  debate. 

I  indicated  that  I  feel  this  province  should 
move  forward  immediately  to  implement  a 
policy  of  cogeneration  to  make  use  of  the 
waste  byproduct  power  from  our  nuclear 
plants  and  all  thermal  generating  plants. 
It  is  disturbing  that  six  years  after  the  in- 
dustrialized nations  of  trie  western  world 
received  clear  warning  that  the  days  of 
plentiful  and  cheap  Mideast  oil  were  ending, 
neither  the  United  States  nor  Canada  has 
taken  any  significant  steps  towards  domestic 
energy  self-sufficiency. 

At  the  national  level  the  energy  issue  has 
become  so  embroiled  with  the  constitutional 
debate  that  one  tends  to  treat  them  as  one  and 
the  same.  Moreover,  there  is  a  feeling  that  if 
the  domestic  price,  along  with  the  problem  of 
revenue-sharing  between  the  producing  com- 
panies and  the  two  levels  of  government  could 
be  settled,  then  the  constitutional  debate 
could  be  resolved  quickly.  That  is  not  neces- 
sarily so,  and  I  doubt  it  would  happen  that 
way.  Unfortunately,  however,  the  two  issues 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5035 


have  united  to  develop  a  serious  confrontation 
between  east  and  west,  and  between  the 
federal  government  and  Alberta. 

I  say  "unfortunately"  for  a  number  of 
reasons,  one  of  which  is  the  fact  it  has  tended 
to  cloud  the  energy  problem  with  which  we 
are  faced  in  this  country.  Here  in  the  east  we 
take  a  look  at  the  Alberta  heritage  trust  fund 
now  totalling  $6.4  billion,  growing  by  $2,000 
a  minute  and  reaching  $35  billion  by  1990, 
just  10  years  hence.  Actually,  if  Alberta  de- 
posited all  its  oil  reserves  in  the  fund  instead 
of  the  30  per  cent,  the  province  theoretically 
would  be  able  to  buy  the  assets  of  General 
Motors  of  Canada  in  188  days.  We  in  the 
east  look  at  that  and  say  there  must  be  some 
mechanism  to  share  that  wealth  with  the  rest 
of  Canada,  and  we  look  to  a  new  constitution 
as  one  way  to  achieve  this.  This,  unfortu- 
nately, has  deflected  our  discussion  and  ef- 
forts  from    energy    self-sufficiency. 

Aside  from  the  strictly  partisan,  political 
aspects  of  the  issue,  one  of  the  problems  is 
that  half  of  the  people  in  this  country  do  not 
believe  there  is  any  real  energy  problem,  at 
least  not  to  the  extent  they  are  prepared  to 
make  any  significant  changes  in  their  life- 
style for  the  purpose  of  conserving  energy. 
They  believe  the  present  situation  is  an 
artificial  shortage  engineered  by  the  multi- 
national oil  companies  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
creasing prices. 

As  a  result,  there  was  a  3.4  per  cent  in- 
crease in  demand  for  oil  products  in  the  first 
nine  months  of  this  year,  while  gasoline  con- 
sumption was  4.3  per  cent  higher  for  the  same 
period.  Based  on  the  current  usage  projec- 
tions, Canada's  imports  of  foreign  crude  by 
1985  are  expected  to  be  in  excess  of  600,000 
barrels  a  day  compared  with  about  270,000 
barrels  a  day  at  the  present  time.  By  1985, 
less  than  five  years  away,  price  predictions 
indicate  a  price  of  more  than  $42  per  barrel, 
which  would  mean  that  Canada's  annual  bill 
for  imported  foreign  crude  would  be  more 
than  $9.28  billion.  All  of  this  is  assuming,  of 
course,  that  foreign  oil  imports  will  still  be 
available  at  that  time. 

The  instability  in  the  Mideast  and  the  pos- 
sibility of  an  attempt  by  Russia  to  shut  off 
the  Persian  Gulf,  through  which  most  of  the 
Mideast  oil  moves,  suggest  that  foreign  oil 
will  not  be  available  at  any  price  in  the  not 
too  distant  future.  At  least  that  is  a  possibility. 
Given  those  circumstances,  we  have  to  do 
whatever  is  necessary  to  attain  domestic 
energy  self-sufficiency  at  the  earliest  possible 
date.  Not  to  do  so  would  indicate  we  are 
living  in  a  fool's  paradise.  Our  governments 
at  all  levels  must  recognize  and  acknowledge 


the  reality  and  seriousness  of  our  energy 
position. 

Conservation  is  one  of  several  approaches, 
and  while  there  have  been  some  positive 
developments  in  this  respect  the  current 
waste  of  energy  in  this  country,  is  alarming.  It 
goes  without  saying  that  Ontario  must  secure 
an  affordable  supply  of  fuel  for  most  of  its 
industry.  If  it  does  not  we  will  continue  our 
decline  in  industrial  growth,  with  severe  dis- 
location in  terms  of  unemployment  and  ram- 
pant inflation. 

We  cannot  escape  the  tragedy  of  a  world 
that  continues  to  rely  on  a  diminishing  re- 
source, namely  oil,  to  feed  and  fuel  its  people 
and  its  industry.  In  terms  of  oil,  Canadians 
consume  9.3  tons  per  person  per  year,  and 
we  consume  it  at  half  the  world  price.  That 
will  require  a  government  subsidy  of  $1.5 
billion  this  year  alone.  Obviously  we  cannot 
continue  on  this  self-defeating,  self-destruct- 
ing energy  path.  We  must  move  to  alternative 
energy  sources. 

4:10  p.m. 

It  is  against  this  background  and  because 
of  my  concern  that  I  have  placed'  before  the 
House  the  particular  resolution  to  which  I 
made  reference  earlier,  for  the  purposes  of 
discussion  at  that  time  and  now  for  the  pur- 
poses of  debate.  I  did  so  because  of  my  inter- 
est in  cogeneration,  because  of  the  fact  that 
I  have  the  largest  nuclear  generating  plant  in 
the  world  in  my  riding,  and  because  along 
with  that  goes  the  largest  steam  plant  in  the 
world.  Those  things  can  and  should  be  very 
positive  ingredients  in  the  energy  picture,  but 
so  far  their  potential  has  not  been  adequately 
tapped. 

The  resolution  on  the  Order  Paper  deals 
with  all  nuclear  and  thermal  plants  in  the 
province,  but  let  me  just  take  as  an  example 
the  Bruce  nuclear  station  to  show  the  tre- 
mendous energy  potential.  Obviously  it  is  the 
one  with  which  I  am  the  most  familiar.  Daily 
electrical  production  at  the  Bruce  complex 
corresponds  to  the  energy  equivalent  of 
115,000  barrels  of  oil  or  23,000  tons  of  coal. 
The  complex  will  raise  a  power  equivalent 
to  300,000  barrels  of  oil  a  day. 

The  nuclear  process,  when  used  exclusively 
for  electrical  production,  is  only  30  per  cent 
efficient.  The  other  70  per  cent  is  wasted.  It 
is  in  this  so-called  70  per  cent  that  there  are 
some  exciting  possibilities.  Part  of  that  waste 
nuclear  energy  can  be  used  in  the  form  of 
steam  for  industrial  processes.  Using  the 
Candu  reactors  and  Ontario's  indigenous 
uranium  for  purposes  other  than  electricity 
offers  both  long-term  security  of  supply  and 
relatively  inflation-proof   energy   costs.    It  is 


5036 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


an  exciting  opportunity  for  industry  and  agri- 
culture. 

The  Ontario  Energy  Corporation  has  deter- 
mined that  a  thermal  resource  equal  at  least 
to  Syncrude,  Hibernia  or  Cold  Lake  can  be 
made  available  at  Bruce  for  industrial  pur- 
poses. That  is  where  the  cogeneration  comes 
in.  Cogeneration  describes  the  dual  produc- 
tion of  heat  and  electricity  from  a  single 
energy  source.  Cogeneration  supply  simply 
refers  to  the  process  of  combining  the  genera- 
tion of  electricity  with  the  production  of 
process  steam  for  industrial  purposes.  This 
combination  doubles  the  efficiency  of  the  fuel 
used  to  generate  electricity  because  it  elimi- 
nates much  of  the  energy  wasted  when  elec- 
tricity is  produced  independently  from 
process  steam. 

Cogeneration  saves  at  least  50  per  cent  of 
the  fuel  that  is  needed  to  make  a  kilowatt  of 
electrical  power.  With  regard  to  the  fuel 
needed  to  produce  both  steam  and  electrical 
power,  cogeneration  saves  27  per  cent  of  that 
fuel  that  is  necessary  to  generate  steam  and 
electricity  independently. 

Cogeneration  is  not  new.  However,  in 
North  America  it  is  a  developing  concept,  a 
concept  whose  time  has  come.  California  has 
the  most  aggressive  cogeneration  program  at 
the  moment.  How  can  this  be  applied  to  the 
Bruce  nuclear  power  development?  Bruce  has 
the  largest  steam  generating  station  in  the 
world.  The  steam  generating  capacity  at 
Bruce  is  equal  to  36  per  cent  of  all  installed 
steam  capacity  in  the  province.  It  can  produce 
80  million  pounds  of  steam  per  hour  when 
completed.  Each  reactor  generates  10  million 
pounds  of  steam  per  hour  which,  if  it  had 
to  be  raised  conventionally,  would  take  be- 
tween 40,000  and  50,000  barrels  of  oil  per 
day  per  reactor. 

Just  to  give  some  perspective  to  the  po- 
tential energy  waste  at  the  plant,  the  energy 
equivalent  of  20  Niagara  Falls  is  being 
wasted  each  day.  That  is  the  bad  part.  The 
exciting  part  is  that  it  need  not  be  so,  indeed 
should  not  be  allowed  to  continue  any  longer. 
It  can  be  harnessed  and  used  for  very  pro- 
ductive purposes.  The  opportunities  are  al- 
most limitless. 

Industries  that  use  large  quantities  of  hot 
water  or  steam,  such  as  plastics,  pulp  and 
paper,  food  and  beverage,  steel,  glass  and 
cement  refining  industries,  should  be  sold  on 
the  idea  of  taking  part  in  what  could  become 
the  world's  first  nuclear  steam-powered  in- 
dustrial energy  park.  Hydro  is  now  agreeable 
to  selling  processed  steam  to  industrial  cus- 
tomers at  a  price  ranging  from  $1.50  to  $1.90 


per  million  BTUs  depending  on  the  overall 
demand  and  load  factor. 

Put  another  way,  the  first  250,000  pounds 
for  1982  employment  will  sell  for  $1.50  to 
$1.90  per  million  BTUs.  The  price  of  nuclear 
steam  is  therefore  about  half  the  price  of 
natural  gas.  No  other  nuclear  plant  can  match 
the  existing  capacity  of  the  Bruce  plant  for 
the  dual  production  of  process  steam  and 
electrical  power,  although  other  plants  have 
considerable  potential  in  this  respect  as  well. 
That  is  just  the  beginning. 

Hydro  is  lamenting  the  fact  that  by  1983 
it  is  going  to  have  power  from  the  first  unit 
of  Bruce  B  bottled  up  because  there  is  no 
twin  power  line  out  of  Bruce  and  no  likeli- 
hood of  getting  one  fast  enough  to  get  the 
generated  power  to  the  consuming  public.  I 
strongly  suggest  to  Hydro  it  dedicate  the  first 
unit  of  Bruce  to  hydrogen  production. 

Hydrogen  is  the  most  abundant  element 
in  the  universe  and  is  one  of  its  more  prom- 
ising fuels.  On  too  of  that,  the  unused 
electricity  during  the  night,  which  is  one 
third  of  the  24-hour  generating  capacity, 
could  also  be  used  for  hydrogen  production. 
By  locating  electrolysis  plants  beside  the 
Hydro  generators,  we  can  use  hydrogen  to 
store  power,  not  use  the  peak  times,  and  use 
that  for  other  purposes,  making  the  entire 
electrical  production  system  more  efficient. 

Moreover  and  more  importantly,  hydrogen 
can  be  used  as  a  transportation  fuel.  People 
often  forget  cars  ran  on  all  sorts  of  things 
before  gasoline  was  invented,  and  they  will 
again.  An  official  of  General  Motors  has  said, 
"Whatever  fuel  is  available  in  the  future, 
General  Motors  will  have  cars  that  will  run 
on  it  to  the  public  satisfaction." 

That  statement  is  being  proved  at  the 
Provo,  Utah,  plant  where  the  Billings  Energy 
Corporation  is  leading  the  world  into  a  brand 
new  energy  age.  The  Billings  people  have 
converted  everything  they  can  think  of  to 
clean-burning  hydrogen.  They  have  con- 
verted camp  stoves,  big  cars,  little  cars, 
trucks,  buses— the  whole  works— and  are  in  the 
process  of  converting  a  transit  bus  for  a  major 
US  city.  They  then  intend  to  convert  the 
whole  urban  fleet  for  Pittsburgh. 

Hydrogen  is  really  the  master  fuel.  Experi- 
ments with  the  fuel  were  carried  on  in  the 
late  1880s,  again  in  1900  and  then  in  1930. 
General  Motors  did  some  work  with  the  fuel 
but  lost  interest  because  fossil  fuels  were  so 
plentiful  and  cheap.  Hydrogen,  as  a  fuel,  has 
many  advantages.  It  is  the  safest  form  of 
energy  we  have.  It  is  clean  burning.  It  cre- 
ates only  water  vapour,  which  returns  to  the 
ecosystem  immediately.  It  is  the  most  power- 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5037 


ful  fuel  known  to  man.  Gasoline  is  a  very 
poor  fuel  compared  to  hydrogen.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  there  were  many  people  who  watched 
the  launching  of  the  US  Saturn  rocket  several 
years  ago.  It  was  powered  by  pure,  raw 
hydrogen.  It  is  powerful  enough  to  take  a 
rocket  to  the  moon  and  it  is  certainly  power- 
ful enough  to  take  one's  car  anywhere  one 
wants  to  go. 

The  exciting  part  of  all  this  is  that  since 
water  is  two  thirds  hydrogen,  one  can 
separate  the  two  by  running  an  electrical 
current  through  water  to  get  hydrogen  and 
oxygen.  This  is  the  most  logical  way  of  get- 
ting hydrogen  and  if  we  use  off-peak  or 
surplus  power  we  can  get  it  at  very  little 
cost.  At  Bruce  we  have  both  an  abundance 
of  water  and  plenty  of  off-peak  and  sur- 
plus electricity.  It  is  an  ideal  combination 
to  produce  massive  amounts  of  hydrogen, 
which  can  also  be  used  in  airplanes  and 
railway  engines  as  well  as  cars  and  trucks. 
It  is  an  opportunity  we  should  not  miss. 
Further  hydrogen  can  be  the  primary  ele- 
ment in  producing  nitrogen  fertilizers  and 
in  methanol  production.  The  former  would 
allow  us  to  move  away  from  natural  gas  to 
produce  nitrogen  fertilizers,  which  could 
stabilize  the  price  and  give  us  more  stretch. 
4:20  p.m. 

Then  there  are  promising  possibilities  in 
combining  energy  production  and  agricul- 
ture by  the  production  of  ethanol.  Sixteen 
million  gallons  of  alcohol  blended  with  160 
million  gallons  of  unleaded  regular  gasoline 
will  give  a  total  of  176  million  gallons,  but 
the  combination  of  the  two  gives  an  addi- 
tional eight  million  gallons  of  equivalent 
combustible  power  for  a  total  combustible 
power  equivalent  of  184  million  gallons. 
That  16  million  gallons  of  ethyl  alcohol 
would  require  80,000  acres  of  corn  at  90 
bushels  per  acre.  This  would  produce  by- 
products amounting  to  2.4  million  bushels 
of  distilled  spent  grain  at  35  per  cent  pro- 
tein, plus  160  million  pounds  of  C02  or 
carbon  dioxide. 

If  one  were  to  add  50,000  acres  of  corn 
silage  and  corn  stover  and  mix  it  with  the 
spent  grain,  it  would  finish  120,000  head  of 
cattle  at  a  600-pound  gain.  At  the  present 
time  one  third  of  Ontario's  beef  cattle  are 
finished  within  a  50-mile  radius  of  the 
Bruce  nuclear  plant  so  the  potential  to  in- 
crease that  exists  and  should  be  harnessed. 

The  massive  amounts  of  C02  generated 
in  the  production  of  ethanol  can  be  moved 
into  greenhouses  at  1,800  parts  per  mil- 
lion enrichment  and  that  will  increase 
photosynthesis  by  20  per  cent,  which  means 


that  plants  grow  much  faster  and  produce 
more  prolifically.  The  greenhouse  aspect 
seems  to  have  attracted  most  of  the  public 
and  press  attention  at  the  Bruce  because 
there  is  a  prototype  at  present  being  oper- 
ated there  on  five  acres  of  land  consisting 
of  eight  tenths  of  an  acre  of  greenhouse 
production.  Interestingly  enough,  they  are 
heating  that  greenhouse  operation  with  oil, 
but  we  hope  we  can  get  away  from  that. 
Plans  are  currently  under  way  to  expand 
that  to  380  acres;  however,  the  potential 
is  much  bigger  than  the  greenhouses.  Ac- 
tually the  greenhouse  portion  of  the  project 
is  a  very  small  part  in  the  overall  picture. 

Fish  farming  and  agriculture  are  logical 
developments  as  well.  Fish  grow  and  do 
their  best  when  the  temperature  is  between 
56  and  60  degrees  Fahrenheit.  The  embryo 
stage  of  a  fish  farming  operation  is  already 
going  at  Formosa,  which  is  some  40  miles 
from  the  plant  in  which  my  friend  the 
former  Minister  of  Agriculture,  the  member 
for  Durham  York  (Mr.  W.  Newman),  has  an 
interest.  The  potential  for  producing  a  high 
quality  protein  food  such  as  fish  for  human 
consumption  is  exciting  and  can  be  done 
more  efficiently  through  fish  than  livestock 
or  poultry.  Fish  grow  faster  and  are  better 
feed  converters;  hence  they  are  more  effi- 
cient protein  producers. 

The  area  is  an  excellent  one  for  growing 
alfalfa  as  a  cash  crop.  With  the  available 
heat  and  steam,  an  alfalfa  palletizing  plant 
would  be  a  natural.  The  availability  of  raw 
material  and  the  process  steam  certainly 
would  make  such  a  plant  affordable.  The 
possibilities  are  extensive  and  exciting. 

There  are  a  number  of  things  Ontario 
Hydro  and  the  federal  and  provincial  gov- 
ernments should  be  doing  to  utilize  this 
resource  to  its  fullest  potential.  Ontario 
Hydro  should  abandon  its  flat  rate  across 
the  province,  which  encourages  companies 
to  locate  in  the  large  urban  centres  of  the 
province  so  that  the  big  get  bigger  and 
seme  experience  rapid  growth,  while  other 
communities  stagnate,  thus  compounding 
many  of  our  social  and  economic  problems. 
Instead  it  should  develop  a  differential  rate 
to  encourage  high  energy  industries  to 
locate  near  power  centres  such  as  the 
Bruce. 

This  would  also  encourage  development 
of  northern  Ontario,  particularly  if  the  North 
Channel  plant  goes  ahead,  although  it  is 
shelved  for  the  moment,  I  understand.  It 
would  encourage  growth  near  all  nuclear 
and  thermal  plants  in  the  province  because 


5038 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  the  viability  of  energy  from  various 
sources. 

The  provincial  and  federal  governments 
should  build  a  deep  water  port,  which  four 
industries  say  they  need  in  order  to  locate 
at  or  near  the  Bruce.  A  preliminary  survey 
of  Lake  Huron's  depths  indicates  the  lake 
deepens  close  to  shore  and  depths  in  the 
prospective  harbour  area  are  equal  to  the 
depth  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Seaway.  A  deep 
water  port  is  a  necessity. 

This  is  not  a  visionary's  dream  of  what  might 
happen.  All  this  can  happen  in  the  next 
two  or  three  years  if  the  government  has  the 
will  and  the  leadership  to  see  it  through 
and  put  it  into  practice.  The  economic  and 
energy  wealth  of  our  province  depends  on 
us  finding  and  using  new  energy  sources 
and  lessening  our  dependence  on  oil.  Oil 
and'  energy  are  not  necessarily  synonymous. 
There  are  other  ways  and  we  should  pursue 
them  with  all  our  strength  and  political  will. 

Before  I  close,  I  want  to  say  that  I 
recommend  to  'all  honourable  members,  and 
particularly  our  friends  to  the  left,  the  fact 
that  they  should  support  the  motion  as 
proposed  by  my  friend  and  colleague  the 
member  for  London  North  (Mr.  Van  Home). 
We  will  be  voting  on  that  motion  later  on 
in  the  week,  presumably  Thursday  or  Friday. 
I  commend  it  to  my  friends  to  the  left. 

I  think  this  is  an  opportunity  to  give  the 
people  in  this  province  a  chance  to  speak. 
What  better  opportunity  can  we  have  than 
to  do  it  now?  We  can  start  the  new  year 
off  right.  Let  us  do  it.  The  saying  from  my 
friend  the  member  for  Nickel  Belt  (Mr. 
Laughren)  was,  "Move  over,  the  NDP  are 
coming  through."  This  is  the  chance  for 
them  to  come  through,  at  least  to  the  extent 
that  they  join  us  in  this  motion.  I  commend 
it  to  them.  We  will  be  looking  forward  to 
their  support. 

Mr.  Ziemba:  Mr.  Speaker,  last  May  I 
said  the  member  for  Armourdale  (Mr.  Mc- 
Caffrey) and  the  member  for  Wilson 
Heights  (Mr.  Rotenberg)  both  bought  their 
seats.  At  this  point  I  withdraw  that  remark. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Since  the  member  for  High 
Park-Swansea  (Mr.  Ziemba)  has  withdrawn 
the  offending  remarks,  the  privileges  and 
the  rights  accorded  all  members  of  the 
House  are  restored  to  him.  Do  you  wish  to 
participate  in  this  debate? 

Mr.  Ziemba:  I  do. 

This  speech  is  about  patronage,  Mr. 
Speaker.  The  dictionary  defines  patronage 
as  the  power  to  make  appointments  to 
government  jobs  on  the  basis  of  other  than 


merit  alone.  I  see  patronage  as  using  gov- 
ernment office  for  party  and  personal  ad- 
vantage. When  public  office  is  not  awarded 
on  the  basis  of  merit  alone,  the  public 
interest  suffers.  Patronage  tends  to  exist 
under  cover  like  a  skunk  in  a  hole:  We 
know  it  is  there,  but  few  people  want  to 
disturb  it. 

The  provincial  Tories  have  been  dispens- 
ing patronage  to  their  friends  since  before 
I  was  born.  In  1923,  Premier  Howard 
Ferguson  boasted  that  Conservatives  held 
power  in  Ontario  because  of  patronage  or 
the  hope  of  patronage.  These  days  we  have 
come  to  accept  patronage  as  a  way  of  life 
here  in  Ontario.  It  is  the  modern  version 
of  the  Family  Compact. 

There  is  a  story  about  an  all  candidates 
meeting  in  the  country.  The  young  upstart 
politician  is  trying  to  knock  off  the  old 
campaigner.  He  criticizes  the  incumbent  for 
arranging  to  have  his  private  road  paved  at 
taxpayers'  expense.  In  the  audience  one 
farmer  turns  to  another  and  asks,  "What  do 
you  think?  Are  you  going  to  vote  for  the 
old  campaigner  after  that  or  shall  we  give 
the  young  fellow  a  chance?"  The  other 
farmer  thinks  for  a  minute  and  says,  "No,  as 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  will  vote  for  the  old 
boy;  he  has  already  had  his  road  paved." 

4:30  p.m. 

This  story  might  apply  to  the  member  for 
Hastings-Peterborough  (Mr.  Rollins).  He  has 
certainly  been  around  a  long  time,  but  the 
member  did  not  get  around  to  getting  any 
paving  until  this  year.  The  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  finally  paved 
both  road  shoulders  outside  the  member's 
farm  in  L'Amable  on  Highway  62,  south  of 
Bancroft.  The  work  took  two  months  and 
cost  $50,000. 

It  does  not  appear  in  the  ministry's  con- 
tract bulletin  which  lists  tenders,  contracts 
and  so  on  because  it  is  considered  a  small 
job.  Fifty  thousand  dollars  is  a  lot  of  money 
to  ordinary  working  people  in  this  province. 
Of  course,  this  paving  job  is  the  talk  of  the 
local  farming  community.  The  road  shoulders 
outside  the  local  farms  are  not  paved  in  this 
way,  but  apparently  nothing  is  too  good  for 
the  local  Tory  member. 

I  first  started  paying  close  attention  to  the 
whole  question  of  patronage  during  the  brief 
Joe  Clark  government.  The  federal  Progres- 
sive Conservatives  made  patronage  a  priority. 
They  were  trying  to  imitate  their  provincial 
cousins.  One  of  the  first  things  they  did  was 
cancel  all  government  advertising  in  the 
ethnic  press,  in  order  to  assess  who  were  Tory 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5039 


supporters  and  who  were  not.  Their  friends 
were  going  to  be  rewarded  at  long  last.  As  it 
turned  out,  the  election  caught  them  by 
surprise  and  they  never  did  get  around  to 
starting  up  the  government  advertising  cam- 
paign. This  hurt  them  badly  in  the  ethnic 
community.  To  this  day,  even  the  right-wing 
press  is  angry  over  this. 

Mr.  Clark  even  had  the  nerve  to  designate 
certain  "ministers  of  patronage."  Do  you 
remember  the  defeated  Tory  Mrs.  Pigott? 
Many  newspaper  reports  described  Mrs. 
Pigott  sitting  beside  her  china  cabinet  full  of 
little  china  pigs.  We  are  told  how  Mrs. 
Pigott  would  open  up  her  big  green  book, 
how  she  mould  nore  over  the  names  of  the 
Tory  faithful  and  finally  she  would  pick  out 
some  lucky  Tory  hack  and  reward  him  with 
a  patronage  appointment. 

Do  you  remember  Mr.  Ron  Atkey,  the 
former  Minister  of  Employment  and  Immi- 
gration? Mr.  Atkey  was  the  one  who  took 
the  credit  for  the  ill-fated  bid  to  move  the 
Canadian  Embassy  from  Israel  to  Jerusalem. 
You  will  recall  that  he  was  also  declared  the 
minister  of  patronage  for  Ontario.  Imagine 
making  a  virtue  out  of  such  a  sleazy  practice. 
Imagine  appointing  ministers  of  the  crown 
to  dispense  patronage  and  being  so  blatant 
about  it.  Of  course  the  Tories'  blatant  ap- 
pointment of  a  minister  of  patronage  followed 
a  quieter  Liberal  practice.  Even  if  both  old 
parties  use  patronage,  the  practice  still  stinks. 
It  is  a  rotten  way  to  run  a  government. 

Sure,  many  people  read  about  government 
patronage  and  get  a  little  chuckle  out  of  it, 
like  the  item  about  the  member  for  Renfrew 
South  (Mr.  Yakabuski).  The  member  is 
facing  a  tough  fight  in  the  upcoming  elec- 
tion. He  won  his  seat  by  only  1,000  or  so 
votes  in  the  last  one.  The  Tories  are  not 
taking  any  chances.  They  spend  $700,000  of 
taxpayers'  money  to  pave  every  street,  every 
lane,  everv  alleyway  of  Killaloe  in  Mr.  Yaka- 
buski's  riding. 

Here  is  a  recent  item  in  the  Whig-Standard. 
Datelined  Oshawa,  it  is  headed  "Politics  Im- 
plied in  Free  Bus  Rides."  I  am  going  to 
quote  directly.  "The  Ontario  government  was 
criticized  by  one  of  its  Tory  back-benchers 
today  for  setting  up  a  free  commuter  service 
in  the  riding  of  Premier  William  Davis  and 
Transportation  Minister  Tames  Snow.  Sam 
Cureatz,  member  for  Durham  East,  said  in 
an  interview  that  the  experimental  project 
which  gives  passengers  free  bus  rides  to  the 
government  of  Ontario  rail  terminal  in  Oak- 
ville  should  be  extended  to  other  areas.  'What 
about  the  area  east  of  Toronto?  What  about 
Oshawa  and  Bowmanville?* 


"The  program  encourages  commuters  to 
use  the  government  subsidized  GO  system  to 
get  to  work  in  Toronto  from  the  Oakville- 
Brampton  areas.  Snow  represents  Oakville 
and  Davis  is  the  member  for  Brampton  in  the 
Legislature.  Cureatz  suggested  politics  was 
involved.  'I  have  to  get  re-elected  too,'  he 
said."  The  member  for  Durham  East  was  not 
objecting  to  this  dual-purpose  program  to 
carry  passengers  and  to  get  votes;  he  was 
simply  objecting  because  it  did  not  benefit 
him  as  well. 

The  $17.7  million  spent  on  government  ad- 
vertising this  year  has  to  be  the  most  arro- 
gant and  most  blatant  perversion  of  public 
funds.  Most  of  the  money  was  funnelled 
through  two  Tory  advertising  agencies,  Foster 
Advertising  Limited  and  Camp  Associates 
Advertising  Limited.  The  money  was  spent  to 
promote  the  Conservatives  in  the  upcoming 
election.  This  is  not  advertising  at  all  but 
propaganda.  What  else  can  you  say  about 
"Preserve  It,  Conserve  It"? 

The  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 
(Mr.  Grossman)  comes  on  the  radio  with  a 
pitch  to  buy  Canadian,  complete  with  jingles. 
When  he  was  shopping  for  a  nanny,  he  did 
not  buy  Canadian.  The  Tories  can  find  $17.7 
million  more  to  spend  on  a  "We  Treat  You 
Royally"  campaign,  Mr.  Grossman's  "Shop 
Canadian"  campaign,  a  "Happy  Hospital 
Day"  campaign,  a  nuclear  energy  campaign; 
$17.7  million  more  for  "Preserve  It,  Conserve 
It"  advertising,  yet  there  is  no  more  money 
for  adequate  sendees  to  help  seniors  stay  in 
their  homes,  no  more  money  to  provide 
needed  day  care  spaces  to  ensure  equality  of 
opportunity  for  women  and  proper  care  for 
the  children  of  working  parents,  no  more 
money  for  preventive  health  programs,  and 
no  more  money  for  preventive  services  for 
children  to  forestall  future  problems. 

The  pork  barrel  is  quickly  rolled  out  for 
leaders  in  the  ethnic  community,  leaders 
who  are  willing  to  serve  as  shills  for  the 
Conservatives.  There  is  Mr.  Rocco  Lofranco, 
one  of  the  organizers  of  the  Bill  Davis  visit 
to  Italy  in  1975.  Mr.  Lofranco  went  from  a 
$30,000  a  year  job  as  a  co-ordinator  in  the 
PC's  west-end  community  office  to  taking 
charge  of  government  propaganda  for  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board.  He  has  a 
regular  feature  on  CHIN  radio.  He  shills  for 
the  Tories  in  every  nook  and  cranny  and  at 
every  ethnic  function  and  activity. 

For  example,  the  First  Portuguese  Cana- 
dian Club  applied  for  a  $40,000  Wintario 
grant.  When  the  grant  was  approved,  they 
decided  to  sponsor  a  dinner  for  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  money.  The  Portuguese  committee 


5040 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


met  with  Mr.  Lofranco  and'  went  over  the 
list  of  invited  guests.  Mr.  Lofranco  suggested 
to  the  committee  that  certain  names  be  de- 
leted. The  names  of  the  two  members  repre- 
senting that  area,  a  Portuguese  community  in 
west  Toronto,  my  seatmate  the  member  for 
Dovercourt  (Mr.  Lupusella)  and  the  member 
for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan)  were  removed 
from  the  list. 

Testifying  before  a  parliamentary  com- 
mittee, another  long-time  Tory  booster,  Mr. 
Joe  Forrester,  adviser  to  the  Ministry  of 
Culture  and  Recreation,  admitted  Mr.  Lo- 
franco removed  the  names  from  the  list.  It 
is  going  to  be  a  strictly  Tory  bash. 

Conservative  Frank  Kowalski  has  a  real 
scam  going  for  him.  He  operates  Lingua  Ads 
Service.  Lingua  acts  as  a  representative 
agency  for  the  ethnic  press  and  media.  Mr. 
Kowalski  receives  a  15  per  cent  finder's  fee 
for  every  advertising  dollar  he  is  able  to  get 
for  them.  Mr.  Kowalski  wears  two  hats, 
representing  the  buyers  as  well  as  the  sellers 
and  getting  commissions  from  both.  He 
started  out  working  for  the  information  de- 
partment of  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and 
Tourism.  His  job  was  to  select  which  ethnic 
papers  were  to  receive  government  ads. 

That  was  two  years  ago,  before  the  Globe 
and  Mail  blew  the  whistle  on  him.  These 
days  he  does  the  same  thing  for  Foster  Ad- 
vertising. For  this,  Foster  pays  17  per  cent 
commission  to  Lingua  Ads  Service.  Lingua, 
in  turn,  charges  15  per  cent  to  the  ethnic 
pre^s  that  receives  the  ads.  The  ethnic  press 
is  being  blackmailed  by  this  shakedown 
artist.  They  must  belong  to  his  representative 
agency  in  order  to  get  these  government  ads 
and  must  accept  60  cents  on  the  dollar  or  do 
without.  On  an  average  yearly  expenditure  of 
$400,000  of  taxpayers'  money,  Mr.  Kowalski's 
cut  would  be  $140,000,  leaving  an  average 
advertising  income  of  $4,300  for  each  of  his 
client*.  The  Conservatives  know  all  about 
Mr.  Kowalski's  scam  but  they  go  along  with 
it. 

Mr.  Kowalski's  federal  counterpart  is 
Liberal  Stan  Martyn.  Mr.  Martyn  operates 
New  Canada  Publications.  On  December  18, 
1978,  Prime  Minister  Trudeau  was  the  guest 
of  honour  at  a  Liberal  fund-raising  dinner 
held  at  the  Sheraton  Centre  Hotel.  Two 
thousand  tickets  at  $150  per  plate  were  sold 
for  this  event.  The  regular  press  and  media 
were  invited  to  cover  this  event  and  there 
was  no  charge  for  them,  but  Mr.  Martyn  pres- 
sured representatives  of  the  ethnic  press  to 
pay  the  $150  a  plate,  in  his  words,  "to  show 
respect  for  the  Prime  Minister."  In  fact,  he 


offered  an  easy  instalment  plan.  The  ticket 
money  could  be  deducted  in  three  payments 
as  their  advertising  cheques  from  the  federal 
government  came  in.  Like  Lingua  Ads  Serv- 
ice, Mr.  Martyn's  New  Canada  Publications 
skims  35  cents  off  every  dollar  the  ethnic 
press  receives  in  advertising  from  the  federal 
government. 

Then  we  have  Mr.  David  Carmichael,  the 
director  of  the  citizens'  information  branch 
of  the  Ministry  of  Culture  and  Recreation. 
Mr.  Carmichael  is  paid  $37,575  annually. 
One  of  his  jobs  is  to  hire  translation  com- 
panies. Mr.  Carmichael  likes  to  keep  the 
business  in  the  family.  The  ministry's  books 
show  that  an  A.  M.  Carmichael  received 
$4,434.98  for  translation  services.  A.  M. 
stands  for  Anna  Maria.  Anna  Maria  Castrilli 
Carmichael  is  the  wife  of  director  David 
Carmichael. 
4:40  p.m. 

Italian  Language  Services  received  $3,- 
203.27  from  the  ministry.  This  company  too 
is  operated  by  Mrs.  Carmichael.  Mrs.  Castrilli 
Carmichael  was  also  paid  $4,000  in  con- 
sulting fees  on  a  Wintario  project  that 
studied  Italian  immigrant  women.  It  was 
scrapped  because  of  errors,  including  an 
interview  with  a  woman  who  had  been  dead 
for  seven  years. 

Government  patronage  is  not  just  for  big- 
time  Tories.  If  you  want  to  get  a  job  at  the 
LCBO,  you  do  not  go  to  a  local  outlet  as 
the  minister  said  earlier;  first  find  a  local 
president  of  the  PC  riding  association  and  if 
you  can  get  the  Tory  executive's  blessing, 
then  you  go  to  the  liquor  store  and  the  job 
is  waiting  for  you. 

The  Ontario  Human  Rights  Commission 
has  condemned  this  practice  in  Brockville  on 
the  ground  that  it  appeared  to  discriminate 
against  women.  They  said  the  hiring  process 
kept  liquor  stores  a  long-time  male  preserve. 
On  October  1,  1980,  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr. 
Drea)  defends  his  ministry  before  the  pro- 
cedural affairs  committee  by  stating:  "I  can 
assure  you  that  since  I  have  been  the  min- 
ister, which  is  since  October  1978—1  do  not 
know  what  went  on  before  that— I  can  tell 
you  that  any  liquor  store  manager— that  is 
where  you  get  an  application  or  you  write 
him,  or  if  you  are  in  a  local  town,  you  go  to 
the  liquor  store  and  get  your  employment 
application— or  assistant  manager  or  clerk 
who  tells  somebody  he  does  not  get  his  ap- 
plication there,  he  gets  it  in  the  Conserva- 
tive riding  office,  his  employment  is  termi- 
nated, period." 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5041 


It  is  striking  that  the  minister  did  not  try 
to  deny  that  this  kind  of  disgraceful  patron- 
age was  going  on  until  very  recently  in  the 
liquor  control  board.  The  whole  business  is 
an  outrageous  affront.  There  is  absolutely 
nothing  political  or  confidential  about  putting 
liquor  bottles  into  brown  paper  bags.  There 
is  no  reason  why  one  has  to  be  a  Tory,  a 
Liberal  or  a  New  Democrat  to  get  this  job,  and 
it  is  a  downright  disgrace  that  people  have  to 
suck  up  to  the  local  Tory  bigwig  in  order  to 
get  honest  work  like  this.  This  kind  of  dirty 
patronage  really  makes  me  sick. 

The  same  goes  if  one  wants  to  open  a 
hunting  and  fishing  outlet.  You  must  first  get 
the  okay  from  the  local  Tory  bigwig  and  then 
you  go  to  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources. 
This  is  what  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Harry  Courtnay 
learned  the  hard  way.  They  operate  a  little 
tourist  shop  on  St.  Joseph  Island.  They  sell 
Indian  handicrafts  and  souvenirs  as  well  as 
hunting  and  fishing  licences.  They  used  to  sell 
about  1,500  licences  a  year  until  new  people 
moved  in  next  door.  These  new  people  had 
the  support  of  the  former  Conservative  MPP 
for  the  riding,  Mr.  Bernt  Gilbertson,  and  they 
were  able  to  get  a  licence  franchise  as  well. 
Now  there  are  six  such  licensed  outlets  on  St. 
Joseph  Island,  all  thanks  to  Mr.  Gilbertson. 

When  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Algoma  (Mr.  Wildman)  complained  about  the 
location  of  hunting  and  fishing  licence  out- 
lets in  the  standing  committee  on  resources 
development  on  November  5,  1980,  the  Min- 
ister of  Natural  Resources  (Mr.  Auld),  had 
this  to  say,  and  I  am  quoting  from  Hansard: 

"We  look  at  how  much  business  they  do. 
I  can  give  you  an  example  in  my  own  area. 
There  had  been  one  issuer  in  Brockville  for 
many  years  and  there  was  a  lot  of  pressure 
from  a  community  just  15  miles  away.  I  will 
be  very  frank  with  you.  I  have  been  writing 
to  the  Department  of  Transport  for  five  years 
asking  them  to  appoint  somebody  in  Athens. 
There  were  three  hardware  stores  there.  I 
said,  'I  don't  care,  toss  a  coin,'  because  they 
were  all  Tories."  What  the  minister  was  say- 
ing was  that  all  applicants  are  equal,  but 
Tory  applicants  are  more  equal  than  others. 

Getting  back  to  St.  Joseph  Island,  two  men 
applied  to  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources 
for  trapping  licences.  Everything  is  in  order 
until  the  head  biologist's  phone  rings.  In  a 
few  minutes  he  came  back  to  tell  them,  "I 
am  sorry  you  can't  have  the  licences.  I  have 
just  received  a  call  from  Mr.  Gilbertson  and 
he  is  recommending  someone  else."  Mr.  Gil- 
bertson still  calls  the  shots  on  St.  Joseph 
Island,  even  though  he  no  longer  represents 
the  area. 


The  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  has  a 
policy  of  crown  land  sales  at  market  value, 
but  it  appears  to  me  that  there  are  always 
bargains  to  be  had  for  certain  people.  Mr. 
Harold  Lapointe  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie  was  able 
to  purchase  10  and  a  half  acres  of  crown 
land  in  the  township  of  Havilland  for  $10,000. 
The  previous  year,  the  Ministry  of  Govern- 
ment Services  appraised  the  same  land  at 
$18,700.  Mr.  Lapointe  had  been  a  squatter  on 
the  property.  Nevertheless,  that  is  a  tidy 
$8,700  profit  for  Mr.  Lapointe.  I  say  that  is  an 
$8,700  loss  for  the  people  of  Ontario.  Why 
did  we  get  ripped  off?  Was  it  because  Mr. 
Lapointe  is  a  strong  Conservative  supporter? 

I  have  tried  to  document  a  number  of  pa- 
tronage situations.  There  is  a  clear  pattern 
emerging.  The  first  priority  of  the  Davis 
government  is  to  wrestle  unemployment  to 
the   ground  among  Conservatives. 

The  Tory  cabinet  is  always  ready  to  over- 
turn an  Ontario  Municipal  Board  decision 
when  it  comes  to  a  development  or  a  land 
deal  that  will  benefit  one  of  its  own.  The 
local  PC  riding  associations  are  encouraged 
to  rule  their  own  little  fiefdoms  any  way  they 
see  fit.  There  are  cheap  government  loans 
available  and  a  lot  of  them  go  to  the  party 
faithful.  Ministers  of  the  crown  can  be  per- 
suaded to  issue  licences  by  Tory  hacks  cir- 
cumventing environmental  laws.  Government 
ministries  patronize  Tory  establishments. 
Finally,  because  of  patronage  appointments, 
we  have  people  involved  in  the  administration 
of  justice  who  owe  favours  to  the  Tories. 

For  instance,  do  you  have  a  good  barber, 
Mr.  Speaker?  Is  he  thinking  of  switching 
careers?  Would  he  like  to  become  a  justice 
of  the  peace?  If  so,  why  not  send  him  off 
to  the  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Bennett). 
The  Minister  of  Housing  looked  after  his  own 
barber  in  this  way. 

Whv  are  there  so  many  lawyers  who 
contribute  and  knock  on  doors  for  the  Tories 
at  election  time?  Most  of  them  do  it  for 
patronage  or  in  the  hope  of  patronage.  They 
hope  to  get  government  work.  They  hope  to 
get  a  QC  after  their  names  at  New  Year's 
or  a  judgeship  upon  retirement. 

I  learned  of  a  lawyer  from  a  well  known 
Tory  firm  who  was  found  canvassing,  not 
for  the  Tories,  but  for  the  Liberals  in  a 
general  election.  When  asked  about  this  he 
shrugged  and  said  his  partner  was  out 
canvassing  for  the  Tories,  as  usual,  but  he 
was  out  working  for  the  Liberals  this  time 
because  he  felt  the  Liberals  had  a  better 
chance  of  winning  and  he  wanted  to  be  on 
the  winning  side.  He  wanted  to  be  appoint- 
ed a  special  federal  prosecutor.  This  patron- 


5042 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


age  was  only  available  from  the  federal 
government. 

Under  this  patronage  system  nothing  is 
sacred.  Even  our  justice  system  is  treated 
like  a  milch  cow.  The  winning  political 
party   grabs   at  the  udder. 

This  is  what  happens.  Joe  Clark's  Tories 
win.  All  the  special  federal  prosecutors  ap- 
pointed by  the  federal  Liberal  government 
were  fired  and  replaced  by  Tories.  In  Hamil- 
ton, three  Liberal  prosecutors  got  their  walk- 
ing papers.  Surprisinfflv.  thev  were  not 
bitter.  One  of  them,  an  active  Liberal,  Mr. 
Stan  Tick,  simply  said,  "It  was  expected." 
The  second  prosecutor  who  was  fired  was 
the  former  Liberal  MP,  Mr.  Colin  Gibson. 
The  third  was  Mr.  Milton  Lewis,  who  had 
run  for  the  Liberals  against  the  Tory  in- 
cumbent, Mr.  Lincoln  Alexander. 

Mr.  Alexander  has  no  pity  on  them.  He 
said,  "I  hope  they  were  not  counting  on 
the  jobs  as  a  lifetime  appointment."  Any- 
way, they  were  all  replaced  by  Tories.  In 
Leeds  county,  another  long-time  Conserva- 
tive worker,  Mr.  Barr,  a  lawyer,  finally  got 
his  reward.  He  was  appointed  crown  prose- 
cutor by  the  Joe  Clark  government.  Then 
the  Joe  Clark  government  fell.  Mr.  Ban- 
was  fired.  But  he  is  philosophical  about  it. 
He  is  quoted  'as  saying,  "I  knew  I  was 
expendable  politically  since  the  untimelv 
defeat  of  the  Tory  government."  He  went 
on  to  say,  "To  the  victor  goes  the  spoils, 
and  that  is  as  it  should  be." 

Our  justice  system  was  established  to 
hand  down  verdicts,  not  to  hand  out  slices 
from  the  pork  barrel.  I  am  not  naive 
enough  to  believe  lawyers  are  going  to  be 
entirely  free  of  political  leanings,  but  these 
appointments  should  be  handed  out  on  merit 
alone.  Some  would  go  to  Conservatives,  some 
would  go  to  Liberals,  and  even  some  New 
Democrats  would  receive  appointments.  At 
present,  they  are  nothing  more  than  political 
payoffs.  This  is  a  damned  disgrace  and 
should  be  stopped. 

Let  me  remind  you  what  can  follow  from 
the  political  partisanship  of  these  federal 
prosecutors.  The  former  Solicitor  General, 
George  Kerr,  got  hauled  before  the  stand- 
ing committee  on  administration  of  justice. 
Mr.  Kerr  had  been  approached  by  a  constit- 
uent who  was  down  on  his  luck  and  had 
to  appear  in  court  on  a  number  of  charges. 
Mr.  Kerr  decided  to  help  him  out  and 
telephoned  the  crown  attorney  on  his  behalf. 
This  was  a  mistake.  As  Solicitor  General  he 
ought  not  to  have  done  this,  but  he  did. 
Another  crown  attorney  overheard  this  call. 
This  crown  attorney  was  a  federal  appointee 


and  of  course  an  active  Liberal.  He  was  not 
above    a    little    partisan    politics    given    the 
opportunity. 
4:50  p.m. 

So  the  story  about  Mr.  Kerr's  telephone 
call  to  the  crown  was  leaked  to  the  press. 
When  the  provincial  Liberals  found  out  they 
demanded  that  Mr.  Kerr  resign— until,  that 
is,  a  member  of  their  own  party  got  caught. 
The  next  thing  we  knew  a  federal  Liberal 
cabinet  minister  had  called  a  judge.  Mem- 
ber of  Parliament  John  Munro  had  tele- 
phoned a  judge  on  behalf  of  a  constituent. 
This  was  a  Tory-appointed  provincial  judge. 
I  wonder  if,  after  the  outcry  about  Mr. 
Kerr,  the  Tories  went  on  a  head-hunting 
expedition  of  their  own  to  get  revenge.  The 
rest  is  history.  Both  politicians  resigned 
their  cabinet  posts,  but  of  course  Mr.  Munro 
was   soon  rehabilitated. 

The  impression  left  in  my  mind  is  that 
Liberals  and  Tories  may  both  be  using  their 
appointees  in  the  justice  system  for  partisan 
purposes.  They  may  be  trying  to  score 
oolitical  points  at  the  expense  of  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  in  Ontario.  That  is  the 
sort  of  thing  that  can  happen  when  patron- 
age is  brought  into  the  courts. 

Local  PC  riding  associations  jealouslv 
guard  their  authority.  They  must  have  their 
say  in  all  appointments  to  government  agen- 
cies, boards  and  commissions.  How  else  can 
one  explain  the  series  of  events  that  resulted 
in  the  mass  resignation  of  the  Windsor 
Housing  Authority?  This  board  is  made  up  of 
members  put  forward  by  all  three  levels  of 
government,  but  the  provincial  Minister  of 
Housing  (Mr.  Bennett)  does  the  appointing. 

The  Windsor  Housing  Authority  set  a  fine 
example  for  all  the  other  boards  in  the  prov- 
ince. It  was  one  of  the  first  to  be  established, 
and  over  the  year  attracted  dedicated,  hard- 
working people  regardless  of  political  affilia- 
tion. Ms.  Karen  SchoReld  was  regarded  as 
one  of  the  most  progressiye  members  and 
was  elected  acting  chairman.  Ms.  Schofield 
was  also  an  active  Liberal.  That  is  all  ri^ht 
with  me,  because  as  long  as  she  was  the 
right  person  for  the  iob  she  should  be  there 
to  do  it  regardless  of  her  political  affiliation. 

'However,  the  local  PCs  could  not  tolerate 
the  thought  of  having  a  Libera!  chairman. 
When  that  position  became  vacant  and  it 
appeared  that  Ms.  Schofield  was  in  line  for 
it,  the  board's  problems  began.  Because  she 
was  doing  a  good  job  as  acting  chairman, 
board  members  requested  that  the  Minister 
of  Housing  appoint  her  chairman.  This  did 
not  happen.  After  consulting  with  the  PC 
riding    association,    the    minister    appointed 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5043 


prominent  Conservative  lawyer  Mr.  Armando 
DeLuea  as  chairman.  The  board  members 
were  so  outraged  by  this  partisan  political 
appointment  they  resigned  en  masse.  Even 
one  of  the  Tories,  Mr.  John  Hrena  resigned 
in  protest.  Mr.  Hrena,  who  operates  an  in- 
surance agency,  risks  losing  government  busi- 
ness as  a  result. 

The  Windsor  PCs  are  a  frustrated  group 
of  people.  No  provincial  Tory  has  been 
elected  in  living  memory.  That  must  be  why 
they  get  the  Minister  of  Housing  to  give  them 
public  appointments  to  compensate  for  their 
election  failures. 

The  Marentette  brothers  are  well  known 
Tories  in  the  Windsor  area.  One  of  them  ran 
as  a  Conservative  candidate  against  New 
Democrat  Fred  Burr.  The  Marentettes  are 
in  the  road  building  business.  They  also  own 
a  quarry  on  Pelee  Island.  Pelee  Island  is  the 
most  southerly  part  of  Canada.  It  is  eight 
miles  long,  8.5  miles  wide  and  served  by  a 
ferry  from  Leamington  and  Kingsville.  It  is 
a  wildlife  sanctuary,  exclusive  home  of  the 
Blue  Racer  snake,  as  well  as  several  rare 
species  of  birds.  Fishing  grounds  were  estab- 
lished at  Pelee  Island  in  1870  and  are  oper- 
ated by  the  Harris  brothers  to  this  day. 

Mr.  Marentette's  quarry  was  not  operating 
in  1974.  At  this  time  he  needed  to  build  a 
dock  in  order  to  ship  stone  off  the  island.  He 
asked  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Mr. 
Bernier)  for  a  licence  to  build  this  dock,  as 
well  as  a  licence  to  operate  the  quarry.  Both 
licences  were  refused  pending  an  environ- 
mental impact  study.  This  study  was  com- 
pleted, there  were  a  number  of  conditions 
imposed,  including  guarantees  that  the  dock 
would  be  constructed  on  pilings  according  to 
ministry  specifications  so  as  not  to  disturb  the 
movement  of  fish  or  cause  soil  erosion. 

Apparently  Mr.  Marentette  could  not  be 
bothered  with  this.  In  August,  1977,  quarry- 
ing was  begun  again  with  no  licences  issued. 
Workmen  began  drilling  and  blasting.  The 
island's  official  plan  did  not  allow  for  a 
quarry.  The  matter  was  before  the  OMB  at 
this  time.  Mr.  Marentette  used  the  excuse 
that  he  could  start  up  his  operation  again 
because  it  was  a  nonconforming  land  use.  In 
other  words,  because  there  was  a  quarry 
before  the  official  plan  was  passed,  he  had 
squatter's  rights.  In  fact,  he  bulldozed  a  pile 
of  rocks  on  another  site  that  he  owned  on  the 
island  and  tried  to  claim  that  quarrying  had 
been  going  on  there  as  well  before  the 
official  plan  was  enacted.  He  got  away  with 
it  since  the  Minister  of  Housing  had  con- 
veniently not  signed  the  official  plan  at  this 
time. 


Thfs  was  the  first  in  a  series  of  lucky 
breaks  Mr.  Marentette  enjoyed  throughout 
this  saga.  At  this  time,  a  boyhood  chum  came 
to  Mr.  Marentette's  assistance.  We  hear  more 
about  him  later,  but  after  the  intervention  of 
this  good  buddy,  Mr.  Frank  Miller,  in  1977, 
the  then  Minister  of  Natural  Resources,  issued 
a  licence  for  quarrying  even  though  it  en- 
dangered species  which  came  under  the 
Ontario  Endangered  Species  Act  and  which 
the  minister  is  bound  to  protect;  but  what  are 
friends  for?  He  did  not  even  wait  for  the 
Ontario  Municipal  Board  hearing. 

However,  the  dock  was  not  approved.  The 
minister  could  not  bring  himself  to  do  it.  The 
dock  licence  was  refused.  So  Mr.  Marentette 
went  ahead  and  built  it  anyway.  The  min- 
istry staff  saw  that  the  work  was  going  ahead 
without  a  licence.  Eventually,  he  went  too  far 
and  the  ministry  charged  him  with  occupying 
crown  land  without  authority.  The  crown  land 
was  a  lake  bed  where  he  was  dumping  his 
dredgings. 

This  did  not  stop  Mr.  Marentette.  He 
carried  on  with  his  project,  sinking  an  old 
scow  as  well  as  three  railway  cars  filled  with 
stone  150  feet  offshore  to  facilitate  his  loading 
operation.  The  scow  is  almost  submerged  and 
constitutes  a  hazard  to  navigation  to  this  day. 
After  laying  the  charge,  the  ministry  took 
aerial  photos  to  make  sure  that  all  work  had 
stopped.  They  were  surprised  to  find  that  the 
dock  was  finished  and  no  further  work  was 
necessary.  Coincidentally,  this  is  when  the 
ministry  issued  a  stop-work  order. 

The  illegal  dock  is  there  to  this  day 
hampering  fish  movements  and  limiting  fish 
nests.  This  is  in  direct  contravention  of  the 
ministry's  environmental  study.  In  the  spring 
of  1978  the  ministry  issued  a  quarry  licence. 
A  dock  permit  was  also  issued  for  the  illegal 
dock  on  the  condition  that  a  new  dock  be 
built  by  1980.  So  far  this  has  not  happened. 
Mr.  Marentette  got  his  way  after  all. 

At  this  time  he  began  dredging  a  channel 
60  feet  wide  and  150  feet  long  without  the 
necessary  government  permit.  When  the 
dredging  was  completed,  the  ministry  ordered 
his  company  to  stop  work.  This  was  the 
second  time  that  a  stop-work  order  had  been 
issued  after  all  the  work  was  done.  When  the 
charge  of  unauthorized  occupation  of  crown 
land  came  up  in  court,  Marentette  was  fined 
a  token  $200.  A  $200  fine  for  sinking  that  old 
scow  that  is  now  a  hazard  to  navigation  as 
well  as  the  three  boxcars  filled  with  stone  is 
cheap  rent  for  crown  land,  since  the  ministry 
did  not  even  order  it  removed. 

As  I  have  said,  the  ministry  ordered  that  the 
dock  be  built  on  pilings  to  be  completed  by 


5044 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  end  of  1980.  Again,  Mr.  Marentette  just 
ignored  this  order.  Local  opponents  of  the 
quarry  were  amazed  that  Mr.  Marentette 
could  thumb  his  nose  at  the  government  with 
such  impunity,  though  there  were  rumours 
that  Mr.  Marentette  had  friends  in  high 
places.  One  of  the  island  cottage  owners  is 
the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Develop- 
ment, Mrs.  Margaret  Birch.  Somebody  put  it 
about  that  she  was  so  fed  up  by  this  time 
that  she  exposed  Mr.  Marentette's  govern- 
ment contact  as  Mr.  Gerald  Nori. 

Mr.  Nori  was  a  good  friend  and  former 
schoolmate  who  had  been  helping  Mr. 
Marentette  behind  the  scenes.  Mr.  Nori  at 
this  time  was  president  of  the  provincial  PCs. 
To  the  local  people  this  explains  everything. 
He  had  used  his  influence  to  help  obtain  two 
licences  from  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Re- 
sources circumventing  the  OMB.  Mr.  Frank 
Miller,  the  then  Minister  of  Natural  Resources, 
approved  this  without  allowing  an  OMB 
hearing.  The  illegal  dock  and  scow  and  rail- 
way cars  were  never  removed  and  they  were 
never  ordered  removed. 

Mr.  Marentette's  road  building  company 
has  a  terrible  reputation  with  local  towns  and 
municipal  councils.  Just  because  someone  is 
getting  public  contracts  because  of  patronage 
is  no  guarantee  they  are  giving  good  value  for 
the  public  money  they  receive.  He  is  known 
for  his  shabby  work  and  constant  squabbling. 
The  local  towns  and  councils  want  nothing  to 
do  with  him.  He  built  part  of  Highway  401 
between  Windsor  and  Chatham,  and  after  a 
few  years  it  turned  into  a  washboard  and  had 
to  be  resurfaced.  Yet,  Mr.  Marentette  has  no 
trouble  getting  Ontario  government  contracts. 
In  the  last  five  years  Mr.  Marentette  has  been 
paid  over  $24  million  for  road  building.  After 
all,  what  are  friends  for? 
5  p.m. 

The  Parkway  Inn  in  St.  Catharines  is  the 
local  Tory's  home  away  from  Queen's  Park. 
It  is  owned1  by  Mr.  Archie  Katzman.  Mr. 
Katzman  is  an  influential  Conservative  in 
the  area.  He  is  the  former  secretary  of  the 
Ontario  Progressive  Conservatives,  local  bag- 
man an]  campaign  manager  for  the  member 
for  Brock  (Mr.  Welch).  For  his  efforts,  Mr. 
Katzman  has  been  appointed  to  the  Niagara 
Parks  Commission,  a  prestigious  appoint- 
ment. Also,  as  a  little  token  of  gratitude, 
Mr.  Katzman  was  given  a  government  loan 
to  expand  his  Parkway  Inn— $400,000  at  six 
per  cent.  Welfare  for  the  rich,  Mr.  Speaker; 
$400,000  at  six  per  cent  is  an  annual  saving 
of  almost  $40,000  if  conventional  interest 
rates  were  charged.  The  Parkway  Inn  con- 
sists of  the  Big  Wheel  Restaurant,  a  bowling 


alley,  as  well  as  an  accommodation  complex. 
Mr.  Katzman's  bowling  alley  has  a  liquor 
licence,  one  of  only  a  few  in  Ontario  to  have 
a  liquor  licence.  I  have  never  seen  one.  The 
Tories  can  always  make  an  exception  for 
one  of  their  own. 

In  addition  to  Mr.  Katzman's  Parkway 
Inn,  he  and  his  partner,  Mr.  Len  Herzog, 
own  the  K-Mart  plaza.  Mrs.  Herzog  will  be 
the  Conservative  candidate  in  1981  and',  as 
I  say,  the  Katzmans  and  the  Herzogs  wield 
a  great  deal  of  influence  in  St.  Catharines. 

•Following  the  unorthodox  Ontario  Pro- 
vincial Police  raid  at  the  Landmark  Hotel 
near  Fort  Erie,  in  which  a  number  of  young 
people  were  skin-searched  for  drugs,  an  in- 
quiry was  called  by  the  government.  Where 
were  the  hearings  held?  Not  near  the  Land- 
mark Hotel,  where  most  of  the  witnesses 
lived.  The  hearings  were  held  30  miles  away 
in  St.  Catharines— at  the  Parkway  Inn.  Mr. 
Katzman  must  have  made  a  lot  of  extra  in- 
come from  overnight  accommodation  as  well 
as  from  rent  for  the  hearing  room. 

Just  last  week,  December  1,  2  and  3,  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions (Mr.  Snow)  arranged  for  a  presentation 
outlining  the  proposed  widening  of  the  Queen 
Elizabeth  Way  through  St.  Catharines. 
Where  was  the  presentation  held?  Not  in 
one  of  the  free  public  buildings,  the  school 
auditoriums  or  even  a  church  basement;  not 
in  the  community  centre  which  is  right  next 
to  the  proposed  expansion.  This  presentation 
too  was  held  at  the  Parkway  Inn. 

Just  how  influential  Mr.  Katzman  is  was 
shown  during  the  controversy  surrounding 
a  fatal  March  14  crash  involving  Toronto 
Maple  Leaf  coach  Mr.  Floyd  Smith.  On  that 
day.  as  was  his  custom,  Mr.  Smith  stopped 
at  the  Parkway  Inn  for  a  few  drinks.  Later 
on  the  Queen  Elizabeth  Way,  just  outside 
St.  Catharines,  Mr.  Smith's  car  mounted  a 
three  and  a  half  foot  median  and  crashed 
into  another  car,  driving  it  back  some  dis- 
tance. There  were  two  people  in  the  other 
car.  The  woman  died  immediately.  The  man 
died  four  days  later  in  hospital.  Mr.  Smith 
was  taken  to  hospital  with  a  knee  injury. 
On  the  way  to  the  hospital  the  ambulance 
attendant  noted  that  Mr.  Smith  smelled 
strongly  of  alcohol  and  put  this  in  his  report. 

Shortly  after  Mr.  Smith  was  admitted  to 
the  St.  Catharines  General  Hospital,  Mr. 
Katzman,  the  proprietor  of  the  Parkway  Inn, 
arrived  with  his  own  doctor  to  see  Mr.  Smith. 
Mr.  Smith  was  then  placed  in  the  hospital's 
intensive  care  unit  where  no  visitors  are 
allowed.  How  did  Mr.  Katzman  learn  so 
quickly  of  his  customer's   accident? 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5045 


I  just  have  to  tell  "John  C"  of  the  CBC 
that  I  can't  make  it  now.  His  note  says:  "I 
know  you  have  a  lot  of  time  to  make  up  for, 
but  we  have  to  leave  now  to  make  deadlines. 
Is  it  possible  for  you  to  join  us?"  No,  it  isn't 
possible,  John,  because  I  have  only  this  op- 
portunity and  then  the  election  will  probably 
be  called  next  year  and  that  will  be  the  end 
of  it.  I  have  to  get  all  this  on  the  record.  I 
am  sorry. 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  Will 
the  honourable  member  please  address  his 
remarks  to  the  chair? 

Mr.  Ziemba:  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker.  How 
did'  Mr.  Katzman  learn  so  quickly  of  his 
customer's  accident?  Did  Mr.  Katzman  have 
anything  to  do  with  putting  his  customer  in 
the  controlled  atmosphere  of  the  intensive 
care  unit?  Of  course,  Mr.  Smith's  knee  injury 
had  to  be  treated  at  once,  but  a  nurse  could 
not  understand  why  he  was  taking  up  space 
in  the  intensive  care  unit.  If  Mr.  Katzman 
did  have  anything  to  do  with  the  decision 
to  put  Mr.  Smith  into  the  controlled  environ- 
ment of  the  intensive  care  unit,  no  wonder 
one  observer  described  him  as  "walking 
around  the  hospital  as  if  he  owned  it." 

Mr.  Katzman  was  asked  if  Mr.  Smith  had 
been  drinking  at  the  Parkway  Inn,  since  this 
was  his  favourite  watering  hole  on  the  way 
through  St.  Catharines.  Mr.  Katzman  said 
he  had  only  one  or  two  drinks  and  he 
definitely  was  not  drunk.  The  Parkway  Inn 
waitresses  were  ordered  not  to  say  anything, 
but  before  that  one  of  them  told  a  reporter 
that  she  had  served  Mr.  Smith  about  six 
drinks  and  he  was  well  and  truly  liquored 
up  when  he  took  off. 

Normally  a  blood  sample  is  taken  for  the 
police.  For  some  reason  this  was  not  done. 
In  due  course,  the  crown  attorney  had  to 
subpoena  the  hospital's  own  sample.  The 
accident  was  on  a  Friday  night.  The  next 
morning  local  reporters  went  to  the  St. 
Catharines  Ontario  Provincial  Police  detach- 
ment. They  asked  if  alcohol  was  a  factor  in 
the  cra^h.  They  were  stalled  for  the  entire 
weekend  by  the  OPP.  Finally,  Corporal 
George  Adams  made  a  statement  to  the 
press  ruling  out  alcohol  as  a  possible  cause 
for  the  mishap.  Corporal  Adams  said  no 
charges  would  be  laid. 

In  the  meantime,  the  hospital  reported 
that  Mr.  Smith  was  still  in  intensive  care 
and  there  was  no  further  information.  On 
Wednesday,  the  driver  of  the  other  car 
died.  On  the  same  day,  Mr.  Smith  was 
quietly  released  from  hospital.  By  noon  he 
was  admitted  to  the  Buffalo  General  Hospi- 
tal.   People    who    followed    the   case    cannot 


understand  how  someone  who  had  been  kept 
in  intensive  care  for  four  days  did  not  even 
require  to  be  transferred  by  ambulance. 

Meanwhile  back  in  St.  Catharines,  12  days 
after  the  fatal  crash,  the  crown  attorney 
finally  lays  charges.  He  charges  Mr.  Smith 
with  criminal  negligence  causing  death.  The 
crown  attorney  said  he  did  not  ask  for  a 
report  from  the  OPP  about  their  earlier 
statements  because  this  would  be  casting  re- 
flections on  the  OPP  and  he  did  not  want  to 
do  this.  Eight  months  later  Mr.  Smith  faces 
a  preliminary  hearing  to  decide  if  he  should 
stand  trial  for  criminal  negligence  causing 
death.  This  charge  was  dismissed.  Mr.  Smith 
was  ordered  to  stand  trial  only  for  impaired 
driving. 

Here  we  have  a  case  where  two  people 
died  in  a  highway  accident.  One  of  the 
drivers  involved  had  been  drinking  in  an 
establishment  whose  proprietor  arrives  at  the 
hospital  with  his  own  doctor  in  tow,  hard 
on  the  heels  of  the  ambulance  carrying  his 
customer.  There  is  some  question  as  to 
whether  this  customer  should  have  been 
placed  in  the  intensive  care  unit.  Later  the 
police  rule  out  impairment  in  explaining  the 
cause  of  the  accident,  even  though  the  cus- 
tomer was  later  charged  with  impaired  driv- 
ing. I  cannot  help  wondering  about  these 
aspects   of  the   case. 

I  would  like  to  continue  about  St.  Cath- 
arines. St.  Catharines  does  not  just  have 
important  Tories  such  as  Mr.  Katzman.  In 
addition,  it  has  a  whole  host  of  lesser  Tories 
enjoying  government  patronage.  They  have 
local  Tory  activist  Mr.  Ron  Zimmerman, 
who  was  awarded  with  a  franchise  to  sell 
motor  vehicle  licence  plates  on  Niagara 
Street,  and  defeated  Tory  candidate  Mrs. 
Eleanor  Lancaster,  who  was  appointed  vice- 
chairman  of  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Board.  This  was  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
Mrs.  Lancaster  has  never  shown  any  interest 
in  the  environment.  Her  husband  is  Mr.  H. 
H.  Lancaster  of  the  law  firm  of  Lancaster, 
Mix,  Welch,  Thorsteinson  and  Edwards.  Mr. 
Lancaster  was  appointed  to  the  Ontario 
Municipal  Board  because  of  his  Conservative 
connections. 

This  same  law  firm  helped  another  Tory 
old  boy,  Mr.  John  Campbell,  bypass  a  local 
bylaw.  Mr.  Campbell  is  the  Niagara  regional 
chairman.  He  wanted  a  second  severance 
on  rural  property  he  owns  in  Niagara-on- 
the-Lake,  even  though  the  region's  and  the 
town's  official  plans  state  that  only  full-time 
farmers  who  have  farmed  their  land  for  the 
past  five  years  can  sever  a  retirement  block. 
In    fact,    Mr.    Campbell    is    not    a    full-time 


5046 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


farmer  and  he  should  never  have  been  given 
permission  two  years  ago  to  sever  a  two-acre 
lot,  but  he  got  the  severance  anyway.  Now 
he  wants  a  further  severance,  so  he  goes  to 
the  Tory  law  firm  of  Lancaster,  Mix,  Welch, 
Thorsteinson  and  Edwards.  Mr.  R.  W.  P. 
Welch,  the  son  of  the  Deputy  Premier  and 
Minister  of  Energy,  looks  after  him— no 
problem.  Mr.  Welch  contacts  the  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and  Food  and  is  successful  in 
getting  the  ministry  to  support  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's severance. 

At  first,  council  turns  down  the  severance, 
but  Mr.  Campbell  uses  his  powerful  public 
office  and  persuades  council  to  approve  the 
severance.  Only  one  councillor  dared  stand 
up  to  him.  Councillor  Nellie  Keeler  objected 
to  Mr.  Campbell  bending  the  rules.  Councillor 
Keeler,  acting  as  a  private  citizen,  forced  the 
issue  to  the  OMB,  but  I  do  not  think  she  is 
under  any  illusions.  After  all,  Mr.  Campbell 
can  always  go  to  his  friends  in  cabinet  if  he 
does  not  get  his  way  at  the  OMB. 
5:10  p.m. 

There  are  Miss  Mary  Burgoyne,  former 
owner  of  radio  station  CKTB  in  St.  Cath- 
arines, a  lifelong  Conservative  supporter  who 
was  appointed  to  the  freedom  of  information 
commission,  and  Mr.  Jim  Allan,  former 
provincial  Treasurer  who  was  appointed 
chairman  of  the  Niagara  Parks  Commission. 

Fellow  New  Democrat,  the  member  for 
Welland-Thorold  (Mr.  Swart),  has  accused  the 
Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Bennett)  of  being 
involved  in  a  scheme  with  the  developers  of 
Epping  Commons  to  bypass  the  Niagara  Es- 
carpment Act.  His  own  ministry's  ruling  was 
to  permit  a  305-acre  commercial-residential 
complex  on  the  escarpment  in  the  Beaver 
Valley  area.  The  minister  pretends  to  support 
the  escarpment,  and  turns  down  the  proposal 
as  premature  and  incompatible  with  his  gov- 
ernment's objectives.  Pious  words.  Behind  the 
scenes  he  works  with  his  developer  friends  to 
push  the  proposal  through.  After  all,  Maxtone 
Holdings  and  Cambray  Investments  are  the 
government's  friends.  The  law  firm  for  both 
companies  is  Goodman  and  Goodman.  Mr. 
Sam  Kolber,  the  president  of  both,  is  vice- 
president  of  Cadillac  Fairview.  Cadillac  Fair- 
view  is  always  good  for  a  maximum  contribu- 
tion to  the  Tories. 

In  the  Welland  area  we  have  a  well  known 
wheeler  dealer  by  the  name  of  Mr.  Secord. 
Mr.  Secord  was  the  secretary-treasurer  of  the 
notorious  Quinn  Truck  Lines.  Mr.  Quinn,  the 
House  will  recall,  is  the  fellow  who  ripped  off 
the  Ontario  government  for  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  dollars  with  a  little  help  from 
his  Tory  friends.   In   any   case,    Mr.   Secord, 


finding  himself  out  of  work  after  the  Quinn 
fiasco,  is  given  a  job  in  the  local  liquor  store. 
In  the  process  of  getting  this  job,  Mr.  Secord 
stepped  over  part-time  employees  who  had 
long  years  of  service,  contrary  to  what  the 
minister  said  today  in  question  period. 
Another  Tory  hack  is  looked  after. 

Defeated  Progressive  Conservative  can- 
didate Maurice  Carter  of  Hamilton  was  given 
$15,000  by  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and 
Tourism— I  will  not  get  into  that  now— to  race 
his  car  at  LeMans  this  past  summer.  However, 
the  minister  did  make  a  great  fuss  about 
getting  the  money  back,  because  Mr.  Carter's 
car  did  not  qualify  for  the  race.  But  nobody 
in  his  office  can  tell  me  whether  the  money 
has  been  returned  or  not.  This  was  another 
case  of  straight  patronage. 

I  have  placed  several  questions  on  the 
Order  Paper  that  should  have  been  answered 
by  now.  I  asked  for  a  list  of  all  the  former 
Tory  MPs  and  MPPs,  as  well  as  defeated  Tory 
candidates,  who  hold  jobs  in  government 
agencies,  boards  and  commissions  and  an 
indication  of  how  much  they  are  paid.  There 
is  also  a  question  about  ex-MPPs'  pensions. 

A  number  of  former  cabinet  ministers,  not 
satisfied  with  a  generous  legislative  pension- 
as  I  said  I  would  like  to  know  the  amount- 
are  pulling  down  big  money  by  serving  on 
some  agency,  board  or  commission.  First, 
there  is  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Lincoln 
Alexander,  the  former  Conservative  MP  for 
Hamilton  West  for  12  undistinguished  years. 
He  is  getting  $60,000  a  year  as  Workmen's 
Compensation  Board  chairman.  Mr.  Alexander 
succeeds  another  former  Tory  Labour  min- 
ister. It  is  interesting  that  both  former  Tory 
Labour  ministers  got  the  job  for  the  same 
reason.  They  were  Conservatives  and  they 
were  just  straight  patronage  appointments. 
We  needed  somebody  with  some  familiarity 
with  the  horrendous  problems  of  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Board,  someone  with 
sensitivity  to  the  problems  of  injured  workers. 
This  was  an  especially  offensive  appointment 
for  New  Democrats  and  the  labour  movement. 

Then  we  see  ex-cabinet  minister  Mr.  John 
Yaremko  appointed  chairman  of  the  Liquor 
Licence  Appeal  Tribunal  at  $51,000;  Mr. 
Arthur  Wishart,  former  Attorney  General, 
appointed  chairman  of  the  Commission  on 
Election  Contributions  and  Expenses  at 
$51,000,  and  Mr.  Allan  Grossman,  appointed 
chairman  of  the  Criminal  Injuries  Compensa- 
tion Board  at  $51,000;  they  all  get  $51,000. 
Mr.  John  White,  former  Treasurer,  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  Ontario  Heritage  Foundation, 
but  I  cannot  find  out  what  he  earns.  Former 
Conservative  MPP  Judge  Thomas  Graham  was 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


6047 


appointed    chairman    of    the    Ontario    Police 
Commission  at  $54,000.  He  is  now  retired. 

Then  we  have  the  losers.  I  will  start  with 
my  former  opponent,  Mr.  Yuri  Shymko.  Mr. 
Shymko  ran  four  times  for  the  Conservatives— 
twice  provincially  and  twice  federally.  He 
served  as  Parkdale  MP  for  six  months.  Mr. 
Shymko  was  appointed  chairman  of  the 
Ontario  Advisory  Council  on  Multiculturalism 
and  Citizenship  at  $40,000  a  year.  That  is  a 
big  step  up  for  a  high  school  French  teacher. 
Mr.  Lincoln  Alexander  is  not  the  only  Tory 
at  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board.  There 
is  also  Mr.  John  Smith  and  Mr.  Roger 
Regimbal.  Mr.  Smith,  a  former  Conservative 
cabinet  minister  from  Hamilton  Mountain, 
was  a  disaster  as  a  Correctional  Services 
minister.  When  he  was  defeated  in  1977,  he 
was  given  a  sinecure  at  the  Workmen's  Com- 
pensation Board.  A  defeated  Quebec  Tory 
MP,  Mr.  Regimbal,  was  appointed  full-time 
commissioner  in  February.  Mr.  Regimbal,  to- 
gether with  Eddie  Goodman,  co-chaired  the 
Progressive  Conservative  convention  that 
chose  Mr.  Robert  Stanfield  as  national  PC 
leader  in  1967. 

Then  we  have  the  former  defeated  MP  for 
Dovercourt,  Mr.  George  Nixon.  Mr.  Nixon  is 
really  miscast  as  one  of  the  chairmen  of  the 
Social  Assistance  Review  Board.  He  was  given 
the  job  when  he  was  knocked  off  in  1975  by 
my  seatmate  the  member  for  Dovercourt  (Mr. 
Lupusella).  I  run  into  Mr.  Nixon  from  time  to 
time  at  west-end  Polish  functions.  He  always 
sits  at  the  head  of  table  and  is  introduced  as 
the  Hon.  Mr.  Nixon.  I  asked  about  this  once 
and  I  was  told  the  reason  they  do  this  and 
the  reason  they  are  all  nice  to  him  is  they  can 
always  count  on  Mr.  Nixon's  assistance  in 
landing  a  job  in  a  liquor  store.  There  is  only 
one  problem.  The  jobs  never  lasted  very  long. 
They  were  all  contract  jobs,  but  they  were 
better  than  nothing.  While  Mr.  Nixon  may 
not  know  very  much  about  social  services,  he 
is  a  good  ward  heeler  for  the  Tories. 

There  is  the  Conservative  turncoat,  Mr. 
Marvin  Shore,  who  was  given  a  job  with  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  for  double- 
crossing  the  Liberals  but  losing  as  a  Tory  in 
1977.  There  is  the  defeated  Halton  Tory 
federal  candidate,  Mr.  Alan  Masson,  who  was 
appointed  Niagara  Escarpment  development 
control  chief  at  $42,000.  There  is  always  a  job 
for  defeated  Tories  in  Davisland. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Don't  you  wish  you 
were  a  Tory? 

Mr.  Ziemba:  I  should  not  respond  to  that. 

I  have  also  put  a  question  on  the  Order 

Paper  requesting  a  list  of  PC  Party  officials 


who  were  given  government  appointments.  Of 
course,  the  Tories  are  not  in  any  hurry  to 
provide  this  list,  but  I  think  the  question  is 
long  overdue  in  being  answered. 

Every  once  in  a  while  the  Premier  and  a 
bunch  of  the  boys  get  together  to  dispense 
patronage.  When  he  does  this,  the  Premier 
reminds  me  of  that  TV  character,  Boss  Hog. 
They  call  themselves  the  appointments  com- 
mittee. One  of  their  recent  appointments  was 
Mr.  Ward  Cornell  of  Hockey  Night  in  Canada 
fame.  Mr.  Cornell,  a  close  personal  friend  and 
supporter  of  the  Premier,  had  earlier  been 
appointed  Ontario's  Agent  General  in  London. 
Perhaps  he  got  bored  after  six  years  of  glad- 
handing  in  London  and  wanted  to  come  home. 
When  there  was  a  vacancy  as  Deputy  Pro- 
vincial Secretary  for  Social  Development,  Mr. 
Cornell  got  the  nod.  It  is  too  bad  he  has  no 
background  and  no  expertise  in  the  social 
policy  field. 

For  me  it  is  always  a  sad  experience,  rep- 
resenting someone  before  the  Social  Assist- 
ance Review  Board.  The  questions  are  very 
personal  and  demeaning.  It  is  a  kind  of 
inquisition  conducted  by  the  two  board 
members.  The  applicant  is  often  reduced  to 
tears  before  the  ordeal  is  over.  I  have  yet 
to  win  one  of  these  appeals.  Who  are  these 
board  members?  I  have  here  the  curriculum 
vitae  of  all  the  present  board  members. 
These  are  the  actual  documents  they  sub- 
mitted when  seeking  their  patronage  ap- 
pointments. 

First,  we  have  Mr.  Desmond  S.  Bender 
of  Ottawa.  Mr.  Bender  submits  the  follow- 
ing as  his  qualifications  for  the  board.  These 
are  his  words:  "Mr.  Bender  has  been  cam- 
paign manager  in  three  provincial  elections 
for  the  Progressive  Conservative  Party  and 
a  fully  paid-up  member  of  the  Progressive 
Conservative  Party  of  Ontario." 

Next  we  have  Mrs.  Joan  Dool  of  Sault 
Ste.  Marie.  In  her  biography,  Mrs.  Dool 
lists  the  following:  "PC  committee  room 
supervisor  and  organizer  for  Arthur  Wis- 
hart's  two  elections.  Russ  Ramsay's  two 
elections  and  John  Rhodes's  first  election." 
She  goes  on:  "Friends  of  Rhodes  family, 
seconded  the  first  nomination  of  John  Rhodes 
for  provincial  election;  Sault  Ste.  Marie  rid- 
ing executive  and  district  women's  executive.' 

She  actually  had  the  nerve,  Mr.  Speaker, 
to  write  all  this  down  under  the  heading, 
"School  and  Church  Activities."  Maybe  that 
is  what  is  meant  by  the  expression  praying 
for  a  patronage  appointment. 
5:20  p.m. 

Next  we  have  Mayor  Maurice  Hotte  of 
Cochrane.   I  understand   Mr.   Hotte   may  be 


5048 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


asked  by  the  Conservatives  to  run  in  Mr. 
Rernier's  place  in  the  upcoming  election. 
He   is   a  good  Tory. 

Next  is  Mr.  Manuele  Gaetano  of  Toronto. 
Mr.  Gaetano  ends  his  curriculum  vitae  by 
stating:  "I  am  also  member  of  public  rela- 
tions of  the  PC  community  centre.  In  this 
capacity  I  frequently  deal  with  the  Toronto 
Italian  news  media:  Corriere  Canadese,  Gi- 
ornale  di  Toronto,  Television  Cable  10  and 
so  on,  preparing  press  releases  and  at  times 
giving  television  and  radio  appearances." 
This  must  be  Mr.  Rocco  Lofranco's  old  job. 

Here  is  a  good  one,  Mr.  Speaker,  you  Will 
like  this  one:  Mrs.  June  Marks  of  Toronto- 
do  you  remember  her?  She  used  to  be  an 
alderman  here.  These  are  her  words:  "In 
July  1974  I  was  the  Progressive  Conserv- 
ative candidate  for  the  federal  riding  of 
Spadina  and  was  defeated.  I  continue  to 
hold  membership  in  six  provincial  and  fed- 
eral riding  associations."  She  did  get  the 
appointment,  but  surely  she  was  overdoing 
it.  One  or  two  memberships  should  have 
been  enough. 

Mr.  Donald  Morrow  states  that  he 
"served  the  people  of  Ontario  for  20  years 
as  the  member  for  Ottawa  West  and  was 
Speaker  of  the  House  from  1963  to  1967." 

Mr.  George  Adam  Nixon:  "First  elected 
to  the  Ontario  Legislature  October  21, 
1971."  I  mentioned  him  earlier. 

Next— and  this  is  interesting— listen  to 
what  Mrs.  Lamarche  says  about  herself: 
"Mrs.  Pierrette  Lamarche  of  Timmins,  court 
clerk,  clerk  typist,  assessment  clerk  and  sales- 
lady." Then  she  goes  on  to  elaborate:  "This 
type  of  work  involves  direct  selling  door  to 
door,  also  calling  on  community  groups  to 
organize  parties  to  which  I  was  the  counsel- 
lor in  skin  analysis  and  proper  make-up 
colouring.  This  job  was  very  good  in  meet- 
ing different  nationalities  and  different  cul- 
tures. I  was  able  to  dialogue  with  a  lot  of 
lonely  people.  The  same  type  of  work  was 
done  for  a  household  product  called  Amway. 
Roth  of  these  jobs  were  done  at  the  same 
time  and  in  the  same  manner." 

Mrs.  Lamarche  goes  on:  "Also  very  active 
in  provincial  politics;  vice-president  on  the 
executive  for  10  years;  organizer  for  three 
provincial  elections."  In  fact,  Mrs.  Lamarche 
did  work  hard  in  the  French  community  to 
help  elect  the  member  for  Cochrane  South 
(Mr.  Pope).  A  close  observer  of  political 
affairs  in  Timmins  told  me  it  was  well  known 
that  Mrs.  Lamarche  only  got  into  PC  poli- 
tics to  get  a  job  as  a  riding  assistant  to  the 
present   Tory   member,    but    apparently    she 


was  too  abrasive  for  this  job  so  he  arranged 
for  her  appointment  to  the  Social  Assistance 
Review   Roard. 

Then  we  have  the  Conservative  riding 
activists,  the  organizers,  the  foot  soldiers: 
Tory  supporter  Dr.  W.  C.  Winegard  is  ap- 
pointed chairman  of  the  Ontario  Council  on 
University  Affairs,  $61,000;  former  secretary 
of  the  Elgin  PC  riding  association,  Mr.  Eber 
Rice  is  appointed  chairman  of  the  Liquor 
Licence  Roard  of  Ontario,  $.53,000;  Conserv- 
ative campaigner  Mr.  Rruce  Alexander  is 
appointed  chairman  of  the  Ontario  Highway 
Transport  Roard,  $49,000;  Conservative  Party 
worker  Mr.  Henry  Stewart,  is  appointed 
chairman  of  the  Ontario  Municipal  Roard, 
$61,000,  even  though  he  claims  that  he  "didn't 
do  enough  to  be  owed." 

Tory  municipal  politician  from  Peel,  Mr. 
J.  I.  McMullin,  is  appointed  chairman  of  the 
Niagara  Escarpment  Commission,  $31,000.  He 
always  works  for  Mr.  Davis  when  the  Premier 
is  running  for  re-election. 

PC  loyalist  and  former  party  executive 
director  Mr.  Ross  DeGeer  is  appointed 
Ontario's  Agent  General  in  Rritain;  former 
car  dealer,  backroom  adviser  and  former 
executive  director  of  Ontario  Conservatives 
Mr.  Hugh  Macaulay  is  appointed  chairman  of 
Ontario  Hydro. 

There  is  a  high-profile  Cambridge  Tory, 
Mr.  Norman  Morris,  who  was  just  appointed 
general  manager  of  the  Ontario  Lottery 
Corporation  with  a  big  salary.  What  are  Mr. 
Morris's  qualifications  for  this  job?  Well,  he 
did  have  a  car  agency  in  Kitchener  that  went 
bankrupt,  but  his  best  qualification  seems  to 
be  a  membership  card  in  the  Conservative 
Party.  It  certainly  saved  Mr.  Morris  from  the 
unemployment  insurance  line. 

Another  Tory  good  old  boy  who  was  helped 
when  he  fell  on  hard  times  was  Mr.  Rert 
Woodman  of  Wolfe  Island.  The  Attorney 
General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  appointed  Mr. 
Woodman  sheriff  of  Frontenac  county.  Mr. 
Woodman,  an  active  Tory  worker,  admitted 
that  frankly  he  needed  the  sheriff's  post.  His 
farm  machinery  business  in  Kingston  town- 
ship had  failed  earlier  this  year,  so  he  was 
really  grateful  to  the  Attorney  General  for 
the  appointment.  Another  Tory  was  saved 
from  the  ranks  of  the  unemployed. 

I  have  been  speaking  today  about  a  number 
of  despicable  practices  that  make  up  the  Tory 
patronage  system  in  Ontario.  We  have  seen 
government  business  for  the  boys,  and  I  am 
referring  to  the  vehicle  and  the  hunting  and 
fishing  licence  outlets,  as  well  as  fat  contracts 
for  friends  of  the  Tories  in  advertising,  con- 
sulting and  road  building.  We  have  seen  how 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5049 


some  of  our  rules  do  not  seem  to  apply  as 
strictly  to  those  with  good  Tory  connections 
as  they  do  to  you  and  me,  Mr.  Speaker.  We 
have  seen  jobs  for  the  boys,  big  jobs  for  lead- 
ing Tories  as  well  as  ordinary  jobs  in  liquor 
stores  for  people  who  can  get  the  stamp  of 
approval  from  the  local  PC  riding  association. 
It  is  with  this  sort  of  patronage  system  that 
the  Premier  can  wrestle  to  the  ground  un- 
employment among  Tories. 

I  am  not  naive  enough  to  think  the  Premier 
would  appoint  any  but  Tories  as  deputy 
ministers.  But  it  is  past  time  we  had  the  merit 
principle  apply  to  all  but  the  most  senior 
government  appointments.  My  party  believes 
in  giving  unfettered  political  rights  to  civil 
servants.  Civil  service  jobs  should  go  to  those 
who  can  do  them  well,  and  those  people 
should  be  free  to  work  for  whatever  political 
party  they  choose  or  vote  the  way  they  like 
once  they  have  gone  home  for  the  day. 

We  want  to  end  the  political  restrictions 
that  now  apply  to  the  liquor  clerks  and  the 
snowplough  operators,  but  it  is  time  to  start 
putting  some  restrictions  on  the  blatant 
patronage  system  the  Tories  use  to  reward 
their  supporters.  We  have  to  stop  political 
patronage  in  order  to  stamp  out  waste,  in- 
efficiency and  corruption.  It  is  the  ordinary 
working  people  in  Ontario  who  are  getting  it 
in  the  neck  when  the  Tories  spend  public 
money  to  interview  dead  people.  It  is  the 
ordinary  working  people  of  my  riding  who 
ultimately  are  out  of  pocket  when  Mr.  La- 
pointe  of  Sault  Ste.  Marie  buys  crown  land 
at  only  half  its  market  value. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  like  to  comment  on 
the  item  that  led  me  to  look  into  patronage 
in  the  first  place.  I  have  come  across  an 
awful  lot  more  but  I  will  save  it  for  another 
time.  The  issue  I  am  referring  to  was  my 
charge  that  two  Tories,  the  member  for 
Wilson  Heights  (Mr.  Rotenberg)  and  the  mem- 
ber for  Armourdale  (Mr.  McCaffrey)  bought 
their  seats.  Since  I  have  withdrawn  this 
charge  about  the  buyers,  I  would  like  to  say 
something  about  the  sellers.  They  are  not 
protected  by  parliamentary  privilege. 

Both  Mr.  Givens  and  Mr.  Singer  sold  their 
seats  to  the  Tories  for  $50,000  a  year  each, 
plus  a  chauffeured  limousine  for  Mr.  Givens. 
Here  is  how  they  did  it.  They  are  both  well 
liked,  high  profile  Liberals.  They  could 
probably  have  held  on  to  their  seats  as  long 
as  they  wanted  to,  and  the  Tories  knew  this. 
But  just  before  the  1977  election  writ  was 
issued,  both  those  fellows  abandoned  ship.  At 
the  last  minute  they  announced  they  were 
retiring  from  politics  and  left  their  riding 
associations  surprised  and  unprepared  to  fight 


an  election.  No  replacement  Liberal  can- 
didates had  been  groomed  to  take  over,  and 
it  was  too  late  to  start. 

In  other  words,  Mr.  Phil  Givens  and  Mr. 
Vernon  Singer  took  a  dive.  They  threw  the 
fight.  They  pulled  a  Duran.  Like  Duran,  they 
laughed  all  the  way  to  the  bank.  The  Tories 
bought  those  seats.  Those  seats  have  been 
bought  and  paid  for  on  the  instalment  plan, 
which  adds  up  to  $100,000  a  year.  In  fact,  a 
cabinet  minister  boasted  about  it.  The  Min- 
ister of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Mr.  Hender- 
son) boasted  right  outside  this  Legislature 
that  the  Tories  bought  off  Mr.  Singer  with  an 
appointment  to  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board. 
Coming  from  him,  I  believe  it.  Before  he 
became  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  he 
had  the  unofficial  title  of  minister  of 
patronage.  He  is  known  for  his  famous  line— 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  On  a  point  of  privilege, 
Mr  Speaker:  Despite  the  fact  the  honourable 
member  has  deigned  to  apologize  and  with- 
draw his  remarks,  he  is  now  saying  the  same 
thing  again.  This  is  a  very  cute  little  game 
they  played  in  order  to  give  him  a  chance  to 
spout  this  nonsense  all  afternoon.  It  was  a 
very  cute  trick  to  withdraw  his  remarks,  make 
his  speech  and  then  make  the  same  remarks 
again.  I  would  suggest  to  you  the  member  is 
out  of  order. 
5:30  p.m. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  speaking  to 
the  point  of  privilege,  the  standing  orders  are 
clear.  They  forbid  allegations  against  another 
member.  The  member  for  High  Park-Swansea 
has  withdrawn  the  allegations  against  other 
members.  He  is  making  a  series  of  remarks 
identical  to  the  remarks  made  this  afternoon 
during  question  period,  having  to  do  with 
Tory  patronage  appointments  to  jobs  at  the 
Liquor  Control  Board  of  Ontario.  He  is  talk- 
ing about  the  activities  of  the  Progressive 
Conservative  Party,  not  about  the  activities  of 
any  specific  member  of  this  assembly. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  listened  with  great  care 
to  all  the  remarks  since  the  member  for  High 
Park-Swansea  has  again  been  recognized.  I 
do  not  know  of  any  instance  where  he  has 
accused  a  member  of  this  assembly  of  wrong- 
doing. If  he  had,  I  would  have  been  the  first 
to  bring  him  to  order.  If  the  honourable 
member  can  point  to  any  such  instance,  I  will 
listen  to  him,  but  I  have  listened  with  great 
care  and  I  find  that  not  to  be  the  case. 

Mr.  Ziemba:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  going  to 
quote  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food's 
famous  line,  "Me  and  the  Premier  brung  you 
this  cheque."  Remember  that  one?  Mr.  Givens 
was  made  a  judge  in  order  to  be  installed  as 


5050 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


chairman  of  the  Ontario  Police  Commission. 
He  gets  $50,000  a  year  and  a  chauffeur-driven 
limousine.  This  is  the  Tories'  economic 
strategy  for  Ontario.  When  they  say  they  will 
buy  back  Ontario,  they  want  to  buy  it  back 
one  seat  at  a  time  from  the  Liberals. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  take  part  in  the  budget  debate  and  deal 
with  a  few  matters  I  think  are  probably  of 
greater  pressing  interest  to  this  House  and 
to  this  country  and  province  than  the  kind 
of  drivel  we  have  just  heard. 

My  friend  has  dealt  in  a  lot  of  innuendo 
and  accusation  without  really  knowing  what 
most  of  these  situations  are  all  about.  He  has 
in  this  House  perhaps  cast  aspersions  on  the 
names  of  people  who  are  serving  this  prov- 
ince well  and  on  the  citizens  of  this  province 
in  many  capacities.  I  hope  he  will  think  sin- 
cerely about  that  and  consider  that  when  he 
makes  speeches  like  this. 

As  my  friend  the  chief  government  whip 
said,  perhaps  he  would  like  to  make  his 
speech  outside  where  those  people  who  have 
been  talked'  about  would  have  a  chance  to 
take  any  action  they  might  wish  to  take 
against  him.  But  I  do  not  really  want  to 
descend  to  this  kind  of  tack.  In  fact,  I  really 
find  it  very  difficult  to  be  in  a  House  with 
a  member  like  the  member  for  High  Park- 
Swansea  because  I  think  his  general  actions 
tend  to  lower  the  status  and  quality  of  mem- 
bers of  this  Legislature,  and  for  that  I  am 
very  sorry. 

I  would  like  to  talk  this  afternoon  about 
the  constitutional  debate  in  this  country  today, 
about  the  position  we  find  ourselves  in,  and 
about  the  reason  Ontario  has  taken  the  posi- 
tions it  has  in  the  constitutional  debate  and 
why  we  have  taken  these  positions  with  a 
great  deal  of  vigour. 

The  first  thing  I  would  like  to  deal  with 
is  the  question  oft  put  to  me:  "Why  are  you 
worrying  about  the  constitution?  The  issues 
that  really  matter  in  this  country  today  are 
economic  issues.  They  are  matters  concerned 
with  inflation,  jobs  and  the  economy.  These 
are  the  things  government  should  be  spend- 
ing its  time  debating  and  should  be  directing 
its  attention  towards.  To  be  spending  the 
effort  and  energy  that  it  is  on  the  constitution 
is  really  not  very  productive  in  these  times." 

The  answer  I  would  like  to  pose  to  these 
people,  an  answer  I  think  is  a  very  relevant 
one,  could  best  be  summed  up  in  a  letter 
which  the  Premiers  of  this  province  and  of 
all  the  other  provinces  received  from  a 
group  called  the  Business  Council  on  National 
Issues.  This  is  a  group  of  prominent  Cana- 
dian  businessmen,    presidents    and    chairmen 


of  the  boards  of  prominent  companies  like 
Honeywell,  General  Electric  and  so  forth— 
companies  that  are  most  concerned  about 
the  economic  issues  of  this  country. 

This  group  said  they  "hoped  that  the 
Premiers  would  come  to  some  conclusion  or 
at  least  the  beginnings  of  some  conclusion 
on  the  constitutional  question  because  the 
fact  that  it  is  unresolved  is  having  an  effect 
on  the  economy  of  this  country."  In  fact 
they  went  so  far  as  to  say,  "The  fact  that 
we  have  not  solved  our  constitutional  prob- 
lems is  costing  us  jobs  and  costing  us  invest- 
ment." 

I  can  believe  that,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  can  be- 
lieve the  fact  that  we  have  not  been  able  to 
resolve,  at  least  in  some  small  way,  the 
renewal  of  our  constitution  as  we  promised 
during  the  referendum  debate  last  May  in 
the  province  of  Quebec  is  having  an  unset- 
tling effect  on  the  business  community  and 
such  an  effect  that  it  is  causing  them  not  to 
create  the  jobs  and  carry  out  the  investment 
that  we  know  needs  to  proceed. 

The  fact  that  we  have  not  arrived  at  oil 
pricing  agreements  between  the  government 
of  Canada  and  the  province  of  Alberta,  I 
would  submit  to  members,  is  partially  be- 
cause we  have  not  been  able  to  come  to  any 
conclusion  to  our  constitutional  problems. 
The  fact  that  we  do  not  have  those  oil 
pricing  agreements  in  effect  is  having  a  dis- 
turbing effect  on  the  economic  climate  of 
this  country. 

Therefore,  the  premise  that  I  am  putting 
to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  to  this  House  to- 
day is  that  the  constitutional  issue  is  very 
directly  connected  with  the  whole  issue  of 
the  problems  we  face  with  the  economy  in 
Canada  today.  The  need  is  for  some  kind 
of  log-jam  breaking,  deadlock  breaking  ac- 
tion to  get  this  matter  on  the  road  to  bring 
some  beginning  to  a  resolution  of  our  con- 
situtional  problems,  because  that  will  have 
an  offshoot  effect  on  our  economic  problems. 
That,  I  would  submit,  is  the  kind  of  action 
that  the  present  government  of  Canada  is 
contemplating    in    its    constitutional    package. 

My  feeling  is  that  it  has  looked  at  this 
problem.  I  have  to  say  I  believe  we  all 
sincerely  worked  throughout  the  summer  on 
the  committee  that  I  was  a  part  of  and  that 
the  Attorney  General  was  a  part  of  and  that 
had  on  it  ministers  from  all  the  provinces 
and  the  federal  government.  We  sincerely 
tried  to  come  to  some  conclusions,  to  some 
resolution  on  12  constitutional  issues  and 
to  move  from  there  to  implementing  and 
presenting  to  the  first  ministers  some  package 
of   constitutional   reform   that   could   be   put 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5051 


into  effect  because  that  would  mark  a  begin- 
ning an;!  would  get  us  out  of  this  deadlock 
situation  that  we  are  in  where  nothing  ap- 
pears  to  happen.   That  did  not  happen. 

The  first  ministers  met  in  September  and 
they  tried  but  came  up  with  no  agreement. 
Hovering  over  that  meeting  was,  of  course, 
the  implied  suggestion  that  there  would  be 
unilateral  action  by  the  federal  government; 
that  a  constitutional  package  would  be  pre- 
sented. I  do  not  believe  that  hindered  or 
helped  the  kind  of  discussion  that  went  on. 

Many  people  will  be  trying  to  analyse 
why,  after  a  summer  of  work  and  a  first 
ministers'  conference  in  September,  we  did 
not  come  to  some  agreement;  but  I  think 
the  bottom  line  to  it  all  is  that  for  many 
years— perhaps  50  years  now^we  have  not 
been  able  to  come  to  any  agreement  on 
anything  concerning  the  constitution.  The 
question  then  is,  shall  we  allow  this  inde- 
cision to  forever  stop  us  from  taking  action? 
Shall  we  forever  allow  this  indecision  to 
prevent  us  from  achieving  the  kind  of  eco- 
nomic goals  that  we  need  in  this  country 
because  we  cannot  come  to  any  agreement 
on  issues  concerning  our  constitution? 

5:40  p.m. 

I  believe  the  answer  has  to  be  that  we 
must  move  and  we  must,  this  one  time, 
take  the  kind  of  action  that  has  now  been 
proposed  for  this  country. 

It  is  not  right  to  call  it  unilateral  action. 
In  essence,  it  is  supported  by  this  province, 
it  is  supported  by  New  Brunswick,  and  it  is 
probably  half  supported  by  Saskatchewan 
and  Nova  Scotia,  so  it  is  far  from  unilateral 
action.  But  it  is  certainly  opposed  vigor- 
ously by  six  provinces.  There  is  no  question 
those  six  provinces  are  opposing  it  to  the 
extent  that  they  are  going  to  court  and 
through  various  routes  to  try  to  prevent  this 
package   from   happening. 

The  constitutional  package  and  its  perpe- 
tration are  being  held  out  as  one  of  the 
further  causes  of  western  alienation.  There 
is  no  question  there  is  an  alienation  on  the 
part  of  people  in  some  of  the  western  prov- 
inces, particularly  towards  central  Canada- 
Ontario  and  Quebec— and  the  central  gov- 
ernment. As  the  Premier  said  in  his  speech 
in  Vancouver  on  Saturday,  it  is  an  issue 
we  must  come  to  grips  with.  We  must  be 
ready  to  make  some  accommodation  to  bridge 
this  alienation.  One  of  the  ways  suggested 
to  bridge  this  alienation  is  to  accept  the 
premise  put  forward  by  six  of  the  provinces 
that  one  of  the  major  causes  is  the  unilateral 
action  on  the  constitution. 


My  premise  is  that  there  is  no  question  it 
is  an  immediate  impediment  to  establishing 
better  relations  between  the  central  govern- 
ment and  the  western  provinces,  but  I  view 
it  a  little  differently  from  the  way  I  am  sure 
it  is  viewed  by  many  of  the  western  provinces 
who  are  opposed  to  the  package.  Distasteful 
as  it  may  be  to  those  provinces,  we  must  take 
this  action,  perhaps  being  able  to  accom- 
modate some  of  their  views  as  the  constitu- 
tional resolution  moves  ahead,  but  we  must 
take  this  dramatic  step  and  break  the  dead- 
lock that  we  are  now  in.  Once  this  is  done, 
we  must  work  to  build  the  bridges  that  have 
to  be  built  across  the  country  and  which  I 
firmly  believe  are  there  to  be  built. 

In  other  words,  my  premise  is  that  what 
we  need  to  do  now  is  bring  our  constitution 
home  to  Canada— patriate  it,  as  we  commonly 
say— with  a  charter  of  rights  that  will  guaran- 
tee basic  fundamental  rights  to  Canadians, 
democratic  rights,  mobility  rights,  minority 
language  education  rights;  we  must  bring  that 
constitution  home  with  provisions  that  will 
guarantee  equalization  payments,  and  we 
must  bring  it  home  with  an  amending 
formula.  If  we  do  that  and  if  this  country 
takes  that  dramatic  action,  even  though  it  is 
not  being  taken  with  a  degree  of  unanimity 
and  even  though  it  is  causing  rifts  in  our 
country,  once  that  action  is  taken,  once  this 
constitution  with  these  amendments  arrives 
back  here  and  we  have  our  own  Canadian 
constitution,  we  then  will  better  be  able  to 
build  the  bridges. 

What  is  the  alternative?  The  alternative  is 
to  take  no  action,  to  accede  to  the  demands 
of  provinces  and  groups  that  are  opposing  the 
action  being  taken  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment, and  to  sink  back  into  the  whole  realm 
of  indecision  and  nonagreement.  If  we  sink 
back  into  that,  we  will  have  still  worse 
economic  problems.  We  will  not  be  getting 
any  agreements  between  provinces  on  oil 
pricing.  We  will  not  be  making  the  kind  of 
progress  on  division  of  powers  and  readjust- 
ments in  the  constitution  that  has  to  be  made. 
We  will  not  be  making  any  progress  on  those 
things  that  Quebec  wants.  I  know  they  are 
very  much  opposed  to  the  action  currently 
being  taken,  because  the  government  of 
Quebec  says:  "These  are  not  the  things  we 
really  want.  The  things  we  want,  such  as 
communications  and  other  divisions  of  power 
and  rearrangements  in  the  constitution  are 
not  here." 

I  am  convinced  those  things  are  not  going 
to  happen  at  the  present  time,  but  I  am  also 
convinced  that  they  can  happen  if  we  can 
take  this  present  step,  bring  the  constitution 


5052 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


back  with  those  things  that  are  now  sug- 
gested within  it  and  then  move  from  there.  I 
think  the  goodwill  of  Canadians  is  such  that, 
having  taken  this  step,  we  would  then  be 
able  to  sit  down  and  come  to  some  better 
agreements  on  those  things  I  know  we  must 
be  able  to  come  to  agreement  on. 

In  other  words,  what  I  am  saying  is  it  is 
better  to  take  this  very  tough,  drastic  action 
right  now,  recognizing  that  rifts  are  being 
caused,  get  it  over  with  and  then  start  to 
build  the  bridges.  Those  bridges  can  be  better 
built  and  the  new  division  of  powers  in  this 
country  and  the  new  kinds  of  agreements 
that  are  going  to  be  necessary  can  be  better 
taken. 

If  we  do  not  take  this  action  now  and  we 
allow  this  opportunity  to  slip  through  our 
fingers,  we  will  find  10  years  from  now  we 
will  still  be  arguing,  discussing  and  trying  to 
come  to  some  agreements  while  the  country 
will  have  suffered.  We  have  a  far  better 
chance  to  make  the  1980s  greater  for  this 
countrv  by  taking  this  action  now  than  by 
not  taking  it. 

Let  me  just  deal  with  a  couple  of  tilings 
in  the  constitutional  package.  One  of  the 
things  in  the  package  that  is  greatly  dis- 
turbing to  some  provirces  is  the  amending 
formula.  I  recognize  that.  I  recognize  that 
the  Victoria  formula  basically  suggested,  as 
my  friends  know,  the  procedure  that  for  two 
vears  unanimity  be  the  rule.  In  other  words, 
for  any  amendment  to  the  constitution  there 
must  be  unanimous  consent  of  the  provinces 
and  of  the  federal  government,  the  federal 
Houses  and  the  Senate.  After  that,  the  Vic- 
toria formula  with  a  referendum  takes  effect. 

The  Victoria  formula  was  a  formula  sup- 
ported by  all  the  provinces  at  the  Victoria 
conference  in  1971,  at  which  time  thev  ar- 
rived with  the  Victoria  charter.  My  friend 
the  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  (Mr. 
Nixon)— we  should  fix  that  name  when  we 
get  the  180  members— remembers  because  he 
was  there.  He  will  recall  that  amendmT 
formula  was  agreed  to.  In  fact,  the  whole 
charter  was  agreed  to.  The  province  of  Que- 
bec, for  reasons  known  only  to  them,  cho^e 
not  to  approve  it  afterwards,  but  here  was 
an  amending  formula  which  was  agreeable 
to  people  then. 

The  problem  with  that  amending  formula, 
in  the  eyes  of  those  provinces  out  west  and 
some  of  the  maritime  provinces,  but  par- 
ticularly those  provinces  out  west,  is  that 
formula  gives  a  veto  to  the  province  of 
Ontario  and  to  the  province  of  Quebec. 
Under  that  formula,  an  amendment  would 
have  to  have   the  approval  of  Ontario   and 


Quebec  to  be  passed.  I  hear  them  say  that 
creates  two  first-class  provinces  and  eight 
second-class  provinces.  I  do  not  think  that 
is  quite  correct,  but  I  am  willing  to  agree 
with  their  suggestion  that  there  is  perhaps 
in  their  eyes  a  problem  with  this  kind  of 
formula. 

What  is  the  answer  to  that?  The  answer 
is  we  have  two  years  under  unanimity  for 
all  of  us  to  sit  down  and  come  up  with  a 
better  formula.  As  far  as  this  province  is 
concerned,  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  do 
that.  We  tried  during  the  summer  and  were 
not  successful,  but  we  came  up  with  a  lot 
of  variations. 

Mr.  Nixon:  You  are  not  willing  to  give 
up  the  veto. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  We  looked  very  care- 
fullv  at  the  so-called  Vancouver  concensus. 
I  guess  if  all  the  provinces  and  the  federal 
government  had  been  agreeable  to  that,  we 
would  have  accepted  that  too.  That  does 
not  have  the  veto   in  it. 

It  is  not  fair  to  say  we  are  absolutely 
not  willing  to  give  up  the  veto.  I  think  we 
are  willing  to  sit  down  and  look  at  a 
formula,  but  we  think  that  can  be  done  in 
the  two  years  when  unanimity  is  the  amend- 
ing rule.  When  we  have  this  dramatic  dead- 
lock-breaking patriation  of  the  constitution 
achieved,  we  can  sit  down  and  then  work 
it  over.  The  first  thing  to  remember  is  that 
we  do  have  that  two  years  when  unanimity 
is  the  rule  to  work  out  a  formula  which 
could  take  the  place  of  the  Victoria  formula 
with  the  referendum  that  is  suggested  here. 

5:50  p.m. 

We  also  have  to  remember  there  is  a 
provision  for  a  referendum  on  amending 
formula  within  that  two  year  period.  If  eight 
n"ovinces  come  up  with  a  formula  and  the 
federal  government  or  the  central  govern- 
ment and  several  provinces  still  want  the 
Victoria  formula,  those  can  be  put  to  a 
referendum  of  the  people  of  this  country.  I 
do  not  say  that  is  a  satisfactory  way  of 
solving  it,  but  I  think  it  shows  there  are 
mechanisms  there  to  allow  us  to  arrive  at 
new  amending  formulas  after  this  patriation 
and  the  present  amendments  are  concluded. 

I  sometimes  get  the  feeling,  talking  to 
some  people,  that  we  are  doing  something 
that  is  going  to  be  forever  done  and  which 
will  never  be  able  to  be  touched— that  once 
we  do  this,  that  is  it.  But  that  is  not  so. 
People  should  look  at  the  kinds  of  things 
that  can  happen  in  the  process  after  the 
constitution  arrives  back  in   Canada. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5053 


The  other  matter  which  has  troubled  some 
people  in  some  of  the  provinces  has  been  the 
referendum.  I  think  the  referendum  can  be 
used  as  a  deadlock-breaking  mechanism  in 
the  amending  formula— although  we  are  not 
particularly  enamoured  with  referenda.  We 
hope— and  I  am  led  to  believe  the  present 
resolution  in  the  House  of  Commons  and 
Senate  will  be  amended  this  way— the  refer- 
endum will  only  be  used  after  there  is  a 
deadlock.  In  other  words,  the  regular  process 
of  provincial  legislatures,  House  of  Commons 
and  Senate  must  be  used  first  and  then,  if 
there  is  no  agreement,  the  referendum  can 
be  used. 

We  have  further  suggested  the  referendum 
could  only  be  used  not  just  on  the  initiative 
of  the  federal  government  but  with  at  least 
four  provinces  also  agreeing  that  a  referen- 
dum should  be  held.  I  think  that  is  a  very 
reasonable  position.  It  suggests  the  referen- 
dum, as  a  deadlock-breaking  mechanism,  is 
not  there  for  only  one  government  but  for 
several  governments,  and  that  could  be  very 
helpful.  I  am  sure  those  kinds  of  amendments 
to  hone  down  the  Victoria  formula  with  those 
changes  will  be  coming  forward  as  the  House 
of  Commons-Senate  committee  proceeds  with 
its  work. 

There  are  two  other  things  I  would  like  to 
mention  today.  There  is  not  much  time  left. 
Rather  than  get  into  a  long  discussion  on  the 
charter  of  rights,  I  would  recommend  that 
members  who  are  interested  in  this  subject- 
as  I  have  done  on  many  occasions  over  the 
last  few  months— should  get  out  the  Right 
Honourable  John  G.  Diefenbaker's  speech  of 
July  1,  1960.  He  was  Prime  Minister  at  that 
time  and  I  guess  he  decided  there  should  be 
a  special  sitting  of  the  House  on  July  1— 
Canada  Day,  Dominion  Day,  or  whatever 
they  were  calling  it  then.  At  that  time  he  was 
bringing  in  his  Canadian  Bill  of  Rights. 

It  is  very  interesting  to  read  the  language 
that  he  used,  talking  about  why  we  needed  a 
bill  of  rights.  Many  of  the  reasons  are  the 
same  reasons  that  we  use  20  years  later  to 
support  an  entrenched  Canadian  charter  of 
rights.  He  also  says  in  his  address  at  that 
time  he  would  have  liked  to  entrench  this  in 
the  constitution,  but  he  could  not  because  he 
could  not  get  the  agreement  of  the  provinces. 
Therefore,  he  would  not  do  it.  That  was  his 
position.  I  suppose  it  also  is  the  position- 
Mr.  Nixon:  That  is  when  he  had  208  seats. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Yes,  but  he  still  wanted  to 
respect  the  agreement  of  the  provinces. 

But  here  we  are  20  years  later  with  a  bill 
of  rights,  much  of  it  now  being  transferred 


into  the  Canadian  charter  of  rights  and  still 
we  do  not  have  the  agreement  of  the 
provinces.  I  guess  the  question  is,  do  we  go 
on  forever  not  having  a  Canadian  charter  of 
rights,  something  that  I  think  can  be  substan- 
tiated and  proven  by  the  many  instances  he 
refers  to  and  that  others  of  us  have  heard 
over  the  years. 

That  brings  us  to  the  position  of  some 
other  inclusions  in  the  constitution.  There  has 
been  much  discussion  about  section  133, 
which  is  the  section  of  the  present  British 
North  America  Act  that  says  the  statutes  of  a 
province— and  it  says  now  the  statutes  of 
Quebec  and  New  Brunswick— "shall  be  in 
both  English  and  French  and  they  shall  have 
equal  authority"  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Don't  give  us  the  Davis  line  on 
this  one. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  know  my  friend  would 
want  to  hear  the  line.  We  would  say  that  by 
including  that  kind  of  thing  for  this  province, 
where  five  per  cent  of  the  population  is 
francophone,  we  would  be  accepting  the  idea 
of  official  bilingualism. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Hatfield  is  the  only  one  who 
wants  that  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Hatfield  has  sug- 
gested that.  I  think  it  is  a  red  herring  that 
he  casts  across  all  these  discussions.  He  is 
really  in  favour  of  the  federal  proposals,  but 
people  forget  that  he  is  in  favour  of  them 
because  he  spends  so  much  time  Ontario- 
bashing.  It  is  about  time  he  went  home  and 
looked  after  New  Brunswick. 

Mr.  Nixon:  I  am  going  to  send  that  one  to 
him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Send  it  to  him.  I  said  that 
on  Canada  AM  the  other  morning  and  I  have 
said  other  things.  The  thing  that  surprises 
me  about  the  Premier  of  New  Brunswick  is 
that  he  says  all  these  things  away  somewhere 
and  yet  he  comes  down  here  to  the  meetings 
and  never  says  anything  about  that  to  us 
when  he  is  face  to  face  with  us.  I  want  to  say 
there  is  no  need  for  section  133  to  apply  in 
this  province. 

I  want  to  put  on  the  record  and  share 
with  my  friends  something  I  know  they 
would  want  to  share  in,  particularly  if  they 
are  looking  for  a  good  Christmas  present  to 
buy  for  a  friend,  a  relative,  their  wife,  or  a 
member  of  this  Legislature.  There  is  a  very 
fine  book  out  called  The  Northern  Magus  by 
Richard  Gwyn.  It  is  on  the  Prime  Minister 
of  Canada.  Mr.  Gwyn  is  someone  who  has 
studied  the  Canadian  scene  very  extensively. 
I  think  he  brings  a  pretty  good  perspective 


5054 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


to  a  lot  of  these  things.  I  want  to  read1  a 
paragraph  from  that  book.   He  says: 

"Ontario,  for  a  francophone  minority  that, 
after  all,  constitutes  no  more  than  five  per 
cent  of  its  population,  does  now  provide  most 
government  services,  including  legal  services, 
in  both  languages.  Franco-Ontarians  fill  their 
full  five  per  cent  of  civil  service  posts 
against  only  an  equivalent  two  per  cent  by 
anglophones  in  Quebec." 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  It  is  17  per  cent 
in  the  Ministry  of  Education. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  It  is  17  per  cent  in  the 
Ministry  of  Education.  I  will  remember  that. 

"TVOntario  broadcasts  one  fifth  of  its 
programs  in  French.  Premier  Davis  has  done 
as  much  for  Franco-Ontarians  as  he  could 
have  accomplished  through  a  bilingual  law, 
and1  probably  more  since  he  has  managed  to 
avoid  a  backlash." 

I  think  that  is  a  very  interesting  quota- 
tion. 

Mr.  Nixon:  It's  a  special  favour  and  not 
by  right. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  it  is  not  as  a  special 
favour,  it  is  because  we  firmly  want  to  provide 
the  services  to  the  Franco-Ontarians  in  this 
province.  The  member  just  said  a  minute  ago 
he  was  in  favour  of  what  we  are  doing.  That 
was  what  he  said,  was  it  not?  We  believe 
those  services  have  better  been  able  to  be 
provided.  Believe  me,  I  know  because  I  stood 
up  here  and  moved  a  bill  to  cause  a  French- 
language  school  to  be  built  in  an  area  of  this 
province  where  the  local  authorities  did  not 
want  that  school  built  and  on  which  the 
members  of  the  Liberal  Party  stood  up  and 
voted  against  in  this  House.  You  both  re- 
member that,  and  are  probably  the  only  two 
people  in  this  House  who  voted  against  that 
school. 

Mr.  Conway:  I  remember  Carleton. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  There  is  nothing  incon- 
sistent with  what  I  have  said  and  what  has 
happened  in  Carleton  or  what  was   said  in 


Carleton.  I  gather  my  friend  is  going  to  make 
a  speech  about  what  has  happened  in 
Carleton.  He  would  like  nothing  more  than 
to  get  us  into  a  great  squabble  so  that  we 
could  not  provide  French-language  services 
and  would  have  a  backlash  and  disaster. 

Mr.  Nixon:  You  are  courting  a  backlash  by 
your  actions  in  Carleton. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  No,  we  are  trying  to  pre- 
vent a  backlash  and  I  think  that  is  the  kind 
of  thing  we  have  always  done  in  this  province. 

As  I  said,  Mr.  Speaker— and  I  would  just 
like  to  conclude  with  this  remark— the  road  to 
complete  constitutional  renewal  is  going  to 
be  a  very  long  and  difficult  one  and  it  is  going 
to  take  a  lot  of  energies  on  all  our  parts,  but 
this  province  is  committed  to  moving  ahead 
and  finishing  that  job  and  we  hope  that  the 
central  government  and  the  other  provinces 
will  continue  to  work  with  us  for  what  we 
know  is  going  to  be  for  the  best  and  the 
betterment  of  all  Canadians. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  Ruston,  the  debate  was 
adjourned. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  I 
move  the  adjournment  of  the  House,  I  wonder 
if,  with  the  consent  of  the  House,  we  could 
revert  to  motions.  I  understand  one  of  the 
committees  needs  authorization  to  meet  to- 
morrow morning  and  does  not  have  the 
authority  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  we  have  unanimous  con- 
sent to  revert? 

Agreed  to. 

MOTION 

SUBCOMMITTEE  SITTINGS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  sub- 
committee of  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice  be  authorized  to 
meet  on  Tuesday  morning. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6:02  p.m. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5055 


APPENDIX  A  - 

(See  page  5033) 


CONCURRENCE  IN  SUPPLY 

Mr.  Edighoffer  from  the  committee  of 
supply  reported  the  following  resolutions, 
which  were  concurred  in  by  the  House: 

Resolved:  That  supply  in  the  following 
amounts  and  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the 
government  ministries  named  be  granted  to 
Her  Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March 
31,  1981: 

Ministry     of     Intergovernmental     Affairs 
ministry  administration  program,  $2,194,000 
intergovernmental  affairs  program,  $1,295,000 
local     government     affairs    program,     $466,- 
049,000; 

Office  of  the  Lieutenant  Governor:  Office 
of  the  Lieutenant  Governor  program,  $145,- 
800; 

Cabinet  Office:  Cabinet  Office  program, 
$1,275,200; 


Office  of  the  Premier:  Office  of  the  Premier 
program,  $1,718,100; 

Ministry  of  Northern  Affairs:  ministry  ad- 
ministration program,  $1,541,000;  project 
development  and  community  relations  pro- 
gram, $5,980,000;  northern  communities  as- 
sistance program,  $32,975,000;  regional  prior- 
ities and  development  program,  $117,237,- 
000; 

Ministry  of  Government  Services:  ministry 
administration  program,  $6,266,000;  provision 
of  accommodation  program,  $145,509,000; 
upkeep  of  accommodation  program,  $72,223,- 
000;  supply  and  services  program,  $50,274,- 
000;  communication  and  computer  services 
program,  $12,991,000; 

Ministry  of  Revenue:  ministry  administra- 
tion program,  $6,491,000;  administration  of 
taxes  program,  $32,236,000;  guaranteed  in- 
come and  tax  credit  program,  $90,471,000; 
municipal   assessment  program,    $59,066,000. 


5056 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX  B* 

ALPHABETICAL  LIST  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE 
LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 

( 125  members ) 

Fourth  Session  of  the  31st  Parliament 

Lieutenant  Governor:  Hon.  John  B.  Aird,  OC,  QC 

Speaker:  Hon.  John  E.  Stokes  Clerk  of  the  House:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


Member 


Constituency 


Party 


Ashe,  G 

Auld,  Hon.  J.  A.  C. 

Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C.  . 

Belanger,  J.  A 

Bennett,  Hon.  C 

Bernier,  Hon.  L.  ... 

Birch,  Hon.  M 

Blundy,  P 

Bolan,  M 

Bounsall,  E.  J 

Bradley,  J 

Breaugh,  M 

Breithaupt,  J.  R 

Brunelle,  Hon.  R.  . 
Bryden,  M 

Campbell,  M 

Cassidy,  M 

Charlton,  B 

Conway,  S 

Cooke,  D 

Cunningham,  E 

Cureatz,  S 


Durham  West 
Leeds  


Davidson,  M 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G. 

Davison,  M.  N 

Di  Santo,  O 

Drea,  Hon.  F 

Dukszta,  J 


Eakins,  J 

Eaton,  R.  G 

Edi^hoflFer,  H.  (Deputy  Speaker 

and  Chairman)  

Elgie,  Hon.  R 

Epp,  H 

Foulds,  J.  F 


Gaunt,  M 

Germa,  M.  C 

Gigantes,  E 

Grande,  A 

Gregory,  Hon.  M.  E.  C. 
Grossman,  Hon.  L 

Haggerty,  R 

Hall,  R 


Ottawa  West 

Prescott  and  Russell 

Ottawa  South 

Kenora  

Scarborough  East  ... 

Sarnia  

Nipissing    

Windsor-Sandwich  . 

St.  Catharines  

Oshawa  

Kitchener  

Cochrane  North  

Beaches- Woodbine  . 

St.  George  

Ottawa  Centre  

Hamilton  Mountain 

Renfrew  North 

Windsor-Riverside  ... 
Wentworth  North  .. 
Durham  East 


Cambridge  

Brampton  

Hamilton  Centre 

Downsview  

Scarborough  Centre 
Parkdale  


Victoria-Haliburton 
Middlesex  


Perth  

York  East  

Waterloo  North 

Port  Arthur 


Huron-Bruce  

Sudbury  

Carleton  East  

Oakwood  

Mississauga  East  

St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick 

Erie    

Lincoln    


PC 
PC 

PC 

PC 

PC 

PC 

PC 

L 

L 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

L 

PC 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

L 

PC 

NDP 

PC 

NDP 

NDP 

PC 

NDP 

L 
PC 

L 

PC 

L 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

NDP 

NDP 

PC 

PC 

L 
L 


*The  lists  in  this  appendix,  brought  up  to  date  as  necessary,  are  published  in  Hansard  once 
a  month  and  in  the  first  and  last  issues  of  each  session. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5057 


Member 


Constituency 


Party 


Havrot,  E 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C 

Hennessy,  M 

Hodgson,  W 

Isaacs,  C 

Johnson,  J 

Johnston,  R.  F 

Jones,  T 

Kennedy,  R.  D 

Kerr,  G.  A 

Kerrio,  V 

Lane,  J 

Laughren,  F 

Lawlor,  P.  D 

Leluk,  N.  G 

Lupusella,  A 

MacBeth,  J.  P.  (Deputy  Chairman 

and  Acting  Speaker)  

MacDonald,  D.  C 

Mackenzie,  R 

Maeck,  Hon.  L 

Makarchuk,  M 

Mancini,  R 

Martel,  E.  W 

McCaffrey,  B 

McCague,  Hon.  G 

McClellan,  R 

McEwen,  J.  E 

McGuigan,  J 

McKessock,  R 

McMurtry,  Hon.  R 

McNeil,  R.  K 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S 

Miller,  G.  I 

Mitchell,  R.  C 

Newman,  B 

Newman  W 

Nixon,  R.  F 

Norton,  Hon.  K 

O'Neil,  H 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C 

Peterson,  D 

Philip,  E 

Pope,   Hon.    A 

Ramsay,   R.   H 

Reed,  J 

Reid,  T.  P 

Renwick,  J.  A 

Riddell,  J 

Rollins,  C.  T 

Rotenberg,  D 

Rowe,  R.  D 

Roy,  A.  J 

Ruston,  R.  F 


Timiskaming    

Lambton  

Fort  William  

York  North   

Wentworth 

Wellington-Dufferin-Peel 

Scarborough  West 

Mississauga  North  

Mississauga  South 

Burlington  South  

Niagara  Falls  

Algoma-Manitoulin    

Nickel  Belt  

Lakeshore  

York  West  

Dovercourt  

Humber  

York  South  

Hamilton  East  

Parry  Sound  

Brantford  

Essex  South  

Sudbury  East  

Armourdale  

Dufferin-Simcoe  

Bellwoods  

Frontenac-Addington  

Kent-Elgin  

Grey  

Eglinton  

Elgin  

Muskoka  

Haldimand-Norfolk  

Carleton     

Windsor- Walkerville  

Durham-York    

Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  

Kingston  and  the  Islands  . 

Quinte  

Oxford  

London  Centre 

Etobicoke  

Cochrane  South  

Sault  Ste.  Marie  

Halton-Burlington  

Rainy  River  

Riverdale  

Huron-Middlesex  

Hastings-Peterborough  ... 

Wilson  Heights  

Northumberland     

Ottawa  East  

Essex  North  


PC 
PC 
PC 
PC 

NDP 

PC 

NDP 

PC 

PC 
PC 
L 

PC 

NDP 

NDP 

PC 

NDP 


PC 

NDP 

NDP 

PC 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

PC 

PC 

NDP 

L 

L 

L 

PC 

PC 

PC 

L 

PC 

L 
PC 
L 
PC 


PC 
L 

NDP 
PC 

PC 

L 

L.  LAB. 

NDP 

L 

PC 

PC 

PC 

L 

L 


5058 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Member 


Constituency 

Cornwall 

Grey-Bruce 

St.  David 

Simcoe  East 

Hamilton  West  

Oakville  

York  Mills  

Carleton-Grenville    

Lake  Nipigon  

York  Centre 

WeUand-Thorold    

Kitchener-Wilmot  

Simcoe  Centre 

Prince  Edward-Lennox  

Don  Mills 

Peterborough  

London  North  

Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry 

London  South  

Scarborough-Ellesmere    

Chatham-Kent    

Brock  

Scarborough  North  

Algoma    

Oriole  

Lanark  

Wellington  South  

Renfrew  South  

Yorkview  

High  Park-Swansea  


Party 


Samis,  G 

Sargent,  E 

Scrivener,  M 

Smith,  G.  E 

Smith,  S 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W 

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.  M. 

Sterling,  N.  W 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E 

Stong,  A 

Swart,  M 

Sweeney,  J 

Taylor,  G 

Taylor,  J.  A 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.  .... 
Turner,  J 

Van  Home,  R 

Villeneuve,  O.  F 

Walker,  Hon.  G 

Warner,  D 

Watson,  A.  N 

Welch,  Hon.  R 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L 

Wildman,   B 

Williams,  J 

Wiseman,  Hon.  D.  J 

Worton,  H 

Yakabusld,  P.  J 

Young,  F 

Ziemba,  E 


NDP 

L 

PC 

PC 

L 

PC 

PC 

PC 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

L 

PC 
PC 
PC 
PC 

L 
PC 

PC 

NDP 

PC 

PC 

PC 

NDP 

PC 

PC 

L 

PC 
NDP 

NDP 


DECEMBER  8,  1980  5059 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COUNCIL 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  • Premier  and  President  of  the  Council 

Hon.  R.  Welch  Minister  of  Energy  and  Deputy  Premier 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources 

Development 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 

Hon.  L.  Bernier  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  Minister  of  Transportation  and 

Communications 

Hon.  M.  Birch  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 

Hon.  C.  Bennett  Minister  of  Housing 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  Treasurer  or  Ontario  and  Minister  of 

Economics 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrell  Minister  of  Health 

Hon.  H.  C.  Parrott  Minister  of  the  Environment 

Hon.  B.  M.  Stephenson Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of 

Colleges  and  Universities 

Hon.  R.  McMurtry Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General 

Hon.  L.  C.  Henderson Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 

Hon.  K.  C.  Norton  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 

Hon.  F.  Drea  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 

Relations 

Hon.  L.  Grossman  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 

Hon.  G.  McCague  Chainnan  of  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 

and  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

Hon.  L.  Maeck  Minister  of  Revenue 

Hon.  R.  C.  Baetz Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation 

Hon.  D.  J.  Wiseman  Minister  of  Government  Services 

Hon.  R.  Elgie  Minister  of  Labour 

Hon.  G.  Walker Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  and  Minister 

of  Correctional  Services 

Hon.  M.  E.  C.  Gregory  Minister  without  Portfolio 

Hon.  A.  Pope  Minister  without  Portfolio 

PARLIAMENTARY  ASSISTANTS 

Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Energy 

Eaton,  R.  G.  (Middlesex)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Transportation 

and  Communications 

Hodgson,  W.  (York  North)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Housing 

Jones,  T.  (Mississauga  North)  Assistant  to  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 

Social  Development 

Kennedy,  R.  D.  (Mississauga  South) Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Education 

Lane,    J.    (Algoma-Manitoulin)    Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs 

McCaffrey,  B.  (Armourdale)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Culture  and 

Recreation 
McNeil,  R.  K.  (Elgin)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 

and  Food 

Ramsay,  R.  H.  (Sault  Ste.  Marie)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Labour 

Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 

Affairs 
Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Industry 

and  Tourism 

Sterling,  N.  W.  (Carleton-Grenville)  Assistant  to  the  Attorney  General 

Turner,  J.  (Peterborough)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Health 

Watson,  A.  N.   (Chatham-Kent)   Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Community 

and  Social  Services 
Yakabuski,  P.  J.  (Renfrew  South)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 


5060 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


STANDING  COMMITTEES 


Administration  of  justice:  Chairman:  Philip, 
E.  (Etobicoke  NDP);  Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catha- 
rines L),  Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L), 
Havrot,  E.  (Timiskaming  PC),  Kerr,  G.  A. 
(Burlington  South  PC),  Makarchuk,  M. 
(Brantford  NDP),  McCaffrey,  B.  (Armour- 
dale  PC),  Sterling,  N.  ( Carleton-Grenville 
PC),  Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP),  Roy 
A.  (Ottawa  East  L),  Scrivener,  M.  (St. 
David  PC),  Stong,  A.  (York  Centre  L), 
Swart,  M.  ( Welland-Thorold  NDP),  Taylor, 
G.  (Simcoe  Centre  PC),  Williams,  J,  (Oriole 
PC),  Ziemba,  E.  (High  Park-Swansea  NDP); 
Clerk:  Forsyth,  S. 

General  government:  Chairman:  Cureatz,  S. 
(Durham  East  PC);  Vice-Chairman: 
Hodgson,  W.  (York  North  PC);  Ashe,  G. 
(Durham  West  PC),  Charlton,  B.  (Hamilton 
Mountain  NDP),  Dukszta,  J.  (Parkdale  NDP), 
Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L),  Hennessy,  M. 
(Fort  William  PC),  Leluk,  N.  (York  West 
PC),  Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L),  McEwen, 
J.  E.  ( Frontenac-Addington  L),  McGuigan, 
J.  (Kent-Elgin  L),  Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson 
Heights  PC),  Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP), 
Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East  PC);  Clerk: 
Nokes,  F. 

Members'  services:  Chairman:  Campbell, 
M.  (St.  George  L);  Vice-Ch airman:  New- 
man, B.  ( Windsor- Walkerville  L);  Bryden, 
M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP),  Jones,  T. 
(Mississauga  North  PC),  Smith,  G.  E. 
(Simcoe  East  PC),  Watson,  A.  N.  (Chatham- 
Kent  PC),  Worton,  H.  (Wellington  South  L), 
Young,  F.  (Yorkview  NDP);  Clerk:  Arnott, 
D. 

Procedural  affairs:  Chairman:  Breaugh,  M. 
(Oshawa  NDP);  Vice-Chairman:  Davidson, 
M.  (Cambridge  NDP);  Charlton,  B.  (Ham- 
ilton Mountain  NDP),  Mancini,  R.  (Essex 
South  L),  Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights 
PC),  Rowe,  R.  D.  (Northumberland  PC), 
Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L),  Sterling,  N. 
W.  (Carleton-Grenville  PC);  Clerk:  White,  G. 

Public  accounts:  Chairman:  Reid,  T.  P. 
(Rainy  River  L);  Vice-Chairman:  Hall,  R. 
(Lincoln  L);  Germa,  M.  C.  (Sudbury  NDP), 


Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP),  Leluk,  N. 
(York  West  PC),  MacBeth,  J.  (Humber  PC), 
Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP),  Peterson, 
D.  (London  Centre  L),  Ramsay,  R.  H.  (Sault 
Ste.  Marie  PC),  Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L), 
Taylor,  G.  (Simcoe  Centre  PC),  Turner,  J. 
(Peterborough  PC);  Clerk:  White,  G. 

Regulations  and  other  statutory  instru- 
ments: Chairman:  Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC); 
Vice-Chairman:  Cureatz,  S.  (Durham  East 
PC);  Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre 
NDP),  Eakins,  J.  ( Victoria-Haliburton  L), 
MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP),  Mc- 
Caffrey, B.  (Armourdale  PC),  McKessock,  R. 
(Grey  L),  Rollins,  C.  T.  (Hastings-Peter- 
borough PC);  Clerk:   Forsyth,  S. 

Resources  development:  Chairman:  Ville- 
neuve,  O.  F.  ( Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry 
PC);  Vice-Chairman:  Lane,  J.  (Algoma- 
Manitoulin  PC);  Di  Santo  O.  (Downsview 
NDP),  Eaton,  R.  G.  (Middlesex  PC), 
Gigantes,  E.  (Carleton  East  NDP),  Johnson, 
J.  (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel  PC),  Macken- 
zie, R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP),  McNeil,  R.  K. 
(Elgin  PC),  Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Nor- 
folk  L),  Newman,  W.  (Durham-York  PC), 
Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L),  Riddell,  J. 
K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L),  Taylor,  J.  A.  (Prince 
Edward-Lennox  PC),  Van  Home,  R.  (London 
North  L),  Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP), 
Yakabuski,  P.  J.  (Renfrew  South  PC);  Clerk: 
Richardson,  A. 

Social  development:  Chairman:  Gaunt,  M. 
(Huron-Bruce  L);  Vice-Chairman:  Kerrio,  V. 
(Niagara  Falls  L);  Belanger,  J.  A.  (Prescott 
and  Russell  PC),  Blundy,  P.  (Sarnia  L), 
Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP), 
Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP),  Johnston,  R. 
F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP),  Jones,  T.  (Mis- 
sauga  South  PC),  Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L), 
McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP),  O'Neil,  H. 
(Quinte  L),  Ramsay,  R.  H.  (Sault  Ste.  Marie 
PC),  Rowe,  R.  D.  (Northumberland  PC), 
Sweeney,  J.  ( Kitchener- Wilmot  L),  Turner,  J. 
(Peterborough  PC),  Watson,  A.  (Chatham- 
Kent  PC);  Clerk:  Arnott,  D. 


DECEMBER  8,  1980 


5061 


SELECT  COMMITTEES 


Company  law:  Chairman:  Breithaupt,  J.  R. 
(Kitchener  L);  Blundy,  P.  (Sarnia  L),  Cun- 
ningham, E.  (Wentworth  North  L),  Germa, 
M.  C.  (Sudbury  NDP),  Hodgson,  W.  (York 
North  PC),  Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP), 
Lawlor,  P.  D.  (Lakeshore  NDP),  MacBeth, 
J.  P.  (Humber  PC),  Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River 
L),  Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC), 
Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East  PC),  Taylor,  G. 
(Simooe  Centre  PC),  Van  Home,  R.  (London 
North  L),  Yakabuski,  P.  J.  (Renfrew  South 
PC);  Clerk:  Nokes,  F. 

Constitutional  reform:  Chairman:  MacBeth, 
J.  P.  (Humber  PC);  Campbell.  M.  (St. 
George  L),  Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L), 
Di  Santo,  O.  (Downsview  NDP),  Johnston, 
R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP),  Leluk,  N. 
G.  (York  West  PC),  McCaffrey,  B.  (Armour- 
dale  PC),  Ramsay,  R.  H.  (Sault  Ste.  Marie 
PC),  Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP),  Roy, 
A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L),  Samis,  G.  (Cornwall 
NDP),  Sweeney,  J.  ( Kitchener- Wilmot  L), 
Taylor,  G.  (Simcoe  Centre  PC),  Taylor,  J.  A. 
(Prince  Edward-Lennox  PC),  Villeneuve,  O. 


F.    ( Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry  PC);  Clerk: 
Forsyth,  S. 

Ombudsman:  Chairman:  Lawlor,  P.  D. 
(Lakeshore  NDP);  Campbell,  M.  (St.  George 
L),  Eakins,  J.  (Victoria^Haliburton  L), 
Havrot,  E.  (Timiskaming  PC),  Isaacs,  C. 
(Wentworth  NDP),  Lane,  J.  (Algoma-Mani- 
toulin  PC),  McClelland,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP), 
Miller,  G.  I.  ( Haldimand-Norfolk  L),  Taylor, 
J.  A.  (Prince  Edward-Lennox  PC),  Ville- 
neuve, O.  (Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry  PC); 
Clerk:  White,  G. 

Ontario  Hydro  affairs:  Chairman:  Mac- 
Donald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP);  Vice- 
Chairman:  Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP); 
Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC),  Belanger,  J.  A. 
(Prescott  and  Russell  PC),  Bounsall,  E.  J. 
(Windsor-Sandwich  NDP),  Bradley,  J.  (St. 
Catharines  L),  Cureatz,  S.  (Durham  East 
PC),  Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L),  Hennessy,  M. 
(Fort  William  PC),  Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls 
L),  Leluk,  N.  (York  West  PC),  Mackenzie, 
R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP),  McGuigan,  J. 
(Kent-Elgin  L),  Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC); 
Clerk:  Richardson,  A. 


5062  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 


Monday,  December  8,  1980 

Death  of  Don  O'Hearn:  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  Cassidy  5013 

Urban  Transportation  Development  Corporation,  statement  by  Mr.  Davis   5014 

Health  protection  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.   Timbrell 5016 

Point  of  privilege  re  Ministry  of  Health  announcement:  Mr.  O'Neil  5016 

Point  of  privilege  re  statement  by  Leader  of  the  Opposition:  Mr.  Davis,  Mr.  S.  Smith  5017 

Environmental    hearings,    questions    of   Mr.    Parrott    and    Mr.    Davis:    Mr.    S.    Smith, 

Mr.    Cassidy    5018 

Urban  Transportation  Development  Corporation,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  S.  Smith, 

Mr.  M.  Davidson,  Mr.  Cunningham  5019 

Plant   closures   and   termination   entitlements,   questions   of  Mr.   Davis:    Mr.   Cassidy, 

Mr.  B.  Newman  5020 

Asbestos  levels,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Mackenzie  5022 

University  funding,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Sweeney  5023 

Supermarket  pricing  system,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Swart,  Mr.  B.  Newman  ....  5023 

Employment  in  liquor  stores,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Bradley  5025 

Food  industries  practices,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:   Mr.  MacDonald  5025 

Public  service  grievances,  questions  of  Mr.  McCague  and  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Van  Home  5026 

OHIP  billing  by  physiotherapists,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Isaacs,  Mr.  Nixon  5026 

Liquor  regulations,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  Makarchuk  5027 

Petition  re   OHIP  billing  by  physiotherapists:   Mr.   Isaacs   5029 

Report,  legislative  library  5029 

Nursing  Homes  Amendment  Act,  Bill  218,  Mr.  Warner,  first  reading  5029 

Representation  Act,  Bill  219,  Mr.  Breaugh,  first  reading 5029 

Fire  Departments  Amendment  Act,  Bill  220,  Mr.  Breaugh,  first  reading  5030 

Estimates,  Ministry  of  Revenue,  Mr.  Maeck,  concluded 5030 

Concurrence  in   supply 5033 

Budget  debate,  continued: 

Mr.   Gaunt 5033 

Mr.  Ziemba  5038 

Mr.    Wells 5050 

Motion  to  adjourn  debate,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to 5054 

Motion  re  committee  sittings,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5054 

Adjournment 5054 

Appendix  A:  concurrence  in  supply 5055 

Appendix  B:  alphabetical  list  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  the  executive  council 

of  Ontario,  and  membership  of  committees 5056 


DECEMBER  8,  1980  5063 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Charlton,  B.  (Hamilton  Mountain  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  South  L) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davidson,  M.  (Cambridge  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Gregory,  Hon.  M.  E.  C;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Mississauga  East  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McCague,  Hon.  G.;  Chairman  of  Management  Board;  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

(Dufferin-Simcoe  PC) 
McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 
Newman,  B.  ( Windsor- Walkerville  L) 
Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 
O'Neil,  H.  (Quinte  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 
Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 
Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 
Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 
Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 
Van  Home,  R.  (London  North  L) 
Walker,  Hon.  G.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

(London  South  PC) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 
Ziemba,  E.  (High  Park-Swansea  NDP) 


No.  135 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  December  9,  1980 
Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues  can  be   obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


5067 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 


Prayers. 


VISITORS 


Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  to  draw  to  the 
attention  of  honourable  members  the  pres- 
ence in  our  east  gallery  of  a  group  of  young 
people  from  the  Blackheath  Binbrook  Lions' 
midget  fastball  team  from  the  ridings  of 
Wentworth  and  Haldimand- Norfolk.  They 
won  the  1980  Canadian  midget  champion- 
ship in  Prince  Edward  Island  earlier  this 
year  and  they  will  be  journeying  to  Edmon- 
ton to  represent  Canada  in  the  1981  World 
Youth  Games.  Would  you  please  congratu- 
late and  welcome  them. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

CANADIAN  NATIONAL  EXHIBITION 

(Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
problems  surrounding  the  Canadian  National 
Exhibition  are  by  now  obvious  and  well 
known.  While  these  problems  do  exist,  the 
CNE  and  Exhibition  Place  continue  to  be  an 
important  tourist  attraction  for  the  province. 
In  addition  to  the  annual  summer  exhibition, 
the  CNE  grounds  are  the  home  of  the  Royal 
Agricultural  Winter  Fair  as  well  as  numerous 
trade,  cultural  and  sports  shows  held  there 
each  year.  It  is  important,  therefore,  that  the 
deterioration  in  physical  plant,  in  attendance 
and  in  reputation  be  redressed. 

The  CNE  will  continue  to  be  a  Canadian 
institution.  We  are  committed  to  ensuring 
that  permanence.  For  several  months  now  I 
have  been  meeting  with  Metro  Chairman 
Paul  Godfrey  and  representatives  of  the 
Canadian  National  Exhibition.  We  have 
agreed  that  a  full  review  of  the  use,  design 
and  existing  facilities  of  the  CNE  and  Ex- 
hibition Place  is  in  order. 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Godfrey  and  I  have 
agreed  that  we  should  strike  a  three-member 
committee  under  the  chairmanship  of  my 
assistant  deputy  minister  of  tourism,  John 
Maxwell.  Other  members  will  be  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  municipality  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto  and  a  representative  of  the  Cana- 
dian   National    Exhibition.    The    mandate    of 


Tuesday,  December  9,  1980 

the  committee  will  be  to  study  the  future 
of  the  Canadian  National  Exhibition  and 
Exhibition  Place  and  make  recommendations 
which  include  a  long-range  plan,  a  workable 
marketing  plan  and  proposals  for  develop- 
ment and  funding.  The  costs  of  this  study 
are  expected  to  be  shared  equally  by  Metro- 
politan Toronto  and  my  ministry. 

A  comprehensive  research  project  will  be 
commissioned  to  monitor  consumer  opinion 
of  both  the  existing  grounds  and  buildings 
and  the  CNE  itself.  The  research  project 
will  also  determine  consumer  needs  and 
preferences  for  facilities  such  as  Exhibition 
Place.  Following  the  initial  phase  of  the 
review,  a  detailed  feasibility  study  will  be 
prepared  to  include  long-range  forecasts, 
economic  impact  statements,  effects  on  tour- 
ism and  analyses  of  sporting,  cultural  and 
trade  show  requirements  and  facilities. 

When  the  results  from  these  two  studies 
have  been  received,  a  formal  plan  will  be 
proposed,  we  hope  no  later  than  June  30, 
1981. 

We  believe  this  comprehensive  review  of 
the  Canadian  National  Exhibition  and  Ex- 
hibition Place  is  much  needed.  We  want  to 
ensure  a  viable  and  long-term  future  for  this 
important  tourist  attraction  in  our  province 
and  we  are  prepared  now  to  undertake  this 
initiative  towards  that  goal. 

CONN   SMYTHE   PAPERS 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my 
pleasure  to  be  able  to  announce  to  all  hon- 
ourable members  here  this  afternoon  that 
the  family  of  the  late  Conn  Smythe  has 
chosen  to  donate  Mr.  Smythe's  papers  to 
the  archives  of  Ontario.  Their  gift  involves 
24  boxes  of  personal  papers  and  photographs 
which  span  68  years  of  Mr.  Smythe's  deep 
involvement  in  sport,  business  and  commu- 
nity affairs. 

The  papers  include  files  on  the  National 
Hockey  League,  Maple  Leaf  Gardens,  horse 
racing  and  breeding,  the  Ontario  Society  for 
Crippled  Children,  the  Ontario  Community 
Centre  for  the  Deaf,  an  extensive  file  of 
personal  correspondence  and  a  large  collec- 
tion of  photographs.  It  is  a  remarkable  rec- 
ord   that   represents    an    intriguing   and   im- 


5068 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


portant  contemporary  addition  to  the  ar- 
chives. 

The  Smythe  family  has  asked  that  the 
documents  remain  private  until  January  1, 
1982.  As  minister  responsible  for  the 
archives,  I  will,  of  course,  respect  the  fam- 
ily's wishes.  During  the  next  year,  the  staff 
of  the  archives  will  catalogue  the  collection 
so  that,  when  it  is  made  public,  it  will  be 
properly  organized  for  scholars  and  other 
interested   people. 

Such  donations  as  the  Conn  Smythe 
papers  are  basic  to  our  need  as  a  people 
to  know  and  to  celebrate  our  heritage.  I 
know  all  honourable  members  will  want 
to  join  me  in  thanking  the  Smythe  family 
for  the  generous  way  in  which  they  have 
chosen  to  share  the  life  and  times  of  a  re- 
markable Canadian  with  their  fellow  citi- 
zens. 

ENERGY  STANDARDS  IN 
GOVERNMENT  BUILDINGS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  Octo- 
ber, my  colleague  the  Minister  of  Energy 
(Mr.  Welch)  announced  a  $165-million,  10- 
point  program  of  energy  initiatives  designed 
to  assist  Canada  to  achieve  self-sufficiency 
in  crude  oil  by  the  end  of  this  decade. 

Today  I  would  like  to  advise  honourable 
members  as  to  the  details  of  two  of  these 
programs  which  will  be  administered  by  my 
ministry.  The  first  is  a  $10.6-million,  five- 
year  extension  of  our  successful  energy  con- 
servation program  for  government  buildings. 
The  second  is  a  program  for  converting  gov- 
ernment buildings  from  oil  to  other  energy 
forms. 

Four  years  ago  the  cabinet  established  an 
energy  saving  goal  of  15  per  cent  in  govern- 
ment buildings,  a  program  involving  more 
than  2,000  buildings  occupied  by  nine  min- 
istries and  some  35  million  square  feet  in 
all.  Working  with  the  Ministry  of  Energy 
and  the  resident  ministries,  buildings  were 
individually  examined  for  energy  efficiency. 
While  the  details  of  individual  programs  are 
available  and  need  not  be  repeated  at  length 
here,  I  would  like  to  point  out  one  case  by 
way  of  example.  I  refer  to  the  provincial 
court  and  registry  office  in  London  where 
energy  usage  was  cut  in  half  over  a  three- 
year  period  with  savings  of  more  than 
$120,000.  Improvements  in  the  building  cost 
slightly  more  than  $100,000;  so  the  pay- 
back period  was  about  two  and  a  half  years. 
2:10  p.m. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  When  are  you  going  to  start 
on  Queen's  Park? 


Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  It's  coming.  The  im- 
provements made  are  typical  of  such 
projects  and  begin  with  the  effective  man- 
agement of  energy  through  changes  in 
operations  and  modification  of  controls  for 
heating,  cooling  and  lighting.  These  changes 
help  reduce  the  intake  of  fresh  air  which 
must  be  heated  or  cooled  and  reduce  un- 
necessary exhaust  of  air  already  heated  or 
cooled.  They  also  control  the  distribution  of 
warm  and  cool  air  within  the  buildings, 
directing  it  where  it  is  required  when  it  is 
required.  For  example,  automatic  thermo- 
stats reduce  temperatures  when  the  building 
is  not  occupied.  Lighting  is  also  monitored 
and  maintained  at  the  appropriate  levels. 

There  are  other  cases  where  the  magni- 
tude of  savings  is  similar  to  that  achieved 
in  London  so  that,  taken  as  a  whole,  the 
results  of  the  program  have  been  gratify- 
ing. Our  savings  goal  of  15  per  cent  was 
reached  within  two  years.  It  has  since  been 
surpassed,  and  it  is  now  estimated  that  by 
the  end  of  the  five-year  program  we  will 
have  achieved  a  net  energy  saving  of  more 
than  21  per  cent. 

The  success  of  this  program  is  even  more 
dramatic  when  one  looks  at  the  cumula- 
tive energy  savings  in  dollars.  Subject  to 
confirmation  at  the  end  of  the  present  fiscal 
year,  the  value  of  energy  actually  saved 
will  be  more  than  $24  million,  while  expen- 
ditures will  be  about  half  that  amount. 
During  the  program,  further  opportunities 
for  savings  were  identified  and  resulted  in 
the  $10.6  million  extension  I  am  detailing 
today. 

We  have  telescoped  the  initial  program 
and  the  five-year  extension  so  that  we  now 
have  a  nine-year  program  ending  in  1986. 
In  the  extension  period  we  will  be  working 
to  achieve  further  energy  savings  of  7.5  per 
cent,  worth  $8  million.  I  should  point  out 
that  this  extension  phase  will  be  the  more 
difficult  part  of  the  program  as  the  oppor- 
tunity for  the  greatest  savings  has  already 
been  realized.  Added  to  the  savings  already 
achieved,  our  revised  goal  is  to  save  25 
per  cent  of  the  energy  used  in  government 
buildings.  This  saving  is  worth  about  $32 
million.  Total  program  expenditures  to 
achieve  these  savings  will  be  about  $20 
million. 

Before  considering  the  second  program, 
I  would  like  to  turn  to  a  project  of  con- 
siderable interest  to  members;  that  is,  the 
Legislative  Building.  It  is  an  important 
symbol  to  the  public  of  the  need  to  con- 
serve energy  wherever  possible.  I  am 
pleased  to  advise  honourable  members  that 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5069 


my  ministry  plans  to  replace  all  the  win- 
dows in  this  building  with  tight-fitting, 
modern,   aluminum,    double-glazed   units. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  in  spite  of  the 
apparent  benefits  it  has  not  been  seen  up 
until  now  to  be  a  cost-effective  project. 
While  the  economics  might  still  be  ques- 
tioned in  terms  of  cost-effective  savings  on 
this  investment,  the  government  feels  it  is 
nevertheless  important  and  must  be  under- 
taken. Because  the  work  will  involve  the 
replacement  of  complete  units,  including 
casements,  it  must  be  done  in  the  summer- 
time. Tenders  for  this  work  will  be  let 
before  the  end  of  the  winter,  and  con- 
struction will  start  when  the  House  rises 
for  the  1981  summer  recess. 

I  would  now  like  to  turn  to  our  program 
to  convert  government  buildings  from  oil 
to  other  forms  of  energy.  About  21  per  cent 
of  government  buildings  are  heated  with 
oil.  Of  these,  338  could  be  converted  from 
oil  to  other  energy  forms.  The  goal  of  the 
program  is  to  displace  4.4  million  gallons 
of  oil  a  year  for  an  estimated  annual  saving 
of  $1.1  million.  While  this  program  is  pre- 
sented with  'a  five-year  implementation,  we 
feel  it  could  be  completed  within  three 
years  with  the  co-operation  of  the  gas  com- 
panies   involved. 

In  closing,  I  would  like  to  make  two  final 
points.  The  first  is  that  savings  realized  as 
a  result  of  both  these  programs  are  savings 
repeated  year  after  year  throughout  the  life 
of  the  building,  savings  that  increase  in 
value  as  the  cost  of  energy  rises.  It  is  also 
worth  noting  the  cost  of  building  improve- 
ments is  a  cost  that  is  incurred  only  once. 

My  last  point  is  this:  An  important  factor 
in  establishing  its  energy  program  was  that 
the  government  must  provide  leadership  in 
conservation  and  related  matters.  I  believe 
it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  achievements  of  our 
programs  to  date  and  the  goals  we  have  set 
for  the  next  five  years  do  exactly  that. 

URBAN  TRANSPORTATION 
DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  make  a  brief  statement  but,  as  I  just  got 
the  information  as  I  came  to  the  House,  I 
do  not  have  a  written  copy.  Might  I  have 
permission  to  proceed? 

Mr.  Speaker:   Is  it  agreed? 

Some  hon.  members:  Agreed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Please  proceed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  As  the  honourable  mem- 
bers may  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Urban 
Transportation  Development  Corporation  has 


submitted  proposals  for  the  intermediate- 
capacity  transit  system  in  the  United  States. 
Just  as  I  was  leaving  my  office  this  afternoon 
to  come  to  the  House,  I  was  informed  that 
at  a  public  presentation  this  morning  in  Los 
Angeles,  the  technical  evaluation  team  of 
officials  from  the  city  of  Los  Angeles  has  re- 
leased its  report,  which  has  evaluated  the 
UTDC  proposal,  and  recommended  to  the 
Los  Angeles  city  council  that  a  contract  be 
negotiated  with  UTDC  for  the  building  of 
their  new  downtown  people  mover. 

This  recommendation  comes  forward  after 
a  very  complete  investigation  and  evaluation 
of  the  price,  the  technical  compliance,  the 
life-cycle  costs,  and  the  adherence  to  the 
minority  business  enterprise  regulations  in 
that  city.  I  am  pleased  to  announce  to  the 
members  that  was  announced  in  Los  Angeles 
a  very  short  time  ago. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

URBAN  TRANSPORTATION 
DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  ask  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions a  question  about  the  UTDC  technology 
and  the  Premier's  statement  yesterday  con- 
cerning his  agreement  with  the  authorities  in 
British  Columbia  for  the  installation  of  the 
facility  in  Vancouver. 

Can  the  minister  indicate  whether  a  con- 
tract exists  or  whether  there  is  just  a  verbal 
agreement  between  either  the  two  provinces 
or  some  other  authority?  The  reason  I  ask  this 
is  that  the  Premier  in  his  statement  yesterday 
indicated  there  was  a  contract  with  the 
greater  municipality  of  Vancouver,  or  what- 
ever authorities,  probably  with  the  govern- 
ment of  British  Columbia. 

I  see  the  Premier  has  taken  his  place,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  would  ask  him  for  clarifica- 
tion. Can  he  indicate  to  the  House  whether 
a  contract  has  been  signed  or  is  in  existence, 
or  was  this  an  agreement  entered  into  by 
the  Premier  himself  or  representatives  of 
UTDC?  I  have  a  feeling  that  when  the 
Premier  was  out  there  proposing  this  special 
commission  for  western  problems  in  general, 
he  sat  down  with  somebody  and  came  back 
with  this  agreement  on  the  back  of  an 
envelope. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  de- 
lighted the  acting  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  feels  we  personally  negotiated  this 
contract  and  that  I  came  back  with  it  on 
the  back  of  an  envelope,  but  I  have  to  dis- 
abuse the  honourable  member  of  that  idea. 


5070 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  did  not  come  back  with  a  contract  on  the 
back  of  an  envelope. 

The  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications will  have  more  detailed  informa- 
tion.   My   recollection   of  my  statement  was 
that    the    government    of    British    Columbia 
announced  on  Saturday  morning  at  a  break- 
fast, which  I  did  not  attend,  because  I  was 
somewhere  at  30,000  feet  while  they  were 
having  breakfast- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  You  saw  the  latest  polls. 
Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No,  I  did  not. 
Mr.  Swart:    Got  your  head  in  the  clouds 
again? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Better  to  have  my  head 
in  the  clouds  than  where  the  member  has 
his  head  on  occasion. 

Mr.  Swart:  It  is  not  me  being  accused  of 
having  my  head  where  it  shouldn't  be. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  see. 

My  understanding— and  I  think  I  said 
this  in  the  statement— is  that  the  Minister 
of  Municipal  Affairs,  Mr.  Vander  Zalm, 
announced  at  the  breakfast  that  the  govern- 
ment of  British  Columbia  was  prepared  to 
share,  roughly  on  a  two-thirds,  one-third 
basis,  with  the  greater  municipality— what- 
ever the  transit  organization  is— 

Mr.    Nixon:    The    municipality    of    greater 
Vancouver. 
2:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Something  of  that  nature. 
They  are  supporting  it. 

My  impression  is  that  there  will  be  some 
documentation  yet.  When  I  was  asked  by 
members  of  the  media,  who  have  taken  a 
very  great  interest  in  just  how  performance 
bonds  work,  I  explained  to  them  that  quite 
obviously  one  does  not  provide  a  perfor- 
mance bond  until  it  is  specified  in  the  con- 
tract what  it  is  he  is  to  perform.  I  doubt 
the  performance  bond  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  (Mr.  5.  Smith)  asked  for  would 
be  available  until  the  contract  itself  is 
finalized. 

The  commitment  is  from  the  British 
Columbia  government.  There  will  be  some 
details  as  to  some  aspects  of  the  contract 
to  be  finalized,  but  it  is  a  commitment  from 
the  government  of  British  Columbia,  and 
I  did  have  some  conversations  while  I  was 
out  there. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Does  the  Premier  realize  the 
problem  presented  to  all  members  of  the 
House?  That  problem  will  arise  when  a 
l>ill  is  presented  to  us  for  debate— possibly 
today— which  declares  UTDC  not  a  crown 
•corporation    and   yet   'gives    the   government 


the    authority    to     enter    into    performance 
bonds. 

The  $300-million  bond  with  greater  Van- 
couver may  be  relatively  small  compared 
with  the  one  we  will  be  asked  to  support 
for  Los  Angeles.  While  the  Premier  is  con- 
vinced not  a  nickel  would  have  to  come  out 
of  that  bond,  he  must  realize,  for  those  who 
have  observed  the  situation  over  the  years, 
he  is  batting  zero  in  the  public  transporta- 
tion proposals  he  has  put  forward  in  the 
past,  if  we  are  to  go  on  his  record.  How 
can  we  move  without  a  contract  or  without 
any  further  knowledge  about  what  is  pro- 
posed by  the  Premier  and  his  friends  in 
British  Columbia?  How  can  we  really  con- 
sider the  thing  in  a  rational  way? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  acting  leader  of  the 
Liberal  Party  can  approach  this  in  a  very 
rational  way,  as  he  does  some  subjects.  I 
do  not  think  this  should  be  any  exception. 
I  only  say  to  him,  if  he  is  saving  his  party 
will  not  support  that  legislation,  I  will  be 
profoundly  disappointed. 

I  say  to  the  acting  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Party  that  these  are  the  first  four  submis- 
sions of  this  detailed  nature,  exclusive  of 
the  city  of  Hamilton,  that  UTDC  has  made 
for  this  particular  system.  If  there  are  three 
to  date  that  have  been  determined,  UTDC 
is  batting  1.000,  which  is  not  bad  in  any 
person's  league.  I  also  say  to  him  I  under- 
stand the  figure  in  Los  Angeles  will  be  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  $130  million. 

Mr.  Nixon:  You  do  not  include  your 
failures. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  All  I  suggest  to  the  mem- 
ber is,  if  he  wants  to  oppose  a  bill  that  will 
provide  close  to  $1  billion  worth  of  work 
for  UTDC  employees  in  Ontario  and  tech- 
nology that  in  Los  Angeles  outbid  some  of 
the  major  companies  in  the  world  in  terms 
of  its  technical  capacity  and  its  price,  then 
I  say,  be  my  guest,  oppose  that  bill  and 
live  with  his  own  conscience  in  terms  of 
what  he  is  doing  to  the  economic  life  of 
this   province   and  this  country. 

Mr.  Eakins:  The  Premier  is  twisting  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  not  twisting  any- 
thing. 

Mr.   Nixon:   You  certainly  are. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  not  at  all.  We  can- 
not and  will  not  be  able  to.  The  Los  Angeles 
contract,  if  it  finally  emerges,  has  to  be 
approved  by  the  city  council  of  Los  An- 
geles. The  approval  the  minister  announced 
just  a  few  moments  ago  came  from  the  tech- 
nical advisory  committee.  It  is  also  supported 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5071 


by  the  federal  agency,  which  is  very  im- 
portant in  terms  of  the  bids. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  The  cameras  have  stop- 
ped taking  pictures. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  It  has  taken  five  and 
a  half  minutes  for  this  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  say  to  the  member  for 
Brantford,  he  is  always  more  interested  in 
the  cameras  than  I  am.  I  do  not  even 
bother  to  look  up  there.  I  see  he  is  looking 
at  them  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  have  anything  fur- 
ther to  answer? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes.  I  have  quite  a  bit 
to  add,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Martel:  This  socialism  is  going  too 
far! 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  is  provoking  me,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  he  is. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  He  is  being  provocative. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes,  he  is.  I  agree. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  say  to  the  acting  leader 
of  the  Liberal  Party— and  I  know  his  party 
will  come  around  to  support  this  bill— this 
bill  is  essential  in  terms  of  the  economic  ac- 
tivities of  UTDC.  It  is  essential  in  this  par- 
ticular part  of  the  business  to  provide  the 
performance  bonds.  I  said  to  his  leader  or 
somebody  yesterday  that  the  moment  the 
contract  is  signed  and  sealed  with  the  t's 
crossed  and  the  i's  dotted,  the  moment  the 
performance  bond  is  finalized,  not  only 
will  we  be  delighted  to  table  it  here  but 
also  I  will  send  the  member  personal 
copies.  I  will  send  it  to  the  member  for 
Hamilton  West  (Mr.  S.  Smith).  I  will  send 
it  to  whoever  wants  it,  because  we  will  be 
taking  great  delight  in  the  fact  that,  in  spite 
of  his  reservations,  in  spite  of  the  way  one 
of  his  members  has  described  this  as  being 
a  turkey,  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  the 
member  for  Hamilton  West,  we  are  on  the 
verge  of  a  very  significant  breakthrough  in 
transit  and  economic  life  here  in  Ontario. 
If  those  people  had  any  wisdom  at  all,  they 
would  join  in  its  support  with  enthusiasm. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  refrain 
from  asking  the  Premier  for  support  when 
we  propose  crown  corporations  in  areas  like 
mining  machinery  where  some  government 
leadership  might  also  be  of  benefit  to  the 
people  of  the  province. 

I  have   a  supplementary  question. 

Can  the  Premier  outline  for  the  House  the 
nature  of  the  $300-million  bond  which  the 
people  of  Ontario  are  being  asked  to  take 
on     which,     according     to     the     legislation 


coming  to  the  House  this  week,  will  be 
undertaken  by  the  corporation  but  which  the 
Legislature  and  the  province  would  even- 
tually have  to  make  good  if  the  bond  were 
ever  called?  What  is  the  nature  of  the  $300- 
million  commitment  and  to  what  extent  are 
we  committed?  Is  it  the  full  $300  million  or 
only  a  portion  thereof? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  tres- 
passing into  the  field  of  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications.  I  must 
confess  to  the  member,  I  have  never  person- 
ally built  a  transit  system  in  my  life. 

Mr.  Roy:  You  bragged  about  it  a  lot. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  So  it  has  taken  a  while,  I 
say  to  the  member  for  Ottawa  East,  but  it  is 
on  the  verge  of  being  successful.  It  upsets 
him  that  it  is  successful.  He  would  have 
loved  to  have  seen  it  fail.  He  has  no  faith  in 
this  province.  He  has  no  faith  in  the  tech- 
nical capacities  of  the  people. 

I  was  not  going  to  answer  that. 

I  can  only  assume  a  performance  bond 
will  mean  exactly  what  it  says,  that  the 
system  will  perform  in  accordance  with  the 
specifications  upon  which  the  contract  is  bid. 
It  will  then,  of  course,  conform  to  the 
contract  that  is  executed.  I  assume  the  con- 
tract will  call  for  the  completion  of  the 
system,  that  the  vehicles  Work,  that  the 
control  system  works,  et  cetera.  UTDC, 
which  will  be  the  prime  contractor,  quite 
obviously  will  have  involvement  from  the 
people  building  the  guideways,  for  instance. 
I  do  not  anticipate  UTDC  will  have  problems 
with  the  guideway  system.  I  assume  it  will 
obtain,  from  whoever  constructs  the  guide- 
ways  in  Vancouver,  a  bond  or  whatever  in 
terms  of  that  portion  of  it. 

I  say  to  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party,  it  will  be  fairly  similar  to  most  per- 
formance bonds.  We  will  be  delighted  to 
share  it  With  the  member.  By  and  large,  a 
performance  bond  means  that  for  Which  they 
are  contracting  performs.  I  think  it  is  very 
simple. 

DISPOSAL  OF  PCBs 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of  the  En- 
vironment having  to  do  with  the  disposal  of 
polychlorinated  biphenyls. 

Being  aware  of  the  government's  commit- 
ment of  $400,000  to  plasma  arc  research  at 
the  Royal  Military  College,  why  did  the 
minister  not  give  some  additional  support  to 
the  diesel  destruction  unit  under  experi- 
mental development  by  D  and  D  Disposal 
Services   rather  than   forcing  them  to   go  to 


5072 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Manchester,  England,  for  the  kind  of  testing 
and  development  which  might  mean  the 
facility  will  not  be  so  readily  available  to  us? 

In  conjunction  with  that,  does  his  com- 
mitment to  the  fusion  principle,  or  high- 
temperature  destruction,  mean  we  will  not 
have  to  put  up  with  PCBs  in  the  proposed 
South  Cayuga  site  but  that,  whatever  the 
positive  results  will  be,  we  will  be  able  to 
destroy  PCBs  on  site? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  With  respect  to  the 
first  part  of  that  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
reviewed  the  proposal.  We  gave  those  reports 
to  the  federal  government.  I  think  it  wanted 
to  see  whether  there  was  merit  in  it  and 
was  prepared  to  fund  more  than  we  were 
prepared  to  fund.  We  had  greater  reserva- 
tions, I  guess. 
2:30  p.m. 
.  Mr.  Nixon:  What,  the  English  people? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  for  the  original  re- 
quest for  funds.  We  think  there  are  some 
real  technical  problems  with  that  facility. 
We  had  to  make  some  choices  as  to  where 
we  would  put  our  research  dollars,  and  we 
put  them  in  the  plasma  arc  concept. 

There  are  other  research  proposals  going 
on  now.  For  instance,  there  is  the  one  with 
the  jet  engine;  I  signed  an  approval  two  or 
three  days  ago  for  that  to  be  carried  on  here 
in  the  general  Metropolitan  Toronto  area. 
Other  research  is  going  on,  not  necessarily 
with  our  dollars  involved.  I  just  say  that  to 
give  a  broad  prospective  of  what  research  is 
going  on  at  the  moment. 

We  would  not  be  happy  if  we  had  to  lose 
any  method.  At  the  same  time,  we  need  to 
have  some  priorities  on  where  we  spend  our 
money.  We  think  we  have  done  it  appro- 
priately, and  most  technical  experts  would 
agree  with  us  on  that  point. 
.  With  regard  to  the  member's  second  ques- 
tion, there  is  no  doubt— and  it  has  always  been 
the  policy  of  this  government— that  we  would 
like  to  destroy  PCBs  on  site.  That  has  been 
our  position  and  it  will  continue  to  be  our 
position.  I  hope,  before  any  facilities  for 
storage  are  built,  the  technology  can  be 
proven. 

We  have  a  dual  responsibility  here.  We 
have  to  be  very  sure  the  destruction  of  PCBs 
is  complete.  We  will  put  a  lot  of  resource  and 
effort  into  making  sure  that,  whatever  method 
is  chosen,  public  safety  will  be  our  first 
criterion.  That  is  extremely  important  to  us. 
We  likely  will  have  a  method  of  destroying 
PCBs  on  site.  It  has  so  many  advantages.  It 
reduces  the  transportation  risk  as  one  illus- 
tration. If  we  can,  we  will  do  it  on  site.  We 
will  not  store  them  in  South  Cayuga  or  wher- 


ever it  might  be.   We  do  not  want  to  see 
storage  as  our  prime  objective. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  minister,  in  his  original 
statement  about  South  Cayuga,  made  refer- 
ence to  a  kiln  incinerator.  Will  he  confirm 
that  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  attempt 
to  burn  the  PCBs  in  South  Cayuga?  Will  he 
confirm  that  it  is  not  a  part  of  the  original 
plan  and  the  plan  does  not  envisage  trans- 
porting PCBs  to  South  Cayuga  even  if  it  does 
go  forward,  which  frankly  I  doubt? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  member  and  I  differ 
on  the  latter  part  of  that. 

The  proposal  was  for  a  rotary  kiln.  Any 
rotary  kiln  has  a  capacity  for  the  destruction 
of  a  large  variety  of  chemicals.  That  is  one  of 
the  things  we  hope  will  go  there.  Everyone 
would  share  the  view  that  destruction  is  far 
better  than  storage,  regardless  of  where  or 
how. 

Mr.  Nixon:  But  those  kilns  will  not  do  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  That  is  not  proven  yet. 
We  think  there  is  a  great  potential  in  rotary 
kilns.  But  because  of  the  transportation  to 
the  kiln,  it  is  not  the  method  of  choice.  If 
we  had  our  druthers,  it  would  be  the  plasma 
arc  to  do  the  destruction  on  site.  We  think  it 
is  better. 

We  have  to  face  the  reality  of  today.  Those 
materials  are  in  our  society.  We  want  them 
destroyed  safely  and  completely.  I  know  the 
member  knows  the  incomplete  destruction  of 
PCBs  can  lead  to  a  more  hazardous  situation 
than  either  storage  or  total  destruction.  There 
must  be  total  destruction,  not  partial  destruc- 
tion, and  we  will  use  the  best  facilities  to  do 
so. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Today,  as  on  November  20,  when  the  minis- 
ter responded  to  a  similar  question  from  my- 
self about  the  D  and  D  Disposal  diesel  engine 
process,  he  insinuated  that  D  and  D  Disposal 
were  asking  for  money  from  his  ministry. 
Does  he  not  understand  that  D  and  D  Dis- 
posal was  simply  asking  for  approval  to  go 
ahead  with  further  research  in  Ontario? 

Does  the  minister  not  understand  that  the 
company  feels  his  ministry  has  stood  in  its 
way?  It  is  because  of  the  obstructionism  by 
officials  of  the  ministry  that  they  have  had 
to  sign  a  contract  with  a  corporation  in  the 
United  Kingdom.  This  means  the  benefits  of 
research  and  possible  development  of  the 
method  have  gone  outside  the  country. 

Does  the  minister  not  think  we  should 
do  more  than  put  all  our  eggs  in  one  bas- 
ket? Does  he  not  think  that,  if  the  diesel 
engine  has  any  hope  of  success  at  all,  as 
Environment   Canada  believes  it  does,  then 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5073 


the  ministry  has  a  responsibility  to  encour- 
age the  research  and  development  to  take 
place  here  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Quite  frankly,  Mr. 
Speaker,  the  member  and  I  see  this  quite 
differently.  We  did  not  put  roadblocks  in 
its  way.  The  fact  that  we  did  not  enthu- 
siastically endorse  it  is  not  the  same  as 
saying  we  put  roadblocks  in  its  way.  They 
are  capable  of  doing  their  own  research. 
I  am  surprised  that,  all  of  a  sudden,  it 
seems  both  parties  are  terribly  supportive 
of  that  process.  I  had  previous  information 
that  indicated  the  member  too  had  some 
very  serious  concerns. 

Let  me  put  it  very  simply.  I  am  sure  the 
member  and  we  agree  that  the  most  im- 
portant thing  is  that  the  destruction  be 
complete  and  total  for  the  safety  of  every- 
one concerned.  That  is  where  my  ministry 
will  come  into  full  play.  We  will  have  an 
opportunity  to  assess  that.  We  did  nothing 
to  discourage  them.  We  did  not  give  them 
much  encouragement,  because  we  have 
some  technical  reservations.  But  that  does 
not  mean  they  could  not  proceed.  That  is 
where  the  member  and  I  do  not  agree. 

OPTED-OUT   SPECIALISTS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Health  if  I  can  get 
to  see  him.  My  question  is  about  the  diffi- 
culty the  people  in  Ontario  continue  to  have 
in  getting  service  from  specialists  across  the 
province  at  Ontario  health  insurance  plan 
rates  despite  the  claim  of  the  minister  that 
only  16  per  cent  of  doctors  across  the  prov- 
ince have  opted  out. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that,  when  one  com- 
pares the  number  of  opted-out  specialists  he 
has  given  to  the  House  with  the  number 
of  full-time  specialists  one  finds  in  the  tax 
returns  for  Ontario,  that  the  opting  out 
among  specialists  now  has  reached  the  level 
of  38.8  per  cent?  Does  he  not  agree  that, 
when  the  effective  level  of  opting  out  among 
specialists  in  Ontario  has  now  reached  almost 
two  specialists  out  of  every  five,  it  is  time 
for  the  government  to  outlaw  extra  billing, 
as  was  proposed  in  the  Hall  commission 
report? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
know  what  kind  of  figures  the  leader  of  the 
third  party  is  playing  around  with.  I  can 
tell  him  the  figures  we  have  given  him  are 
based  on  the  physicians  billing  OHIP.  I 
have  always  told  him  that  he  has  to  add  to 
those  figures  the  number  of  physicians,  in- 
cluding specialists,  who  are  in  salaried  posi- 


tions and  who  do  not  bill  OHIP  or  patients 
one  way  or  another.  In  fact,  if  he  added 
those  into  the  total  number  of  physicians 
practising  and  delivering  services,  the 
opted-out  rate  would  actually  be  lower,  not 
his  cooked-up  figures. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Does  the  minister  know  how 
many  full-time,  fee-for-service  physicians 
there  are  in  the  province?  Is  he  not  aware 
that,  according  to  the  figures  he  has  tabled 
in  this  Legislature,  38.8  per  cent  of  those 
full-time  physicians  in  the  province,  if  they 
are  specialists,  have  opted  out,  and  that  the 
level  of  opting  out  among  general  practi- 
tioners is  much  higher  than  he  has  given 
the  House  to  understand?  Does  he  not  know 
how  many  full-time  doctors  there  are  in  the 
province,  and  why  can  he  not  share  that 
information  with  the  House  so  we  can  know 
to  what  extent  his  tolerance  of  opting  out 
has  eroded  medicare  in  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  The  figures  I  have 
given  the  member  on  every  occasion  have 
been  totals  of  the  physicians  billing  services 
in  Ontario.  That  includes  people  who  are 
billing  the  plan  which  accounts  for  about 
93  per  cent  of  all  the  claims.  It  also  ac- 
counts for  those  practising  physicians  who 
are  billing  their  patients  directly,  some  of 
whom  are  billing  no  more  than  what  OHIP 
reimburses  but  who  are  billing  them  directly 
none  the  less.  They  are  all  the  physicians 
billing  at  that  time. 

The  member  or  one  of  his  researchers, 
in  the  traditional  quality  of  research  in  the 
last  year  or  two,  has  cooked  up  some  other 
figures  on  some  other  basis;  I  do  not  know 
what.  I  will  be  glad  to  see  them.  I  suspect 
that  in  the  final  analysis  the  figures  I  have 
given  the  member  are  correct. 

Mr.  Conway:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: I  wonder  what  the  minister  has  to  say 
in  response  to  what  Mr.  Justice  Emmett 
Hall  indicated  about  the  Ontario  proposal 
to  deal  with  patients  who  want  to  be 
directed  to  an  opted-in  physician  in  cases 
where  that  is  their  request.  The  evidence 
in  the  Hall  report  clearly  indicates  that,  on 
tbe  sample  that  particular  inquiry  dealt 
with,  that  proposal  in  Ontario  that  has  been 
engaged  in  by  the  minister  and  the  Ontario 
Medical  Association  has,  according  to  the 
two  analysts  involved,  been  an  abject  fail- 
ure. What  does  he  have  to  say  in  response 
to  that  rather  sharp  indictment  of  his  own 
government's  proposal  to  deal  with  the 
opting-out  problems? 
2:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
sure  which  report  the  member  is  referring  to 


5074 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


but,  if  it  is  the  one  I  am  thinking  of,  it 
was  based  on  out-of-date  information,  and 
very  limited  information  at  that.  I  had  a 
letter  from  the  federal  minister  in  the  last 
few  days  indicating  that  the  reports  are 
going  to  be  available  for  release  in  the 
future.  I  am  pleased  about  that  because,  as 
I  say,  I  think  our  conclusions  have  been  to 
the  effect  that  that  particular  study,  if  it  is 
the  one  done  out  of  Hamilton,  was  very 
skimpy,  very  limited  and  very  biased  from 
the  start. 

TRANSIT  FARES 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  ask 
the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications what  the  government  intends 
to  do  for  transit  riders  in  this  province, 
since  it  is  prepared  to  talk  about  the 
successes  of  the  Urban  Transportation  De- 
velopment Corporation  out  in  western 
Canada. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  ridership  is  up 
in  the  public  transit  systems  of  the  major 
cities  of  the  province,  and  in  view  of  the 
fact  there  are  now  fare  increases  that  are 
projected  or  have  recently  come  into  appli- 
cation in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  Ottawa- 
Carleton,  Hamilton,  Sudbury,  Kingston  and 
Oshawa,  will  the  government  undertake  to 
provide  enough  additional  subsidy  for  tran- 
sit riders  to  ensure  there  are  no  further  fare 
increases  in  1980-81  for  transit  riders  in 
Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Show:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can- 
not make  the  blanket  commitment  that  there 
will  be  unlimited  funds  available  to  any 
municipality  that  might  wish  them  to  elim- 
inate the  need  for  an  adjustment  in  transit 
fares.  I  will  say  that  I  expect  in  the  very 
near  future  to  be  able  to  announce  to  the 
60-odd  municipalities  in  Ontario  that  operate 
transit  systems  what  the  funding  level  will 
be  for  1981.  As  soon  as  I  have  final  con- 
firmation of  my  budget  'allocation,  I  will 
make  that  announcement  to  the  municipali- 
ties, as  I  have  done  in  previous  years. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Perhaps  the  honourable  min- 
ister could  be  more  explicit.  Does  the  govern- 
ment have  a  policy  about  transit  fares,  or  is 
the  government's  policy  that  it  simply  will 
allow  the  transit  fares  to  continue  to  increase 
despite  the  very  clear  interest  among  the 
public  in  using  public  transit  systems,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  ridership,  despite  the  Trea- 
surer's (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  pleas  to  the  federal 
government  to  become  involved  with  public 
transit?  Is  the  government  not  prepared  to  do 
more  to  assist  municipalities  to  ensure  that 
they  can  maintain  an  adequate  and  affordable 


alternative  to  private  transportation  using 
petroleum-based  fuels? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  you  well 
know,  although  the  leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  may  not,  this  government  has  a 
very  major  commitment  to  public  transit  in 
this  province.  I  might  say  it  is  a  much  greater 
commitment  than  any  other  jurisdiction  of 
which  I  am  aware. 

As  honourable  members  know,  our  policy 
is  to  fund  capital  construction  of  public  tran- 
sit at  the  rate  of  75  per  cent.  We  fund  the 
total  operating  costs  of  the  public  transporta- 
tion system  on  a  formula  basis  as  a  percentage 
of  total  operating  costs,  depending  on  the  size 
of  the  municipality.  There  are  other  formula 
adjustments  depending  on  the  growth  rate  in 
that  municipality.  It  is  also  our  policy  that 
the  operation  of  the  transit  system,  the  finan- 
cial management  and  the  establishment  of  the 
percentage  of  the  operating  costs  that  are 
collected  from  the  fare  box  are  left  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  municipal  government. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Would  the  honourable  minister  con- 
sider using  the  unemployment  index  in  cer- 
tain municipalities  as  a  guide  to  provision  of 
additional  assistance  to  that  municipality  so 
that  at  least  the  unemployed  would  have  the 
opportunity  of  using  the  public  transit  at  a 
reduced  rate  in  their  search  for  employment? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  not 
considered  such  a  suggestion.  I  must  say  it  is 
unique.  I  think  I  would  have  some  difficulty 
in  trying  to  establish  formulas  for  public 
transit  systems  based  on  a  fluctuating  un- 
employment rate  that  may  change  from  day  to 
day  or  from  month  to  month.  We  fund  the 
transit  systems  very  liberally,  if  I  might  use 
that  horrible  word,  and  I  and  my  ministry 
have  an  excellent  relationship  with  the  transit 
systems  in  this  province. 

It  is  quite  interesting,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  note 
that  in  Ontario  we  subsidize  the  construction 
of  capital  projects  at  75  per  cent.  I  note  in 
the  British  Columbia  announcement  they  are 
going  to  subsidize  at  66%  per  cent,  so  the 
member  can  see  that  we  are  doing  much 
better  than  any  other  jurisdiction. 

UNITED  PARCEL  SERVICE 

Mr.  Peterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications:  As  I 
am  sure  the  honourable  minister  is  av/are,  in 
1975  United  Parcel  Service  made  an  applica- 
tion to  the  Foreign  Investment  Review 
Agency  to  purchase  two  Canadian  companies, 
Genoble  Distributors  Limited  and  Delivro 
Canada.  That  application  was  disallowed  on 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5075 


June  26,  1975.  What  was  the  position  of  the 
Ontario  government  on  that  application? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  is  the  minister  re- 
sponsible for  making  presentations  of  the 
province's  views  to  FIRA.  I  understand  that 
he  is  bound  by  the  federal  act  and  cannot 
state  those  views.  He  may  wish  to  answer 
that  question  further. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Would  the  minister  redirect 
that  question  to  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  have  anything  further 
to  add? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  can  only  say  that 
federal  legislation  sets  out  the  ground  rules 
and  binds  us  to  confidentiality. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Now  that  the  Minister  of 
Transportation  and  Communications  is  at 
least  seized  of  jurisdiction  in  an  application 
they  are  undertaking  by  way  of  appeal  to 
cabinet,  would  he  not  agree  with  me  that 
there  is  no  reason  to  give  away  a  right  in  this 
province  to  a  foreign  company,  particularly 
when,  if  one  takes  the  evidence  of  a  number 
of  Canadian  companies  at  face  value,  there 
is  going  to  be  a  loss  of  jobs  here  and  there 
is  'going  to  be  very  serious  competition  for 
our  Canadian  sector?  Would  the  minister  not 
agree  with  me  that  this  should  be  looked  at 
very  seriously  by  the  cabinet  and  probably 
be  turned  down? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
particularly  agree  with  that.  As  the  honour- 
able member  knows,  the  UPS  application  and 
hearing  has  a  long  history.  The  UPS  did1 
establish  a  Canadian  company,  although  it  is 
wholly  owned  by  the  US  parent— as  are 
numerous  other  transportation  companies  that 
are  in  competition  and  are  opposing  UPS's 
licence.  They  are  also  in  the  same  position; 
they  are  Canadian  companies  or  Ontario 
companies  owned  by  foreign  parents. 

The  rehearing  of  the  UPS  application  was 
a  lengthy  and  detailed  hearing.  I  think  an 
excellent  report  was  written  on  the  reasons 
for  a  decision.  It  was  very  complete.  That 
decision  was  brought  down  a  month  or  six 
weeks  ago.  That  licence  has  been  issued 
based  on  that  certificate.  There  are  appeals 
before  cabinet  which  will  be  considered  very 
carefully  by  my  colleagues  and  a  decision 
will  be  rendered  in  due  course  on  those 
appeals. 

FOOD  PRICES 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations:  He  will 
know   that   the   three-cents-a-dbzen   increase 


in  the  farm  gate  price  of  eggs  is  imminent 
and,  as  he  also  knows,  this  has  been  justified' 
by  the  National  Egg  Marketing  Board  on  the 
basis  of  producers'  costs.  However,  the  minis- 
ter will  recall  that  in  the  case  of  the  farm 
gate  milk  price  increase  of  less  than  three 
cents  last  year,  he  stood  aloof  while  the  proc- 
essor and  the  retailer  marked  that  up  to 
seven  cents  to  the  consumer.  Will  the  hon- 
ourable minister  now  give  this  House  and 
consumers  a  firm  commitment  that  he  will 
use  the  power  he  constitutionally  possesses 
at  this  time  to  investigate  and  prevent  ex- 
cessive markup  on  eggs  so  the  increase  to  the 
consumer  will  be  kept  to  the  absolutely 
necessary  minimum? 

Hon.    Mr.    Drea:    Of    course    I    will,    Mr. 
Speaker,  I  do  that  every  time. 
2:50  p.m. 

Mr.  Swart:  Does  the  minister  realize 
that  not  only  is  this  increase  in  the  price 
of  eggs  going  to  take  place,  but  it  has  been 
announced  by  Mr.  Ken  McKinnon,  chair- 
man of  the  Ontario  Milk  Marketing  Board, 
that  milk  will  likely  go  up  again  in  Febru- 
ary by  two- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Your  original  ques- 
tion dealt  specifically  with  the  price  of 
eggs.  You  asked  the  minister  if  he  would 
monitor.  He  said,  "Of  course  I  will."  Your 
supplementary  should  be  something  that 
arises  out  of  the  answer.  You  have  started 
on  milk  now.  A  new  question. 

OTTAWA  COURTHOUSE 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Government  Services. 
There  is  some  concern  in  the  Ottawa  area 
on  the  part  of  the  legal  and  judicial  com- 
munity that  the  wholesale  renovations  taking 
place  in  the  court  facilities  at  1  Nicholas 
Street  are  an  indication  the  government  has 
changed  its  mind,  to  the  apprehension  of 
some,  about  the  new  courthouse.  Can  the 
honourable  minister  assure  the  public  of 
Ottawa  the  new  courthouse  will  proceed  on 
schedule,  on  time,  with  no  delay  as  a  result 
of  these  extensive  renovations  at  1  Nicholas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
will  give  the  House  that  assurance. 

Mr.  Roy:  That  is  fine.  You  should  be 
congratulated.  That  is  the  first  straight 
answer  in  this  session. 

Is  the  minister  aware  that  as  far  as  the 
renovations  at  1  Nicholas  Street  are  con- 
cerned, the  chief  of  police  and  the  Ottawa 
Police  Commission  are  very  concerned  about 
security?  They  say  that  prior  to  the  renova- 
tions at  1   Nicholas,  the  police  forces  were 


5076, 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


not  consulted  and,  as  a  result,  the  police 
chief  says  the  security  "is  a  bloody  mess. 
There  are  so  many  areas  where  people  could 
escape  you  Can't  count  them."  Is  the  min- 
ister aware  of  that  situation  and  does  he 
intend  to  assist  the  Ottawa  police  by  giving 
them  extra  financial  assistance  as  he  does  in 
the  Toronto,   London  and  Peel  areas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  The  renovations  are 
to  extend  the  provincial  criminal  courts  at 
1  Nicholas  Street  to  twice  the  present  size. 
As  well  as  the  renovations,  that  cost  is  to 
take  care  of  the  lease  and  leasehold  improve- 
ment. I  will  have  to  check  whether  part  of 
the  improvement  is  to  have  holding  cells. 

I  think  part  of  the  honourable  member's 
question  should  come  under  the  Ministry  of 
the  Solicitor  General  when  it  gets  into 
security  and  whether  we  will  put  more 
police  in  that  area.  We  are  moving  along. 
The  member  knows  the  lawyers  in  that 
area,  as  well  as  the  people  who  are  backed 
up  with  court  cases,  will  be  glad  of  this 
additional  court  space.  I  am  surprised  that 
some  of  the  people  quoted  in  articles  in  the 
Ottawa  papers  would  be  saying  some  of 
the  things  they  are.  They  should  be  thankful 
to  get  those  court  cases  off  the  backlog  in 
the  five  years  while  we  are  waiting  for  the 
new  courthouse. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
I  hesitate  to  ask  the  minister  whether  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  has  expressed  an 
interest  in  coming  to  some  of  the  meetings 
about  the  courthouse. 

Mr.  Roy:  A  point  to  correct  the  record; 
a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  at- 
tended the  only  meeting  to  which  I  have 
been  invited.  I  do  not  invite  myself  to  these 
meetings  like  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  My  question  to  the  minister 
is  the  following:  Will  the  government  now 
undertake  that  the  mezzanine,  the  public  area 
of  the  courthouse  building,  will  include  in- 
formation services  about  Ontario,  access  to 
publications  of  the  province  of  Ontario 
printer  not  otherwise  available,  and  the  vari- 
ous paralegal  and  quasi-legal  services  I  have 
been  recommending  for  some  time  be  in- 
cluded in  the  courthouse  so  it  is  genuinely  a 
palace  of  justice  and  not  just  a  limited  court- 
house building? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  the 
honourable  member  asked  that  same  question 
in  estimates  a  week  or  so  ago,  I  thought  I 
made  it  quite  clear  that  we  had  circulated  a 
questionnaire,  asking  the  ministries  that  he 
had  given  us  on  his  shopping  list,  and  others, 
for  possible   candidates   to   go  in  there.   Up 


until  that  time  and  until  the  present  time  we 
have  not  received  all  those  reports  back,  but 
we  will  be  looking  at  it  and  seeing  whether 
there  is  an  interest.  If  there  is,  we  will  try 
to  accommodate  some  of  those  interests. 

SPEECH  THERAPY  FUNDING 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Education.  It  con- 
cerns the  case  of  Stephanie  Lemieux  whose 
parents  are  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Carleton  separate  school  board.  Stephanie, 
who  is  six  and  who  is  from  a  French-speaking 
family,  has  a  severe  speech  disability,  which 
apparently  can  only  be  treated  therapeutically 
in  a  course  provided  in  the  Outaouais  area  on 
the  Quebec  side  of  the  Ottawa  River.  The 
separate  school  board  has  made  application 
for  funding  for  her  course  and  for  her  trans- 
portation to  the  regional  office  of  the  Minis- 
try of  Education  and  has  been  refused. 

Can  the  honourable  minister  indicate  to  us 
what  she  can  do  about  this  case?  Furthermore, 
can  she  tell  us  what  difference  Bill  82  might 
make  to  this  case  once  it  is  proclaimed? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  this 
case  was  brought  to  my  attention  last  week 
by  the  member  for  Carleton-Grenville  (Mr. 
Sterling).  The  decision  taken  by  the  regional 
office  was  also  brought  to  my  attention.  It 
is  a  matter  that  is  under  consideration  at  the 
present  time.  We  are  aware  there  are  some 
limitations  within  the  scope  of  potential  avail- 
able resources  for  a  number  of  areas  in  the 
province  at  this  point.  A  program  has  been 
established  in  Hull  for  a  specific  group  of 
young  people.  We  are  examining  this  to  see 
whether  there  is  some  way  in  which  we  can 
be  of  assistance  to  the  Carleton  board  and 
to  that  family. 

The  intent  of  Bill  82,  as  I  think  the  hon- 
ourable member  knows,  is  that  within  a  five- 
year  period  there  will  be  within  the  province 
an  appropriate  program  for  all  children,  re- 
gardless of  their  exceptionalities,  and  there 
will  be  mechanisms  available  to  ensure  that 
boards  will  be  able  to  purchase  the  pro- 
grams if  they  cannot  provide  them  them- 
selves. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Does  the  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion mean  to  indicate  to  us  that  a  six-year-old 
will  have  to  wait  up  to  five  years  to  have 
the  appropriate  funding  come  from  the  pro- 
vincial level  of  government  through  to  the 
Carleton  separate  school  board?  Will  this 
case  be  met  once  Bill  82  is  proclaimed? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  member  obvi- 
ously was  not  listening  to  what  I  said.  I  said 
this  matter  was  under  consideration  within 
the  ministry  right  now. 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5077 


TEACHERS'  MEMBERSHIP  FEES 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  too  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Education.  Can  the 
minister  advise  this  House  whether  the  same 
situation  exists  in  relation  to  the  Norfolk 
teachers'  strike  as  exists  in  Wellington  county, 
where  about  one  half  of  the  cabinet-approved 
professional  membership  fees  paid  by  mem- 
bers of  the  Ontario  English  Catholic  Teach- 
ers' Association,  which  fees  are  totally  tax 
exempt,  go  into  a  cabinet-approved  reserve 
fund,  out  of  which  tax-free  money,  strikes  by 
teachers  are  underwritten?  In  other  words,  a 
cabinet-approved  scheme  allows  teachers  to 
fund  their  strikes  out  of  money  that  would 
otherwise  be  subject  to  income  tax.  Have  the 
teachers  in  the  Norfolk  strike  been  funded  in 
the  same  way? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  my 
knowledge  the  fee  that  is  approved  under 
the  legislation  by  the  Minister  of  Education 
for  membership  within  the  teachers'  associa- 
tion is  directed  towards  association  activities 
primarily,  towards  activities  that  help  teach- 
ers in  professional  development,  in  organizing 
and  becoming  knowledgeable  about  labour- 
manacrement  relationships  in  bargaining  and 
other  federation  activities. 

It  is  my  understanding  that  one  federation 
under  the  Ontario  Teachers'  Federation  had 
considered  last  year  making  application  for  a 
significant  increase  in  its  so-called  member- 
ship fee  to  fund  a  strike  fund.  That  proposal 
has  never  come  forward.  I  think  it  probably 
died  on  the  vine. 

3  p.m. 

Whether  the  additional  funds  which  the 
federations  establish  to  ensure  they  have  ap- 
propriate funds  for  support  of  teachers  on 
strike  come  from  membership  fees,  I  have 
no  way  of  knowing  at  this  point,  but  it  is  my 
understanding  special  levies,  which  are  sub- 
ject to  income  tax,  have  been  imposed  from 
time  to  time  in  order  to  replenish  that  strike 
fund. 

Mr.  Stong:  Does  the  minister  intend  to 
approve  a  proposal  by  the  executive  of  an 
annual  membership  fee  increase  for  1981-82 
to  a  maximum  of  $375  without  investigating 
what  it  is  going  to  be  used  for  and  what  por- 
tion will  go  into  the  reserve  fund  out  of 
which  teachers'  strikes  are  financed? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  believe  the  hon- 
ourable member  is  speaking  about  OECTA's 
proposal  of  1979-80,  which  did  not,  in  fact, 
come  forward  at  that  time.  I  have  heard 
nothing  of  a  further  proposal  from  OECTA, 
but  the  amount  being  suggested  by  the  hon- 
ourable member  would  be  more  than  a  250 


per  cent  increase  in  the  membership  fee  for 
that  federation  and  obviously  could  not  be 
considered  to  be  an  appropriate  membership 
fee  increase.  Obviously  there  must  be  some 
other  purpose  in  that  kind  of  increase  and 
that  most  certainly  would  be  investigated, 
not  only  by  the  ministry,  but  obviously  by 
the  executive  of  the  OTF  as  well. 

SILICA  DUST  LEVELS 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Labour.  Is  the  hon- 
ourable minister  aware  since  the  United 
Steelworkers  of  America  in  Elliot  Lake 
started  to  express  its  concerns  over  the 
dust  conditions  in  the  surface  crushing  and 
grinding  operations  in  1978  and  1979,  the 
results  of  tests  taken  to  date  show  respir- 
able  silica  dust  levels  to  be  either  equal  to 
or  above  the  threshold  limit  value  in  67 
per  cent  of  the  samples  taken?  If  tihis  is  the 
case,  what  action  has  his  ministry  taken  to 
guarantee  or  to  protect  the  workers  occupied 
in  the  Elliot  Lake  area? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  have 
to  take  the  question  as  notice  and  report. 

Mr.  Martel:  Supplementary:  Recently,  I 
understand,  the  federal  government  has 
removed  17  regulations  concerning  uranium 
and  thorium  mines,  and  apparently  the 
federal  ministry  is  about  to  propose  the  in- 
troduction of  TLVs  for  silica  dust  at  two 
milligrams  per  cubic  metres.  Is  the  Ontario 
government  now  prepared  to  introduce  its 
silica  program?  As  I  understand  it,  is  the 
Ontario  government  going  to  move  to  one 
milligram  per  cubic  metre?  If  that  is  the 
case  and  the  ministry  is  moving  to  one 
milligram  per  cubic  metre  and  the  federal 
government  is  moving  to  two,  how  in  God's 
name  are  we  ever  going  to  protect  the 
Elliot  Lake  workers,  because  the  federal 
jurisdiction  and  the  regulations  therein 
supersede    the    Ontario   regulations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  As  the  member  knows, 
last  summer  an  intent  to  regulate  certain 
substances  was  published  and  one  of  them 
Was  silica.  The  parties  had  until  November 
28  to  submit  their  comments.  Those  com- 
ments are  in  and  we  are  now  reviewing 
them,  but  the  ultimate  decision  will  be  from 
a  provincial  point  of  view  and  it  has  not 
been  settled  yet.  I  was  unaware  the  federal 
government  had  indicated  its  intent  to  legis- 
late with  regard  to  silica,  but  I  will  be  glad 
to  review  that  as  well. 

DISPOSAL  OF  PCBs 
Mr.  Hall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 


5078 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Speaker:  Perhaps  you  could1  put  your 
question  while  he  is  in  transit. 

Mr.  Hall:  That  is  a  very  good  idea,  Mr. 
Speaker.  Will  the  minister  advise  how  many 
gallons  of  liquid  PCBs  are  stored  at  the 
Smithville  site  of  Chemical  Waste  Manage- 
ment Limited,  and  will  the  minister  assure 
the  House  that  he  will  reject  requests  for 
increased  storage  of  PCBs  at  Smithville, 
bearing  in  mind  that  all  along  the  Smith- 
ville plant  was  intended  to  be  a  transfer 
station  and  not  a  storage  depot? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  certainly 
we  will  be  able  to  tell  the  honourable 
member  how  many  gallons  are  there.  I  do 
not  have  that  figure  in  my  mind.  As  the 
member  knows,  it  keeps  changing.  An 
upper  limit  of  gallonage  has  been  approved, 
so  I  will  give  the  member  an  update,  and 
I  think  we  can  do  that  pretty  accurately, 
of  how  m'any  gallons  are  there  now.  That 
is  the  first  part  of  the  question.  Of  course,  I 
would  have  to  get  that  information. 

In  answer  to  the  second  part  of  the  ques- 
tion, we  have  not  had  any  requests  for  ex- 
tended facilities.  I  hope  we  do  not.  I  would 
like  to  think  we  can  get  on  with  the  job  of 
having  either  a  permanent  site  or  a  permanent 
method  of  destruction.  The  commitment  to 
Smithville  was  that  it  would  not  exist  after 
one,  or  the  other  existed.  I  am  hoping  we  can 
either  have  the  site  to  destroy  or  the  site  to 
store  permanently  and  securely,  if  necessary, 
in  time  to  do  what  the  member  would  like. 

Mr.  Hall:  Nevertheless,  there  have  been 
spokesmen  for  the  Environment  ministry  who 
said  the  ministry  is  considering  a  request  for 
expansion  of  the  site  facilities.  This  is  my 
concern.  I  know  there  should  be  an  upper 
limit  and  that  limit  will  be  reached.  But  there 
should  be  no  more  added  to  Smithville,  in  my 
view— certainly  without  an  environmental 
hearing,  which  has  never  happened. 

I  am  confused  that  the  ministry  spokesman 
has  indicated  that  such  an  application  is  under 
consideration. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  the  minister  not?  That  is 
what  the  question  should  say. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  situation  is  confused,  don't 
you  agree? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  understand  the  mem- 
bers concern  and  such  an  application  cer- 
tainly has  not  come  to  my  desk  asking  for  an 
extension.  It  would  not  be  without  the  appro- 
priate hearing.  I  assure  him  of  that.  I  do  not 
think  we  can  do  other  than  what  we  have 
done  to  this  time.  We  have  monitored  the 
situation  very  well  over  in  Smithville.   The 


ail*  quality  in  that  city  has  proved  to  be 
excellent  as  a  result.  There  has  been  no 
change.  He  is  asking  about  the  future.  I  guess 
we  will  have  to  deal  with  the  future  when  we 
get  there.  I  am  well  aware  the  commitment 
was  made  in  the  first  instance  to  the  people 
of  Smithville  and  I  intend  to  keep  it. 

GENETICS 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
is  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Education, 
but  I  see  she  has  left  the  chamber. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  cannot  ask  a  question 
of  a  minister  who  is  not  here. 

Mr.  Grande:  As  the  minister  is  not  here, 
may  I  ask  the  question  of  the  Premier? 

This  question  has  to  do  with  the  comments 
that  were  made  a  little  while  back  on  a 
community  channel  by  Miss  Irene  Atkinson, 
the  present  chairman  of  the  Toronto  Board 
of  Education.  Since  the  Premier  was  the 
former  Education  minister  in  this  Legislature, 
perhaps  he  would  have  an  answer. 

When  the  question  was  asked,  "How  do 
you  raise  the  achievement  levels  of  immigrant 
children  and  children  of  low  socioeconomic 
backgrounds?"  the  chairman  answered,  "I 
am  not  so  sure  you  can  because  I  think 
genetics  plays  a  very  large  part  in  determining 
the  potential  of  students."  The  Minister  of 
Education  of  this  province  has  not  made  a 
peep  about  this  matter  and  silence  is  often 
interpreted  as  consent.  Are  we  to  understand 
that  the  Minister  of  Education  is  in  agreement 
with  the  position  expressed  by  the  chairman 
of  the  Toronto  Board  of  Education  that 
workers  and  immigrants  are  mentally  and/or 
intellectually  deficient  and  that  they  pass  on 
their  deficiency  to  their  children? 

As  the  minister  is  here  now,  perhaps  she 
can  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Seizing  the  opportunity 
to  reply  to  that  question  and  not  having 
heard  all  of  it  except  the  honourable  mem- 
ber's concern  about  his  intellectual  defi- 
ciencies, I  could  answer  and  comment  on 
that,  but  I  would— 

Mr.  Martel:  Why  do  you  not  reply  to  a 
sensible  question  in  a  sensible  way?  It  is 
a  pretty  sensitive  area. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  No.  I  am  just  going  to 
suggest  that  he  repeat  the  whole  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Education. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  heard  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  minister  says  she 
has  heard  it  so  she  can  answer  it.  I  could 
not  hear  it  because  of  all  the  noise  of  the 
member's   colleagues. 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5079 


Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  understanding  that  the  remarks  made  by 
the  chairman  of  the  board  of  education  of 
the  city  of  Toronto  occurred  in  conversa- 
tion with  an  interviewer.  I  understand  she 
suggested  that  when  the  schools  had  done 
everything  they  could  and  the  child  was 
still  not  making  progress  perhaps  the  genetic 
background  of  the  child  should  be  looked  at. 

It  apparently  has  been  interpreted  as  a 
racist  remark  and  I  am  not  aware  of  the 
context  in  which  the  remarks  were  made. 
It  is  not  my  understanding,  as  suggested  by 
the  honourable  member,  there  was  any  sug- 
gestion the  children  of  new  Canadians  or 
immigrant  Canadians  would  be  relegated 
to  that  specific  group  and  all  others  would 
be  in  some  other  group.  It  was  my  under- 
standing the  chairman  was  talking  about 
society  as  a  whole. 
3:10  p.m. 

As  a  physician  with  some  limited  back- 
ground in  genetics  and  biomedical  science, 
there  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  genetics 
plays  an  important  role  in  the  development 
of  us  all  in  a  number  of  our  aspects,  not 
just  in  our  intellectual  development,  but 
also  our  physical  development,  our  per- 
sonality development,  our  emotional  devel- 
opment—in fact,  the  totality  of  a  human 
being.  To  ignore  genetics  completely  is  to 
ignore  a  very  significant  component  of  hu- 
manity in  a  way  we  cannot  afford. 

I  am  sure  the  member  would  not  wish, 
as  some  of  his  colleagues  in  that  party  have 
done,  to  impute  motives  to  the  new  chair- 
man of  the  Toronto  Board  of  Education  sim- 
ply because  she  does  not  happen  to  be  a 
member  of  their  party. 

Mr.  Grande:  I  had  understood  that  the 
Minister  of  Education  had  heard  my  ques- 
tion. However,  obviously  she  did  not.  To 
quote  from  the  interview,  and  I  shall  read 
it  again,  the  question  to  the  chairman  was: 
''How  do  you  raise  the  achievement  levels 
of  immigrant  children  and  children  from 
low  socioeconomic  backgrounds?"  The  an- 
swer: "Well,  I  am  not  so  sure  that  you  can 
because  I  think  genetics  plays  a  very  im- 
portant role." 

Would  the  minister,  as  the  Minister  of 
Education  responsible  for  the  education  of 
children  in  this  entire  province,  use  her 
persuasive  power  to  ask  the  present  chair- 
man of  the  Toronto  Board  of  Education  to 
withdraw  that  remark?  I  did  not  make  any 
statement  about  its  being  racist  or  other- 
wise. I  simply  say  she  should  withdraw  that 
remark  because  it  has  connotations  that  are 
beyond  the  educational  system. 


Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  should  be  pleased 
to  look  at  the  entire  transcript  of  whatever 
interview  there  was.  I  have  not  seen  it. 
However,  I  would  remind  the  member  that 
the  chairman  of  the  Toronto  Board  of  Edu- 
cation is  a  member  of  that  board  duly  elected 
by  the  electorate  of  the  city  of  Toronto, 
responsible  and  accountable  to  the  city  of 
Toronto  and  to  the  electors  who  elected  her. 

It  is  unfortunate  if  anyone  makes  a  re- 
mark that  can  be  taken  out  of  context  and 
used  inappropriately.  I  shall  be  pleased  to 
look  at  that  and  I  am  sure  I  shall  be  having 
conversations  at  some  point  with  the  new 
chairman.  If  there  is  some  way  in  which 
we  can  solve  this  problem,  I  shall  be  pleased 
to  attempt  to  do  so.  However,  I  really  feel 
it  would  be  inappropriate  for  an  elected 
individual  at  one  level  to  tell  an  elected 
individual  at  another  level  what  to  do. 

AUTO  WARRANTIES 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations.  Is  the  honourable  minister 
aware  of  the  fact  that  car  buyers  in  Ontario, 
in  purchasing  extended  warranties,  in  the 
event  of  a  bankruptcy  of  a  company,  do  not 
have  a  protection  of  the  extended  warranty? 
Is  that  a  fact? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  No,  Mr.  Speaker.  This  has 
been  one  of  our  difficulties  with  that  type  of 
protection.  It  is  my  understanding  that  in  the 
event  of  an  insolvency  by  the  parent  com- 
pany, because  they  are  sold  at  the  dealer- 
ships, the  ones  we  have  registered  or  ap- 
proved are  backed  by  a  performance  bond 
that  is  more  than  capable  of  providing  the 
moneys  that  would  have  to  be  spent  if  the 
warranty  had  to  be  used. 

In  the  late  1960s  or  early  1970s,  someone 
started  one  of  these,  the  plan  did  become  in- 
solvent, and  when  many  people  were  re- 
quired to  utilize  their  warranty,  in  other 
words  when  they  had  to  get  repairs,  they 
found  out  there  was  no  money.  Since  that 
time  there  has  been  an  extremely  limited 
application  of  that  type  of  warranty.  We  have 
been  accused  of  being  too  tough,  but  we  do 
want  a  rather  sizeable  performance  bond  to 
protect  against  an  insolvency. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  am  talking  about  something 
very  recent.  Is  the  minister  aware  of  a  bank- 
ruptcy in  Niagara  Falls  where  the  Ford 
Motor  Company  extended  warranty  plan  was 
a  plan  of  that  company  itself  and  the  car 
buyer  does  not  have  the  protection  of  the 
extended  warranty?  I  wonder  if  he  would 
look  into  that  and  see  if  that  extended  war- 


5080 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ranty  does  have  backing  so  the  people  will 
have  coverage? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  I  am 
sorry  I  misunderstood  the  honourable  mem- 
ber. I  thought  he  was  talking  about  some 
companies  that  offer  them  generally.  Yes,  if 
the  member  will  provide  me  with  the  name 
of  the  Ford  dealership  I  will  look  into  it.  I 
would  be  very  surprised  if  any  extended  war- 
ranty granted  by  a  car  dealer  at  point  of  sale 
would  not  be  covered  by  some  of  our  pro- 
tective legislation. 

AID  TO  PENSIONERS 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  Will  the 
honourable  minister  confirm  that  in  order  to 
speed  up  payments  of  senior  citizens'  tax 
grants,  the  ministry  has  suspended  the  com- 
puter check  on  applications  that  was  de- 
signed to  prevent  payments  to  deceased  per- 
sons, to  ineligible  people  and  to  possibly 
fraudulent  applicants,  and  that  no  one  is 
auditing  the  applications  now  before  pay- 
ments are  made?  If  so,  has  the  minister 
checked  with  the  provincial  auditor  regard- 
ing this  procedure? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  I  have  not  checked 
with  the  provincial  auditor.  I  am  not  aware 
of  the  point  the  honourable  member  is 
making.  I  did  not  catch  all  of  the  question; 
I  wonder  if  the  member  could  repeat  it. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Will  the  minister  confirm  that 
in  order  to  speed  up  payments  of  the  senior 
citizens'  tax  grants,  the  ministry  has  sus- 
pended the  computer  check  on  applications, 
a  check  which  was  designed  to  prevent  pay- 
ments to  deceased  persons,  to  ineligible 
people  and  to  possibly  fraudulent  applicants, 
and  no  one  appears  to  be  auditing  these  ap- 
plications? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  will  check  into  that.  I 
am  not  aware  that  is  taking  place. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  ASSESSMENT 
Mr.  Isaacs:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  My  point  of  privilege  is  regarding 
some  information  provided  by  the  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott)  to  this 
House  on  December  1. 

On  December  1,  in  response  to  a  question 
from  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Mr.  S. 
Smith),  the  minister  assured  this  House  he 
would  be  introducing  bills  last  week  to 
amend  the  Environmental  Protection  Act 
'and  other  statutes  to  impose  minimum  fines. 
That  legislation  was  not  tabled  last  week 
as  the  minister  promised.  I  wonder  whether 
he  can  offer  an  explanation. 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  without 
checking  Hansard,  I  think  I  said  "in  the  next 
few  days."  I  will  be  introducing  it  on 
Thursday.  I  have  the  statement  prepared, 
and  the  necessary  material,  and  it  will  be 
here  in  the  House  on  Thursday,  the  next 
sitting  of  this  Legislature. 

Mr.  Ziemba:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  the  Speaker. 

Mr.  Ziemba:  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Ziemba:  I  have  not  seen  you  for  a 
long  time. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  should  know 
that  better  than  most. 

/     QUESTIONS  ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Mr.  Ziemba:  My  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker,  is  that  I  have  a  number  of  ques- 
tions on  the  Order  Paper,  one  dating  back 
to  May  and  several  dated  October  6.  The 
standing  orders  call  for  these  questions  to 
be  answered  within  14  days  or  else  the 
government  ought  to  decline  answering  the 
questions  if  that  is  their  intention.  They 
have  not  done  that.  Can  you  take  the 
necessary  steps  to  see  that  my  questions 
are  answered? 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sure  the  government 
House  leader  has  taken  note  of  the  mem- 
ber's point  of  order  and  will  investigate  it. 

REPORT 

STANDING  COMMITTEE 
ON  PUBLIC  ACCOUNTS 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  from  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  public  accounts  presented  the 
final    report   and   moved   its    adoption. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  my  understanding 
there  is  nothing  to  be  read.  Would  the 
member  like  to  move  the  adjournment  of 
the  debate? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may  be 
allowed,  I  think  this  is  the  most  compre- 
hensive report  of  the  public  accounts  com- 
mittee in  Ontario.  It  has  a  great  deal  of 
interest  in  it  particularly,  I  am  sure,  as  far 
as  the  government  is  concerned.  The  com- 
mittee has  worked  long  and  hard  on  the 
report.  The  basis  of  the  report  really  is 
to  try  to  ensure  some  accountability  and 
responsibility  in  the  financial  administration 
of  the  province. 
3:20  p.m. 

If  I  may,  I  would  like  to  commend  the 
members    of    the    committee    for    the    hard 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5081 


work  they  put  in  and,  particularly,  our 
research  assistant  from  the  Legislative 
Library,  Mrs.  M.  Fletcher,  who  has  done 
an  excellent  job  in  assisting  the  committee. 
On  motion  by  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid,  the  debate 
was  adjourned. 

MOTIONS 

HOUSE  SITTINGS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that,  notwith- 
standing the  previous  order,  the  House  will 
meet    tomorrow,    Wednesday,    at    2    p.m. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  ESTIMATES 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  supple- 
mentary estimates  of  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  be  referred  to  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  resources  development. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  supple- 
mentary estimates  of  the  Office  of  the  As- 
sembly, Office  of  the  Provincial  Auditor  and 
the  Office  of  the  Ombudsman  be  referred, 
in  accordance  with  standing  order  46(a),  to 
the  standing  committee  on  general  govern- 
ment. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

COMMITTEE  MEETINGS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  select  com- 
mittee on  constitutional  reform  be  authorized 
to  sit  the  afternoon  of  Wednesday,  December 
10,  1980. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice  be 
authorized  to  sit  the  afternoon  of  Wednes- 
day, December  10,  1980,  to  consider  Bill  140, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Children's  Law  Reform 
Act,  1977. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


right  to  acquire  the  minerals,  including  peat, 
and  the  peat  might  never  again  be  available 
for  large-scale  exploration  or  development. 

This  bill  amends  the  Mining  Act  by  reserv- 
ing peat  to  the  crown  from  the  staking  of  min- 
ing claims.  This  is  now  done  with  sand,  gravel 
and  other  surface-oriented  natural  resources, 
and  peat  will  then  be  in  the  same  category 
as  them. 

PUBLIC  VEHICLES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Cunningham  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  222,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Public  Vehicles 
Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose 
of  this  bill  is  to  allow  standing  on  school 
buses. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  ASSESSMENT 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Isaacs  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  223, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act,  1975. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
the  bill  is  to  remove  the  authority  of  the 
minister  and  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in 
Council  to  exempt  persons  in  undertakings 
from  the  provisions  of  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act,  1975. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  wish  to  table  the  answers 
to  questions  296,  368,  369,  411,  412,  413, 
415,  416  and  417  standing  on  the  Notice 
Paper.  (See  appendix,  page  5106.) 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  you  have  a  point  of  order? 

Mr.  Stong:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  was  just  an- 
swered. 


INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

MINING  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
221,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Mining  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  under  the  cur- 
rent Mining  Act,  peat  is  considered  to  be  a 
mineral  which  may  be  acquired  by  claim- 
staking.  The  mining  of  peat  as  an  energy 
source  to  be  commercially  viable  will  require 
vast  areas  of  land.  If  this  land  is  acquired  by 
claim-staking,   the   claim   holder   obtains   the 


GOVERNMENT  ADVERTISING 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  point  of 
order:  On  October  14,  25  questions  were 
tabled  on  the  Notice  Paper  with  respect  to 
the  government's  advertising  budget.  We  were 
informed  on  October  20  that  more  time  was 
required  for  this  but  that  the  answer  would 
be  forthcoming  by  November  30.  We  have  not 
heard  anything  except  that  the  advertising 
budget  for  the  senior  citizens'  tax  grant  pro- 
gram, which  was  described  as  not  exceeding 
$650,000,  has  reached  almost  $1  million.  But 
we  have  not  received  any  other  information. 


5082 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Why  have  we  not  got  an  answer  to  that  under 
the  rules? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  will  be  pleased  to  look 
into  it,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  find  out. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  two  little  chores  you 
have  now. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

RETAIL  SALES  TAX 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  187,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  con- 
tains amendments  to  the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Act 
to  implement  the  proposals  in  the  economic 
statement  of  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller) 
on  November  13,  1980.  They  are  aimed  at  in- 
creasing demand  and  providing  support  to 
those  important  sectors  of  our  economy  which 
are  underperforming  at  present. 

First,  to  stimulate  the  residential  construc- 
tion, appliance  and  furnishing  industries, 
which  are  adversely  affected  by  a  depressed 
economy,  a  temporary  exemption  from  retail 
sales  tax  will  be  provided  for  certain  building 
materials,  major  household  appliances  and  res- 
idential furniture.  This  applies  to  materials, 
appliances  and  furnishings  delivered  in  the 
period  November  14,  1980,  to  June  30,  1981. 

Since  the  policy  was  first  announced,  cer- 
tain changes  in  the  scope  of  the  exemptions 
have  been  effected.  For  instance,  the  exemp- 
tion of  bricks,  originally  limited  to  clay  bricks, 
has  been  expanded  to  include  other  types  of 
brick  to  provide  increased  stimulus  to  the 
Ontario  segment  of  this  industry. 

Similarly,  for  purposes  of  the  retail  sales 
tax  and  where  the  charges  are  $250  or  more, 
upholstering  has  been  traditionally  considered 
essentially  the  creation  of  a  new  item.  For 
this  reason,  reupholstery  jobs  costing  $250 
or  more  have  been  included  in  the  exemption 
for  new  household  furniture. 

At  the  same  time,  to  increase  the  effective- 
ness of  the  building  materials  exemption  and 
to  simplify  its  administration,  both  for  dealers 
and  the  public,  end  use  has  been  removed 
as  a  criterion  for  establishing  eligibility. 

Second,  to  ensure  the  continued  growth  of 
the  tourism  industry  in  Ontario  and  to  provide 
assistance  for  the  development  and  improve- 
ment of  tourism  facilities,  the  temporary  ex- 
emptions for  transient  accommodation,  res- 
taurant kitchen  equipment  and  furnishings  for 
hotels  and  restaurants  will  be  extended  an 
additional  nine  months,  to  December  31,  1981. 

The  temporary  sales  tax  rebate  program  for 
light  vans  and  trucks,  also  announced  bv  the 


Treasurer,  does  not  form  part  of  this  par- 
ticular bill.  Like  earlier  rebate  programs  of 
this  nature,  this  will  be  covered  by  way  of 
remission  through  an  order  in  council.  The 
order  will  rebate  to  purchasers  the  retail 
sales  tax  paid  on  eligible  vehicles  delivered 
to  them  between  November  14,  1980,  and 
July  4,  1981,  provided  a  written  contract  of 
purchase  was  entered  into  on  or  before  June 
30,  1981. 

Finally,  I  have  taken  this  opportunity  to 
improve  further  the  administration  of  the  Re- 
tail Sales  Tax  Act  by  extending  the  time  for 
filing  a  notice  of  objection  to  make  it  con- 
sistent with  our  other  taxing  statutes;  at  the 
same  time,  provision  is  being  made  to  extend 
the  time  within  which  a  notice  of  objection 
or  notice  of  appeal  may  be  filed  in  special 
circumstances. 

In  addition  to  the  statement,  I  wish  to 
advise  the  members  of  the  House  that  I  will 
be  moving  an  amendment  in  committee  which 
will  permit  the  minister  to  extend  the  time 
of  delivery  on  certain  articles  that  are  con- 
tained in  the  bill  but  not  in  excess  of  90  days. 
That  amendment  will  be  forthcoming  when 
we  get  into  the  clause-to-clause  debate. 
3:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  ad- 
dress my  remarks  to  the  amendment  to  the 
Retail  Sales  Tax  Act  and  to  inform  the 
minister  we  will  be  supporting  Bill  187, 
which  is  before  us  this  afternoon. 

A  week  ago  both  opposition  parties  in  the 
discussion  on  the  minister's  estimates  ex- 
pressed their  views  in  detail  on  retail  sales 
tax.  At  that  time,  I  suggested  to  the  minister 
that,  although  we  welcomed  the  goal  the 
government  is  trying  to  attain  in  a  depressed 
economy,  perhaps  it  was  a  case  of  too  little 
too  late.  Our  critic  suggested  the  government 
should  have  been  moving  in  this  direction  in 
the  budget  introduced  in  the  House  last 
spring. 

I  suppose  the  end  result  of  the  tax  rebate 
on  building  materials  for  homes  and  apart- 
ments, the  temporary  tax  rebate  program  for 
light  trucks  and  vans  and  the  temporary 
exemptions  for  major  household  appliances 
and  new  household  furniture  will  be  that  by 
the  time  industry  gets  involved  in  new  sales, 
hopefully  created  by  consumers,  we  will  not 
see  the  benefit  of  the  tax  cut  until  next  Sep- 
tember or  perhaps  even  a  year  from  now.  As 
we  are  facing  the  cold  winter  months  in 
Ontario,  it  is  perhaps  a  little  late  to  be  moving 
in  that  direction.  The  government  should 
have  been  moving  in  this  direction  some  nine 
months  ago  to  reduce  the  sales  tax  on  certain 


DECEMBER  9,  19S0 


5083 


items.    Maybe    it    should    have    reduced    the 
tax  across  the  board  as  it  did  in  1975. 

During  consideration  of  his  estimates  I 
mentioned  to  the  minister  that  the  retail 
sales  tax  cut  in  1975  from  seven  per  cent 
to  four  per  cent  generated  sufficient 
revenue  in  corporation  tax  and  personal 
income  tax.  There  is  a  benefit  for  the 
government  by  moving  in  this  area  sooner. 
There  is  not  that  much  of  a  loss  to  the 
Treasurer  in  revenues  generated.  If  we  go 
back  and  look  at  the  budgetary  revenue 
from  the  retail  sales  tax  in  the  past  five  years, 
we  can  see  it  has  almost  doubled,  based 
on  the  estimated  figure  for  1980-81  of  $2.67 
billion.  That  is  an  increase  of  about  20 
per   cent  per   year   in  a   five-year   period. 

If  we  look  at  the  $260  million  the  gov- 
ernment says  it  is  going  to  lose  by  remov- 
ing the  sales  tax  on  specific  manufactured 
items,  it  amounts  to  about  10  per  cent  of 
what  the  normal  increase  would  be  in 
every  year  on  the  basis  of  a  20  per  cent 
increase.  Actually,  the  government  is  not 
losing  that  much.  I  suppose  there  could  be 
a  gain  in  corporation  tax  and  in  personal 
income  tax.  The  Liberal  Party  has  suggested 
that,  to  generate  the  economy  and  to  get 
the  confidence  of  the  consumer,  the  govern- 
ment should  perhaps  look  at  income  tax  cuts 
across  the  board.  In  the  long  run,  that  will 
put  more  money  into  the  economy  to  keep 
it  going. 

In  the  United  States  the  President-elect 
was  elected  because  he  said:  "Look  what 
I  did  in  the  state  of  California.  I  removed 
a  deficit  there  of  $160  million  in  one  year." 
People  thought  that  was  great  and  that  he 
would  perhaps  get  the  economy  rolling  in 
the  United  States.  If  we  look  at  the  gov- 
ernment's track  record  here  in  Ontario  in 
respect  of  revenue  generated  through  sales 
tax  and  income  tax,  it  is  not  that  good. 
Year  by  year  it  has  had  deficit  spending. 
I  think  1970  was  the  last  year  there  was  a 
surplus.  That  was  rather  a  good  year  for 
the  province.  I  think  there  was  a  surplus 
of  about  $150  million. 

If  the  minister  will  look  at  the  record, 
at  the  budgetary  transaction  of  revenue  alone 
—this  is  taken  from  the  Ontario  budget— in 
1969-70  there  was  a  surplus  of  $150  million. 
The  minister  has  had  a  deficit  as  high  as 
$1.48  billion,  and  it  has  continued  over  the 
years.  Yet  the  revenues  have  increased 
almost  300  per  cent. 

I  suggest  to  the  minister  there  is  suffi- 
cient revenue  that  can  be  generated  in 
other  areas,  not  by  temporary  measures  but 
by     bringing    in     an     employment    strategy 


that  would  continue  with  employment  on 
the  upswing  in  Ontario.  I  question  whether 
this  is   going  to  create   any  new  jobs. 

The  Treasurer  suggested  there  is  another 
$750  million  in  his  mini-budget  that  is 
going  to  create  a  number  of  job  oppor- 
tunities in  Ontario  through  an  employment 
development  period.  If  one  looks  at  that 
over  a  period  of  five  years,  the  minister  is 
actually  not  giving  the  economy  the  lift 
that  is  required.  I  suppose  the  minister  is 
looking  at  about  $100  million  in  the  long 
run. 

I  want  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the 
minister  that,  in  1978,  a  study  by  the  Federal 
Department  of  Industry,  Trade  and  Com- 
merce found  that  the  sales  tax  cut  on  foot- 
wear, furniture  and  textiles  in  Quebec  had  a 
similar  effect.  All  it  did  was  change  the 
timing.  That  is  all  the  minister  is  doing  now. 
He  is  really  not  adding  new  life  to  stimulate 
the  economy  in  Ontario,  to  create  the  jobs  we 
are  looking  for. 

All  he  is  doing  is  changing  the  timing. 
Perhaps  the  timing  will  be  that  we  will  get 
the  impact  of  this  some  time  next  summer, 
in  June  or  July,  or  maybe  just  in  time  for  the 
spring  election. 

We  saw  one  of  the  largest  deficits  ever  in 
the  history  of  the  province  in  1975.  It  was 
a  pre-election  giveaway. 

The  first-time  home  buyers  grant  was  a 
good  program  when  it  was  implemented,  I 
suppose,  but  it  encouraged  many  persons  to 
buy  property  they  could  not  well  afford.  The 
question  is,  was  any  monitoring  done  of  the 
pass-through? 

When  the  $1,500  was  given,  the  price  of 
real  estate  went  up.  Actually,  the  pass-through 
did  not  go  to  the  person  who  bought  the 
property.  The  same  thing  applies  now.  What 
monitoring  is  going  to  be  done  to  see  that 
the  sales  tax  rebate  is  passed  on  to  the  con- 
sumer? 

This  is  one  of  the  things  I  fail  to  grasp. 
When  a  sales  tax  rebate  is  given  by  this  gov- 
ernment in  certain  years,  one  cannot  see  the 
pass-through  being  given  to  the  consumer 
without  proper  monitoring  being  done. 

I  can  listen  to  commercials  on  local  radio 
stations  where  the  furniture  industry  adver- 
tises that,  whatever  one  purchases,  it  will 
write  off  the  sales  tax.  I  understand  some 
furniture  stores  have  already  gone  through 
that  and  now  they  have  had  to  give  almost 
14  per  cent.  Is  it  fair  to  say  even  to  the  in- 
dustry that  it  might  have  to  absorb  some  of 
the  additional  cost  of  this? 

The  minister  shakes  his  head  and  says  no. 
All  I  am  suggesting  to  the  minister  is  thaty 


5084 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


when  he  has  these  temporary  sales  tax  cuts, 
there  should  be  some  monitoring  done  by 
the  government  or  his  ministry  to  make  sure 
the  pass-through  goes  through. 

3:40  p.m. 

The  theme  of  the  mini-budget— and  it  was 
stressed— is  that  people  should  buy  Canadian. 
I  have  mentioned  to  the  minister  before  in 
his  estimates  that,  if  one  wants  to  buy  some 
light  trucks,  all  the  components  are  not  made 
here  in  Canada.  Some  are  even  made  in 
Mexico,  depending  on  what  people  want. 
How  is  the  Treasurer  going  to  get  the  public 
in  Ontario  to  buy  Canadian  if,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  about  60  per  cent  of  the  goods,  even 
the  furniture  purchased  in  Ontario,  are  not 
made  in  Ontario?  Some  of  it  is  not  even 
made  in  Canada.  The  same  thing  applies  to 
automobiles.  I  suggest  the  minister  may  run 
into  difficulties  there. 

I  have  spoken  before  on  this  topic,  but  I 
think  the  whole  problem  is  not  in  sales  tax 
cuts  but  in  the  high  interest  rates  in  the  prov- 
ince and  throughout  Canada  and  the  United 
States.  I  was  looking  at  the  automobile  in- 
dustry in  the  United  States.  The  chairman  of 
the  Chrysler  Corporation  says  the  interest 
rates  put  Chrysler  in  reverse.  If  some  help  is 
not  given  to  them  in  controlling  the  interest 
rates  in  the  United  States,  we  are  going  to 
have  some  of  the  pass-through  here.  The 
Chrysler  Corporation  is  going  down,  and 
perhaps  even  Ford  will  go  down.  There  is 
that  whole  problem  in  the  United  States.  We 
seem  to  look  to  the  United  States  and  think 
that,  hopefully,  their  economy  is  going  to  be 
on  the  upswing  and  we  are  going  to  get  some 
of  the  benefits  in  Ontario. 

If  the  interest  rates  continue  to  be  as 
high  as  they  are,  and  they  seem  to  be  going 
higher,  I  just  do  not  think  the  minister  is 
going  to  have  the  confidence  of  the  con- 
sumers to  go  out  and  buy  goods  today. 
Because  of  this  amendment  to  the  retail 
sales  tax  in  the  mini-budget,  I  do  not  think 
we  are  going  to  see  the  economy  going  up 
in  Ontario  as  it  should.  The  simple  reason 
is  people  just  cannot  afford  the  high  interest 
rates.  Until  this  government  and  the  federal 
government  sit  down  at  the  bargaining  table 
and  come  to  their  senses  to  control  those 
interest  rates  in  some  manner,  we  are  not 
going  to  be  moving  ahead  in  Ontario.  I 
suggest  that  high  interest  rates  are  the 
cause  of  our  problem  today. 

Until  the  minister  can  gain  the  confidence 
of  the  consumers,  they  are  not  going  to  be 
buying  things  because  they  have  been  given 
the    sales    tax    cutback    here    and    in    some 


other  areas.  This  is  the  whole  problem.  A 
young  married  couple  going  to  buy  furni- 
ture will  not  be  paying  cash  for  it.  They 
have  to  go  out  and  borrow,  and  they  are 
looking  at  15,  16  to  24  per  cent  interest  on 
borrowed    money    to    purchase   those   goods. 

I  suggest  both  the  federal  and  provincial 
governments  should  be  moving  in  this  area 
to  control  the  interest  rates  and  bring  them 
down  to  a  level  where  everybody  is  going 
to  be  treated  alike.  I  am  sure  we  would 
see  the  economy  moving  forward  then.  Until 
some  action  is  taken  by  this  government 
jointly  with  the  federal  government  and 
perhaps  all  nine  provinces,  I  think  we  are 
going  to  see  the  economy  at  almost  a 
stalemate.  We  are  not  going  to  see  the  job 
creation  that  it  was  hoped  this  mini-budget 
and  the  retail  sales  tax  rebate  would  bring 
about,  nor  will  we  maintain  the  present 
employment  in  Ontario. 

The  minister  has  made  substantial  gains 
over  the  years  in  sales  tax.  It  has  been 
increased  considerably  through  people 
buying,  through  the  consumers  having  con- 
fidence in  purchasing  and  in  the  economy 
of  Ontario.  As  I  said  before,  the  consumers 
are  the  heroes  if  the  minister  wants  an 
upswing  in  the  economy  that  is  going  to 
create  employment,  provided  he  is  not  ham- 
strung by  having  high  interest  rates;  unless 
he  gains  their  confidence,  I  do  not  think 
this  budget  or  this  sales  tax  cut  is  going  to 
have  the  impact  it  is  supposed  to  have. 

We  will  support  it,  and  I  understand 
the  minister  will  be  moving  an  amendment 
related  to  the  exemption  on  furniture  sales. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Delivery  date. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Delivery  date;  that  is  right. 
I  look  forward  to  hearing  that  amendment, 
and  I  am  sure  we  will  be  supporting  it 
from  this  side. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  is  an 
implementation  of  the  sales  tax  cuts  in  the 
mini-budget.  It  is  part  of  the  Treasurer's 
so-called  package  to  stimulate  the  Ontario 
economy  which  he  brought  in  this  fall. 
Certainly  he  pinpointed  the  need  for  stimu- 
lation in  that  mini-budget.  I  would  just  like 
to  quote  one  paragraph  in  his  budget 
statement: 

"The  bottom  line  is  that  labour  force 
growth  has  outstripped  job  creation.  The 
seasonally  adjusted  unemployment  rate  has 
increased    from   6.2   per   cent   in   September 

1979  to  6.7  per  cent  in  September  this 
year.   In  fact,  over  the  first  nine  months  of 

1980  the  unemployment  rate  has  averaged 
seven    per    cent.    This    is    an    unacceptably 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5085 


high  level  of  economic  hardship  and  lost 
potential." 

The  Treasurer  recognized  that  we  needed 
stimulation.  In  ihis  total  stimulative  package 
there  is  claimed  to  be  $1  billion.  It  sounds 
big.  But  only  $360  million,  a  little  more 
than  a  third,  is  to  be  provided  in  the 
next  16^  months.  The  rest  is  a  collection 
of  vague  five-year  plans  with  no  timetable. 
Of  that  $360  million,  $260  million  is  in  the 
form  of  retail  sales  tax  cuts  and  rebates. 
The  balance  is  made  up  of  $75  million  for 
"new  structural  initiatives"— which  I  call 
typical  Treasurer's  gobbledegook;  it  does 
not  tell  us  anything— $20  million  for  cutting 
rural  Hydro  rates,  because  Hydro  refused 
to  do  so,  and  a  puny  $5  million  to  increase 
the  production  of  wood  fibre  in  central 
Ontario. 

In  this  bill,  we  are  looking  at  the  bulk 
of  the  minister's  stimulative  package.  I  say 
it  is  a  pretty  poor  effort.  It  is  a  popgun 
attack  on  the  problem  of  what  he  calls,  and 
I  agree,  an  unacceptable  level  of  unemploy- 
ment. We  know  the  reason  why  there  is  so 
little  in  his  package.  It  is  his  reluctance  to 
add  to  expenditures  or  cut  revenues  because 
of  the  overblown  deficit  this  government  has 
built  up.  The  deficit  is  a  result  of  its  huge 
handouts  to  the  pulp  and  paper  industry  and 
other  industries;  its  waste,  like  the  Minaki 
Lodge  sinkhole,  which  it  keeps  ploughing 
money  into;  high  unemployment  costs;  and 
rising  social  and  health  costs.  Many  of  these 
latter  are  due  to  lack  of  preventive  programs 
which  could  be  financed  if  they  did  not 
have  this  overblown  deficit  and  handouts  to 
industries  and  other  expenditures. 

What  is  more,  like  most  stimulative  poli- 
cies of  the  Tories  it  is  a  stab  in  the  dark. 
I  understand  the  Treasurer  did  not  ask  the 
Minister  of  Revenue  for  any  real  analysis 
of  the  impact  of  these  exemptions  and  re- 
bates on  the  economy.  There  was  no  esti- 
mate made  by  either  ministry  of  the  number 
of  jobs  that  would  be  created  by  these 
measures.  There  was  no  monitoring  of  past 
sales  tax  cuts,  although  we  have  not  had 
one  exactly  in  this  form.  This  is  a  stimulative 
package  with  no  estimate  of  its  impact  ex- 
cept possibly  an  estimate  of  its  impact  on 
the  voters  in  Carleton  riding  in  Ottawa.  That 
seems  to  have  been  the  main  reason  why 
the  mini-budget  was  thrown  together  rather 
hastily  without  this  kind  of  study  and 
brought  down  in  November. 

Briefly,  this  bill,  as  the  minister  has  ex- 
plained, provides  for  a  rebate  of  seven  per 
cent  sales  tax  on  vans  and  light  trucks  with 
a  limit  of  $700.  It  also  provides  for  the  re- 


moval of  sales  tax  from  new  residential  fur- 
niture but  with  specific  exclusions  prescribed 
by  the  minister.  It  provides  for  the  removal 
of  the  seven  per  cent  sales  tax  from  new 
major  home  appliances,  again  with  the  min- 
ister being  given  the  power  to  prescribe 
specific  exclusions  from  the  list  of  appliances. 
Finally,  it  provides  for  removal  of"  the  seven 
per  cent  sales  tax  from  building  materials 
for  homes  and  apartments,  but  with  the 
minister  being  given  the  power  to  define 
what  building  materials  are  eligible. 
3:50  p.m. 

The  bill  also  includes  the  extension  of  the 
temporary  sales  tax  exemption  to  the  hos- 
pitality industry  from  March  31,  1981,  to 
December  31,  1981.  I  question  whether  this 
particular  exemption  was  ever  passed  on  to 
the  customers  in  hotels  and  restaurants  or 
whether  a  great  deal  of  it  was  not  just 
financing  the  overbuilding  of  hotels,  particu- 
larly in  the  large  urban  centres.  I  can  see 
some  justification  for  helping  that  part  of  the 
hospitality  industry  that  is  seasonal,  that 
caters  to  the  tourist  industry  and  operates 
on  a  fairly  short  year,  but  I  question  why 
large  hotels,  which  seem  to  be  continually 
raising  their  room  rates,  should  get  a  tax 
reduction  and  the  customer  get  no  benefit 
from  it. 

We  in  this  party  have  decided  to  support 
this  bill  because  we  do  favour  any  reduction 
in  what  is  basically  a  regressive  tax  and 
we  do  admit  we  need  stimulation  at  this 
time.  We  would  have  liked  to  see  a  good 
deal  more  stimulation  in  the  mini-budget 
and  a  greater  attempt  to  place  less  em- 
phasis on  commodity  taxes  in  our  tax  struc- 
ture and  more  on  progressive  taxes  like 
corporations  and  income  taxes.  We  would 
have  liked  to  see  more  stimulation  generally 
of  other  kinds  in  the  mini-budget  as  well. 

We  have  some  reservations  about  the  form 
in  which  these  tax  cuts  are  being  provided. 
We  are  concerned  they  will  benefit  the  rich 
mainly,  since  they  have  the  purchasing 
power.  There  is  no  ceiling  on  the  size  of  the 
purchase  except  on  vans  and  trucks,  and  the 
ceiling  there  is  $10,000.  There  is  very  little 
in  this  bill  for  those  with  low  purchasing 
power  and  very  little  to  make  the  sales  tax 
less  regressive.  It  might  have  been  more 
palatable  if  it  had  included  some  provisions 
that  might  have  benefited  a  larger  segment 
of  the  people  of  Ontario  and  if  it  had  in- 
cluded some  cuts  that  would  specifically 
benefit  those  on  low  incomes. 

For  example,  the  temporary  exemptions 
could  have  been  extended  to  footwear  cost- 
ing more  than  $30.  Shoes  costing  $30  or  less 


5086 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


now  are  exempt.  This  price  ceiling  came  into 
effect  in  1974,  and  since  then  inflation  has 
rendered  it  less  effective  as  a  measure  to 
reduce  regressivity.  I  might  point  out  that 
the  Maritime  provinces  exempt  all  footwear 
and  Quebec  exempts  shoes  costing  up  to 
$100. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  hon- 
ourable member  would  revert  to  what  is  in 
the  bill. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  things 
like  that  could  have  been  in  this  bill  to  make 
it  more  acceptable.  I  might  point  out  that 
the  minister  does  have  power,  under  the 
regulations,  to  change  the  ceiling  on  shoes 
any  time  he  likes.  We  have  urged  him  to  use 
this  power  on  many  occasions,  but  he  and 
the  Treasurer  prefer  to  squeeze  money  from 
hard-pressed  parents  and  all  low-income 
earners  who  cannot  do  without  shoes. 

Another  small  concession  that  could  have 
been  made  in  the  exemptions  provided,  and 
would  have  helped  those  with  low  purchas- 
ing power,  would  have  been  to  include  used 
furniture  in  the  exemption  given  to  residential 
furniture.  In  effect,  this  bill  discriminates 
against  people  who  cannot  afford  new  furni- 
ture and  have  to  settle  for  secondhand.  They 
get  no  tax  saving.  They  get  no  benefit  from 
the  Treasurer's  generosity,  his  Santa  Claus 
bill.  He  missed  their  chimneys.  If  the  bill 
had  given  them  an  exemption,  I  am  sure  they 
would  have  spent  the  saving  on  other  pur- 
chases in  Ontario,  thus  stimulating  the  econ- 
omy. 

I  might  also  point  out  that  the  failure  to 
include  used  furniture  means  the  bill  also 
discriminates  against  used  furniture  dealers. 
They  will  have  to  sell  furniture  with  full  tax 
and  will  be  competing  with  the  big  depart- 
ment stores  selling  tax-free  goods.  I  thought 
this  government  supported  small  businesses, 
but  it  is  making  it  more  difficult  for  them  to 
survive  by  this  legislation.  There  are  other 
omissions  which  we  would  have  liked  to  have 
seen  in  there. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order.  The  honour- 
able member  is  certainly  straying  from  what 
is  in  the  bill.  I  wonder  if  she  could  contain 
her  remarks  to  that. 

Ms.  Bryden:  I  am  coming  to  the  actual 
exemptions  very  shortly.  There  is  one  dis- 
crimination on  which  I  think  all  members  of 
the  Legislature  received  a  letter.  Building 
materials  are  defined  to  cover  clay  bricks. 
The  definition  does  not  include  concrete 
blocks  and  bricks.  It  seems  to  me  the  minister 
has  power  under  this  bill  to  define  building 
materials.  I  urge  him  to  use  that  power  under 


this  bill  to  include  the  concrete  block  in- 
dustry. This  block  is  used  in  many  residences 
and  is  being  accepted  more  widely.  He  is 
discriminating  against  that  particular  industry 
which,  I  understand,  employs  about  1,500 
people. 

I  may  say  I  am  rather  disturbed  by  the 
sweeping  powers  this  bill  gives  to  the  minister 
to  define  what  is  eligible  for  the  tax  exemp- 
tion. In  the  case  of  building  materials,  he 
can  say  what  is  in  it.  In  the  case  of  other 
furniture  and  appliances,  he  can  say  what 
is  not  covered.  That  certainly  enables  him  to 
pretty  well  write  the  tax  bill  as  he  wishes. 
I  would  think  this  Legislature  should  have 
more  say  in  what  exactly  we  are  exempting. 
We  know  the  old  phrase,  "no  taxation  with- 
out representation."  Actually,  this  bill  gives 
the  minister  the  power  to  impose  whatever 
model  of  taxation  he  likes  in  those  three 
fields  by  the  very  extensive  powers  given 
to  him. 

I  might  also  point  out  there  is  still  time 
for  the  minister  to  bring  in  amendments  to 
adopt  some  of  the  suggestions  I  have  made 
regarding  items  that  have  been  omitted.  I 
am  hoping  the  minister  will  do  so. 

Another  point  that  worries  us  considerably 
on  this  side  is  whether  retailers  will  not  just 
raise  prices  by  seven  per  cent  in  the  next 
few  months  and,  in  effect,  pocket  the  tax 
saving. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  What  does  the  member 
suggest  I  do  about  that? 

Ms.  Bryden:  The  bill  may  simply  be  a  wel- 
fare grant  to  the  big  department  stores.  Of 
course,  if  we  had  a  prices  review  board,  as 
this  party  has  been  urging  for  many  years,  this 
kind  of  blatant  profiteering  would  be  exposed 
and  stopped.  Under  this  bill  there  is  no 
machinery  to  stop  it.  The  consumer  has  no 
protection  against  price  rises  which  may  or 
may  not  be  justified. 

I  would  also  like  to  have  seen  in  the  bill  a 
clause  making  it  mandatory  for  the  ministry 
to  undertake  a  monitoring  and  study  program 
during  and  after  the  period  of  the  exemptions 
and  rebates.  We  would  then  be  able  to  assess 
the  impact  of  this  kind  of  measure  on  the 
economy.  We  would  also  find  out  what  kind 
of  purchases  were  stimulated  by  it.  We  would 
find  out  what  was  the  median  tax  saving  for 
different  classes  of  goods.  This  would  tell  us 
whether  it  was  the  very  high-priced  purchases 
that  were  benefiting  most  from  the  applica- 
tion of  this  bill.  We  would  also  know  for 
future  reference  what  kind  of  temporary  or 
permanent  reductions  in  tax  were  useful  and 
which  ones  were  counterproductive  or  dis- 
criminatory. 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5087 


I  note  the  minister  is  bringing  in  an  amend- 
ment to  give  him  the  power  to  extend  the 
delivery  date  on  furniture,  building  materials 
and  appliances  purchased  up  to  June  30, 
1981,  because  of  possible  difficulties  in  the 
store  of  actually  achieving  delivery  by  that 
date,  even  though  the  purchase  may  have  been 
made  a  considerable  time  before  that  date. 
4  p.m. 

I  can  recognize  there  are  problems  there. 
The  problems  vary  greatly  between  the  dif- 
ferent items  that  will  be  exempt  from  tax. 
It  does  create  a  considerable  problem.  I  am 
prepared  to  accept  the  minister's  proposal 
that  he  be  given  90  days  as  a  period  he  may 
allow  for  delivery.  However,  I  hope  he  will 
keep  the  period  as  short  as  possible  so  we  do 
not  allow  people  to  buy  on  June  30  with 
the  expectation  they  will  get  the  sales  tax 
rebate  sometime  on  merchandise  they  may 
not  have  to  pay  for  until  way  on  in  the 
future. 

That  would  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  bill, 
although  it  is  quite  possible  we  will  need 
stimulation  for  a  good  period  beyond  June 
30.  I  think  that  date  was  selected  for  election 
purposes.  I  am  not  too  enthusiastic  about  the 
minister  having  the  power  to  choose  all  the 
periods  of  exemption  he  will  allow  for  the 
different  items.  I  am  sure  he  will  be  under 
a  great  pressure  from  most  manufacturers 
and  retailers. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  It  was  just  in  case  they 
had  to  hold  the  election  in  the  fall. 

Ms.  Bryden:  That  may  be  the  reason. 
It  certainly  is  giving  the  minister  consider- 
able power.  But  I  would  not  like  customers 
to  be  done  out  of  the  sales  tax  rebates  be- 
cause the  store  could  not  deliver  a  different 
colour  or  a  slightly  different  model  that 
was  not  on  the  floor  at  the  time  the  customer 
made  the  purchase.  It  would  not  really 
have  been  the  customer's  fault  that  he 
could  not  get  delivery  immediately. 

The  minister  proposes  in  his  amendment 
that  this  power  will  be  applied  to  all  three 
categories  of  goods  which  are  eligible  for 
the  exemption.  I  do  have  serious  reservations 
about  extending  it  to  the  building  materials 
category.  The  'building  materials  will  be 
largely  bought,  I  would  think,  by  developers 
who  may  be  using  this  saving  to  build  some 
much-needed  housing.  But  I  am  just  a  little 
afraid  they  may  place  huge  orders  on  June 
30  for  a  year's  supply  of  building  materials 
and  they  will  be  given  the  maximum  90 
days  to  take  delivery  on  those.  We  may 
have  a  real  excess  use  of  the  exemption  by 
developers.  I  think  this  exemption  was  in- 
tended   mainly    for    home    renovators    and 


people  building  individual  homes.  I  do  not 
know  that  it  should  be  considered  a  bonanza 
for  developers. 

I  am  proposing  the  amendment  be 
changed  to  delete  the  building  materials 
from  the  power  to  change  the  delivery  date 
and  that  the  minister's  power  be  confined 
to   appliances   and  residential  furniture. 

I  feel  this  bill  is  not  sufficient  as  a  stimu- 
lative measure.  We  would  like  to  have  seen 
other  kinds  of  stimulative  measures  besides 
tax  cuts  in  the  retail  field  in  the  mini- 
budget.  I  feel  it  does  very  little  to  make 
this  a  less  regressive  tax.  It  is  mainly 
tinkering  and  not  a  real  restructuring  of  our 
tax  system.  That  is  really  what  is  needed 
and  that  is  what  we  in  this  party  would 
be  advocating. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  only 
one  point  I  wish  to  raise  with  respect  to 
this  bill.  I  did  not  hear  the  initial  remarks 
of  the  Minister  of  Revenue  as  he  brought 
the  bill  before  us,  but  from  the  comments 
that  were  made  I  presume  he  is  still  giving 
some  consideration  to  the  concrete  block 
problem  that  a  number  of  members  had 
brought  to  his  attention. 

■I  recall  the  information  we  all  received 
and  the  points  that  were  raised  in  so  far 
as  the  Treasurer  was  concerned  with  respect 
to  the  stimulation,  to  some  extent,  of  the  use 
of  the  products  made  by  the  various  mem- 
bers of  the  Ontario  Concrete  Block  Associ- 
ation. Can  the  minister,  in  his  response, 
advise  us  whether  he  has  been  able  to  sort 
out  those  particular  concerns  so  that  a  more 
precise  definition  of  the  building  materials 
opportunity  will  or  will  not  be  able  to  be 
accommodated?  I  think  it  would  be  worth- 
while for  us  to  know  just  what  may  be 
able  to  be  done,  recognizing,  of  course,  that 
the  various  costs  of  these  component  parts 
all  have  to  be  considered  within  the  total 
moneys  available  that  the  Treasurer  has 
been  prepared  to  forgo  with  respect  to  tax. 

There  are  other  items,  some  of  which 
have  been  mentioned  this  afternoon,  which 
might  or  might  not  have  been  included.  I 
recognize  that  the  impact  on  the  economy 
has  to  be  weighed  one  way  or  the  other  to 
attempt  to  accommodate  the  purposes  the 
Treasurer  has  been  prepared  to  except  as 
he  raises  a  lesser  amount  of  sales  tax  for  the 
variety  of  reasons  set  out  in  the  additional 
budgetary  message,  which  I  recall  was  on 
November  13.  If  the  minister  can  respond 
as  to  whether  this  is  able  to  be  dealt  with 
or  what  his  expectations  may  be,  I  think 
it  would  be  helpful  for  us  as  we  reply  to 
the  letters  we  have  received. 


5088 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
couple  of  points  to  raise.  One  concern  is  that 
people  have  entered  into  contracts  for  re- 
furbishing of  homes,  buildings,  et  cetera. 
When  the  final  price  on  the  contract  was 
decided,  the  sales  tax  was  in  place.  Now  they 
are  concerned  about  the  fact  that  when  the 
builder  or  contractor  goes  ahead,  he  certainly 
will  not  pass  on  the  seven  per  cent  reduction 
for  which  the  customer  was  charged  before. 
There  does  not  appear  to  be  anything  within 
the  legislation  to  ensure  that  this  money  is 
passed  on  to  the  consumer  through  the  builder 
or  contractor  to  ensure  that  the  people  benefit 
from  the  tax  measure. 

The  other  matter  that  was  brought  to  my 
attention  is  the  matter  of  the  vans  that  could 
be  sold.  As  I  understand  it,  if  one  buys  a  pick- 
up truck  or  a  van  it  is  exempt  from  the  tax 
measure.  But  some  manufacturers  of  these 
camper  vans  are  a  little  apprehensive  about 
the  fact  that  if  a  person  buys  a  truck  and 
then  wishes  to  buy  the  camper  top  separately 
by  himself,  he  does  not  get  the  benefit  of 
the  seven  per  cent  tax  exemption.  I  am  not 
sure  if  that  is  the  case  but,  if  not,  I  think, 
in  all  fairness,  if  that  camper  top  was  on  the 
truck  when  it  was  originally  sold  then  the 
seven  per  cent  benefit  would  accrue  to  the 
buyer.  However,  if  the  person  wishes  to 
buy  it  separately,  or  in  some  cases  have  it 
mounted  by  himself,  he  is  not  entitled  to  the 
seven  per  cent. 

It  seems  to  me  this  should  be  considered 
because  it  still  answers  to  the  intent  of  the 
bill  to  stimulate  some  employment  and  manu- 
facturing activity.  This  is  exactly  what  it 
would  do,  except  that  the  consumer  would 
probably  find  it  cheaper  to  put  on  his  own 
van  or  modify  it  to  some  extent.  I  think  he 
should  be  allowed  the  privilege  of  buying  it, 
the  same  as  the  dealer  or  the  original  manu- 
facturer does  when  he  puts  it  on  and  sells 
it.  He  gets  the  advantage,  whereas  the  person 
who  buys  it  separately  does  not  get  the 
seven  per  cent  advantage.  I  hope  the  minister 
will  address  himself  to  that  problem.  I  will 
be  awaiting  his  reply  on  those  two  questions. 
4:10  p.m. 

Mr.  McKessock:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  impor- 
tant when  any  act  comes  into  place  that  it  is 
as  fair  as  possible  to  as  many  as  possible. 
I  was  pleased  to  see  building  materials  in- 
cluded as  exemptions  from  the  seven  per  cent 
tax,  but  I  was  concerned  about  the  way  we 
were  notified  as  to  what  was  eligible  and 
what  was  not.  It  was  vague  as  to  what  was 
eligible.  We  finally  received  word  that  mate- 
rials for  farm  construction  were  eligible. 


I  am  also  concerned  about  concrete  blocks 
and  cement.  Surely  somebody  within  the 
ministry  is  aware  all  buildings  start  with 
a  concrete  foundation  or  concrete  block  wall. 
I  am  not  sure  whether  that  is  included,  but 
I  would  like  the  minister  to  advise  me  and, 
if  it  is  not,  I  would  like  to  know  why  not. 

The  pamphlet  giving  information  on  what 
is  eligible  for  rebate  talks  about  siding  but 
does  not  say  steel  siding  or  steel  roofing  is  in- 
cluded. Steel  is  a  necessary  part  of  building 
materials.  Steel  should  be  included  as  well 
as  concrete  blocks.  It  seems  to  discriminate 
against  some  manufacturers  while  favouring 
others.  The  concrete  block  industry  is  quite 
concerned  that  other  blocks,  clay  bricks,  I 
believe,  have  been  given  it  I  will  await  the 
minister's  response  and,  if  these  materials  are 
not  now  covered,  hopefully  he  will  see  fit  to 
include  them  with  the  other  items  listed  for 
the  seven  per  cent  exemption. 

I  do  not  share  the  concern  of  the  former 
speaker  from  the  New  Democratic  Party 
pertaining  to  the  fact  that  builders  may  store 
up  a  year's  supply  at  the  end  of  June.  I  am 
sure  they  are  not  going  to  bring  in  a  year's 
supply  of  material  for  a  seven  per  cent  saving 
and  turn  around  and  pay  17  or  18  per  cent 
interest  on  it. 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker.  I  rise  to  speak  in 
qualified  support  of  the  bill.  Like  my  other 
colleagues,  I  have  some  reservations  about 
the  whole  concept  and  principle  of  the  sales 
tax.  It  strikes  me  it  would  be  far  more  equit- 
able to  place  a  greater  reliance  on  the  in- 
come tax  than  the  sales  tax.  If  you  look  at 
history,  every  time  a  sales  tax  cut  is  intro- 
duced it  is  always  increased  in  the  succeed- 
ing 10  years.  In  this  case  it  is  used  as  a 
political  football  as  well. 

Mr.  Speaker,  with  your  keen  historical 
perspective,  I  know  you  will  afford  me  a 
brief  opportunity  to  look  at  the  recent  his- 
tory of  sales  taxes  in  this  province.  We  can 
start  in  1975  with  the  famous  home  buyers' 
grant,  the  famous  $1,500  bribe  to  the  people 
of  Ontario  to  buy  a  house.  At  the  same  time 
there  was  the  rebate  on  new  cars  under  Lord 
Darcy  McKeough.  Most  people  realize  that 
combination  of  programs  was  geared  purely 
to  the  1975  fall  election.  It  was  used  as  an 
outright  election  bribe  to  try  to  get  people 
to  vote  Tory.  Fortunately,  it  did  not  work. 
We  had  a  minority  government. 

In  the  case  of  the  home  buyers'  grant,  if 
I  am  not  mistaken,  the  standing  committee 
on  public  accounts  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  somewhere  between  $11  million  and  $14 
million  was  given  to  people  who  were  not 
eligible  or  deserving  of  the  grant  in  the  first 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5089 


place.  Obviously  it  served'  the  government's 
purpose,  because  it  was  all  done  during  the 
election  and  it  hoped  to  recoup  all  the  bene- 
fits from  it. 

In  1978,  we  had  a  joint  program  between 
the  feds  and  the  province  to  reduce  the  sales 
tax  from  seven  per  cent  to  three  per  cent  for 
six  months.  Obviously  that  had  some  mixed 
results.  There  was  a  short-term  stimulus,  but 
I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  with  every  one  of 
these  programs  there  is  no  real  proof  over 
the  space  of  one  year  that  there  was  any 
substantial  increase  in  production  or  sales  of 
any  good  or  product.  I  suspect  the  govern- 
ment has  studies  that  indicate  such.  All  it 
means  is  people  will  buy  things  in  the  fall 
as  opposed  to  the  spring,  but  the  overall 
production  and  sale  of  any  particular  item  is 
not  substantially  affected  at  all  by  these 
types  of  programs.  I  would  challenge  the 
minister,  if  he  has  any  study  that  proves  the 
contrary  in  the  last  five  years  in  this  prov- 
ince or  any  other  jurisdiction  in  Canada  to 
bring  it  forward. 

Earlier  this  year  they  came  out  with  an- 
other sales  tax  rebate  on  cars.  This  one  was 
to  help  the  car  dealers  to  get  rid  of  1979 
models  which  were  still  on  the  lot.  That 
scheme  was  an  incredible  program  and  was 
restricted  to  30  days.  There  was  not  even  a 
specification  as  to  its  being  restricted  to  cars 
built  in  North  America.  People  could  go  to 
a  car  dealer  in  Toronto  and  buy  a  Lada  made 
in  the  Soviet  Union  and  get  the  sales  tax 
rebate.  They  could  buy  a  Toyota,  Honda, 
Datsun,  Volkswagen,  Renault,  Subaru.  Mazda 
or  Fiat— you  name  it— and  they  got  the  same 
rebate  as  somebody  buying  a  car  made  in 
Oakville  or  in  Oshawa. 

Surely  the  purpose  of  the  program,  first  of 
all,  was  to  stimulate  jobs  and  production  here 
in  Canada  and,  secondly,  for  the  North 
American  auto  industry,  but  the  boys  over 
in  Russia  benefited  from  it,  and  people  in 
Europe  and  Japan  benefited  from  it.  The 
people  of  Ontario  were  the  ones  who  were 
subsidizing  them,  which  was  an  absolutely 
incredible  situation. 

Now  we  have  the  latest  instalment  in  this 
long  record  of  gimmickry.  We  saw  an  elec- 
tion looming  this  fall  at  one  stage,  which 
was  then  cancelled.  Realizing  the  election 
would  have  to  be  postponed  until  the  spring 
because  the  polls  were  not  sufficiently  favour- 
able, once  again  the  government  came 
through  with  a  watered-down  version  of  the 
old  Darcy  McKeough  approach. 

I  have  to  tell  the  minister  that  in  my  par- 
ticular riding  it  was  greeted  with  a  fair 
amount  of  scepticism.  When  people  saw  the 


expiry  date  was  June,  they  immediately  said: 
"Aha,  right  after  the  election  the  program 
disappears.  Here  they  go  again,  trying  to 
pull  the  wool  over  our  eyes."  More  signifi- 
cant than  that  scepticism  was  a  keen  sense 
of  disappointment.  In  my  riding  we  have 
a  carpet  plant,  which  is  now  closed  and 
which  had  announced  it  was  closing  just 
prior  to  the  announcement  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  particular  program. 

When  the  200  employees  looked  at  the 
list  of  all  the  items  that  are  eligible  for  the 
sales  tax  exemption,  they  said:  "Why  in 
terms  of  that  particular  category  don't  car- 
pets rate?  Here  is  a  plant  in  our  own  com- 
munity closing  down.  We  have  a  plant  in 
Lindsay  closing  down  with  500  people 
thrown  out  of  work.  We  have  somewhere 
around  20  manufacturers  of  carpets  in  the 
whole  province  and  this  industry  doesn't 
rate  a  sales  tax  exemption." 

I  brought  the  question  up  with  the  min- 
ister. I  respect  the  fact  that  he  was  not  part 
of  the  policy-making  process;  it  was  done 
via  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  and  the 
Premier  (Mr.  Davis).  What  was  the  Pre- 
mier's answer?  He  said,  "We  haven't  got 
enough  money.  We  had  to  draw  the  line 
somewhere.  We  couldn't  afford1  it."  I  would 
really  like  to  ask  how  much  it  would  have 
cost  to  include  carpets  under  the  sales  tax 
exemption.  They  tell  us  there  is  no  money 
available. 

How  much  have  they  spent  this  year  on 
Minald  Lodge?  How  much  have  they  allot- 
ted for  building  that  monstrosity  up  in  the 
north?  How  much  money  have  they  spent 
on  advertising  this  fall  to  soften  people  up 
for  the  election?  By  my  rough  calculations, 
somewhere  between  $20  million  and  $25 
million  has  been  spent  on  advertising  and 
on  Minaki  Lodge  in  this  year  alone.  I  think 
the  minister's  own  ministry  spent  upwards 
of  $1  million  on  the  pensioner  tax  credit, 
if  I  am  not  mistaken.  That  may  be  con- 
sidered legitimate.  Some  of  those  energy 
ads  and  some  of  those  environment  ads 
which  have  been  roundly  condemned  by 
almost  every  segment  of  society  were  not 
legitimate.  Yet  they  have  the  gall  to  tell 
the  people  of  Cornwall  and  of  Lindsay: 
"We  can't  afford  it.  We  haven't  got  the 
money."  It  is  just  incredible. 

I  would  like  to  see  the  government  re- 
verse its  policy  on  this.  We  recognize  there 
is  a  certain  amount  of  electioneering  in- 
herent in  this,  but  if  one  of  the  justifications 
for  the  program  in  the  first  place  was  to 
stimulate     production     and     create     jobs,     I 


5090 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


would  really  ask  the  minister  to  look  at  the 
economic  status  of  the  carpet  industry.  It 
is  in  bad  shape  as  a  result  of  the  recession. 
It  is  an  industry  that  deserves  short-term 
assistance,  if  we  are  going  to  have  these 
programs.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister 
if  he  could  reconsider  his  decision  and  his 
policy  not  to  include  the  carpet  industry. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Briefly,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want 
to  say  to  the  minister  that  while  I  do  not 
believe  the  bill  is  as  stimulative  to  the 
economy  as  he  and  the  Treasurer  would 
like  it  to  be,  naturally  we  in  the  opposition 
are  not  going  to  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
reduction  of  a  regressive  tax,  such  as  the 
sales  tax,  even  if  it  is  temporary  and  only 
related    to    certain    products. 

The  only  specific  complaint  I  have  re- 
ceived from  my  constituents  has  been  about 
the  cutoff  level  pertaining  to  smaller  trucks. 
It  has  been  brought  to  my  attention  by  one 
very  competent  farmer,  who  was  going  out 
to  buy  a  pickup  truck  to  use  in  his  corn 
and  cash  crop  operation,  that  the  obvious 
truck  he  required  was  a  very  small  weight 
measure  above  the  upper  limit  the  minister 
or  his  advisers  in  the  Treasury  have  estab- 
lished. 

4:20  p.m. 

I  understand  the  argument,  of  course, 
that  there  has  to  be  a  limit  in  time,  amount 
and  probably  size.  In  consulting  with  the 
minister's  officials  or  his  advisers  in  Trea- 
sury, I  understand  the  indication  was  the 
weight  limits  in  the  bill  were  more  or  less 
a  classification  clearly  understood  in  the 
truck  manufacture  industry.  I  am  told  that 
is  a  very  subjective  perception.  The  cutoff 
there,  in  my  view  and  in  the  view  of  my 
constituent,  is  needlessly  arbitrary  and  means 
that  if  he  opts  for  a  truck  on  which  the  tax 
is  remitted,  he  is  buying  something  that 
does  not  fit  in  with  his  operation  when 
just  a  small  variation,  which  would  be  an 
optimum  size  for  him,  would  be  fully  taxed. 

I  just  hope  the  minister  will  give  some 
consideration  to  some  flexibility  in  that 
regard.  I  have  raised  it  with  his  officials, 
who  have  contacted  my  constituent,  but  so 
far— I  would  not  use  the  word  "stonewalled" 
—they  have  indicated  they  are  not  prepared 
to  consider  any  flexibility  in  that  connection. 
I  want  to  bring  it  to  the  minister's  attention 
publicly  so  that  some  further  consideration 
at  this  level  might  be  undertaken. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  try 
to  deal  with  the  questions  that  were  raised. 
We  have  had  considerable  debate  on  this 
bill  in  the  budget  and  in  other  places. 


The  member  for  Erie  (Mr.  Haggerty)  was 
talking  again  about  Canadian  content  of 
the  items  that  have  been  granted  exemp- 
tion. I  have  to  say  to  the  member  it  is 
very  difficult  when  bringing  in  a  program 
such  as  this  to  combine  articles  manu- 
factured wholly  in  Ontario  with  an  area 
that  needs  stimulation.  We  did  choose 
trucks  and  vans  particularly  because  60  per 
cent  of  them  are  manufactured  in  Ontario. 
That  is  probably  a  bigger  percentage  than  in 
the  case  of  any  of  the  other  vehicles  that  are 
manufactured.  Besides  that,  of  course,  the 
fact  is  that  area  does  need  some  stimulation 
and  we  had  to  move  in  that  direction  in 
some  way.  Hopefully,  we  chose  the  ones 
that  have  the  greatest  Canadian  content  in 
the  manufacturer. 

The  member  also  talked  about  interest 
rates,  which  really  have  no  bearing  on  this 
particular  bill  at  all,  although  I  note  this  is 
the  second  time  he  has  drawn  it  to  my  atten- 
tion. I  do  not  disagree  that  it  is  a  very  im- 
portant subject,  but  it  does  not  really  come 
within  the  confines  of  this  bill. 

The  member  for  Beaches-Woodbine  (Ms. 
Bryden)  talked  about  children's  shoes.  This 
is  a  subject  we  have  talked  about  many 
times,  both  with  the  member  and  her  pre- 
decessor as  critic.  By  the  way,  we  did  a 
study  on  that,  although  it  is  not  contained 
in  this  bill.  Our  study  indicated  it  really 
was  not  a  high  priority  at  the  moment, 
that  there  were  still  many  children's  shoes 
that  could  be  purchased  out  there  for  under 
$30.    That   is    the   purpose   of   the   bill. 

Ms.  Bryden:  It  is  not  just  for  children. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Of  course,  the  whole 
program  is  for  children's  shoes,  not  for 
adults  to  buy  shoes.  That  is  the  purpose  of 
the  bill. 

The  member  has  talked  about  my  sweep- 
ing powers  in  choosing  what  would  be 
exempt  and  what  would  not  be  exempt.  I 
must  advise  her  that  my  sweeping  powers 
do  include  consultation  with  the  Treasurer 
and  with  my  cabinet  colleagues.  It  is  not 
as  if  I  can  arbitrarily  decide  all  of  these 
things  on  my  own.  I  do  consult  with  people 
on  this  side  of  the  House  in  those  matters. 
Granted,  there  is  no  input,  as  there  never  is, 
in  budgetary  bills  from  the  opposition,  but 
that  is  the  way  the  democratic  system  is 
set  up  not  only  in  this  province,  but  in  all 
others. 

The  member  for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breit- 
haupt)  and  others  asked  about  concrete 
blocks.  The  member  will  be  aware  we  have 
extended  bricks  to  cover  clay  bricks  and  have 
included  concrete  bricks  in  that  group.   Our 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5091 


problem  with  concrete  blocks  is  simply  that 
we  would  then  be  moving  into  a  completely 
new  area.  I  do  not  think  we  could  stop  with 
concrete  blocks.  We  would  then  have  to  go 
to  the  other  concrete  precast  items  that  are 
manufactured,  particularly  in  large  buildings. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Precast? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes,  precast.  When  we 
get  into  that  situation,  it  then  becomes  a 
monetary  thing.  There  is  a  limit  to  the  money 
we  have  to  spend.  We  felt  it  would  be  unfair 
to  move  into  one  area  of  the  cement  industry 
and  not  extend  it  to  others.  So  we  drew  the 
line  at  the  concrete  blocks. 

The  member  for  Brantford  (Mr.  Makar- 
chuk)  was  concerned  about  the  contractors 
who  had  signed  contracts  prior  to  the  program 
coming  into  effect.  There  is  certainly  nothing 
in  this  bill  that  would  cover  that  situation. 
I  do  not  know  of  any  way  we  can  do  it.  It  is 
a  contract  between  two  people  who  have 
signed  the  contract  for  so  many  dollars.  I 
guess  the  only  thing  we  can  hope  is  that 
the  contractors  will  reduce  their  contracts  by 
the  seven  per  cent  that  relates  to  sales  tax.  If 
they  do  not,  I  think  that  is  an  agreement 
between  two  people,  and  I  do  not  see  any 
way  how  we  could  possibly  cover  that  in  any 
legislation.  I  have  some  sympathy  for  those 
people  because  they  should  be  credited  with 
the  seven  per  cent  sales  tax  they  had  agreed 
to  pay  and  the  contractor  now  does  not  have 
to  pay,  but  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  way 
of  administratively  addressing  that  particular 
problem. 

It  is  quite  right  that  if  they  buy  a  camper 
for  a  truck,  they  must  pay  retail  sales  tax  on 
it.  I  would  think  in  most  cases  it  would  not 
have  very  much  effect  anyway  because  there 
is  a  $700  limitation  on  the  sales  tax.  I  would 
think  in  almost  every  case  they  will  be 
taking  full  advantage  of  the  $700.  They 
would  not  be  able  to  get  more  than  that 
even  if  they  included  the  price  of  the 
campers,  though  there  may  be  the  odd  situ- 
ation where  there  might  be  a  problem.  I 
think  in  most  cases  when  they  purchase  the 
vehicle  they  would  get  the  full  $700  retail 
sales  tax  credit.  If  that  is  the  case  the  other 
part  of  it  would  make  no  difference  anyway. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Not  necessarily.  If  they  are 
trading  in,  they  won't  get  the  $700. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No.  If  it  is  a  trade-in, 
of  course,  they  will  not.  I  am  talking  about 
purchasing  a  new  vehicle. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Suppose  they  got  a  truck 
and  just  wanted  to  buy  a  top? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  member  is  extend- 
ing it  into  a  completely  different  area  again, 


away  from  vehicles  into  campers.  Our  legisla- 
tion covers  vehicles  and  vans.  The  member 
would  be  extending  it  again  beyond  where 
we  could  possibly  go  at  this  time. 

The  member  for  Grey  (Mr.  McKessock) 
also  mentioned  concrete  blocks,  and  I  agree 
with  him  on  the  first  item  he  brought  up. 
The  information  bulletin  was  not  clear  as  to 
building  materials  and  how  they  applied  to 
farms  and  farmers.  I  have  arranged  to  have 
a  new  bulletin  sent  to  cover  that  situation 
along  with  the  other  amendments  we  have 
made  that  I  mentioned  in  my  opening 
remarks.  The  bulletin  originally  covered  in 
the  margin— to  be  exact— homes  and  apart- 
ments; that  is  the  way  it  was  written.  That 
was  wrong.  It  was  never  intended  to  be  for 
that  purpose.  The  end  result  does  not  matter. 
We  are  not  concerned  with  where  the  lumber 
or  any  material  that  is  exempt  goes  or  what 
it  is  used  for.  The  end  use  is  not  part  of  the 
criteria  at  all.  That  was  not  made  plain  in 
the  bulletin.  We  are  going  to  correct  that.  I 
agree  it  was  a  mistake. 

There  was  some  confusion,  particularly  in 
the  farming  community,  that  they  did  not 
qualify  for  the  exemptions  for  building  ma- 
terials. We  are  clarifying  that  and  sending 
out  a  new  bulletin  to  make  sure  that  every- 
one is  aware  of  it. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:   We  cannot  have  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  No,  we  cannot  have 
that.  It  never  was  intended  anyway.  The 
end  use  was  not  taken  into  consideration.  It 
was  just  the  articles  themselves. 

4:30  p.m. 

The  member  for  Cornwall  (Mr.  Samis) 
mentioned  that  we  covered  other  vehicles  be- 
sides North  American-built  cars.  I  would 
remind  him  that  in  1975,  when  we  brought 
out  a  similar  program  and  exempted  only 
North  American  cars,  it  was  quickly  pointed 
out  to  us  that  was  against  the  constitution. 
We  then  had  to  change  our  program  to  in- 
clude the  foreign  cars- 
Mr.  Samis:  The  Tories  subsidize  the 
Russians. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  —in  order  to  give  the 
subsidy  to  the  North  American  manufacturers. 
That  is  quite  true.  The  same  thing  applies  to 
half -ton  vehicles.  We  cannot  restrict  them. 
The  constitution  dictates  that,  if  we  are  going 
to  have  this  sort  of  program,  we  cannot  pick 
and  choose.  We  have  done  what  we  could 
this  time  by  choosing  light  trucks  and  vans, 
60  per  cent  of  which  are  North  American- 
built. 


5092 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Samis:  How  did  Darcy  McKeough  do 
it  in  1975? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  had  to  change  it.  It 
did  not  go  through.  We  had  to  amend  it 
and  go  back  and  cover  the  ones  that  were 
sold.  It  was  a  real  problem.  Obviously  we  will 
not  do  that  a  second  time. 

Mr.  Samis:  You  should  change  the  con- 
stitution. Stop  the  filibuster  in  Ottawa. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  member  for  Cornwall 
also  talked  about  carpets,  and  I  can  sympa- 
thize with  him.  When  one  has  a  carpet  factory 
in  one's  riding  which  has  to  close  because  of 
economic  conditions  and  because  a  program 
is  not  extended  to  that  article,  I  can  under- 
stand the  member  being  rather  upset  about 
it.  I  can  only  say  what  I  said  in  reply  to  the 
member  when  the  question  was  raised  in  the 
House  before.  We  did  not  exclude  only  car- 
pets from  this  program  but  we  excluded  all 
floor  coverings,  which  include  carpeting,  tile, 
hardwood  and  anything  that  is  manufactured 
for  floor  covering. 

Mr.  Samis:  The  Premier  said  there  was  not 
enough  money. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  There  was  a  limit  to  the 
amount  of  dollars  we  had  to  expend. 

Mr.  Samis:  The  government  spent  $14  mil- 
lion on  advertising  though. 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  Might 
I  remind  the  House  that  second  reading  is 
not  a  time  for  exchange  of  questions.  This  is 
the  principle  of  the  bill.  Would  the  minister 
direct  his  remarks  to  the  chair. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  acknowledge  the  re- 
marks made  by  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford- 
Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon)  and  I  will  look  into  that 
situation. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  committee  of  the  whole  House. 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

RETAIL  SALES  TAX 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  187,  An  Act  to  amend 
the  Retail  Sales  Tax  Act. 

Sections  1  to  3,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

On  section  4: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Hon.  Mr.  Maeck  moves  that 
sections  4  and  5  of  the  bill  be  respectively 
renumbered  as  5  and  6  and  that  the  follow- 
ing section  be  added  to  the  bill: 

"4.  Subsection  3  of  section  42  of  the  said 
act,  as  enacted  by  Statutes  of  Ontario,  1975, 
chapter  9,  section  11,  and  amended  by  1976, 
chapter    23,    section    12;    1976,    chapter   82, 


section  4;  1979,  chapter  27,  section  8;  and 
1980,  chapter  22,  section  3,  is  further  amend- 
ed by  adding  thereto  the  following  clause: 

"(j)  extending  to  a  date  not  later  than 
September  30,  1981,  the  period  within  which 
delivery  is  required  to  be  made  for  the  pur- 
pose of  any  exemption  conferred  by  para- 
graphs 71,  72  or  73  of  subsection  1  of  section 
5." 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  gets 
rid  of  all  of  the  extra  numbers,  whereases, 
chapters,  sections  and  that  sort  of  thing. 
Basically,  I  am  asking  the  Legislature  to  give 
the  Minister  of  Revenue  permission  to  pass 
regulations  affecting  the  delivery  date  of 
furniture,  white  goods  and  building  materials. 
This  extension  of  the  delivery  date  is  not  to 
exceed  approximately  90  days.  Actually,  I 
think  it  would  be  91  or  92  days  because  we 
have  dated  it  September  30.  The  original  bill 
calls  for  a  delivery  date  not  later  than  June 
30.  This  bill  will  permit  me,  if  necessary,  to 
extend  that  date  by  regulation  to  not  later 
than  September  30. 

I  am  requesting  this  because  I  have  had 
submissions  from  retailers  who  think  we  may 
have  a  problem,  particularly  with  regard  to 
the  delivery  of  furniture.  In  some  cases,  it 
takes  two  or  three  months  for  furniture  to 
be  delivered.  They  feel  that  in  a  program  of 
this  type  many  people  come  in  at  the  last 
moment  to  purchase  something  and  they 
have  to  order  it.  If  the  delivery  date  is  be- 
yond June  30,  they  would  not  be  able  to 
take  advantage  of  the  exemption. 

I  am  not  at  this  time  making  a  commit- 
ment that  I  will  extend  any  delivery  dates.  I 
want  time  to  look  at  the  whole  situation  and 
make  a  decision  as  to  whether  or  not  it  would 
be  advisable  to  extend  the  delivery  date  be- 
yond June  30.  I  am  not  making  any  commit- 
ments whatsoever.  If  we  find  the  program 
will  proceed  well  without  the  extension  of 
the  delivery  date,  that  is  fine.  If,  after  in- 
vestigation, we  find  it  would  be  wise  to  ex- 
tend it,  then  we  will  consider  that.  It  would 
not  be  necessarily  for  90  days  but  for  the 
amount  of  time  the  ministry  feels  would  be 
necessary  to  ensure  delivery  of  articles  that 
had  been  ordered  and  purchased  prior  to 
June  30. 

One  of  the  other  reasons  I  ask  for  this  is 
from  time  to  time  we  do  have  strikes  and 
other  interruptions  in  the  manufacturing  sec- 
tor which  can  delay  the  delivery  of  goods.  If 
something  like  that  happens,  it  gives  me  a 
little  leeway  as  to  delivery  to  compensate  for 
something  unforeseen  happening.  That  is 
basically  why  the  amendment  is  requested. 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5093 


Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  trying 
to  get  my  thoughts  together  on  this  amend- 
ment. If  I  am  correct,  the  minister  is  saying 
this  will  provide  him  with  the  leverage  to 
bring  in  regulations  which  will  apply  to  this 
sector.  The  amendment  says,  "extending  to 
a  date  not  later  than  September  30,  1981, 
the  period  within  which  delivery  is  required 
to  be  made  for  the  purpose  of  any  exemption 
conferred  by  paragraphs  71,  72  and  73  of 
subsection  1  of  section  5."  We  agree  with 
that  in  principle,  but  I  want  to  ask  the 
minister  if  we  shouldn't  add  something  such 
as,  "the  offer  to  purchase  goods  must  be 
made  before  June  30."  We  could  extend  the 
time  then  to  include  the  delivery  date.  As  it 
stands,  this  could  be  interpreted  to  mean  the 
minister  is  extending  the  purchase  date  from 
June  30  to  September  30.  I  do  not  know  how 
you  are  going  to  work  this  so  the  regulations 
come  forward  to  this  particular  section. 

4:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  The  original  bill  already 
says  the  purchase  must  be  made  before  June 
30.  This  does  not  change  that.  But  that  bill 
also  says  delivery  must  be  made  before  June 
30,  while  this  amendment  permits  me,  if 
necessary,  to  make  regulations  that  would 
allow  the  delivery  date  to  extend  beyond 
June  30.  It  would  not  give  me  power  to  make 
regulations  to  extend  the  exemptions  beyond 
June  30,  only  the  delivery  date. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  I  am  a  little  lost  on  this 
thing.  If  I  understand  this,  it  gives  you  the 
authority  under  legislation  to  extend  it  to 
September  30.  You  do  not  have  to  bring  in 
regulations  then,  do  you? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  would  still  have  to 
bring  in  a  regulation.  This  restricts  me  in  that 
if  I  bring  in  a  regulation  I  cannot  go  beyond 
September  30  in  extending  the  time.  But  I 
still  must  bring  in  a  regulation  dealing  with 
any  exemption  that  might  come  in.  I  cannot 
arbitrarily  extend  the  delivery  date.  I  cannot 
extend  that  without  passing  a  regulation,  even 
when  this  is  passed.  It  just  gives  me  the 
authority  to  pass  a  regulation. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  There  is  an  interesting 
point  on  this,  if  I  may  follow  through  on  this 
theme.  Can  the  minister  explain  to  us  what 
sort  of  expectations  he  has  for  sorting  out 
these  various  problems?  Would  he,  for  ex- 
ample, expect  to  hear  from  various  retail  or 
manufacturing  groups  that  problems  were 
going  to  arise  and  a  certain  volume  of  goods 
were  going  to  be  caught  unless  he  made  an 
exemption?  Is  that  when  he  would  then  pro- 
pose it?  I   am  wondering  what  is  going  to 


trigger  extension  for  delivery  if  it  is  going  to 
prove  to  be  necessary. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  I  guess  what  I  am  saying 
is  I  would  have  my  staff  check  with  the  re- 
tailers' association  and  others  to  find  out  if 
they  do  need  that  extended  time  for  delivery. 
The  submissions  I  have  received  up  to  date 
indicate  they  do,  but  I  would  like  that  veri- 
fied. We  are  talking  about  furniture  here. 
But  it  may  be  in  white  goods,  refrigerators 
and  freezers  that  time  will  not  be  necessary 
at  all.  It  may  be  the  consumer  does  have  a 
choice  in  those  situations.  They  do  not  make 
special  refrigerators  as  they  make  special 
furniture.  It  is  possible  I  might  go  into  one 
store  for  a  15  cubic-foot  refrigerator  and 
could  not  get  it,  but  I  could  probably  go 
down  the  street  and  buy  one. 

If  it  is  there  on  the  market  and  the  con- 
sumer can  buy  it  before  June  30  and  have  it 
delivered,  then  I  see  no  need  for  extending 
that  delivery  date,  other  than  maybe  for  two 
or  three  days  or  something,  so  that  if  they 
have  a  rush  they  can  deliver  after  the  pur- 
chase has  been  made,  or  for  some  minor 
thing  like  that. 

In  a  matter  like  furniture,  which  is  perhaps, 
at  the  moment  anyway,  the  one  I  have  had 
the  most  input  on,  you  can  go  into  a  furniture 
store  and  find  a  chesterfield  that  you  like, 
but  it  is  not  in  the  proper  cloth  you  want 
or  not  the  right  colour.  You  cannot  always 
buy  that  kind  of  article  off  the  floor.  If  they 
come  in,  say,  in  the  last  two  weeks  of  this 
program,  obviously  they  could  not  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  exemption  unless  we  ex- 
tended the  time  for  delivery.  We  really  have 
not  had  a  chance  to  look  at  whether  that  is 
a  major  problem.  That  is  why  I  am  asking 
for  authority  to  make  regulations  after  we 
have  had  a  chance  to  examine  it. 

I  want  to  examine  the  building  materials 
a  lot  more  before  we  extend  the  date  of  de- 
livery. I  would  like  to  know  many  things 
about  the  building  material.  It  is  just  too  early 
for  me  to  bring  in  an  amendment  to  the  act 
which  would  give  us  a  specific  date  if  we 
were  going  to  extend  it.  It  is  too  early  for 
me  to  even  say  whether  we  will  extend  it. 
We  have  to  investigate  it  first  and  see  whether 
it  is  warranted  or  not. 

With  small  trucks  and  vans,  I  doubt  very 
much  whether  an  extension  beyond  what  is 
named  in  the  act  would  be  necessary  because 
it  is  a  program  we  have  done  before.  The 
purchasers  and  automotive  dealers  know  how 
this  program  runs.  It  is  not  a  new  program. 
In  effect,  it  is  the  same  system  we  used  the 
last  time  we  had  this  sort  of  program  and 
we  had  no  problems  with  it.   I  do  not  se*» 


5094 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


any  need  at  the  moment  to  extend  the  de- 
livery date. 

The  building  material  is  the  one  that 
concerns  me  a  great  deal  because  we  have 
not  had  a  chance  to  look  at  that  at  all.  I 
need  authority  to  pass  a  regulation  extending 
the  time  of  delivery  if  we  find  it  is  necessary. 
As  I  said  earlier,  I  am  making  no  commit- 
ment at  this  time  that  I  will  extend  any  of 
them  because  I  just  do  not  have  enough 
information  at  my  disposal  to  make  that  kind 
of  decision. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  In  order  that  there  might 
be  as  accurate  a  development  of  the  expected 
needs  as  possible,  will  the  minister  be  pub- 
licizing in  his  retail  sales  tax  bulletin  the 
expected  opportunities  that  may  develop  for 
all  those  who  are  called  upon  to  pay  tax 
and  submit  it? 

If  publication  is  done  over  the  next  several 
issues  of  the  bulletin  in  a  fairly  large  size 
type  or  in  a  bit  of  a  block  notice  or  what- 
ever, there  would  be  then  the  opportunity 
for  those  persons,  if  they  expect  to  have  the 
need  for  this,  to  advise  the  ministry  as  early 
as  possible.  If  that  were  the  case,  you  would 
know  and  your  officials  would  be  able  to 
consider  what  the  total  might  be  and  get  on 
with  the  need  for  the  extension  if  that 
occurs. 

I  would  hope  persons  would  be  given  as 
much  notice  as  possible  as  to  what  might  be 
available  so  that  they,  in  turn,  could  advise 
the  ministry  as  to  what  their  expectations 
are,  particularly  as  you  have  mentioned  it  is 
more  likely  for  certain  items  of  furniture 
than  for  vehicles  or  for  refrigerators  and 
freezers  which  perhaps  could  be  obtained 
elsewhere  if  they  were  not  exactly  in  stock 
at  the  particular  dealers  that  might  otherwise 
be  involved. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  We  have  never  used  the 
bulletins  for  that  purpose.  The  bulletins  we 
send  out  are  normally  used  to  announce  any 
tax  changes  rather  than  to  ask  for  informa- 
tion. They  are  used  when  we  change  tax 
policy,  or  there  is  a  new  tax  law  or  policv 
change  within  the  ministry  regarding  taxes 
or   assessment— anything  within  the   ministry. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  That  is  what  this  is  to 
some  degree. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Yes,  it  is,  except  that  I 
do  not  know  whether  I  want  to  encourage 
that  kind  of  input.  I  think  perhaps  we  can 
get  the  information  we  need  from  dealing 
with  the  manufacturers'  and  retailers'  asso- 
ciations rather  than  a  whole  bunch  of  indi- 
vidual people.  It  would  be  difficult  and  time- 
consuming. 


Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  If  you  keep  this  up, 
we  will  have  to  bring  back  the  member  for 
Hamilton  Mountain  (Mr.  Charlton)  to  em- 
barrass you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  That  member  never  em- 
barrasses me.  He  is  a  good  friend  of  mine. 
He  is  a  good  fellow,  not  like  you. 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  this  party 
we  are  always  distrustful  of  government  by 
regulation,  and  taxation  by  regulation  in  par- 
ticular is  suspect.  It  affects  all  our  pocket- 
books,  so  we  were  looking  carefully  at  this 
proposal  by  the  minister.  I  think  the  main 
reason  he  is  bringing  it  in  is  lack  of  knowl- 
edge in  the  ministry  on  how  these  tax  ex- 
emptions are  going  to  work.  He  is  moving  in 
untried  territory. 

I  do  think  more  study  should  have  been 
done  before  they  were  brought  in  and  there 
should  have  been  more  investigation  of  the 
purchasing  patterns  of  people  and  how  long 
it  takes  for  deliveries.  Of  course,  the  haste 
with  which  the  tax  exemptions  were  put 
together  for  the  Carleton  by-election  is  the 
main  reason  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  was  not 
given  any  time  to  study  the  proposal.  This  is 
the  kind  of  half-baked  legislation  we  get. 
We  would  have  much  preferred  to  have  seen 
spelled  out  in  the  legislation  exactly  what  is 
eligible  and  what  are  the  limits  on  delivery 
dates. 
4:50  p.m. 

We  protest  the  fact  that  this  kind  of 
amendment  appears  necessary  at  this  stage 
in  order  to  allow  some  flexibility  for  hard- 
ship cases  that  may  develop  because  of  the 
delivery  date.  I  am  not  sure  whether  this 
amendment  may  be  opening  the  dikes  to  a 
much  greater  use  of  the  exemption  than  the 
Treasurer  anticipated  and,  therefore,  it  may 
throw  out  his  estimate  of  the  cost  of  his  mini- 
budget.  At  the  present  time,  it  appears  the 
government's  position  on  spending  money  is, 
if  it  is  going  to  win  the  election,  then  spend 
it  without  regard  to  the  amount  involved. 
The  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  may  argue 
it  might  increase  the  stimulation  of  his  bud- 
get, out  there  are  other  places  he  could  put 
any  additional  money  he  may  have.  I  am 
prepared  to  go  along  with  the  amendment 
as  far  as  giving  the  minister  power  on  the 
90  days.  I  hope  he  will  use  it  very  carefully 
and  not  extend  it  to  every  item  and  that  he 
will  make  a  study  of  delivery  patterns. 

I  have  one  major  concern  about  the  amend- 
ment, however,  and  that  is  on  the  building 
materials.  I  think  there  is  real  room  for 
abuse  by  developers  and  builders  where  it 
would  not  benefit  the  ordinary  taxpayer.  We 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5095 


have  to  remember  that  most  building  these 
days  is  luxury  housing,  because  of  the  lack 
of  programs  to  encourage  construction  of 
affordable  housing.  Assuming  the  developer 
passes  the  benefit  on  to  the  home  buyer,  we 
may  be  helping  those  who  can  buy  luxury 
housing.  This  creates  a  real  problem.  It  is 
why  I  would  like  to  move  an  amendment  to 
the  amendment,  that  we  delete  building  ma- 
terials from  the  application  of  this  admend- 
ment. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Ms.  Bryden  moves  that 
clause  j  of  subsection  3  of  section  42  of  the 
said  act,  as  contained  in  section  4  of  the 
bill  as  set  out  in  the  minister's  amendment, 
be  amended  by  deleting  "72  or  73"  in  the 
sixth  line  and  substituting  in  lieu  thereof  "or 
72." 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  says  that 
the  minister  does  not  have  power  to  extend 
the  delivery  period  for  building  materials,  but 
we  still  leave  him  with  up  to  90  days  for 
furniture  and  appliances.  I  have  given  my 
reasons  why  I  think  we  should  adopt  this 
amendment  and'  leave  building  materials 
under  the  present  terms  of  the  bill,  which 
means  people  would  have  to  anticipate  their 
purchases  and  accept  delivery  before  July  1, 
1981. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  cannot 
accept  the  member's  amendment.  I  am  not 
familiar  enough  with  the  building  material 
problems  at  this  time  to  be  able  to  assess 
whether  or  not— 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Then  you  should  not 
be  the  minister,  should  you?  Make  way  for 
somebody  knowledgeable. 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Why  don't  you  go  back 
to  Hamilton?  Somebody  down  there  might 
love  you.  Nobody  likes  you  here. 

The  reason  I  cannot  accept  the  amendment 
at  the  moment  is  that  we  do  not  have  enough 
information  on  the  building  material  business 
to  knpw  whether  or  not  at  some  time  in  the 
future  an  extension  should  be  granted  on  the 
delivery  date.  It  is  too  early  to  make  that 
kind  of  decision.  If  this  amendment  were 
accepted  by  the  Legislature,  it  would  re- 
strict me  from  being  able  to  do  anything  in 
that  regard,  even  if  it  were  necessary.  I 
would  much  prefer  to  allow  my  amendment 
to  go  ahead,  which  would  include  the  build- 
ing material.  I  certainly  have  no  intention  of 
bringing  any  extension  to  the  delivery  date, 
unless  it  is  absolutely  necessary.  I  assure  the 
House  of  that.  I  can  tell  the  House  that  as 
far  as  the  Ministry  of  Revenue  is  concerned 
any  extension  to  the  delivery  date  causes  us 


from  an  administrative  viewpoint  a  lot  of 
extra  work  and  a  lot  of  extra  problems.  It  is 
not  going  to  be  dealt  with  lightly. 

I  have  concerns  also.  I  want  to  know  ex- 
actly what  would  happen  if  an  extension 
were  granted  not  only  in  the  building  mate- 
rials, but  in  any  of  them.  I  just  don't  have 
enough  information  at  my  disposal  to  make 
a  valid  judgement  on  it  at  the  moment.  That 
is  why  I  am  asking  the  Legislature  to  allow 
me  the  prerogative  of  passing  a  regulation  if 
and  when  it  may  be  necessary.  At  this  time, 
I  think  it  is  premature  to  decide  whether 
building  materials  should  or  should  not  have 
an   extension   on  their  delivery  date. 

I  respectfully  request  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  to  take  that  into  consideration 
when  they  are  considering  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Bradley:  It  is  always  dangerous,  Mr. 
Chairman,  to  say  that  my  remarks  might  be 
slightly  out  of  order  because  it  then  makes 
the  chairman  listen  too  carefully  to  what  I 
am  saying. 

I  would  say  I  look  upon  with  some  favour 
the  amendment  the  minister  has  proposed 
because  it  is  practical  in  that  we  see  the 
problems  that  are  going  to  arise  with  people 
in  those  circumstances.  But  I  do  feel,  never- 
theless, speaking  on  behalf  of  a  number  of 
people  who  have  expressed  concerns  to  me, 
that  the  whole  idea  of  these  temporary  mea- 
sures tends  to  disrupt  business  rather  than 
assist  business.  This  is  the  complaint  that 
business  people  have  brought  to  my  atten- 
tion. 

Bookkeeping  problems  become  very  real 
and  very  time-consuming  for  people  in  the 
kind  of  business  we  are  talking  about  here. 
Secondly,  and  I  will  only  take  20  seconds  to 
deviate,  when  we  are  talking  about  vans  and 
things  of  that  nature,  the  same  thing  applies 
in  that  business.  Unfortunately,  it  disrupts 
business.  There  is  a  real  surge  of  sales  and 
sometimes  people  can't  even  meet  the  com- 
mitment because  of  a  lack  of  inventory. 
When  the  tax  is  taken  off,  sales  dive  again. 
It  makes  it  very  difficult  for  those  in  the 
business  and  those  who  actually  have  to  do 
the  selling. 

I  thank  the  Chairman  for  allowing  me  to 
bring  those  comments  to  the  minister's  atten- 
tion. The  amendment  itself,  however,  I  feel 
is  valid. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Ms. 
Bryden's  amendment  to  the  amendment  to 
section  4  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 


5096 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Hon. 
Mr.  Maeck's  amendment  to  section  4  will 
please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

iSection  4,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Sections  5  and  6,  as  renumbered,  agreed  to. 

Bill  187,  as  amended,  reported. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Maeck,  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  reported  one  bill 
with  amendments. 
5  p.m. 

HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  209,  An  Act  to  revise  and  extend  Pro- 
tection of  Human  Rights  in  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  men- 
tioned when  I  introduced  this  bill,  it  consti- 
tutes a  comprehensive  and  thorough  revision 
of  the  Human  Rights  Code,  the  first  since 
the  code  was  introduced  some  18  years  ago. 

I  believe  this  bill,  when  enacted,  will 
place  Ontario  in  the  vanguard  in  the  field 
of  human  rights  legislation.  It  responds  af- 
firmatively to  the  majority  of  recommenda- 
tions contained  in  Life  Together,  the  1977 
report  of  the  Human  Rights  Code  review 
committee,  and  it  includes  as  well  other 
important  provisions  not  included  in  that 
report. 

Apart  from  changes  to  the  structure  of 
the  code,  the  most  important  of  which  is 
the  clearly  defined  charter  of  rights  in  part  I, 
the  new  provisions  fall  into  three  broad 
categories:  first,  expansion  of  the  code  to 
cover  new  groups  or  classes  of  people;  sec- 
ond expansion  of  the  code  to  govern  new 
areas  and  activities;  and,  finally,  a  number 
of  administrative,  procedural  and  structural 
change*.  While  we  shall  be  discussing  each 
of  the  SDecific  changes  during  clause-by- 
clause  debate,  I  would  like  to  review  the 
content*  of  each  of  these  categories  gener- 
allv  and  indicate  the  principles  underlying 
the  proposals. 

As  to  expanded  coverage,  the  following 
changes  are  proposed:  discrimination  on  the 
ground  of  handicap  is  prohibited  in  all  areas 
of  the  code.  Members  will  share  my  hope 
that  this  most  significant  extension  of  cover- 
age will  greatly  assist  the  efforts  of  handi- 
capped people  to  achieve  the  greater  measure 
of  self-sufficiency  and  independence  which 
many  seek.  The  large  number  of  informal 
complaints  concerning  handicaps  received 
and  acted  upon  by  the  commission  in   the 


recent  past  indicates  both  the  importance 
of  this  protection  and  the  distance  that  we, 
as  a  society,  have  yet  to  travel  to  reach  full 
acceptance  of  the  handicapped  individual. 

Handicapped  is  broadly  defined  in  section 
9b  and  includes  past,  present  and  perceived 
physical  disability,  mental  illness,  mental  re- 
tardation and  learning  disability.  After  much 
deliberation,  we  concluded  that  in  this  regard 
Life  Together  had  not  gone  far  enough  and 
that  none  of  the  major  categories  of  dis- 
ability should  be  excluded.  This  is  the  broad- 
est definition  of  any  Canadian  jurisdiction 
and  will  protect  the  victims  of  past  injuries, 
including  those  who  have  received  work- 
men's compensation  benefits. 

Exceptions  will  apply  to  those  situations 
where  a  particular  handicap  renders  the 
person  incapable  of  carrying  out  essential 
functions  associated  with  the  activity  in 
question.  While,  for  example,  an  employer 
must  be  able  to  expect  that  the  handicapped 
candidate  can  perform  the  job  being  filled, 
we  agreed  with  the  representatives  of  the 
handicapped  community  that  this  qualifica- 
tion should  be  more  limited  than  that  which 
would  result  from  the  use  of  the  term  bona 
fide  and  reasonable.  Relating  the  qualifica- 
tion to  the  concept  of  being  able  to  do  the 
essential  duties  of  a  particular  function  will 
protect  the  handicapped  person  against  re- 
jection because  he  or  she  cannot  perform 
tasks  that  are  either  unrelated  to,  or  are 
but  a  minor  part  of,  a  particular  job. 

In  addition  to  the  general  prohibition 
against  discrimination  in  employment,  em- 
ployers are  prohibited  from  refusing  to  em- 
ploy a  handicapped  person  on  the  ground 
that  he  or  she  cannot  enrol  in  an  employee 
benefit  plan  or  pension  fund  [section  21(2)]. 
Where  a  bona  fide  ground  is  established 
which  excludes  the  handicapped  person  from 
such  a  plan,  the  employer  must  pay  to  the 
employee  an  amount  equivalent  to  the  con- 
tribution the  employer  would  otherwise  have 
paid  to  the  plan  on  the  employee's  behalf. 

Handicapped  persons  have  a  right  as  well 
to  equal  treatment  and  insurance,  subject 
again  to  bona  fide  exceptions.  These  may 
apply  in  four  cases:  in  individual  insurance 
policies  [section  201;  in  employee  pay-all 
plans  [section  21  (3b)];  in  employee  group 
plans  of  under  25  lives  [section  21  (3b)]; 
and  in  employee  disability  plans  where  a 
pre-existing  handicap  substantially  increases 
the  risk  [section  21  (3a)]. 

In  arriving  at  these  limited  exceptions,  the 
government  has  attempted  to  reconcile  the 
legitimate  concerns  of  representatives  of  the 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5097 


handicapped  community  and  those  of  those 
of  insurers.  Essentially,  it  is  only  possible  for 
the  insurers  to  provide  benefits  to  handicapped 
and  nonhandicapped  alike  if  it  is  possible  to 
spread  the  risk  over  a  large  group  of  people. 
Hence,  the  four  exceptions  I  have  mentioned. 

Protection  against  discrimination  because 
of  age  is  extended  from  the  employment  area 
to  all  sections  of  the  code.  The  definition  of 
age  has  been  changed  to  protect  persons  be- 
tween the  ages  of  18  years  and  65  years. 
Section  9a  is  the  relevant  section.  This  is 
important  to  ensure  that  young  people  have 
access  to  public  facilities,  housing  and  jobs. 
As  I  mentioned  in  my  statement  in  the  House 
two  weeks  ago,  the  upper  limit  in  the  defini- 
tion of  age  is  an  issue  which  remains  par- 
ticularly perplexing. 

The  government  appreciates  that  a  healthy 
and  able-bodied  employee  should  not  be 
forced  into  retirement  simply  because  his  or 
her  employer  has  rigid  and  universally  applied 
retirement  rules.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
clearly  do  not  wish  to  enact  in  our  human 
rights  code,  measures  which  might  inadver- 
tently encourage  indirectly  delaying  retire- 
ment benefits  for  older  workers.  As  I  men- 
tioned, I  expect  the  report  of  the  royal  com- 
mission on  pensions  will  contribute  to  our 
understanding  of  the  issue  of  pensions  and 
retirement.  I  will  be  appointing  an  advisory 
mechanism  to  make  recommendations  to  me 
on  the  matter  of  the  upper  limit  for  dis- 
crimination on  grounds  of  age.  I  also  men- 
tioned in  previous  remarks  that  I  hope  the 
standing  committee  reviewing  this  bill  and 
these  sections  will  give  first  priority  to  that 
issue. 

The  bill  also  extends  protection  against  dis- 
crimination because  of  family  status  to  per- 
sons in  all  areas  of  the  code,  subject  to  certain 
exceptions  in  the  case  of  accommodation  to 
preserve  legitimate  lifestyle  preferences:  for 
example,  shared  accommodation,  single  sex 
accommodation  and  accommodation  in  a 
building  containing  more  than  one  unit  served 
by  a  common  entrance  and  restricted  to  adults 
only.  It  is  very  difficult  to  make  universally 
applicable  family  status  rules  with  respect  to 
accommodation.  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  argued 
that  an  individual's  right  to  enjoy  a  quiet 
place  to  live  should  be  protected.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  pointed  out  that  families  with 
children  in  large  urban  areas  have  difficulty 
finding  suitable  accommodation.  We  have 
given  careful  consideration  to  both  arguments 
and  have  decided  that  the  latter  is  essentially 
a  question  of  housing  supply,  a  matter  really 
beyond  the  purview  of  human  rights  legisla- 
tion. 


In  the  past,  parents,  particularly  single 
mothers,  have  been  denied  employment  as 
well  as  training,  promotional  and  transfer 
opportunities  because  it  is  believed  their 
family  status  will  limit  the  length  of  their 
employment  or  their  willingness  to  relocate. 
The  new  code  should  provide  an  effective 
remedy  for  these  situations. 

Protection  against  discrimination  on  the 
basis  of  marital  status  is  given  in  all  areas  of 
the  code  subject  to  exceptions  in  the  case  of 
shared  accommodation,  single  sex  accom- 
modation, such  as  residences,  and  accom- 
modation in  a  building  of  not  more  than  four 
units,  one  of  which  is  owner-occupied.  The 
addition  of  this  ground  to  the  area  of  accom- 
modation will  prohibit  the  denial  of  housing 
to  individuals  on  the  grounds  they  are  un- 
married, widowed,  divorced  or  separated. 

Discrimination  against  persons  in  receipt  of 
public  assistance  is  prohibited  in  accommoda- 
tion. This  will  prevent  landlords  from  screen- 
ing out  individuals  receiving  public  assistance 
as  undesirable  tenants  based  on  a  generalized 
and,  in  our  view,  an  unwarranted  and,  indeed, 
offensive  stereotype  held  by  some  about 
welfare  recipients. 

In  the  recent  past,  the  problems  facing 
domestic  workers  have  received  considerable 
public  attention.  The  present  human  rights 
code  does  not  apply  to  domestic  workers.  We 
have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  should. 
Anti-discrimination  protection  is  extended  to 
domestic  workers,  other  than  companions,  in 
section  21(6c)  to  preserve  the  freedom  of 
choice  of  those  individuals  who  require  per- 
sonal or  medical  assistance. 

Protection  in  employment,  subject  to  bona 
fide  occupational  requirements,  is  given  to 
those  who  have  a  record  of  offences  defined 
to  mean  a  conviction  for  an  offence  for 
which  a  pardon  has  been  granted  or  a  con- 
viction for  a  provincial  offence.  Life  To- 
gether pointed  out  that  eight  out  of  every 
10  inmates  in  Ontario  prisons  are  repeat 
offenders.  Obviously  the  difficult  task  of  suc- 
cessful re-entry  to  the  world  beyond  the 
institution  is  made  much  more  difficult  by 
discrimination  against  those  who  have  had 
a  record  of  offences.  This  provision  parallels 
the  federal  Human  Rights  Act  with  respect 
to  federal  offences  and  applies  as  well  to  all 
convictions  for  provincial   offences. 

5:10  p.m. 

In  the  second  category— added  areas  and 
activities  governed  by  the  new  code— I  would 
like  to  draw  to  the  attention  of  the  members 
the  following  provisions:  protection  against 
discrimination  in  the  equal  enjoyment  of 
goods,    services    and   facilities    is    broadened 


5098 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


by  removing  the  limiting  phrase  "available 
in  any  place  in  which  the  public  is  cus- 
tomarily admitted."  This  conforms  to  the 
spirit  of  Life  Together  and  is  broader  than 
its  recommendation.  It  will  place  such  insti- 
tutions as  universities  clearly  within  the 
ambit  of  the  code. 

Protection  is  added  against  discrimination 
in  contracts,  including  the  buying  and1  selling 
of  property.  This  provision  means  that  con- 
tracts must  be  offered  to  all  persons  of  legal 
capacity  on  equal  terms.  Its  application 
should  be  especially  significant  in  the  case 
of  contracts  for  the  buying  and  selling  of 
property,  since  it  recognizes  that  the  owner- 
ship of  property  is  a  fundamental  right  in 
our  society  that  should  be  exercised  without 
invidious  discrimination. 

The  code  review  committee  concluded  that 
there  was  evidence  to  show  that  certain  pro- 
spective purchasers  were  sometimes  denied 
the  right  to  purchase  houses  on  the  ground 
of  race  or  colour.  Such  obviously  discrim- 
inatory practices  would  now  be  prohibited. 

Tenants  and  employees  are  given  specific 
protection  against  harassment  because  of  any 
grounds  or  prohibited  discrimination,  includ- 
ing sexual  harassment  by  landlords,  fellow 
tenants,  employers  and  fellow  employees 
[section  4(2)].  A  persistent  sexual  solicitation 
or  advance  made  by  a  person  in  a  position 
of  authority  is  prohibited,  as  are  reprisals 
without  persistence  or  threats  thereof  by  a 
person  in  a  position  of  authority  for  refusing 
or  rejecting  a  sexual  solicitation. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  What  is  persistent? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Be  quiet.  Go  back  home. 
Take  an  Aspirin. 

This  is  not  an  issue  dealt  with  in  Life 
Together.  It  is  clear  to  me  that  the  powers 
of  the  present  code,  which  have  been  inter- 
preted to  protect  against  sexual  harassment, 
should  be  reinforced  and  made  more  explicit. 
I  think  there  is  general  recognition  in  society 
that  this  subject  must  be  squarely  addressed. 

Constructive  discrimination  is  expressly 
prohibited.  For  example,  an  employer  is  pro- 
hibited from  arbitrarily  refusing  to  hire  men 
with  beards,  because  such  a  practice  would 
effectively  exclude  Sikhs  from  employment. 
Discrimination  because  of  association  with 
members  of  a  protected  group  is  also  pro- 
hibited. Thus  an  employer  is  prohibited  from 
refusing  to  hire  a  white  man  because  his 
spouse  may  be  black. 

The  third  miscellaneous  category  includes 
a  number  of  significant  administrative,  pro- 
cedural and  structual  matters.  For  instance, 
the  Human  Rights  Code  will  bind  the  crown 
and  will  have  primacy  over  future  legislation 


immediately  and  over  existing  legislation  after 
two  years,  unless  the  legislation  expressly 
states  that  it  excludes  the  application  of  the 
code. 

Provision  is  made  to  exempt  affirmative 
action  plans  or  programs  legitimately  de- 
signed to  benefit  particular  classes  of  persons. 
This  is  in  response  to  the  view  expressed  by 
many  special  interest  groups  that  special  pro- 
grams to  help  their  members  achieve  equal 
opportunity  should  be  allowed  to  operate  with 
the  minimum  amount  of  difficulty.  Exception 
is  also  made  for  government  programs  of 
similar  intent,  including  tax  legislation. 

The  commission's  powers  are  expanded  and 
clarified.  In  particular,  the  commission  will 
have  the  power  to  recommend  the  imple- 
mentation of  affirmative  action  plans  or  pro- 
grams to  rectify  this  systemic  discrimination. 
In  the  past,  while  boards  of  inquiry  have  had 
the  authority  to  require  affirmative  action 
plans  to  remedy  specific  complaints,  the  com- 
mission did  not  have  the  power  on  its  own 
initiative  to  recommend  such  measures.  This 
was  identified  in  Life  Together  as  an  im- 
portant means  of  overcoming  historic  dis- 
advantage. Together  with  the  power  to 
examine  and  make  recommendations  on  any 
statute  or  regulation,  this  significantly  ex- 
tends the  purview  of  the  commission. 

In  view  of  the  need  to  continue  to  promote 
racial  harmony,  the  new  code  creates  a  race 
relations  division  of  the  commission  headed 
by  a  commissioner  for  race  relations.  The 
race  relations  division  is  to  consist  of  at  least 
three  commissioners.  Members  will  recall  that 
approximately  one  year  ago  the  government 
appointed  Dr.  Ubale  as  the  first  commissioner 
for  race  relations  in  Canada.  In  the  interim, 
that  commissioner  has,  with  his  colleagues, 
undertaken  a  number  of  initiatives  in  this 
area. 

On  October  23,  I  also  announced  an  in- 
crease in  the  complement  of  the  race  relations 
division  of  five  new  officers  to  expand  and 
accelerate  their  important  work.  The  powers 
of  the  commission  to  inquire  into  and 
eliminate  sources  of  conflict,  to  initiate  in- 
vestigations and  to  encourage  and  promote 
remedial  activity  now  are  included  in  the 
code. 

With  respect  to  boards  of  inquiry,  I  draw 
the  attention  of  members  to  two  items  in  par- 
ticular. First,  the  responsible  minister  no 
longer  has  the  discretion  to  approve  or  not  to 
approve  a  board  of  inquiry  on  the  commis- 
sion's recommendation.  Second,  to  ensure  the 
independence  of  those  chosen  to  head  boards 
of  inquiry  as  they  review  evidence  put  before 
them  by  the  commission,  the  minister  retains 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5099 


the  authority  to  appoint  the  boards  from  a 
panel  of  persons  selected  to  act  as  members 
of  boards  of  inquiry.  Where  the  commission 
decides  a  board  will  not  be  appointed,  it  is 
required  to  give  written  reasons  for  its  de- 
cisions. As  well,  persons  whose  complaints 
are  rejected  by  the  commission  as  not  war- 
ranting referral  to  a  board  of  inquiry  will 
have  the  right  to  request  that  their  complaints 
be  reconsidered. 

Provisions  included  in  the  new  code  are 
designed  to  expedite  hearings  by  boards  of 
inquiry.  Under  these  provisions,  proceed- 
ings must  commence  within  30  days  of  the 
appointment  of  the  board  of  inquiry  and 
decisions  must  be  issued  within  30  days  of 
the    completion   of  hearings. 

The  remedial  powers  of  boards  of  in- 
quiry are  expanded  in  three  significant  areas. 
First,  boards  of  inquiry  will  be  permitted  to 
issue  orders  requiring  landlords  and  em- 
ployers to  take  appropriate  action  to  prevent 
future  harassment  of  tenants  and  employees 
by  fellow  tenants  and  fellow  employees.  I 
hope,  among  other  things,  this  measure  will 
serve  to  prevent  the  vicious  incidents  of 
racial  taunting  and  attacks  to  which  some 
individuals  in  our  community  have  been 
exposed    over    the    past   two   years. 

Second,  boards  will  be  able  to  award 
damages  of  up  to  $5,000  for  mental  anguish 
in  appropriate  cases.  Third,  subject  to  rea- 
sonable cost  considerations,  boards  of  in- 
quiry will  be  empowered  to  make  orders 
for  access  to  premises  and  facilities  follow- 
ing findings  of  discrimination  contrary  to 
the   code. 

Finally,  an  important  illustration  of  the 
government's  intent  with  respect  to  human 
rights  is  that  the  new  code  makes  it  a  con- 
dition of  every  crown  contract  and  subcon- 
tract that  the  contractor  or  subcontractor 
will  not  discriminate  in  employment  con- 
trary to  the  code.  A  breach  of  the  code  will 
be  sufficient  grounds  for  cancellation  of  the 
contract  or  refusal  to  enter  into  a  further 
contract. 

The  people  of  Ontario  deserve  the  in- 
creased human  rights  protection  this  bill 
provides  and  they  have  asked  for  the  leader- 
ship I  think  it  reflects.  I  am  convinced  the 
bill  will  improve  the  quality  of  life  for  all 
people  in  this  province.  The  bill  addresses 
the  major  human  rights  issues  equitably  and 
humanely,  and  I  am  pleased  to  commend  it 
to  the  members  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased  to 
have  the  opportunity  to  participate  briefly 
in  a  debate  as  important  as  this  one  deal- 
ing with  Bill  209. 


In  "the  course  of  one's  limited  career  in 
public  life,  one  participates  in  a  variety  of 
legislation  dealing  with  a  load  of  issues  and 
problems.  Some  of  it  is  more  interesting 
than  others.  You,  Mr.  Speaker,  would  know 
that  from  your  long  experience  in  the  chair. 
You  sit  here  days  and  nights,  listening  pa- 
tiently and  keeping  order  over  individuals  in 
this  assembly  who  are  very  unruly  at  times; 
it  is  not  an  easy  task.  In  addition  to  having 
to  keep  order  when  these  individuals  mis- 
behave, you  have  to  listen  to  some  of  the 
speeches  made  by  people,  including  myself, 
on  topics  of  great  concern  only  to  them- 
selves. 

But  that  is  not  the  case  here.  This  is  a 
very  important  piece  of  legislation.  As  the 
minister  has  said,  it  is  a  comprehensive  and 
thorough  revision  of  the  Ontario  Human 
Rights  Code,  the  first  since  1982.  Consider- 
ing what  has  happened  to  this  province  and 
in  a  sense,  I  suppose,  to  this  city,  and  the 
changes  that  have  taken  place,  it  is  a  neces- 
sary and  important  revision  of  the  code. 

5:20  p.m. 

The  government  some  time  ago  had 
established  a  commission  to  report  on  the 
question  of  human  rights  in  Ontario.  The 
commission,  chaired  by  Tom  Symons,  re- 
ported back  in  1977.  The  report  was  called 
Life  Together.  It  outlined  a  variety  of  very 
important  amendments  that  would  make  our 
human  rights  code  respond  to  the  needs  of 
1980  Ontario  society.  I  guess  at  that  time 
it  was  1977  Ontario  society. 

The  government  took  its  sweet  time  in 
coming  forward  with  these  amendments.  I 
will  not  spend  too  much  time  criticizing  the 
government  on  that  point.  I  quite  appreci- 
ate it  does  take  some  time  to  review  these 
amendments. 

Many  of  the  things  mentioned  in  the 
report  require  some  time  for  absorption  and 
acceptance  by  a  community.  I  do  not  think 
any  government,  in  today's  politics  and  to- 
day's communicative  world,  can  embark  on 
a  frolic  of  its  own  and  start  putting  forward 
amendments  that  do  not  receive  what  is 
called  public  acceptance.  So  I  understand 
it  is  not  an  easv  matter  for  the  government 
to  just  accept  all  the  amendments  overnight, 
bring  forward  legislation  and  have  them 
passed.  I  understand  why  there  would  be 
some  delay,  but  in  these  circumstances  I 
felt  the  delay  was  somewhat  too  much. 

Nevertheless,  I  must  congratulate  this  min- 
ister for  finally  having  brought  forward  these 
amendments  to  the  code.  The  minister  at  an 
earlier  time,  at  a  time  when  he  did  not  have 
the  benefit  of  my  criticism,  had  tried  by  a  cir- 


5100 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


cuitous  route  to  bring  forward  amendments 
to  deal  with  the  problems  of  the  handicapped 
in  this  province,  and  we  saw  the  fate  of  that 
exercise.  But  we  will  not  remind  the  minister 
of  that.  He  was  derailed  there,  but  he  is 
finally  back  on  the  rails  and  he  is  bringing 
forward  this  legislation.  Certainly  the  prin- 
ciples outlined  in  this  major  revision  will  re- 
ceive the  full  support  and  co-operation  of  this 
caucus  and  this  critic.  He  has  our  enthusi- 
astic endorsement. 

Although  we  may  have  some  criticism 
about  some  of  the  things  that  are  not  in  the 
bill— do  not  shake  your  head  at  me;  do  not 
curtail  me  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  just  when  I  am 
getting  going.  I  will  not  spend  much  time  on 
tilings  that  are  not  in  the  bill. 

If  we  do  criticize  some  of  the  things  that 
are  not  workable,  it  is  because  we  want  to  see 
a  better  piece  of  legislation.  The  human  rights 
code  is  an  important  matter.  Human  relations 
is  extremely  important  in  1980  Ontario 
society.  It  is  not  something  we  can  do  with 
haste.  It  is  not  something  we  can  give  unan- 
imous agreement  to  and  say  "Go  to  it;  let's 
start  enforcing."  This  matter  requires  close 
revision;  it  requires  the  attention  of  the  best 
minds  in  this  Legislature.  It  certainly  requires 
the  assistance  of  the  people  in  the  community 
who  will  be  affected  and  come  forward  and 
make  submissions  and  possibly  assist  us  to  see 
to  it  that  we  have  the  best  possible  type  of 
workable  legislation  in  Ontario. 

I  am  relatively  inexperienced  in  the  job  of 
being  critic  in  this  area,  but  I  just  want  to 
mention  that  the  basis  for  most  of  this  legisla- 
tion was  this  report  called  Life  Together. 
The  chairman  of  that  commission  was  Tom 
Symons.  The  contribution  that  individual  has 
made  in  the  area  of  language,  race,  and 
human  rights  in  Ontario  is  a  large  one.  He 
was  the  same  individual  on  whom  the  gov- 
ernment relied  in  the  1971  election  in  dealing 
with  the  secondary  school  problem  in 
Sturgeon  Falls.  He  was  called  upon  to  look 
at  that  situation.  I  think  he  reported  in  1972 
or  1973.  I  recall  his  report  on  French- 
language  education  in  Ontario.  Shortly  after 
that,  there  was  another  problem  in  Cornwall. 
Again,  they  got  Tom  Symons,  who  went 
down  there  and  helped  to  solve  the  very 
difficult  situation  in  Cornwall.  In  fact,  some 
of  the  major  amendments  that  have  taken 
place  through  the  Education  Act  in  relation 
to  French-language  education  were  as  a  re- 
sult of  his  report  at  that  time  on  French- 
language  education. 

Since  that  time  he  has  gone  on  to  do  a 
variety  of  things.  One  of  the  contributions  he 
has  made  now  is  this  report.  Life  Together: 


A  Report  on  Human  Rights  in  Ontario.  One 
should  pay  tribute  to  individuals  whose  con- 
tribution is  not  measured  in  the  field  of  high- 
profile  publicity  but  who,  in  the  long  term, 
have  made  consistent  contributions  in  that 
area.  I  want  to  underline  the  name  of  Tom 
Symons  as  one  of  those.  There  are  others  who 
were  part  of  this  commission  who  should  be 
mentioned  but  certainly  Tom  Symons,  the 
chairman,  is  one  who  deserves  our  applause 
for  his  contribution  in  that  field  in  Ontario. 

The  report  mentions  a  very  important 
principle  which  should  guide  us  about  the 
role  of  human  rights  and  the  role  of  in- 
dividuals in  the  community  as  far  as  human 
rights  are  concerned.  Another  individual  who 
has  made  a  tremendous  contribution  in  the 
field  of  justice  and  human  rights  in  Ontario 
is  the  Honourable  Justice  McRuer.  He  made 
a  comprehensive  report  of  laws  in  Ontario. 
The  man's  contribution  as  Chief  Justice  of 
Ontario,  on  the  bench  and  as  a  counsel  is 
something  that  is  beyond1  the  comprehension 
of  those  of  us  who  have  made  so  little  con- 
tribution in  the  field  of  law. 

Mr.  Justice  McRuer  states  in  his  report  at 
page  18,  "Although  freedom  of  the  individual 
is  a  basic  right,  it  is  a  limited  one."  He  goes 
on  to  say:  "In  a  well-ordered  society,  there 
cannot  be  freedom  in  the  abstract  nor  in  the 
absolute.  If  there  is  not  freedom  for  the  com- 
munity to  develop  in  harmony  and  peace, 
there  cannot  be  secure  freedom  for  the 
individual  who  lives  within  it.  The  in- 
dividual's rights  to  freedom  must  be  exercised 
in  the  context  of  his  or  her  responsibilities  to 
the  community  of  which  he  or  she  is  part." 

Another  individual  he  has  quoted  here,  and 
I  just  want  to  read  this  briefly,  Professor 
Tarnopolsky,  has  also  made  a  tremendous 
contribution  in  the  field  of  civil  rights.  He  is 
quoted  as  saying:  "An  act  of  discrimination 
does  not  give  rise  merely  to  a  new  private 
claim  for  compensation.  It  amounts  to  a 
public  wrong.  It  is  a  rip  in  the  fabric  that 
binds  society  together." 

So  human  rights  is  a  matter  for  all  of  us. 
That  is  why  I  feel  extremely  privileged  to  be 
participating  with  the  minister  in  the  enact- 
ment of  this  very  important  legislation.  I 
have  already  expressed  to  the  minister  in  the 
estimates  my  concern  about  the  fact  that  cer- 
tain matters  mentioned  in  the  report  Life 
Together  are  not  included  in  the  bill. 

I  suppose  the  major  matter,  the  one  that 
had  the  highest  profile,  is  the  question  of 
sexual  orientation.  I  have  said  to  the  minister, 
and  it  is  on  the  record,  that  I  am  sorry  that 
is  not  included  in  the  bill,  because  the  report 
states  clearly  they  have  evidence  there  has 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5101 


been  discrimination.  The  position  of  this 
critic  is  simply  that  all  discrimination,  to 
whatever  variety  of  individuals,  including 
those  who  do  not  have  much  public  support 
or  sympathy,  should  be  outlawed.  We  know 
there  has  been  discrimination  in  that  field 
but  it  is  unfortunate,  because  of  circum- 
stances, that  we  do  not  have  this  in  the  bill. 

The  other  matter  I  have  expressed  concern 
about  to  the  minister  is  the  fact  that  the  re- 
port had  suggested  that  the  Ontario  Human 
Rights  Commission  should  not  be  associated 
with  any  ministry.  They  have  said  it  clearly 
in  the  report.  The  Ministry  of  Labour  has 
not  hampered  the  commission,  it  has  not  un- 
duly constrained  its  discretion,  but  the  fact 
remains  that  human  rights  are  very  important. 
The  commission  should  be  made  to  appear 
independent.  You  know,  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
great  principle  that  justice  must  not  only  be 
done  but  appear  to  be  done;  that  is  very 
important  in  the  field  of  human  relations  and 
in  the  field  of  human  rights.  That  is  why  it  is 
important  that  the  commission  should  be 
divorced  completely  not  only  from  the  Min- 
istry of  Labour  but  also  from  any  other  min- 
istry and  should  be  completely  independent. 
The  minister  and  I  have  had  a  brief  discus- 
sion on  this  and  we  do  not  fully  agree,  but  I 
do  not  consider  that  to  be  a  major  problem 
with  the  legislation. 
5:30  p,m. 

Considering  the  legislation  is  the  fairest 
major  revision  in  18  years,  it  is  deserving  of 
close  scrutiny.  I  am  pleased  the  legislation  is 
going  to  standing  committee  so  that  various 
groups  will  have  the  opportunity  to  review 
it  and  see  how  we  can  make  it  practical  and 
workable.  We  have  already  had  submissions 
and  I  have  already  had  concerns  expressed  by 
a  variety  of  individuals.  Some  have  expressed 
concern  the  law  may  be  too  specific. 

One  of  the  things  prohibited  in  the  bill  is 
refusing  to  hire  a  person  with  a  criminal 
record  if  that  person  can  show  he  or  she  has 
been  rehabilitated.  The  minister  knows  it  is 
not  easy  to  prove  a  person  with  a  criminal 
record  has  been  rehabilitated. 

Another  area  some  people  will  raise  con- 
cern about  is  where  a  landlord  cannot  refuse 
accommodation  on  the  basis  of  marital  status. 
I  do  not  intend  to  go  into  all  the  specifics  of 
the  bill,  but  one  can  understand  that,  in  a 
society  that  considers  itself  free  and 
democratic,  we  say  to  an  individual:  "You  do 
what  you  want  with  your  property  subject  to 
certain  laws.  You  can't  discriminate  on  the 
basis  of  marital  status."  A  landlord  can  say: 
"I  am  not  discriminating  on  the  basis  of 
marital   status.    I    am    discriminating   on   the 


basis  T  consider  married  people  to  be  more 
financially  stable  than  someone  who  is  not." 
These  are  the  difficulties  that  can  come  for- 
ward and  it  is  important  we  look  at  these 
things. 

Any  legislation  that  goes  to  protect  one's 
rights  is  at  the  same  time  usually  done  at  the 
expense  of  someone  else.  Mr.  Justice  McRuer 
has  said  that  no  right  is  absolute.  There  has 
to  be  some  constraint,  some  flexibility  and  it 
is  going  to  be  important  that  those  affected 
by  this  legislation  have  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard,  that  they  be  made  to  understand,  that 
they  be  made  to  participate  in  the  process  so 
they  will  see  willingly  that  we  in  this  Legis- 
lature are  prepared  to  listen  to  them  and  have 
legislation  that  is  workable.  They  are  the  ones 
who  are  going  to  be  affected  by  it. 

The  minister  mentioned  in  his  statement 
that  the  commission  is  going  to  be  able  to 
tell  employers  or  landlords  to  prohibit  some 
of  their  employees  or  tenants  from  dis- 
criminating against  other  individuals.  That 
can  create  problems.  I  can  see  situations 
where  employers  will  be  caught  in  the  cross- 
fire between  an  individual  who  may  be  dis- 
criminated against  and  some  of  their  other 
employees.  That  can  be  a  problem.  I  am 
anxious  to  hear  some  of  the  people  from 
small  business  give  us  an  explanation  on  the 
issue. 

Section  38  is  the  section  that  gives  the 
powers  to  a  board  of  inquiry  to  award 
damages  not  exceeding  $5,000  for  mental 
anguish.  The  concept  of  mental  anguish  and 
awarding  damages  is  not  an  easy  one.  What 
is  mental  anguish?  Once  we  open  that  door 
we  are  going  to  have  to  look  at  some  of  the 
topics  discussed  in  the  legislation. 

The  minister  is  very  much  aware  of  some 
of  the  concerns  of  people  such  as  the  Coali- 
tion on  Human  Rights  for  the  Handicapped. 
My  colleagues  in  my  caucus  and  I  have  had 
meetings  with  these  individuals,  and  they 
appeared  to  be  not  only  very  responsible  but 
also  very  knowledgeable  and  very  practical 
in  the  suggestions  they  have  made.  I  am  sure 
the  minister  will  understand  that,  although 
no  legislation  can  be  perfect,  some  parts  of 
this  bill  will  provide  an  opportunity  to  im- 
prove its  effectiveness. 

For  instance,  on  the  question  of  what  is 
called  reasonable  accommodation,  the  coali- 
tion has  made  submissions  to  the  minister  on 
the  basis  that  the  proposed  legislation  does 
not  define  as  an  act  of  discrimination  the 
refusal  or  the  unwillingness  of  an  employer, 
service  provider,  or  landlord,  to  make  reason- 
able accommodation  to  a  handicapped 
person's  condition. 


5102 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Without  these  changes,  they  claim  reason- 
able accommodation  can  be  ordered  only 
when  discrimination  is  proven  on  another 
ground.  This  makes  section  38  of  the  Human 
Rights  Code  virtually  an  unenforceable 
remedy  in  such  cases.  They  have  a  point.  I 
think  we  should  look  at  their  submission  to 
see  whether  we  could  respond  to  their  point 
that  it  might  be  an  act  of  discrimination  to 
refuse  to  make  reasonable  accommodation. 

They  also  want  to  discuss  the  question  of 
onus  of  proof,  and  members  can  understand 
that  when  we  are  into  this  type  of  legislation 
it  is  not  an  easy  concept  either.  On  whom  do 
we  put  the  onus  of  proof  in  such  legislation? 
They  have  proposed  that  the  onus  of  proof 
should  be  on  the  individual  who  is  alleged  to 
have  infringed  upon  the  human  rights  of  the 
complainant. 

They  go  on  to  say  that  the  definition  of 
handicapped  should  be  enlarged  to  include 
people  who  have  diabetes— 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  They  are. 

Mr.  Roy:  The  minister  says  they  are  in- 
cluded. In  which  section?  Maybe  the  min- 
ister could  be  of  assistance.  I  have  not 
looked  at  the  section  to  understand  that 
people  who  have  diabetes   are  included. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Section  9b(l). 

Mr.  Roy:  I  am  looking  at  section  9b(l). 
I  take  it  what  the  minister  is  saying,  although 
it  is  not  precisely  on  the  question  of  diabetes, 
is  that  the  definition  is  wide  enough  to  in- 
clude people  with  diabetes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  Roy:  My  colleague  the  member  for 
Windsor- Walkerville  (Mr.  B.  Newman)  has 
been  making  this  submission  for  nine  years, 
and  I  think  that  contribution  should  be 
underlined. 

I  have  not  had  a  chance  to  look  closely 
at  section  9b(l)  to  see  whether  it  is  included. 
As  I  said  to  my  dear  colleague  the  minister, 
some  days  I  have  more  confidence  in  his 
medical  expertise  than  in  his  legal  expertise, 
but  he  may  yet  convince  me  before  this 
whole  exercise  is  over  that  he  has  some 
legal  capabilities. 

I  do  not  want  to  be  unduly  harsh  with 
him,  but  when  I  heard  some  of  his  col- 
leagues last  week  talking  about  human  rights, 
including  the  member  for  Kingston  and  the 
Islands  (Mr.  Norton),  and  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Grossman),  their 
remarks  left  a  lot  to  be  desired  in  terms  of 
their  legal  knowledge  in  that  field.  I  trust 
that  as  we  go  through— 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  He  has  a  QC. 


Mr.  Roy:  He's  a  QC?  Who  is  a  QC?  Is 
the  Minister  of  Labour  a  QC?  When  I  found 
out  that  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services  got  a  QC.  the  same  time  as  I 
did,  I  was  truly  offended.  I  felt  like  returning 
mine.  I  am  really  just  saying  that  in  good 
fun,  because  I  think  his  contribution  to  this 
place  is  deserving  of  that  honourable  title. 
Mr.  Speaker,  you  and  I  are  deserving  of  that 
honourable  title,  after  the  contribution  we 
have  made  to  the  profession.  I  ask  the  min- 
ister if  he  has  ever  practised. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Of  course  I  have.  More 
consistently  than  the  member,  for  a  shorter 
period  of  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  You  are  just  trying  to 
avoid  having  your  QC  stripped  this  year. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  told  that 
when  the  Attorney  General  handed  those 
out,  he  said,  "You  get  yours  on  merit,  Roy, 
and  the  others  are  political."  That's  what 
he  said. 

5:40  p.m. 

The  other  concern  of  human  rights  and 
the  handicapped  is  in  the  field  of  insurance. 
That  is  not  an  easy  concept  either,  as  to 
when  the  insurance  companies  are  discrimi- 
nating against  this  group. 

There  are  many  more  things  I  would  like 
to  talk  about;  for  instance,  the  question  of 
affirmative  action  programs  and  whether 
that  means  setting  up  quotas;  or  when  they 
are  ordering  access  to  premises,  the  diffi- 
culties that  causes.  But  I  have  highlighted 
all  these  things  to  explain,  when  we  are 
dealing  with  something  as  important  and  as 
complex  as  human  rights,  that  there  are  so 
many  people  involved.  There  are  not  only 
those  whom  we  want  to  protect,  but,  in  so 
protecting  those  who  will  be  affected,  not 
all  these  people  are  entitled  to  a  hearing. 
They  are  all  entitled  to  see  to  it  that  they 
have  confidence  in  their  legislation  and  that 
they  participate  in  the  process. 

That  is  why  I  was  pleased  to  hear  the 
minister  say  this  legislation  will  be  going  to 
standing  committee.  As  I  said  before,  we 
support  this  bill  in  principle,  but  any  criti- 
cisms we  will  have  will  be  to  make  it  a  bet- 
ter piece  of  legislation  so  that  Ontario  can 
give  leadership,  can  be  in  the  forefront  and 
can  maintain  its  position  as  the  protector  of 
human  relations  in   this   jurisdiction. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  when  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  was  talking  about 
the  medical  skill  as  distinct  from  the  legal 
skill  of  the  minister,  I  was  reminded  of  an 
occasion  when  I  was  practising  law.  Dr. 
Roscoe  Graham  died  suddenly  one  day  while 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5103 


he  was  away  skiing,  and  the  next  day  Dr. 
Harry  Botterell  came  into  the  law  office 
where  I  was  associated  and  said:  "Now  that 
Roscoe  is  dead,  who  is  there  to  operate  on 
me?  I  need  a  will  urgently."  I  feel  very 
much  the  same  way;  if  anything  were  to 
happen  to  my  friend  the  minister,  I  would 
certainly  need  to  have  a  will  urgently,  be- 
cause who  else  would  there  be  to  operate 
on  me? 

I  rise  to  participate  at  some  length  and 
perhaps,  in  the  view  of  some  members  of 
the  assembly,  at  undue  length,  in  the  bill 
before  us.  I  compliment  the  minister  on 
the  bill.  I  hasten  to  assure  him  this  caucus 
will  support  the  bill  on  second  reading,  be- 
cause it  is  very  much  what  we  have  been 
waiting  for,  an  entirely  new  Human  Rights 
Code,  as  he  said  in  his  opening  statement 
when  he  introduced  the  bill  on  November 
25  last. 

I  Was  particularly  taken  by  a  comment 
of  his  at  that  time  which  he  repeated  on 
two  occasions  in  his  remarks.  He  said,  "It 
does  not  represent  the  end  of  reform,  but 
rather  a  new  beginning."  Later  on  that 
same  day,  he  stated:  "I  have  characterized 
this  as  'a  new  beginning  in  both  substantive 
and  symbolic  terms.  I  have  described  the 
substance  of  the  proposals.  The  symbolic 
importance  of  the  revisions  cannot  be  over- 
emphasized. I  hope  the  people  of  Ontario 
will  recognize  that  the  new  code  represents 
this  government's  rededication  to  the  elim- 
ination of  the  corrosive  effects  of  discrimi- 
nation in  our  society.  Ultimately,  of  course, 
the  success  of  laws,  especially  in  this  sensi- 
tive area,  depends  on  the  good  will,  toler- 
ance and  maturity  of  our  people." 

I  may  say  also  the  introduction  of  the 
bill  led  me  again  to  read— I  picked  it  up, 
I  may  say,  intending  only  to  refresh  my 
mind  and  to  skim  through  it— Life  Together: 
A  Report  on  Human  Rights  in  Ontario, 
which  was  the  culmination  of  the  work  of 
the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Commission  un- 
der the  distinguished  chairmanship  at  that 
time  of  Thomas  Symons.  I  read  the  whole 
of  the  report  because  I  found  it,  again,  an 
extremely  fascinating  report  and  a  great 
tribute  to  the  empathy  and  perceptions  of 
not  only  a  distinguished  Canadian  but  a 
humanitarian  of  immense  depth  and  wis- 
dom. I  urge  all  members  of  the  assembly, 
when  they  have  occasion  during  the  recess, 
to  reread  it  if  they  have  not  done  so 
recently. 

The  chairman  stated  in  the  preface,  "The 
preparation  of  the  report  has  been  given 
highest  priority  by  the  commission  since  its 


reconstruction  as  a  public  body  of  private 
citizens  in  1975."  It  has  taken  some  time, 
but  I  am  not  one  to  grudge  the  time  if  the 
result,   in   its   final   analysis,   is   good. 

I  think  the  bill  is  a  first-class  bill.  It  very 
much  reflects  what  Dr.  Symons  said  at  that 
time:  "Respect  for  human  rights  is  an  old 
tradition  in  Ontario,  but  it  is  a  tradition 
that  may  be  more  fragile  than  we  think. 
Public  respect  for  human  rights  is  not  some- 
thing that  can  be  taken  for  granted  in  any 
part  of  the  world,  not  even  in  Canada.  A 
climate  of  understanding  and  mutual  respect 
will  not  grow  of  its  own  initiative.  It  re- 
quires careful  and  constant  nurturing  and 
encouragement  through  public  education 
and   legislative   action/' 

I  hope  to  draw  those  two  threads  together, 
public  education  and  legislative  action,  as  we 
look  at  the  report.  I  do  not  intend  to  go 
through  the  provisions  of  the  bill  in  any 
minute  detail.  As  the  minister  indicated  in 
the  weeks  ahead  we  will  have  an  opportunity 
to  deliberate  upon  the  bill  and  its  provisions. 
It  would  not  be  fitting  in  any  event  to  dwell 
upon  that  kind  of  minutiae.  But  I  want  to 
deal  with  a  very  fundamental  concept  in  it. 

I  am  always  amazed  at  the  skill  of  legis- 
lative counsel  in  drafting  a  bill.  The  guts  of 
the  bill  is  in  two  short  lines  in  section  8.  The 
principle  of  the  bill  is  very  simple:  "No 
person  shall  infringe  or  do  anything  that  re- 
sults directly  or  indirectly  in  the  infringe- 
ment of  a  right  under  this  part,"  referring  to 
part  I,  which  is  the  part  of  the  bill  designated 
"Freedom  From  Discrimination."  The  eight 
sections  of  that  detail  the  rights  with  respect 
to  nondiscrimination  that  we  are  looking  at 
as  we  peruse  the  bill. 

It  is  a  very  succinct  principle  we  are  deal- 
ing with.  The  elaboration  of  it  is  in  all  of  the 
provisions  of  the  bill.  In  a  little  while  I  may 
come  back  to  those  provisions  of  the  bill  and 
the  different  parts  of  it  and  make  some 
comments  about  them.  But  the  preamble  is 
essential.  As  I  was  considering  the  bill  I 
thought  perhaps  I  should  look  at  the  dic- 
tionary to  refresh  my  mind  about  the  words 
"dignity"  and  "worth."  They  are  in  a 
sense  interchangeable.  The  question  of  equal 
dignity  and  equal  worth  of  each  individual  is 
fundamental,  as  the  recital  states,  to  any 
civilized  society. 
5:50  p.m. 

Nondiscrimination  provisions  of  any  bill  are 
a  reflection  of  that  civility,  in  the  sense  of 
the  ancient  term  "civility."  That  is  the  only 
basis  on  which  a  society  of  fairness  and  justice 
can  exist  in  any  way.   However,  I  want  to 


5104 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


indicate  that  in  that  recital,  there  is  a  refer- 
ence to  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human 
Rights  as  proclaimed  by  the  United  Nations. 
When  I  was  thinking  about  that  declaration, 
I  was  concerned  as  to  why  there  is  no  refer- 
ence, in  the  recital  to  the  act,  to  the  Interna- 
tional Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political 
Rights,  to  which  Canada  is  a  party  through 
the  United  Nations,  which  is  obligatory  by 
virtue  of  Canada's  adhesion  to  international 
law— obligatory  in  the  international  sense  at 
the  federal  and  provincial  levels  as  well  as  at 
the  level  of  the  two  northern  territories. 

I  felt  I  should  draw  three  or  four  distinc- 
tions so  we  can  be  clear  about  the  particular 
documents  to  which  we  refer  related  to 
Canada's  participation  in  the  ongoing  work 
of  human  rights  and  the  protection  of  those 
rights  in  the  world  at  large,  and  in  Canada  in 
particular,  in  the  international  community. 

We  do  have  the  Universal  Declaration  of 
Human  Rights.  As  many  of  us  will  recall,  on 
December  10,  1948,  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  United  Nations  adopted  the  Universal 
Declaration  of  Human  Rights.  That  document 
has  been  referred  to  on  many  occasions  and 
is  carried  forward,  quite  properly,  in  the  bill 
before  us. 

I  have  here  the  report  of  Canada  on  the 
implementation  of  the  provisions  of  the 
International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Politi- 
cal Rights,  which  refers  at  some  consider- 
able length  to  the  province  of  Ontario  and 
the  compliance  by  the  province  of  Ontario 
with  the  international  covenant  and  its  ob- 
ligations as  assumed  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment. I  want  to  come  back  to  that  very 
briefly. 

There  are  two  documents,  the  Universal 
Declaration  of  Human  Rights  and  the  Inter- 
national Covenant  of  Civil  and  Political 
Rights.  The  international  covenant  was 
adopted  on  December  16,  1966,  and  was 
adhered  to  by  Canada  some  10  or  11  years 
later,  in  1976  or  thereabouts.  At  that  time, 
two  covenants  were  adopted,  the  Interna- 
tional Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights 
and  the  International  Covenant  on  Econom- 
ic, Social  and  Cultural  Rights. 

Although  I  m'ay  be  wrong— my  informa- 
tion may  not  be  as  accurate  as  I  would  wish 
it  to  be— it  seems  that  while  Canada  has 
adhered  to  the  one  international  covenant, 
it  has  not  as  yet  adhered  to  the  second 
covenant  adopted  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  United  Nations  at  the  same  time, 
December   16,    1966. 

Both  of  those  covenants  contain  very  de- 
tailed   provisions    concerning    the    delibera- 


tions of  the  nations  of  the  world  that  are 
members  of  the  United  Nations  with  respect 
to  this  ongoing  problem.  When  we  come 
back  to  our  particular  bill  and  the  eight 
sections  related  to  our  rights,  we  must  not 
lose  sight  for  one  moment  of  the  immense 
detail,  complexity  and  necessity  of  all  the 
provisions  of  those  two  international  agree- 
ments. 

I  thought  I  also  should  refer  at  this 
time,  since  it  is  in  many  people's  minds, 
to  the  Helsinki  accord  because  sometimes 
that  is  considered  by  many  of  us  to  have 
supplanted  other  declarations.  I  simply  want 
to  say  that  the  statement  I  have  from  the 
International  Commission  of  Jurists  is  that: 
"The  Final  Act  of  the  Helsinki  Conference 
on  Security  and  Co-operation  in  Europe  is 
a  comprehensive  and  varied  code  for  the 
improvement  of  security  and  co-operation 
between  east  and  west  in  Europe.  The 
parties  to  it  are  all  the  states  of  Europe 
except  Albania,  the  United  States  and 
Canada.  While  it  is  still  too  early  to  assess 
what  the  results  of  the  Final  Act  will  be, 
it  has  already  proved  to  be  a  powerful 
instrument  for  raising  the  subject  of  the 
observance  of  human  rights  to  the  forefront 
of  foreign  policy." 

I  want  to  distinguish  it  from  the  two 
covenants  to  which  I  have  referred  and, 
particularly,  the  covenant  with  respect  to 
civil  and  political  rights  to  which  Canada 
is  an  adhering  party.  The  reference  goes 
on  to  state:  "The  term  'Final  Act'  itself  has 
no  precise  meaning  in  law.  It  is  certainly 
not  a  treaty  or  pact  with  binding  obliga- 
tions placed  on  the  states  that  are  parties. 
It  is  essentially  a  statement  of  principles  for 
the  guidance  of  interstate  relations,  a  state- 
ment of  intent." 

I  do  not  want  to  go  on  at  any  great 
length,  but  I  thought  the  record  should 
clearly  distinguish  the  status  of  the  Hel- 
sinki accord  from  the  two  international  cov- 
enants of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
United  Nations,  to  one  of  which  Canada 
adheres,  and  to  distinguish  it,  of  course, 
from  the  position  with  respect  to  the  Uni- 
versal Declaration  of  Human  Rights  which 
is  in  the  preamble  to  the  bill  that  is  before 
us. 

How  does  one  relate  Canada's  adhesion 
to  that  international  convenant  to  what  we 
are  doing  in  this  assembly?  Mr.  Speaker, 
if  this  could  be  six  of  the  clock,  I  want  to 
pick  up,  when  we  return  at  eight  o'clock, 
on    an    explanation    of    the    connection    be- 


DECEMBER  9,  1980  5105 


tween    Canada    in    its    international    aspect,  with  the  human  rights  bill  that  is  before  us. 

Canada  in  its   domestic  aspect,   the   obliga-  1  would  like,   if  I  may,   Mr.   Speaker,   to 

tions  of  Ontario  with  respect  to  the  perfor-  resume   at   eight   o'clock, 

mance  of  those  covenants  and  its  connections  The  House  recessed   at  5:58  p.m. 


5106 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  5081) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

AMBULANCE  SERVICE  CHARGES 

296.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Can  the  minister  indi- 
cate when  the  Ministry  of  Health  will  exempt 
from  ambulance  copayment  charges  those  on 
all  forms  of  OHIP  assistance?  Can  the  min- 
ister table  any  studies  which  are  in  con- 
sideration of  this?  (Tabled  October  9,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Ministry  policies,  in- 
cluding those  related  to  copayments,  are 
always  under  review  but  there  are  no  defini- 
tive studies  concerning  exemption  from  am- 
bulance copayment  available  for  tabling  at 
this  time. 

UNIONVILLE  SCHOOL  FACILITIES 

368.  Mr.  Stong:  (a)  Will  the  Premier 
intervene  immediately  in  the  secondary 
school  issue  in  Unionville  and  order  the  re- 
quired capital  allocations  so  that  the  Minister 
of  Education's  inability  or  unwillingness  to 
act  will  be  overcome?  (b)  Does  the  Premier 
approve  of  the  policies  imposed  by  his  Min- 
ister of  Education  which  force  the  same 
fiscal  restraints  on  growing  areas  as  are 
placed  on  slow-growth  and  no-growth 
areas?  (c)  Does  the  Premier  approve  of  the 
policies  imposed  by  his  Minister  of  Educa- 
tion, which  policies  have  caused  the  present 
chairman  of  the  York  County  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, Mrs.  Dorothy  Zajac,  in  her  most 
recent  report  to  the  citizens  of  York  region, 
to  complain  as  follows:  "Unfortunately,  the 
Minister  of  Education  insists  upon  using 
badlv  outdated  capital  allocation  formulae 
which  present  no  problems  to  boards  with 
declining  enrolment,  a  trend  across  the  prov- 
ince, but  do  not  adequately  meet  the  needs 
in  York  region,"  and  further  in  a  recent 
letter  to  this  member,  to  state  that  the  York 
County  Board  of  Education  "is  convinced 
that  the  'rules'  being  applied  bv  the  ministry 
impose  undue  hardships  on  those  commu- 
nities which  are  expanding"?  (d)  Does  the 
Premier  approve  of  the  policies  imposed  by 
his  Minister  of  Education  which  require  the 
transportation  of  children  out  of  their  com- 
munities to  outlying  areas  for  school  accom- 
modation? (e)  Would  the  Premier  instruct 
the  Minister  of  Education  to  revise  immedi- 
ately her  ministerial  policies  so  that  the  edu- 
cational needs  in  the  regional  municipality 
of  York  will  be  met?  (f)  Would  the  Premier 
address    the    problems    which    accompany    a 


growing  area  in  terms  of  supplying  educa- 
tional services,  inter  alia,  and  respond  to  the 
letter  from  the  mayor  of  the  town  of 
Vaughan,  addressed  to  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation, who  writes  that  the  "boards  of  edu- 
cation have  been  securing  additional  sites 
with  these  new  subdivisions  but  are  finding 
the  rigid  guidelines  established  by  the  min- 
istry for  the  construction  of  new  schools 
unreasonable  in  responding  to  the  areas 
within  our  towns  which  are  experiencing 
concentrated  growth"?  (g)  Would  the 
Premier  either  instruct  his  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation to  respond  to  the  immediate  needs  in 
the  growing  regional  municipality  of  York  or, 
in  the  alternative,  replace  that  minister  with 
a  minister  who  would  be  more  sensitive  to 
those  needs?  (Tabled  October  26,   1980.) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  (a)  The  Minister 
of  Education  has  now  taken  the  necessary 
steps  to  assign  a  capital  allocation  to  the 
York  County  Board  of  Education  respecting 
a  new  secondary  school  in  the  Markham 
area. 

(b)  The  capital  fiscal  restraints  being  ap- 
plied to  most  non-growing  areas  have  not 
been  placed  on  the  growing  areas.  Ninety 
per  cent  of  the  building  funds  allocated  to 
school  boards  this  year  are  for  new  pupil 
places  in  growth  areas. 

(c)  The  minister  does  not  agree  that  the 
ministry  policy  with  respect  to  capital  allo- 
cations represents  problems  to  growing 
boards.  The  Dolicy  dealing  with  pupil  load- 
ings for  building  planning  purposes  worked 
extremely  efficiently  in  those  years  when 
most  boards  were  facing  rapid  expanding 
enrolment.  We  can  see  no  reason,  particu^rly 
in  the  present  period  of  capital  shortages,  to 
alter  a  policy  such  that  the  inevitable  result 
would  be  an  overwhelming  demand  across 
the  province  for  additional  pupil  accommo- 
dation. 

(d)  The  transportation  of  school  children 
out  of  their  communities  to  schools  where 
tfiere  is  surplus  space  will  be  necessary  for 
some  time.  Unfortunately  there  is  a  growing 
imbalance  in  Ontario  between  the  number 
of  pupils  and  the  accommodation  available. 
As  enrolment  declines  in  one  area  it  grows 
in  another;  however,  the  total  student  enrol- 
ment is  dropping.  We  must  face  the  reality 
of  having  to  use  existing  schools  even  if  they 
are  not  "in  our  community." 

(e)  The  educational  needs  in  the  regional 
municipality  of  York  are  well  served.  Capital 
allocations     to     both     boards     totalled     $19 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


510T 


million  since   1977  and  additional  approvals 
will  be  granted  in  1981  and  1982. 

(f)  The  Ministry  of  Education  philosophy 
that  in  areas  of  housing  growth  new  pupil 
places  will  be  approved  where  there  is  in- 
sufficient accommodation  has  been  applied 
assiduously  in  the  York  region.  On  the  other 
hand  we  refuse  to  build  new  schools  until  a 
careful  analysis  by  experienced  and  com- 
petent ministry  staff  in  the  field  confirm  that 
a  school  is  needed  at  a  specific  date  in  a 
specific  area  and  that  no  alternatives  exist. 
The  minister  has  responded  in  a  positive  way 
to  the  concerns  expressed  by  the  mayor  of 
Markham  and  the  mayor  of  Vaughan. 

( g )  No  reply. 

369.  Mr.  Stong:  (a)  Now  that  the  York 
County  Board  of  Education  has  struck  its 
new  priority  list  and  has  placed  the  require- 
ment of  a  new  secondary  school  in  Union- 
ville  high  on  the  list,  namely  second,  pre- 
ceded only  by  the  necessary  repairs  to  the 
Thornhill  High  School,  when  will  the  Min- 
ister of  Education  provide  the  capital  alloca- 
tions needed  for  the  new  high  school?  (b) 
On  June  9  past,  the  minister  stated  in  the 
Legislature  that  the  decision  involving  a 
Unionville  high  school  "is  in  the  process  of 
being  made  at  this  time,"  and  further,  at  the 
meeting  held  in  the  ministry's  offices  on 
October  1  past,  the  minister  requested  an 
updated  priority  list  from  the  York  County 
Board  of  Education  which  has  been  set;  how 
much  longer  will  it  take  the  minister  to 
decide?  (c)  Why  does  the  minister  insist  on 
imposing  policies  on  the  growing  regional 
municipality  of  York,  which  policies  have 
caused  the  chairman  of  the  York  County 
Board  of  Education,  Mrs.  Dorothy  Zajac,  to 
complain  "that  the  'rules'  being  applied  by 
the  ministry  impose  undue  hardships  on 
those  communities  which  are  expanding?" 
(d)  Why  does  the  minister  continue  to 
enforce  a  policy  which  requires  31.5  students 
per  classroom  at  the  elementary  level  and  27 
at  the  secondary  level  when  the  minister 
knows  that  the  collective  agreements  entered 
into  between  the  York  County  Board  of 
Education  and  its  teachers  set  pupil-teacher 
ratios  of  20  to  1  and  17  to  1  respectively 
in  the  two  panels,  and  those  figures  translate 
into  average  class  sizes  of  25  to  27  at  the 
elementary  level  and  somewhat  less  than  this 
at  the  secondary  level?  (e)  Will  the  minister 
revise  her  policy  immediately  so  as  to  con- 
form to  the  obligations  which  arise  out  of 
collective  agreements  with  the  teachers  and 
which  have  to  be  met  by  the  York  County 
Board  of  Education?  (f)  Since  the  ministry's 
policy  requires  that  80  per  cent  to  85  per 


cent  of  the  pupils  needed  to  fill  all  places  in 
a  new  school  must  be  actually  present  at  the 
time,  would  the  minister  change  her  policy 
and  grant  earlier  initial  approval  to  applica- 
tions because  of  the  considerable  time  re- 
quired to  put  a  new  school  into  place  after 
that  approval?  (Tabled  October  24,  1980.) 
Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  (a)  and  (b)  The 
Minister  of  Education  has  now  taken  the 
necessary  steps  to  assign  a  capital  allocation 
to  the  York  County  Board  of  Education 
respecting  a  new  secondary  school  in  the 
Markham  area. 

(c)  The  capital  fiscal  restraints  being  ap- 
plied to  most  non-growing  areas  have  not 
been  placed  on  the  growing  areas.  Ninety 
per  cent  of  the  building  funds  allocated  to 
school  boards  this  year  are  for  new  pupil 
places  in  growth  areas. 

(d)  The  Ministry  of  Education  policy  on 
pupil  loading  does  not  require  31.5  students 
in  an  elementary  classroom  or  27  students  at 
the  secondary  level.  The  pupil  loading  spec- 
ifications set  out  in  the  capital  grant  plan 
are  factors  used  in  determining  the  number 
of  learning  spaces  to  be  provided  in  a  new 
school  or  addition  to  a  school  at  the  initial 
planning  stage.  In  cases  where  pupil  enrol- 
ment projections  can  be  reasonably  estimated 
for  five  years,  the  regional  director  of  educa- 
tion has  the  authority  to  approve  accommo- 
dation based  upon  the  projections.  In  actual 
practice,  experience  has  demonstrated  that 
actual  enrolment  seldom  reaches  those  pro- 
jections and  in  these  times  of  declining 
enrolment  it  is  wise  to  build  for  immediate 
need.  A  further  variable  is  the  diversification 
of  pupil  numbers  in  the  various  class  grades 
in  a  given  school. 

The  ministry  does  not  recognize  pupil- 
teacher  ratios  that  may  result  from  school 
board/teacher  collective  agreements  as  a 
basis  for  accommodation  needs  in  projects 
that  qualify  for  ministry  grant  support.  Ac- 
commodation required  by  a  school  board,  as 
a  result  of  a  collective  agreement,  in  excess 
of  that  which  can  be  approved  by  the  min- 
istry is  the  responsibility  of  the  school  board. 

(e)  The  ministry  is  not  prepared  to  adjust 
the  present  policy  respecting  pupil  loading. 
This  has  been  communicated  to  all  school 
boards  in  a  memorandum  dated  June  30, 
1980. 

(f)  The  ministry  has  always  adopted  a 
flexible  policy  with  respect  to  approving 
school  accommodation  sufficiently  in  advance 
to  allow  for  design  and  construction.  This 
policy  is  followed  consistent  with  the  avail- 
ability of  funds  for  school  building  that  are 
assigned    to    the   ministry    and   the   need   to 


5108 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ensure  that  when  a  school  is  ready  for  occu- 
pancy it  will  not  open  and  be  partially 
empty.  Every  effort  is  made  to  ensure  that 
the  school  will  be  fully  utilized.  This  may 
mean  that  existing  schools  may  for  a  time  be 
crowded  or  that  portable  classrooms  may  be 
required  or  the  students  may  have  to  be 
bussed  some  distance. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  ASSESSMENT 

412.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  specific  projects 
are  exempted  from  the  requirements  of  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act,  1975,  by 
section  3  of  Ontario  Regulation  855/80  that 
were  not  exempted  prior  to  the  passage  of 
the  regulation?  (Tabled  November  25,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  regulation  referred 
to  in  the  question  does  not  have  a  section  3. 
However,  subsection  3  of  section  1  of  the 
regulation  adds  new  subsections  8  and  9  to 
section  5  of  O.  Reg.  836/76,  the  general 
regulation  under  the  Environmental  Assess- 
ment Act.  Subsections  1  to  7  of  section  5  of 
O.  Reg.  836/76  were  made  by  O.  Reg. 
468/80.  Section  5  is  the  section  which  made 
the  act  applicable  to  municipalities  last  June. 
It  is  assumed  that  these  are  the  provisions 
to  which  the  question  refers. 

The  new  provisions  have  general  applica- 
tion and  therefore  apply  to  many  under- 
takings rather  than  a  few  specific  under- 
takings. The  purpose  of  the  new  provisions 
is  to  clarify  the  "grandfather"  exemption 
found  in  subsection  5  of  section  5.  As  ex- 
plained in  announcing  the  municipal  environ- 
mental assessment  regulations  to  the  Legisla- 
ture, the  purpose  of  the  grandfather  provi- 
sion was  to  exempt  undertakings  to  which 
municipalities  had,  prior  to  June  3,  1980, 
already  made  a  firm  commitment  to  imple- 
ment. The  grandfather  provision  also  specifies 
that  projects  so  exempt  must  be  complete 
or  substantially  underway  by  three  years 
after  the  effective  date  of  the  regulation 
(i.e.,  by  June  3,  1983). 

The  grandfather  provision  referred  to  the 
authorization  by  resolution  or  bylaw  of  the 
council  of  the  municipality  as  the  means  of 
establishing  a  firm  commitment  to  proceed 
with  the  undertaking.  Municipalities  normally 
would  take  such  actions  by  resolution  or  by- 
law. However,  as  it  turned  out,  some  munic- 
ipalities regularly  determine  to  implement  an 
undertaking  prior  to  passing  a  formal  bylaw 
or  resolution,  either  because  of  their  own 
traditional  practices  or  because  some  other 
approval  is  needed  before  the  bylaw  is 
passed. 


An  example  which  came  up  when  the 
amendment  made  by  O.  Reg.  855/80  was 
being  considered,  was  a  proposed  senior 
citizens  housing  project  in  Metropolitan  To- 
ronto which  had  been  approved  by  the 
metropolitan  council  and  for  which  land  had 
been  purchased,  but  for  which  final  formal 
approval  had  not  been  given  by  bylaw 
because  formal  approval  required  a  number 
of  other  prior  approvals  such  as  Ontario 
Municipal  Board  approval  of  the  1981  capital 
budget  and  approval  of  mortgage  financing. 

Another  example  involved  the  provision  of 
certain  services  in  a  proposed  plan  of  sub- 
division in  Oakville  which  had  received  draft 
plan  approval.  However,  since  all  of  the  con- 
ditions of  draft  plan  approval  had  not  yet 
been  satisfied,  a  formal  agreement  authorized 
by  bylaw  had  not  been  executed. 

In  both  of  these  examples  it  is  clear  that 
the  municipality  had  made  a  firm  commit- 
ment to  proceeding  with  the  undertaking 
prior  to  the  effective  date  of  the  municipal 
environmental  assessment  regulations.  The 
amending  regulation  provides  legal  certainty 
that  similar  works  which  had  been  author- 
ized by  various  types  of  procedures,  used 
by  municipalities,  are  entitled  to  the  "grand- 
father exemption"  if  it  can  be  demonstrated 
that  a  firm  commitment  had  been  made,  by 
June  3,  1980,  to  implement  an  undertaking 
at  a  specific  site.  The  requirement  remains 
that  for  any  undertaking  thus  entitled  to  an 
exemption,  at  least  25  per  cent  of  the  cost 
of  the  undertaking  must  be  incurred  by 
June  3,  1983,  for  the  exemption  to  be  appli- 
cable. If  this  provision  cannot  be  met,  the 
exemption  becomes  inapplicable. 

ROTHSAY  CONCENTRATES 

413.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  has  the  minister 
done  to  eliminate  the  smell  created  by 
Rothsay  Concentrates  Limited  in  Rothsay? 
Will  the  minister  describe  how  he  intends 
to  meet  his  commitment  "to  do  something" 
about  this  serious  odour  problem?  (Tabled 
November  25,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Representatives  of  the 
company  met  with  Jack  Johnson,  MPP, 
Wellington-Dufferin,  and  the  minister  on 
December  1,  1980.  At  that  time,  Mr.  Vic 
Malta,  the  company  vice-president,  outlined 
a  very  substantial  financial  commitment  for 
installation  of  additional  pollution  control 
equipment.  Plans  include  the  installation  of 
additional  air  pollution  control  equipment, 
renovations  to  existing  equipment  and  the 
installation  of  automatic  controls  to  ensure  a 
high   degree    of   performance.    A    consultant 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5109 


is  conducting  a  study  on  the  wastewater 
treatment  facilities  to  ensure  optimum  per- 
formance. The  company  has  also  advised  of 
plans  to  establish  a  pollution  control  depart- 
ment at  the  plant  to  be  responsible  and  dedi- 
cated to  all  aspects  of  pollution  control. 

The  pollution  control  equipment  was 
recommended  by  a  major  consulting  firm, 
with  experience  in  the  rendering  business, 
after  an  inplant  study  of  odour  emissions 
and  a  stack  testing  program  completed  by 
the  Ontario  Research  Foundation.  The  con- 
sultants are  confident  that  a  very  high  level 
of  odour  control  can  be  accomplished.  The 
company,  and  its  consultants,  are  meeting 
with  ministry  design  review  staff  to  discuss 
the  technical  details  of  the  proposal.  Min- 
istry approval  of  the  design  is  expected  by 
December  15,  1980.  The  company  antici- 
pates installation  of  the  control  equipment 
by  the  end  of  May  1981. 

The  Ministry  of  the  Environment  issued  a 
press  release  December  5,  1980,  to  this  effect 
so  that  the  general  public  is  kept  informed. 

HYDRO  LAND  PURCHASES 

415.  Mr.  Isaacs:  Is  it  correct  that  the 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  is  responsible 
for  the  delay  in  Ontario  Hydro  negotiations 
for  the  purchase  of  cottage  properties  east 
of  Hydro's  Nanticoke  generating  station? 
What  is  the  reason  for  the  delay?  (Tabled 
November  26,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  was  not  responsible  for  any 
unnecessary  delay  in  Ontario  Hydro's  nego- 
tiations for  the  purchase  of  cottage  proper- 
ties east  of  Hydro's  Nanticoke  generating 
station. 

Ontario  Hydro  required  two  approvals 
before  proceeding  with  the  purchase  of  the 
property,  one  under  the  Environmental  Pro- 
tection Act,  and  one  under  the  Power  Cor- 
porations Act. 

Hydro  submitted  a  request  for  an  exemp- 
tion to  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  in 
late  July  1980.  The  exemption  request  was 
subsequently  revised  and  discussions  regard- 
ing the  conditions  of  exemption  were  held 
between  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
and  Hydro  staff.  The  exemption  was  granted 
on  November  13,  1980. 

CARBON  TETRACHLORIDE 

416.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  information  does 
the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  have  con- 
cerning hazards  associated  with  the  use  of 
carbon   tetrachloride   as   a   fumigant  sprayed 


on  harvested  wheat  and  other  grains?  How 
extensive  is  the  use  of  carbon  tetrachloride 
for  this  purpose  in  Ontario?  Is  the  ministry 
considering  further  restrictions?  (Tabled 
November  26,  1980. ) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Carbon  tetrachloride  is 
used  in  the  fumigation  of  grain  for  insect 
control  in  combination  with  fumigants  that 
are  flammable  or  explosive  to  eliminate  these 
hazards.  It  is  not,  in  itself,  an  effective 
fumigant. 

In  Canada,  only  a  small  percentage  of 
grain  is  fumigated,  as  grain  may  be  moved, 
screened,  dried,  or  exposed  to  low  tempera- 
tures to  reduce  insect  populations.  Aluminum 
phosphide  is  the  most  commonly  used  fumi- 
gant and  has  virtually  replaced  combinations 
containing  carbon  tetrachloride.  Vendor  data 
for  1980  show  sales  of  less  than  1,000  gallons 
of  carbon  tetrachloride  for  grain  fumigation 
in  Ontario.  This  represents  treatment  of 
166,000  bushels  of  grain. 

The  health  hazards  associated  with  carbon 
tetrachloride  as  a  chemical  have  been  exten- 
sively documented  for  many  years.  Details 
may  be  obtained  from  such  texts  as: 

1.  Chemical  Safety  Data  Sheet  SD-3, 
Manufacturing  Chemist  Association  Inc., 
1825  Connecticut  Ave.,  N.,  Washington, 
DC.  20009; 

2.  Kirk-Othmer,  Encyclopedia  of  Chem- 
ical Technology,  second  revised  edition, 
volume  five,  1964,  Interscience  Publishers; 

3.  Faith,  W.  L.  et  al,  Industrial  Chem- 
icals, third  edition,  John  Wiley  and  Sons 
Inc.; 

4.  H.  A.  U.  Munro,  Manual  of  Fumigation 
for  Insect  Control,  FAO,  1969,  St.  Pauls 
Press  Limited. 

As  a  result  of  its  toxicity,  most  unregu- 
lated uses  have  been  discontinued. 

As  a  pesticide,  carbon  tetrachloride  is  a 
schedule  two  product  and  is  available  only 
to  farmers,  or  to  licensed  exterminators  who 
hold  a  licence  for  fumigations.  The  placing 
of  carbon  tetrachloride  in  this  schedule 
recognizes  that  the  hazard  is  primarily  to  the 
handler  and  restricts  its  use  to  qualified  ap- 
plicators. 

Carbon  tetrachloride  is  registered  as  a 
pesticide  for  grain  fumigation  by  Agriculture 
Canada  for  use  in  Canada.  This  agency,  as 
well  as  the  US  Environmental  Protection 
Agency,  is  currently  re-evaluating  all  fumi- 
gants, including  carbon  tetrachloride,  as  part 
of  a  routine  process.  Appropriate  action  will 
be  taken  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment 
on  the  basis  of  these  re-evaluations  if 
warranted. 


5110                                             LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 

INTERIM  ANSWERS  On  question  417  by  Mr.  Isaacs,  Hon.  Mr. 

On  question  411  by  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid,  Hon.  Parrott     provided     the     following     interim 

Mr.    Auld    provided    the    following    interim  answer:  Additional  time  will  be  required  to 

answer:   It  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  a  prepare    an    answer   to    the    above    question, 

response   prior    to    the    end    of    the    current  The    answer    will    be    ready    on    or    about 

legislative  session.  December  12,  1980. 


DECEMBER  9,  1980  5111 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  December  9,  1980 

Canadian  National  Exhibition,  statement  by  Mr.   Grossman          6067 

Conn  Smythe  papers,  statement  by  Mr.  Baetz  5067 

Energy  standards  in  government  buildings,  statement  by  Mr.  Wiseman  5068 

Urban  Transportation  Development  Corporation,  statement  by  Mr.   Snow  5069 

Urban  Transportation  Development  Corporation,  questions  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Nixon, 

Mr.    Cassidy 5069 

Disposal  of  PCBs,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  Isaacs  5071 

Opted-out  specialists,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Conway  5073 

Transit  fares,  questions  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  B.  Newman  15074 

United  Parcel  Service,  questions  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Peterson  5074 

Food  prices,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Swart  5075 

Ottawa  courthouse,  questions  of  Mr.  Wiseman:  Mr.  Roy,  Mr.  Cassidy  5075 

Speech  therapy  funding,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Ms.  Gigantes  5076 

Teachers'  membership  fees,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Stong 5077 

Silica  dust  levels,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:   Mr.  Martel  5077 

Disposal  of  PCBs,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Hall  5077 

Genetics,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Grande  5078 

Auto  warranties,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:   Mr.  Kerrio   5079 

Aid  to  pensioners,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Ms.  Bryden  5080 

Point  of  privilege  re  environmental  assessment:  Mr.  Isaacs 5080 

Point  of  order  re  questions  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Ziemba  5080 

Report,  standing  committee  on  public  accounts:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  5080 

Motion  re  House  sittings,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to 5081 

Motion  re  supplementary  Estimates,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to 5081 

Motions  re  committee  meetings,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5081 

Mining  Amendment  Act,  Bill  221,  Mr.  Auld,  first  reading  5081 

Public  Vehicles  Amendment  Act,  Bill  222,  Mr.  Cunningham,  first  reading  5081 

Environmental  Assessment  Amendment  Act,  Bill  223,  Mr.  Isaacs,  first  reading  5081 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  296,  368,  369,  411,  412,  413,  415,  416  and  417  on 

Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells 5081 

Point  of  order  re  government  advertising:  Mr.  Nixon  5081 

Retail  Sales  Tax  Amendment  Act,  Bill  187,  Mr.  Maeck,  second  reading  5082 


5112  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 

Bill  187  reported 5092 

Human  Rights  Code  Act,  Bill  209,  Mr.  Elgie,  on  second  reading  5096 

Recess   5105 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Ambulance  service  charges,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Breaugh  5106 

Unionville  school  facilities,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Stong  5106 

Environmental  assessment,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs  5108 

Rothsay  Concentrates,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs   5108 

Hydro  land  purchases,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs  5109 

Carbon  tetrachloride,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:   Mr.  Isaacs  5109 

Interim   answer:   Mr.    Parrott 5110 


DECEMBER  9,  1980  5113 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Auld,  Hon.  J.  A.  C;  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Leeds  PC) 

Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Gigantes,  E.  (Carleton  East  NDP) 

Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Hall,  R.  (Lincoln  L) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McKessock,  R.  (Grey  L) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP) 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Stong,  A.  (York  Centre  L) 
Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 
Walker,  Hon.  G;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

(London  South  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wiseman,  Hon.  D.  J.;  Minister  of  Government  Services  (Lanark  PC) 
Ziemba,  E.  (High  Park-Swansea  NDP) 


No.  136 

Ontario 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Tuesday,  December  9,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears   at   the   back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative   index   of  previous   issues   can   be  obtained   by  calling   tht1 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan.  <^B^>10 


5117 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 

HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE 

(continued) 

Resuming  the  debate  on  the  motion  for 
second  reading  of  Bill  209,  An  Act  to  revise 
and  extend  Protection  of  Human  Rights  in 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  continue. 
The  assembly  does  not  march  to  my  par- 
ticular drum  and  I  do  not  intend  to  detain 
the  assembly  unduly  long,  although  I  have 
some  matters  that  are  of  immense  importance 
to  me  in  this  debate  on  Bill  209,  An  Act  to 
revise  and  extend  Protection  of  Human  Rights 
in  Ontario. 

A  very  brief  summary  of  what  I  was  saying 
before  the  dinner  recess  is  that  we  cannot 
here  in  Ontario  isolate  ourselves  from  the 
obligations  which  Canada,  as  a  nation  state 
and  member  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
United  Nations,  has  assumed  on  behalf  of 
Canada.  I  was  trying  before  dinner  to  indicate 
quite  clearly  that  in  the  preamble  of  the  bill 
which  is  before  us,  the  reference  is  to  the 
Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights  pro- 
claimed by  the  United  Nations.  That  was 
back  in  1948.  Since  that  time  in  1976,  Canada 
has  adhered  to  two  international  treaties,  the 
covenant  with  respect  to  civil  and  political 
rights  and  the  covenant  with  respect  to  cul- 
tural and  other  rights. 

In  a  strange  way,  I  think  we  have  to  be 
clear  in  our  own  minds  what  that  adhesion  by 
Canada  as  a  nation  state  to  the  international 
community  to  these  two  covenants  means 
with  respect  to  the  obligations  of  Ontario 
under  those  covenants.  The  particular  cov- 
enants I  am  referring  to  are  the  covenant 
with  respect  to  economic,  social  and  cultural 
rights  and  the  covenant  with  respect  to  civil 
and  political  rights.  I  am  not  knowledgeable, 
except  by  reading,  about  the  rights  included 
in  the  covenant  with  respect  to  economic, 
social  and  cultural  rights.  I  am,  however, 
knowledgeable  about  the  Canadian  response 
to  the  international  covenant  on  civil  and 
political  rights  simply  because,  under  that 
covenant,  the  government  of  Canada  was 
required  to   respond  to  the   UN   committee 


Tuesday,  December  9,  1980 

set  up  under  that  covenant  about  the  position 
of  Canada  and  about  the  position  of  Ontario. 

I  want  to  make  that  connection  because 
my  emphasis  at  the  beginning  was  to  select 
from  the  comments  made  by  the  Minister  of 
Labour  (Mr.  Elgie)  when  the  bill  was  intro- 
duced into  the  assembly  the  statement  that 
this  is  a  beginning  and  not  necessarily  the 
end  of  reform.  It  is  very  much  a  beginning. 

Let  me  illustrate  without  quoting  at  great 
length,  but  quoting  because  it  describes  suc- 
cinctly and  well  our  relationship  in  Ontario 
to  Canada  and  Canada's  adhesion  to  the 
international  covenant  to  which  I  refer.  My 
reference  is  to  the  report  of  Canada  on  the 
implementation  of  the  provisions  of  the 
covenant  on  civil  and  political  rights,  dated 
March  1979.  It  is  published  by  the  Secretary 
of  State  of  Canada.  It  contains,  unknown  I 
am  certain  to  very  many  members  of  the 
assembly,  some  55  pages  about  Ontario  in 
relation  to  the  performance  by  Canada  in  an 
international  setting  of  its  obligations  under 
that  covenant.  Those  55  pages  set  out  a  num- 
ber of  statutes  of  Ontario  and  a  number  of 
problems  related  to  Ontario's  performance  of 
the  obligations  which  Canada  has  assumed  in 
the  international  setting  on  its  behalf  about 
human  rights  and  political  rights. 

As  I  said,  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  knowl- 
edgeable about  it,  but  presumably  when  the 
matter  goes  out  to  committee  we  can  deal 
with  the  other  international  covenant,  that  is, 
the  international  covenant  on  economic,  social 
and  cultural  rights.  I  think  it  is  very  im- 
portant that  members  of  this  assembly  under- 
stand what  Canada  has  assumed  on  behalf  of 
the  provinces  within  the  constitutional  limita- 
tions that  Canada  has  because  of  the  nature 
of  this  country  as  a  federal  state. 

Let  me  state  the  position,  then  let  me  make 
a  recommendation  and  then  let  me  make  a 
comment  about  it.  I  know  my  colleague  the 
member  for  St.  George  (Mrs.  Campbell)  will 
be  interested  in  this  because  she  has  expressed 
an  interest  on  a  number  of  other  occasions  in 
this  nexus  or  connection  between  what  we 
do  here  in  Ontario  about  civil  and  political 
rights  and  what  we  do  here  in  Ontario  about 
economic,  social  and  cultural  rights  in  rela- 
tion to  Canada  as  a  nation  state. 


5118 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  want  to  quote,  simply  because  it  says 
better  and  more  succinctly  than  I  could  say 
what  the  position  is.  I  hope  members  of  the 
assembly  will  on  occasion  ponder  on  this  and 
when  we  are  in  committee  perhaps  we  can 
deal  with  it:  "The  international  covenant  on 
civil  and  political  rights  and  the  optional 
protocol  to  the  international  covenant  on 
civil  and  political  rights  were  adopted  by  the 
United  Nations  General  Assembly  on  Decem- 
ber 16,  1966,  and  came  into  effect  May  23, 
1976.  On  May  19,  1976,  Canada  acceded  to 
the  covenant  and  to  its  optional  protocol/'  I 
may  say  here  at  this  point  that  the  best  in- 
formation I  have  is  that  Canada  also  acceded 
on  August  19,  1976,  to  the  international 
covenant  on  economic,  social  and  cultural 
rights. 

"Since  the  instruments  of  accession  to  these 
agreements  were  deposited  that  day  with  the 
Secretary  General  of  the  United  Nations,  the 
covenant  and  protocol  took  effect  in  Canada 
on  August  19,  1976."  Presumably,  that  is  the 
same  day  to  which  I  have  referred  in  regard 
to  the  other  international  covenant.  I  am 
skipping  a  part  of  what  is  said  here  because 
it  is  not  necessarily  germane  but  of  informa- 
tion to  the  House. 

"Canada's  accession  to  the  international 
covenant  on  civil  and  political  rights  and  to 
its  optional  protocol  has  both  international 
and  domestic  implications."  Domestic,  of 
course,  means  internal  implications.  I  want  to 
make  the  distinction.  ''At  the  international 
level,  by  acceding  to  the  covenant,  Canada 
undertook  to  respect  and  to  guarantee  to  all 
individuals  within  its  territory  and  subject  to 
its  jurisdiction  the  rights  recognized  in  the 
covenant  without  discrimination  of  any  kind, 
such  as  on  the  basis  of  race,  colour,  sex, 
language,  religion,  political  or  other  opinion, 
national  or  social  origin,  property,  birth  or 
other  status,  not  only  in  the  fields  under 
federal  jurisdiction"— and  I  emphasize  this— 
"but  also  in  the  fields  under  provincial  juris- 
diction. Indeed,  article  50  of  the  covenant 
clearly  states  that  the  provisions  of  the 
present  covenant  shall  extend  to  all  parts  of 
federal  states  without  any  limitations  or 
exceptions. 

"Further,  by  acceding  to  the  optional 
covenant  to  the  international  covenant  on 
civil  and  political  rights,  the  government  of 
Canada  recognized  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
human  rights  committee"— that  is  the  com- 
mittee set  up  under  the  covenant— "to  receive 
and  consider  communications  from  individuals 
within  its  jurisdiction  claiming  to  be  victims 
of  a  violation  by  Canada  of  any  of  the  rights 
set  forth  in  the  covenant:  and  this  whether 


such  breach  occurs  in  a  field  over  which 
Parliament  or  the  provincial  legislatures  have 
jurisdiction.  Such  persons  must,  however,  ex- 
haust all  available  domestic  remedies  before 
presenting  their  communications  to  the  com- 
mittee." 

My  colleagues  will  be  aware  that  there  is 
already  one  petition  to  that  particular  human 
rights  committee  set  out  under  this  covenant 
with  respect  to  the  status  of  an  Indian  woman 
who  has  been  deprived  of  her  status  under 
the  Indian  Act  because  of  her  marriage  to  a 
person  of  non-Indian  descent.  We  will  see 
references  to  that  decision  at  some  point  by 
the  human  rights  committee.  That  is  by  way 
of  a  digression,  but  I  want  members  to 
understand  it  is  because  of  Canada's  adher- 
ence to  the  protocol  that  right  is  available  to 
an  individual. 

8:10  p.m. 

I  think  that  also  means  that  a  person  in 
Ontario,  if  deprived  of  a  right  over  which 
this  provincial  Legislature  has  jurisdiction 
and  having  exhausted  the  procedures  avail- 
able under  this  Bill  209  which  we  have  set 
forward,  can,  by  direct  application  to  that 
committee  have  the  matter  dealt  with  re- 
specting Canada's  adhesion  to  the  covenant 
on  civil  and  political  rights.  I  assume  there 
may  be  some  correlative  way  of  appeal  under 
the  other  covenant.  I  am  not  knowledgeable 
about  that  but  it  is  a  matter  we  would  have 
to  deal  with  in  committee. 

To  repeat:  "Such  persons  must,  however, 
exhaust  all  available  domestic  remedies  be- 
fore presenting  their  communications  to  the 
committee.  Therefore,  the  government  of 
Canada  is  answerable  to  the  international 
community  for  noncompliance  in  Canada 
with  the  obligations  assumed.  When  exer- 
cising its  jurisdiction  over  foreign  relations, 
it  acceded  to  the  covenant  and  optional 
protocol  whether  the  noncompliance  occurs 
in  a  field  under  its  jurisdiction  or  that  of  the 
provinces." 

That  is  the  position  at  the  international 
level  of  the  obligations  which  are  assumed. 
"In  Canada,"  that  is  at  the  domestic  level, 
"international  treaty  law  is  not  automatically 
a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  The  provisions 
of  a  treaty  may  be  incorporated  into  domestic 
law  either  by  enacting  legislation  giving  to 
the  treaty  the  force  of  law  or,  if  necessary,  by 
amending  domestic  law  to  make  it  accord 
with  the  treaty.  In  general,  however,  the 
Canadian  constitution  does  not  authorize 
Parliament  to  legislate  in  fields  under  pro- 
vincial jurisdiction  to  give  effect  to  obliga- 
tions assumed  under  a  treaty." 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5119 


That  has  been  true  since  the  labour  con- 
ventions case  in  which  this  province  was 
involved  on  a  constitutional  matter  with  the 
Attorney  General  of  Canada  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Canada  in  1937  at  the  time  when 
appeals  were  allowed  to  the  Privy  Council. 
The  statement  was  that  the  federal  govern- 
ment could  not,  on  the  basis  of  a  treaty- 
making  power,  move  into  provincial  legis- 
lative fields  when  the  same  legislative  privi- 
lege was  otherwise  denied  to  it.  That  is  the 
succinct  statement  which  generally  has 
guided  the  provision. 

In  another  way  this  quotation  from  the 
report  says  the  same  thing:  "Thus,  imple- 
mentation of  a  treaty  whose  provisions  come 
under  one  or  other  or  both  levels  of  govern- 
ment requires  action  by  the  Parliament  of 
Canada,  the  provincial  legislatures  and,  unless 
Parliament  decides  otherwise,  the  territorial 
legislative  councils  for  those  portions  of  the 
treaty  that  fall  under  their  respective  juris- 
dictions." 

There  has  been  no  legislative  action  here 
with  respect  to  the  adhesion  by  this  as- 
sembly to  what  Canada  as  a  nation  state  has 
adhered  to  under  the  convention  of  the 
United  Nations.  I  am  going  to  skip  the  part 
which  deals- 
Mr.  Sargent:  I  am  glad  you  are  skipping 
something. 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  am  sure  the  member  is 
glad.  The  member  for  Grey-Bruce  is  not 
particularly  interested  in  this  topic.  I  hope 
perhaps  during  the  course  of  the  evening  he 
will  contribute  his  thoughts  about  the  ques- 
tion of  human  rights. 

The  report  that  was  filed  with  the  human 
rights  committee  with  respect  to  this  cove- 
nant tries  to  set  out  the  divided  areas  of 
jurisdiction  under  the  British  North  America 
Act  with  respect  to  human  rights.  It  goes  on: 
"Given  the  fact  that  Parliament  did  not  have 
jurisdiction  to  give  effect  to  all  the  obliga- 
tions which  Canada  assumed  towards  the 
international  community  by  acceding  to  the 
covenant  and  its  optional  protocol,  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada  consulted  the  provinces 
before  acceding  to  the  covenant  and  the 
protocol  and  the  latter"— that  is  the  prov- 
ince—"undertook  to  ensure  compliance  with 
those  provisions  of  the  covenant  falling  with- 
in their  jurisdiction." 

This  Legislative  Assembly  did  not  accede 
to  those  and  was  not  consulted.  The  Ontario 
government  was  consulted  and  it  therefore 
has  the  sole  responsibility  for  the  implemen- 
tation within  Ontario  of  the  rights  to  which 
Canada  has  adhered  under  the  covenant  to 
which  I  have  referred. 


"Obtaining  provincial  consent  in  no  way 
changes  the  international  responsibility  of  the 
government  of  Canada.  However,  from  a 
domestic  standpoint,  the  fact  that  the  prov- 
ince has  consented  to  Canada's  accession  to 
the  covenant  means  that  they,  like  the 
federal  government,  agree  to  take  the  neces- 
sary measures  to  give  effect  to  the  rights 
recognized  in  the  covenant." 

I  want  to  emphasize  that  distinction.  There 
has  been  no  legislative  authority  at  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Canada  and  no  legislative  authority 
here  with  respect  to  compliance  by  the  fed- 
eral government  or  the  provinces  on  the 
international  obligations  accepted  by  Canada 
as  a  nation  state.  It  has  been  purely  an  opera- 
tion of  the  executive  governments.  I  happen 
to  think  that  is  wrong.  I  happen  to  think  we 
have  to  correct  that  in  this  assembly  if  we 
are  serious  about  human  rights  and  really 
want  to  establish  the  kind  of  protections 
which  are  necessary  for  citizens. 

Let  me  carry  on:  "Although  all  the  govern- 
ments in  Canada"— the  governments,  I  em- 
phasize, not  the  legislative  assemblies  or  the 
elected  members— "undertook  to  give  effect 
to  the  provisions  of  the  covenant,  no  govern- 
ment has  as  yet  decided  to  incorporate  into 
its  domestic  legislation  the  provisions  of  the 
covenant  which  fall  within  the  scope  of  its 
jurisdiction.  However,  to  fulfil  its  obligations 
under  the  covenant,  each  government  has 
committed  itself  to  amend  domestic  law  in 
order  to  bring  it  into  accord  with  the 
covenant,  wherever  this  might  prove  neces- 
sary. 

"Since  the  covenant  was  not  incorporated 
into  domestic  law  and,  therefore,  does  not 
have  the  force  of  law  at  the  federal,  pro- 
vincial and  territorial  levels,  an  individual 
cannot  base  a  recourse  on  the  covenant  itself 
if  there  has  occurred  within  Canada  a  breach 
of  a  right  or  freedom  therein  recognized." 

That,  of  course,  is  the  Achilles  heel  and 
that  is  the  way  it  was  designed  when  the 
government  of  Canada  and  the  government 
of  this  province  chose  not  to  deal  with  the 
assembly  on  the  question  of  this  adhesion  to 
the  international  covenant  to  which  Canada 
is  bound. 

"However,  the  individual  can  resort  to  the 
remedies  provided  in  Canadian  law  to  have 
his  rights  respected."  That  in  a  funny  way 
defeats  entirely  the  adhesion  by  Canada  to 
the  protocol  that  is  involved  in  this  matter, 
and  in  my  judgement,  for  what  it  is  worth, 
will  defeat  the  application  made  by  the  par- 
ticular applicant  to  the  human  rights  com- 
mittee set  up  under  the  covenant  to  which  I 
have    referred    earlier,    with   respect    to   her 


5120 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


status  as  an  Indian  under  the  Indian  Act  in 
Canada. 

''In  conclusion,  we  should  mention  the 
federal-provincial  conference  on  human  rights 
held  in  Ottawa  on  December  11  and  12, 
1975."  I  doubt  if  there  is  a  member  of  this 
assembly  who  is  aware  that  that  particular 
conference  took  place.  I  certainly  was  not 
aware  that  it  took  place.  I  saw  no  report  to 
this  assembly  about  that  conference  and  yet 
it  seems  to  have  been  a  matter  of  consider- 
able importance. 

"This  conference  enabled  the  federal  gov- 
ernment and  provincial  governments  to  agree 
on  the  mechanisms  for  implementing  in 
Canada  the  treaties,  conventions  and  other 
international  instruments  concerning  human 
rights.  This  conference  also  set  up  a  con- 
tinuing federal-provincial  committee  of  offi- 
cials responsible  for  human  rights"— not  the 
assemblies;  the  officials  responsible  for  human 
rights.  "The  mandate  of  this  committee  is  to 
allow,  on  a  permanent  basis,  for  federal- 
provincial  discussion  on  matters  related  to 
human  rights." 

My  point  is  clear.  If  the  minister  respon- 
sible for  this  legislation  and  the  government 
understand  their  obligations,  then  it  is  im- 
portant they  introduce  into  this  assembly  the 
legislation  which  will  implement  the  treaty 
to  which  Canada  is  a  party  under  the  United 
Nations  assembly.  I  think  it  is  absolutely 
essential  we  consider  that.  That  is  why  I 
chose  those  particular  words  from  the  min- 
ister's remarks,  that  this  is  a  new  beginning 
and  not  the  end  of  the  reform  which  is  re- 
quired, because  there  are  many  human  rights. 
8:20  p.m. 

This  is  not  by  way  of  criticism.  We  can- 
not cover  everything  at  once.  Many  human 
rights,  many  cultural,  social  and1  economic 
rights  are  spelled  out  in  the  covenants  to 
which  Canada  has  adhered  as  a  nation  state 
in  the  General  Assembly  but  are  not  touched 
upon  in  the  code  of  human  rights  we  have 
here. 

Let  me  give  the  members  an  example. 
When  the  select  committee  on  constitutional 
reform  was  meeting,  we  dealt  with  some  of 
these  questions  and  tried  to  frame  an  eco- 
nomic rights  position  for  our  own  committee. 
It  was  impossible  for  all  three  parties  to 
agree,  no  matter  how  carefully  expressed,  to 
a  minimum  economic  rights  policy  for  every 
citizen  of  Canada  who  happened  to  be  living 
in  Ontario. 

What  I  have  been  trying  to  say  very 
clearly  to  the  House  is  that  the  minister's 
opening  remarks  about  a  new  beginning  have 
a  depth  and  a  meaning  far  exceeding  what 


we  perhaps  thought  was  the  case.  It  is  not 
just  a  question  of  a  few  changes  here  and 
there  and  we  will  have  a  model  code  which 
will  stand  examination  anywhere  in  the 
world.  It  requires  an  immense  concentration 
of  attention  to  the  requirements  of  both 
those  covenants  to  which  Canada  has  ac- 
ceded—the original  universal  declaration  of 
human  rights— to  make  certain  we  have  the 
best  possible  code  available  anywhere  in  the 
world. 

The  minister  should  give  serious  consid- 
eration in  committee,  with  whatever  limita- 
tions are  required,  to  an  inclusion  in  the 
preamble  of  the  bill  of  a  reference  not  only 
to  the  universal  declaration  on  human  rights, 
which  was  passed  in  1948  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  United  Nations,  but  also  to 
the  present  reality  of  Canada's  adhesion  to 
those  covenants,  the  covenant  with  respect 
to  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights  and 
the  covenant  with  respect  to  civil  and  politi- 
cal rights.  There  is  a  vast  field  to  be  covered. 

Let  me  make  a  second  important  recom- 
mendation. I  think  the  government  should 
commit  itself  to  introducing  legislation  into 
this  assembly,  with  whatever  time  lag  is 
required'  in  order  to  effect  compliance,  that 
will  implement  in  domestic  law,  by  law  of 
this  assembly,  the  treaty  obligations  accepted 
by  Canada  elsewhere.  It  is  very  strange.  We 
went  through  that  ritual  in  1974  in  a  matter 
respecting  wills,  which,  of  course,  is  fairly 
esoteric.  We  are  being  asked  to  go  through 
that  same  ritual  again  of  Ontario's  adhesion 
to  an  international  obligation  accepted  by 
Canada  in  order  to  give  effect  in  Ontario 
to  matters  with  respect  to  the  custody  of 
children. 

I  am  saying  to  the  government,  Jet  us  stop 
the  nonsense.  Let  us  get  the  kind  of  legis- 
lation before  the  assembly  that  will  stand 
up  and  recognize  that  in  Ontario,  as  part  of 
Canada,  we  accept  to  the  extent  of  our  legis- 
lative jurisdiction  the  civil  and  political  rights 
and  the  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights 
that  are  in  the  convenants  to  which  we  have 
agreed.  I  am  not  satisfied  with,  and  I  dis- 
sociated myself  from,  the  view  that  those 
are  matters  to  be  decided  by  a  committee  of 
officials.  I  think  it  is  time  for  Ontario  to 
stand  up  and  be  counted  in  this  whole 
matter. 

(I  recall  for  the  assembly  that  I  was  for- 
tunate enough  to  articulate  a  resolution  that 
expressed  the  views  of  all  the  members  of 
the  House  about  matters  relating  to  terror, 
cruelty  and  killing  in  the  world.  That  matter 
was  referred  earlier  to  the  select  committee 
on  the  Ombudsman  and,  in  due  course,  it 
will  report  to  the  assembly. 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5121 


I  think  it  is  extremely  important  that,  just 
as  we  do  for  regulations  wherein  we  have  a 
statute  that  establishes  by  statute,  not  a 
standing  committee  by  virtue  of  the  orders  of 
the  House  but,  by  regulation  under  the  stat- 
ute, a  regulations  committee  to  review  regu- 
lations, so  we  should  consider  establishing  in 
this  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code  a  statutory 
committee  of  the  assembly  to  deal  with  mat- 
ters related  not  only  to  Ontario  in  human 
rights  but  with  respect  to  other  matters  the 
select  committee  and  the  Ombudsman  may 
report  about  in  due  course. 

The  members  will  understand  that  I  have 
gone  on  at  some  length  because  those  are 
matters  of  immense  importance  to  me.  They 
are  matters  that  need  to  be  clarified  and  that 
have  to  be  dealt  with.  I  make  those  recom- 
mendations. That  is  why  I  personally  am 
anxious,  among  other  things,  that  the  matter 
go  to  committee  so  that  we  can  discuss  this 
matter  at  greater  length. 

I  am  sure  the  law  officers  of  the  crown 
can  explain  better  than  I  can  the  intricacies 
of  the  procedures  involved.  But  the  fact  of 
the  matter  is  that  the  Legislative  Assembly 
of  Ontario  has  been  excluded  from,  and  has 
no  knowledge  of,  the  obligations  Ontario  has 
assumed  in  the  international  world  by  virtue 
of  Canada  having  adhered  to  those  particular 
covenants. 

Let  me  return  to  ihe  bill.  I  want  at  this 
point  to  be  a  little  bit  technical  without 
deriding  it  in  any  way.  I  want  to  talk  about 
the  legal  questions  in  the  bill.  First  of  all, 
no  citizen  of  Ontario  has  a  right  of  civil 
action  in  the  courts  of  Ontario  by  virtue  of 
any  provision  of  this  bill.  Any  citizen  in 
Ontario  can  be  discriminated  against  under 
this  bill  and  he  has  no  right  of  civil  action. 
I  make  that  as  a  comment  simply  so  that 
people  will  be  aware  of  it.  By  making  the 
point,  I  do  not  necessarily  express  a  value 
judgement  on  it,  but  it  is  a  matter  that 
should  be  thoroughly  considered  in  com- 
mittee, whether  a  breach  of  such  a  funda- 
mental statute  as  this  should  automatically 
entitle  the  person,  if  the  breach  can  be 
established,  to  a  civil  right  of  action  for 
damages  in  the  courts  of  Ontario  for  any 
loss  that  may  be  suffered  in  respect  of  it. 

Let  me  also  emphasize  that  this  is  very 
much  a  closed-circuit  bill.  It  is  extremely 
self-contained.  The  only  exit  from  the  ambit 
of  the  bill,  the  circuitry  of  the  bill,  is  if 
there  is  a  decision  of  a  board  of  inquiry 
with  which  one  disagrees  and  one  wants  to 
go  outside  the  ambit  of  the  statute  to  the 
Supreme  Court.  That  is  the  only  exit  from 
it.   Everybody's  rights   are   contained  within 


and  defined  by  the  terms  of  the  bill  in  the 
legal  sense. 

Let  me  make  it  clearer.  Whereas  it  is 
public  policy  in  Ontario  to  recognize  that 
every  person  is  equal  in  dignity  and  worth 
and  to  provide  for  equal  rights  and  oppor- 
tunities without  discrimination,  that  is  con- 
trary to  law,  and  the  law  is  in  this  act.  The 
function  of  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Com- 
mission with  respect  to  this  question  of  the 
enforcement  of  rights  has  nothing  to  do 
with  all  the  grandiose  expressions  about 
educational  mediation  and  other  functions 
the  commission  may  have,  which  are  valu- 
able, necessary,  and  important,  but  comes 
back  to  the  function  of  the  commission  to 
enforce  this  act  and  orders  of  boards  of 
inquiry  and  to  perform  the  functions  as- 
signed to  it  by  this  or  any  other  act. 
8:30  p.m. 

What  that  really  means  is  that  a  com- 
plainant can  go  to  the  commission  and  the 
commission  can  decide  whether  the  com- 
plainant has  established  an  infringement  of 
a  right  under  the  bill.  If  it  decides  adverse 
to  the  complainant,  the  complainant  can 
ask  the  commission  to  reconsider.  The  com- 
mission can  reconsider  and,  if  adverse  to  the 
complainant,  the  decision  of  the  commission 
is  final  and  binding. 

It  gives  to  the  commission  the  power, 
if  it  wishes  to  do  so,  to  decide  that  a  board 
of  inquiry  should  be  appointed.  It  is  up  to 
the  commission.  It  is  no  right  of  the  citizen 
or  the  complainant  to  get  beyond  that  de- 
cision. The  commission  decides  that  matter. 
If  it  decides  a  board  of  inquiry  is  necessary 
in  the  particular  instance,  then  the  board 
of  inquiry  can  make  the  decision  as  to 
whether  or  not  there  has  been  an  infringe- 
ment. Only  at  that  point  in  the  process  is 
it  posssible,  in  the  event  of  an  adverse 
decision,  for  a  complainant  to  reach  out 
further  to  the  courts. 

Again,  I  am  not  making  a  value  judge- 
ment. There  may  well  be  good  and  suffi- 
cient reasons  for  that  kind  of  circuitry  in 
the  system,  but  I  do  want  to  say  it  is  a 
closed  circuit  with  that  one  and  only  out, 
that   one   connection   out. 

I  want  to  stay  to  the  assembly  that  kind 
of  restrictive  avenue  of  enforcement  of  the 
rights  we  all  value  and  feel  important  seems 
to  me  to  require  consideration  in  committee. 
The  extent  of  the  power  of  the  commission 
with  respect  to  those  matters  is  extremely 
all-embracing.  It  is  true  that  people  can 
request  the  commission  to  reconsider  and 
that    is    a    step    forward,    but    there    is    no 


5122 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


doubt    whatsoever    that    a    reconsideration, 
once  made,  is  final  and  binding. 

I  know  the  minister,  being  a  lawyer, 
would  indicate  that  if  there  is  a  breach  in 
the  due  process,  that  is,  the  hearing  part 
of  it,  there  may  be  a  recourse  to  the  courts 
under  the  Statutory  Powers  Procedures  Act. 
I  am  not  talking  about  that.  I  am  talking 
about  the  commission  acting  in  good  faith 
within  its  jurisdiction,  providing  a  proper 
hearing  and  coming  to  a  decision.  The  com- 
mission is  the  end  of  the  road  unless  the 
commission  orders  the  board  of  inquiry. 

As  I  said  earlier,  it  is  not  my  particular 
wish  to  go  into  the  minutiae  of  each  of  the 
various  sections  involved.  I  Want  to  com- 
ment briefly  about  three  or  four  of  them. 

I  am  not  certain  we  are  talking  to  the 
right  minister  tonight.  Obviously,  the  minis- 
ter is  the  one  who  has  had  the  responsibility 
for  the  genesis,  the  establishment  and  the 
introduction  of  the  bill.  It  is  interesting  that 
he  is  not  named  in  the  bill.  It  says  that 
whoever  the  executive  council  may  appoint 
is  the  person  who  is  charged  with  the 
administration  of  the  act.  Usually,  in  most 
bills,  it  names  the  particular  existent  minis- 
ter and  then  provides  for  any  other  member. 
I  think  it  would  be  important  for  the  minis- 
ter to  indicate  to  us  whether  it  is  the  gov- 
ernment's intention  to  transfer  the  jurisdic- 
tion elsewhere. 

Going  back  to  the  circuitry  argument  I 
have  made,  I  also  notice  that  appeals  to 
the  court  from  a  decision  of  a  board  of  in- 
quiry requires  the  consent  not  of  the  Minis- 
ter of  Labour  but  of  the  Attorney  General.  The 
chances  of  being  a  complainant  and  ulti- 
mately getting  to  the  court  to  decide  the 
question  has  that  additional  obstacle.  I 
think  the  government  should  advise  us  very 
clearly  tonight  who  will  be  responsible  for 
the  administration  of  the  act  and  why  it 
has  been  decided  that  the  person  who  will 
grant  the  consent  is  the  Attorney  General 
of  Ontario.  Again,  I  exercise  no  value  judge- 
ment. It  requires  an  explanation  as  so  many 
of  these  matters  do. 

I  have  dealt  now  with  the  technical  pro- 
cess under  the  bill.  I  said  I  did  not  want 
to  take  away  in  any  sense  from  the  other 
functions  of  the  commission.  Those  functions 
are  set  out  in  the  bill  which  is  before  us 
at  some  considerable  length.  I  do  not  dis- 
agree with  any  of  them.  It  relates  to  the 
educational  function;  it  relates  to  the  out- 
reach function  of  the  commission.  It  does  not 
relate  to  the  process  of  the  complaint  pro- 
cedure, which  I  dealt  with  in  the  remarks  I 
have  just  made.  I  want  to  see  the  commission 
take  advantage  of  and  perform  those  func- 


tions in  a  very  important  and  very  real 
aspect. 

They  are  contained  in  section  25  of  the 
bill.  I  need  not  read  them  other  than  the 
very  technical  ones  I  referred  to,  namely, 
to  enforce  the  act  and  orders  of  boards  of 
inquiry  and  to  perform  the  functions  set  out. 
The  functions  are  well  expressed  and  they 
are  very  clear;  they  are  not  mere  rhetoric. 
They  have  an  essential  educational  require- 
ment that  is  inherent  in  the  performance  by 
the  commission  of  its  obligations. 

I  now  want,  if  I  may,  to  move  on  to  five 
specific  matters  of  concern  to  me  in  the 
bill,  and  to  try  to  deal  with  them  in  a  generic 
sense  and  not  in  the  sense  and  not  in  the 
sense  of  the  minutiae  of  the  decisions.  I 
welcome,  and  everyone  welcomes,  the  ob- 
vious thought  and  attention  the  ministry  has 
given,  since  its  ill-fated  introduction  last  year 
of  an  attempt  to  segregate  the  handicapped 
people  into  a  different  bill,  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  and  inclusion  into  the  bill  of  the 
nondiscrimination  provision  against  handi- 
capped persons.  I  think  that  is  extremely 
important. 

We  were  fortunate,  in  our  caucus,  to  meet 
with  representatives  of  the  Coalition  on 
Human  Rights  for  the  Handicapped.  We 
were  very  impressed  with  their  comments. 
We  met  with  them  three  or  four  months 
ago— of  course,  the  minister  did  also— I 
showed  them  to  him  today.  He  indicated  to 
me  that  he  had  not  as  yet  had  an  opportunity 
to  consider  in  detail  the  provisions  of  the 
letter  from  the  Coalition  on  Human  Rights 
for  the  Handicapped,  dated  December  2, 
1980,  to  him  about  the  proposed  amend- 
ments to  the  Human  Rights  Code.  It  includes 
in  it  a  summary  of  the  issues  pertaining  to 
the  proposed  amendments  to  the  Human 
Rights  Code  indicating  matters  of  real  con- 
cern to  that  group  of  people  about  the  actual 
provisions  of  the  bill.  It  includes  in  it  as  well, 
as  my  colleague  from  Ottawa  East  (Mr.  Roy) 
has  already  referred  to,  a  discussion  paper 
prepared  by  the  Coalition  on  Human  Rights 
for  the  Handicapped  in  the  province. 

That  is  another  reason  I  personally  feel  it 
is  essential  that  these  matters  go  before  a 
committee  of  the  assembly  for  a  thorough 
discussion  and  review  as  to  the  implications 
of  these  provisions  so  that  we  can  be  certain, 
as  we  go  into  the  1980s  and  the  International 
Year  of  Disabled  Persons,  that  we  have  the 
best  possible  bill  related  to  those  matters 
that  it  is  possible  to  devise  at  this  time. 

The  next  matter  I  want  to  talk  about  has 
something  to  do  with  the  work  place.  I  am 
not  certain  I  can  adequately  express  this  par- 
ticular concern.  But  there  is  a  funny  thing 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5123 


happening  out  there  in  the  work  place.  First 
of  all,  it  started  out  as  selection  for  employ- 
ment on  the  basis  of  sex  related  to  reproduc- 
tive functions  of  women,  which  amounts  to 
discrimination.  Then  it  progressed  to  the 
point  where  the  effects  were  not  just  on  the 
reproductive  functions  of  women,  but  were 
also  on  the  reproductive  functions  of  men. 
Therefore,  it  was  not  a  selective  process  to 
get  the  kind  of  individuals  in  society  who 
could  perform  without  that  kind  of  hazard 
to  them.  In  a  very  strange  way  it  was  a  trans- 
ference to  the  individual  of  the  blame  for 
being  unable  to  perform  the  job,  rather  than 
the  importance  of  the  employer  clearing  up 
the  work  place.  This  relates  to  both  occu- 
pational health  and  safety  in  the  work  place, 
and  to  the  question  of  human  rights. 
8:40  p.m. 

But  it  has  gone  somewhat  further  than 
that.  It  is  almost  as  if  in  our  society  there  is 
going  to  be  a  kind  of  genetic  selection  of 
those  people  who  are  able  to  perform  certain 
kinds  of  employment.  If  one  has  the  genetic 
inheritance  he  will  be  able  to  perform;  if 
one  does  not  have  it  he  will  not  be  able  to 
perform.  It  is  almost  like  adapting  people  to 
the  work  rather  than  having  the  work  adapt 
to  people.  It  is  giving  a  primacy  to  the  work 
place  over  the  people  who  work. 

I  wish  to  read  a  letter  dated  October  27, 
1976,  from  the  then  chairman  of  the  Ontario 
Human  Rights  Commission,  T.  H.  B.  Sy- 
mons,  addressed  to  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S. 
Miller),  who  at  that  point  was  the  Minister 
of  Health.  He  was  trying  to  set  out  this 
concern  which  I  do  not  find  addressed  in 
the  bill.  I  do  not  pretend  to  understand  the 
implications  of  it,  but  the  committee  of  the 
assembly  must  deal  with  it: 

"Dear  Mr.  Miller:  The  Ontario  Human 
Rights  Commission  recently  completed  an 
investigation  into  seven  complaints  of  alleged 
discrimination  on  grounds  of  sex  filed  by 
female  workers  against  their  employer, 
General  Motors  Limited  of  Oshawa.  The 
substance  of  their  allegation  is  that  all  fe- 
males in  the  General  Motors  battery  plant 
are  required  to  produce  a  medical  certificate 
indicating  that  they  can  no  longer  bear 
children. 

"Since  this  requirement  applies  to  females 
only,  the  complainants  considered  it  dis- 
criminatory on  the  basis  of  sex  and  in  con- 
travention of  section  41(c) (e)(f)  and  (g) 
of  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code,  Revised 
Statutes  of  Ontario  1970,  Chapter  318,  as 
amended. 

"Because  of  the  complex  issues  raised  by 
the  complaints,  the  commission  reviewed  the 


scientific  literature  on  the  subject  and  sought 
expert  medical  opinion,  in  addition  to  con- 
ducting extensive  interviews  with  all  con- 
cerned parties  including  both  the  complain- 
ants and  representatives  of  General  Motors. 
In  the  course  of  our  investigation,  it  became 
increasingly  clear  to  us  that  the  issues  raised 
were  predominantly  medical  rather  than 
legal." 

This  is  why  I  take  it  upon  myself  to  read 
it  to  the  minister—because  he  combines  in 
his  person  a  capacity  to  deal  with  medical 
as  Well  as  legal  matters. 

"Consequently,  the  commission  has  recom- 
mended to  the  Minister  of  Labour,  that  a 
board  of  inquiry  under  the  terms  of  the 
Ontario  Human  Rights  Code  not  be  ap- 
pointed in  this  case.  Such  a  recommendation 
if  accepted  would  have  the  effect  of  dismiss- 
ing all  seven  complaints  against  General 
Motors.  None  the  less,  the  commissioners 
were  alarmed  by  the  medical  evidence, 
which  appeared  to  be  confirmed  in  virtually 
all  the  literature  it  examined  on  the  subject, 
that  exposure  to  quantities  of  lead  oxide 
emissions  could  lead  to  foetal  injury. 

""Moreover,  medical  evidence  appeared  to 
indicate  that  injury  to  the  foetus  may  be 
brought  about  when  either  the  father  or  the 
mother  is  exposed  to  these  conditions,  either 
directly  or  indirectly  by  exposure,  for  ex- 
ample, to  the  clothing  or  personal  effects  of 
those  working  in  such  conditions. 

"Thus  the  commission  believes  strongly 
that  both  men  and  women  capable  of  pro- 
ducing children  should  be  protected  against 
the  possibility  of  exposure  to  levels  of  lead 
oxide  that  could  cause  foetal  injury. 

"By  unanimous  vote,  the  commissioners 
have  asked  me  to  express  to  you  their  con- 
cern and  their  sense  of  urgency  about  this 
matter  and  to  request  that  your  ministry 
act  immediately  to  investigate  throughout 
the  province  the  health  dangers  involved  for 
all  those  working  in  conditions  where  they 
are  exposed  to  lead  oxide  emissions  in  order 
to  ensure  a  safe  Working  environment  for  all 
employees  in  Ontario  battery  plants. 

"Copies  of  this  letter  are  being  forwarded 
to  all  the  parties  in  the  complaint. 

'Tours  sincerely,  T.  H.  B.  Symons,  chair- 
man of  the  commission." 

That  raises  in  my  mind  a  form  of  discrim- 
ination which  is  not  touched  by  this  bill 
before  us  so  far  as  I  can  understand  it.  The 
Canadian  Centre  for  Occupational  Health 
and  Safety  said  in  its  newsletter— I  do  not 
have  the  date  on  it,  but  the  dateline  on  the 
comment  I  want  to  make  is  Montreal,  Janu- 
ary   1980-"A11   too   often   the  focus   of  the 


5124 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


scientific  community  is  directed  to  the  vic- 
tims of  occupational  diseases  rather  than 
to  the  work  place.  Dr.  Andre  Lebrun  from 
the  University  of  Montreal  is  undertaking  a 
three-year  study  to  determine  workers' 
'genetic  susceptibility*  to  asbestosis. 

"According  to  an  article  in  the  Medical 
Post,  'The  purpose  of  the  study  is  to  de- 
velop a  screening  test  which  would  allow 
doctors  to  advise  certain  workers  not  to  work 
with  asbestos.  Approximately  10  to  20  per 
cent  of  asbestos  workers  will  develop  asbes- 
tosis and  Dr.  Lebrun  hopes  to  be  able  to 
identify  those  workers.  Unfortunately,  as- 
bestos does  not  cause  only  asbestosis,  it  also 
causes  cancer  of  the  lungs,  throat,  stomach 
and  intestines.  The  screening  test  would  not 
identify  workers  susceptible  to  cancer.  The 
only  way  to  eliminate  asbestosis-related  dis- 
eases is  to  eliminate  exposure  to  asbestos'." 

Then  the  Metropolitan  Toronto  Labour 
Council  in  November  1978  publihed  a  health 
alert,  Work  Place  Hazards  to  Reproduction. 
That  document  was  referred  to  approvingly 
by  the  Women's  Occupational  Health  Cen- 
tre in  July  and  August  1980.  In  April  and 
May  1980,  new  US  guidelines  on  reproduc- 
tive hazards  were  proposed.  Without  pre- 
tending to  understand  it  all,  let  me  quote 
from  it.  These  are  guidelines  proposed  in 
the  United  States  by  the  Equal  Employ- 
ment Opportunity  Commission  and  the  De- 
partment of  Labour  to  clarify  the  relation- 
ship between  employment  discrimination 
and  protection  of  workers  against  reproduc- 
tive hazards. 

"Some  members  are  said  to  fear  that  al- 
lowing any  sex-based  exclusions  might  give 
employers  an  excuse  not  to  clean  up  the 
work  place  for  all  employees.  The  principal 
points  of  the  guidelines  are:  one,  an  em- 
ployer/contractor whose  environment  in- 
volves employee  exposure  to  reproductive 
hazards  shall  not  discriminate  on  the  basis 
of  sex  (including  pregnancy  or  childbearing 
capacity),  in  hiring,  work  assignment  or  other 
conditions  of  employment;  two,  an  em- 
ployer/contractor may  not  have  policies, 
practices  or  plans  designed  to  protect  em- 
ployees from  reproductive  hazards  which  by 
their  terms  exclude  applicants  or  employees 
from  employment  opportunities  on  the  basis 
of  sex.  Such  policies  are  discriminatory  on 
their  face." 

I  need  not  elaborate  further  on  that  mat- 
ter, except  to  say  that  in  a  position  paper, 
Reproductive  Health  Hazards  in  the  Work 
Place,  June  1980,  of  the  Canadian  Advisory 
Council  on  the  Status  of  Women,  the  same 
matter  was  raised   and  I   quote: 


"Although  women  have  always  been  part 
of  the  work  force  and  have  often  been  em- 
ployed in  jobs  posing  serious  health  hazards, 
their  movement  into  a  greater  variety  of 
occupations,  many  of  them  traditionally  re- 
stricted to  men,  has  raised  new  concerns. 
The  hazards  of  male-dominated  occupations 
have  generally  been  better  researched  and 
more  publicized.  As  a  result,  women  seeking 
employment  are  often  confronted  by  indus- 
trial policies  which  make  them  ineligible  for 
employment  in  areas  where  exposure  to  cer- 
tain toxic  substances  or  other  hazards  could 
adversely  affect  a  foetus. 

"Such  policies  ignore  an  increasing  body 
of  evidence  that  work-place  hazards  can 
have  serious  effects  on  the  reproductive  sys- 
tem of  the  male  and  for  his  potential  off- 
spring. The  resulting  discrimination  is  double- 
barrelled.  The  women  are  denied  lucrative 
jobs  unless  they  can  prove  sterility  and  the 
men  are  left  in  a  work  environment  which  is 
hazardous  to  their  general  health  and  repro- 
ductive capacity." 

Very  briefly  again:  "Every  protective 
measure  must  ensure  that  all  workers  will  be 
protected  equally  from  the  effects  of  harm- 
ful agents  and  conditions  of  work.  There 
must  be  no  distinction  in  the  rights  and 
treatment  of  female  and  male  workers." 

The  recommendation  of  the  Canadian  Ad- 
visory Council  on  the  Status  of  Women  is  as 
follows:  "That  the  federal  government  amend 
the  Canadian  Human  Rights  Act  and  the  Can- 
ada Labour  Code  to  prevent  discrimination 
in  hiring,  job  placemet,  promotion  and  other 
conditions  of  employment  based  on  factors 
related  to  reproductive  physiology  such  as 
reproductive  capacity,  pregancy  or  child- 
birth; that  exclusionary  policies  and  prac- 
tices arising  from  such  issues  be  prohibited 
by  law  and  that  the  legislation  be  monitored 
and  enforced  on  a  continuing  basis." 
8:50  p.m. 

(I  am  not  going  to  go  on  at  length.  The 
position  paper  is  undoubtedly  available  to 
the  minister. 

In  so  far  as  the  work  place  and  the  prob- 
lems of  discrimination  and  employment  are 
concerned,  we  need  to  address  very  real 
concerns  in  committee  in  order  to  understand 
the  provisions  with  respect  to  the  rights 
against  discrimination  in  employment  on  the 
basis  of  sex,  let  alone  on  the  basis  of  other 
matters. 

I  want  to  turn  now,  if  I  may,  to  a  problem 
which  has  vexed  Metropolitan  Toronto  for 
some  time— racism.  I  do  not  need  to  go  on 
at  any  length  about  the  problems  involved 
in  racism.   I  simply  want  every  member  of 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5125 


the  assembly,  if  he  or  she  has  not  already 
done  so,  to  take  an  opportunity  to  read  the 
very  perceptive,  understanding  discussion  of 
the  question  of  racism  which  appeared  in  the 
Insight  section  of  the  Toronto  Star  on  Satur- 
day, December  6,  by  Sol  Littman,  the  com- 
munity relations  editor,  and  not  just  because 
it  happens  to  be  in  Metropolitan  Toronto  and 
happens  to  be  related  to  the  Albert  Johnson 
case.  The  tide  of  the  article  is  "Assessing 
the  Effects  of  the  Johnson  Case." 

I  hope  there  will  be  some  understanding 
of  the  problems  with  respect  to  the  Johnson 
case  and  its  aftermath  as  a  result  of  Sol 
Littman's  perceptive,  empathetic  insights. 
That  article  comes  after  how  many  studies? 
Let  me  recite  them,  although  I  cannot  give 
them  all  with  their  exact  dates:  the  Maloney 
report;  the  Morand  report;  the  Gerstein  re- 
port; the  Frances  Henry  research  report  on 
Dynamics  of  Racism  in  Toronto;  the  Social 
Planning  Council  of  Metropolitan  Toronto 
report  on  law  enforcement  and  race  rela- 
tions; the  draft  report  of  the  Toronto  Board 
of  Education's  subcommittee  on  race  rela- 
tions; Cardinal  Carter's  report;  Now  is  Not 
Too  Late,  the  report  of  Walter  Pitman; 
The  Immigrants  and  Ethnic  Groups  in  Metro- 
politan Toronto,  by  Anthony  Richmond;  the 
task  force  on  immigrant  women  by  the  three 
advisory  councils— the  women's  advisory  coun- 
cil, the  senior  citizens'  advisory  council,  the 
multicultural  advisory  council;  and  of  course 
one  of  the  major  reports,  the  equal  oppor- 
tunity and  public  policy  report  by  Dr.  Ubale, 
the  present  race  relations  commissioner  under 
the  code. 

There  has  been  a  tremendous  focus  in 
Toronto  on  the  question  of  racism,  related 
not  just  to  the  police  but  also  to  the  indige- 
nous sense  of  racism  within  the  society  and 
there  have  been  an  immense  number  of 
studies  and  reports  on  the  topic.  The  pro- 
visions of  Bill  209  address,  to  some  extent, 
the  obligations  of  the  Ontario  Human  Rights 
Commission  to  deal  with  that  particular  prob- 
lem by  educating  the  public.  It  would  be 
helpful  in  committee  to  discuss  how  we  can 
deal  with  those  particular  matters. 

The  next  matter  with  which  I  want  to  deal 
is  the  omission  from  the  proposed  bill  of 
the  question  of  discrimination  based  on 
sexual  orientation.  I  want  to  approach  the 
problem  in  this  sense.  I  am  subdued  and 
quite  sad  that  the  temper  of  our  times  does 
not  permit  the  assembly  to  deal  with  that 
question  by  providing  something  called 
leadership  in  order  that  persons  other  than 
heterosexuals  will  have  the  right  to  protec- 
tion against  discrimination  in  our  society. 


I  go  back  to  what  I  said,  that  we  are 
talking  about  a  bill  which  is  limited  in  its 
applications.  Regardless  of  these  other  func- 
tions that  it  may  perform,  it  is  limited  in 
its  application  of  giving  redress  to  citizens 
for  discrimination  that  is  contrary  to  law.  If 
it  is  not  in  the  bill,  then  the  discrimination 
may  take  place  with  the  tacit  approval  of 
the  society,  whether  it  is  agreeable  to  society 
or  not. 

I  happen  to  be  one  of  the  persons  who  is 
extremely  concerned  that  during  the  last 
municipal  election— whatever  the  reasons  and 
I  do  not  pretend  to  understand  it— there 
were  outcroppings  of  an  ugly  display  of  in- 
tolerance in  our  society  against  those  who 
are  not  heterosexual  by  sexual  orientation. 
It  was  against  those  who,  in  the  language  of 
the  day,  are  members  of  the  gay  community, 
and  against  those  who,  in  the  language  of 
the  day,  are  members  of  the  homosexual 
community  in  its  broadest  sense.  It  was  ugly. 
It  attacked  the  dignity  of  citizens  and  the 
worth  of  citizens.  In  a  funny  way  its  non- 
inclusion  in  the  code  is  a  matter  of  regret 
rather  than  a  matter  of  declamation. 

I  go  back  again  to  the  opening  statement 
made  by  the  minister  that  I  referred  to 
earlier.  It  reflects  the  problem  that  We,  as 
elected  members  of  the  assembly,  must  deal 
with.  I  want  to  quote  it  again  because  it  is 
very  pertinent  to  this  matter  and  to  the 
attitude  I  want  to  express  in  this  assembly. 
I  am  quoting  the  minister's  statement  when 
he  introduced  the  bill  on  November  25  last: 

"I  have  characterized  this  as  a  new  be- 
ginning in  both  substantive  and  symbolic 
terms.  I  have  described  the  substance  of  the 
proposals.  The  symbolic  importance  of  these 
revisions  cannot  be  overemphasized.  I  hope 
the  people  of  Ontario  will  recognize  that  the 
new  code  represents  this  government's  re- 
dedication  to  the  elimination  of  the  corrosive 
effects  of  discrimination  in  our  society.  Ulti- 
mately, of  course,  the  success  of  laws,  es- 
pecially in  this  sensitive  area,  depends  on 
the  goodwill,  tolerance  and  maturity  of  our 
people." 

I  think  it  is  sad  to  indicate  that  the  tem- 
per of  our  times  will  not  allow  this  assembly 
to  reflect  the  need  to  protect  a  definable 
group  of  the  population  against  the  kind  of 
discrimination  to  which  the  group's  members 
are  subjected  because  they  are  members  of 
the  homosexual  community.  I  may  say,  by 
way  of  minor  explanation,  homosexual  in- 
cludes lesbian  relationships.  There  is  nothing 
male  about  it.  It  is  an  omnibus  term,  as  I 
am  certain  all  of  us  are  aware. 


5126 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Again  I  come  back  to  the  immense 
humanity  of  the  report  of  Dr.  Symons.  I  may 
say  that  as  Dr.  Symons  was  embarking  on 
his  report,  I  took  the  liberty  of  talking  to  the 
then  House  leader  of  the  Conservative  Party, 
the  present  Deputy  Premier  (Mr.  Welch), 
I  took  the  liberty  of  talking  to  the  then 
deputy  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party,  the  mem- 
ber for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon), 
and  I  was  trying  to  express  the  view  of  our 
own  caucus  about  it.  I  talked  to  Dr.  Symons 
about  it.  I  said  I  thought  it  would  be  the 
time  of  wisdom  because  I  said  I  thought  the 
time  was  propitious  and  that  people  were 
in  the  mood  of  tolerance  for  change,  of  tol- 
erance for  differences  of  one  kind  or  another 
and  would  accept  an  inclusion  in  the  code 
of  the  very  problem  which  still  continues  to 
cause  us  such  immense  concern. 

9  p.m. 

It  was  not  accepted  and  the  recommenda- 
tion was  not  accepted,  but  I  still  think  one 
must  read  pages  81  and  82  of  the  report 
Life  Together,  of  the  Ontario  Human  Rights 
Commission,  with  respect  to  sexual  orienta- 
tion. I  am  not  going  to  read  it  all.  It  is 
available  for  those  who  want  to  read  it.  But 
let  me  quote  it: 

"Because  they  are  not  protected  from 
discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  their  sexual 
orientation,  many  people  in  Ontario  who 
are  homosexuals  live  in  constant  fear  that 
they  may  lose  their  jobs,  their  living  ac- 
commodation and  other  basic  necessities  if 
their  sexual  orientation  becomes  known.  As 
things  now  stand,  this  can  and  often  does 
happen  despite  the  fact  that  the  individuals 
concerned  may  be  exemplary  employees  or 
tenants.  They  are  being  discriminated  against 
because  of  something  which  is  a  part  of 
their  private  life. 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  homosexual 
men  and  women  suffer  from  frequent  and 
extensive  discrimination  because  of  their  sex- 
ual orientation.  Although  firm  statistical  data 
about  the  proportion  of  Ontario  residents 
who  are  homosexual  are  difficult  to  obtain,  it 
is  clear  that  homosexuals  constitute  a  quite 
sizeable  minority  of  the  population.  Yet,  as 
many  briefs  noted,  and  as  the  commission's 
own  research  confirms,  individuals  have  been 
fired  or  denied  accommodation,  or  have  in 
many  other  ways  suffered  indignities  simply 
because  they  are  homosexuals.  This  is  de- 
plorable in  a  society  which  claims,  as  its 
public  policy,  that  'every  person  is  free  and 
equal  in  dignity  and  rights'." 

It  refers  to  various  other  organizations 
which  support  the  position  taken  by  the 
commission,  and  it  goes  on:  "Because  of  the 


possible  consequences  of  public  disclosure 
in  these  circumstances,  many  people  in  On- 
tario who  are  homosexual  in  their  sexual 
orientation  are  vulnerable  to  blackmail  and 
intimidation.  The  scope  for  such  blackmail 
and  intimidation  would  be  radically  reduced 
if  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Code  provided 
protection  from  discrimination  on  the  ground 
of  sexual  orientation. 

"Following  careful  deliberations  and  dis- 
cussions and  with  the  support  of  many  briefs 
and  submissions,  both  from  the  homosexual 
community  and  from  other  groups,  including 
many  religious  denominations,  the  Canadian 
Labour  Congress"— I  may  may  insert  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Labour  at  its  recent 
convention  concluded  in  Toronto— "and  the 
Canadian  Association  of  University  Teach- 
ers, the  commission  recommends  that  the 
Ontario  Human  Rights  Code  be  amended  to 
extend  to  homosexuals  the  same  protection 
against  discrimination  which  is  provided  to 
their  fellow  citizens  by  including  sexual 
orientation  as  a  ground  on  which  discrim- 
ination is  prohibited  by  the  code. 

'The  commssion  recommends  further  that, 
as  with  all  other  grounds,  provision  be  in- 
cluded in  the  code  for  exemptions  to  be 
granted;  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  in  situa- 
tions where  sexual  orientation  may  be  a  bona 
fide  consideration." 

I  do  not  pretend  to  understand  all  the 
implications  of  why  society  responds  as  it 
does  to  this  question  of  homosexuality  in 
something  which  is  ostensibly  a  heterosexual 
society.  That  is  a  very  deep  problem  and  it 
would  take  many  people  much  wiser  than 
any  of  us  here  in  the  assembly.  I  may  say 
that  compared  to  the  question  of  racism  and 
the  list  of  studies,  analyses  and  discussions 
which  have  taken  place  on  the  question  of 
discrimination  on  the  basis  of  racism,  I 
know  of  no  study  or  no  understanding  in 
depth  which  has  taken  place  with  respect  to 
the  problem. 

I  reassert  it  as  a  problem  because  it 
obviously  is  a  problem.  It  raised  in  the  last 
municipal  election,  related  to  the  school  sys- 
tem and  related  to  children,  very  deep  and 
profound  feelings  within  the  community.  I 
am  not  engaged  in  trying  to  assess  who  won 
or  what  lost  an  election.  I  am  not  talking 
about  that.  I  am  talking  about  the  ugliness 
that  appeared  in  the  city  of  Toronto  as  an 
outcropping  of  very  deep  feelings  raised  by 
an  issue  that  none  of  us  understands. 

Let  me  simply  say  that  both  in  the  minis- 
ter's estimates  when  the  Ontario  Human 
Rights  Commission  was  before  us  quite 
recently  and  in  the  estimates  of  the  Solicitor 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5127 


General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  a  few  days  ago,  I 
raised  this  particular  piece  of  literature 
published  by  the  League  Against  Homo- 
sexuals. This  group  says  it  is  "a  registered 
nonprofit  organization  seeking  co-operation 
and/or  amalgamation  of  any  and  all  in- 
dividuals and  organisations  concerned  with 
the  welfare  of  all  children." 

"Stand  up  and  fight  for  children;  they 
are  our  future.  Join  and/or  support  the 
League  Against  Homosexuals."  It  has  a 
post  office  box  address  and  there  are  four 
names  of  individuals  attached  to  it. 

It  states,  "Queers  do  not  produce;  they 
seduce."  I  will  not  read  the  whole  thing, 
but  it  also  says:  "Some  facts  about  queers: 
Queers  are  against  God  and  the  Christian 
Bible.  Queers  are  against  humanity.  Queers 
are  against  every  race  and  religion.  Does 
our  society  need  queers?" 

"Who  is  against  queers?  All  decent 
citizens.  All  normal,  healthy  heterosexual 
families.  All  couples  that  produce  children. 
All  right-wing  political  parties.  All  those 
who  believe  in  Christ  and  his  teaching." 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  hope  they  do  not 
claim  to  be  charitable. 

Mr.  Ren'wick:  The  member  dan  say  what 
he  wants.  I  do  not  pretend  to  joke  about 
this  topic. 

I  am  simply  saying  that  is  hate  literature. 
I  do  not  think  there  is  anybody  in  this 
room  who  does  not  think  the  ability  of  an 
organization,  apparently  incorporated,  ap- 
parently recognized  by  the  government— 
I  do  not  mean  recognized  'by  the  govern- 
ment, but  recognized  as  a  corporation  in- 
corporated under  our  laws— can  produce 
that  kind  of  hate  literature  so  destructive 
of  the   dignity  and  worth  of  individuals. 

When  I  presented  the  literature  to  the 
Solicitor  General  and  asked  him  whether 
he  would  give  consideration  to  whether  a 
prosecution  could  be  taken  under  the 
Criminal  Code  for  that  kind  of  literature- 
assuming  as  I  do  that  it  is  hate  literature; 
if  people  want  to  disagree  with  me,  that 
is  fine— he  said  he  would  look  into  it,  and 
I  am  sure  he  will.  He  said  he  thought  he 
had  seen  the  literature,  but  the  problem 
was  that  the  League  was  not  an  identifiable 
group  for  the  purposes  of  the  hate  literature 
provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code. 

So  it  means  that  people  who  are  some- 
thing called  "queers"  in  the  mind  of  the 
League  Against  Homosexuals  will  continue 
to  be  subjected  to  that  discrimination.  I 
accept  it  as  a  personal  defeat,  as  many  mem- 
bers of  the  assembly  will,  not  because  of 
any  particular   concerns  about  the  question 


of  homosexuality  as  against  heterosexuality, 
but  because  of  questions  with  respect  to  the 
attack  on  the  dignity  of  significant  numbers 
of  people  in  our  society.  I  accept  it  as  a 
defeat  at  this  point. 

The  temper  of  our  times  does  not  permit 
it.  There  are  people  like  Sol  Littman  and 
others  whom  I  respect.  One  of  the  com- 
mentators I  respect,  and  some  honourable 
members  may  have  heard  about  him,  is  a 
man  by  the  name  of  George  Steiner.  I 
want  to  put  this  comment  on  the  record: 

"Neither  sociology  nor  cultural  history, 
neither  political  theory  nor  psychology  has 
even  begun  to  handle  authoritatively  the 
vast  theme  of  the  part  played  by  homo- 
sexuality in  western  culture  since  the  late 
19th  century.  The  subject  is  so  diffuse,  of 
such  methodological  and  emotional  com- 
plexity, that  it  would  require  a  combination 
of  Machiavelli,  de  Tocqueville  and  Freud 
to  produce  the  great  missing  book.  There 
is  hardly  a  branch  of  literature,  of  music, 
of  the  plastic  arts,  of  philosophy,  of  drama, 
film,  fashion,  and  the  furnishings  of  daily 
urban  life  in  which  homosexuality  has  not 
been  crucially  involved,  often  dominantly. 
Homosexuality  can  be  seen  to  have  been 
one  of  the  main  generators  of  the  entire 
fabric  and  savour  of  urban  modernity  in  the 
West.  This  is  a  vast  and  as  yet  only  im- 
perfectly understood  development  of  which 
the  role  of  homosexuality  in  politics  is  only 
a  specialized  or  dramatic  feature." 
9:10  p.m. 

When  I  raised  the  matter  with  the  minister 
in  the  estimates  when  the  Ontario  Human 
Rights  Commission  was  before  him,  I  urged 
upon  the  commission  that  if  ever  a  matter 
cried  for  study,  analysis  and  concern  it  was 
the  question  of  what  happened  in  the  city 
of  Toronto  in  the  last  municipal  election 
which  produced  that  kind  of  ugliness  as  an 
outcropping  of  deeply  felt  emotions.  Many 
persons  legitimately  felt  traditional  emotions 
about  the  problem. 

All  I  am  saying  is  I  guess  we  are  going 
to  have  to  be  content  over  a  long  period  of 
time  to  do  the  kind  of  educational  work  that 
is  one  of  the  main  areas  of  the  function  of 
the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Commission:  to 
understand,  analyse  and  provide  a  forum 
for  discussion  of  that  question  before  we 
will  be  able  to  move  in  a  legislative  way  to 
provide  that  protection.  I  do  not  know  what 
the  outcome  or  the  result  will  be,  but  I  can 
say  quite  clearly  we  should  have  the  same 
number  of  studies  in  the  same  compression 
of  time  about  the  question  of  homosexuality 
in  our  society  that  we  have  had  about  racism. 


5128 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Even  though  it  has  been  difficult  to 
achieve  all  the  improvements  we  wanted  in 
the  field  of  racism,  at  least  some  perceptible 
movement  has  been  made  with  respect  to  the 
maturity  of  society  about  these  matters.  If 
we  could  have  the  equivalent  of  a  Pitman 
report,  a  Morand  report,  a  Maloney  report,  a 
Carter  report  or  a  Frances  Henry  report,  if 
we  could  have  an  Ontario  Human  Rights 
Commission  report  about  this  matter  then  it 
might  well  be  we  would  be  able  to  solve  this 
problem  at  some  point. 

I  emphasize  that  I  accept,  with  a  con- 
siderable degree  of  regret,  that  the  time  is 
not  now  to  deal  with  this  problem.  I  there- 
fore have  to  accept  the  responsibility  of  the 
commission  under  its  functions  to  deal  with 
this  problem  in  an  educational,  informative 
and  studied  way.  Unless  we  deal  with  it,  we 
will  be  harassed  in  society  in  Toronto  with 
this  kind  of  ugliness  until  we  solve  the 
problem.  It  will  not  go  away. 

I  come  back  to  what  I  said.  Civilization, 
civility,  a  mutual  respect  and  tolerance  are 
on  the  chopping  block  in  Toronto  on  this 
issue.  We  have  made  some  progress— not  per- 
fect—in the  area  of  racism.  I  think  it  will  be 
possible  for  us  to  make  some  progress  on 
this  next  question  of  whether  it  is  possible 
for  those  persons  of  a  nonheterosexual  orien- 
tation to  be  protected  against  discrimination 
in  this  society  so  that  their  dignity  and  worth 
can  be  protected  and  preserved. 

I  have  gone  on  at  immense  length. 

[Applause] 

Mr.  Renwick:  I  know  there  are  some 
members  who  would  be  glad  if  I  sat  down, 
but  I  generally  do  not  accommodate  myself 
to  other  than  those  members  who  have  the 
privilege  of  sitting  in  opposition. 

There  is  a  section  in  the  bill  dealing  with 
and  excluding  insurance  from  the  provisions 
of  nondiscrimination  under  the  bill.  It  is 
section  20.  I  sat  on  the  select  committee  on 
company  law  when  it  produced  four  reports 
on  the  insurance  industry.  Two  were  on 
automobile  insurance  and  two  on  other 
aspects  of  insurance.  There  were  recommen- 
dations about  these  matters.  Let  me  sum- 
marize them  briefly. 

In  the  jurisdictions  we  visited  and  in  the 
recommendations  we  made,  we  urged  the 
government  to  get  away  from  discrimination 
in  automobile  insurance  on  the  basis  of  sex 
and  age  and  to  get  to  the  point  where  it 
would  accept  some  other  criteria. 

"In  summary,  the  committee  is  impressed 
with  the  arguments  in  favour  of  eliminating 
age,  sex  and  marital  status  as  criteria  to  be 
used    in    determining    automobile    insurance 


premiums,  and  it  urges  the  industry  and  the 
superintendent  to  develop  alternative  cri- 
teria. The  committee  considers  that  more 
appropriate  criteria  would  be  driving  ex- 
perience, driving  record,  and  miles  travelled 
if  an  objective  measurement  of  this  latter 
factor  could  be  found/' 

I  am  not  going  to  quote  the  whole  of  the 
particular  chapter  which  is  involved  in  that 
report.  We  will  recall  the  astonishment  of 
seeing  the  headlines  in  the  paper  that  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations was  hauling  the  insurance  industry 
in  before  him  because  they  were  going  to  do 
away  with  these  matters.  What  a  retreat  he 
has  beaten.  He  disappeared  back  into  the 
woods  and  we  have  never  heard  about  that 
topic  again.  Yet  it  reappears  in  section  20 
of  this  bill  that  it  is  quite  permissible  to  dis- 
criminate in  automobile  insurance  on  the 
basis  of  sex,  age  and  marital  status.  I  ask  any 
members  of  the  assembly  who  want  to  pur- 
sue that  matter  to  read  the  second  report  of 
the  select  committee  on  the  insurance  in- 
dustry dealing  with  automobile  insurance. 

Then  we  come  to  the  question  of  life 
insurance.  In  the  committee  that  tried  to 
deal  with  this  matter  we  had  many  presen- 
tations indicating  quite  clearly  to  us  that  the 
actuarial  tables  of  the  distinctions  on  longev- 
ity between  males  and  females  were  such 
that  it  was  a  proper  discriminatory  basis. 
There  was  nothing  unfair  about  it.  It  meant 
that  those  who  bore  the  risks  paid  for  the 
risk.  We  clearly  recognized  that  distinction. 
We  accepted  that  proposition  of  the  insur- 
ance industry,  but  we  went  on  to  say  "that 
there  may  be  grounds  in  public  policy  to 
say  that  the  overriding  basis  is  the  equality 
of  the  sexes  and  that  there  should  be  no 
discrimination."  The  matter  should  be  ironed 
out  on  that  basis  and  the  actuarial  tables 
melded  into  one  table. 

Again,  I  simply  want  to  point  out  that  the 
select  committee  on  company  law  in  its 
fourth  report,  which  many  members  of  the 
assembly  here  will  remember,  has  made  a 
very  clear  statement  about  the  decisions  that 
were  made  by  that  committee  on  that 
matter. 

Let  me  come  to  a  much  more  fundamental 
question  about  the  life  insurance  industry. 
We  tried  to  grapple  with  it.  The  life  insur- 
ance industry  went  on  the  basis  of  some- 
thing called  the  normal  person.  They  ac- 
cepted something  called  the  normal  person. 
They  developed  actuarial  tables  with  respect 
to  the  rates  to  be  charged  for  life  insurance 
for  that  person  based  upon  the  age  of  the 
person  and  the  expected  longevity.  If  there 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5129 


was  any  deviation  of  the  individual  from 
that  norm,  the  matter  was  referred  to  the 
medical  doctors.  The  medical  doctors,  on  the 
basis  of  their  views  of  medical  science,  then 
adjusted  the  rates  so  that  the  rate  charged 
to  a  person  who  was  not  a  norm  was  based, 
not  on  actuarial  evidence  of  the  incidence 
of  the  trauma,  the  disease  of  the  handicap 
that  was  involved  but  simply  on  the  doc- 
tor's judgement  with  respect  to  whether  that 
person's  longevity  was  affected.  The  actual 
facts  of  the  matter,  of  course,  have  shown 
that  as  far  as  the  methods  of  computing  the 
actuarial  information  are  concerned  many 
of  those  decisions  were  wrong. 

We  recommended  very  clearly  in  that 
report  that  the  basis  now  should  not  be 
medical  judgement  but  must  be  actuarial 
judgement.  You  start  from  the  basis  that, 
for  life  insurance  purposes,  all  people  are 
equal  unless  the  actuarial  bases  on  an  evi- 
dentiary method  are  sufficient  to  say  there 
should  be  an  actuarial  difference  to  properly 
distribute  the  weight  of  the  cost  of  that  bur- 
den for  the  particular  group  that  was  paying 
the  cost  for  it. 

I  want  to  say  that  I  think  it  is  important 
that  those  questions  related  to  insurance  be 
properly  aired  and  properly  discussed  again 
in  committee. 

9:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  gone  on  at  great 
length.  I  do  not  apologize.  I  simply  ask  the 
House  to  Understand  that  these  are  matters 
on  which  I,  and  I  am  sure  other  members 
of  the  House,  feel  deeply  and  strongly. 
They  are  matters  of  immense  concern.  I 
was  constrained  to  speak  at  some  length, 
because  I  know  that  when  a  bill  such  as 
this,  a  total  revision  of  the  Ontario  Human 
Rights  Code,  comes  before  us,  when  it  is 
all  over  and  it  is  part  of  the  statutes,  then 
it  is  unlikely  we  will  see  any  significant 
amendments  to  it  for  a  long  time.  It  is 
for  all  those  reasons  that  I  have  taken  up 
such  an  undue  amount  of  time  in  the 
assembly. 

There  is  the  matter  that  my  colleague  the 
member  for  Sudbury  East  (Mr.  Martel)  has 
raised  about  that  application  for  employ- 
ment. I  believe  there  is  some  indication  that 
section  21  of  the  bill  covers— what  shall  I 
say?— that  disastrous,  horrendous  application 
for  employment,  and  I  spoke  a  little  bit 
about  employment  criteria.  I  Was  dignified 
the  other  day  as  a  Jesuit  in  my  legal  analysis 
of  problems,  but  even  my  Protestant  relation 
to  the  Jesuits  does  not  permit  me  to  see 
how  the  problem  of  my  colleague,  the  mem- 
ber  for   Sudbury  East  is   solved  by  section 


21  of  the  bill.  I  would  ask  the  minister  in 
due  course  to  speak  to  it. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  address  myself  in  the  first  instance  to 
one  of  the  points  made  by  the  member  for 
Riverdale,  and  that  is  the  whole  question 
of  the  ratification  by  Parliament,  by  Canada, 
of  the  United  Nations  convention. 

During  the  course  of  the  constitutional 
discussions,  I  had  occasion  to  leave  that 
committee  and  to  meet  somewhat  briefly 
with  the  select  committee  on  the  Ombuds- 
man which  in  turn  had  as  witnesses  before 
it  a  member  of  the  staff  of  the  Department 
of  External  Affairs  and  the  Ambassador  to 
the  Vatican,  who  had  been  sitting  as  our 
representative  at  the  United  Nations. 

On  that  occasion,  when  we  were  dis- 
cussing the  resolution  to  which  my  friend 
the  member  for  Riverdale  referred,  we  did 
get  into  a  discussion  about  the  ratification. 
We  were  advised,  for  example,  that  Canada 
did  not  ratify  any  of  the  human  rights  pro- 
visions until  such  time  as  there  was  "ratifi- 
cation by  each  and  all  of  the  provinces." 

Listening  to  that  particular  discussion,  I 
was  very  deeply  puzzled  in  the  select  com- 
mittee on  constitutional  reform  as  to  the 
whole  matter  of  our  discussion  of  entrench- 
ment of  human  rights.  It  was  my  belief  that, 
if  such  rights  were  ratified,  therefore  there 
had  been,  in  effect,  amendments  ongoing 
to  the  constitution  of  Canada.  I  sought 
clarification  of  that  position. 

We  were  advised  by  the  staff  member 
from  External  Affairs  that  there  is  an  officer 
in  Ottawa  whose  business  is  to  pursue,  with 
the  provinces,  the  amendments  to  their 
legislation  to  bring  them  into  conformity 
with  the  commitments  of  Canada  to  the 
United  Nations  convention.  At  this  point, 
it  is  important  that  each  and  every  one  of 
us  in  this  House  understands  what  those 
commitments  are  and  is  able  to  discuss 
them  and  discuss  our  own  legislation,  which 
might  very  well  include  other  labour  legis- 
lation, in  the  light  of  those  commitments. 

As  I  understand  it,  there  has  been,  for 
example,  a  ratification  of  a  convention  on 
the  right  to  work.  I  have  not  as  yet  had  an 
opportunity  to  study  what  the  convention 
says  or  what  it  actually  provides.  I  know 
the  minister  is  very  much  aware  of  the 
other  convention  to  which  the  member  for 
Riverdale  referred1.  I  refer,  of  course,  to 
the  Hague  convention,  which  has  been 
signed  although  not  as  yet  ratified,  but 
which  we  in  this  House,  I  understand  from 
the  Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  will 
be  ratifying  by  a  piece  of  legislation. 


5130 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


It  was  hoped  that  it  would  be  ratified  be- 
fore the  end  of  this  session;  I  take  it  that 
now  is  a  hope  deferred.  Nevertheless  we  are 
moving  to  ratify  an  international  convention. 
I  think  it  is  very  important  that  we  all 
understand  that  process,  which  I  must  con- 
fess I  still  do  not  fully  understand.  The  dis- 
tinctions may  be  the  distinctions  made  by 
the  member  for  Riverdale  between  the  sign- 
ing and  the  ratification.  Nevertheless,  we 
are  faced  with  an  international  commitment 
and,  according  to  External  Affairs,  we  must 
move  to  bring  all  our  legislation  within  the 
terms  of  the  commitment  to  that  United 
Nations  convention. 

So  it  is  important  as  we  deal  with  this 
piece  of  legislation  that  the  committee  has 
the  opportunity  of  hearing  from  the  repre- 
sentative of  External  Affairs  as  to  where  we 
stand  on  some  of  these  conventions.  I  do 
know  there  is  a  convention  in  preparation 
dealing  with  aboriginal  rights.  It  seems  to 
me  we  should  be  at  least  aware  of  what  that 
convention  says  and  how  it  applies  to  our 
aboriginals  in  this  country.  Albeit,  it  was 
brought  forward  because  of  some  problems 
in  the  Third  World,  nevertheless  if  ratified 
by  Canada,  it  certainly  would  become  of 
necessity  a  part  of  our  domestic  law  as  I 
understand  the  situation. 

9:30  p.m. 

I  think  it  is  important  that  we  really  try 
to  understand  where  we  are  in  this  province 
in  the  context  of  the  international  society  of 
which  we,  as  part  of  Canada,  are  also  a 
part.  It  is  because  we  now  have  this  review 
of  this  legislation  that  I  believe  the  time  is 
most  appropriate  for  this  sort  of  discussion 
and  understanding  as  to  where  this  legisla- 
tion  fits   into   our   international   commitment. 

As  far  as  the  bill  is  concerned,  let  me  say 
this:  I  congratulate  the  government  for  mov- 
ing in  some  of  the  areas  where  there  has 
been  a  cry  for  the  addressing  of  wrongs  and 
inequities.  I  do  not  believe  I  should  get 
involved  in  any  great  detail  in  the  bill  itself. 
If  it  is  going  to  committee,  that  is  where  it 
can  be  addressed  in  detail.  I  really  am  in- 
terested in  the  statement  in  section  25:  "It 
is  the  function  of  the  commission  (a)  to 
forward  the  policy  that  every  person  is  equal 
in  dignity  and  worth  and  is  entitled  to  equal 
rights  and  opportunities  without  discrimina- 
tion"—and  then  the  clinker— "contrary  to 
law."  Every  person  in  this  province  is  not 
entitled  to  be  equal  in  dignity  and  worth 
and  is  not  entitled  to  equal  rights  and  oppor- 
tunities. That  expresses  my  great  sense  of 
failure:  that  I  can  be  asked  to  stand  and 
support  a  bill  that  denies  equality  and  dig- 


nity and  worth  to  people  within  this  com- 
munity. I  do  not  understand  how  we  arrive 
at  this  position. 

I  recognize  the  problems  in  our  com- 
munity. I  recognize  there  are  many  people 
who  are  honestly  concerned  about  some  of 
these  problems,  who  find  it  very  difficult  to 
accept  that,  for  example,  in  our  society  to- 
day there  should  be  any  group  against  whom 
the  hate  literature  provisions  of  the  Criminal 
Code  do  not  apply.  The  fact  that  one  can 
write  as  one  likes  about  some  people  without 
fear  of  criminal  prosecution  is,  to  me,  in 
itself  an  offence. 

In  our  world  today  the  violence  we  see, 
God  knows,  is  with  us  morning,  noon  and 
night.  One  cannot  pick  up  a  newspaper,  one 
cannot  watch  television  without  seeing  it 
brought  right  into  one's  home.  Surely  one 
of  the  things  we  must  learn  to  do,  perhaps 
falteringly— perhaps  we  cannot  expect  to  have 
courage— surely  to  goodness  what  we  have 
to  do,  is  to  eliminate  hate  if  we  are  going 
to  take  the  first  step  to  eliminating  violence. 
Of  course,  this  bill  does  not  make  any  pro- 
visions to  soften  that  situation. 

I  will  not  go  into  the  enforcement  aspects. 
I  am  sure  those  provisions  will  find  amend- 
ment if  the  bill  is  going  to  committee. 

I  understand  how  difficult  it  is  to  establish 
a  case  today  under  the  present  provisions  of 
the  Human  Rights  Code.  I  am  afraid  that 
during  the  course  of  the  hearings  I  did  ask 
those  hearing  petitions  to  give  some  con- 
sideration to  changing  the  onus  of  our  pro- 
cedures under  this  code— somewhat,  I  sup- 
pose, a  la  motor  vehicle  type  of  situa- 
tion where  a  person  would  present  a  prima 
facie  case  and  then  the  onus  would  switch, 
although  there  are  those  who  say  the 
onus  does  switch.  But  what  happens  is  there 
is  a  prima  facie  case  by  an  applicant  or  a 
complainant;  one  then  is  met  with  another 
prima  facie  case  by  way  of  defence,  and 
there  really  is  not  the  provision  of  an  onus 
to  bring  forward  a  case.  This  is  why  the 
bill  has  been  rather  poor.  It  has  not  been 
successful,  as  we  know  by  the  number  of 
women,  for  example,  who  have  brought  for- 
ward cases;  it  is  almost  impossible  to  prove 
beyond  a  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  one  is 
being  discriminated  against. 

The  minister  was  on  a  television  program 
with  me  and  with  one  of  the  critics  for  the 
NDP,  and  we  looked  at  a  woman  who  had 
been  laid  off,  a  woman  who  had  no  job. 
What  did  she  say  to  the  minister?  She  did 
not  know  she  was  speaking  to  the  minister, 
but  she  pointed  out  that  she  could  not  get 
a  job  because  of  her  age.  The  code  says  one 
cannot  do  that,  but  I  think  we  all  recognize 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5131 


in  her  ease  that  is  precisely  what  her  prob- 
lem was— that  and  the  area  in  which  she 
lived,  where  jobs  were  not  all  that  plentiful. 
We  have  defined  age  in  this  particular  bill, 
and  we  know  that  one  cannot  discriminate  by 
reason  of  age,  save  and  except  if  somebody 
is  under  18  or  over  65.  I  sometimes  wonder 
what  we  should  do  with  all  the  people  out 
there  who  get  to  be  over  65.  Do  they  really 
cease  to  be  persons  deserving  of  dignity  and 
worth?  That  question  is  not  dealt  with  in  this 
legislation. 

9:40  p.m. 

I  have  spoken  broadly  on  the  matter.  I 
too  have  a  great  sense  of  failure  about  this 
bill.  I  hope  when  we  get  into  committee,  with 
the  advice  of  External  Affairs,  perhaps  we 
can  resolve  some  of  the  questions  as  to  our 
immediate  responsibilities.  Perhaps  we  in  this 
House  will  not  then  need  to  have  the  cour- 
age to  give  to  everybody  the  same  right  and 
dignity  in  work  because  it  is  in  a  convention 
to  which  we  are  committed. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  must  con- 
gratulate this  government  and  this  minister 
for  finally  bringing  in  this  legislation.  As  the 
Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth)  may  well  re- 
member from  his  days  as  Minister  of  Labour 
at  the  time  when  I  was  the  spokesman  for 
our  party  as  labour  critic  and,  therefore, 
the  spokesperson  for  our  party  on  human 
rights,  I  have  been  trying  ever  since  I  came 
into  the  Legislature  in  1971  to  see  that  some 
amendments  came  into  this  act,  which  we 
were  all  concerned  about,  becoming  effec- 
tive. Finally,  we  have  it  before  us. 

I  view  this  act,  although  it  is  a  completely 
rewritten  one,  as  a  good  start  on  revised 
legislation  for  Ontario,  even  though  I  am 
fully  aware  because  of  fighting  for  it  since 
1971  that  it  may  well  be  another  10  years 
before  we  see  any  further  amendments  to 
this  act.  So  the  act  we  have  before  us  today 
is  one  with  which  we  will  have  to  live. 

I  recall  particularly  in  the  fall  of  1974 
that  the  then  Minister  of  Labour,  the  mem- 
ber for  Humber  (Mr.  MacBeth),  gave  a 
commitment  during  the  estimates  of  the 
Ministry  of  Labour  that  there  would  be 
amendments  to  the  Human  Rights  Code  by 
the  spring  of  1975.  That  is  five  and  a  half 
years  ago.  I  understand  what  happened  on 
some  of  it.  He  was  as  surprised  as  all  the 
rest  of  us  when  the  Ontario  Human  Rights 
Commission  formed  its  committee  and  went 
on  its  code  review.  There  was  a  bit  of  dis- 
appointment, certainly  in  myself,  that  when 
action  was  commenced  by  the  commission 
without,  it  appears,  having  much  contact 
with  the  minister  at  that  time,  that  action 


delayed  any  action  at  all  until  the  report 
Life  Together,  which  has  been  referred  to 
many  times  here  tonight,  was  released. 

That  was  in  the  summer  of  1977.  Then 
a  strange  thing  happened  again.  One  would 
have  thought,  with  such  an  excellent  report 
put  together  by  that  committee  of  the 
human  rights  commission,  we  would  have 
had  this  legislation  long  before  now.  Cer- 
tainly this  legislation  is  much  more  proper 
and  much  more  satisfactory  for  the  disabled 
in  Ontario  than  the  bill  brought  forward 
by  the  minister  last  year  which  would  have 
treated  them  as  a  separate  entity. 

The  way  we  have  now  gone  is  certainly 
the  way  we  were  urging  all  along.  We  are 
very  pleased  to  see  the  minister  has  gone 
this  way,  even  though  there  may  be  some 
fringes  around  the  areas  of  the  particular 
coverage  of  the  disabled  which  are  not  100 
per  cent,  but  this  route  is  certainly  much 
more  preferable  than  the  other  route  which 
the  minister  had  at  that  time  chosen  to  go. 

1  could  turn  to  some  of  the  details  of 
the  bill.  There  are  certain  things  in  this 
particular  bill  which  cause  questions  in  my 
mind  or  cause  me  some  concern  as  we  try 
to  protect  everyone  in  the  province  from 
discrimination,  to  recognize  that  every  per- 
son is  equal  in  dignity  and  worth  and  to 
provide  equal  rights  for  all  those  persons, 
to  paraphrase  slightly  the  preamble  to  the 
act.  One  matter  that  has  been  tickling  me 
is  this  sort  of  new  inclusion  into  the  act  in 
section  1  of  services,  goods  and  facilities. 
What  do  those  service  include?  It  is  an 
interesting  question  because,  when  one  turns 
to  the  definition  section,  we  find  that  all 
it  says  is  what  services  do  not  include, 
Services  do  not  include,  according  to  that 
definition  section,  a  levy,  fee  or  tax  imposed 
or  authorized  by  law.  That  is  all  very  good, 
but  I  would  like  to  know  just  how  en- 
compassing it  is  and  what  "services"  means, 
because  there  'are  certainly  court  cases  in 
Canada  that  would  indicate  that  is  rather 
narrowly  defined. 

In  the  minister's  reply,  I  would  like  to 
know  just  what  he  intends  by  the  word 
"services."  He  has  defined  it  as  what  it  is 
not,  and  yet  certain  courts  in  this  land  have 
defined  it  rather  narrowly  and  have  tended 
to  define  services  and  facilities  as  simply 
hotels,  restaurants  and  other  like  facilities. 
Does  the  minister  intend  that  services  would 
be  much  more  broadly  based  than  that? 

Under  the  handicapped  section,  the 
definitions  there  include  one  that  has  con- 
cerned us  all  over  the  years  in  this  Legis- 
lature. Certainly  in  my  work  with  my  own 
constituents,    as   well   as    with   cases    around 


5132 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


the  province,  it  has  been  of  concern.  I 
refer  to  epileptics.  Epileptics  are  and  have 
been  very  badly  discriminated  against  in 
employment,  but  in  this  day  and  age 
epilepsy  can  be  carefully  controlled  by 
medication.  Yet  they  are  so  widely  dis- 
criminated against  that  they  need  the  pro- 
tection of  this  code  to  function  as  productive 
people  in  our  society,  which  they  can  do 
in  most  cases  if  given  a  chance. 

I  also  wonder  whether  the  minister  would 
consider  the  inclusion  of  diabetes,  because 
diabetes  is  another  of  those  categories  for 
which  there  is  some  discrimination  in  our 
society  in  terms  of  hiring  and  in  certain  serv- 
ices that  those  who  suffer  from  diabetes 
perform.  I  am  not  at  all  sure  that  they  fall 
within  the  terms  of  the  definition  of  the 
handicapped.  I  would  ask  the  minister  to 
comment  on  the  diabetes  situation  and 
whether  they  should  be  included  in  this  act, 
or  whether  they  are  included  in  the  general 
definition. 

I  understand  we  must  have  various  sec- 
tions relating  to  the  handicapped  which 
sound  reasonable,  but  I  am  a  little  concerned 
about  section  16,  not  so  much  by  the  way  it 
is  written  but  by  how  the  minister  and  the 
commission  would  interpret  it.  It  reads:  "A 
right  under  part  I  to  nondiscrimination  be- 
cause of  a  handicap  is  not  infringed  by  dis- 
crimination" because  "the  handicap  renders 
the  particular  person  incapable  of  perform- 
ing the  essential  duties  attending  the  exercise 
of  that  right." 

Does  this  apply  to  housing?  For  example, 
does  the  handicapped  person  not  have  a 
right  to  housing  simply  because  the  apart- 
ment building  has  no  ramp?  Would  it  not 
be  reasonable  in  this  day  and  age,  through 
grants  if  necessary,  for  older  apartment 
buildings  to  be  equipped  with  ramps?  Most 
of  them  that  are  more  than  three  storeys 
must  have  elevators.  Would  it  not  be  a  good 
act  of  this  ministry,  in  this  day  and  age, 
through  this  act  to  encourage  the  building 
of  ramps  so  handicapped  people  who  re- 
quire wheelchairs  may  live  in  this  province 
where  they  prefer  to  live  and  have  a  much 
wider    choice    than    what    they    now    have? 

Does  section  16,  the  way  it  is  written,  for- 
ever allow  a  landlord  to  continue  to  build 
apartment  buildings  without  ramps  at  en- 
trances and  not  require  that  person  to  pro- 
vide the  proper  land  of  entrance  to  the 
building?  How  section  16  of  this  act  will  be 
applied  is  a  continuing  concern  to  me.  I 
would  be  interested  in  the  minister's  answer 
to  that. 
9:50  p.m. 


Among  some  of  the  other  sections  that 
deal  with  the  problems  of  what  is  not  count- 
ed as  discrimination,  section  19  bothers  me 
as  well.  According  to  section  19  it  is  not 
discrimination  in  occupancy  and  accommoda- 
tion if  the  owner  shares  a  bathroom  with  the 
tenants.  One  can  then  discriminate  and  the 
appropriate  section  on  accommodation  does 
not  apply.  That  seems  eminently  reasonable. 

We  have  a  section  that  allows  male-only 
and  female-only  buildings,  such  as  men's  and 
women's  residences.  We  have  the  provision 
in  section  19(3)  that,  if  the  landlord  is  living 
in  the  building  and  there  are  no  more  than 
four  units,  there  can  be  an  exclusion  based 
on  marital  status.  That  seems  reasonable 
enough  as  well. 

It  is  the  next  section  that  seems  forever 
to  perpetuate  the  adult-only  apartment  build- 
ings in  our  society.  It  says  the  rights  of  a 
family  are  not  infringed  if  there  is  a  com- 
mon entrance  in  that  building.  Does  that 
mean  any  landlord  of  an  apartment  building 
in  Ontario  served  mainly  by  a  common  en- 
trance, with  perhaps  another  entrance  that 
can  be  used  from  time  to  time,  may  exclude 
families? 

I  would  like  clarification  from  the  minister 
on  exactly  what  this  section  means.  The 
way  I  read  it,  it  would  seem  any  apartment 
building  would  fall  under  this  definition  and 
therefore  families  would  be  excluded  and 
the  adult-only  apartment  buildings  —  quite 
unreasonably  so  phrased  in  many  structures 
in  the  past— would  be  allowed  to  continue. 

When  rents  get  particularly  tight  in  any 
given  city  and  the  vacancy  rate  is  low,  it  is 
virtually  impossible  for  people  who  have 
children  to  find  accommodation.  This  has 
been  particularly  common  in  Toronto  and 
any  city  in  which  the  vacancy  rate  has  fallen 
to  a  very  low  level.  People  with  families  can 
find  virtually  no  place  in  which  to  live. 

My  concern  here  is  that  any  apartment 
building,  because  it  has  a  common  entrance, 
will  be  forever  allowed  to  have  adults  only 
and  will  not  take  families.  If  that  is  the  case— 
and  that  is  the  situation  under  section  19(4) 
—I  have  to  say  this  is  a  section  that  very- 
much  needs  to  be  amended.  I  suggest  we 
can  put  in  its  place  a  section  that  deals  with 
the  type  of  thing  that  would  be  reasonable. 

I  can  see  that  there  can  be  senior-citizens- 
only  apartment  buildings.  We  could  write  a 
section  where  that  would  be  allowed,  as  we 
have  in  many  places  in  the  province,  and 
rightly  so.  But  in  a  normal  apartment  build- 
ing, which  is  a  mix  of  two-  and  three-bedroom 
apartments,  why  would  we  have  adult-only 
occupancy?  That  has  become  the  case  many 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5133 


times  in  Ontario  whenever  there  has  been  a 
low  vacancy  rate. 

This  section  appears  to  allow  for  that.  If 
that  is  what  it  does,  I  suggest  we  rewrite  this 
to  cover  the  senior- citizens-only  apartment 
buildings.  Then  we  would  not  be  tolerating 
in  this  province  the  discrimination  that  occurs 
against  families.  There  are  fewer  problems 
when  there  are  no  children,  and  that  very 
heavy  penalty  comes  upon  families  whenever 
there  is  a  low  vacancy  rate. 

I  would  like  the  minister  to  explain  that. 
If  it  is  as  I  interpret  it,  and  I  am  a  very 
careful  reader  of  legislation  and  its  wording, 
it  seems  to  me  to  perpetuate  that  particular 
discrimination  against  families  which,  in  many 
cases,  is  an  unreasonable  one. 

I  also  say  to  the  minister  that  in  my  careful 
reading  of  the  act,  and  we  discussed  this  in 
the  estimates,  the  inclusion  of  the  disabled 
and  the  definition  of  the  handicapped  in  this 
act  in  the  way  we  have  it  would  forever  wipe 
out  the  question  on  application  forms,  "Have 
yen  ever  received  workmen's  compensation?" 
If  the  person  answers  in  the  affirmative,  ir- 
respective of  how  light  the  compensation  case 
may  have  been,  or  how  lightly  disabling  it 
might  have  been  so  that  he  or  she  is  perm- 
anently recovered,  he  or  she  does  not  get 
the  position.  If  the  answer  is  in  the  negative 
and  some  months  later  it  is  found  out,  al- 
though the  injury  does  not  at  all  affect  the 
way  he  or  she  does  the  job,  that  he  or  she 
has  answered  that  question  incorrectly,  that 
of  course  is  grounds  for  dismissal  even  under 
most  union  contracts. 

I  would  be  very  pleased  to  have  the  minis- 
ter, having  come  to  this  second  reading  de- 
bate, give  assurance  to  this  House  that  the 
situation  will  not  prevail  where  they  will  be 
able  to  continue  to  ask  those  questions.  Those 
who  are  former  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board  recipients  will  then  have  an  equal 
opportunity  for  employment  in  Ontario  and, 
having  gotten  that  employment,  will  not  find 
themselves  unemployed  because  they  have 
been  recipients  of  workmen's  compensation 
benefits  in  some  other  job  where,  in  many 
cases,  the  work-place  situations  have  been 
unsafe  and  they  were  injured  through  no 
fault  of  their  own. 

Virtually  the  only  omission  in  this  act  which 
the  human  rights  code  review  committee  in 
its  report  Life  Together  recommended  be 
included  was  a  reference  to  sexual  orientation. 
This  government  included  virtually  everything 
else  except  that  which  was  recommended  in 
that  very  far-reaching  report  from  the  com- 
mittee chaired  by  Dr.  Symons  after  it  toured 
the  whole  province.  It  did  not  include  some 


of  the  administrative  recommendations  on 
which,  in  this  bill,  the  ministry  has  actually 
improved.  Some  of  the  report's  administrative 
suggestions  would  not  have  worked  all  that 
well.  I  think  the  administrative  sections  in 
this  act  are  an  improvement  over  the  recom- 
mendations. 

Apart  from  those  administrative  changes, 
the  ministry  has  included  virtually  everything 
else,  but  it  has  not  had  the  courage  to  include 
that  recommendation.  To  have  included  it 
would  not  have  been  an  encouragement  in 
any  way  to  those  persons  to  proselytize  or 
to  expand  their  numbers,  nor  would  it  be,  or 
would  it  have  been  seen  to  be,  in  any  way  an 
approval  of  their  lifestyle.  It  would  have  been 
a  simple  statement  that  we  as  a  society  should 
not  discriminate  against  them  or  exclude  them 
on  that  basis  from  the  very  basic  protections 
of  existence  this  act  confers. 

I  regret  that  this  government  included 
everything  that  Life  Together  recommended 
after  that  thorough  study  except  this.  I 
understand  that  this  government  feels  it  is, 
and  it  is  indeed,  la  touchy  and  a  sensitive 
issue.  But  if  it  had  the  courage  to  bring 
it  in,  it  would  have  passed.  The  simple 
inclusion  would  have  shown  leadership  on 
the  government's  part,  and  not  exercising 
that  tiny  bit  of  leadership  by  extending  non- 
discriminatory protection  to  them  certainly 
shows  a  lack  of  courage  on  its  part. 

What  bothers  me,  in  that  they  are  not 
being  included  and  there  is  no  protection, 
is  that  as  this  is  the  one  area  where  there 
is  no  protection  for  continuation  of  employ- 
ment for  individuals  whose  sexual  orienta- 
tion is  not  heterosexual  but  homosexual. 
Persons  may  be  employed  and  perform  then- 
jobs  quite  satisfactorily  and  adequately  but, 
if  it  becomes  known  they  are  homosexual, 
they  are  either  fired  or  hassled  out  of  their 
jobs  simply  because  of  that.  They  certainly 
will  continue  to  be  discriminated  against 
in  the  future  if  there  are  no  protections 
under  this  act.  We  in  the  Legislature  con- 
done that  attitude  and  that  action  by  not 
extending  protection  in  that  particular  area. 
It  is  not  to  our  credit  in  our  society  in 
Ontario  at  this  time  that  we  cannot  see 
that  injustice  and  remedy  it  here  by  this 
particular  act. 

10  p.m. 

One  of  the  positive  things  about  the  act 
which  rather  delighted  me— it  was  rather  a 
surprise,  bearing  in  mind  the  attitude  of 
this  government  over  the  years— was  the 
section  dealing  with  contract  compliance. 
It  appears  on  the  surface  to  be  well  written 
and  covers  every  case  in  Ontario  in  saying 


5134 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


there  must  be  no  discrimination  on  the 
basis  of  sex  in  employment— referring  back 
to  that  section— by  any  person  who  has 
dealings  with  the  government  or  any  group 
that  has  received  a  grant  from  this  govern- 
ment. 

I  hope  the  minister  will  make  it  very 
clear  that  by  "grant"  he  means  any  of  the 
moneys  paid  to  the  boards  of  education, 
colleges  and  universities  or  any  moneys 
that  normally  flow  out  of  the  Treasury  of 
Ontario  to  all  the  areas  this  government 
supports.  If  that  is  what  is  meant  by  "grant," 
then  this  is  indeed  contract  compliance  and 
an  entry  for  affirmative  action  in  many  of 
the  work  places  across  this  province. 

What  this  government  should  do,  of 
course,  is  to  have  legislated  affirmative 
action  covering  every  employer  in  Ontario, 
and  I  think  it  might  best  be  under  the  Em- 
ployment Standards  Act.  But  here  at  least 
we  have  a  step,  and  I  was  surprised  and 
rather  pleased  to  see  it,  even  though  I 
think  the  wider  step  could  be  best  taken  in 
a  different  piece  of  legislation. 

The  other  area  that  pleased  me  is  what 
appears  to  be  a  very  strong  section  on 
sexual  harassment.  It  is  short  but  very 
clear,  and  it  appears  to  grant  protection 
from  sexual  harassment  to  persons  in  this 
province.  It  follows,  and  puts  into  place 
and  into  legislation,  the  actions  the  com- 
mission has  been  taking  over  the  last  few 
months.  But  here  it  very  clearly  spelled 
out  and  not  open  to  much  interpretation  by 
the  courts,  as  I  read  it.  This  is  certainly  a 
welcome   step  in  this  legislation. 

One  of  my  favourite  exclusions  which 
the  minister  did  not  include  in  this  act  is 
that  of  political  affiliation.  During  the  years 
in  which  I  was  labour  critic  and  dealing 
with  the  problems  that  come  to  the  Ontario 
Human  Rights  Commission,  it  was  surprising 
to  me  the  number  of  calls  I  got,  from  both 
union  and  nonunion  sources,  over  having  to 
answer  a  question  on  an  application  form 
in  Ontario:  "Have  you  ever  been  a  Com- 
munist?" They  were  not  affronted  by  that 
question  because  they  were  Communists. 
They  were  law-abiding  Canadian  citizens 
who  knew  something  about  the  political 
process;  they  knew  the  Communist  Party 
was  a  legal  party  in  Canada  and  Ontario, 
and  they  were  affronted  that  they  should 
have  to  answer  that  question  on  an  applica- 
tion form  when  it  was  simply  a  form  that 
was  used  south  of  the  border  and  trans- 
ferred up  here  with  the  branch  plant  of  a 
multinational  corporation.  There  is  nothing 
in    the    code    that    prevents    that    question 


being  asked— nothing  in   the   old   code  and 
nothing  in  this  new  code. 

It  would  not  have  hurt  the  force  of  the 
bill— in  fact,  it  would  have  improved  it— if 
the  minister  could  have  included  political 
affiliation  so  that  question  could  be  re- 
moved from  the  application  forms.  There  are 
those  who  ask,  "Why  is  that  question  there 
and  why  is  that  allowed  in  Ontario  and  in 
Canada?"  That  is  a  question  that  cannot  be 
answered  except  to  say,  "Yes,  it  should  not 
be  allowed."  The  only  way  it  cannot  be 
allowed  is  to  have  it  covered  in  the  code. 

There  are  a  couple  of  other  things  which 
cause  me  a  little  concern  or  cause  me  to 
ask  questions.  One  is  the  makeup  of  the 
commission  with  a  minimum  of  seven  com- 
missioners. In  the  appointing  of  these  com- 
missioners, I  wonder  if  it  is  not  time  for  the 
minister  and  this  government  to  look  at 
various  groups  in  our  society  that  should  be 
represented  there.  However  it  is  arrived  at, 
I  hope  there  may  be  a  representative  of  the 
handicapped  community  as  one  of  the  com- 
missioners. In  terms  of  the  way  labour  has 
stood  up  front  for  human  rights  in  every 
form  in  this  province,  a  representative  of 
labour  should  be  on  the  human  rights  com- 
mission and  would  be  of  assistance  to  that 
commission  in  terms  of  attitude  and  the 
matters  which  come  before  it. 

Another  matter  which  I  must  give  the 
minister  credit  for— I  think  it  is  a  step  for- 
ward—is the  section  under  enforcement 
which  allows  for  a  payment  of  mental  an- 
guish as  a  result  of  having  suffered  discrim- 
ination under  this  act.  Quite  apart  from 
anything  else  which  may  fall  to  that  person, 
his  return  to  work,  back  pay,  being  allowed 
to  live  in  some  accommodation  and  whatever 
else,  he  can  be  compensated  up  to  $5,000 
for  mental  anguish  involved  in  the  pursuit 
of  that  right  and  the  laying  to  rest  of  the 
discrimination  which  befell  him.  It  is  im- 
portant that  this  bill  allows  for  that  prin- 
ciple. 

However,  I  would  say  to  the  minister  I 
wonder  if  the  amount  is  high  enough.  If 
this  act  may  stand  for  eight  or  10  years  with- 
out amendment,  that  amount  is  either  not 
high  enough  or  it  would  need  constant 
amendment  by  regulation.  Although  I  am 
opposed  to  the  general  principle  of  things 
being  done  by  regulation,  $5,000  in  eight 
or  10  years  time,  before  this  act  is  seriously 
amended  again  may  well  be  a  pittance.  One 
may  well  want  to  arrange  so  it  can  be  upped 
yearly  or  on  a  regular  basis  to  keep  in  step 
with  the  cost  and  the  standard  of  living  in 
Ontario  as   our  minimum  wage,  Workmen's 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5135 


Compensation  Board  pensions  and  other  pay- 
ments by  this  province  should  be  done  peri- 
odically, more  than  is  done  at  the  present 
time. 

I  expected  to  find  a  primacy  clause  in  any 
major  revision  of  the  Human  Rights  Code  and 
I  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Again,  you  are  talking  about 
the  exclusions. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  The  inclusion  of  a  primacy 
clause  in  this  act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Are  you  talking  about  some- 
thing that  is  in  the  bill? 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Oh,  yes,  it  is  right  there  in 
section  44. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  thought  you  said  you 
would  have  liked  to  have  seen  it. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  No,  it  is  here  in  the  bill. 
It  is  a  primacy  clause.  It  does  not  surprise 
me  it  is  here  because  it  should  be.  It  is  in 
section  44.  One  really  cannot  say  it  is  ex- 
cellent because  it  is  well  expected.  The 
primacy  clause  says  that  clearly  this  act 
prevails  over  all  other  acts. 

Of  course,  it  is  qualified.  It  does  not  have 
to  apply  to  present  acts  and  regulations 
until  two  years  after  this  act  comes  into 
force.  Future  acts  or  regulations  to  those 
acts  specifically  could  contain  a  provision 
that  this  act  is  not  to  apply.  I  trust  over  the 
next  few  years  this  government  will  not 
amend  a  whole  series  of  acts  to  exclude 
those  acts  from  the  protection  and  primacy 
of  this  act,  and  with  acts  in  the  future, 
will  not  write  them  such  that  they  give  those 
acts  or  sections  of  those  acts  primacy  over 
this   Human  Rights  Code. 

I  trust  that  will  not  happen  and  that  this 
is  indeed  the  primacy  clause  which  the 
government  intends  to  be  virtually  all- 
encompassing  over  all  legislation  in  Ontario. 

10:10  p.m. 

There  are  many  other  detail  points  I 
could  make,  Mr.  Speaker.  Let  me  conclude 
by  saying  that  this  new  act  has  given  the 
Ontario  Human  Rights  Commission  virtually 
all  of  the  legislative  tools  to  do  a  good  job 
for  us  in  the  province.  I  still  wonder  if 
they  will  have  the  manpower  to  do  the 
job.  We  are  all  aware  there  is  an  expansion 
in  the  human  rights  commission,  an  expansion 
which  will  allow  them  to  do  things  they 
have  not  done  in  the  past.  But  will  their 
attitude  change?  Will  it  be  one  of  really 
going  out  and  trying  to  change  society,  of 
trying  to  change  the  attitudes?  It  allows 
them  to  do  educational  work  and  to  do  an 
effective   job    of   affirmative    action    in    this 


province.  Will  they  embrace  that  en- 
thusiastically? 

From  this  point  on,  I  hope  that  with  an 
expanded  personnel,  the  attitude  of  com- 
mission employees  to  all  those  who  come 
before  them,  many  in  very  disturbed  states 
of  mind  because  of  discrimination  or  per- 
ceived discrimination,  will  be  encouraging. 
I  hope  their  attitude  will  not  be  discourag- 
ing as  it  has  been  from  time  to  time  in  the 
past.  I  hope  when  a  case  is  brought  before 
them  they  will  move  with  speed  and  en- 
thusiasm. I  hope  the  commission,  with  this 
new  legislative  tool,  will  show  it  means 
business  in  extending  to  all  the  citizens  of 
Ontario  the  very  basic  and  basically  good 
protections   of  this   act. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to 
make  a  few  comments  concerning  Bill  209, 
An  Act  to  revise  and  extend  Protection 
of  Human  Rights  in  Ontario.  I  do  not  in- 
tend to  be  very  lengthy.  I  rise  with  a  feeling 
of  glee,  but  I  am  also  a  bit  disappointed. 

I  am  very  pleased  the  minister  has 
finally  introduced  a  bill  to  amend  the 
Human  Rights  Code.  I  am  sure  he  and  the 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 
(Mrs.  Birch)  are  aware  I  have  introduced 
legislation  time  and  again  in  the  past— if 
I  am  not  mistaken,  it  might  be  seven,  eight 
or  nine  years  ago— dealing  with  only  one 
aspect  of  the  Human  Rights  Code,  namely, 
eliminating  discrimination  because  of 
physical  handicap,  where  that  handicap  did 
not  interfere  with  the  individual's  perform- 
ance of  his  work. 

This  legislation  is  an  improvement  on  what 
I  had  originally  suggested  because  I  dealt 
only  with  the  physically  handicapped.  The 
minister  has  implemented  a  lot  of  additional 
changes  and,  as  a  result,  discrimination  is  now 
going  to  be  eliminated  for  a  fairly  compre- 
hensive series  of  reasons.  I  could  suggest 
to  the  minister  that  he  has  probably  erred 
a  bit  in  his  definition  of  the  handicapped. 
That  is  on  page  three  of  the  bill  under  the 
heading,  "Interpretation  and  Application."  I 
think  he  erred  by  not  including  diabetics  be- 
cause the  minister  knows  that  can  be  kept 
under  control  with  medication. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  The  general  definition  in- 
cludes it. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Possibly  the  definition  may 
include  it,  but  I  would  have  preferred  to  have 
seen  the  word  "diabetes"  included  in  that 
definition  section 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  We  have  to  include  every 
disease.  It  is  included. 


5136 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  B  Newman:  I  will  accept  what  the 
minister  says  and  hope  I  am  not  disappointed 
when  the  application  of  the  legislation  is 
eventually  put  into  practice. 

The  two  individuals  who  will  be  respons- 
ible for  the  implementation  of  the  human 
rights  legislation  have  been  involved  in  human 
rights  and  with  the  handicapped  for  a  long 
time.  The  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  knows  the  two  individuals.  I 
think  she  would  agree  with  me  that  both  are 
extremely  capable  and  should  be  considered. 
One  is  Jack  Longman,  who  is  involved  with 
the  ministry  on  one  of  the  committees.  The 
other  one  is  Marilyn  Malott  who,  as  editor  of 
Our  Future,  a  newspaper  in  the  city  of 
Windsor,  has  made  a  very  substantial  con- 
tribution over  the  years  to  the  elimination  of 
discrimination  essentially  because  of  the 
physical  handicap. 

I  could  come  along  and  read  into  the  record 
a  lot  of  the  comments  I  made  on  this  when 
my  bill  was  discussed  back  on  May  31,  1976, 
but  the  minister's  officials  can  read  that 
themselves.  I  hope  they  do  take  into  con- 
sideration some  of  the  comments  that  were 
made,  not  only  by  myself  but  by  other  mem- 
bers who  took  part  in  that  debate  in  the 
private  members'  hour. 

I  want  to  commend  the  minister  for  finally 
acting  because  his  predecessors  for  many 
years  had  hesitated  to  introduce  legislation 
that  would,  in  my  estimation,  have  eliminated 
discrimination  because  of  the  physical  handi- 
cap, and  that  is  essentially  where  my  interests 
were  concerned.  As  I  said  previously,  the 
minister  has  improved  on  the  legislation.  I 
hope  with  that  improvement  that  at  least 
in  the  future  discrimination  will  be  at  a 
minimum.  We  will  never  eliminate  it  at  all, 
regardless  of  what  type  of  legislation  we  may 
pass,  if  in  the  heart  of  the  individual  he  does 
not  want  to  accept  that  legislation  and  insists 
on   being  discriminatory  in  his   practices. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  be  able  to  take  part  in  the  second  reading 
debate  on  this  very  important  and  significant 
bill.  Let  me  say  at  the  outset,  in  passing, 
what  an  improvement  this  is  over  that 
thoroughly  inadequate  Bill  188  the  minister 
brought  before  us  last  year.  The  minister  gets 
agitated  when  we  mention  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  You  never  did  understand 
what  that  bill  was  all  about.  You  never  did 
understand  what  was  finally  agreed  to. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  think  the  proof  is  in  the 
pudding,  whether  I  understood  the  process 
or  whether  the  members  on  this  side  of  the 
House  understood  the  process  that  took  place 
last  spring  or  not.  I  think  we  understood  the 


process  very  clearly,  thank  you.  The  fact  that 
the  minister  was  unable  to  proceed  with  Bill 
188  last  spring  because  of  the  objections  of 
the  opposition,  not  in  isolation  and  not  in  any 
kind  of  a  vacuum,  but  based  on  the  sub- 
stantial and  substantive  opposition  of  the 
handicapped  consumer  organizations,  resulted 
in  substantially  better  and  substantially  more 
significant  legislation  being  in  front  of  us 
here  today  and  which  we  are  tonight  debating. 

Again,  the  minister  shakes  his  head. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  This  is  going  to  be  sub- 
stantially the  same. 

Mr.  McClellan:  It  is  as  different  as  chalk 
and  cheese;  it  is  absolutely  different.  There 
is  no  comparison  whatsoever.  We  should  be 
very  clear  about  what  this  bill  does  well  and 
what  it  does  not  do.  I  do  not  get  very  much 
consolation  from  the  way  the  bill  addresses 
the  needs  of  women.  I  look,  for  example,  at 
the  ongoing  plight  of  domestic  workers;  they 
are  not  going  to  be  helped  substantially  or  at 
all  by  this  legislation.  I  look  at  the  provisions 
with  respect  to  families,  and  I  don't  get  any 
sense  that  the  kind  of  anti-family  bias  that 
seems  increasingly  to  characterize  our  society 
is  being  adequately  addressed  in  this  legis- 
lation, although  there  are  provisions  that 
ostensibly  call  for  an  end  to  discrimination 
because  of  family. 

There  are  loopholes  that  are  large  enough 
to  drive  a  10-ton  truck  through.  I  think  that 
is  regrettable,  but  I  guess  we  had  better 
understand  what  we  have  in  front  of  us.  We 
don't  have  an  amendment  to  the  Human 
Rights  Code  or  a  new  Human  Rights  Code 
that  is  principally  designed  to  meet  the  needs 
of  families.  That  is  not  what  this  thing  is. 
Other  speakers  have  talked  about  the  fact 
that  sexual  orientation  is  the  great  silence  in 
this  bill.  It  is  not  mentioned  at  all.  That 
protection  is  not  even  addressed  in  passing 
as  are  some  of  the  other  provisions. 
10:20  p.m. 

What  this  bill  principally  deals  with  is 
the  needs  of  handicapped  people,  but  I  want 
to  repeat  the  theme  in  that  context.  I  want 
to  repeat  the  remarks  my  colleague  the 
member  for  Riverdale  made,  that  this  is 
simply  a  beginning  and  we  should  not,  either 
on  the  government  side  or  on  the  opposition 
side,  delude  ourselves  about  how  much  bene- 
fit will  accrue  simply  from  the  passage  of  a 
human  rights  statute. 

I  think  there  is  a  real  danger,  because  of 
my  expectation  of  a  public  relations  cam- 
paign over  the  course  of  the  next  few  months 
and  even  in  the  normal  course  of  the  report- 
ing of  this  kind  of  legislation  in  the  media 
of  the  land  of  debate  we  are  having  tonight 


DECEMBER  9,  1980 


5137 


and  because  of  the  subsequent  debates  that 
will  take  place,  that  false  expectations  will 
be  raised.  We  need  to  be  very  clear  about 
what  human  rights  legislation  can  do  for  the 
physically  handicapped  and  what  it  cannot 
do. 

I  think  it  is  important  for  the  government 
to  acknowledge  that  as  important  as  this 
legislation  is,  and  I  will  concede  as  good  as 
it  is,  as  it  affects  the  physically  handicapped, 
there  is  still  a  whole  myriad  of  problems 
which,  while  they  are  addressed  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  bill,  will  not  be  solved  with 
the  passage  of  the  bill.  I  think  it  is  absolutely 
essential,  particularly  as  we  are  on  the  eve 
of  International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons, 
that  we  do  not  play  rhetorical  games  with 
the  passage  of  this  legislation  as  significant, 
as  good  and  as  important  as  it  is. 

Let  me  try  to  illustrate  what  I  am  talking 
about.  The  very  first  part  of  the  bill,  part  I, 
set  out  under  the  heading  "Freedom  from 
Discrimination"  the  new  grounds  which  are 
prohibited  and  talks  about  the  right  of  equal- 
ity in  the  occupancy  of  accommodation.  I  am 
speaking  from  the  perspective  of  the  needs 
of  the  physically  handicapped.That  is  very 
nice.  That  is  very  good,  and  I  am  not  being 
sarcastic.  I  have  a  tendency  to  sound  sarcastic 
even  when  I  am  not  intending  to  sound  sar- 
castic. That  is  good  language,  but  it  does  not 
deal  with  the  problem  of  buildings  not  adapted 
to  the  needs  of  the  physically  handicapped. 

If  somebody  who  is  a  quadriplegic  or  a 
parapleeic  applies  for  an  apartment  which  is 
not  equipped  to  admit  physically  handicapped 
people,  because  the  doorways  are  too  narrow 
to  accommodate  a  wheelchair,  because  the 
elevators  are  not  adapted  to  meet  the  needs 
of  somebody  who  is  travelling  in  a  wheel- 
chair, or  because  the  apartments  are  not 
adapted  to  meet  the  needs  of  a  tenant  who 
lives  in  a  wheelchair,  then  that  language  is 
as  meaningless  as  if  it  did  not  exist. 

We  must  not  delude  ourselves  that  we 
are  solving  the  housing  problems  of  the 
physically  handicapped  because  we  pass  a 
statute  that  says  every  person  has  a  right  to 
equal  treatment  in  the  occupancy  of  accom- 
modation and  because  we  say  in  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph  we  will  not  permit  dis- 
crimination by  virtue  of  handicap.  The 
discrimination  de  facto  will  continue.  The 
discrimination  will  continue  unless  the  govern- 
ment does  a  whole  bunch  of  other  things. 

For  example,  the  government  has  to  amend 
part  V  of  the  building  code  to  require  build- 
ings to  be  adapted  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
physically  handicapped.  That  is  a  project 
currently  under  way  which  somehow  got 
lost    in    the    shuffle    between    the    Provincial 


Secretary  for  Social  Development,  who  wants 
part  V  of  the  code  to  be  amended,  and  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Re- 
lations (Mr.  Drea),  who  does  not  appear  to 
want  part  V  of  the  building  code  amended 
to  cover  residential  accommodation.  That  is 
where  it  was  when  we  had  our  discussion  in 
the  estimates,  I  say  to  the  Provincial  Secre- 
tary for  Social  Development.  Unless  that  is 
done,  this  section  is  meaningless  because  we 
have  the  exemption  section.  Unless  these 
other  things  are  done,  there  remain  loop- 
holes wide  enough  for  anybody  to  drive  a 
truck  through.  Unless  the  government  brings 
in  other  programs  as  well  to  fund  housing 
designed  for  the  needs  of  the  physically 
handicapped,  that  is,  provides  funds  to  re- 
design and  equip  apartments  to  accommo- 
date the  physically  handicapped  and  to  pro- 
vide support  services,  this  section  will  be 
utterly  meaningless. 

Another  section  of  the  bill  deals  with 
employment  and  prohibits  discrimination  in 
the  work  place  on  the  grounds  of  a  handi- 
cap. Now,  for  the  first  time  in  our  history, 
a  handicap  is  a  prohibited  ground  of  dis- 
crimination. What  does  that  mean?  On  its 
face  value,  all  things  being  equal,  it  means 
nothing.  It  means  almost  nothing.  According 
to  the  Canadian  Council  on  Social  Develop- 
ment, 80  per  cent  of  the  physically  handi- 
capped in  this  country  are  unemployed. 

We  know  that  with  the  proper  kind  of 
support  services,  the  proper  kind  of  man- 
power programs  and  the  proper  kind  of 
adaptation  in  the  work  place,  a  large  per- 
centage of  those  handicapped  people  who 
are  currently  unemployed  will  be  able  to 
join  the  work  force,  work  productively  and 
make  a  full  contribution  to  their  community. 
The  simple  passage  of  this  statute  does  not 
address  that  problem  because  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  statute  that  talks  in  legal  language 
about  reasonable  accommodation,  which  is 
another  way  of  saying  that  our  employers 
and  our  work  places  should  not  be  permitted 
to  deny  physically  handicapped  people  access 
to  them.  We  have  not  addressed  that,  I  do 
not  think.  That  is  something  we  will  have 
to  look  at  in  a  long  and  tough  kind  of  way. 
That  is  an  obvious  flaw  in  the  legislation 
that  is  drafted. 

The  legislation  does  nothing  about  the  fact 
that  many  handicapped  people  cannot  com- 
pete on  the  basis  of  equality  with  people 
who  are  not  handicapped.  It  does  not  talk 
about  the  needs  of  the  economy  to  make 
those  kinds  of  concessions.  We  know  the 
economy  is  not  going  to  make  those  kinds 
of  concessions  on  its  own,  not  our  kind  of 


5138 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


economy,  which  operates  solely  on  the  basis 
of  profit  considerations.  Those  kinds  of 
adaptations  will  only  be  made  if  the  govern- 
ment requires  them  to  be  made,  either 
through  incentives  by  the  carrot,  or  by  the 
stick  through  the  introduction  of  quota 
legislation.  It  is  an  either-or  situation.  We 
have  to  do  one  or  the  other  is  what  I  am 
saying.  It  is  not  going  to  happen  magically 
all  by  itself. 

I  have  been  advised  that  the  government 
House  leader  has  some  business  to  do  and 
that  this  would  be  an  appropriate  time  to 
adjourn  the  debate. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  McClellan,  the  debate 
was  adjourned. 

BUSINESS  OF  THE  HOUSE 
Hon.  Mr.  Wells:   Mr.   Speaker,  as  I  indi- 
cated  last  Thursday,   I   would  like  to  indi- 
cate   now    the    business    of    the    House    for 
tomorrow  and  part  of  Thursday.  Tomorrow 


the  House  will  sit  from  2  p.m.  to  6  p.m. 
and  on  Thursday  we  intend  to  sit  from  10 
a.m.  through  to  2  p.m.  when  we  will  have 
routine  proceedings. 

We  will  consider  legislation  tomorrow 
afternoon,  Wednesday,  and  Thursday  morn- 
ing in  this  order:  Starting  tomorrow  after- 
noon, we  will  have  third  readings  on  the 
Order  Paper,  followed  by  private  bills  on 
the  Order  Paper  and  reported  from  com- 
mittees, except  for  Bills  Prl8  and  Pr36. 
Then  we  will  move  to  second  readings  and 
committee  of  the  whole  House,  if  necessary, 
beginning  with  the  bill  we  have  been  dis- 
cussing tonight,  Bill  209,  followed  by  Bills 
190,  177,  192,  193,  205,  188,  201,  204, 
214,  215,  221  and  then  Bill  Pr36,  followed 
by  Bill  Prl8. 

The  business  for  Thursday  afternoon  and 
evening  will  be  announced  tomorrow  after- 
noon. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:30  p.m. 


CONTENTS 

Tuesday,  December  9.  1980 
Human  Rights  Code,  Bill  209,  Mr.  Elgie,  on  second  reading  5117 

Business  of  the  House,  Mr.  Wells  5138 

Adjournment    5138 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 


)ntari.  N°-  137 


Legislature  of 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Wednesday,  December  10,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents   of  the  proceedings   reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  With  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a   cumulative   index   of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


5141 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  2  p.m. 


Prayers. 


Mr. 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  APPLES 

G.  I.  Miller:  I  want  to  bring  to  your 


attention,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  apples  are 
simply  a  Christmas  gesture.  I  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  distributing  them  last  year  and  this 
year.  They  come  from  my  riding  of  Haldi- 
mand-Norfolk  and  are  grown  in  the  fine 
little  village  of  Vittoria.  They  are  a  fine 
example  of  the  fruit  we  can  grow  in  that 
particular  part  of  Ontario. 

OPTED-OUT  SPECIALISTS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Yesterday  in  the  House  the  Minister 
of  Health  suggested  the  New  Democratic 
Party  was  misleading  this  chamber  with 
respect  to  statements  I  made  about  the  pro- 
portion of  specialists  who  are  opted-out  in  the 
province. 

Since  the  allegation  by  the  Minister  of 
Health  was  not  accompanied  by  any  figures 
and  since  the  statistics  we  put  in  the  House 
specifically  used  tax  statistics  of  full-time 
doctors  and  compared  them  to  the  honour- 
able minister's  own  declaration  about  the 
number  of  opted-out  specialists  in  the  prov- 
ince, I  Would  suggest  the  minister  either 
withdraw  his  allegations  against  the  NDP  or 
produce  the  correct  figures  on  the  number  of 
full-time  specialists  compared  to  the  number 
of  full-time  opted-out  specialists  in  the  prov- 
ince.  He  should  withdraw  his  remarks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe 
the  point  has  been  covered  in  a  variety  of 
questions,  particularly  Notice  Paper  ques- 
tions, over  the  last  18  months  or  so.  We  are 
working  on  some  answers  to  questions  right 
now,  as  a  matter  of  fact. 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the  honour- 
able member's  researchers  have  taken  selec- 
tive data  from  three  years  ago  and  applied 
their  own  criteria  to  extrapolate  those  data. 
If  one  wanted  to  take  the  number  of  left- 
handed,  blue-eyed,  blond-haired  specialists 
of  Icelandic  descent  one  could  get  another 
figure.  It  depends  what  one  wants  to  prove. 


Wednesday,  December  10,  1980 

I    know   what   the   member  wants   to   prove 
and  he  is  not  interested  in  the  facts. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  not  convinced  that  the 
word  "misleading"  was  used  and  attributed 
to  any  particular  member  of  the  House.  If 
the  minister  used  the  word  "misleading"  in 
describing  a  member  of  the  House,  I  am  sure 
there  are  many  other  words  he  could  use  to 
reflect  what  he  feels  about  the  material  that 
was  put  before  the  House. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
believe  I  did,  but  if  I  did  use  it,  and  the 
honourable  member  took  it  in  that  way,  I 
withdraw  it.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that 
somebody,  some  creative  individual  in  the 
research  branch  of  that  party,  has  taken 
selective  data  from  Revenue  Canada  and  ap- 
plied his  or  her  own  criteria  or  factors  to 
come  up  with  an  answer  that  the  leader 
wanted. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Just  to  conclude  the  point  of 
privilege,  the  minister- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  have  heard  your  point  of 
privilege,  and  the  minister  has  responded 
and  withdrawn  the  implication  that  any 
member  of  the  House  Was  misleading  the 
House. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

DEATH  OF  JOHN  LENNON 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  Min- 
ister of  Culture  and  Recreation,  I  rise  to 
express  my  profound  sadness  and  my  dismay 
at  the  senseless  murder  of  John  Lennon. 

John  Lennon  was  unusually  gifted,  and 
his  gifts  made  him  a  transcending  influence 
on  the  global  culture  of  our  era.  He  per- 
ceived many  of  society's  strengths  and  weak- 
nesses and  addressed  them  with  an  irrever- 
ent wit.  He  was  a  fearless  and  incisive 
poet.  He  and  his  lyrics  spoke  to  and  of 
particularly  one  generation,  but  as  a  father 
of  three  teeny-boppers  of  the  1960s  and 
early  1970s,  and  as  a  person  who  listened 
to  and  appreciated  Mr.  Lennon's  music,  it 
is  clear  to  me  that  he  spoke  for  more  than 
one  generation. 

There  are  millions  who  have  never  under- 
stood John  Lennon;  there  are  millions  who 
have     misunderstood     John     Lennon;     but 


142 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


ultimately  there  were  many  more  millions 
whose  frustrations,  fears  and  hopes  were 
captured  by  his  work  and  by  his  wit. 

Today,  throughout  the  world,  they  mourn 
his  sudden  and  tragic  departure  from  the 
human  scene.  Mr.  Speaker,  John  Lennon  is 
dead,  but  his  thoughts  and  ideals,  and  his 
uniquely  riveting  expression  of  them,  live 
on. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  might  just 
add  a  word  to  that.  I  think  a  good  many  of 
us  have  been  thoroughly  shocked  to  see 
how  a  genius  of  the  capacity  of  Mr.  Len- 
non could  exist  one  moment  and  then  be 
wiped  out  the  next  by  the  action  of  a  clearly 
twisted  human  being.  One  has  to  reflect  on 
what  that  means  for  people  who  come  to 
public  attention  in  almost  any  endeavour, 
be  it  in  achieving  greatness  in  the  arts 
or  fame  from  being  in  movies,  or  in  be- 
coming even  well  known  in  politics  or  any 
other  field  of  human  endeavour.  It  is  a 
dreadful  reflection  on  the  direction  in 
which  things  are  going  around  us  when 
you  can  see  such  a  fine  person,  such  a  fine 
mind  and  such  a  fine  soul  ended  in  its 
earthly  form  in  this  way. 

I  know  all  of  us  would  want  to  add  our 
feelings  of  dismay  at  the  murder  of  John 
Lennon  and  also  at  some  of  the  directions 
in  which  our  society  seems  to  be  moving. 
It  is  a  very  upsetting  time,  and  a  time  for 
all  of  us  to  take  some  stock  of  just  what 
it  is  we  are  creating  in  this  society. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
propose  something  which  I  regret  the  fed- 
eral House  was  not  prepared  to  do,  and 
that  is  that  perhaps  on  behalf  of  us  all,  the 
three  leaders  could  send  a  message  of 
condolence  to  John  Lennon's  widow  as  an 
expression  of  sympathy,  as  well  as  an  ex- 
pression of  understanding  for  what  John 
Lennon  represented,  not  just  to  a  small 
group  of  teenage  rock  music  fans  but  to 
people  who,  I  confess,  include  me. 

I  became  a  Beatles  fan  back  in  the  early 
1960s  when  I  was  in  England  and  they 
were  still  not  heard  of  here  in  North 
America.  Like  so  many  other  people  of  my 
generation,  I  grew  up  with  their  music 
speaking  to  my  condition,  as  well  as  the 
condition  of  young  people  who  traditionally 
listen  to  popular  music.  I,  along  with  many 
others,  at  the  iage  when  presumably  we 
were  beyond  the  stage  of  that  kind  of  music, 
found  myself  listening  to  and  enjoying 
Sergeant  Pepper  and  Abbey  Road  and  the 
great  series  of  albums  that  came  out  from 
John  Lennon  and  the  Beatles,  realizing  that 
they    were    talking    very    much    about    the 


modern  situation.  This  was  a  kind  of 
poetry  of  the  people  which  expressed  a  great 
deal  of  what  we  were  striving  for  and 
hoping  for. 

John  Lennon  and  Yoko  Ono,  in  their  bed- 
ins  for  peace,  their  efforts  on  behalf  of  the 
peace  movement,  used  unusual  techniques 
to  try  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  young 
people  and  people  across  the  world  their 
concerns  to  do  more,  to  reach  out  to  be 
more  than  just  a  traditional  rock  music 
hero,  pop  star  and  that  kind  of  thing. 
2:10  p.m. 

John  Lennon  went  to  India  to  meditate 
for  months.  Over  the  last  five  years  he  has 
chosen  to  be  a  house  husband  looking  after 
his  young  son  while  his  wife,  in  a  reversal 
of  traditional  sex  roles,  took  on  their  busi- 
ness dealings.  The  man  who  had  sprung 
from  the  slums  of  Liverpool,  who  had  come 
from  the  most  unlikely  background,  has  been 
quite  an  extraordinary  figure  in  the  history 
of  the  western  world  for  a  very  long  time. 

When  I  went  home  yesterday  in  the  eve- 
ning, I  found  the  teenage  boys  who  share 
my  home  had  been  up  almost  all  day  and 
some  of  them  half  the  night  listening  to  the 
Beatles'  music,  which  was  on  every  station. 
They  were  shocked  and  they  cou'd  not 
understand  what  a  senseless  kind  of  world 
it  is  we  live  in  that  somebody  like  John 
Lennon,  who  was  considered  to  have  a 
contribution  to  make,  could  suddenly  have 
been  shot  so  senselessly  and  so  tragically. 

I  want,  therefore,  to  join  in  the  words 
of  condolence  since  they  have  come  from 
the  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation,  and 
I  will  consult  with  the  other  parties  in  order 
to  have  a  joint  message  of  condolence  go 
to  Yoko  Ono  on  behalf  of  everybody  in  the 
Ontario  Legislature  speaking  for  the  people 
of  Ontario. 

SOCIAL  INSURANCE  NUMBERS 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  my 
pleasure  to  table  with  the  Legislature  today 
copies  of  a  letter  addressed  to  Ms.  Inger 
Hansen,  privacy  commissioner,  Canadian 
Human   Rights   Commission. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  I  am  afraid  I  do  not  have  a  copy  of 
the  statement  the  minister  is  making  and  I 
would  be  grateful  if  I  could  have  such  a 
copy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  I  understand  the  copies 
are  there.  Someone  has  them. 

[Interruption.] 

Mr.    Speaker:    Is   everybody   satisfied? 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5143 


Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  I  would  like  to  quote 
from  that  letter:  "The  government  of 
Ontario  will  limit  and  control  the  use  of 
social  insurance  numbers  in  its  operations 
under  the  following  guidelines:"— this  is 
page  four  of  the  letter— 

"The  social  insurance  number  will  con- 
tinue to  be  used  in  connection  with  any 
government  inquiry,  request,  transaction, 
record  or  operation  which  directly  and  spe- 
cifically pertains  to  the  income  of  an  indi- 
vidual (these  are  hereafter  called  'income 
related  programs'); 

"Where  a  file,  record  or  data  bank  in- 
cludes the  SIN  as  the  unique  personal  iden- 
tifier in  connection  with  an  income  related 
program,  the  same  identifier  may  be  used 
to  identify  the  file  or  record; 

"Because  of  the  potential  for  life-saving 
actions,  hospitals  and  other  medical  data 
banks  will  be  permitted  to  use  the  SIN  as 
a  patient-file  identifier  pending  a  decision 
to  establish  a  unique  personal  identifier  for 
health  programs; 

"All  other  requirements  to  use  the  SIN 
as  a  unique  personal  identifier  in  a  record, 
file  or  data  bank  will  be  discouraged  and 
eventually   prohibited; 

"Access  to  personal  data  in  all  records, 
files,  data  banks,  whether  or  not  identified 
by  or  containing  the  SIN  number,  especially 
where  computer-based,  shall  be  effectively 
controlled  and  restricted  and  appropriate 
penalties  and/ or  deterrents  shall  be  legally 
established  to  discourage  violations. 

"The  implementation  of  these  policy 
guidelines  will  require  some  adjustment  of 
administrative  practices  by  some  ministries 
and  agencies  of  the  government  of  Ontario, 
and  no  doubt  will  involve  some  alterations 
in  established  routines  and  procedures  of 
some  businesses  and  institutions  within  the 
province. 

"However,  the  restriction  of  the  use  of  the 
SIN  to  income-related  data  files  (with  a  tem- 
porary exemption  for  hospital  files  where  the 
SIN  is  currently  in  use)  is  deemed  to  be  a 
rational  solution  to  a  problem  where  the 
mutually  conflicting  demand  for  citizens— the 
demand  for  privacy  and  the  demand  for 
efficient  government— must  be  recognized  and 
addressed. 

"The  government  of  Ontario  intends  to  im- 
plement the  guidelines  on  governmental  use 
of  the  social  insurance  number  on  June  30, 
1981." 

GENETICS 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
personal  privilege:    Yesterday  I   rose   to   ask 


the  Minister  of  Education  (Miss  Stephenson)  a 
question,  and  in  her  absence  I  directed  the 
question  to  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis),  regarding 
the  comments  made  by  the  chairman  of  the 
Toronto  Board  of  Education  on  a  community 
television  program. 

The  interviewer,  David  Shanoff,  asked 
Mrs.  Irene  Atkinson  the  following  question: 
"How  do  you  raise  the  achievement  levels  of 
immigrant  children  and  children  of  low  socio- 
economic background?"  The  response  from 
Mrs.  Atkinson  was,  "Well,  I  am  not  so  sure 
that  you  can  because  I  think  genetics  play 
a  very  large  part  in  determining  the  potential 
of  students." 

Since  we  have  not  heard  a  reaction  from 
the  Minister  of  Education  on  this  important 
matter,  I  asked,  "Are  we  to  understand  that 
the  Minister  of  Education  is  in  agreement 
with  the  position  expressed  by  the  chairman 
of  the  Toronto  Board  of  Education  that  work- 
ers and  immigrants  are  mentally  and/or  intel- 
lectually deficient  and  that  they  pass  on  their 
deficiency  to  their  children?" 

The  Premier  began  to  answer  the  question 
by  saying:  "Seizing  the  opportunity  to  reply 
to  that  question,  and  not  having  heard  all  of 
it  except  the  member's  concern  about  his  in- 
tellectual deficiency,  I  could  answer  and  com- 
ment on  that." 

I  feel  the  Premier  chose  to  answer  a  serious 
question  in  a  flippant,  thoughtless  manner  that 
does  not  do  justice  to  his  station  as  Premier 
of  this  province.  The  Premier  chose  instead 
to  attack  my  personal  intelligence.  Therefore, 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  demand  that  the  Premier 
withdraw  that  unfortunate  remark  and  I  will 
entertain  an  apology  from  him  when  he  is 
in  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  customary  for  a  member 
to  wait  until  the  person  he  thinks  has  offended 
his  sensitivities  is  present.  I  will  await  the 
return  of  the  Premier  to  see  whether  he  has 
a  response  to  that. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

ITALIAN  EARTHQUAKE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
directed  to  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmen- 
tal Affairs  and  it  concerns  the  matter  of 
measures  to  be  taken  in  view  of  the  Italian 
earthquake  and  the  need  to  resettle  its  vic- 
tims. 

The  honourable  minister  will  know  that  I 
went  to  the  federal  Minister  of  Employment 
and  Immigration,  the  Honourable  Mr.  Lloyd 
Axworthy,  yesterday  with  the  suggestion  I 
have  made  in  this  House  that  we  should  open 
our  borders  for  victims  of  the  Italian  earth- 


5144 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


quake  to  come  here  on  an  extended  visitor 
status,  whereby,  under  special  arrangements, 
they  could  stay  for  two  or  three  years  and 
then  go  back  to  Italy  once  their  villages  or 
areas  have  been  rebuilt  and  resettlement  plans 
have  been  made.  The  Minister  of  Immigra- 
tion expressed  considerable  interest,  approved 
the  idea  in  principle  and  is  having  his  offi- 
cials work  on  it.  As  I  expected,  he  did  say 
he  would  need  co-operation  from  the  pro- 
vincial government. 

Following  my  question  of  December  1, 
has  the  minister  had  a  chance  to  reflect  on 
this?  Is  his  government  prepared  to  accept 
the  educational  costs,  the  health  care  costs 
and  so  on  that  would  have  to  be  extended 
to  these  visitors  if  they  were  permitted  to 
come  here  on  a  temporary  but  extended' 
visitor  basis? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me 
answer  the  question  in  two  parts.  First,  we 
would  certainly  co-operate  with  the  federal 
government  in  any  program  to  assist  in  re- 
locating and  in  measures  that  would  help  to 
overcome  difficulties  for  families  who  have 
suffered  great  hardship  in  this  disaster. 

In  so  far  as  the  specifics  are  concerned,  we 
have  not  had1  an  opportunity  to  discuss  those 
in  detail  and  I  could  not  comment  on  those 
at  this  time. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Might  I  ask  if  the  minister 
and  the  government  would  take  into  con- 
sideration the  idea  that  people  might  come 
here  on  a  temporary  basis?  Perhaps  these 
might  be  cousins,  aunts,  uncles  or  more  dis- 
tant relatives  of  people  already  here.  They 
would  come  under  a  less  stringent  form  of 
sponsorship  requirement  and  then  have  the 
choice  of  going  home  or  applying  for  landed 
immigrant  status,  in  which  case  all  the  usual 
rules  would  have  to  apply. 
2:20  p.m. 

Under  these  circumstances,  since  the  prov- 
ince would  have  to  pay  for  the  schooling  of 
the  children,  the  hospitalization  of  the  ill  and 
that  sort  of  thing,  would  the  minister  be 
good  enough  to  give  his  consideration  to  this 
and  to  get  back  to  the  federal  Minister  of 
Employment  and  Immigration  as  soon  as 
possible,  since  the  federal  minister  would  be 
very  happy  to  hear  what  the  opinion  of  On- 
tario and  other  provinces  would  be  in  this 
matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
certainly  be  happy  to  consider  this.  I  do  not 
recall,  but  I  would  want  to  check  my  cor- 
respondence and  that  of  other  ministers, 
that  we  have  had  any  communications  from 
the  federal  minister  yet  on  this  particular 
matter.   I  would  think  it  might  be  a  good 


idea,  if  they  are  thinking  of  some  special 
program,  that  they  devise  some  form  of 
temporary  landed  immigrant  status  that 
would  then  guarantee  these  people  the  rights 
that  landed  immigrants  have  for  the  time 
they  are  going  to  be  here,  which  would  prob- 
ably simplify  a  lot  of  the  legal  problems  for 
all  of  us. 

However,  I  would  be  happy,  and  I  am  sure 
this  government  would  be  happy,  to  consider 
any  measures  that  can  be  helpful  to  the 
community  and  the  people  in  Italy  in  over- 
coming this  disaster. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Perhaps  the  government  House  leader  will 
recall  that  in  the  early  days  of  Tory  adminis- 
tration in  Ontario,  it  was  in  the  selfish  interest 
of  Ontario  to  arrange  an  immediate  airlift  for 
people  from  Europe  when  the  government 
was  under  the  leadership  of  the  late  Hon- 
ourable George  Drew.  Perhaps  the  minister 
would  recall  those  days  and  recognize  when  it 
is  in  the  unselfish  interest  of  Ontario  to  take 
an  individual  initiative  on  matters  on  which 
it  has  shared  constitutional  responsibility. 
The  time  is  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  would  just  like  to  cor- 
rect the  honourable  member,  Mr.  Speaker. 
We  have  never  assumed  that  Ontario  really 
has  shared  constitutional  responsibility  in  re- 
gard to  immigration.  I  think  Quebec  is  the 
only  one  that  has  really  taken  the  full  legal 
meaning  of  the  term  "shared  responsibility." 
We  have  always  accepted  that  immigration  is 
a  federal  responsibility. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Does  the  government  House 
leader  remember  the  George  Drew  airlift? 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Of  course,  I  remember  the 
George  Drew  airlift  very  well.  I  would  just 
tell  my  friend  that  I  joined  the  Conservative 
Party  because  of  a  man  called  George  Drew, 
who  I  thought  was  one  of  the  finest  Con- 
servative leaders  this  country  ever  had.  Of 
course,  he  was  the  man  who,  standing  over 
here  in  these  benches,  laid  the  foundation 
for  37  years  of  Tory  government  in  this 
province. 

I  recall  well  that  immigration  airlift  of 
people  from  Britain  to  this  country  after  the 
war,  and  the  immense  contribution  those 
people  made.  I  would  be  glad  to  look  into 
the  suggestion  along  with  all  others  that  are 
being  made  at  this  time  concerning  this  dis- 
aster. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment,  Mr. 
Speaker.  The  honourable  minister  said  on  tele- 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5145 


vision  this  morning,  concerning  the  South 
Cayuga  matter,  that  there  will  be  hearings  on 
the  appropriateness  and  suitability  of  South 
Cayuga  as  a  site  for  this  proposed  facility. 
May  I  ask  the  minister  who  will  conduct 
those  hearings  and  under  the  authority  of 
what  statute  will  those  hearings  be  carried 
out? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  those  hear- 
ings will  be  carried  out  with  the  co-operation 
of  the  board  and  of  an  appropriate  hearing 
officer.  The  terms  of  reference  I  suggested 
yesterday  could  easily  be  put  to  the  standing 
committee  on  resources  development  for  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  minister  misunderstood. 
I  asked  him  under  what  statute;  that  is  a  law 
of  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  By  an  order  in  council. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  That  does  not  answer  the 
question. 

Since  the  minister  is  apparently  unaware 
of  these  matters,  could  he  please  explain  who 
will  make  up  the  group,  in  addition  to  an 
unnamed  hearing  officer,  which  under  order  in 
council,  will  be  designated  to  carry  out  the 
hearing?  That  is  the  first  simple  question. 

The  second  simple  question  is,  under  what 
statute  will  the  group  carry  out  its  duties? 
Will  it  be  under  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Act,  the  Environmental  Protection  Act  or  the 
Public  Inquiries  Act?  If  it  is  not  going  to  be 
under  the  Environmental  Assessment  Act, 
what  does  the  minister  see  as  preferable  in 
any  other  statute  he  intends  to  use? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  we  have  said 
consistently,  right  from  day  one,  that  it  would 
not  be  under  the  environmental  assessment 
process.  Does  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
understand  that?  We  have  said  right  from 
day  one  there  would  be  hearings.  We  have 
said  right  from  day  one  how  the  corporation 
would  be  made  up  and  what  its  duties  would 
be.  For  those  kinds  of  things  we  are  still 
waiting  for  the  corporation.  There  are  many 
people  who  are  ready,  I  think,  to  give  us  their 
advice  as  to  who  should  be  on  the  corporation. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  did  not  ask  about  the 
corporation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  know  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  did  not  ask  that.  I  am  telling 
him  the  sequence  of  events. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  asked  who  would  conduct 
the  hearings  and  under  what  statute. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  will  come  to  that. 
We  are  going  to  have  that  corporation  in 
place  in  its  entirety.  At  that  time  we  will 
discuss  with  that  corporation   the  appropri- 


ate vehicle  for  the  hearings  and  the  appro- 
priate hearing  officers.  It  will  be  done  after 
that  corporation  is  fully  in  place.  We  have 
worked  very  hard  in  the  last  two  weeks  to 
get  that  corporation  in  place.  We  are  now 
waiting  for  a  response  from  several  agencies, 
which  I  think  will  be  forthcoming  in  the 
next  two  or  three  days. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Bearing  in  mind  the  crown  corporation 
might  wish  to  make  some  amendments  in 
what  the  minister  has  to  propose,  would 
the  honourable  minister  undertake  to  come 
back  to  this  Legislature  tomorrow,  when 
there  will  be  people  from  South  Cayuga  in 
the  galleries,  and  share  with  the  Legislature 
what  it  is  the  government  has  in  mind  for 
terms  of  reference  for  the  hearings  that 
will  take  place?  After  two  weeks,  one  has 
to  assume  the  ministry  has  an  idea  of  the 
nature  of  the  hearings  and  of  the  possible 
legislation  under  which  those  hearings  will 
take  place.  Why  can  the  minister  not  under- 
take to  share  that  with  the  Legislature  be- 
fore we  rise  this  week? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  the  leader  of 
the  third  party  put  the  case  very  well.  He 
said  it  is  possible  the  crown  corporation 
may  want  to  make  some  valid  suggestions. 
I,  for  one,  am  quite  prepared  to  listen  to 
that  crown  corporation  and  its  suggestions. 
I  cannot  listen  until  it  is  formed. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  is  playing  too 
close  to  the  vest. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  not  playing  with 
anything.  I  went  over  Hansard  very  Care- 
fully for  the  last  few  days.  I  suggested  on 
November  25  or  November  27  we  go  to 
committee— I  think  that  is  an  excellent 
suggestion^at  the  time  when  the  corpo- 
ration will  be  formed.  I  said  earlier  I 
hoped  it  would  be  formed  by  the  end  of 
the  year.  I  think  there  is  every  possibility 
that  will  occur.  At  that  time  we  will  listen 
to  the  corporation  and  we  will  go  to  the 
committee  and  be  glad  to  discuss  those  terms 
of  reference  when  I  have  the  advantage  of 
advice  from  the  newly  formed  corporation. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  minister  said  on  the 
day  he  announced  Dr.  Chant's  appointment 
that  hearings  would  be  held  under  the  En- 
vironmental Protection  Act  "on  the  merits  of 
the  technology."  Since  he  has  said  today 
there  will  be  hearings  on  the  appropriate- 
ness and  suitability  of  South  Cayuga  as  a 
site,  may  I  ask  what  kind  of  confusion  is  in 
the  ministry  or  in  the  minister's  mind  that 
prevents  him  from  telling  us  who  will  con- 
duct  the  hearings   and   under   what  statute 


5146 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  Ontario  the  hearings  will  be  conducted? 
This  is  the  third  time  I  have  asked  the 
question.  I  would  like  to  know  what  is  the 
problem. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  most  of  the 
problem  is  the  honourable  member's  un- 
willingness to  listen  and  to  try  to  interpret 
what  is  being  said  correctly.  It  is  that 
simple.  I  said  we  would  make  those  deter- 
minations after  the  crown  corporation  is  set 
up.  I  can  put  it  another  way.  We  are  now 
drafting  the  terms  of  reference.  They  are  not 
finished.  Surely  that  is  pretty  simple  and 
pretty  clear. 

I  am  glad  to  put  on  the  public  record 
that  the  question  the  member  has  asked  is 
not  finished  as  yet.  I  think  the  leader  of  the 
third  party  made  an  excellent  point  that 
the  crown  corporation  headed  by,  I  think, 
an  excellent  choice  will  be  supplemented 
by  people  from  the  local  community.  All  of 
a  sudden  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party, 
before  the  local  people  have  a  chance  to 
respond  as  to  who  they  want  to  sit  on  that 
board- 
Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  The  minister  has  never 
given  them  a  chance.  That  is  the  problem 
right  there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Oh,  yes  I  have. 
2:30  p.m. 
[Interruption.] 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Our  very  welcome 
visitors  in  the  gallery  are  free  to  sit  here 
and  listen,  to  enjoy  it  if  they  wish,  but  they 
should  not  respond  with  any  outbursts  of 
clapping,  please. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Let  me  finish  that  an- 
swer, Mr.  Speaker.  I  would  be  glad  to  read 
from  the  record  of  what  was  clearly  said: 
"The  mayor  knows,  and  rightly  so,  that  Dr. 
Chant  and  the  corporation  will  have  to 
satisfy  the  public  as  to  the  appropriateness 
of  the  site."  I  do  not  want  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  today  to  act  as  if  that  was 
a  new  revelation.  That  was  said  some  time 
ago. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  minister  is  backing 
down.  Why  does  he  not  back  down  the 
whole  way? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  member  is  dead 
wrong  and  he  knows  it.  He  would  like  to 
see  it  that  way. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  That's  not  true.  Now  the 
minister  is  talking  about  the  technology. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No.  I  used  the  word 
"appropriateness,"  I  think  on  December  1, 
or  approximately  on  that  date.  There  it 
says    very    clearly    on    the   record,    "Nothing 


short  of  that  would  satisfy  any  of  us  in  this 
government."  We  want  the  technology  dis- 
cussed with  full  public  participation.  I  said 
that  over  a  week  ago,  maybe  10  days  ago, 
within  a  day  of  the  original  announcement. 

They  are  talking  about  some  change  in 
policy.  The  only  change  I  have  seen  around 
here  is  on  that  side  of  the  House  when 
they  want  to  jump  on  any  side  that  seems 
advantageous.  Particularly,  what  bothers  me 
is  that  they  do  not  come  to  grips  with  the 
very  seriousness  of  our  waste  disposal  prob- 
lems in  this  province. 

We  are  going  to  have  the  best  facilities 
in  the  world.  We  are  going  to  have  the 
assistance  of  the  local  people,  be  it  the 
mayor  or  her  appointee  or  be  it  the  repre- 
sentative from  the  local  federation  of  agri- 
culture. They  are  going  to  sit  on  that  board. 
They  are  going  to  help  run  it  and  help  make 
the  decisions.  That  is  the  kind  of  public 
participation  we  appreciate  on  this  side  of 
the  House.  It  is  real  action  on  their  part. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
How  will  these  hearings  we  are  talking 
about  help  the  people  whose  lands  are  to 
be  expropriated  in  the  area?  Why  is  the 
honourable  minister  rushing  in  to  the  ex- 
propriation of  those  lands  without  hearings 
under  the  Expropriations  Act  when  the 
project  may  not  go  ahead  if  the  site  is  found 
to  be  unsuitable? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  had  a  statement  read 
at  the  meeting  last  night.  It  made  it  very 
clear  about  the  land  owners.  I  said  not  only 
would  I  be  more  than  prepared  to  be  at  a 
public  meeting  in  the  area,  but  also  the 
next  thing  I  am  going  to  do  is  meet  with 
the  local  land  owners  in  a  private  session. 
We  will  be  doing  that  in  the  near  future.  I 
have  asked  them  to  set  aside  some  time  for 
me  so  I  can  meet  with  them. 

That  is  the  kind  of  direct  consultation 
that  led  the  mayor  of  that  municipality  to 
say,  when  I  went  there  before  the  public 
announcement,  "Isn't  it  nice  that  a  govern- 
ment is  coming  to  the  people?"  Indeed  we 
are;  we  will  continue  to  do  so. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  members  opposite 
can  laugh  all  they  like.  There  are  some 
people  out  there  who  really  understand  the 
seriousness  of  this  problem  and  that  the 
sooner  we  address  it,  the  sooner  we  protect 
the  health  of  every  citizen  in  this  province. 
I  say  if  we  do  not  move,  the  health  and  the 
environment  of  the  total  province  are  in 
jeopardy.  Liquid  industrial  waste  demands 
solutions;   it  demands  them   as   soon   as  we 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5147 


can  get  to  them  and  that  is  precisely  what 
we  are  trying  to  do. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  How  can  the  honourable  minister 
explain  spending  $425,000  on  the  MacLaren 
report  that  came  out  last  year  to  justify 
the  using  of  the  site?  How  can  he  reply  to 
the  people  in  that  area  on  that  basis?  How 
can  they  have  any  trust  in  his  ministry  when 
he  is  trying  to  buy  them  with  money  and 
put  it  in  an  area  to  protect  his  own  govern- 
ment over  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  really  have  a  little 
difficulty  understanding  how  the  spending  of 
$425,000  on  a  consultant's  report  is  somehow 
or  other  buying  that  local  community.  I 
really  do  not  understand  that.  I  am  sure  that 
if  we  had  not  done  that  rather  extensive 
survey  and  assessment  of  this  province  we 
would  have  been  accused  of  not  having 
looked  at  the  total  problem.  It  was  an  excel- 
lent and  wise  use  of  public  funds  to  have 
that  survey  done. 

DIOXIN  TESTING 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  another 
question  for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
related  to  reports  about  dioxin  in  chicken 
livers  and  dioxin  found  in  fish  in  Lake  On- 
tario with  levels  that  are  among  the  highest 
in  the  world. 

Since  the  ministry  now  has  a  lab  for  de- 
tecting dioxin  which  is  one  of  the  most 
modern  in  the  world,  can  the  minister  ex- 
plain why  his  officials  are  refusing  to  con- 
firm whether  they  have  detected  dioxin  in 
fish  in  Lake  Ontario  when  they  have  been 
sending  samples  to  labs  in  other  provinces 
and  states  to  get  confirmation  of  their  find- 
ings? Will  he  give  the  House  a  definitive 
statement  about  what  levels  of  dioxin  have 
been  determined  from  the  Ontario  testing 
of  dioxin  in  Lake  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  very 
pleased  to  have  a  chance  to  correct  what  I 
think  is  some  erroneous  information  in  today's 
press.  When  we  saw  that  report  we  imme- 
diately contacted  the  people  in  New  York 
state  to  get  some  confirmation  of  whether 
that  was  their  understanding.  I  believe  those 
people  now  are  making  a  pretty  concentrated 
effort  to  contact  the  media  and  correct  that 
impression  which  is,  in  their  opinion,  wrong. 
They  are  referring  to  testing  of  some  time 
ago. 

It  is  true  that  last  year  in  this  House  we 
said  we  were  sending  samples  not  only  to 
New  York  but  to  Minnesota,  I  believe,  as 
well— two  or  three  other  places— because  we 


did  not  have  the  facilities  to  test  for  dioxin. 
On  that  basis,  because  of  the  importance  of 
it,  we  established  our  lab  facilities. 

Just  a  week  or  two  ago  I  said  in  the  House 
we  have  now  established  those  facilities. 
They  are  in  operation.  We  have  done  a  lot 
of  testing  on  the  drinking  water.  We  have 
not  yet  done  enough  tests  in  our  fish  testing 
program  to  issue  reports.  We  have  been  doing 
fish  testing  for  some  10  years.  In  that  last 
statement  I  was  referring  to  dioxin  testing. 
We  can  do  about  14  samples  a  week  at  this 
time.  We  will  try  to  speed  that  up  as  we 
become  more  familiar  with  the  techniques  of 
doing  that  sampling. 

We  are  also  trying  to  test  samples  of  the 
same  fish  with  other  jurisdictions  so  that 
when  those  tests  from  ourselves  and  other 
facilities  go  out,  we  will  have  the  same 
sample  tested.  I  think  that  will  help  to 
achieve  a  more  consistent  approach.  Then 
people  will  not  be  confused  by  various  re- 
sults from  different  samples,  which  logically 
could  vary  one  from  the  other.  So  we  are  now 
in  a  position  where,  in  the  near  future,  we 
will  be  able  to  tell  the  leader  of  the  third 
party  the  results  of  our  fish  testing  program. 

I  would  add  that  the  lab  that  did  the 
testing  was  closed  down  for  some  time. 

In  summary,  I  think  a  good  deal  of  that 
information  the  leader  of  the  third  party  is 
basing  that  question  on  was  inaccurate.  That 
is  a  statement  from  the  source. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  officials  of  the  New  York 
laboratories  indicate  they  are  now  discover- 
ing levels  of  dioxin  in  fish  in  Lake  Ontario 
which,  apart  from  Vietnam  and  the  vicinity 
of  the  Dow  Chemical  plant,  are  the  highest 
they  have  found  in  the  world. 

Can  the  ministry  give  any  assurance  to 
people  who  are  concerned  about  eating  fish 
as  to  what  the  dangers  may  be?  Will  the 
ministry  undertake  to  establish  a  task  force 
that  could  report  by  the  end  of  January  next 
year  with  specific  information  on  dioxin  levels 
that  may  be  found  in  fish,  chicken  and  other 
foods  available  to  Ontario  consumers?  Will  it 
also  provide  unbiased  information  about 
whether  there  is  any  level  that  is  safe? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  guess  I  did  not  make 
it  clear  that  the  people  who  said  that  are 
denying  that  is  their  position.  They  are  saying 
that  information  about  those  highest  levels  is 
not  correct.  It  certainly  is  not  our  current 
position. 

We  have  only  been  doing  our  dioxin  testing 
on  fish  in  the  last  few  weeks.  When  suffi- 
cient samples  are  available  to  give  out  a 
scientifically  satisfactory  report,  of  course  we 
will  give  that  to  the  House.  We  always  have 


5148 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


done  this.  It  will  not  be  new  procedure.  As 
soon  as  that  information  is  available,  based  on 
a  reasonable  number  out  of  the  sample,  it  will 
be  provided. 

2:40  p.m. 

On  December  19  we  are  meeting  with  other 
jurisdictions  to  discuss  this  whole  problem 
of  testing  and  putting  out  that  information 
on  a  full  and  complete  basis.  We  will  be 
more  than  happy  to  give  the  member  that  in- 
formation as  soon  as  it  becomes  available. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  may  wish  to  refer  this 
supplementary  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 
and  Food:  What  steps  are  being  taken  to  see 
that  wood  chips  treated  with  pentachloro- 
phenol,  which  I  believe  leads  to  dioxin,  are 
not  used  in  the  production  of  poultry?  What 
steps  are  being  taken  to  see  that  this  is  not 
done? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  only 
thing  I  know  on  that  is  dioxin  in  wood  chips 
is  a  contaminant.  I  think  the  Minister  of  Agri- 
culture and  Food  can  tell  the  member  what 
action  was  taken  previously,  and  I  would  ask 
him  to  do  so. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  say 
to  the  members  of  the  House,  the  recent  news 
with  respect  to  dioxin  in  chicken  livers  per- 
tains to  a  study  that  was  conducted  by  the 
federal  government  two  years  ago.  It  does  not 
relate  to  chicken  currently  on  the  market. 
The  Department  of  National  Health  and  Wel- 
fare has  all  the  data  from  that  study  and  has 
made  interpretations,  because  it  was  respon- 
sible for  testing  for  dioxin. 

The  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  can 
and  does  test  for  PCP  but  does  not  analyse 
for  dioxin.  During  the  past  two  years  the 
Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  has  taken 
very  positive  steps  to  remove  any  problem 
that  might  exist  in  commercial  flocks  from  use 
of  wood  shavings  and  sawdust  that  have 
been  treated  with  a  preservative.  Action  taken 
included  informing  the  poultry  industry  in 
1978  about  the  possible  dangers  of  using 
these  shavings.  We  also  offered  a  testing 
service  to  poultry  producers  wishing  to  have 
the  quality  of  their  shavings  determined.  This 
testing  was  for  PCP  only  and  not  dioxin.  We 
encouraged  poultry  producers  to  obtain  shav- 
ings from  sources  where  wood  had  not  been 
treated  or  to  switch  to  other  bedding  material, 
such  as  straw.  We  initiated  research  into  the 
effect  of  pure  PCP,  dioxin-free,  on  poultry 
production   and  reproduction. 

The  ministry  continues  to  offer  a  testing 
service  to  the  producers  and  encourages  all 
producers  to  avoid  the  use  of  this  wood  or 


the  litter  connected  with  it.  Testing  services 
are  available  through  the  provincial  pesticides 
residue  testing  laboratory  of  the  ministry, 
located  at  the  University  of  Guelph,  for  a 
modest  fee.  Although  the  ministry  test  does 
not  measure  dioxin  content,  it  does  identify 
materials  that  are  free  from  PCP.  Any 
material  free  from  PCP  is  also  free  from 
dioxin. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  Canada  De- 
partment of  Agriculture  has  restricted  the  use 
of  PCP  and  plans  further  restrictions  in 
January  1981. 

Mr.  Samis:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  have 
any  further  information  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  sampling  at  the  eastern  portion  of  Lake 
Ontario,  when  the  sampling  was  done  and 
at  what  locations? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
I  heard  the  member  ask  if  I  had  identified 
those  areas  yet. 

Mr.  Samis:  Has  he  any  further  informa- 
tion as  to  the  location,  the  extent  and  the 
time  it  was  done? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  When  we  have  those 
tests  completed,  we  will  identify  the  area 
the  fish  were  taken  from  and  the  level  of 
dioxin  that  is  in  them,  if  any.  I  remind 
the  honourable  members  that  we  can  test 
to  one  part  per  trillion.  We  have  done 
extensive  reports  and  testing  on  water  in 
the  Niagara  River  and  Lake  Ontario,  and 
we  have  not  been  able  to  detect  any  dioxin. 
I  repeat,  we  can  test  to  one  part  per  tril- 
lion; so  our  ability  to  test  is  extremely 
sensitive.  Thank  God,  we  have  not  been 
able  to  find  any  dioxin  in  the  drinking 
water  of  the  people  of  that  area.  I  think 
that  is  extremely  good  news.  But,  at  the 
same  time,  I  want  to  tell  the  members  we 
will  not  stop  there.  There  will  be  a  con- 
tinuous monitoring  of  the  drinking  water, 
the  fish  and  the  herring  gull  eggs,  the  whole 
bit  on  dioxin,  and  we  will  tell  them  where 
and  how  much  as  often  as  we  possibly  can. 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  hoping 
the  Premier  would  be  here  by  now  but  in 
his  absence  I  have  a  question  for  the  Deputy 
Premier. 

Is  the  Deputy  Premier  aware  that,  at  the 
morning  meeting  today  of  the  select  com- 
mittee on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee 
adjustment,  three  more  Conservative  back- 
benchers endorsed  the  committee's  recom- 
mendation for  interim  legislation  that  would 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5149 


ensure  that,  before  this  House  rose,  we 
passed  severance  pay  provisions  in  the  law 
of  Ontario  to  protect  workers  who  may  be 
laid  off  through   shutdowns  this  winter? 

Given  the  growing  support  of  Conserv- 
ative back-benchers  for  the  concept  of 
severance  pay,  can  the  Deputy  Premier 
assure  the  House  that  the  government  will 
bring  back  Bill  191  before  the  House  rises 
and  include  in  it  the  severance  pay  measure 
which  now  has  the  unanimous  endorsement 
of  the  select  committee? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  to 
admit  that  the  proceedings  of  this  morn- 
ing's meeting  have  not  been  brought  to  my 
attention. 

I  am  in  no  position  to  give  such  an 
assurance.  I  can  only  draw  the  attention  of 
the  honourable  member  and  that  of  the 
House  to  the  statement  by  the  Minister  of 
Labour,  when  he  introduced  the  legislation, 
indicating  he  wanted  to  provide  an  oppor- 
tunity for  those  who  had  some  interest  in 
this  matter  to  attend  before  the  committee. 
I  find  it  surprising  to  learn  that  the  com- 
mittee would  want  to  foreclose  that  oppor- 
tunity for  public  input. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  There  are  now  five  Conserv- 
ative back-benchers  on  the  committee  who 
have  endorsed  the  concept  after  hearing  from 
the  Minister  of  Labour  on  several  occasions. 
Will  the  Deputy  Premier  explain  to  the  Legis- 
lature why  the  government  is  preparing  to 
bring  forward  on  an  interim  basis  amend- 
ments with  respect  to  pensions  despite  the 
fact  we  have  yet  to  have  the  Royal  Commis- 
sion on  Pensions  report  or  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  final  report  of  the  select  com- 
mittee on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee 
adjustment?  If  the  government  is  prepared 
to  move  on  an  interim  basis  with  respect  to 
pensions,  why  would  it  not  be  prepared  also 
to  move  on  an  interim  basis  with  respect  to 
severance  pay  to  protect  workers  who  are 
threatened  by  shutdowns  over  the  course  of 
the  coming  four  or  five  months? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  It  was  obvious  the  Minis- 
ter of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations 
(Mr.  Drea)  wanted  to  address  some  particular 
matters  of  the  legislation.  I  can  only  repeat 
what  I  have  already  said  in  response  to  the 
question  and  what  has  been  said  consistently 
since  this  line  of  questioning  was  introduced 
in  the  House,  that  the  government  wanted  to 
provide  the  opportunity.  It  was  quite  open  in 
making  its  intentions  known.  It  has  not  in 
any  way  written  off  the  possibility  of  that 
ultimately  becoming  part  of  the  legislative 
package  of  this  province.  It  simply  asks  for 
the    opportunity   for    those    who    have   some 


contribution  to  make  in  this  general  discus- 
sion to  appear  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Is  the  minister  not  aware  that  last  week 
in  this  very  House  we  went  through  a  process 
in  which  we  decided  collectively  that  the 
Legislature  and  the  committees  of  the  Legis- 
lature—in this  case  the  standing  committee  on 
administration  of  justice— had  a  fundamental 
right  to  pursue  their  aims  and  objectives  and 
that  their  voice  should  be  heard?  We  estab- 
lished in  the  Re-Mor  case  that  those  docu- 
ments should  be  provided  on  a  majority  vote 
and,  even  in  this  particular  case,  members  of 
all  three  parties  agreed  to  it.  We  are  only 
trying  to  provide  a  minimum  as  far  as 
severance  pay  goes,  and  why  can  we  not 
have  that  in  place  before  we  leave  before 
Christmas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  all  I  am 
pointing  out  is  that  it  is  absolutely  the  same 
question.  We  have  been  very  consistent,  and 
to  attempt  to  indicate  that  the  government  is 
not  sympathetic  to  this  matter  is  completely 
irresponsible.  It  is  amazing  what  a  full  gallery 
will  do  on  an  afternoon  as  far  as  grandstand- 
ing is  concerned. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
personal  privilege:  The  minister  is  imputing 
motives  to  all  of  us  in  this  chamber,  and  it 
is  not  a  matter  of  that.  We  are  facing  hard 
times.  We  want  to  see  some  minimum  stand- 
ards in  severance  pay. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  am  not  imputing  mo- 
tives to  any  other  member  except  the  one 
whose  question  I  am  responding  to.  The 
member  can  wave  his  arms  around,  but  he  is 
not  going  to  convince  thinking  people  in  this 
province  that  this  government  has  adopted 
any  position  in  opposition  to  the  principle  we 
maintain  coming  from  this  side.  The  members 
opposite  want  to  foreclose  the  opportunity  of 
public  input  into  this  particular  discussion. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  300 
letters  here  addressed  to  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  and  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment. I  would  like  to  read  one  of  the  letters 
and  then  pose  a  question  on  the  point  that 
the  writer  is  making.  This  letter,  from  one 
of  the  students  in  Haldimand  county's  J.  L. 
Mitchener  Public  School,  is  addressed  to  the 
Premier: 

"Although  I  am  not  yet  of  voting  age, 
I  am  nevertheless  deeply  concerned  that  any 
provincial  government  in  a  free,  democratic 
country  such  as  Canada"— 


5150 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Speaker:   Order.  Is  this  a  petition? 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  It  is  a  question,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:   Is  there  a  question? 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  There  definitely  is- 
"should  arbitrarily  suspend  the  citizens' 
rights  to  full  independent  hearings  on  such 
an  important"— 

Mr.    Speaker:    What  is   the  question? 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  I  am  coming  to  it,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  the  question?  Put 
your  question  forthwith. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Given  that  this  letter 
was  written  by  a  12-year-old,  Christine 
Clinton,  from  the  public  school  in  Cayuga, 
will  the  minister  rescind  the  decision  to 
proceed  with  the  permanent  liquid  industrial 
waste  treatment  facility  and  follow  the  prov- 
ince's own  environmental  assessment  process, 
which  includes  a  full  environmental  study 
under  the  terms  of  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  and  an  independent  public 
hearing  by  the  Environmental  Assessment 
Board  before  proceeding  with  any  such 
facility,  so  that  the  rights  and  the  privileges 
of  the  people  of  that  part  of  Ontario  are 
protected  and  not  bought  by  money? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
going  to  have  to  ask  the  member  to  put 
up  on  the  accusation  that  somebody  is 
being  bought.  I  want  to  know  who  and  by 
how  much,  and  I  want  to  know  it  now. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  What  I  am  asking  is  for 
the  rights  of  the  people  of  that  part  of 
Ontario  to  be  protected  by  the  legislation 
of  this  Legislature.  That  is  all.  It  is  a  sim- 
ple question,  and  I  expect  an  answer. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  distinctly  heard  the 
member  for  Haldimand-Norfolk  saying  that 
somebody  was  being  bought.  Is  that  what 
you  meant  to  say?  That  is  an  imputation 
of  motives. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  They  are  proposing  to 
put  in  a  bridge  to  appease  the  area.  There 
was  a  study  made  indicating  that  lands  in 
classes  1,  2,  3  and  4  should  not  be  used 
for  waste  purposes,  and  that  study  was 
brought  out  in  1979.  They  brought  out  an- 
other study  in  August  of  this  year  indicating 
that  the  land  should  be  utilized,  and  they 
spent  $425,000  on  that  study.  If  the  minister 
can  explain  to  the  people  in  my  area  how 
that  is  not— 

Mr.  Mancini:  They  are  being  bought  with 
their  own  money. 


Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Correct.  People  are  being 
bought  with  their  own  money.  I  think  it  is 
obvious  that  the  people  want  a  fair  hearing 
under  the  legislation  of  this  Legislature. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  still  have 
not  heard  a  response  to  the  "being  bought" 
accusation.  That  really  concerns  me  a  great 
deal.  If  the  placing  of  a  facility  like  a  bridge 
is  buying  people,  the  House  is  frequently 
asked  to  buy  the  people.  That  is  utter  non- 
sense. Of  course  we  put  in  facilities.  Of 
course  we  put  in  hospitals  and  schools  and 
bridges.  That  is  the  thing  we  do.  But  that 
was  not  the  implication  in  that  question. 
I  am  totally  unsatisfied. 

I  do  not  press,  but  let  me  tell  about  the 
hearing.  I  have  said  it  here  consistently  for 
two  weeks.  There  will  be  a  hearing;  it  will 
be  on  the  technology  and  on  the  safety  of 
that  site. 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Mr.    Mackenzie:    Mr.    Speaker,    I    have    a 
serious    question    for    the    Deputy    Premier. 
I   wonder   whether   he    will   explain   to   the 
House- 
Interjections. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Will  the  Liberals  along 
there  sit  down? 

Mr.    Speaker:    The   member  for  Hamilton 
East  can  continue. 
Interjections. 

Mr.  Sargent:  On  a  point  of  order- 
Mr.   Speaker:    Will   the  honourable  mem- 
ber   just    take    his    seat?    Please    take    your 
seat. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Will  you  listen  to  my  ques- 
tion? 

Mr.  Speaker:  No,  I  will  not.  It  is  as 
simple  as  that. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Will  the  Deputy  Premier 
tell  this  House,  and  give  us  a  clearer  answer 
than  he  did  a  few  minutes  ago,  why  he  is 
prepared  to  move  on  amendments  to  the 
Pensions  Act  before  the  umbrella  groups 
can  have  the  hearings  to  have  some  input 
into  those  amendments,  and  yet  he  is  not 
prepared  to  move  on  the  amendments  with 
reference  to  severance  pay  when  he  has  a 
unanimous  recommendation  of  the  com- 
mittee? How  does  he  explain  this  double 
standard  that  is   apparent  in  this  House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  see  them 
as  two  separate  items,  and  we  are  attempt- 
ing to  show  how  those  matters  referred  to 
in   the   legislation  being  introduced  by   the 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5151 


Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions could  proceed.  What  I  was  attempting 
to  do,  and  we  have  both  ministers  here,  was 
to  explain  the  consistency  of  the  position 
being  taken  by  the  Minister  of  Labour,  who 
was  attempting  to  emphasize  the  importance 
of  the  process. 

I  do  not  think  anyone  was  calling  into 
question  what  the  ultimate  resolution  may 
be  with  respect  to  principle.  Rather,  the 
process  being  put  in  place  is  to  provide  an 
opportunity  with  respect  to  severance  for 
those  who  have  some  interest  in  the  subject 
to  make  presentations.  I  asked  the  question, 
why  would  the  member  not  want  to  hear 
these  representations?  That  is  all.  That  is 
the  basic  distinction  to  be  made  in  these 
two  issues. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  He  is  not  consistent  in 
terms  of  the  pensions.  He  is  not  consistent. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  You  are  just  repeating 
questions  asked  previously  today.  It  was  just 
a   repetition    of   your   previous   question. 

FEDERAL  AID  TO 
TRANSPORTATION 

Mr.  Ashe:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications. Is  the  minister  aware  of  a  news 
report  last  week  on  a  local  radio  station  which 
suggested  the  Liberal  government  in  Ottawa 
is  finally  recognizing  its  responsibilities  of 
commitment  to  public  transit  in  this  province 
and  indicated  through  a  statement  by  the 
federal  Minister  of  Transport,  Mr.  Pepin,  that 
it  is  prepared  to  provide  the  $30  million  nego- 
tiated with  the  previous  government  in 
Ottawa?  Is  that  a  fact? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not 
aware  of  that.  I  had  a  luncheon  meeting  with 
Mr.  Pepin  on  Monday  of  this  week  and  he 
did  not  mention  any  change  in  his  plan;  so 
I  am  not  aware  of  any  change. 

Mr.  Ashe:  In  that  same  news  report,  of 
which  I  have  a  transcript,  there  is  an  indica- 
tion given  by  Mr.  Pepin  that  each  province 
receives  $10  per  person  in  grants,  which  for 
Ontario  would  be  $85  million.  The  implication 
is  that  this  is  per  annum.  Is  that  correct? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Some  of  the  press  reports 
I  saw,  as  well  as  Hansard  from  Ottawa  which 
was  sent  to  me,  indicated  Mr.  Pepin  saying  in 
Hansard  that  Ontario  got  $68  million  per  year 
under  the  urban  transportation  assistance  pro- 
gram. I  know  that  was  obviously  a  mistake 
on  Mr.  Pepin's  part,  because  the  $10  per 
capita  is  for  a  five-year  program  based  on 
$2  per  year,  which  gives  Ontario  $16.25  mil- 
lion  a  year,   not   $68   million   a   year.    If  it 


were  $68  million  a  year,  I  would  be  much 
happier. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  we  have  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  House  to  revert  to  statements 
by  the  ministry  to  allow  the  Minister  of  Edu- 
cation to  make  a  statement  on  something 
the  minister  thinks  is  of  very  important  signifi- 
cance? 

Agreed  to. 

STATEMENT  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

NORFOLK  TEACHERS'  DISPUTE 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
should  like  the  honourable  members  of  the 
House  to  know  that  I  have  just  been  informed 
that  the  teachers  of  Norfolk  county  have  rati- 
fied, by  a  vote  of  172  to  50,  acceptance  of 
the  offer  and  the  schools  will  reopen  on 
Friday. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr  Speaker,  for  clarifica- 
tion, the  rumour  is  going  around  that  the 
students  of  Norfolk  county  will  not  be  ac- 
cepted at  the  University  of  Waterloo  or  at 
Ridgetown  this  year.  Can  the  minister  tell  us 
whether  that  is  correct? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
has  not  been  the  position  of  any  university  or 
post-secondary  institution  in  Ontario  under 
any  circumstance.  The  students  in  the  county 
of  Norfolk  have  more  than  adequate  time  to 
make  up  time  that  was  lost,  through  a  number 
of  mechanisms  that  have  been  suggested  to 
both  the  board  and  the  teachers'  federation, 
to  ensure  that  their  educational  program  is 
complete. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

ITALIAN  EARTHQUAKE 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  see  the  Premier 
is  taking  his  place.  Well,  in  the  absence  of 
the  Premier  from  the  Legislature,  I  will  ask— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Will  you  please  put  your 
question? 

Mr.  Grande:  My  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  is 
to  the  Premier.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  on 
Monday,  December  1,  I  asked  the  Premier  a 
question  regarding  making  representation  and 
using  his  influence  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  allow  entry  into  our  country  of  all 
the  earthquake  victims  who  wish  to  emigrate 
to  Canada,  whether  or  not  they  have  close 
family  ties  here,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
he  agreed  at  that  time  to  make  such  a  repre- 
sentation to  the  government  in  Ottawa,  has 
the  Premier  talked  with  the  federal  Minister 
of  Employment  and  Immigration?  If  he  has, 
what  was  the  response?  If  he  has  not,  does 


5152 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


he  realize  he  is  allowing  Stuarts-come-lately 
to  exploit  the  issue  for  political  purposes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
want  to  get  into  the  same  problem  as  yester- 
day, which  I  will  reply  to  in  a  second.  I  did 
not  hear  the  last  part  of  the  question. 

Mr.  Grande:  For  the  benefit  of  the  Pre- 
mier, perhaps  from  now  on  I  should  yell 
a  little  louder. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  had  a  little  difficulty  hearing  the 
member.  I  believe  the  member  did  say,  and 
it  is  reported  to  me  that  he  did  imply,  that 
I  had  somehow  been  trying  to  exploit  the 
issue  of  this  devastating  tragedy  in  Italy  for 
political  purposes.  I  would  suggest  that  is  a 
very  dishonourable  motive  to  impute  and  I 
would  ask  the  member  to  be  a  gentleman  and 
withdraw  that  totally  dishonourable  imputa- 
tion of  motive. 

Mr.  Grande:  Since  the  Premier  has  asked 
me  to— 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  ask  you  to  rule,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, that  that  deliberate  and  most  dishonour- 
able imputation  of  motive  be  withdrawn  by 
the  member. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  heard  your  point  the  first 
time.  Will  the  member  for  Oakwood  please 
take  his  seat?  If  what  the  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position heard  is  what  you  said,  I  ask  you  to 
withdraw  it.  I  did  not  hear  it  but,  if  that  is 
what  you  said,  I  would  ask  you  to  please 
withdraw  it.  It  is  a  statement  unbecoming  of 
a  member  of  this  House. 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  question  to 
the  Premier,  so  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
can  hear— 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Is  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  misquoting  the  member  for  Oak- 
wood? 

Mr.  Grande:  Yes,  of  course. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Oh,  be  a  man.  Say  what  you 
said.  Repeat  what  you  said. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  have  to  look  at  the 
record  to  see  whether  the  observation  made 
by  the  member  for  Hamilton  West  is  valid. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  will  check  the 
record.  Will  the  member  for  Oakwood  please 
repeat  his  question? 

Mr.  Grande:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker.  My 
question  was  to  the  Premier.  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  on  Monday,  December  1,  I  asked 
the  Premier  to  make  representation  and  use 
his  influence  with  the  federal  government  to 
allow  entry  into  our  country  of  all  the  earth- 
quake victims  who  wish  to  emigrate  to  Can- 
ada, whether  or  not  they  have  close  family 


ties  here,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
Premier  at  that  time  agreed  to  make  such 
representation  to  the  government  in  Ottawa, 
has  the  Premier  talked  to  the  federal  Minis- 
ter of  Employment  and  Immigration  and,  if 
he  has,  what  was  the  response?  If  he  has 
not,  does  he  realize  that  he  is  allowing 
Stuarts-come-lately  to  exploit  the  issue  for 
political  purposes? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:   Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege- 
Mr.  Speaker:  I  still  have  not  got  the  sig- 
nificance of  what  was  said. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  are 
many  political  issues  on  which  I  really  do 
not  mind  this  kind  of  jesting,  I  can  assure 
you,  but  on  this  particular  matter  the  clear 
statement  by  the  member  was  that  the 
Premier,  by  not  going  to  the  federal  Min- 
ister of  Employment  and  Immigration,  Was 
allowing  a  Stuart-come-lately,  obviously  re- 
ferring to  my  visit  with  the  minister  yester- 
day, to  exploit  the  issue  of  the  Italian 
earthquake   victims    for   political    purposes. 

I   do  not  mind  if  the   member  wants  to 
suggest  that  I  am  able- 
Mr.  Mackenzie:  What  are  you  doing  right 
now  but  exploiting  it? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Yes,  I  issued  a  press  re- 
lease; that  is  correct. 

I  do  not  mind  if  the  honourable  member 
wants  to  suggest  that  I  adopt  a  number  of 
policies  and  so  on  with  an  eye  to  the 
electorate.  If  he  wants  to  say  that  sort  of 
thing,  that  is  fine.  We  say  that  about  each 
other  all  the  time  in  this  House.  But  it 
just  so  happens  that  I  have  been  very 
profoundly  moved  by  the  tragedy  in  Italy, 
and  in  the  most  sincere  way  I  stood  in  this 
House  on  December  1  and  asked  as  a  very 
ordinary  and  polite  question  that  a  sug- 
gestion be  taken  up,  which  I  then  took  up 
myself.  He  is  implying  that  the  motive  for 
this  was  somehow  an  attempt  to  exploit  the 
deaths  and  the  suffering  and  the  maiming  of 
people  for  political  purposes,  and  that  when 
he  asks  questions  it  is  simply  from  the 
purest  of  motives,  but  that  anybody  else 
who  might  be  interested  in  the  matter  is 
only  speaking  out  of  political  motives. 

I  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have  had 
a  number  of  jests  here  and  a  number  of 
insults  back  and  forth,  which  we  all  get 
used  to,  but  on  this  issue  I  insist  that  the 
member  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  with- 
draw the  imputation,  because  I  am  sure 
neither  the  Premier  of  the  province  nor  I, 
nor  anyone  else  in  this  House,  has  been 
moving  on  this  matter  to  exploit  the  issue 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5153 


for  political  purposes  but  rather  out  of 
humanitarian  consideration.  I  took  the 
Premier's  motive  that  way  when  he  donated 
money  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  this 
province,  which  he  did  very  sincerely  and 
was  very  moved  at  the  time,  and  I  would 
like  my  own  motivation  also  to  be  taken 
that  way.  I  ask  the  honourable  member  to 
be  a  gentleman  and  withdraw  that  very 
dastardly  imputation. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  member  for  Oak- 
wood  have  anything  to  say? 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  that  offends 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  in  this  prov- 
ince, then  I  will  change  my  remark  to 
"Johnnies-come-lately  to  exploit  the  issue 
for  political  purposes." 
3:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  members  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party  have  not  had 
the  real  guts  to  join  with  us  in  defeating  the 
government,  yet  they  take  these  kinds  of 
shots  which  are  unbecoming  to  most  mem- 
bers of  the  party.  I  insist,  sir,  you  make 
the  member  for  Oakwood  take  that  back 
and  apologize. 

Mr.  Speaker:  My  only  commitment  was  to 
check  the  record  and  see  if  anything  that 
was  said  was  unacceptable  and  unparlia- 
mentary. I  will  report  back.  Does  the 
Premier  have  a  response  to  the  question 
from  the  member  for  Oakwood? 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  No  member  of  this  House 
has  been  exploiting  it  for  political  purposes. 
That  does  not  deserve  an  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  say  to 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  that  it  happens 
in  many  sessions  that  the  fact  we  are  com- 
ing to  a  Christmas  break  is  perhaps  not  a 
bad  thing.  As  I  tried  to  say  to  the  Leader 
of  the  Opposition,  we  all  play  politics.  I 
will  get  around  to  the  point  of  order  that 
the  member  raised  because  he  had  been 
asked  by  the  press.  I  happen  to  know  that 
is  probably  why  he  raised  it  earlier  today. 
In  doing  so,  I  will  endeavour  to  answer  the 
question. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Are  you  imputing  motives 
already? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  not  imputing 
motives.  I  am  telling  the  member  the  facts 
of  life. 

I  think  we  could  all  do  ourselves  a  little 
favour.  I  am  prepared  to  express  a  point  of 
view  to  the  member  for  Oakwood  for  some- 
thing he  felt  was  a  little  bit  upsetting  to  him 
yesterday.  I  do  not  impute  any  motives  with 
respect  to  his  interest.  I  say  that  quite  gen- 


uinely with  respect  to  the  earthquake  situation 
in  Italy.  But  if  one  were  to  pursue  what  he 
was  saying  a  moment  or  two  ago,  he  might 
have  a  word  with  the  member  for  Wentworth. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege- 
Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  The  member  is  talking 
about  the  give  and  take  in  this  House.  He  is 
talking  about  the  imputation  of  one  member 
and  what  he  has  said. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  If  the  Premier  is  pre- 
pared or  wishes  to  answer  to  the  question 
posed  by  the  member  for  Oakwood,  will  he 
please  say  so  right  now. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  Before 
the  member  for  Wentworth  gets  too  upset,  I 
meant  the  member  for  Wentworth  North  (Mr. 
Cunningham).  Before  the  member  for  Ottawa 
Centre  (Mr.  Cassidy)  chuckles  too  much,  I 
wish  he  would  read  what  one  of  his  members 
said  and  wonder,  as  I  am  wondering  out  loud, 
whether  he  wants  to  be  associated  with  that. 
I  pose  that  as  a  question  and  I  intend  to  say 
no  more.  I  will  deal  with  the  question,  Mr. 
Speaker. 

.Mr.  Speaker:  Forthwith,  to  the  member  for 
Oakwood. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  recollec- 
tion of  my  answer  was  that  I  did  not  give  any 
undertakings,  because  I  do  not  like  to  give 
undertakings  where  I  feel  I  cannot  accomplish 
something  or  where  the  government  itself 
has  not  made  a  determination. 

What  I  think  I  said  to  the  honourable 
member  was  that  we  shared  the  concern.  I 
pointed  out  to  him  that,  unlike  some  prov- 
inces where  they  treat  it  as  a  matter  of  joint 
or  divided  jurisdiction,  the  approach  we 
have  taken  in  this  province  is  that  immigration 
has  been  solely  the  responsibility  of  the 
government  of  Canada.  I  think  I  went  on  to 
say  my  impression  was  that  Mr.  Axworthy 
was  dealing  with  this  matter— this  was  about 
a  week  ago— in  a  way  that  I  felt  appeared  to 
be  going  in  the  right  direction.  I  think  the 
government  shares  the  concerns  expressed  by 
all  members  of  the  House  as  to  what  more 
we  might  be  doing.  I  am  not  sufficiently 
knowledgeable  to  know  exactly  what  those 
things  may  be. 

I  anticipate  the  government  of  Canada  will 
be  making  further  alterations  to  its  policy.  I 
anticipate  this  with  respect  to  the  concerns 
all  of  us  have  expressed.  I  convey  that  to  the 
honourable  member.  I  assure  him  this  govern- 
ment will  make  every  effort,  both  in  terms  of 
rehabilitation  and  in  terms  of  those  people 


5154 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


who  are  coming  to  Ontario,  to  assist  in  any 
way  we  can.  If  this  means  further  discussion 
with  the  government  of  Canada  with  respect 
to  immigration,  if  the  government  of  Canada 
says  this  is  all  we  are  going  to  do,  then  I  am 
prepared  to  undertake  this.  But  I  say  to  the 
honourable  member,  my  impression  is  that  the 
government  of  Canada  is  giving  further  con- 
sideration to  the  points  that  are  being  raised. 
On  the  point  of  order  he  raised  earlier 
today- 
Mr.  Di  Santo:  Just  apologize. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  For  once  why  does  the 
member  not  just  sit  and  listen?  He  can  be 
so   self-righteous. 

Mr.  Grande:  Will  you  answer  the  question 
I  asked? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  am  replying  to  the 
point  of  order  which  I  gather  the  member 
raised.  I  have  not  read  Hansard.  I  do  not 
intend  to  read  Hansard.  I  know  exactly  what 
transpired  yesterday.  I  can  almost  tell  him 
what  was  said.  He  directed  a  question  to 
the  Minister  of  Education,  who  was  not  in 
her  seat,  and  he  redirected  to  me.  I  listened 
and  I  tried  very  hard,  but  I  say  to  him  quite 
honestly,  I  do  not  hear  most  of  what  he  is 
saying.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  the 
acoustics,  whether  it  is  because  perhaps 
he  should  talk  with  a  little  more  volume— 
I  have  the  same  trouble  with  the  member 
for  Beaches-Woodbine  (Ms.  Bryden).  I  do 
not  know  what  it  is  about  those  two  seats. 
I  do  not. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Can  you  hear  me  all  right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  never  have  difficulty 
hearing  the  member  for  Oshawa.  I  can 
hear  him  here.  They  can  hear  him  in 
Oshawa.   I  never  have  that  problem. 

I  cannot  even  recall  how  the  member 
concluded  the  final  part  of  his  question.  I 
only  say  to  him,  I  have  never  in  this  House 
in  any  deliberate  fashion  attempted  to  em- 
barrass another  member  of  this  Legislature 
in  the  way  that  one  or  two  members— only 
one  or  two  members  of  the  gallery— were 
suggesting. 

If  the  honourable  member  felt  this  was 
happening,  I  offer  my  apology.  However, 
I  would  give  him  a  little  word  of  advice: 
For  heaven's  sake,  develop  a  minimum  sense 
of  humour.  I  have  listened  to  his  colleagues 
across  there- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Can't  expect  an  NDPer 
to  have  a  sense  of  humour. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Of  course  they  do  not 
have  any  sense  of  humour. 

I  have  listened  to  some  of  his  colleagues 
call   into    question   the   intellectual   capacity 


of  people  on  this  side  of  the  House  for  the 
past  20  years.  But  does  he  know  something? 
I  do  not  object  to  it.  But  please,  if  we  sug- 
gest facetiously  on  occasion  that  the  people 
over  there  are  not  so  bright— in  fact,  I  think 
the  public  has  demonstrated  over  the  years 
they  regard  that  to  be  the  truth— please  do 
not  take  umbrage. 

I  should  say  one  further  thing  on  his 
point  of  order,  which  I  did  not  hear,  but  I 
understand  he  said  he  was  not  satisfied  with 
my  answer.  If  he  checks  Hansard,  which  I 
have  not,  he  will  see  I  did  not  attempt  to 
answer  his  question.  I  redirected  it  to  the 
minister  to  whom  he  had  initially  directed 
the  question.  So  how  in  heaven's  name 
could  he  be  dissatisfied  with  my  answer? 
That  is  my  reply  to  the  member's  point  of 
order. 

REPORT  IN  TORONTO  SUN 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  privilege:  I  heard,  on  what  I  guess  they 
call  the  squawk  box,  reference  made  to  me. 
The  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  talks  about  others 
being  self-righteous.  I  think  he  has  the  sole 
domain  of  that  tied  up. 

It  is  regrettable  that  the  Premier  wants 
to  continue  this  matter.  Frankly,  I  regret 
the  attention  that  has  been  given  to  this 
and  the  attendant  embarrassment  that  has 
resulted  for  the  member  for  Oriole  (Mr. 
Williams)  and  his  family.  I  regret  that  the 
Premier  has  chosen  to  make  such  an  issue 
of  it. 

REPORTS 

STANDING   COMMITTEE   ON 
GENERAL  GOVERNMENT 

Mr.  Cureatz  from  the  standing  committee 
on  general  government  reported  the  follow- 
ing  resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry  of 
Housing  be  granted  her  Majesty  for  the 
fiscal  year  ending  March  31,   1981: 

Ministry  administration  program,  $11,- 
696,000;  community  planning  program, 
$91,300,000;  land  development  program, 
$35,054,000;  community  development  pro- 
gram, $23,036,000;  Ontario  Housing  Cor- 
poration program,  $126,938,000;  Ontario 
Mortgage  program,   $9,812,000. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Could  we  have  a  little  order 
please?  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  hear  these 
reports  being  read. 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5155 


3:20  p.m. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
GENERAL  GOVERNMENT 

Mr.  Cureatz  from  the  standing  committee 
on  general  government  presented  the  follow- 
ing report  and  moved  its  adoption: 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bill  with  certain  amendments: 

Bill  Pr42,  An  Act  respecting  the  Italian 
Canadian  Benevolent  Corporation  (Toronto 
District). 

Your  committee  begs  to  report  the  follow- 
ing bill  without  amendment: 

Bill  Pr46,  An  Act  respecting  the  Borough 
of  York; 

Your  committee  would  further  recommend 
that  the  fees,  less  the  actual  cost  of  printing, 
be  remitted  on  Bill  Pr42,  An  Act  respecting 
the  Italian  Canadian  Benevolent  Corporation 
(Toronto  District). 

Report  adopted. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
SOCIAL  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Gaunt  from  the  standing  committee 
on  social  development  presented  the  follow- 
ing report  and  moved  its  adoption: 

Your  committee  recommends  that  Bill  Pr31, 
An  Act  respecting  Canadian  School  of  Man- 
agement, be  not  reported  and  that  the  fees, 
less  the  actual  cost  of  printing,  be  remitted 
with  respect  thereto. 

Report  adopted. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
RESOURCES  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Villeneuve  from  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  resources  development  reported 
the  following  resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amount  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Provincial  Secre- 
tariat for  Resources  Development  be  granted 
to  Her  Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
March  31,  1981: 

Resources  development  policy  program, 
$2,821,000. 

Mr.  Villeneuve  from  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  resources  development  presented 
the  following  report  and  moved  its  adoption: 

Your  committee  recommends  that  Appendix 
A,  Mineral  Aggregate  Resource  Planning 
Policy  for  the  Government  of  Ontario,  dated 
September  2,  1980,  or  any  version  thereof, 
be  not  approved  as  government  policy,  but 
rather  any  policy  deemed  necessary  after  the 
passage  of  Bill  127,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Pits 
and  Quarries  Control  Act,  1971,  be  developed 


in  conformity  with  the  bill  as  approved  by 
the  House. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  Villeneuve,  the  debate 
was  adjourned. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder  if 
you  and  the  members  of  the  House  would 
allow  me  to  present  a  petition.  There  was  so 
much  noise  at  the  time  the  orders  were 
called  that  I  was  unable  to  hear  you. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  we  have  unanimous 
agreement  to  revert  to  petitions? 

Agreed  to. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  is  still 
a  Christmas  spirit. 

PETITION 

EXTENDED  CARE 

Mr.  Laughren:  To  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
and  the  Legislative  Assembly  from  the  resi- 
dents of  Rayside-Balfour  within  the  regional 
municipality  of  Sudbury;  this  is  signed  by 
1,314  residents  of  that  fine  community:  "We, 
the  undersigned  citizens  of  Rayside-Balfour, 
would  like  to  see  an  extended  care  wing 
added  to  the  Rosemont  residence  in  Chelms- 
ford as  soon  as  possible  in  order  to  accom- 
modate senior  citizens  of  the  area  who  can 
no  longer  look  after  themselves/' 

Mr.  Speaker:  Who  will  pay  for  that? 

Mr.  Laughren:  We  will  get  the  money 
where  we  can. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  honourable  member 
knows  that  he  cannot  address  a  petition  that 
prays  for  the  expenditure  of  funds.  We  will 
simply  send  it  to  the  appropriate  minister. 

MOTION 

HOUSE  SITTING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  on  Thursday, 
December  11,  1980,  the  House  sit  at  10  a.m. 
with  routine  proceedings  at  2  p.m. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  wish  to  table  the  answers 
to  questions  405,  407,  414,  418,  419,  423  and 
424  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper.  (See  ap- 
pendix, page  5180.) 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

THIRD  READINGS 

The  following  bills  were  given  third  read- 
ing on  motion: 


5156 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Bill  118,  An  Act  respecting  the  Registered 
Insurance  Brokers  of  Ontario; 

Bill  168,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Juries  Act, 
1974; 

Bill  169,  An  Act  to  provide  for  Liability  for 
Injuries  caused  by  Dogs; 

Bill  182,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipality 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act; 

Bill  187,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act. 

ONTARIO  UNCONDITIONAL 
GRANTS  ACT 

Hon  Mr.  Wells  moved  third  reading  of 
Bill  199,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Ontario  Un- 
conditional Grants  Act,  1975. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  make 
a  comment  on  section  1(2)  of  Bill  199,  which 
reads  as  follows:  "Where  the  minister  is  of 
the  opinion  that  property  taxes  in  a  munic- 
ipality are  unduly  high  or  have  been  or  may 
be  unduly  increased  because  of  (a)  a  sub- 
stantial loss  of  revenue  previously  available  to 
a  municipality  .  .  .  the  minister  may,  by 
order,  make  a  grant  or  a  loan  to  the  munic- 
ipality under  such  terms  and  conditions  as  the 
minister  considers  necessary  in  the  circum- 
stances." 

I  would  like  the  minister  to  assure  us  that 
under  this  section  of  the  act,  this  would  mean 
that  the  city  of  Windsor  now  can  expect  some 
assistance  on  the  $35  million  that  is  owing  to 
it  as  a  result  of  the  Ontario  Unconditional 
Grants  Act  in  the  past. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

THIRD  READINGS 

(continued) 

The  following  bill  was  given  third  reading 
on  motion: 

Bill  200,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Regional 
Municipality   of  Peel  Act,    1973. 

INSTITUTE  OF  CHARTERED 

SECRETARIES  AND  ADMINISTRATORS 

IN  ONTARIO  ACT 

Mr.  Belanger  moved  second  reading  of  Bill 
Pr41,  An  Act  respecting  the  Institute  of 
Chartered  Secretaries  and  Administrators  in 
Ontario. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also  agreed  to  on  motion. 
3:30  p.m. 

JEWISH  FAMILY  AND  CHILD  SERVICE 
OF  METROPOLITAN  TORONTO  ACT 

Mr.  Rotenberg  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  Pr45,  An  Act  respecting  the  Powers  of 


the    Jewish    Family    and    Child    Service    of 
Metropolitan  Toronto. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also  agreed  to  on  motion. 

REDEEMER  COLLEGE  ACT 

Mr.  Ashe  moved  second  reading  of  Bill 
Pr48. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Ashe  moved  third  reading  of  Bill  Pr48. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  committee  changed  the  name  of  that 
bill.  Why  does  that  not  appear  on  the  official 
list  as  it  goes  through  second  and  third  read- 
ing procedures? 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  should  have  if  that  is  the 
case. 

Mr.  Ashe:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  name  was 
changed  by  a  duly  approved  motion  in  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Speaker:  And  it  is  not  reflected  on  the 
Older  Paper? 

Mr.  Ashe:  Not  in  the  designation  on  here, 
Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  am  sure  it  is  designated  in 
the  appropriate- 
Mr.    Nixon:    This   is   the   only  appropriate 
place. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  that  was  the  intent,  I  think 
it  should  be  corrected  now  before  it  gets  third 
reading. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Why  can  we  not  move  third 
reading  with  the  appropriate  name,  Mr. 
Speaker?  We  would  certainly  agree  to  that. 

Mr.  Ashe:  Mr.  Speaker,  you  will  note 
when  I  moved  second  and  third  readings, 
I  just  used  the  bill  number  and  not  the 
name  in  any  event,  on  the  assumption  that 
the  correct  name  would  of  course  appear  in 
the  final  printed  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  problem  is  the  table 
officer  designates  it  by  its  name. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Why  do  you  not  move  it  with 
its  proper  name?? 

Mr.  Ashe:  I  don't  remember  what  it 
was.  I  now  have  to  remember  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Was  it  not  Redeemer  Calvinist 
Reform  or  something  like  that? 

Mr.  Ashe:  If  you  would  carry  on  for  a 
moment,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can  clarify  the 
actual  name  we  amended  it  to. 

Mr.  Speaker:  We  will  withhold  the 
motion  for  third  reading  and  see  whether 
we  can  get  that  information. 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5157 


GRADORE  MINES  LIMITED  ACT 

Mr.  Rotenberg,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Ram- 
say, moved  second  reading  of  Bill  Pr49,  An 
Act  to  revive  Gradore  Mines  Limited. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also  agreed  to  on  motion. 

CITY  OF  KINGSTON  ACT 

Mr.  Watson  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  Pr50,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Kingston. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also  agreed  to  on  motion. 

HAMILTON  CLUB  ACT 

Mr.  Nixon,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  S.  Smith, 
moved  second  reading  of  Bill  Pr51,  An  Act 
respecting  the  Hamilton  Club. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also   agreed  to  on  motion. 

McCOLL  FARMS  LIMITED  ACT 

Mr.  Watson  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  Pr53,  An  Act  to  revive  McColl  Farms 
Limited. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also   agreed  to  on  motion. 

THIRD  READING 

The  following  bill  was  given  third  read- 
ing on  motion: 

Bill  Pr48,  An  Act  to  incorporate  Redeemer 
Reformed!  Christian  College. 

ITALIAN  CANADIAN 

BENEVOLENT  CORPORATION 

(TORONTO  DISTRICT)  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory,  on  behalf  of  Mr. 
Rotenberg,  moved  second  reading  of  Bill 
Pr42,  An  Act  respecting  the  Italian  Cana- 
dian Benevolent  Corporation  (Toronto 
District). 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also   agreed  to  on  motion. 

BOROUGH  OF  YORK  ACT 

Mr.  MacDonald  moved  second  reading 
of  Bill  Pr46,  An  Act  respecting  the  Borough 
of  York. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Third  reading  also  agreed  to  on  motion. 


HUMAN  RIGHTS  CODE 

(continued) 

Resuming  the  adjourned  debate  on  the 
motion  for  second  reading  of  Bill  209,  An 
Act  to  revise  and  extend  Protection  of 
Human    Rights    in    Ontario. 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  ex-leader  of  the 
Liberal  Party  should  not  go  away  mad;  he 
will  get  time  too. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  continue  the  re- 
marks I  had  started  to  make  the  other  eve- 
ning. I  will  not  repeat,  but  let  me  at  least  re- 
capitulate. I  think  I  was  simply  stating  a 
reality  when  I  said  the  bill  really  deals  in  a 
thorough  way  with  only  one  group  of  people 
—that  is  the  physically  handicapped. 

As  I  said  before,  there  is  a  great  silence 
in  the  bill  and  it  is  a  very  regrettable  silence. 
It  has  to  do  with  sexual  orientation.  I  think 
the  government  should  read  the  words  of  dis- 
tinguished commissioners  of  a  few  years  ago 
who  were  authors  of  the  report  on  hu- 
man rights  in  Ontario,  Life  Together.  They 
were  very  clear  and  unequivocal  with  respect 
to  the  kind  of  discrimination  that  takes  place 
within  our  society  because  of  sexual  orienta- 
tion. They  recommended  that  sexual  orienta- 
tion be  included  in  a  modern  updated  code. 
I  hope  there  is  still  an  opportunity  on  the 
part  of  the  government  to  remedy  that  defect. 

Other  groups  that  are  referenced  in  Bill 
209  are  really  just  referenced  and  not  pro- 
vided the  same  kind  of  comprehensive  cover- 
age that  the  physically  handicapped  are  af- 
forded. Let  me  illustrate  again:  I  said  the 
other  night  I  did  not  think  women  were  dealt 
with  particularly  effectively  under  this  bill, 
and  the  minister  sort  of  scrunched  up  his 
face  in  disagreement. 

Let  us  look  at  the  sexual  harassment  pro- 
vision and— I  don't  wish  to  seem  flippant— look 
at  it  in  the  context  of  another  bill  that  we 
just  gave  third  reading  to  a  few  minutes  ago. 
A  few  minutes  ago  we  passed  Bill  169,  An 
Act  to  provide  for  Liability  for  Injuries  caused 
by  Dogs.  One  of  the  things  we  did  in  that  bill 
was  remove  the  right  of  the  dog  to  a  free 
bite,  if  I  am  not  mistaken.  I  have  not  been 
following  that  bill  with  great  attention,  but  T 
thought  what  we  did  in  that  bill  was  say  the 
dog  no  longer  has  a  free  bite. 
3:40  p.m. 

Looking  at  the  Human  Rights  Code  in  front 
of  us,  discrimination  by  virtue  of  sexual 
harassment  is  barred  only  if  it  is  persistent. 
What  does  "persistent"  mean?  How  many  in- 
cidents of  unwarranted  and  unwanted  sexual 
solicitation  or  sexual  harassment  must  a  wo- 
man put  up  with  before  she  is  afforded  pro- 


5158 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


tection  under  the  act?  That  is  the  kind  of 
thing  I  am  talking  about  when  I  say  other 
groups  are  dealt  with  in  a  very  cursory  way 
or  not  at  all.  That  is  regrettable. 

I  want  to  focus  on  the  position  of  the 
physically  handicapped,  because  that  is 
ostensibly  what  this  bill  deals  with.  Let  me 
try  to  be  more  clear  today.  If  it  is  the  pur- 
pose of  this  bill  to  end  discrimination  in 
Ontario  against  the  physically  handicapped,  it 
is  not  going  to  happen  by  virtue  of  this 
statute.  I  do  not  think  anybody  should  delude 
himself  that  the  kind  of  discrimination  and 
exclusion  that  handicapped  people  have  ex- 
perienced in  our  society  is  going  to  be 
changed  because  of  this  act. 

Discrimination  against  the  physically  handi- 
capped is  different  from  the  kind  of  dis- 
crimination other  groups  of  people  experi- 
ence. Discrimination  against  the  physically 
handicapped  is  not  simply  personal  or  atti- 
tudinal,  it  is  also  structural.  The  physically 
handicapped  are  systematically  excluded  from 
housing  accommodation,  not  simply  because 
landlords  are  biased  against  handicapped 
people,  but  also  because  of  the  structural 
problem  that  buildings  are  not  adapted  to  ac- 
commodate handicapped  people.  Handicapped 
people  are  excluded  from  the  work  place,  not 
just  because  employers  are  biased  against 
handicapped  people  and  have  a  bad  attitude, 
they  are  also  excluded  because  our  work 
places  are  not  adapted  to  accept  handicapped 
people  in  a  physical  way. 

Unless  the  government  is  prepared  to 
deal  with  the  structural  discriminations 
against  the  physically  handicapped,  this  bill 
will  be  as  useful  as  the  kind  of  constitution 
we  find  in  certain  eastern  European  coun- 
tries. It  looks  very  nice  on  paper,  but  it 
does  nothing  to  bring  about  an  end  to 
violations  of  human  rights.  If  the  physically 
handicapped  are  not  permitted  to  gain  access 
to  normal  rental  accommodation  on  the 
basis  of  full  equality  with  everybody  else, 
then  the  discrimination  is  perpetuated.  The 
bill  before  us  has  all  kinds  of  loopholes.  It 
has  more  loopholes  than  a  loan  shark's 
mortgage,  unless  the  government  deals  with 
the  structural  problems. 

I  do  not  see  any  evidence  on  the  part  of 
this  government  that  it  is  prepared  to  move 
on  the  structural  problems  with  respect  to 
occupancy.  Let  me  repeat,  it  is  not  enough 
to  have  a  nice  little  phrase  that  says  every 
person  has  a  right  to  equal  treatment  in  the 
occupancy  of  accommodation. 

Unless  the  government  is  prepared  to 
move  on  amendments  to  part  five  of  the 
building    code,    unless    the    government    is 


willing  to  stop  its  hypocrisy  with  respect  to 
exclusionary  zoning  bylaws  which  are  pro- 
hibiting the  development  of  group  homes 
for  physically  handicapped  or  mentally  re- 
tarded, people  in  nearly  all  the  municipali- 
ties of  this  province,  unless  the  govern- 
ment is  prepared  to  come  up  with  pro- 
grams to  provide  funding  to  establish  inde- 
pendent-living apartment  facilities  with 
support  services  built  in  for  the  physically 
handicapped,  this  legislation  will  be  mean- 
ingless because  of  the  exemption  possibili- 
ties. 

With  respect  to  employment,  unless  the 
government  is  prepared  to  deal  with  the 
issue  of  reasonable  accommodation,  which 
has  to  do  with  the  right  of  handicapped 
people  to  have  access  in  the  first  instance 
either  to  a  personnel  office  or  to  the  work 
place,  the  employment  provisions  of  Bill  209 
will  not  have  any  reality. 

We  had  some  discussion  earlier  in  the 
session  about  sheltered  workshops  in  this 
province.  I  raised  a  question  to  the  Provin- 
cial Secretary  for  Social  Development  (Mrs. 
Birch)  who,  with  her  usual  incapacity  to 
understand,  sloughed  the  answer  off  saying 
I  was  talking  about  sheltered  workshops 
for  the  mentally  retarded.  I  was  not.  I  was 
talking  about  sheltered  workshops  for  the 
physically  handicapped.  I  do  not  have  my 
file  with  me  but  somewhere  between  30  and 
40  per  cent  of  the  sheltered  workshops  for 
the  physically  handicapped  in  this  province 
are  not  accessible  to  wheelchairs. 

The  mind  boggles.  These  are  workshops 
that  are  funded  by  the  Ministry  of  Com- 
munity and  Social  Services.  These  are  work- 
shops whose  employees  are  working  on  the 
authority  of  a  ministerial  exemption  from 
the  minimum  wage  laws  issued  by  the 
Minister  of  Labour,  whose  bill  this  is.  The 
Minister  of  Labour  is  doing  his  own  study 
of  sheltered  workshops,  which  pay  some- 
thing in  the  order  of,  on  average,  30  cents 
an  hour  to  handicapped  people. 

This  is  the  kind  of  discrimination  that  this 
bill  will  not  even  be  able  to  contemplate.  I 
should  correct  that.  There  is  a  provision  in 
section  14  of  the  bill.  I  welcome  that  pro- 
vision very  sincerely  because  it  will  be  a 
way  of  getting  a  handle  on  what  is  going 
on  in  these  sheltered  workshops,  particu- 
larly for  the  physically  handicapped  and 
physically  disabled.  It  provides  a  means  of 
review,  I  assume.  The  minister  will  correct 
me  if  I  have  taken  the  wrong  interpretation, 
but  it  would  be  a  means  of  reviewing 
whether  an  employee  who  is  in  a  sheltered 
workshop  by   virtue   of   an   exemption   from 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5159 


the  minimum  wage  is  really  in  a  bona  fide 
special  program  that  is  designed  to  relieve 
hardship. 

My  interpretation  is  precisely  the  opposite, 
if  the  minister  is  interested.  I  think  a  lot  of 
these  situations  are  the  cause  of  hardship  of 
our  constituents  who  have  been  in  sheltered 
workshops  for  pennies  an  hour  over  a  period 
of  10  years.  Does  the  minister  think  they 
are  particularly  pleased  with  this  kind  of 
patronizing,  second-rate  treatment?  Of  course 
they  are  not.  I  expect  there  will  be  litigation 
as  quickly  as  this  section  is  passed  and  there 
will  be  cases  brought  before  the  commission 
for  its  adjudication. 

If  they  are  not  brought  forward  by  other 
people,  they  will  be  brought  forward  by  me. 
I  think  the  situation  in  this  province  with 
respect  to  employment  opportunities  for  the 
physically  handicapped  is  an  absolute  and 
utter  disgrace,  and  nothing  in  this  bill  will 
change  that.  That  will  only  be  changed  by  a 
series  of  programs  initiated,  I  hope,  by  the 
Minister  of  Labour  to  deal  with  this  ex- 
clusion of  handicapped  people  from  their 
rightful  place  in  our  work  places.  That  will 
require  not  legislation,  but  programs. 

Finally,  there  is  the  area  of  economic  right. 
That  is  something  that  does  not  get  ad- 
dressed. But  if  we  understand  correctly  that 
80  per  cent  of  handicapped  people  are  un- 
employed, as  the  Canadian  Council  on  Social 
Development  tells  us,  we  understand  that 
group  will  be  living  on  some  kind  of  social 
assistance  program.  We  have  said  the  solu- 
tion lies  in  the  development  of  employment 
opportunities,  but  we  cannot  ignore  the  mess 
in  income  security  programs.  Again  that  is 
not  something  that  can  be  dealt  with  in 
human  rights  legislation.  But  that  is  at  the 
very  heart  and  soul  of  the  plight  of  physically 
handicapped  people  in  this  province  and  in 
this  country,  whether  they  are  injured  workers 
victimized  by  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board1,  or  whether  they  are  handicapped 
people  on  social  assistance  or  welfare  pro- 
grams or  whether  they  are  handicapped 
people  on  Canada  pension  disability  pro- 
grams. 

In  any  case  they  are  the  victims  of  a 
second-rate,  haphazard,  hotchpotch  income 
security  program  that  consigns  them  to  sub- 
poverty  levels  of  existence.  How  do  we  make 
the  wonderful  words  of  the  preamble  to  this 
act  have  any  kind  of  reality  for  those  people? 
Nothing  in  this  bill  will  do  it. 

If  this  government  can  only  find  the  will 
and  the  determination  to  end  these  kinds  of 
injustices,  it  could  deal  with  them.  The 
minister  has  promised  reforms  to  the  Work- 


men's Compensation  Act,  but  it  is  going  to 
take  a  lot  more  than  that.  It  is  not  simply 
going  to  be  Weiler  recommendations  imple- 
mented that  will  deal  with  the  economic 
injustice  suffered  by  handicapped  people. 
There  will  have  to  be  changes  right  across 
the  board. 
3:50  p.m. 

There  are  in  this  country  something  in  the 
order  of  86  separate  income  maintenance 
programs.  It  is  absolutely  mind-boggling.  We 
have  one  of  the  worst  and  craziest  social 
security  systems  in  the  western  industrial 
world.  The  minister  is  dealing  with  a  little 
tiny  piece  of  it,  a  little  tiny  corner;  the  rest 
of  it  remains  untouched.  His  government 
remains  intransigent  with  respect  to  changes 
in  the  Canada  pension  plan  as  it  affects  dis- 
abled people.  His  government  remains  in- 
different with  respect  to  the  inadequacies  of 
our  provincial  and  municipal  social  assistance 
legislation. 

His  government  is  dealing  with  a  tiny 
piece  in  isolation,  and  nowhere  is  it  dealing 
with  the  overall  problem  and  the  overall  ap- 
proach to  economic  rights  issues  as  they 
affect  handicapped  people.  Unless  that  is 
dealt  with,  the  rhetoric  in  this  bill  will  remain 
simply  that.  It  is  nice-sounding  rhetoric  but 
it  will  not  mean  very  much  to  real  people 
who  live  in  wheelchairs  or  who  walk  with 
crutches. 

In  concluding,  I  want  to  talk  very  briefly 
about  what  has  become  a  persistent  problem 
with  the  commission.  That  has  to  do  with  its 
administration.  There  was  a  marvellous  quote 
from  Aneurin  Bevan,  "You  can  make  your 
laws  as  nice  as  you  like  but  what  counts  is 
the  spirit  of  administration."  That  is  where 
the  real  problem  is  with  the  Ontario  Human 
Rights  Commission  in  1980.  The  minister 
knows  it. 

We  have  a  Human  Rights  Code  that  ap- 
pears to  be  fairly  tough  with  respect  to  racial 
discrimination.  It  is  already  in  the  language 
of  the  statute.  Yet  there  are  serious  problems 
of  credibility  within  multicultural  communi- 
ties such  as  Metropolitan  Toronto  with  re- 
spect to  the  capacity  of  the  human  rights 
commission  to  have  any  relevance,  with  re- 
spect to  the  capacity  of  the  human  rights 
commission  to  respond  to  complaints,  with 
respect  to  the  capacity  of  the  human  rights 
commission  to  investigate  complaints  within  a 
reasonable  period  of  time,  with  respect  to  the 
capacity  of  this  commission  to  do  anything 
within  a  reasonable  period  of  time. 

It  is  not  as  though  the  government  was  not 
warned.  The  report  Life  Together  has  long 
sections   dealing  with  the  lack  of  resources 


5160 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


available  to  the  human  rights  commission. 
This  was  in  1977.  I  could  not  find  the  section 
that  talks  about  the  diffusion  of  resources,  but 
it  is  something  I  recall  the  commissioners  talk- 
ing about  in  the  Life  Together  report.  They 
were  simply  spread  too  thin  to  do  what  was 
required  of  them  under  the  act. 

They  give  a  warning  on  page  11  that  I 
want  to  repeat.  "The  best  legislation  in  the 
world  is  rendered  useless  if  resources  are  not 
provided  to  put  them  into  action."  Further  on 
it  says:  "Words  alone  carry  no  power.  They 
can  be  with  justice  labelled  'window  dressing,' 
which  produces  frustration  and  resentment 
among  the  victims  of  discrimination  while 
bringing  comfort  to  the  forces  that  would 
divide  our  communities." 

The  record  of  the  commission  over  the  past 
few  years  has  been  one  of  rhetoric  and  win- 
dow dressing.  I  say  that  to  the  minister  as 
forcefully  as  I  can.  I  believe  the  code  has 
been  rendered  almost  useless  because  of  the 
failure  of  this  government  to  fund  it  at  an 
adequate  level  to  employ  sufficient  staff  to  do 
what  is  required  under  the  code,  and  to  bring 
in  the  kind  of  people  who  could  give  leader- 
ship to  the  administration  of  the  human 
rights  commission.  Unless  that  is  done,  this 
bill  will  simply  be,  as  the  commissioners  pre- 
dicted in  1977,  window  dressing. 

That  is  all  I  wanted  to  say.  I  would  be 
interested  to  hear  from  the  minister  what  he 
intends  to  do  with  respect  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  code.  If  he  does  not  think  he  has 
problems  in  that  area  then  he  has  been  lock- 
ing himself  in  his  office  and  ignoring  the 
voices  of  respectable  community  leaders  in 
this  city,  in  this  metropolitan  area  and  in  this 
province.  I  do  not  think  I  have  to  spell  it  out 
in  black  and  white  for  him.  He  has  real  prob- 
lems and  he  is  going  to  have  to  deal  with 
them.  He  knows  what  those  problems  are  as 
does  virtually  every  other  member  in  this 
House.  Unless  he  deals  with  them,  his  fine 
rhetoric,  his  good  intentions  and  his  good 
draftsmanship,  which  I  acknowldege  in  parts 
of  Bill  209,  will  be  an  unfulfilled  promise. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  com- 
mend the  minister  and  his  staff  for  bringing 
forward  these  amendments.  I  believe  they 
are  well  founded  and  certainly  well  drafted. 
I  want  to  say  more  about  that  in  a  few 
moments. 

I  was  first  elected  to  this  House  in  1962, 
the  year  when  the  original  bill,  which  we 
now  recognize  as  a  landmark,  was  introduced. 
I  hasten  to  assure  the  House  I  do  not  take 
any  of  the  credit  for  that  original  legislation. 
It  seemed  to  go  through  the  House  rather 
readily,  without  recognition  that  it  was  prob- 


ably one  of  the  most  important  endeavours 
any  Legislature  could  undertake  then  or  sub- 
sequently. 

The  minister  introduced  his  ill-begotten  bill 
last  year,  which  might  have  been  an  amend- 
ment to  this  legislation.  Every  time  it  is  re- 
ferred to  I  notice  he  flushes,  that  is,  in  the 
physiological  sense. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  blush  with  regard  to 
your   flip-fiop. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Well,  the  minister  must  surely 
be  aware  of  our  support  for  any  statute  we 
might  pass  that  safeguards  and  extends  the 
rights  of  the  handicapped.  The  minister  did 
not  have  the  intestinal  fortitude  in  those 
days  to  bring  back  amendments  that  might 
have  been  subject  to  amendment  in  ways 
he  was  not  prepared  to  support  or  even  to 
contemplate.  The  bill  was  consigned,  I  think 
rather  properly,  to  the  dustbin. 

The  matter  has  been,  in  my  view,  put 
before  us  quite  well  in  these  amendments, 
although  my  colleagues  who  are  quite 
anxious  this  be  reviewed  by  a  committee 
feel  that,  even  in  the  instance  of  the  rights 
of  the  handicapped,  there  are  improvements 
that  should  be  considered. 

I  mentioned  the  drafting  of  the  bill.  I 
can  understand  it  was  no  easy  task.  In  my 
opinion,  it  was  well  carried  out.  I  am  not 
sure  whether  the  minister,  in  the  quiet  of 
his  surgery,  contemplated  the  words.  He 
may  have  had  nothing  directly  to  do  with 
it  other  than  to  provide  the  guidance  and 
final  approval,  which  in  itself  is  of  great 
importance. 

I  am  not  sure  the  preamble  registers  with 
the  preamble  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  or  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  it 
sounds  well.  I  just  want  to  read  a  couple 
of  lines  from  the  preamble: 

".  .  .  the  inherent  dignity  and  the  equal 
and  inalienable  rights  of  all  members  of  the 
human  family  is  the  foundation  of  freedom, 
justice  and  peace  in  the  world  .  .  ."  To  con- 
tinue: ".  .  .  it  is  public  policy  in  Ontario  to 
recognize  that  every  person  is  equal  in  dig- 
nity and  worth  and  to  provide  for  equal 
rights  and  opportunities  without  discrimina- 
tion that  is  contrary  to  law,  and  having  as 
its  aim  the  creation  of  a  climate  of  under- 
standing and  mutual  respect  for  the  dignity 
and  worth  of  each  person  so  that  each  per- 
son feels  a  part  of  his  community  and  able 
to  contribute  fully  to  the  development  and 
wellbeing  of  the  community  and  the  prov- 
ince." 

I  think  they  were  well  drawn  indeed.  As 
one  reads  and  thinks  about  them,  one  real- 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5161 


izes  we  have  fallen  short  of  that  aim  but 
it  provides  the  structure  which,  in  a  slightly 
different  climate,  might  allow  us  to  move 
forward,  not  to  perfection,  although  we  as 
Liberals  believe  in  the  perfectability  of 
mankind. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Perfection  of  mankind. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Not  just  yet.  It  does  not  really 
require  the  elimination  of  any  party,  al- 
though I  have  a  couple  in  mind.  I  should 
say  that  at  least  the  goals  are  there  and 
are  well  expressed.  It  leads  me  to  say  we 
are  fortunate  in  a  community  such  as  ours 
that  so  many  people  can  almost  say,  "What 
do  we  need  these  things  for,  because  we 
have  been  well  protected  by  the  laws  as  we 
have   known   and   understood   them?" 

4  p.m. 

The  role  of  the  human  rights  commission 
has  not  been  a  high-profile  one,  not  one 
that  intrudes  on  a  daily  and  regular  basis 
into  the  front  pages  of  the  dailies.  I  want 
to  say  something  brief  about  that  in  a 
moment. 

When  we  compare  our  traditions  and  way 
of  life,  our  recognition  of  the  rule  of  law 
in  this  nation  and  province  with  so  many 
other  nations  where  there  is  oppression,  tor- 
ture and  the  complete  disregard  for  the 
value  of  human  life  and  the  self-realization 
of  the  human  soul,  we  know  that  we  live 
in  one  of  the  more  fortunate  jurisdictions 
anywhere.  We  are  proud  of  it  and  if  we  can 
improve  it,  that  should  be  one  of  our  prin- 
cipal aims. 

In  listening  to  most  of  the  debate  I  have 
been  quite  interested  but  I  am  not  prepared 
to  classify  it  in  quality  with  other  debates 
we  have  had.  All  the  members  know  just 
what  pinnacles  of  quality  we  achieve  here 
and  what  opportunities  we  miss.  It  is  an 
important  debate  and  yet  as  so  many  tend 
to  be,  it  is  sort  of  a  set  piece  without  too 
much  political  confrontation  in  a  matter  like 
this.  The  battles  are  over  in  many  senses 
before  they  begin.  I  even  sense  that  the 
battle  in  this  bill  is  over  before  it  even 
begins.  It  is  something  that  can  be  dealt 
with  perhaps  on  other  occasions. 

The  commission  and  its  staff,  which  is 
highly  paid  and  has  an  extremely  impor- 
tant responsibility,  is  represented  here  and 
yet  is  singularly  noticeable  by  its  lack  of 
interest  in  the  actual  views  expressed  by 
the  members.  I  am  sure  this  does  not,  in 
any  way,  indicate  a  disregard  for  those 
views  and  yet  I  do  not  know  what  it  does 
indicate.  It  surely  does  not  indicate  a 
heavy  portfolio  of  pressing  work  that  means 


that  they  cannot  be  here  to  listen  to  the 
views,  whether  they  can  be  constructed  as 
pearls  or  otherwise.  I  do  not  suppose  it  is 
essential  that  they  be  here. 

As  the  member  cranes  his  neck  around 
to  the  left,  I  say  again  that  I  am  well  aware 
that  the  commission  is  represented.  He  is 
also  aware  that  there  have  been  criticisms, 
particularly  about  the  administration  of  the 
commission  and  the  fact  that  we  ought  to 
perhaps  think  again  as  the  opportunities  to 
re-energize  the  concepts  of  the  commission 
come  forward,  as  they  must.  I  personally 
feel  that  we  might  have  looked  for  other 
alternatives,  not  for  personnel,  but  in  ways 
to  administer  the  commission  in  the  past. 

The  minister  has  asked  for  additional 
funds  for  field  officers,  I  believe  they  were 
called.  I  gather  these  people  are  going  to 
be  hired  on  their  ability  to  communicate  to 
editorial  boards  and  community  groups  the 
importance  of  the  commission  rather  than 
to  go  out  and  assist  those  individuals  who 
might  feel  that  their  rights  have  been  in- 
fringed upon.  The  past  speaker  and  others 
have  referred  specifically  to  the  budget  we 
are  pushing  to  expand  and  have  said  we 
are  not  interested  in  providing  a  public 
relations  budget  other  than  to  inform  the 
public  of  their  rights  and  their  recourse. 

I  have  not  been  impressed  with  the 
reactions  of  the  commission  in  cases  that 
have  come  forward.  I  do  not  intend  to  try 
to  reignite  fire  in  a  burned-out  tinder  but 
we  can  think  of  some  that  have  been  im- 
portant public  issues  in  Toronto  and  else- 
where where  the  human  rights  commission, 
in  my  view,  might  have  expressed  a  view 
more  readily  understood  or  more  reacted  to 
by  the  community  at  large  than  it  has. 
There  is  no  reason  I  cannot  be  specifically 
critical,  as  I  am,  and  I  feel  we  have  missed 
an  opportunity  to  enlarge  the  public  profile 
and  response  of  the  commission  itself. 

I  believe  the  legislation  has  been  in 
specific  respects  inadequate  and  we  have 
talked  about  that.  These  amendments,  being 
the  only  ones  of  significance  that  have  been 
presented  since  1962,  go  a  large  measure 
in  making  up  those  inadequacies;  not  com- 
pletely by  any  means  but  they  go  a  long 
way.  I  simply  say  again  that  I  congratulate 
the  minister  and  his  advisers  and  his  col- 
leagues. 

I  do  not  know  what  he  might  do  about 
improving  the  public  view  of  the  com- 
mission itself.  It  may  be  that  when  we 
particularly  need  them  and  a  specific  case 
comes  up  they  will  be  there,  probably 
fighting  for  individual   liberties  and  human 


5162 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


rights.  In  spite  of  the  general  view  of  the 
community,  that  is  really  why  they  are 
there. 

If  rights  are  being  infringed,  where  the 
community  is  in  support  of  remedying  those, 
of  course,  every  member  of  the  Legislature 
is  bound  to  shoulder  aside  the  chairman  or 
anybody  else  in  the  human  rights  commis- 
sion in  an  attempt  to  remedy  those  rights.  It 
is  when  the  matter  is  not  so  popular  that  the 
rights  commission  must  come  into  its  own 
and  where  strong,  vocal,  intelligent,  and 
sensitive  leadership  is  paramount.  I  do  not 
think  the  commission  has  been  significantly 
put  to  that  test  or  has  not  found  an  occa- 
sion where,  in  my  opinion,  the  test  has  even 
been  tried,  let  alone  passed. 

I  was  talking  to  a  former  chairman  many 
months  ago  now  who  was  in  no  way  express- 
ing any  views  about  the  present  administra- 
tion; far  from  it.  It  was  at  the  time  when  we 
v/ere  contemplating  legislation  establishing  an 
Ombudsman.  The  view  was  expressed,  I  am 
not  sure  whether  it  was  by  the  chairman  or 
by  others,  that  it  was  quite  possible  for  the 
human  rights  commission  through  other  types 
of  legislation  to  have  some  of  the  Ombuds- 
man's responsibility  shared  by  the  chairman 
of  the  human  rights  commission  or  some  new 
board  that  might  have  shared  those  responsi- 
bilities. 

As  I  look  over  the  record  of  the  past 
number  of  years,  it  occurs  to  me  that  is  an 
alternative  we  might  have  considered.  Of 
course,  I  am  not  so  sure  that  in  the  course 
of  the  unfolding  of  the  universe  it  is  still 
too  late.  We  should  not  feel  that  we  are  en- 
trenched in  administrative  procedures  that 
cannot  be  improved  and  changed. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  review  the  sections 
of  the  bill  itself;  my  colleagues  learned  in  the 
law  have  already  put  their  views  before  you 
and  our  colleagues  in  the  House.  I  understand 
the  matter  will  be  reviewed,  if  not  at  leisure 
at  least  at  some  length,  in  standing  committee 
hearings  early  in  1981  and  I  know  that  those 
hearings  will  be  important  and  significant. 
We  can  expect  the  bill  to  return  either  to  this 
House  or  our  successor,  because  there  is  no 
doubt  that  whatever  party  has  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  seals  of  office  at  that  time,  there 
is  universal  commitment  to  the  concepts  ex- 
pressed in  the  preamble  and  the  sections  of 
the  original  bill  and  these  amendments. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want 
to  join  with  my  colleagues  in  saying  that  I  too 
think  Bill  209  is  a  significant  legislative  step 
forward.  I  am  sure  many  of  us  in  the  House 
on  all  sides  would  have  hoped  we  could 
have  done  it  earlier.  In  spite  of  our  concern 


in  that  regard,  I  think  we  all  view  it  as  a 
significant  legislative  step. 

Viewed  against  the  commission  to  which  it 
addresses  itself,  however,  I  think  we  have  to 
recall  the  remarks  of  my  colleague  from  Bell- 
woods.  It  is  fair  to  say,  to  paraphrase  him, 
one  of  the  biggest  problems  that  the  commis- 
sion had  was  not  the  legislation  it  was  charged 
with  handling  but  in  fact  the  way  in  which 
it  handled  that  legislation.  So  it  seems  to  me 
we  have  done  here  only  one  of  two  things 
that  needed  to  be  done,  in  very  broad  terms. 
We  have  come  ahead  with  much  better, 
much  stronger  legislation.  I  think  we  also 
have  to  come  ahead  in  terms  of  the  way  in 
which  that  commission  administers  the  legis- 
lation we  have  passed  in  the  House. 

What  I  want  to  speak  to  in  the  bill  really 
is  two  of  what  I  view  to  be  major  and  out- 
standing problems  with  the  bill.  Unlike  my 
colleague  from  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk,  I  do 
not  think  yet  that  the  battle  is  over  in  that 
regard.  In  fact,  it  continues  because  that 
battle  has  yet  to  be  won  or  lost.  It  is  still 
open  to  us. 
4:10  p.m. 

When  the  minister  introduced  the  legis- 
lation on  November  25,  as  I  recall,  I  said  at 
the  time  I  was  very  pleased  that  he  had  come 
forward  with  legislation  that  included  specific 
reference  to  sexual  harassment.  I  withdraw 
not  a  word  of  the  congratulations  that  I 
offered  at  that  time  because  in  principle  it  is 
a  very  significant  step.  Many  of  us  have— I 
certainly  have— over  the  past  number  of  years 
talked  to  women  who  have  faced  sexual 
harassment  in  the  work  place  and  the  difficul- 
ties that  have  ensued  from  that.  Until  May 
of  this  year,  there  had  never  been  in  this 
country  legislation  introduced  to  the  parlia- 
ments specifically  to  prevent  sexual  harass- 
ment. At  that  time,  I  came  forward  with  a 
private  member's  bill  and,  subsequent  to  that, 
the  government  has  come  forward  with  its 
own  legislation.  I  applaud  its  move  in 
principle. 

The  problem  for  working  women  was  a 
severe  one  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  still  is 
a  severe  problem.  All  available  evidence  indi- 
cated that  somewhere  between  50  and  90 
per  cent  of  working  women  face  sexual  harass- 
ment in  the  work  place.  That  is  quite  aston- 
ishing. For  the  record  to  substantiate  that, 
I  would  offer  a  survey  by  the  Ad  Hoc  Group 
for  Equal  Rights  for  Women  which  reported 
that  50  per  cent  of  those  surveyed  reported 
experiencing  sexual  harassment  on  the  job,  a 
survey  conducted  by  the  Working  Women's 
Institute  which  revealed  70  per  cent  and  the 
famous   Redbook  reader  response  survey  of 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5163 


more  than  9,000  women  which  showed  that 
88  per  cent  of  women  had  experienced  sexual 
harassment  in  the  work  place.  It  was  a  prob- 
lem of  stunning  proportions. 

The  problem  was  that  our  legislation  in 
Ontario  prohibited  only  sexual  discrimination. 
The  commission  was  hearing  sexual  harass- 
ment cases  at  the  time  when  I  brought  my 
bill  forward  in  May.  The  initial  reaction  of 
the  government  was  simply  to  say,  "We  have 
read  our  legislation  as  showing  we  can  do 
something  about  this."  In  fact,  I  think  that 
was  not  a  good  argument  simply  from  sheer 
numbers.  Although  most  women  experienced 
sexual  harassment,  hardly  any  had  gone  to 
the  commission.  Those  who  had  faced  a  com- 
mission that  rejected  most  of  the  cases  and 
provided  very  little  assistance,  even  in  the 
cases  that  were  finally  won  with  the  greatest 
of  difficulty  before  the  commission. 

I  respect  very  much  the  fact  that  the 
Minister  of  Labour  has  changed  his  position 
from  that  time  on  the  wording  of  the  old 
human  rights  legislation  and  what  that  did 
or  did  not  do  to  help  working  women  in 
terms  of  sexual  harassment.  It  is  not  very 
often  we  see  the  kind  of  shift  in  the  Legis- 
lature as  we  have  seen  in  this  instance.  I 
think  it  does  the  Minister  of  Labour  an 
immense  amount  of  personal  credit  that  since 
May  he  has  been  able  to  change  his  posi- 
tion and  come  forward  with  specific  legisla- 
tion because,  until  the  day  this  legislation  is 
passed,  nothing  stands  to  help  working  wo- 
men suffering  from  sexual  harassment.  Their 
options  are  limited  to  quitting,  rejecting  the 
advances  at  risk  of  their  jobs  or  simply 
putting  up  with  the  harassment.  I  think  that 
is  fundamentally  wrong,  and  I  am  glad  we 
are  moving  finally  to  change  that  in  Ontario. 

The  parts  of  the  bill  that  deal  specifically 
with  sexual  harassment  are  somewhat  dif- 
ferent from  the  bill  I  brought  forward.  The 
central  concern  I  have  about  the  bill  is  one 
I  referenced  by  way  of  interjection  when  the 
minister  spoke  in  this  debate  last  night.  It 
deals  with  the  use  of  the  word  "persistent." 
I  do  not  mean  to  speak  to  that  particular 
section  but  really  about  the  theory  behind 
the  use  of  the  word  "persistent"  in  the  legis- 
lation. It  seems  to  me  that  the  very  presence 
of  that  word  "persistent"  is  the  ultimate  in- 
adequacy of  this  part  of  the  bill.  It  provides 
a  gap  so  big  that  bosses  and  employers  will 
be  able  to  drive  a  truckload  of  employees 
through  it. 

What  does  "persistent"  mean?  The  minister 
has  to  this  point  refused  to  define  it,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  persistent  is  more  than  once. 
Whether  it  is  two  times,  10  times,  20  times 
or  100  times,  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  want 


to  leave  that  up  to  some  commission.  I  am 
not  impressed  with  the  way  this  commission, 
currently  structured,  has  handled  women's 
issues,  and  I  do  not  want  to  leave  it  up  to 
that  commission.  I  want  us  in  the  Legislature 
to  be  very  specific  about  it. 

As  I  read  the  legislation,  if  the  boss  should 
grab  a  lady  and  say,  "Hey,  baby,  let's  get  it 
on  in  the  stock  room  or  else,"  that  is  not 
sexual  harassment  by  the  definition  of  this 
bill.  That  is  the  very  thing  we  are  trying  to 
stop  in  Ontario,  and  I  do  not  think  it  would 
do  us  any  credit  as  legislators  to  leave  such 
a  gigantic  loophole  as  we  will  do  if  we  permit 
the  word  "persistent"  to  remain  in  this  legis- 
lation. 

It  is  from  no  pride  of  authorship  that  I 
argue  stronger  language  more  in  keeping  with 
my  original  bill  but  because  this  is  inade- 
quate, and  I  am  glad  the  minister  has  de- 
cided to  send  the  bill  to  committee  over  the 
winter  so  it  can  be  amended.  I  hope  it  will 
be  amended  in  that  way  because,  in  Ontario 
today,  all  working  women  run  the  risk  of 
facing  sexual  harassment  on  the  job  and, 
because  of  that,  having  their  livelihood 
jeopardized.  Working  women  deserve  more 
from  this  Legislative  Assembly. 

I  think  the  wording  in  the  bill  brought 
forward  by  the  government  is  unacceptable 
to  the  vast  majority  of  working  women,  even 
though  realizing  the  principle  in  itself  is  a 
significant  step.  I  think  working  women  in 
this  province  deserve  strong  protection  against 
sexual  harassment  in  the  work  place. 

The  other  element  of  the  bill  I  want  to 
address  briefly  deals  with  the  way  it  relatas 
to  the  report  Life  Together  and  the  regret- 
table failure  of  the  government  to  adopt  all 
the  proposals  brought  forward  and,  most 
specifically,  the  proposals  for  outlawing  or 
prohibiting  discrimination  in  this  province  on 
the  basis  of  sexual  orientation.  That  is  a  real 
tragedy. 

One  of  the  first  uses  of  the  word  "dis- 
criminatory" I  found  around  this  place  was 
drawn  to  my  attention  by  the  member  for 
St.  George  (Mrs.  Campbell).  She  is  not  here 
at  the  moment,  but  I  thank  her  for  it.  We 
were  talking  about  discrimination  in  another 
context,  which  had  to  deal  with  the  office  of 
the  Ombudsman.  The  question  came  up  of 
what  was  unproperly  discriminatory,  and  the 
member  for  St.  George  responded,  as  only 
she  can,  by  saying,  "What  on  earth  is 
properly  discriminatory  in  this  province?"  I 
think  this  is  not  properly  discriminatory  and, 
if  we  could  find  a  similar  phrase  to  describe 
this  in  terms  of  discriminaton,  I  would  offer 
the  phrase  "popularly  dscriminatory,"  because 


5164 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  is  exactly  what  we  are  facing  with  the 
exclusion  of  sexual  orientation  from  this  bill. 
I  do  not  believe  we  can  deny  basic  human 
rights  to  any  identifiable  group  in  this  so- 
ciety, but  the  government's  failure  to  include 
sexual  orientation,  in  spite  of  the  Life  To- 
gether report,  does  exactly  that. 

If  it  is  not  an  over-personal  reflection  to 
bring  into  the  House,  I  recall  what  human 
rights  were  about  when  I  was  growing  up  in 
the  north  end  of  Hamilton,  which  was  a 
rather  tougher  neighbourhood  than  I  guess 
most  of  us  are  from.  When  I  Was  a  kid,  one 
of  my  two  best  friends  was  German  and  one 
was  Japanese.  Maybe  that  was  a  strange 
relationship  for  us,  in  some  way  an  apology 
for  what  an  earlier  generation  of  people  had 
done  to  each  other  in  terms  of  degradation 
of  civil  rights,  but  it  was  a  strong  relation- 
ship that  has  taught  me  a  lot.  I  think  about 
my  German  friend  from  childhood  and  the 
lessons  I  learned— the  simple  fact  that  basic 
human  rights  in  any  community  are  invisible. 
He  could  speak  to  that  in  a  way  I  cannot, 
but  in  a  Way  I  can  appreciate. 

I  think  about  my  Japanese  friend  from 
childhood  and  about  the  deep  sense  of  per- 
sonal guilt  I  had  when  I  learned  what  Canada 
had  done  during  the  Second  World  War  to 
the  Japanese  people  living  in  this  country, 
born  in  this  country.  Although  it  happened 
before  my  birth,  I  have  a  sense  of  guilt  I 
will  never  be  able  to  get  rid  of.  I  can  recall 
going  to  my  parents  as  a  young  person  and 
saying  to  my  parents  with  total  innocence, 
as  I  guess  only  a  kid  can,  that  what  hap- 
pened to  the  Japanese  during  the  war  just 
was  not  fair.  My  parents  said,  "Yes,  we 
know." 
4:20  p.m. 

I  hope  younger  members  or  future 
members  of  my  family  and  younger  people 
in  this  province  will  not  have  to  look  back 
one  day  on  what  we  did  in  1980-81  in  regard 
to  basic  human  rights  for  gays  in  this  prov- 
ince and  say  the  same  thing.  That  would  be 
a  tragedy.  I  do  not  want  them  to  have  the 
sense  of  guilt  about  that  issue  that  I  feel 
about  the  Japanese  issue. 

We  cannot  discriminate  in  this  province 
between  different  kinds  of  discrimination.  It 
is  time  for  us  to  say  that  discrimination  is 
fundamentally  wrong  and  we  will  have  none 
of  it  in  Ontario.  It  would  be  an  unfortunate 
act  of  moral  cowardice  on  the  part  of  this 
assembly  if  it  did  not  take  the  opportunity 
that  will  be  presented  to  do  something  about 
that  by  specific  legislation. 

We  learned  from  hard  experience  in  the 
north  end  of  Hamilton  that  discrimination  is 


fundamentally   wrong.    In   the   words   of   an 
earlier  time,  "it  just  ain't  fair." 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
address  myself  to  Bill  209,  An  Act  to  revise 
and  extend  Protection  of  Human  Rights  in 
Ontario,  and  to  suport  the  bill  in  principle. 
I  only  hope  the  minister's  opening  statements 
will  be  accepted  and  the  intent  of  the  legis- 
lation will  be  reached  to  its  maximum.  As 
he  stated,  the  legislation  will  place  Ontario 
in  the  vanguard  of  human  rights  legislation, 
which  is  a  rather  rational  statement  to  up- 
hold. 

It  is  broadening  human  rights  legislation 
to  include  a  wide  spectrum  of  almost  all 
persons  in  Ontario's  social  fabric.  In  particu- 
lar, the  purpose  of  the  legislation  has  been 
to  respond  to  certain  recommendations  of 
the  report  of  the  Human  Rights  Code  review 
committee  of  1977,  Life  Together. 

One  of  the  recommendations  incorporated 
in  Bill  209  relates  to  discrimination  on  the 
grounds  of  handicaps.  That  is  prohibited  in 
all  areas  of  the  code.  I  hope  handicapped 
persons  achieve  this  measure  of  independence 
and  self-sufficiency  based  upon  the  capabili- 
ties and  job  opportunities  available.  The 
minister  in  his  opening  statement  said:  "In 
this  particular  area,  handicap  is  broadly  de- 
fined in  section  9b  and  includes  past,  present 
and  perceived  physical  disability,  mental  ill- 
ness, mental  retardation  and  learning  dis- 
abilities. After  much  deliberation,  we  con- 
cluded that  in  this  regard,  Life  Together  had 
not  gone  far  enough  and  none  of  the  major 
categories  of  disabilities  should  be  excluded. 
This  is  the  broadest  definition  of  any  Cana- 
dian jurisdiction  and  will  also  protect  the 
victims  of  past  injuries,  including  those  who 
have  received  workmen's  compensation  bene- 
fits." 

That  is  going  to  cover  a  rather  broad  area 
if,  as  I  interpret  it,  it  goes  back  to  past 
injuries  that  occurred  to  workers  in  the 
province.  I  suggest  there  are  going  to  have 
to  be  many  changes  made  in  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Act  as  it  is  today.  I  suppose 
the  minister  is  going  to  have  to  move  in  that 
area  if  he  agrees  with  Professor  Weiler's  re- 
port on  new  directions  for  the  Workmen's 
Compensation  Board  to  function  in.  I  sug- 
gest there  are  some  good  recommendations 
in  that  area  that  will  have  to  be  moved  on 
now.  There  should  be  a  bill  put  forward  here 
in  this  Legislature  right  now  to  incorporate 
the  intent  of  that  statement  by  the  minister 
under  this  proposed  human  rights  legisla- 
tion. 

I  do  not  have  to  tell  the  minister  about 
the  problems  I  had  in  trying  to  obtain  em- 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5165 


ployment  for  injured  workers  even  within 
the  industry  in  which  they  were  injured. 
Those  industries  turn  them  out  on  the  street 
and  say  they  have  no  responsibilities  in  this 
area.  I  look  forward  to  key  amendments  to 
the  Workmen's  Compensation  Act  if  we  want 
to  see  this  bill  function  as  it  should  in  rela- 
tion to  human  rights  and  opportunities  for 
the  injured  or  handicapped  persons  in  On- 
tario. 

As  has  been  mentioned  before,  the  minister 
is  going  to  have  to  make  changes  in  the  On- 
tario Housing  Corporation.  In  my  area,  and 
I  am  sure  in  other  areas  in  Ontario,  handi- 
capped persons  are  refused  rental  agreements 
on  the  basis  that  they  do  not  have  the  neces- 
sary equipment  to  allow  them  to  move  about 
in  wheelchairs  or  other  means  of  transporta- 
tion. 

Group  homes  were  mentioned  earlier.  The 
minister  is  going  to  have  to  give  some  direc- 
tion to  local  municipalities.  Some  have  moved 
in  this  area  to  accept  group  homes,  for  which 
we  have  to  give  them  credit,  but  other 
municipalities  have  not  moved  in  that  direc- 
tion. We  are  going  to  require  amendments  or 
different  thinking  by  the  Minister  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications  {Mr.  Snow)  as 
it  relates  to  the  issuing  of  driver  licences.  I 
have  had  a  number  of  cases  brought  to  my 
attention  of  people  who,  because  they  are 
diabetic,  are  refused  certain  operators' 
licences,  such  as  to  drive  a  tandem  dump 
truck.  They  cannot  be  employed  in  that  area 
alone,  and  some  of  them  have  to  sacrifice 
their  income  because  they  are  diabetic,  yet 
statements  from  their  family  physicians  state 
it  is  controlled. 

In  this  particular  area,  I  think  there  may 
be  a  conflict  with  federal  legislation  as  it 
relates  to  human  rights  legislation.  I  can  re- 
call a  young  chap  who  was  working  for  the 
CPR  in  Thunder  Bay  in  a  track  gang.  He 
was  only  19  years  of  age  and  all  of  a  sudden 
they  got  a  medical  report  and  he  was  dis- 
missed right  there  and  then  because  he  was 
a  diabetic,  and  even  though  it  was  controlled 
he  lost  his  job.  I  tried  to  get  his  job  back 
for  him,  but  they  said  there  were  certain 
rules  that  applied  to  persons  employed  at 
CPR  and  diabetics  were  not  acceptable  in 
their  work  force.  I  suggest  we  are  going  to 
need  some  new  amendments  to  certain  other 
pieces  of  legislation  to  bring  about  changes 
in  this  area,  particularly  in  MTC  legislation. 

When  one  wants  to  seek  employment  with 
a  government  agency,  for  example,  the  Liquor 
Control  Board  of  Ontario,  I  suggest  that  the 
minister  take  a  good  look  at  this  application 
form.  To  sum  it  up,  it  says:  "I  hereby  declare 


that  the  foregoing  information  is  true  and 
complete  to  my  knowledge.  I  understand  that 
a  false  statement  may  disqualify  me  from 
employment  or  cause  my  dismissal."  Some 
rather  important  questions  are  asked:  "Have 
you  any  physical  handicaps  to  sight,  hearing, 
speech,  limbs?  Have  you  had  or  do  you  have 
any  trouble  with  heart,  lungs  or  back?"  "Have 
you  been  treated  for  mental  illness?"  They 
ask  for  weight  in  pounds,  and  height. 

There  is  another  white  form  that  must  be 
filled  out,  and  I  want  to  read  this  into  the 
record.  If  the  minister  tells  me  this  is  not 
discriminatory,  I  do  not  know  how  he  is  go- 
ing to  relate  it  to  this  new  bill.  This  form  is 
from  the  Liquor  Control  Board  of  Ontario, 
and  it  says:  "Please  use  reverse  for  any  de- 
tailed explanations.  Please  answer  the  follow- 
ing questions  in  full:  1.  Have  you  ever  had 
a  serious  illness,  injury  or  operation?  Describe 
and  give  dates. 

"2.  Have  you  ever  been  (a)  refused  employ- 
ment because  of  your  health;  (b)  refused 
life  insurance;  (c)  rejected  for  services  in  the 
armed  forces;  (d)  discharged  from  the  armed 
forces  for  medical  reasons?  If  yes  to  any  of 
this  section,  please  explain,"  and  they  have 
little  blocks  here  for  yes  and  no. 

"3.  Have  you  ever  filed  a  claim  for  veterans' 
disability? 

"4.  Have  you  ever  filed  a  claim  for  com- 
pensation because  of  an  industrial  injury 
or  disease  and  why?" 

Then  is  goes  on  to  the  second  page:  "Have 
you  ever  had  head  injuries,  visual  defects, 
fainting  spells,  convulsions  or  fits;  nervous  con- 
ditions or  breakdowns;  spine  or  back  injury; 
spine  or  back  operation;  hip,  knee  or  foot 
injury;  hip,  knee  or  foot  operation;  shoulder, 
elbow  and  hand  injury;  shoulder,  elbow  and 
hand  operation;  heart  trouble;  lung  trouble; 
asthma;  hay  fever;  allergy;  skin  trouble; 
stomach  trouble;  kidney  trouble;  liver  trouble; 
diabetes;  hernia  or  rupture;  bone  infection; 
varicose  veins  or  ulcers;  broken  or  fractured 
bones;  backaches"— boy,  they  have  covered 
the  whole  anatomy  here— "arthritis  or  rheuma- 
tism?" 

4:30  p.m. 

It  goes  on  to  say:  "I  certify  the  above 
answers  are  true  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge 
and  will  form  part  of  my  conditions  of  em- 
ployment if  accepted." 

There  is  a  complete  medical  history  there, 
but  I  look  at  one  particular  item  which  says, 
"Have  you  ever  filed  a  claim  with  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Board  for  industrial  in- 
jury or  disease?"  I  do  not  have  to  tell  the 
minister   that  this   is   just  one   of  the  many 


5166 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


forms  a  person  who  is  seeking  employment 
has  to  fill  out  today.  If  we  look  at  this  as  it 
relates  to  injured  persons  claiming  from  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board,  many  of 
whom  are  trying  to  obtain  employment,  the 
minute  they  file  an  application  like  that  they 
knew  the  response  is  going  to  be  nil.  They 
will  not  be  accepted.  This  applies  not  only 
to  the  Liquor  Control  Board  of  Ontario  but 
also  to  many  industries  in  the  province  where 
an  injured  worker  has  been  trying  to  get 
established  in  industry. 

Am  I  to  interpret  this  particular  section 
of  the  act  the  minister  quoted,  "any  physical 
handicap,"  to  say  that  the  ministry  or  the 
government  is  going  to  come  through  with 
new  legislation  which  says  industry  has  an 
obligation  to  a  worker  who  has  been  injured? 
Is  the  legislation  going  to  say  this  person  must 
be  employed  in  industry,  or  is  it  going  to 
shove  him  out  on  the  street  with  a  measly 
pension  of  about  $80,  $90,  $100  or  $200  a 
month  and  say:  "That  is  industry's  responsi- 
bility. We  have  paid  for  the  injury"?  This  is 
the  area  I  am  concerned  about. 

I  hope  the  intent  of  this  legislation  will 
give  that  provision,  as  the  minister  has  indi- 
cated, to  cover  the  person  who  has  claimed 
from  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Board.  If 
not,  I  would  like  to  see  amendments  com? 
forward  in  this  session  to  increase  the  benefits 
to  those  persons  who  have  been  injured  and 
who  cannot  be  reasonably  accepted  in  in- 
dustry. 

I  mentioned  veterans.  When  veterans  came 
back  from  overseas  there  was  always  a  job 
available  for  them  in  some  government 
agency.  Those  persons  had  either  been 
maimed  by  the  war  or  had  some  war  injury. 
I  think  of  the  Welland  Canal,  for  example, 
which  is  now  part  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Sea- 
way, where  almost  every  person  who  served 
overseas  and  was  injured,  lost  an  arm  or  a 
limb,  had  a  job  available  there.  It  is  not 
there  today. 

When  I  first  came  into  the  Legislature 
there  were  injured  persons  here  who  were 
running  the  elevators  in  this  building.  We  do 
not  see  those  persons  today.  I  suggest  that 
in  this  piece  of  legislation  there  is  going  to 
have  to  be  some  clear-cut  direction  given  to 
industry  and  governments  saying  there  is  a 
place  for  these  persons  in  a  society.  There 
should  be  self-sufficiency.  They  should  be 
employed  so  they  can  at  least  earn  a  decent 
wage  to  maintain  a  standard  of  living  and 
look  after  their  families.  This  particular  bill 
is  a  step  in  the  right  direction.  I  support  it. 

Mr.  Samis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to  speak 
briefly  on  this  bill.  First  of  all,  I  will  say  I 


am  pleased  to  support  it.  I  welcome  the  ini- 
tiative that  it  represents.  I  congratulate  the 
minister  for  the  work  that  has  gone  into  it, 
because  I  think  it  is  probably  the  most  far- 
reaching  change  in  human  rights  legislation 
in  the  history  of  Ontario.  On  that  basis  I 
certainly  welcome  the  bill. 

I  am  especially  pleased,  as  a  member  of 
the  Legislature,  by  the  inclusion  of  the  pro- 
visions for  the  handicapped  and  those  in- 
volving sexual  harassment.  I  am  pleased 
about  the  handicapped  provisions  because  I 
think  it  represents  a  major  change  in  the 
government's  position.  We  all  recall  the 
policy  advocated  last  spring  in  the  Legisla- 
ture that  they  were  to  be  provided  with 
separate  legislation,  distinct  from  the  Human 
Rights  Code.  The  handicapped  organizations 
across  the  province,  and  I  know  in  my  own 
particular  riding,  as  well  as  both  opposition 
parties,  fought  hard  to  have  the  handicapped 
included  in  the  Human  Rights  Code.  Here 
we  are  at  last.  The  government  has  changed 
its  position.  It  has  recognized  the  validity  of 
the  position  advocated  by  the  handicapped 
and  the  opposition  parties  and  has  incor- 
porated the  rights  of  the  handicapped  in  the 
human  rights  code.  I  congratulate  the  min- 
ister for  that. 

I  do  not  intend  to  repeat  some  of  the  pro- 
posals made  by  my  colleague  regarding  the 
various  provisions  under  the  human  rights 
legislation,  especially  dealing  with  accom- 
modation, but  I  do  hope  the  implementation 
of  the  provisions  on  the  handicapped  will  be 
conducted  by  some  sort  of  public  education 
campaign  on  the  rights  and  role  of  the  handi- 
capped in  Ontario. 

As  for  the  provisions  dealing  with  sexual 
harassment,  I  welcome  those  because  I  think 
they  were  badly  needed.  I  think  they  will 
serve  to  protect  women  with  at  least  a  modi- 
cum of  protection  in  tbe  work  place  as  well 
as  the  domicile. 

Like  most  of  my  colleagues,  if  not  all,  I 
have  severe  reservations  about  the  inclusion 
of  the  word  "persistent"  in  the  definition  of 
the  word  "harassment."  I  really  do  not  see 
the  need  for  introducing  the  whole  concept 
of  persistence  in  the  definition.  I  think  it 
seriously  undermines  the  real  rights  of  the 
individuals  affected,  in  that  it  makes  redress 
that  much  more  difficult  and  will  cause  all 
sorts  of  problems  for  those  investigating  and 
adjudicating  the  complaints  under  the  provi- 
sions. 

I  can  guess  what  the  minister  is  going  to 
say  in  defence  of  the  inclusion  of  the  concept 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5167 


of  persistence,  but  I  believe  the  result  will 
be  a  considerable  weakening  of  the  provision. 
Many  individuals  will  wonder  whether  they 
really  have  any  chance  of  obtaining  justice 
if  they  have  to  prove  not  only  the  existence 
of  the  act  or  acts  of  harassment  but  also  the 
degree  of  persistence. 

To  me,  the  act  of  harassment  is  repre- 
hensible and  repulsive.  Surely  the  purpose 
of  the  code  is  to  protect  women  from  any 
and  all  forms  of  sexual  harassment,  espe- 
cially at  work.  Why  dilute  the  provision 
beyond  that?  If  the  act  of  harassment  is 
a  violation  of  a  person's  human  rights,  why 
do  we  have  to  introduce  the  concept  of 
persistence  or  repetition  at  all?  It  simply 
does  not  make  sense,  and  I  am  sure  the 
women  of  this  province  will  make  their 
concerns  well  known  to  the  minister  and 
the  committee  in  this  upcoming  winter  ses- 
sion. 

I  welcome  the  inclusion  of  the  provisions 
dealing  with  age  for  the  young,  because  I 
think  there  were  all  sorts  of  problems  there 
involving  discrimination.  I  do  have  to  con- 
fess, I  have  some  doubts  in  my  own  mind 
as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  existing  provisions 
as  they  relate  to  people  over  the  age  of  40. 
I  have  had  frequent  complaints  in  my  riding 
office  and  I  am  very  struck  by  the  fact  that 
people  over  40  are  not  aware  of  the  existing 
provision. 

I  welcome  the  provisions  dealing  with 
the  rights  of  families  vis-a-vis  accommoda- 
tions. I  welcome  the  provisions  especially 
protecting  the  rights  of  people  on  social 
assistance  who  suffer  all  forms  of  discrimina- 
tion in  our  society.  I  welcome  the  provi- 
sions requiring  the  commission  to  commence 
proceedings  within  30  days  and  to  make  a 
decision  within  30  days  upon  completion  of 
their  investigation.  I  also  welcome  the  fact 
that  they  will  now  be  obliged  to  inform 
someone  who  has  issued  a  complaint 
whether  or  not  they  are  proceeding  with 
the  investigation  of  the  complaint. 

In  closing,  I  want  to  emphasize  something 
I  think  is  crucial  to  the  Human  Rights  Code; 
that  is,  some  sort  of  campaign  to  make  this 
known  throughout  Ontario  so  that  every- 
body knows  and  understands  what  his  or 
her  rights  are  under  this  code.  I  am  not 
talking  about  some  sort  of  partisan,  slick 
campaign  such  as  we  had  this  fall  regard- 
ing energy,  environment  and  all  that  sort 
of  muck— industry  and  tourism  as  well.  I 
mean  a  really  meaningful  information  cam- 
paign, especially  one  designed  to  reach  the 
people  whose  rights  are  being  protected  by 
these   amendments:    the   women,   the   handi- 


capped, the  tenants  and  the  young  people. 
I  have  a  feeling  that  most  people  in  our 
province  do  not  know  their  rights  and  know 
precious  little  about  our  existing  Human 
Rights  Code.  The  good  intentions  of  the 
bill  will  go  for  naught  if  we  do  not  effec- 
tively make  people  aware  of  their  real 
rights  and  the  recourse  available  to  them. 

I  draw  the  minister's  attention  to  the 
Business  Practices  Act,  which  I  think  was 
introduced  here  in  1975  by  John  Clements. 
I  thmk  it  represented  a  fairly  substantial 
improvement  in  terms  of  consumer  rights, 
but  hardly  anybody  in  Ontario  knows  what 
those  provisions  are.  Hardly  anybody  under- 
stands what  added  rights  that  bill  gave  them 
in  terms  of  consumer  transactions.  I  have 
a  terrible  feeling  that  bill  has  gone  almost 
for  naught  because  of  the  failure  of  the 
government  to  publicize  its  provisions  and 
to  make  people  aware  of  what  their  rights 
are. 

I  plead  with  the  minister,  once  this  bill 
is  adopted  by  committee  and  receives  third 
reading  this  spring,  to  see  that  the  govern- 
ment embarks  on  a  massive  information  cam- 
paign, specifically  designed  to  make  the 
people  of  Ontario  know  what  their  rights 
are  and  how  those  rights  have  been 
strengthened  by  the  amendments  adopted 
by  this  Legislature. 

4:40   p.m. 

Mr.  McGuigan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to 
support  Bill  209,  "a  new  beginning,"  in  the 
minister's  words. 

If  I  can  reminisce  for  a  few  minutes,  as 
did  one  of  the  other  members,  in  1933 
I  was  10  years  old.  That  was  the  worst  year 
of  the  10  lost  years  of  the  great  Depression. 
My  family  had  a  large  operation  in  farm- 
ing: fruit  and  vegetables,  tobacco,  and  live- 
stock. It  was  quite  an  extensive  operation 
that  employed  a  lot  of  people.  While  tractors 
were  just  coming  into  general  use,  most  of 
the  work  of  haying,  hoeing,  barn  cleaning, 
thinning  and  harvesting  fruit  and  all  those 
operations  were  performed  by  hand.  As  the 
competition  was  fierce,  both  locally  and  with 
the  United  States,  prices  were  low  and,  of 
course,  wages  were  low.  It  was  and  still  is 
a  low-wage  industry. 

Each  summer  people,  mainly  those  from 
the  city  of  Windsor  but  also  transients 
moving  all  across  Canada  mostly  by  the 
railways,  came  into  the  village  of  Cedar 
Springs  and  set  up  a  hobo  jungle.  There 
were  several  of  them  in  the  village.  As  a 
youth  I  grew  up  in  a  hobo  jungle  in  the 
summertime;    I    certainly    learned    a    great 


5168 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


deal  and  bad  a  great  many  experiences  at 
a  rather  early  and  tender  age. 

Many  of  these  people  were  new  Can- 
adians. They  lacked  language  skills,  they 
lacked  educational  skills  'and  probably  above 
all  else— and  this  is  in  the  context  of  those 
days— they  were  not  considered  at  that  time 
to  be  part  of  the  mainstream  of  Canadian 
society  and  they  were  discriminated  against 
because  of  that.  Many  of  them  were  highly 
skilled,  very  moral  and  fine  people. 

One  I  remember  used  to  entertain  himself 
and  everybody  else  by  singing  what  I  inter- 
preted at  that  time  to  be  grand  opera.  He 
really  had  'a  beautiful  voice  singing  un- 
accompanied; he  would  entertain  everybody. 
I  do  not  know  what  the  arias  were  from  or 
even  if  that  is  the  right  word,  but  certainly 
it  was  great  music.  Some  were  mainstream 
people  down  on  their  luck.  Two  I  remember 
particularly  were  bankers.  They  were  hope- 
less 'alcoholics  but  very  likeable,  nice  fel- 
lows who  had  been  reduced  to  that  work  by 
alcoholism. 

But  common  to  all  these  people  was  their 
dignity  and  basic  feeling  of  self-worth.  Even 
in  those  very  trying  circumstances  they  had 
a  humanity  and  dignity  I  have  always  ad- 
mired throughout  my  life.  Whenever  I  am 
in  circumstances  where  I  might  feel  sorry 
for  myself,  I  always  to  this  day  think  back 
to  those  people.  It  gave  me  a  lifelong  re- 
spect for  the  dignity  of  the  human  spirit 
and  of  the  human  person. 

All  of  them  were  victims  of  the  cycle  of 
depression  that  seems  to  affect  our  society 
approximately  every  50  years.  I  guess  we 
are  about  the  50-year  anniversary  right 
about  now.  I  hope  it  will  not  happen.  But 
most  of  them  were  victims  of  some  sort  of 
discrimination;  age,  sex,  colour  and  physical 
handicap  were  the  most  apparent.  Creed 
and  racial  origin  may  have  been  factors  but, 
in  the  raw  crucible  of  the  Depression,  where 
such  factors  were  brought  out  more  than 
normal,  this  really  was  not  apparent  to  me, 
especially  as  a  child. 

The  older  men  and  women  were  perhaps 
the  most  pitiful.  They  could  not  stand  the 
hard  physical  work  and  the  rough  life  and1 
conditions.  Women  were  paid  the  same  as 
men— 'both  equally  low.  Women  were  easy 
victims  of  sexual  harassment.  Even  as  a 
10-year-old  and  later  on  throughout  that 
period  until  it  came  to  an  end  in  1939,  it 
was  very  apparent  to  me  the  sexual  harass- 
ment that  was  carried  on— 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  When  they  got  Hepburn 
defeated,  things  improved. 


Mr.  McGuigan:  There  were  other  events 
too.  It  was  very  evident  to  me  how  women 
suffered  in  those  times.  I  certainly  made  it  a 
rule  in  my  own  business  that,  whenever  and 
wherever  I  became  aware  of  any  of  that,  I 
brought  it  to  an  absolute  halt. 

I  share  the  same  concern  as  other  members 
about  the  word  "persistent."  I  suppose  the 
minister  is  torn  between  the  position  where 
someone  might  accidentally  bump  into 
another  person  and  that  would  be  considered 
sexual  harassment  in  their  view,  or  might  be 
cause  for  laying  a  charge,  as  compared  to  a 
bona  fide  case  that  is  brought  about  by  per- 
sistence. It  seems  to  me  that  somewhere  be- 
tween those  two  extremes  a  better  word  or  a 
better  definition  should  be  found.  I  cannot 
suggest  what  it  might  be,  but  it  seems  to  me 
there  is  a  midpoint  much  earlier  than  per- 
sistence to  protect  women  in  that  case. 

In  these  hobo  jungles  that  I  spent  my  youth 
in,  colour  was  not  a  problem,  because  I  sup- 
pose in  those  very  dark  days  a  black  person 
would  not  venture  into  the  job  market  since 
it  was  rather  a  vicious  place.  But  the 
physically  handicapped  were  there. 

I  remember  an  immigrant  from  Yugoslavia 
who  told  me  that  in  his  own  country  where 
the  climate  was  dry— I  do  not  know  Yugo- 
slavia that  well— in  the  summer  time  he  slept 
out  on  the  bare  ground  and  when  he  came 
to  Canada  as  an  immigrant  he  continued  this 
practice  in  the  summertime  for  a  year  or  two. 
He  ended  up  a  rigid  arthritic.  If  I  ever  saw 
a  person  as  stiff  as  a  poker,  it  was  that  man. 
It  was  a  great  agony  for  him  to  work  and 
yet  he  did  work  until  quite  well  on  in  life. 

I  remember  another  person  who  was  raised 
in  the  village  and  who  lost  his  leg  in  a  hunt- 
ing accident  as  a  young  man.  Of  course,  those 
were  the  days  when  there  was  no  welfare  or 
anything  of  that  sort  of  thing.  I  did  not  see 
this  but  I  am  told  he  earned  his  living  for  a 
year  or  two  by  dragging  himself  around,  up 
and  down  the  strawberry  rows  and  rasp- 
berries, and  so  on,  simply  dragging  himself. 
He  was  helped  by  the  community  taking  a 
collection  and  raising  money  to  buy  a  wooden 
leg.  Today  you  would  say  prosthesis,  but  then 
they  talked  about  a  wooden  leg.  That  man 
married  and  raised  a  family.  He  is  dead  now. 
With  the  burden  of  that  wooden  leg,  he  kept 
up  to  everyone  else.  He  never  let  down  his 
human  dignity.  In  my  view,  he  was  really  a 
Terry  Fox  of  a  small  community  years  ago. 
His  name  was  Dan  Attewell. 
4:50  p.m. 

I  want  to  say  how  much  I  appreciate  the 
provisions    in    the    bill,    especially    for    the 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5169 


handicapped.  We  might  criticize  the  govern- 
ment for  bringing  this  forward  so  tardily. 
Those  people  who  take  the  assumption  that  if 
we  provide  employment  for  these  people  we 
are  going  to  take  it  away  from  somebody  else 
must  be  ignoring  the  history  of  the  post-war 
years,  when  the  baby-bonus  group  hit  the 
labour  market  and  so  many  women  came  into 
the  labour  market  and  we  actually  had  a 
frenzy  of  activity  for  a  good  many  years.  It 
seems  that  workers  created  demands  that  fed 
on  themselves. 

Adding  these  people  to  the  work  force,  I 
submit,  is  only  going  to  benefit  society 
rather  than  take  away  from  it.  We  would 
have  to  assume  that  there  is  nothing  more 
to  be  done  in  this  province,  that  we  do  not 
have  lands  that  need  reforesting,  that  we  do 
not  have  lakes  and  rivers  that  require  clean- 
ing up,  that  we  do  not  have  the  need  for 
research  and  development  and  for  great  and 
small  renewable  energy  projects.  There  are 
so  many  glaring  opportunities  for  work  if 
we  only  had  the  will,  the  money  and  the 
people  to  do  them.  I  wonder  why  it  has 
been  delayed  all  these  years.  However,  it  is 
here  now  and  I  certainly  welcome  it  and 
wish  to  support  it. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  rise  today  to  speak  to  the  bill. 
I  welcome  the  bill  as  all  members  of  the 
House  do.  It  is  important  at  this  stage  to 
re-evaluate  the  human  rights  legislation  in 
the  province.  It  is  important  to  do  so  in  the 
worldwide  context  that  the  member  for 
Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick)  spoke  of  in  his 
speech  earlier.  Many  of  the  items  I  would 
have  liked  to  speak  to  have  been  spoken  to 
by  other  members  to  this  point. 

I  am  particularly  happy  that  the  section 
on  the  handicapped  has  been  included  in 
the  main  body  of  the  bill  and  is  not  being 
left  as  it  was  before  in  a  separate  bill  which 
put  them  in  a  separate  category.  One  of  the 
ma:or  reasons  we  opposed  that  last  bill  was 
that  it  did  that.  It,  therefore,  made  them  a 
special  case  and  not  part  of  the  general  body 
of  citizens.  The  member  for  Bellwoods  (Mr. 
McClellan)  spoke  about  a  number  of  very 
practical  problems  to  do  with  implementing 
actual  equal  rights  for  the  handicapped  and 
what  that  meant  in  terms  of  facilitating  ac- 
commodation and  access.  I  thought  his  com- 
ments were  very  useful  and  very  helpful. 

I  am  not  going  to  take  a  great  deal  of 
time,  because  a  number  of  people  wish  to 
speak  to  this  bill.  It  is  an  important  bill 
which  is  going  to  be  going  out  to  committee. 
Hopefully,  it  will  get  an  awful  lot  of  input, 
because  we  are  not  going  to  get  another  shot 


at  this  bill  for  a  long  time.  It  is  for  that 
reason  I  am  speaking  today  with  a  bit  of 
sadness  in  terms  of  the  major  omission  in 
the  bill.  That  has  to  do  with  another  major 
section  of  the  Life  Together  report  which 
had  recommended  the  inclusion  of  sexual 
orientation  as  a  ground  for  discrimination 
within  the  Human  Rights  Code. 

The  member  for  Riverdale  spoke  the  other 
day,  quite  thoughtfully  I  felt,  about  the  fact 
that  it  seems  as  if  our  society,  and  our  society 
as  it  is  represented  here  in  this  Legislature, 
is  unwilling  to  take  the  necessary  steps  at 
this  time  to  have  that  matter  included,  un- 
obtrusively in  my  view,  in  this  overall  bill  of 
opposing  discrimination  of  any  kind  against 
citizens  of  any  kind  in  the  province. 

In  my  view,  we  are  taking  a  step  back- 
wards passively  from  a  move  by  a  once- 
famous  prime  minister  of  this  country  who 
spoke  about  the  state  having  no  rights  and 
privileges  in  the  bedrooms  of  the  nation.  By 
not  acting  now  in  an  all-party  agreement  at 
this  time  on  the  matter  of  sexual  orientation, 
I  believe  we  are  missing  an  opportunity  to 
make  that  a  real  fact  for  a  large  group  of 
people  in  this  province.  I  regret  we  could 
not  all  have  done  it  and  all  stood  together 
and  taken  the  flak  because  if  it  is  not  entered 
and  brought  in  as  part  of  the  bill  by  the 
government  it  is  bringing  out,  in  my  view, 
an  awful  lot  of  fear  on  the  parts  of  other 
people  who  might  have  wanted  to  see  it 
included  in  terms  of  taking  the  initiative  to 
include  it  for  fear  of  having  that  thrown 
back  at  them  and  being  isolated  in  a  cam- 
paign as  pro  a  specific  minority  group  and 
anti  the  needs  and  wishes  of  the  province  as 
a  whole.  For  that  I  really  regret  an  all-party 
agreement  prior  to  the  entry  of  this  bill  was 
not  made.  We  are  now  left  in  the  position 
that  we  in  the  opposition  are  too  quiet  by 
half  on  this  issue. 

This  whole  business  of  sexual  orientation  is 
not  just  a  matter  of  homosexuality.  If  I  could 
poke  a  little  fun  at  us  all  here  today,  as  we 
are  all  uptight  about  this  issue  and  unwilling 
to  deal  with  it- 
Mr.  Nixon:  You  mean  all  six  of  us? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  It  is  not  just  us.  That 
is  not  the  reason  people  are  not  in  the  House. 
As  my  friend  knows,  they  normally  do  not 
come  in  at  all  for  these  speeches. 

I  am  talking  about  our  caucuses,  which 
have  all  discussed  this  matter  and  all,  in  our 
various  ways,  turned  away  from  it.  What  I 
want  to  say  is,  there  are  other  kinds  of  sexual 
orientation  which  now  are  not  given  protec- 
tion, not  just  homosexuality.  I  would  like  to 


5170 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


know  how  this  affects  a  woman  who  has  been 
deserted  and  is  living  in  Ontario  Housing 
Corporation  housing,  for  instance.  She  is 
living  with  two  or  three  kids;  she  develops  a 
relationship  with  a  man;  the  husband  is  not 
there;  perhaps  the  divorce  is  through,  perhaps 
it  is  not;  and  they  decide  for  their  own 
reasons  as  individuals  to  develop  a  sexual 
relationship. 

I  worry  about  OHC  housing  as  a  landlord. 
I  worry  about  other  landlords  deciding  the 
morality  of  whether  those  women  should  be 
sexually  active  when  they  are  deserted  or 
separated  or  whatever  and  saying:  "You  are 
in  Ontario  housing  and  you  have  this  man 
here.  Two  or  three  nights  a  week  we  have 
seen  this  man  here"— I  am  not  sure  what 
would  be  acceptable  to  property  managers— 
"He  is  living  here  and  your  activities  are  not 
acceptable  to  us  in  our  society."  There  is  not 
going  to  be  any  protection  at  all  for  people  in 
that  situation. 

What  protection  is  there  going  to  be  for 
senior  citizens?  Is  it  normal  sexual  orienta- 
tion, in  our  view,  that  people  over  the  age  of 
65  would  desire  to  have  sexual  relations? 
Maybe  some  of  us  are  affronted  by  the  idea 
and  the  possibility  of  rules  against  sexual 
interaction  between  senior  citizens  in  homes 
for  the  aged.  It  is  a  possibility  and  I  can  see 
an  administrator  saying,  "Now,  now,  Mr. 
Jones,  it  is  not  right  for  you  to  be  off  visiting 
dcwn  the  hall  with  Cynthia;  that  is  not 
proper."  He  would  have  no  protection  from 
that. 

It  is  not  too  long  ago  that  husbands  and 
wives  were  separated  in  homes  for  the  aged. 
I  remind  the  House  of  that.  They  were  put  in 
different  rooms,  their  sexuality  and  their  life- 
long commitment  to  each  other  ignored.  It 
now  is  on  the  goodwill  of  administrators  that 
does  not  occur.  In  this  act  an  administrator  can 
decide  for  people  over  the  age  of  70.  Why 
not  70?  I  mean,  we  are  all  wanting  to  move 
the  retirement  age,  as  I  recall  from  the  bill 
of  the  member  for  York  West  (Mr.  Leluk).  At 
the  age  of  70  it  is  now  inappropriate.  Separate 
them;  put  them  into  different  rooms.  Why 
not? 

There  are  so  many  ludicrous  things  that 
come  out  of  this.  For  instance,  what  about 
the  use  of  sexual  aids.  Are  sexual  aids  accept- 
able now  in  our  society?  Is  this  not  an 
orientation  which  we  as  members  in  this 
honourable  institution  would  feel  to  be  un- 
acceptable? If  that  is  the  case,  perhaps  we 
should  wonder  if  we  find  a  person  in  an  apart- 
ment who  has  various  sexual  aids.  Perhaps  we 
should  decide  whether  he  or  she  is  fit  to  live 
in    that    particular    residence.    Perhaps    we 


should  say,  "We  should  phone  your  employer 
because,  really,  that  is  not  what  our  society 
accepts."  Perhaps  we  should  go  to  the  doctors 
who  prescribe  those  sexual  aids- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Can  the  honourable  member 
tell  me  which  section  or  principle  of  the  bill 
he  is  speaking  to? 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  am  speaking  to  the 
principle  of  discrimination  in  terms  of  sexual 
orientation  which  is— 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  do  not  see  that  in  the  bill. 
Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  is  it  not 
possible  to  talk  about  an  omission  in  terms 
of  the  grounds  it  is  not  proper?  That  seems 
an  awful  shame,  because  I  was  going  to 
talk  about  the  problems  of  not  talking  about 
celibacy  in  here. 
5  p.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Second  reading  is  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  principles  contained  in 
the  bill. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  The  principle  I  want 
to  talk  about  is  discrimination  and  the  omis- 
sion of  discrimination  against  any  individual 
in  this  society.  This  is  under  section  2. 

Mr.  Warner:  Section  2(1). 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  point  I  want  to  make  is  that  this  is 
an  all-inclusive  amendment  to  the  rights  of 
people  in  this  province,  yet  there  is  a  group 
that  is  not  included  in  this  area  and  an  area 
that  is  not  addressed.  I  feel  it  is  important 
to  talk  to  that  a  little  bit. 

Mr.  Speaker:  You  are  saying  you  want  to 
talk  to  a  principle  that  has  been  ommitted  in 
the  bill. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Yes,  I  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Is  that  out  of  order? 
Then  let  me  speak  to  a  principle  that  is  in 
the  bill,  and  I  will  allude  to  this  secondarily. 
I  think  it  is  a  wonderful  thing  that  we  are 
forbidding  discrimination  according  to  sex 
in  this  bill  in  terms  of  men  or  women.  I 
think  that  is  a  magnificent  thing  and  I  am 
very^  pleased  to  see  that  we  are  now  saying 
one  cannot  discriminate  in  terms  of  a  per- 
son's sex.  I  think  that  is  a  great  thing. 

However,  I  am  disappointed  that  we  have 
not  taken  it  further  and  extrapolated  from 
that  principle  and  that  word  to  talk  about 
other  problems  like  celibacy.  I  worry  about 
this  tendency  amongst  a  certain  faction  in 
our  society,  and  I  am  wondering  if  perhaps 
this  group  should  not  be  discriminated  against 
in  terms  of  housing  or  jobs.  Are  we  going  to 
get  to  the  stage  again  where  we  allow  people 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5171 


to  put  the  letter  A  on  people  if  they  commit 
adultery.  I  know  I  am  out  of  order;  so  I 
will  finish  and  get  off  this  topic. 

It  cannot  help  but  mock  us,  at  this  stage 
in  our  society's  growth,  that  we  are  backing 
off  from  what  is  a  common-sense  inclusion 
to  make  sure  that  people  are  not  unjustifiably 
taken  out  of  their  jobs  or  not  given  access 
to  homes  like  any  other  citizen  because  of 
something  they  decide  to  do  in  the  privacy 
of  their  own  bedrooms. 

II  am  not  speaking  here  in  favour  of  any- 
thing to  do  with  a  homosexual  subculture  or 
any  of  the  accoutrements  that  go  along  with 
that.  I  am  talking  about  individual  rights. 
We  should  be  ashamed  that  we  are  not  able 
to  stand  up  as  one  and  come  to  grips  with 
this  instead  of  bowing  to  reactionary  pres- 
sures, in  my  view,  to  exclude  this  group  from 
provisions  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Scarborough- 
Ellesmere  on  the  principle  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Warner:  That  is  the  only  reason  I 
rose,  Mr.  Speaker. 

I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  speak  on 
what  I  take  to  be— 

Mr.  Kerrio:  The  long  and  the  short  of  it. 

Mr.  Tv¥arner:  Don't  start  attacking  short 
people  again. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  David,  look  over  here. 

Mr.  Warner:  Yes.  I  will  speak  to  the  chair. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  believe  that  in  a 
civilized  society  there  can  be  anything  more 
important  than  a  code  of  human  rights  and 
the  civil  rights  that  go  with  that.  I  suppose  it 
is  easy  for  us  to  take  the  matter  of  human 
rights  for  granted,  because  it  is  not  very  often 
that  we  are  placed  in  the  position  of  losing 
our  rights.  If  we  lived  in  some  South 
American  countries,  such  as  Uruguay, 
Paraguay,  Chile  or  Argentina,  where  human 
rights  have  been  denied,  where  civil  rights 
and  civil  liberties  have  been  removed— in  fact, 
there  are  literally  thousands  of  missing 
persons  there— then  we  would  take  the  issue 
of  human  rights  more  seriously.  If  we  wish 
always  to  have  a  civilized  society,  we  have  to 
pay  very  close  attention  to  human  rights. 

I  welcome  the  bill.  I  welcome  the  min- 
ister's initiative.  The  minister  has  brought 
forward  a  fairly  wide-ranging  new  act,  and 
it  really  is  a  new  act.  He  has  taken  the  time 
to  address  some  of  the  problems  which  affect 
human  rights  in  this  province  and  he  has 
done  so  quite  well  for  the  most  part.  The 
minister  was  making  notes  and  I  think  he 
took  under  advisement  some  of  the  concerns 
raised  by  members  as  legitimate  concerns. 


I  think  the  minister  fully  understands  now 
that  the  bill  is  not  perfect.  The  section  on 
sexual  harassment  has  to  be  altered,  which  I 
think  is  fairly  evident  to  the  minister.  If  it  is 
not,  then  it  should  be  because  it  is  not  good 
enough.  I  think  the  minister  also  understands 
the  comments  made  by  my  colleague  from 
Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan)  regarding  handi- 
capped individuals.  I  wish  to  deal  with  a  par- 
ticular section  in  the  bill,  of  which  part  of 
the  principle  has  to  do  with  what  is  euphemis- 
tically called  in  our  society  domestic  service, 
which  is  really  slavery.  The  minister  knows 
that. 

There  is  an  attempt  to  have  some  protec- 
tion built  in,  particularly  to  section  4  regard- 
ing harassment  in  employment.  Before  that 
section  is  finalized,  I  would  ask  the  minister 
to  read  the  recent  article  written  in  the 
United  Church  Observer  in  December  1980 
called  "Toil  and  Trouble." 

It  is  illuminating.  Some  very  disturbing 
remarks  come  out  of  that  article.  For  example, 
it  is  the  "bargain  of  the  century"  to  get  a 
live-in  nanny.  It  reads:  "The  Canadian  dollar 
does  not  buy  much  overseas  these  days,  but 
in  the  overcrowded  and  underdeveloped 
countries  of  the  Third  World,  it  still  buys 
bargains  in  people.  It  is  one  of  those  great 
deals  where  everybody  wins.  The  Jones 
family  gets  Florence  from  Jamaica  to  cook, 
clean  and  babysit,  for  little  more  than  the 
cost  of  sending  one  child  to  day  care.  We 
taxpayers  get  off  the  hook  for  subsidizing 
more  day  care,  and  we  do  not  have  to  worry 
about  services  for  Florence  and  her  family 
because  she  is  as  disposable  as  the  diapers  .  .  . 
Though  we  pay  her  less  than  the  minimum 
wage,  it's  more  than  she  would  get  at  home, 
and  anyway  she's  not  used  to  life's  luxuries. 

"Meet  some  of  our  bargains.  Joyce  is  one 
of  them.  She  came  from  Jamaica  to  Toronto 
to  clean  house,  cook,  care  for  two  children 
and  mow  the  lawn,  six  days  a  week,  for  room 
and  board  plus  $100  a  month. 

"Margaret  is  another  bargain.  She  is  32 
and  has  three  children  who  depend  on  her  to 
send  $200  a  month,  nearly  her  full  salary 
from  her  Ottawa  employer.  So  she  will  do 
anything  to  hang  on  to  her  job— including 
having  sex  with  the  man  of  the  house  when 
he  told  her  that  was  part  of  her  duties." 

I  want  to  know  before  the  debate  on  this 
bill  concludes  and  before  the  committee  con- 
cludes that  such  travesties  cannot  and  will  not 
be  tolerated  under  this  new  human  rights 
code.  The  article  goes  on:  "Though  the  em- 
ployer has  agreed  with  the  federal  immigra- 
tion department  on  wages  and  working  hours 
the  employee  may  never  see  the  agreement, 


5172 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


and    it    is    not    legally    enforceable.    Many 
employers  live  up  to  it.  Many  don't." 

Some  of  the  stories  that  come  out  about 
the  slaves  are  really  incredible,  working  80 
hours  a  week,  for  example.  There  does  not 
seem  to  be  anything  in  this  bill  to  preclude 
that  from  happening,  nor  any  protection  in 
any  other  law  in  this  province  for  that  mat- 
ter. There  are  "stories  of  women  being  fired 
and  thrown  out  at  night  with  no  place  to 
go,  asked  to  lielp  out'  on  their  night  off, 
wakened  at  2  a.m.  to  serve  sandwiches  to  a 
group  home  from  a  party,  fired  for  going  to 
church  or  wanting  Christmas  day  off  with 
friends,  required  to  sleep  with  the  family  dog 
to  keep  him  from  barking."  As  John  Mac- 
Donald  of  the  Ottawa-Carleton  Immigrant 
Services  said,  "Once  they  live  in,  they're 
practically  slaves." 

5:10  p.m. 

The  article  talks  about  there  being  two 
basic  parts  to  the  problem.  One  half  is  "an 
immigration  system  that  invites  exploitation." 
That  has  been  historical  in  this  country.  That 
is  the  history  of  our  immigration  laws  in 
Canada;  they  are  used  to  exploit  people. 
"The  other  half  is  a  lack  of  legal  rights  for 
all  domestic  workers."  I  find  it  difficult  to 
find  the  wording  in  the  section— particularly 
in  section  4,  but  perhaps  I  have  looked  in 
the  wrong  part— that  protects  domestic 
workers. 

Maybe  there  is  a  reason  for  it.  Maybe 
there  is  a  reason  why  there  is  not  the  cover- 
age in  this  bill  that  there  should  be.  It  is 
also  quoted  in  the  article  that  the  member 
for  Sault  Ste.  Marie  (Mr.  Ramsay),  a  Con- 
servative member  of  the  Ontario  Legislature, 
told  the  House  that  "his  constituents  would 
not  be  able  to  afford  domestics  if  they  had 
to  pay  the  minimum  wage,  consequently, 
there  would  have  to  be  more  day  care,  and 
that  would  surely  raise  taxes."  I  wonder  if 
the  lack  of  specific  protection  for  domestics 
is  because  of  the  Conservative  Party's  stand 
on  the  matter.  They  have  no  intention  of 
ending  the  slavery.  They  have  every  inten- 
tion of  perpetuating  a  system  which  surely 
should  be  intolerable  to  any  civilized  society. 

The  article  also  includes  as  part  of  the 
evidence  that  the  government  has  no  desire 
to  move  on  the  subject  and  that,  "according 
to  court  testimony,  Ontario  cabinet  minister 
Larry  Grossman  paid  his  domestic,  in  Canada 
illegally  from  the  Caribbean,  $230  a  month 
for  80  hours  of  work  a  week."  By  rough  cal- 
culation that  is  less  than  $1  an  hour.  The 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  is  willing 
to  pay  less  than  $1  an  hour  to  an  adult  to 
work  full  time.  That  is  absolutely  incredible. 


To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  the  sections 
in  the  bill  which  address  the  right  to  equal 
treatment  in  employment  without  discrimi- 
nation are  simply  not  good  enough.  I  think 
the  minister  knows  this.  I  am  asking  the 
government  to  improve  the  appropriate  sec- 
tions of  the  bill  in  an  effort  to  end  the  le- 
galized slavery  which  exists  in  our  province. 
It  is  unacceptable  to  me  and,  I  submit,  to 
civilized  people.  I  think  that  has  to  happen. 

There  are  a  couple  of  other  remarks  I 
would  like  to  make.  As  I  said  at  the  outset, 
human  rights  legislation  is  essential  in  a 
civilized  society.  It  sets  out  the  kinds  of 
things  which  we  accept  and  do  not  accept. 
It  sets  a  standard  for  other  parts  of  the  world 
to  try  to  live  up  to.  It  allows  for  the  equal 
treatment  of  human  beings.  In  the  attempt 
which  the  government  is  making  in  good 
faith,  the  minister  has  included  some  very 
good  sections  in  the  bill.  I  think  the  minister 
has  picked  up  from  the  remarks  made  by 
various  members  that  we  applaud  the  efforts 
being  made  by  him.  Admittedly,  there  are 
many  members  of  the  government  who  would 
not  have  the  courage  to  bring  it  forward.  I 
believe  that.  But  he  has,  and  he  has  included 
some  very  good  sections  in  this  bill  and  some 
which  will  receive  our  wholehearted  support. 

There  is  an  area  left  which  this  govern- 
ment has  to  come  to  terms  with  and  there  is 
an  area  where  this  government  is  lacking  in 
leadership.  In  the  city  in  which  I  live,  Metro- 
politan Toronto,  over  the  last  few  years  we 
have  had  some  severe  problems  with  race 
relations.  We  have  had  some  serious  diffi- 
culties with  the  way  in  which  our  police 
force  functions  and  with  the  kind  of  direc- 
tion they  have  been  given  from  the  com- 
mission. 

There  has  been  a  very  serious  and  honest 
attempt  to  correct  the  problems  within  the 
police  force  and  also  to  bring  about  better 
understanding  and  greater  harmony  within 
our  multicultural  society  of  Metropolitan 
Toronto.  That  effort  has  been  in  part  by  this 
government,  through  the  Ministry  of  Educa- 
tion, through  Culture  and  Recreation,  through 
other  ministries  and  through  the  Attorney 
General.  That  kind  of  effort  has  also  been 
made  by  the  city  of  Toronto  and  by  the 
boroughs  and  Metropolitan  Toronto  council. 
Overall  there  has  been  a  concerted  effort  over 
the  last  few  years  for  people  to  get  to  under- 
stand each  other's  background,  each  other's 
culture  and  each  other's  heritage  in  an  at- 
tempt to  arrive  at  an  atmosphere  of  mutual 
understanding  and,  hopefully,  of  mutual 
agreement  on  respecting  each  other's  back- 
grounds and  differing  lifestyles. 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5173 


I  was  born  and  raised  in  Toronto  and  I 
grew  up  here.  My  ancestry  is  English,  so  I 
bring  with  that  my  English  culture  and 
English  heritage.  But  I  hope  that  through  my 
adult  life  I  have  come  to  understand  and 
appreciate  the  lifestyles  of  other  people 
whose  background  is  not  English,  whose 
background  may  be  East  Indian  or  Caribbean 
or  any  number  of  the  almost  100  different 
countries  which  are  represented  in  Metro- 
politan Toronto. 

I  wonder  if  I  could  have  the  undivided 
attention  of  the  Minister  of  Labour. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  He  is  talking  to  your  own 
member. 

Mr.  Warner:  Yes,  I  was  just  about  to  get 
to  that.  If  the  member  for  Scarborough  West 
(Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston)  could  contain  himself 
for  a  moment 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  He  will  read  Hansard 
later.  Go  ahead. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Feel  free  to  direct 
your  comments  to  the  chair. 

Mr.  Warner:  I  will,  Mr.  Speaker.  It  is  ob- 
vious that  neither  the  minister  nor  anybody 
else  is  concerned,  so  I  will  direct  them  to 
you. 

A  certain  concern  and  sensitive  treatment 
has  been  developed  over  the  last  few  years 
in  different  levels  of  government  and  has 
been  directed  towards  the  difficult  situation 
of  race  relations  and  race  understanding  in 
our  city  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  and,  I 
suspect,  in  other  communities  as  well.  I  am 
suggesting  that  same  kind  of  effort  be  du- 
plicated by  this  government  with  respect  to 
the  homosexual  issue— the  "gay  community." 

Unless  that  is  done,  the  government  will 
always  feel  its  political  neck  about  intro- 
ducing protection  for  homosexual  people 
against  discrimination,  whether  that  is  dis- 
crimination in  housing  or  employment  or  in 
any  other  field.  Unless  that  basic  work  is 
done  to  try  to  develop  a  better  understanding 
of  someone  else's  lifestyle,  then  the  govern- 
ment will  always  feel  sensitive  and  politically 
vulnerable  about  introducing  the  appropriate 
kind  of  protection. 

I  think  it  is  essential.  I  think  the  govern- 
ment has  to  do  that.  That  kind  of  effort  is 
necessary,  otherwise  it  is  not  fully  living  up 
to  the  stated  principle  of  this  bill,  of  pro- 
tecting individuals  against  discrimination. 
5:20  p.m. 

In  closing,  I  recall  the  remarks  of  a  very 
experienced  politician  who  has  been  con- 
sistently re-elected  over  the  past  30  years. 
He  was  asked  about  discrimination.  "Do  you 


support  a  change  in  the  law  to  end  discrimi- 
nation against  gay  people?"  He  said  to  the 
reporter:  "Who  is  it  that  you  would  like  to 
discriminate  against?  I  do  not  think  we 
should  discriminate  against  anyone."  I  think 
that  is  the  answer;  I  really  do. 

Surely  there  is  not  a  member  in  this  House 
who  wants  to  discriminate  against  anyone. 
Our  Human  Rights  Code  must  be  amended 
that  way.  When  we  introduce  a  new  code, 
as  the  minister  is  really  doing— he  does  not 
call  it  a  new  code  but  it  is  revising  one,  so 
it  really  is  a  new  code— surely  the  minister 
wants  to  say,  "We  do  not  want  to  discrimi- 
nate against  anyone."  I  hope  that  as  this 
goes  through  committee  stage  and  the  various 
sections  of  the  bill  are  addressed  my  concerns 
will  be  met  and,  in  particular,  that  the  min- 
ister will  make  every  effort  both  in  this  bill 
and  any  companion  legislation  to  end  the 
slavery  which  exists  in  this  province.  It  is 
unacceptable. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  take  part  in  the  debate  on  Bill  209  be- 
cause I  think  it  is  a  very  important  bill.  As 
many  of  my  colleagues  who  participated  in 
the  debate  said,  it  is  a  very  important  step 
in  revising  the  old  Human  Rights  Code 
which  was  passed  18  years  ago  and  in  such 
a  short  time  has  become  obsolete  to  the 
point  that  it  needed  a  full  revision.  In  fact, 
I  think  the  bill  introduced  by  the  Minister 
of  Labour  must  be  complimented  because  it 
is  a  pi  "antic  step  in  the  right  direction. 

I  think  human  rights  represents  a  very 
important  achievement  in  our  modern  democ- 
racies. It  is  a  great  achievement  because,  for 
the  first  time  in  modern  history,  the  laws  of 
each  country  protect  their  minorities.  I  would 
like  to  say  that  the  majorities  never  need  to 
be  protected  because  the  majorities  are  those 
who  pass  the  laws;  the  majorities  are  those 
who  have  power.  Those  who  suffer  are  the 
minorities:  be  those  racial,  religious  or  polit- 
ical minorities.  Therefore,  human  rights  legis- 
lation is  very  important  legislation  because 
it  shows  that  each  and  every  person  in  our 
society  is  protected. 

For  this  reason  I  think  this  bill  is  a  very 
important  piece  of  legislation,  especially  be- 
cause for  the  first  time  it  addresses  issues 
such  as  sexual  harassment,  that  personally  I 
think  are  very  important  to  our  society.  In 
this  Legisature  we  have  been  dealing  many 
times  with  episodes  and  instances  where 
workers,  especially  female  workers,  have  been 
harassed  at  the  work  place.  Until  now  they 
have  had  no  recourse  at  all  because  the  law 
did  not  protect  them  unless  they  were  able 
to   lay   criminal   charges.    In   this  legislation, 


5174 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


this  is  addressed  in  the  right  direction  and  I 
compliment  the  minister  because  immigrant 
women  especially  are  affected  in  the  work 
place.  We  hear  innumerable  examples  of 
women  who  are  in  the  most  difficult  cir- 
cumstances because  they  are  newcomers  and 
have  financial  obligations  that  in  many  cases 
they  cannot  fulfil  when  only  one  person  in 
the  family  works.  Especially  in  families  of 
immigrants,  women  are  subjected  to  sexual 
harassment.  I  think  the  bill  is  a  step  in  the 
right  direction. 

In  the  past,  I  have  personally  addressed 
and  collectively  our  caucus  has  addressed 
the  issue  of  the  handicapped.  I  would  like 
to  limit  my  remarks  to  one  single  aspect, 
employment.  I  regret  to  say  the  bill  does  not 
address  the  issue  in  the  right  way.  I  am 
absolutely  positive  that  by  invoking  affirma- 
tive action  we  will  not  be  able  to  solve  the 
problem  of  the  disabled,  the  handicapped 
and,  I  should  also  say,  those  people  who  are 
disabled  by  reason  of  an  industrial  accident 
on  the  job. 

I  think  the  minister  did  not  have  the  for- 
titude to  reject  a  philosophical  approach 
which  is  obsolete.  This  government  does  not 
want  to  accept  the  idea  that  at  some  point 
it  is  the  responsibility  of  the  government  to 
tell  the  employers,  be  they  private  or  public, 
that  it  is  their  moral  responsibility  to  hire 
people  who  are  disabled  or  handicapped.  The 
only  way  to  do  that  in  a  direct,  straightfor- 
ward way  is  by  imposing  a  system  of  quotas. 
This  may  not  be  perfect  but,  in  my  opinion, 
it  is  one  of  the  ways  to  solve  the  problem. 
When  we  rely  on  the  good  heart  of  the  em- 
ployers, I  know  there  are  many  employers 
who  hire  people  who  are  either  disabled  or 
handicapped,  but  there  are  many  who  would 
never  do  that  because  they  are  in  a  com- 
petitive field.  They  have  to  sell  products  and 
maintain  productivity  to  compete  on  the 
market.  Therefore,  they  are  unwilling  to  hire 
people  who  are  less  productive. 

By  the  way,  I  would  like  to  bring  to  the 
minister's  attention  that  Professor  Weiler  in 
his  report  made  a  fundamental  step  in  that 
direction  when  he  said  that  the  employers 
should  rehire  workers  who  were  injured  at 
their  work  place  or  they  should  pay  a  fee, 
which  is  a  different  way  of  imposing  rehiring 
injured  workers  on  the  employers. 

'Opinions  are  not  unanimous  because  there 
is  no  perfect  way  of  solving  problems  like 
this  where  human  beings  are  involved.  It  is 
difficult  to  have  absolutely  perfect  answers, 
but  by  going  in  that  direction  the  minister 
would  have  indicated  that  we  could  solve  the 
problem.  By  asking  for  an  affirmative  action, 


I  think  we  will  not  go  much  further.  In 
closing  my  remarks,  I  would  like  to  reaffirm 
my  appreciation  of  the  bill  introduced  by  the 
minister.  I  hope  when  we  go  to  the  com- 
mittee he  will  accept  some  of  our  suggestions. 
5:30  p.m. 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  Is 
there  any  other  member  wishing  to  take  part 
in  this  debate.  If  not,  the  minister  in  reply. 

Mr.  Martel:  Would  the  minister  be  pre- 
pared to  relax  for  a  moment?  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
do  not  want  to  take  a  very  lengthy  time. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  I  did  recognize  the 
minister.  If  the  minister  is  ready  to  give  way, 
I  am  prepared  to  allow  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  do  most  things  possible 
for  the  member  for  Sudbury  East. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  will  only  be  a  very  few 
moments,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Unless  he  is  provoked. 

Mr.   Martel:   I  cannot  get  started. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  while  I  appre- 
ciate the  contents  of  the  bill,  you  will  recall 
some  weeks  ago  I  raised  the  matter  of  a 
questionnaire  being  sent  out  and  people  being 
forced,  in  an  effort  to  obtain  employment,  to 
answer  a  questionnaire  which  I  found  totally 
offensive. 

I  had  hoped  the  minister  would  have  had 
in  the  bill  something  that  would  have  pre- 
vented this  kind  of  questionnaire  from  going 
out.  I  have  asked  my  colleague  the  member 
for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick)  to  look  at  the 
section  of  this  bill  which  might  prevent  this 
from  occurring,  this  sort  of  questionnaire  be- 
ing used.  I  checked  with  legal  counsel  for 
the  Ministry  of  Labour.  I  think  there  is  some 
concern  that  it  will  not  do  what  the  minister 
thinks  it  will  do. 

I  do  not  think  the  questionnaire  is  covered 
in  that  section  of  the  bill  and  I  do  not  want 
to  deal  with  it  specifically  or  read  it  because 
we  are  speaking  to  the  principle.  I  think  this 
type  of  questionnaire,  as  it  is,  will  not  be 
covered  by  the  legislation  before  us.  Let  me 
just  indicate  some  of  the  ridiculous  questions 
pertaining  to  both  males  and  females.  I  will 
not  even  deal  with  the  female  section  for  a 
moment.  The  questionnaire  asks  such  silly 
things.  I  do  not  know  what  they  have  to  do 
with  applying  for  a  job. 

Let  me  give  a  couple  of  the  crazy  ques- 
tions in  it  "Do  you  have  difficulty  relaxing? 
Are  you  more  tired  or  lacking  energy  lately? 
Do  you  worry?  Does  worrying  get  you  down? 
Are  your  feelings  easily  hurt?  Do  you  find  it 
easy  to  cry?  Do  you  feel  apart  even  among 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5175 


yoiix  friends?"  What,  in  God's  name,  has  this 
got  to  do  with  one's  ability  to  do  a  job  in  a 
factory  or  anywhere?  These  questions  just  go 
on  ad  infinitum.  I  do  not  know  how  one 
blocks  this  sort  of  thing.  I  do  not  think  the 
act  does  it.  The  section  pertaining  to  women, 
as  I  indicated  during  question  period  a  num- 
ber of  weeks  ago,  I  found  to  be  the  most 
offensive  material  I  have  ever  seen. 

I  do  not  know  why,  for  example,  one  would 
have  to  ask  questions  such  as  the  following: 
"Have  you  ever  had  or  do  you  have  masses 
of  cysts,  bleeding  from  the  nipples,  injury, 
infection?"  Or,  in  regard  to  menstrual  history, 
"when  did  you  start  to  menstruate,  age  10  or 
under,  age  18?  Irregular  menstrual  periods  in 
the  past  12  months?  Flow  three  days  or  more, 
eight  days  or  more?"  What  are  they  talking 
about? 

Mr.  Riddell:  It's  on  the  verge  of  being 
obscene. 

Mr.  Martel:  Let  me  go  on:  "Pelvic  organs, 
abnormal  vaginal  discharge,  pain  on  inter- 
course, bleeding  after  intercourse."  We  simply 
cannot  tolerate  anyone  in  this  province  having 
to  answer  this  type  of  questionnaire.  As  I 
said,  I  do  not  want  to  take  the  time  of  the 
House,  but  I  know  the  minister  is  under  the 
impression  that  section  21(1)  will  cover  the 
area  in  question.  I  would  urge  that  legal 
counsel  for  the  ministry,  in  conjunction  with 
people  from  the  Ontario  Human  Rights  Com- 
mission and  legislative  counsel  here  at 
Queen's  Park,  would  review  that  section  very 
carefully.  I  know  it  will  not  be  easy,  but  we 
should  find  some  way  of  eliminating  this 
because,  as  the  manager  of  the  company 
said,  people  should  not  be  offended  at 
answering  this.  If  they  did  refuse  to  answer, 
obviously  they  had  something  to  hide.  If  they 
had  something  to  hide,  one  would  then  not 
employ  them.  As  I  said  earlier,  I  think  some 
guy  gets  his  jollies  reading  the  answers  in 
questionnaires  like  this.  I  hope  that  some- 
thing in  the  act  is  changed  substantially  to 
ensure  that  does  not  occur  again,  not  just  in 
this  company  but  across  the  province. 

I  thank  the  minister  for  giving  me  the  five 
minutes. 

Mr.  Riddell:  It  sounds  to  me  like  a  pre- 
cursor of  sexual  harassment. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  try  not 
to  take  too  long,  but  I  do  feel  an  obligation 
to  make  a  few  comments,  in  addition  to  the 
remarks  I  have  made  in  my  opening  state- 
ment and  on  previous  occasions. 

May  I  say  in  a  very  personal  way  in  this 
Legislature  I  think  we  have  seen  a  degree  of 
general  approval  about  the  principles  in  the 


bill,  which  I  think  is  very  heartening,  because 
I  know  of  no  issue  on  which  some  consensus 
in  society  is  more  important  than  the  issue 
of  human  rights.  For  that  alone  I  think  we 
should  all  be  proud  there  is  a  bill  before  the 
House— certainly  I  am— and  that  there  is  the 
degree  of  consensus  we  have  heard  in  the 
past  two  days. 

I  appreciate  there  are  matters  included 
that  some  members  think  may  need  to  be 
altered.  I  appreciate  there  are  matters  which 
should  have  been  included  that  are  not.  I 
think  we  all  have  to  respect  each  other's 
reasons  for  doing  that.  If  they  merit  further 
discussion,  we  can  do  so  during  the  clause- 
by-clause  debate. 

I  was  particularly  pleased  that  several  of 
the  members  have  paid  tribute  to  Tom 
Symons  and  to  other  members  of  the  com- 
mission for  the  very  thoughtful  and  percep- 
tive way  in  which  they  carried  out  their 
study  and  drafted  conclusions,  which  I  think 
have  become  world  renowned  in  terms  of 
the  people  who  have  expressed  an  interest 
in  receiving  copies  of  that  book,  Life  To- 
gether. 

I  have  a  rather  personal  reason  for  being 
kind  of  appreciative  because  Tom  Symons 
and  I  were  fellow  students  and  friends  to- 
gether. In  that  way  it  just  reconfirms  the 
very  nature  of  the  man  as  he  was  as  a 
student  because  as  a  man  he  continues  to 
have  those  humanitarian  reform  instincts  he 
had  as  a  child.  I  v/ould  like  to  pay  tribute 
to  that  commission  for  the  very  perceptive 
and  excellent  way  in  which  it  prepared  Life 
Together. 

Even  though  I  wish  I  could  just  pass  on 
and  say  many  of  the  items  discussed  by  mem- 
bers will  be  dealt  with  during  the  clause-by- 
clause  debate  it  would  be  inappropriate. 
Some  fundamental  issues  were  raised  that  I 
have  to  and  want  to  address  now  so  that 
they  do  not  linger  around  in  people's  minds 
as  areas  about  which  I  think  there  are  some 
misperceptions. 

One  member  suggested  Life  Together  in- 
dicated that  the  commission  should  be  at 
greater  arm's  length  from  the  minister  than 
it  is.  With  due  respect  to  the  commission 
and  to  the  member  who  raised  it,  I  funda- 
mentally cannot  agree  with  that.  Here  we 
have  a  situation  where  an  administrative 
tribunal,  much  like  the  Ontario  Labour  Rela- 
tions Board,  reports  through  a  minister  to 
the  House,  to  responsible  government,  to 
someone  accountable,  the  minister.  Yet  that 
board,  I  am  sure  each  member  in  this  House 
knows,  is  really  totally  autonomous.  This  act 
gives  them  an  even  greater  autonomy  in  that 


5176 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


they  and  they  alone  will  have  sole  power 
to  determine  whether  or  not  issues  will  or 
will  not  go  to  a  board  of  inquiry.  The  min- 
ister will  have  no  power  to  revoke  or  rescind 
any  decision  of  the  commission  to  have  a 
matter  go  to  a  board  of  inquiry. 

The  only  real  connection  of  the  minister  is 
to  be  responsible  for  the  human  rights  com- 
mission in  the  House,  as  he  is  for  the  labour 
relations  board,  which  I  think  we  all  agree  is 
totally  autonomous  in  the  same  way.  I  have 
to  take  some  argument  with  those  who  sug- 
gest there  is  other  than  an  arm's  length 
relationship. 

5:40  p.m. 

The  commission  files  an  annual  report, 
something  that  has  come  about  since  the 
days  of  Life  Together.  I  think  the  new  code 
gives  them  broader  powers  as  a  commission 
and  broader  powers  through  the  board  of 
inquiry  than  they  have  ever  had  before.  If 
one  reads  the  act,  one  will  find  the  com- 
mission itself  will  now  have  the  power  to 
make  recommendations  on  government  stat- 
utes, programs  and  policies.  I  would  ask 
the  members  who  think  there  may  be  some 
validitv  to  that  suggestion  to  think  it  over 
carefully.  I  honestly  do  not  think  that  is  a 
valid  criticism. 

The  member  for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick) 
noted  the  responsibility  of  the  Minister  of 
Labour  was  not  explicitly  spelled  out  in  the 
bill.  That  is  true.  It  was  done  quite  deliberately 
because  the  government  feels  that,  from 
time  to  time,  with  the  changes  in  the  nature 
of  problems  in  society,  it  may  be  considered 
reasonable  that  a  different  minister  should 
become  responsible  for  the  reporting  rela- 
tionship in  the  House. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Very  shortly. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  I  do  not  think  so. 
Mind  you,  if  it  seems  that  is  reasonable  and 
logical,  it  is  fine  with  me.  I  think  the  im- 
portant thing  is  the  government  recognizes 
there  may  be  a  time  when  a  change  is 
needed. 

The  member  for  Ottawa  East  (Mr.  Roy) 
expressed  some  concern  about  section  4(2), 
harassment  in  employment,  suggesting  it 
might  cast  an  undue  burden  on  the  employer. 
I  would  ask  him  to  think  about  that  care- 
fully. What  the  section  really  says  is  that  if 
one  employee  is  harassing  another,  for  what- 
ever reason  as  outlined  in  the  code,  that  em- 
ployee has  a  right  to  bring  a  complaint  to  the 
Ontario  Human  Rights  Commission.  If,  at  a 
board  of  inquiry,  the  commission  feels  the 
employer  should  be  aware  of  what  is  going 
on,  it  can  include  that  employer  for  the  pur- 


poses of  information  only.  As  a  result  of  the 
decision,  if  the  harassment  has  been  con- 
firmed, the  board  of  inquiry  may  then  direct 
the  employer  to  do  certain  things  in  the  event 
of  a  subsequent  case  of  harassment. 

We  have  not  put  an  employer  or  landlord 
in  any  unduly  embarrassing  or  untenable  po- 
sition because  he  or  she  will  be  made  aware 
of  the  existing  problems  in  the  work  place  or 
in  accommodation.  I  suggest  there  might  be 
some  merit  in  the  member  reviewing  his 
thoughts  on  that  matter.  I  hope  he  will  come 
to  agree  it  is  a  fair  and  just  provision. 

Several  members  have  raised  the  question 
of  access  with  regard  to  the  physically 
handicapped.  It  is  a  difficult  issue.  Let  us  not 
pretend  it  is  not.  What  each  of  us  has  to  do 
is  what  has  been  done  in  other  legislatures, 
federally  and  in  Saskatchewan,  as  they  ad- 
dressed this  issue.  They  said  to  themselves 
that  a  human  rights  commission  is  meant  to 
deal  with  attitudinal  discrimination  in  society. 
I  agree  with  that.  It  is  on  that  basis  that  the 
Saskatchewan  and  federal  Human  Rights 
Codes  indicate  that,  where  there  is  dis- 
crimination against  someone  with  a  handicap, 
a  board  of  inquiry  may  do  certain  things. 
That  is  also  the  position  we  have  taken.  A 
human  rights  commission  must  deal  with 
attitudinal  discrimination.  If  it  finds  it,  the 
board  of  inquiry  under  our  proposal  would 
have  the  authority  to  order  such  adjustments 
with  regard  to  access  as  may  seem  necessary, 
just  and  fair  and  do  not  cause  undue  hardship 
to  the  employer  or  landlord. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  A  pretty  tough  balancing 
act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  That  is  right.  That  is  what 
the  honourable  member's  colleague,  then  fed- 
eral Minister  of  Labour,  John  Munro,  said  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  It  is  a  tough 
balancing  act.  That  is  what  human  rights  are 
all  about,  trying  to  balance  rights  in  society. 
I  know  the  member  will  agree  with  him 
because  the  member  thinks  he  is  a  wonderful 
man.  I  have  heard  the  member  speak  highly 
of  him  on  many  occasions. 

I  would  also  like  to  remind  the  members 
that  in  the  broad  new  powers  the  commission 
has,  is  the  power  to  recommend  affirmative 
action  in  certain  situations,  of  its  own  volition 
or  on  a  complaint.  That  is  another  new 
element  of  moral  suasion  that  the  commission, 
of  its  own  volition,  may  introduce  into  a 
situation— to  try  to  improve  the  educational 
process  society  has  to  go  through  to  better 
understand  and  appreciate  the  legitimate 
needs  of  the  handicapped  in  society. 

We  had  a  very  interesting  discussion  from 
two    or   three    members   about   the   issue   of 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5177 


international  covenants  relating  to  human 
rights  in  Canada  and  how  they  relate  not  only 
to  Canada  but  to  the  provinces  in  a  federal 
state  such  as  we  have.  I  am  sure  these  are 
matters  that  can  be  discussed  at  greater 
length  at  the  committee  level  and  I  look 
forward  to  that. 

Actually  the  inclusion  in  our  preamble  of 
the  universal  declaration  of  human  rights  was 
endorsed  enthusiastically  in  Life  Together, 
and  I  may,  for  the  information  of  the  mem- 
bers, just  refer  to  that.  On  page  17,  the  last 
paragraph  reads:  "The  members  of  the  com- 
mission find  that  the  current  role  of  their 
chairman  in  federal-provincial  consultations 
on  human  rights,"  which,  by  the  way,  are  still 
going  on,  "and  particularly  in  facilitating  pro- 
cedures for  Canada's  long-delayed  ratification 
of  the  United  Nations  Human  Rights 
Covenants  and  Protocol,"  which  occurred'  in 
1976,  "is  of  great  assistance  in  setting 
Ontario's  human  rights  problems  in  a  proper 
national  and  international  context.  Active 
participation  in  these  wider  relationships  is 
essential  for  the  continued  nourishment  for 
what  is  in  Ontario,  an  old  but  still  fragile 
tradition  of  concern  for  human  rights." 

We  have  accepted  the  principle  that  Life 
Together  felt  should  be  included  in  the  pre- 
amble of  the  code.  For  that  reason,  I  think 
the  members  who  spoke  on  the  issue  will  be 
supportive  because  we  agreed  with  the 
authors  of  the  text.  We  must,  however,  keep 
in  mind  that  some  of  the  matters  referred  to 
in  the  various  covenants  are  sufficiently  gen- 
era] that  they  may,  indeed,  be  difficult  to 
translate  into  legislative  protection  in  a  code 
which  ensures  against  discrimination  in  the 
context  of  employment,  accommodation  and 
provision  of  goods,  services  and  facilities. 

Again,  I  look  forward  to  discussing  these 
matters  in  greater  detail  at  the  committee 
stage  and  hope  we  can  elaborate  on  all  of 
our  thoughts  on  the  issues  at  that  time. 

The  member  for  Riverdale  expressed  some 
concern  about  the  Human  Rights  Commission 
being  a  closed  system  and  he  commented  that 
even  though  there  was  a  semi-autonomous 
board  of  inquiry  over  which  the  commission 
had  no  say  in  the  appointment  of,  a  couple 
of  things  troubled  him.  First  of  all,  he  was 
troubled  by  the  fact  that  it  was  necessary  for 
the  Attorney  General  to  approve  appeals,  and 
second,  he  was  troubled  by  the  fact  that  no 
civil  rights  action  arose  from  matters  outlined 
in  the  code. 

With  the  greatest  of  respect  to  the  member 
for  Riverdale,  and  I  sincerely  do  have  a  great 
deal  of  respect  for  him,  I  think  in  the  latter 
instance   he  was  probably  reading  only  the 


trial  judgement  and  not  the  Court  of  Appeal 
judgement.  He  will  recall  that  as  recently  as 
a  few  months  ago  there  was  the  second  of 
two  cases  which  I  will  refer  to,  which  was 
Bhaduria  versus  the  Board  of  Governors  of 
Seneca  College  of  Applied  Arts  and  Tech- 
nology where  the  Supreme  Court  held  that 
cause  of  action  was  created  by  matters  out- 
lined in  the  code.  I  know  the  member  is  not 
here  today,  but  I  hope  he  and  I  will  have  an 
opportunity  to  talk  about  it  because  I  think  it 
was  just  a  matter  that  it  had  not  come  to  his 
attention  that  the  Court  of  Appeal  had  over- 
turned the  trial  division  in  each  of  those 
cases. 

I  think  if  the  member  for  Riverdale  will 
read  section  41(2),  which  is  the  relevant  sec- 
tion with  regard  to  the  Attorney  General 
approving  prosecutions,  he  will  find  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  appeals  from  boards  of 
inquiry.  We  all  know  that  boards  of  inquiry 
decisions  may  be  appealed  on  both  fact  and 
law.  What  section  41(2)  deals  with  is  the 
requirement  that  the  Attorney  General  must 
approve  a  prosecution  for  an  offence  under 
this  act. 

For  example,  let  us  take  section  8:  "No 
person  shall  infringe  or  do  anything  that  re- 
sults, directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  infringe- 
ment of  a  right  under  this  part."  There  is  a 
possibility  then  of  an  action  for  someone  who 
is  committing  an  offence  in  that  they  are  try- 
ing to  thwart  the  purposes  of  section  8— in 
other  words,  a  criminal  action.  He  is  quite 
wrong  in  thinking  that  the  Attorney  General 
has  anything  to  do  with  determining  whether 
an  individual  has  a  right  to  appeal  his  de- 
cision from  a  board  of  inquiry. 

5:50  p.m. 

That  right  exists.  But  if  there  is  a  criminal 
charge  to  be  laid  for  trying  to  thwart  the 
purposes  of  the  Human  Rights  Code  then  the 
Attorney  General  is  involved  in  the  process, 
as  he  is  in  all  other  actions.  I  think  the  mem- 
ber for  Riverdale  can  be  assured  there  is  no 
motive  for  that  particular  inclusion  other 
than  that. 

Many  members  have  referred  to  the  issue 
of  racism.  I  am  sure  they  know  that  is  an 
issue  I  have  spoken  to  and  thought  a  lot 
about  myself,  because  I  cannot  think  of  any- 
thing that  is  more  corrosive  to  society  or 
which  demeans  each  of  us  more  when  it  takes 
place  in  society. 

I  was  grateful  for  the  remarks  I  heard  that 
indicated  there  was  an  appreciation  that  there 
had  been  a  movement  by  the  commission  and 
by  the  government  in  order  to  get  into  these 
areas  in  a  more  aggressive  way  as  they  be- 


5178 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


come  more  apparent.  I  appreciate  those  re- 
marks. I  do  not  think  there  was  any  sugges- 
tion that  there  was  any  apathy  about  the 
issue,  because  let  us  be  certain  about  that, 
there  is  not.  There  is  no  personal  apathy,  no 
apathy  by  members  of  the  commission,  no 
apathy  on  the  part  of  the  new  race  relations 
division  and  its  chairman,  and  the  cabinet 
committee  is  fully  committed  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Human  Rights  Code. 

I  am  sure  all  members  are  interested  to 
note  the  varieties  of  activities  that  are  going 
on  in  the  area  of  racism  at  the  municipal 
level.  In  North  York  and  Toronto  and  every- 
where around  we  have  seen  a  response  which 
is  a  healthy  response  to  the  issue  of  racism  in 
all  areas.  We  see  the  private  youth  employ- 
ment services  response  in  the  York-Finch 
area  facilitated  and  assisted  by  North  York 
council  and  by  our  own  commissioner,  Dr. 
Ubale.  The  North  York  council  has,  as  you 
all  know,  engaged  Dr.  Dan  Hill  to  be  its 
consultant  in  regard  to  racial  matters.  So 
there  is  lots  going  on  in  the  community.  It 
is  never  enough.  It  has  been  a  problem  that 
has  been  with  us  for  years  but  I  think  each 
generation  gets  better.  I  hope  we  will  all  be 
part  of  an  improving  generation. 

The  member  for  Riverdale  made  some 
remarks  with  regard  to  insurance  contracts 
and  expressed  his  own  concerns  about  some 
of  the  wording.  I  hope  he  will  go  back  to 
the  act  and  read  that,  whatever  he  may  feel 
about  a  variety  of  issues,  any  exemption  or 
preference  must  always  be  on  "reasonable 
and  bona  fide  grounds."  So  no  matter  what 
concerns  him,  the  grounds  must  always  ob- 
jectively be  proven  to  be  reasonable  and 
bona  fide  before  a  board  of  inquiry.  The 
member  for  Scarborough-Ellesmere  (Mr. 
Warner)  is  shaking  his  head.  He  has  to  under- 
stand the  basic  principles  of  common  law.  It 
is  there.  Whether  he  likes  it  or  not,  it  is 
there,  my  friend. 

Mr.  Warner:  It  is  all  hollow  words  of  the 
minister. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  No,  they  are  not  hollow 
words.  They  are  hollow  words  of  common 
law,  which  we  are  privileged  to  be  part 
of  this  country. 

The    Acting    Speaker:    The    member    will 
please  direct  his  remarks  through  the  chair. 
Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  If  I  did,  my  friend,  I 
could  probably  do  something  for  you.  You 
may  need  it  some  day.  There  are  days  when 
I  think  you  need  it  now;  a  little  hole  up 
front  here.  It  would  make  you  a  little  more 
palatable. 


The  member  for  St.  George  (Mrs.  Camp- 
bell) raised  a  question  of  reverse  onus.  I 
only  want  to  say  at  this  time  that  it  seems 
paradoxical  to  me.  I  gave  it  some  thought, 
as  did  many  members  of  our  government, 
but  it  does  seem  a  little  paradoxical  to  think 
of  including  a  reverse  onus  section  in  a 
Human  Rights  Code  which  is  intended  to 
protect  all  people's  rights,  the  accused  as 
well  as  the  accuser.  We  know  that  the  bal- 
ance of  onus  shifts  from  time  to  time  and 
there  are  problems  with  it.  I  hope  that  she 
gives  serious  thought  to  the  issue  of  reverse 
onus,  because  it  may  create  an  imbalance  in 
the  process  which  may  be  contrary  to  the 
fundamental  purposes  of  a  Human  Rights 
Code. 

I  was  disappointed  that  she  suggested 
there  was  some  lack  of  interest  in  the  matter 
of  age  in  this  government.  The  member  for 
York  West  (Mr.  Leluk)  has  made  it  very 
clear,  and  so  has  this  party,  that  it  has  a 
deep  and  continuing  concern  for  the  rights 
of  senior  citizens  in  society.  But  we  also 
have  a  concern  about  other  matters  that  I 
have  expressed  very  clearly  relating  to  pen- 
sions and  other  rights  of  people.  We  want 
those  matters  addressed  before  we  make  any 
decisions— and  they  should  be  thoughtful  de- 
cisions—about changing  the  age  of  manda- 
tory retirement. 

The  member  for  Windsor-Sandwich  (Mr. 
Bounsall)  raised  some  concerns  about  the 
issue  of  services,  implying  that  it  was  a  very 
limited  and  narrow  definition.  That  surprises 
me,  because  services  in  the  context  of  sec- 
tion 1,  when  used  with  goods  and  facilities, 
is  used  in  the  sense  of  any  help,  benefit  or 
advantage.  As  such  it  includes  any  public  or 
administrative  help,  benefit  or  advantage  of- 
fered, or  made  available  by  the  government, 
any  service  offered  or  made  available  under 
an  act  of  the  Legislature,  any  help,  benefit 
or  advantage  offered  or  made  available  by 
municipal  authority,  a  board  or  commission 
and  any  help,  benefit  or  advantage  offered  or 
made  available  by  an  individual  or  a  corpo- 
ration. 

I  do  not  know  how  one  can  have  a  broader 
definition  of  service.  I  am  not  sure  what  cases 
he  can  be  talking  about.  My  information  is 
that  there  has  been  no  case  law  to  limit  that 
general  understanding  of  the  definition  of 
services.  If  he  wants  to  talk  to  me  about  it 
in  private  I  would  be  glad  to  do  it,  because 
if  he  has  some  information  I  think  it  would 
be  important  for  us  to  know  it.  But  that  is 
our  understanding  of  the  definition  of  service. 

The  issue  has  come  up  quite  frequently 
about  the  question  of  epileptics  and  diabetics. 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5179 


Clearly  epileptics  are  covered  in  the  act— 
they  are  specified.  As  a  physician,  there  is 
absolutely  no  doubt  in  my  mind  whatever 
that  diabetics  are  covered.  Section  9(b)  says 
very  clearly  diabetes  is  a  physical  disability 
which  may  be  due  to  a  birth  defect,  or  due 
to  an  illness  or  due  to  trauma. 

I  appreciate  that  diabetics  might  like  to 
have  it  spelled  out  differently,  but  there  is 
a  whole  range  of  illnesses  and  conditions. 
Were  we  to  itemize  every  one,  the  mere  act 
of  itemizing  might  mean  we  forget  one. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Why  would  you  not  have 
included  diabetics  regardless? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  It  may  well  be  that  we 
have  to,  if  there  is  any  doubt.  But  I  am 
telling  the  member  we  could  have  an  in- 
credibly long  list  if  one  listed  all  of  the  dis- 
abilities—be they  due  to  trauma,  to  burns,  to 
infection.  There  is  a  whole  classification  of 
disabilities.  But  I  know  of  no  physician  who 
would  ever  think  that  diabetes  was  not  in- 
cluded in  this  general  definition.  So  there  can 
be  no  doubt  about  that. 

I  was  also  asked  if  section  16  applies  to 
housing  and  it  does.  I  could  discuss  the  ques- 
tion of  adult-only  buildings  in  detail  again, 
but  as  members  know,  I  covered  it  in  great 
detail  in  my  opening  remarks  yesterday.  I 
hope  the  member  for  Windsor-Sandwich  will 
refer  to  that  and  if  he  wishes  to  speak  to  me 
about  it  privately  or  during  the  clause-by- 
clause  debate  I  would  be  glad  to.  We  think 
we  have  a  very  rational  and  logical  position 
on  that.  I  honestly  believe  in  the  position  we 
have  taken  on  it. 

The  issue  of  political  belief  was  raised  by 
the  member  for  Windsor-Sandwich.  I  would 
be  curious  to  know  what  empirical  evidence 
he  really  has  that  it  is  a  problem  in  this 
society.  I  would  refer  him  to  page  63  of  Life 
Together.  It  was  concluded  there  that 
Ontario  does  not  begin  to  have  the  problems 
found  in  other  countries  where  the  lack  of 
freedom  of  political  belief  is  often  the  most 
common  denial  of  human  rights.  They  could 
not  find  a  problem  in  this  province  at  least. 
I  will  be  interested,  in  clause-by-clause,  to 
learn  what  specific  types  of  political  beliefs 
he  is  talking  about  and  what  kind  of  problems 
he  has  encountered  or  he  has  heard  of  that 
he  thinks  should  be  dealt  with.  Life  Together 
could  not  find  any  evidence  of  it  in  this 
province.  One  must  always  be  sure  that  one 
is  dealing  with  the  problems  that  exist  in 
society. 

We  can  get  into  the  makeup  of  the  com- 
mission in  greater  detail,  but  I  hope  the 
member  will  agree  that  by  and  large  they  are 


a  very  thoughtful,  committed  group  of  people. 
I  do  not  agree  with  his  suggestion  that  it 
should  be  filled  with  people  who  have  special 
interests.  I  think  it  is  important  that  there  be 
a  balance  in  a  commission. 

He  mentioned  in  particular  a  need  for 
handicapped  persons.  Dr.  Al  Jousse,  who  him- 
self is  handicapped  and  who  established  the 
first  rehabilitation  centre,  Lyndhurst  Lodge, 
for  handicapped  people  in  this  province  and 
who  is  world-renowned,  is  a  member  of  that 
commission.  He  is  very  knowledgeable  in  the 
field  both  from  a  personal  point  of  view  and 
from  a  physician's  point  of  view.  I  was  sur- 
prised the  member  picked  that  one  example, 
because  he  brings  both  points  of  view  to  that 
commission.  That  is  why  he  is  there— to  bring 
that  kind  of  facility  to  the  commission. 

The  member  for  Windsor-Walkerville,  I 
think  gave  very  thoughtful  remarks.  I  have 
known  of  his  great  interest  in  the  handi- 
capped for  many  years,  and  he  should  take 
great  pride  in  the  fact  that  this  bill  is  now 
before  the  House  because  it  encompasses 
many  of  the  things  he  fought  for,  for  many 
years,  and  I  am  proud  to  be  part  of  it 
because  of  that. 

I  would  like  to  assure  him  again,  because 
I  know  the  special  concern  he  has  about 
diabetes,  that  there  is  no  possible  way  that 
diabetics  are  not  covered.  We  can  talk  about 
it  at  committee  if  he  thinks  there  is  a  need 
to  do  more.  It  is  just  a  matter  of  how  far  one 
goes  in  listing  individual  conditions.  But 
there  is  no  doubt  it  is  covered. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  Can  I  draw  the  min- 
ister's attention  to  the  time? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Perhaps  the  other  mem- 
bers who  had  many  valuable  comments  will 
forgive  me  if  I  do  not  go  over  them  all 
individually.  I  will  keep  these  notes  and  per- 
haps when  we  go  to  committee  we  can  review 
it  on  a  clause-by-clause  basis  and  discuss 
some  of  the  matters  raised. 

On  one  issue,  I  must  clear  the  air:  The 
domestics  are  not  excluded  from  the  Human 
Rights  Code.  By  not  excluding  them,  they  are 
specifically  included.  Let  there  be  no  doubt 
about  that. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  standing  committee. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  would  it  be 
possible  for  the  government  House  leader  to 
introduce  a  motion  at  a  later  date  referring 
this  to  a  specific  committee? 

The  Acting  Speaker:  Yes,  I  think  that  can 
be  done.  It  will  be  a  standing  committee. 

The  House  adjourned  at  6:01  p.m. 


5180 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  5155) 


ANSWEHS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

LCBO  AND  LLBO  EMPLOYMENT 
APPLICATIONS 

405.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  indi- 
cate how  many  applications  for  permanent 
employment  have  been  made  with  the  LCBO 
and  the  LLBO  from  January  1,  1979,  until 
the  present  time?  Further,  how  many  appli- 
cations actually  have  the  answer  "yes"  to 
number  four  on  the  medical  history  form  and 
to  number  5(E)  on  the  application  for  per- 
manent employment?  Also,  how  many  people 
with  a  "yes"  to  number  four  on  the  medical 
form  have  been  hired  and  how  many  With  a 
"yes"  to  number  5(E)  on  the  application 
form  have  been  hired?  (Tabled  November 
21,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Attached  is  the  informa- 
tion supplied  by  the  LCBO  and  the  LLBO. 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  LLBO  has  a 
policv  of  retaining  outstanding  applications 
on  file  only  for  one  year.  Therefore,  they  are 
not  able  to  indicate,  for  the  period  from 
January  1,  1979,  to  November  21,  1979,  the 
number  received  with  "yes"  to  number  four 
of  the  medical  history  form,  or  the  number 
received  during  the  same  period  with  "yes" 
to  number  5(E)  on  the  employment  appli- 
cation form.  They  were  able  to  determine,  of 
those  hired  during  the  period  in  question, 
the  number  who  had  answered  the  questions 
as  indicated,  through  a  review  of  the  applica- 
tion form  submitted  by  all  staff  hired  during 
the  period. 

LCBO 

(A)  Number  of  applications  for  perma- 
nent employment  received:  (i)  from  January 
1,  1979  to  October  31,  1979,  3,692;  (ii) 
from  November  1,  1979,  to  November  21, 
1980,  4.354. 

(B)  Number  with  "yes"  to  number  four 
of  medical  history  form  (November  1,  1979, 
to  November  21,  1980),  467. 

(C)  Number  With  "yes"  to  number  5(E) 
on  employment  application  form  (November 
1,  1979,  to  November  21,  1980),  29. 

(D)  Of  "(B),"  number  hired:  (i)  from 
January  1,  1979,  to  October  31,  1979,  15; 
(ii)  from  November  1,  1979,  to  November 
21,  1980,  16. 

(E)  Of  "(C),"  number  hired:  (i)  from 
January  1,  1979,  to  October  31,  1979,  1;  (ii) 


from    November    1,    1979,   to   November  21, 
1980,  0. 

LLBO 

(A)  Number  of  applications  for  perma- 
nent employment  received:  644. 

(B)  Number  with  "yes"  to  number  four 
of  medical  history  form:  3. 

(C)  Number  with  "ves"  to  number  5(E) 
on  employment  application  form:   1. 

(D)  Of  "(B),"  number  hired:  3. 

(E)  Of  "(C),"  number  hired:  0. 

RALPH  HEDLIN  ASSOCIATES 

407.  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Minister 
of  Energy  please  provide  the  original  con- 
tract details  of  two  contracts  with  the  con- 
sulting firm  Ralph  Hedlin  Associates?  What 
was  the  original  contract  price?  What  were 
the  original  terms  of  the  contract?  What 
were  the  expanded  terms  of  the  contract  and 
what  further  amount  of  money  was  paid  to 
Ralph  Hedlin  Associates  over  and  above  the 
contract  price?  (Tabled  November  21,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  1.  Ralph  Hedlin  Associ- 
ates were  retained  by  the  ministry  in  Janu- 
ary 1979  to  advise  on  natural  gas  matters. 

The  original  contract  was  for  a  total 
amount  not  to  exceed  $6,000. 

The  complexity  of  the  gas  export  and 
eastern  extension  applications  to  the  National 
Energy  Board  changed  considerably  between 
January  1979  and  March  1979.  Considerable 
new  material  was  filed  by  all  applicants  and 
the  review  and  assessment  process  required 
additional  time. 

The  total  payment  over  and  above  the 
original  negotiated  amount  was  $3,075. 

2.  Ralph  Hedlin  Associates  were  also  re- 
tained by  the  ministry  in  January  1980  to 
conduct  a  study  of  natural  gas  conversion  in 
Ontario  with  regard  to  the  present  natural 
gas  market  and  the  potential  for  future  con- 
version. 

The  original  contract  was  for  a  total 
amount  not  to  exceed  $15,000. 

The  terms  of  reference  of  the  study  were 
extended  to  expand  the  scope  of  the  project. 
In  addition,  the  information  available  from 
the  Ontario  natural  gas  distributors  was  not 
as  detailed  as  expected,  requiring  additional 
work. 

The  total  payment  over  and  above  the 
original  negotiated  amount  was  $9,607.30. 

A  presentation  based  on  this  study  was 
given  to  the  standing  committee  on  resources 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5181 


development,  April  10,  1980,  during  dis- 
cussion of  the  ministry's  estimates.  (Hansard 
reference  pages  R-75  to  R-79. ) 

WCB  PHYSIOTHERAPY  PAYMENTS 

414.  Mr.  Isaacs:  Why  is  there  a  backlog 
of  up  to  six  months  or  more  in  WCB  pay- 
ments to  private  physiotherapy  claims?  How 
does  the  WCB  expect  these  small  businesses 
to  survive  when  the  WCB  fails  to  make 
proper  payment  on  overdue  accounts?  Will 
the  WCB  immediately  advance  90  per  cent 
of  all  outstanding  accounts  to  private  physio- 
therapy clinics?  Will  the  WCB  pay  interest 
on  all  accounts  that  have  been  outstanding 
more  than  30  days?  (Tabled  November  25, 
1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  1.  There  has  been  a  delay 
in  payment  of  physiotherapy  accounts  due 
to  the  implementation  of  a  new  computer 
system.  The  problems  within  this  system  are 
being  addressed  and  early  resolution  is  ex- 
pected. 

2.  Once  the  problems  of  the  computer  are 
rectified,  it  is  expected  that,  upon  adjudica- 
tion of  a  claim,  prompt  payment  of  the 
account  will  ensue. 

3.  No  portion  of  outstanding  accounts  can 
b>e  paid  until  they  are  processed  through  the 
system. 

4.  There  is  no  provision  in  the  act  which 
would  enable  the  WCB  to  pay  interest  on 
the  delayed  accounts. 

MUNICIPAL  ASSESSMENT 
PER  STUDENT 

418.  Mr.  Grande:  Will  the  minister 
responsible  table  the  residential  and  com- 
mercial assessment  per  student,  excluding  the 
equalized  assessment,  for  each  municipality 
in  the  province?  (Tabled  November  28, 
1980.) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  Ministry  of 
Education  does  not  collect  school  enrolment 
information  by  municipality  except  in  11 
instances  where  a  school  board  jurisdiction 
happens  to  include  only  one  municipality. 
The  1980  data  for  those  11  are  shown  below. 


Residential     Commercial 
assessment      assessment 


Municipality 


Residential     Commercial 

assessment      assessment 

per  student      per  student 


Wicksteed  Public 

40,162 

13,492 

Secondary 

97,093 

26,621 

Timmins     Public 

11,847 

15,260 

Secondary 

18,453 

13,712 

Separate 

7,006 

1,408 

Municipal 

ity               per  student 

per  student 

Hamilton 

Public 

15,266 

14,892 

Secondary 

29,509 

22,654 

London 

Public 

16,503 

9,112 

Secondary 

28,344 

14,133 

Windsor 

Public 

26,419 

26,354 

Secondary 

48,562 

32,942 

419.  Mr.  Grande:  Will  the  minister 
responsible  table  the  equalized  assessment 
per  student  for  each  of  the  municipalities  in 
the  province?  (Tabled  November  28,  1980.) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  The  Ministry  of 
Education  does  not  collect  enrolment  infor- 
mation by  municipality  except  in  11  instances 
where  a  school  board  jurisdiction  happens  to 
include  only  one  muncipality.  The  1980  data 
for  those  11  are  shown  below. 


Equalized 

assessment 

Municipality 

Public 

per  student 

Wicksteed 

75,919 

Secondary 

173  978 

Timmins 

Public 

199.983 

Secondary 

232,118 

Separate 

58,143 

Hamilton 

Public 

229,115 

Secondary 

392512 

London 

Public 

192,799 

Secondary 

318,498 

Windsor 

Public 

214,832 

Secondary 

326,663 

FOOD  PROCESSING  INDUSTRY 

423.  Mr.  MacDonald:  1.  How  many 
loans,  and  in  what  amounts,  have  been  made 
to  existing  or  proposed  companies  in  the 
food  processing  industrv  bv  the  Ontario  De- 
velopment Corporation?  2.  How  many  grants, 
to  whom  and  in  what  amounts,  have  been 
made  out  of  the  $5  million  from  the  employ- 
ment development  fund  and  how  much  of 
the  unallocated  funds  are  available  to  future 
EDF  applicants  from  within  the  food 
processing  industry?  3.  What  other  assistance, 
either  financial  or  technical,  has  the  Ministry 
of  Agriculture  and  Food  made  to  companies 
in  the  food  processing  industry?  4.  Have  any 
other  ministries  been  involved  in  efforts  to 
strengthen  or  expand  the  food  processing  in- 
dustry; if  so,  which  and  in  what  way?  5. 
What  role  will  the  new  Board  of  Industrial 
Leadership  and  Development  have  in  re- 
versing the  deindustrialization  trend  in  the 
food    processing    industry;    specifically,    what 


5182 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


amounts  of  money  will  be  available  and  to 
what  extent,  and  in  what  manner,  will  the 
Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  be  in- 
volved?  (Tabled  November  28,   1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  1.  The  following 
covers  all  loans  and  guarantees  approved  for 
food  and  beverage  industries  by  the  Ontario 
Development  Corporations  from  inception 
(1966)  to  the  present. 

ONTARIO  DEVELOPMENT 
CORPORATION 

Food  and  beverage  industries 

loans  and  guarantees  approved 

to  the  present 

Food  processors 


Category 


Number  of 
loans  and 
guarantees 


Amount 

I  2,099.200 
668,333 
198,514 

2,092,603 

1,833,540 
3,235,220 

953,333 

1,166,467 

87,000 

514,583 
1,669,360 

70,000 

10,521,676 

Total  150  $25,109,829 

*  Companies  that  would  either  fall  under 
more  than  one  of  the  above  categories,  or 
which  would  not  fall  within  these  head- 
ings. 

Beverage  manufacturers 

Soft  drinks  3  $      190,000 

Distilleries  2  375,000 


Slaughtering  and  meat 
Poultry  processors 
Fish    products 
Fruit  and 

vegetable  canners 
Frozen  fruits 

and  vegetables 
Dairy  products 
Flour  and 

cereal  products 
Feed  industry 
Bakery  products 
Biscuit   manufacturers 
Bakeries 
Confectionery 

manufacturers 
MisceHaneous 

food   processors* 


15 
4 

2 

10 

7 
21 

4 

10 

2 

2 

20 


51 


Wineries 


224,900 


Total                                     8 
Totals- 
food  and  beverage     158 

$      789,900 
$25,899,729 

2.                                 Grants 
Company 

Sun-brite  Canning 
Ja-Dee  Meat  Products 
Cuddy  Food  Products 

Amount 

$270,000 
150,000 
500,000 

Total 

$920,000 

Guarantees 

Vegetein  Inc.  $250,000 

No  specific  sum  has  been  allocated  to 
future  employment  development  fund  appli- 
cants from  within  the  food  processing  in- 
dustry. At  the  start  of  the  current  fiscal  year, 
however,  approximately  $75  million  was  allo- 
cated by  the  government  to  the  fund.  In 
anticipation  of  future  applications,  and  in 
order  to  help  the  Treasurer  set  aside  suffi- 
cient funds  to  address  the  needs  of  all  min- 
istries, my  own  ministry  judged  that  approxi- 
mately $5  nrllion  would  adequately  cover 
any  funding  required  by  the  processing 
sector  in  the  current  year.  To  date,  almost 
$1  million  in  grants  has  been  disbursed. 

3.  Examples  of  other  assistance,  financial 
or  technical,  currently  made  to  food  process- 
ing industry  companies  by  the  Ontario  Min- 
istry of  Agriculture  and  Food,  are  as  follows: 

(a)  This  ministry  spearheads  many  of  the 
applications  which  go  to  the  Ontario  Devel- 
opment Corporation. 

(b)  Current  year  major  advertising  cam- 
paign: 


Date 


Campaign 


January  1980 

Processed  vegetables  mall  posters 
January  1980 

Processed  meat  and  pickle  billboard 
February  1980 

Processed  fruit  billboard 
March  1980 

Tomato  juice  newspaper  ad 
March  1980 

Processed  vegetable  billboard 
March  1980 

Processed  fruit  newspaper  ad 
March  1980 

Processed  vegetable  newspaper  ad 
March  1980 

Processed  fruit  mall  posters 
September  1980 

Grape  juice  newspaper  ad 
November  1980 

Processed  fruit  transit  ad 
November  1980 

Tomato  juice  billboard 
March  1981 

Apple  juice  billboard* 
*  tentative 

(c)  Fifteen  trade  missions  are  planned,  or 
have  been  completed  in  the  current  fiscal 
year. 

(d)  A  seminar  has  been  held  this  year 
regarding  European  marketing  opportunities 
for  processed  products. 


DECEMBER  10,  1980 


5183 


(e)  Joint  market  development  committees, 
composed  of  processors  and  ministry  staff, 
examine  and  evaluate  marketing  plans  of 
mutual  interest. 

(f)  A  major  import  replacement  priority 
list  will  shortly  be  completed. 

(g)  Financial  assistance  is  being  made  to 
the  food  service  industry  in  the  form  of  ad- 
vertising in  food  service  publications  and 
participation  in  the  annual  Hostex  exhibiton. 

4.  This  ministry  works  principally  with  the 
Ontario  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  in 
making  referrals  to  the  Ontario  Development 
Corporation.  Other  ministries  are  usually  not 
involved. 

5.  The  Board  of  Industrial  Leadership 
and  Development  was  only  recently  created 
as  part  of  the  supplementary  measures  con- 
tained in  the  November  13  economic  state- 
ment by  the  Honourable  Frank  Miller,  Treas- 
urer of  Ontario.  The  board's  membership 
was  announced  by  the  Premier  on  November 
24  and  the  first  meeting  will  be  in  the  week 
of  December  8. 

My  ministry  will  be  putting  to  the  board  a 
number  of  requests  for  funding  assistance  to 
both  strengthen  and  expand  the  food  pro- 
cessing industry.  It  Will  be  up  to  the  board 
to  decide  whether  my  ministry  will  have  a 
specified  earmarked  amount  of  money  which 
can  be  used  at  the  discretion  of  the  ministry. 


The  board  has  the  flexibility  to  request  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  to  provide 
input  into  the  decisions  which  relate  to  the 
agriculture  and  food  industry. 

We  would  want  to  see  this  ministry  get 
appropriate  funding  from  the  board  for  ex- 
pansion of  the  food  processing  industry.  The 
actual  dollar  amount  spent  by  the  board  will 
therefore  depend  upon  a  combination  of  min- 
istry initiatives  and  the  response  by  the  in- 
dustry to  the  opportunity  to  obtain  assistance. 

PROVINCIAL  CASH  DEPOSITS 

424.  Mr.  Ruston:  Would  the  minister 
report  to  the  Legislature  the  amount  of  cash 
on  deposits  which  the  province  had  in  banks 
and  trust  companies  on  October  31,  1980, 
and  whether  any  deposits  were  in  any  other 
financial  institutions?  (Tabled  December  1, 
1980.) 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  On  October  31,  1980, 
the  province's  accounts  in  Canadian  chart- 
ered banks  were  in  a  net  overdraft  position 
of  $9.6  million.  The  province  had  no  cash 
on  deposit  with  trust  companies  or  other 
financial  institutions. 

On  that  date,  the  province's  short-term  in- 
vestment portfolio  included  a  total  of  $694.6 
million  of  securities  issued  or  guaranteed  by 
Canadian  chartered  banks. 


5184  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Wednesday,  December  10,  1980 

Point  of  privilege  re  opted-out  specialists:  Mr.  Cassidy  5141 

Death  of  John  Lennon:  Mr.  Baetz,  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy  5141 

Social  insurance  numbers,  statement  by  Mr.  Pope  5142 

Point  of  privilege  re  genetics:  Mr.  Grande  5143 

Italian  earthquake,  questions  of  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Renwick 5143 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.   Parrott:   Mr.   S.   Smith,   Mr.   Cassidy,  Mr. 

Isaacs,  Mr.   G.  I.  Miller 5144 

Dioxin    testing,    questions    of    Mr.    Parrott    and    Mr.    Henderson:    Mr.    Cassidy,    Mr. 

McGuigan,  Mr.   Samis 5147 

Plant  closures  and  termination  entitlements,  questions  of  Mr.   Welch:   Mr.  Cassidy, 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid 5148 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  G.  I.  Miller 5149 

Plant  closures  and  termination  entitlements,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Mackenzie  5150 

Federal  aid  to  transportation,  questions  of  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Ashe  5151 

Norfolk  teachers'  dispute,  statement  by  Miss   Stephenson  5151 

Italian  earthquake,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Grande  5151 

Point  of  privilege  re  report  in  Toronto  Sun:  Mr.  Cunningham  5154 

Reports,  standing  committee  on  general  government:  Mr.  Cureatz  5154 

Repot,  standing  committee  on  social  development:  Mr.  Gaunt  5155 

Reports,  standing  committee  on  resources  development:  Mr.  Villeneuve   5155 

Petition  re   extended   care:    Mr.   Laughren   5155 

Motion  re  House  sitting,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5155 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  405,  407,  414,  418,  419,  423  and  424  on  Notice  Paper: 

Mr.    Wells    5155 

Third  readings,  Bills  118,  168,  169,  182  and  187  5155 

Ontario  Unconditional  Grants  Act,  Bill  199,  third  reading  5156 

Third  reading,   Bill   200 5156 

Institute    of   Chartered    Secretaries    and    Administrators   in    Ontario    Act,    Bill    Pr41, 

Mr.  Belanger,  second  and  third  readings  5156 

Jewish  Family  and  Child  Service  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act,  Bill  Pr45,  Mr.  Rotenberg, 

second  and  third  readings   5156 

Redeemer  College  Act,  Bill  Pr48,  Mr.  Ashe,  second  reading  5156 

Gradore  Mines  Limited  Act,  Bill  Pr49,  Mr.  Ramsay,  second  and  third  readings  5157 

City  of  Kingston  Act,  Bill  Pr50,  Mr.  Watson,  second  and  third  readings  5157 


DECEMBER  10,  1980  5185 


Hamilton  Club  Act,  Bill  Pr51,  Mr.  S.  Smith,  second  and  third  readings  5157 

McColl  Farms  Limited  Act,  Bill  Pr53,  Mr.  Watson,  second  and  third  readings 5157 

Third  reading,  Bill  Pr48 5157 

Italian    Canadian    Benevolent    Corporation    (Toronto    District)    Act,    Bill    Pr42,    Mr. 

Rotenberg,  second  and  third  readings 5157 

Borough  of  York  Act,  Bill  Pr46,  Mr.  MacDonald,  second  and  third  readings  5157 

Human  Rights  Code  Act,  Bill  209,  Mr.  Elgie,  second  reading  5157 

Adjournment    5179 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

LGBO   and  LLBO   employment   applications,   questions   of  Mr.   Drea:    Mr.   Van 

Home   5180 

Ralph  Hedlin  Associates,  questions  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  5180 

WCB  physiotherapy  payments,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:   Mr.  Isaacs 5181 

Municipal  assessment  per  student,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Grande  ....  5181 

Food  processing  industry,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:   Mr.  MacDonald  5181 

Provincial  cash  deposits,  questions  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Ruston  5183 


5186  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC) 

Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C.;  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Di  Santo,  O.  (Downsview  NDP) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C.;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnson,  J.  (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel  PC) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

McGuigan.  J.  (Kent-Elgin  L) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Pope,  Hon.  A.;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Cochrane  South  PC) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC) 

Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP) 

Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Tavlor,  T.  A.  (Prince  Edward-Lennox  PC) 
Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-EUesmere  NDP) 

Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 


No.  138 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  December  11,  1980 
Morning  and  Afternoon  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  >vith  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference  to   a  cumulative  index  of  previous  issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


5189 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  a.m. 
Prayers. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

URBAN  TRANSPORTATION 

DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

LTD.  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  190,  An  Act  respecting  Urban  Trans- 
portation   Development    Corporation    Ltd. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
just  like  to  make  a  brief  explanation  of  this 
very  brief  but  very  important  bill  that  we 
have  before  us  this  morning. 

The  bill  outlines  the  interpretation  of  the 
Urban  Transportation  Development  Corpo- 
ration, which  is  a  company  fully  owned  by 
the  province  of  Ontario  but  incorporated  by 
letters  patent  dated  October  10,  1974,  issued 
under  the  Canada  Corporations  Act.  It  is 
a  regularly  incorporated  company  under  the 
federal  act.  The  shares  are  totally  held  by 
me  on  behalf  of  the  government  of  Ontario. 

Section  2  of  the  bill  declares  "that  the 
Urban  Transportation  Development  Corpo- 
ration is  not  an  agency  of  Her  Majesty  in 
common  law  nor  a  crown  agency  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Crown  Agency  Act."  This 
is  a  similar  clause  to  section  13  of  the 
Ontario  Transportation  Development  Corpo- 
ration Act,  which  corporation  was  incorpo- 
rated by  act  of  this  Legislature.  Section  13 
was  included  to  state  that  the  corporation 
was  not  a  crown  agency  under  the  meaning 
of  the  Crown  Agency  Act. 

As  UTDC  was  incorporated  under  the 
normal  method  of  incorporation,  that  was 
not  included.  We  wish  to  give  the  corpo- 
ration that  status.  That  makes  the  corpo- 
ration an  operating  company  subject  to  the 
same  rules  and  regulations  basically  as  a 
regularly  incorporated  business  corporation 
except  that,  as  I  understand  it,  the  corpo- 
ration is  exempt  from  federal  income  tax 
under  the  Income  Tax  Act  since  it  is  more 
than  90  per  cent  owned  by  the  crown. 

The  purpose  of  this  is  to  confirm  that  the 
corporation  is  a  separately  operating  busi- 
ness corporation.  It  will  be  subject  to  several 


Thursday,  December  11,  1980 

laws  of  the  province,  such  as  the  Planning 
Act  and  the  Labour  Relations  Act,  just  as 
any  other  corporation  is.  It  would  not  be 
exempt  from  those  acts  as  a  crown  agency 
is.  It  will  also  make  a  difference  as  far  as 
the  statute  of  limitations  is  concerned,  and 
the  employees  would  be  private  sector  em- 
ployees and  not  employees  of  the  crown. 

The  other  main  purpose  of  the  act  is  to 
provide  for  guaranteeing  the  performance  of 
contracts  or  the  indemnity  by  the  crown.  As 
the  government  of  Ontario  is  the  only 
shareholder  and  the  owner  of  the  corpo- 
ration, this  is  not  an  unusual  procedure  at 
all  when  entering  into  performance  bonds 
for  the  carrying  out  of  contracts.  I  know 
that  when  any  corporation  is  requesting 
bonding  by  the  major  surety  companies  of 
the  world,  those  bonding  companies  will  in 
almost  every  instance,  ask  for  guarantees  by 
the  parent  corporation  or  by  the  shareholder 
of  the  corporation. 

I  know  from  my  own  experience,  having 
been  in  the  construction  industry  for  about 
25  or  30  years  and  procuring  bonds  for 
the  carrying  out  of  contracts,  it  is  always 
the  procedure  of  the  surety  company  to 
request  guarantees  from  the  owners  of  the 
company  whether  they  be  private  individuals 
or  other  corporations.  This  provision  of  the 
act  provides  that  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
in  Council  may,  on  behalf  of  the  province 
of  Ontario,  provide  such  guarantees  of  in- 
demnity to  the  surety  company  on  behalf  of 
UTDC. 
10:10  a.m. 

This  would  provide  for  the  corporation  to 
obtain  the  normal  performance  bonding  that 
any  company  would  be  expected  to  provide 
in  the  carrying  out  of  any  significant  com- 
mercial contract.  This  bill  provides  for  that 
purpose.  That  is  the  explanation  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  initially  I 
should  say  we  will  be  supporting  the  bill  to- 
day, requesting  that  it  go  to  committee. 

Bill  190  causes  us  some  real  concern.  On 
the  face  of  it,  this  small  item  of  legislation 
appears  to  be  reasonably  innocuous  but  the 
main  thrust  of  the  bill  is  to  permit  the  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  in  Council,  on  behalf  of  the 
province,  to  enter  into  covenants  or  financial 


5190 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


agreements   to   bond   or   guarantee   contracts 
entered  into  by  the  UTDC. 

Over  the  last  six  or  seven  years  the  Ontario 
Liberal  Party  has  been  somewhat  sceptical,  at 
least  in  a  responsible  sense,  with  regard  to  the 
rapid  transit  proposals  put  forward  in  the 
name  of  this  crown  corporation  and  its  pre- 
decessor. Members  of  the  Legislature  will  re- 
call the  pomp  and  ceremony  and  publicity 
that  occurred  with  the  ill-fated  Krauss-Maffei 
system.  I  think  in  that  year  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  was  the  beneficiary  of  the  Transit  Man 
of  the  Year  award.  Unfortunately,  that 
system  would  not  go  around  corners. 

That  same  year,  on  September  12  or  13, 
1974,  we  had  an  announcement  during  the 
fifteenth  annual  Premiers'  conference  in  To- 
ronto, the  headline  on  which  was  "Ontario 
and  Alberta  Join  in  Urban  Transit  Develop- 
ment Corporation."  It  got  headlines  in  all  the 
local  papers.  There  was  a  lot  of  whoop-de-doo 
in  the  press.  Very  briefly  it  said: 

"The  overriding  theme  of  the  fifteenth  an- 
nual Premiers'  conference  has  been  inter- 
provincial  co-operation.  In  part,  this  stems 
from  an  understanding  which  the  province  of 
Ontario  gave  at  last  year's  Premiers'  con- 
ference in  Charlottetown  to  seek  ways  by 
which  the  various  provinces  could  work  to- 
gether in  development  programs  to  the  mutual 
advantage  of  all  parts  of  this  country.  Since 
last  year  a  number  of  areas  of  joint  partici- 
pation and  co-operation  have  been  explored, 
one  of  which  resulted  in  the  purchase  earlier 
this  year  of  Alberta  coal  by  Ontario  Hydro. 

"Today  Alberta  and  Ontario  are  pleased  to 
announce  that  the  province  of  Alberta  will 
make  an  investment  in  UTDC  and  will  co- 
operate with  Ontario  in  the  development 
within  the  private  sector  of  Canadian  transit 
technology  and  in  the  Canadian  transit  equip- 
ment industry."  It  goes  on  for  five  pages.  The 
last  paragraph  quotes  the  Premier.  "'The 
government  of  Ontario's  original  announce- 
ment of  the  corporation  and  its  activities  sug- 
gested that  it  should  be  a  corporation  serving 
national  interests.  Alberta's  participation  is  a 
significant  step  towards  that  goal,'  Mr.  Davis 
said." 

Mr.  Nixon:  How  much  of  that  Alberta 
money  did  we  get? 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Not  one  thin  dime,  Mr. 
Speaker.  It  is  regrettable,  because  I  think  the 
intent  and  the  purpose  expressed  in  that 
agreement  and  in  the  press  announcement, 
which  obtained  a  great  deal  of  coverage  not 
only  here  but  across  the  country,  was  excel- 
lent. It  is  the  kind  of  thing  that,  especially 
in  1974,  might  have  helped  to  bind  us  today. 
It  might  have  helped  cement  better  relations 


today,  but  unfortunately,  for  a  number  of 
reasons,  Alberta  changed  its  mind  on  this 
situation  and  chose  not  to  enter  into  an 
agreement. 

Three  days  later,  on  UTDC  stationery,  we 
have  a  news  release.  It  is  dated  September 
16,  1974,  Toronto,  and  says:  "Kirk  Foley, 
president  of  the  Urban  Transportation  De- 
velopment Corporation,  today  outlined  a  co- 
operative development  program  with  Douglas 
Aircraft  Company  of  Canada,  Toronto,  and 
the  McDonnell  Douglas  Corporation  for  a 
North  American  application  of  the  GO  Urban 
rapid  transit  system."  Yet  again  more  head- 
lines right  across  the  country  and  this  was 
just  three  days  later. 

"Earlier  today  the  McDonnell  Douglas 
Corporation  of  St.  Louis,  a  company  noted 
for  its  commercial  aviation  and  space  ex- 
ploration activities,  entered  into  an  agree- 
ment with  Krauss-Maffei  of  Munich  for  ex- 
clusive US  rights  to  the  west  German  com- 
pany's magnetic  levitation  rapid  transit  tech- 
nology. The  UTDC  will  receive  10  per  cent 
of  the  royalties  flowing  to  Krauss-Maffei  from 
its  agreement  with  McDonnell  Douglas.  This 
arises  out  of  the  corporation's  own  licence 
agreement  which  was  signed  over  a  year  ago. 
The  US  transportation  company  will  invest 
at  least  $20  million  in  further  development 
of  technology  now  evolving  from  the  GO 
Urban  transit  development  project  in  Toronto. 
'"With  UTDC  and  McDonnell  Douglas 
each  holding  exclusive  rights  to  the  use  of 
this  technology  in  Canada  and  the  US  re- 
spectively,' Mr.  Foley  said,  'We  now  have 
initiated  a  co-operative  development  program 
to  bring  a  prototype  maglev  technology  to 
production  status  within  the  shortest  possible 
time.'"  That  was  1974. 

"'The  decision  by  McDonnell  Douglas  to 
enter  this  field,  which  will  involve  engineer- 
ing, marketing  and  manufacturing,'  Mr.  Foley 
said,  'is  a  result  of  several  years  of  analysis 
of  the  urban  transit  market  in  the  United 
States  and  an  evaluation  of  emergent  tech- 
nologies for  high-performance  rapid  transit.' " 
It  goes  on  for  another  four  or  five  pages  . 

"In  making  his  announcement  Mr.  Foley 
stressed  that  this  development  program,  in- 
cluding Douglas  Aircraft  Company  of  Canada, 
is  another  part  of  the  UTDC  commitment  to 
transfer  its  technology  rights  to  Canadian  in- 
dustry. This  will  ensure  that  the  Canadian  in- 
dustry will  lead  in  the  development  of 
revenue  systems  produced  for  markets  in  this 
country  and  for  export  markets."  That  was 
in  1974. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  we  do  not  regu- 
larly get  press  releases  from  Mr.  Foley  any 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5191 


more.  I  think  he  anticipates  just  how  they 
might  be  used. 

I  may  be  wrong  and  I  stand  to  be  cor- 
rected, but  I  do  not  think  we  obtained  much 
of  our  10  per  cent  on  that.  If  anything,  I  do 
not  think  we  got  one  thin  dime  from  Mc- 
Donnell Douglas.  That  particular  arrangement 
is  unfortunately  ancient  history.  McDonnell 
Douglas  was  to  share  in  the  cost  of  recovery 
of  the  KM  technology  50:50,  and  I  do  not 
think  that  ever  happened.  The  maglev  tech- 
nology soon  found  its  way  to  the  back 
burners. 

Then  there  was  the  famous  announcement, 
made  I  think  through  the  good  graces  of 
CFTO-TV,  announcing  that  we  had  obtained 
and  we  were  going  to  perform  a  contract  to 
build  a  system  from  Tel  Aviv  to  Haifa.  That 
project  never  got  going.  There  was  optimism 
and  publicity  with  regard  to  a  Caracas  bid. 
Thereafter  there  were  bids  all  across  the 
United  States— Philadelphia,  Miami  when  it 
was  cold  up  here,  Boston,  Buffalo.  Now  there 
are  Los  Angeles  and  latterly  Vancouver. 

In  the  meantime,  UTDC  has  spent  a  small 
fortune  developing  technology— for  the  most 
part,  technology  that  I  believe  the  private 
sector  already  had.  The  arrangement  with 
UTDC  and  Hawker  Siddeley  to  build  street- 
cars for  Toronto  has  been,  in  my  view, 
moderately  successful  if  at  all.  The  cars  are 
extremely  heavy.  One  can  get  a  foot  massage 
by  standing  on  Front  Street  listening  to  these 
things  run  up  and  down  the  street.  They 
are  incredibly  expensive.  My  gut  feeling  after 
this  experience  is  that  Hawker  Siddeley  prob- 
ably could  have  done  the  job  cheaper  and 
more  efficiently  on  its  own. 

Not  a  word  has  been  heard— maybe  it  is 
because  again  I  am  not  getting  the  press 
releases,  but  I  do  not  sense  that  there  is  any 
progress-with  regard  to  the  UTDC  arrange- 
ment with  Bombardier-MLW.  I  recall  they 
were  going  to  build  articulated  streetcars;  not 
a  peep.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  particular 
project  is  again  on  the  back  burners  and 
there  is  some  real  doubt. 

Now  we  have  an  announcement  of  a  proj- 
ect in  Vancouver.  The  Premier,  in  co-opera- 
tion with  the  British  Columbia  government, 
has  announced  an  advanced  light  rapid  transit 
system  in  Vancouver  some  two  weeks  before 
a  feasibility  study  in  that  city  would  be  com- 
pleted. Globe  and  Mail  columnist  Robert 
Williamson  said  in  yesterday  morning's  paper 
—I  will  just  quote  it  here  for  you,  Mr.  Speak- 
er, in  the  event  you  have  not  had  a  chance 
to  see  it: 

"Here,  through  the  political  chicanery  of 
the  Social  Credit  government,  is  something 
to   behold.    In   a   sudden   stampede   to   pre- 


empt the  installation  of  Vancouver  city  coun- 
cil and  its  new  NDP  mayor  and  claim  the 
glory  for  the  Vancouver  transit  system,  Vic- 
toria has  deceived  municipal  leaders  into  ex- 
pecting up  to  $100  million  in  cash  from 
Ottawa.  The  federal  cabinet  has  not  even 
considered  the  west  coast  transit  aid,  and 
when  it  does  it  will  be  looking  at  no  more 
than  $50  million." 

I  had  a  discussion  with  officials  from  that 
ministry  yesterday  and  I  am  led  to  believe 
that  that  in  fact  will  probably  be  $40 
million.  The  long  and  short  of  it  is  that  it 
was  a  rather  hastily  arranged  proposition. 
The  cost  of  this  is  still  in  some  doubt.  I 
think  the  newly  elected  mayor  of  Vancouver 
is  entitled  to  refer  to  this  possibly  as  a  pig 
in  a  poke  and  hardly  the  basis  of  a  sound 
workable  business  arrangement. 
10:20  a.m. 

In  response  to  questions  from  my  friend 
the  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  (Mr. 
Nixon),  the  Premier  indicated  no  such  con- 
tract exists  at  this  time.  Nothing  was  written 
and  none  of  the  real  details  had  been 
ironed  out. 

In  fact,  there  were  more  questions  than 
answers  on  this  particular  project.  Will  the 
project  be  elevated  or  will  it  be  below 
ground?  Will  it  be  a  combination  of  those 
factors?  Will  it  be  run  by  computers  or 
will  it  be  manual?  Will  it  be  propelled  by 
a  linear  induction  motor  or  by  a  rotary 
motor? 

These  are  all  technical  questions  to  be 
answered  and  questions  that  must  be  of 
vital  concern  to  those  of  us  who  are  con- 
cerned about  the  potential  liability  on  the 
part  of  the  Ontario  taxpayer  if  this  project 
should  fail.  That  is  what  Bill  190  is  all 
about. 

Are  there  firm  prices  or  are  we  anticipat- 
ing cost  overruns?  Were  there  cost  over- 
runs at  the  Kingston  test  track?  What  is  the 
assessment  of  the  viability  of  this  project  by 
the  independent  bonding  people?  Very 
simply,  are  we  considering  advanced  light 
rapid  transit  when  a  conventional  light  rapid 
transit  might  be  simpler,  cheaper  and  more 
efficient,  and  of  less  risk  to  the  Ontario 
taxpayer? 

What  are  the  natures  of  the  agreements 
with  our  subcontractors?  Who  are  the  sub- 
contractors? At  this  point,  we  are  not  even 
sure  who  those  people  will  be.  Have  we 
made  or  are  we  making  arrangements  with 
BombardierjMLW?  Does  Canad'air  continue 
to  want  to  work  with  UTDC?  Does  Hawker 
Siddeley  Canada  Limited?  If  they  do  not, 
and  recognizing  that  UTDC  has  no  manu- 


5192 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


factoring  facility,  what  Canadian  company- 
would  do  business  with  us? 

It  is  estimated  that  upwards  of  $100 
million  of  Ontario  taxpayers'  money  has 
-been  spent  on  UTDC  to  date.  Will  this 
project  we  are  speaking  of  in  Vancouver 
recover  those  costs,  or  will  this  project  in 
combination  with  the  Los  Angeles  project 
recover  our  development  costs?  Those  are 
questions  yet  to  be   answered. 

It  is  estimated  that  at  least  60  per 
cent  of  the  costs  will  relate  to  land 
acquisition,  and  construction  of  terminal 
.stations  in  the  sky  and,  of  course,  the  track 
bed  itself.  It  is  my  understanding  that  the 
steel  for  the  rails  will  not  come  from  On- 
tario but  will  likely  come  from  Sysco  Steel 
in  Nova  Scotia  or  Interprovincial  Steel  and 
Pipe  Corporation  from  the  west.  That  leaves 
roughly  40  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  this 
project  to  be  developed  elsewhere,  and  if 
Ontario  contractors  were  not  to  be  involved, 
what  really  is  the  benefit  of  this  project  for 
Ontario?  I  think  that  must  remain  the 
fundamental  question  and  I  hope  the  min- 
ister will  comment  on  that  in  some  detail. 

Through  this  bill  we  will  be  accepting 
the  responsibility  for  a  very  large  financial 
bond.  I  truly  and  sincerely  hope  the  project 
works.  I  want  to  say  this  to  the  minister 
and1  I  want  to  go  on  record  very  clearly  and 
unequivocally  right  now,  I  will  be  one  of 
the  first  people  to  admit  I  have  been  wrong 
on  this  if  what  has  been  proposed  turns 
out  to  be  successful,  viable,  there  is  no  risk 
to  the  Ontario  taxpayer  and  the  original 
purpose  of  UTDC  is  achieved. 

I  remain  somewhat  doubtful  with  regard 
to  that,  but  I  would  like  to  say  our  sceptic- 
ism with  regard  to  UTDC  has  not  been  un- 
founded. Other  questions  arise.  Why  are  we 
putting  the  people  of  Ontario  on  the  finan- 
cial hook  on  this  particular  project?  Have 
we  tried  private  bonding  companies?  The 
minister  has  a  great  deal  of  experience  in 
that  particular  endeavour.  Have  we  looked 
at  Canadian  surety  companies?  Have  we 
looked  at  Lloyds  of  London?  It  would  al- 
most be  beneficial  to  take  a  look  and  see 
what  it  thinks  of  the  viability  of  these 
projects.  I  would  like  to  know  why  we  have 
not  gone  to  Lloyds.  If  we  have,  what  does 
Lloyds  of  London  think  about  this  and 
what  does  it  think  of  a  money-back  guar- 
antee that  will  exist  on  a  project  of  this 
sort  that  has  never  been  tried  or  proved, 
at  least  to  date? 

It  would  be  nice  to  know,  when  we  are 
granting  our  friend  Mr.  Foley  the  combination 
to  the  consolidated  revenue  fund,  the  extent 


of  our  possible  liabilities.  It  has  been  said  that 
with  Vancouver  it  might  be  $300  million. 
My  gut  feeling  is  that  the  initial  estimate  of 
the  cost  of  that  project  is  modest  indeed.  Now 
we  have  word  of  an  LA  project  and  a  possi- 
bility of  bids  elsewhere.  It  is  doubtful  we  will 
get  more  than  one  of  those  bids  in  the  US, 
but  it  would  be  nice  to  know  and  I  think  it 
would  be  helpful  to  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature who  would  like  to  be  responsible  on 
this,  the  maximum  downfall  we  may  be  facing 
should  one  or  more  of  these  projects  fail. 

Frankly,  I  really  am  delighted  to  hear  that 
the  technical  advisory  group  in  Los  Angeles 
is  leaning  to  the  UTDC  proposal,  but  again 
I  have  some  very  real  doubts  about  how  many 
jobs  will  be  involved  for  Canadians  and 
specifically  how  many  jobs  will  be  involved 
for  the  people  of  Ontario.  We,  through  this 
bill,  are  putting  ourselves  on  the  line.  We 
are  on  the  hook  financially.  The  downside  is 
at  great  risk  to  us  and  I  am  not  entirely  sure 
that  a  large  proportion  of  the  jobs  is  going 
to  be  there  for  us. 

Very  briefly,  I  do  not  think  Mr.  Foley  has 
done  a  particularly  good  job  of  helping  the 
minister  with  his  job,  and  that  is  keeping  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  informed  with 
regard  to  the  corporation's  activities  and  just 
what  it  is  doing.  We  have  not  denied  UTDC 
funds  in  the  past.  I  think  we  have  been 
responsible  on  that.  We  have  not  pulled  the 
plug  on  this  corporation,  in  the  fervent  hope 
that  at  some  point  over  the  last  seven  or  eight 
years  Mr.  Foley  would  come  back  with  an 
order. 

I,  frankly,  am  not  one  who  necessarily  be- 
lieves 100  per  cent  cent  in  Murphy's  law, 
that  being  that  if  anything  can  go  wrong,  it 
is  bound  to.  Often  I  thought  that  maybe  that 
was  a  principle  that  underlined  the  UTDC 
bid  policies.  However,  we  have  had  a  number 
of  major  capital  projects  in  Ontario  be  sub- 
jected to  some  doubt.  From  Hydro  across  the 
street,  we  hear  announcements  in  this  Legis- 
lature that  half  of  the  Bruce  B  project  is 
mothballed;  Wesleyville  is  half  done,  it  is 
mothballed;  J.  Clark  Keith,  a  $56-million 
proposition  in  Windsor,  is  mothballed,  and  I 
think  a  $2-billion  proposition,  and  I  stand  to 
be  corrected,  at  the  Lennox  generating  plant 
in  Kingston  is  mothballed.  That  is  a  lot  of 
money,  and  if  something  went  wrong  on  this 
one,  we  really  could  be  in  a  tough  spot. 

The  original  intent  of  the  corporation  I 
think  was  to  assist  the  private  transportation 
sector  and  develop  a  catalyst  to  export  this 
particular  material.  The  thesis  remains  very 
valid,  but  in  practice  it  is  now  apparent  that 
UTDC  is  in  the  process  of  abandoning  some 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5193 


of  its  original  partners  and  is  in  fact  com- 
peting with  them.  In  the  recent  Buffalo  bid, 
we  successfully  outbid  Hawker  Siddeley  and 
another  Canadian  company— 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  By  about  20  per  cent. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  —which  really  is  incon- 
ceivable, because  invariably  we  probably  have 
to  go  back  to  those  people  and  get  them  to 
do  the  work.  I  do  not  know  how  they  could 
overbid,  if  they  were  interested  in  the  work, 
and  we  could  come  under  their  bid  if  we 
would  eventually  have  to  use  their  services 
anyway. 

It  really  disturbs  me  when  the  government 
of  Ontario,  or  any  government  for  that  matter, 
chooses  to  go  out  and  use  its  massive  funding 
and  resources  to  compete  with  the  private 
sector.  It  is  obvious  that  notwithstanding  the 
abilities  of  Bombardier-MLW,  Canadair, 
Vickers  or  Hawker  Siddeley,  none  of  them  has 
the  resources  of  the  province  of  Ontario,  the 
unlimited  resources,  and  certainly  none  of 
them  is  going  to  have  the  key  to  the  Treasury, 
as  my  friend  Mr.  Foley  is  going  to  have  it 
when  this  bill  becomes  law. 

I  would  like  this  bill  to  go  to  committee 
of  the  whole  House  so  some  more  detailed 
questions  might  be  answered. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  too  will 
be  supporting  this  bill  this  morning.  It  is  a 
little  difficult  for  me  to  talk  about  a  light 
rail  service  or  any  other  kind  of  service.  Mr. 
Speaker,  being  an  old  railroader,  you  will 
know  that  when  one  lives  in  a  community 
of  85,000  people  and  very  seldom  ever  sees 
a  train,  it  is  kind  of  tough  to  get  on  track 
and  talk  about  a  rail  service. 

When  we  look  at  this  bill  we  have  several 
questions  to  raise.  Many  of  the  questions  have 
been  raised  by  the  member  for  Wentworth 
North,  who  is  much  more  knowledgeable  in 
this  than  I.  He  has  been  the  Liberal  critic  for 
transportation  and  communications  for  some 
time  now  and  I  am  relatively  new  at  it. 

One  of  the  things  that  we  on  this  side  are 
interested  in  is  why  it  is  the  government  is 
trying  to  put  itself  at  such  an  arm's-length 
distance  away  from  UTDC  on  one  hand  and 
on  the  other  hand  is  accepting  responsibility 
for  any  faults  that  may  occur  during  the 
operation. 
10:30  a.m. 

For  example,  sections  1  and  2  of  the  act 
try  to  suggest  that  somehow  or  other  UTDC 
is  not  a  crown  corporation  while  at  the  same 
time  all  of  the  shares  are  held  by  the  Minis- 
try of  Transportation  and  Communications. 
It  is  a  nice  way  of  saying  maybe  the  govern- 
ment's philosophy  does  not  agree  with  the 
crown    corporation    structure,    but    let    me 


assure  the  minister  that  I  do  not  know 
whether  he  can  sell  that  to  the  people  out 
there,  that  the  government  owns  all  the 
shares  but  somehow  or  other  this  is  not  a 
government  operation. 

It  is  a  good  trick  if  they  can  get  away  with 
it,  and  I  suspect  by  passing  this  act  today 
they  will  get  away  with  it  in  a  sense  that 
they  will  be  able  to  say,  "UTDC  is  separate 
and  apart  from  us,  except  we  have  all  the 
responsibility  when  it  comes  to  putting  up 
the  bucks  for  performance  bonds."  That  is 
something  we  have  to  question  on  this  side 
of  the  House.  I  should  say  philosophically 
that  from  a  political  point  of  view,  were  we 
the  government,  we  would  not  attempt  in 
any  way  to  separate  ourselves  from  an  opera- 
tion like  UTDC.  We  would  make  it  a  crown 
corporation. 

I  can  understand  that  when  you  originally 
got  yourselves  involved  in  this  program,  and 
you  were  a  little  concerned  it  was  going  to 
fall  flat  on  its  face,  you  would  want  to  keep 
it  at  arm's  length  and  suggest  that  was  some- 
thing separate  and  apart.  But  now,  with  all 
the  nice  announcements  you  keep  popping 
up  with  to  the  effect  that  suddenly  this  thing 
is  going  to  burst  out  all  over— starting  with 
Vancouver  and  then  Los  Angeles  and  then 
Miami;  it  could  be  going  all  over  the  place— 
if  I  were  the  government  I  would  be  proud' 
to  stand  up  and  say,  "My  God,  look,  we  have 
got  something  there  that  is  worth  while,  and 
it  is  ours.  It  belongs  to  the  people  of  this 
province." 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  It  sure  does. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  It  may,  as  you  say,  but 
the  way  this  act  is  written  it  is  saying,  "You 
guys  stay  over  there  and  do  the  little  opera- 
tion and  if  anything  goes  wrong  we  will  pay 
the  money  out  of  the  bottom  end,  but  we  can 
still  attach  some  blame  on  that  side."  I  sug- 
gest to  the  minister,  if  there  are  failures  and 
the  money  is  going  to  be  taken  out  of  the 
public  purse  to  cover  those  failures,  then 
maybe  you  as  the  government  should  accept 
that  responsibility.  Maybe  you  should  stand 
up  and  say  we  were  wrong  and  not  just  stand 
there  and  say  UTDC  told  us  this  was  okay, 
that  everything  was  going  to  be  fine.  I  and 
my  colleagues  do  not  understand  why  it  is 
you  have  to  have  that  arm's-length  separation 
between  yourselves  and  UTDC. 

Section  3,  which  gives  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor in  Council  on  behalf  of  the  province  of 
Ontario  the  right  to  post  performance  bonds 
for  the  operation  of  UTDC,  is  again  some- 
thing we  would  have  to  question.  Some  of 
those  questions  were  raised  by  the  member 
for  Wentworth  North  as  to  whether  you  have 


5194 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


looked  at  other  types  of  performance  bonds. 
Have  you  gone  to  companies  and  asked  them 
what  it  would  cost  you  to  pay  for  a  per- 
formance bond  through  an  agency?  We  are 
getting  stuck  here  with  $300  million  in  Van- 
couver. If  you  go  down  to  Los  Angeles  they 
are  going  to  require  a  performance  bond.  If 
all  of  these  things  get  into  operation  you  are 
going  to  have  performance  bonds  posted  in 
three  or  four  major  centres,  all  of  which  are 
going  to  be  very  costly  in  terms  of  dollars  to 
the  people  of  this  province.  If  there  are  any 
failures  in  any  of  those  systems  that  require 
that  bond  to  be  paid,  we  cannot  even  tell 
you  at  this  moment  the  amounts  of  money 
that  that  may  cost  the  people  of  this  province. 

Nevertheless,  having  said  that,  I  can  well 
see  that  again  the  government  is  putting  it- 
self in  a  position  to  own  the  shares  through 
the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communi- 
cations, fund  the  project,  post  the  perfor- 
mance bonds,  but  at  the  same  time  separate 
itself  from  UTDC  through  legislation  and  not 
admit  that  it  is,  in  fact,  a  crown  corporation. 

It  is  rather  funny;  the  member  for  Went- 
worth  North  talked  in  terms  of  jobs  and  of 
these  supposed  sales,  because  none  of  us  is 
really  aware  of  what  kind  of  agreement  or 
arrangement  has  been  made  for  the  Van- 
couver system.  Questions  were  raised  to  that 
the  other  day  and  we  really  do  not  have  a 
response  nor  do  we  have  any  idea  what  the 
agreement  is  or  the  conditions  of  the  per- 
formance bond,  or  any  of  those  things.  They 
are  not  on  board.  All  this  bill  does  today  is 
legitimize  a  supposed  transaction  that  has 
already  been  made. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  That  is  not  so. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  It  most  certainly  is  so. 
How  could  a  performance  bond  possibly  be 
posted  if  legislation  has  not  yet  passed 
through  the  House? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  A  performance  bond  has 
not  been  posted  yet. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  There  you  go.  So  how 
do  we  know  what  the  conditions  of  that 
performance  bond  are? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  What  a  bunch  of  sceptics. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  Sceptics?  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  would  like  to  remind  the  minister  we  are 
not  playing  with  his  money,  we  are  playing 
with  the  money  of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  have  more  in  it  than 
you  have. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  You  may  very  well  have 
more  in  it  than  I  have  because  I  do  not  have 
very  much.  Getting  back  to  the  job  situation, 
we  have  been  given  to  understand  that  if 
this  project  rolls  and  gets   going,  if  we  get 


sales  to  Vancouver  and  sales  to  Los  Angeles, 
that  is  going  to  create  a  great  number  of 
jobs  for  Ontario. 

The  other  day  during  question  period  the 
Premier  indicated  that  I  did  not  know  my 
mathematics.  Somehow  or  other  the  under- 
standing was  that  part  of  the  agreement  with 
the  BC  government  was  that  a  certain  num- 
ber of  component  parts  would  be  manufac- 
tured in  BC.  The  Premier  stood  up  and  said 
when  you  start  from  nothing  and  you  end 
up  with  300  jobs,  just  to  use  a  figure,  then 
you  have  to  gain.  He  said  that  was  the  old 
math.  Thank  the  Lord  I  have  children  who 
taught  me  the  new  math.  The  new  math  in 
my  view  is,  if  the  potential  were  500  jobs  and 
we  gave  200  of  them  away,  we  have  lost 
jobs  in  this  province.  We  have  not  gained, 
even  though  we  do  end  up  with  300.  You 
do  not  give  away  the  jobs. 

That  is  why  I  suggested  the  other  day 
that  the  performance  bond  in  terms  of  dollars 
is  one  thing,  but  in  actual  fact  if  you  are 
going  to  allow  the  component  parts  of  the 
units  to  be  made  outside  the  province  then 
your  guarantee  is  really  a  lot  more  than  $300 
million.  Your  guarantee  is  perhaps  100  or  200 
jobs  and  all  of  the  benefits  those  would  have 
brought  into  the  province.  Let's  not  finagle 
with  figures.  There  are  the  facts.  Even 
though  you  may  end  up  with  200  or  300 
jobs,  you  are  still  giving  some  of  them  away. 
That  is  the  truth  of  the  matter. 

Even  though  we  are  going  to  support  this 
bill  I  think  many  of  the  questions  raised  by 
the  member  for  Wentworth  North  are  valid 
and  require  some  kind  of  answer.  Many  of 
the  situations  that  could  possibly  come  for- 
ward out  of  the  passing  of  this  legislation 
could  very  well  put  the  people  of  Ontario 
in  great  financial  difficulty  if  this  system  does 
not  perform  the  wav  the  government  seems 
to  think  it  will.  Until  we  know  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  those  performance  bonds,  until 
we  know  what  it  is  we  are  going  to  be 
covering  with  those  performance  bonds,  the 
operation  and  all  of  the  things  that  apply  to 
it,  then  we  really  do  not  know  what  land  of 
agreement  the  minister  is  prepared  to  make. 
10:40  a.m. 

I  am  like  the  member  for  Wentworth 
North:  if  I  am  wrong  I  will  be  the  first 
one  to  apologize,  but  let  me  tell  the  min- 
ister, if  this  system  fails  and  we  have  to 
start  paying  out  these  millions  of  dollars, 
the  minister  is  going  to  hear  from  me  on 
behalf  of  my  people. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  appreciate  the 
good  spirits  of  my  colleagues  and  I  am 
extremely  interested  in  this  bill.  As  a  matter 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5195 


of  fact,  I  might  as  well  tell  the  minister 
that  I  find  it  extremely  offensive.  The 
Urban  Transportation  Development  Corpo- 
ration has  been  in  operation  for  many  years 
and  I  do  not  see  why,  if  it  requires  these 
cosmetic  changes  to  its  corporate  structure 
as  well  as  the  very  important  government 
responsibility  to  back  it  with  a  performance 
bond,  we  could  not  have  had  the  legislation 
months  or  even  years  ago. 

We  could  have  had  an  opportunity  in  a 
committee  outside  this  House  to  question 
the  officials  of  UTDC  and  others  who  might 
have  had  an  impartial  ability  to  judge  the 
quality  of  what  we  have  produced  here.  In- 
stead, the  minister  introduces  the  bill,  which 
lies  dormant  for  a  few  days,  and  then  it 
is— 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Two  weeks. 

Mr.  Nixon:  No,  more  than  two.  It  was 
introduced  on  November  15,  I  believe.  The 
minister  then  says  this  is  an  important  bill 
that  must  be  carried  because— 

Hon.  Mr.   Snow:   Almost  four  weeks. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Everybody  is  looking  at  it- 
it  says  November  14.  When  Ave  questioned 
the  Premier,  of  course,  there  was  little  or 
no  information  forthcoming  but  simply  a 
challenge  that  would  dare  us  to  oppose  this 
bill. 

Honestly,  going  by  the  record  and  the 
information  that  we  have,  I  personally  feel 
it  approaches  irresponsibility  to  support  it. 
I  really  feel  that  way.  My  colleague  the 
member  for  Wentworth  North  has  gone  over 
the  record  of  UTDC  and  its  various  pre- 
decessors, which  is  the  only  thing  that  is 
available  to  us,  and  it  is  a  sorry  record. 

The  only  break  in  the  corporate  con- 
tinuity was  when  the  chairman  either  re- 
signed or  took  a  leave  of  absence  to  seek 
a  Progressive  Conservative  nomination.  He 
was  defeated  by  a  guy  named  Spurge  Near 
—was  that  not  his  name?  Maybe  that  is 
irrelevant,  but  honestly,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  record  of  either  the  minister  or  his 
corporation  to  establish  any  confidence  that 
would  lead  people  on  this  side,  let  alone 
the  supposed  good  business  managers  who 
support  the  minister,  to  say,  "Here  is  $300 
million  as  a  corporate  bond  which  will  be 
paid  out  of  the  consolidated  revenue  fund 
if  your  trains  do  not  run  on  time." 

We  asked  the  Premier  about  the  contract 
and  he  really  was  a  little  vague  about  it. 
He  kept  referring  to  the  other  side  of  the 
contract  as  the  greater  Vancouver  authority 
or  something,  and  then  he  went  on  to  say 
that  maybe  the  province  of  British  Columbia 
was    involved.    Is    that    supposed    to    instil 


confidence  in  those  of  us  on  this  side  who 
are  attempting  to  get  some  information  that 
will  permit  us  to  support  the  very  confident 
minister?  He  knows  all  of  the  background 
and  it  has  been  very  well  put  down  by  my 
colleague. 

He  even  goes  back  further  than  he  de- 
scribed, because  I  was  here  at  the  time  the 
original  announcement  was  made.  My  col- 
league used  the  word  "fanfare,"  and  believe 
me  that  is  a  very  conservative  noun  to  use 
in  conjunction  with  what  occurred.  As  I 
recall,  we  were  all  trundled  up  to  the  On- 
tario Science  Centre.  The  very  best  hors 
d'oeuvres  were  flown  in  from  Bulgaria. 
Everything  was  there.  They  had  special 
banners  flying  from  the  walls  of  the  science 
centre.  I  had  a  flashback  to  Nuremberg. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  was  not  there. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Think  about  it;  all  right,  the 
minister  was  not  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  was  here,  but  I  was 
not  there. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  minister  had  other  re- 
sponsibilities. The  Premier  was  flanked  by— 
I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  Stan  Randall 
or  somebody  else;  all  I  can  remember  was 
the  Premier  giving  us  the  same  shot  that 
he  gave  us  yesterday:  "Shrink  back  ye  of 
little  faith,  you  people  without  the  breadth 
of  vision  even  to  contemplate  magnetic 
levitation.  Forget  all  this.  Go  over  to  the 
lunch  table."  He  probably  knew  my  weak- 
ness even  then.  "Leave  all  these  important 
matters  to  us.  We  are  working  on  a  world- 
wide scale,  with  international  agreements. 
All  of  my  friends  with  special  connections 
in  the  business  communities  of  Switzerland 
and  Germany  have  advised  me  this  is  what 
to  do,  that  this  international  corporation 
with  a  reputation  ne  plus  ultra  called 
Krauss-Maffei  is  actually  making  us  the 
North  American  agents  for  magnetic  levita- 
tion."  It  is  just  a  riot  when  you  look  back 
on  the  damned  thing,  it  really  is. 

Part  of  the  Premier's  vehemence  in  re- 
sponse to  the  rather  moderate  questions  put 
to  him  on  this  is  based  upon  the  fact  that, 
in  his  own  selective  memory,  this  is  one  area 
he  cannot  rationalize  as  anything  but  an 
abject  failure- 
Mr.  Mancini:  A  boondoggle. 
Mr.  Nixon:  —"boondoggle"  is  a  better  word 
—and  a  failure  that  the  electorate,  which  he 
is  so  careful  to  curry  and  stroke,  has  never 
really  been  aware  of.  He  has  been  able  to 
tell  us  that  there  has  never  been  any  signifi- 
cant amount  of  money  lost  on  that,  and  yet 
I  have  been  out— 


5196 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Interjection. 

Mr.  Nixon:  All  right,  I  am  not  objecting, 
other  than  to  the  public  relations  costs;  even 
the  Beluga  caviar  must  have  cost  somebody 
something.  I  regret  I  had  only  a  couple  of 
little  wafers  of  the  stuff  and  I  did  not  like  it 
very  much  either. 

Mr.  Sargent:  The  last  figure  was  $72  mil- 
lion. 

Mr.  Nixon:  My  colleague  chimes  in  with 
"$72  million,"  but,  certainly  the  public  rela- 
tions costs  must  have  approached  $1  million. 

Even  in  those  days,  the  Premier  had  this 
funny  weakness  of  being  carried  away  with 
his  own  enthusiasm.  It  may  be  some  kind  of 
a  background  worry  about  his  place  in  history, 
that  he  has  to  have  concrete  pylons  stuck  into 
the  earth  with  his  initials  carved  on  them  or 
something,  because  the  first  thing  he  did  was 
to  announce  that  we  were  going  to  have 
this  blooming  train  run  around  a  test  track 
at  Exhibition  Park.  Even  before  it  had  been 
tested  in  any  way,  the  holes  were  being 
dug,  gas  mains  had  to  be  moved,  pylons  were 
poured,  trees  were  ripsawed  or  chainsawed 
down,  and  it  was  all  in  the  interests  of  the 
William  G.  Davis  people  mover. 

Then,  all  of  a  sudden,  we  did  not  hear 
much  about  it.  It  turned  out  the  damned 
thing  would  not  go  around  corners,  and  there 
was  some  concern  that  the  guideway,  if  it 
had  even  a  mere  mist  of  snow  on  it,  would 
cause  the  linear  induction  engine  not  to  work 
efficiently,  or  to  work  sideways,  backwards 
or  something  like  that.  So  that  drifted  off. 

Then,  with  bombast,  he  said  we  had  not 
lost  anything  except,  of  course,  the  public 
relations  costs,  which  were  really  designed  not 
so  much  to  levitate  magnetically,  but  to  con- 
vince the  people  of  the  province,  who  seemed 
to  be  so  readily  convincible  by  some  of  these 
arguments,  that  we  had  entered  into  the 
twenty-first  century  and  that  Bill  Davis  was 
the  magus.  I  was  thinking  of  something  like 
"tooth  fairy",  but  I  have  to  be  careful  of  that 
since  this  House  has  become  remarkably 
sensitized  to  some  of  these  words. 

The  honourable  member  has  put  in  detail 
before  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  procedures  used 
by  UTDC— and  it  used  to  have  another  name; 
I  think  it  had  "Ontario"  in  it:  Ontario  Trans- 
portation Development  Corporation.  It  had 
several  changes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Only  one. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  minister  did  not  even  have 
a  corporation  when  he  started  this  thing.  The 
minister  is  just  like  the  Premier,  who  went 
out  to  Vancouver  and  delivered  this  oeuvre, 
I  think  the  word  is,  about  a  commission  on 


western  separation.  He  must  have  had  a  cup 
of  coffee,  or  maybe  two  cups  of  coffee,  with 
a  couple  of  the  ministers  out  there,  had  a 
handshake  while  they  looked  deeply  into  each 
other's  eyes,  and  have  come  back  with  a 
contract  that  really  is  not  backed  by  anything 
at  all. 

There  are  no  papers  you  can  lay  on  the 
table.  The  minister  himself  has  said  the  per- 
formance bond  has  not  been  signed,  so  I 
would  think  the  BC  government  is  not  stupid 
enough  to  sign  anything  on  its  part  without 
Ontario  putting  all  the  money  up,  front  and 
centre,  in  case  anything  goes  wrong.  Does  the 
minister  think  they  are  going  to  take  a  risk 
with  this  business? 

We  hope  it  works.  We  have  been  listening 
to  their  propaganda  for  years  about  how 
wonderful  it  is.  I  see  the  minister  has  Hugh 
Winsor  on  his  side  in  a  big  way;  but  even 
he  admits,  like  most  of  us,  that  we  love  to 
see  trains  that  work,  and  that  they  are  ex- 
citing and  really  nice.  However,  the  minister 
has  not  gone  out  of  his  way  to  provide  any  of 
the  information  for  the  members  of  the 
Legislature,  who  are  asked  to  give  him  the 
authority  to  pay  out  $300  million  from  the 
consolidated  revenue  fund  if  the  thing  does 
not  work. 

10:50  a.m. 

It  has  never  worked  in  the  past.  We  have 
seen  it  going  around  on  television  and  in  the 
minister's  own  promotional  films.  There  are 
always  the  minister  and  the  Premier  with  a 
broad  smile.  Mr.  Foley,  who  has  joined  us, 
is  there,  conducting  everybody  through  it, 
saying:  "My  God,  is  that  not  quiet?  You  can 
carry  on  a  conversation  standing  right  beside 
this  as  it  goes  around  its  nice  little  track  on 
its  little  rubber  wheels."  Honestly,  I  do  hope 
it  works.  I  am  very  interested  in  this  sort  of 
transportation,  I  really  am. 

My  daughter  rides  to  work  on  the  new 
streetcar.  It  is  almost  half  as  nice  looking  as 
the  ones  I  have  seen  in  Amsterdam,  and  I  do 
mean  the  streetcars.  She  says  if  you  want  to 
get  up  to  signal  your  station,  you  cannot 
reach  up  and  pull  a  string  or  push  a  button. 
You  have  to  stand  up  and  yell  at  the  guy,  "I 
want  to  get  off  at  the  next  stop,"  or  some- 
thing like  that.  It  is  extremely  heavy.  It 
cannot  be  air  conditioned.  I  like  the  looks 
of  them  and  the  paint  job  really  is  very  nice, 
at  $500,000  each. 

They  had  those  in  Warsaw  in  1939,  did 
they  not?  They  ran  on  electricity  and  on 
rails,  except  that  they  were  lighter.  They  were 
just  as  fast  and  they  were  not  so  expensive 
but  I  do  not  think  the  paint  job  was  nearly 
as  impressive. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5197 


The  thing  I  really  find  offensive  is  that 
the  ministry  is  asking  us  for  this  authority, 
which  is  very  far-reaching,  and  this  could  be 
extremely  expensive.  We  all  hope  it  does  not 
cost  us  a  nickel.  We  hope  that,  but  we  have 
been  so  severely  disappointed  in  the  past. 
They  tend  to  oversell  the  thing  even  to  us. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  have  never  oversold 
anything. 

Mr.  Nixon:  The  minister  is  not  as  good  a 
salesman.  All  he  could  do  was  get  401  six- 
laned  out  to  his  farm.  Is  that  not  right?  That 
is  one  of  the  things  that  did  not  occur  in  the 
big  speech  last  week.  I  was  waiting  and 
waiting.  We  heard  about  poor  old  Clarke 
Rollins  getting  his  shoulders  paved  and  all 
the  rest,  but  they  never  got  around  to  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions who  had  401  six-laned  right  from  out- 
side this  office  here  to  his  farm,  and  then  it 
sort  of  falls  off  into  a  gravel  road.  It  is  not 
exactly  a  gravel  road,  it  is  a  four-lane,  con- 
trolled access— 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Now  back  to  Bill 
190. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Oh,  yes,  back  to  this  bill.  I  was 
particularly  interested  in  the  comments  that 
have  already  been  made  about  section  2, 
about  the  minister  being  proud  of  the  fact 
that  he  has  all  the  money  in  UTDC.  In  fact, 
its  policy  stems  from  the  Ministry  of  Trans- 
portation and  Communications,  and  I  have  a 
feeling  that  it  is  like  the  Ontario  Institute  for 
Studies  in  Education,  educational  television 
and  certain  other  sacred  cows  in  the  stable 
of  the  Premier.  I  am  quite  sure  nothing 
happens  in  UTDC  that  he  does  not  know 
about  even  before  the  minister.  Is  Mr.  Foley 
the  president  or  the  chairman? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  President. 

Mr.  Nixon:  President  and  chairman  and 
chief  executive  officer.  I  will  bet  he  has  Bill 
Davis's  home  phone  number  and  that  every 
time  the  thing  goes  over  73  miles  an  hour  or 
whatever  it  is,  he  phones  and  says:  "Bill, 
wow,  it  is  really  working.  We  are  really 
going."  I  have  a  feeling  the  Premier  is  stay- 
ing in  politics  to  prove  to  everybody  that  he 
can  build  a  railway,  that  he  can  really  build 
a  people  mover.  It  will  be  a  relief  if  he 
finally  achieves  it  after  all  the  false  starts,  all 
the  money  we  have  thrown  around,  all  the 
press  releases  we  have  had  to  wade  through 
and  all  that  crap  we  have  had  from  him— if 
I  may  use  that  word,  Mr.  Speaker;  you  think 
about  it— just  like  what  we  had  yesterday 
when,  since  there  was  no  information  he  said, 
"I  dare  you  to  vote  against  it." 


Honestly,  I  really  would  like  to .  vote 
against  it.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  jobs  in 
the  province.  All  we  can  do  is  to  look  at  the 
record,  which  has  been  abysmal.  There  really 
has  not  been  anything  that  we  can  point  to 
with  any  pride. 

It  is  hard  to  sell  these  things.  We  know. 
We  have  been  trying  to  sell  the  Candu, 
which  is  an  extremely  good  reactor,  and 
there  was  a  time  when  I  was  critical  of  that 
and  it  is  part  of  my  job  to  be  critical.  I 
cannot  look  into  the  future.  All  I  can  do  is 
to  try  to  be  as  responsible  as  possible  and  to 
look  at  the  facts  that  are  available. 

I  do  have  quite  a  bit  of  confidence  in  the 
minister,  and  it  is  probably  just  a  coinci- 
dence that  the  highway  is  six-laned  out  that 
far;  I  believe  it  is  just  a  coincidence;  al- 
most a  coincidence.  I  knew  him  when  he 
was  the  chief  panjandrum  of  the  regional 
Lions  Club  and  used  to  come  out  and  speak 
to  all  the  clubs.  He  was  pretty  definite  and 
personable  even  in  those  days.  But  when 
it  comes  to  pushing  something  down  your 
throat,  the  Premier  is  the  guy  who  does  it. 

This  only  leaves  one  thing  for  him  to 
correct,  and  that  is  the  teensy  thing  that 
happened  a  few  years  ago  when  he  lost  his 
majority.  That  is  the  only  thing  that  would 
now  drive  him,  assuming  that  this  people 
mover— is  that  really  what  we  call  it?— 
this  thing  does  function  up  to  the  specifi- 
cations. I  do  not  see  any  reason  why  it 
would  not.  It  runs  on  wheels;  the  linear 
induction  motor  probably  could  be  replaced 
by    ordinary   motors    if   necessary. 

Some  hon.  members:  No. 

Mr.  Nixon:  AH  right,  I  see  members  are 
saying  no  and  the  minister  is  shaking  his 
head,  but  the  linear  induction  motor  is 
probably  just  one  of  the  reasons  we  ought 
to  think  about  our  $300  million.  It  was  in- 
vented years  ago.  The  principle  of  it  is 
extremely  simple  and  the  obvious  advan- 
tages should  have  led  to  its  development,  if 
not  perfection,  half  a  century  ago.  But  so 
far  the  very  brightest  engineers  have  not 
really  been  able  to  make  it  a  workhorse  type 
of  kinetic  energy  concept. 

Evidently  this  is  an  important  break- 
through because,  obviously,  if  it  works,  is 
reliable  and  runs  the  trains  on  time,  we  have 
something  that  is  saleable  and  valuable.  If 
it  does  not,  it  is  going  to  cost  us  $300  mil- 
lion. We  will  not  even  know.  By  that  time 
the  Premier  will  be  retired  to  a  rest  home 
in  Brampton  and  we  will  be  trying  to  re- 
member to  send  him  a  Christmas  card.  God 
knows  what  the  minister  will  be  doing;  he 


5198 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


is  going  to  be  specializing  in  local  planning, 
or  something  like  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I'll  have  Highway  401 
to  Campbellville. 

Mr.  Nixon:  All  right,  the  401  might  be 
six  lanes  to  Campbellford. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Campbellville. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Campbellville,  one  of  those 
great  towns.  But  I  simply  want  to  express 
to  the  minister  my  grave  concern  that  this 
bill  is  more  important  than  he  seems  to 
realize.  In  the  long  run  it  could  cost  us  an 
amazingly  large  amount  of  money,  which 
he  is  asking  us  to  approve  without  giving 
us  any  kind  of  significant  background  except 
to  say,  "Trust  us."  The  Premier,  in  fact,  says, 
"Trust  me." 

Mr.  Hennessy:  It's  better  than  trusting 
you. 

Interjection. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Fine.  I  am  not  trying  to  sell 
you  a  pig  in  a  poke.  I  would  know  better 
than  that.  You  are  a  pretty  good  salesman 
too. 

I  think  it  is  close  to  irresponsible  to  put 
it  on  that  basis.  But  I  would  not  worry  for 
a  moment  to  take  a  personal  responsibility 
to  vote  against  it  if  that  would  make  any 
difference.  I  do  not  want  to  stop  the  thing; 
I  hope  it  works.  Whether  the  minister  and 
his  buddy  four  or  five  seats  to  his  right  be- 
lieve it  or  not,  I  do  hope  it  works,  but  I 
will  tell  him  that  I  get  awfully  sick  of  the 
baloney  he  and  his  predecessors  have  passed 
out  to  the  long-suffering  public  in  support 
of  these  programs.  It  is  about  time  they  got 
it  right. 

Mr.  Renwick:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  make 
two  or  three  points  on  this  bill  but  I  do  not 
want  to  bring  to  it  the  vehemence  that  the 
former  speaker  just  brought  to  the  topic.  As 
a  friend  of  the  minister  I  hope  he  will  not, 
for  some  time,  accept  any  telephone  calls  from 
the  Premier  without  recalling  what  happened 
to  his  predecessor  when  the  doors  on  the 
light  rail  transit  at  Exhibition  Park  did  not 
open  that  day.  I  think  it  was  the  next  day 
that  Gordon  Carton,  the  former  minister  and 
member  for  Armourdale,  got  the  telephone 
call  and  left  the  cabinet  very  abruptly. 

Mr.  Nixon:  He's  now  running  a  milk  store; 
you  be  careful! 

Mr.  Renwick:  That  is  just  a  friendly  warn- 
ing to  a  friendly  minister  of  the  pitfalls  of 
politics  that  he  may  not  be  aware  of. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Now,  de  Grassi  Street. 

Mr.  Renwick:  That  was  my  second  point. 


I  was  concerned  that  it  was  not  within  the 
principle  of  the  bill,  but  now  the  minister 
admits  that  it  was,  I  would  like,  when  the 
bill  is  in  committee,  to  introduce  an  amend- 
ment to  the  bill  to  provide  for  the  recon- 
struction of  the  GO  station  at  de  Grassi 
Street,  and  for  a  permanent  indefinite  stop, 
at  least  to  the  end  of  the  century,  for  the 
GO  train  in  that  de  Grassi  Street  area. 
11  a.m. 

I  have  never  had  any  support  from  the 
member  for  St.  David  (Mrs.  Scrivener),  whose 
riding  is  immediately  across  the  street  on  the 
west  side  of  de  Grassi  Street.  I  do  not  know 
why  there  is  lack  of  concern  by  the  Con- 
servative members  for  people  east  of  the  Don 
and  their  ability  to  get  to  and  from  work.  As 
I  say,  I  am  delighted  that  the  matter  is  with- 
in the  principle  of  the  bill,  and  in  committee 
I  will  introduce  an  appropriate  amendment 
which  I  am  sure  will  have  the  approval  of  the 
House. 

The  third  matter  I  am  concerned  about  is 
that  we  are  the  authority  for  an  open-ended 
guarantee  that  we  are  permitting,  if  this 
bill  is  passed  in  its  present  form,  without  some 
kind  of  limitation  or  protection.  I  ask  the 
minister  to  consider  introducing  an  amend- 
ment himself,  to  save  me  the  trouble  of  draft- 
ing the  amendment,  to  provide  first  of  all  for 
the  immediate  tabling  in  the  assembly— and, 
if  the  assembly  is  not  in  session,  immediately 
upon  the  assembly  being  in  session— of  the 
order  in  council  and  the  contract  of  indemnity 
for  which  the  guarantee  is  going  to  be  given. 
We  have  to  have  some  kind  of  assurance  that 
at  the  earliest  possible  moment  the  assembly 
is  aware  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  open- 
ended  obligation  that  is  being  assumed. 

I  recognize  the  difficulty  of  doing  it  but, 
certainly  with  respect  to  the  financing  of  the 
government,  there  is  always  a  dollar  upper 
limitation  in  the  bill,  which  will  be  intro- 
duced within  the  next  few  hours;  I  forget 
the  name  of  the  bill,  but  the  annual  financial 
bill  which  is  introduced  always  has  an  upper 
dollar  limit  in  it.  Is  it  not  wise  for  the  min- 
ister to  insert  in  this  bill  a  protective  upper 
limit  for  the  guarantee  and  obligation  which 
the  government  is  asking  authority  to  give? 
I  think  the  assembly  should  expect  that  this 
kind  of  limitation  would  appear  in  the  bill. 

I  ask  the  minister  and  his  advisers  in  good 
faith  to  see  if  they  cannot  draft  the  kind 
of  amendment  to  the  bill  that  would  do  the 
two  things;  that  is,  to  provide,  for  the  imme- 
diate information  of  the  assembly,  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  contract  and  indemnity  that 
is  to  be  guaranteed;  and,  secondly,  the 
specific  question  of  whether  this  bill  should 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5199 


require  an  upper  limit  and,  if  the  upper  limit 
were  going  to  be  exceeded,  would  require 
the  minister  to  come  back  into  the  assembly 
and  to  have  it  adopted. 

I  thought  a  little  bit  about  the  question 
of  taking  the  UTDC  out  of  the  Crown  Agency 
Act,  and  I  agree  with  that  way  of  ordering 
the  relationship  between  the  government  and 
UTDC  and  the  relationship  of  UTDC  to  its 
clients  or  customers  with  whom  it  may  from 
time  to  time  contract.  I  do  not  have  any 
difficulty  with  that  aspect  of  it,  but  on  the 
other  two  matters  I  ask  the  minister  to  re- 
spond to  them  and,  if  possible,  to  work  out  a 
suitable  amendment  in  committee  to  answer 
my  concerns. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to  speak 
to  one  aspect  of  the  bill  that  concerns  me. 
Having  been  involved  in  many  contracts 
over  the  years  dealing  with  municipalities 
and  companies  and  having  provided  per- 
formance and  maintenance  bonds,  in  nearly 
every  instance,  it  comes  as  a  complete  sur- 
prise to  me  that  this  government  is  now 
seeming  to  enter  into  a  contract  that  is 
complete  open-ended,  as  the  previous 
speaker  has  just  mentioned. 

It  is  one  of  the  reasons  that  it  sort  of 
contradicts  the  whole  philosophy  of  the 
Tory  party  about  free  enterprise.  When  a 
free  enterprise  corporation  enters  into  per- 
formance or  maintenance  bonds,  it  limits 
itself  because  of  the  value  of  the  company. 
In  the  event  that  there  is  a  major  problem 
with  providing  the  service  or  the  perform- 
ance or  the  maintenance  and  that  company 
goes  bankrupt,  what  the  performance  or 
maintenance  bond  does  is  suggest  that  a 
company  that  provides  this  kind  of  bonding 
is  willing  to  see  the  job  through  to  its 
conclusion. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  That  is  exactly  what  we 
are  doing. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Except,  and  this  is  a  big 
exception,  the  people  of  Ontario  are  on  the 
hook  no  matter  what  it  costs  the  govern- 
ment. There  is  no  limit.  I  wonder  if  any 
government  should  put  the  taxpayers  on  the 
hook  for  that  kind  of  involvement.  The  rail- 
ways might  be  running  in  British  Columbia 
10  years  from  now  with  the  people  of 
Ontario  providing  the  means  to  keep  that 
transportation  system  going.  That  is  uncon- 
scionable. Unless  this  government  can  pro- 
vide some  kind  of  evidence  that  is  not  going 
to  happen,  it  comes  as  a  complete  surprise 
to  me  that  it  should  be  asking  us  to  put 
forth  this  kind  of  money.  I  defy  the  minister 
to  suggest  that  it  is  any  different.  It  is  just 
like  the  Candu  reactor  sales. 


I  am  surprised  the  government  does  not 
have  a  sales  group  in  the  middle  of  this 
whole  organization  doing  the  selling  and 
taking  another  great  big  chunk  of  money. 
A  corporation  that  can  take  these  kinds  of 
chances  and  limit  itself  is  one  thing  but,  I 
say  with  all  respect,  it  is  asking  the  people 
of  Ontario  to  take  a  great  deal  of  respon- 
sibility to  enter  into  such  an  agreement 
where  money  will  flow  continually  from  the 
taxpayers  of  Ontario  to  British  Columbia.  I 
hope  the  minister  does  not  enter  into  an- 
other contract  with  Los  Angeles  and  two  or 
three  other  places  so  that  he  would  put  this 
government  in  a  position  of  not  being  able 
to  fund  it  because  we  will  not  be  able  to 
raise  enough  money  here.  The  people  of 
Ontario  will  not  be  able  to  support  those 
kinds  of  involvements. 

If  the  minister  can  tell  us  this  is  a  way 
to  provide  jobs  in  Ontario  and  that  is  the 
purpose,  I  can  accept  that,  just  as  Candu 
reactors  may  have  provided  jobs  for  people 
across  Canada.  But  to  come  here  and  tell  us 
we  are  going  to  guarantee  a  system  before 
it  has  been  truly  tested  seems  a  most  in- 
appropriate way  to  enter  into  any  kind  of 
contract.  I  am  certain  there  are  not  many 
people  in  the  private  sector  who  would  do 
that.  I  cannot  believe  an  airplane  has  ever 
been  put  in  service  that  was  not  pretested 
and  made  damned  certain  it  was  going  to 
carry  people  and  do  the  function  for  which 
it  was  sold. 

There  are  not  too  many  people  willing  to 
take  the  risk  they  are  asking  the  people  of 
Ontario  to  take— not  the  government,  which 
keeps  pumping  itself  up  as  though  this  is 
a  great  thing  the  Tories  are  doing.  It  is  not. 
The  government  is  really  taking  money  en- 
trusted to  it  and  putting  it  into  a  venture 
that  is  very  questionable  and  I  say,  be 
careful. 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  briefly,  we  are 
in  favour  of  this  bill  in  principle.  I  am  con- 
cerned because  we  continually  have  these 
large  amounts  of  money— $300  million  here, 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman)  talking  about  $700  million  for 
Toronto,  building  subways  for  this  great  area 
of  Toronto,  paid  for  mainly  by  the  outlying 
parts  of  the  province.  We  are  fed  up  to  the 
teeth  reading  bills  the  government  keeps 
bringing  in  to  squander  hundreds  of  millions 
of  dollars  of  our  money  over  which  we  have 
no  control  on  how  it  should  be  spent. 

In  the  Grey-Bruce  area  we  do  not  have  any 
means  of  transportation.  Our  trains  have  been 
cut  off.  Our  bus  system  is  run  in  a  half-assed 
way.   We  have  no  way  of  being  connected 


5200 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


with  this  part  of  the  province.  We  have 
Canadian  National  and1  Canadian  Pacific  rail- 
way tracks  with  nothing  on  them.  The  people 
in  the  outlying  areas  of  the  province  are 
tossing  their  money  into  the  big  pot  down 
here,  watching  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  and  the  government  throwing  away 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Where  is  the  money  com- 
ing from? 

Mr.  Sargent:  It  is  coming  from  the  outly- 
ing parts  of  the  province,  not  from  the  people 
down  here.  We  are  paying  the  freight  and 
the  government  is  spending  it. 

The  minister  is  asking  us,  in  essence,  to 
give  him  a  blank  cheque  for  $300  million 
and,  in  any  form  of  business,  we  have  no 
purchase  orders,  no  signed  contracts,  no  idea 
of  how  he  is  going  to  assemble  it  or  where 
he  is  going  to  do  it.  He  is  saying,  in  effect, 
"Give  to  this  one  department,  not  to  a  crown 
agency  but  a  special  department,  $300  mil- 
lion to  play  with."  That  was  the  last  caper 
Stan  Randall  pulled. 
11:10  a.m. 

They  could  not  make  it  work  in  Germany, 
but  they  have  brought  it  over  here  with 
more  fanfare  than  there  is  now,  and  it  was  a 
fiasco.  The  minister  is  now  saying  to  us  that 
he  wants  this  kind  of  money.  With  tongue 
in  cheek,  I  have  to  support  this  because  it 
may  be  good.  As  the  member  for  Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon)  says,  it  may  be 
good  for  the  economy.  It  may  be  good  for 
jobs  in  the  province.  It  may  be. 

We  have  seen  the  minister  flop  on  a  lot 
of  other  things  too;  so  how  do  we  know  he  is 
right  on  this  one? 

Mr.  Nixon:  He  has  just  started  this. 
Mr.  Sargent:  And  God  forbid  if  he  gets 
mixed  up  in  it.  My  point  is  that  the  minister 
has  totally  disregarded  the  need  for  trans- 
portation in  western  Ontario.  I  had  planned 
to  come  to  him  and  suggest  we  make  a  three- 
point  deal,  with  the  federal,  provincial  and 
western  Ontario  municipal  governments 
putting  the  money  in  the  pot,  to  let  us  run 
a  GO  train  back  and  forth  from  Toronto; 
but  we  would  get  nowhere  with  the  govern- 
ment, because  we  are  subsidizing  the  GO 
train  in  Toronto  here,  including  a  great 
wealth  of  assessment  for  outlying  parts  of 
the  GO  train  areas.  We  are  paying  for  that 
through  our  taxes,  but  we  cannot  get  the 
transportation  to  Owen  Sound  in  the  Grey- 
Bruce  area. 

As  former  speakers  have  said,  unless  the 
minister  comes  up  with  guaranteed  purchase 
orders  and  contracts  from  a  would-be  buyer, 
*nd   his   modus   operandi   as    to  how  he  is 


going  to  build  this  equipment  and  where  he 
is  going  to  build  it— the  total  package— he  has 
an  awful  lot  of  nerve  just  asking  us  to  give 
him  a  blank  cheque  without  these  things 
amended  to  the  contract.  Our  party  is  sup- 
porting it,  but  we  do  it  with  these  things  on 
the  record  and  we  will  watch  him  very 
closely. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
raise  one  question  concerning  Bill  190,  An 
Act  respecting  Urban  Transportation  De- 
velopment Corporation  Ltd.  I  have  heard 
members  talk  about  $300  million  but,  as  I 
interpret  this  bill  and  the  explanatory  note, 
it  could  be  $300  million,  it  could  be  $1 
billion,  it  could  be  who  knows  what.  It  is  a 
blank  cheque. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  It  is  seed  money. 
Mr.  Haggerty:  Seed  money;  the  member 
for  Niagara  Falls  is  correct.  It  is  a  blank 
cheque  the  minister  is  going  to  be  issuing  to 
this  company.  As  I  look  at  it,  it  is  a  company. 
I  just  question  whether  it  is  such  a  sure 
thing,  this  new  type  of  transit  car  or  vehicle 
that  is  going  to  carry  passengers  on  rail.  If 
the  minister  is  so  sure  of  the  performance  of 
this  thing,  why  does  he  not  go  to  the  Ontario 
Development  Corporation  to  borrow  the 
money?  Why  does  he  not  go  to  the  Federal 
Business  Development  Bank? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  We  are  not  borrowing 
money  at  all. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  He  is  not  borrowing  money 
at  all.  Surely  somebody  is  going  to  have  to 
put  up  some  money  to  get  this  thing  going. 
Mr.  Kerrio:  The  taxpayers. 
Mr.  Haggerty:  The  taxpayers;  that  is  right. 
There  is  a  hidden  cost  in  this  thing.  The 
minister  may  tell  me  that  his  decision  and 
the  performance  of  that  design  may  look 
good  on  paper.  I  have  to  say  to  him  that, 
while  I  am  not  an  engineer,  my  experience 
in  the  fabricating  and  machine  shop  business 
tells  me  the  minister  could  have  many  com- 
plications in  such  a  design  that  is  not  yet 
proven.  The  minister  is  head  of  the  Ministry 
of  Transportation  and  Communications.  If 
this  thing  is  that  sure,  then  one  would  think 
this  minister  would  be  leading  the  province 
into  mass  transit  system.  We  have  the  task 
force  on  rail  services  which  has  reported  that 
the  government  should  be  heading  in  this 
direction  just  for  the  conservation  of  energy 
alone. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Did  you  ever  hear  of 
Hamilton? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Has  the  minister  ever  heard 
of  Port  Colborne  and  St.  Catharines  in  the 
Niagara   district?   I   have   mentioned   before 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5201 


to  the  minister  that  one  place  he  should  be 
trying  out  this  type  of  transit  system— he 
should  go  back  and  perhaps  bring  back  the 
old  rail  service  that  used  to  travel  between 
Port  Colborne,  Welland,  St.  Catharines  and 
Port  Dalhousie.  It  was  an  exceptionally  good 
rail  service,  carrying  numbers  of  passengers  on 
streetcars.  That  would  have  been  a  good 
place  for  the  ministry  to  have  tried  this 
out  and  checked  its  performance,  but  I  have 
not  seen  any  of  that,  and  I  have  been  sitting 
here  for  10  years. 

I  know  my  colleague  went  through  the 
whole  procedure  from  the  beginning  until 
now  of  the  hopes  and  dreams  of  having  this 
system  work.  Until  this  day,  we  have  not 
seen  it  developed  in  the  province.  Perhaps  it 
has  been  tested  on  the  site  at  Kingston,  but 
I  suggest  to  the  minister  if  it  is  that  good, 
this  is  where  he  could  borrow  the  money. 

The  system  may  be  questionable  because 
there  are  people  more  knowledgeable  than 
the  members  of  the  Legislature  who  might 
ask:  "Is  it  worthwhile  going  into  the  area 
of  development  of  this  proposed  advanced 
streetcar?"  They  would  probably  take  a  good 
look  at  it  and  say,  "No."  Somebody  men- 
tioned Candu.  The  same  thing  applies  to 
them.  There  are  many  checks  in  the  system, 
but  again  it  is  not  backed  by  the  government 
of  Ontario  or  taken  out  of  the  consolidated 
revenue  fund.  Ontario  Hydro  pays  for  much 
of  the  design  and  research  and  development, 
the  same  as  the  Atomic  Energy  Control  Board 
in  Ottawa,  which  sets  it  up  through  its  system 
of  checks  and  balances.  We  do  not  seem  to 
have  it  here. 

I  am  being  told  to  give  the  ministry  a 
blank  cheque  for  promotion.  I  hope  it  is  suc- 
cessful, because  I  am  looking  forward  to  see- 
ing new  job  creation  programs  in  Ontario. 
I  am  not  convinced  that  this  is  the  right  way 
to  go.  I  think  there  are  other  areas  from  which 
the  ministry  can  obtain  the  money  to  back 
it  up. 

As  my  colleague  the  member  for  Niagara 
Falls  says,  any  private  sector  operation  has  to 
get  a  performance  bond  without  the  govern- 
ment's backing.  They  get  it  from  respectable 
business  people  in  the  industry,  who  say, 
"If  it  is  worthwhile,  we  will  back  it  and 
support  it."  Here,  the  minister  wants  a  blank 
cheque,  and  I  just  question  whether  we  are 
moving  in  the  right  direction  in  promoting 
this  new  scheme  which  has  not  been  proven 
yet.  If  he  wants  to  try  it  out  in  an  area  to 
promote  his  scheme,  he  should  try  it  in  the 
Niagara  district,  because  we  need  a  rapid 
transit  system  there. 


Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  hope  I  will 
not  repeat  all  the  concerns  that  have  been 
expressed  about  this  project.  I  wonder  if  I 
could— 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  How  about  Atikokan? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  If  the  government  is  going 
to  spend  $300  million,  that  is  as  good  a  place 
as  any  and  better  than  most. 

I  will  not  go  over  the  history  of  this  thing; 
it  has  been  an  albatross  and  an  embarrass- 
ment to  the  government  all  these  years.  We 
hope  it  will  work  and  will  have  the  effect  we 
have  been  promised  for  almost  10  years. 

However,  I  would  like  to  just  pose  some 
questions  to  the  minister  in  the  hope  that 
he  might  be  able  to  answer  some  of  them 
in  his  wrapup.  I  appreciate  the  fact  that 
all  the  specifics  are  not  known  at  this  time, 
but  I  hope  the  minister  will  have  some  idea 
in  the  back  of  his  mind,  or  perhaps  on 
paper,  as  to  what  is  involved  in  this. 

For  instance,  can  he  tell  us  the  specific 
terms  in  regard  to  the  $300-million  bond? 
What  is  going  to  be  in  this  performance 
bond?  Does  it  cover  everything  from  an 
act  of  God  down  to  a  wheel-nut  coming 
loose?  Exactly  what  is  involved  in  this? 
By  the  way,  I  trust,  just  to  add  a  little 
levity,  that  they  will  not  have  the  minister 
driving  the  train,  because  I  do  not  think  we 
could  get  insurance  for  that. 

Will  it  cover  the  operations  of  the  trains? 
For  what  period  of  time;  up  to  five  years? 
If  so,  when  will  it  be  effective;  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end?  Will  it  be  when  they 
formally  take  over  the  system?  Will  it  be 
from  day  one,  when  the  trains  start  to  run? 
What  are  the  specifics  on  that? 
11:20  a.m. 

For  instance,  again  to  be  specific,  if  a 
wheel  falls  off  will  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario 
have  to  pay  for  its  replacement?  If  the 
wheel  was  supplied  by  an  Ontario  company, 
will  that  company  be  obliged  to  supply  the 
material  and  labour  to  replace  it  on  behalf 
of  the  Ontario  government?  Will  this  be 
covered  under  the  terms  of  a  performance 
bond  to  be  submitted  by  the  supplier  to 
whom  work  was  subcontracted? 

In  other  words,  is  the  minister  going  to 
require  a  performance  bond  from  someone 
else,  either  the  subcontractors  or  somebody 
who  is  going  to  be  doing  some  of  the 
work  under  contract  to  UTDC?  What  are 
their  performance  bonds  going  to  cover  and 
what  liability  is  there  going  to  be  for  their 
work  by  the  Ontario  government?  Let  us 
face  it,  that  is  who  is  going  to  be  respon- 
sible. When  I  say  the  Ontario  government, 
I  am  talking  about  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario. 


5202 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Who  will  be  responsible  for  the  repair  of 
equipment  supplied  by  a  British  Columbia 
company  in  the  event  of  malfunction  of 
parts,  shoddy  workmanship  or  mistakes  that 
can  be  made  anywhere  by  anybody  at  any 
time?  Who  is  going  to  be  responsible  for 
that?  Will  UTDC  be  drawing  up  the  specifi- 
cations for  the  work  that  will  be  done  by 
companies  in  British  Columbia,  and  will  we 
have  inspectors  and  engineers  to  ensure  that 
things  are  built  to  the  standards  and  design 
that  presumably  we  have  already  in 
Ontario? 

In  the  event  of  any  malfunctioning  or 
damage  that  might  in  total  exceed  $300 
million,  what  liability  will  rest  with  the 
Ontario  taxpayers?  To  take  the  worst  case 
presumably— -and  I  am  sure  somebody  would 
have  insurance  somewhere— if  there  were  an 
accident  of  some  land,  if  there  were  material 
damage  or  damage  done  to  human  beings 
by  way  of  accident,  how  far  is  this  liability 
going  to  go?  In  a  project  this  large,  con- 
ceivably it  could  be  more  than  the  $300 
million.  Is  that  going  to  be  part  of  the 
performance  bond,  or  is  a  separate  insur- 
ance policy  going  to  be  provided? 

These  are  all  questions  we  are  concerned 
about.  As  one  of  my  colleagues  mentioned, 
we  are  buying  something  of  a  pig  in  a  poke, 
because  we  do  not  know  the  specifics.  I  hope 
the  minister  will  be  able  to  provide  some 
of  them  here  today. 

My  final  question  is,  if  the  minister  does 
not  know  all  the  specifics— I  presume  he  does 
not  and  will  not  be  able  to  answer  each  and 
every  question— will  he  guarantee  this  morn- 
ing that,  as  soon  as  the  performance  bond 
is  drawn  up  and  the  specifics  are  known, 
that  bond  will  be  tabled  in  the  Legislature 
so  the  members  of  the  House  and  the  public 
at  large  will  be  aware  of  its  specifications 
and  qualifications? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  shall  try 
to  respond  to  the  comments  I  have  heard 
from  my  colleagues  on  the  other  side  of  the 
House.  Listening  to  this  debate  today,  it 
reminded  me  a  great  deal  about  when  I 
started  in  the  construction  business  on 
November  30,  1948.  At  that  time,  as  a 
young  fellow,  I  thought  it  might  be  a  good 
idea  and  there  might  be  a  future  in  the 
construction  business  in  Ontario  and,  having 
a  total  of  $600  in  working  capital  to  my 
name,  I  decided- 
Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  You  were  wealthy  even 
then. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  No.  I  thought  I  had  better 
get  some  advice;  so  for  instance,  I  talked  to 
a  number  of  fathers  of  friends  of  mine  who 


I  chummed  with  in  those  days  and  I  told 
them  I  was  thinking  of  starting  in  the  house 
building  business  in  the  town  of  Oakville.  To 
the  last  one,  everyone  advised  me  this  would 
be  a  foolish  move,  after  all,  this  building 
boom  we  had  in  1948  was  almost  over,  and 
the  demand  for  houses  in  the  future  could 
not  possibly  last.  If  I  ever  built  that  house, 
there  would  never  be  a  customer  to  sell  it  to. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  But  you  didn't  have  the 
government  of  Ontario  backing  you  to  the 
tune  of  $100  million,  did  you? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  No,  I  did  not.  I  have 
never  had  the  Ontario  government  backing 
me  in  anything.  As  I  usually  did  and  as  I 
usually  do  to  this  day,  I  got  advice  from 
everyone  possible  and  then  did  what  I  liked. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Could  you  have  lasted  10 
years  without  government  assistance? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  All  I  can  say  is  that  it 
usually  worked  over  the  years. 

The  member  for  Wentworth  North  (Mr. 
Cunningham)  went  into  some  of  the  history 
of  the  UTDC,  OTDC,  Krauss-Maffei  and  so 
on.  He  discussed  something  about  a  meeting 
of  the  Premiers  of  Canada  when  there  was 
some  agreement  amongst  them  to  have  a  co- 
operative effort  with  other  provinces  being 
shareholders  of  a  corporation.  I  must  say 
there  was  some  planning  for  this  type  of 
arrangement  shortly  prior  to  my  taking  over 
responsibility  for  this  ministry.  It  was  con- 
sidered and  discussed  with  the  federal  gov- 
ernment. 

It  became  the  Urban  Transportation  De- 
velopment Corporation  because  the  federal 
government  and  others  did  not  want  to  be 
shareholders  in  anything  called  Ontario, 
which  is  understandable.  When  I  got  into 
the  thing  and  when  there  were  so  many 
strings  being  attached  by  other  possible 
shareholders,  mainly  the  federal  government, 
I  recommended  to  my  colleagues  in  cabinet 
that  we  not  proceed  with  other  shareholders 
in  the  corporation.  The  Urban  Transporta- 
tion Development  Corporation  has  remained 
a  wholly  owned  Ontario  government  com- 
pany. It  was  not  a  case  of  people  backing  out. 

I  met  in  Edmonton  with  Dr.  Hugh  Horner, 
who  was  the  Alberta  Minister  of  Transporta- 
tion at  that  time,  and  we  discussed  UTDC. 
Dr.  Horner  said  to  me:  "We  have  a  commit- 
ment with  you.  If  you  want  us  as  share- 
holders, we  are  still  with  you.  We  will  be- 
come shareholders  of  the  company."  As  I  say, 
we  did  not  proceed  with  bringing  in  other 
shareholders. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Did  you  put  out  a  big 
press  release  saying  that? 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5203 


Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  No,  I  did  not,  as  a  matter 
of  fact.  I  do  not  want  to  go  into  all  the  his- 
tory. We  all  know  the  discussion  on  magnetic 
levitation.  The  proposal  did  not  work.  We 
happened  to  be  astute  enough  business  people 
that  we  could  see  that  proposal  was  not  going 
to  proceed.  As  soon  as  we  found  out  the  prob- 
lems, the  German  government  withdrew  its 
support  of  the  program  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Atlantic.  Through  the  very  excellent  ne- 
gotiations by  my  predecessor  and  Mr.  Foley 
Ontario  was  paid  its  total  costs  on  the  project. 
The  papers  were  tabled  in  the  Legislature 
which  members  have  seen,  I  know.  The  total 
costs  were  paid  by  Krauss-Maffei  when  it 
cancelled  the  contract. 
11:30  a.m. 

The  honourable  member  for  Wentworth 
North  stated  the  private  sector  had  the 
technology,  that  it  could  have  done  all  these 
things.  We  all  know  that  is  a  lot  of  clap- 
trap. It  is  not  true.  There  is  no  technology  in 
the  world  today  like  the  technology  we  have 
now.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that 
UTDC  is  looked  upon  around  the  world  as 
having  the  best  technology  in  transit  today. 

It  was  very  interesting  to  hear  the  honour- 
able member  say  Hawker  Siddeley  Canada 
could  have  built  the  streetcars  cheaper,  de- 
signed them  cheaper,  and  so  on.  It  was 
very  interesting  that  in  the  bids  on  the  street- 
cars for  Buffalo,  the  low  bid  was  $34,780,000; 
UTDC  $35,771,000;  Siemens  was  $37  million; 
Bombardier  was  $39  million,  and  Hawker 
Siddeley  was  almost  $43  million.  So  they  cer- 
tainly are  economical  when  it  comes  to 
bidding. 

Mr.  Nixon:  We  put  $100  million  into  our 
firm  and  Hawker  Siddeley  has  to  find  its 
investors. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  That  is  absolutely  a  total 
fabrication. 

Mr.  Nixon:  We  put  $100  million  into 
UTDC,  did  we  not? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  We  have  not. 

Mr.  Nixon:  How  much  did  we  put  in? 
What  were  the  total  ball  park  figures  initially? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  We  have  invested  $6  mil- 
lion capital  in  UTDC.  My  ministry  has  had 
a  development  contract  on  the  intermediate- 
capacity  transit  system  program  for  something 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  just  over  $60  million. 
That  has  nothing  to  do  with  Hawker  Siddeley 
and  their  price  on  streetcars. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  You  would  have  to  re- 
flect that  in  your  cost.  If  UTDC  got  the  con- 
tract, who  would  they  have  build  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  There  would  have  been 
numerous  subcontractors. 


Mr.  Nixon:  Hawker  Siddeley— 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Hawker  Siddeley  could 
have  been  one  of  them  for  a  portion  of  it. 
There  are  many  other  companies  that  were 
involved  in  the  subcontracts. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  What  are  the  names  of 
them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  can  give  you  the  names 
of  every  one.  There  was  Garrett  Manufac- 
turing Limited,  SPAR  Aerospace  Limited,  IT 
and  T,  Dominion  Foundries  and  Steel  Limited 
—how  many  more  do  you  want? 

Mr.  Cunningham:  The  shell  game. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  The  member  would  not 
know  how  to  play  shells. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  I  cannot  afford  to. 

The   Acting   Speaker  (Mr.   MacBeth):    Mr. 

Minister,  this  is  all  very  entertaining  but  I 
think  we  should  ignore  the  interjections.  This 
is  second  reading.  Get  on  with  your  remarks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  The  honourable  member  is 
concerned  about  the  assessment  of  the  via- 
bility of  this  product.  I  would  like  to  draw 
to  his  attention  the  fact  that  UMTA,  the 
Urban  Mass  Transportation  Administration  of 
the  federal  government  of  the  United  States- 
Mr.  Conway:  I  am  with  UMTA. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  It  is  obvious  the  member 
does  not  know  what  he  is  talking  about.  It 
is  obvious  he  does  not  want  information. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Where  do  you  have  one  run- 
ning that  is  carrying  people? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  In  Kingston. 

The  UMTA  organization  did  a  complete 
study  of  the  UTDC  technology,  and  ap- 
proved it  as  one  of  the  four  suppliers  of  this 
type  of  technology  for  projects  funded  by 
the  federal  government  in  the  US.  I  think 
that  has  to  be  one  of  the  greatest  pluses. 
The  Los  Angeles  technical  committee,  made 
up  of  their  transit  authority,  their  engi- 
neers, their  specialists,  did  an  evaluation  of 
the  proposals  put  in  for  the  Los  Angeles 
system.  As  I  announced  the  other  day,  they 
recommended  to  the  Los  Angeles  council 
that  the  UTDC  proposal  was  the  best  for 
their  system  based  on  a  number  of  factors. 

The  member  wanted  to  know  whether  we 
were  going  to  recover  the  $60  million  to  $70 
million  that  we  invested  in  developing  this 
technology  out  of  the  one  contract  in  Van- 
couver. I  would  have  to  say  no,  and  we 
would  not  expect  to.  When  one  develops  a 
technology  like  that,  one  does  not  expect 
to  recoup  development  costs  on  one  job. 
The  member  for  Niagara  Falls  is  nodding 
his  head.  He  knows  that. 


5204 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


When  Boeing  developed  the  747  at  a 
cost  of  God  only  knows  how  many  million 
dollars,  it  would  probably  have  to  sell  400 
to  500  747s  before  it  would  have  its  de- 
velopment costs  back  in  its  pocket.  Similar- 
ly with  any  such  product  as  that:  de  Havil- 
land,  in  developing  the  Dash  7  and  Dash 
8,  will  have  to  sell  200  or  300  airplanes  be- 
fore it  will  recover  its  costs— that  great 
crown  corporation  owned  by  the  federal 
government.  Canadair  spent  hundreds  of 
millions  of  dollars  developing  the  Chal- 
lenger, which  has  been  very  successful  and 
sold  more  than  125  airplanes,  I  believe,  al- 
though they  have  not  got  their  final  certifi- 
cation yet.  The  company  will  not  recover 
those  development  costs  until  it  has  sold 
a  couple  of  hundred  airplanes,  I  am  sure. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  did  not  get  the  Arrow 
money  back. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  No.  That  was  all  spent 
in  Ottawa  by  the  Liberals. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  We  know  who  spent  it; 
we  know  who  stopped  it  too.  Those  are  two 
different  things. 

I  am  told  that  the  development  or  instal- 
lation of  these  transit  systems,  as  far  as  jobs 
are  concerned— and  jobs  are  one  thing  we 
are  all  concerned  with— will  provide  some- 
thing over  300,000  man-years  of  work  for 
each  $100  millions  of  contract.  With  a  little 
bit  of  new  or  old  math,  whichever  one 
wishes  to  use,  with  the  Vancouver  project 
and  the  Los  Angeles  project,  if  they  both 
evolve  into  contracts,  we  have  something 
like  $800  million  worth  of  contracts  there. 
That  comes  out  to  something  like  24,000 
man-years  of  employment  over  the  next  five 
years.  That  comes  very  close  to  5,000  man- 
years  of  work  per  year  for  five  years.  That, 
of  course,  would  be  spread  out  in  the  manu- 
facturing end,  the  civil  engineering  end  and 
all  aspects  of  the  contract.  However,  it  adds 
up  to  a  lot  of  employment. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  private  bond- 
ing companies  should  be  bonding  this  con- 
tract. I  assure  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is  the 
proposal,  that  a  private  bonding  company 
would  bond  UTDC  to  the  British  Columbia 
government  or  to  the  greater  Vancouver 
transit  authority  or  whoever  the  final  con- 
tract is  signed  with.  That  would  be  a  per- 
formance bond  to  guarantee  the  performance 
of  the  contract. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  If  Ontario  went  broke.  Be- 
cause we  keep  paying  as  long  as  we  can 
pay.  That  is  what  that  does. 


Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  am  trying  to  explain 
it,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  will  try  to  disregard 
that.  Comments  coming  from  the  other 
members  of  the  House  who  are  not  as 
familiar  I  could  understand,  but  not  from 
the  member  for  Niagara  Falls. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  Mr.  Minister,  please 
disregard  their  comments.  Sometimes  I  think 
you  invite  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  First  of  all,  when  some- 
one gets  a  bond  to  bond  him  on  the  con- 
tract, the  bonding  company  issues  a  bond, 
which  is  a  standard  form  that  guarantees  the 
fulfilment  of  that  contract  by  that  company, 
in  this  case  by  UTDC.  But  that  bonding 
company  also  will  ask  the  principals  behind 
that  company  for  their  guarantee.  The  mem- 
ber for  Niagara  Falls  states  he  got  a  lot  of 
bonds  in  his  construction  business  and  never 
gave  a  personal  guarantee  to  the  bonding 
company.  I  would  have  to  doubt  that  very 
much. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Oh,  yes  I  did. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  know,  I  went  through 
it  for  years.  I  had  to  sign  guarantees;  my  wife 
had  to  sign  guarantees.  I  had  to  sign  over 
my  life  insurance  policies  and  I  had  to  tell 
them  how  many  bats  I  had  in  the  belfry  and 
how  many  pigeons  in  the  loft.  Those  bonding 
companies  want  to  extract  every  bit  of  blood 
they  can  out  of  someone  before  they  put 
their  name  on  the  line.  In  this  case  my  wife 
and  I  did,  as  owners  of  our  company.  We 
put  our  money  where  our  mouths  were  and 
we  guaranteed  that  our  company  could  per- 
form that  bond. 
11:40  a.m. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  were  limited  in  your  assets, 
so  when  they  were  gone  the  bonding  com- 
pany would  finance  completion  of  the  con- 
tract. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  All  the  bonding  company 
would  do  would  be  to  take  everything  I  had, 
except  my  wife. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  That  is  my  point. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  The  thing  is  that  in  this 
particular  case  the  government  and  the 
people  of  Ontario  are  the  owners,  the  share- 
holders of  UTDC,  so  all  the  bonding  com- 
pany is  asking  is  for  the  principal  of  UTDC, 
which  is  the  Ontario  government,  to  stand 
behind  its  company  in  the  same  way  it  would 
ask  me  to  stand  behind  mine  or  the  member 
for  Niagara  Falls  to  stand  behind  his.  That 
is  exactly  the  way  it  is  and  I  do  not  know 
what  is  so  difficult  to  explain  about  that. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  are  putting  the  taxpayers 
of  Ontario  on  the  hook. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5205 


Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  That  is  right,  but  unless 
one  is  going  to  go  and  bury  one's  head  in 
the  sand  some  place  with  the  ostriches,  one 
has  to  be  on  the  hook  some  time. 

I  am  not  sure  where  I  was,  but  there  have 
been  a  number  of  questions  asked  as  to  who 
the  contractors  will  be.  There  will  be  many 
subcontractors  to  UTDC  on  any  one  of  these 
projects,  whether  it  is  the  project  in  Hamil- 
ton, Vancouver,  Los  Angeles  or  wherever.  I 
cannot  tell  the  members  who  every  contrac- 
tor will  be.  Obviously,  the  civil  engineering 
work,  the  construction  of  the  guideway,  the 
installation  of  the  transformer  banks,  the 
transformer  vaults,  the  installation  of  the 
rails,  all  those  things  that  go  together  to  in- 
stalling that  part  of  the  contract,  will  be 
tendered  and  will  be  with  contractors  prob- 
ably based  in  British  Columbia. 

It  is  impossible  to  construct  a  guideway  in 
Ontario,  construct  guide  piles  in  Ontario  and 
transport  that  pile  foundation  to  Vancouver, 
but  that  seems  to  be  what  I  am  being  ex- 
pected to  do,  which  is  crazy.  We  estimate 
that  roughly  50  to  55  per  cent  of  the  total 
value  of  the  contracts  will  be  in  the  civil 
engineering  structure  and  that  type  of  work, 
whether  it  is  Los  Angeles,  Hamilton  or  Van- 
couver, and  will  be  done  at  the  site  of  the 
installation.  Surely  we  can  understand  that. 

That  leaves  probably  about  45  per  cent  of 
the  value  of  the  contract  in  the  rolling  stock, 
the  engineering,  the  linear  induction  motors, 
the  control  systems,  the  signals  system  and 
so  on,  which  will  basically  be  built  by  con- 
tractors in  Ontario.  UTDC  is  not  going  to 
become  a  manufacturing  company,  UTDC 
may  be  assembling  and  testing  the  com- 
ponents once  they  are  assembled  into  the 
car.  It  will  be  responsible  for  that  end  of  the 
project  and  for  the  total  engineering  design, 
supervision  of  the  overall  transit  system, 
wherever  it  will  be. 

I  cannot  tell  the  House  who  is  going  to 
supply  every  nut  and  bolt  in  the  project. 
There  are  many  capable  manufacturing  com- 
panies with  capacity  in  Ontario  to  manufac- 
ture the  car  bodies,  to  manufacture  the 
trucks.  The  number  of  companies  that  can 
manufacture  the  linear  induction  motor  is 
limited.  SPAR  is  the  expert  in  the  linear  in- 
duction motor.  We  have  Westinghouse  Air- 
brake for  the  braking  systems.  I  do  not  know 
whether  that  is  for  this  or  whether  that  is 
for  the  streetcar,  but  these  are  the  type  of 
Canadian  manufacturers.  Garrett  Manufac- 
turing was  one  of  the  big  manufacturers  for 
the  streetcar,  not  for  the  ICTS,  but  those 
are  the  type  of  companies  that  will  be  doing 
the  manufacturing  of  the  many  different  com- 


ponents that  will  go  into  the  actual  system 
itself. 

I  do  not  know  where  the  member  got  the 
idea  that  the  steel  rails  were  going  to  be 
bought  some  place  else.  Where  was  that?  I 
cannot  tell  the  House  where  the  rails  would 
come  from  for  Los  Angeles.  Obviously  there 
are  rail  rolling  companies  in  the  US.  I  under- 
stand the  Japanese  market  supplies  rails  to 
the  US.  I  cannot  say  they  are  going  to  go 
from  Ontario.  That  will  depend  on  bidding 
and  so  on. 

I  would  certainly  expect  that  rails  for  any 
project  in  Canada  would  come  from  Algoma 
Steel  in  Sault  Ste.  Marie.  The  honourable 
member  talks  about  Interprovincial  Steel  and 
Pipe  Corporation.  Some  years  ago  I  used  to 
be  a  shareholder  of  Ipsco  and  I  surely  never 
understood  it  was  a  company  manufacturing 
railroad  rails.  It  may  have  gone  into  that. 
Maybe  he  knows  something  I  do  not;  that  is 
possible.  But  the  major  company  that  manu- 
factures rails  in  Canada  is  Algoma  Steel  and 
it  would  be  very  likely  Algoma  would  be  the 
supplier.  This,  of  course,  would  supply  jobs 
in  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  in  transportation  and  in 
many  other  spinoffs.  One  cannot  trace  the 
jobs  to  where  they  end  up. 

I  would  point  out  there  have  been  com- 
ments about  the  Premier's  visit  to  Vancouver 
last  week,  about  his  peering  into  somebody's 
eyes  and  coming  up  with  a  vision.  I  do  not 
know  where  that  came  from.  I  would  tell 
the  House,  this  project  has  been  negotiated 
for  many  weeks  and  months.  On  November 
25,  1980,  there  was  a  press  release  from  Mr. 
Edward  Lumley,  the  federal  Minister  of  State 
for  Trade.  He  has  been  working  with  and 
had  many  discussions  with  UTDC  about  its 
technology  and  is  most  interested  in  seeing 
it  developed  and  sold  offshore.  His  press 
release  stated  the  federal  government  was 
prepared  to  assist  in  the  funding  of  a  trans- 
portation system  in  BC,  developed  by  UTDC. 
(The  minister  said  federal  assistance  would 
be  on  the  condition  a  Canadian  system  was 
used.  He  also  said  "a  contribution  would  be 
directed  primarily  towards  engineering  de- 
sign and  prototype  work,  with  vehicles  and 
control  systems  being  developed  by  the  On- 
tario corporation,"  referring  to  UTDC.  That 
announcement  was  made  by  the  federal  gov- 
ernment long  before  Mr.  Vander  Zalm, 
British  Columbia's  Minister  of  Municipal 
Affairs— who  I  might  say  was  in  the  gallery 
here  about  two  weeks  ago  when  he  visited 
Toronto— made  his  announcement  last  Satur- 
day morning. 

Mr.  Cunningham:   Two  weeks  before  the 
feasibility  report  was  completed. 


5206 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  do  not  know  where  you 
got  that  idea.  I  will  not  comment  on  it.  It 
sounds  ridiculous. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  The  Globe  and  Mail. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  The  Globe  and  Mail  is 
not  the  fountain  of  all  knowledge  although 
it  seems  to  be  the  fountain  of  yours. 

I  have  probably  answered  most  of  the 
questions  from  the  member  for  Cambridge 
while  replying  from  the  notes  I  have  for  the 
member  for  Wentworth  North.  I  think  the 
member  for  Riverdale  summed  up  as  well  as 
I  could  the  good  reason,  or  probably  better, 
for  section  2  of  the  bill  not  setting  aside  the 
corporation  as  a  crown  agency. 

The  member  for  Cambridge  again  dis- 
cussed lost  jobs  to  the  province  that  were 
never  here.  If  there  are  25,000  man-years  of 
employment  created  by  this  $800  million 
worth  of  construction  and  if  60  per  cent  of 
those  are  in  Vancouver,  Los  Angeles,  Hamil- 
ton or  wherever  the  structure  is  built,  it 
supplies  jobs  in  those  areas,  but  that  leaves 
about  45  per  cent  of  those  jobs  mainly  in 
the  manufacturing  sector  in  Ontario. 

11:50  a.m. 

There  may  be  some  subcontractors  in- 
volved in  the  development  of  the  car,  and 
some  may  be  from  Quebec,  BC  or  wherever. 
In  the  manufacturing  industry,  there  are 
many  specialized  products  that  one  has  to 
buy  where  they  are  produced.  There  will 
still  be  a  tremendous  number  of  high  tech- 
nology jobs  provided  in  Ontario.  I  cannot 
tell  the  House  exactly  how  many  there  will 
be,  but  I  have  given  you  my  best  estimate. 

I  was  most  interested  to  hear  the  mem- 
ber for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  enter  the  de- 
bate. I  have  heard  that  same  speech  several 
times.  When  I  first  came  to  this  House  in 
1967,  my  former  colleague  Mr.  Simonett 
used  to  sit  just  behind  me  and  hear  that 
speech  and  answer  questions  about  the 
nuclear  generating  station  at  Pickering.  The 
honourable  member  mentioned  he  had  great 
doubts,  and  was  perhaps  his  severest  critic. 
He  used  to  suggest  to  the  government  and 
to  Mr.  Robarts  at  that  time  that  we  were 
leading  the  Ontario  taxpayers  down  the 
garden  path. 

Mr.  Nixon:  No,  no.  You  are  misquoting 
me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  am  quoting  the  intent, 
as  I  recall  it  from  when  I  was  sitting  over 
there  in— I  hate  to  say  it— the  seat  now 
occupied  by  the  member  for  Etobicoke  (Mr. 
Philip).  I  used  to  look  with  longing  eyes 
at  these  front  benches  on  this  side.  I  well 
recall  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk 


and  his  sceptical  attitude  towards  research 
and  development:  why  were  we  spending 
this  money  on  nuclear  power,  why  was  a 
certain  boiler  delivered  last  week  with  some 
damage  done  to  it,  and  how  much  was  this 
going  to  cost  the  taxpayers  of  Ontario? 

Mr.  Nixon:  Who  is  going  to  ask  those 
questions  if  we  don't  ask  them?  By  the  way, 
how  many  of  those  have  you  sold  outside 
Canada?  How  much  money  have  you  made 
on  any  one  of  them?  Not  a  heck  of  a  lot. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  we  are 
talking  about  Candu  reactors,  we  are  talking 
about  the  federal  agency  that  is  respon- 
sible for  the  selling  of  Candu  reactors. 

He  talked  about  the  record  of  UTDC  and 
how  bad  it  was.  I  have  to  say  I  am  180 
degrees  away  from  the  member  on  that.  I 
know  he  really  did  not  mean  that,  because 
I  know  that  member  and  he  is  a  rather 
sincere,  nice  sort  of  fellow.  Usually  he  takes 
a  rather  equalized  approach  to  these  things, 
so  I  take  that  comment  with  a  grain  of  salt. 
I  think  UTDC's  records  of  performance,  of 
development  and  of  achievement  to  this  day 
have  been  unequalled  by  any  other  organ- 
ization I  can  think  of. 

Maybe  the  member  should  read  the  article 
in  Popular  Science  magazine  last  month 
which  stated  what  great  accomplishments 
UTDC  has  made.  I  will  see  that  he  gets  a 
copy.  Again,  I  refer  to  the  Urban  Mass 
Transportation  Administration  and  its  evalu- 
ation of  UTDC,  to  the  Los  Angeles  people 
and  their  evaluation,  and  to  the  BC  people 
who  were  down  here. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Why  can  we  not  evaluate  it? 
We  are  paying  for  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Over  the  last  five  years 
as  this  technology  has  been  developed,  mem- 
bers of  this  Legislature  have  been  invited  on 
numerous  occasions  to  take  advantage  of  the 
chance  to  visit  and  be  briefed  on  it.  Nothing 
has  been  hidden.  Members  of  the  legislative 
committee,  including  the  members  for  Went- 
worth North  and  Etobicoke,  have  gone  to 
Kingston  to  be  briefed  on  the  development 
as  it  progressed. 

Mr.  McClellan:  In  a  few  years  the  public 
accounts  committee  will  go  out  and  look  at  it 
too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  We  hope  you  will. 

There  is  a  problem  in  trying  to  explain 
how  a  contract  of  this  type  is  developed.  It 
is  not  like  us  designing  a  bridge  where  we 
design  specifically  what  has  to  be  provided. 
Contractors  who  are  prequalified  by  the  min- 
istry bid  on  that  bridge;  they  do  not  bid  op- 
tions or  alternatives.  They  all  have  to  supply 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5207 


the  same  bridge.  When  the  tenders  are 
opened,  unless  there  is  some  imperfection 
in  his  bid,  the  low  bidder  in  999  cases  out 
of  a  1,000  is  awarded  the  contract  and  the 
contract  document  may  be  signed  within  a 
week,  allowing  that  contractor  to  proceed. 

In  this  type  of  business,  going  back  to  when 
we  bought  the  double-decker  GO  Transit 
cars,  I  recall  an  announcement  was  made 
by  my  predecessor  of  the  contract.  I  signed 
the  contract  probably  three  or  four  months 
after  the  actual  contract  was  awarded  but 
after  all  the  evaluation  and  details  of  that 
contract  were  worked  out.  Before  I  actually 
put  my  name  on  those  contracts,  it  was  three 
or  four  months  after  the  announcement  that 
the  contract  was  awarded. 

The  tenders  on  the  Buffalo  streetcars  went 
in  six  weeks  ago  or  two  or  three  months  ago, 
I  am  not  sure.  They  are  being  evaluated.  Some 
people  bid  on  four-axle  cars  and  some  bid  on 
six-axle  cars.  The  Japanese  car  may  not  meet 
the  specification.  We  are  the  second  bidder. 
I  am  not  saying  we  are  out  of  that  contract 
now.  It  is  not  like  bidding  on  a  bridge  when 
one  knows  he  is  out  when  he  is  not  the  low 
bidder.  We  do  not  know  where  it  stands  at 
this  moment.  They  are  evaluating  those  bids. 
They  may  scrap  the  whole  works  and  recall 
it.  We  do  not  know  what  they  will  do. 

When  they  evaluate  the  bids,  as  Los 
Angeles  evaluated  the  intermediate-capacity 
transit  system  bid  and  made  its  recommenda- 
tions, the  technical  committee  in  Buffalo  may 
come  back  to  city  council  and  recommend 
that  the  UTDC  bid,  after  taking  all  things 
into  consideration,  is  the  lowest.  What  we 
have  at  this  time  is  a  proposal  that  has  been 
put  to  Los  Angeles  and  a  proposal  to  Van- 
couver and  these  have  been  evaluated.  Now 
it  has  been  recommended  that  these  proposals 
be  accepted.  The  detailed  contract  will  be 
worked  out.  The  performance  bond  will  then 
be  provided  and  I  assure  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  performance  bond  will  be  tabled  in  the 
Legislature.  One  request  was  that  the  order 
in  council  be  tabled.  As  you  know,  Mr. 
Speaker,  orders  in  council  are  posted  after 
every  cabinet  meeting.  I  do  not  think  it  is 
necessary  to  table  it  in  the  Legislature. 

I  regret  that  the  member  for  Brant-Oxford- 
Norfolk— this  hurt  me  a  little  bit  and  I  would 
like  to  look  at  Hansard— referred  in  a  some- 
what derogatory  manner  as  far  as  promotion 
goes  to  my  predecessor.  I  happen  to  think 
that  my  predecessor,  the  late  Honourable  John 
Rhodes,  was  one  of  the  finest  members  this 
Legislature  ever  had  and  a  fine  Canadian.  I 
wish  he  were  still  with  us  and  I  regret  he  was 
brought  into  this  debate. 


Mr.*  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  If  the  minister  is  under  the  im- 
pression that  I  do  not  agree  with  him  about 
the  qualities  of  the  late  John  Rhodes,  then 
I  certainly  want  to  say  very  clearly  that  I 
do.  He  was  a  personal  friend  of  mine  and 
I  admired  him.  I  was  talking  about  the 
minister's  predecessors  who  go  back  for 
quite  a  while.  Some  of  them  did  make  some 
mistakes.  I  do  not  know  any  of  them  who 
was   perfect. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  certainly 
understood  the  member  to  refer  specifically 
to  myself  and  my  predecessor. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Predecessors. 
12  noon 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  The  member  for  River- 
dale  discussed  open-ended  liability  of  the 
power  that  is  granted  in  this  act  for  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  to  guaran- 
tee performance  of  contracts.  I  really  do  not 
know  how  to  deal  with  that  matter  because 
I  do  not  know  how  it  would  be  possible  to 
put  a  limitation  on  it.  I  suppose  some  limita- 
tion could  be  put  in  the  bill,  but  things 
move  very  quickly.  I  would  hate  to  see  a 
situation  wherein  the  corporation  had  an 
opportunity  for  a  contract  and,  because  of 
the  limitation  in  the  bill  and  because  the 
Legislature  was  not  in  session  during  the 
summer  recess,  we  were  not  able  to  take 
the  contract  because  the  Lieutenant  Gov- 
ernor in  Council  was  bound  by  a  limitation 
as  to  the  number  of  guarantees  that  could 
be  outstanding  at  any  one  time. 

We  can  almost  expect  that  any  contract 
for  a  transit  system  will  be  something  over 
$150  million  to  $200  million  and  rise.  As 
we  see  the  Vancouver  contract,  eventually, 
taking  into  consideration  inflation  and  esca- 
lations, by  1986  it  will  probably  be  $650 
million. 

I  assure  the  House  it  is  the  intention  of 
the  corporation  to  ask  only  for  the  necessary 
guarantees  from  the  Lieutenant  Governor  in 
Council  to  guarantee  the  outstanding  bonds 
at  any  particular  time.  Of  course,  a  great 
many  of  these  bonds  will  be  offset  by  per- 
formance bonds  that  we  will  receive  from 
subcontractors.  If  we  are  calling  for  tenders 
in  the  Hamilton  project,  for  instance,  for 
the  construction  of  the  concrete  guideway— 
and  that  may  be  worth  $10  million  or  what- 
ever—then we  would  be  obtaining  a  contract 
performance  bond  from  that  contractor, 
whether  it  be  Piggott  Construction,  McNally 
and  Sons,  KBM  Ready  Mix  Concrete,  or 
whoever  might  make  the  successful  bid. 
They  would  give  a  bond  to  UTDC  that  they 


5208 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


would   successfully  perform  that  part  of  the 
contract. 

Then  you  call  the  electrical  contract  for 
all  the  major  substations,  and  so  on.  That 
contractor  would,  no  doubt,  be  providing  a 
bond.  I  am  not  going  to  say  that  every  time 
we  want  to  buy  $100  worth  of  nuts  and 
bolts  we  are  going  to  ask  a  hardware  store 
to  bond  us.  Obviously,  that  is  not  going  to 
happen.  But  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
overall  liability  will  be  offset  by  subcontract 
bonds  to  the  corporation. 

The  member  for  Niagara  Falls  referred 
to  airplane  manufacturing  companies  test- 
ing their  planes  before  they  sold  them.  I 
would  like  to  draw  to  his  attention  that  that 
is  exactly  why  we  developed  the  Kingston 
test  facility:  so  we  could  develop  this  tech- 
nology, test  it  and  have  those  three  vehicles 
running  around  that  track.  I  do  not  know 
how  many  thousands  of  kilometres  they  have 
put  on.  Very  extensive  testing  has  been 
done.  It  is  very  similar,  basically,  to  the 
testing  that  is  carried  out  in  the  develop- 
ment of  a  new  aircraft.  The  only  difference 
is  that  you  do  not  end  up  with  a  final  cer- 
tification from  some  bureaucrat  to  say  it  is 
all  completed.  That  is  about  the  only  dif- 
ference. 

The  member  for  Erie  made  a  great  many 
comments  about  our  borrowing  money.  He 
asked  us  why  we  did  not  go  to  the  Ontario 
Transportation  Development  Corporation.  As 
far  as  I  know,  OTDC  is  an  arm  of  the  gov- 
ernment. To  borrow  from  OTDC  is  to  take 
money  out  of  one  pocket  and  put  it  into 
another.  I  would  point  out  that  we  are  not 
borrowing  money.  What  UTDC  is  asking  is 
that  its  shareholder,  myself  and,  through  me, 
the  Legislature,  guarantee  its  performance 
bond  as  any  other  company  Would  ask  its 
shareholders  to  do.  The  corporation  runs  on 
a  normal  basis  and  does  normal  bank 
financing  just  as  any  other  company  would 
do.  I  would  remind  the  member  for  Erie 
that  the  first  system  I  expect  to  see  running 
with  the  ICTS  technology  will  be  in  Hamil- 
ton. That  is  fairly  close  to  the  Niagara 
Peninsula. 

The  member  for  Rainy  River  had  a  num- 
ber of  specific  questions.  The  terms  of  the 
bond,  as  I  said,  will  basically  be  a  standard 
performance  bond.  It  will  be  tabled.  The 
member  heard  the  Premier  give  that  com- 
mitment. If  he  wants  to  see  the  bond,  that 
is  fine. 

The  bond  will  cover  the  performance  of 
the  contract.  There  will  be  subcontract 
bonds.  UTDC  will  be  the  prime  contractor. 
UTDC  will  be  responsible  for  the  specifica- 


tions and  the  supervision  of  the  contract.  I 
am  already  committed,  as  is  the  Premier,  to 
the  tabling  of  any  performance  bond  the 
Legislature  requests. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  committee  of  the  whole. 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 


URBAN  TRANSPORTATION 

DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION 

LTD.  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  190,  An  Act  respect- 
ing the  Urban  Transportation  Development 
Ltd. 

Section  1  agreed  to. 

On  section  2: 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  been 
interested  in  the  debate  as  to  why  it  was 
necessary  for  the  House  to  declare  that 
UTDC,  which  is  wholly  owned  by  the  gov- 
ernment of  Ontario  on  behalf  of  the  people, 
is  not  a  crown  corporation.  I  listened  to  the 
information  put  forward  by  the  member  for 
Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick)  and  the  minister, 
but  it  seems  to  me  if  we  have  to  convince 
the  people  with  whom  we  are  doing  business 
that  we  are  not  unnecessarily  protecting 
ourselves  as  crown  corporations,  we  could 
write  into  the  specific  contracts  any  protec- 
tion the  buyers  might  possibly  require.  It 
just  seems  ridiculous  for  this  House,  having 
set  up  this  public  company  with  the  Minister 
of  Transportation  and  Communications  as 
the  single  shareholder  on  behalf  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  people  of  Ontario,  to  pass 
section  2,  which  says  this  is  not  a  crown 
corporation. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  rather  resent  being 
asked  to  give  up  any  protections  crown 
corporations  normally  have  that  might  be 
there.  Those  protections  have  been  estab- 
lished over  many  years  of  tradition  and  en- 
actment for  the  very  purpose  of  protecting 
the  taxpayers  against  some  bad  corporate 
judgement  that  might  be  entered  into  by 
individuals  no  matter  how  extensive  their 
experience  in  using  their  wife's  life  insurance 
for  bonding  purposes. 

There  is  no  way  I  would  ever  question 
the  minister's  motives,  credibility  and  re- 
sponsibility, but  this  is  or  should  be  a  crown 
corporation.  If  we  cannot  sell  what  the 
crown  corporation  has  developed,  technically 
and  with  hardware,  then  I  suppose  we 
could  consider  permitting  a  contract  that 
divests  us  of  specific  protections.  I  resent 
section  2,  and  I  am  not  convinced  it  is 
necessary. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5209 


Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not 
know  how  much  more  I  can  say.  It  is  a  way 
of  clarifying  the  corporation.  It  is  not  a 
crown  corporation.  It  is  a  business  corpora- 
tion incorporated  under  the  Canada  Corpo- 
rations Act.  The  member  and  I  could  go  out 
tomorrow— maybe  this  afternoon  if  we  could 
pull  a  couple  of  dollars  together— and  in- 
corporate a  company  under  the  Canada 
Corporations  Act.  This  is  what  this  is.  It 
is  a  business  corporation.  It  so  happens  that 
Ontario  is  the  shareholder  for  that  corpora- 
tion. To  remove  any  doubt  as  to  the  fact 
that  it  is  a  business  corporation  rather  than 
a  crown  agency,  I  have  been  asked  by  the 
Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry)  and  the 
Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  to  clarify  that 
point  in  this  bill. 
12:10  p.m. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am 
sorry  to  prolong  this,  because  we  have  gone 
on  a  long  time  and  I  know  there  are  other 
matters  that  the  Legislature  would  like  to 
consider,  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is 
quite  clear  that  as  of  October  1974  this  is 
a  corporation  under  the  Canada  Corpora- 
tions Act,  this  really  is  redundant.  The 
corporation's  standing  is  quite  clear. 

Why  would  the  Attorney  General  ask  the 
minister  to  come  here  today  and,  basically 
through  this  item  of  legislation,  indicate  that 
UTDC  is  not  a  crown  agency.  It  is  very 
clear  that  it  is  not  a  crown  agency.  UTDC 
is  a  corporation  under  the  Canada  Corpora- 
tions Act,  1974.  Is  this  not  superfluous? 
What  are  the  reasons  that  the  Attorney 
General  has  asked  the  minister  to  do  this? 

Possibly  to  stimulate  the  minister  here, 
is  it  so  that  the  corporation  does  not  have 
to  come  to  the  estimates?  Is  it  so  that  the 
corporation,  when  it  is  bidding  for  these 
projects,  can  say  that  it  is  not  related  to 
the  province  and  is  an  entity  unto  itself? 

I  am  having  a  difficult  time  understanding 
this.  The  minister  was  asked  this  question 
specifically  in  debate  by  the  member  for 
Cambridge  (Mr.  M.  Davidson),  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Riverdale  (Mr.  Renwick)  and  latterly 
by  my  former  leader,  and  we  have  not 
heard  any  answers  on  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  No,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  estimates.  The  rela- 
tionship of  the  corporation  to  my  ministry 
and  the  committee  studying  estimates  will 
not  change.  I  believe  what  it  does  is  it 
limits  the  liability  to  the  taxpayers  of 
Ontario  to  the  investment  that  the  tax- 
payers have  put  into  the  company  and  the 
guarantees  given  to  the  company.  In  other 
words,  the  government  does  not  need  to  be 


brought  into  any  third-party  action  in  a 
case  of  a  dispute  with  the  corporation. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  The  next  section  indi- 
cates that  the  province,  through  the  cabi- 
net, will  allow  a  guaranty,  covenant  or  in- 
demnity in  connection  with  any  contract 
the  separate  corporation  enters  into.  Frankly, 
I  am  doing  the  best  I  can  to  understand  the 
minister,  but  I  am  having  a  very  difficult 
time  understanding  the  relationship  of  this 
company  to  the  government  and  the  poten- 
tial pitfalls  for  the  Ontario  taxpayer. 

The  minister  has  made  reference  to  a 
Buffalo  project,  we  have  read  about  Los 
Angeles  and  now  we  are  talking  about  Van- 
couver. There  could  be  a  myriad  of  others. 
Quite  frankly,  if  the  worst  happened— and 
sometimes  it  does,  especially  in  Hydro  proj- 
ects—we   could   be  in  for   a   lot   of   money. 

1  am  just  wondering  to  what  extent  sections 

2  and  3  are  in  conflict. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  have  explained  the 
reason.  I  cannot  understand  why  no  one  can 
understand  it.  I  feel  it  is  clear  anyway  but, 
by  clarifying  the  fact  that  it  is  not  a  crown 
agency,  We  have  said  the  employees  will  not 
be  civil  servants;  the  changes  of  statute  of 
limitations  make  the  corporation  subject  to 
the  Planning  Act  and  Labour  Relations  Act. 
The  employees  of  the  corporation  have  the 
protection  of  the  Labour  Relations  Act  and 
all  those  types  of  things  but  it  limits  the 
liability  of  the  province  to  the  investment 
that  we  have  put  into  the  company  and  the 
value  of  guarantees  given  to  the  company. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Through  the  minister's 
explanation  I  think  I  have  developed  an 
understanding  of  it.  It  does  not  limit  the 
liability;  it  limits  the  time  in  which  some- 
body ostensibly  could  recover  some  moneys 
as  a  result  of  the  failure  in  the  corporation. 
If  I  am  wrong  there,  let  the  minister  tell  me. 
If  UTDC  is  a  crown  corporation,  then  legally 
—and  I  am  not  a  lawyer— there  is  a  time 
limitation  during  which  one  can  attempt  to 
sue  the  crown  to  recover  moneys  that  one 
feels  the  crown  owes  one.  I  believe  that, 
under  the  act,  notification  must  be  within  six 
months.  This  being  separate  and  unique 
from  that,  the  provisions  of  common  law 
would  apply.  I  think  that  is  the  reason.  Is 
that  not  the  reason? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Not  really.  That  is  one 
of  the  things  it  does,  I  believe,  under  the 
statute  of  limitations.  Someone  who  was 
going  to  bring  action  against  the  corporation, 
if  it  were  a  crown  corporation,  Would  have 
to  do  it  within  six  months.  This  would  give 
them  six  years  or  some  such  period  to  do 
that.  But  it  limits  the  liability  the  taxpayers 


5210 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


can  be  put  to.  We  have  invested,  as  I  say, 
$6  million  or  whatever  in  shares  in  the 
corporation;  so  we  have  an  investment  there. 
The  corporation  has  assets  if  it  makes  money 
and  what  not.  It  has  its  own  assets.  If  we 
guarantee  $300  million  for  a  bond,  the  maxi- 
mum is  the  liability.  Just  as  if  one  buys 
shares  in  any  other  company,  one  puts  one's 
money  up  as  an  investment,  and  the  personal 
guarantee  one  puts  up  in  this  case  is  a 
guarantee  of  surety  for  the  bond. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  If  this  private  corpora- 
tion operating  pursuant  to  the  Canada 
Corporations  Act  is  involved,  let's  say  hypo- 
thetically,  in  some  negligence  and  400  people 
go  off  one  of  these  embankments  or  what- 
ever and  there  is  a  tremendous  loss  of  life, 
would  the  province's  liability  in  that  regard 
be  limited  in  the  context  of  common  law? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Yes,  as  I  understand  it. 
That  is  a  specific  reason.  If  some  disaster 
happened,  the  suits  would  be  against  UTDC, 
their  insurers  and  so  on,  but  they  would  not 
be  able  to  bring  in  Ontario  as  a  third  party 
to  the  action. 

Section  2  agreed  to. 

On  section  3: 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Chairman,  so  that 
we  might  better  understand  the  potential 
liability  We  may  have  in  the  event  of  a 
failure,  is  the  minister  prepared  to  under- 
take today  to  table  the  presentation  he  has 
made  to  Los  Angeles  and  to  Vancouver— 
I  see  his  lawyer  shaking  his  head- 
Mr.  Nixon:  That's  not  his  lawyer;  that's 
his  best  friend. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  —and  to  inform  us 
generally  what  projects  he  is  in  so  that  we 
might  understand  what  the  very  minimum 
downside  would  be  in  the  event  there  was 
a  failure?  Is  he  going  to  give  Hamilton  the 
same  guarantee  he  has  given  these  other 
areas? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Yes.  Hamilton  Would  be 
the  same  thing.  Because  it  is  one  of  our 
municipalities,  I  expect  the  contract  will  be 
between  the  regional  municipality  of  Ham- 
ilton-Wentworth  and  UTDC  for  the  instal- 
lation of  the  system.  The  fact  that  the  money 
is  coming  from  the  ministry  by  way  of  grants 
is  the  same  as  their  buying  from  UTDC 
instead  of  buying  buses  from  General  Motors 
or  whomever. 

I  cannot  give  the  honourable  member  a 
guarantee  or  a  commitment  to  table  docu- 
mentation of  tenders  and  specific  contracts 
that  include  much  information.  It  is  pro- 
prietary information,  and  no  company  could 


continue  to  do  business  if  that  type  of  in- 
formation were  being  made  available  to  their 
competitors,  to  the  Japanese  and  French 
companies  we  are  bidding  against  in  this 
type  of  system. 

As  far  as  the  bonds  are  concerned,  nor- 
mally when  one  gives  a  performance  bond 
for  the  performance  of  the  contract,  it  is 
either  a  50  per  cent  bond  or  100  per  cent 
bond  for  the  performance  of  that  contract. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  We  are  being  asked, 
through  section  3,  to  grant  the  power  to 
the  cabinet  to  provide  and  enter  into  these 
covenants,  agreements  of  guaranty,  bonds 
and  so  on.  I  would  like  to  know  from  the 
minister  whether  they  have  attempted  on 
any  occasion  to  go  to  the  private  sector,  to 
private  surety  companies  such  as  Lloyd's  or 
United  States  Fidelity  and  Guaranty  or 
whomever?  Have  they  gone  to  the  private 
sector  to  attempt  to  obtain  these  very  same 
indemnities  possibly  to  lessen  the  liability  of 
the  people  of  Ontario  in  the  event  that 
something  does  go  wrong? 
12:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  As  I  tried  to  explain  sev- 
eral times,  that  is  exactly  who  would  be 
supplying  the  bond.  I  do  not  know  about 
Lloyds;  maybe  they  are  in  the  bonding  busi- 
ness—they are  in  almost  everything.  United 
States  Fidelity  and  Guaranty,  Canadian  In- 
demnity and  different  other  bonding  com- 
panies supply  performance  bonds.  I  would 
fully  expect  that  one  of  those  companies 
would  be  writing  this  bond  for  UTDC. 

What  we  are  saying,  as  I  have  tried  to 
explain  and  I  have  discussed  with  the  mem- 
ber for  Niagara  Falls  (Mr.  Kerrio),  is  that 
what  we  are  doing  is  giving  a  guarantee  to 
the  bonding  company,  the  same  as  he  would 
give  a  guarantee  to  a  bonding  company  if 
he  were  getting  a  bond  for  his  company  to 
build  a  bridge  or  whatever. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  bond  actu- 
ally does  nothing  for  the  corporation.  The 
bond  is  being  insisted  on  by  the  buyer.  It 
does  nothing  for  us  because,  in  reality  a 
bond  does  not  protect  the  selling  agency.  We 
have  guaranteed,  through  the  consolidated 
revenue  fund,  just  to  keep  pouring  money 
in  there  to  do  what  has  to  be  done.  So  the 
only  demand  for  this  kind  of  guaranty  is 
from  the  buyer.  Is  that  right? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  That  is  right,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. It  would  be  the  bond  provided,  just  as, 
when  I  used  to  be  in  the  construction  busi- 
ness and  we  bid  on  a  new  school  or  some- 
thing like  that,  the  specifications  would  call 
for  either  a  50  per  cent  or  100  per  cent 
performance  bond.  I  would  have  to  arrange 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5211 


with  United  States  Fidelity  and  Guaranty 
to  supply  me  with  that  bond  if  I  were  suc- 
cessful in  obtaining  that  contract.  In  the 
bond  document  itself,  the  contract  for  in- 
demnity would  set  out  the  limits  of  the 
bond's  liability. 

The  bond  I  said  we  would  table  in  the 
Legislature  would  set  out  the  limit  of  the 
liability  of  that  bond,  and  the  guarantee  for 
the  bond  cannot  be  more  than  the  limit  of 
the  liability  of  the  bond. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  I  understand  it  is  a  little 
difficult  to  tell  us  to  what  end  we  might 
obtain  a  percentage  return  on  this  project 
with  regard  to  development  costs  but,  in  the 
context  of  our  responsibility  as  it  relates  to 
funding  this  potential  liability,  to  what  end 
does  the  province  recover  development  costs 
or  profits  from  this  corporation?  Does  the 
money  go  back  to  the  UTDC  or  will  it 
ultimately  come  back  to  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  They  should  be  one  and 
the  same.  If  UTDC  makes  a  $50-million 
profit  out  of  this  $650-million  contract,  or 
whatever,  that  is  a  profit  to  UTDC.  The 
corporation  can  use  that  money  for  increased 
working  capital,  for  new  research  and  de- 
velopment or  for  working  capital  for  other 
projects,  or  it  can  declare  a  dividend  and 
pay  a  dividend  to  the  shareholder;  as  I  am 
shareholder,  they  cannot  declare  a  dividend 
without  my  approval. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  I  am  not  entirely  cer- 
tain whether  this  relates  directly  to  section 
3,  or  either  to  section  1  or  section  2,  but 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  minister  to  table 
the  evaluation  he  made  reference  to  from 
UMTA,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  are 
going  to  be  doing  a  fair  bit  of  business 
with   them. 

While  he  considers  that,  I  would  also 
like  to  ask  whether  he  would  table  the  Buy 
America  agreement  so  that  we  might  have 
an  idea,  especially  with  regard  to  American 
projects,  of  the  extent  to  which  Ontario 
corporations  under  that  policy  will  be  able 
to  participate,  and  whether  Ontario  people 
will  be  able  to  get  jobs  through  this. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Do  we  have  a  docu- 
ment from  UMTA?  They  have  done  an 
evaluation  and  have  approved  the  use  of 
technology  that  qualifies  for  their  funding 
by   Los   Angeles,    Miami   and   Detroit. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Do  they  do  it  over 
lunch,  do  they  issue  a  statement,  or  what? 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  The  message  I  got  here 
is  that  we  will  table  the  summary  results. 
I  presume  that  is  a  summary  of  the  evalu- 
ation. I  was  hesitant  on  what  I  could  table 


because  of  what  UMTA  gave  us.  They  have 
approved  our  system  for  installation  in  those 
cities,  but  they  may  not  have  given  us  all 
of  the  very  technical  evaluation  they  have 
done. 

Section  3  agreed  to. 

Sections  4  and  5  agreed  to. 

Bill    190  reported. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Snow,  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  reported  one 
bill  without  amendment. 

HIGHWAY  TRAFFIC  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  188,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Highway 
Traffic  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Speaker; 
there  was  a  change  in  schedule.  I  was  not 
anticipating  proceeding  with  Bill  188  this 
morning.  However,  a  number  of  the  sec- 
tions involved  in  the  bill  relate  to  the  reci- 
procity agreement  and  the  provision  of  all 
the  details  for  legalizing  a  CAVR  cab  card 
that  would  take  the  place  of  a  licence  when 
a  vehicle  from  another  province  is  operating 
on  our  roads.  The  main  section  provides  for 
an  appeal  on  the  medical  standards,  as  I 
announced  on  first  reading  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  have 
taken  a  lot  of  time  on  an  earlier  bill  which 
was  a  very  technical  bill  and  one  that  has 
either  great  benefits  for  the  people  of 
Ontario  or  possibly  some  great  problems 
some  time  down  the  road.  I  would  like  to 
restrict  my  comments  on  this  bill  very 
briefly. 

I  want  to  commend  the  minister  for  bring- 
ing in  these  amendments.  We  all  are  very 
supportive  of  less  duplication  of  regulations, 
especially  in  the  transportation  industry 
across  Canada.  Quite  frankly,  I  am  very 
keen  to  admit  that  in  Canada  I  think  the 
extent  of  our  regulatory  process  is  some- 
what less  than  what  is  seen  in  the  United 
States,  that  is,  after  one  gets  a  licence.  In 
the  United  States  when  one  has  to  travel 
from  state  to  state  one  just  about  has  to  be 
a  lawyer  to  maintain  a  firm  grip  on  the 
different  fuel  regulations,  weight  restric- 
tions, length  restrictions,  insurance  restric- 
tions, indemnity  restrictions,  et  cetera.  Many 
of  those  states  are  in  conflict.  The  reciproc- 
ity agreements  here  help  facilitate  a  more 
orderly  movement  of  goods  across  this 
country. 

Section  16,  with  regard  to  the  responsi- 
bility of  drivers  when  directed  by  officers 
to  proceed  to  scales,  is  a  rather  important 
section  relating  to   enforcement.   I  want  to 


5212 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


go  on  the  record  again  very  clearly  as  stat- 
ing that,  if  we  are  going  to  have  a  regu- 
latory system  of  the  movement  of  goods  in 
Ontario,  it  is  fundamental  to  improve  our 
enforcement  system.  This  is  a  step  in  that 
direction,   as  is  section  22. 

It  is  very  distressing  to  people  who  obey 
the  law,  who  go  through  the  regulatory 
process,  make  applications  to  the  Ontario 
Highway  Transport  Board  and,  more  im- 
portant I  suppose,  pay  the  licence  fees  to 
know  that  others  are  not  going  through 
that  process  but  are  skirting  the  law  and 
sometimes  avoiding  the  law  where  they  can 
and  are  able  to  obtain  benefits  from  that. 
It  is  very  distressing  to  people  who  obey 
the  laws  to  see  that  as  a  reality  here. 

I  know  we  cannot  have  a  Green  Hornet, 
as  the  people  in  the  industry  refer  to  some 
of  our  enforcement  officers,  at  every  corner 
or  every  mile  on  the  highway.  But  if  we 
are  going  to  maintain  the  system  we  have, 
and  it  is  not  a  bad  system  at  all,  we  have 
to  step  up  the  vigilance  on  the  enforce- 
ment, especially  as  we  contemplate  the 
movement  of  dangerous  goods  and  com- 
modities in   Ontario. 

I  hope  section  22  can  be  broadened  in 
time  to  permit  some  expansion  of  authority 
in  that  regard. 

12:30  p.m. 

My  final  comments  relate  to  the  provision 
for  appeals  and  a  re-evaluation  of  the  ability 
of  some  of  our  people,  who  heretofore  have 
been  looked  upon  as  being  disabled,  to  drive 
on  our  highways.  I  know  the  minister  is  a 
fairly  decent  individual  and  I  suppose  is  as 
compassionate  an  MPP  as  any  of  the  rest 
of  us.  He  gets  the  brunt  of  a  lot  of  calls 
from  members  of  all  parties  with  regard  to 
drivers  who  have  been  disfranchised  and 
denied  their  right  to  drive  certain  trucks  or 
buses  after  a  heart  attack,  another  medical 
condition  or,  as  many  of  us  are  aware, 
diabetes. 

Frankly,  the  blanket  application  of  some 
of  the  policies  contained  in  one  of  our  regu- 
lations, in  my  view,  is  somewhat  unfair.  I 
think  this  amendment  will  go  a  long  way. 
It  is  a  step.  My  personal  preference  would 
be  to  see  drivers  evaluated  on  their  indi- 
vidual merits,  not  withstanding  any  regula- 
tion we  may  have,  and  to  have  a  medical 
advisory  committee,  complete  with  an  appeal 
process,  judge  the  efficacy  of  an  individual's 
licence.  With  the  large  number  of  drivers 
we  have  in  Ontario,  it  is  not  an  easy  job  and 
I  am  totally  sympathetic  with  the  ministry 
and  the  task  it  has  in  determining  the  right 
of  an  individual  to  drive  a  vehicle  carrying 


other  people  that  would  be  sufficiently  heavy 
to  do  a  lot  of  damage  to  somebody  if  an 
accident  occurred. 

I  can  think  of  a  situation  in  my  own 
constituency,  if  I  may  elaborate  briefly.  A 
gentleman  came  to  me.  He  had  had  a  coro- 
nary blockage.  He  had  not  at  that  time  had 
a  heart  attack,  or  an  infarction,  as  the 
regulation  would  have  it.  He  went  through 
the  operation  and,  by  way  of  law,  the  medi- 
cal practitioners  were  required  to  notify  the 
ministry  that  this  operation  had  occurred. 

The  long  and  short  of  it  is  that,  after  the 
operation,  the  individual  was  a  healthy  man 
again  and  the  blockage  had  been  corrected. 
Ironically,  this  man  was  far  healthier  than 
he  had  been  for  many  years.  His  licence, 
unfortunately,  had  to  be  removed.  We  nego- 
tiated and  worked  very  carefully  with  the 
assistant  deputy  minister  for  safety  and 
regulation,  who  was  extremely  co-operative 
in  this  and  wary  at  all  times  of  the  possible 
danger  to  the  public.  Ultimately  it  Was  de- 
termined that,  as  a  result  of  this  operation, 
this  individual  was  healthier  than  he  was 
before  the  operation  and  really  was  not  a 
danger  to  anybody. 

Often  that  is  the  case  with  coronary 
patients,  especially  with  people  who  may 
have  had  a  lifestyle  or  conditions  of  living 
that  would  contribute  to  a  heart  failure, 
rather  than  a  congenital  situation.  Many  of 
them,  as  we  read  in  the  paper,  moderate  their 
living  habits,  take  up  jogging  and  do  what 
they  can  to  improve  their  lifestyle.  After  a 
heart  attack  or  an  infarction,  they  may  be 
far  healthier  than  they  were  for  many  years 
and  at  no  great  danger  to  the  rest  of  the 
driving  public. 

The  same,  I  suggest,  applies  to  people 
who  have  diabetes.  As  we  approach  1981, 
which  I  understand  will  be  the  International 
Year  of  Disabled  Persons,  we  should  be  re- 
flecting with  a  little  more  insight  upon  the 
problems  of  many  people  who  have,  through 
no  fault  of  their  own,  such  an  afHiction  as 
diabetes.  It  is  not  a  disability,  but  it  is  often 
perceived  to  be  such.  It  is  such  a  common 
disease,  unfortunately,  that  I  am  sure  almost 
every  one  of  us  has  had  contact  with  some- 
one who  is  affected  by  diabetes.  My  grand- 
father was  so  affected  and  was  able  to 
function  for  the  larger  balance  of  his  life. 
Ultimately,  he  did  not  die  of  diabetes. 

We  are  having  problems  right  now,  and  I 
have  raised  the  matter  with  the  Minister  of 
Labour  (Mr.  Elgie).  I  am  quite  confident  that 
he  will  endeavour  to  look  into  this  situation 
in  great  detail,  but  prospective  employees 
and  current  employees  of  Brewers'  Retail  are 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5213 


now  required  to  obtain  licences  that  would 
allow  them  to  drive  Brewers'  Retail  trucks, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  only  probably 
15  to  20  per  cent  of  them  would  ever  have 
to  drive  a  truck  on  any  occasion. 

iThe  blanket  application  of  this  policy  by 
Brewers'  Retail  ostensibly  means  a  diabetic 
cannot  work  for  that  company.  It  is  a  rather 
silly  situation.  I  raised  two  specific  examples 
with  the  Minister  of  Labour  on  this.  I  think 
he  tends  to  agree  that  it  is  a  discriminatory 
type  of  proposition,  and  it  is  a  situation  that 
may  not  see  current  changes  or  current  regu- 
lations affecting  a  change.  Conceivably,  if  a 
young  man  or  young  lady  was  affected  by 
diabetes  at  age  13  or  14,  naturally  he  or  she 
would  not  have  had  a  licence  and  naturally 
would  not  be  able,  in  a  retroactive  fashion, 
to  have  a  licence  returned.  I  commend  the 
minister  for  the  amendments  and  we  support 
them. 

Mr.  M.  Davidson:  Mr.  Speaker,  we,  too,  in 
the  New  Democratic  Party  will  be  supporting 
the  amendments  that  have  been  placed  before 
us  today.  While  the  entire  bill  as  amending 
the  Highway  Traffic  Act  is  a  good  one,  we 
are  particularly  pleased  with  sections  9  and 
13.  Section  9  is  the  one  where  an  appeal 
process  is  now  going  to  be  allowed  for  those 
who  have  lost  their  licence  or  had  their 
licence  downgraded  as  a  result  of  some  form 
of  medical  disability,  and  we  are  pleased  to 
see  that  the  minister  has  included  that  in  the 
amendments  before  us  today. 

I  say  that  because  the  member  for  Went- 
worth  North  (Mr.  Cunningham)  is  absolutely 
correct.  I  doubt  very  much  if  there  is  a 
member  in  this  Legislative  Assembly  who  has 
not  at  one  time  or  another  had  someone  from 
his  own  riding  approach  him  with  the  fact 
that  he  has  had  his  licence  taken  away  for 
medical  purposes  or  downgraded  so  that  the 
person  can  no  longer  perform  the  job  he  had 
been  doing.  It  is  a  situation  where  in  many 
cases  there  are  corrective  surgeries  or  various 
other  treatments  that  can  make  this  person 
capable  of  returning  to  the  health  he  once 
had,  at  least  in  a  controlled  situation.  Such 
people  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to 
have  the  decision  of  the  registrar  reviewed 
and  perhaps  have  their  licences  reinstated. 

I  point  out  just  one  case.  There  is  a  Mr. 
Gourgon  of  Ottawa  who  had  been  a  transport 
driver  for  most  of  his  working  life.  He  is  a 
gentleman  in  his  forties.  He  had  his  licence 
downgraded  as  a  result  of  an  angina  condi- 
tion. But  in  1980  he  went  through  corrective 
surgery  to  the  heart  and  apparently,  accord- 
ing to  the  information  we  have  received  from 
his  doctor,  his  cardiologist  states  he  is  less 


likely,  to  suffer  heart  problems  now  than  pre- 
vious to  the  operation  and  his  health  is  better 
now  than  it  has  been  for  years.  This  is  a 
prime  example  of  a  gentleman  who  probably 
will  take  advantage  of  the  appeal  process 
once  it  is  put  into  effect  in  an  effort  to  get 
his  licence  back  so  that  he  can  go  back  to 
doing  the  work  he  was  doing  previously. 

Section  13  deals  with  the  handicapped,  and 
my  colleague  from  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan) 
will  be  speaking  to  that  section  a  little  more 
specifically  than  I.  We  in  this  party  are 
pleased  to  see  that  the  minister  has  in- 
cluded this  amendment  in  the  bill,  given  that 
over  the  years  there  have  been  very  serious 
accidents  and  implications  resulting  from  the 
transportation  of  handicapped  persons.  I  hope 
passing  this  amendment  will  make  that  a  little 
bit  better  for  those  people. 

We  do  not  want  to  hold  up  passage  of  this 
bill.  I  do  not  want  to  spend  too  much  time 
with  it,  other  than  to  say  that  we  are  in 
agreement  with  the  bill.  We  have  no  intent 
to  amend  any  section  of  it. 

12:40  p.m. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  rise  to 
support  Bill  188.  I  intend  to  speak  on  only 
two  sections  of  the  bill.  One  is  section  9, 
which  deals  with  the  downgrading  of  a 
licence  because  of  a  heart  condition.  I  speak 
on  this  because  three  different  constituents 
have  contacted  me  within  the  past  month 
and  made  mention  that  their  chance  for  con- 
tinuing in  their  employment  had  been  com- 
pletely eliminated  as  the  legislation  had 
been  until  that  time.  With  the  inclusion  of 
section  9  in  the  bill,  they  can  see  there  is  the 
opportunity,  if  they  provide  medical  evi- 
dence, that  their  licences  can  be  restored  to 
them  once  again. 

Under  section  9,  an  individual  by  the 
name  of  Russ  Collins  has  contacted  me.  I 
brought  his  problem  to  the  attention  of  Mr. 
Mackie  in  the  ministry  office.  He  was  ex- 
tremely cooperative  as  far  as  obtaining  in- 
formation was  concerned  and  in  advising  me 
as  to  what  I  could  pass  on  to  Mr.  Collins. 
Mr.  Collins  is  the  gentleman  who  appeared 
in  the  Legislative  Building  last  Thursday 
and  actually  intended  to  demonstrate  be- 
cause he  was  losing  his  employment.  He 
was  a  bus  driver  with  the  Sandwich,  Wind- 
sor and  Amherstburg  Railway  Company,  or 
Transit  Windsor  as  it  is  now  called,  in  the 
city. 

Because  of  a  medical  operation  he  had  in 
May  1980  and  because  the  licences  are  re- 
examined every  three  years— and  they  noted 
he  did  have  bypass  surgery— the  legislation 
was   such   that  he  would  automatically  not 


5214 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


be  allowed  to  drive  a  bus.  In  coming  down 
here,  Mr.  Collins  realized  it  would  be  better 
to  approach  the  problem  in  a  rational  man- 
ner. He  did  so,  spoke  with  the  officials  in 
the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications and  left,  satisfied  that  some- 
thing would  take  place  that  would  once 
again  restore  his  privileges  to  drive  a  public 
transit  bus. 

In  the  introduction  of  section  9  and  the 
setting  up  of  a  Licence  Suspension  Appeal 
Board,  the  minister  leaves  the  door  open  for 
Mr.  Collins  to  present  the  report  from  his 
medical  doctor,  Dr.  K.  K.  Wong  in  the  city 
of  Windsor,  who  indicates  in  a  letter  which 
has  already  been  transferred  to  Mr.  Mackie 
that  the  operation  he  had  was  for  preventive 
surgery  to  prevent  myocardial  infarction  re- 
sulting from  coronary  obstruction.  The  out- 
come was  as  good  as  we  can  expect.  The 
patient  has  never  had  any  myocardial 
damage  in  the  past.  Since  the  operation,  the 
patient  has  recovered  extremely  well.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  he  was  walking  at  least  a 
mile  a  day  and  doing  all  sorts  of  physical 
activities  without  limitation. 

He  returned  to  work  driving  a  bus  in 
September  but,  unfortunately,  Was  relieved 
from  his  work  in  November  because  he  had 
cardiac  surgery,  without  the  consideration 
that  the  surgery  was  preventive  and  to  how 
excellently  he  recovered  from  the  surgery 
itself.  The  patient  is  on  no  medication  at 
present.  Clinically  speaking,  the  doctor 
writes  that  Mr.  Collins  has  fully  recovered 
from  his  cardiac  problem  and  the  doctor  has 
no  reservations  in  recommending  that  the 
patient  can  go  back  to  his  original  occupa- 
tion, unless  other  diseases  arise.  He  will  be 
no  more  dangerous  behind  the  wheel,  the 
doctor  writes,  than  anyone  Without  cardiac 
surgery,  with  stable  or  unstable  angina  and 
definitely  much  safer  if  compared  to  people 
who  had  actual  myocardial  damage  in  the 
past. 

The  setting  up  of  the  Licence  Suspension 
Appeal  Tribunal  opens  the  door  for  in- 
dividuals as  Mr.  Collins  and  the  two  others 
who  approached  me.  I  am  very  pleased  that 
Mr.  Collins  may  have  the  opportunity  to 
drive  once  again.  At  least  his  case  will  be 
heard. 

As  one  who  has  been  interested  in  the 
physically  handicapped,  especially  when  the 
handicap  did  not  interfere  with  the  per- 
formance of  one's  employment,  I  am  very 
pleased  to  see  section  13  included  in  the  bill, 
because  the  physically  handicapped  once 
again  will  have  the  opportunity  to  drive 
vehicles. 


Mr.  McCIellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
speak  on  the  principle  of  one  part  of  the  bill, 
and  that  has  to  do  with  section  13,  which 
permits  the  ministry  to  pass  regulations  gov- 
erning the  use  of  vehicles  for  the  physically 
handicapped.  One  would  not  know  it  from 
reading  the  section,  but  that  is  what  I  under- 
stand the  section  is  designed  to  accomplish. 
This  is  something  that  is  very  long  overdue. 
The  failure  of  the  government  to  act  sooner 
on  this  matter  has  had  serious  and,  in  fact, 
tragic  consequences. 

What  we  are  dealing  with  in  section  13 
is  the  implementation  of  a  recommendation 
of  the  coroner's  inquest  into  the  death  of 
Linda  Anne  Pyke,  who  died  while  riding  in  a 
van  that  belonged  to  a  network  of  private 
van  services  for  the  physically  handicapped  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto.  The  coroner's  inquest 
verdict  recommended  that  legislation  should 
be  introduced  to  amend  the  Highway  Traffic 
Act  to  regulate  vehicles  carrying  wheelchairs, 
and  then  made  a  number  of  specific  recom- 
mendations. 

I  am  in  the  difficult  position  of  not  know- 
ing what  the  regulations  are  going  to  be,  be- 
cause all  we  have  before  us  is  the  power 
given  to  the  ministry  to  pass  the  regulations. 
I  want  to  stress  the  seriousness  of  the  prob- 
lem and  make  a  number  of  suggestions  to  the 
minister  which  I  hope  he  will  incorporate  in 
the  regulations  when  they  are  promulgated. 

To  give  the  members  an  idea  of  how 
serious  the  problem  is,  we  have  only  to  look 
at  the  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Com- 
munications inspection  reports  with  respect 
to  the  Wheel-Trans-Service  for  the  physically 
handicapped  here  in  Metropolitan  Toronto. 
The  minister  has  been  very  kind  to  share 
those  reports  with  me  in  a  very  full  and  com- 
plete manner,  and  I  want  to  express  my 
appreciation  to  him  for  having  done  that. 
Those  inspection  reports  reveal  serious  defects 
in  what  is  supposed  to  be  a  public  trans- 
portation service  for  the  physically  handi- 
capped within  Metro  Toronto. 

The  report  for  the  period  from  November 
1979,  when  the  service  started,  until  April 
1980  indicated  the  ministry  had  discovered 
that  20  of  the  Wheel-Trans  vehicles,  which 
were  apprehended  through  a  process  of  spot 
checks  on  the  road— these  were  vehicles  that 
were  in  service,  actually  carrying  people- 
were  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Highway  Traffic  Act.  In  fact,  three  of  them 
were  found  to  be  so  unfit  for  use  on  the  road 
that  they  had  their  plates  removed.  Other 
vehicles  were  found  to  be  in  a  state  of  dis- 
repair, not  on  one  occasion  but  on  numerous 
separate  occasions.  There  is  the  instance  of 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5215 


the  Dodge  van  that  was  found  to  be  in  viola- 
tion of  provisions  of  the  Highway  Traffic  Act 
on  November  11,  1979,  on  December  17, 
1979,  and  on  March  4  and  9,  1980.  Each  of 
these  were  separate  and  different  violations 
of  the  Highway  Traffic  Act. 
12:50  p.m. 

There  are  a  number  of  vehicles  operated 
by  the  Wheel- Trans-Service  that  had  no 
safety  stickers.  This  appears  to  be  an  on- 
going problem.  Vehicles  that  are  on  the  road 
carrying  handicapped  people  as  part  of  a 
public  transit  service  that  is  run  by  All-Way 
Transportation  Services  under  contract  from 
the  Toronto  Transit  Commission,  are  running 
without  safety  stickers,  running  in  violation  of 
the  Highway  Traffic  Act  and  in  such  bad  re- 
pair that  some  of  them  have  to  be  pulled  off 
the  road. 

It  is  not  as  though  the  situation  has  been 
corrected,  because  the  minister  has  been 
kind  enough  to  provide  the  vehicle  inspec- 
tion checks  for  a  subsequent  period.  I  wrote 
to  the  minister  in  September,  and  he  was 
good  enough  to  send  me  the  summary  of 
vehicle  inspection  reports  from  April  1, 
1980. 

Another  case  involved  Wheel-Trans- 
Service's  vehicles  owned  or  operated  by 
All- Way  Transportation  Limited;  again,  I 
am  talking  about  vehicles  under  contract 
to  the  TTC  to  provide  transit  for  the  physi- 
cally handicapped.  On  April  9,  a  van  was 
pulled  off  the  road  and  had  its  plates 
removed.  On  April  14,  a  second  van  was 
pulled  off  the  road  and  had  its  plates  re- 
moved. On  June  6,  a  third  van  was  pulled 
off  the  road  and  had  its  plates  removed.  On 
July  22,  a  fourth  van  was  pulled  off  the 
road  and  had  it  plates  removed. 

Mr.  Mancini:  What  is  going  on  with  those 
vans? 

Mr.  McClellan:  That  is  precisely  the 
question.  What  is  going  on  with  the  All- 
Way  Transportation  Services?  I  have  a 
brief  from  an  organization  called  Transpor- 
tation Action,  which  is  an  organization  of 
users  of  the  All-Way  service  in  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto.  They  raised  a  number  of 
concerns,  the  kinds  of  things  I  have  been 
talking  about,  that  are  very  distressing.  They 
point  out  something  that  is  flabbergasting: 
The  penalty  clause  in  the  contract  between 
the  TTC  and  All-Way  has  never  been  in- 
voked. 

Here  is  a  company  that  has  been  provid- 
ing unsafe  vehicles  as  part  of  a  public 
transportation  system  for  a  year  and  a  half 
and  nobody  has  done  anything  about  it  as 
far  as  I  am  able  to  determine.  The  Minis- 


try of  Transportation  and  Communications 
has  given  them  a  few  slaps  on  the  wrist. 
The  TTC,  with  a  degree  of  irresponsibility 
that  I  find  absolutely  appalling,  has  failed 
to  invoke  the  penalty  clauses  of  the  contract 
to  discipline  All-Way.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  shred  of  an  excuse 
why  All- Way  should  have  the  contract.  If 
we  were  dealing  with  responsible  public 
officials,  that  contract  would  have  been 
taken  away  from  the  ripoff  artist  who  runs 
it  and  assumed  directly  by  the  TTC  or  re- 
awarded  to  a  responsible  operator. 

What  we  are  talking  about  is  handicapped 
people  using  a  public  transit  service  and 
being  at  risk  of  serious  injury.  The  records  of 
the  personal  injury  rate,  which  were  also  in- 
cluded in  the  reports  given  to  me  by  the 
Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communi- 
cations, give  no  grounds  for  reassurance  at 
all.  Between  November  1979  and  June 
1980,  I  believe,  there  were  11  personal  in- 
jury accidents  registered  on  All-Way's 
vehicles  under  contract  to  the  TTC.  The 
accident  rate  was  down  somewhat  in  the 
subsequent  six-month  period,  and  we  can 
only  hope  and  pray  it  stays  down. 

I  would  like  to  know  from  the  minister 
how  his  regulations  intend  to  deal  with  this 
situation.  I  would  like  to  know  why  he  con- 
tinues to  tolerate  the  fact  that  Ontario  tax- 
payers' money  is  going  to  the  service  pro- 
vided by  the  TTC  for  a  fleet  of  vehicles 
that  are  flouting  the  Highway  Traffic  Act 
and  regulations  and  flouting  the  terms  of  the 
contract  between  the  TTC  and  All- Way.  I 
would  like  some  answers  to  those  questions, 
because  we  are  playing  a  kind  of  Russian 
roulette.  There  has  already  been  one  death 
and  one  inquest. 

The  situation  has  not  been  cleared  up. 
The  new  vehicles  that  Comsca  is  required 
to  bring  into  service— paid  for  at  public 
expense,  by  the  way— are  not  all  in  service, 
as  I  understand  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
brief  submitted  on  September  22,  1980,  by 
Beryl  Potter  of  the  Transportation  Action 
group  makes  reference  to  nine  wheelchair 
vans  operated  by  the  All-Way  fleet  which 
are  more  than  five  years  old.  The  minister 
probably  knows  that  the  operating  life  of 
a  wheelchair  van  is  between  five  and  six 
years.  We  are  talking  about  at  least  nine 
vehicles  in  the  fleet  that  are  probably  un- 
safe. I  think  it  is  safe  to  assume  they  are 
unsafe  in  the  light  of  the  kind  of  inspec- 
tion material  we  have  in  front  of  us. 

That  brings  me  back  to  the  bill  and  the 
recommendation  with  respect  to  regulatory 
powers.    I    have    been    advised'    through    a 


5216 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


copy  of  a  letter  from  Mrs.  Beryl  Potter  of 
the  Transportation  Action  group  to  Mr. 
Levine,  who  is  a  project  officer  with  the 
Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communica- 
tions, that  a  draft  of  the  proposed  regula- 
tions was  made  available  to  the  Transporta- 
tion Act  group.  Personally,  I  commend  the 
minister  for  taking  that  initiative.  I  think  it 
is  a  very  wise  course  of  action,  to  allow 
the  consumer  group  to  participate  in  the 
process  of  developing  the  regulations. 

I  wish  to  express  concern,  however,  if  it 
is  the  intention  of  the  ministry  to  include  in 
the  regulations  some  kind  of  blanket  exemp- 
tion or  even  a  partial  exemption  for  wheel- 
chair van  operators  that  would  be  coter- 
minous with  the  operating  life  of  a  wheel- 
chair van.  In  other  words,  we  do  not  want 
to  see  an  exemption  of  something  like  five 
or  six  years  before  the  regulations  apply  to 
an  operator  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  oper- 
ators are  going  to  be  arguing  that  they  need 
time  to  make  the  adjustments. 

What  we  are  talking  about  is  a  number 
of  unsafe  vehicles  that  are  currently  on  the 
road.  We  are  talking  about  a  situation  where 
the  TTC  is  unwilling  to  act  in  a  responsible 
way  to  protect  its  handicapped  passengers. 
In  this  context  and  situation,  the  Ministry 
of  Transportation  and  Communications  has 
a  clear  and  unequivocal  responsibility  to 
pass  regulations  that  will  apply  as  quickly 
as  humanly  possible.  They  must  not  contain 
loopholes  or  exemptions  that  will  permit 
operators  to  continue  to  operate  unsafe 
vehicles  or  vehicles  that  have  passed  their 
life  expectancy. 

I  will  conclude  on  that  note.  I  would  be 
grateful  if  the  minister  would  make  avail- 
able to  the  transportation  critics  in  the  op- 
position parties  copies  of  the  draft  regula- 
tions. We  may  have  something  constructive 
to  say  to  him  with  respect  to  those  docu- 
ments. 

Finally,  the  government's  program  of 
subsidization  of  a  public  transportation 
system  for  the  physically  handicapped  was 
applauded  by  all  members  of  this  House 
when  it  was  introduced.  We  said  then  it 
was  a  generous  and  wise  course  of  action 
for  the  government  to  take.  But  what  has 
happened  in  the  past  year  is,  in  my  view,  a 
major  scandal  with  respect  to  what  has 
happened  in  Metropolitan  Toronto.  I  do 
not  know  what  has  happened  in  other  com- 
munities but,  if  it  is  not  any  better  than 
what  has  happened  in  Metro  Toronto,  the 
government  has  very  little  to  be  proud  of. 
1  p.m. 


This  government  has  a  responsibility  to 
make  sure  that  transportation  service  for  the 
physically  handicapped  is  first-rate,  not 
second-rate,  and  certainly  not  the  fourth-  or 
fifth-rate  service  we  have  been  saddled  with 
because  of  the  irresponsibility  of  officials  at 
the  TTC  or  in  Metropolitan  Toronto. 

The  minister  is  paying  a  good  portion  of 
the  shot.  He  has  some  leverage  by  virtue  of 
those  dollars  he  is  putting  forward  and  by 
virtue  of  his  responsibility  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Highway  Traffic  Act.  He  should 
inspect  the  entire  fleet  of  All- Way  Transpor- 
tation Services.  Never  mind  the  spot  checks 
on  the  road.  Maybe  they  will  catch  some  of 
them  and  maybe  not.  He  should  be  doing 
systematic  examinations  of  the  entire  fleet 
until  this  matter  gets  cleaned  up  once  and 
for  all.  The  minister  should  insist  that  the 
TTC  enforce  the  terms  of  its  contract,  which 
is  paid  for  with  Ontario  dollars  in  part,  and 
he  should  put  forward  regulations  sufficiently 
tough  that  they  will  protect  handicapped 
passengers  from  unscrupulous  operators  like 
Mr.  Comsca  and  All-Way  Transportation 
Services. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  few 
words  regarding  Bill  188.  Sometimes— and  we 
have  been  doing  it  for  a  number  of  years- 
regulations  are  passed  after  a  bill  is  passed. 
I  know  three  or  four  members  on  the  govern- 
they  are  passed, 
ment  side  who  go  through  regulations  when 

I  want  to  draw  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  a  regulation  I  found  this  week, 
Ontario  Regulation  906/76,  which  deals  with 
sections  7(1)  and  7(3).  It  relates  to  a  person 
who  received  two  tickets  for  speeding  while 
driving  an  automobile  and  lost  eight  points. 
He  also  held  a  class  B  school  bus  licence. 
He  was  notified  by  registered  mail  to  send  in 
his  class  B  licence.  Section  7(3)  says:  "A 
holder  of  a  class  B  or  E  driver's  licence  shall 
not  have  accumulated  more  than  eight  de- 
merit points  on  his  driving  record." 

He  was  obliged  to  return  his  class  B  licence, 
which  he  had  for  27  years.  However,  he  told 
me  on  the  telephone  that  he  was  issued  a 
class  C  licence.  According  to  my  reading  of 
the  licensing  table,  this  is  for  a  semi- truck 
and  a  Greyhound  bus.  If  he  is  capable  of 
driving  a  Greyhound  bus  safely,  I  cannot 
understand  why  he  is  not  capable  of  driving 
a  school  bus.  Is  one  not  as  important  as  the 
other?  That  sounds  rather  strange  to  me.  He 
was  not  called  in  for  an  interview;  he  was 
just  notified  to  send  in  his  licence. 

This  happens  through  the  regulations  and 
many  of  us  do  not  really  read  them.  I  know 
they  are  put  in  the  Ontario  Gazette,  and  we 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5217 


all  get  that  very  important  paper,  but  not  too 
many  of  us  read  it  on  Saturday  or  Sunday 
afternoon  when  we  should  have  some  free 
time.  I  hope  someone  can  explain  how  that 
regulation  came  about. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  make  a 
couple  of  comments  on  this  bill.  My  col- 
leagues have  talked  about  section  9.  I  sub- 
scribe to  the  comments  made  by  members  of 
all  parties.  I  think  we  all  know  of  people 
who  have  been  affected  by  this  downgrading 
of  licences.  I  am  extremely  supportive  of 
that  section.  However,  I  do  want  to  ask  the 
minister  a  couple  of  questions  in  relation  to 
two  other  sections  of  the  bill. 

Section  16(7b)  of  the  bill  provides  a 
penalty  for  refusing  or  failing  to  follow 
directives  in  relation  to  weigh  scales  and 
people  who  obstruct  "any  weighing,  meas- 
uring or  examination  authorized  by  this 
section."  Considering  the  amount  of  money 
involved  in  Ontario's  trucking  industry,  I 
wonder  whether  these  penalties  are  ade- 
quate. In  this  section,  a  driver  refusing  or 
failing  to  redistribute  his  load  or  obstructing 
any  weighing,  measuring  or  examination  "is 
guilty  of  an  offence  and  on  conviction  is 
liable  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $50  and  not 
more  than  $100."  Considering  the  extra 
money  one  can  make  in  relation  to  the  pay- 
load  or  by  refusing  to  subscribe  to  laws  in 
relation  to  measuring,  the  penalty  seems,  in 
my  respectful  opinion,  out  of  proportion  to 
what  one  may  gain  by  obstructing  or  not 
following  the  law. 

There  may  be  circumstances  where  a  fine 
of  not  less  than  $50  is  adequate,  but  that  is 
not  the  part  I  am  looking  at.  I  am  con- 
cerned with  a  court's  discretion  to  impose  a 
fine  of  more  than  $100  on  a  driver  who  dis- 
obeys the  law  in  relation  to  weighing.  I  ask 
the  minister  whether  he  considers  in  these 
circumstances  that  this  is  an  adequate  deter- 
rent and  gives  the  court  or  the  tribunal 
sufficient  powers  to  have  people  respect  the 
law. 

I  put  it  to  the  minister  that  on  both  that 
section  and  subsection  6,  where  it  is  $500, 
the  maximums  appear  to  be  somewhat  small 
considering  what  is  involved.  Careless 
driving  on  our  highways,  which  may  be 
something  even  less  than  what  is  involved 
in  this,  has  a  minimum  fine  of  $100  today. 
I  want  that  matter  to  be  given  some  con- 
sideration. I  may  be  wrong,  but  I  put  that 
proposition  to  the  minister. 

Another  matter  that  interests  me  is  section 
21,  which  tells  people  using  school  buses 
to  cover  up  the  wording  "do  not  pass  when 
signals   flashing"   when   they   are  not   trans- 


porting children  or  mentally  retarded  adults 
to  or  from  school  or  a  training  centre.  Why 
would  the  minister  want  that  happening? 
Why  would  the  minister  want  to  say,  as 
stated  in  subsection  (5),  that  the  words 
shall  be  covered  or  concealed  when  the 
school  bus  is  not  being  used  for  transporta- 
tion to  or  from  a  school  or  training  centre. 
If  the  bus  is  not  being  used  for  that  pur- 
pose, it  strikes  me  that  it  likely  would  not 
be  stopping  and  starting  as  it  is  when  it  is 
picking  up  and  letting  off  students  or  re- 
tarded adults  or  other  people  who  are  pro- 
tected under  the  statute. 

I  am  wondering  what  the  motivation  is 
for  asking  this.  People  often  rent  these 
buses  for  a  junior  hockey  team  that  is  going 
to  play  some  place.  Is  the  bus  starting  and 
stopping  all  over  the  place?  I  do  not  under- 
stand why  it  would  be  necessary  to  do  that 
if  the  vehicle  is  not  used  for  transporting 
students  to  or  from  a  school  or  training 
centre. 
1:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will 
answer  the  questions  that  are  in  my  mind 
at  the  moment.  I  cannot  agree  with  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  (Mr.  Roy)  in  his 
concern  for  the  penalty  section  in  section 
16.  This  is  a  penalty  for  a  driver  who 
refuses  to  unload  some  material.  If  he 
goes  back  on  the  road  again,  the  truck  is 
fined  for  overloading  the  second  time.  These 
things  bring  about  pretty  tough  penalties 
We  are  not  talking  about  the  truck  owner 
or  the  transport  company;  we  are  talking 
about  a  driver  who  drives  off  while  trying 
to  set  up  a  portable  scale  or  something  like 
that.  He  can  be  fined  up  to  $500.  Until  this 
time,  I  do  not  believe  we  have  had  any 
penalty  for  this  section. 

There  are  many  other  penalties  involved 
in  this  type  of  process.  I  have  looked  over 
this  and  thought  about  it  since  the  honour- 
able member  was  talking  and,  taking  into 
consideration  the  other  penalties  that  go 
along  with  the  same  action,  I  do  not  think 
we  are  being  too  lenient. 

With  regard  to  the  school  bus  matter, 
certain  provisions  apply  when  a  school  bus 
is  being  operated  as  a  school  bus.  When 
it  stops  to  pick  up  or  drop  off  passengers, 
it  must  turn  on  its  flashing  lights.  However, 
when  that  bus  is  being  operated  off  season 
for  charters  and  so  on,  and  not  on  school 
trips,  the  bus  carrying  a  charter  does  not 
need  to  have  that  sign.  Those  lights  are  to 
be  covered  when  it  is  being  used  other 
than  as  a  school  bus.  A  normal  bus  does 
not  have  those  signs.  This  is  to  clarify  the 


5218 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


act  that  those  flashing  school  light  signs 
shall  not  be  used  other  than  when  trans- 
porting school  children. 

The  member  for  Essex  North  (Mr.  Rus- 
ton)  was  wondering  how  regulations  come 
about.  We  have  a  lot  of  them.  What  was 
the  specific  regulation  the  member  was  con- 
cerned about? 

Mr.  Ruston:  Section  7(3)/regulation  906, 
76;  the  holder  of  a  class  B  or  E  driver's 
licence. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  recall  it  now.  With 
regard  to  the  school  bus  licence,  there  are 
requirements  for  a  school  bus  licence  that 
are  not  applicable  to  other  licences.  A  class 
B  licence  is  for  a  school  bus;  a  class  C 
licence  is  for  a  regular  bus.  As  far  as  the 
number  of  points  is  concerned,  we  have  a 
tougher  restriction  safety  wise  on  the  school 
bus  driver  than  on  the  highway  bus  driver. 
There  have  always  been  tougher  restrictions 
on  the  requirements  of  the  driver,  because 
we  are  concerned  to  try  to  make  sure  the 
school  bus  driver  is  a  good  driver. 

Mr.  Ruston:  The  Greyhound  bus  is  going 
70  miles  an  hour  and  the  school  bus  is 
going  45. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  That  may  or  may  not  be 

so.  I  do  not  agree  with  that. 

Mr.  Mancini:  That  happens  every  day  and 
you  know  it.  They  are  the  biggest  speeders 
on  the  highway. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  I  do  not  agree  with  that 
remark  from  the  honourable  member  but,  if 
he  wants  to  make  it,  that  is  all  right. 

With  regard  to  the  comments  of  the  mem- 
ber for  Bellwoods  on  handicapped  transit, 
the  new  regulations  that  will  be  passed  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act  are  being  develop- 
ed at  the  present  time.  Meetings  are  being 
held  with  groups  of  operators,  the  handi- 
capped individuals'  association  that  he  men- 
tioned and  with  vehicle  manufacturers. 
These  regulations  are  in  the  final  draft  stage 
now  and  I  hope  they  will  be  brought  in  soon 
after  this  bill  gets  royal  assent. 

Many  comments  were  made  with  regard 
to  the  Wheel-Trans-Service  in  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto.  I  cannot  agree  with  all  the 
remarks  that  were  made.  It  is  my  ministry's 
duty  to  inspect  those  vehicles  and  make 
sure  they  are  safe,  and  we  will  do  that.  If 
we  find  any  that  are  unsafe,  we  will  see  they 
are  removed  from  the  road.  We  have  an 
agreement  with  Metropolitan  Toronto  for  the 
operation  of  this  system.  We  fund  Metro 
Toronto  for  this  on  the  same  basis  as  we 
fund  them  for  the  TTC  and  their  road- 
building    and    maintenance    program.    They 


are  a  responsible  level  of  government  and 
it  is  up  to  them  to  see  that  the  system  is 
run  properly,  other  than  to  say  it  is  up  to 
us  to  inspect  the  vehicles  and  see  that  they 
are  safe. 

The  new  regulations  will  help  in  terms 
of  making  sure  that  there  are  safety  devices 
available  in  those  buses,  that  there  are 
proper  tie-down  or  hold-down  facilities  and 
many  other  things.  The  selecting  of  the  con- 
tractor by  Metro  Toronto  or  the  TTC  is 
their  responsibility. 

I  thank  the  members  for  their  comments 
and  support  of  this  bill. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

HEALING  ARTS 
RADIATION  PROTECTION  ACT 

Mr.  Turner,  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Mr.  Tim- 
brell,  moved  second  reading  of  Bill  177,  An 
Act  to  provide  for  the  Safe  Use  of  X-ray 
Machines  in  the  Healing  Arts. 

Mr.  Turner:  Mr.  Speaker,  to  introduce  this 
debate  on  the  Healing  Arts  Radiation  Pro- 
tection Act,  I  would  like  to  outline  the  back- 
ground to  this  legislation  and  indicate  the 
importance  of  the  measures  it  contains. 

The  Healing  Arts  Radiation  Protection  Act, 
which  was  introduced  by  the  Minister  of 
Health  (Mr.  Timbrell)  on  November  3,  will 
establish  standards  for  the  installation  and 
operation  of  X-ray  equipment,  including  the 
establishment  of  training  standards  for  opera- 
tors and  the  setting  up  of  a  Healing  Arts 
Radiation  Protection  Commission  to  oversee 
these  matters. 

Existing  legislation  does  not  adequately 
deal  with  the  issue  of  X-ray  safety.  Currently, 
regulation  721  of  the  Public  Health  Act  ad- 
dresses the  issue  of  safety  but  primarily  for 
the  protection  of  the  X-ray  worker.  It  does 
not  address  all  aspects  of  patient  safety,  nor 
does  it  set  standards  for  the  training  of  X-ray 
operators. 

To  put  this  whole  matter  in  perspective,  I 
think  it  would  be  worthwhile  to  remind  our- 
selves of  the  origin  of  this  legislation  and  of 
the  way  in  which  those  affected  have  been 
consulted  as  the  legislation  was  being  pre- 
pared. 

As  a  result  of  some  concerns  expressed 
about  the  matter  of  X-ray  safety  in  our  prov- 
ince, the  Minister  of  Health  last  year  estab- 
lished an  advisory  committee  on  radiology.  It 
was  headed  by  Mr.  Brian  Holmes,  who  was  at 
that  time  dean  of  medicine  of  the  University 
of  Toronto.  Also  on  the  committee  were  three 
radiologists,  two  radiological  technicians,  two 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5219 


medical  physicists  and  two  hospital  adminis- 
trators, as  well  as  two  representatives  from 
the  Ministry  of  Health  and  one  from  the 
Ministry  of  Labour. 

Each  member  of  the  committee  had  been 
nominated  by  a  key  organization  affected  by 
the  issue  of  X-ray  safety.  Involved  in  the 
selection  of  members  were  the  Ontario  Medi- 
cal Association,  the  Ontario  Hospital  Asso- 
ciation, the  Ontario  Society  of  Radiological 
Technologists,  the  Board  of  Radiological 
Technicians,  the  Radiological  Research 
Laboratories  of  the  University  of  Toronto  and, 
as  I  have  mentioned,  the  Ministry  of  Health 
and  the  Ministry  of  Labour. 

1:20  p.m. 

The  13-member  committee  was  formed  in 
July  1979  and  submitted  its  report  in  March 
1980.  At  that  time,  the  Minister  of  Health 
announced  that  he  accepted  in  principle  the 
advisory  committee's  report.  Its  recommen- 
dations included  the  following: 

1.  A  new  Healing  Arts  Radiation  Protection 
Commission  to  oversee  and  co-ordinate  an 
X-ray  safety  program  for  Ontario; 

2.  New  legislation  requiring  a  safety  code 
for  all  X-ray  facilities  and  equipment,  and 
registration  of  all  facilities;  and 

3.  Mandatory  peer  review  programs  for  all 
groups  of  operators  and  mandatory  audit  pro- 
grams for  all  facilities. 

Over  the  next  few  months,  the  report  of  the 
advisory  committee  on  radiology  was  circu- 
lated to  associations  and  professionals  in  the 
X-ray  field  as  well  as  to  other  interested  in- 
dividuals and  groups.  More  than  60  groups 
and  individuals  responded  to  the  report  with 
comments  and  suggestions  that  have  been 
taken  into  consideration  in  the  drafting  of 
the  legislation. 

To  give  some  idea  of  the  nature  and 
scope  of  this  consultation,  let  me  briefly 
outline  the  types  of  organizations  involved 
in  responding.  There  were  four  universities 
and  colleges,  eight  different  associations, 
four  governing  bodies  of  professional 
groups,  nine  hospitals,  25  individual  prac- 
titioners and  technologists,  five  public 
health  units,  as  well  as  the  health  ministries 
of  Alberta,  British  Columbia,  New  Bruns- 
wick, Nova  Scotia,  Quebec,  Saskatchewan, 
and  the  Department  of  National  Health  and 
Welfare. 

When  completing  its  report,  the  advisoiy 
committee  outlined  several  unresolved  issues. 
However,  the  committee  also  recommended 
a  structure  for  dealing  with  these  figures  and 
any  new  ones  that  may  arise.  That  structure 
was  the  Healing  Arts  Radiation  Protection 
Commission  whose  job  it  would  be  to  over- 


see and  co-ordinate  the  X-ray  safety  pro- 
gram for  Ontario.  The  Health  Arts  Radia- 
tion Protection  Act  contains  several  pro- 
visions that  will  make  a  significant  contribu- 
tion to  improved  X-ray  safety  for  both 
operators   and  patients   alike. 

One  section  will  require  the  registration 
of  X-ray  machines,  their  location  and  the 
names  and  addresses  of  their  owners.  Other 
sections  determine  who  may  operate  an 
X-ray  machine  and  under  what  conditions. 
Specifically,  operation  is  prohibited  by  an 
unqualified  person.  The  qualifications  re- 
quired will  be  prescribed  by  regulation. 
There  will  be  a  transitional  period  of  some 
three  years  to  enable  any  unqualified  opera- 
tor to  achieve  the  prescribed  qualifications. 

X-ray  machines  will  only  be  permitted  to 
be  used  on  humans  under  the  prescription 
of  a  medical  practitioner,  dentist,  chiro- 
podist, chiropractor  or  osteopath. 

Another  section  of  the  act  will  prohibit 
the  operation  of  substandard  X-ray  equip- 
ment, and  another  requires  the  designation 
of  a  radiation  protection  officer  in  a  facility 
and  sets  out  the  responsibility  of  such  an 
individual.  Also,  provisions  for  peer  review 
programs  and  inhouse  audits  of  quality  have 
been  established  under  this  act.  Other  sec- 
tions deal  With  the  powers  of  a  director  of 
X-ray  safety  and  X-ray  inspectors.  An  ap- 
peals mechanism  regarding  approvals  and 
orders  made  by  these  officials  regarding 
X-ray  safety  is  also  included.  Another  section 
establishes  the  Healing  Arts  Radiation  Pro- 
tection Commission  and  sets  out  its  func- 
tions. 

As  I  have  mentioned,  the  commission's  role 
would  be  to  oversee  and  co-ordinate  a  pro- 
gram of  X-ray  safety  for  our  province.  The 
commission  will  also  have  the  responsibility 
of  having  studies  carried  out  to  tackle  the 
unresolved  issues  identified  by  the  advisory 
committee  on  radiation.  These  unresolved 
issues  include  the  question  raised  by  the 
Consumers'  Association  of  Canada  as  to 
whether  chiropractors  should  take  X-rays. 
Other  issues  the  commission  will  deal  with 
include  the  suggested  use  of  a  patient  X-ray 
record  card,  the  transfer  of  radiographs  from 
one  practitioner  to  another  to  avoid  un- 
needed  X-rays  and  the  propriety  of  non- 
radiologists  owning  X-ray  facilities. 

Included  in  the  commission's  responsi- 
bilities will  be  the  development  of  an  X-ray 
safety  code,  the  approval  of  courses  in  X-ray 
safety  for  operators,  undertaking  appropriate 
studies  and  advising  the  Minister  of  Health 
on  all  matters  pertaining  to  X-ray  safety. 


5220 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  Healing  Arts  Radiation  Protection 
Commission  will  consist  of  five  members, 
none  of  whom  will  be  a  health  professional. 
However,  the  lay  members  of  the  commission 
will  be  supported  by  professional  and  tech- 
nical committees.  These  committees,  as  out- 
lined by  the  legislation,  will  be  advisory 
committees  to  assist  it  in  all  matters  relating 
to  X-ray  safety  in  each  of  the  disciplines: 
chiropody,  chiropractic,  dentistry,  medical 
radiology  and  radiological  technology. 

As  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell) 
mentioned  in  his  introduction  of  the  legisla- 
tion earlier  this  month,  the  draft  act  itself 
was  reviewed  by  the  key  professional  and 
technical  organizations  whose  members 
would  be  affected  by  this  legislation.  As 
a  result  of  that  consultation,  it  was  clear 
there  was  general  agreement  on  the  con- 
tent of  the  act.  This  is  what  the  new  act 
will  provide  for:  a  peer  review  mechanism 
to  maintain  the  quality  of  expertise  among 
operators;  in-house  quality  assurance  pro- 
grams; clearly  delineated  responsibilities  for 
the  individual  responsible  for  the  X-ray 
equipment  in  each  facility;  formal  training 
programs  for  all  X-ray  operators;  and  the 
opportunity  through  the  healing  arts  radi- 
ation protection  commission  to  identify  new 
initiatives  in  the  area  of  X-ray  safety. 

As  a  result  of  consultation  with  the  pro- 
fessional and  technical  groups  I  mentioned 
earlier,  we  have  identified  two  concerns 
that  will  be  addressed  by  specific  regula- 
tions. The  first  is  the  problem  of  filling  the 
role  of  the  radiation  protection  officer  in 
hospitals  and  medical  radiological  clinics 
where  no  radiologist  is  available.  A  new 
regulation  will  provide  for  the  designation 
of  a  registered  radiological  technician  as  the 
radiation  protection  officer  if  a  medical 
radiologist  is  not  available. 

The  second  concern  is  that  some,  though 
not  all,  dental  assistants  have  had  adequate 
training  in  X-ray  safety  and  should  be 
allowed  to  operate  X-ray  machines.  We  pro- 
pose to  recognize  by  a  regulation  those 
dental  assistants  who  meet  the  qualifications 
prescribed  by  the  commission  of  being 
capable  of  running  X-ray  machines.  The 
safety  code  will  be  based  on  the  code  that 
has  been  developed  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment. The  federal  model  is  designed  to  pro- 
vide for  consistency  of  regulations  across 
the  country.  Thus,  the  Ontario  regula- 
tions themselves  will  be  consistent  with 
those  that  may  eventually  be  developed  by 
other  provinces.  This  legislation  will  place 
Ontario    in    the    forefront    of    developments 


in    X-ray    safety    compared    to    other    juris- 
dictions. 

As  we  are  all  aware,  X-ray  equipment  con- 
stitutes an  extremely  important  diagnostic 
tool  for  those  who  practise  health  care  in 
Ontario.  However,  the  misuse,  inappropriate 
use  and  over  use  of  X-ray  technology  can 
have  an  adverse  effect  on  the  health  of 
individuals.  This  legislation  is  designed  to 
afford  maximum  protection  for  the  patient 
and  the  operator  without  interfering  with 
the  value  of  X-ray  technology  as  a  diagnos- 
tic tool.  I,  therefore,  urge  the  adoption  of 
the  Healing  Arts  Radiation  Protection  Act 
in  order  to  provide  the  fullest  possible  pro- 
tection from  X-ray  radiation  through 
adequate  training  and  effective  operating 
standards  for  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
rise  to  agree  with  my  friend  from  Peter- 
borough in  saying  that  Bill  177  is  an  ex- 
tremely important  and,  from  my  point  of 
view  and  that  of  my  party,  eminently 
supportable  piece  of  legislation.  Having 
said  I  stand  happily  in  my  place  to  tell  the 
parliamentary  assistant  to  the  Minister  of 
Health  that  my  party  is  very  supportive  of 
Bill  177,  I  want  to  review  briefly  in  a  some- 
what different  fashion  from  the  previous 
speaker  some  of  the  background  that  brings 
us  to  this  bill  on  this  date. 

In  a  sense,  words  fail  me  in  describing 
the  indifference  of  this  government  over 
many  years  with  respect  to  an  urgent  and 
pressing  concern  that  has  been  identified  by 
many  in  the  health  care  community  for  at 
least  the  last  15  years.  The  negligence  of  the 
Ministry  of  Health  and  the  government  of 
Ontario  on  this  vital  matter  of  public  in- 
terest and  concern  is  inexcusable,  if  not 
worse. 

1:30  p.m. 

How  did  we  come  to  this  situation?  We 
heard  a  very  interesting,  but  equally  incom- 
plete, analysis  of  the  background  from  my 
good  friend  the  parliamentary  assistant,  who, 
I  suppose,  not  surprisingly,  represents  the 
government  on  this  occasion.  I  am  sure  the 
minister,  as  a  responsible  minister  of  the 
crown  and  of  the  government  in  this  case, 
would  be  ashamed  to  come  here  today  and 
share  with  us  some  of  the  background  to  this 
very  important  and  eminently  supportable 
piece  of  legislation. 

Mr.  Speaker,  you  will  recall  in  your  ex- 
perience here  in  the  past  year  or  18  months 
how  the  public  debate  in  Ontario  really  got 
under  way  on  this  particular  issue.  It  was 
not  because  this  government  brought  forward 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5221 


a  discussion  paper  on  the  subject.  It  was  not 
because  the  Ontario  Medical  Association 
initiated  in  a  public  way,  on  behalf  of  its 
radiological  section,  a  major  public  discussion 
on  the  subject.  It  was  not  because  of  any  such 
august  body,  public  or  private,  that  we  came 
to  the  debate.  It  was  rather  because  Dr. 
Gifford-Jones,  writing  in  the  Toronto  Globe 
and  Mail  on  May  10,  1979,  had  the  courage 
to  report  on  a  private  memo  growing  out  of  a 
private  study  done  by,  among  others,  Pro- 
fessor Kenneth  Taylor  of  the  University  of 
Toronto. 

There  might  be  those  who  chuckle  and 
laugh  about  this  situation,  but  I  am  angry 
because  when  one  looks  at  the  background 
to  this  legislation,  one  is  alarmed  at  just  how 
many  other  and  similar  situations  might  be 
occurring  out  there  that  we  do  not  know 
about.  We  are  so  often  and  so  casually  re- 
assured by  the  government  not  to  worry  in 
the  opposition,  that  all  is  well.  Until  Dr. 
Gifford-Jones  wrote  in  the  Globe  and  Mail 
on  May  10,  1979,  we  had  been  told  much 
of  that  about  this  very  important  subject. 

What  did  Dr.  Gifford-Jones  tell  the  public 
of  Ontario  about  the  Taylor  et  al  study  of  a 
situation  that  the  government  had  known 
about  for  some  months  and  of  conditions 
about  which  it  had  been  warned  since  at 
least  1964?  Writing  in  the  May  10,  1979, 
Globe  and  Mail,  Dr.  Gifford-Jones  wrote  as 
follows: 

"It  is  being  said  that  even  the  street  dog 
has  had  luckier  days.  Good  fortune  also  hap- 
pened to  me  while  researching  a  column.  I 
came  across  a  February  6,  1979,  memo  from 
the  radiological  section  of  the  Ontario  Medi- 
cal Association  to  all  radiologists  in  Ontario. 
Its  contents  were  hard  to  believe,  and  it 
kindled  shock,  dismay  and  anger.  The  memo 
indicates  a  massive  coverup  about  the  dangers 
of  diagnostic  X-rays  in  Ontario." 

How  many  times  have  we  listened  to  the 
sanctimony  from  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  on 
down  to  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell) 
about  our  unjustified  concern  about  coverup, 
to  use  that  heinous  phrase.  Here  is  an  in- 
teresting example  of  an  important  public 
policy  that  is  being  alleged  by  this  particular 
doctor  to  have  been  covered  up  in  this  par- 
ticular article. 

He  goes  on:  "There  is  every  reason  to  sus- 
pect that  other  provinces  and  the  United 
States  are  not  immune  to  this  hazard"— a 
wonderfully  reassuring  footnote.  "The  memo 
from  the  radiological  section  of  the  OMA  in- 
dicates that  patients  in  one  hospital  may  re- 
ceive 60  times  the  radiation  exposure  given 
patients  in   another  hospital."  Can  you  be- 


lieve .that?  Sixty  times  the  dosage  possible  in 
one  hospital  over  another.  That  is  a  very 
reassuring  commentary  on  the  system  over 
which  this  government  has  had  a  thirty-seven 
and  a  half  year  administration. 

Dr.  Gifford-Jones  goes  on  to  report:  "For 
example,  measured  radiation  exposures  for  a 
barium  meal  examination  vary  between  1.6 
roentgens  and  90  roentgens."  That  is  very 
encouraging,  isn't  it?  And  on  it  goes. 

One  of  the  things  he  pointed  out  and  one 
of  the  reasons  why  I  have  a  personal  interest 
in  this  subject  is  that,  at  the  very  time  this 
was  being  discussed,  the  headlines  of  the 
national  media  were  carrying  stories,  which 
were  being  discussed  in  this  place,  about  the 
hazard  afforded  to  two  Hydro  workers  at 
Bruce  who  had  received,  as  I  recall,  seven  or 
eight  rems  of  radiation,  a  couple  of  rems  over 
the  dosage  allowed  under  the  regulations  in 
Ontario. 

We  were  properly  worrying  in  this  prov- 
ince, not  more  than  15  months  ago,  about 
the  negative  consequences  of  seven  or  eight 
rems  at  Bruce.  That  same  Hydro  worker 
might  well  have  walked  into  a  public  general 
hospital  or  other  place  where  an  X-ray  for 
diagnostic  purposes  might  have  been  ad- 
ministered and  have  received  a  blast,  not  of 
seven  or  eight  rems,  but  of  90.  God  only 
knows  how  many  times  he  or  she  might  have 
received  that  kind  of  dosage. 

This  government  and  this  Minister  of 
Health  tell  us,  through  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  dollars  of  public  advertising,  that  we 
are  our  own  liquor  control  board.  We  have 
an  individual  responsibility  to  look  after  our 
own  health.  This  business  about  the  use  of 
X-rays  for  diagnostic  purposes  proves  to  me 
that  one  is  not  only  one's  own  liquor  control 
board  but,  whether  one  knows  it  or  likes  it, 
one  is  one's  own  radiological  protection  board. 
Think  about  that  and  the  personal  health 
related  consequences  that  flow  from  that. 

I  invite  all  members  to  read  the  articles  in 
question.  The  good  doctor  goes  on  to  say  in 
the  article:  "Why  are  faulty  X-ray  machines 
in  use?  There  is  an  astonishing  reason. 
Radiologists  admit  they  must  crank  up  the 
radiation  dosage  on  faltering  machines  to  ob- 
tain a  good  picture,  yet  the  units  are  checked 
only  every  five  years.  One  technician  said  a 
machine  had  not  been  inspected  for  12  years. 
Others  stated  you  had  to  call  the  government 
to  request  an  inspection." 

To  the  degree  there  is  inadequate  and  im- 
perfect inspection  the  government,  from  my 
good  friend  the  member  for  Peterborough 
(Mr.  Turner)  on  up  or  down,  has  to  accept 
full  responsibility   and  blame.    Later   in  the 


5222 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


same  article,  Dr.  Gifford-Jones  says:  "The 
Minister  of  Health  has  been  well  aware  of 
the  dangers  to  the  public  from  radiation.  In 
1977,  an  X-ray  standards  committee  filed  a 
report  expressing  concern  about  the  operators 
of  X-ray  equipment." 

It  may  be  this  legislation,  and  the  flurry  of 
activity  that  preceded  it  and  came  after  May 
10,  was  a  predictable  flow  from  the  govern- 
ment and  bore  no  relationship  to  this  highly 
interesting  and  controversial  article,  but  I 
am  more  than  passingly  suspicious. 
1:40  p.m. 

Then  this  story  gets  worse.  My  friends 
from  Lanark  (Hon.  Mr.  Wiseman)  and  Parry 
Sound  (Mr.  Maeck)  had  better  listen.  God 
only  knows  what  parts  of  their  anatomy  have 
been  deleteriously  affected  by  this  govern- 
ment's indifference  and  inaction.  They  had 
better  pay  attention. 

The  report  and  the  comments  that  followed 
the  report  of  the  Taylor  study  are  truly 
frightening  and  concern  me,  as  I  indicated, 
more  than  words  can  express.  What  did  Gayle 
Moffat,  president  of  the  2,700-member 
Ontario  Society  of  Radiological  Technicians, 
say  about  all  this?  Among  other  things,  she 
is  quoted  as  having  said  anyone  in  Ontario 
can  operate  a  piece  of  X-ray  equipment. 

She  continues:  "With  grade  eight,  you  can 
walk  in  off  the  street  and  with  no  knowledge 
of  anatomy  or  physiology  you  can  have  a 
secretary  show  you  how  to  push  the  buttons 
and  to  get  to  it.  That  is  the  way  the  law 
stands  now  and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  it." 
This  is  the  kind  of  information  that  inspires 
ever  so  much  confidence  in  us  about  the  crea- 
tive capacities  of  this  dynastic  government. 

The  president  of  the  Ontario  Society  of 
Radiological  Technicians  says  her  organiza- 
tion has  been  trying  since  1964  no  less  to  have 
the  province  introduce  training  requirements 
and  licensing  provisions  for  the  operators  of 
X-ray  equipment.  She  says,  "I  definitely  think 
they  have  been  lax,  perhaps  because  they  did 
not  feel  the  problem  was  widespread. 

"Since  1964  we  have  been  trying  with  the 
various  means  at  our  disposal.  We  do  not 
have  a  big  lobby;  there  have  been  subcommit- 
tees and  reports  on  the  problem  and  somehow 
it  always  gets  shoved  aside."  It  is  clear  to 
me  and  any  other  reasonable,  objective  ob- 
server of  events  that  not  until  that  article, 
damning  as  it  was,  appeared  in  the  national 
newspaper  of  this  country  did  this  govern- 
ment find  the  resolve  to  move  forward  in  a 
way  that  it  had  been  told  to  do  for  at  least 
15  years. 

Sometimes  it  is  a  case  of  the  public  sector 
being  relatively  pristine  and  leading  the  way, 


whereas  the  private  sector  operations  in  a 
similar  field  are  really  the  derelict  ones.  In 
this  instance  again,  we  are  so  encouraged  by 
the  evidence  given  at  the  time  of  this  con- 
troversy a  year  and  a  half  ago. 

It  was  learned  at  that  time,  May  to  June 
1979,  that  fewer  than  one  third  of  the  Minis- 
try of  Health's  X-ray  equipment  operators 
working  in  chest  clinics  around  the  prov- 
ince are  registered  radiological  technicians. 
Fewer  than  one  third  of  the  Ministry  of 
Health's  own  operations  were,  in  the  view 
of  some,  properly  qualified. 

Here  is  more  evidence.  In  the  spring  and 
early  summer  of  1979,  about  66  of  1,732 
pieces  of  X-ray  equipment  in  Ontario  hos- 
pitals still  needed  adjustment  to  lower  levels 
of  radiation.  They  were  30  to  60  times  what 
they  should  be,  according  to  University  of 
Toronto  radiation  expert,  Dr.  Kenneth  Taylor. 

My  good  friend  the  Minister  of  Education 
(Miss  Stephenson),  the  plenipotentiary  of  all 
Ontario  Toryism,  strides  in  here  to  say, 
"Who  paid  for  the  study?"  Who  created 
the  mess  that  the  study  pointed  out?  Even 
when  she  was  being  a  Liberal,  the  Tory 
friends  she  now  sits  with,  the  Tory  friends 
that  have  been  governing  this  province  for 
over  37  years  in  the  tradition  to  which  the 
member  for  Lambton  (Mr.  Henderson)  has 
long  been  accustomed,  have  created  an  out- 
rageous, impossible  environmental  hazard 
in  this  area.  Now  she  sits  and  preens  her- 
self, saying,  "Who  paid  for  the  study?" 
What  an  enlightened  thing  for  the  Minister 
of  Education  to  say.  I  have  always  wonder- 
ed about  her. 

I  am  sure  opted-out  physicians  like  my 
friend  the  member  for  York  Mills  will  be 
interested  to  know  that  the  public's  reaction 
to  this  was  one  of  serious  concern  and 
alarm.  A  whole  series  of  reports  ensued 
from  the  Taylor  report,  indicating  that 
hundreds,  if  not  thousands  of  X-ray  con- 
sumers, if  I  can  use  that  phrase,  were 
extremely  concerned  and  upset  by  what  h?.d 
been  reported  by  all  kinds  of  informed 
observers.  That  is  the  kind  of  uncertainty 
that  has  to  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  Ontario. 

I  want  to  say  something  else  about  the 
inspection  for  which  the  government  has 
responsibilities  in  this  area.  As  the  use  of 
X-ray  equipment  increased,  as  the  number 
of  X-rays  increased  exponentially,  I  am  al- 
most prepared  to  say  the  government's  inspec- 
tion decreased  relatively  speaking.  There 
was  a  shifting  from  the  Ministry  of  Health 
of  some  of  these  people  over  to  the  occupa- 
tional health  and  safety  branch  of  the  Min- 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5223 


istry  of  Labour.  The  Ministry  of  Health  was 
left  with  a  very  understaffed  capacity  to 
oversee  its  responsibilities  in  this  area.  Some 
of  the  people  involved  complained  bitterly 
about  the  mandate  the  government  had,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  see  that  proper  regulation 
and  enforcement  was  provided  and  the  piti- 
ful state  of  manpower  to  do  the  job  on  the 
other  hand. 

Listen  to  what  Kenneth  Taylor  is  quoted 
as  having  said  back  in  mid-May  1979.  He 
laid  part  of  the  blame  for  this  situation,  for 
what  he  described  as  "a  mess"  at  the  door- 
step of  the  Ministry  of  Health  inspection 
team,  which  he  said  at  the  time  was  survey- 
ing X-ray  machines  every  five  years  and 
had  been  asking  "all  the  wrong  questions." 
Need  we  be  surprised? 

I  realize  others  may  wish  to  speak  on 
this.  Today  I  did  want  to  put  on  the  record 
some  of  the  background  as  briefly  as  I 
could  to  show  just  how  serious  the  negli- 
gence of  this  government  over  more  than 
37  years  has  been.  To  say  the  very  least, 
the  negligence  of  this  government  is  in- 
excusable, if  not  worse.  The  health  care 
consumers  of  this  province  have,  in  my  view, 
been  put  in  a  situation  of  serious  jeopardy 
because  successive  ministers  of  health  for 
over  15  years  knowingly  ignored  advice  that 
would  have  provided  for  this  kind  of  legis- 
lation a  lot  sooner  than  at  this  time  in 
1980. 

I  would  be  ashamed  if  I  were  a  minister 
of  that  government  sitting  here  to  know  that 
this  kind  of  information  had  been  laid 
before  successive  ministers  of  the  crown 
and  nothing  was  done  until  Dr.  Gifford- 
Jones  wrote  an  article  in  the  Globe  and 
Mail  in  May  1979.  This  is  a  government 
that  seeks  the  mantle  of  managerial  com- 
petence. If  ever  anything  laid  bare  an  in- 
competent, indifferent  bungling  pack  of 
people,  it  is  the  background  to  this  legis- 
lation. 

1:50  p.m. 

I  say,  in  conclusion,  however  overdue,  and 
God  knows  even  the  Minister  of  Colleges 
and  Universities  (Miss  Stephenson)  knows  it 
is  overdue,  however  overdue  and  in  some 
ways  imperfect  Bill  177  is,  We  in  this  party, 
concerned  as  we  are  about  the  safety  of  the 
people  of  Ontario,  we  who  believe  that  the 
individual  health  care  consumer  ought  not 
to  be  his  or  her  radiological  protection  board, 
we  support  this  bill  as  an  eminently  signifi- 
cant step  forward  for  the  health  and  safety 
of  the  people  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  just 
been  subjected  to  a  dose  of  something.  I  do 


not  know  whether  it  is  radiation  or  not.  It 
certainly  was  flowing  over  here.  We  will 
support  the  bill  despite  the  reservations 
which  many  members  will  be  able  to  put. 

Mr.  Roy:  We  will  accept  your  resignation 
this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  I  do  not  mind  if  the  mem- 
ber for  Ottawa  East  is  here  more  than  one 
day  a  week,  but  would  he  shut  up  while  he 
is  here? 

Mr.  Roy:  You  are  just  trying  to  get  on  the 
record.  Try  to  make  a  contribution  for  a 
change. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  I  yield  my  place  to  the 
member  who  desperately  needs  to  get  on  the 
record  about  something.  What  does  he  want 
to  get  on  the  record  about  today? 

Mr.  Roy:  Your  incompetence. 

Mr.  Breaugh:   My  incompetence? 

The  Acting  Speaker:   (Mr.  MacBeth):   The 

excitement  period  does  not  start  until  2  p.m. 
Will  the  member  please  proceed  with  his 
address? 

Mr.  Breaugh:  That  is  the  mistake  we  make 
when  we  try  to  do  things  on  Thursday;  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  is  here. 

I  want  to  speak  briefly  to  this  bill.  I  be- 
lieve the  government  has  finally  recognized 
the  problems  that  are  inherent  in  a  wide- 
spread use  of  a  technology  which  not  many 
people  understand  and  which  is  one  in 
which  the  basic  machinery  which  is  used, 
whether  the  cameras  or  the  films,  is  changing 
rapidly.  I  believe  the  government  has  ad- 
mitted, in  presenting  this  bill,  that  it  is  a 
problem  of  substantial  size  and  important. 

I  am  a  little  dismayed  that  in  the  course 
of  preparing  legislation  they  did  not  follow 
the  advice  completely  of  their  advisory  com- 
mitee,  but  rather  sought  to  get  the  bill 
through  the  House  in  a  form  that  everybody 
thought  was  acceptable.  There  are  some 
problems  in  that.  My  hope  is  that  the  bill 
itelf,  in  my  view  anyway,  addresses  itself 
to  the  principal  problems  that  are  involved 
in  the  field  and  provides  some  mechanism 
whereby  further  information  can  be  gathered 
and  some  techniques  whereby  some  of  the 
problems  can  at  least  be  unveiled. 

I  want  to  read  a  short  quotation  from  a 
book  entitled,  The  Confessions  of  a  Medical 
Heretic,  by  Dr.  Robert  Mendelsohn,  an 
American  physician.  He  says,  "I  confess  that 
I  believed  in  the  tradition  of  irradiation  of 
tonsils,  lymph  nodes  and  the  thymus  gland. 
I  believed  my  professors  when  they  said 
that  of  course  radiation  was  dangerous,  but 
that  the  doses  we  were  using  were  absolutely 


5224 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


harmless.  Years  later,  around  the  time  we 
found  out  that  the  absolutely  harmless  radia- 
tion sown  a  decade  or  two  before  was  now 
reaping  a  harvest  of  thyroid  tumours,  I  could 
not  help  wondering,  when  some  of  my  former 
patients  came  back  with  nodules  on  their 
thyroids,  why  are  you  coming  back  to  me, 
to  me  who  did  this  to  you  in  the  first  place? 
But  I  no  longer  believe  in  modern  medicine." 

He  goes  on  at  some  length  about  many  of 
the  things  which  we  have  assumed  for  a  long 
period  of  time  to  be,  as  he  said  in  his  book, 
absolutely  safe.  Somehow  the  dosages  were 
not  of  the  size  or  number  that  people  should 
be  concerned.  I  am  reminded,  in  looking  at 
this  bill,  that  that  same  assumption  was 
made  here  for  some  lengthy  period  of  time. 
We  are  now  at  the  point  where  we  will 
begin  to  regulate,  license  and  look  at  who  is 
using  X-ray  machines  in  this  province,  what 
their  machinery  is  like  and  what  the  dosages 
are  like.  Then  perhaps  in  a  short  period  of 
time  we  will  have  the  kind  of  data  whereby 
we  might  make  some  assessment  of  those 
judgement  calls. 

This  bill  is  not  a  perfect  piece  of  legisla- 
tion by  a  long  shot,  but  it  is  something  which 
is  necessary.  I  will  follow  with  some  care  and 
interest  the  results  of  the  various  advisory 
boards  and  agencies  which  are  set  up  in  the 
course  of  this  bill  to  see  if  they  can  provide 
us  with  answers  which  a  number  of  other 
agencies  have  not  been  able  to  do  to  date. 

This  bill  is  supportable  because  it  puts  in 
place  some  mechanisms  about  the  machinery 
and  the  people  who  use  X-rays  in  this  prov- 
ince. It  provides  very  little  in  the  wav  of 
answers.  It  offers  some  hope  that  we  will  be 
able  to  get  some  of  those  answers.  It  is  one 
very  small  step,  one  very  necessary  step,  in 
looking  at  a  rather  large  problem. 

We  will  be  happy  to  support  this  bill  be- 
cause we  feel  it  is  necessary.  It  is  marginal 
in  its  nature  in  terms  of  having  an  impact, 
but  it  does  retain  in  it  the  potential  to  in- 
vestigate an  extremely  serious  problem  and 
to  provide  us  with  some  information  which 
apparently  no  one  is  able  to  get  his  hands 
on  these  days.  It  forms  a  bit  of  a  confession 
on  the  part  of  the  government  that  there 
had  been  some  areas  in  the  past  where 
assumptions  were  made  that  only  safe  dos- 
ages were  used  and  that  there  really  was  no 
problem. 

I  look  upon  this  bill  as  an  admission  on 
the  part  of  the  government  that  the  accusa- 
tions made  by  a  number  of  groups  around  the 
province,  consumers  among  them,  that  there 
were  too  many  X-rays  and  the  equipment  was 
not   properly   monitored    were    true.    It   now 


allows  us  the  first  opportunity  to  clean  house 
and  to  provide  ourselves  with  a  source  of 
information  which  will  lead  us  to  the  large 
and  perhaps  more  important  question  of 
whether  there  are  people  using  X-rays  who 
should  not  be  doing  that  and  whether  those 
X-rays  have  a  cumulative,  long-term  effect 
which  is  perhaps  even  more  dangerous,  even 
though  it  is  of  low  dosage,  than  one  short 
high-dosage  exposure  to  radiation. 
We  will  support  the  bill. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  colleague 
the  member  for  Renfrew  North  (Mr.  Conway) 
spoke  eloquently  about  the  background  that 
led  up  to  the  bill  being  presented  before  the 
Legislature.  I  would  like  to  make  a  couple  of 
brief  comments.  There  are  two  observations 
I  would  make. 

One  is  an  observation  on  the  kinds  of 
priorities  the  government  may  or  may  not 
have  in  protecting  the  people  of  Ontario.  I 
can  recall  a  year  ago  having  to  deal  with  the 
ministry  because  of  the  quality  of  smoke  from 
a  wood-burning  boiler  that  had  been  shut 
down  because  during  the  first  two  or  three 
minutes  the  grade  of  smoke  was  not  con- 
sidered acceptable  and  was  doing  damage  to 
the  atmosphere.  I  can  remember  sitting  on 
the  select  committee  on  Ontario  Hydro  affairs 
discussing  radiation.  Concern  was  raised  over 
some  dosages  of  radiation  received  by  work- 
ers in  the  generating  plants  that  did  not 
compare  at  all  with  the  dosages  these  X-ray 
machines  were  capable  of  delivering  to  pa- 
tients who  did  not  know  they  were  getting 
them.  I  am  very  concerned  about  those  kinds 
of  priorities. 

"Some  of  the  knowledge  about  what  these 
machines  were  doing  was  well-known  at  least 
15  years  ago,  as  was  pointed  out.  It  seems 
this  jurisdiction  is  always  the  last  to  act  to 
protect  its  citizens.  We  are  faced  with  this 
kind  of  thing  time  and  time  again.  We  are 
probably  faced  with  it  when  we  are  dealing 
with  this  situation  regarding  the  chemical 
dump  in  South  Cayuga.  This  jurisdiction  is 
always  the  last  to  move  forward  to  protect  its 
citizens.  In  my  view,  it  is  unconscionable. 

Mr.  Turner:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
respond  briefly  and  thank  the  members  for 
Renfrew  North,  Oshawa  and  Halton-Burling- 
ton  for  giving  us  their  support  for  this  im- 
portant piece  of  legislation.  I  want  to  con- 
gratulate the  member  for  Renfrew  North  on 
his  rather  entertaining  response.  However, 
he  did  raise  some  rather  important  points. 
One  is  the  weakness  in  gaining  information 
on  this  type  of  problem  from  the  media.  I 
would  like  to  comment  briefly  that,  as  a  re- 
sult  of  that   article    which   appeared  in  the 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5225 


newspaper  he  mentioned,  the  ministry  wrote 
the  doctor  in  question.  From  that  date  to  this, 
we  have  not  had  the  benefit  of  a  reply.  I 
would  like  that  to  be  clearly  understood. 
2  p.m. 

Also,  Dr.  Taylor's  article,  which  was  pub- 
lished in  March  1979,  was  not  in  any  way 
kept  secret.  There  was  no  attempt,  and  I  want 
to  emphasize  that,  at  not  making  that  report 
public.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  profession  was 
notified  immediately  of  the  problems,  as  the 
member  has  already  acknowledged,  and  the 
minister  took  immediate  action  as  a  result  of 
that  and  appointed  the  advisory  committee. 
I  would  like  to  clear  up  any  misunderstanding 
the  members  of  this  House  or  the  public  at 
large  may  have.  I  would  like  to  caution  the 
members  again,  and  anybody  else  who  is  in- 
terested in  this,  that  this  is  not  a  problem  ex- 
clusive to  this  province.  This  is  a  problem 
which  is  not  only  international  and  national 
in  scope,  but  also  global.  We  in  Ontario  are  in 
the  forefront  in  taking  a  leadership  role  to 
correct  it.  How  do  you  like  that? 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

CORRESPONDENCE  FROM 
PRISON  INMATE 

Mr.  Speaker:  On  December  1,  the  member 
for  Oshawa  (Mr.  Breaugh)  rose  on  a  question 
of  privilege  concerning  the  opening  of  his 
mail.  I  investigated  the  matter,  and  on  De- 
cember 2  advised  the  House  that  the  mem- 
ber's mail  was  not  tampered  with  by  any 
agent  of  this  House.  The  letter  in  question 
was  from  an  inmate  of  a  federal  penitentiary, 
and  I  had  been  advised  by  the  Solicitor 
General  for  Canada  that  mail  addressed  to 
members  of  provincial  legislatures  was  still 
subject  to  scrutiny  and  to  opening.  I  am  now 
advised  by  the  federal  minister  as  follows: 

"Under  section  8a(3)  of  the  Directors  of  the 
Canadian  Penitentiary  Service  Commissioners 
directive  number  219,  'Members  of  the 
provincial  legislatures  are  included  among 
those  to  whom  inmates  can  forward  corres- 
pondence unopened.  In  exceptional  cases, 
however,  where  institutional  staff  suspect  con- 
traband in  such  privileged  correspondence, 
it  may  be  opened  after  the  commissioner  has 
given  his  approval.' " 

There  may  have  been  a  breach  of  this 
directive,  but  I  regret  that  I  have  no  ability 
to  enforce  a  federal  directive.  I  can  only 
suggest  that  the  member  for  Oshawa  raise  the 
matter  with  the  Solicitor  General  for  Canada. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  know  it  is  a 
little  irregular,  but  I  would  like  to  thank  you 


for  taking  the  time  and  effort  to  investigate 
this  matter  for  me,  and  I  want  to  assure  you 
that  I  will  take  the  matter  up  with  the  federal 
Solicitor  General. 

AUDITOR'S  REPORT 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  like  also  to  inform 
the  House  that  the  report  of  the  provincial 
auditor  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31, 
1980,  has  been  tabled  today  and,  in  ac- 
cordance with  standing  order  91,  stands  re- 
ferred to  the  standing  committee  on  public 
accounts. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

COCHRANE  DISTRICT  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  later  today 
I  will  be  introducing,  for  first  reading  only 
during  this  session,  An  Act  respecting  Local 
Government  in  Cochrane  District.  This 
legislation  will  be  discussed  thoroughly  by 
the  residents  of  the  area  and,  following  that, 
we  hope  to  be  able  to  reintroduce  the  bill 
during  the  next  sitting  of  this  House,  with 
any  necessary  amendments. 

This  legislation  would  basically  do  three 
things.  It  would  first  incorporate  the  exist- 
ing town  of  Hearst  and  five  unorganized 
townships  as  a  new  town  of  Hearst.  Second, 
it  would  incorporate  the  united  townships  of 
Shackleton  and  Machin  and  part  of  the  un- 
organized township  of  Haggart  as  the  town- 
ship of  Shackleton  and  Machin.  Finally,  it 
would  change  the  name  of  the  township  of 
Fauquier  to  the  township  of  Moonbeam. 

The  legislation  is  an  outgrowth  of  the 
study  of  local  government  in  the  area  from 
Hearst  to  Smooth  Rock  Falls.  The  study, 
which  was  undertaken  by  my  ministry,  be- 
gan in  1977  with  a  final  report  presented  in 
June  1979. 

We  conducted  the  study  at  the  request  of 
some  of  the  local  councils.  My  staff  will  hold 
extensive  consultation  between  now  and  the 
spring  with  the  local  people  affected.  Copies 
of  this  bill  in  both  English  and  French  will 
be  made  available  to  the  municipalities  and 
residents.  We  are  looking  forward  to  hear- 
ing their  comments  and  suggestions. 

ENVIRONMENTAL  LEGISLATION 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  today  I  am 
introducing  legislation  to  amend  sections  of 
the  Environmental  Protection  Act,  the  Pesti- 
cides Act  and  the  Ontario  Water  Resources 
Act.  These  amendments  will  clarify,  update 
and  expand  our  powers  to  control  pollution, 
especially  in  the  area  of  liquid  industrial 
waste. 


5226 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Briefly,  the  amendments  cover  the  follow- 
ing: They  extend  from  six  months  to  two 
years  the  time  period  during  which  we  can 
take  legal  action  against  polluters  under 
these  three  acts.  For  the  first  time,  there 
will  be  minimum  fines  for  offences  under  the 
Environmental  Protection  Act.  In  addition, 
there  is  an  increase  in  the  maximum  fines 
to  provide  more  effective  financial  deterrents. 

The  amendments  to  the  Environmental 
Protection  Act  and  the  Ontario  Water  Re- 
sources Act  will  empower  the  ministry  to 
seize  permits  and  licence  plates  of  vehicles 
in  connection  with  offences  involving  liquid 
industrial  or  hazardous  wastes. 

Under  the  Environmental  Protection  Act 
no  minimum  fines  were  set.  Instead,  it  pro- 
vided for  a  maximum  fine  of  $5,000  for  a 
first  conviction  and  a  maximum  of  $10,000 
for  each  subsequent  conviction.  Our  experi- 
ence with  liquid  waste  offences  clearly  indi- 
cates the  need  for  tougher  fines  to  act  as  a 
more  effective  deterrent  to  potential  pollu- 
ters. Therefore,  we  are  setting  in  the  En- 
vironmental Protection  Act  a  minimum  fine 
of  $2,000  and  a  maximum  fine  of  $25,000  for 
a  first  conviction.  For  subsequent  violations, 
there  will  be  a  minimum  of  $4,000  and  a 
maximum  of  $50,000. 

The  third  amendment  empowers  the  min- 
istry and  the  police  to  seize  permits  and 
licence  plates  of  vehicles  if  there  are  reason- 
able and  probable  grounds  that  those  ve- 
hicles have  been  or  are  involved  in  commit- 
ting an  offence  that  involves  hauled  liquid 
industrial  and  hazardous  wastes.  Where 
there  have  been  a  conviction  and  a  penalty, 
the  ministry  is  authorized  to  hold  the  per- 
mits in  place  until  a  fine  is  paid. 

These  new  provisions  in  our  legislation 
will  give  our  courts  even  more  authority 
to  crack  down  on  polluters  in  Ontario. 

DURHAM  REGIONAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL  HEARING 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
take  a  brief  moment  to  do  as  I  promised, 
namely,  to  provide  an  update  on  the  Ajax 
treatment  facility.  I  advise  the  House 
formally  that  the  region  of  Durham  has 
withdrawn  its  proposal. 

PLANT  CLOSURES  AND 
TERMINATION  ENTITLEMENTS 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  October 
14  I  made  a  lengthy  and  comprehensive 
statement  concerning  the  important  issue 
of  plant  closures  and  the  detrimental  effect 
of    such    closures    on    the    economy    of    the 


province  and,  more  particularly,  on  the 
employees  who  are  affected. 

At  that  time,  I  announced  a  five-point 
program  designed  to  deal  with  these  prob- 
lems in  a  variety  of  ways.  At  the  same  time, 
there  was  all-party  agreement  to  establish 
a  select  committee  to  deal  generally  with 
the  question  of  plant  closures,  to  hear  sub- 
missions from  all  interested  parties,  to  study 
legislative  and  other  policy  initiatives  in 
other  jurisdictions  and  in  due  course  to 
report  to  the  House. 

The  committee  has  now  been  sitting  for 
some  weeks.  I  have  appeared  before  the 
committee,  as  have  my  colleagues  the  Min- 
ister of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Gross- 
man), the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  and 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations  (Mr.  Drea).  In  addition,  the  com- 
mittee has  heard  testimony  from  employers 
and  employees  involved  in  certain  specific 
closures  that  have  recently  occurred.  It  has 
not  yet  had  the  opportunity  to  hear  from 
major  employer  and  trade  union  groups  in 
the  broader  range  of  policy  issues  alluded 
to  in  my  statement  on  October  14. 

However,  as  evidenced  from  the  resolu- 
tion passed  by  the  committee  yesterday, 
reaffirming  an  earlier  resolution  to  the  same 
effect,  it  is  clear  that  committee  members 
place  a  high  priority  on  the  question  of 
severance  pay,  as  I  do.  It  is  to  that  specific 
issue  that  I  wish  to  direct  my  remarks  to- 
day. 

2:10  p.m. 

As  I  said  on  October  14,  the  government 
is  not  opposed  to  the  principle  of  severance 
pay.  However,  I  took  the  position  then,  a 
position  which  I  reiterate  in  the  clearest 
possible  terms  today,  that  it  is  fundamentally 
important  we  have  the  benefit  of  the  con- 
sidered views  of  all  interested  persons  in 
the  industrial  relations  community,  through 
the  fullest  consultative  process  envisaged 
when  the  select  committee  was  established, 
before  we  arrive  at  a  final  decision  on  the 
precise  details  of  any  severance  pay  legis- 
lation. 

It  is  obvious,  and  I  hope  all  committee 
members  would  agree,  that  the  consultative 
process,  while  it  has  begun,  is  far  from 
completion.  I  understand  the  committee  will 
resume  its  deliberations  early  in  January 
and  I  hope  and  expect  it  will  be  prepared 
to  turn,  immediately  upon  resumption  of  the 
hearings,  to  this  topic  and  to  hear  from  the 
major  interest  groups,  with  particular  at- 
tention being  given  to  the  various  substan- 
tive and  technical  problems  associated  with 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5227 


severance  pay  to  which  I  referred  in  my 
statement  of  October  14. 

In  order  to  reassure  the  committee  of 
the  government's  announced  support  of  the 
severance  pay  principle,  I  can  give  to  the 
committee  and  to  the  House  the  following 
assurances.  The  government  is  prepared  to 
introduce  severance  pay  legislation  by  way 
of  amendment  to  the  Employment  Stand- 
ards Act  at  the  earliest  possible  time  in  the 
next  session  of  the  Legislature,  Moreover, 
for  those  who  are  understandably  concern- 
ed that  some  employees  may  be  in  jeopardy 
between  now  and  the  time  such  legislation 
is  passed,  I  can  also  say  the  government  will 
be  proposing  the  amendments  be  retroactive 
to  January  1,  1981. 

In  the  meantime,  the  select  committee  will 
have  completed  its  deliberations  and  will,  I 
assume,  have  prepared  its  final  report.  We 
will  then  have  had  the  benefit  not  only  of 
the  committee's  recommendations,  but  also  of 
the  views  and  submissions  of  the  various 
groups  that  will  be  testifying  before  the 
committee  as  well  as  the  views  of  the  persons 
and  groups  with  whom  I  shall  continue  to 
consult  in  the  interim  period. 

I  would  sincerely  hope  that,  with  these 
clarifying  assurances,  the  consultative  process 
now  under  way  before  the  select  committee, 
to  which  we  all  agreed,  can  be  resumed  and 
completed  so  that  the  legislation  on  this 
important  matter  can  reflect  the  legitimate 
interests  and  suggestions  of  the  industrial  re- 
lations community  at  large. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  This  is  a  victory  for  the  New 
Democratic  Party. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  It  is  a  victory  for  common 
sense  that  is  not  always  reflected  in  that 
party. 

SPEAKER'S  CHRISTMAS  PARTY 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Before  we  get  to  oral 
questions,  on  behalf  of  all  members  of  the 
House  and  all  of  the  staff  who  participated 
in  last  evening's  festivities,  I  would  like  to 
thank  Santa  and  his  elves,  Pat  Girouard  and 
her  associates,  all  of  the  House  officers,  all 
the  committee  chairmen,  the  Ministry  of 
Government  Services  and  our  dining  room 
staff  for  the  excellent  job  they  did  in  pro- 
viding us  with  the  service.  Would  you  please 
thank  them  on  behalf  of  everyone. 

Applause. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

INTEREST  RATES 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
direct  my  question  to  the  provincial  Treas- 


urer. -Given  that  the  United  States  banks 
raised  their  prime  lending  rates  to  20  per 
cent  yesterday,  there  will  undoubtedly  be 
increases  in  Canadian  interest  rates  as  well. 
Could  I  ask  the  Treasurer  what  case  he  will 
be  putting  to  the  meeting  of  finance  ministers 
in  Ottawa  next  week,  which  I  believe  he  will 
attend? 

Up  to  now  the  Treasurer  has  said  Canada 
should  allow  its  interest  rates  to  remain  con- 
siderably lower  than  the  American  rates,  even 
if  it  means  the  dollar  would  fall.  The  dollar 
is  now  at  83  cents.  May  I  ask  the  Treasurer 
whether  he  will  be  recommending  the  dollar 
be  allowed  to  fall  further  and,  if  so,  what 
floor  he  would  recommend  for  the  dollar? 
Could  he  tell  us  in  summary  fashion  what 
Ontario's  position  will  be  with  regard  to 
whether  interest  rates  should  be  kept  even 
lower  in  comparison  to  the  American  rates 
than  they  are  now  and  whether  the  dollar 
should  be  allowed  to  fall  further  and,  if  so, 
how  much  further? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  most  of 
what  the  honourable  member  said  is  correct. 
I  believe  what  I  have  said  in  the  past  that 
interest  rates  in  Canada  could  be  independent 
of  the  American  rate  instead  of  traditionally 
being  about  one  per  cent  higher,  using  the 
value  of  the  dollar  as  the  control  mechanism 
and  not  necessarily  implying  that  the  dollar 
should  fall. 

The  84  cent  level  which  we  have  hovered 
around  for  some  time  seemed  to  be  relatively 
stable,  relatively  well  received  and  one  we 
have  become  accustomed  to.  Just  as  the  mem- 
ber's question  was  coming  to  me,  I  received 
today's  "good  news":  the  Canadian  bank  rate 
at  the  federal  level  just  went  up  1.38  per 
cent.  This  will  undoubtedly  trigger  reactions 
in  the  banking  community  within  the  next 
day. 

Mr.  Cassidy:   Good  news? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  put  that  in  quotes— 
the  1.38  per  cent  increase  in  the  Treasury 
and  Bank  of  Canada  discount  rates. 

Of  course  we  suggested  the  position  last 
year  at  a  time  when  arguments  were  being 
made  that  Canada  could  not  be  independent 
of  the  United  States,  and  that  our  rates  had 
to  be  kept  one  per  cent  higher.  I  have  been 
very  happy  to  see  that,  for  most  of  the  year, 
we  have  pursued  the  very  policy  we  recom- 
mended: something  lower  than  the  United 
States.  We  are  still  running  three  to  four 
per  cent  below  the  American  rates. 

I  would  hope  the  Canadian  dollar  does  not 
have  a  run  on  it.  There  appeared  to  be  some 
indication  of  that  yesterday  with  about  a  0.03 
cent  drop  and  I  have  not  seen  today's  figures. 


5228 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


I  would  suspect  the  change  which  I  just 
mentioned,  the  1.38  per  cent,  would  stem 
that  and  would  keep  us  relatively  in  balance. 
Whether  the  American  rates  need  to  be  in 
this  historically  high  position  of  20  per  cent 
can  be  argued;  that  is  academic.  The  fact  is 
they  are  at  that  level  and  about  the  best  we 
can  hope  for  is  3,  3.5  or  perhaps  four  per 
cent  better  than  that  in  Canada,  hoping  that 
our  basic  energy  resources,  current  balance 
of  payments,  and  other  improvements— they 
are  not  good  yet,  but  they  are  better— will 
help  us. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  take  it  then  that  the  Treas- 
urer will  not  this  time  be  recommending  that 
the  dollar  be  allowed  to  fall  further.  I  take  it 
from  what  he  says  that  he  feels  it  is  at  the 
right  level  now,  and  that  the  interest  rates 
will  have  to  stay  at  whatever  level  is  necessary 
to  keep  it  there.  That  is  what  I  take  from  the 
Treasurer's  comments.  I  think  that  is  a  fair 
inference;  if  not,  I  hope  he  will  correct  it, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

May  I  ask  the  Treasurer,  since  that  would 
seem  to  mean  we  are  going  to  have  to  put 
up  with  these  crushing  high  interest  rates  for 
some  time  to  come,  would  the  Treasurer  be 
willing  to  tell  this  House,  after  many  ques- 
tions in  this  line,  what  programs  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  is  prepared  to  undertake  to 
prevent  the  rash  of  bankruptcies  of  small 
businesses  that  we  can  expect  this  winter, 
and  to  protect  people  from  losing  their  homes 
when  they  are  facing  50  and  55  per  cent 
increases  in  their  mortgage  payments  each 
month?  Will  the  Treasurer  introduce  some- 
thing either  right  now,  or  by  order  in  council 
later  on,  to  protect  those  elements  in  our 
economy  that  are  so  sensitive  to  this  crushing 
burden? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  kind 
of  questioning  has  gone  on  many  times  in  this 
House.  Ontario  has  never  tried  to  duck  actions 
it  could  take.  It  has  always  stressed  that  these 
things  were  best  fought  by  co-operation  at 
the  federal-provincial  level.  We  have  also 
tried  to  stress  that  we  had  worked  long  and 
hard  at  bringing  our  budget  into  some  sem- 
blance of  balance  to  give  us  some  room  to 
have  the  manoeuvrability  in  times  of  stress. 

We  took  action  several  weeks  ago  and,  in 
my  first  budget,  I  took  a  number  of  actions 
aimed  at  helping  small  business  people.  We 
have  had  the  farm  interest  subsidy  programs. 
We  did  look  at  the  problems  of  mortgage  in- 
terest assistance.  I  would  argue  that  those  can 
really  only  be  afforded  at  the  federal  level, 
where  tax  measures  such  as  Mr.  Crosbie 
introduced  last  year  are  put  into  effect. 


Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Is  the  minister  aware  that  just  in  the  past 
month  the  increases  in  interest  and  mortgage 
rates  have  increased  the  income  that  a  family 
needs  in  order  to  afford  an  average  priced 
home  in  Metropolitan  Toronto,  from  an 
annual  family  income  of  $37,000  to  one  of 
$44,000,  which  is  an  increase  in  family  in- 
come requirements  of  $7,000,  just  in  the 
course  of  the  month? 

Will  the  minister  undertake  to  bring  in  a 
plan  to  protect  families  on  low  and  modest 
incomes  from  these  suicidal  increases  in 
costs,  or  is  it  the  government's  intention  that 
home  ownership  should  now  be  the  preserve 
of  the  rich? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Again,  Mr.  Speaker,  we 
have  discussed  this  often.  The  question  of 
somebody  buying  a  brand  new  home  in  to- 
day's market  is  one  in  which  at  least  they 
have  some  degree  of  discretion  as  to  whether 
they  do  or  do  not. 

What  I  am  simply  saying  is,  the  decision 
to  enter  into  the  purchase  of  a  home  is  one 
that  is  discretionary.  Where  there  is  no  dis- 
cretion, of  course,  is  where  somebody  already 
owns  a  home  and  is  rolling  over  a  mortgage. 
Those  are  the  people  who  have  the  greatest 
problems. 
2:20  p.m. 

However,  I  think  it  is  a  problem  of  adjust- 
ment to  a  large  degree.  Say  one  takes  the  25 
per  cent  level  of  income  as  being  a  fair 
amount  to  be  spent  on  the  gross  costs  of  a 
home.  If  one  looks  at  a  home  purchased  five 
years  ago,  takes  the  percentage  of  income  it 
had  to  be  at  that  point  to  justify  the  pur- 
chase, takes  the  increase  in  salaries  that  have 
occurred  in  most  cases  in  the  meantime, 
even  the  present  changes  in  the  mortgage 
interest  rates  are  generally  keeping  the  new 
mortgage  rate  at  no  more  than  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  Speaker:  A  new  question.  We  have 
spent  seven  minutes  on  this  question. 

Mr.     Peterson:     Mr.     Speaker,     just     two 
seconds  on  this  question- 
Mr.  Sargent:  This  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant things  we  have  to  talk  about. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Sargent:  How  can  you  make  that  de- 
cision not  to  talk  about  that  question? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Will  the  member  for  Grey- 
Bruce  please  sit  down? 

Mr.  Sargent:  You  can't  make  those  de- 
cisions not  to  talk  about  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  hear  it. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Speaker. 
By    way    of    supplementary,    how    can    the 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5229 


Treasurer  possibly  argue  that  he  cannot 
afford  to  bring  in  some  kind  of  interest  rate 
subsidy?  He  has  just  dissipated  $260  million 
on  a  sales  tax  scheme,  at  least  $100  million 
of  which  is  going  to  support  imports  into  the 
province.  We  are  facing  an  emergency  situa- 
tion now.  He  could  at  least  resurrect  some 
scheme  like  our  $100  million  plan  to  help 
out  small  businesses  in  emergency  situations 
and  for  mortgages.  How  can  he  possibly 
argue  that  he  does  not  have  a  responsibility, 
that  he  cannot  afford  it,  when  the  govern- 
ment has  dissipated  so  much  other  money  in 
irresponsible  ways?  There  is  a  crisis  in 
Ontario  now.  The  minister  has  an  obligation 
to  respond. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
righteous  indignation  of  my  colleagues  on 
the  Liberal  benches  is  always  just  that.  The 
member  knows  darned  well  we  are  in  trouble 
in  this  country  because  of  Ottawa's  mis- 
management of  the  economy. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  two- 
part  supplementary  to  the  Treasurer.  First 
of  all,  he  did  not  respond  to  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  when  asked  what  his  position 
was  going  to  be  at  the  meeting  of  finance 
ministers  next  week. 

Second,  why  does  he  say  the  province 
cannot  afford  it?  If  he  would  take  a  look  at 
the  proposal  we  put  before  him  last  spring, 
it  would  not  have  been  a  particularly  ex- 
pensive program.  To  provide  relief  to  people 
whose  mortgages  were  rolling  over  would 
have  cost  the  province  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  only  $20  million.  Did  the  Treasurer  think 
that  is  an  outrageous  cost? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Of  course  not,  Mr. 
Speaker.  I  will  go  back  and  carefully  review 
the  words  on  the  record.  One  of  the  great 
advantages  of  Hansard  is  that  I  will  be  able 
to  see  exactly  what  I  said. 

First,  it  is  a  Canadian  problem;  it  is  not 
an  Ontario  problem.  It  goes  across  all  10 
provinces.  I  think  the  members  will  accept 
that.  Second,  it  is  best  handled  on  a  co- 
operative basis.  The  Minister  of  Housing 
(Mr.  Bennett)  and  I  did  go  to  Ottawa  on 
March  17  of  this  year,  our  first  visit  to  the 
new  regime.  We  had  every  reason  to  believe 
the  federal  Liberal  government  was  willing 
to  look  at  some  kind  of  assistance  program. 
Mr.  Cosgrove  made  some  suggestions  that 
he  was  willing  to  do  so.  I  have  to  argue 
with  my  friend  that  when  they  are  getting 
much  greater  access  to  the  tax  revenue  of 
this  country  and  are  allegedly  in  control  of 
the  monetary  process  of  this  country,  the 
programs  have  to  be  shared. 


What  am  I  going  to  do  in  Ottawa  next 
Wednesday?  Obviously  I  will  be  listening 
with  great  interest.  We  are  preparing  our 
papers  right  now  and  will  be  prepared  to 
discuss  the  matter.  I  know  that  at  least  one 
province  has  sent  a  telegram  to  the  Prime 
Minister  and  to  Mr.  MacEachen  to  make 
sure  this  will  be  on  the  agenda.  I  have  been 
told  it  is  on  the  agenda,  so  I  know  we  will 
be  discussing  it. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  would  like  to  direct  a 
question  to  the  Minister  of  the  Environment 
on  the  South  Cayuga  matter,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  am  trying  to  determine  what  the  difference 
is  between  an  environmental  assessment 
hearing  and  the  hearings  which  the  minister 
has  unfolded  before  us  as  something  we 
will  have. 

The  minister  has  said  there  will  be  hear- 
ings and  that  the  hearings  will  be  into  the 
appropriateness  and  the  suitability  of  South 
Cayuga  as  a  site  for  the  proposed  facility, 
looking  at  the  technology,  design,  location 
on  the  740  acres,  the  construction  and  oper- 
ation of  the  facility,  and  that  there  will  be 
a  hydrological  and  geotechnical  study  con- 
ducted on  the  site.  Given  that  all  those 
tilings  will  happen  under  the  hearing  he 
proposes,  may  I  ask  him  what  would  be 
the  difference  if  the  hearing  was  under  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act?  What 
would  be  heard  under  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  that  would  not  be  heard 
under  his  proposed  hearing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  One  point  of  correction 
to  begin  with,  Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  not  740 
acres,  it  is  100  acres.  I  think  that  is  im- 
portant. It  will  be  for  the  site- 
Mr.  J.  Reed:  How  big  is  the  buffer  zone? 
Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  think  we  are  talking 
about  the  use  of  that  land  and  it  is  im- 
portant that  we  keep  those  things  accurately 
on  the  record.  The  difference  would  simply 
be  a  matter  of  format  in  the  sense  that  in 
the  first  instance,  as  I  am  sure  the  leader 
knows,  there  is  the  normal  process  of 
establishing  the  proposal,  then  the  review 
of  that  proposal  and  that  consideration  that 
would  be  put  forward.  Someone  must  be 
that  proponent. 

In  this  instance  we  are  asking  the  board 
to  make  those  necessary  hearings  on  the 
safety  of  the  site  and  on  its  suitability  for 
the  technology  that  will  be  there.  It  is  a 
very  direct  way  to  deal  with  the  South 
Cayuga  site  in  a  full  and  complete  manner. 
There   has   never  been  any  doubt  that  the 


5230 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


hearing  will  foe  totally  and  completely  limit- 
ed to  that  site  and  its  suitability. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  minister  has  not  made 
clear  what  the  difference  would  be.  I  take 
it  what  he  is  saying  is  the  only  difference 
would  be  that  in  an  environmental  assess- 
ment hearing  there  might  be  evidence  pre- 
sented as  to  other  sites  that  might  be 
superior,  whereas  in  the  hearing  he  is 
suggesting  the  evidence  would  have  to 
pertain  to  the  site  that  has  already  been 
chosen.  Is  that  correct?  If  I  am  not  correct, 
will  he  please  explain  what  the  difference 
would  be?  What  would  be  heard  in  an 
environmental  assessment  hearing  that  will 
not  be  heard  in  the  hearings  he  has  already 
agreed  to? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  one  very 
significant  difference  would  be  the  discus- 
sion on  need.  I  think  the  leader  of  the 
Liberal  Party  would  be  the  first  to  recog- 
nize there  is  a  tremendous  need  for  waste 
treatment  facilities  in  this  province.  The 
fundamental  part  of  the  environment  assess- 
ment process  is  that  we  must,  first  of  all, 
establish  need,  and  that  has  to  be  done.  I 
think  that  is  a  given  in  this  province.  It 
was  a  given  some  time  ago.  It  is  a  given 
all  over  North  America.  It  is  a  crime  that 
we  have  not  worked  more  towards  this  end 
at  a  much  earlier  date,  but  that  I  think  is 
a  given,  that  in  an  environmental  assess- 
ment one  must  go  through  all  of  that  to 
have  a  full  and  complete  assessment.  That 
is,  I  am  quite  sure  the  member  would 
agree,  not  pertinent. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  the  minister  has  said  the  decision 
about  the  suitability  of  the  site  will  be  made 
by  the  crown  corporation  so  that  the  deci- 
sion is  made  independent  of  the  ministry, 
could  the  minister  explain  why  it  is  he  has 
suggested  that  the  crown  corporation's 
board  of  directors  travel  with  the  minister 
on  a  cosy  trip  to  Europe  to  look  at  waste 
disposal  facilities  over  there?  Is  this  not  an 
attempt  by  the  minister  to  seduce  the  board 
of  the  crown  corporation  before  it  is  even 
established  and  to  compromise  their  inde- 
pendence, independence  they  should  surely 
have  if  they  are  going  to  make  an  independ- 
ent decision  about  whether  or  not  the  facility 
is  to  be  located  in  South  Cayuga? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  a 
little  concerned  that  the  leader  of  the  third 
party  should  talk  about  seducing  a  very  in- 
dependent board.  I  do  not  think  many  people 
would  like  to  have  that  said  about  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture  or  the 
elected  municipal   representative,   be   it   the 


mayor,  and  those  are  the  very  people  he  is 
talking  about.  I  have  also  suggested,  and  I 
think  with  some  great  logic,  that  there 
should  be  more  than  just  that  group  go. 
Indeed,  the  media  should  go. 

I  welcome  that  opportunity  because  I 
think  it  is  about  time  in  this  debate  that  we 
start  focusing  on  the  prime  objective,  which 
is  that  we  have  for  this  province  the  best 
facilities  we  can  find.  We  have  said  that 
many  times.  I  am  going  to  continue  to  say 
that.  I  think  it  is  important  that  not  just  the 
board,  but  the  media,  the  local  people,  you 
name  it;  and  the  committee— and  I  have  pro- 
posed to  the  committee  that  they  go  and  see 
the  best  facilities  in  the  world.  I  do  not  think 
he  would  suggest  that  I  could  seduce  his 
representatives  by  taking  them  to  see  the 
best  facilities  in  the  world.  That  is  what  we 
are  trying  to  build  in  this  province.  Nothing 
short  of  that  will  satisfy  us  and  I  think  he  is 
dead  wrong  if  he  thinks  that  board  can  be 
seduced,  the  mayor  or  her  representative  can 
be  seduced,  or  his  members  can  be  seduced. 
I  do  not  think  that  is  the  way  it  is  at  all  and 
I  think  he  should  recognize  that. 

Mr.    S.    Smith:    Final   supplementary,    Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Haldimand- 
Norfolk  (Mr.  G.  I.  Miller)  was  on  his  feet. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  He  was  not  at  all.  I  am  on 
my  feet,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:  He  was,  and  unless  you  have 
eyes  in  the  back  of  your  head- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  wish  to  ask  the  minister, 
to  be  absolutely  clear  about  this,  if  the  onlv 
difference  between  an  environmental  assess- 
ment hearing,  or  the  major  difference— 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  did  not  say  that  and 
the  member  knows  it. 
2:30  p.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  have  asked  the  minister 
what  is  the  difference  twice.  I  assumed  the 
answer  about  the  major  difference  was  in  the 
two  answers  he  gave  me.  If  the  major  dif- 
ference between  an  environmental  assessment- 
hearing  and  the  hearings  he  is  proposing  is 
that  there  would  have  to  be  a  discussion  of 
need  at  the  environmental  assessment  hear- 
ing, does  the  minister  think  it  is  worthwhile 
setting  aside  the  existing  legislation  in  the 
province  for  an  environmental  assessment 
hearing? 

Is  it  really  worth  all  the  uproar  just  to 
avoid  a  discussion  of  need?  I  would  be  pre- 
pared to  go  as  a  witness  and  say  there  is  a 
need.  I  do  not  know  of  anyone  who  would 
say  there  is  not  a  need  in  the  province  of 
Ontario.  Does  the  minister  think  it  is  sensi- 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5231 


ble  to  set  aside  the  legislation  that  exists  in 
favour  of  this  ad  hoc  arrangement  of  his 
simply  because  of  that,  or  is  there  some  other 
reason  why  he  does  not  want  to  have  an  en- 
vironmental assessment  hearing? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  gave  that 
as  an  illustration.  I  can  stand  here  in  my 
place  for  some  time  and  tell  the  member 
other  significant  differences.  Let  me  give  him 
one. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Well  I  asked  the  minister 
three  times. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Sometimes,  Mr.  Speaker, 
it  is  hard  not  to  respond  to  some  of  those 
interjections.  There  is  one  very  major  dif- 
ference if  an  environmental  assessment  was 
heard  and  a  decision  was  made  by  the  board. 
I  would  remind  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
that  the  very  act,  under  which  so  much  dis- 
cussion has  taken  place,  clearly  gives  the 
cabinet  the  right  to  amend  the  decision  made 
by  that  board.  What  have  we  said  to  the  con- 
trary in  this  instance?  We  have  put  the  right 
to  make  the  final  decision,  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  has  said  and  I  have  said,  that  the 
government  will  not  overrule— 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  minister  can  make  the 
same  statement  about  the  Environmental  As- 
sessment Act,  but  he  will  not  amend  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  All  of  a  sudden  the 
Leader  of  the  Oppostion  wants  to  be  very 
picky  about  which  part  of  the  act  he  wants 
to  apply.  It  is  a  very  interesting,  subtle  point, 
but  I  am  saying  to  the  Leader  of  the  Op- 
position in  this  particular  instance  we  have 
said  it  will  be  an  independent  board.  That 
may  be  what  the  member  opposite  does  not 
like  about  this.  He  wants  it  to  have  the 
connotations  that  somehow  or  other  we  will 
carry  that  responsibility.  I  do  not  mind  doing 
that.  We  have  tried  to  do  that  very  consis- 
tently, but  I  think  it  is  time  we  realize  what 
the  people  of  this  province  have  been  saying 
pretty  consistently,  and  that  is  they  agree 
completely  with  the  concept  of  a  corporation 
to  run  the  liquid  waste  facilities  of  this 
province.  That  is  what  we  are  establishing 
here.  We  are  establishing  a  very  broad 
spectrum.  I  think  there  are  major  significant- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  The  minister  is  a  failure. 
That  is  what  he  is  establishing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Not  half  as  much  as  the 
Leader  of  the  Liberal  Party  in  his  role.  He 
will  find  that  out  in  about  three  months. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker:  If 
the  board  of  the  crown  corporation  comes 
back  to  the  minister  in  12  months  and  tells 
him  it  has  discovered  that  the  site  is  not  suit- 
able for  this  kind  of  facility,  then  we  will 


not  be  just  12  months  behind  but  24  months 
behind,  because  we  will  have  wasted  a  full 
year  and  be  a  full  year  further  away  from 
finding  a  solution  than  we  should  be  today. 
Why  does  he  not  put  the  hearings  under  the 
Environmental  Assessment  Act  so  that  all  the 
options  can  be  reviewed  and  we  will  be  as- 
sured that,  at  the  end  of  those  hearings,  we 
have  not  just  a  yes  or  no  decision  but  a  de- 
cision on  what  will  be  the  best  facility  of 
Ontario  and  in  the  world? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  We  have  spent  two 
years,  indeed  most  of  that  two  years  and 
have  been  taking  the  advice  of  the  standing 
committee  and  we  have  made  many  advances 
in  the  last  two  years  in  dealing  with  liquid 
industrial  wastes.  We  had  a  very  brief  time 
to  put  that  on  the  record  about  two  weeks 
ago. 

We  have  also  scrutinized  very  carefully 
what  was  said  during  that  emergency  debate. 
After  scrutinizing  it  to  the  nth  degree  we 
find  that  in  the  two  and  a  half  or  three-hour 
period  the  opposition  parties  of  this  province 
were  not  able  to  come  forward  with  one 
single,  positive  suggestion  of  how  or  where. 
There  was  not  a  single  thing.  It  is  nice  and 
easy  to  be  a  critic  when  they  never  have  to 
face  the  reality  of  knowing  what  it  is  all 
about,  or  where  and  how.  They  will  always 
want  that  nice,  comfortable  position.  That  is 
why  they  failed  to  come  to  grips  with  the 
problem. 

USE   OF  ASBESTOS  IN  SCHOOLS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  new 
question  for  the  Minister  of  Education,  who 
assumed  responsibility  for  questions  with 
relation  to  asbestos  in  schools.  Can  the  min- 
ister assure  the  House  that  in  response  to 
the  directives  on  asbestos  in  schools,  which 
she  issued  in  July  1979  and  in  January 
1980,  the  minis  tiy  now  is  aware  of  all  pos- 
sible asbestos  hazards  in  the  schools  of  the 
province  and  that  no  school  children  or 
school  board  employees  now  are  at  risk  as  a 
consequence  of  exposure  to  asbestos  in  our 
schools? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
cannot  give  that  full  commitment  at  this 
point,  because  I  am  not  convinced  right  now 
that  every  single  board  has  completed  all  of 
the  investigation  it  should  have.  I  believe 
there  may  be  one  or  two  boards  that  have 
not  completed  the  investigation.  It  is  my 
understanding  that  all  of  the  remaining 
boards  have. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Can  the  minister  explain  to 
the   House  why   the   Ministry  of  Education 


5232 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


has  not  actively  and  vigorously  pursued  the 
Windsor  Board  of  Education?  In  May  of  this 
year,  it  reported  not  a  single  inspection 
having  gone  forward  to  the  ministry,  accord- 
ing to  the  ministry's  own  records.  Despite 
assurances  to  the  board  trustees  by  the  board 
officials,  it  now  has  been  discovered  that 
there  were  26  schools  with  asbestos  out  of 
44  that  have  recently  been  inspected.  Board 
officials  have  been  maintaining  that  they 
were  not  required  to  follow  directives  about 
asbestos  inspection  issued  by  this  ministry 
because  those  directives  were  not  law.  Why 
has  the  ministry  not  been  going  after  the 
Windsor  Board  of  Education  and  how  has  it 
tolerated  a  situation  where  that  board  has 
been  thumbing  its  nose  at  the  ministry's 
directives? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  We  most  certainly 
have  been  asking  boards  to  complete  the 
examination  as  rapidly  as  possible.  It  is  my 
understanding  that  the  Windsor  board  has 
completed  its  examination. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Where  the  caretaking  staff  and  the 
union  request  a  second  opinion  because  they 
do  not  have  confidence  in  the  first  opinion 
concerning  asbestos  in  the  schools,  will  the 
minister  look  into  the  request  of  the  union 
for  a  second  opinion  to  clarify  whether 
asbestos  in  the  schools  is  a  hazard? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  understanding  that  in  the  circumstance 
described  by  the  member  the  union  itself 
has  taken  under  its  own  responsibility  the 
acquisition  of  that  second  opinion. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  What  action  is  the  ministry 
now  prepared  to  take  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  some  schools  in  Windsor  have  shown 
asbestos  as  present  and  that  in  some  schools 
in  Windsor  asbestos  has  been  discovered, 
which  was  exposed  in  the  gymnasium  hang- 
ing from  pipes  and  behind  the  backstop? 
When  the  asbestos  problem  in  that  com- 
munity continues  to  be  of  that  severity, 
what  action  is  the  minister  now  taking  or 
prepared  to  take  to  protect  both  the  school 
children  and  school  board  employees  from 
what  is  a  very  clear  present  hazard? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  I  would  remind 
the  honourable  member  that  the  responsi- 
bility for  the  provision  of  facilities  for  edu- 
cation at  the  local  level  is  that  of  the  board 
of  education,  duly  elected  by  the  local 
people.  We  have  done  a  great  deal  to  assist, 
encourage  and  persuade  boards  to  carry  out 
their  responsibilities  for  the  investigation  of 
potential  asbestos  problems.  Some  of  the 
boards   have  been   a   little   slow   to   respond 


and  we  have  tried  to  encourage  them  to 
speed  it  up.  We  have  done  that.  I  believe 
we  are  now  almost  at  the  completion  of 
that  activity. 

Most  certainly  we  have  been  encouraging 
boards  by  telling  them  there  was  provision 
for  funding  to  ensure  that  they  completed 
the  solution  of  their  asbestos  problems.  In 
fact,  most  of  the  boards  have  done  so.  The 
local  board  of  education,  however,  must 
take  responsibility  for  that  part  of  the  ac- 
tivity which  is   theirs. 

NIAGARA  ESCARPMENT  DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources 
Development,  who  is  responsible  for  the 
Niagara  Escarpment  Commission.  Can  the 
minister  tell  the  House  whether  the  reports 
that  emerged  from  the  meetings  of  members 
of  the  Conservative  caucus  with  people  from 
the  escarpment  on  Monday  of  this  week  are 
correct,  and  in  specific  terms  can  he  say 
whether  the  statement  by  a  former  minister, 
the  member  for  Burlington  South  (Mr.  Kerr), 
"Let  us  get  rid  of  the  commission"  is  an 
expression  of  government  policy,  or  is  it  still 
government  policy  to  support  the  Niagara 
Escarpment  Commission  in  its  work  of  pre- 
serving the  escarpment  as  a  continuous 
natural  environment? 
2:40  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  leader 
of  the  New  Democratic  Party  knows  very  well 
that  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis),  myself  and 
others  have  said  we  have  a  commitment  to  the 
Niagara  Escarpment  Commission.  They  are 
now  ending  their  phase  one  hearings  and  the 
plan  has  been  submitted  to  it  and  the  plan 
is  proceeding  very  satisfactorily.  That  is  on 
record  and  there  is  no  doubt  about  that.  If  the 
honourable  member  has  a  poor  memory,  I 
will  be  glad  to  send  him  copies  of  those 
commitments  made  in  the  Legislature  and 
outside  of  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  If  that  is  the  position  of  the 
minister,  can  he  explain  why  it  is  that  minis- 
tries of  the  crown  have  been  acting  directly 
contrary  to  that  position  with  respect  to  the 
multimillion-dollar  luxury  condominium  de- 
velopment at  Epping  Common  in  Euphrasia 
townnship? 

In  particular,  can  the  minister  explain  why, 
after  an  initial  rejection  by  the  Niagara 
Escarpment  Commission  hearings,  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  appeared  at  the  appeal  to  support 
and  express  his  ministry's  support  for  the 
Epping  Common  development? 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5233 


Can  the  minister  also  explain  why  it  is  that, 
despite  the  fact  that  the  Niagara  Escarpment 
Commission  has  phase  one  hearings  under 
way,  the  Minister  of  Housing  (Mr.  Bennett) 
used  a  back-door  route  to  take  official  plan 
consideration  of  the  Epping  Common  de- 
velopment before  the  Ontario  Municipal 
Board  without  even  informing  the  minister 
responsible  for  the  Niagara  Escarpment  Com- 
mission? When  are  the  two  of  them  going  to 
get  their  act  together? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  I  believe  the  honour- 
able member  was  in  the  Legislature  on  Octo- 
ber 21  when  the  member  behind  him  asked 
that  question  of  my  colleague  the  Minister  of 
Housing,  who  replied.  If  the  member  does 
not  have  a  copy  of  that  reply,  or  if  he  was 
not  here,  I  will  be  glad  to  send  it  to  him. 
That  was  fully  answered  by  the  Minister  of 
Housing.  Under  the  Planning  Act  he  referred 
it  to  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  privilege:  I  say  to  the  leader  of  the  third 
party,  in  my  estimates  I  made  it  very  clear 
to  the  member  for  Welland-Thorold  (Mr. 
Swart),  and  to  all  the  members  in  the  esti- 
mates committee  over  the  last  couple  of 
weeks,  that  in  no  way  did  my  ministry  do 
anything  in  the  name  of  back-dooring  amend- 
ment number  33  to  the  Beaver  Valley  official 
plan.  We  were  asked  for  advice.  We  gave  the 
advice  of  the  ministry  and  we  proceeded 
from  there. 

The  third  party  in  this  House  constantly 
believes  everybody  has  to  be  working  in  some 
back-door  attitude,  when  they  are  trying  to 
secure  for  the  taxpayers  of  this  community 
at  least  a  fair  opportunity  to  present  their 
point  of  view. 

Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
How  can  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Re- 
sources Development  say  he  is  still  preserv- 
ing the  escarpment  when  is  it  not  true  that 
he  admitted  in  committee  that  the  Minister 
of  Housing  had  never  even  discussed  with 
him  a  referral  to  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board 
when  that  minister  referred  it  with  special 
instructions  that  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board 
was  to  proceed  with  the  hearing  even  though 
the  Niagara  Escarpment  Commission  hearings 
were  in  process,  and  that  the  Epping  Common 
scheme,  this  massive  development  by  friends 
of  the  government,  is  the  only  case  where  he 
has  given  that  special  instruction? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  was 
no  special  instruction.  During  the  estimates, 
the  honourable  member  asked  me  if  I  had 
received  a  copy  of  the  letter  that  the  Minister 
of  Housing  had  sent  and  I  said  I  had  not.  I 


do  not- get  copies  of  all  letters  that  the  Minis- 
ter of  Housing  sends. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Will  the  minister  give  assurance  to  the  House 
that  he  will  not  do  in  the  Epping  Common 
matter  what  the  Minister  of  Housing  at- 
tempted to  do  in  the  Cantrakon  matter,  which 
was  that  once  it  was  rejected  by  the  Niagara 
Escarpment  Commission  and  once  it  was  re- 
jected by  the  hearing  officer,  the  minister 
then  made  a  unilateral  decision  which  he  was 
forced  to  rescind  by  the  opposition?  Will  the 
minister  simply  give  his  assurance  that  they 
will  not  attempt  to  do  the  same  thing  on  the 
Epping  Common  matter  that  they  did  on 
the  Cantrakon  matter? 

Hon.  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  this 
particular  case  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
knows  full  well  that  the  matter  is  being  re- 
ferred to  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board.  The 
OMB  is  a  very  objective  and  competent 
body;  I  am  sure  it  will  give  the  matter  full 
consideration  and  will  make  its  decision  ac- 
cording to  the  presentations  made  to  them. 

ONTARIO  HYDRO  LAND  PURCHASES 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence 
of  the  Premier  and  in  the  absence  of  the 
Minister  of  Energy  (Mr.  Welch),  I  wish  to 
direct  a  question  to  the  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Justice. 

What  action  is  the  government  prepared  to 
take  with  Ontario  Hydro  to  see  that  a 
Dufferin  county  farmer,  Mr.  Ken  Peterson, 
gets  justice  from  Hydro's  property  division, 
which  set  up  a  committee  to  assess  Mr. 
Peterson's  case  and  then  vetoed  the  com- 
mittee's decision  when  it  was  not  satisfactory 
to  them? 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  matter 
will  have  to  be  referred  to  the  appropriate 
minister.  I  have  no  answer  to  that. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  I  am  surprised  the  minister  is 
not  aware  that  this  injustice  to  a  citizen  of 
Ontario  has  taken  place.  Will  the  minister 
recommend  action  to  see  that  these  lands  of 
dictatorial  methods  on  the  part  of  Ontario 
Hydro  cease  immediately,  understanding  that 
the  second  corridor  out  of  Bruce  has  yet  to 
be  located  and  hopefully  will  undergo  en- 
vironmental assessment,  and  that  settlements 
will  be  made  with  the  land  owners?  If  this 
is  not  settled  now,  the  people  who  are  going 
to  face  expropriation  in  the  near  future  are 
going  to  face  the  same  kind  of  thing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  The  honourable  member 
knows  full  well  this  is  not  an  area  of  my 
responsibility.  I  will  see  that  the  question  is 
raised  with  the  appropriate  minister. 


5234 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


COMMUNITY  SERVICES 
CONTRIBUTION  PROGRAM 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  my 
question  is  for  the  Minister  of  Housing.  It 
concerns  the  community  services  contribu- 
tion program  which  the  federal  Liberal 
government  terminated  arbitrarily,  thus  end- 
ing a  series  of  community  projects  around 
the  province  and  the  country.  Has  the 
minister  received  a  telegram  from  the 
mayor  of  Toronto  in  which  the  mayor  asks 
the  province  to  continue  its  aid  and  to  ex- 
pand the  provincial  commitment  to  fill  the 
gap  left  by  the  federal  government?  If  so, 
what  are  his  plans  to  make  sure  this  pro- 
gram continues  to  have,  as  he  said  on 
December  13,  a  good  effect  on  the  economy 
of  country? 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have 
received  a  copy  of  the  telegram.  The  Pre- 
mier, the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller),  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott), 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith) 
and  the  leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party 
(Mr.  Cassidy)  received  copies  of  the  tele- 
gram from  the  mayor  of  the  city  of  Toronto. 
It  requests  our  support  in  the  continuation 
of  the  program  that  was  unilaterally  cancelled 
by  the  federal  Liberal  Party.  That  program 
had  contributed  $130  million  to  the  economy 
of  Ontario  in  neighbourhood  improvements 
and  in  water  and  sewage  treatment  and 
purification  operations. 

We  understood  the  program  would  have 
a  longer  period  of  life  than  two  years.  I  have 
to  say  frankly  that  the  Liberal  government 
of  the  day  hoodwinked  all  the  provincial 
ministers  in  designing  that  particular  agree- 
ment with  the  understanding  it  would  go  on 
for  some  period  of  time  thereafter  when 
all  the  problems  were  worked  out. 

In  my  statement  to  this  House  some 
weeks  ago,  when  I  announced  the  decision 
of  the  Minister  of  Public  Works,  Mr.  Cos- 
grove,  and  his  federal  Liberal  friends  in 
cancelling  this  program,  I  said  this  province 
would  review  the  situation  closely  with  Mr. 
Cosgrove.  The  Minister  of  the  Environment 
and  I  met  with  Mr.  Cosgrove  on  Monday 
past  and  we  reviewed  it  in  some  detail 
without  any  assurances  from  him  that  there 
would  be  any  consideration  about  its  exten- 
sion, regardless  of  the  Canada-United  States 
agreement  on  water  quality  control  being 
disregarded,  regardless  of  all  the  indications 
to  the  municipalities  in  this  province  and  in 
this  country  that  they  were  going  to  be 
assisted  in  improving  their  water  and  sew- 
age treatment  plants,  and  regardless  of  the 
renovation    and    upgrading    of    the    housing 


stock  in  this  country.  All  those  things  are 
passe. 

I  said  at  the  same  time  that,  while  we 
would  review  that  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment, we  were  not  going  to  accept  the 
entire  responsibility  to  supplement  those 
cancelled  federal  programs  out  of  the  pub- 
He  treasury  of  Ontario.  Obviously,  if  the 
federal  government  finds  it  easy  to  cancel 
this  program  for  some  $100  million  in  the 
coming  year,  it  can  well  move  into  other 
social  fields  and  cancel  them  as  well,  in 
anticipation  that  Ontario  will  pick  up  the 
entire  cost.  That  is  not  our  intention. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  I  agree  the  minister 
has  been  hoodwinked.  I  have  little  doubt 
about  that.  But,  as  he  knew  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  participation  in  this,  it  has  to  be 
a  continuing  program.  As  he  knows,  there 
is  at  least  $10  million  worth  of  plans  al- 
ready in  process  in  Toronto  for  the  next 
number  of  years.  Is  it  not  the  minister's 
responsibility  to  step  in  and  share  on  a  new 
basis  with  Metro  Toronto?  It  is  my  under- 
standing Metro  will  look  at  increasing  its 
share  if  the  minister  is  willing  to  co-operate. 
Is  it  not  the  minister's  responsibility  to  com- 
mit himself  and  his  government  to  protect 
jobs  in  this  province,  to  protect  environ- 
mental projects  that  are  under  way  and  to 
ensure  that  local  planning,  which  has  been 
under  way  for  a  number  of  years  now,  is 
not  undermined  by  both  the  provincial  and 
federal  levels   of  government? 

2:50  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  I  answered  no  very 
positively  to  the  question  that  was  originally 
asked  as  to  whether  we  were  going  to  fill  the 
void  that  was  created  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment. That  is  not  to  say  we  will  not  continue, 
as  a  provincial  government,  to  contribute  to 
the  program  what  we  did  on  a  partnership 
basis  before. 

I  realize  the  importance  of  this  program  to 
many  municipalities  and  more  specifically  to 
communities  with  populations  of  20,000  and 
less.  Those  are  the  communities  that  will  be 
damaged  very  severely  by  the  cancellation 
of  this  program— not  Metropolitan  Toronto, 
Ottawa,  Hamilton,  London  or  Windsor.  The 
small  municipalities  are  the  ones  that  are 
going  to  feel  the  financial  pinch  in  this  pro- 
gram. 

The  Minister  of  the  Environment  can  give 
the  member  a  very  clear  and  concise  position 
on  what  the  added  costs  will  be  to  the 
smaller  municipalities.  In  some  cases  they  will 
be  completely  devastating,  and  in  most  cases 
the  programs  will  not  be  able  to  take  place 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5235 


at  all  because  the  financial  resources  are  not 
at  their  level. 

I  want  to  assure  this  House  that  the  Treas- 
urer and  I,  along  with  the  Minister  of  the 
Environment  and  others,  will  continue  to 
pursue  the  federal  government  to  get  them 
back  into  the  program.  But  I  emphasize  it  is 
not  this  government's  intention  to  fill  all  the 
void  left  by  the  federal  government. 

Mr.  Eakins:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to  re- 
direct my  supplementary  to  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment. 

It  is  my  understanding  the  federal  minister 
has  stated  he  will  honour  all  provincial  ap- 
provals until  December  31,  1980.  Since  the 
village  of  Bobcaygeon  will  be  opening  tenders 
on  December  18  for  a  sewage  disposal  plant 
and  pumping  station,  will  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  make  every  effort  to  look  over 
these  applications  with  a  view  to  assisting  this 
village  to  make  sure  they  are  approved  by 
the  end  of  the  year? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  was 
one  of  the  significant  points  we  raised  with 
Mr.  Cosgrove  at  the  meeting  referred  to  by 
my  colleague  the  Minister  of  Housing.  We 
think  at  the  very  least  that  date  should  be 
extended. 

One  wants  to  do  these  things  properly,  and 
all  of  a  sudden  there  are  only  13  days,  most 
of  which  are  holidays,  to  make  all  of  those 
determinations.  I  think  it  was  grossly  unfair, 
to  tell  us  those  things  without  notice.  But  we 
will  bend  over  backwards  to  assist  them.  The 
greater  assistance  would  be  to  have  that 
deadline  extended  a  little  bit  to  give  a  reason- 
able amount  of  notice.  That  is  the  best  that 
could  happen. 

I  urge  the  member,  in  the  spirit  of  the 
season,  to  phone  Mr.  Cosgrove  and  ask  him 
to  give  some  reason  and  rationality  to  that 
deadline. 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  to  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 
For  16  days  we  have  been  sitting  with  the 
42-page  MacLaren  report  on  the  siting  of 
liquid  hazardous  waste  facilities.  For  the  most 
part  it  is  a  brief  overview  of  the  material  to 
be  found  in  the  three  appendices  to  the  re- 
port. Seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  November 
1980  report  is  identical  to  the  August  1979 
interim  report. 

Since  we  have  heard  that  the  consultants 
are  still  compiling  some  graphs  and  tables  for 
the  appendix  and  that  they  have  not  yet  got 
to  the  presses,  can  the  minister  tell  us  when 
we  will  get  the  material?  It  is  the  meat  of 
the  $425,000  study. 


Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  the 
meat  of  that  study  is  already  on  record.  But 
those  appendices  are  important,  and  I  under- 
stand they  will  be  available  before  the  end 
of  this  month. 

MENTAL  HEALTH  SERVICES 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  absence 
of  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell),  I 
will  ask  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development  a  question. 

As  a  response  to  the  Ontario  Council  of 
Health's  documentation  on  problems  in  our 
mental  health  care  system  and  a  further 
report  by  the  Ontario  Public  Service  Em- 
ployees Union  documenting  problems  with 
the  mental  health  system,  will  the  minister 
now  seek  to  have  the  government  call  a  royal 
commission  into  all  the  problems  that  are  in 
our  mental  health  system?  I  ask  for  this  so 
there  will  be  no  more  Aldo  Alvianis  die  by 
therapeutic  misadventure  and  no  more  Henry 
Kowalskis  incarcerated  for  more  than  10  years, 
even  though  they  have  never  committed  a 
crime. 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  those  re- 
ports are  under  consideration  by  the  ministry. 
At  this  time  I  see  no  need  to  call  a  royal 
commission. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  minister  take  as  suf- 
ficient reason  the  fact  that  we  have  had  538 
deaths  in  our  psychiatric  institutions  since 
1978?  It  seems  to  me  that  is  reason  to  call 
a  royal  commission.  In  our  Community  and 
Social  Services  institutions  we  have  guide- 
lines for  psychotropic  drugs,  and  in  our 
psychiatric  institutions  we  have  none.  Patients 
are  dumped  out  of  psychiatric  institutions 
into  Parkdale,  into  Sutton,  into  one  locked 
ward  with  60  people  in  Windsor  with  no 
nursing  care.  Is  that  not  reason  enough  to 
look  at  it? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  I  have  already  indicated 
we  are  looking  very  carefully  at  those  reports. 
Mr.  Conway:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
About  a  year  ago,  the  government's  own 
illustrious  Ontario  Council  of  Health  pro- 
duced a  damning  indictment  of  mental  health 
services  in  Ontario.  At  this  point,  what  specific 
redress  and  policy  statement  is  the  provincial 
secretary  prepared  to  make  on  behalf  of  her 
government  to  deal  with  the  countless  cases 
and  instances  pointed  to,  as  I  said  earlier,  in 
that  perfectly  damning  report  about  the  state 
of  mental  health  services  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  al- 
ready indicated  to  the  members  that  the  re- 
ports are  all  being  given  a  great  deal  of 
attention. 


5236 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


AID  TO  PENSIONERS 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  member 
for  Beaches-Woodbine  (Ms.  Bryden)  asked  a 
question  the  day  before  yesterday  with  respect 
to  tax  grants  for  senior  citizens,  whether  the 
computer  check  on  applications,  which  was 
designed  to  prevent  payments  to  deceased 
persons  or  to  ineligible  persons  or  to  possibly 
fraudulent  applicants,  had  been  suspended 
and  whether  anyone  was  auditing  the  appli- 
cations before  payments. 

The  computer  check  on  applications  has  not 
been  suspended.  All  applications  received  are 
computer-checked  against  the  computer  tape 
of  Ontario  recipients  provided  by  the  old  age 
security  office  in  July.  Anyone  on  that  tape 
is  eligible  to  apply  for  and  receive  a  property 
tax  grant  if  he  pays  rent  or  property  taxes 
and  does  not  reside  in  an  institution.  If  they 
subsequently  pass  away,  if  deceased,  the 
estate  is  entitled  to  receive  the  grant. 

It  has  happened  that  a  grant  was  paid  to 
a  deceased  person  rather  than  to  the  eligible 
spouse.  This  is  a  result  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  federal  OAS  computer  tape  is  con- 
structed. Our  systems  are  being  refined  to 
reduce  this  occurrence  to  a  minimum.  If  the 
individual  does  not  appear  on  the  OAS  tape, 
the  grant  is  not  paid  until  it  is  thoroughly 
investigated. 

PHYSICAL  EDUCATION 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Education  and 
Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities,  if  I 
can  get  her  attention. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  in  1975  the  Cana- 
dian Medical  Association  declared  its  sup- 
port for  increased  physical  activity  in  the 
school  curriculum,  in  view  of  the  ever- 
increasing  costs  of  health  services,  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  physical  education  is 
not  a  compulsory  subject  in  our  secondary 
school  system,  in  the  interests  of  a  better 
physically  fit  youth  will  the  minister  once 
again  make  physical  education  a  compul- 
sory subject  in  our  schools? 

I  am  interested  in  physical  education  for 
the  masses  and  not  the  classes,  because  the 
classes  are  being  taken  care  of  by  the 
Ministry   of  Culture  and   Recreation. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
matter  of  physical  education  as  a  manda- 
tory or  choice  subject  within  the  secondary 
schools  is  one  that  has  been  discussed,  as 
the  honourable  member  notes,  for  the  past 
several  years.  There  is  not  any  doubt  that 
there  are  medical  evidences  that  increased 
physical  activity  does  provide  some  prophy- 


lactic support  for  the  human  condition  and 
may  serve  as  therapy  for  many  of  the  ills 
of  young  people  and  those  of  elder  years. 

That  matter  has  been  referred  very  clear- 
ly as  a  specific  problem  and  one  to  be 
resolved  to  the  secondary  school  education 
review  project.  I  am  aware  that  four  com- 
mittees are  taking  this  matter  very  seriously. 
I  anticipate  it  will  be  included  in  the  recom- 
mendations that  will  comprise  the  totality 
of  that  project's  report  when  it  is  made  in 
1981. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Is  the  ministry  develop- 
ing or  has  it  developed  any  testing  pro- 
cedures so  that  comparisons  can  be  made 
and  will  be  able  to  be  made  in  the  future 
as  to  the  physical  wellbeing  of  our  youth? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  There  are  a 
number  of  agencies,  groups  and  expert 
organizations  that  have  developed  testing 
procedures.  Many  of  these  have  been  looked 
at  by  those  involved  in  physical  and  health 
education.  I  believe  we  have  a  series  of 
those  available  to  us  at  this  point.  I  am  not 
at  all  sure  that  the  ministry  should  be  re- 
inventing the  wheel  at  this  stage  of  the 
game  but  utilizing  what  has  been  developed 
by  experts  in  other  areas. 
3  p.m. 

One  of  the  questions  I  would  like  to  have 
answered  by  secondary  school  students  and 
by  teachers  is  whether  we  might  increase 
their  physical  fitness  if  we  allowed  them  to 
walk  a  little  more  rather  than  putting  them 
on  buses  quite  so  frequently. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Well,  what  is 
wrong  with  that? 

SUPERMARKET    PRICING    SYSTEMS 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question  is 
to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commer- 
cial Relations.  First,  I  would  like  to  send 
him  a  petition  with  106  names  on  it,  relative 
to  computer  checkouts,  concerning  errors  and 
objections  to  the  removal  of  price  tags.  Has 
the  minister  been  doing  any  comprehensive 
monitoring  of  the  computer  checkout  systems 
in  supermarkets  to  determine  the  degree  of 
price  errors  and  overcharging  to  consumers? 
If  he  has,  what  are  the  results  and  will  he 
explain  his  monitoring  system? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
know  whether  the  member  can  hear  me,  but 
I  cannot  hear  him. 

Mr.  Swart:  Perhaps  I  should  put  the  ques- 
tion again  then.  I  am  not  usually  accused 
of  having  too  low  a  voice.   My  question  to 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5237 


the  minister  was,  has  he  been  doing  any 
comprehensive  monitoring  of  the  computer 
checkout  systems  in  supermarkets  to  deter- 
mine the  degree  of  price  errors  and  over- 
charging to  consumers?  If  so,  what  are  the 
results  and  will  he  explain  his  monitoring 
program? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  want  to  make  sure  I 
understand  what  the  member  is  talking 
about.  I  will  answer  the  question  tomorrow 
and  give  him  all  the  papers  in  advance. 
Mr.  Swart:  Supplementary- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  member  have  any- 
thing he  wishes  to  add  to  his  initial  ques- 
tion? It  has  been  taken  as  notice. 

Mr.  Swart:  Yes.  Will  the  minister  par- 
ticularly check  the  experience  of  the  Con- 
sumers in  Action  group,  which  has  been  do- 
ing this  kind  of  a  study?  For  example,  a 
Mrs.  Dorothy  Hill  of  24  Camberley  Crescent 
in  Brampton  kept  track  for  one  month- 
Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  You  are  getting  into 
a  specific  question,  rather  than  something 
general  you  want  the  minister  to  take  as 
notice.  Can  you  associate  it  with  the  initial 
question? 

Mr.  Swart:  Yes,  I  do,  Mr.  Speaker. 
Mr.  Speaker:  Well,  put  it  forthwith. 
Mr.  Swart:  There  was  overcharging  on  the 
scanner.  I  am  asking  whether  the  minister 
will  check  out  the  case  of  Mrs.  Dorothy 
Hill,  24  Camberley  Crescent,  Brampton,  who 
kept  track  for  one  month  of  checkout  slips 
and  found  she  had  11  errors.  She  bought 
groceries  worth  $214.69  and  she  had  an 
$8.70  overcharge.  Other  members  of  Con- 
sumers in  Action  out  there  have  had  similar 
experiences.  It  is  serious.  Will  he  start 
monitoring  and  checking  it  out? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  took  the 
question  as  notice.  I  said  I  would  provide 
the  member  with  information.  Quite  frankly, 
I  had  some  difficulty  following  the  first  part 
of  his  question. 

On  the  second  point,  I  do  not  know 
whether  I  have  that  particular  case  but,  if  I 
do,  I  will  say  two  things:  One,  she  will  get 
her  money  back- 
Mr.  Swart:  You  have  the  information 
there. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Why,  if  the  member  fust 
handed  it  to  me,  would  he  ask  what  I  was 
doing  about  it? 

UNIVERSITY  ADMISSION 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Uni- 
versities, with  respect  to  the  new  admission 


requirements  of  the  University  of  Toronto 
which  will  affect  students  making  their  course 
choices  in  January  1981. 

Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  University  of 
Toronto's  decision  to  restrict  the  use  of  some 
grade  13  credits,  including  family  studies, 
accounting  and  marketing?  Is  the  minister 
concerned  that  subjects  approved  by  her 
Ministry  of  Education  now  are  being  rejected 
by  the  University  of  Toronto  for  admission? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
answers  are  yes  and  yes. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Given  that  the  minister  has 
launched  a  secondary  school  review  program, 
does  she  not  think  the  timing  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Toronto's  decision  is  inappropriate? 
Will  the  minister  not  request  the  university 
to  delay  its  decision,  or  its  implementation 
of  that  decision,  at  least  until  the  report  of 
the  secondary  school  review  panel  is  in, 
since  they  may  be  making  decisions  in  that 
very  same  area? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  understanding  that  this  is  a  recommenda- 
tion of  a  committee  which  has  not  as  yet 
been  accepted  by  either  the  senate  or  the 
governing  body  of  the  university.  The  hon- 
ourable member  may  be  interested  to  know 
that  some  discussions  are  going  on  right  now 
between  representatives  of  the  university  staff 
and  my  ministry. 

MINISTER'S  COMMENTS 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
question  of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and 
Food;  I  hope  I  can  rescue  him  from  behind 
the  benches  there. 

In  a  recent  speech  to  a  group  of  150 
farmers  down  near  Kingston,  the  Minister  of 
Agriculture  and  Food  is  reported  to  have 
told  them  that,  within  three  decades,  Kings- 
ton and  Brockville  will  have  small  nuclear 
generating  stations.  Then  the  report  adds, 
"The  nuclear  stations  will  make  use  of 
Ontario's  ample  uranium  deposits,  while 
waste  cooling  water  will  be  used  to  heat 
cities  and  possibly  create  a  new  domestic  in- 
dustry, shrimp  farming." 

Since  the  minister,  in  all  fairness,  said  this 
was  not  government  policy  but  his  own  per- 
sonal view,  may  I  ask  him  whether  he  is 
aware  of  any— I  underline  "any"— planning 
with  the  Ministry  of  Energy  or  Ontario  Hydro 
for  fulfilment  of  his  rather  fanciful  proposi- 
tion? Second,  is  it  possible  the  minister  is 
trying  to  develop  an  industry  to  replace  all 
the  commercial  fishing  in  the  Great  Lakes, 
which  experts  now  tell  us  is  likely  going  to 
be  killed  off  by  dioxin? 


5238 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  No,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  No  to  what? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Both  The  honourable 
member  asked  two  questions,  and  the  answer 
to  both  is  no. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  In  other  words,  there  are 
no  ideas  backing  the  minister's? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  The  member  quali- 
fied it  off  the  bat.  It  was  my  statement,  and 
not  the  government's;  it  was  my  own  idea. 

GOVERNMENT  ADVERTISING 

Mr.  Bradley:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion on  government  advertising  for  the  Treas- 
urer. I  was  thinking  of  asking  it  of  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr.  Gross- 
man), but  I  think  I  will  direct  it  to  the  Treas- 
urer since  he  controls  the  funds.  Will  the 
Treasurer  indicate  to  the  House  whether  the 
government  of  Ontario  has  any  special  pro- 
gram designed  for  the  advertising  of  its  vari- 
ous ministries  and  programs  from  now,  when 
the  House  prorogues,  let  us  say,  until  March 
or  April,  and  will  he  assure  the  House  that 
he  does  not  intend  to  allow  an  undue  amount 
of  money  to  be  spent  on  advertising  when  we 
in  the  House  are  not  here  to  reprimand  the 
government  for  this  practice? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  The  effectiveness  hurts, 
does  it  not?  No,  Mr.  Speaker.  We  never 
permit  undue  advertising. 

Mr.  Bradley:  Will  the  Treasurer  assure 
members  of  the  House  that  there  will  not  be 
a  reallocation  of  funds  from  one  specific 
area  in  a  ministry  to  another  so  that  more 
emphasis  is  placed  on  advertising  in  the  next 
few  months  than  on  programs  which  might 
be  useful  to  the  people  of  Ontario? 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  am  totally  lost  at  this 
point,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  changes  of  moneys 
between  votes  often  occur,  but  they  always 
have  the  stoney  eye  of  the  Management 
Board  of  Cabinet  to  make  sure  we  are  getting 
value.  I  would  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  our  so-called  advertising  programs  in 
the  main  are  factual  information  required  by 
the  people  of  this  province. 
3:10  p.m. 

ALGOMA  UNIVERSITY  COLLEGE 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Uni- 
versities. Is  the  minister  aware  of  a  report 
that  has  been  prepared  for  the  Algoma  Uni- 
versity College  board  of  trustees  and  will  be 


discussed  at  a  meeting  of  that  board  this 
Saturday?  The  report  says:  "There  is  no  doubt 
that  if  the  college  is  to  survive  an  accommo- 
dation will  have  to  be  reached  with  the 
Ministry  of  Colleges  and  Universities.  The 
only  alternative  is  closure." 

If  the  minister  is  aware  of  that,  is  she 
prepared  to  give  favourable  consideration  to 
any  request  for  funding  to  put  Algoma  Uni- 
versity College  finally  on  a  footing  that  will 
allow  it  to  operate  at  cost  levels  where  it  will 
be  able  to  meet  its  program  obligations  to 
Sault  Ste.  Marie  and  Algoma  without  having 
continually  to  seek  special  funding  on  a  short- 
term  basis? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
my  belief  that  there  are  two  reports  to  be 
discussed  at  that  meeting  on  Saturday.  I  do 
not  know  the  exact  content  of  either  of  those 
reports.  It  is  the  responsibility  of  that  board 
to  make  decisions  and  recommendations.  I 
anticipate  when  they  do  that  they  will  be 
considered  very  seriously  by  both  the  ministry 
and  myself. 

URANIUM  CONTRACTS 

Mr.  Sargent:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Premier.  In  view  of  the  most  re- 
cent news  that  the  bottom  has  fallen  out  of 
the  uranium  market  and  the  price  of  uranium 
has  dropped  well  below  $30  a  pound,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  Premier  personally  rushed 
the  select  committee  into  signing  a  $7.5- 
billion  contract  on  behalf  of  Hydro,  as  I 
found  out,  at  $30  to  $60  a  pound  with 
Denison,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  had 
been  informed  by  the  reports  of  the  commit- 
tee about  massive  new  discoveries  and  de- 
posits, will  he,  facing  this  shocking  indictment 
of  himself,  his  government  and  Hydro,  which 
is  paying  40  per  cent  more  now  for  Denison's 
uranium— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  And  in  conclusion- 
Mr.  Sargent:  You  smart  ass.  Mr.  Speaker, 
will  the  Premier  tell  the  people  of  Ontario 
why  he  will  not  take  immediate  steps  to  call 
for  an  opinion  or  a  full-scale  inquiry  to  show 
cause  why  we  cannot  renegotiate  this  scan- 
dalous contract,  which  will  cost  us  hundreds 
of  millions  or  billions  of  dollars  before  its 
completion? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  recollec- 
tion is  I  did  not  rush  the  select  committee 
into  anything.  I  have  learned  around  this 
House  never  to  rush  a  select  committee  into 
anything.  They  take  their  own  time  and 
proper  deliberation  and  assess  those  contracts 
very  carefully  and  very  thoroughly.  That  is 
my  recollection. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5239 


Mr.  Sargent:  It  is  a  matter  of  record. 
There  is  a  letter  from  the  Premier  to  the 
member  for  York  South  (Mr.  MacDonald), 
the  chairman  of  the  committee,  giving  him 
a  date  to  hurry  it  through,  because  he  had 
a  deadline. 

I  want  to  ask  the  Premier,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  to  save  its  life,  Westinghouse  of 
the  United  States,  a  multibillion-dollar 
corporation,  had  to  renegotiate  through  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Ontario  billions  of  dol- 
lars' worth  of  contracts  to  get  out  of  their 
uranium  contracts,  is  there  any  reason  why 
he  cannot  do  the  same  thing  here  on  behalf 
of  the  people  of  Ontario?  Why  can  he  not 
do  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  think  the  answer  to 
that  is  very  simple:  I  cannot. 

COMMENT  BY 
MEMBER  FOR  OAKWOOD 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yesterday  afternoon  the 
Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith) 
took  exception  to  a  comment  made  by  the 
member  for  Oakwood  (Mr.  Grande).  I  have 
checked  the  record  to  confirm  what  was 
said  by  the  member  for  Oakwood  in  ques- 
tion period  yesterday  afternoon.  The  mem- 
ber for  Oxford  said  in  part- 
Mr.  Nixon:  He  should  withdraw  too. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Excuse  me,  Oakwood.  This 
is  my  own  writing. 

The  member  for  Oakwood  said  in  part: 
"Has  the  Premier  talked  to  the  federal 
Minister  of  Immigration?  If  he  has,  what 
was  the  response?  If  he  has  not,  does  he 
realize  he  is  allowing  Stuarts-come-lately  to 
exploit  the  issue  for  political   purposes?" 

As  all  members  know,  there  is  very  little 
that  goes  on  in  this  chamber  that  is  not  of 
some  political  significance.  But  to  suggest 
that  the  words  or  the  initiative  of  the 
member  for  Hamilton  West  (Mr.  S.  Smith) 
are  less  than  honourable  in  the  Italian 
earthquake  tragedy  is  unbecoming  of  any 
member  of  this  House.  I  would  therefore 
ask  the  member  for  Oakwood  to  withdraw 
the  remark  without  equivocation. 

Mr.  Grande:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  you  deem  it 
necessary,  and  you  have  deemed  it  neces- 
sary, for  me  to  withdraw,  I  shall  do  so. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  thank  the  honourable 
member  very  much. 

LEGISLATIVE  PAGES 

Mr.  Speaker:  As  is  the  custom  in  this 
House  when  we  have  a  group  of  pages 
serving  with  us  who  are  about  to  leave,  as 


it  is  hoped  they  will  tomorrow— not  because 
I  want  them  to  leave  but  because  I  want 
to  leave— I  am  going  to  read  their  names 
into  the  record. 

They  are  as  follows:  David  Allan,  Sarnia; 
Geoffrey  Atkins,  York  Centre;  Denyse 
Cousineau,  Cochrane  South;  Russ  Dobie, 
Muskoka^  Kathleen  ffolliot,  London  North; 
Chrisandra  Firth,  Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; 
Jane  Gelberg,  Wellington  South;  Peter 
Hajmasy,  Welland-Thorold;  Janet  Harding, 
Oshawa;  Drew  Hasselback,  Huron-Middle- 
sex; Klara  Kuchar,  York  West;  Scott  Losee, 
Cambridge;  Donna  Le  Madill,  Simcoe 
Centre;  Shivon  Mason,  Nipissing;  Margot 
McKinnon,  St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick;  David 
Milne,  Grey;  John  Pawluk,  Huron-Bruce; 
Michael  Ross,  Eglinton;  Susan  Sheridan, 
Durham-York;  Mark  Smithyes,  York  North; 
Colin  Umbach,  Carleton  East;  and  Theresa 
Vanhaverbeke,   Durham  East. 

Will  you  please  thank  them  for  their 
service. 

QUESTIONS  ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Mr.  Gaunt:  On  a  point  of  privilege,  Mr. 
Speaker,  if  I  may:  I  have  an  inquiry  of  the 
Minister  of  the  Environment  listed  on  the 
Order  Paper  listed  as  question  317.  It  was 
indicated  the  approximate  date  of  the  infor- 
mation being  available  was  November  30. 
Since  we  are  presumably  going  to  prorogue 
tomorrow,  can  I  assume  that  information  will 
be  available  tomorrow? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  been 
sending  back  answers  to  questions  pretty 
routinely  for  the  last  two  weeks.  I  am  not 
familiar  with  that  one,  but  I  will  give  the 
member  every  possible  assurance  we  will 
make  a  100  per  cent  effort  to  do  so. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  there  have 
been  a  number  of  questions  on  the  Order 
Paper  that  were  originally  supposed  to  be 
answered  on  October  21,  particularly  relating 
to  the  advertising  budgets  of  the  various 
ministries.  I  wonder  whether  those  will  be 
answered  and  whether  the  government  House 
leader  can  give  us  assurance  that  all  the  ques- 
tions on  the  Order  Paper  will  be  answered 
before  we  prorogue  tomorrow. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  diffi- 
cult assurance  to  give  but  as  many  as  possi- 
ble will  certainly  be  answered. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  particular, 
will  there  be  an  answer  to  question  433  from 
the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (Mr. 
Grossman)?  If  it  is  not  ready,  will  he  send  it 
to  my  home?   I   think  everyone   in   Ontario 


5240 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


wants  to  know  whether  he  is  considered  a 
shirt-and-tie  person? 

PETITION 

LIQUID  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
petition  addressed  to  the  Honourable  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  of  the  Legislative  As- 
sembly of  Ontario. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  would  like  to  hear 
this  petition. 
3:20  p.m. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  I  herewith  present  on 
behalf  of  my  constituents  in  the  Haldimand- 
Norfolk  area  the  attached  petition  with  at 
least  12,000  names,  which  have  been  solicited 
in  the  past  few  days.  The  petition  reads: 

"Whereas  representatives  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  have  acknowledged  that  an 
area  of  the  former  township  of  South  Cayuga, 
now  part  of  the  town  of  Haldimand,  in  the 
regional  municipality  of  Haldimand-Norfolk 
is  under  study  as  a  possible  waste  disposal 
site"— that  is  an  understatement;  the  decision 
was  made— "and  whereas  it  is  clear  that  the 
area  under  consideration  is  agricultural  land 
and  for  this  and  other  reasons  is  not  suitable 
for  a  waste  disposal  site,  we,  the  undersigned, 
are  absolutely  opposed  to  any  area  in  the 
former  township  of  South  Cayuga  being  used 
or  considered  for  use  as  a  waste  disposal  site, 
and  we  are  tabling  this  today  before  the 
House  and  before  the  government  of  Ontario." 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  very  serious  petition.  I 
hope  the  government  responds  to  the  demo- 
cratic system  so  that  the  people  in  my  area 
are  treated  fairly  and  responsibly. 

REPORTS 

SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON  PLANT 

SHUTDOWNS  AND  EMPLOYEE 

ADJUSTMENT 

Mr.  McCaffrey  from  the  select  committee 
on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjust- 
ment presented  the  committee's  second  in- 
terim report  and  moved  its  adoption. 

Mr.  McCaffrey:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  under 
the  impression,  and  I  want  my  colleagues 
from  the  committee  and  in  the  assembly  to 
be  equally  aware  of  it,  that  tonight  at  eight 
o'clock,  we  will  have  one  hour  to  speak  to 
this  interim  report.  I  would  encourage  any 
people  who  feel  there  are  still  some  matters 
to  be  dealt  with  to  do  so  at  eight  o'clock 
when  we  will  have  an  opportunity. 


On  motion  by  Mr.  McCaffrey,  the  debate 
was  adjourned. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
GENERAL  GOVERNMENT 

Mr.  Leluk,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Cureatz, 
from  the  standing  committee  on  general 
government,  presented  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amounts  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Management 
Board  be  granted  to  Her  Majesty  for  the 
fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1981:  ministry 
administration  program,  $163,606,400;  policy 
development  and  analysis  program,  $5,903,- 
300;  management  audit  program,  $440,000; 
employee  relations  program,  $861,100;  and 
government  personnel  services  program, 
$448,000. 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
REGULATIONS  AND  OTHER 
STATUTORY  INSTRUMENTS 

Mr.  Williams  from  the  standing  committee 
on  regulations  and  other  statutory  instru- 
ments presented  the  committee's  second  re- 
port and,  pursuant  to  standing  order  30(b), 
requested  that  this  report  be  placed  on  the 
Order  Paper  for  consideration. 

Mr.  Williams:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  might, 
I  would  simply  like  to  take  a  few  moments 
to  highlight  the  current  report  before  you 
by  pointing  out  that  there  were  five  matters 
addressed  in  the  report  on  this  particular 
occasion. 

The  committee  received  the  interim  re- 
port on  the  first  Commonwealth  Conference 
on  Delegated  Legislation,  which  the  chair- 
man of  the  committee  had  the  opportunity 
to  attend  and  report  on  on  an  interim  basis. 
This  is  setting  the  ground  work  for  future 
consideration  as  to  the  comparative  systems 
that  exist  throughout  the  Commonwealth 
which  will  be  discussed  in  depth  at  the  next 
sittings  of  the  committee. 

With  regard  to  the  major  thrust  of  the 
responsibilities  of  the  committee,  that  is,  the 
vetting  of  the  regulations,  I  would  advise 
that  through  the  good  offices  of  our  legal 
counsel  to  the  committee,  Lachlan  McTavish, 
QC,  we  can  now  report  to  the  House  that 
the  regulations  are  current  up  to  September 
30,  1980.  The  750  regulations  that  were 
enacted  during  1980  up  to  that  point  have 
been  vetted  and  considered  by  legal  coun- 
sel and/ or  the  committee.  Those  regulations 
which  the  committee  felt  should  be  cited 
for  particular  consideration  are  set  out  in 
the  report  and  will  be  addressed  at  the  time 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5241 


that  this  report  is  considered  in  greater 
depth  in  debate  in  this  Legislature. 

The  other  two  matters  I  wish  to  bring  to 
your  attention  are  that  the  committee  is  re- 
questing special  consideration  to  meet  at  the 
call  of  the  chair  to  hold  hearings  between 
sessions  of  the  Legislature.  We  feel  there 
are  circumstances  under  which  it  could  be 
justified,  and  chapter  four  of  the  report  in- 
dicates the  circumstances  under  which  we 
would  ask  favourable  consideration  for  this 
extended  authority. 

The  report  highlights  the  work  in  progress. 
There  are  three  matters  receiving  specific 
attention  from  the  committee.  One  is  con- 
sideration of  the  use  of  the  notice  and  com- 
ment procedure,  which  has  also  been  the 
subject  matter  of  the  recent  report  of  the 
Commission  on  Freedom  of  Information  and 
Individual  Privacy. 

Second,  the  committee  will  be  reviewing 
in  further  depth  the  comparative  procedures 
and  activities  of  the  other  Commonwealth 
regulatory  committees  which  attended  at 
the  Commonwealth  conference  I  referred  to 
a  few  moments  ago. 

Last,  but  not  least,  the  committee  will 
continue  the  vetting  of  regulations  to  en- 
sure that  they  are  kept  current  and  that 
this  House  is  informed  accordingly. 

Having  highlighted  the  report  in  this 
fashion,  I  conclude  my  remarks  on  behalf 
of  the  members  of  the  committee,  thanking, 
again,  Lachlan  McTavish,  QC,  for  his  care- 
ful attention  to  the  regulations,  and  the 
clerk  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Forsyth,  for  the 
manner  in  which  he  was  able  to  produce 
this  report  so  quickly  for  us  so  we  could 
table  it  today. 

MOTIONS 

ORDER  OF  BUSINESS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  private  mem- 
bers' business  will  not  be  taken  up  today,  the 
time  to  be  used  for  government  legislation. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

PRIVATE  MEMBERS'  BALLOTS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that,  notwithstand- 
ing the  prorogation  of  this  House,  private 
members'  ballot  business  in  the  fifth  session 
follow  the  order  of  precedence  for  the  fourth 
session. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

COMMITTEE  MEETINGS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  standing 
committee  on  social  development  be  author- 


ized to  sit  this  afternoon  for  consideration  of 
the  annual  report  of  the  Ministry  of  Health 
for  1978-79. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  standing 
committee  on  general  government  sit  to- 
morrow morning,  December  12,  1980,  for 
consideration  of  supplementary  estimates  re- 
ferred to  it. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

APPOINTMENT  OF  MEMBER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  Mr.  Mitchell 
be  appointed  to  the  standing  committee  on 
general  government. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  224,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Environmental 
Protection  Act,  1971. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  not 
likely  to  be  possible  to  have  second  and  third 
reading  of  this  bill.  I  hope  the  committee, 
in  its  deliberations  in  the  new  year,  will  look 
at  it  and  give  it  the  benefit  of  their  consid- 
eration. 

SUCCESSION  LAW  ACT 

Mr.  S.  Smith  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
225,  An  Act  respecting  the  Succession  to 
Estates  of  Deceased  Persons  in  Ontario  who 
have  Beneficiaries  residing  in  Designated 
Countries. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  purpose  of 
this  bill  is  to  ensure  that  payments  from  the 
estates  of  persons  domiciled  in  Ontario  at  the 
time  of  death  are  not  made  to  foreign  bene- 
ficiaries who  are  unlikely  to  receive,  for  their 
whole  benefit  or  use,  substantially  the  full 
value  of  any  payments  made  under  the  estate, 
and  who  reside  in  certain  countries  designated 
by  regulation. 

The  bill  provides  for  an  application  to  be 
made  to  a  court  for  an  order  permitting  pay- 
ments to  a  foreign  beneficiary.  The  court  may 
also  order  that  no  payment  be  made  to  a 
foreign  beneficiary,  in  which  case  the  court 
shall  make  an  order  disposing  of  the  estate 
in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  succession 
contained  in  the  Succession  Law  Reform  Act, 
1977,  with  necessary  modifications. 


5242 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


NORTH  COCHRANE  DISTRICT 
LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
226,  An  Act  respecting  Local  Government 
in  the  District  of  Cochrane. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

INSURED  HEALTH 
SERVICES  ACT 

Mr.  Philip  moved  first  reading  of  Bill  227, 
An  Act  respecting  Insured  Services  under  the 
Ontario  Health  Insurance  Plan. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Philip:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill  is  self- 
explanatory. 

ENVIRONMENT  STATUTES 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
228,  An  Act  to  amend  certain  acts  respecting 
the  Environment. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON    NOTICE    PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  wish  to  table  the 
answers  to  questions  367,  401,  409,  420,  430 
and  433  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper.  (See 
appendix.) 

BUSINESS  OF  THE  HOUSE 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the 
orders  of  the  day,  I  thought  I  might  outline 
to  the  House  the  order  of  business  for  this 
afternoon,  this  evening  and  tomorrow, 
subject  to  changes. 

This  afternoon  the  House  has  dispensed 
with  private  members'  business  and  we  are 
proceeding  with  government  legislation  as  on 
the  Order  Paper.  There  is  to  be  a  slight 
change  in  the  order  as  printed  on  the  Order 
Paper.  The  order  is  to  be  Bill  205,  followed 
by  Bill  192,  Bill  Pr36  and  Bill  Prl8.  Then 
we  will  go  into  committee  of  the  whole 
House  for  Bill  172,  followed  by  Bill  193, 
Bill  201,  Bill  204,  Bill  214,  Bill  215,  Bill  221 
and,  if  time  is  still  permitting,  Bill  216. 

It  has  also  been  agreed  that  tonight,  be- 
tween the  hours  of  eight  and  nine  o'clock, 
there  Will  be  a  short  debate  on  the  report 
that  has  just  been  tabled  from  the  select 
committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee 
adjustment.  Legislation  will  commence  again 
after  nine  o'clock  and  go  until  adjournment. 

Tomorrow  morning,  following  routine  pro- 
ceedings,  we   can   clean   up    any   legislation 


that  is  still  on  the  list,  followed  by  concur- 
rences, budget  windups,  supply  bill  and 
prorogation. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

DENTURE  THERAPISTS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Turner,  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Mr. 
Timbrell,  moved  second  reading  of  Bill  205, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Denture  Therapists 
Act. 

Mr.  Turner:  Mr.  Speaker,  denture  therapy 
is  a  relatively  new  practice  that  is  governed 
by  an  appointed  board.  However,  there  are 
several  members  of  a  board  who  are  coming 
to  the  end  of  their  appointments.  Under  the 
Denture  Therapists  Act,  1974,  they  cannot 
be  reappointed  because  of  a  six-year  mem- 
bership restriction. 

Since  the  present  members  are  so  familiar 
with  the  issues  that  affect  the  practice  of 
denture  therapy,  on  behalf  of  the  minister  I 
am  moving  an  amendment  to  the  act  to  per- 
mit members  to  serve  more  than  six  con- 
secutive years  ;and  to  be  reappointed  for 
one-,  two-  and  three-year  terms. 

We  believe  this  amendment  will  enable 
the  board  of  denture  therapists  to  continue 
to  discharge  responsibilities  in  an  effective 
and  knowledgeable  manner. 

Mr.  Conway:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  parlance 
of  Parliament,  I  recognize  this  as  a  house- 
keeping bill  to  which  my  colleagues  and  I 
take  no  exception.  Notwithstanding  my  on- 
going desire  to  have  these  kinds  of  boards 
investigated  at  some  considerable  length  by 
our  esteemed  standing  committee  on  social 
development,  I  am  pleased  to  give  my  sup- 
port and  that  of  my  caucus  for  its  speedy 
passage  here  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Breaugh:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  agree. 

Mr.  Turner:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  spirit  of 
the  season,  I  just  want  to  say  thank  you  on 
behalf  of  the  minister  and  myself. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

TORONTO  HOSPITAL  STEAM 
CORPORATION    AMENDMENT   ACT 

Mr.  Rotenberg,  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Mr. 
Wells,  moved  second  reading  of  Bill  192, 
An  Act  to  revise  the  Toronto  Hospital  Steam 
Corporation  Act. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  move  second  reading  of  this  bill  today, 
the  Toronto  district  heating  bill.  This  House 
is  aware  that  this  bill  is  a  product  of  several 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5243 


years  of  consultation  resulting  in  consensus 
among  numerous  parties.  This  bill  is  permis- 
sive. It  enables  the  parties  involved  to  enter 
into  agreements  to  effect  integration  of  their 
steam  heating  systems. 
3:40  p.m. 

The  Minister  of  Interprovincial  Affairs 
(Mr.  Wells)  has  written  to  some  35  inte- 
rested parties  in  the  past  several  weeks, 
including  the  city  of  Toronto,  the  municipality 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto,  the  labour  unions 
involved,  the  participants  to  integration  and 
several  government  ministries  to  solicit  com- 
ments on  Bill  192,  which  was  introduced 
about  a  month  ago. 

The  ministry  has  received  comments  on 
the  bill  from  the  city  of  Toronto,  Toronto 
Hydro,  the  Canadian  Union  of  Public  Em- 
ployees, the  hospitals,  the  Ministry  of  Treas- 
ury and  Economics,  the  Ministry  of  Energy, 
the  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  and 
the  University  of  Toronto.  All  of  them  have 
expressed  general  satisfaction  with  Bill  192, 
and  we  have  had  no  criticism  from  other 
interested  parties.  The  government  is  of  the 
opinion  that  all  those  affected  by  this  bill 
are  in  fundamental  agreement  with  it. 

This  bill  had  its  beginning  in  a  Ministry 
of  the  Environment  control  order,  which 
found  the  Toronto  Hydro-Electric  Commis- 
sioners plant  at  Pearl  Street  to  be  below  air 
pollution  standards.  Two  options  were  given 
to  the  commission:  either  to  build  a  taller 
stack  or  to  shut  down  the  Pearl  Street  plant 
and  to  integrate  the  Toronto  Hydro-Electric 
Commission  system  with  the  university  sys- 
tem, the  hospital  system  and  the  Queen's 
Park  system.  The  latter  route  was  chosen 
and  an  agreement  was  reached  to  integrate 
the  four  existing  steam  systems. 

The  Walton  Street  plant,  which  currently 
supplies  steam  to  the  hospitals,  will  be  the 
flagship  supplier  of  steam  to  the  system.  The 
Pearl  Street  plant  will  be  used  only  as  a 
peaking  plant.  The  university  will  be  a  trading 
partner  in  the  new  steam  corporation  and 
will  be  physically  linked  to  the  system.  The 
Whitney  plant  at  Queen's  Park  will  be  shut 
down  because  it  is  antiquated. 

The  cost  of  interconnecting  pipes  to  inte- 
grate the  four  systems  will  be  covered  by  the 
higher  steam  rates  to  the  present  downtown 
customers.  It  is  in  their  economic  interests  to 
pay  the  higher  cost  of  integration  rather  than 
to  pay  the  even  higher  costs  for  a  taller 
stack  or  relocation  of  the  steam  plan. 

The  corporation's  affairs  will  be  managed 
by  a  board  composed  of  representatives  from 
the  city  of  Toronto,  the  province  of  Ontario, 
the  University  of  Toronto,  and  the  Toronto 


Hydro-Electric  Commission  steam  division. 
The  proposed  legislation  enables  the  partici- 
pants to  make  contractual  arrangements  and 
will  take  full  effect  when  the  contracts  are 
agreed  to. 

Physical  integration  of  the  four  existing 
heating  systems  will  create  a  higher  level  of 
security  of  supply  and,  eventually,  lower 
rates  for  all  participants.  Furthermore,  inte- 
gration will  reduce  air  pollutants  in  the  down- 
town area,  save  energy  and  eventually  help 
to  solve  the  solid  waste  disposal  problem  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto. 

The  long-range  objective  of  this  integra- 
tion will  be  to  create  a  large  enough  demand 
for  steam  in  a  single  system  to  make  a  refuse- 
fired  district  heating  plant  economical.  This 
bill  is  permissive,  allowing  the  new  corpora- 
tion and/or  the  city  of  Toronto  to  construct 
such  a  plant. 

This  Toronto  district  heating  bill  is  part  of 
a  government  policy  to  encourage  munic- 
ipalities and  private  institutions  to  get  in- 
volved with  waste  recovery  and  district  heat- 
ing systems.  There  are  ongoing  studies  re- 
lated to  refuse-fired  district  heating  plants  in 
Ottawa-Carleton,  North  Bay,  Sudbury,  St. 
Catharines,  Niagara,  Thorold,  and  London. 

I  would  like  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  House  that  the  Metropolitan  and  Toronto 
waste  management  master  plan  for  Metro- 
politan Toronto  has  shown  that  waste  re- 
covery systems  are  economical  when  ele- 
ments of  normal  waste  disposal  costs  are 
factored  into  the  economic  analysis.  This  re- 
inforces the  thinking  of  a  number  of  people 
over  the  past  decade,  that  waste  recovery 
and  district  heating  systems  are  the  way  of 
the  future. 

As  I  indicated,  this  bill  is  permissive  and 
will  allow  the  parties  to  enter  into  agree- 
ments and  to  get  on  with  the  job.  I  ask  for 
support  from  the  House  for  this  legislation. 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  our  party  has  no 
difficulty  in  supporting  the  principle  of  this 
bill  and,  in  fact,  commends  the  ministry  for 
bringing  it  forward. 

What  this  bill  does  is  to  integrate  a  system 
of  heating  involving  some  sizeable  players; 
namely,  the  University  of  Toronto,  Queen's 
Park,  the  Toronto  Hydro-Electric  Commission 
and  the  Toronto  Hospital  Steam  Corporation 
which,  as  we  all  know,  includes  several  size- 
able hospitals. 

The  city  of  Toronto,  which  provided  the 
impetus  and  the  incentive  for  this,  should  be 
commended  for  its  leadership  role.  I  am  sur- 
prised that  it  was  not  the  government,  which 
has  indicated  from  time  to  time  that  it  is  in 
favour  of  preserving  and  conserving  Ontario, 


5244 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


but  the  city  of  Toronto  that  took  the  leader- 
ship role  in  this  respect. 

The  system,  through  which  important 
changes  can  dispose  of  up  to  25  per  cent  of 
Metro's  refuse  by  burning  it,  thereby  generat- 
ing both  heat  and  electricity,  must  have  a  lot 
going  for  it.  Not  only  that,  but  the  proposed 
system  will  provide  more  flexibility  in  using 
cheaper  or  more  available  fuels  such  as  coal, 
gas  and  oil. 

We  are  told  that  the  burning  of  garbage 
rather  than  other  fuels,  such  as  the  ones  I 
have  mentioned,  could  save  the  equivalent  of 
418,000  barrels  of  oil  per  year,  equal  to 
heating  about  1,400  homes.  This  obviously 
is  a  step  in  the  right  direction.  Not  only  does 
it  help  to  provide  that  additional  heat,  but 
also  it  is  a  form  of  decentralization. 

We  were  also  told  a  greater  security  of 
supply  will  result  and  that  the  air  quality 
will  improve.  We  know  that  businesses  ad- 
joining the  various  pipes  that  are  going  to 
be  laid  or  are  in  the  ground  right  now  will 
be  able  to  connect  into  this  particular  system 
and  will  be  able  to  benefit  from  the  system. 
This  project  has  the  support  of  various  organ- 
izations, as  the  parliamentary  assistant  has 
indicated,  particularly,  we  might  note,  of 
the  unions  which  have  been  closely  associated 
with  the  formation  of  the  new  system.  We 
hope,  once  this  legislation  is  passed,  the  de- 
tails will  be  worked  out  quickly  and  the 
improved  Toronto  district  heating  system  will 
become  a  reality. 

I  also  wish  to  pay  tribute  to  the  members 
of  the  various  organizations,  the  hospitals,  the 
government,  the  city  of  Toronto  and  the 
Toronto  Hydro-Electric  Commission  who  have 
played  an  important  part  in  bringing  this 
to  the  attention  of  the  government  and  in  the 
reality  of  the  new  system  which  will  benefit 
a  lot  of  people  in  the  years  to  come. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  rise  in  support  of  the  bill  and  to 
speak  briefly,  I  promise,  in  that  support. 

We  have  been  waiting  a  long  time  for  the 
bill  to  come  forward.  We  have  waited  a  long 
time  for  it  to  be  introduced  after  we  knew 
all  the  agreements  had  been  worked  out.  We 
have  been  waiting  to  get  ourselves  on  the 
Order  Paper  for  quite  some  time  as  well.  I 
am  pleased  it  is  here  today  and  I  have  no 
intention  of  delaying  it  even  for  a  second. 

What  we  have  before  us  is  the  end  result 
of  some  unique  co-operation  between  a  num- 
ber of  institutions  in  terms  of  rationalization 
of  their  services  and  their  physical  plant.  The 
interaction  by  the  unions  involved  has  also 
been  positive.  The  role  played  by  the  city  and 
city  staff   can   only  be   commended  in   this 


whole  matter.  The  experiment  that  is  under- 
taken through  this  bill,  of  jointly  working 
to  have  more  heat  efficiency  at  a  cheaper  price 
for  these  major  institutions  in  a  geographical 
area  of  the  city  of  Toronto,  is  an  excellent 
example  of  what  can  and  should  be  done  in 
a  lot  of  jurisdictions. 

I  compliment  the  minister  for  having 
brought  in  the  bill.  I  am  glad  we  finally  got  to 
it  before  the  House  ended  and  it  can  now  be 
made  law. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  thank  the  honourable  members  opposite  for 
their  support. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

TOWN  OF  MIDLAND  ACT 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  Pr36,   An  Act  respecting  the  Town  of 
Midland. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  committee  of  the  whole 
House. 

CITY  OF  OTTAWA  ACT 

Mr.  Roy  moved  second  reading  of  Bill 
Prl8,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of  Ottawa. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered    for     committee     of    the     whole 
House. 
3:50  p.m. 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

TOWN  OF  MIDLAND  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  Pr36,  An  Act  re- 
specting the  Town  of  Midland. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  Mr.  Chairman,  perhaps 
I  can  make  some  brief  comments  on  the 
sections  I  wish  to  amend.  I  might  note,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  member  for  Hamilton 
Mountain  (Mr.  Charlton),  that  I  put  the 
amendments  on  his  desk. 

The  bill  is  very  similar  to  a  private  act 
obtained  by  the  city  of  Barrie  in  1961,  and 
it  will  permit  the  town  and  public  utilities 
to  recover  a  portion  of  the  cost  of  various 
works  from  land  owners  who  subsequently 
receive  the  benefit  when  those  land  owners 
apply  to  connect  to  the  works.  The  moneys 
that  are  recovered  will  then  be  paid  to  the 
person  who  originally  paid  for  the  works. 
This  proposed  legislation  will  meet  a  real 
need  in  the  town  of  Midland'.  I  am  pleased 
that  the  honourable  members  have  supported 
it  on  second  reading,  and  I  hope  they  will 
support  my  amendments. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5245 


Since  the  bill  was  reported  by  the  stand- 
ing committee  on  general  government,  fur- 
ther discussions  have  taken  place  between 
the  town  and  the  Ministry  of  Intergovern- 
mental Affairs  and  certain  changes  have  been 
agreed  to.  As  a  result  of  these  discussions, 
I  will  be  introducing  three  motions  in  com- 
mittee. 

The  first  motion  will  amend  section  1(1) 
by  substituting  the  word  "metre"  for  "foot" 
in  the  last  line;  this  will  make  the  bill  con- 
sistent with  all  other  legislation  in  the  use 
of  metric  measurement. 

The  second  motion  will  add  a  new  sub- 
section to  section  1  which  will  allow  the 
town  council  or  the  public  utilities  com- 
mission to  reduce  the  charge  to  a  land 
owner  where  the  council  or  PUC  considers 
the  charge  to  be  excessive.  This  will  add 
flexibility  to  the  legislation  and  will  provide 
relief  to  a  land  owner  in  a  situation  where 
it  would  not  be  equitable  to  apply  a  per 
metre  frontage  charge,  given  the  kind  of 
development  proposed  for  his  lot. 

The  third  motion  will  add  a  new  section 
to  the  bill  which  will,  in  effect,  require  the 
town  or  PUC  to  register  in  the  proper  land 
registry  office  a  copy  of  this  act  and  of  its 
bylaw  containing  a  description  of  all  the 
lands  affected.  This  will  ensure  that  future 
purchasers  of  those  lands  will  be  made 
aware  before  they  complete  the  purchase 
that  their  lands  are  subject  to  a  charge 
under  the  legislation. 

On   section    1: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith 
moves  that  section  1(1)  of  the  bill  be  amend- 
ed by  striking  out  "foot"  in  the  last  line 
and   inserting  in  lieu  thereof  'metre." 

Motion  agreed  to. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith 
moves  that  section  1  of  the  bill  be  amended 
by  adding  thereto  the  following  subsection: 

"(2)  Where  upon  the  application  of  an 
owner  of  a  lot  to  which  subsection  1  applies, 
the  council  of  the  corporation  or  the  public 
utilities  commission  of  the  town  of  Midland 
is  satisfied  that  the  charge  as  determined 
under  subsection  1  is  excessive,  having  re- 
gard to  the  proposed  development  of  the  lot, 
it  may  reduce  the  charge  to  that  owner." 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith  further  moves  that  sub- 
section 2  of  the  said  section  1  be  renum- 
bered as  subsection  3. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Section  1,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Section  2  agreed  to. 

On  section  3: 


The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith 
moves  that  the  bill  be  amended  by  adding 
thereto  the  following  section: 

"3(1)  Where  the  corporation  or  the  public 
utilities  commission  of  the  town  of  Midland 
intends  to  require  the  owner  of  a  lot  to  pay 
the  cost  of  a  work  according  to  the  extent  of 
the  owner's  frontage  pursuant  to  subsection 
1,  the  corporation  or  the  public  utilities  com- 
mission of  the  town  of  Midland,  as  the  case 
may  be,  may  before  passing  the  by-law  that 
requires  the  person  in  the  first  instance  to 
pay  the  entire  cost  of  the  work,register  in 
the  proper  land  registry  office  a  copy  of  this 
act  and  a  copy  of  the  proposed  bylaw  con- 
taining a  description  of  all  the  lands  affected 
sufficient  for  registration. 

"(2)  Sections  1  and  2  do  not  apply  to  any 
lot  or  the  owner  thereof  unless  a  copy  of 
this  act  and  a  copy  of  the  proposed  bylaw 
containing  a  legal  description  of  the  lot 
sufficient  for  registration  has  been  registered 
prior  to  the  passing  of  the  bylaw." 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith  further  moves  that  sec- 
tions 3  to  5  of  the  bill  be  renumbered  as 
sections  4  to  6. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Section  4,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Sections  4  to  6,  inclusive,  as  renumbered, 
agreed  to. 

Bill  Pr36,  as  amended,  reported. 

Mr.  G.  E.  Smith:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  thank  the  honourable  members  for 
supporting   the   amendments. 

CITY  OF  OTTAWA  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  Prl8,  An  Act  respect- 
ing the  City  of  Ottawa. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Where  is  the  first 
section  that  anybody  has  any  comment  to 
make? 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Section  10. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Shall  sections  1  to 
9  carry? 

Ms.  Gigantes:  No,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  would 
like  to  move  an  amendment.  If  I  understand 
exactly  the  process  we  are  following  here, 
the  bill  we  are  dealing  with  now  is  one  that 
came  out  of  committee  with  simply  two 
sections. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  am  sorry;  I  did 
not  hear  your  question. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  I  am  sorry;  I  see  what  we 
are  doing.  It's  section  10. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Section  10  is  the 
point  that  you  wish? 

Sections  1  to  9,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 


5246 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


On  section  10: 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  an 
amendment  to  section  10.  I  would  like  to 
move  that  section  10  of  the  bill  have  sections 
as  printed  in  the  original  bill,  which  I  will 
have  to  renumber  as  I  go  along. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Do  you  have  a 
copy  of  your  amendment  there? 

Ms.  Gigantes:  Yes,  Mr.  Charman.  It  is 
going  to  take  me  a  couple  of  seconds  to  get 
it  together,  because  I  had  not  understood  the 
procedure  to  be  able  to  add  those  items. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  a  point 
of  order:  I  must  confess  it  is  probably  my 
error,  but  what  was  section  10  in  the  original 
bill  now  is  section  9  in  the  bill  that  came 
out  of  committee.  I  think  you  had  indicated 
that  sections  1  to  9  were  to  be  carried.  I 
think  that  should  be  changed  to  sections  1 
to  8,  because  it  is  the  new  section  9  which 
the  member  wishes  to  address.  Section  9  is 
the  one  she  wishes  to  address,  and  I  think 
she  should  be  allowed  to  do  it.  Section  9  of 
the  new  printed  bill  was  section  10  in  the 
old  bill. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:   Agreed? 

Mr.  Roy:  No. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  We  do  not  have 
agreement  and  we  have  already  carried  sec- 
tion 9  of  this  bill.  If  we  want  to  go  back,  I 
must  have  unanimous  agreement. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  mem- 
ber will  speak  on  third  reading,  I  think  we 
should  do  it  in  committee  of  the  whole  and 
get  it  over  with. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  only  wish  to  say  this,  Mr. 
Chairman,  for  your  consideration.  First  of 
all,  the  member  for  Carleton  East  (Ms. 
Gigantes)  as  far  back  as  the  month  of 
October  advised  us  that  she  had  an  amend- 
ment to  bring  forward  to  this  legislation. 
Given  those  circumstances,  I  would  have 
thought  the  member  would  have  produced 
copies  of  her  amendment  as  is  stipulated 
in  standing  order  58  of  this  House  which 
states: 

"When  time  permits,  amendments  pro- 
posed to  be  moved  to  bills  in  any  com- 
mittee shall  be  filed  with  the  Clerk  of  the 
House  at  least  two  hours  before  the  bill  is 
to  be  considered,  and  copies  of  such  pro- 
posed amendments  shall  be  distributed  to 
all  parties." 

I  would  have  thought,  having  in  mind 
that  the  member  went  on  television  in 
Ottawa  two  months  ago  to  say  that  she 
was  going  to  bring  forward  amendments, 
she  should  at  least  have  copies. 


The  second  thing  I  would  bring  to  your 
attention  is  that  Bill  Prl8,  which  you  have 
before  you,  is  a  bill  as  reprinted  and  amend- 
ed by  the  standing  committee  on  general 
government.  It  is  my  understanding  that  all 
sections  inclusive  of  11  to  91  have  been 
passed  and  that  we  are  dealing  now  with 
section    10. 

Given  those  circumstances,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  do  not  see  why  we  should  change.  It  is 
clear  to  the  member;  she  has  had  the  bill 
before  her.  Sections  1  to  9  have  been 
passed,  and  I  do  not  see  any  reason  for 
changing  that  view. 
4  p.m. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  agree  with  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East.  We  have  carried 
section  9.  I  do  not  have  copies  of  any  pro- 
posed amendments  before  me.  I  clearly 
asked  the  committee  what  the  first  question 
was  and  it  was  suggested  it  was  section  10. 
If  I  do  not  have  unanimous  consent,  we 
must  go  on  to  the  next  section. 

Ms.  Gigantes:  I  hope  the  member  for 
Ottawa  East  is  pleased  with  his  technical 
victory   on  this  point. 

Sections    10  to   13,  inclusive,   agreed  to. 

Bill  Prl8  reported. 

MUNICIPAL    AFFAIRS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  172,  An  Act  to 
amend  the  Municipal  Affairs  Act. 

On  section  1: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  Rotenberg 
moves  that  the  bill  be  amended  by  adding 
thereto  the  following  section: 

"1.  Subsection  3  of  section  49  of  the 
Municipal  Affairs  Act,  being  chapter  118 
of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  Ontario,  1970,  is 
repealed  and  the  following  substituted  there- 
for: 

*  '(3)  If  land  is  redeemed  by  any  person 
entitled  to  redeem  the  land  other  than  the 
owner,  such  person  has  a  lien  thereon  for 
the  amount  paid  to  redeem  the  land  and 
the  lien  has  priority  over  the  interest  in 
the  land  of  any  other  person  to  whom  notice 
was  sent  under  subsection  4  of  section  47'." 

Mr.  Rotenberg  further  moves  that  the 
present  sections  1,  2  and  3  of  the  bill  be 
renumbered  as  sections  2,  3  and  4  respec- 
tively. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Mr.  Chairman,  when  we 
dealt  with  Bill  172  previously  in  this  Legis- 
lature some  of  the  members  opposite  objec- 
ted. They  were  objecting  not  to  those  matters 
in   the   act   we   were   amending  but  to   the 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5247 


fact  that  section  49(3)  at  present  is  not  too 
clear  as  to  where  the  priority  of  that  person 
who  pays  the  tax  in  the  hen  system  would 
go. 

The  suggestion  was  made  to  us  that  we 
have  a  look  at  that  section.  We  have  looked 
at  it  and  we  agree  with  the  suggestion  of 
the  members  opposite,  that  the  person  who 
pays  the  taxes,  either  before  or  after  the 
end  of  the  fourth  year,  should  apply  both 
before  and  after  for  the  case  we  are  dis- 
cussing in  the  bill  and  the  other  cases  which 
were  not  previously  covered  in  the  bill.  We 
deem  it  to  be  fair  that  the  person  who  pays 
the  taxes  should  take  the  same  position  as 
the  municipality  had;  that  is,  that  he  have 
first  right  on  that  amount  only.  Therefore, 
we  have  brought  forward  this  section. 

I  would  like  to  thank  the  members  op- 
posite, particularly  the  member  for  Nipis- 
sing  (Mr.  Bolan),  for  drawing  this  to  our 
attention.  I  hope  with  this  amendment  they 
will  find  the  bill  now  is  acceptable. 

Mr.  Bolan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  thank 
the  parliamentary  assistant  to  the  Minister  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs  for  bringing  for- 
ward this  amendment.  This  matter  first  came 
up  in  the  House  by  way  of  Bill  172  some 
four  weeks  ago  and  we  had  some  discussion 
about  the  matter  at  that  time.  Our  concern 
was  for  an  individual  lienholder,  someone 
who  had  received  notice  under  the  act  that 
there  were  arrears  of  taxes  and  that  he  was 
an  interested  party.  After  listening  to  my 
colleagues  the  member  for  Ottawa  East  (Mr. 
Roy)  and  the  member  for  St.  George  (Mrs. 
Campbell),  I  urged  on  the  parliamentary 
assistant  that  the  person  who  redeemed  the 
taxes  should  have  a  lien  for  that  amount 
which  he  paid  before  anybody  else.  In  other 
words,  if  someone  is  third  in  priority  on  title 
and  redeems  the  taxes,  then  he  has  a  lien 
for  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  over  anyone 
who  may  appear  before  him  in  order  of 
priority. 

I  wish  to  thank  the  parliamentary  assistant 
for  bringing  forward  this  amendment.  I 
think  it  makes  it  a  better  bill. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Very  briefly,  Mr.  Chairman, 
we  have  no  objection  to  the  amendment  and 
we  will  support  it. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  parliamentary 
assistant  has  had  a  very  good  example  of 
the  role  of  a  watchful  opposition  in  what 
appeared  to  be  a  rather  innocuous  little  bill 
that  was  going  through.  My  colleagues, 
especially  the  member  for  Nipissing,  and  the 
member  for  St.  George,  and  other  members 
of  the  opposition  here  felt  that  if  the  bill 
were   to   work   the    priorities   should  be   re- 


viewed if  we  want  somebody  to  be  paying 
off  the  taxes  on  a  piece.  I  want  to  emphasize 
the  contribution  made  by  my  knowledgeable 
colleagues,  and  you  will  understand,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  they  brought  their  great  ex- 
perience to  bear  on  the  mechanics  of  this 
legislation.  The  government  is  to  be  con- 
gratulated for  having  responded  to  very  help- 
ful and  constructive  suggestions  on  the  part 
of  the  opposition. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  I  would  like  to  thank  the 
members  opposite  for  their  support  of  the 
bill  as  amended.  I  would  like  to  put  it  to  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  that  the  govern- 
ment is  always  willing  to  listen  to  and  con- 
sider constructive  criticism. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Section  1,  as  amended,  agreed  to. 

Sections  2  to  4,  inclusive,  as  renumbered, 
agreed  to. 

Bill  172,  as  amended,  reported. 

On  motion  by  Mr.  Rotenberg,  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  reported  two  bills 
with  amendments  and  one  bill  without 
amendment. 

MUNICIPAL  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Rotenberg,  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Mr. 
Wells,  moved  second  reading  of  Bill  193, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal  Act. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  con- 
tains a  number  of  amendments  to  update  the 
Municipal  Act.  It  proposes  to  remove  a  num- 
ber of  archaic  provisions,  to  replace  certain 
specific  provisions  with  more  general  ones, 
to  remove  many  of  the  distinctions  now  being 
made  between  municipalities  of  different 
status,  and  to  relocate  a  number  of  pro- 
visions within  the  act.  These  proposals  have 
been  discussed  with  the  municipal  liaison 
committee  and  with  solicitors  of  regional  and 
local  municipalities,  and  to  the  best  of  our 
knowledge  we  have  received  no   objections. 

The  bill  also  provides  for  the  removal  or 
modernization  of  a  number  of  rather  odd  or 
outdated  provisions  of  the  act.  For  example, 
it  will  repeal  the  municipal  powers  "for 
regulating  and  controlling  children  engaged 
as  express  or  dispatch  messengers,  vendors  of 
small  wares  and  bootblacks"  and  "for  pro- 
viding for  keeping  open  the  highways  during 
the  season  of  sleighing  in  each  year."  It  will 
repeal  municipal  authority  "for  requiring  the 
owners  and  occupants  of  buildings  to  have 
scuttles  in  the  roof  with  approaches  or  stairs 
or  ladders  leading  to  the  roof." 

The  bill  contains  a  number  of  amendments 
that  are  intended  to  provide  broad  general 
powers  to  municipalities  and  replace  a  num- 


5248 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


her  of  very  specific  provisions.  An  example  is 
the  proposed  new  granting  provision  that  is 
being  expanded  to  include  grants  in  aid.  This 
new  general  granting  power  will  replace  a 
number  of  specific  provisions.  Several  other 
new  powers  also  included  in  the  bill  are  a 
general  power  to  regulate  markets,  a  general 
power  to  join  associations,  a  general  power  to 
give  prizes  and  awards,  and  a  general  power 
to  provide  scholarships. 

At  present,  a  number  of  bylaw  powers  are 
given  only  to  certain  types  of  municipalities. 
This  bill  proposes  that  all  municipalities  be 
enabled  to  pass  all  types  of  bylaws.  For  ex- 
ample, in  future,  all  local  municipalities  will 
be  able  to  pass  bylaws  regulating  safety  de- 
vices for  window  cleaners.  At  present,  town- 
ship councils  do  not  have  this  authority. 

The  bill  also  proposes  to  renumber  several 
of  the  sections  in  the  Municipal  Act.  In  some 
instances,  this  is  being  done  so  that  the  pro- 
visions will  be  in  the  part  of  the  act  that 
deals  with  all  municipalities.  In  other  in- 
stances, the  purpose  is  to  relocate  provisions 
in  sections  that  deal  with  similar  matters. 
4:10  p.m. 

Finally,  the  bill  contains  provisions  that 
deal  with  the  filling  of  vacancies  on  munic- 
ipal council,  the  destruction  of  documents  of 
joint  local  boards,  the  making  of  agreements 
with  the  province,  the  regulation  of  sand- 
blasters,  and  appeals  for  the  cancellation  of 
the  reduction  of  taxes. 

There  are  many  separate  provisions  of  this 
bill.  I  will  be  prepared  to  deal  with  individ- 
ual sections  about  which  honourable  mem- 
bers may  have  questions  in  my  summing  up 
on  second  reading. 

I  commend  the  bill  to  the  House. 

Mr.  Epp:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased  to 
indicate  that  my  party  will  be  supporting  this 
bill.  I  think  it  is  an  important  piece  of  legis- 
lation in  that  it  clears  up  a  lot  of  the  archaic 
language  that  has  been  in  the  act  for  many 
years.  I  think  it  is  more  appropriate  for  the 
1880s  than  it  is  for  the  1980s. 

If  we  look  at  some  of  the  archaic  language 
that  is  used,  one  of  the  amendments  has  to 
do  with  section  351.  This  section  says,  "The 
council  of  a  city  having  a  population  of  not 
less  than  50,000  may  establish,  erect  and 
maintain  within  the  city  an  institution  for  the 
reclamation  and  cure  of  habitual  drunkards/' 
Subsection  b  provides,  "The  mayor,  provin- 
cial judge,  or  any  justice  of  the  peace  having 
jurisdiction  in  the  municipality  may  send  or 
commit  to  such  institution  an  habitual 
drunkard,  with  or  without  hard  labour." 

Having  been  the  mayor  of  a  municipality 
of  about  50,000  I  was  not  aware  of  this  piece 


of  legislation,  but  I  still  do  not  think  anyone 
in  that  position  should  have  the  power  to 
put  away  a  habitual  drunkard— I  presume 
they  are  talking  about  alcoholic  beverages— 
and  give  hard  labour  for  whatever  period 
they  might  deem. 

Another  section  which  is  somewhat  archaic 
is  section  354.  Paragraph  38  requires  the 
owners  and  occupants  of  buildings  to  have 
scuttles  in  the  roof.  Most  members  may 
know  what  scuttles  are,  but  I  had  to  look 
it  up  in  the  dictionary.  It  means,  "With  ap- 
proaches or  stairs  or  ladders  leading  to  the 
roof."  That  is  somewhat  outdated  and  must 
be  taken  out  of  the  bill,  as  has  been  proposed. 

Section  442  says,  "The  Canadian  Wheel- 
man's Association  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
has  the  like  power  as  it  conferred  on  the 
Ontario  Motor  League  by  section  441,  and 
all  the  provisions  of  that  section  apply  to 
guideposts,  distance  posts  and  danger  signals 
erected  or  maintained  by  the  association,  but 
where  either  the  league  or  the  association 
has  exercised  the  powers  conferred  upon  it 
upon  any  part  of  a  highway,  the  other  does 
not  have  the  right  to  exercise  its  powers 
thereon." 

Again  that  is  very  ridiculous.  I  sometimes 
wonder  why  it  has  taken  this  long  to  get 
some  of  these  sections  out. 

Here  is  still  another  section,  section  459: 
"The  council  of  a  township  may  pass  bylaws 
for  granting  a  prize  not  exceeding  $10''— 
$10  is  not  very  much;  I  do  not  know  whether 
it  is  talking  about  Monopoly  money  or  good 
Canadian  money— "for  the  best-kept  roadside, 
farm  front  and  farm  house  surroundings,  in 
each  public  school  section  in  the  township, 
and  for  prescribing  the  conditions,  upon 
which  such  prizes  may  be"— it  is  so  archaic, 
I  can  hardly  read  the  language— "competed 
for  and  awarded." 

Section  376  refers  to  a  number  of  items. 
Subsection  12  says:  "For  requiring  the  over- 
seers of  highways  or  the  pathmasters  to 
make  and  keep  open  the  highways  during 
the  season  of  sleighing:  (a)  Such  overseers 
and  pathmasters  may  require  the  persons 
liable  to  perform  statute  labour  to  assist  in 
keeping  open  such  highways,  and  shall  give 
to  any  person  so  employed  a  certificate 

One  would  almost  think  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  (Mr.  Baetz)  was 
here  giving  out  his  certificates  and  his 
money.  The  section  continues,  "...  a  certifi- 
cate of  his  having  performed  statute  labour 
and  of  the  number  of  days  work  done,  for 
which  he  shall  be  allowed  on  his  next  sea- 
sons statute  labour."  Section  386  of  the  said 
act  reads: 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5249 


"(1)  For  regulating  and  controlling  chil- 
dren engaged  as  express  or  dispatch  mes- 
sengers, vendors  of  smallwares  and  boot- 
blacks. 

"(2)  For  regulating  the  hours  of  labour  of 
persons  employed  in  livery  or  boarding 
stables  as  drivers  of  motor  vehicles,  cabs, 
carriages  or  sleighs  kept  for  hire,  or  by  the 
owners  of  horses,  carts,  trucks,  omnibuses 
and  other  vehicles  kept  for  hire." 

Still  another  section,  453,  subsection  4, 
reads:  "For  setting  apart  so  much  of  any 
highway  as  the  council  may  consider  neces- 
sary for  the  purposes  of  a  bicycle  path  or  of 
a  footpath,  (a)  Any  person  who  rides  or 
drives  a  horse  or  other  beast  of  burden  or  a 
motor  vehicle,  wagon,  carriage  or  cart  over 
or  along  any  such  path  is  guilty  of  an 
offence  and  on  summary  conviction  is  liable 
to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $1  and  not  more 
than  $20." 

The  last  one  I  want  to  read  is  section  460, 
subsection  7:  "To  provide  for  placing,  regu- 
lating and  maintaining  upon  the  public  high- 
wavs  traffic  signs  for  the  purpose  of  guiding 
and  directing  traffic;  provided  that  no  bylaw 
shall  authorize  the  placing  of  such  signs  upon 
that  portion  of  any  highway  that  lies  be- 
tween the  double  tracks  of  a  street  railway 
constructed  upon  such  highway  known  as 
the  devil  strip." 

These  show  that  this  act  is  long  overdue 
to  be  overhauled  by  taking  out  some  of  the 
archaic  sections  as  well  as  clarifying  some  of 
the  other  sections  and  rearranging  it.  I  think 
one  of  the  important  things  that  this  will 
hopefully  bring  about  is  the  printing  of  a 
new  Municipal  Act  which  will  incorporate 
all  the  changes  that  have  been  made  to  the 
Municipal  Act  and  we  all  know  that  they  are 
numerous.  Every  year  we  come  in  with  two 
or  three  or  four  bills  clarifying  or  changing 
the  Municipal  Act.  As  a  result  when  we  are 
looking  at  the  act  trving  to  find  some  section, 
it  makes  it  very  difficult.  One  of  the  things 
we  will  have  as  a  result  of  this  umbrella  bill, 
which  is  taking  a  lot  of  the  archaic  sections 
out  among  other  things,  will  be  the  printing 
of  a  new  Municipal  Act. 

The  other  section  that  is  very  interesting 
has  to  do  with  the  municipal  election  and 
what  happens  if  a  vacancy  is  created  after 
March  31  of  the  year  in  which  a  municipal 
election  is  held.  I  would  like  the  parliamen- 
tary assistant  to  the  minister  to  indicate  what 
examples  there  have  been  in  the  province 
where  municipalities  have  not  exercised  their 
authority  to  appoint  somebody  to  a  particular 
council. 


As  "we  know,  until  now  the  council  was 
obligated  to  have  an  election  if  a  vacancy 
occurred  prior  to  March  31  of  election  year, 
but  it  was  optional  whether  they  appointed 
someone  after  March  31.  This  will  now  be 
clarified  and  obligates  municipalities  to  ap- 
point someone  to  fill  that  vacancy.  It  would 
be  interesting  to  note  how  many  examples 
they  have  had  until  now  and,  secondly,  what 
reasons  the  municipalities  have  given  for 
not  filling  those  vacancies. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be  brief. 
We  are  going  to  support  this  bill  as  well.  We 
are  very  happy  to  see  the  sections  of  the  bill 
which  take  the  time  and  the  consideration 
that  we  have  talked  about  on  a  number  of 
occasions  in  the  past,  to  extend  certain  powers 
which,  in  the  past,  have  been  restricted  to 
large  municipalities,  to  all  of  the  municipal- 
ities in  the  province.  We  are  happy  to  see 
the  ministry  taking  this  land  of  direction. 
4:20  p.m. 

Unlike  the  member  for  Waterloo  North, 
Twill  not  go  through  all  the  antiquated  sec- 
tions of  the  Municipal  Act  that  are  dealt 
with  here.  But  I  would  like  to  make  a  couple 
of  comments  about  them  to  the  parliamen- 
tary assistant  and,  through  him,  to  the  minis- 
ter. It  is  a  fairly  lengthy  bill  and  it  took  us 
some  time  to  go  through  it  and  understand 
it.  As  the  member  for  Waterloo  North  has 
clearly  pointed  out,  some  of  the  sections  we 
were  dealing  with  were  rather  confusing  and 
almost  unbelievable  when  we  read  them.  I 
think  the  parliamentary  assistant  found  him- 
self in  the  same  position. 

d  suggest  he  has  found  both  the  member 
for  Waterloo  North  and  myself  particularly 
co-operative  in  dealing  with  this  kind  of 
amendment.  These  are  not  amendments  that 
deal  in  philosophical  or  ideological  questions 
and  they  are  not  amendments  that  deal  with 
hard-line  political  positions.  There  is  no 
essential  need  for  us  ever  to  allow  this  kind 
of  stupidity  to  remain  in  legislation  which, 
obviously,  some  of  these  sections  have,  long 
past  the  time  when  they  were  of  use  and 
not  even  publicly  acceptable  any  more. 

I  want  to  suggest  to  the  parliamentary 
assistant  and,  through  him,  to  the  minister 
that  members  of  this  Legislature  can  be 
quite  co-operative  in  terms  of  dealing  with 
amendments  that  are  necessary  as  a  result  of 
changes  through  time.  We  do  not  need  to 
find  ourselves  in  this  position  every  25  or 
50  years  or,  as  some  of  the  sections  in  this 
bill  appear,  every  100  years.  We  should  be 
amending  this  kind  of  legislation  yearly  and 
bi-yearly  as  our  situation  in  this  province 
warrants 


5250 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


There  is  no  need  not  to  be  co-operative. 
There  is  nothing  the  government  has  to  fear 
from  us  in  dealing  with  this  kind  of  anti- 
quated and  out-of-date  legislation.  There  is 
no  need  to  avoid  making  the  changes  regu- 
larly so  we  do  not  get  into  the  silly  and  em- 
barrassing position  of  having  to  listen  to  the 
legislative  sections  that  the  member  for 
Waterloo  North  took  the  time  to  read  into 
the  record.  There  is  no  need  for  it.  Let's 
make  it  a  regular  process  in  this  House.  Let's 
do  it  in  a  consultative  way  regularly,  instead 
of  waiting  for  50  or  100  years  to  clean  up 
our  act. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
address  myself  to  Bill  193,  An  Act  to  amend! 
the  Municipal  Act.  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
parliamentary  assistant  some  questions  on 
certain  sections. 

On  section  3  of  the  bill,  "The  purpose  of 
the  amendments  to  section  248a  is  to  expand 
the  existing  powers  of  a  municipality  to  make 
giants.   The  proposed  amendments— " 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  What  section  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  the  explanatory  notes 
to  section  3. 

Then  we  go  on  to  section  3(4)  of  the 
bill,  "The  proposed  section  248b  confers  a 
general  power  on  municipalities  to  offer 
awards  and  gifts  to  persons  whose  actions  or 
achievements  are  worthy  of  note  and  allows 
municipalities  to  establish  competitions  and 
award  prizes/' 

I  can  recall— I  think  my  colleague  men- 
tioned this— the  old  legislation,  as  it  related 
to  the  Municipal  Act,  permitted  municipali- 
ties to  get  into  such  a  program  if  they 
wanted  to.  At  one  time,  the  local  township 
municipalities  used  to  have  awards  that  were 
awarded  to  the  different  school  sections  for 
improvements  to  their  grounds  and  so  on.  I 
do  not  think  it  was  any  $10.  I  think  it  was 
up  to  a  maximum  of  something,  but  it  was 
distributed  evenly  across  the  municipalities. 

I  can  remember  on  county  council  we  used 
to  have  a  cemetery  committee.  That  was 
another  area  where  the  municipalities  were 
permitted  to  allow  grants  to  local  cemetery 
boards  for  the  upkeep,  maintenance  and  im- 
provement of  local  cemeteries,  which  was  an 
exceptionally  good  program.  Perhaps  much 
of  the  money  was  raised  through  the  local 
municipality.  There  was  not  too  much  in 
grants  from  the  province,  but  then  it  goes  on 
to  section  248c  and  I  suppose  they  are  ex- 
panding their  program.  That  is  the  question 
I  want  to  ask. 

Subsection  1  reads:  "The  council  of  every 
municipality  may  pass  bylaws  for  providing 


fellowships  scholarships  and  other  similar 
prizes  and  for  paying  all  or  part  costs  in- 
curred or  to  be  incurred  by  any  person"— 
I  suppose  that  is  across  the  municipality— 
"including  an  officer  or  servant  of  the  muni- 
cipality as  a  result  of  his  attendance  at  an 
educational  institution  or  as  a  result  of  his 
enrolment  elsewhere  in  any  program  or 
course  of  instruction,  training  or  education.'' 
Subsection  2  goes  on  to  say,  "In  this  section, 
'costs'  include  tuition  fees,  costs  of  books 
and  other  materials  used  in  connection  with 
a  course  or  program,  and  costs  of  food,  travel 
and  accommodation." 

I  am  sure  the  parliamentary  assistant  is 
well  aware  of  the  existing  programs  available 
now  in  municipalities  where  they  send  mem- 
bers of  local  fire  departments  to  the  Ontario 
Fire  College  and  some  other  schools.  It  is 
quite  a  cost  to  the  local  municipalities  when 
they  have  to  send  someone  there  for  perhaps 
a  six-week  course.  I  do  not  have  to  tell 
members  that  the  wages  continue,  plus  room 
and  board.  It  is  quite  a  burden  to  the 
municipality,  and  sometimes  it  is  to  the 
benefit  of  all  Ontario  that  these  courses  are 
available. 

In  this  particular  area  I  do  not  see  any- 
thing that  says  there  may  be  a  grant  from 
the  ministry  to  assist  with  some  of  the  cost. 
I  imagine  in  matters  relating  to  police  at- 
tending the  Ontario  Police  College  there  is  a 
grant  given  to  the  local  police  departments 
in  regions  or  municipalities  to  assist  in  the 
cost  of  sending  them.  I  was  wondering  per- 
haps if  grants  should  be  provided  for  fire 
departments,  as  I  am  concerned  about  the 
cost.  They  may  want  to  send  some  municipal 
clerk  or  somebody  working  in  the  munici- 
pality for  maybe  two  years  to  an  educational 
institution.  That  could  be  rather  an  expen- 
sive cost  to  be  borne  by  the  taxpayers,  and 
then  after  the  person  receives  his  educational 
awards,  he  may  be  with  the  municipality  for 
one  or  two  years  and  then  move  on  to  a 
higher  paying  job  in  some  other  larger  muni- 
cipality. I  wonder  if  we  are  not  opening  the 
door  so  that  this  could  happen  and  could 
cause  some  further  difficulties  in  the  muni- 
cipalities. 

Subsection  3,  according  to  the  explanatory 
note  on  section  7,  "exempts  certain  bylaws 
from  the  requirement  for  the  assent  of  the 
electors  where  a  debt  will  be  incurred."  I 
follow  the  principle  established  by  our 
American  counterparts  that  before  any  major 
project  is  entered  into  by  a  municipality, 
there  should  be  consent  by  the  electors  in 
the  municipality.  Sometimes  boards  and  com- 
missions   may   be    set    up    that   have    rather 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5251 


broad  powers  that  incur  substantial  debts  to 
the  municipalities.  I  draw  this  to  the  mem- 
bers' attention,  that  as  long  as  there  are  high 
interest  rates  today,  there  should  be  some- 
thing in  here  to  control  the  present  expendi- 
ture of  local  municipalities.  I  speak  for  the 
taxpayers  more  than  anything. 

Section  8  has  some  concerns.  The  explan- 
atory note  says:  "Section  351  provides  for 
the  establishment  of  institutions  for  the  rec- 
lamation of  habitual  drunkards  and  provides 
for  the  committal  of  habitual  drunkards  to 
such  institutions  with  or  without  hard 
labour."  It  goes  on  to  say  apparently  under 
this  particular  section  we  are  going  to  per- 
mit the  municipalities  to  provide  some  form 
of  treatment  centres.  I  think  we  can  all 
agree  this  is  a  necessity  in  almost  every 
community  in  Ontario.  But  again,  as  I  in- 
terpret this  particular  section,  the  province 
is  shirking  its  responsibility  in  saying  to  the 
municipalities,   "You  provide   the   facilities." 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  We  are  repealing  that. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It  is  being  repealed,  is  it? 

I  am  glad  to  see  that,  but  then  again  if 
it  is  being  repealed,  I  suggest  there  should 
be  some  provision  for  halfway  housas  to  be 
available  in  communities,  but  the  cost 
should  be  borne  by  the  province  and  not 
shoved  on  to  the  municipalities  to  pick  up. 

Is  the  section  on  a  site  for  an  armoury 
being  repealed?  That  follows  the  establish- 
ment of  fire  departments  in  almost  every 
municipality  in  Ontario.  I  suggest  in  areas 
where  the  costs  will  be  rather  high  to 
establish  fire  brigades  in  local  municipal- 
ities, there  should  be  some  assistance  from 
the    Solicitor    General. 

Years  ago,  municipalities  used  to  receive 
some  provincial  assistance  to  establish  vol- 
unteer fire  brigades  in  local  municipalities. 
It  should  have  been  included  that  mutual 
aid  should  be  a  necessity,  that  where  there 
is  a  fire,  emergency  equipment  can  be 
moved  from  one  community  to  another.  That 
is  an  important  area  where  the  words 
"mutual  aid"  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
changes  to  that  section  of  the  act. 

The  parliamentary  assistant  mentioned 
section  81a  "requiring  the  installation  and 
maintenance  of  safety  devices  for  window 
cleaners,  for  inspecting  such  devices  and 
for  prohibiting  any  person  from  cleaning 
the  outside  of  windows  of  buildings  on 
which  such  devices  are  installed  unless  such 
devices  are  used."  This  is  a  key  amendment 
to  the  section.  It  is  a  must  and  should  be 
required.  Perhaps  there  may  be  some  over- 
lapping of  jurisdiction  as  it  relates  to  the 
Occupational    Health   and   Safety   Act.    The 


provision  should  be  pretty  well  spelled  out 
under  that  act.  I  know  there  is  a  need  here. 
Many  window  cleaners  hang  from  a  rope 
and  do  not  have  the  proper  safety  devices 
that  are  required  to  protect  their  lives.  I 
notice  that  on  some  of  the  high-rise  build- 
ings while  walking  the  downtown  streets  of 
Toronto.  Hopefully,  the  parliamentary  as- 
sistant can  give  me  some  answers  to  those 
questions,  although  we  will  be  supporting 
the  bill. 

The  other  area  which  is  important  too, 
and  I  want  to  go  back  to,  is  the  section 
where  the  government  is  proposing  estab- 
lishing fire  departments  or  fire  brigades 
across  the  province.  This  covers  a  broad 
area  for  fire  departments.  The  explanatory 
note  opposite  page  six  says,  ".  .  .  the  amend- 
ments .  .  .  will  give  all  local  municipalities 
the  same  powers  with  respect  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  fire  departments  and  other  fire 
matters."  I  think  that  is  important.  I  would 
suggest  that  perhaps  the  most  important 
thing  that  has  been  forgotten  is  the  intro- 
duction and  the  amendment  to  the  Fire 
Marshals  Act  where  we  are  looking  forward 
to  a  new  fire  code,  particularly  as  it  relates 
to  proper  fire  inspections,  fire  alarms  and 
smoke  detectors  in  almost  every  building  in 
the  province.  This  relates  to  the  sprinkler 
system. 

I  do  not  have  to  tell  members  of  the 
high-rise  fires  in  the  United  States  and  the 
loss  of  human  lives  there.  If  they  had  had 
the  proper,  up-to-date  amendments  to  their 
fire  codes  this  may  not  have  happened.  In 
Ontario,  fire  departments  and  fire  officials 
are  looking  for  the  moving  of  that  partic- 
ular amendment  to  the  Fire  Marshals  Act 
that  would  give  them  the  powers  to  do  the 
fire  inspections  that  are  required  in  high- 
rise  apartments  and  small  apartment  dwel- 
lings. We  should  have  a  standard  in  fire 
alarms  and  smoke  detection  systems  in 
Ontario. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  try 
briefly  to  summarize  the  questions. 

First,  I  would  like  to  thank  the  members 
opposite,  particularly  the  members  for  Water- 
loo North  and  Hamilton  Mountain  for  the 
co-operation,  not  only  today  in  the  bill,  but 
over  the  past  few  weeks  in  the  discussions 
we  have  had  together  on  this  bill  and  on 
other  municipal  legislation  that  we  have 
passed  in  this  fall  session.  I  do  appreciate  the 
co-operation  from  members  opposite. 

I  would  point  out  to  the  member  for 
Waterloo  North  that  we  will  be  printing  a 
new  Municipal  Act  as  a  result  of  this  bill. 
Because,  as  he  knows,  the  Revised  Statutes 


5252 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


of  Ontario  are  published  every  10  years,  the 
new  Municipal  Act  will  go  in  the  new  RSOs 
and  therefore  will  be  in  shape  for  the  com- 
ing 10  years. 

As  far  as  the  March  31  deadline  for  the 
filling  of  vacancies  goes,  this  provision  was 
passed  in  1972.  It  indicated  that  before 
March  31  the  council  had  the  option  of 
filling  the  vacancy  either  by  election  or  by 
appointment.  After  March  31,  it  could  not 
do  it  by  election.  The  feeling  by  some  coun- 
cils was  that  they  still  had  the  option  of 
making  it  an  appointment  or  not  making  it 
an  appointment,  which  was  not  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  legislation  that  was  passed  in 
1972. 

Two  municipalities,  particularly  Midland 
and  Scarborough,  had  these  kinds  of  inter- 
pretations. About  a  year  ago  when  a  member 
of  the  Scarborough  council  was  elected  to 
the  federal  House  and  resigned  his  seat,  the 
Scarborough  council  was  somewhat  reluctant 
to  make  the  appointment.  Finally,  they  were 
persuaded  to  do  so.  They  felt  the  legislation 
was  optional  and  they  could  have  run  for 
eight  or  nine  months  with  a  vacancy.  We 
are,  in  effect,  clarifying  what  was  the  intent 
of  the  legislation  originally— that  is,  after 
March  31,  it  is  mandatory  to  make  an 
appointment  or  fill  the  post  by  election, 
unless  it  is  right  up  against  the  election  time. 

The  member  for  Erie  has  raised  a  number 
of  questions.  I  will  try  to  deal  with  them 
all  briefly.  Most  of  the  matters  he  raised  are 
permissive  to  council.  In  other  words,  these 
provisions  in  the  bill  are  not  making  council 
do  them.  They  are  permissive  to  council- 
such  things  as  paying  for  courses  and  the 
granting  of  prizes  and  so  on.  They  do  not 
impose  a  burden  on  the  municipality  unless 
the  municipality  wishes  to  take  upon  itself 
that  burden. 

As  for  the  province  participating  in  a 
number  of  things  which  the  member  indi- 
cated, we  passed  changes  in  the  uncondi- 
tional grants  several  weeks  ago.  Again  they 
were  giving  the  province  permission  in  a 
wide  range  of  areas  to  make  grants  to  munic- 
ipalities. These  will  be  a  matter  of  negotia- 
tion among  the  province,  the  various  munic- 
ipalities and  the  municipal  associations  where 
additional  grants  will  be  given.  But  the 
power  is  there  to  give  grants  if  we  desire  it 
and  we  negotiate  it  with  the  various  munic- 
ipalities. 

The  member  mentioned  the  repeal  of  the 
section  on  the  institution  for  drunks.  That  is 
now  being  covered  by  a  general  section,  sec- 
tion 62c  on  page  eight.  We  repeal  the  old 
section,  which  was  quite  archaic,  but  now 
the  municipalities  have  permission  to  estab- 


lish, erect  and  maintain  an  institution  for  the 
treatment  of  alcoholics.  But  the  mayor,  as 
the  member's  colleague  from  Waterloo  North 
says,  will  no  longer  have  the  power  to  send 
them  to  jail. 

This  bill  does  not  deal  with  financial  mat- 
ters; it  deals  with  powers  that  municipalities 
desire.  As  far  as  mutual  fire  departments  are 
concerned,  if  the  member  will  look  on  page 
seven,  clauses  b  and  c,  it  does  give  munic- 
ipalities the  power  to  share  fire  departments 
and  fire  services. 

The  member  mentioned  the  new  fire  code. 
This  is  a  matter  that  comes  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Solicitor  General  and  cannot 
be  dealt  with  in  the  Municipal  Act. 

I  hope  this  covers  the  questions  that  have 
been  asked  by  the  members  opposite.  Again, 
I  would  thank  the  members  for  their  co- 
operation and  hope  this  bill  will  receive 
second  reading. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY  ACT 

Mr.  Rotenberg,  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Mr. 
Wells,  moved  second  reading  of  Bill  201,  An 
Act  to  amend  the  Legislative  Assembly  Act. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  see  the  minister  has 
arrived. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  gave  a 
comment  on  the  introduction  of  the  bill  and 
I  think  Bill  201  is  self-explanatory.  The 
amendments  are  indicated  in  the  notes  ac- 
companying the  bill.  The  reasons  for  the 
amendments  are  there.  They  provide  an 
additional  $1,000  accommodation  allowance 
for  the  leader  of  the  official  opposition  and 
the  leader  of  the  third  party.  They  also 
provide  for  a  slightly  different  way  of  com- 
puting that  allowance. 

4:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  just  one  com- 
ment with  respect  to  the  correction  that  I 
think  has  been  long  overdue  as  set  out  in 
section  2  of  the  act.  For  some  years  there 
has  been  the  unfortunate  result  that  upon 
the  issuance  of  a  writ  for  election,  a  member 
who  might  not  be  re-elected  would  have  the 
burden  of  the  accommodation  of  part  of  an 
apartment-lease,  or  could  have  for  the  37 
days  of  that  campaign,  whereby  that  would 
be  his  responsibility,  whereas  a  member  re- 
turning to  the  House  upon  re-election  would 
not  have  had  his  or  her  lease  interrupted  in 
any  way.  I  think  it  is  clearly  the  Office  of 
the  Assembly's  responsibility  not  to  make 
that    a    personal    expenditure    where    it    has 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5253 


been  an  accepted  part  of  the  accommoda- 
tion allowance  during  the  non-election  years. 
I  am  glad  to  see  that  problem  is  being 
resolved  so  that  no  one  is  put  unfairly  to 
that  additional  commitment  by  the  present 
circumstances.  The  bill  certainly  has  our 
support. 

Mr.  Charlton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  very 
briefly  comment  on  Bill  201,  section  2.  As 
the  previous  member  mentioned,  this  change 
is  probably  long  overdue— there  was  discrimi- 
nation between  defeated  members  and  those 
who  returned.  Between  the  day  the  writs  are 
issued  and  polling  day,  the  member's  busi- 
ness on  behalf  of  his  constituents  obviously 
continues  in  some  fashion  at  least,  by  some 
members  of  this  assembly,  up  until  the  time 
he  ceases  to  be  an  official  member  on  elec- 
tion day. 

We  are  very  happy  to  see  this  section 
changed  so  that  assembly  members  are  not 
penalized  in  terms  of  their  own  personal 
finances  because  they  may  be  defeated  in  an 
election.  Members,  as  well,  can  continue  any 
very  pressing  business  even  during  an  elec- 
tion campaign. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  As  a  footnote,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  the  brief  remarks  made  by  my 
colleague  the  member  for  Hamilton  Moun- 
tain in  supporting  this  bill,  I  just  hope  that 
it  is  appreciated  by  the  government,  the 
generosity,  in  keeping  with  the  Christmas 
spirit,  that  we  are  expressing  by  way  of  our 
support  of  this  bill  to  the  many  members 
across  the  way  who  will  lose  their  jobs  in 
the  next  election. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just 
might  reply  to  the  rather  gratuitous  com- 
ments of  the  last  speaker  who  I  guess  found 
that  he  had  to  add  those  comments.  Inci- 
dentally, I  think  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
this  bill  is  being  brought  in  by  me,  not  as 
Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  but 
as  government  House  leader  on  behalf  of 
all  this  House  and  on  behalf  of  the  Board 
of  Internal  Economy,  with  representatives 
of  all  parties,  which  has  jurisdiction  over 
these  matters.  The  members  of  the  Board 
of  Internal  Economy  agreed  that  the  things 
in  this  bill  and  the  next  bill  should  be 
brought  into  this  House.  They  are  here 
because  it  is  believed  that  they  will  enable 
all  party  members  of  this  House  to  carry 
out  their  functions  better  on  behalf  of 
Ontario  people. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for   third   reading. 


.     EXECUTIVE  COUNCIL 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  204,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Executive 
Council  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

PENSION   BENEFITS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie,  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Mr. 
Drea,  moved  second1  reading  of  Bill  214, 
An  Act  to  amend  the  Pension  Benefits  Act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
will  rely  upon  the  remarks  that  were  made 
by  the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie)  in 
his  statement  in  October,  which  contained 
the  intent  of  Bill  214.  The  only  thing  that 
was  not  touched  upon  in  those  remarks  was 
the  question  of  disclosure,  which  is  con- 
tained in   this  bill. 

As  the  House  knows,  it  was  my  intention 
a  year  ago  to  bring  in  the  mandatory  dis- 
closure; but  at  that  time,  because  of  the 
continuing  work  of  the  Haley  commission, 
it  was  decided  that,  meritorious  as  it  was, 
and  noncontroversial  as  it  is,  no  significant 
pension  legislation  would  be  introduced, 
pending  completion  of  that  very  exhaustive, 
lengthy  and  comprehensive  commission 
study.  So  that  particular  disclosure  section 
was  held  in  abeyance. 

It  is  a  very  advantageous  time  to  intro- 
duce that  disclosure.  There  will  be  a  calen- 
dar year  before  that  particular  section  will 
be  operative,  in  the  sense  that  an  individual 
in  a  pension  plan  will  get  the  full  disclosure 
as  to  rights,  benefits,  status  of  the  fund,  et 
cetera,  when  we  are  doing  interim  pension 
legislation. 

I  think  the  disclosure  section  will  really, 
for  the  first  time,  provide  individual  mem- 
bers or  pension  plan  beneficiaries  with  ac- 
curate, up-to-date  data.  Of  course,  they  do 
not  necessarily  have  to  read  it,  but  it  will 
be  available.  One  thing  the  pension  com- 
mission and  I,  as  a  minister,  have  found  out 
is  that  a  great  many  pension  plan  members 
never  anticipate  any  interruption  in  the 
normal  process  towards  obtaining  their  pen- 
sions, either  by  age  65  or  by  years  of  serv- 
ice or  whatever  qualifications  there  are,  and 
when  there  is  a  plant  closing  or  termina- 
tion, there  is  a  great  deal  of  confusion,  be- 
wilderment and,  quite  frankly,  a  sense  of 
frustration.  This,  indeed,  puts  an  additional 
and  heavy  burden  upon  a  person  who  ob- 
viously  in   the   case   of   a  plant  closing   or 


5254 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


termination    is    alreay    undergoing    a    rather 
substantial    economic    trauma. 

There  are  two  other  minor  housekeeping 
amendments,  just  to  bring  some  work  of  the 
pension  commission  a  little  more  up  to  date, 
and  those  obviously  were  not  included  in 
the  statement  with  reference  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Labour's  Pension  Benefits  Act. 
4:50  p.m. 

As  I  said,  this  would  be  interim  legislation; 
I  don't  know  how  long  the  interim  is  going 
to  last.  Because  of  the  comprehensive  review, 
the  recommendations,  the  ultimate  national 
decisions  that  will  be  made  in  regard  to 
bringing  pension  plans  into  the  latter  part  of 
the  1980s,  this  particular  legislation  may  be 
short-lived.  Hopefully,  it  may  be  incorpo- 
rated, within  as  brief  a  period  of  time  as 
possible,  into  extremely  comprehensive  and 
long-range  legislation. 

On  the  other  hand  the  legislation  that  will 
emerge,  both  nationally  and  provincially  and 
in  regard  to  government  pension  plans  as 
well  as  private  pension  plans,  may  mean  that 
this  particular  type  of  legislation  will  not 
be  needed.  The  omnibus  legislation  that  ob- 
viously must  come  will  take  care  of  that. 
But  in  the  short  term,  I  believe  this  legis- 
lation meets  many  of  the  urgent  needs  of 
those  who  have  suddenly  lost  not  only  their 
employment  but  their  pension  plan.  Hope- 
fully, this  legislation  will  never  have  to  be 
used.  I  think  I  would  be  naive  to  suggest  that 
there  will  not  be  terminations  of  pension 
plans,  or  plan  closings,  or  partial  closing  in 
the  near  future. 

In  regard  to  the  guarantee  fund— and  I 
think  it  is  a  tremendous  compliment  to  my 
professional  staff  that  they  studied  the  United 
States'  legislation  extensively  in  regard  to 
guarantee  funds,  and  have  avoided  many  of 
the  pitfalls  that  have  emerged  in  certain  US 
legislation.  Those  pitfalls  are  being  remedied. 
But  we  were  able  to  take  advantage  of  their 
experience  in  this  regard. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Could  you  explain  that 
for  us? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  In  the  draftsmanship  and 
in  the  regulations  that  will  emerge. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  We're  not  talking  about  the 
bill,  we're  talking  about  what  is  coming. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  In  the  principle  of  the 
bill? 

Mr.  Peterson:  Yes. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  will  do  that  as  a  sum- 
mation. Is  that  fair  enough? 

They  did  extensive  work  with  the  pension 
industry— although  it  cannot  be  measured  in 
time  as   extensive  because  they  had  certain 


targets  to  meet— both  on  a  state  and  on  a 
national  level  in  the  US,  giving  full  credit 
to  the  US.  This  is  where  the  guarantees 
originated.  Within  the  broad  scope  of  interim 
legislation,  it  is  not  the  type  of  legislation 
that  has  been  hastily  constructed  because  it 
is  not  expected  to  be  here.  It  is  interim  in 
the  scope  that  it  is  meeting  a  particular 
problem. 

If  it  was  not  for  the  fact  that  the  Haley 
commission  report,  I  am  informed,  will  soon 
be  available— I  say  that  in  all  candour  to  my 
colleague  from  London  Centre.  Sometimes 
there  is  a  misunderstanding  in  this  House 
that  the  royal  commission  is  under  the 
auspices  of  my  ministry.  It  is  not;  it  is 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Treasurer— it  would 
be  highly  improper  for  me  to  be  intervening 
at  this  particular  time.  But  I  am  informed 
by  the  office  that  it  will  soon  be  available. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Ms.  Haley  is  alive  and  well? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Yes,  and  I  had  a  third 
party  in  the  discussions  to  make  sure  that  I 
was  not  being  improper. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  This  is  not  a  two- 
member  debate,  if  you  are  dealing  with 
opening  comments  on  the  principle  of  Bill 
214. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  really  is 
reflective  of  this  bill.  What  I  am  pointing 
out  is  that  this  bill  is  not  hastily  constructed, 
or  meant  to  last  for  only  a  short  period  of 
time.  It  is  well  constructed,  but  it  is  based' 
upon  the  knowledge  that  there  will  soon  be 
a  most  comprehensive  document  which  I  am 
very  confident  will  serve  as  the  basis  and 
the  foundation  for  very  much  needed  im- 
provements in  all  aspects  of  pensions  in  this 
country. 

I  will  be  pleased,  because  obviously,  Mr. 
Speaker,  there  are  some  technical  considera- 
tions in  a  bill  like  this,  to  particularly  deal 
in  a  summation  with  technical  concerns 
raised  by  individual  members. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  speak  in  support  of  the  Pension  Benefits 
Amendment  Act  that  has  been  brought  in  by 
the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 
Relations. 

I  recall  in  the  statement  which  he  made 
to  the  House  introducing  this  bill  on  Decem- 
ber 4  that  he  resolved  and  referred  to  two 
particular  problems  which  this  bill  hopes  to 
accommodate.  The  first  is  the  hardship  which 
can  occur  to  employees  who  fail  to  meet  a 
certain  time  deadline  because  of  a  few  weeks 
or  a  few  months  and  the  second,  of  course, 
occurs  when  a  pension  plan  has  not  been 
fully  funded  and  liabilities  are  outstanding 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5255 


in  an  actuarial  sense  as  the  result  of  the 
termination  of  a  plan,  usually  by  the  closing 
of  an  industry. 

The  minister  has  referred,  of  course,  to  the 
Royal  Commission  on  the  Status  of  Pensions 
in  Ontario,  commonly  known  as  the  Haley 
commission  after  its  chairman,  Mrs.  Donna 
Haley,  QC.  The  select  committee  on  com- 
pany law,  over  these  last  several  years,  has 
dealt  with  a  variety  of  insurance  matters 
and  as  we  began  the  studies  last  year  on  life 
insurance  it  became  apparent  that  we  should 
certainly  not  duplicate  the  work  which  was 
being  done  in  the  pension  field  by  the  Haley 
commission. 

As  we  will  proceed  to  write  our  report  on 
accident  and  sickness  insurance  in  the  new 
year  and  deal  finally  with  that  last  portion 
of  the  operations  of  insurance  companies  in 
Ontario,  we,  of  course,  await  as  well  with 
great  interest  the  publication  and  the  recom- 
mendations which  may  occur  from  the  Haley 
commission. 

For  several  months  we  have  been  hearing 
that  this  report  will  soon  be  with  us  and  we 
are  as  anxious  as  I  am  sure  the  minister  is  to 
see  the  results  of  this  tremendously  compli- 
cated study  which  has  been  going  on.  The 
whole  matter  of  the  funding  of  pensions,  the 
sufficiency  of  pensions,  the  fact  that  indi- 
viduals are  living  longer,  the  fact  that  inter- 
est rates  and  the  traditional  approach  to 
actuarial  development  of  pensions  are  un- 
certain and  are  problems  which  every  one 
of  us  has  to  concern  ourselves  with. 

Our  senior  citizens  are  concerned  about 
the  likelihood  of  funds  being  available  for 
their  continuing  needs  and  as  we  look  at  the 
funding  of  municipal  employees  or  provincial 
civil  servants  or  the  various  teachers'  groups, 
T  am  sure  that  they,  in  their  middle  years, 
wonder  whether  there  will  be  funds  thor- 
oughly and  clearly  available  for  the  com- 
mitments that  they  have  been  given  by  their 
employers,  in  this  case  employers  more  in 
the  public  sector. 

The  commitments  which  individuals  re- 
ceive in  the  private  sector  are,  of  course, 
every  bit  as  important  to  us  because,  unless 
thev  are  clear  and  sufficient,  the  taxpayers 
generally  will  have  to  come  up  with  some  of 
the  funds  to  make  up  the  difference. 

I  was  interested  in  the  reports  which  ap- 
peared in  the  press  immediately  following 
the  introduction  of  this  bill.  At  that  point 
Mr.  Bentley  of  the  minister's  staff  was  re- 
ported as  saying  that  there  were  no  particular 
immediate  problems  that  resulted  from 
underfunding,  but  there  certainly  were  some 
plans  that  had  not  been  fully  amortized. 


5  p.m. 

He  cited  Houdaille  Industries  and  Bendix 
Automotive  in  Windsor  particularly  as  two 
plants  that  were  going  to  have  pension 
problems  as  well  as  the  severance  and  other 
matters  that  have  been  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  this  House,  the  interim  report  of 
which  is  going  to  be  debated  for  at  least  an 
hour  this  evening. 

It  should  be  clear  that,  as  we  look  at  the 
amendments  to  this  act,  we  are  not  concerned 
in  this  more  narrow  focus  with  the  whole 
matter  of  plant  closings  and  the  other  obli- 
gations which  might  occur  and  to  which  this 
select  committee  of  the  Legislature  has  put 
its  mind. 

We  are  also  living,  obviously,  in  hope  that 
the  Haley  commission  will  make  some  sug- 
gestions on  integration  of  various  pension 
opportunities  within  the  province  that  may 
well  cause  legislation  such  as  this  bill  to  be 
rolled  into  a  plan  and  a  program  that  will 
give  the  future  benefits  we  all  want  to  see. 

One  of  the  problems  we  are  clearly  facing, 
in  what  unfortunately  will  be  a  difficult  win- 
ter in  many  of  the  smaller  manufacturing 
industries  and  in  various  parts  of  our  prov- 
ince, is  the  likelihood  of  certain  plant  closures 
that  are  going  to  come  upon  individuals. 
Because  of  problems  such  as  the  one  this 
bill  will  address,  they  would  very  much  up- 
set those  individuals  and  their  whole  financial 
planning. 

This  bill,  as  I  have  said,  has  these  two 
particular  principles,  the  one  dealing  with 
the  shortfall  of  time  of  some  weeks,  indeed 
some  months,  that  might  occur  for  qualifi- 
cation and,  secondly,  the  matter  of  funding. 
Our  opportunity  is  now  to  resolve  those 
particular  points  recognizing  that,  from  the 
Haley  commission  and  the  select  committee's 
report  and  how  the  government  may  respond 
to  it,  there  are  going  to  be  more  general 
overview  circumstances  which  will  no  doubt 
develop  in  the  next  session  of  the  Legislature, 
presuming  time  exists  to  deal  with  that 
problem. 

However,  the  problem  we  are  faced  with 
in  this  bill  is  set  out  quite  clearly.  I  hope 
the  two  particular  points  will  be  attended  to 
for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  the  province 
who,  unfortunately,  will  be  affected  ad- 
versely if  these  amendments  are  not  in  place 
before  the  House  rises. 

There  was  one  circumstance  I  was  inter- 
ested in,  particularly  as  we  looked  at  the 
vesting  situation.  Here  we  have  45  years  of 
age  and  10  years  continuous  service  as  the 
factors  on  which  the  opportunity  for  pension 
occurs.  I  was  interested  in  one  of  the  options 


5256 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


raised  in  the  minister's  statement.  That  was 
the  option  to  transfer  a  pension  benefit  credit 
to  the  plan  of  a  new  employer,  provided  the 
terms  of  the  new  plan  allow  the  transfer. 
This  to  my  mind  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant prospects  and  that  is,  as  would  be 
generally  understood,  the  portability  of  pen- 
sions. Certainly,  there  are  the  opportunities 
to  receive  a  pension  at  an  earlier  age  at  a 
reduced  amount  which  is  well  known.  There 
is  also  the  opportunity,  among  others,  to 
acquire  a  registered  retirement  savings  plan 
which,  in  many  ways,  may  be  the  best  in- 
dividual opportunity  for  a  person  moving 
between  jobs.  It  may  well  be  the  RRSP 
situation  may  be  the  way  for  many  people, 
not  only  self-employed  but  as  employees,  to 
protect  themselves  in  an  opportunity  of  de- 
velopments as  no  doubt  this  program  will 
develop  in  years  to  come. 

I  hope  the  Haley  commission  in  its  report 
will  deal  with  the  whole  theme— and  I  am 
sure  it  will— of  the  portability  of  pensions. 
This  is  an  area  that  concerns  us  all  as  mem- 
bers because  of  the  people  we  represent. 
They  have  concerns  and  this  whole  theme 
of  portability  is  one  we  must  come  to  grips 
with  in  the  near  future.  I  hope  the  Haley 
commission  will  deal  with  that.  This  bill  at 
least  gives  the  opportunity  where  transfer  is 
now  possible  as  one  of  the  options  that  can 
occur  for  the  new  program  we  are  seeing 
before  us. 

The  other  details  with  respect  to  the  guar- 
antee fund  and  the  other  housekeeping 
amendments  are  acceptable. 

I  welcome  the  bill,  recognizing  that  it  will 
deal  with  some  particular  concerns  at  least 
in  the  immediate  next  few  weeks  or  few 
months.  There  are  going  to  be  questions 
asked  as  various  companies  find  themselves 
in  difficulty,  unfortunately,  over  the  next  few 
months  with  respect  to  the  pension  oppor- 
tunities and  benefits  which  their  employees 
will  or  should  receive.  I  hope  this  legislation 
will  have  the  opportunity  of  resolving  many 
of  those  immediate  problems  so  that  the 
guarantee  fund  will  take  care  of  those  who 
particularly  have  that  need  and  the  various 
options  on  vesting  will  benefit  persons  who, 
unfortunately,  may  not  otherwise  be  given 
the  full  opportunity  to  obtain  a  pension  at  the 
usual  60  or  65  years  of  age,  which  they  per- 
haps had  presumed  would  occur  if  the  com- 
pany for  which  they  were  working  would 
continue  in  years  to  come  and  that  they 
would  be  employed  there. 

The  bill,  as  I  have  said,  does  not  deal  with 
some  of  these  other  concerns,  but  there  will 
be  the  opportunity  in  the  Legislature  and, 


no  doubt,  in  the  press  over  these  next  several 
months  to  have  these  various  issues  raised. 
I  certainly  support  the  bill  and  I  hope  it  will 
resolve  some  particular  concerns  for  people 
in  the  next  few  months. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Speaker,  Bill  214 
before  us  is  an  exercise  in  something  that  is 
frankly  less  than  social  responsibility,  in  my 
opinion.  In  the  five  years  since  I  have  been 
here,  one  can  tell  when  December 
finally  rolls  around,  whether  one  has  a  calen- 
dar in  front  of  him  or  not,  by  the  kinds  of 
legislation  the  government  brings  in.  This 
sort  of  half-baked  Band-Aid  approach  to 
what  is  a  very  serious  problem  in  the  prov- 
ince is  a  good  indication,  if  the  Christmas 
party  last  night  was  not,  that  it  is  indeed 
December  and  the  House  is  winding  down 
and  the  government  is  seeking  to  bring  for- 
ward some  inadequate  stopgap  measures  to 
deal  with  what  are  very  serious  problems  in 
our  society. 

I  would  have  liked  to  have  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  have  seen  this  bill  go  to  a  com- 
mittee outside  of  the  House  so  that  workers 
who  have  been  so  badly  affected  by  corpo- 
rate callousness  and  by  governmental  indif- 
ference would  have  had  the  opportunity  to 
come  in  and  put  their  concerns  across  the 
table  to  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  and  his  colleagues  in  the 
government.  I  think  that  would  have  been 
a  useful  exercise,  not  only  for  the  minister 
but  for  perhaps  a  number  of  other  people 
in  the  province,  because  this  bill  does  not 
address  the  real  critical  and  serious  problems 
workers  are  facing  because  of  the  current 
economic  climate  in  this  province. 

It  is  as  if  Bill  214  was  supposed  to  amelio- 
rate problems  of  unexpected  and  unknown 
origin  that  somehow  in  the  last  few  weeks 
came  to  the  attention  of  the  government. 
Frankly,  the  fact  is  this  government  has  in 
the  past  two  or  three  years  consistently 
underestimated  the  seriousness  of  deindus- 
trialization  in  the  province.  At  least  I  hope 
it  is  the  case  that  the  government  just 
seriously  misunderstood  what  was  happening 
in  the  economy.  I  am  confident  the  govern- 
ment was  not  an  active  and  willing  partici- 
pant in  the  kinds  of  shutdowns  and  layoffs 
we  have  seen,  but  rather  some  sort  of  un- 
excitable  cheerleader. 

The  workers  of  this  provice  are  at  this 
moment  up  against  the  wall.  They  have  been 
put  up  against  the  wall  by  a  number  of 
rather  irresponsible  companies  in  this  prov- 
ince and  by  the  indifference  of  their  provin- 
cial and  federal  governments.  We  have  seen 
over  the  past  month  or  so  the  government 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5257 


of  Ontario  trying  to  deal  in  some  way  with 
the  problems  it  at  least  has  partially  caused 
for  workers  in  the  province.  We  have  seen 
those  efforts  through  things  like  the  plant 
shutdowns  committee.  We  thought  we  had 
seen  them  in  terms  of  severance  pay  legis- 
lation although,  as  I  understand  it,  it  looks 
like  we  are  not  going  to  see  severance  pay 
legislation  before  we  leave  this  place. 
5:10  p.m. 

There  is,  in  terms  of  pensions,  a  clear 
need  in  this  province  for  major  and  extensive 
reform.  We  have  had  a  royal  commission 
studying  this  matter  since  1977.  I  realize  it 
is  a  complex  issue,  but  it  seems  to  me  that 
three  years  is  a  considerable  period  of  time. 
While  workers  are  losing  their  jobs,  losing 
their  incomes,  with  all  the  inherent  social 
damage  involved  in  that  kind  of  economic 
disaster,  we  have  waited  three  years  for  this 
report  to  come. 

Every  time  we  ask  the  government  when 
we  are  going  to  see  some  major  reform  in 
pension  legislation  we  always  get  the  same 
response,  "Wait  for  the  report."  I  had  ex- 
pected to  see  that  report  in  the  House  early 
this  fall.  I  had  expected  to  see  major  legisla- 
tion in  the  House  this  fall.  I  expected  to 
see  a  major  attack  on  those  problems  by  the 
government  and  by  the  assembly  this  fall. 
I  am  disappointed  that  we  have  not  seen 
that  and  are  not  going  to  see  it  until  at 
least  some  time  in  the  spring  session  or, 
quite  probably,  after  the  next  provincial 
election. 

You  wonder,  Mr.  Speaker,  about  who  has 
power  in  this  society  when  you  look  at  an 
issue  like  this.  We  look  at  the  lives  that  have 
been  shattered  because  of  the  lack  of  decent 
pension  legislation  in  the  province.  It  is 
clear  to  me  that  workers  do  not  have  a  great 
deal  of  power  or  influence  in  this  province, 
because  they  have  been  trying  to  get  decent 
legislation  and  have  failed.  What  are  the 
forces  arrayed  on  the  other  side  in  the 
battle?  One  of  them  obviously  is  our  pension 
industry  itself. 

In  this  country  we  have  a  $50  billion  pen- 
sion industry.  Talk  about  power.  Certainly, 
in  our  society,  a  great  deal  of  power  and 
influence  resides  in  such  a  powerful  lobby 
group  as  that.  I  suppose  for  that  reason,  if 
for  no  other,  it  is  possible  to  understand,  if 
not  appreciate,  the  tortoise-like  speed  with 
which  the  government  has  been  dragging 
along  in  terms  of  providing  workers  with 
adequate  protections.  As  I  said  earlier,  I 
would  have  preferred  to  see  that  major  re- 
port introduced  early  in  this  session,  and  to 
have   had   legislation    debated,    adopted   and 


in  place  by  the  end  of  this  year  so  we  could 
have  protected  our  workers  much  better  than 
we  have  been  able  to. 

The  government,  though,  not  only  continues 
to  come  forward  with  those  major  reforms, 
but  continues  essentially  to  ignore  the  root 
causes  of  the  problems.  Not  only  have  they 
been  inadequate  in  the  kinds  of  Band- Aid 
approaches  they  have  put  forward  to  try  to 
help  working  people,  but  they  have  totally 
ignored  the  fundamental  causes  of  the  cur- 
rent economic  malaise  and  refused  to  act 
upon  those.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the 
government  will  not  attack  the  root  causes 
behind  our  economic  problems,  then  there  is 
a  moral  imperative  that  they  at  least  do 
everything  they  possibly  can  to  protect  the 
people  who  are  going  to  be  harmed.  I  am 
saddened  by  legislation  like  this,  which 
shows  that  the  government  will  once  again 
not  do  that.  This  clearly  is  a  Band-Aid  ap- 
proach, Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  will  have  more 
to  say  about  that  during  committee  debate. 
It  is  also,  as  I  said  earlier,  a  half-baked 
approach. 

The  legislation  is  in  many  ways  nonsensi- 
cal. For  example,  section  5  of  the  bill,  which 
sets  forward  the  great  new  options  that  are 
going  to  be  available  to  workers  in  Ontario 
in  terms  of  picking  up  pension  benefits,  talks 
about  one  option  and  refers  to  the  normal 
retirement  age.  Some  pension  plans  do  have 
something  called  a  normal  retirement  age. 
However,  other  pension  plans  do  not  even 
reference  such  things  as  a  retirement  age. 
They  speak  about  plans  like  "30  years  and 
out"  plans  that  some  of  our  unions  have  been 
able  to  win  for  their  workers.  What  happens 
to  those  workers  in  those  situations  with 
"30  years  and  out"  provisions?  Are  they 
excluded  from  even  the  limited  protection 
that  is  provided  by  this  legislation?  That  is 
a  question  the  minister  should  address  him- 
self to. 

There  have  been  a  number  of  other 
problems  raised.  For  example,  section  7 
of  this  bill  talks  about  the  vested  pension 
interest  as  a  lien.  There  is  no  clear  under- 
standing of  how  high  these  pension  interests 
stand  as  part  of  a  lien  against  the  corpora- 
tion. Even  more  serious  perhaps  is  the  im- 
mense jurisdictional  dispute  between  the 
federal  and  provincial  government  that  will 
arise  because  bankruptcy  legislation  is 
clearly  something  that  has  been  within  the 
federal  jurisdiction.  If  the  feds  say,  "We 
give  first  rights  of  this  corporation  to  the 
banks  and  other  such  companies,"  what  is 
the  provincial  government  going  to  be  able 
to  do  to  make  sure  these  workers  who  can 


5258 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


have  a  lien  in  place  of  their  pension  against 
the  company  are  going  to  have  a  very  high 
standing?  The  bill  is  remarkably  silent  about 
that. 

One  of  the  most  serious  aspects,  and  the 
one  that  has  drawn  the  most  ire  from  work- 
ers, deals  with  the  45-and-10  provisions  that 
remain  in  this  legislation.  The  government 
can  sit  there  until  it  falls  asleep  or  dies  of 
its  own  inactivity  but  I  do  not  think  the 
government,  under  the  serious  circumstances 
we  are  in,  can  say  things  like:  "Oh  well,  we 
are  going  to  continue  to  wait  for  the  com- 
mission to  report.  Then  we  will  think  about 
it  over  the  winter.  Maybe  if  there  is  not 
an  election,  we  will  bring  in  some  legisla- 
tion in  the  spring  and  maybe  that  could 
go  out  to  committee  in  the  summer.  Maybe 
next  year  we  could  do  something  about  45 
and  10." 

It  is  past  time  we  did  something  about 
45  and  10.  If  the  government  is  unwilling 
to  do  it,  I  am  quite  willing  and  will  move 
amendments  during  committee  today  to  get 
rid  of  the  45-and-10  provision.  The  45-and- 
10  provision,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  simply  that 
for  the  pension  of  the  worker  to  be  vested 
under  this  legislation,  the  worker  has  to  be 
45  years  of  age  or  over,  and  has  to  have 
worked  and  have  been  contributing  money 
to  that  plan  for  10  years. 

When  I  was  working  in  the  factory,  I 
did  not  work  in  a  factory  that  had  a  proper 
pension  plan.  I  worked  in  one  that  had  a 
profit  sharing  plan,  so  I  cannot  talk  from 
personal  experience  about  the  kind  of  pen- 
sion I  had  in  my  factory  days,  but  I  now 
do  have  certain  rights  to  a  pension.  It  is  a 
nice  pension.  It  is  one  that  my  father  is  cur- 
rently collecting.  It  is  one  that  all  of  the 
members  of  the  assembly  here  will  probably 
one  day  be  able  to  collect. 

Is  there  a  45-and-10  rule  in  regard  to  the 
vesting  of  that  pension?  There  clearly  is  not 
a  45  rule  and  there  is  not  even  a  10  rule. 
If  a  member  spends  five  years  around  this 
loony  bin,  he  gets  his  pension  vested.  But 
if  a  person  slogs  his  guts  out  in  the  indus- 
trial heartland  of  this  province  for  nine 
years  and  is  44  years  old,  he  is  not  eligible 
under  the  45  and  10  rule.  What  happens 
to  the  worker  who  is  44  years  old  and  has 
worked  20  years,  hard  years,  day  in  day 
out?  He  is  not  eligible  under  this  legisla- 
tion. Yet  somebody  can  get  elected  to  this 
fine  place  and  has  a  vested  pension  after 
five  years. 

If  it  is  good  enough  for  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr. 
Drea),     the     member     for     Kitchener     (Mr. 


Breithaupt)  and  the  member  for  Hamilton 
Centre,  then  it  is  good  enough  for  the 
workers  of  Hamilton  Centre.  I  am  quite 
prepared  to  move,  and  I  hope  the  minister 
will  support,  an  amendment  that  gets  rid 
of  the  45-and-10  rule  and  substitutes  for  it 
a  five-year  vesting  period  just  as  we,  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislative  Assembly,  have.  It 
sounds  only  fair  to  me. 

The  government  has  talked  about  port- 
ability and  how  much  it  has  done  to  in- 
crease portability.  In  fact,  very  little  has 
been  done  in  this  bill  to  increase  port- 
ability. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  going  to  speak- 
longer  on  second  reading  because  I  do  want 
to  put  seven  or  eight  amendments  during 
committee  stage  of  the  bill  today.  There 
are  essentially  two  groups  of  problems  in 
this  bill.  One,  the  bill  does  not  go  far 
enough.  It  just  does  not  go  anywhere  near 
far  enough.  Two,  it  does  not  cover  or  affect 
enough  people.  We  have  a  very  serious 
problem  out  there  for  our  workers  and  the 
government  has  come  forward  with  what 
is  a  Band-Aid  and  half-baked  approach, 
which  unfortunately  we  cannot  send  out  to 
committee  because  we  do  not  have  the 
time  to  send  it  out  to  committee,  or  for 
workers  to  come  in  and  tell  the  government 
what  they  think  about  their  legislation  and 
what  they  think  they  should  be  able  to  do 
with  their  legislation. 
5:20  p.m. 

1  will  support  it  on  second  reading  so  we 
can  get  it  into  committee  of  the  whole  House 
where  I  hope  we  will  have  some  opportunity 
to  offer  some  amendments  to  this  inadequate 
bill  that  will  go  at  least  one  short  step  further 
in  protecting  workers  in  the  province. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  just  a 
few  more  things  to  add  to  the  remarks  of 
my  colleague  from  Kitchener.  I  come  with 
somewhat  mixed  feelings.  I  think  if  we  were 
prepared  to  sit  down  for  the  next  couple  of 
months  we  could  probably  collectively  draft 
some  better  legislation.  It  is  my  view,  how- 
ever, that  this  bill  should  probably  go 
through  unamended  at  this  time  as  an  in- 
terim step,  as  one  small  step  for  mankind 
along  the  road  to  massive  pension  reform 
in  this  province. 

We  have  waited  for  years  now  for  the 
Haley  commission.  I  certainly  understand  the 
strictures  that  are  on  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations.  But  in  the 
number  of  fights  I  have  had  in  this  Legis- 
lature to  bring  about  pension  reform,  I  say 
in  a  complimentary  way  to  the  minister 
that  he  has   evinced  not  only  more  under- 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5259 


standing  but  more  sensitivity  for  this  issue 
than  any  other  minister,  including  the  Treas- 
urer (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller). 

It  is  a  complicated  issue.  I  say  in  a  com- 
plimentary way,  being  Christmas  time  and 
all  that,  this  minister  has  a  better  understand- 
ing of  the  subject.  I  would  just  give  him  a 
small  admonition.  When  the  Haley  com- 
mission report  does  come,  I  hope  he  will  take 
some  personal  responsibility  in  the  massive 
reforms  that  are  going  to  have  to  come. 
Some  of  them  will  be  under  his  jurisdiction. 
Some  of  the  funding  aspects  of  the  Canada 
pension  plan  and  other  things  he  will  have 
to  deal  with  presumably,  Ontario's  role 
therein  and  the  disposition  of  those  massive 
billions  of  dollars  of  funds  are  certainly  under 
the  Treasurer's  bailiwick  to  some  extent. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  trust  I  have  your  sup- 
port to  become  the  lead  ministry. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Absolutely.  If  we  get  into 
pension  reform,  if  we  get  into  a  committee 
to  study  the  Haley  report,  it  could  occupy 
the  best  minds  of  the  whole  civil  service  to 
come  up  with  the  kind  of  reforms  we  need. 
It  is  going  to  require  a  great  deal  of  attention. 

il  am  reluctant  to  mess  around  with  this 
bill  now  in  the  absence  of  wholesale  reform. 
In  one  sense  it  is  almost  too  bad  we  even 
have  to  do  this.  We  should  be  looking  at  the 
whole  question  de  novo.  Because  of  the  poli- 
tical pressures  and  because  of  the  situation 
at  the  present  time  and  the  imminent  finan- 
cial problems  of  this  province  and  plant 
closures,  it  is  deemed  prudent  by  a  number 
of  people  to  introduce  this  legislation  now. 

It  has  to  be  understood  for  what  it  is.  This 
applies  only  to  plant  closedown  situations, 
which  in  terms  of  relevant  numbers  are  rela- 
tively insignificant  compared  to  the  number 
of  pension  beneficiaries  in  this  province.  We 
are  really  only  covering  a  very  limited  num- 
ber of  people  or  potentially  a  very  limited 
number  of  people  with  this  reform.  It  is  all 
worth  while.  Some  of  it  is  difficult  to  justify. 
I  am  not  very  happy  about  the  45-and-10 
rule. 

As  has  been  pointed  out  by  other  members, 
inevitably  with  this  kind  of  legislation  there 
are  going  to  be  cutoff  points  or  people  taken 
out  by  the  notch  provisions  or  whatever, 
that  will  reap  real  hardships,  for  example, 
the  person  who  is  not  45  or  who  has  worked 
only  nine  years.  There  are  cases  like  that. 
Granted,  in  all  of  this  legislation  one  must 
be  arbitrary  at  some  point,  but  I  am  one  who 
is  going  to  fight,  and  I  want  to  put  you 
on  notice  of  this,  Mr.  Speaker,  for  far  earlier 
vesting  than  this  and  for  portability. 


There  are  a  number  of  experts,  and  these 
are  not  the  weirdos  in  the  community,  who 
are  saying  that  there  are  a  number  of  bene- 
fits, not  only  financial  benefits  to  the  indi- 
vidual but  benefits  to  the  work  place,  to  have 
higher  portability  and  earlier  vesting  to 
create  more  mobility  of  labour.  Pensions  can 
no  longer  be  used  as  a  device  to  keep  work- 
ers in  subservience.  They  must  be  able  to 
flow  freely,  as  goods  and  capital  do  in  a 
country,  in  order  to  get  the  maximum  effi- 
ciency for  that  labour. 

These  are  big  questions,  and  they  are 
questions  for  another  day.  I  would  have 
liked  to  have  seen  earlier  vesting  and,  as 
I  said,  we  will  be  fighting  very  hard  for 
that  at  the  time  we  address  our  minds  col- 
lectively to  the  Haley  commission.  We  have 
waited  three  or  four  years  or  whatever  it  is, 
and  I  think  we  should  review  the  thing  in 
total.  In  a  sense,  almost  every  small  move 
we  make  may  have  to  be  recovered,  undone 
or  amended  in  another  six  months  or  a  year. 
Recognizing  the  urgency  of  the  situation, 
we  will  support  this  in  the  short  term. 

The  minister  evinced  some  sensitivity  to 
the  problems  of  guarantee  funds.  There  are 
a  lot  of  potential  abuses  in  those  funds.  They 
can  be  administered  poorly.  They  can  end 
up  as  a  situation  where  the  efficient  sub- 
sidize the  inefficient,  where  the  well  run 
company  subsidizes  the  sleazier  company 
which  may  want  to  make  a  last  minute  deal 
before  it  bails  out.  The  attempt  to  provide 
against  those  kinds  of  abuses  by  having  a 
three-year  cutoff  period  seems  a  reasonable 
one.  It  could  have  been  four  or  five  years. 

Ideally,  the  guarantee  fund,  as  attractive 
as  it  sounds,  is  not  always  the  best  ap- 
proach. Perhaps  another  approach  to  these 
problems  is  tougher  funding  requirements. 
In  a  sense,  the  minister  compensates  for 
that  because  the  people  who  are  fully 
funded  will  not  have  to  contribute  to  the 
guarantee  fund.  Personally,  I  would  rather 
have  seen  it  approached  from  the  other 
end,  not  using  the  guarantee  fund  because 
it  probably  will  not  benefit  many  responsible 
people.  We  should  be  tougher  with  those 
who  are  irresponsible. 

For  example,  if  a  massive  automotive 
company  in  this  country  went  belly  up, 
which  some  people  think  is  possible,  we 
could  end  up  in  a  situation  where  we  had 
a  number  of  basically  responsibly  run  plans 
subsidizing  a  massive  shutdown  or  layoff 
of  that  type.  My  approach  would  be  to- 
wards tighter  funding  obligations,  more 
disclosure,  earlier  vesting  and  probably  a 
loosening    up    of    the    pension    investment 


5260 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


rules  so  the  pension  fund  managers  can 
seek  the  highest  rate  of  return  possible  in 
the   marketplace   today. 

We  are  almost  on  the  verge  of  a  new 
economic  era.  Who  would  have  predicted 
five  years  ago,  two  years  ago,  one  year  ago 
or  six  months  ago  that  we  would  have  a 
20  per  cent  prime  interest  rate  today?  With 
double-digit  inflation,  to  achieve  a  real  rate 
of  return  after  inflation  we  need  incredibly 
high  rates  of  return  on  that  invested  cap- 
ital. If  we  cannot  guarantee  that  and  if 
we  do  not  allow  that  kind  of  flexibility  be- 
tween competing  fund  managers,  we  are 
going  to  erode  the  integrity  of  some  of 
those  funds. 

Historically,  that  has  been  one  of  the 
problems  with  pension  funds  that  are  con- 
servatively invested  and  are  not  growing, 
in  real  terms,  as  fast  as  they  should  be  and 
are  not  keeping  up  with  inflation.  These  are 
profound  problems,  not  only  in  this  juris- 
diction but  with  the  federal  rules  as  well. 

Frankly,  I  am  ambivalent  about  the 
guarantee  funds.  I  tend  to  think  the  min- 
ister is  setting  up  an  unnecessary  appa- 
ratus that  will  solve  few  social  evils,  at  least 
the  ones  he  wants  to  correct.  He  should 
probably  have  gone  at  it  a  different  way. 
I  do  not  feel  strongly  enough  to  vote 
against  it,  and  the  minister  may  have  some 
arguments  to  convince  me  my  perceptions 
are   incorrect. 

It  has  always  been  my  view  that  when  we 
talk  about  pension  reform  the  first  place  we 
start  is  with  disclosure.  I  can  think  of  no 
subject  that  is  more  complicated  or  where 
fewer  people  have  any  knowledge  of  their 
own  rights,  entitlements  or  assets  than  in 
the  pension  area.  It  is  a  known  fact  that, 
generally,  young  people  do  not  care  about 
pensions.  They  are  interested  in  a  higher 
disposable  income.  They  are  not  interested 
in  contributing  to  someone  else's  retirement. 
As  people  get  older  and  start  contemplating 
their  own  retirements,  as  they  start  investi- 
gating their  own  assets  and  entitlements,  they 
tend  to  be  a  little  more  sensitive. 

They  wonder:  "My  goodness,  what  has 
been  happening  to  my  money?  Why  have  I 
only  a  four  or  five  per  cent  rate  of  return 
on  those  moneys?  Why  am  I  not  entitled  to 
the  employer's  contribution?  I  thought  he  was 
putting  away  money  for  me  and  now  I  have 
found  out  he  was  not.  All  I  get  is  my  money 
and  four  or  five  per  cent.  I  could  have  had 
it  in  the  bank.  I  could  have  bought  gold  or 
real  estate." 

5:30  p.m. 


If  we  force  disclosure,  that  is  the  first 
place  to  bring  up  the  general  level  of  knowl- 
edge. Every  employee  must  have  an  absolute 
right  to  go  to  the  manager  of  his  pension 
fund  and  know  the  instant  status  of  that 
fund  and  the  integrity  of  the  portfolio.  He 
should  have  the  right  to  make  his  own  judge- 
ments thereupon,  and  compare  it  with  other 
portfolio  managers,  should  he  so  desire.  But 
he  also  should  be  able  to  know  his  own 
personal  entitlement.  I  welcome  anything 
that  starts  with  that  move.  But  this  is  only 
the  first  step  along  a  difficult,  long  and  com- 
plicated road. 

'There  are  going  to  be  a  number  of  very 
broad  issues  that  are  going  to  have  to  be 
addressed.  This  legislation  will  affect  an  al- 
most insignificant  number  of  people  in  this 
province.  It  is  a  decent  step;  it  is  a  step  on 
the  right  road.  Some  of  the  protections  in- 
herent herein  are  going  to  have  to  meet 
standards  on  a  broader  base  across  this 
province.  They  are  going  to  have  broad 
macroeconomic  effects— the  disposition  of 
those  funds,  who  uses  them,  how  they  are 
used,  who  can  borrow  from  them  and  who 
can  not. 

Any  time  we  talk  about  pension  legislation, 
by  definition  we  exclude  those  people  who 
are  not  included  under  pensions  today.  That 
is  a  disturbingly  high  percentage  of  the  popu- 
lation. When  we  discuss  the  whole  private 
sector  and  pension  plans,  we  are  going  to 
have  to  discuss  their  relationship  with  pub- 
lic plans,  and  what  really  are  the  highest 
obligations  of  the  government  leaders  to  look 
after  people  in  their  retirement,  and  looking 
at  the  relative  cost  and  relative  benefits  one 
can  purchase  and  who  should  best  adminis- 
ter those.  Those  are  very  difficult  public 
policy  questions. 

It  is  a  known  fact,  for  example,  that  prob- 
ably the  best  single  pension  buy  in  Canada 
today  is  the  Canada  pension  plan.  It  is  a 
terrific  buy.  The  fact  it  is  going  to  be  bank- 
rupt by  the  end  of  the  century  and  taxpayers 
are  going  to  carry  the  can  for  that  brings 
into  account  some  other  questions  that  have 
to  be  discussed.  But  in  the  short  term,  at 
least,  it  is  the  most  significant  and  best  pen- 
sion buy  in  Ontario,  and  indeed  in  Canada. 

I  look  forward  to  a  full  and  wholesale 
discussion  of  those  major  issues  some  time 
in  the  future.  It  is  my  hope  it  is  sooner  rather 
than  later.  It  is  my  hope  the  government  will 
not  just  shelve  the  whole  Haley  commission 
findings  and  have  an  internal  review  com- 
mittee for  another  four  years.  We  in  the 
opposition  are  waiting  for  the  very  basic  kind 
of  reform.   They  are  not  that  hard  to  do. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5261 


Saskatchewan  has  done  it;  Quebec  has  done 
it.  They  have  taught  us  that  we  can  move 
quickly  in  some  of  those  areas. 

I  look  forward  to  that  important  and  major 
discussion,  which  will  occupy  the  minds  of 
the  majority  of  the  members  of  this  House 
some  time  in  the  immediate  future.  In  the 
meantime,  I  would  urge  my  colleagues  on 
all  sides  of  the  House  to  get  this  through 
as  quickly  as  possible. 

I  have  given  my  reservations.  That  being 
said,  I  think  we  should  support  it  now  to 
solve  a  potential  evil  over  this  winter.  We 
will  look  forward  to  the  real  work  which  is 
to  come,  I  hope,  in  the  near  future. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  my  col- 
league from  Hamilton  Centre  indicated,  we 
are  supporting  this  bill,  but  it  will  be  a 
much  better  bill  after  he  has  put  his  amend- 
ments. I  expect  they  will  be  supported  by 
all  sides  of  the  House  because  of  their 
eminent  good  sense. 

Every  time  I  think  of  pensions  I  think  of 
what  is  happening  not  just  when  a  plant 
closes  but  out  there  in  society  as  a  whole. 
I  can  see  what  is  going  to  happen  as  the 
years  go  by.  As  the  population  ages,  as  the 
demographic  bump  moves  through  Ontario 
and  elsewhere  in  Canada,  it  is  going  to  be- 
come a  bigger  and  bigger  issue. 

It  is  like  the  situation  we  used  to  have  in 
medical  services,  and  to  a  certain  extent  we 
still  do— a  hotchpotch  of  programs  and  plans 
that  will  eventually  self-destruct.  I  predict 
the  day  will  come  when  the  whole  pension 
field  will  be  so  complicated,  and  it  will  get 
itself  in  such  a  mess,  that  the  inevitable 
will   then   occur. 

With  Canada  pension  plan  already  in 
place,  that  will  be  expanded  so  that  the 
people  of  this  country  have  an  appropriate 
level  of  pension;  have  a  pension  that  is 
comletely  portable;  have  a  pension  that  ap- 
plies to  everybody,  not  just  people  who 
have  paid  into  a  contributory  plan.  That  is 
the  model.  It  is  already  there  in  something 
called  the  Canada  pension  plan. 

We  now  have  the  old  age  pension,  we 
have  Canada  pension  plan,  and  we  have  a 
plethora  of  pension  schemes  out  there.  Some 
day,  I  say  to  the  minister,  somebody  is  going 
to  come  out  with  a  report.  It  will  not  be 
Donna  Haley  with  her  report,  because  she 
understands  that  the  kind  of  recommenda- 
tion where  we  put  in  one  comprehensive, 
completely  portable  scheme  would  not  be 
brought  by  this  government  at  this  point. 
She  knows  that  very  well,  and  the  minister 
knows  he  would  not  be  prepared  to  take 
that  kind  of  courageous  step  at  this  point 


either,  even  though  he  knows  it  is  the  way 
to  solve  the  pension  problem  out  there. 
Whether  that  pension  has  to  do  with  the 
plant  closing  or  whether  it  has  to  do  wih 
someone  reaching  the  age  of  retirement, 
that  is  the  direction  we  simply  have  to 
move  in. 

The  minister  is  unable,  or  unwilling,  or 
afraid  to  take  big  steps;  that  is  why  he 
takes    mincing    steps. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:   Small. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mincing.  The  minister 
heard  me  correctly.  When  it  comes  to  any 
kind  of  reform,  this  minister  takes  only 
mincing  steps.  He  is  not  willing  to  take  the 
kind  of  courageous  large  step  that  would 
really  get  to  the  root  of  the  problems  and 
solve  them  once  and  for  all.  I  just  want  to 
serve  notice  to  the  minister  that  there  is  a 
path  down  which  he  should  be  going,  in 
the  direction  of  a  comprehensive  public  pen- 
sion scheme  based  on  the  model  of  the 
Canada  pension  plan  which  is  completely 
portable.  No  matter  where  a  person  lives 
in  this  country  or  where  he  or  she  works, 
he  or  she  has  an  adequate  pension. 

I  would  predict  that  as  the  demographics 
change  in  this  country  that  is  where  we  will 
end  up,  but  there  will  be  a  lot  of  agony,  a 
lot  of  thrashing  about,  and  a  lot  of  debate 
before  we  get  there.  That  day  will  come 
and  I  am  precisely  the  age  of  a  person  who 
will  get  the  main  benefit  when  that  day 
actually  does  come.  So  I  am  saying  to  the 
minister— I  will  not  ask  him  to  do  it  for 
me,  but  I  ask  him  to  think  seriously  about 
the  mess  there  is  out  there  in  pensions  and 
whether  he  can  solve  the  problem  by  put- 
ting a  patch  on  here  and  a  patch  on  there. 

We  have  in  Ontario  now  a  one-man 
commission  studying  workmen's  compensa- 
tion, and  one  of  the  things  he  is  going  to 
look  at  in  his  next  report  is  the  extent  to 
which  we  can  continue  to  have  the  hotch- 
potch of  accident  and  sickness  schemes  we 
have  in  Ontario.  We  also  have  right  now 
a  select  committee  on  company  law,  the 
chairman  of  which  is  the  member  for 
Kitchener  (Mr.  Breithaupt),  the  hardwork- 
ing, conscientious  chairman  from  Kitchener. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  that  whole  committee 
is  hardworking  and  conscientious. 

Mr.  Roy:  Are  you  on  that  committee? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Yes,  I  am  on  that  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Roy:  Well,  you  should  be  congratu- 
lated. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Just  as  that  committee 
is   grappling  with  the  whole  problem  of  a 


5262 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


patchwork  of  accident  and  sickness  schemes, 
so  are  the  people  investigating  pensions 
going  to  be  grappling  with  the  problem 
there  for  many  years  to  come  until  finally 
they  come  to  their  senses  and  say,  "This 
whole  thing  is  nonsense,  all  this  patch- 
work." 

Mr.   Nixon:   You  mean   this   whole  thing? 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  meant  the  pension  field. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Your  gestures  were  all- 
inclusive. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  was  pointing  at  the 
member,  I  know.  I  take  back  the  point,  Mr. 
Speaker,  and  I  say  to  the  minister  that  we 
support  the  bill  and  in  return  for  our  sup- 
port, we  expect  him  to  support  our  amend- 
ments. 

5:40  p.m. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  just 
going  to  be  able  to  make  a  few  remarks  on 
this  bill.  I  know  that  will  be  a  profound 
disappointment.  What  we  have  here  in  the 
act  to  amend  the  Pension  Benefits  Act  is  the 
first  of  what  I  expet  to  be  many  attempts  at 
artificial  respiration  for  the  private  pension 
sector.  We  are  going  to  have  more  and 
more  of  these  frantic  efforts  on  the  part  of 
Conservatives  here  and  Liberals  in  Ottawa 
to  try  somehow  to  put  Humpty  Dumpty 
back  together  again. 

Let  me  tell  anybody  who  is  still  deluded 
that  one  can  build  a  pension  scheme  in  a 
modern  industrial  society  on  the  basis  of 
private  sector  insurance  that  he  is  whistling 
in  the  dark.  The  private  pension  system  is 
a  dead  skunk.  It  has  the  two  character- 
istics of  a  dead  skunk:  it  is  dead  and  it 
stinks.  There  is  nothing  one  can  do  by  way 
of  artificial  respiration  to  change  that 
reality. 

Over  half  of  the  workers  in  this  countiy 
are  not  covered  by  private  insurance  pro- 
grams. It  is  more  than  half,  but  I  cannot 
remember  the  exact  figure.  I  believe  60 
per  cent  are  not  covered.  On  the  basis  of 
the  performance  of  the  private  insurance 
industry  over  the  last  50  or  60  years  they 
never  will  be.  Nothing  that  government  does 
is  going  to  change  that. 

Our  pension  policies  in  this  country  are 
the  most  backward  in  the  western  industrial 
world,  with  the  exception  of  the  United 
States.  That  is  an  indisputable,  empirical 
observation.  There  is  nothing  anybody  can 
say  because  those  are  simply  the  facts.  We 
have  a  pension  system  that  is  based  on  a 
hotchpotch  of  private  insurance,  public  in- 
surance at  the  federal  level  broken  down 
into  three  separate  programs,  private  savings, 


provincial  pension  programs,  tax  credit 
systems,  provincial  social  assistance  and 
municipal  social  assistance  or  municipal 
welfare. 

Anybody  who  spends  more  than  five  min- 
utes a  week  in  his  constituency  office  knows 
what  agony  elderly  pensioners  have  to  go 
through  to  try  to  put  together  a  package  of 
income  on  the  basis  of  this  nonsensical 
hotchpotch,  a  package  of  income  consisting 
of  old  age  security,  guaranteed  income 
supplement,  Canada  pension  plan,  provin- 
cial Gains  and  municipal  special  assistance 
or  municipal  supplementary  aid  to  help 
cover  the  rent;  tax  credits  et  cetera.  It  all 
adds  up,  when  one  puts  the  package  to- 
gether, to  an  income  below  the  poverty  line. 

Yet  policy  makers  in  Ottawa  and  policy 
makers  here  in  Ontario  continue  under  the 
delusion  that  it  is  somehow  possible  by 
waving  a  magic  wand  and  bringing  in  little 
pieces  of  legislation  like  Bill  214,  which 
will  be  the  first  of  a  stream  of  these  kinds 
of  bills,  somehow  to  deal  with  the  fact  that 
we  have  never  come  to  an  adequate  policy 
resolution  on  the  pension  issue.  The  only 
possible  resolution  is  to  say  that  we  can 
only  build  an  adequate  income  security  pro- 
gram for  retiring  Canadians  in  the  public 
sector. 

That  means  we  have  to  redesign  the  Can- 
ada pension  plan.  What  kind  of  a  joke  are 
we  dealing  with?  A  public  pension  plan 
that  pays  as  a  maximum  25  per  cent  of 
earnings  is  a  bad  joke.  The  member  for  Lon- 
don Centre  has  made  a  dozen  speeches  at 
least  in  this  session  alone  with  respect  to  the 
funding  position  of  the  Canada  pension  plan. 
I  do  not  happen  to  agree  with  his  conclu- 
sions, but  everybody  will  accept  his  analysis 
that  the  Canada  pension  plan  is  going  broke. 
It  is  going  broke  because  it  was  never  de- 
signed as  a  pension  plan.  It  was  designed  as 
a  source  of  cheap  public  borrowing  for  the 
provincial  governments.  That  is  what  was 
put  together  in  Quebec  City  in  the  1960s. 
That  is  what  the  10  provincial  governments 
and  the  federal  government  agreed  to  set  up 
in  the  mid-1960s.  That  is  all  it  has  been 
treated  as. 

Every  attempt  to  improve  even  marginally 
the  Canada  pension  plan  has  met  with  the 
ultimate  resistance  from  the  government  of 
Ontario.  The  government  of  Ontario  has  in- 
sisted on  protecting  the  pool  of  cheap  money. 
Ontario  has  opposed  additional  coverage 
under  the  Canada  pension  plan  since  its  in- 
ception. Ontario  is  now  hoping  frantically, 
through  the  agency  of  the  royal  commission, 
to  come  up  with  some  way  of  reviving  the 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5263 


money  pot.  It  is  having  to  deal  with  the  fact 
it  is  a  useless  pension  program. 

Who  is  going  to  live  on  25  per  cent  of  his 
earnings  maximum?  How  can  we  talk  about 
a  modern  pension  plan  when  it  is  as  regres- 
sive in  its  funding  structure  as  the  Canada 
pension  plan?  That  is  absolutely  ludicrous. 
How  can  we  continue  to  shirk  the  reality  or 
pretend  that  the  contributions,  1.8  and  1.8 
per  cent  of  payroll,  are  somehow  adequate 
to  a  modern  public  pension  system?  All  one 
has  to  do  is  look  at  the  rates  of  employer- 
employee  contributions  in  European  coun- 
tries compared  with  benefit  levels  to  under- 
stand what  a  completely  miserable  operation 
the  Canada  pension  plan  is. 

Where  does  the  government  take  its  initia- 
tive? Not  by  speaking  out  loudly  and  clearly 
on  the  injustices  with  respect  to  the  Canada 
pension  plan.  Not  by  speaking  out  loudly  and 
clearly  on  the  inadequacies  of  the  overall 
hotchpotch,  the  six-level  layer  cake  that 
guarantees  a  subpoverty  level  of  existence. 
Not  by  dealing  with  the  Gains  component 
which  is  under  Ontario's  jurisdiction  by 
raising  the  rates  to  a  level  above  the  poverty 
line.  Singles  are  still  below  the  poverty  line 
and  couples  are  just  a  few  centimetres  above 
it. 

That  is  not  in  the  cards.  That  is  not  on 
the  agenda.  What  we  have  is  a  royal  com- 
mission whose  work  has  been  delayed,  I  be- 
lieve, five  times.  Some  of  us  are  even  told 
that  not  only  has  it  been  printed,  but  the  ink 
has  been  dry  for  some  time.  Is  that  true? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  That  is  not  true. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  am  glad  to  hear  that.  I 
had  been  told  that.  I  believe  the  minister 
when  he  says  it  is  not  ready  yet.  It  was  sup- 
posed to  be  ready  three  times  in  1979.  It  was 
supposed  to  be  ready  two  and  a  half  times 
in  1980. 

Mr.  Laughren:  December  15  was  the  dead- 
line. 

Mr.  McClellan:  There  was  a  previous  dead- 
line in  1980  and  another  deadline  some  time 
this  fall. 

Mr.  Laughren:  December  15. 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  will  see  if  it  comes 
out  December  15.  I  know  what  is  going  to 
be  in  it  without  knowing  what  is  in  it.  It 
will  be  the  last  clarion  call  to  revive  the 
private  pensions  sector  and  there  will  be  a 
whole  series  of  proposals  around  vesting  and 
portability,  a  series  of  efforts  to  end  what 
can  only  be  described  as  the  most  blatant, 
nonsensical  injustice  imaginable.  These  are 
situations  that  would  not  have  been  toler- 
ated   30    or   40    years    ago    in    any    of    the 


European  industrial  democracies,  yet  we  are 
still  fooling  around  and  having  to  stoop  to 
the  level  of  debating  something  like  Bill  214 
which  has  such  minimal  vesting  and  port- 
ability provisions  as  to  be,  quite  frankly, 
beneath  contempt. 

In  this  bill,  the  minister  is  perpetuating 
45  years  of  age  and  10  years  of  service  as  a 
condition  for  getting  some  kind  of  protection 
if  one  is  suddenly  laid  off.  Thanks  a  lot. 
What  happens  to  people  who  are  not  vested 
under  our  Neanderthal  vesting  provisions? 
They  are  just  out  of  luck;  too  bad;  sorry. 

5:50  p.m. 

That  we  are  even  dealing  with  something 
as  crazy  as  trying  to  protect  somebody's  pen- 
sion credits  in  the  case  of  a  layoff  in  1980 
is  absolutely  disgraceful.  It  is  demeaning. 
Are  we  supposed  to  be  grateful  that  the  gov- 
ernment has  finally  said,  "If  you  are  over  45 
years  of  age  and  have  10  years  service  or 
more  and  somebody  takes  your  job  away 
from  you,  we  are  going  to  protect  your  pen- 
sion credits."  Thank  you  very  much.  What  a 
bunch  of  sweethearts!  I  wonder  how  long  it 
took  them  to  come  to  the  overwhelming 
realization  that  that  was  something  that  was 
appropriate  to  do?  Did  the  minister  have  to 
study  it  for  a  long  time?  Is  this  something 
he  agonized  over? 

It  really  is  a  very  sad  commentary  on  our 
society's  attitude  towards  workers  who  have 
reached  retirement  age  that  we  have  never 
had  the  decency  as  a  society  to  bring  in  a 
decent  public  pension  program  that  covers 
everybody  and  provides  a  level  of  retirement 
income  based  on  some  objective  measure- 
ment of  decency  and  adequacy.  The  best 
we  are  able  to  do  is  put  together  a  hotch- 
potch that  guarantees  either  a  subpoverty 
level  of  existence  or  something,  as  I  said, 
just  a  few  centimetres  above  the  poverty 
line.  I  suppose  one  is  used  to  crumbs  from 
a  crummy  government,  whether  it  is  at  the 
provincial  level  or  in  Ottawa.  Crumbs  are 
what  we  get  and  crumbs  are  what  we  got. 

As  I  said,  I  hope  the  report  of  the  royal 
commission  on  pensions  will  come  this 
month.  I  do  not  believe  it  will.  I  do  not 
believe  it  will  come  until  after  the  election. 
The  statistical  data  in  any  royal  commission 
on  pensions  is  going  to  have  to  deal  with 
the  financial  position  of  elderly  people  in  this 
society.  It  is  going  to  be  too  damned  em- 
barrassing for  the  government  to  bring  out 
another  study.  An  up-to-date  study  of  the 
economic  position  of  retired  citizens  in 
Ontario  prior  to  an  election  is  something,  I 
am  sure,  the  government  does  not  want  to 
see  and  does  not  want  the  citizens  of  this 


5264 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


province  to  see.  I  do  not  expect  it  until 
after  the  election  campaign.  But  once  it 
comes  out,  I  hope  we  can  then  start  to  have 
a  serious  debate  in  this  Legislature  about 
what  Ontario's  retirement  policies  are  going 
to  be.  So  far,  all  we  have  had  are  things 
like  the  contribution  from  the  member  for 
York  West  (Mr.  Leluk).  He  wants  the  retire- 
ment age  raised  to  70.  I  do  not  have  any 
objection  to  that.  My  party  has  no  objection 
to  a  flexible  retirement  age. 

Mr.  Leluk:  Why  did  you  vote  against  it 
then? 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  voted  against  it,  my 
friend,  because  we  are  not  willing  to  bring 
in  a  measure  that  would  force  retired  Cana- 
dians or  elderly  people  to  continue  to  work 
in  the  absence  of  an  adequate  pension  pro- 
gram. When  some  government,  either  in 
Ottawa  or  at  Queen's  Park,  brings  in  a  co- 
herent public  pension  program  that  guaran- 
tees a  decent  retirement  income  for  all  Cana- 
dians then  this  party  is  prepared  to  say  all 
right. 

In  addition  to  that,  we  will  go  along  with 
flexible  retirement  both  up  to  age  70  and 
down  to  age  60  so  that  people  have  real 
choices.  But  to  say  we  can  raise  the  pen- 
sionable age  to  70,  when  we  have  things  like 
Bill  214  in  front  of  us  that  indicates  just 
how  shoddy  our  pension  system  is  and  when 
we  have  an  abysmal  public  sector  pension 
that  guarantees  nothing  for  the  majority  of 
Canadians,  that  is  something  we  are  not  go- 
ing to  touch  with  a  10-foot  pole. 

The  member  can  keep  bringing  it  in  as 
long  as  he  wants.  He  does  not  fool  anybody. 
He  does  not  fool  the  construction  workers 
in  the  west  end  of  Toronto,  about  which  I 
thought  he  would  have  a  little  more  sense. 
He  wants  to  talk  to  construction  workers 
about  working  until  the  age  of  70.  I  invite 
him  to  come  into  the  riding  of  Bellwoods 
and  do  that.  He  should  bring  his  hard  hat 
because  he  will  need  it. 

I  think  I  have  made  the  point.  I  hope  I 
have.  Subtlety  is  not  my  strong  point.  I  also 
do  not  expect  this  minister  to  come  through 
with  the  kind  of  pension  policies  that  are 
appropriate  to  a  modern  industrial  economy. 
At  the  very  least,  he  could  have  come  through 
with  vesting  and  portability  when  he  is  bring- 
ing forward  amendments  to  the  Pension 
Benefits  Act.  Surely  even  the  Minister  of 
Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  under- 
stands— 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Perhaps  the  honour- 
able member  would  just  refer  to  what  is  in 
the  bill. 


Mr.  McClellan:  Vesting  is  in  the  bill,  Mr. 
Speaker.  You  have  caught  me  at  the  one  point 
in  my  speech  when  I  am  actually  talking 
about  the  bill  because  the  bill  deals  with  the 
existing  vesting  provision— 10  years  of  service 
and  45  years  of  age.  Surely,  at  the  very  least 
the  minister  could  have  come  in  with  amend- 
ments that  have  been  asked  for  consistently 
over  the  last  five  or  six  years,  which  are  to 
reduce  the  age  and  time  requirements  for 
vesting.  When  is  that  going  to  come,  after 
the  royal  commission?  When  is  the  royal  com- 
mission going  to  come,  after  the  election,  et 
cetera,  et  cetera,  et  cetera? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  go- 
ing to  comment  on  the  state  of  pensions  in 
this  province.  I  pointed  out  very  specifically 
in  my  opening  remarks  that  I  was  not  address- 
ing the  issue  of  pensions  in  this  bill. 

I  want  to  put  a  couple  of  things  to  rest. 
The  ink  is  not  dry,  to  the  best  of  my  knowl- 
edge, nor  has  it  been  dry  on  the  Haley 
commission  report.  The  member  and  the 
Globe  and  Mail  keep  saying  there  are  stacks 
and  stacks  and  stacks  of  copies.  That  is  a  lie. 
There  are  all  kinds  of  working  papers  around 
and  there  are  various  appendix  volumes  but 
the  ink  is  not  dry  on  the  actual  report. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  am  sure  the  minister 
wasn't  saying  that  I  was  lying. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  No,  I  say  it  is  a  lie. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Knowing  you,  we  have  to 
get  it  cleared  up. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  said  that  the  first  time. 
Knowing  his  sensitivity  and  how  kindly  he 
addresses  me,  he  certainly  should  have  known. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  I  was  listening  and 
the  member  referred  to  the  Globe  and  Mail. 
I  would  appreciate  it  if  you  would  address 
the  chair. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will, 
but  I  would  ask  you  to  make  the  member  for 
Nickel  Belt  withdraw  that  last  remark.  Either 
you  are  going  to  remain  in  control  in  here 
or  not. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  will  have  to  ask  the  hon- 
ourable member  what  the  remark  was.  I 
did  not  hear  it,  I  was  speaking. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  not  go- 
ing to  give  it  the  dignity  of  repeating  it. 

On  a  far  more  substantial  matter— having 
heard  all  of  the  Marxist  version  of  the 
pension  industry  or  the  lack  of  it— I  want  to 
address  myself  to  some  of  the  concerns  raised 
by  the  member  for  London  Centre. 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  minister  is  getting 
ready  for  the  old  red  smear,  is  he? 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5265 


Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  do  not  have  to  worry 
about  any  red  smear,  my  friend.  I  do  not. 

The  matter  raised  by  the  member  for  Lon- 
don Centre  concerned  the  pitfalls  that  have 
developed  in  the  American  experience,  both 
state  and  federal,  with  guaranteed  funds. 
The  US  approach  is  for  intervention  by  the 
Pension  Benefits  Guarantee  Corporation  on 
the  termination  of  a  pension  plan. 

Quite  often  the  PBGC  itself  is  involved  in 
administering  the  assets  of  the  plan  and 
making  distributions  to  pensioners.  This  has 
resulted  in  extremely  high  administrative 
costs.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  on  a  rough  or 
ball-park  estimate,  because  remember  we 
are  dealing  with  different  jurisdictions  there, 
sometimes  up  to  50  per  cent  of  the  premiums 
collected  go  directly  into  administration  costs. 
We  want  to  avoid  that.  Another  one  of  the 
difficulties  is  there  is  a  large  backlog. 

Once  again,  as  I  am  sure  the  member  for 
London  Centre  knows,  the  unfunded  lia- 
bility provisions  in  the  United  States  are  not 
up  to  the  standards  of  Ontario  and  obvious- 
ly this  produces,  at  the  particular  time  of 
termination  of  an  unfunded  plan,  substan- 
tially more  difficulties.  Those  are  the  main 
pitfalls. 

I  do  wish  to  comment  upon  the  fact  that 
people  will  abuse  it.  I  really  think  we  have 
built  into  the  legislation  that  people  are  not 
going  to  abuse  it,   that  they  are  not  going 


to  do  a  sweetheart  deal  with  their  labour 
organization  because  they  are  going  out  of 
business.  There  is  something  going  on  out 
there  right  now  that  is  perilously  close  to  a 
sweetheart  deal  with  them  all  hailing  it.  If 
the  members  of  the  House  were  privy  to  the 
information  I  have  through  the  commission 
as  to  unfunded  liabilities  and  certain  things 
that  are  going  on  and  being  hailed  as  great 
social  reforms,  they  would  have  very  sig- 
nificant concerns— as  indeed  should  be,  as 
these  are  the  very  people  those  things  are 
supposed  to  protect. 

I  agree  with  the  member  for  London 
Centre.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  give  credit 
where  credit  is  due.  The  advocate  of  dis- 
closure in  this  Legislature,  or  the  person 
who  should  get  the  credit  for  it,  is  the 
member  for  London  Centre,  not  the  minis- 
ter. The  member  for  London  Centre 
broached  that  across  the  floor  some  time 
ago  and  I  tell  the  members  it  is  more 
necessary  now  than  when  he  first  broached 
it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  conclude  my  remarks  in  the 
hope  we  can  get  second  reading  of  the  bill. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  committee  of  the  whole 
House. 

The  House  recessed  at  6  p.m. 


5266 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX 

(See  page  5242) 


ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

GOVERNMENT  ADVERTISING 

367.  Mr.  Cunningham:  What  are  the  total 
advertising  expenditures  for  the  province  of 
Ontario  for  1976,  1977,  1978,  1979  and  1980? 
(Tabled  October  24,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Total  government  ad- 
vertising expenditures  (media  space  and  time) 
for  the  province  of  Ontario  for  the  past  five 
fiscal  years  were  as  follows:  1975-76,  $6,808,- 
107;  1976-77,  $6,194,632;  1977-78,  $7,314,- 
868;  1978-79,  $9,795,151;  1979-80,  $12,171,- 
080. 

Provincial  lotteries  also  purchased  adver- 
tising space  and  time  with  expenditures  from 
lottery  revenues  during  the  same  five-year 
period,  as  follows:  1975-76,  $1,840,852;  1976- 
77,  $3,784,019;  1977-78,  $4,836,900;  1978-79, 
$6,205,315;   1979-80,   $6,108,498. 

EMERGENCY  PREPAREDNESS 
CONFERENCE 

402.  Mr.  Isaacs:  What  was  the  cost  to 
the  Ontario  government  of  the  advertising 
program  addressed  to  mayors,  fire  chiefs, 
police  chiefs,  medical  officers  of  health,  and 
municipal  emergency  planners  which  ap- 
peared in  newspapers  across  Ontario  for  at 
least  two  insertions  in  mid-October?  What  is 
the  total  financial  contribution  of  the  Ontario 
government  to  this  Emergency  Preparedness 
for  the  80s  conference?  How  many  mayors, 
fire  chiefs,  police  chiefs,  medical  officers  of 
health  and  emergency  planners  are  there  in 
Ontario?  (Tabled  November  18,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  advertisements, 
which  were  commissioned  at  the  time  of  the 
postal  difficulties,  cost  $45,075. 

Costs  to  the  government  for  the  Emergency 
Preparedness  for  the  80s  conference,  which 
drew  more  than  800  registrants,  are  incom- 
plete but  are  expected  to  be  about  $18,000. 

There  are  218  mayors,  640  fire  chiefs,  128 
police  chiefs,  43  medical  officers  of  health 
and  300  municipal  officials  primarily  con- 
cerned with  emergency  planning  in  Ontario. 

PAYMENTS  TO  CONSULTANTS 

409.  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Would  the  Minister 
of  Community  and  Social  Services  please  pro- 
vide the  terms  of  reference  and  the  original 
agreed  upon  price  for  the  consultant,  Barry 
Dalby?  Please  provide  the  expanded  or 
changed  contract  and  the  amount  of  addi- 


tional funds  that  was  paid  to  Barry  Dalby? 
(Tabled  November  21,  1980.) 

See  sessional  paper  328. 

EDUCATION  MILL  RATES 

420.  Mr.  Grande:  Will  the  minister  re- 
sponsible provide  the  education  mill  rate 
both  commercial  and  residential  for  each 
municipality  in  the  province  for  the  past 
seven  years?  (Tabled  November  28,  1980.) 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  There  is  insufficient 
time  to  provide  a  response  to  this  question 
prior  to  the  prorogation  of  this  sessions  of  the 
Legislature. 

DEATHS  IN  PSYCHIATRIC 
HOSPITALS 

430.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Health  ascertain  how  many  of  the  538  deaths 
of  patients  in  psychiatric  hospitals  for  1978, 
1979  and  the  first  eight  months  of  1980  are 
attributable  to  similar  "therapeutic  misad- 
ventures" as  Aldo  Alviani?  (Tabled  December 
2,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  Question  430,  which 
was  directed  to  the  Minister  of  Health,  has 
been  referred  to  the  Solicitor  General  for 
reply. 

Of  the  53S  deaths  of  patients  in  psychiatric 
hospitals  for  1978,  1979  and  the  first  eight 
months  of  1980,  one  has  been  listed  as  a 
possible  "therapeutic  misadventure/'  In  this 
case,  a  36-year-old  mentally  retarded  man 
died  of  aspiration  which  may  have  been  in- 
duced by  drugs.  The  drugs  were  found, 
however,  in  what  is  considered  to  be  thera- 
peutic levels. 

TELEPHONE  SURVEY 

433.  Mr.  S.  Smith:  1.  Is  anyone  in  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  connected 
with  a  firm  that  identifies  itself  as  Summerhill 
Surveys  and  which  has  done  a  recent  tele- 
phone survey  of  people  resident  in  the  city 
of  Toronto?  2.  Since  the  questions  in  the  sur- 
vey included  not  only  the  usual  voter  inten- 
tion and  preference  data  regarding  party 
leader  and  candidate  but  also  about  approxi- 
mately six  questions  concerning  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  and  only  one  ques- 
tion each  concerning  the  Attorney  General, 
the  provincial  Treasurer,  and  the  Minister  of 
Intergovernmental  Affairs,  did  anyone  in  the 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  take  part 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5267 


in  the  authorship  of  the  questions?  3.  Since, 
among  the  questions  asked  about  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism  were  the  following: 

(a)  Is   Larry   Grossman   a   "people  person"; 

(b)  Is  Larry  Grossman  intelligent  (sincere, 
et  cetera);  (c)  Is  Larry  Grossman  a  "shirt  and 
tie   person,"  would   this   survey  relate   to   a 


potential  leadership  campaign  or  does  it  re- 
flect a  planned  ministry  initiative  in  the 
stimulation  of  the  haberdashery  industry? 
(Tabled  December  5,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  1.  No.  2.  No.  3.  In 
view  of  1  and  2  above,  the  ministry  obviously 
does  not  know. 


5268  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 


Thursday,  December  11,  1980 

Urban  Transportation  Development  Corporation  Ltd.  Act,  Bill  190,  Mr.  Snow,  second 

reading 5189 

Bill  190,  reported  5208 

Highway  Traffic  Amendment  Act,  Bill  188,  Mr.  Snow,  second  reading  5211 

Healing  Arts  Radiation  Protection  Act,  Bill  177,  Mr.  Timbrell,  second  reading  5218 

Speaker's  comments  re  correspondence  from  prison  inmate  5225 

Tabling  auditor's  report  5225 

Cochrane  District  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells  5225 

Environmental  legislation,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott  5225 

Durham  regional  environmental  hearing,  statement  by  Mr.  Parrott  5226 

Plant  closures  and  termination  entitlements,  statement  by  Mr.  Elgie  5226 

Interest  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Peterson, 

Mr.  Laughren  5227 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Isaacs  5229 

Use  of  asbestos  in  schools,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  B.  Newman  5231 

Niagara  Escarpment  development,  questions  of  Mr.  Brunelle:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Swart, 

Mr.  S.  Smith  5232 

Ontario  Hydro  land  purchases,  questions  of  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  J.  Reed  5233 

Community  services  contribution  program,  questions  of  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston, 

Mr.  Eakins  5234 

Liquid  industrial  waste,  question  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  G.  I.  Miller  5235 

Mental  health  services,  questions  of  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Breaugh,  Mr.  Conway  5235 

Aid  to  pensioners,  question  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Ms.  Bryden  52-36 

Physical  education,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  B.  Newman  5236 

Supermarket  pricing  systems,  questions  of  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Swart  5236 

University  admission,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Sweeney  5237 

Minister's  comments,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  MacDonald  5237 

Government  advertising,  question  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Bradley  5238 

Algoma  University  College,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Wildman  5238 

Uranium  contracts,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Sargent  5238 

Speaker's  ruling  re  comment  by  member  for  Oakwood  5239 

Legislative  pages 5239 

Point    of    privilege    re    questions    on    Notice    Paper:    Mr.    Gaunt,    Mr.    T.    P.    Reid, 

Mr.  S.  Smith 5239 


DECEMBER  11,  1980  5269 


Petition  re  liquid  industrial  waste:   Mr.  G.   I.   Miller* 5240 

Report,  select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment:  Mr.  McCaffrey  5240 

Report,  standing  committee  on  general  government:  Mr.  Cureatz  5240 

Report,  standing  cjommittee  on  regulations  and  other  statutory  instruments:  Mr.  Williams  5240 

Motion  re  order  of  business,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5241 

Motion  re  private  members'  ballots,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5241 

Motions  re  committee  meetings,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5241 

Motion  re  appointment  of  member,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5241 

Environmental  Protection  Amendment  Act,  Bill  224,  Mr.  Parrott,  first  reading  5241 

Succession  Law  Act,  Bill  225,  Mr.  S.  Smith,  first  reading  5241 

North  Cochrane  District  Local  Government  Act,  Bill  226,  Mr.  Wells,  first  reading  ...  ....  5242 

Insured  Health  Services  Act,  Bill  227,  Mr.  Philip,  first  reading  5242 

Environment  Statutes  Amendment  Act,  Bill  228,  Mr.  Parrott,  first  reading  5242 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  367,  402,  409,  420,  430  and  433  on  Notice  Paper: 

Mr.   Wells 5242 


of  the  House:  Mr.  Wells  5242 

Denture  Therapists  Amendment  Act,  Bill  205,  Mr.  Timbrell,  second  reading 5242 

Toronto  Hospital  Steam  Corporation  Amendment  Act,  Bill  192,  Mr.  Wells,  second 

reading   5242 

Town  of  Midland  Act,  Bill  Pr36,  Mr.  G.  E.  Smith,  second  reading  5244 

City  of  Ottawa  Act,  Bill  Prl8,  Mr.  Roy,  second  reading  5244 

Bill  Pr36,  reported  5244 

Bill  Prl8,  reported 5245 

Municipal  Affairs  Amendment  Act,  Bill  172,  reported  5246 

Municipal  Amendment  Act,  Bill  193,  Mr.  Wells,  second  reading 6247 

Legislative  Assembly  Act,  Bill  201,  Mr.  Wells,  second  reading  5252 

Executive  Council  Amendment  Act,  Bill  204,  Mr.  Wells,  second  reading  5253 

Pension  Benefits  Amendment  Act,  Bill  214,  Mr.  Drea,  second  reading  5253 

Recess  5265 

Appendix:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Government  advertising,  question  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Cunningham  5266 

Emergency  Preparedness  Conference,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Isaacs  ....  5266 

Payments  to  consultants,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  5266 

Education  mill  rates,  question  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Grande 5266 

Deaths  in  psychiatric  hospitals,  question  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Breaugh  5266 

Telephone  survey,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  S.  Smith  5266 


5270  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Bennett,  Hon.  C;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Birch,  Hon.  M.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development  (Scarborough  East  PC) 

Bolan,  M.  (Nipissing  L) 

Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catharines  L) 

Breaugh,  M.  (Oshawa  NDP) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Brunelle,  Hon.  R.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources  Development  (Cochrane  North  PC) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Charlton,  B.  (Hamilton  Mountain  NDP) 

Conway,  S.  (Renfrew  North  L) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davidson,  M.  (Cambridge  NDP) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  C;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Gigantes,  E.  (Carleton  East  NDP) 

Grande,  A.  (Oakwood  NDP) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Hennessy,  M.  (Fort  William  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Johnston,  R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Leluk,  N.  G.  (York  West  PC) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

McCaffrey,  B.  (Armourdale  PC) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Newman,  B.  (Winds  or-Walkerville  L) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Philip,  E.  (Etobicoke  NDP) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP) 

Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L) 

Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East  PC) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 


DECEMBER  11,  1980  5271 


Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 
Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 
Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 
Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 
Turner,  J.  (Peterborough  PC) 
Walker,   Hon.   G.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

(London  South  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 
Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC) 


No.  139 

Ontario  lw'   IOT 


Legislature  of  Ontario 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Thursday,  December  11,  1980 
Evening  Sitting 

Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

Reference   to   a  cumulative  index   of  previous   issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario. 
Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


5275 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  resumed  at  8  p.m. 

SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON  PLANT 

SHUTDOWNS  AND  EMPLOYEE 

ADJUSTMENT 

(continued) 

Resuming  the  adjourned  debate  on  the 
motion  for  adoption  of  the  second  interim 
report  of  the  select  committee  on  plant  shut- 
downs and  employee  adjustment. 

Mr.  McCaffrey:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  chairman 
of  the  select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns 
and  employee  adjustment,  it  was  my  pleasure 
this  afternoon  to  table  the  interim  report  of 
the  results  of  some  six  weeks  of  meetings 
and  public  hearings,  both  with  and  without 
witnesses  before  us  in  committee. 

While  dealing  with  the  interim  report,  it 
was  the  objective  of  the  committee  to  accom- 
plish two  things.  One  was  to  bring  members 
of  the  assembly  who  did  not  have  the  op- 
portunity to  serve  on  that  committee  up  to 
date  on  some  of  the  things  we  learned  and 
the  forum  that  we  used— the  case  study 
forum— to  approach  our  task.  I  do  sincerely 
hope  that  everybody  has  a  chance  to  pemse 
the  report,  because  it  is  an  extensive  outline 
of  the  approach  we  took  and  some  of  the 
things  we  learned. 

It  was  our  task  to  explain  to  the  best  of 
our  ability  how  we  will  approach  the  re- 
mainder of  our  assignment  in  the  first  five 
weeks  of  1981  when  we  will  complete  our 
work  as  a  select  committee  of  this  assembly 
and  make  a  final  report,  that  to  be  done 
some  time  by  early  February. 

Like  any  chairman  who  makes  a  report  of 
a  committee,  I  was  a  little  relieved  at  about 
3:30  today  to  do  that.  Yet  at  the  same 
time  I  felt  a  little  bit  cheated.  I  want  to 
come  back  to  that.  It  was  my  personal  goal, 
when  this  committee  was  appointed  and  I 
was  named  chairman  of  it,  to  do  my  best 
in  my  capacity  as  chairman  to  see  that  the 
deliberations  were  done  in  a  fair  and  open 
way.  My  hope  as  chairman  was  that  we 
would  provide  the  essential  balance  to  this 
difficult  area  before  us,  the  essential  balance 
betwen  the  rights  of  the  employees  and  of 
employers  in  this  province. 


Thursday,  December  11,  1980 

As  a  private  member,  I  was  attempting 
during  the  six  weeks  the  committee  met  to 
be  mindful  of  the  people  outside  this  build- 
ing in  the  real  world,  and  the  impact  any 
recommendations  we  might  make  would 
have  on  them.  It  is  my  hope  to  complete 
my  assignment  as  chairman  of  this  select 
committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee 
adjustment.  It  seems  to  me  there  are  at  least 
two  conditions  that  will  have  to  be  met  for 
me  to  complete  my  role  as  chairman  in  the 
five  weeks  that  we  meet  in  1981. 

At  the  very  least,  my  role  and  responsi- 
bility as  chairman  has  to  be  kept  intact  in 
order  that  I  can  provide  some  objectivity 
and  that  I  will  not  undermine  my  ability  to 
serve  the  members  of  the  committee  and 
witnesses  before  the  committee  by  any  pre- 
judging. Another  condition  that  would  have 
to  be  met  is  that  I  not  renege  on  my  role, 
my  rights  and  my  responsibility  as  a  private 
member.  It  was  my  intention  to  treat  any 
comments  I  would  make  as  chairman  of  this 
select  committee  with  all  the  fairness  and 
balance  I  could  muster.  I  believe  I  did  that. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  got  carried  away  once  in 
a  while. 

Mr.  McCaffrey:  I  said  at  the  outset  I  felt 
a  little  cheated  at  the  time  we  made  our 
report  this  afternoon.  That  was  because  of 
the  announcement  that  had  been  made  by 
the  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie)  shortly 
after  two  o'clock  today  that  committed  the 
government  to  severance  pay.  It  seems  to 
me  that  severance  pay  legislation  is  beyond 
debate  in  the  early  weeks  of  1981  and,  more 
important  from  my  point  of  view,  the  effec- 
tiveness of  severance  pay  legislation  is 
beyond  debate.  There  is  no  question  we 
have  a  raft  of  details  to  grapple  with,  but 
the  effectiveness  of  severance  pay  legislation 
as  a  tool  to  speak  to  some  of  the  problems 
being  experienced  by  workers  and  owners 
outside  this  building  has  been  denied  the 
committee. 

I  would  like  to  make  it  clear  that  no 
reasonable  person  in  this  room,  no  reason- 
able person  on  the  committee,  was  not  com- 
mitted and  anxious  to  do  what  he  could, 
using  the  tools  available  to  us,  to  improve 
the  status  quo  for  workers  in  this  province. 


5276 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  questions  really  underlying  the  work 
of  this  committee,  corporate  responsibility 
to  the  community,  how  we  measure  that  in 
legislation,  how  we  measure  and  better  de- 
fine the  role  of  the  government  in  these 
communities  faced  with  shutdowns,  were 
the  underlying  and  important  themes  and 
remain  so.  I  am  disappointed  that  the  alter- 
natives that  some  reasonable  people  do  see 
to  severance  pay  legislation  will  not  get  the 
detailed  analysis  they  might  otherwise  have 
received.  I  mean  areas  of  concern,  such  as 
retraining,  relocation,  job  sharing,  early 
retirement  and  employee  participation,  that 
is  to  say,  ownership  in  firms. 

Sadly,  most  of  the  people  who  did  come 
before  our  committee  in  the  first  phase  of 
our  work  did,  on  balance,  see  severance  pay 
as  a  Band-Aid  approach,  as  one  tool  to  ease 
the  burden  of  the  unemployed,  but  only  as 
a  Band-Aid.  I  do  not  think  anyone  who 
came  before  that  committee  saw  the 
achievement  of  severance  pay  legislation  as 
an  end  in  itself.  Increasingly,  as  we  learned 
more,  we  became  aware  of  the  host  of 
other  obligations  that  we,  as  legislators,  had 
in  this  area.  The  primary  message  to  me, 
brought  by  various  witnesses,  was  that  we 
need  jobs  in  this  jurisdiction  and  we  need 
money,  we  need  investment  capital,  be  that 
out   of   country  or   Canadian   capital. 

When  I  talk  about  the  need  for  invest- 
ment capital,  I  am  not  resorting  to  the 
rhetoric  that  comes  sometimes  to  all  of  us 
relatively  easily.  I  am  not  talking  about  the 
free  enterprise,  private  sector  bag  of  cliches 
that  people  can  resort  to  on  occasion.  It  is 
my  sincere  belief  that  nobody  on  that  side 
of  the  room  and  nobody  on  this  side  who 
can  resort  to  these  cliches  will  serve  the 
people  of  Ontario  in  the  1980s  and  1990s. 

When  I  talk  about  the  need  for  invest- 
ment—and I  said  that  it  was  not  restricted 
to  Canadian  money— it  raises  the  question 
about  multinationals.  It  has  been  of  more 
than  passing  concern  to  me  that  over  the 
weeks  that  we  sat  as  a  committee  the  multi- 
nationals have  become  singled  out  as  the 
easy  villains.  They  seem  to  be  a  popular 
target  these  days.  There  is  nobody  I  know 
and  respect  in  the  business  of  politics  who 
does  not  understand  the  general  attitude 
toward  multinationals.  The  mere  word 
evokes  strong  feelings  in  some  quarters. 
8:10  p.m. 

I  urge  the  colleagues  of  mine  on  the 
committee  and  other  people  in  the  assembly 
who  might  be  listening  to  think  very  care- 
fully about  how  to  approach  the  topic  of 
multinationals    and    foreign    capital.    Let    us 


not  pretend  we  can  establish  guidelines 
applying  to  the  foreign-owned  multinational 
that  would  not  equally  apply  to  the  Canadian- 
owned  multinational.  Further,  I  think  it  is 
terribly  important  we  bear  in  mind  that  it 
is  not  possible  by  using  the  tools,  the  legis- 
lation available  to  us  here,  to  set  a  list  of 
guidelines  applying  to  the  large  corporations 
that  would  not  apply  to  the  smaller  corpo- 
rations. 

Big  corporations  are  the  target  for  some 
people.  There  are  people,  for  whom  I  have 
a  tremendous  amount  of  respect,  who  said 
to  me  that  they  approached  this  committee 
assignment  with  10  or  more  years  of  justi- 
fied built-up  anger.  Yet  it  is  impossible  to 
speak  to  those  easy  political  targets  without 
setting  guidelines  that  make  it  equally 
onerous  for  the  wholly  owned  Canadian 
firm,  indeed  the  small  Canadian  firm,  to 
compete. 

lit  may  be  worth  a  minute  or  two  to  ask 
a  general  question  about  the  state  of  busi- 
ness today  and  what  it  is  like  to  do  business 
outside    this    building    in    Ontario    today. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  It  is  pretty  tough. 

Mr.  McCaffrey:  I  looked  for  the  member 
for  Niagara  Falls  yesterday  with  a  longing 
heart. 

The  cost  of  money  is  at  historic  levels.  I 
caught  the  late  news  last  night  and  noted 
the  United  States  prime  rate  is  20  per  cent. 
People  who  are  apparently  learned  in  this 
area  indicate  we  could  see  a  US  prime  rate  of 
24  or  25  per  cent  over  the  next  few  months. 
The  cost  of  money  is  such  that  it  is  increas- 
ingly difficult  for  businesses,  large  or  small, 
foreign-owned  or  Canadian-owned,  to  do 
business  in  this  province,  this  country,  this 
continent.  One  does  not  have  to  be  an  expert 
to  be  aware  of  the  increasing  number  of 
small  business  bankruptcies  being  filed  regu- 
larly. That  is  another  measure  of  the  difficulty 
of  doing  business  these  days.  The  North 
American  economy  is  in  a  mature  phase  and, 
unfortunately,  that  is  part  of  the  measure  of 
it. 

No  amount  of  rhetoric  from  this  side  or 
that  side  of  the  assembly  is  going  to  get  us 
back  to  the  high  growth  period  of  the  1950s 
and  1960s.  The  world  has  changed  rapidly 
and  we  are  trying  desperately  to  come  up 
with  legislative  devices  that  will  speak  to 
those  changes.  It  is  imperative  that  we  re- 
member the  two  sides  of  this  equation,  the 
employees  and  the  employers. 

The  expression  "jurisdiction  shopping"  was 
new  to  me  until  about  four  or  five  weeks  ago 
when  it  was  used  by  one  of  the  witnesses  be- 
fore the  committee.  Jurisdiction  shopping,  as 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5277 


the  name  implies,  is  a  measure  of  what  is 
actually  happening  with  small  and  large  cor- 
porations today  when  they  look  to  various 
US  states  or  Canadian  provinces  to  find  out 
what  incentives  and  other  inducements  are 
available  to  them  to  encourage  them  to  locate 
in  a  particular  jurisdiction. 

This  phenomenon  of  jurisdiction  shopping 
is  real,  it  is  measurable  and  it  is  not  going 
to  go  away.  It  is  another  indication  of  the 
importance  of  paying  attention  to  the  needs 
and  the  rights  of  the  employers  and  the 
corporations  in  this  jurisdiction. 

When  we  have  attempted— and  it  came  up 
a  number  of  times  in  committee— to  measure 
corporations'  social  obligations,  we  had  diffi- 
culty. It  is  a  relatively  new  area  for  people, 
sometimes  for  those  in  business  and  often 
those  in  politics.  I  do  not  pretend  to  have  an 
easy  yardstick  to  determine  whether  a  cor- 
poration is  a  good  corporate  citizen  or  not, 
but  I  would  at  least  offer  one  basic  measure 
and  that  is  the  taxes  paid  by  all  corporations 
doing  business  in  Ontario.  Canadian-owned  or 
foreign-owned,  big  ones  or  small  ones,  pay 
taxes  to  three  levels  of  government.  They 
probably  do  not  pay  taxes  any  more  willingly 
than  any  man  or  woman  does.  But  corpora- 
tions do  pay  taxes  and  the  taxes  paid  are 
measured  in  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars 
a  year.Those  moneys  find  themselves  utilized 
as  the  general  revenues  of  this  province, 
utilized  in  countless  social  ways  that  we,  as 
legislators,  define  to  meet  the  social  goals  we 
have  established.  I  say  again  that  both  parties, 
employees  and  employers,  have  some  rights. 

Among  the  witnesses  we  saw,  there  was  a 
genuine  attempt  by  both  parties,  the  employer 
and  the  union  sides,  to  speak  openly  and 
candidly  to  the  difficulties  being  coped  with 
out  there.  I  would  like  to  get  a  few  of  the 
comments  on  the  record,  if  I  may.  First,  I 
would  like  to  quote  from  an  Ontario  Federa- 
tion of  Labour  bulletin  that  refers  to  rationali- 
zation, where  we  have  too  many  companies 
producing  the  same  kind  of  product  and  not 
in  sufficient  numbers  to  be  profitable.  This 
OFL  bulletin  says: 

"Although  rationalization  has  much  to  be 
said  for  it  and  should  be  pursued  as  a  policy, 
it  is  the  small  Canadian  producer  who  has 
been  the  innovator  and  developer  of  new 
products,  who  has  been  imaginative  and 
should  be  assisted.  The  Ontario  economy 
must  be  diversified  in  order  to  increase  em- 
ployment and  reduce  instability." 

Rationalization  is  painful  as  it  develops.  We 
saw  it  at  the  outset  with  our  first  corporate 
witnesses,  the  people  from  Armstrong  Cork 
Industries   Ltd.    The   general   manager,    Mr. 


Jack  Jordin,  was  before  our  committee  trying 
to  answer  the  question  that  was  underlying 
his  appearance  and  that  of  a  few  others, 
namely,  that  there  was  something  sinister  in 
their  closing  their  Canadian  operation  and 
retreating  to  the  States.  The  implication  was 
that  these  were  political  and  not  economic 
decisions. 

Mr.  Jordin  said:  "It  is  not  the  Armstrong 
Cork  company's  intent  to  close  this  plant  and 
satisfy  this  market  from  the  United  States. 
Lest  I  sound  too  noble,  we  could  not  do  it  if 
we  wanted  to  because  with  the  Canadian 
dollar  at  84  cents  and  with  the  20  per  cent 
duty  it  is  just  not  economically  feasible  to  do 
so."  That  was  a  point  well  made  and  con- 
curred in  by  the  committee. 

It  has  been  my  observation  that  every 
time  the  name  of  the  member  for  Riverdale 
(Mr.  Renwick)  is  mentioned,  the  word 
reasonable  is  usually  attached  at  some  point 
to  describe  him.  He  is,  at  the  very  least,  a 
reasonable  individual.  He  said,  in  the 
dialogue  with  the  general  manager  of  Arm- 
strong Cork,  Lindsay  division:  "Let  me  say 
at  the  outset,  your  track  record"— he  was 
looking  at  the  10-year  profit-and-loss  state- 
ment for  the  Lindsay  division  we  had  re- 
quested through  a  Speaker's  warrant— "since 
your  arrival  in  Canada  would  appear  to  me 
to  be  downhill  all  the  way."  The  numbers 
confirm  that. 

The  member  for  Riverdale,  reasonable 
individual  that  he  is,  said,  "First  of  all,  you 
are  leaving  the  carpet  business  in  Canada 
for  good  practical  purposes."  That  was  self- 
evident.  The  sinister  implication  that  it  was 
a  political  decision  somehow  persists,  in 
spite  of  this  evidence. 

I  was  very  impressed  with  Mr.  Bud 
Clarke,  who  spoke  to  the  committee  at  the 
time  of  the  Armstrong  Cork  appearance.  He 
is  the  co-director  of  the  Amalgamated 
Clothing  and  Textile  Workers  Union.  Mr. 
Clarke  said,  "In  all  fairness,  it  should  be 
noted  that  Armstrong  Cork  gave  both 
notice  and  severance  benefits  in  excess  of 
their  legal  obligations."  Mr.  Clarke  is  more 
than  a  union  organizer.  I  was  informed  he 
had  been  in  that  business  since  he  was  17. 

Mr.  Clarke  gave  a  very  real  assessment 
of  what  is  happening  outside  this  building 
when  he  said,  "The  carpet  industry  is  in  one 
of  the  biggest  slumps  we  have  had  for  some 
time.  The  closing  of  the  Peterborough  opera- 
tion was  a  valid,  honest  decision— no  ques- 
tion." 

With  regard  to  the  whole  of  that  indus- 
try, an  industry  where  his  membership 
works,  he  said:  "They  glutted  the  market." 


5278 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


He  was  referring  to  the  growth  period  in 
the  late  1950s.  "You  can  find  two-  or  three- 
tufted  machines  in  garages.  People  are 
advertising  three  rooms  for  $295.  It  is  pretty 
hard  to  compete  with  that  stuff."  He  made 
reference  to  the  kind  of  thing  we  see 
regularly  in  the  newspapers  where  two  or 
three  rooms  can  be  fully  broadloomed  for 
prices  as  low  as  $295. 

As  a  reflection  of  the  change  in  that  in- 
dustry, Mr.  Clarke  earlier  made  reference 
to  the  number  of  members  his  union  has. 
He  said,  "I  happen  to  be  the  Canadian 
director  of  a  union  that  has  gone  down 
from  500,000  members  in  this  country  to 
250,000  members."  As  to  what  is  really  be- 
fore us  as  legislators  and  what  was  very 
much  before  us  as  a  committee  and  will  be 
when  we  meet  in  the  new  year,  Mr.  Clarke 
said:  "We  have  to  have  jobs.  You  can  assist 
all  you  want;  we  have  to  have  employment 
in  this  province.  There  is  no  substitute.  You 
cannot  hand  out  money  willy-nilly,  whether 
it  be  provincial  or  federal  money." 

8:20  p.m. 

In  looking  at  the  financial  records  of  that 
company,  which  was  the  first  Speaker's 
warrant  we  had  requested,  the  member  for 
Hamilton  East  (Mr.  Mackenzie),  an  active 
and  important  contributor  to  the  work  of 
this  committee,  said,  "I  wonder  why  a  large 
corporation  would  continue  to  pour  these 
kinds  of  funds  into  it  year  after  year,  if  this 
is  the  case.  I  just  have  difficulty  in  accept- 
ing that  this  kind  of  money  would  have  been 
put  into  it  for  as  many  years." 

As  the  member  for  Hamilton  East  said 
himself,  I  think  it  was  not  easy  for  any  of 
us  in  the  committee  to  understand  it.  That 
corporation  had  lost  money  for  nine  of  the 
10  years  for  which  we  had  records. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  I  have  great  confidence  in  the  ability 
of  the  member  for  Armourdale  and  he  has 
been  a  wonderful  chairman  of  that  particu- 
lar committee.  I  would  ask  if  there  has 
been  any  arrangement  made  for  sharing  of 
the  time  on  this  very  important  issue?  I 
would  suggest  that  the  government  has  now 
used  20  minutes.  I  wonder  if  we  are  going 
to  share  the  time  with  the  other  parties.  I 
know  there  is  a  great  deal  to  be  offered 
on  this  side  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  chair  is  not  aware  of 
any  time-sharing  agreement. 

Mr.  McCaffrey:  I  will  try  to  help  the  mem- 
ber for  Niagara  Falls  out  here,  Mr.  Speaker. 
I  tried  to  help  him  out  in  the  committee  the 
other  day  but  it  did  not  work.  There  has  been 
an  understanding  that  the  60  minutes  will  be 


split.  As  I  read  it,  I  have  three  or  four  minutes 
left  and  I  intend  to  conclude  in  that  time. 

The  concluding  quotation  I  would  like  to 
read  to  make  a  further  point  is  directed  at 
my  good  friend  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  (Mr.  Martel).  It  is  a  quotation  taken  out 
of  the  Peterborough  Examiner,  which  speaks 
really  not  to  severance,  but  to  the  whole 
question  about  justification  for  plant  closure 
and  in  more  general  terms  about  more  and 
more  onerous  legislation  at  a  time,  I  hope, 
as  we  have  established,  when  it  is  difficult  to 
do  business. 

I  quote  from  a  former  employee  of  this 
firm,  a  union  member.  "Forcing  the  company 
to  reopen  could  have  a  major  impact  on  this 
province's  industrial  future.  Confining  gov- 
ernment controls  would  deter  other  industries 
looking  for  a  new  plant  location.  The  short- 
term  gains  may  cost  the  province  jobs  in 
the  long  run." 

I  was  reminded  of  a  comment  that  got  a 
lot  of  press  during  the  tenure  of  office  of  the 
former  Progressive  Conservative  Minister  of 
Finance,  John  Crosbie,  when  he  talked  about 
short-term  pain  for  a  long-term  gain.  I 
thought  my  friend  from  Sudbury  East  had 
just  given  a  new  wrinkle  to  this  earlier  mes- 
sage and  was  inclined,  on  occasion,  to  think 
that  short-term  gain  for  long-term  pain  might 
be  more  appropriate. 

There  are  countless  other  quotations  that 
members  of  the  committee  and  witnesses 
before  the  committee  did  share  with  us,  and 
at  the  appropriate  time  I  will  be  able  to  refer 
to  those. 

In  conclusion,  I  say  almost  by  way  of  an 
appeal  to  the  members  of  the  committee  who 
are  here  and  to  the  members  of  the  assembly 
who,  hopefully,  will  be  aware  of  our  work 
in  the  new  year  and  assist  us  in  that  work 
that  there  are  two  sides  to  this  question  about 
plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment. 
For  the  first  phase  of  our  work,  we  have  ade- 
quately reflected  the  urgency  of  dealing  with 
the  hurt  employee  aspect  of  it.  I  think  we 
would  be  seriously  remiss  if  we  failed  to 
recognize  the  rights  that  employers  have  as 
well.  The  need  for  investment  capital,  Cana- 
dian or  foreign  capital  in  this  environment 
today,  is  critical. 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  deference 
to  the  comments  made  by  the  chairman,  I 
would  like  to  point  out  to  the  chair,  although 
it  may  very  well  be  out  of  order,  that  there 
was  an  understanding  between  the  chairman 
and  myself,  and  I  understand  with  the  third 
party,  that  each  party  would  have  20  minutes. 
He  has  taken  the  20  minutes  for  his  party. 
We,  as  a  party,  chose  to  split  the  time,  with 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5279 


myself  taking  a  portion  of  it  and  the  other 
members  of  the  committee  ,  the  member  for 
Essex  South  (Mr.  Mancini),  the  member  for 
Quinte  (Mr.  O'Neil)  and  also  the  member 
for  Niagara  Falls  (Mr.  Kerrio),  who  has 
served  as  a  substitute,  sharing  a  few  minutes. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  chair  is  going  to  have 
some  difficulty  rationalizing  that.  There  are 
already  25  minutes  gone. 

Mr.  Van  Home:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  point 
out  that  although  the  clock  says  8:25,  the  bell 
did  ring  past  the  hour  of  eight  and  we  did 
not,  in  fact,  begin  until  some  few  minutes 
after  eight,  so  the  member  for  Armourdale 
(Mr.  McCaffrey)  did  use  his  20  minutes.  If 
there  was  a  problem,  it  was  that  the  mem- 
bers were  perhaps  tardy  in  arriving  to  the 
call  of  the  bell.  Having  said  that,  it  is  in 
your  hands,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Let  me  carry  on  with  some  words  from 
our  party.  I  would  like,  at  the  outset,  to  make 
a  very  positive  contribution,  I  hope,  to  our 
work  as  a  committee  by  commending  the 
chairman  who  has  had  a  difficult  task  in 
accommodating  not  only  the  wishes  of  the 
members  but  also  the  needs  of  those  witnesses 
who  have  appeared  before  us.  He  has  been 
extremely  fair  and  kind  in  the  way  the  meet- 
ings have  been  run.  I  would  like  to  commend 
him  and  the  staff  members,  Mr.  White,  Mr. 
Jennings  and  Mr.  Eichmanis,  for  their  con- 
tribution because  the  job  this  committee  has 
had  to  do  in  a  very  brief  period  of  time  has 
been  very  difficult. 

We  have  had  put  in  front  of  us  seven 
different  case  studies  and,  in  fairness,  we 
have  attempted  to  listen  to  both  sides  of 
the  picture  in  those  seven  cases.  We  have 
had  a  time  pressure  that  many  other  com- 
mittees of  this  House  have  not  had  to  face. 
I  think  we  have  come  up  with  a  relatively 
good  report  and  that  has  been  through  the 
efforts  not  only  of  the  chairman  but  the  staff 
and,  beyond  that,  the  members  who  have 
really  had  a  struggle  to  put  away  their  par- 
tisan views.  We  have  had  our  moments  but, 
by  and  large,  they  have  done  that. 

I  will  use  a  few  minutes  of  our  party  allo- 
cation to  say  that  each  of  us  on  the  com- 
mittee came  in  with  a  little  bit  of  a  pre-set 
idea  as  to  what  we  thought  we  might  be 
addressing  because  of  problems  that  came 
out  of  our  own  communities.  Beyond  that, 
of  course,  we  also  had  the  broader  prospect 
of  what  was  happening  in  the  province. 
From  my  own  view,  looking  at  my  own 
community  of  London,  I  can  say  we  are  not 
without  the  problem.  We  faced  the  problem 
in  1969  with  the  announcement  from  the 
Kelvinator   company  it  was   going  to   close 


its  doors.  We  faced  the  problem  a  little  later 
with  the  announcement  that  Eaton  Auto- 
motive was  going  to  close  its  doors.  We  have 
General  Motors  Diesel,  a  very  viable  and 
active  member  of  our  industrial  community, 
which,  on  occasion,  has  had  to  slow  down. 
So  we  are  not  without  our  problems. 

I  came  in  as  a  member  of  this  committee 
with  some  kind  of  a  view  as  to  what  some 
of  our  problems  would  be,  but  after  having 
sat  as  a  member  of  the  committee  and  hav- 
ing listened  to  the  problems  of  other  manu- 
facturers, of  other  industries,  of  other  unions, 
and  of  other  employees,  I  feel  fairly  safe  in 
saying  that  my  views  are  now  broadened 
to  the  objective  view  that  a  legislator  should 
have.  I  hope  very  sincerely  that  we  address 
ourselves  to  this  broader  issue  of  how  we, 
as  legislators,  can  review  existing  law,  on 
the  one  hand,  in  the  time  left  for  us  as  a 
committee  and,  on  the  other,  address  our- 
selves to  the  task  of  not  only  reviewing  the 
law  but  trying  to  find  some  solutions  to  the 
problems  in  the  key  area  of  severance  pay. 

In  his  remarks,  the  chairman  addressed 
himself  to  the  effectiveness  of  whatever  we 
might  do.  I  would  sincerely  hope  that  all 
of  us  could  put  partisanship  aside  and  take 
a  very  objective  view  of  severance  pay  and 
the  way  we  are  going  to  try  to  make  it 
effective  here  in  Ontario.  I  would  also  sug- 
gest we  have  considerations  to  make  in  so 
far  as  pensions,  funding  and  portability  are 
concerned.  We  have  real  concerns  as  a  com- 
mittee to  address  in  the  area  of  manpower 
adjustment  committees,  and  we  have  a  further 
major  concern  as  a  committee  in  so  far  as 
closure  justification  is  concerned. 
8:30  p.m. 

We  in  the  committee  have  not  really 
taken  heed  of  that.  We  are  quite  aware  of 
it,  but  we  really  have  not  addressed  our- 
selves completely  to  it.  I  would  submit  to 
you  that  the  community  I  listen  to— and 
that  includes  workers,  employers  and  the 
media— views  this  whole  process  of  justi- 
fication as  the  major  concern.  We  must 
address  ourselves  to  that  in  the  four  or  five 
weeks  we  will  be  working  early  in  the  new 
year.  I  hope  we  can  address  those  themes, 
come  up  with  something  meaningful  and 
do  it  without  a  lot  of  political  posturing 
because  the  lot  of  the  men  and  women  who 
work  in  this  province  is  far  more  important 
than  any  political  posturing. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  take  some  time  this  evening  to  make 
some  comments  on  the  interim  report  sub- 
mitted by  the  select  committee  on  plant 
shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment.  There 


5280 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


are  two  or  three  specific  areas  I  would  like 
to  touch  on,  the  first  being  the  matter  of 
severance  pay  for  workers  who  have  been 
terminated  because  of  a  plant  shutdown  or 
because  of  a  mass  layoff  which,  in  due 
course,  becomes  permanent. 

'I  was  pleased  to  hear  the  Minister  of 
Labour  comment  today  that  he  is  prepared 
to  accept  a  recommendation  from  the  com- 
mittee, once  our  final  report  is  in,  to  set  in 
law  the  principle  of  severance  pay  so  that 
every  employee,  every  worker  who  loses  his 
or  her  job  because  of  a  plant  shutdown  may 
receive  some  small  amount  of  monetary  con- 
tribution to  the  big  change  that  will  occur 
in  his  or  her  life.  We  must  keep  that  in 
mind.  When  a  person  loses  his  job  he  is  in 
for  a  big  change.  The  particular  individual 
may  be  getting  on  in  years.  His  skills  may 
be  limited  or  he  may  have  no  skills  at  all. 
Educational  opportunities  at  that  time  are 
none  whatsoever. 

We  asked  something  of  employers,  espe- 
cially employers  who  have  made  profits  and 
done  what  they  wanted  with  them,  such  as 
having  them  remitted  to  the  headquarters  in 
some  other  country,  such  as  using  these 
profits  to  expand  or  pay  dividends,  any  num- 
ber of  things.  All  the  committee  asked  was 
that  these  corporations  give  workers  who  have 
given  their  service  to  these  companies  a  small 
monetary  payment.  We  have  recommended 
one  week's  severance  pay  for  every  year  of 
service  rendered. 

I  do  not  believe  the  Minister  of  Labour 
would  have  made  his  statement  today  if  our 
report  had  not  been  agreed  upon  unani- 
mously. There  was  mention  early  in  our 
hearings  of  the  importance  of  our  committee 
submitting  a  unanimous  report.  For  that,  I 
congratulate  all  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee for  participating  in  the  give  and  take 
of  this  political  framework  in  which  we  have 
to  work  and  enabling  the  committee  to  sub- 
mit to  the  Minister  of  Labour  a  unanimous 
report,  causing  the  reaction  we  had  all  been 
hoping  for. 

There  is  also  the  area  of  justification.  I 
want  to  take  a  moment  to  speak  on  justifica- 
tion of  plant  closures.  We  have  sat  in  the 
committee  for  several  weeks.  We  had  com- 
pany after  company  come  before  us.  They 
had  their  reasons  for  closure.  Of  course,  we 
heard  from  the  union  side.  The  thing  that 
came  to  me  clearly  was  that  in  each  and 
every  situation  there  is  an  immense  cloud 
over  what  has  taken  place,  with  tremendous 
confusion  and  some  cynicism.  That  is  some- 
thing that  we  are  going  to  have  to  address. 
If  I  were  in  the  company's  boots  I  would 


not  want  that  cloud  to  remain  after  I  had 
left,  if  I  had  left  for  proper  reasons  or  if  the 
plant  had  been  closed  for  proper  reasons. 

We  have  an  obligation  to  the  workers  who 
have  spent  many  years  in  the  employ  of  a 
company,  people  who  do  not  know  whether 
their  jobs  were  eliminated  for  any  justifiable 
reason  at  all.  We  have  these  two  extremes, 
which  I  believe  we  must  balance. 

The  committee  has  to  look  at  this  in  its 
next  set  of  hearings.  We  must  remove  this 
cloud  of  confusion,  this  cloud  of  cynicism 
that  develops  over  a  plant  closure.  Specific 
reasons  and  justifiable  reasons  must  be  given 
and  must  be  proved  before  communities  and 
workers  are  disrupted  by  having  their  jobs 
eliminated. 

I  would  like  to  close  by  saying  that  my 
colleagues  the  member  for  Essex  North  (Mr. 
Ruston)  and  the  member  for  Windsor- Walker- 
ville  (Mr.  B.  Newman),  both  from  the 
Windsor-Essex  county  area,  and  I  know  of 
this  problem  of  plant  closures  all  too  well. 
Both  of  my  colleagues  have  been  in  the 
committee  and  have  participated,  and  both 
are  here  this  evening  to  listen  to  this  debate. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  partici- 
pated in  many  debates  and  discussions  in 
various  committees,  but  I  cannot  think  of  one 
that  has  been  more  important  and  significant 
to  the  workers  of  this  province.  It  seems  a 
shame  that  we  should  even  be  participating 
in  such  a  debate  because  it  has  long  been 
known  that  workers  who  are  out  of  a  job, 
whether  singly  or  in  numbers,  are  affected, 
whether  it  is  a  plant  shutdown,  a  closure,  or 
a  layoff,  or  whatever.  It  has  been  my  con- 
tention that  while  we  now  have  to  do  some- 
thing because  of  the  inability  of  govern- 
ments to  react  or  do  something  long  before 
now  about  this  particular  problem,  we  are 
debating  an  issue  that  should  have  had  some 
substance  as  it  relates  to  what  I  consider  to 
be  the  route  to  go. 

That  is,  we  should  have  had  long  before 
now,  adequate  pay  through  the  unemploy- 
ment insurance  area  to  look  after  people 
who  are  out  of  a  job.  It  does  not  really 
matter  how  many  people  are  laid  off  at  a 
given  time  to  justify  looking  after  a  worker 
who  has  lost  his  job.  I  am  certain  there 
are  many  small  industries  that  may  be 
harmed  by  this  bill.  There  is  no  reason  to 
suggest  that  because  we  pass  legislation  in 
these  chambers  and  pass  on  the  liability  to 
a  third  party,  they  have  the  ability  to  meet 
the  obligation. 

It  happens  on  too  many  occasions  in  this 
Legislature  that  because  we  think  we  have 
the  knowledge  and  the  ability  to  deal  with 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5281 


an  issue  we  just  pass  on  the  real  obliga- 
tions to  another  party.  I  do  not  know  how 
long  that  can  go  on. 

I  think  in  the  future  we  will  have  to  ad- 
dress ourselves  to  meaningful  participation 
and  by  that  I  mean  government,  the  em- 
ployer and,  yes,  the  employee.  Unless  we 
decide  that  each  and  every  one  of  us  is 
going  to  share  a  part  of  the  burden,  we 
shall  never,  by  moving  it  to  one  particular 
jurisdiction,  resolve  the  problem.  There  are 
many  instances  where  there  are  not  the 
kind  of  profits  involved. 

There  are  those  corporations  that  can 
pass  the  costs  through.  I  suggest  this  is  the 
problem  in  the  automotive  industry.  They 
have  pushed  all  the  added  costs  through 
and  now  we  are  looking  at  $8,000  for  the 
smallest  car. 

I  suggest  that  it  might  be  very  easy  for 
us  in  the  Legislature  to  decide  to  pass  all 
these  costs  through,  but  ultimately  the 
buyer  will  not  be  able  to  buy,  and  the 
whole  economy  is  going  to  suffer  for  it. 

There  are  not  many  other  areas  I  wanted 
to  address.  Having  come  from  the  business 
field  I  know  that  with  the  high  interest 
rates  and  many  other  areas  that  are  difficult 
to  meet,  we  are  not  going  to  help  the  small 
companies  by  putting  further  obligations 
on  them. 

8:40  p.m. 

I  suggest  it  is  time  that  we  decide  that 
whenever  we  have  a  serious  problem  in  this 
country,  we  are  all  in  it  together.  We  are 
not  going  to  point  at  the  unions,  we  are 
not  going  to  point  at  the  government  and 
we  are  not  going  to  point  at  the  employer. 
It  is  just  about  time  we  all  shared  the  re- 
sponsibility that  is  going  to  get  this  country 
back  where  it  belongs  and  make  it  what  it 
used  to  be. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  some  of 
the  views  that  have  been  expressed  by  our 
member  pretty  well  covered  our  side  of  it. 
I  would  like  to  say  that  I  am  very  proud  to 
have  served  with  the  members  of  the  Lib- 
eral Party  who  are  on  this  committee  be- 
cause I  think  we  have  a  real  cross-section. 
There  is  always  the  danger  when  we  are 
approaching  a  subject  such  as  this  that  we 
may  see  only  one  of  the  views  expressed. 
I  feel  that  we  in  the  Liberal  Party,  along 
with  some  of  the  other  members  in  the 
Legislature,   try  to   take   a  balanced  view. 

I  came  from  a  labour-oriented  family  with 
a  father  who  was  very  involved.  The  New 
Democratic  Party  people  think  they  are  the 
only  people  who  can  express  the  views  of 
labour.  But  to  get  a  balanced  view,  one  has 


to  have  somebody  who  has  a  little  bit  of 
labour  background  and  has  been  in  business. 
I  feel  I  have  covered  both  of  those  and  that 
I  can  look  at  the  way  they  should  be 
looked  at.  I  think  my  view  is  very  balanced. 
I  think  we  have  to  be  very  careful  when 
some  of  the  members  of  the  New  Democratic 
Party— not  all  the  members  who  are  on  that 
committee— say  the  only  people  who  are  at 
fault  are  the  business  people.  Businessmen 
are  not  the  only  ones.  I  think  labour  has  to 
be  very  careful.  If  they  push  business  to  the 
point  of  destroying  jobs,  they  do  not  give 
jobs  to  their  own  members. 

I  realize  the  seriousness  of  these  people 
being  put  out  of  work.  I  know  how  they  feel 
and  my  heart  feels  for  them.  I  think  we 
definitely  have  to  do  many  things  for  them 
to  see  that  their  lives  are  improved.  I  think 
we  have  to  be  very  careful  that  we  do  not 
destroy  jobs.  If  we  look  at  this  in  a  balanced 
way,  making  sure  that  we  give  benefits  to 
workers  who  are  laid  off,  if  we  make  sure 
we  give  benefits  to  certain  companies  to 
make  sure  they  can  stay  in  business  and  we 
do  not  cause  certain  hardships  for  them,  we 
will  make  this  a  better  province.  There  is  no 
doubt  we  need  much  legislation  to  improve 
the  life  of  the  workers  in  this  province. 

There  are  many  businesses  that  can  afford 
to  pay  further,  through  profit  sharing  or 
whatever  it  may  be.  The  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  said  the  other  night,  when  I  was 
walking  out  of  the  Legislature,  "Wait  until 
the  people  of  this  province  hear  what  you 
are  going  to  do  to  small  business.'*  I  said  to 
him,  "Please  check  the  Hansard  for  what 
was  said  by  our  members  and  your  members, 
because  let  me  tell  you,  Mr.  Premier,  we 
are  all  interested  in  seeing  that  the  workers 
are  given  a  fair  deal  and  that  we  do  not 
destroy  the  small  businessmen  in  this  area." 

I  think  that  is  the  Premier's  concern  also 
that  this  is  covered.  I  would  hate  to  see  in 
the  upcoming  election  certain  quotes  taken 
out  of  context.  Not  that  the  Premier  would 
ever  do  that. 

I  had  a  father  who  worked  on  the  railroad 
for  38  years.  When  he  died,  my  mother  was 
left  with  three  kids  at  home.  He  had  a  pen- 
sion of  $62  a  month  after  38  years  on  the 
railroad.  I  have  also  had  members  of  my 
family  who  have  put  time  in.  My  mother-in- 
law  worked  in  a  hospital  as  a  dietitian  and 
had  about  10  or  11  years'  service.  The  hospital 
was  taken  over  by  another  company  and  she 
lost  all  her  seniority;  she  was  given  back 
what  she  had  paid  in  plus  five  or  six  per  cent 
interest. 


5282 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


As  a  businessman,  I  also  see  certain  pres- 
sures that  are  put  on  business,  the  extra 
expense  that  they  incur.  I  think  we  also 
have  to  consider  that. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  thank  you  for  being  able 
to  speak  on  this.  I  would  also  like  to  con- 
gratulate the  chairman  for  the  excellent  job 
he  has  done  and  the  members  of  the  staff 
who  have  assisted  us  in  drawing  up  this 
report.  I  thank  them  very  much. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  participate  and  am  particularly  pleased  to 
end  in  the  windup  position.  I  have  found  it 
interesting  to  listen  to  my  colleagues  in  the 
other  two  parties  and  I  want  to  congratulate 
them  for  the  work  they  put  into  this  report. 
I  am  very  pleased,  in  listening  to  the  quotes 
that  I  heard  from  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee, that  he  recognizes  just  exactly  how 
reasonable  this  party  was  in  that  debate. 

We  may  have  moved  the  three  or  four 
substantive  sections  that  went  into  the  report 
and  we  may  have  had  some  disagreement 
with  our  colleagues  from  the  other  two 
parties.  But  we  did  not  try  to  take  over  the 
world  or  try  to  take  over  everything  in 
Ontario  in  the  interim  report  or  even  sug- 
gest any  such  course  of  action.  I  am  pleased 
there  is  some  recognition,  at  least  from  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  on  the  Con- 
servative side  of  the  House,  that  we  played 
a  role  of  total  reason  in  the  debate  that  went 
on. 

I  also  want  to  say  I  have  a  little  difficulty 
with  my  colleagues  next  door. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  are  always  going  to  have 
difficulties  with  us. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  I  cannot  understand  how 
we  get  a  call  from  some  of  them  to  have  a 
totally  impartial  point  of  view  and  to  make 
sure  there  is  the  same  input  into  the  situation 
from  labour  as  there  is  from  business.  We  are 
not  showing  bias  on  one  side  or  the  other  on 
the  issue.  One  of  the  things  that  was  agreed 
to,  as  I  understand  it,  without  dissent,  was  a 
very  clear  paragraph  in  the  preliminary  ob- 
servation. It  is  something  that  was  clear  to 
all  of  us.  The  paragraph  simply  says,  "It  is 
equally  clear  in  these  cases"— and  we  are 
referring  to  all  the  cases  that  were  before 
us— "that  the  unions  representing  the  workers 
had  no  influence  in  terms  of  the  closure 
decision."  I  do  not  think  I  will  get  an  argu- 
ment from  anybody  on  that.  "The  union's 
role  was  reduced  to  that  of  trying  to  nego- 
tiate the  best  possible  settlement  after  the 
fact." 

It  certainly  indicates  that  they  did  not 
have  the  influence  there  to  begin  with.  I  do 
not  mind  showing  a  bit  of  bias  in  this  House. 


I  happen  to  think  a  lot  of  things  we  are  talk- 
ing about  are  common  sense.  We  have  had 
a  heck  of  a  time  convincing  the  other  two 
parties  of  this  fact.  If  I  am  going  to  show 
a  bias,  I  want  it  clearly  on  the  record  that 
that  bias  is  going  to  be  a  bias  towards  the 
workers  and  their  organizations  in  this  prov- 
ince. 

Mr.  O'Neil:  You  do  not  represent  all  the 
workers. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  I  have  never  tried  to  say  I 
do  represent  all  the  workers.  I  will  take  my 
chances  in  a  comparison  with  either  of  the 
other  two  parties.  I  simply  want  to  make  it 
clear  there  are  a  few  significant  things  in 
the  report. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  The  first  significant  thing 
in  the  report  is  the  severance  pay  recom- 
mendation. I  am  pleased  that  finally  it  was  a 
unanimous  recommendation  of  the  commit- 
tee. I  will  point  out  that  it  was  moved  and 
supported  the  first  time  around.  It  was  re- 
inforced in  placing  it  in  the  interim  report 
by  a  larger  vote,  a  unanimous  vote.  I  hope 
that  it  did  have  some  influence  on  the  minis- 
ter's statement  earlier  today,  which  I  have 
only  had  a  chance  to  read  within  the  last  few 
minutes.  I  do  not  share  the  chairman's  con- 
cern that  making  the  statement  somehow  or 
other  pre-empts  some  of  our  work  or  under- 
mines some  of  our  work,  because  I  think  the 
motion  was  put  and  supported  on  the  basis 
of  the  need  for  some  immediate  interim 
protection. 

I  would  rather  have  seen  it  passed  and  in- 
cluded in  Bill  191  and  that  bill  proceeded 
with.  But  certainly  I  take— I  have  to  take— 
the  minister  and  the  government  on  good 
faith  when  they  say  that  as  soon  as  this  House 
comes  back  again— and  I  recognize  in  the  in- 
terim they  will  use  it  for  the  best  political 
mileage  they  can— but  I  hope  we  will  see 
the  legislation  back  in  and  severance  pay 
retroactive  as  the  committee  has  recom- 
mended, that  is,  one  week's  pay  based  on 
every  year  of  service. 

However,  important  as  severance  pay 
may  be,  I  am  one  of  those  who  will  say  very 
frankly  it  is  a  Band-Aid  measure.  This  does 
not  mean  it  is  not  an  important  measure, 
but  it  is  not  the  answer  to  our  problems. 
It  does,  however,  serve  some  purpose:  it  gives 
the  workers  some  chance  in  a  community  to 
have  a  few  of  the  bucks  they  are  going  to 
need  if  they  are  going  to  have  to  try  to  move 
or  pay  rent  or  wait  while  they  are  trying  to 
sell  their  homes  in  the  community  they  are 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5283 


living  in— and  they  may  have  been  devalued 
considerably,  particularly  in  a  one-industry 
town  in  northern  Ontario.  It  will  give  them 
a  little  bit  of  extra  cash  they  are  going  to 
need  in  one  of  the  most  troublesome  periods 
of  their  lives,  when  there  is  a  major  plant 
closedown. 

8:50  p.m. 

A  lot  of  the  workers  spent  a  lot  of  years 
in  those  plants.  This  is  probably  a  forlorn 
hope,  but  it  may  have  some  influence  on 
some  companies  as  to  whether  they  decide 
to  take  that  final,  irrevocable  step  of  a  plant 
closure.  It  is  certainly  one  of  the  tools  that 
can  be  used  to  give  some  immediate  cash 
relief  to  workers  and,  hopefully,  have  some 
influence  on  a  decision  to  close. 

The  real  question  is  clear.  The  real  area 
of  concern  is  clear.  I  was  pleased  my  col- 
league the  member  for  Niagara  Falls  indi- 
cated in  his  statement  that  we  had  to  accept 
the  fact  of  the  inability  of  the  government 
to  react  to  plant  closures.  That  was  the  first 
time  I  ever  heard  him  make  an  admission 
that  the  government  might  have  a  role  in 
the  economy  because  plant  closures  are  cer- 
tainly a  major  part  of  our  economic  deci- 
sions in  this  country. 

Before  I  deal  with  the  important  sections 
in  the  report,  I  want  to  say  I  do  not  share 
the  concern  of  the  chairman  that  cliches 
have  become  a  way  of  life,  that  we  have 
to  guard  against  that  kind  of  approach  and 
that  we  cannot  let  the  frustration  some 
members  showed  after  10  years  make  us 
set  in  our  ways  and  views.  We  have  to 
bring  some  of  that  frustration  and  anger 
to  a  committee  like  this  and  to  the  final  re- 
port that  comes  into  this  House. 

I  say  that  for  good  reasons.  One  is  that  I 
recall  well— and  I  do  not  know  whether  it 
was  considered  a  joke  in  after  years  by 
some  members  of  this  House— that  two  of 
my  colleagues,  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  (Mr.  Martel)  and  Ian  Deans,  who  is 
now  in  the  federal  House  of  Commons,  spent 
a  lot  of  time  on  the  select  committee  on 
economic  and  cultural  nationalism.  I  have 
taken  the  trouble  to  look  at  some  of  the 
reports.  Over  a  period  of  four  years  it 
brought  in  21  reports.  They  were  reports 
that  said  many  of  the  things  we  have  indi- 
cated may  be  part  of  the  final  result  of  our 
committee.  They  indicated  there  were  some 
real  problems  in  terms  of  the  ownership  and 
control  of  our  resources  and  industry  in  this 
country.  They  dealt  with  it  in  considerable 
detail.  They  made  recommendations  and 
somehow  or  other,  even  in  that  report,  they 


got    the    endorsement   and    support   of   both 
Liberal  and  Tory  members. 

The  frustration  is  that  that  report  was 
filed  in  1975,  after  four  years  of  work  and 
21  reports  with  recommendations.  Almost 
nothing  in  that  report  has  been  brought 
forward  in  legislation  or  enacted  in  this 
Legislature.  That  is  a  condemnation  of  this 
government  and  this  Legislature.  It  is  be- 
cause we  have  not  taken  action  on  these 
problems  that  we  have  been  led  to  the 
sorry  state  of  our  economy  in  Ontario  to- 
day. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Let's  bring  the  rascals  down. 
Come  on,  get  with  it. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Either  side,  because  you 
are  tarred  with  the  same  brush. 

I  am  giving  my  own  view,  as  well  as  what 
actually  happened,  but  the  funny  thing  in 
that  committee  is  we  usually  know  exactly 
where  the  Tories  stand  on  most  of  these 
issues.  We  are  surprised  and  happy  when 
they  show  a  little  progressive  streak  and 
come  along  with  us  on  some  issues.  We 
rarely  know  where  our  Liberal  colleagues 
stand.  We  can  get  all-out  support  on  the 
issue  of  severance  pay.  I  suggest  the  mem- 
bers read  the  Hansard  of  yesterday  and  see 
the  member  for  Niagara  Falls  trying  to 
backtrack  on  the  severance  pay  issue.  It  was 
rather  amazing.  The  fact  is,  there  is  a  new 
right  wing  in  Ontario  and  it  is  right  over 
here. 

The  significant  paragraphs  in  this  report, 
apart  from  the  severance  pay  issue  and  the 
outline— and  I  think  it  is  a  good  outline— 
of  some  of  the  issues  we  have  to  face,  are 
the  three  paragraphs  that  come  under  pre- 
liminary observations.  I  want  to  go  through 
them  carefully  because,  as  far  as  I  am 
concerned,  they  set  the  stage,  along  with 
the  areas  of  concern,  for  the  committee's 
work  over  the  next  five  weeks.  What  do 
those  three  paragraphs  say?  Let  me  read 
the  first  one  into  the  record: 

"It  is  clear  from  the  oases  studied  by  the 
committee  that  the  decision  to  close  has 
been  a  company  monopoly.  The  decision  is 
not  only  a  head  office  decision  but  in 
branch  plants  one  that  is  made  with  little 
input    from    Canadian    management." 

Certainly  in  six  of  the  seven  cases  before 
us,  that  was  obvious. 

The  second  paragraph  I  dealt  with, 
equally  clear  in  these  cases,  is  that  unions 
representing  the  workers  have  no  influence 
in  terms  of  the  closure  decision.  The  union's 
role  was  reduced  to  that  of  trying  to  nego- 
tiate the  best  possible  settlement  after  the 
fact.    I   cannot   get  away  from   one   of  the 


5284 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


things  that  struck  home  even  to  me.  It 
shows  some  of  the  problems  we  have  within 
the  union  movement.  SKF  sat  down  in 
March  with  the  workers  in  Sweden  and 
West  Germany,  and  two  months  later  they 
raised  the  issue  of  the  closure  in  Canada, 
although  there  had  been  rumours  for  a 
long  time.  But  they  discussed  with  the 
workers  in  Europe  two  months  before  they 
said  anything  to  anybody  in  Canada  the 
fact  that  they  were  going  to  move  the  bear- 
ing operations  out  of  the  Canadian  plant 
into  either  Philadelphia  or  France. 

It  is  a  pretty  sad  state  of  affairs  in  terms 
of  the  kind  of  influence  the  only  other 
large  organization  in  this  country  has, 
other  than  the  political  parties  and  your 
business  community,  which  is  the  union 
movement.  It  was  clear  that  even  in  the 
business  community,  in  the  branch  plant 
area,  there  was  no  influence  on  the  decisions 
in  this  country,  the  decisions  to  close.  The 
union  had  even  less  influence  and  was  not 
even  asked1  for  its  advice  or  comments  and 
was  called  in  after  the  fact.  In  some  cases, 
it  was  notified  by  the  media  that  companies 
were  having  press  conferences  to  announce 
closures  before  they  had  ever  talked  to  the 
union.  That  also  came  out  clearly. 

These  conclusions  clearly  indicate  ques- 
tions which  must  now  be  addressed  by  the 
committee.  Should  government  take  a  role 
in  the  decision-making  process  prior  to  plant 
closures,  and  should  the  protection  be  offer- 
ed to  workers  and  the  communities  affected, 
if  the  closure  must  proceed?  I  think  our 
work  is  clearly  set  out  in  those  areas.  There 
is  no  question  we  have  lost  decision-making 
control  in  Canada's  major  plant  closures  in 
the  corporate  world.  We  either  deal  with 
it  or,  at  our  own  peril,  really  become  the 
hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  in 
North  America. 

We  have  also  clearly  outlined  areas  of 
concern.  Many  of  them  directly  lead  in  to 
those  three  interim  conclusions  and  direc- 
tions made  in  that  report.  We  have  not 
broken  new  ground,  and  this  is  sad.  What 
we  are  doing  is  saying  what  was  said  some 
five  years  ago  by  the  select  committee  on 
economic  and  cultural  nationalism,  maybe 
in  a  little  more  pointed  or  narrow  context. 

What  I  am  really  challenging  the  members 
of  this  committee,  all  of  the  members  who 
sat  on  this  committee  and  then  the  House 
with  is  this:  when  we  bring  the  final  report 
in,  are  we  going  to  follow  the  obvious  direc- 
tions in  the  information  that  we  have  to 
date,  and  are  we  then  going  to  bring  forward 
recommendations    that   return   a  little  bit   of 


economic  control?  I  do  not  like  the  words 
"economic  nationalism,"  but  some  of  it  has 
to  reappear  in  this  country.  Are  we  going  to 
bring  back  a  little  bit  of  it  to  this  country, 
or  are  we  going  to  say,  "We  are  prepared 
for  ever  and  a  day  to  be  the  serfs  of  the 
international  or  multinational  corporations''? 
It  is  that  decision  we  have  to  make. 

We  had  better  understand  that  time  may 
not  be  on  our  side  in  this  particular  issue, 
because  as  is  clearly  indicated  in  almost 
every  study  that  has  been  done  of  major 
industrial  groupings,  whether  it  is  electrical 
or  you  name  it  in  this  country,  the  control  is 
going  outside  the  country  and  we  do  not 
have  any  say.  When  we  do  not  even  have 
good  corporate  citizenship  in  terms  of  the 
ability  to  close  plants  at  will  in  this  country, 
then  we  really  have  the  problem  and  we 
have  to  come  to  grips  with  it. 

I  challenge  the  members  of  the  committee, 
as  I  challenge  the  House,  to  make  sure  that 
when  we  bring  in  the  final  report  we  are  not 
going  to  let  it  sit  for  five  years  and  then 
reappoint  another  committee,  but  we  are 
going  to  start  to  take  control  of  our  own 
house  once  again  in  Canada. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  debate 
was  adjourned. 

9  p.m. 

House  in  committee  of  the  whole. 

PENSION  BENEFITS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Consideration  of  Bill  214,  An  Act  to  amend 
the  Pension  Benefits  Act. 

On  section  1: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N. 
Davison  moves  that  section  1  of  the  bill  be 
amended  by  adding  thereto  the  following 
section  la: 

"Section  16  of  the  said  act  is  repealed 
and  the  following  substituted  therefor:  'The 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  Council  may  es- 
tablish or  designate  an  agency  to  be  known 
as  the  Central  Pension  Agency  for  the  pur- 
poses, among  others,  of  receiving,  holding, 
investing  and  disbursing  pension  benefit 
credits  under  this  act/  " 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 
amendment  regarding  the  central  pension 
agency  is  merely  a  redefinition  of  the  role  of 
this  agency.  The  central  purpose  for  it  is 
that  it  will  provide  for  a  much  greater 
flexibility  and  portability  for  the  pensions 
that  are  referenced  in  this  particular  bill.  If 
I  could  go  back  for  a  moment  to  the  com- 
ments  made   by  my   colleague   the   member 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5285 


for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan)  before  the 
adjournment  for  the  supper  hour,  it  is 
striving  to  achieve  the  beginnings  of  a  strong 
public  role  in  what  is  a  badly  suffering,  if 
not  dying,  private  sector  area. 

I  would  if  I  could  go  much  further  by 
way  of  amendment  to  this  bill  in  providing  a 
stronger  role  for  the  public  and  its  govern- 
ment in  the  pension  field,  but  this  is  the 
limit  to  which  I  believe  the— 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Every  time  you  stand  up  you 
give  us  a  laugh. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  If  the  members  of  the 
Liberal  Party  can  cease  their  giggling,  per- 
haps I  can  conclude  my  comment  on  this 
important  amendment.  The  diminutive  mem- 
ber for  Essex  South  (Mr.  Mancini)  can  per- 
haps go  outside  and  giggle  there. 

I  think  it  is  the  ultimate  that  can  be  done 
in  terms  of  providing  some  flexibility  and 
portability,  and  fits  in  nicely  with  three  other 
amendments  that  I  plan  to  place  later  on  in 
the  debate  regarding  the  central  pension 
agency  and  a  real  public  voice  in  this  field. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour 
of  Mr.  Davison's  amendment  will  please 
say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 
Section  1  agreed  to. 
On  section  2: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison 
moves  that  section  2  of  the  bill  be  amended 
by  adding  thereto  the  following  subsection: 

"1.  Clause  a  of  subsection  1  of  section  21 
of  the  said  act  is  repealed  and  the  following 
substituted  therefor: 

"  '(a)  A  member  of  the  plan  who  has  been 
in  the  service  of  the  employer  for  a  continuous 
period  of  five  years  or  has  been  a  member  of 
the  plan  for  such  period  is  entitled  upon 
termination  of  his  employment  prior  to  his 
attaining  retirement  age  or  upon  termination 
of  his  membership  in  the  plan  prior  to  his 
attaining  retirement  age  to  a  deferred  life 
annuity  commencing  at  his  normal  retirement 
age  equal  to  the  pension  benefits  except  bene- 
fits provided  by  voluntary  additional  contribu- 
tions provided  in  respect  of  service  as  an  em- 
ployee in  Ontario  or  in  a  designated  province: 

"  '(i)  under  the  terms  of  the  plan  in  respect 
of  service  on  or  after  the  qualification  date; 

"  '(ii)  by  an  amendment  to  the  terms  of  the 
plan  made  on  or  after  the  qualification  date; 
or; 

"'(iii)  by  the  creation  of  a  new  pension 
plan  on  or  after  the  qualification  date.' " 


Mr-.  M.  N.  Davison:  Well  read,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, well  read. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  thought  I  did 
very  well,  but  I  don't  think  I  could  do  it 
again. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  If  you  have  convinced 
the  Liberals  and  Tories  with  that  rendition,  I 
thank  you. 

The  purpose  of  this  amendment  goes  back 
to  the  point  I  was  trying  to  make  during  the 
debate  before  the  supper  hour,  about  the  in- 
credible inadequacies  of  the  45  and  10 
rule  that  the  minister  wants  to  continue.  I 
thought  it  was  unfortunate,  though  typical 
and  not  totally  unexpected,  that  the  member 
for  London  Centre  (Mr.  Peterson)  stood  to 
speak  to  the  bill  before  the  supper  hour,  and 
said  of  amendments  to  the  bill,  sight  unseen, 
that  he  and  his  party  would  oppose  them  so 
that  we  could  get  through  this  little  crumb 
for  the  workers  of  Ontario  this  evening. 

I  guess  when  a  person  is  born  with  a  silver 
spoon  in  his  mouth,  he  really  does  not  have  to 
care  too  much  about  the  average  working 
person  in  this  province;  but  at  least  one 
would  think  that,  even  if  he  does  have  a 
silver  spoon  in  his  mouth,  he  would  have  the 
decency  to  hear  what  the  amendment  is  be- 
fore deciding  to  vote  against  it.  I  think  it  is 
unfortunate  that  the  honourable  member  and 
his  party  have  taken  such  a  position,  which 
is  only  slightly  less  reprehensible  than  the 
government's  own  position. 

I  think  it  is  remarkably  unfair  that  we  sit 
with  so  many  fat  cats  in  this  place  tonight 
and  debate  the  question  of  vesting  periods. 
We  are  willing  to  accept  that  the  fat  cats 
of  the  province,  from  the  Liberal  and  Con- 
servative parties,  are  willing  to  give  the 
workers  of  this  province  a  45  and  10  rule, 
when  these  same  fat  cats  have  a  five-year  rule; 
there  is  a  five-year  rule  for  members  of  this 
Legislature. 
9:10  p.m. 

It  does  not  matter  what  one's  age  is  when 
one  is  a  member  here;  five  years  in  this  place, 
and  one's  pension  rights  are  vested.  But 
under  the  system  the  Liberals  and  the  Tories 
want  to  continue  for  the  ordinary  working 
people  of  Ontario,  a  worker  can  be  44  years 
old,  have  slugged  his  guts  out  in  the  basic 
steel  industry  or  in  any  other  plant  in  this 
province  for  20  years,  and  not  have  a  vested 
pension. 

I  think  it  is  reprehensible  that  members  of 
this  assembly  would  sit  here  with  their  smug- 
ness and  condemn  workers  to  the  45  and  10 
rule,  when  they  accept  gladly  for  themselves 
a  five-year  rule.  I  would  ask  that  members 
in  both  the  Conservative  and  Liberal  parties, 


5286 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


before  they  vote  against  this  long-overdue 
change  to  the  45  and  10  rule,  consider  their 
own  situation. 

I  think  it  is  quite  improper  for  members 
of  this  House  to  have  for  themselves— What 
is  that,  Remo? 

Mr.  Mancini:  Your  taste  is  pretty  expensive 
yourself,  when  things  are  free. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  What  on  earth  does 
that  have  to  do  with  the  pension  rights  of  the 
people  of  Ontario?  I  hope  the  fat-trap  from 
Essex  South  will  take  an  opportunity  to  in- 
volve himself  in  this  particular  debate,  and 
explain  to  the  workers  of  Ontario  why  he 
thinks  his  personal  pension  should  be  vested 
after  five  years  but  their  pensions  should  not 
be  vested  until  they  are  45  years  old  and 
have  worked  for  a  minimum  of  10  years.  I 
am  sure  the  workers  of  Essex  South  would 
like  to  know  why  he  supports  this  double 
standard  in  the  province. 

Finally,  this  is  in  fact  a  Band-Aid  bill. 
This  is  in  fact  half  measure.  This  is,  on  my 
part,  just  a  small  attempt  to  add  one  more 
Band-Aid  before  the  haemorrhage  becomes 
so  severe  that  it  causes  a  fatality.  I  think  it 
is  the  minimum  we  can  do  as  members  to 
help  out  people  who  are  having  their  pen- 
sions eroded  through  layoffs  and  shutdowns 
and  the  severe  economic  conditions  in  our 
province.  It  would  be  a  nice  little  Christ- 
mas present  that  we,  in  our  magnanimity, 
could  give  to  the  workers  of  Ontario  before 
we  go  back  to  our  families  for  the  Christmas 
holiday. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was 
surprised  that  nobody  from  the  Liberal  Party 
got  up  to  speak  on  this  eminently  sensible 
amendment. 

Mr.  Roy:  If  you  keep  it  up  I  think  I 
could  be  provoked. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Oh,  I  hope  so.  I  hope  so, 
Albert.  What  we  are  dealing  with  here  is 
one  of  the  major  measures  for  artificial 
resuscitation  of  the  private  insurance  sector. 

I  would  have  thought  that  my  friends  in 
the  Liberal  Party  would  have  wanted  to  join 
with  their  friends  in  the  Conservative  Party 
to  take  advantage  of  this  proposal  we  have 
put  before  them,  like  dogs  before  raw  meat. 
I  would  have  thought  they  would  have 
wanted  to  take  advantage  of  this  proposal, 
which  is  so  obviously  designed  to  assist  the 
private  insurance  sector  in  surviving  what 
will  probably  be,  at  any  rate,  an  inevitable 
demise. 

Nevertheless,  if  they  are  not  at  the  very 
least  prepared  to  deal  with  the  stupidities 
of  the  current  vesting  provision— those 
members   who    are    apostles    of   the    private 


insurance  sector,  those  who  believe  that 
the  private  insurance  industry  is  the  salva- 
tion of  retired  Canadians— if  they  are  not 
even  willing  to  change  the  imbecility  of  the 
current  vesting  provisions,  how  on  earth 
can  we  take  them  seriously  when  they 
come  forward  with  the  measures  of  arti- 
ficial respiration? 

Interjections. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  think  I  dis- 
covered it  in  time. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  am  sorry.  Mr.  Chair- 
man? 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  am  sorry.  There 
was  some  question  about  the  mace  being 
on  top  of  the  table  when  it  should  have 
been  on  the  underside  of  the  table.  But  I 
don't  think  anybody  noticed  it,  so  it  will 
not  interfere  with  the  validity  of  anything 
anybody  was  saying. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  hope  not.  I  hope  every- 
body will  stay  upright  for  the  rest  of  the 
evening.   I  certainly  intend  to. 

That  is  really  all  I  wanted  to  saw  I 
would  like  to  hear  the  minister,  though.  I 
would  really  like  to  hear  him.  I  want  to 
know  what  the  position  of  the  Liberal  Party 
is  on  vesting  provisions.  They  talk  a  good 
line.  There  is  my  friend  the  member  for 
Niagara  Falls,  who  is  certainly  the  most 
notorious  friend  of  the  workers  anywhere  in 
this  province.  I  use  the  word  advisedly. 
I  am  sure  he  would  want  to  get  up  and 
say  the  private  insurance  sector  has  to  be 
protected  from  itself  through  legislative 
provisions  that  will  bring  it  somewhere 
close  to  the  second  half  of  the  twentieth 
century. 

I  am  particularly  interested  in  knowing 
what  the  minister  intends  to  do  on  the 
vesting  issue.  How  long  has  he  had  his 
portfolio?  Is  it  two  and  a  half,  going  on 
three  years?  What  has  he  done  on  one  of 
the  major  responsibilities  he  is  charged  with 
—the  supervision  of,  administration  of  and 
responsibility  for  pension  legislation  in  this 
province?  Nothing;  absolutely  nothing.  Not 
a  damned  thing. 

He  comes  here  on  the  eve  of  Christmas 
with  Bill  214.  What  a  sweetheart  he  is.  What 
a  bona  fide  Santa  Claus  he  is.  When  he 
brings  in  his  act  to  amend  the  Pension 
Benefits  Act  he  does  not  even  deal  with  one 
of  the  most  longstanding  problems  in  the 
pension  field,  the  problem  of  vesting  and 
portability.  He  does  not  even  touch  it.  He 
does  not  come  close  to  it. 

We  have  an  amendment  that  will  perhaps 
help  him.   If  he  does  not  like  five  years,  he 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5287 


should  tell  us  what  he  likes.  He  should  tell 
us  what  makes  sense.  There  are  any 
number— and  I  mean  this  quite  seriously— of 
proposals  that  can  be  put  forward  to  provide 
an  equitable  vesting  system.  It  does  not 
necessarily  have  to  be  five  years.  That  is  not 
a  figure  pulled  out  of  the  hat.  That  happens 
to  be  our  figure  and  the  figure  this  Legis- 
lature, in  its  infinite  wisdom,  and  benev- 
olence, has  bestowed  upon  itself.  If  the 
members  do  not  think  five  years  is  the  best 
figure,  perhaps  they  can  come  up  with  some- 
thing better  or  different.  At  least  they  can 
come  up  with  something.  Surely  the  govern- 
ment and  my  colleagues  in  the  Liberal  Party 
are  not  going  to  remain  silent  on  such  a 
pressing  issue. 

Mr.  Martel:  Oh  yes,  they  are. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Oh,  am  I  led  to  believe 
that  the  members  of  the  Liberal  Party  are 
going  to  keep  their  little  mouths  shut  during 
this  debate  and  swallow  and  gag  on  their 
silver  spoons  and  say  absolutely  nothing  on 
such  an  important  issue?  I  simply  cannot  be- 
lieve that  could  be  true. 

I  am  particularly  interested  in  the  views 
of  the  minister  who  has  remained  sphinx- 
like in  silence. 

Mr.  Martel:  That  is  something  new  for 
that  fellow. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Yes.  This  is  a  minister 
who  prefers  conflagration  rather  than  to  keep 
his  light  under  a  bushel.  I  am  going  to  in- 
sist we  have  a  statement  from  the  minister 
on  the  issue  of  vesting.  If  nothing  else  is 
accomplished  in  this  debate,  we  can  at  least 
learn  from  the  minister  what  his  views  are 
on  this  most  important  issue. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Do  any  other 
members  wish  to  speak  on  this  proposed 
question? 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  asked  the  minister  a 
question  and  I  would  like  an  answer  from 
him  with  respect  to  his  views  on  this  im- 
portant issue.  I  find  it  impossible  to  con- 
template that  the  minister  would  sit  there 
and  refuse  to  answer  the  question. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  would  remind 
you  this  is  second  reading  of  the  bill.  The 
minister  may  or  may  not  reply.  I  gather  he 
chooses  not  to  reply,  so  I  will  put  the 
motion. 
9:20  p.m. 

Mr.  Martel:  This  is  a  night  to  behold. 
This  is  an  opportunity  such  as  you  could  not 
ask  for  to  help  the  people,  given  the  position 
that  we  find  ourselves  in  at  this  time  in  his- 
tory in  Ontario.  And  my  friends  sit  there 
like  the  sphinx,   silent,  saying  nary  a  word 


except"  for  the  odd  interjection,  like  the  guru 
of  grunts,  but  nothing  substantial. 

They  are  not  going  to  get  up  and  say 
where  they  stand.  No.  We  found  out  about 
a  week  ago  where  they  stood  on  severance 
pay.  My  friend  the  member  for  Niagara 
Falls  was  trying  to  have  it  both  ways  yester- 
day—for and  against  it.  Here  we  are  now 
where  we  have  an  opportunity,  in  fact,  to 
improve  the  vesting,  to  reduce  the  time 
factor,  and  what  do  they  do?  They  do  not 
do  even  so  much  as  to  get  up  and  indicate 
their  positions.   Silence  is  golden,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Eakins:   Make  him  address  the  chair. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  was  addressing  the  chair, 
but  my  friend  back  there  could  not  hear  me. 

Mr.  Chairman,  can  you  imagine?  Nary  a 
word.  We  talked  about  it.  There  were  min- 
isterial statements.  There  were  demands  by 
the  Liberals,  all  kinds;  the  Liberal  leader 
demanded  pension  reform.  And  here  we  have 
an  opportunity  tonight  to  improve  that  sec- 
tion with  respect  to  vesting,  and  there  is  not 
so  much  as  a  word,  not  a  word,  just  a  few 
grunts. 

Mr.  Nixon:  A  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman: 
I  do  not  intend  to  mislead  the  House  or  the 
Chairman  because  our  position  on  these 
matters  was  well  and  amply  put  by  my  col- 
league the  member  for  Kitchener  (Mr.  Breit- 
haupt)  and  others.  He  made  abundantly  clear 
the  situation  that  we  are  facing  tonight,  in 
which  the  recently  converted  NDP  is  coming 
forward  with  a  spate  of  amendments  which 
have  already  been  fully  discussed  and  which 
are  going  to  be  enacted  in  the  spring. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order:  The 
Leader  of  the  New  Democratic  Party  has 
made  it  clear  that  he  wants  to  sunset  his 
provisions. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  irony  of  the  situation  is 
that  they  had  made  up  their  minds  without 
even  having  seen  the  amendments.  They 
made  up  their  minds  that  they  would  say 
to  Frank,  "Move  over,  I  want  in."  That  is 
what  they  did.  Frank  has  moved  over  and 
they  have  crawled  in. 

Mr.  Roy:  On  a  point  of  order:  I  have  just 
been  insulted. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  have  not  made 
up  my  mind  on  the  other  point  of  order  yet. 

Mr.  Roy:  About  that  last  statement,  "Move 
over,  we  are  coming  in":  two  is  enough  in 
that  bed,  we  do  not  want  in  there. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  You  are  just  ob- 
jecting to  the  order  of  entry.  Order,  the 
member  for  Sudbury  East  has  the  floor. 


5288 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Martel:  Could  you  tell  me,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, since  you  are  an  honourable  man, 
who  they  had  as  a  soothsayer  this  after- 
noon, and  who,  in  fact,  indicated  to  them 
what  was  in  the  list  of  amendments?  They 
did  not  even  know  what  was  in  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  House 
leader  of  the  NDP  was  not  in  here  this 
afternoon.  His  own  member  was  terribly 
tardy  about  getting  over  his  amendments. 
The  member  for  Kitchener  was  given  a  set 
of  amendments  by  me  prior  to  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  debate  on  second  reading.  He 
was  handed  the  documents  long  before  the 
member  for  London  Centre  made  his  re- 
marks on  second  reading. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  irony  of  it.  My  friend 
sits  over  there  and  makes  a  statement.  The 
only  utterance  out  of  the  minister  is  to 
defend  his  friends. 

Mr.    Breithaupt:    If   that  is   the   way   you 
want  to  have  it,  I  suppose  I  should  rise  and 
say- 
Mr.  Deputy  Chairman:  No,  I  don't  really 
want  it  this  way,  but— 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  On  a  point  of  order- 
Mr.  Martel:  There  is  nothing  out  of  order. 
Mr.  Breithaupt:   Well,  there  is  something 
out  of  order,  because— 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Before  I  rule  I 
want  to  hear  the  honourable  member. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  The  House  leader  for  the 
New  Democratic  Party  said  we  did  not  see 
the  amendments  before  any  decision  was 
made  with  respect  to  supporting  them  or 
otherwise.  I  was  favoured  with  a  copy  of 
the  amendments  by  the  minister  and,  having 
reviewed  them,  saw  that  as  far  as  I  was  con- 
cerned the  principle  of  this  bill  was  to  deal 
with  two  particular  items.  Therefore,  we  may 
as  well  get  it  right,  clear,  plump  and  plain 
right  now:  we  will  not  be  supporting  any  of 
the  amendments  and  there  seems  no  reason 
for  us  to  speak  to  it  other  than  to  say  just 
that. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  bring 
to  your  attention  rule  58:  "Amendments  pro- 
posed to  be  moved  to  bills  in  any  committee 
shall  be  filed  with  the  Clerk  of  the  House 
at  least  two  hours  before  the  bill  is  to  be 
considered,  and  copies  of  such  proposed 
amendments  shall  be  distributed  to  all  par- 
ties." 

We  had  to  get  ours  from  the  minister. 
We  did  not  even  get  them  from  the  NDP. 
It  is  just  preposterous.  These  obviously 
came  off  the  top  of  your  head  or  off  the 
seat  of  your  pants. 


The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  member  for 
Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  is  quite  right.  In  fact, 
part  of  the  reason  for  ruling  out  an  amend- 
ment from  the  NDP  was  that  the  chair  did 
not  have  it  in  advance.  But  that  was  only 
part  of  the  reason. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Chairman,  our  amend- 
ments were  delivered  at  the  appropriate 
time.  The  minister  shakes  his  head. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  might  point  out 
that  the  chair  has  only  one  amendment. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  is  usually  a  manoeuvre. 
We  give  them  to  a  gentleman— I  will  not 
name  him,  but  it  is  Jim  MacKenzie.  He  usu- 
ally gets  these  and  delivers  them.  My  execu- 
tive assistant  is  sitting  under  the  gallery  and 
she,  in  fact,  delivered  those  amendments. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  I  do  not  want  this  to  be 
a  red  herring. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  MacKenzie  is 
not  an  agent  of  the  chair. 

Mr.  Martel:  Let  us  get  back  to  where  we 
were  before  we  had  12  points  of  order  and 
seven  points  of  privilege. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I'd  appreciate  that. 

Mr.  Mancini:  How  are  you  going  to  vote 
tomorrow?  That  is  the  important  question. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  might  be  surprised.  You 
will  be  over  the  back  railing  tomorrow. 

Let  us  get  back  to  the  bill  and  the  amend- 
ment before  us,  which  is  to  improve  the  vest- 
ing system  for  people  in  Ontario. 

The  Liberals  are  exactly  the  same  as  the 
Tories.  It  is  interesting  that  as  we  sat  in 
committee  talking  about  this,  the  impression 
the  Liberals  left  with  the  workers  about  how 
sincere  they  are  about  their  concerns  and  the 
crocodile  tears  that  flowed  from  some  of  those 
beggars  as  they  talked  to  people  who  have 
$81  pension  after  12.5  years.  Here  we  have 
an  opportunity  to  improve  it,  to  give  a 
guarantee,  and  where  are  the  Liberals?  As 
usual,  when  it  comes  to  supporting  workers, 
they  are  found  wanting.  Here  is  an  excellent 
opportunity. 

We  will  go  back  to  committee  in  several 
weeks,  people  will  come  forward  again,  and 
the  crocodile  tears  will  flow  again,  but  when 
it  comes  time  to  vote,  when  the  chips  are 
down- 
Interjections. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  member  for 
Sudbury  East  will  please  ignore  the  many 
interjections  and  proceed  with  the  substance 
of  the  proposed  amendment. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  trying  to  deal  with  that 
particular  amendment  and  the  opportunity 
my  friends  have  said  they  wanted  all  along 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5289 


to  help  the  workers  of  Ontario,  and  here  they 
are. 

Was  it  not  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
who  some  time  ago  screamed  that  we  had  to 
protect  the  workers  and  improve  their  pen- 
sions? When  the  chips  are  down  and  we  have 
the  opportunity,  because  we  have  the  num- 
bers, to  improve  the  pension  scheme,  those 
beggars  decide  to  bow  out  again.  They  bow 
out  every  last  time.  How  does  the  Minister 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  get 
these  fellows  on  his  side? 
9:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Roy:  Tomorrow  we  throw  them  out, 
okay,  Elie? 

Mr.  Martel:  But  before  we  do  though,  let's 
improve  the  pension.  We  will  improve  the 
pension  tonight  and  turf  them  out  tomorrow. 
When  the  chips  are  down. 

Mr.  Roy:  Move  over,  we  are  coming  in. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  have  taken  enough  time, 
but  I  did  succeed  in  doing  a  couple  of  things. 
I  got  my  friend  from  Kitchener  to  get  up  and 
say  that  they  are  not  supporting  the  workers. 
The  minister  got  up  and  said,  "I  help  my 
friends  further  to  the  right  than  us  and  be- 
tween the  two  of  us  we  will  change  virtually 
nothing."  Well,  we  will  argue  the  next  seven 
or  eight  amendments. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Hey,  Elie. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Will  the  member 
for  Sudbury  East  pay  attention  to  the  chair? 
Ignore  those  people  on  your  right. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  didn't  say  a  thing. 

Mr.  Martel:  Did  you  see  that,  Mr.  Chair- 
man? 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  I  know  you  are 
greatly  harassed. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  think  there  was  something 
almost  perverse  about  what  he  did. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  are  right. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  think  you  should  make  him 
withdraw  whatever  it  was.  Mr.  Chairman, 
with  those  few  words,  I  want  to  say,  they 
sold  the  workers  out  again. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  amazed 
—because  I  think  we  are  discussing  a  very 
serious  issue  for  the  workers  of  Ontario  and 
I  think  the  amendment  is  a  very  serious  one 
for  many  workers— that  some  in  this  House 
are  treating  the  issue  with  such  levity.  I  think 
it  is  scandalous. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Tell  Elie  that. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  I  would  like  to  tell  the 
member  for  Niagara  Falls  that  we  have 
been  faced  with  this  situation  time  and  time 
again.  I  remember  in  June  we  were  discuss- 


ing the  situation  at  Firestone,  where  we 
had  workers  who  had  been  there  for  35 
years  and  the  plant  shut  down  and  they  lost 
all  their  rights.  I  remember  at  that  time 
that  the  members  of  the  Liberal  Party  at  the 
resources  development  committee  voted 
against  the  motion  introduced  by  the  mem- 
ber for  Oshawa  (Mr.  Breaugh). 

I  also  remember  how  much  the  Leader  of 
the  Opposition  spoke  early  in  the  session 
about  portability  of  pensions  and  how  he 
was  going  to  fight  against  the  government. 
Tonight  we  have  an  occasion  for  them  to 
prove  that  what  they  were  saying  was  seri- 
ous. They  are  not  only  going  to  move  against 
the  amendment,  but  they  are  not  even 
speaking  because  they  do  not  even  have  the 
moral  fortitude  to  express  their  opinions. 

I  am  quite  sure  that  when  we  reconvene 
in  the  spring,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
will  again  stand  against  the  government  be- 
cause he  would  be  the  champion  of  the 
workers,  but  tonight,  when  they  have  the 
opportunity  to  prove  they  can  stand  for  the 
workers,  they  are  voting  with  the  Tories. 

I  think  if  the  workers  of  Ontario  were 
listening  to  this  debate  they  would  be 
really  shocked,  because  they  would  not 
understand  why  the  Legislature  of  Ontario 
cannot  move  such  a  small  step  towards  what 
most  of  the  civilized  countries  in  the  world 
have.  I  think  that  vesting  the  pension  rights 
after  five  years  is  not  a  great  step.  In  fact, 
there  are  nations  in  the  western  world,  in 
industrial  democracies,  where  their  pension 
interests  are  vested  immediately  and  are 
portable  immediately.  I  think  those  coun- 
tries are  much  more  advanced  than  Canada 
and  their  social  legislation  is  a  model  that 
we  should  imitate.  I  think  it  is  shameful- 
Mr.  Kerrio:  Don't  give  me  that  routine. 
Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  Order. 
Mr.  Di  Santo:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  still  re- 
member with  great  delight  the  speech  made 
two  years  ago  by  the  member  for  Niagara 
Falls  against  the  injured  workers.  I  remem- 
ber that  time  and  again  when  we  were  dis- 
cussing the  amendment  last  summer,  his 
only  preoccupation- 
Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  a  matter  of 
personal  privilege:  I  have  never  spoken 
against  the  injured  workers  of  Ontario.  That 
member  has  taken  that  out  of  context  more 
than  once.  I  stood  in  my  place  here  and 
suggested  I  would  support  the  injured  work- 
ers right  across  this  province  and  that  I 
thought  the  sharing  of  the  payments  should 
have  been  more  equitable.  I  made  it  very 
plain.  He  has  not  done  this  once,  he  has 
done    it    two    or    three    times    and    it   takes 


5290 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


away    from    any    credibility    he    might    ever 
have.  I  wonder  about  that. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  remember 
vividly  the  speech  the  member  for  Niagara 
Falls  made. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Bring  out  Hansard  then  and 
speak  to  the  issue. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Will  the  honourable  mem- 
ber  speak  to  the  amendment? 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Yes,  because  there  is  a 
parallel,  Mr.  Chairman- 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  He  is  just  explain- 
ing how  the  member  for  Niagara  Falls 
attacked  all  kinds  of  workers- 
Mr.  Chairman:  Order,  the  member  for 
Downsview  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  re- 
ferring to  the  speech  he  made  against  in- 
creasing the  benefits  of  the  injured  workers, 
because  there  is  a  parallel  with  the  amend- 
ment we  are  discussing  tonight. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Chairman,  let  the  honour- 
able member  bring  out  Hansard.  I  have  never 
said  they  should  not  increase  the  pension;  I 
said  costs  should  be  distributed.  I  am  for 
giving  the  pension,  so  the  member  should 
get  his  facts  straight  and  not  stand  up  in 
the  House  and  tell  untruths. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Let  him  bring  out  Hansard; 
he  said  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  The  honourable 
member  has  accused  another  member  of 
speaking  untruthfully. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Yes,  I  did.  I  suggest  to  him 
that  he  made  a  statement  and  he  should 
bring  Hansard  to  prove  it. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  The  honourable 
member  has  accused  another  member.  Would 
you  withdraw  that? 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Yes,  I  will,  if  he  will  bring 
Hansard  to  prove  the  point.  He  said  an  un- 
truth about  what  I  said. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  Will  the  honourable 
member  unequivocally  withdraw  that  com- 
ment? 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Yes.  And  would  you  ask  that 
member  to  bring  Hansard  to  prove  what  he 
said  about  me?  That  is  a  good  deal. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  The  honourable  member 
should  get  on  with  the  bill  and  mind  his 
business  and  not  pick  on  other  members. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  The  honourable 
member  has  withdrawn? 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 


Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  All  right,  the  mem- 
ber for  Downsview,  on  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  this 
is  only  a  reasonable  amendment.  I  think  it 
is  only  one  step  towards  a  public  system  of 
public  pensions.  I  would  like  to  invite  our 
friends  in  the  Liberal  caucus  to  speak  on  this 
amendment,  and  also  the  member  for  Niagara 
Falls  who,  I  understand,  deep  in  his  heart 
is  a  nice  guy.  He  should  try  to  understand 
this  is  nothing  revolutionary.  The  workers 
he  had  working  for  him  for  so  many  years 
would  love  this  amendment. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Davison's  amendment  will  please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Section  2  agreed  to. 

Sections  3  and  4  agreed  to. 
9:40  p.m. 

On  section  5: 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  moves 
that  subsection  1  of  section  23d  of  the  act. 
as  set  out  in  section  5  of  the  bill,  be  amended 
by  deleting,  "10  years  or  has  been  a  member 
of  the  plan  for  a  period  of  10  years  and  who 
has  attained  the  age  of  45  years"  in  the 
fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  lines  and  inserting  in 
lieu  thereof,  "five  years  or  has  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  plan  for  a  period  of  five  years." 

He  further  moves  that  subsection  1  of  sec- 
tion 23d  of  the  act  be  amended  by  adding 
thereto  the  following  clause,  "(f)  to  transfer 
the  amount  of  his  pension  benefit  credit  to 
the  central  pension  agency." 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  will  be  brief,  Mr. 
Chairman.  I  do  not  mean  to  provoke  the 
Liberals  further  on  this  issue. 

Mr.  Mancini:  You  can  go  to  Florida  right 
after  Christmas  instead  of  the  campaign 
trail. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Mancini,  I  have 
been  persuaded.  I  have  been  persuaded  to 
provoke  my  colleagues  in  the  Liberal  Party. 
The  first  part  of  this  amendment  gives  one 
more  opportunity  to  the  Tory  and  Liberal 
fat  cats  and  the  silver  spoon  brigade  to 
stand- 
Mr.  Mancini:  You  ordered  a  $40  bottle  of 
wine.  We  know  what  you  are  like— $40  a 
bottle. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Does  the  little  fellow 
have  a  point  of  order?  Do  you  have  a  point 
of  order,  little  man? 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order.  The  member  for 
Hamilton  Centre  has  the  floor. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5291 


Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Charles  Dickens,  if 
he  were  alive  and  in  some  gathering  other 
than  a  parliament,  might  have  called  these 
folks  gutless  Pecksniffians.  It  gives  them  a 
chance  to  vote  once  again  against  the  in- 
terest of  the  workers  and  once  again  to 
deny  to  the  workers  the  vesting  benefits 
they  themselves  have  as  members  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly.  I  would  like  once 
more  to  see  them  go  through  this  little  act. 

The  second  part  of  the  amendment  I  have 
offered  refers  back  to  the  greater  role  I  and 
my  party  would  like  to  see  for  the  central 
pension  agency,  thereby  allowing  greater 
flexibility  and  portability.  The  section  of  the 
bill  that  it  amends  sets  out  a  number  of  op- 
tions for  the  employee  upon  termination  or 
winding  up  of  the  particular  firm.  This  adds 
what  I  think  is  the  best  possible  amend- 
ment to  deal  with  the  obvious  inadequacies 
of  the  bill,  by  providing  the  central  pension 
agency  as  another  alternative  for  workers 
when  their  jobs  are  terminated  by  way  of 
shutdown  or  when  the  business  of  the  com- 
pany is  wound  up. 

I  recommend  both  amendments,  if  only 
other  members  of  the  assembly  can  find  it 
in  their  hearts  to  vote  for  the  workers. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  In  face  of  the  miraculous 
silence  that  again  descends  upon  us— and  I 
won't  even  bother  with  my  Liberal  colleagues 
—let  me  ask  the  minister  again:  Does  the 
minister  have  any  position  at  all  on  the 
question  of  vesting?  If  the  government  is 
not  prepared,  as  it  obviously  is  not,  to  accept 
the  proposal  put  forward  here  tonight,  will 
the  government  at  least  do  us  the  courtesy 
of  responding  to  the  issue  which,  despite 
some  of  the  levity  of  the  debate,  is  an  im- 
portant issue  that  has  to  do  with  the  very 
guts  of  the  private  pension  system  in  this 
country  and  in  this  province?  I  am  amazed 
the  minister  continues  to  sit  there  and  say 
nothing  at  all  on  the  issue  of  vesting. 

Is  the  minister  going  to  continue  for  the 
rest  of  the  evening  to  sit  there  chewing  on 
his  glasses,  or  will  he  do  us  the  courtesy 
of  stating  what  his  views  are  on  the  issue 
of  vesting,  and  when  we  can  expect  to  see 
legislation  brought  forward  by  the  govern- 
ment to  deal  with  this? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  made  a  number  of  re- 
marks this  afternoon  on  second  reading.  If 
the  member  was  here,  I  hope  he  heard 
them.  If  he  was  not  here,  he  can  read  them 
in  Hansard. 

I  would  say  one  thing  to  the  member  of 
the  New  Democratic  Party,  and  it  is  the  last 
thing  I  am  going  to  say  tonight:  I  have  not 
seen  a  private  bill  from  that  collection  over 


there  on  this  matter,  and  they  had  every 
opportunity  to  do  it.  Their  sudden  conver- 
sion to  all  of  this  is  really  remarkable. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  If  the  minister  has  not 
seen  our  bills  on  the  Order  Paper,  that  is 
his  problem.  Perhaps  it  would  be  more  help- 
ful if  he  left  his  glasses  on  than  if  he  took 
them  off  and  chewed  on  them.  He  has  only 
to  look  at  the  bills  that  have  been  submitted 
by  my  colleague  the  member  for  Hamilton 
East  (Mr.  Mackenzie).  They  are  on  the 
Order  Paper.  He  has  only  to  look  at  the 
resolutions  that  have  been  submitted  by 
this  party  dealing  with  precisely  this  issue. 
We  have  told  him  through  the  positions  we 
have  put  forward.  And  I  am  telling  the  min- 
ister that  they  are  there.  If  he  wants  to  look 
at  them  and  read  them.  I  cannot  help  it  if 
his  eminently  qualified  staff  has  not  brought 
them  to  his  attention. 

I  do  not  think  the  minister  has  any  views 
on  the  issue  at  all.  I  do  not  think  he  has 
addressed  himself  to  pension  issues  at  all 
over  the  course  of  the  last  two  and  a  half 
years,  or  however  long  it  is  that  he  has 
occupied  his  portfolio.  I  do  not  think  he 
has  the  slightest  capacity  to  deal  with  the 
very  pressing  pension  issues  that  are  facing 
this  province  and  this  country.  I  think  that 
is  why  he  sits  there  chewing  on  his  glasses, 
hoping  we  will  simply  pass  through  this 
inadequate  piece  of  legislation  without  his 
having  to  address  himself  to  any  of  the 
questions  that  are  being  raised  in  the 
course  of  this  debate. 

While  I  am  on  my  feet,  I  think  it  is 
absolutely  pathetic  that  the  members  of 
the  Liberal  Party  continue  to  howl  and  yell, 
but  say  nothing  at  all  on  this  very  impor- 
tant issue. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Davison's  amendment  to  section  5  will 
please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay/' 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  moves 
that  the  bill  be  amended  by  striking  out 
subsection  3  of  section  23d  of  the  act,  as 
set  out  in  section  5  of  the  bill,  and  substi- 
tuting in  lieu   thereof  the  following: 

"(3)  Where  the  employee  is  entitled  to  a 
pension  benefit  under  clause  (a),  (b)  or  (c) 
of  subsection  1  and  the  pension  plan  does 
not  provide  an  automatic  survivor  benefit, 
the  plan  shall  be  deemed  to  contain  a  pro- 
vision for  the  employee's  pension  benefits  to 
be  actuarially  adjusted  to  the  guarantee  for 
the  life  of  the  spouse  of  the  employee,  50 


5292 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


per  cent  of  the  deceased  employee's  adjusted 
pension  benefit. 

"(4)  Notwithstanding  subsection  3,  sub- 
ject to  any  conditions  prescribed  in  the  regu- 
lations, a  pension  plan  may  provide  for  a 
retiring  employee  to  receive  a  pension  bene- 
fit that  does  not  continue  to  be  paid  for  the 
lifetime  of  the  surviving  spouse  where  the 
employer  receives  a  written  waiver  that  is 
(a)  signed  by  the  spouse  of  the  retiring  em- 
ployee in  the  presence  of  a  witness  and 
apart  from  that  employee,  and  (b)  contains 
a  statement  to  the  effect  that  the  spouse  of 
the  retiring  employee  is  aware  of  the  right 
to  a  pension  benefit  upon  the  death  of  the 
retiring  employee  and  intends  to  waive  the 
right. 

"Also,  that  subsections  4,  5  and  6  be 
renumbered  5,  6  and  7." 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  The  effect  of  this 
amendment  will  be  to  provide  for  an  auto- 
matic survivor  benefit,  something  that  we 
do  not  have,  and  a  benefit  that  only  the 
spouse  can  reject  by  way  of  waiver.  I  think 
this  is  immensely  more  progressive.  In  fact, 
I  would  say  it  is  light  years  ahead  of  the 
current  provisions.  I  think  it  is  about  time 
that  we  started,  in  our  other  legislation,  to 
live  up  to  what  we  passed  in  this  province 
some  time  ago  as  the  family  law  reforms. 

9:50  p.m. 

It  is  time  we  realized  that  spouses,  and 
most  specifically  women  in  these  cases,  are 
not  chattels.  I  watched  with  amazement  as 
the  Liberals  and  Tories  entertained  them- 
selves with  a  bit  of  pre-Christmas  worker 
bashing  just  a  few  minutes  ago.  Perhaps 
this  will  give  them  the  chance  to  attack 
another  group  in  our  society,  namely  women. 
It  may  be  that  by  the  end  of  the  night  the 
votes  of  the  Liberals  and  Conservatives  will 
have  placed  them  on  the  attack  against  al- 
most every  single  group  in  the  province.  I 
would  not  be  surprised. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Davison's  amendment  to  section  5  will 
please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay.'' 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  moves 
that  section  23d  of  the  act  as  set  out  in 
section  5  of  the  bill,  be  amended  by  delet- 
ing all  words  after  "and"  in  the  fourth  line 
and  substituting  in  lieu  therefor,  "if  no 
election  is  made,  the  employee  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  made  an  election  under 
clause  (f)  of  subsection  1." 


Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  think  this  is  an  im- 
portant element  that  we  have  to  recognize 
in  our  pension  legislation  and  that  it  is  not 
the  employer  who  should  make  the  election 
in  the  number  of  cases  where  one  does  not 
occur.  I  understand  that  is  a  reasonably  small 
number  of  cases,  but  it  seems  to  me  there 
is  something  fundamentally  wrong  about  that 
relationship  and  it  is  the  employee  who 
should  have,  in  these  cases,  the  right  over  his 
or  her  pension  plan,  not  the  employer.  I  think 
that  is  an  important  principle  that  I  would 
like  to  see  the  government  adopt. 

They  seem  quite  concerned  unfortunately 
and  they  have  some  hesitation  about  the  ele- 
ment of  a  central  pension  agency.  If  that 
disturbs  them  greatly  they  could,  even  for 
the  purposes  of  this  election  process,  con- 
sider the  pension  commission  as  the  option. 
It  does  not  matter  to  me  a  great  deal,  but  I 
think  it  is  important  that  we  recognize  the 
principle  that  in  these  cases  it  is  not  the  em- 
ployer who  should  have  the  final  say  when 
there  is  no  employee  election  and,  in  fact, 
there  should  be  something  such  as  a  central 
agency  to  which  the  pension  is  sent. 

Mr.  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Davison's  amendment  to  section  5  will  please 
say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay". 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Sections  5  and  6  agreed  to. 

On  section  7: 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  So  that  it  can  be  once 
again  on  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would 
like  to  make  a  motion. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  moves 
that  clause  (a)  of  section  25c(l)  of  the  act,  as 
set  out  in  section  7  of  the  bill,  be  deleted  and 
the  following  substituted  therefor:  "(a)  All 
pension  benefits  that  must  be  contractually 
provided  under  clause  (a)  of  subsection  1  of 
section  21  provided  in  respect  of  service  in 
Ontario  of  an  employee  who,  at  the  date  of 
wind  up  of  the  plan,  has  been  in  the  service 
of  his  employer  for  a  continuous  period  of 
five  years  or  has  been  a  member  of  the  plan 
for  a  period  of  five  years." 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison  further  moves  that 
clause  (c)  of  section  25c(l)  of  the  act  as  set 
out  in  section  7  of  the  bill  be  deleted  and  the 
following  substituted  therefor:  "(c)  All  pension 
benefits  that  must  be  contractually  provided 
under  clause  (a)  of  subsection  1  of  section  21 
provided  in  respect  of  service  in  Ontario  of 
a  former  member  of  the  plan  who,  at  the  date 
of  termination  of  his  employment,  has  been 
in  the  service  of  his  employer  for  a  continuous 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5293 


period  of  five  years  or  who  has  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  plan  for  a  period  of  five  years." 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  would  hope  that  in 
the  five  minutes  since  I  last  moved  this  kind 
of  amendment,  the  Liberals  and  Tories  have 
finally  come  to  their  senses  and  will  side 
with  the  workers  at  least  once  this  evening. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  have  been  sitting  here 
trying  to  figure  out  why  my  Liberal  colleagues 
are  refusing  to  speak  on  the  issue  of  vesting. 
The  only  thing  I  can  conclude  by  looking  at 
the  Order  Paper  is  that  the  next  bill  is  An 
Act  to  amend  the  Wine  Content  Act  and  they 
are  so  eager  to  discuss  that  very  important 
bill  they  are  unwilling  to— 

Mr.  Haggerty:  There  are  5,000  jobs  on  the 
line. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  have  seen  what  socialism  has 
done  in  Italy  and  England  and  I  would  not 
support  you  rascals  across  the  street. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  pronouncements  of  the 
anti-worker  member  for  Niagara  Falls  on 
workmen's  compensation  issues  are  notorious 
all  across  the  province.  My  colleague  the 
member  for  Downsview  and  I  will  be  at  a 
meeting  on  Sunday  in  which  we  will  be  re- 
minding the  workers  in  this  great  city  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto  just  exactly  what  the 
member  for  Niagara  Falls  is  so  fond  of  saying 
with  respect  to  workmen's  compensation 
issues- 
Mr.  Bradley:  We  will  see  who  the  coalition 
is  tomorrow. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Why  should  we  support  you 
when  you  will  not  support  us? 

Mr.  Chairman:  On  the  amendment,  order. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Let  me  ask  the  minister 
one  more  time:  Very  specifically,  when  does 
the  government  intend  to  address  itself  to  the 
issue  of  vesting  in  private  sector  pensions? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  do  not  know  where  the 
member  was  this  afternoon  but  on  at  least 
three  occasions  I  said  after  the  receipt  and 
the  study  of  the  Haley  commission  report, 
which  has  gone  into  this  at  quite  extensive 
length. 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  are  all  aware  of  the 
number  of  postponements  and  delays  with 
respect  to  the  royal  commission  on  pensions. 
We  talked  about  that  earlier  in  the  second 
reading  debate.  I  am  sorry  the  minister  is 
so  upset  that  I  was  unable  to  be  here  when 
he  made  his  statement.  Please  accept  my 
humble  and  profuse  apologies.  But  I  would 
like  to  know  from  the  minister  when  he 
expects  the  report  of  the  royal  commission 
on  pensions  to  be  received  by  the  govern- 


ment -and  when  he  expects  it  to  be  tabled 
in  the  Legislature? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Chairman,  again,  I 
went  through  that  this  afternoon.  Surely 
everybody  in  here  knows  the  answer  I 
volunteered.  I  am  informed  that  the  report 
will  be  public  soon.  It  is  not  under  my 
auspices.  It  is  under  the  auspices  of  my 
colleague  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller). 
I  cannot  get  that  through  your  head. 

Mr.  McClellan:  The  reason  the  minister 
has  been  unable  to  get  things  through  my 
head  is  that  we  have  been  dealing  with— 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  It  is  a  rock. 

Mr.  McClellan:  It  may  be  a  rock,  but  we 
have  been  dealing  with  this  for  more  than 
an  hour  and  a  half  and  the  minister  has 
not  answered  a  single  question.  That  makes 
it  very  difficult  to  penetrate  even  my  rock- 
like head. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  are  trying  to  get  us  to 
support  your  amendment.  We  do  not  have 
to  talk  about  it. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  am  not  trying  to  con- 
vince you  to  support  anything— if  it  has  to 
do  with  the  protection  of  workers. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  are  wasting  your  time. 

Mr.  Wildman:  No  question  about  that, 
Vince. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  am  trying  to  engage  in 
a  discussion  with  the  minister  who  has 
responsibility  for  pensions  and  who  is  stone- 
walling on  every  question  that  is  put  to  him 
in  the  course  of  this  debate.  Let  me  ask 
once  again:  Does  the  government  intend 
that  there  will  be  any  structure  set  up  to 
permit  the  members  of  the  Legislature  to 
participate  in  a  formal  way  in  the  discussion 
on  the  recommendations  of  the  royal  com- 
mission on  pensions? 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  The  silence  is  deafen- 
ing. 

Mr.  McClellan:  What  does  that  mean?  It 
is  hard  to  put  this  into  words.  When  the 
minister  took  his  left  hand  and  extended 
it  at  an  angle  of  about  45  degrees  in  re- 
sponse to  the  question,  I  assume  that  is 
the  only  answer  he  intends  to  give.  I  am 
not  surprised.  This  is  the  minister  who  made 
promises  about  the  Housing  and  Urban 
Development  Association  of  Canada  home 
warranty  program  which  he  failed  to  keep. 
The  minister  is  completely  incapable  of 
fufilling  promises  that  he  made  to  me  and 
to  a  number  of  people  who  had  been  ripped 
off.  His  performance  in  this  ministry  is  con- 
sistent.  It  is   one   of  incompetence  and  ar- 


5294 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


rogance  and  he  has  completed  that  perform- 
ance par  excellence  here  tonight. 
10  p.m. 

Mr.  Chairman:  Those  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Davison's  amendment  to  section  7  will  please 
say  "aye." 

Those   opposed   will   please   say   "nay/' 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Mr.  McClellan:  On  the  subject  of  the 
pension  benefits  guarantee  fund,  perhaps  the 
minister  could  make  a  short  statement  on 
how  the  fund  will  be  financed. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  thought  that  was  abund- 
antly well  known.  We  discussed  that  in 
committee. 

Mr.  McClellan:  We  are  in  committee  now 
for  the  first  time. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  That  is  nonsense.  I  was 
before  the  select  committee  on  plant  shut- 
downs many  weeks  ago  on  this  matter. 
Where  was  the  honourable  member? 

Mr.  McClellan:  On  a  point  of  order,  I 
am  not  on  that  committe.  I  am  a  member 
of  this  Legislature  and  committee  of  the 
whole  House  and  I  expect— 

Mr.  Chairman:  Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is 
abundantly  well  known  that  it  will  be 
financed  by  employers  on  a  fee-per-em- 
ployee  basis  when  their  pension  fund  has 
unfunded  liability.  Pension  plans  that  have 
no  funded  liability  will  not  be  assessed  for 
the  guarantee  fund. 

Mr.  McClellan:  I  am  intrigued  by  the 
model  pension  insurance  scheme  the  govern- 
ment is  proposing.  Those  private  sector  in- 
surers who  have  a  good  reputation  and  who 
are  financially  solvent  will  be  required  to  pay 
for  those  who  are  not. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  No.  It  has  nothing  to  do 
with  reputation  or  anything  else.  If  the  pen- 
sion plan  has  no  funded  liability,  then  you 
do  not  have  to  contribute  to  this  fund.  If  you 
have  funded  liability,  you  pay  and  it  will 
probably  be  $3  per  year  per  employee  until 
you  get  funded. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Will  the  minister  advise  us 
what  proportion  of  private  insurance  plans 
have  unfunded  liability?  I  assume  you 
meant  unfunded,  though  you  said  funded. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  There  are  1.75  million 
people  in  this  province  who  are  covered  by 
pension  plans.  The  industrial  ones  which  cover 
350,000  of  those  people  are  the  ones  that— 

Interjection. 


Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  A  third  of  them.  It  is 
very  difficult.  If  you  look  at  the  number  of 
employees,  you  would  be  talking  of  about 
120,000  of  the  1.75  million.  I  am  talking  about 
numbers  of  employees,  not  plans. 

It  is  very  ironic— and  perhaps  those  mem- 
bers on  the  other  side  of  the  House  can  shed 
some  light  on  it— that  the  industries  which 
are  not  in  difficulties  have  pension  plans  that 
could  pay  out  full  benefits  if  they  terminated 
tomorrow.  There  may  be  an  historical  reason 
for  that.  But  the  bulk  of  the  manufacturing 
industry,  where  there  has  been  collective 
bargaining  and  negotiated  pension  increases, 
has  very  substantial  funding  liability.  They 
are  the  ones  that  tend  to  close. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Do  the  ministry  officials 
have  any  estimate  of  the  amount  that  would 
be  required  at  the  level  at  which  the  pen- 
sion benefit  guarantee  fund  will  be  established 
in  dollar  terms? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Not  really;  we  will  develop 
that  over  the  winter  time.  There  are  some 
standards  we  have  to  look  at.  We  are  pro- 
viding guarantees  on  pensions  where  there 
is  an  unfunded  liability  of  up  to  $1,000  a 
month. 

Mr.  Di  Santo:  And?  Go  ahead. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Pardon?  You  are  looking 
at  me. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  What  do  you  want  him 
to  do,  look  at  the  gallery? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  said  we  have  not  got  an 
estimate  on  the  dollar  cap,  but  in  the  bill 
there  is  the  provision  that  the  fund  will 
guarantee  up  to  $1,000  a  month  in  terms  of 
the  individual.  That  is  an  earned  pension, 
obviously.  Until  the  fund  is  fully  established 
there  is  a  Treasurer's  guarantee,  not  from  the 
date  of  passage,  but  from  the  date  of  intro- 
duction. Mind  you,  in  hindsight- 
Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  No,  yesterday  was  not  the 
date  of  introduction.  We  made  that  from  the 
date  of  introduction  last  Thursday,  so  if  any- 
thing happened  even  before  this  bill  was 
passed  the  guarantee  fund  would  cover  it. 
We  will  work  out  the  actual  amounts  of  the 
guarantee  fund.  They  are  not  terribly  signifi- 
cant because  the  consolidated  revenue  fund 
for  at  least  two  or  three  years  is  virtually  on 
the  hook  for  100  per  cent  of  what  is  paid  out 
and  which  will  have  to  be  paid  back  to  the 
Treasurer  by  that  guarantee  fund,  if  it  ever 
has  to  be  used. 

There  might  well  be  a  plant  closing  or  a 
termination  where  there  is  a  fully  funded  fund 
and,  therefore,  this  would  not  be  used. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5295 


Mr.  McClellan:  Have  the  minister's  actu- 
arial officials  estimated  how  long  it  will  take? 
If  he  said  that,  I  did  not  quite  understand  and 
I  am  trying  to  get  a  clarification.  How  long 
will  it  take  for  the  pension  benefits  guarantee 
fund  to  be  at  the  level  that  is  felt  to  be  re- 
quired? Is  it  estimated  that  there  will  be 
moneys  provided  to  the  fund  out  of  the  con- 
solidated revenue  fund  in  the  form  of  loans? 
Have  the  minister's  officials  estimated  how 
large  these  amounts  of  money  might  be? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  We  have  said  there  is  a 
Treasurer's  guarantee  until  the  fund  is  in  a 
position  to  pay.  The  Treasurer  will  not  do 
that  as  a  loan.  It  will  be  a  direct  payout.  I 
suppose  it  would  be  an  interest-free  loan,  if 
one  wants  to  call  it  that.  The  fund  has  to 
pay  the  Treasurer  back. 

There  might  be  a  case  where  only  $100,000 
or  $125,000  would  have  to  be  paid  out  to 
bring  everybody  covered  up  to  the  formula. 
There  might  be  another  case  where  several 
times  that  amount  might  be  required.  Part  of 
the  difficulty  in  the  initial  part  is  that  we  do 
not  exactly  have  a  drawing  board  that  says 
plant  A  with  so  many  employees  which  is 
underfunded  by  this  amount  is  about  to  close. 
The  goal  is  to  be  entirely  self-supporting 
within  five  years. 

Bear  in  mind  it  is  somewhat  academic  to 
the  people  covered  as  to  when  that  becomes 
self-sustaining.  They  will  get  their  benefits 
and,  if  the  fund  has  had  to  make  major  pay- 
outs in  five  years  and  takes  another  three 
years  of  contributions  to  repay  the  Treasurer, 
so  be  it.  By  the  same  token,  when  one  looks 
at  the  bill,  one  notices  that  an  employer  who 
terminates  does  not  get  off  the  hook.  Before 
an  employer  disposes  of  assets  or  whatever, 
there  is  a  permanent  lien  on  those  assets  until 
that  fund  and  his  other  pension  liabilities  are 
fully  met. 

I  think  the  members  would  agree  with  me 
that  it  would  be  most  beneficial  if,  rather 
than  paying  money  into  this,  every  employer 
had  his  pension  fund  funded  properly  with 
no  unfunded  liability.  If  anything  happened, 
it  would  be  out  of  the  regular,  normal  payout 
of  a  pension  plan  that  has  enough  funds  to 
cover  its  liabilities  at  the  time  of  termination. 
10:10  p.m. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison 
moves  that  subsection  3  of  section  25c  of  the 
act,  as  set  out  in  section  7  of  the  bill,  be 
deleted  and  the  following  substituted  there- 
for: 

"(3)  The  payment  of  any  increase  to  a 
pension  benefit,  which  increase  became  effec- 
tive   within    one    year    before    the    date    of 


termination  or  windup,  is  not  guaranteed  by 
the  fund." 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is 
another  one  of  the  legion  of  inadequacies  in 
the  minister's  Band-Aid  bill.  What  he  has 
effectively  done  is  to  say  to  someone  who  got 
his  pension,  no  matter  how  hard  it  was  to 
do  that  in  that  plant,  if  the  victory  for  the 
workers  in  the  plant  occurred  within  three 
years  of  a  shutdown  or  a  termination,  "You 
are  out  of  luck,  baby;  you  are  not  going  to 
be  covered." 

The  amendment  I  have  presented  says  to 
that,  there  is  no  three-year  exemption  on  a 
plan.  In  regard  to  benefits  that  are  by  way 
of  increase,  it  sets  a  limit  of  one  year  rather 
than  three  years.  I  do  not  see  why  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly  should  punish  workers  who 
have  gone  through  tough  and  difficult  strikes, 
and  quite  frequently  contract  strikes,  to  get 
a  pension  benefit. 

I  noticed  that,  in  the  minister's  speech 
earlier  this  afternoon,  he  made  some  kind  of 
reference,  which  I  did  not  catch  properly, 
about  the  implication  that  there  was  some 
possibility  of  sweetheart  conspiracies.  Did  he 
mean  conspiracies  between  working  people 
and  their  trade  unions  on  the  one  hand  and 
companies  on  the  other  hand,  so  that  if  we 
don't  put  in  this  three-year  requirement,  the 
minister  has  the  gall  to  suggest  that  honest, 
hard-working  people  are  going  to  enter  into 
some  sort  of  conspiracy  with  the  company 
through  their  unions  to  shut  the  company 
down?  That  is  absolutely  absurd,  and  I  think 
the  minister  would  do  well  to  clarify  his  re- 
marks, because  I  am  sure  he  did  not  mean  to 
put  such  a  position  as  that  when  he  spoke 
earlier  today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Chairman,  certainly 
the  workers  would  not  be  part  of  it,  because 
they  would  be  the  ones  being  ripped  off.  It  is 
not  unknown  for  people  who  are  negotiating 
to  get  into  a  little  situation  with  management, 
knowing  full  well  management  is  going  to 
close,  to  put  in  some  additional  benefits,  to 
keep  the  cash  flow  intact  that  might  ordinarily 
have  gone  to  wages  and  then,  a  few  months 
down  the  line,  to  say,  "Sorry,  terminated  and 
gone."  It  has  been  known  to  occur. 

The  three-year  term  is  put  in  there.  There 
was  some  suggestion  that  it  should  be  five, 
and  we  moved  down  to  three.  With  the  dis- 
closure section,  when  an  employee  is  told, 
"Here  is  your  new  pension  benefit;  think 
how  well  advised  you  are  to  work  for  this 
company  and  get  this  magnificant  pension 
benefit,"  the  employee  knows  full  well  that 
it  is  not  guaranteed  for  another  three  years. 
Therefore,    the   employee   will   start  to   ask, 


5296 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


"And  how  are  you  funding?"  The  faster  the 
employees  or  the  pension  beneficiaries  of  this 
province  start  asking  the  big  question,  "What 
is  my  pension,  where  is  the  money  and  what 
happens  if  this  company  does  not  continue 
in  business?"  then  the  better  off  we  will  be. 

It  is  very  disillusioning  to  see  the  utter 
bewilderment  in  plant  closings  when  nobody 
knows  what  the  state  of  the  pension  plan  is. 
The  only  time  they  find  out  is  when  Mr. 
Bentley  and  the  pension  commission  go  in  and 
try  to  unravel  it.  That  is  not  a  role  the 
government  should  be  playing.  There  is  no 
question,  if  we  can  be  of  assistance  to  the 
people,  that  is  a  function  of  the  commission. 
But  it  is  not  its  function  to  begin  explaining 
why  they  do  not  have  all  the  things  that 
it  was  conveyed  to  them  they  would  have. 
That  is  a  standard  pattern  in  virtually  every 
closing  or  termination  in  this  province. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  As  I  understand  it,  the 
honourable  minister  has  become  a  convert  to 
the  Sidney  Handleman  school  of  consumer 
protection,  which  in  this  case  means  leaving 
it  up  to  the  employees  to  protect  themselves. 
I  think  that  is  incredibly  inadequate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  took  that  suggestion  from 
the  member  for  London  Centre  (Mr.  Peter- 
son), and  before  my  friend  hotdogs  it,  maybe 
he  should  read  the  remarks  the  member  for 
London  Centre  made  a  couple  of  years  ago 
about  the  need  for  disclosure.  I  know  that 
disclosure  may  embarrass  my  friend;  I  know 
that. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  do  not  need  lessons 
from  the  minister  or  from  the  member  for 
London  Centre  on  how  to  hold  a  silver 
spoon.  I  know  whereabouts  in  this  House  they 
are  properly  placed.  I  think  it  is  frankly  in- 
credible that  the  minister's  idea  of  protection 
for  workers  is  to  let  them  look  after  them- 
selves for  the  first  three  years. 

I  hope  the  minister  will  further  clarify  his 
remarks  about  alleged  sweetheart  deals,  be- 
cause it  takes  two  to  enter  into  a  conspiracy; 
it  takes  two  to  make  a  sweetheart  deal.  He 
has  clearly  said  that  on  the  one  side  it  is  the 
company  and  that  on  the  other  side  it  was  not 
the  workers.  Who  is  on  the  other  side?  To 
whom  is  the  minister  referring  in  these 
sweetheart  deals?  Who  is  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  My  friend  heard  me  when 
I  replied.  He  should  cut  out  trying  to  be 
cute. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  do  not  know  who  it 
is.  Please  answer  my  question. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  The  minister  has 
referred  you  to  Hansard.  He  has  no  necessity 
to  answer  the  question  any  further. 


Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  If  the  minister  is 
alleging  that  workers  and  their  trade  unions 
would  conspire  to  see  plants  closed  in  the 
province,  and  that  is  what  our  problem  is  aud 
that  is  how  our  plants  are  shutting  down,  that 
is  a  crock.  I  ask  him  to  be  specific  about  who 
it  is  entering  into  these  sweetheart  deals 
with  the  employers. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  There  are  a  great  number 
of  people  who  negotiate  for  employees.  They 
are  not  necessarily  at  all  times  unions.  There 
are  a  number  of  consultants  et  cetera.  Not 
every  place  of  employment  has  a  labour  or- 
ganization. My  friend  knows  that. 

What  concerns  me  very  profoundly  is  the 
continuing  negotiation  when  it  is  known  that 
a  company  is  in  serious  financial  trouble, 
where  first  of  all  the  pension  plan  is  raised 
and  the  unfunded  liability  just  goes  soaring, 
and  the  people  are  told  that  while  hourly 
pay  or  something  else  cannot  be  increased. 
"Look  at  the  great  pension  benefits  you  are 
getting,"  and  those  people  take  that  on  faith. 

With  the  disclosure  and  the  fact  that  if  a 
pension  plant  is  actuarially  not  funded  or  is  a 
funded  liability,  the  individual  whose  pension 
it  is— and  this  seems  to  be  lost  on  the  hon- 
ourable member— now  can  start  asking  ques- 
tions and  can  start  to  figure  out  exactly  what 
benefits  he  or  she  has  coming,  particularly 
in  a  plant,  office  or  store  known  to  have 
financial  difficulty. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I  am  not  going  to  con- 
tinue this  dialogue  endlessly,  but  it  is  patently 
clear  the  minister  learned  absolutely  not  one 
whit  about  working  people  and  their  or- 
ganizations when  he  spent  some  long  time 
involved  with  them.  It  is  unfortunate. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in  favour 
of  Mr.  Davison's  proposed  amendment  to 
section  7  will  please  say  "aye." 

All  those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Sections  7  and  8  agreed  to. 
10:20  p.m. 

On  section  9: 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Mr.  M.  N.  Davison 
moves  that  clause  ab  of  subsection  1  of  sec- 
tion 28  of  the  act,  as  set  out  in  section  9  of 
the  bill,  be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the 
following  clause:  "(xvi)  respecting  the  com- 
position, administration  and  financing  of  the 
central  pension  agency." 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is 
the  final,  necessary  permission  by  way  of 
regulations  for  the  establishment  of  a  new 
public  role  for  the  central  pension  agency. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980 


5297 


No  doubt  it  will  go  down  in  flames  in  about 
two  minutes,  like  the  rest  of  my  amendments. 

I  would  just  say  in  conclusion  that  it  is 
incredibly  unfortunate  that  the  Liberals  and 
Conservatives  have  combined  this  evening  to 
block  significant  legislative  change  that  would 
have  assisted  the  workers  of  this  province— 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  Order.  I  would  ask 
the  member  first  to  explain  the  relevancy  of 
this,  because  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any 
central  pension   agency   already   established. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  I'm  sorry? 

Mr.  Deputy  Chairman:  Have  we  estab- 
lished- 
Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  There  already  is  in  the 
province  a  central  pension  agency,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. All  this  does  is  vary  its  role  and  re- 
sponsibility. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  Tories  and 
Liberals  have  taken  this  opportunity  once 
again  to  stand  against  the  workers  of  the 
province,  the  women  of  the  province,  and 
workers  who  have  won  pension  benefits  in 
their  contracts,  and  to  display  for  all  of  the 
world  to  see,  as  the  session  closes,  the  su- 
preme arrogance  of  the  Liberal  and  Con- 
servative parties. 

The  Deputy  Chairman:  All  those  in 
favour  of  Mr.  Davison's  amendment  to  sec- 
tion 9  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  nays  have  it. 

Motion  negatived. 

Sections  9  to  12,  inclusive,  agreed  to. 

Bill  2214  reported. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Wells,  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  House  reported  one  bill 
without  amendments. 

WINE  CONTENT  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  215,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Wine  Con- 
tent Act,  1976. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  minister's  privileges  have 
been  defiled.  What  is  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point 
of  privilege:  On  the  passage  of  second  read- 
ing, I  believe  in  giving  credit  where  credit 
is  due.  I  would  like  to  thank  the  member 
for  Niagara  Falls  (Mr.  Kerrio),  the  member 
for  Erie  (Mr.  Haggerty),  the  member  for 
Lincoln  (Mr.  Hall)  and  the  House  leader 
of  the  Liberal  Party,  the  member  for  Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk  (Mr.  Nixon),  who  is  always 
interested   in   improvements   to    grapes    and 


the    agricultural    economy,    as    well    as    my 
colleague  the  member  for  Brock  (Mr.  Welch). 

MINING  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.   Mr.  Auld  moved  second  reading  of 
Bill  221,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Mining  Act. 
Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  J.  Reed:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  spirit  of 
Christmas,  I  will  take  only  a  couple  of 
minutes  to  point  out  that  this  amendment 
is  very  necessary  in  view  of  the  recognition 
that  it  is  now  beginning  to  dawn  on  the 
government  that  indeed  there  is  a  tremen- 
dous inventory  of  peat  in  Ontario.  Peat  will 
be  one  of  the  energy  sources  in  the  province 
in  the  future  as  we  look  toward  alternative 
liquid  fuels.  It  is  going  to  be  very  necessary 
to  be  able  to  exploit  the  peat  resources  in 
Ontario  in  an  economic  way. 

The  way  the  bill  is  constructed  at  present, 
without  this  amendment,  does  not  allow  for 
any  logical  development  of  peat  resources  in 
Ontario.  I  commend  the  government  for  in- 
troducing this  bill.  It  is  very  necessary. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I,  too,  rise  in  support  of 
the  bill,  Mr.  Speaker.  The  reason  we  are  in 
support  of  it  is  of  course  that  we  do  wish 
to  see  the  opportunity  for  the  peat  industry 
as  an  alternative  energy  source  to  be  devel- 
oped in  this  province.  At  the  same  time,  we 
do  not  want  to  tie  up  so  much  area  of  the 
province  that  other  types  of  mineral  ex- 
ploration are  held  up.  This  bill  makes  that 
possible. 

I  will  only  say  in  support  of  the  bill  that, 
while  I  am  in  favour  of  it,  I  am  disappoint- 
ed that  the  government  is  only  now  moving 
in  this  area  and  has  not  taken  the  initiative 
that  the  Quebec  government,  for  instance, 
has  taken  in  that  it  is  now  preparing  to 
build  a  prototype  or  pilot  project,  a  three- 
megawatt  energy  station,  to  burn  peat. 

Apparently  all  we  have  in  this  province 
is  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs  (Mr. 
Bernier)  taking  trips  to  Ireland  and  hand- 
ing out  little  packages  of  peat.  I  wish  this 
government  were  taking  the  same  initi- 
ative that  the  Quebec  government  is  taking, 
and  I  hope  the  amendment  will  make  it 
possible  for  us  to  use  the  tremendous  peat 
resources  we  have,  especially  in  northern 
Ontario,  for  local  energy  development  that 
will  be  economic  and  competitive  with 
other   types   of  energy  production. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  delight- 
ed with  the  support,  and  I  hope  we  might 
even  get  to  third  reading  in  three  minutes. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 


5298 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


FARM  PRODUCTS  PAYMENTS 
AMENDMENT  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson  moved  second  read- 
ing of  Bill  216,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Farm 
Products  Payments  Act. 

Mr.  Riddell:  First,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
thank  the  House  leaders  for  allowing  this 
bill  to  come  in  for  second  reading,  even 
though  it  was  not  on  the  order  of  business. 
In  the  interests  of  the  egg  producers  who 
have  been  waiting  for  a  payment  on  eggs 
shipped  to  the  Whyte  plant  which  went  into 


receivership  and  for  which  the  Ontario  Egg 
Producers'  Marketing  Board  had  to  get  legis- 
lative authority  from  the  minister  to  make 
that  payment,  we  heartily  support  the  bill. 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  view  of 
the  time,  I  shall  not  be  repetitive.  Every- 
thing that  needs  to  be  said  on  this  bill  has 
been  said  by  the  minister  and  by  the  Liberal 
critic. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Ordered  for  third  reading. 

The  House  adjourned  at  10:29  p.m. 


DECEMBER  11,  1980  5299 


CONTENTS 

Thursday,  December  11,  1980 

Report,  select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment:  Mr.  McCaffrey  5275 

Pension  Benefits  Amendment  Act,  Bill  214,  reported  5284 

Wine  Content  Amendment  Act,  Bill  215,  Mr.  Drea,  second  reading  5297 

Mining  Amendment  Act,  Bill  221,  Mr.  Auld,  second  reading  5297 

Farm  Products  Payments  Amendment  Act,  Bill  216,  Mr.  Henderson,  second  reading  5298 

Adjournment 5298 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Auld,  Hon.  J.  A.  C;  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Leeds  PC) 

Breithaupt,  J.  R.  (Kitchener  L) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Di  Santo,  O.  (Downs view  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  and  Chairman  (Perth  L) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Deputv  Chairman  (Humber  PC) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McCaffrey,  B.  (Armourdale  PC) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

O'Neil,  H.  (Quinte  L) 

Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 

Van  Home,  R.  (London  North  L) 

Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 


>-r—  No.  140 

Ontario 


Legislature  of 
Debates 

Official  Report  (Hansard) 


Fourth  Session,  31st  Parliament 

Friday,  December  12,  1980 


Speaker:  Honourable  John  E.  Stokes 
Clerk:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


CONTENTS 


Contents  of  the  proceedings  reported  in  this  issue  of  Hansard  appears  at  the  back, 
together  with  an  alphabetical  list  of  the  speakers  taking  part. 

An  alphabetical  list  of  members  of  the  Legislature  of  Ontario,  together  with  lists  of 
members  of  the  executive  council,  the  parliamentary  assistants  and  the  members  of  all  standing 
and  select  committees,  also  appears  at  the  back  as  an  appendix. 

Reference  to  a  cumulative  index  of  previous  issues  can  be  obtained  by  calling  the 
Hansard  Reporting  Service  indexing  staff  at  (416)  965-2159. 


Hansard  subscription  price  is  $15.00  per  session,  from:  Sessional  Subscription  Service, 
Central  Purchasing  Service,  Print  Procurement  Section,  Ministry  of  Government  Services,  8th 
Floor,  Ferguson  Block,  Parliament  Buildings,  Toronto  M7A  1N3.  Phone  (416)  965-2238. 

Published  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Ontario.  , 

Editor  of  Debates:  Peter  Brannan. 


5303 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  House  met  at  10  a.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS  BY  THE  MINISTRY 

FOREST  FIRE  REPORT 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  tabling 
a  report  entitled  Forest  Fire  Management 
Policies  and  Operations  in  the  Province  of 
Ontario,  an  overview  that  was  presented  to 
me  at  the  end  of  November  and  now  is  avail- 
able in  sufficient  copies  for  this  tabling  and 
distribution  to  members,  the  press  and  others 
who  no  doubt  will  be  interested  in  it. 

This  report,  which  makes  55  recommenda- 
tions on  the  assignments  I  gave  them  last 
August,  was  produced  by  an  independent 
three-man  team  made  up  of  forest  fire  experts 
from  outside  our  province. 

The  chairman,  Mr.  Stan  Hughes,  was  head 
of  forest  protection  for  the  province  of 
Alberta  for  10  years.  The  other  members  were 
Mr.  John  MacTavish,  who  was  deputy  minis- 
ter of  the  Nova  Scotia  Departments  of  the 
Environment  and  Lands  and  Forests  up  to 
1979,  and  Mr.  Carl  Wilson  from  the  United 
States,  a  member  of  the  North  American  fire 
study  group  which  has  consulted  with  the 
US  Forest  Service,  the  United  Nations  and 
several  South  American  and  Mediterranean 
countries. 

I  asked  these  three  established  experts  to 
review  my  ministry's  forest  fire  control  pro- 
gram, including  our  efforts  during  this  past 
summer's  unprecedentedly  severe  fire  season. 
This  report  is  the  result  of  their  study. 

The  terms  of  reference  for  the  consultants 
were  (1)  to  provide  a  concise  assessment  of 
Ontario's  forest  fire  control  policies,  strate- 
gies and  overall  operations  relating  to  the 
1980  fire  season  from  a  North  American  per- 
spective, and  (2)  that  the  assessment  should 
briefly  cover  the  adequacy  of  the  provincial 
fire  organization,  planning  and  preparedness, 
allocation  of  resources  relative  to  risk  and 
values,  training  standards,  mobility  of  re- 
sources, multi-fire  occurrence  strategy,  use  of 
aircraft  and  water  bombing. 

In  other  words,  I  sought  this  advice  on  the 
entire  array  of  how  we  go  about  protecting 
our  province  from  forest  fires. 


Friday,  December  12,  1980 

The  review  team  decided  to  fulfil  its  task 
by  providing  an  overview  of  the  forest  fire 
management  policies  and  operations  in 
Ontario  and  by  offering  recommendations  to 
assist  our  ministry  in  planning  for  future 
years.  This  report  is  a  painstaking  and 
thoughtful  look  at  the  way  we  should  deal 
with  forest  fires,  particularly  in  those  years 
when  an  unusual  combination  of  conditions 
brings  about  serious  drought  and  multiple 
fire  occurrences  such  as  happened  this  past 
spring  and  summer. 

In  response  to  this  report  and  other  initia- 
tives already  undertaken  within  the  ministry, 
my  ministry  is  taking  action  in  two  major 
thrusts. 

The  recommendations  and  other  points 
raised  in  the  Hughes  report  are  being  inten- 
sively and  urgently  reviewed  by  a  committee 
headed  by  Mr.  Len  Sleeman,  director  of  the 
aviation  and  fire  management  branch,  to  de- 
termine short-run  steps  that  can  be  taken  in 
time  for  the  1981  forest  fire  season. 

The  same  recommendations  will  also  be 
taken  into  account  by  a  long-range  and  com- 
prehensive forest  fire  management  improve- 
ment project,  which  begins  on  January  1, 
1981.  A  project  group  consisting  of  three 
senior  ministry  staff  members,  each  highly 
experienced  in  forest  fire  management,  will 
develop  plans  for  an  improved  fire  manage- 
ment system  for  the  province  to  become 
effective  as  early  as  possible.  I  hope  some  of 
these  steps  will  also  be  in  effect  during  the 
fire  season  of  1981. 

Those  assigned  to  this  important  task  are 
Mr.  Bob  Elliott,  currently  district  manager 
of  the  Chapleau  district;  Mr.  Dick  Brady, 
regional  fire  management  officer  for  north- 
western region  and  Mr.  John  Walker,  dis- 
trict manager,  Geraldton  district.  These  men 
have  been  relieved  of  all  their  current  duties 
and  will  be  based  in  Sault  Ste.  Marie  for  a 
three-year  period  to  develop  and  implement 
an  improved  comprehensive  fire  management 
system. 

As  an  aftermath  of  this  year's  serious  fires, 
other  reviews  and  studies  have  been  carried 
out  within  the  ministry.  One  of  these  deals 
with  the  preparedness  of  the  provincial  and 
regional  systems  for  the  early  summer  out- 
breaks in  the  northwestern  and  north  central 


5304 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


regions.  Another  is  a  more  specific  report— 
an  internal  board  of  review  to  examine  and 
recommend  upon  what  we  term  Kenora  fire 
23. 

These  reports  will  provide  additional  useful 
data  to  both  the  short-run  and  long-run 
projects  to  enhance  and  improve  our  fire 
management  capabilities. 

I  wrote  to  the  Honourable  John  Roberts 
on  two  occasions  this  year— on  July  7  and  on 
September  2— in  his  dual  role  as  federal 
Minister  of  the  Environment  and  as  chair- 
man of  the  Canadian  Council  of  Resource 
and  Environment  Ministers,  suggesting  a  pool- 
ing and  enhancement  of  technical  resources 
in  the  forest  firefighting  field  between  the 
provincial  and  federal  governments.  I  also 
recommended  increased  activity  in  research 
and  development  related  especially  to  detec- 
tion and  suppression  efforts. 

Mr.  Roberts  has  indicated  that  he  agrees 
forest  fire  research  and  development  require- 
ments are  national  in  scope  and  says  he 
would  support  discussion  of  that  topic  by 
the  council.  Most  of  my  colleagues  in  other 
provinces  have  written  strongly  supporting 
this  initiative. 

As  I  have  said  in  the  House  and  during  the 
recent  estimates  of  my  ministry,  the  efforts 
made  this  past  summer  to  deal  with  forest 
fires  by  the  members  of  my  staff,  the  emer- 
gency staff  hired  during  the  most  serious 
periods,  and  those  from  other  agencies  and 
ministries  who  worked  with  us,  are  worthy  of 
the  highest  commendation. 

10:10  a.m. 

At  the  same  time,  our  ministry  has  taken 
these  additional  initiatives  of  reviews  by  out- 
side experts  as  well  as  by  ministry  staff  with 
the  objective  of  doing  everything  we  can  to 
further  enhance  our  forest  fire  prevention 
and  suppression  activities.  Within  the  limi- 
tations of  staff  and  money  allocated,  we 
mean  to  ensure  that  our  entire  approach  to- 
wards protecting  lives,  property  and  natural 
resources  from  the  ravages  of  forest  fires  will 
be  as  appropriate  and  of  as  high  quality  in 
the  future  as  planning,  expertise,  technology 
and  organization  can  make  it. 

As  an  addendum  to  this  statement,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  would  like  to  inform  you  and  the 
members  of  the  House  that  on  Wednesday 
afternoon  of  this  week  my  senior  staff  and  I 
received  a  brief  on  this  topic  from  the  presi- 
dent and  executive  of  the  Ontario  Forest 
Industries  Association.  It  is  my  understand- 
ing that  the  association— whose  members  are, 
of  course,  intimately  dependent  upon  the 
forest  resources  of  this  province— is  planning 
its    own   public   release    of   the   brief   later 


today.  I  will  not  reveal  any  of  the  details  of 
that  brief  at  this  time. 

In  closing,  I  would  simply  comment  that 
the  submissions  constitute  a  clear,  positive 
and  constructive  addition  to  this  important 
review  and,  in  my  ministry,  we  have  already 
instituted  measures  aimed  at  giving  effect  to 
the  association's  recommendations. 

ONTARIO  EDUCATIONAL 
SERVICES  CORPORATION 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am 
pleased  to  announce  this  morning  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Ontario  Educational  Services 
Corporation.  This  fulfils  the  commitment 
made  in  the  speech  from  the  throne  last 
March. 

The  new  corporation  should  be  seen  as  an 
element  in  the  government's  program  to 
stimulate  Ontario's  position  in  international 
business.  Its  primary  purpose  will  be  to 
support  Ontario's  private  sector  companies 
which  are  conducting  business  abroad  by 
making  available,  with  government  support, 
the  resources  of  the  province's  educational 
system. 

Emerging  nations  on  a  wide  front  are 
seeking  help  and  assistance  with  the  develop- 
ment of  their  education  systems  and  training 
programs.  The  World  Bank  alone,  for  ex- 
ample, is  planning  to  budget  $US900  million 
per  year  for  education  and  training.  It  is  be- 
coming more  and  more  common  that  coun- 
tries in  the  developing  areas  of  the  world 
want  not  only  equipment,  but  the  training 
and  educational  expertise  to  operate  and 
maintain  it.  A  highway  project,  a  communi- 
cations system  or  a  petrochemical  plant  might 
need  operator  and  maintenance  training  to 
support  the  capital  project— training  capa- 
bility that  can  be  found  within  Ontario's 
educational  system. 

Educational  projects  such  as  new  schools 
and  colleges  can  also  be  supported  by  teach- 
er training,  curriculum  development,  space 
and  institutional  master  planning,  and  by 
the  provision  of  experienced  Canadian  staff 
at  all  levels  of  an  institution's  operation.  The 
new  corporation  will  enhance  Ontario's  posi- 
tion and  indeed  Canada's  position  in  the 
international  marketplace  by  providing  ready 
access  to  these  resources.  There  may  well 
be  an  opportunity  also  for  the  corporation 
to  assist  overseas  countries  that  are  critically 
short  of  teachers  through  the  provision  of 
experienced  and  capable  Canadian  teachers. 

The  affairs  of  the  corporation  will  be 
guided  by  a  board  of  directors  under  the 
chairmanship  of  Mr.  D.  C.  McGeachy  of 
London,    Ontario,    who    has    had    extensive 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5305 


business  experience  and  who  has  served  on 
the  council  of  regents  for  the  colleges  of 
applied  arts  and  technology  for  seven  years. 
Other  directors  will  be  drawn  from  educa- 
tion, from  government  and  from  people  with 
broad  business  and  international  experience. 
From  education  there  will  be  Dr.  G.  A.  B. 
Moore,  director  of  the  Office  of  Educational 
Practice  of  the  University  of  Guelph;  Mr. 
K.  E.  Hunter,  president  of  Conestoga  Col- 
lege of  Applied  Arts  and  Technology,  and 
Mr.  R.  G.  Dixon  of  the  Ontario  Teachers' 
Federation. 

From  government  there  will  be  Mr.  G. 
Mclntyre,  executive  director,  Treasury  divi- 
sion, Ministry  of  Treasury  and  Economics; 
Mr.  E.  D.  Greathed,  executive  director, 
Ministry  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs;  Mr. 
J.  A.  Young,  president,  Ontario  International 
Corporation;  Mrs.  E.  M.  McLellan,  assistant 
deputy  minister,  Ministry  of  Education,  and 
Mr.  T.  P.  Adams,  assistant  deputy  minister, 
Ministry  of  Colleges  and  Universities.  Also 
on  the  board  will  be  Mr.  D.  J.  Griffiths,  vice- 
president  international,  Canadian  Imperial 
Bank  of  Commerce;  Mrs.  J.  E.  Pigott,  chair- 
man of  the  board  of  Morrison  Lamothe  In- 
corporated; Colonel  J.  G.  R.  Morin,  director 
of  dependants'  education,  Department  of 
National  Defence,  and  a  chief  executive 
officer  to  be  selected  by  the  board. 

The  corporation  will  operate  with  a  small 
core  staff,  engaging  others  on  short-term 
contracts  as  work  on  various  projects  dic- 
tates. Seed  money  from  government  will,  in 
the  first  year,  amount  to  approximately 
$400,000. 

Because  the  corporation  will  be  conduct- 
ing its  business  with  the  private  sector  and 
is  to  operate  on  a  cost-recovery  basis,  it 
has  been  established  as  a  business  under 
the  Business  Corporations  Act.  The  corpo- 
ration expects  to  reach  self-sufficiency  in  ap- 
proximately three  years.  The  operation  will 
be  reviewed  after  one  year  and  again  after 
three  years  to  determine  whether  the  sunset 
clause,  which  governs  its  operations,  will 
apply.  At  that  time,  a  decision  about  its 
continuation  will  be  made.         , 

It  is  our  hope  and  expectation  that  this 
new  venture  will  make  a  worthwhile  con- 
tribution to  Canada's  position  abroad. 

INTERNATIONAL  YEAR  OF 
DISABLED  PERSONS 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  as  members 
know,  1981  was  declared  the  International 
Year  of  Disabled  Persons  by  the  United 
Nations.  The  goal  of  the  year  is  to  promote 
the   enjoyment  by   disabled   persons   of   the 


same  rights  and  opportunities  as  are  avail- 
able *to  other  persons  in  society.  We  all 
have  an  obligation  to  make  the  general 
physical  environment,  as  well  as  a  full  range 
of  social,  economic  and  cultural  activities, 
accessible  to  disabled  persons. 

We  embrace  those  guiding  principles  and, 
to  demonstrate  our  commitment,  we  are  an- 
nouncing today  the  allocation  of  $12  million 
for  the  International  Year  of  Disabled  Per- 
sons. I  would  like  to  point  out  that  this 
$12  million  is  in  addition  to  the  moneys 
already  allocated  by  ministries  for  special 
projects  for  IYDP  and  will  be  used  to  initi- 
ate programs  during  1981  identified  as  a 
high  priority  by  disabled  people  in  the  com- 
munity. Our  plans  for  1981  are  a  continu- 
ation of  the  commitments  we  have  made  in 
the  past. 

In  1974,  we  introduced  Gains-D,  the 
guaranteed  annual  income  supplement  for 
disabled  persons,  to  put  income  directly  into 
the  hands  of  disabled  persons  so  that  they 
could  make  their  own  choices.  Two  years 
later  we  introduced  a  program  of  funding  to 
municipalities,  to  make  it  possible  for  them 
to  provide  transportation  services  for  dis- 
abled persons.  Two  years  ago,  four  demon- 
stration projects  of  housing  with  support 
services  got  under  way. 

In  the  days  and  weeks  ahead,  my  col- 
leagues will  be  making  announcements  about 
the  specific  programs  to  be  funded  by  the 
$12-million  allocation.  Besides  those  that  will 
be  formally  announced,  there  are  many  proj- 
ects already  under  way  which  are  very  mean- 
ingful to  disabled  people;  for  example,  the 
purchase  of  a  Braille  typewriter  so  that 
government  can  respond  directly  to  people 
without  sight,  modifying  curb  access  in  vari- 
ous municipalities,  revisions  to  an  accommo- 
dations guide  showing  wheelchair  accessi- 
bility in  hotels  and  motels  throughout  the 
province,  and  an  employer  education  program 
both  within  and  without  government.  We 
will  also  undertake  a  program  of  public 
awareness  since  we  believe  that  one  of  the 
main  barriers  for  disabled  people  is  the 
attitude  of  society. 

As  members  know,  Bill  82,  dealing  with 
special  education  and  now  awaiting  royal 
assent,  will  ensure  that  every  exceptional 
pupil  in  the  province  receives  an  education 
suited  to  his  or  her  needs  and  abilities.  Al- 
though most  school  boards  provide  some 
programs,  Bill  82  removes  the  optional  status 
of  special  education  and  makes  it  the  definite 
responsibility  of  all  school  boards  to  provide 
special  education  programs  for  students. 


5306 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


As  well,  amendments  to  the  Ontario 
Human  Rights  Code  now  before  this  House 
prohibit  discrimination  on  the  ground1  of 
handicap  in  all  areas  of  the  code.  But  it  is 
only  by  individual  acceptance  of  the  abilities 
of  disabled  people  that  we  will  truly  be  a 
part  of  their  achievement  of  equality. 

10:20  a.m. 

What  we  have,  then,  are  the  projects  and 
programs  already  in  place,  a  wide  range  of 
programs,  for  1981  to  be  undertaken  within 
ministry  allocations,  and  the  programs  that 
will  proceed  during  IYDP  because  of  the 
additional  funding  of  $12  million  which  has 
been  especially  designated  by  this  govern- 
ment for  the  International  Year  of  Disabled 
Persons. 

Along  with  the  amendments  to  the  Human 
Rights  Code  and  the  new  provisions  for 
special  education  for  exceptional  children, 
the  decade  ahead  should  take  us  further  in 
our  desire  to  make  it  possible  for  disabled 
persons  to  be  fully  integrated1  into  the  com- 
munity life  that  the  rest  of  us  take  for 
granted. 

There  are  many  things  that  will  be  done 
during  IYPD,  but  government  itself  neither 
should,  nor  can  it,  take  on  all  the  respon- 
sibilities. Municipal  governments,  churches, 
fraternal  organizations  and  individuals  will, 
I  know,  respond  enthusiastically  in  the  year 
ahead  to  develop  initiatives  of  their  own. 

I  would  like  to  challenge  employers,  and 
unions  too,  to  examine  their  hiring  policies. 
A  job  is  the  key  to  independence  for  many 
of  the  disabled  persons  here  in  Ontario.  I 
would  like  to  challenge  churches  as  well.  All 
too  often  we  are  willing  to  take  religion  to 
the  people.  Why  do  we  not  make  it  possible 
for  disabled  persons  to  come  to  a  place  of 
worship? 

In  1981,  and  the  decade  ahead,  this  gov- 
ernment will  continue  its  commitment  to 
disabled  people.  At  the  same  time,  we  hope 
that  all  citizens  of  Ontario  will  come  to  better 
appreciate  that  the  needs  of  disabled1  people 
are  the  same  as  those  of  all  of  us  and  we 
hope  it  will  be  recognized  that  disabled 
citizens  are  equally  capable  of  making  im- 
portant contributions  to  our  society. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  asked 
the  Minister  of  Health  a  few  weeks  ago 
about  the  provision  of  prosthetic  and  assist- 
ive devices  for  the  handicapped.  I  trust  that 
this  pap  we  have  just  heard  about  the  Inter- 
national Year  of  Disabled  Persons  does  not 
refer  to  that,  and  that  the  minister  is  going 
to  have  a  further  statement  to  tell  us  he  is 
going  to  provide  these  devices. 


Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  indi- 
cated at  that  time  in  answer  to  the  honour- 
able member's  question  that  it  was  my  inten- 
tion and  hope  to  make  a  statement  by  the 
end  of  the  year.  Today  is  December  12,  and 
I  still  have  19  days  within  which  to  try  to 
meet  that  pledge. 

MANAGEMENT  OF 
NUCLEAR  FUEL  WASTE 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  know 
it  has  been  the  intention  of  all  three  parties 
in  the  House  to  debate,  before  the  end  of 
this  particular  session,  the  select  committee's 
report  on  the  management  of  nuclear  fuel 
waste.  Since  there  will  not  be  an  opportunity 
to  hold  this  debate  before  the  end  of  the 
current  session,  I  should  like  to  make  a  few 
comments  on  that  report. 

Members  of  the  select  committee  will 
remember  that  when  I  appeared  before  them 
on  March  13  of  this  year,  I  welcomed  the 
fact  that  the  committee  was  looking  at  waste 
disposal  in  some  considerable  detail  and 
stated  that  I  would  look  forward  to  its  re- 
port and  the  recommendations  therein.  May 
I  say  at  the  outset  that  I  have  been  greatly 
impressed  by  the  review  carried  out  by  the 
select  committee.  The  committee  is  to  be 
commended  on  the  thorough  and  construc- 
tive approach  it  has  taken  on  this  very  im- 
portant subject.  Since  the  report  was  tabled, 
preliminary  discussions  have  been  held  with 
the  government  of  Canada  on  the  recom- 
mendations and  on  the  next  phases  of  the 
program.  In  addition,  discussions  have  been 
held  on  the  public  review  and  approval 
process. 

The  importance  of  continuing  research 
into  the  safe  and  permanent  disposal  of 
nuclear  fuel  waste  cannot  be  overestimated. 
It  is  vital  to  Ontario's  nuclear  program  and, 
as  members  know,  electricity  is  an  integral 
part  of  Ontario's  overall  energy  strategy. 
Furthermore,  it  is  clear  that  if  electricity 
is  to  take  a  larger  share  of  Ontario's  energy 
market,  nuclear  power  will  be  of  vital  im- 
portance. 

The  Canadian  program  is  an  important 
and  respected  part  of  the  international  re- 
search effort  in  nuclear  waste  disposal.  I 
have  every  confidence  that  the  concept  cur- 
rently being  researched  by  Atomic  Energy 
of  Canada  Limited  will  be  developed  over 
the  next  number  of  years  into  a  safe  and 
secure  method  of  waste  disposal. 

I  am  aware  as  well  that  the  select  com- 
mittee members  are  quite  familiar  with  the 
background  to  the  program,  but  a  very  short 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5307 


review  may  be  desirable  for  the  benefit  of 
other  members. 

May  I  review  quickly  the  questions  of 
jurisdiction  and  responsibility?  As  members 
are  aware,  the  federal  government  has  juris- 
diction over  nuclear  matters.  It  assumed  this 
jurisdiction  in  1946  when  it  passed  the 
Atomic  Energy  Control  Act.  In  exercising 
its  jurisdiction,  the  federal  government  estab- 
lished two  agencies,  Atomic  Energy  of  Can- 
ada Limited,  which  is  responsible  for  re- 
search and  development,  and  the  Atomic 
Energy  Control  Board,  which  regulates 
nuclear  power.  As  a  result,  the  federal  gov- 
ernment has  the  primary  responsibility  for 
and  has  taken  the  lead  role  in  the  Canadian 
nuclear   fuel   waste   management   program. 

The  province,  in  acknowledging  federal 
jurisdiction  and  the  lead  federal  responsi- 
bility for  nuclear  fuel  waste  management, 
also  takes  quite  seriously  its  own  potential 
responsibilities  with  respect  to  Ontario 
Hydro  and  the  broader  interests  of  the 
people  of  Ontario.  For  this  reason,  the  prov- 
ince is  directly  involved  in  the  Canadian 
nuclear  fuel  waste  management  program. 

The  Canada-Ontario  agreement  on  nuclear 
fuel  waste  management  was  announced  on 
June  5,  1978.  That  agreement  outlines  a 
phased  program  for  the  development,  demon- 
stration and  implementation  of  a  safe  and 
permanent  method  of  disposing  of  nuclear 
fuel  waste  in  deep,  stable,  underground 
rock  formations.  The  agreement  confirms  the 
federal  government's  prime  responsibility  for 
the  long-term  management  of  nuclear  fuel 
waste.  It  requires  that  there  be  full  con- 
sultation between  the  federal  and  Ontario 
governments  and  their  respective  agencies 
and  that  the  prior  approval  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Ontario  be  obtained  at  each  step 
in  the  program.  It  ensures  that  there  will 
be  close  co-operation  and  consultation  with 
the  affected  communities  in  Ontario  during 
all  phases  of  that  program. 

At  this  point,  I  should  mention  that,  as 
Ontario  Hydro  has  assured  the  select  comr 
mittee,  the  present  method  of  storing  spent 
fuel  under  water  will  be  secure  for  several 
decades,  certainly  long  enough  to  permit 
the  thorough  development  and  demonstra- 
tion of  an  ultimate  disposal  method. 

Having  set  out  this  brief  background,  I 
would  now  like  to  turn  to  the  select  com- 
mittee's report  itself.  Let  me  say,  at  the 
outset,  subject  to  some  observations  which 
I  shall  make,  I  can  accept  the  thrust  of  the 
select  committee's  recommendations.  These 
recommendations,  I  might  note,  relate  in 
many   cases   to   matters   which   are   actively 


being  implemented  by  the  Atomic  Energy 
Control  Board,  by  AECL  and  by  Ontario 
Hydro  or  are  under  consideration  within  the 
two    governments. 

With  respect  to  my  few  observations,  let 
me  turn  first  to  recommendation  No.  2  which 
relates  to  whether  field  research  efforts 
should  be  devoted  at  this  time  to  an  investi- 
gation of  the  so-called  soft  rocks,  such  as 
shale  and  salt  beds.  The  issue  here  is  a 
technical  one. 

The  technical  judgement  of  AECL  and  of 
such  bodies  as  the  Independent  Technical 
Advisory  Committee  and  the  federal  task 
force,  more  commonly  known  as  the  Hare 
committee,  is  that  Canada  should  concentrate 
its  efforts  on  hard  rock. 

Mr.  Laughren:  That  is  because  it  is  north- 
ern Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  No.  I  think  it  is  impor- 
tant to  emphasize  this  particular  point.  The 
technical  judgement,  in  my  understanding,  has 
been  reached  in  the  full  knowledge  that  there 
are  major  programs  already  well  advanced  in 
other  countries  in  a  wide  variety  of  other 
concepts,  including  shale  and  salt,  the  re- 
sults of  which  are  readily  available  to  Can- 
ada through  international  exchange  of  in- 
formation. The  current  program  is  focusing 
where  the  best  technical  advice  says  it 
should  focus,  on  hard  rock. 

Let  me  turn  now  to  recommendation  four, 
which  recommends  the  establishment  of  a 
joint  federal-Ontario  nuclear  fuel  waste 
management  agency  and  to  recommendations 
five  and  six  which  build  on  this  recommen- 
dation. I  agree  that  the  merits  of  setting  up 
such  an  agency  should  be  evaluated.  I  will 
be  giving  these  ideas  serious  consideration 
and  will  be  raising  it  with  the  federal 
government. 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  comment  on  that 
part  of  recommendation  10  which  suggests 
that  funding  be  made  available  to  ensure 
full  public  involvement  in  public  hearings. 
It  is  my  expectation  that  the  responsibility 
for  those  public  hearings,  which  will  arise 
during  this  program,  will  lie  with  the  gov- 
ernment of  Canada  and  that  the  cost  of  such 
hearings  will  be  a  federal  responsibility.  This 
being  so,  I  will  bring  this  recommendation 
to  the  attention  of  the  government  of  Canada. 

We  are  a  federal  system.  We  have  juris- 
dictions and  responsibilities. 
10:30  a.m. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  That  is  right.  All  the  pros- 
perity is  thanks  to  the  minister's  govern- 
ment and  everything  is  bad  thanks  to  them. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  We  will  have  an  oppor- 
tunity later  today  to  discuss  those  points  in 


5308 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


some  detail.  I  look  forward  to  the  exchange. 
The  people  of  Ontario  know  the  record  of 
this  administration  and  will  continue  to  sup- 
port it  in  due  time. 

We  have  to  remember  that  this  is  a 
comprehensive,  long-term  program  stretching 
many  years  into  the  future.  As  I  noted  earlier 
in  my  remarks,  I  think  the  select  committee 
has  approached  its  work  in  a  thorough  and 
generally  constructive  fashion  and  I  can 
accept  the  tenor  of  the  committee's  report. 

For  this  government's  part,  I  believe  its 
contribution  to  the  Canadian  nuclear  fuel 
waste  management  program  has  been  both 
positive  and  productive.  It  has  resulted  in  a 
sound  research  program.  It  has  ensured  that 
while  the  federal  government  and  its  agencies 
have  the  prime  responsibility  and  lead  role, 
there  will  be  close  co-operation  and  con- 
sultation between  the  federal  and  Ontario 
governments  and  their  respective  agencies.  As 
well,  it  has  ensured  a  free  flow  of  informa- 
tion to  the  public  and  close  co-operation  and 
consultation  with  the  communities  involved. 

NEW  COMMITTEE  SYSTEM 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
indicate  to  the  House  an  undertaking  that 
has  been  agreed  to  by  the  House  leaders  for 
all  parties.  It  is  that  there  be  established  an 
ad  hoc  committee  of  House  leaders,  whips 
and  caucus  representatives  to  consider  a  plan 
for  implementation  of  the  report  from  the 
procedural  affairs  committee  entitled  A  New 
Committee  System. 

This  procedure  is  intended  to  be  similar 
to  that  followed  in  early  1977  when  our  new 
standing  orders  were  drafted  for  submission 
to  the  House  on  a  government  motion.  The 
ad  hoc  group  hopes  to  be  able  to  draw  on 
the  observations  that  a  delegation  of  the  pro- 
cedural affairs  committee  will  make  after  its 
visit  to  Westminster  in  February  to  examine 
the  new  committee  system  there. 

For  this  reason,  the  order  for  consideration 
of  the  motion  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  pro- 
cedural affairs  committee  on  a  new  com- 
mittee system  will  be  carried  forward  by 
motion  into  the  next  session. 

USE  OF  AMERICAN  DICTIONARIES 

Mr.  Sweeney:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  On  Tuesday,  November  18,  I  asked 
a  question  of  the  Minister  of  Education  with 
respect  to  the  use  of  American  dictionaries 
in  correspondence  courses.  At  that  time,  I 
believe  I  got  a  commitment  from  the  min- 
ister that  she  would  investigate  and  report 
back.  I  have  not  yet  had  that  answer,  and 


given  this  is  probably  the  last  day,  I  wonder 
if  the  minister  could  indicate  what  her  in- 
vestigations   revealed. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  the 
matter  was  investigated  and  I  determined 
that  at  the  time  the  original  decision  was 
made,  the  choice  for  the  ministry  was  be- 
tween a  Canadian  hard-cover  dictionary  that 
cost  approximately  $5  a  copy  and  an  Amer- 
ican paper-cover  dictionary  that  cost  99 
cents  a  copy.  There  was  really  very  little 
choice  at  that  time  and,  unfortunately,  the 
American  dictionary  won. 

However,  on  January  1,  1981,  the  diction- 
aries supplied  through  the  correspondence 
branch  will  be  Canadian  dictionaries,  based 
upon  the  shorter  Oxford  and  other  estab- 
lished Canadian  dictionaries  and  they  will 
be  available  to  all  students  through  the  cor- 
respondence courses. 

ORAL  QUESTIONS 

INTEREST   RATES 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  direct  a  question  to  the  provincial  Trea- 
surer on  the  matter  of  high  interest  rates 
and  their  impact  on  Ontario.  Could  the 
Treasurer  today  provide  the  answer  he  did 
not  have  yesterday  for  the  Treasury  critic? 
Could  he  explain  why  it  is  that  he  feels  it 
impossible  to  find  the  money,  some  $100 
million,  to  assist  small  business  and  pre- 
vent them  from  becoming  bankrupt  during 
this  winter  of  high  interest  rates  and  to 
assist  those  who  hold  mortgages  to  prevent 
them  from  the  possibility  of  actually  losing 
their  homes  during  this  same  period  of 
time? 

The  Treasurer  was  able  to  find  $260  mil- 
lion which  he  is  dissipating  for  the  purposes 
of  getting  people  who  are  going  to  buy  vans 
and  such  to  buy  them  a  little  earlier.  Surely 
it  makes  more  sense  to  use  the  money, 
would  the  Treasurer  not  agree,  to  assist  the 
people  who  are  caught  in  this  crush  of  high 
interest  rates?  Surely  he  recognizes  that  the 
government  of  Ontario,  with  its  $17-billion 
budget,  has  a  responsibility  to  rescue  the 
small  businesses  of  this  province  before  they 
go   bankrupt? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  prob- 
lems are  not  an  either/ or  situation.  The  $260 
million  over  the  two  fiscal  years,  $77  mil- 
lion of  which  is  in  this  fiscal  year  and  the 
balance  in  the  next  fiscal  year,  is  aimed  at 
stimulating  employment— one  of  the  major 
problems  facing  Ontario  and  Canada,  but 
particularly  eastern  Canada,  right  now.  If 
that   does   not   touch   many   people,    I   have 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5309 


misread  the  problems  of  this  economy.  Of 
course,  we  have  to  take  action  to  ensure 
jobs. 

Mr.  Peterson:  You  will  not  even  tell  us 
how  many  jobs  you  are  going  to  create. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  The  member  likes  to 
think  that  is  a  donation  or  a  giving  up  of 
revenue  by  this  government.  I  like  to  think 
of  it  as  an  investment  in  opportunity  for 
work.  We  just  estimated  today  that  the 
federal  government  itself  will  earn  about 
$8  million  more  because  of  the  stimulation 
of  the  Ontario  economy  through  those  mea- 
sures. Those  measures  were  aimed  at  the 
most  pressing  problems. 

I  heard  many  comments  from  across  the 
House  during  the  fall  session  as  to  what 
we  would  do  to  help  workers  have  jobs. 
We  are  taking  positive  actions  with  those 
sales  tax  cuts.  We  have  proved  before  that 
they  work. 

Mr.  Peterson:  How  many  jobs  are  you 
going  to  create?  Tell  us. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  That  is  a  very  trite 
kind  of  question.  I  can  only  tell  the  member 
that  company  after  company  around  this 
province  is  hiring  people,  or  not  having  to 
lay  off  because— 

Mr.  Peterson:  Nonsense.  You  do  not  even 
know. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  The  member  wants  me 
to  document  everything.  The  fact  is  unem- 
ployment dropped  in  this  province  last 
month.  It  dropped  over  the  month  before.  It 
dropped  over  the  year  before  because  of 
these  actions;  only  two  cities  in  this  province 
had  more  unemployment  in  November. 
Those  were  London  and  Windsor.  That  indi- 
cates at  least  we  are  tackling  one  of  the 
major  problems  in  this  province,  and  it  is  not 
an  either/or  situation. 

I  have  suggested  and  I  will  be  suggesting 
to  the  federal  minister  on  Wednesday  that 
this  is  a  national  problem.  He  was  asked 
those  questions.  At  least  the  press  recognizes 
it  is  a  national  question  and  that  the  question 
should  be  directed  to  the  federal  minister. 
We  will  be  working  with  10  other  ministers 
this  Wednesday  to  see  whether  or  not  the 
federal  government  has  room. 

I  was  pleased  last  night,  watching  very 
carefully  the  responses  of  Mr.  MacEachen 
to  the  critic,  Mr.  Crosbie,  on  this  matter,  to 
see  that  he  had  left  some  room  for  some 
action  if  he  saw  fit.  I  hope  he  is  serious  in 
that,  and  not  simply  misleading  anyone  in 
his  response. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Ontario  is  in  a  much  more 
vulnerable  position  than  certain  other  parts 


of  this  nation  in  terms  of  the  number  of  jobs 
that  could  be  lost  by  the  closure  of  small 
businesses.  We  have  already  reached  a  record 
high  number  of  bankruptcies  and  we  lead 
the  country  by  far  in  this  regard. 

Since  this  government  has  a  responsibility 
to  protect  the  citizens  of  this  province,  and 
not  merely  to  take  credit  for  what  is  good 
and  lay  blame  federally  for  whatever  they 
do  not  happen  to  be  pleased  about,  would 
the  Treasurer  admit  that  the  crisis  is  going 
to  affect  Ontario  businesses?  Would  he  ad- 
mit it  is  his  responsibility,  therefore,  to  take 
at  least  the  $100-million  program  we  pro- 
posed and  to  aid  not  only  farmers,  as  he  has 
already  done,  but  the  small  businesses  and 
the  home  owners  of  Ontario,  irrespective  of 
what  other  governments  happen  to  be  doing 
or  not  doing? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  one 
goes  back  to  the  April  budget  and  looks  at 
the  measures  taken  to  help  small  businesses, 
they  were  not  all  in  the  form  of  assistance 
to  pay  interest.  They  were  more  in  the  form 
of  reducing  taxes  paid  by  small  businesses, 
some  of  which  are  not  income-related.  The 
capital  tax  is  a  good  example. 

We  can  go  back  and  look  at  the  number 
of  dollars  forgiven  by  Ontario  in  that  budget 
where  it  applied  to  small  business.  I  think 
the  sum  total  was  around  $50  million  to 
$60  million,  off  the  top  of  my  head.  That  is 
summing  up  the  effect  of  the  capital  gains 
reductions,  the  capital  tax  reductions,  plus 
the  credits  available  to  small  business  where 
they  make  capital  investments  during  this 
year. 

Every  small  incorporated  business  in  this 
province  is  entitled  to  up  to  $3,000  reduction 
of  corporate  tax  payable  in  Ontario  because 
of  the  actions  we  took  in  that  budget.  That 
leaves  home  owners  as  the  major  group  still 
to  be  dealt  with. 
10:40  a.m. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  supplementary 
to  the  Treasurer,  based  on  the  impact  of 
high  interest  rates  on  the  Ontario  economy, 
as  put  in  the  question  by  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition.  Has  the  Treasurer  seen  the  latest 
forecast  by  the  Conference  Board  in  Canada 
which  indicates  that  at  present,  for  1980, 
seven  of  our  12  industrial  sectors,  which 
account  for  more  than  50  per  cent  of 
Ontario's  output,  are  expected  to  experience 
output  declines  in  1980?  Further— and  this  is 
really  significant  in  terms  of  the  interest  rate 
question— is  he  aware  that  the  unemployment 
rate  will  rise  from  its  current  third-quarter 
level  of  6.9  per  cent  to  an  all-time  high  of 
7.7  per  cent  by  the  end  of  1981? 


5310 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Given  the  fact  that  the  increasing  inter- 
est rates  can  only  make  the  matter  worse, 
can  the  Treasurer  tell  us  this  morning  what 
he  intends  to  do,  (a)  to  alleviate  the  impact 
of  those  high  interest  rates  and  (b)  to  stimu- 
late particular  sectors  of  the  Ontario  econ- 
omy? 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  have  been  more 
aware  recently,  not  so  much  of  the  con- 
ference board's  comments— although  I  see 
them  in  capsule  form— but  of  the  response 
of  the  Economic  Council  of  Canada  in  deal- 
ing with  the  same  problems.  It  is  very 
interesting  to  see  that  the  economic  council 
supported  Ontario's  official  position  in  com- 
menting upon  the  negative  effects  the  fed- 
eral budget  has  had  on  these  very  factors. 
Having  written  its  report,  it  had  to  revise 
it  and  simply  say  that  Mr.  MacEachen's 
actions  were  going  to  hurt  the  industrial 
sectors  of  Canada's  economy;  they  were 
going  to  increase  inflation;  they  were  going 
to  increase  unemployment.  And  these  people 
over  here  have  the  gall  to  criticize  us. 

Mr.  Peterson:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: I  have  very  serious  difficulty  understand- 
ing the  logic  of  the  Treasurer  in  saying,  as 
he  does  in  a  response  to  a  question  yester- 
day in  Hansard:  "I  am  implying  first  it  is 
a  Canadian  problem;  it  is  not  an  Ontario 
problem."  Yet  with  the  sales  tax  matter  the 
Treasurer  took  unilateral  action  in  the  ab- 
sence of  assistance  from  the  federal  gov- 
ernment. Why  can  the  Treasurer  not  take 
the  same  approach  with  some  interest  re- 
lief for  people  renewing  mortgages? 

As  the  Treasurer  has  just  admitted,  those 
people  have  not  been  assisted.  There  is 
going  to  be  a  crisis  in  this  province  in  the 
next  month  or  two  or  three.  As  long  as 
these  rates  hold  up,  and  they  are  expected 
to  go  even  a  little  higher,  why  can  the 
Treasurer  not  bring  in  a  short-term  targeted 
program  to  assist  those  people  most  in  need? 
It  will  not  be  terribly  expensive  but  it  will 
meet  a  very  serious  crisis  in  this  province 
now. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Again,  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
argue  with  the  member  that  when  it  is  a 
national  problem,  and  it  does  affect  Ontario 
and  it  does  affect  individuals,  we  do  have 
a  need  to  work  that  kind  of  thing  out  with 
the  feds.  It  is  great  for  the  member  to  ask 
me  to  take  100  per  cent  of  the  load  when 
I  only  get  one  third  of  the  revenue. 

Mr.  Peterson:  You  did  it  with  the  sales 
tax. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  I  am  not  a  hypocrite. 
With  my  sales  tax  measures  I  used  Ontario 


dollars    to    support    Ontario    industry    and 
Ontario   employees. 

ENVIRONMENTAL   ASSESSMENT 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would 
like  to  direct  a  question  to  the  Minister  of 
the  Environment.  I  would  ask  the  minister 
to  consider  that  given  there  would  appear 
to  be,  from  his  answers  yesterday,  very 
little  difference  between  the  type  of  hear- 
ing he  is  proposing  in  the  South  Cayuga 
matter  and  an  environmental  assessment  hear- 
ing—the differences  appear  not  to  be  major 
from  his  answers  to  the  question  which  was 
asked  yesterday  three  times— and  given  that, 
from  the  events  which  transpired,  it  is  ob- 
vious the  minister  has  misread  the  intensity 
of  feeling  of  people  about  this  particular 
issue,  will  the  minister  now  accept  the  sug- 
gestion which  has  been  made  to  have  a 
proper  environmental  assessment  hearing 
under  the  act  but  with  a  strict  time  limit 
of  less  than  one  year  so  that  the  people 
will  feel  they  have,  in  fact,  had  due  process? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  No,  I  will  not,  Mr. 
Speaker,  in  answer  to  the  leader  of  the 
Liberal  Party's  first  question.  Yes,  I  do 
understand  the  intensity  of  the  feelings  of 
the  people  of  that  community.  I  also  think 
that  the  intensity  was  heightened  by  less 
than  the  best  of  motives.  I  will  say  that 
only  once.  We  will  make  every  effort  to 
have  the  people  understand  the  facts  as 
they  are.  That  will  happen  in  the  due  proc- 
ess we  have  established  for  the  community. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Instead  of  standing  in  the 
House  and  imputing  motives  to  people, 
and  instead  of  suggesting  the  people  in  the 
area  are  somehow  wrong  to  expect  the  same 
protection  under  the  act  that  every  other 
community  has  expected  over  the  years, 
would  the  minister  do  one  of  two  things? 
Will  he  either  admit  he  has  seriously  misread 
the  situation  or  will  he  explain  to  the  House 
clearly  what  the  important  differences  are 
between  his  hearings  and  the  hearings  which 
people  would  recognize  as  being  their  right 
under  the  act,  so  that  all  of  us  could  under- 
stand what  these  vital  differences  are  that 
are  so  important  he  is  willing  to  persist  in 
this  policy?  Surely,  if  the  differences  are  not 
major,  it  would  make  more  sense  to  act  under 
the  existing  legislation  with  a  time  limit 
than  to  have  an  ad  hoc  hearing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  This  is  a  prime  illustra- 
tion of  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party's  total 
lack  of  understanding  of  the  environmental 
assessment  process.  In  the  name  of  justice, 
one   plainly    does   not   put   a    time   limit   on 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5311 


that  kind  of  information  process.  We  are  not 
going  to  put  on  a  time  limit  or  any  limit. 
Do  I  have  an  understanding  of  this  process? 
What  I  learned  yesterday,  particularly  in  my 
conversation  with  the  member  for  Haldi- 
mand-Norfolk  (Mr.  G.  I.  Miller),  is  that  there 
is  a  great  need  for  understanding.  I  will 
address  that  issue  today  as  we  sum  up  in  our 
estimates.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  great 
need  for  understanding.  It  was  the  hand  of 
understanding  that  I  put  forward  on  Wed- 
nesday of  this  week  that  I  will  extend  over 
and  over  again.  There  is  nothing  that  de- 
mands the  attention  of  our  society  more  than 
treating  our  wastes  in  a  safe,  environmentally 
sound  and  proper  way.  That  is  the  dedication 
of  myself  and  this  government. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Since  the  minister  has  also  extended  the 
hand  of  understanding  to  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  resources  development  and  has 
suggested  the  committee  take  a  trip  with  the 
minister,  which  will  cost  several  tens  of 
thousands  of  dollars,  to  look  at  sites  in 
Europe,  can  the  minister  explain  what  rele- 
vance that  has  to  the  committee's  terms  of 
reference  which  are  to  look  at  the  adequacy 
of  the  alternative  hearings? 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  It  has  more  relevance 
than  a  lot  of  select  committees. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Premier  is  very  excited. 
Can  the  minister  explain  what  relevance  that 
has  to  the  terms  of  reference  of  the  com- 
mittee? Is  the  minister  not  trying  to  distract 
the  committee  from  looking  at  the  question 
of  whether  the  hearing  process  will  be  ade- 
quate to  protect  the  people  in  South  Cayu- 
ga and  the  people  of  the  province? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  what  that 
question  does  is  hit  at  the  very  heart  of  this 
problem.  What  the  committee  must  do  in  its 
deliberations  is  not  to  decide  what  was  wrong 
with  the  past,  wrong  as  it  is  and  has  been, 
but  what  can  be  done  for  the  future  and 
what  is  the  appropriate  way  of  dealing  with 
that  problem.  The  best  illustration  of  build- 
ing a  new  world,  of  building  a  new  concept 
in  our  society  for  chemicals  that  must  be 
treated  to  safeguard  our  health  and  safety 
will  be  by  looking  at  the  best  facilities  in 
the  world. 

As  I  see  it,  we  will  improve  where  possible 
and  copy  where  it  is  impossible  to  improve. 
There  is  no  more  relevant  thing  for  that 
committee  to  do  than  to  make  a  trip  to  where 
we  think  the  facilities  are  the  best.  If  they 
have  a  better  suggestion  we  will  adopt  it. 
That  puts  challenges  before  this  House,  be- 
fore the  committee.  I  am  hopeful  that  as  the 
member    starts    to    understand    in    its    true 


impact  what  this  committee  could  do  for  the 
future  generations  of  our  province,  for  every 
man,  woman  and  child,  he  will  see  that  is 
the  way  to  go  and  will  be  glad  to  be  a 
part  of  it. 
10:50  a.m. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Is  the  minister  aware  that  when  the 
NDP  referred  this  matter  to  the  committee 
and  when  it  drew  up  the  terms  of  reference, 
it  included  a  review  of  the  technology?  I 
am  wondering  how  the  committee  is  to  re- 
view the  technology  when  its  members  have 
no  idea  what  we  are  talking  about. 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  That  has  never  stopped 
them  before. 

Interjections. 

Mr.   Speaker:    Order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  not  sure  that  this 
will  be  my  last  question  before  Christmas, 
but  I  think  it  would  be  a  great  thing  if 
it  were  this  morning.  I  thought  that  was  a 
terrific  question.  I  totally  agree  with  the 
member.  We  have  a  spirit  of  Christmas 
here    already. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Forgetting  questions  from  members  who 
cannot  read,  I  would  like  to  return  to  the 
original  issue  of  the  hearings. 

Going  over  the  minister's  original  state- 
ment of  November  25  and  everything  he 
has  said  since  that  day,  it  is  clear  he  has 
not  excluded  the  possibility  of  a  hearing 
before  the  Environmental  Assessment  Board 
under  the  Environmental  Protection  Act. 
Will  the  minister  consider  the  possibility  of 
that  route  and  is  that,  indeed,  his  final  back- 
up position  if  the  pressure  is  maintained  on 
him? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  prepared  to  ac- 
cept the  pressures.  I  am  prepared  to  make 
whatever  necessary  time  is  required  and 
available  to  deal  with  the  problem  in  its 
entirety.  The  one  thing  I  am  not  prepared 
to  do  is  allow  the  focus  to  centre  on  the 
ills  of  yesterday.  Should  there  be  any  doubt 
about  that?  It  has  been  a  long  and  interest- 
ing session  and  that  is  frequently  what  has 
transpired  in  this  Legislature. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  can  understand  that, 
but  what  is  required  now  is  not  to  focus 
on  the  ills  of  yesterday. 

Mr.   S.   Smith:   They  are  your  ills. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  They  are  society's  ills 
and  the  member  knows  it.  The  truth  of  the 
matter  is,  if  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  Party 
would  only  take  the  blinders  off  just  for  a 


5312 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


few  minutes,  he  would  quickly  realize  that 
they  are  problems  across  North  America 
and,  thank  God,  Ontario  does  not  even  come 
close  to  the  problems  of  other  jurisdictions. 
Mr.  Cassidy:  I  cannot  help  thinking,  Mr. 
Speaker,  that  the  Minister  of  the  Environ- 
ment is  part  of  the  legacy  of  the  past,  and 
that  is  one  of  the  problems  we  have  with 
this    government. 

USE   OF  ASBESTOS  IN   SCHOOLS 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Education.  With  re- 
spect to  her  statement  yesterday  that  she  is 
prepared  to  rely  on  local  school  boards  for 
the  curbing  of  the  asbestos  problems  in  the 
schools,  does  the  minister  recall  the  direc- 
tive that  was  sent  to  local  directors  of  edu- 
cation in  October,  which  said  specifically 
that  it  is  essential  that  all  safety  precautions 
be  enforced  when  asbestos  work  is  carried 
out  and  which  referred  specifically  to  work 
procedures,  protective  clothing,  protective 
coverings  for  walls,  the  method  of  disposing 
of  asbestos  and  the  use  of  warning  and 
danger  signs  and  the  final  building  cleaning 
procedures? 

Given  that  the  Windsor  Board  of  Educa- 
tion has  now  admitted  that  it  did  not  follow 
those  recommended  procedures  and  has 
said  that  it  sees  the  directives  only  as  guide- 
lines and  not  as  being  things  it  has  to  fol- 
low, will  the  minister  now  admit  that  her 
reliance  on  local  school  boards,  like  Wind- 
sor's, may  be  endangering  the  health  and 
safety  of  school  children  and  of  school 
board  employees  in  areas  where  asbestos 
is  present? 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  after 
two  and  a  half  years  of  dealing  with  the 
elected  representatives  in  the  school  boards 
of  this  province,  I  cannot  agree  with  the 
kind  of  innuendo  the  leader  of  the  third  party 
is  making.  The  vast  majority  of  school  trus- 
tees in  this  province  are  extremely  respon- 
sible human  beings.  They  do  not  seek  that 
job  for  personal  glory.  They  seek  it  because 
they  are  interested  in  children.  I  do  not 
believe  I  could  ever  support  the  kind  of 
statement  the  leader  of  the  third  party  has 
made. 

II  believe  that  in  Windsor,  that  board  will 
be  making,  if  it  has  not  made  already,  con- 
certed efforts  to  deal  appropriately  with  the 
problem  of  asbestos  following  the  guidelines 
produced  by  the  Ministry  of  Education. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  Windsor  Board  of  Edu- 
cation has  admitted  it  did  not  respect  the 
guidelines  that  were  laid  down  by  the  minis- 


try. The  union  tells  us  there  is  a  series  of 
violations;  quite  specifically  almost  every  one 
of  the  directives  has  been  violated.  The  Min- 
istry of  Labour's  occupational  health  divi- 
sion states  that  even  a  very  brief  exposure 
to  asbestos  may  cause  mesothelioma  30  or 
50  years  later.    - 

Given  those  facts  and  given  the  danger 
that  school  children  and  school  board  em- 
ployees are  put  into,  does  this  not  indicate 
that  the  asbestos  program  should  be  super- 
vised by  the  provincial  government  rather 
than  being  delegated  to  local  school  boards? 
Then  the  minister  says,  "Well,  it  is  not  my 
responsibility,  it  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
school  boards." 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I 
think  I  said  very  early  that  it  was  a  shared 
responsibility  and  one  I  assume  because  I 
feel  it  is  important.  However,  I  do  hope  the 
leader  of  the  third  party  is  very  much  aware 
that  he  has  been  living  with  natural  asbestos 
as  a  result  of  the  structure  of  the  earth  on 
which  he  lives  for  all  of  his  life. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like  to 
ask  the  minister  if  there  is  some  confusion 
over  this  very  important  matter  of  asbestos 
in  the  schools  and  how  it  is  affecting  the 
children  in  the  schools,  why  does  she  not 
contact  the  Windsor  Board  of  Education  and 
get  a  very  clear  overview  of  what  it  has 
done  or  not  done  and  report  back  to  the 
House?  Or,  since  the  House  is  going  to 
adjourn,  the  minister  could  possibly  write  to 
the  members  for  the  Windsor-Essex  county 
area  and  infonn  them  of  exactly  what  has  or 
has  not  been  done,  and  whether  she  is  satis- 
fied with  all  the  precautions,  investigations 
and  circumstances  that  have  surrounded  this 
matter  and  have  taken  place  since  she  issued 
this  particular  order  to  all  the  boards. 

Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  ap- 
proximately three  weeks  ago  I  did  have  an 
opportunity  to  discuss  this  matter  with  rep- 
resentatives of  both  boards  in  Windsor.  I 
was  assured  the  procedures  had  been  fol- 
lowed with  some  care.  I  can  most  certainly 
double  check  that  report  which  I  received. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Mr.  Speaker,  supplementary: 
Could  we  have  a  firm  assurance  from  this 
minister  that  she  will  thoroughly  investigate 
what  happened  in  Windsor— that  they  did  not 
follow  her  guidelines— and  what  training  they 
gave  to  the  one  employee  whom  they  sent 
out  to  do  some  checking,  so  that  the  people 
of  Windsor  can  be  assured  that  the  proper 
checking  will  now  occur  and  that  the  stu- 
dents and  the  workers  are  not  being  exposed 
to  asbestos,  particularly  in  as  much  as,  in- 
credibly,  the   Windsor   Board   of   Education 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5313 


has  now  disciplined  the  employee  who  did 
the  initial  checks  for  it?  They  gave  the  em- 
ployee virtually  no  training  in  testing  or  in 
what  to  look  for,  and  did  not  provide  that 
employee  with  the  required  safety  equipment 
Hon.  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is 
the  same  question.  I  think  I  have  already 
answered  it. 

EMPLOYMENT   AGENCIES 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Labour  about  the 
enforcement  of  the  Human  Rights  Code  for 
people  who  are  looking  for  jobs. 

Can  the  minister  explain  why,  despite 
the  provisions  of  the  Human  Rights  Code, 
seven  of  the  10  employment  agencies  that 
were  contacted  a  few  weeks  ago  by  the 
Canadian  Civil  Liberties  Association  here  in 
Metropolitan  Toronto  were  prepared  to  dis- 
criminate against  non whites,  and  only  one 
of  the  10  agencies  refused  to  do  so?  Will 
the  minister  tell  us  what  action  the  govern- 
ment is  now  prepared  to  take  in  order  to 
eliminate  that  outrageous  abuse  of  civil 
liberties  in   Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all, 

I  think  the  member  and  the  House  should 
know  that  this  is  a  matter  that  has  con- 
cerned me  and  has  concerned  the  Ontario 
Human   Rights   Commission  for  some  time. 

II  a.m. 

I  think  it  was  three  or  four  years  ago 
that  the  Canadian  Civil  Liberties  Associa- 
tion first  conducted  a  survey  in  which  it 
found  the  kind  of  information  to  which 
the  member  is  referring.  The  problem  then, 
as  is  the  problem  with  the  most  recent  in- 
formation, was  that  they  themselves  admit 
it  was  obtained  by  what  is  called  an  en- 
trapment technique  and  is  not  therefore 
deemed  by  them,  as  well  as  by  us,  to  be 
the  kind  of  way  one  can  go  about  proving 
this.  That  has  been  the  problem  all  along. 
How  do  you  find  accurate  ways  of  auditing 
the  practices  of  certain  employment  agen- 
cies when  the  records  that  are  kept  are 
very  sparse?  There  is  just  not  enough  there 
to  check  and  confirm  the  charges. 

We  had  an  independent  review  carried 
out  last  year  and  about  four  or  five  months 
ago  the  director  of  the  employment  stan- 
dards branch  spoke  to  the  employment  agen- 
cies association  indicating  to  them  that 
these  practices  were  unacceptable  and  that 
we  would  be  proceeding  with  a  method  to 
try  to  give  us  the  means  of  countering  it. 
That  is  what  we  are  now  in  the  midst  of 
doing.  It  is  necessary  for  us  to  have  infor- 


mation on  employment  agencies  so  that  we 
can  audit  and  determine  whether  or  not 
there  have  been  offences  under  the  Ontario 
Human  Rights  Code  and  more  significantly, 
under  the  Employment  Agencies  Act,  be- 
cause that  is  where  the  licence  is  issued 
and  that  is  where  it  has  to  be  revoked. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Could  the  minister  explain 
why  it  took  five  years  of  complaints  and 
repeated  surveys  by  the  Canadian  Civil 
Liberties  Association  determining  that  there 
is  a  problem  of  major  proportions,  that  it 
continues  and  that  there  is  habitual  readi- 
ness on  the  part  of  employment  agencies  to 
screen  out  nonwhites  when  they  deal  with 
people  who  are  job  applicants,  and  when 
the  problem  has  been  there  for  so  long,  why 
has  the  ministry  come  to  grips  with  it  only 
in  the  last  few  months? 

Why  is  the  minister  not  prepared  to  re- 
quire a  monitoring  procedure  by  the  Human 
Rights  Code  and  to  amend  the  Employment 
Agencies  Act  in  order  to  ensure  that  em- 
ployment agencies  have  to  produce  the  in- 
formation on  which  monitoring  can  be 
based? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Let  me  reiterate  that  it 
is  easy  to  say  it  is  going  on.  I  happen  to 
think  there  is  good  substantiation  of  that, 
but  even  the  Canadian  Civil  Liberties  As- 
sociation agrees  that  the  method  by  which 
it  obtained  that  information  is  not  accept- 
able for  human  rights  decisions  nor  for 
some  decisions  under  the  Employment 
Agencies  Act.  It  is  information  obtained 
by  entrapment.  Let  there  be  no  doubt  that 
it  is  this  government's  intention,  it  is  the 
Ontario  Human  Rights  Commission's  inten- 
tion and  it  is  njy  intention  as  the  minister 
in  charge  of  the  Employment  Agencies  Act 
to   correct  that  situation. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Would  the  minister  not 
agree  that  if  the  best  technique  of  deter- 
mining whether  or  not  employment  agencies 
are  prepared  to  accept  discriminatory  job 
listings  is  in  fact  to  phone  them  up  and  to 
ask  them,  and  if  that  practice  has  repeatedly 
indicated  that  willingness  exists,  then  should 
the  employment  agencies  not  be  told  that 
technique  will  be  used  in  the  future  and  be 
warned  that  that  technique  will  be  used? 

And  should  not  the  human  rights  com- 
mission start  a  program  of  going  out,  rather 
than  waiting  for  complaints,  which  by  their 
nature,  can  never  be  filed  because  job  ap- 
plicants never  know  whether  or  not  employ- 
ment agencies  are  actively  discriminating? 
Why  can  we  not  tell  the  employment  agen- 
cies that  we  are  going  to  do  this  and  then 
go  ahead  and  curb  this  practice  now? 


5314 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  can  only  reiterate  that 
we  told  them  very  clearly  that  we  have 
reason  to  believe  there  are  some  practices 
going  on  that  are  unacceptable.  The  member 
for  Bellwoods  (Mr.  McClellan)  should  not 
shake  his  head,  because  this  is  a  problem 
that  I  am  addressing  very  seriousV-  The 
member  for  Nickel  Belt  (Mr.  Laughren) 
shakes  his  head  because  I  understand  he 
has  fundamental  health  problems.  That  fel- 
low from  Bellwoods  does  not,  unless  he  gets 
nasty  and  then  he  loses  control  totally.  The 
fellow  from  Nickel  Belt  just  has  a  tremor 
of  the  head.  He  says  no  to  everything. 

I  know  that  everything  is  simple  and 
straightforward  to  the  member,  but  the 
problem  is  how  to  get  evidence  that  one 
can  use  in  a  court  or  before  a  board  of 
inquiry.  I  understand  some  of  that  but  I 
do  not  always  accept  the  suggestions  and 
I  suspect  the  member  does  not  either,  be- 
cause on  occasion  the  member  shows  some 
common  sense  and  therefore  he  could  not 
accept  them  all  of  the  time.  We  will  have 
that  matter  solved,  because  if  those  prac- 
tices are  going  on  we  will  stop  them. 

RAPE  EXAMINATIONS 

Mr,  Stong:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  November  3, 
in  the  absence  of  the  Solicitor  General  and 
Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry),  I  asked 
a  question  of  the  Premier  with  respect  to 
rape  investigations.  I  asked  the  Premier  to 
name  the  hospitals  which  refused  to  co- 
operate with  the  investigative  authorities. 
I  also  asked  him  to  instruct  his  Attorney 
General  to  lay  charges  of  obstructing  jus- 
tice against  doctors  who  refused  to  co- 
operate with  investigating  authorities,  and 
to  instruct  his  Attorney  General  to  elimi- 
nate the  use  of  lie  detectors  when  investi- 
gating the  victims  of  rape. 

In  answer  to  my  question  at  that  time— 
and  I  read  from  Hansard,  page  3992— the 
Premier  said:  "If  I  happen  to  be  talking  to 
either  the  Solicitor  General  or  the  Attor- 
ney General  in  the  next  day  or  so  before 
he  returns  from  Victoria  or  Vancouver,  I 
will  get  that  information  for  the  member. 
If  I  am  not  able  to  do  so,  I  can  assure  the 
member  I  will  get  a  copy  of  the  question 
to  the  minister  and  he  will  have  a  full 
answer  for  the  member  on  his  return." 

The  minister  has  come  and  gone,  and  that 
question  has  not  been  answered.  In  so  far 
as  the  Premier  has  not  been  able  to  con- 
vince his  minister  to  fulfil  his  assurance, 
will  the  Premier  now  answer  those  questions 
and  give  those  assurances  on  this  last  day  of 
the  session? 


Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  com- 
municate this  concern  to  the  ministry.  I 
must  confess  I  do  have  a  problem  in  that 
the  Attorney  General  and  the  Solicitor  Gen- 
eral are  both  suffering  from  the  same  prob- 
lem. They  have  the  flu. 

The  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  (Mr. 
Walker)  is  here  and  might  have  some- 
Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  some  material 
here— 

Interjection. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Does  the  honourable 
member  want  an  answer? 

Mr.  Stong:  I  do. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  have  the  courtesy  of 
listening   then. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  I  have  certain  material 
here  I  would  like  to  assess  myself,  and  I 
will  undertake  to  communicate  if  the  At- 
torney General  is  not  well  by  Christmas.  I 
will  get  some  information  to  the  member 
before  December  25.  The  provincial  sec- 
retary may  want  to  reply.  If  he  does  not, 
I  will  get  it  to  the  member  before  Christ- 
mas. I  think  the  Attorney  General  will  be 
well  shortly. 

AUTO  PRODUCTION 

Mr.  Bounsall:  A  question  of  the  Minister 
of  Industry  and  Tourism,  Mr.  Speaker:  Since 
the  new  year  will  start  off  looking  very  bleak 
for  Windsor  auto  workers,  with  the  an- 
nouncement by  Chrysler  that  following  the 
Christmas  break  there  will  be  a  plant  shut- 
down in  the  car  area  for  two  weeks  and  in  the 
van  plant  for  one,  and  with  all  indications  that 
this  is  just  the  tip  of  the  iceberg  for  North 
American  and  Canadian  auto  production, 
with  the  Canadian  production  being  well 
down  this  year  over  last,  will  the  minister 
now  stop  telling  us  that  everything  is  going 
to  be  okay  for  the  future  and  develop 
specific  programs  to  revitalize  Canadian  auto 
production  and  specific  employment  and 
assistance  programs  for  laid-off  Chrysler 
workers  in  Windsor  and  all  other  auto  work- 
ers in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  lat- 
ter part  of  the  question  is  not  my  respon- 
sibility. I  will  deal  with  the  former  part.  The 
fact  is  that  when  one  looks  at  the  automo- 
tive sector  in  North  America,  Ontario  still 
continues  to  outperform  every  other  juris- 
diction with  automotive  production. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No.  You  are  wrong. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  member  knows 
it  is  true.  Just  look  at  the  figures.  The  figures 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5315 


are  absolutely  true.  What  are  we  looking  at 
now?  About  9,000  or  8,000  people  on  layoff 
in  Ontario  as  opposed  to  about  180,000  in 
the  United  States.  In  an  industry  that  is 
about  a  1:10  ratio. 

Second,  I  challenge  the  member  to  find 
another  jurisdiction  or  another  government 
that  has  as  many  important  initiatives  in  the 
auto  sector  as  we  have  going  for  us.  I  refer, 
of  course,  to  the  auto  parts  technical  centre; 
to  the  very  many  recommendations  we  have 
put  forward  to  the  federal  government  in 
terms  of  getting  further  undertakings  under 
the  auto  pact;  to  our  initiative  in  taking  a 
great  number  of  auto  parts  people  to  SITEV 
in  Geneva  last  year;  to  the  fact  that  we  have 
attracted  SITEV  North  America,  the  first 
one  ever,  to  Toronto  next  year,  to  make  sure 
that  the  major  automotive  parts  manufac- 
turers' decision  makers  are  here  in  this  mu- 
nicipality, in  this  province;  and  to  the  very 
many  efforts  currently  under  way  to  bring 
those  people  to  Ontario  to  look  at  places  to 
invest.  Windsor  is  chief  among  them. 

As  the  member  knows,  the  industrial  de- 
velopment commissioner  has  just  returned  to 
this  province  after  a  very  successful  mission 
overseas  to  try  to  attract  some— I  hate  to 
say  it  to  the  member,  but  I  know  he  now 
wants  it— foreign  investment  in  the  auto 
parts  sector  into  his  area  of  the  province. 
11:10  a.m. 

I  think  too  of  the  extensive  promotion 
campaign  we  have  had  to  promote  the  duty 
remission  program  all  over  the  world,  which 
is  beginning  to  show  some  return.  There 
are  so  many  initiatives  going  on  in  that  par- 
ticular sector.  I  simply  say  to  the  member 
that  we  do  have  a  comprehensive  set  of  ini- 
tiatives. I  would  invite  him,  if  he  thinks 
there  are  any  lacking  in  that  sector,  to  rise 
and  indicate  where  he  thinks  they  are  lack- 
ing and  we  will  be  pleased  to  consider  them. 
I  suspect  he  cannot  think  of  an  initiative  in 
that  sector  we  have  not  already  adopted. 

Mr.  Bounsall:  Concerning  the  initiatives 
asked  for  and  the  seriousness  of  the  Chrysler 
situation,  is  the  minister  aware  of  the  feasi- 
bility study  in  progress  concerning  the  sale 
by  Chrysler  of  its  Windsor  spring  plant  to 
National  Auto  Radiator?  What  will  the  min- 
ister do  to  assist  that  plant  to  stay  under 
Chrysler's  jurisdicion,  to  assist  that  sale  if 
that  is  the  only  way  to  keep  that  plant  in 
production  and,  if  that  sale  has  to  take  place, 
to  ensure  that  the  displaced  Chrysler  work- 
ers will  have  jobs  under  the  new  owners? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  can  assure  the 
member  that  we  will  use  the  money  we  did 
not   spend  in   an  ill-fated   attempt  to   give 


more  money  to  Chrysler  and  apply  that  to 
whatever  constructive  proposals  can  be 
brought  forward,  be  it  the  continuation  of 
that  plant  under  Chrysler  auspices  or  under 
new  auspices,  to  make  sure  the  plant  is 
economically  feasible,  well-funded  and  can 
provide  secure  employment  for  all  the  work- 
ers in  that  area  in  the  future. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speak- 
er: Can  the  minister  tell  me  when  he  ex- 
pects to  be  going  ahead  with  plans  for  a 
research  and  development  centre  in  the 
Windsor  area  that  he  had  made  in  agree- 
ment with   Chrysler? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  our 
agreement  with  Chrysler  requires  that  we 
do  not  put  up  any  money  until  Chrysler 
begins  to  put  up  some  money  and  then  we 
pay  our  money  dollar  for  dollar.  We  are  in 
contact  with  Chrysler  to  see  what  their 
current  intentions  are.  I  am  informed  their 
current  intentions  are  to  go  ahead  with 
that  facility  some  time  in  the  next  year 
and  a  half.  Obviously,  pending  certain 
other  decisions  with  regard  to  restructuring 
the  company,  which  I  do  not  know  to  be 
accurate,  but  I  hear  about,  that  facility 
could  be  brought  into  question. 

In  any  case,  if  that  facility  is  not  built 
we  will  not  be  putting  in  any  money.  I 
should  add,  in  the  event  the  facility  is  not 
built  that  will  increase  the  need  for  the 
auto  parts  technical  centre.  I  would  expect 
some  of  the  money  that  might  otherwise 
have  been  applied  to  the  Chrysler  facility 
to  be  applied  to  an  expanded  auto  parts 
technical    centre. 

SERVICES  TO  MENTALLY  RETARDED 

Mr.  Blundy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  Community  and 
Social  Services.  In  view  of  the  minister's 
commitment  made  in  the  House  on  May  20 
that  400  mentally  retarded  residents  under 
the  age  of  21  in  homes  for  special  care  and 
in  nursing  homes  would  be  assessed  and 
programs  would  be  started,  will  the  min- 
ister now  tell  us  how  many  of  these  assess- 
ments have  been  made  and  how  many  of 
these  residents  are  now  having  the  benefit 
of  some  programming  in  these  homes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  unfor- 
tunately, I  am  not  in  a  position  to  give  the 
honourable  member  a  current  figure  in  terms 
of  the  specific  number  of  assessments  as  of 
today,  but  I  can  assure  him  that  the  assess- 
ments are  well  under  way.  There  is  a  series 
of  at  least  three  assessments  being  done  on 
each  individual  child  involved,  and  all  three 


5316 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


phases  of  those  assessments  are  well  under 
way. 

Mr.  Blundy:  The  minister  did  say  that 
these  assessments  of  their  needs  would  be 
done  by  September  30.  Therefore,  I  would 
like  to  ask  as  a  supplementary  what  are 
the  number  of  children  in  that  group  and 
whether  these  children  at  least  have  had 
their  assessments  completed  and  their  pro- 
gramming  started? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think 
that  is  a  repeat  of  the  first  question  actually. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Yes.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  minister  will  recall  this  was 
a  matter  raised  at  length  by  myself  during 
the  estimates  debate.  May  I  ask  the  min- 
ister to  communicate  with  both  opposition 
critics  as  soon  as  the  assessments  have  been 
completed  and  to  provide  detailed  informa- 
tion on  the  programs  which  are  going  to 
be  made  available  for  each  and  every  one 
of  these  children? 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Yes,  Mr.  Speaker.  I 
certainly  will  communicate  to  the  honour- 
able members  at  the  time  of  the  comple- 
tion of  the  assessments.  I  expect  that  will 
be  at  some  time  during  the  recess  of  the 
Legislature. 

DIOXIN  TESTING 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  question 
for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  on  the 
matter  of  dioxin  testing  in  Lake  Ontario 
fish.  Is  it  true  that  the  minister  is  withhold- 
ing the  results  of  the  tests  until  it  is  decided 
what  the  minister  is  going  to  say  about  the 
health  effects?  If  it  is,  does  the  minister  not 
think  that  the  public  has  a  right  to  know 
and  to  consult  with  experts  outside  the 
ministry?  Will  the  minister  release  the  data 
on  dioxin  levels  in  Lake  Ontario  fish  that 
he  has  today,  and  will  the  minister  release 
future  findings  from  the  laboratory  as  they 
become  available? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  think  I 
know  the  reason  for  that  question  and  I 
understand  the  question,  but  I  think  it  was 
answered  in  detail  the  other  day.  Of  course 
we  will  release  those  findings.  That  was  said 
here.  I  think  you  would  agree  with  me  that 
this  is  a  new  facility  and  it  is  extremely  im- 
portant that  we  have  the  tests  done  well.  It 
would  be  just  as  wrong  to  have  a  figure  put 
out  that  was  not  accurate,  and  I  am  sure 
the  member  opposite  would  be  just  as  ap- 
palled as  I.  If,  on  the  basis  of  two  or  three 
samples,  we  said  it  was  very  low  and  sub- 
sequently had  to  amend  it,  that  would  offend 


the  member.  If  on  the  other  hand,  it  was 
too  high  and  we  had  to  amend  it  when  the 
proper  sample  was  completed,  then  that 
would  be  a  bad  event.  Of  course  we  will 
release  those  results  when  the  sample  size 
is  sufficient  to  be  accurate. 

Secondly,  on  December  19,  as  I  said  the 
other  day,  this  ministry,  along  with  the 
federal  ministry  and  other  agencies  of  other 
provinces,  will  meet  so  that  we  can  release 
not  only  the  figures  but  also  the  data  relative 
to  the  significance  of  those  figures  to  health. 
It  is  important  not  only  to  know  the  figures 
but  also  to  know  the  relevance  of  those 
figures  to  human  health.  That  is  what  will 
be  done  following  December  19.  Those 
figures  will  always  be  released  to  the  pub- 
lic, as  all  of  our  water  sampling  figures  have 
been.  There  has  never  been  any  doubt  about 
that  at  all. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  I  am  confused  by  the  minis- 
ter's reference  to  sample  size.  If  he  is  talk- 
ing about  more  than  one  sample  from  one 
fish,  then  it  is  certainly  relevant  to  test  on 
the  basis  of  multiple  samples  from  a  single 
fish.  But  if  he  is  talking  about  sampling  the 
fish  in  Lake  Ontario,  then  it  is  going  to  be 
a  very  long  time  before  the  ministry  will  be 
able  to  test  a  truly  representative  sample. 
Indeed,  the  dioxin  may  not  be  distributed 
uniformly  among  all  fish. 

If  we  already  have  a  test  which  shows  fish 
from  Lake  Ontario  has,  let  me  say  just  for 
example,  a  level  of  20  parts  per  trillion  of 
dioxin,  then  does  the  minister  not  think  the 
public  has  the  right  to  know  that  fish  was 
caught  in  Lake  Ontario?  If  there  is  one  with 
20  parts  per  trillion,  there  might  be  another 
one  with  40  parts  per  trillion,  and  it  might 
be  the  one  I  am  going  to  have  for  supper 
tonight. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  am  embarrassed.  I  do 
not  want  that  to  happen.  This  is  far  too 
close  to  Christmas  for  any  such  nonsense. 
No,  let  us  be  serious  about  this. 

What  I  was  saying,  and  I  hope  it  makes 
scientific  sense,  is  that  when  one  has  such 
sophisticated  new  equipment  it  is  extremely 
important  to  be  sure  that  the  equipment  is 
working  appropriately  and  very  accurately. 
We  have  done  that  with  water.  I  think  I 
have  tried  to  update  the  House  all  the  way 
along  the  piece  that,  first  of  all,  we  were 
doing  it  with  simulated  components,  then 
with  actual  samples  of  water  and  now  we 
are  into  the  fish  testing  programs.  But  we 
want  to  be  sure  that  our  measurement 
methods  are  absolutely  failsafe,  100  per  cent 
reliable.  When  we  have  done  that  to  our 
satisfaction,  regardless  of  what  measurements 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5317 


are  there,  we  will  certainly  put  them  out  for 
public  consumption.  In  the  meantime,  I  think 
I  can  predict  safely  that  the  member  can 
have  as  many  fish  as  he  wants  from  Lake 
Ontario.  Go  ahead. 
11:20  a.m. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  Supplementary,  Mr.  Speaker: 
Does  the  minister  intend  to  get  in  touch 
with  the  occupational  health  and  safety 
branch  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour  to  get  its 
opinion  as  to  the  possible  health  effects  of 
dioxin  found  in  the  amounts  in  which  it 
has  been  discovered? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  that  is 
the  whole  point  of  the  December  19  meet- 
ing. As  I  said  in  my  previous  answer,  I 
think  it  is  important  not  only  to  know  the 
measurements  but  the  significance  of  those 
in  a  health  sense.  That  is  what  the  Decem- 
ber 19  meeting  is  to  do. 

Mr.   Gaunt:  Are  they  going  to  be  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  They  will  be  there  and 
the  federal  government  is  going  to  be  there. 
We  think  it  is  very  important  to  have  that 
very  well  co-ordinated  and  understood.  Just 
the  measurement  itself  would  not  be  of 
great  significance.  The  effects  on  human 
health  must  also  be  thoroughly  reviewed  to 
make  sure  we  are  dealing  with  the  right 
standards.  That  will  happen  on  December  19. 

SCA  PIPELINE 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion for  the  Minister  of  the  Environment. 
Is  the  minister  aware  of  the  statement  made 
last  Friday  by  Mr.  Tom  Cleary,  an  officer 
in  the  state  of  New  York,  regarding  dump- 
ing of  supposedly  treated  waste  into  the 
Niagara  River  by  SCA  Chemical  Waste 
Services?  The  statement  was  that  he  will 
not  reopen  the  hearings  just  because  Mr. 
Roberts,  the  federal  minister,  sent  him  a 
telegram  or  the  Ontario  minister  may  have 
sent  a  telegram  somewhere.  He  must  have 
information  in  writing  to  show  cause  for 
the  reopening  of  the  hearings  and  new  evi- 
dence* that  has  not  been  put  before  that 
hearing  board  previously.  Is  the  minister 
aware  of  that  statement  and  what  is  he  go- 
ing to  do  about  it? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
certainly  aware  of  it  and  we  are  very  dis- 
appointed. I  am  surprised  we  have  not  had 
a  better  response.  I  would  have  thought, 
since  it  was  their  information  that  there 
was  TNT  supposedly  on  that  site,  they 
would  have  reopened  the  hearings.  I  am 
very  disappointed  about  that.  Of  course  they 


should  have  reopened  the  hearings.  That 
was  said  there,  and  it  is  a  very  serious  thing. 

If  there  was  the  best  of  systems,  if  TNT 
was  on  site  and  an  accident  occurred,  it 
would  not  matter.  I  think  that  is  obvious. 
We  want  those  hearings  reopened.  I  do  not 
have  the  evidence  that  there  is  TNT  there. 
That  was  supplied  by  other  sources.  We  are 
saying  we  want  to  know  whether  there  was 
or  there  was  not.  It  is  absolutely  imperative 
that  we  know. 

The  member  for  Brock  (Mr.  Welch)  has 
been  pressing  on  this  point  and  we  have 
made  as  much  effort  as  we  think  is  humanly 
possible.  I  bet  the  minister  of  the  federal 
government  cannot  say  he  has  been  in  Al- 
bany. I  do  not  know;  I  am  just  willing  to 
bet  on  that.  I  know  I  have  been  there,  I 
have  pressed  it,  and  I  will  continue  to  press 
it. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Will  the  minister  take  all  the 
evidence  he  has  and  will  he  insist  that  the 
evidence  the  federal  government  has  is  put 
before  the  hearing  officer  before  closure, 
given  the  willingness  of  that  officer  to  open 
the  hearings  if  proper  evidence  is  put  before 
him?  Will  the  minister  do  everything  in  his 
power  to  convince  his  people  and  the  fed- 
eral people  to  get  every  bit  of  evidence  they 
have  before  Mr.  Cleary  prior  to  December 
20? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  said  that  previously. 
Of  course  we  will.  That  is  what  it  has  all 
been   about. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  You  haven't  done  it  yet. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  We  cannot  do  more. 
We  have  telegrammed  the  commission,  we 
have  been  there  and  we  are  saying  we  want 
an  answer  on  whether  there  is  TNT  on  that 
site  or  not,  yes  or  no.  Only  a  hearing  or 
direct  evidence  would  tell  us  that.  They 
have  that  evidence,  yes  or  no.  I  do  not  have 
it.  I  hope  that  is  also  obvious.  They  have 
that  evidence  and  they  must  tell  us  whether 
they  have  it  or  not. 

I  think  the  member  should  also  be  raising 
a  little  more  hell  with  his  federal  member 
from  that  area  so  that  he  gets  in  touch  with 
Mr.  Roberts  as  well.  We  agree  it  must  be 
answered. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  have  asked  for  his  resigna- 
tion too. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Now  the  member  is 
starting  to  make  sense. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  By  way  of  supplementary, 
Mr.  Speaker,  does  the  minister  not  feel  he  is 
on  slightly  weak  ground  in  demanding  they 
reopen  hearings  in  the  United  States  into 
the  toxic  waste  facility  on  their  side  of  the 


5318 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Great  Lakes  when  the  minister  will  not  even 
hold  hearings  on  a  similar  facility  on  our 
side  of  the  Great  Lakes? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are 
having  hearings  on  this  side.  The  truth  of 
the  matter  is  they  are  more  significant  hear- 
ings than  were  held  on  that  site  there.  That 
happens  to  be  the  fact. 

It  is  easy  to  disguise  that  a  little.  Maybe 
the  member  would  like  to  be  part  of  those 
hearings  and  to  put  some  of  the  evidence 
on  the  record  as  to  where  he  would  locate 
this  facility.  He  has  been  very  silent  on  that 
point. 

AID  TO  PENSIONERS 

Ms.  Bryden:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion to  the  Minister  of  Revenue.  Will  the 
minister  confirm  that  recipients  of  family 
benefits  who  are  eligible  for  seniors'  tax 
grants  will  not  receive  their  cheques  until 
some  time  in  January,  even  though  he  has 
assured  the  House  many  times  that  he  is 
endeavouring  to  mail  out  all  cheques  before 
the  end  of  this  year? 

Does  he  think  family  benefits  recipients 
should  be  treated  as  second-class  citizens 
and  put  at  the  end  of  the  line? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Of  course  I  do  not  think 
that,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  I  cannot  give  the 
member  the  guarantee  that  everyone  will 
get  the  property  tax  grant  before  the  end 
of  the  year.  There  are  mistakes  in  some 
applications,  and  those  things  have  to  be 
processed.  In  some  cases  we  are  not  able  to 
locate  the  people  who  have  applied.  We 
have  tried  telephoning;  we  have  written  to 
them;  in  some  cases  we  are  sending  people 
to  the  door  to  try  to  resolve  these  issues. 

I  cannot  guarantee  that  everyone  will  be 
serviced  by  the  end  of  the  year.  There  are 
still  200  to  300  applications  a  day  coming 
into  the  ministry— people  who  are  just  now 
applying.  There  is  no  way  I  can  guarantee 
all  of  them  will  be  completed  by  the  end  of 
the  year. 

Ms.  Bryden:  With  regard  to  the  minister's 
reply  yesterday,  when  I  was  not  present,  to 
my  earlier  question  about  the  lack  of  checks 
on  payments,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  minis- 
ter if  he  thinks  he  will  avoid  the  embarrass- 
ment of  making  payments  to  deceased  and 
ineligible  persons  if  the  only  check  he  is 
making  is  on  a  July  tape  of  old  age  security 
recipients? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  In  my  reply  yesterday 
I  did  not  say  that  was  the  only  check  at 
all.  That  is  the  most  current  file  we  have— 
the  one  from  the  old  age  security,  the  fed- 


eral people.  We  cannot  check  with  a  file  we 
do  not  have.  But  we  are  using  other  means 
as  well. 

Mr.  Peterson:  A  supplementary,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Could  the  minister  tell  me  what 
response  I  should  give  to  those  people  who 
are  phoning  me  and  who  have  not  received 
their  cheques  yet?  We  promised  them,  on 
the  minister's  advice,  they  would  have  them 
by  the  end  of  November,  and  it  is  now  the 
middle  of  December,  and  it  looks  as  if  it 
will  be  some  time  in  January  before  they 
get  their  cheques. 

How  do  I  respond  to  those  people  who 
say,  "My  friends  received  their  cheques  in 
September,  and  I  am  losing  all  that 
interest"? 

Hon.  Mr.  Maeck:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  suggest 
the  member  get  in  touch  with  my  ministry 
and  we  will  resolve  the  matter.  However, 
his  other  response  should  be  that  there  was 
a  mistake  in  their  application,  and  that  is 
the  reason  they  have  not  received  their 
cheques.  With  applications  we  received  in 
which  there  was  no  mistake,  the  cheques 
have  all  gone  out.  The  ones  that  are  being 
processed  now  are  the  ones  where  there 
were  mistakes. 

ONTARIO  PRODUCE 

Mr.  Riddell:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  ques- 
tion of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food. 
It  pertains  to  the  import  replacement  policy 
the  minister  has  alluded  to  from  time  to 
time. 

At  this  time  of  year  the  student  coun- 
cils of  the  various  schools  across  the  prov- 
ince, in  order  to  raise  money,  sell  oranges 
and  grapefruit  to  those  people  living  in  the 
school  area.  Ontario  has  had  the  largest 
apple  crop  in  history  and  we  have  millions 
of  bushels  in  storage.  Does  the  minister  not 
think  it  would  be  a  good  idea  if  he,  in  a 
joint  effort  with  the  Minister  of  Education, 
were  to  write  to  the  schools,  strongly  ad- 
vocating that  they  raise  money  by  selling 
Ontario-grown  produce,  rather  than  some- 
thing grown  in  the  United  States? 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  can 
see  the  honourable  member  does  not  have 
the  Christmas  feeling  within  his  question 
this  morning.  Let  me  assure  the  member 
that,  as  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food, 
I  have  spoken  to  quite  a  number  of  the 
student  councils  and  reminded  them  they 
should  put  their  emphasis  on  an  Ontario 
product.  But  I  also  agreed  with  them  that, 
in  view  of  the  Christmas  spirit,  we  can 
overlook  situations  like  this. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5319 


11:30  a.m. 

Mr.  Riddell:  Dealing  further  with  the 
import  replacement  policy,  is  the  minister 
aware  that  in  eastern  Ontario  they  cannot 
grow  a  sufficient  acreage  of  soybeans  be- 
cause there  are  not  adequate  storage  facili- 
ties- 
Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  not  a  supplementary. 
You  have  gone  from  citrus  fruit  to  apples 
to  soybeans. 

Mr.  Riddell:  It  is  to  do  with  import  re- 
placement. It  is  all  good  food.  I  just  want 
money  for  storage  facilities. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  was  not  a  question  so  the 
minister  does  not  need  to  answer. 

FOOD  PROCESSING  MACHINERY 

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

Mr.    Wildman:    Now   there's    a   shrimp. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Speaker:  If  the  honourable  member 
hurries  he  just  might  get  his  question  in. 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  is  quite  a  burden  I  have 
to  carry  here. 

I  wonder  if  the  Minister  of  Industry  and 
Tourism  could  tell  me  if  he  is  aware  of  the 
dramatic  increase  in  the  imports  of  food 
processing  machinery  in  the  last  10  years? 
Is  he  aware  it  has  increased  by  368  per  cent 
and  that,  in  some  sectors,  it  has  increased 
four  and  five  times  within  the  food  process- 
ing machinery  sector?  Last  year  we  had  a 
deficit  of  $50  million  in  Ontario  alone.  Could 
the  minister  tell  us  what  he  is  doing  to  re- 
verse these  increasing  imports,  to  reduce  the 
deficit  and  to  increase  employment  in  this 
important  sector  of  the  Ontario  economy? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  I  want  to  give  a  short 
answer  Mr.  Speaker.  We  are  aware  of  those 
statistics  and  some  policies  are  being  worked 
on  in  Treasury  and  my  ministry.  The  bold 
new  initiatives  being  undertaken  by  the  Board 
of  Industrial  Leadership  and  Development 
under  the  chairmanship  of  the  Treasurer  (Mr. 
F.  S.  Miller)  will  have  some  announcements 
that  will  knock  the  member  right  back  on  his 
seat  come  the  new  year. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Given  that  answer  by  the 
minister,  how  can  he  justify  his  refusal  even 
to  answer  letters  going  back  to  October  23, 
1979,  June  13,  1980,  July  16,  1980,  October 
23,  1980,  from  Showkraft  Canada  which  is 
attempting  to  put  together  a  trade  show  for 
food  processing  machinery  and  asked  the 
minister  for  a  simple  endorsement,  a  sign  of 
support  for  this  trade  show?  Why  does  the 


minister  not  even  have  the  decency  to  reply 
to  these  letters? 

How  in  the  world  can  he  stand  up  and  say 
he  is  aware  of  the  problems  and  is  really 
attempting  to  do  something  about  them? 
Could  the  minister  explain  why  he  has  not 
bothered  to  answer  these  letters  and,  finally, 
when  is  he  going  to  carry  out  the  promises 
of  the  member  without  a  food  terminal  from 
Timmins  to  put  a  food  terminal  in  Timmins? 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  time  for  question  period 
has  elapsed.  Do  you  have  a  response? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I 
state  two  things  categorically?  First,  if  those 
letters  were  addressed  to  me  or  my  ministry 
they  have  not  gone  unanswered.  Secondly, 
in  view  of  the  fact  question  period  has  ex- 
pired, may  I  say  the  performance  this  session 
of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment  in  showing 
leadership  in  North  America  has  been  ab- 
solutely outstanding.  I  hope  members  will 
join  in  applauding  that  performance. 

OPINION  POLLS 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  point 
of  order.  On  November  21,  1980,  I  asked  the 
Premier  a  question  concerning  public  opinion 
polls.  The  Premier  indicated— he  never  pro- 
mises—that he  would  give  me  a  response  to 
my  question  in  setting  a  policy  in  which  his 
government,  using  taxpayers'  money  to  take 
public  opinion  polls,  would  make  those  pub- 
lic opinion  polls  public  and  table  them  in  the 
Legislature. 

Mr.  Speaker:  What  is  the  member's  point 
of  order? 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  The  Premier  promised  me 
a  response  by  today,  Mr.  Speaker,  and  I  have 
not  had  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  say 
to  the  honourable  member  that  my  position  is 
the  same.  We  are  still  assessing  it. 

SUPERMARKET  PRICING  SYSTEMS 

Mr.  Swart:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
privilege:  Instant  Hansard  yesterday  showed 
that  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  gave  an  unqualified  commit- 
ment that  he  would  today  answer  my  ques- 
tion relative  to  the  errors  in  computer  check- 
out systems.  I  would  put  it  on  record  that  not 
only  does  he  not  do  anything  about  consumer 
prices,  he  does  not  even  answer  the  questions 
any  more. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  first  of  all,  the 
question  was  so  cockeyed  that  I  did  not  finish 
reading  it  until  11:30  last  night.  I  could  have 
given   an  answer   today  but   I   thought  the 


5320 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


member,  for  the  purposes  of  his  press  re- 
leases, might  like  a  longer,  written  explanation 
on  Monday.  If  the  member  would  get  his 
figures  and  his  facts  right  in  the  first  place  he 
would  get  the  answers  faster. 

REMBRANDT  HOMES 

Mrs.  Campbell:  Mr.  Speaker,  during  the 
discussion  of  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry 
of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  we 
had  a  somewhat  lengthy  debate  on  the 
problems  of  Rembrandt  Homes.  On  that 
occasion,  the  minister  undertook  to  report 
to  this  House  his  solutions  of  those  problems 
within  a  week  or  two  or,  at  the  latest,  before 
this  House  rose.  We  have  not  had  that 
statement,  and  those  people  have  been  wait- 
ing eight  years  for  solutions. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  First  of  all,  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  was  going  to  do  it  in  my  concurrences.  I 
could  not  do  it  this  morning  for  the  mem- 
ber because  she  was  not  here.  I  have  not 
been  at  it  for  eight  years. 

Mrs.  Campbell:  I  was  here. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  The  member  was  not 
here. 

MINISTRY  ADVERTISING 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  Minister  of 
Industry  and  Tourism  is  responsible  for 
either  the  answer  or,  in  this  case,  the  non- 
answer  to  the  question  that  has  been  on  the 
Order  Paper  for  a  number  of  weeks  pertain- 
ing to  the  cost  of  government  advertising. 
He  has  asked  for  more  time,  officially,  under 
the  rules,  and  that  time  has  expired.  Why 
are  we  not  provided  with  the  information 
before  adjournment?  Or  perhaps  it  is  avail- 
able today. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  order 
to  assemble  all  of  that  information  it  would 
perhaps  cost  as  much  as  it  would  cost  to 
save  the  entire  food  processing  sector  in  this 
province.  In  any  case,  my  staff  has  been 
working  on  it  for  several  weeks.  As  soon  as 
it  is  available  the  member  can  have  it.  But 
it  is  taking  a  great  deal  of  time  because  we 
do  like  to  provide  very  complete  and 
accurate  answers. 

I  should  also  say  that  in  these  kinds  of 
circumstances,  as  situations  change,  some- 
times the  advertising  budgets  are  adjusted. 
Indeed,  sometimes  they  are  reduced.  That 
may  not  be  the  case  this  time,  but  some- 
times they  are  reduced.  In  any  event,  in  an 
effort  to  get  the  member  full,  complete  and 
accurate  information,  we  have  been  working 
very  hard.  It  is  just  not  ready  today.  If  the 


House    sits    past    today    perhaps    it    will    be 
ready  by  the  time  we  do  adjourn. 

REPORTS 

STANDING  COMMITTEE  ON 
RESOURCES   DEVELOPMENT 

Mr.  Villeneuve  from  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  resources  development  presented 
the  following  resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  amount  and 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  be  granted  to  Her 
Majesty  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31, 
1981: 

Land    management   program,    $6,422,500. 

SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON 
ONTARIO  HYDRO  AFFAIRS 

Mr.  MacDonald  from  the  select  committee 
on  Ontario  Hydro  affairs  presented  the  final 
report  on  mine  milling  and  refining  of  ura- 
nium ore  in  Ontario  and  moved  its  adoption. 
11:40  a.m. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Does  the  honourable  mem- 
ber want  to  adjourn  the  debate? 

Mr.  MacDonald:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  make 
just  two  brief  comments  and  then  I  will  be 
glad  to  adjourn  the  debate? 

One,  I  would  like  to  explain  that  unfor- 
tunately we  do  not  have  printed  copies  of 
this  report.  It  is  now  at  the  printer.  As  soon 
as  copies  are  available  they  will  be  sent  to 
each  of  the  members,  but  we  wanted  to 
table  it  before  the  end  of  the  session. 

Second,  may  I  remind  the  members  that 
this  is  the  third  report  dealing  with  the 
whole  issue  of  safety  in  the  nuclear  industry. 
The  first  one,  which  has  been  submitted  and 
debated  in  this  House,  was  with  regard  to 
the  safety  of  the  nuclear  generation  of  elec- 
tric power.  The  second  one  was  on  waste 
management  which  the  Minister  of  Energy 
spoke  to  this  morning  and  which,  hopefully, 
other  things  not  intervening,  we  will  have 
an  opportunity  to  debate  next  year  because 
we  have  had  the  assurance  it  will  carry  over 
until  the  next  session. 

This  is  the  third  one  dealing  with  the 
front  end  of  the  fuel  cycle,  namely  on 
mining,  milling  and  refining. 

Mr.  MacDonald  moved  the  adjournment 
of  the  debate. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

MOTIONS 

COMMITTEE  SITTING 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  standing 
committee     on     resources     development     be 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5321 


authorized  to  sit  today  following  routine 
proceedings. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  normally  I 
would  have  quite  a  number  of  other  motions 
but  they  are  not  ready  yet,  so  I  thought 
perhaps  later  in  the  day  we  can  revert  to 
"Motions."  These  are  the  motions  that  will 
allow  the  committees  to  sit  and  state  what 
business  they  will  do  and  the  substitutions 
and  so  forth. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Do  I  take  it  that,  in  keeping 
with  the  spirit  of  Christmas,  concurrence  will 
be  forthcoming?  Agreed. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  BILLS 

BUSINESS  CORPORATIONS  ACT 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea  moved  first  reading  of  Bill 
229,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Business  Corpora- 
tions Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  this  bill  is 
obviously  being  introduced  for  first  reading. 
I  will  say  that  it  does  include  the  so-called 
Renwick  amendment. 

You  will  recall  that  I  informed  the  House 
last  December  that  I  was  making  available 
for  comment  the  proposed  revision  of  that  act. 
The  comments  were  requested  by  March  14 
and  the  bill  was  revised  to  reflect  comments 
received  and  again  made  available  last  July 
for  comment  by  September  30. 

In  these  public  reviews  of  the  proposed 
bill,  comments  and  submissions  were  received 
from  individual  lawyers,  law  firms,  accoun- 
tants, businessmen,  the  corporation  legisla- 
tion committees  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  the 
Institute  of  Chartered  Accountants  of  Ontario, 
the  Certified  General  Accountants'  Associa- 
tion of  Ontario,  the  Trust  Companies  Asso- 
ciation of  Canada  and  a  committee  of  the 
commercial  consumer  and  corporate  law 
section  of  the  Ontario  branch  of  the  Cana- 
dian Bar  Association. 

This  committee,  which  was  appointed  in 
March  1979  to  review  and  comment  on  the 
initial  staff  draft  of  the  proposed  legislation, 
worked  with  the  staff  on  the  preparation  of 
the  proposed  bill. 

There  is  some  resistance  to  change.  This  is 
highlighted  in  the  brief  of  the  Board  of  Trade 
which  has  publicly  stated,  "Enactment  of 
this  proposed  bill  will  result  in  a  tremendous 
burden  to  all  those  companies  affected  in  the 
transition."  To  avoid  this,  the  provision  re- 
garding transition  has  been  rewritten. 

An  overwhelming  majority  of  practitioners 
favour    complete    revision    of    the    Business 


Corporations  Act  with  a  view  to  uniformity 
with  the  legislation  of  Canada  and  the  other 
provinces. 

To  assist  officials  of  my  ministry  in  review- 
ing these  comments  and  in  revising  the  pro- 
posed bill,  a  subcommittee  of  the  commit- 
tee appointed  by  the  commercial,  consumer 
and  corporate  law  section  of  the  Canadian 
Bar  Association,  Ontario  branch,  was  ap- 
pointed. 

These  seven  lawyers  gave  unstintingly  of 
their  time.  Their  advice  and  suggestions 
based  on  their  knowledge  and  practical  ex- 
perience in  this  field  has  enabled  me  to  in- 
troduce this  bill  knowing  that  though  it  may 
not  be  endorsed  by  every  lawyer  it  is  en- 
dorsed by  a  representative  group  of  prac- 
titioners specializing  in  company  law.  I  am 
also  confident  that  it  is  workable  and  reflects 
the  latest  concepts  in  corporate  law. 

We  owe  these  public-spirited  lawyers  who 
have  volunteered  their  services  and  con- 
tributed so  much  to  the  drafting  of  the  bill 
our  grateful  thanks. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  This  is  a  general  state- 
ment. All  you  are  entitled  to  on  the  intro- 
duction for  first  reading  is  to  give  a  brief 
outline  of  the  principle  of  the  bill.  If  you 
can  terminate  your  remarks  in  a  reasonable 
length  of  time,  I  will  allow  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  did  it  this 
way,  and  I  beg  your  indulgence  for  it- 
Mr.  Speaker:  It  is  out  of  order. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  —because  of  the  long  dura- 
tion of  this  bill  going  out  for  comment  and 
other  matters  under  auspices  of  this  Legis- 
lature. I  wanted  to  bring  the  members  of  the 
profession,  particularly  those  who  have  been 
so  helpful,  the  ones  in  this  House,  up  to  date 
on  the  matter.  I  will  conclude. 

To  the  outside  lawyers  who  contributed  so 
much  to  the  drafting  of  our  bill,  I  extend 
our  grateful  thanks.  The  chairman  was  Larry 
D.  Hebb  and  the  other  members  were  Pro- 
fessor Frank  Iacobucci,  dean  of  law  at  the 
University  of  Toronto;  Mr.  Jon  Levin;  Mr. 
Brian  M.  Levitt,  who  was  also  secretary;  Mr. 
Richard  A.  Shaw;  Mr.  Martin  R.  Wasserman; 
and  Mr.  Brian  C.  Westlake. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  want  to  speak  to  the  matter 
you  raised,  Mr.  Speaker,  because  a  precedent 
has  now  been  set  that  all  of  us  on  the  intro- 
duction of  a  bill,  rather  than  just  giving  the 
explanatory  note,  can  make  a  statement.  I 
hope  that  side  of  the  House  is  prepared  to 
accept  that. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  why  I  intervened  on 
this  occasion.  It  is  an  abuse  and  I  do  not 
want  it  to  be  taken  as  a  precedent 


5322 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


HIGHWAY  TRAFFIC  AMENDMENT  ACT 

Mr.  Cunningham  moved1  first  reading  of 
Bill  230,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Highway 
Traffic  Act. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Cunningham:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  pur- 
pose of  this  bill  is  to  provide  for  mandatory 
mechanical  fitness  inspections  for  motor  ve- 
hicles in  Ontario.  Mindful  of  your  admoni- 
tion, I  have  nothing  further  to  add. 

ANSWERS  TO  QUESTIONS 
ON  NOTICE  PAPER 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  to 
table  the  answers  to  questions  398,  421,  427 
and  432,  standing  on  the  Notice  Paper.  (See 
appendix).  I  might  inform  the  honourable 
members  I  do  have  some  other  answers  I 
will  table  as  they  are  available  before  the 
House  prorogues. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY 

THIRD  READINGS 

The  following  bills  were  given  third  read- 
ing on  motion: 

Bill  172,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal 
Affairs  Act; 

'Bill  177,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Safe 
Use  of  X-ray  Machines  in  the  Healing  Arts; 

Bill  188,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Highway 
Traffic  Act; 

Bill  190,  An  Act  respecting  Urban  Trans- 
portation Development  Corporation  Limited; 

Bill  192,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Toronto 
Hospitals  Steam  Corporation  Act,  1968-69; 

Bill  193,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal 
Act; 

Bill  201,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Legislative 
Assembly  Act; 

Bill  204,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Executive 
Council  Act; 

Bill  205,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Denture 
Therapists  Act,  1974; 

Bill  214,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Pension 
Benefits  Act; 

Bill  215,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Wine  Con- 
tent Act,  1976; 

Bill  216,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Farm  Prod- 
ucts Payments  Act; 

Bill  221,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Mining  Act. 
11:50  a.m. 

CITY  OF  OTTAWA  ACT 

Mr.  Roy  moved  third  reading  of  Bill  Prl8, 
An  Act  respecting  the  City  of  Ottawa. 


Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  might  just  say 
one  or  two  words  before  the  motion  is  carried 
because  of  the  tortuous  finality  achieved  by 
this  legislation.  My  colleagues  from  Ottawa 
West  (Mr.  Baetz)  and  Ottawa  South  (Mr. 
Bennett)  will  be  pleased  to  hear  that  by  the 
passage  of  third  reading  today  the  city  of 
Ottawa  will  be  in  a  position  to  require  one 
of  the  major  elements  of  the  bill,  an  energy 
statement  from  developers  of  commercial 
establishments  or  of  residential  buildings  of 
25  units  or  more.  With  the  concessions  made 
by  the  government  and  the  officials  of  the 
city  of  Ottawa,  the  city  of  Ottawa  is  able  to 
achieve  this. 

I  want  to  pay  special  respect  and  underline 
the  effort  put  in  by  the  city  solicitor,  Mr. 
Hambling,  who  came  down  here  on  at  least 
four  or  five  different  occasions  to  achieve  a 
compromise  so  that  the  city  of  Ottawa  could 
have  this  legislation.  I  am  very  proud  this 
has  been  achieved,  in  spite  of  the  best  efforts 
of  the  member  for  Carleton  East  (Ms. 
Gigantes)  to  undermine  the  legislation. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

THIRD  READINGS 

(continued) 

Bill  Prl8,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Ottawa; 

Bill  Pr36,  An  Act  respecting  the  Town  of 
Midland. 

CONCURRENCE  IN  SUPPLY 

MINISTRY  OF  CULTURE 
AND  RECREATION 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  the  interests 
of  time— and  I  understand  the  minister  is  not 
feeling  very  well— I  will  not  take  very  long. 
I  just  wonder  if  the  minister  could  give  us 
some  indication  of  when  he  expects  the  re- 
vision of  the  guidelines  for  capital  expendi- 
ture under  Wintario  to  be  complete?  Can 
he  say  what  effect  that  will  have  on  some  of 
the  ongoing  projects  that  are  at  different 
stages,  that  are  looking  for  further  grants 
from  Wintario  on  the  basis  not  of  continuous, 
but  I  understand  additional  work? 

These  are  new  projects  but  they  relate  to 
previous  projects.  There  is  a  situation  in  my 
riding  where  the  small  municipality  of  Iron 
Bridge,  with  the  assistance  of  this  ministry 
through  the  Wintario  and  the  Community  Rec- 
reation Centres  Act,  built  an  arena.  Those 
people  are  now  looking  to  complete  a  new 
project  to  put  in  artificial  ice  and  a  new 
floor  for  the  arena.  It  would  cost  somewhere 
in  the  range  of  $53,000.  They  are  wondering 
when  they  can  get  some  idea  of  when  the 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5323 


guidelines  will  be  complete  so  they  will 
know  whether  they  will  qualify. 

Mr.  Ruston:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  hope 
the  minister  in  making  any  announcement 
with  regard  to  the  general  policy  of  capital 
grants  would  use  some  discretion  in  using  it. 
I  hope  he  would  bear  in  mind  the  recommen- 
dation of  the  procedural  affairs  committee 
with  regard  to  the  general  overall  application 
of  those  grants. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  now  that  the 
matter  has  been  opened,  I  feel  that  the 
minister,  who  commands  one  of  the  largest 
ministerial  advertising  budgets  in  the  gov- 
ernment, should  have  provided  an  account- 
ing of  it.  Through  the  Minister  of  Industry 
and  Tourism,  which  is  responsible  for  these 
matters,  he  should  have  provided  a  full 
accounting  of  the  millions  of  dollars  that 
must  be  under  the  direction  of  his  ministry, 
if  only  for  the  various  and  sundry  lotteries 
and  games  he  runs  in  support  of  our  cul- 
tural endeavours. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Speaker,  in  response 
to  the  first  question  raised  as  to  the  possible 
timetable  for  the  continuation  of  the  capital 
grants  program,  it  is  my  plan  to  lay  the 
new  program  before  my  cabinet  colleagues 
in  mid-January.  I  would  hope  when  I  receive 
concurrence  from  them  we  will  be  able  to 
make  the  announcement. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  have  a  bet  on,  Reuben,  that 
you  would  bring  it  forward  before  the  next 
election. 

Mr.  Nixon:  It  will  be  your  last  chance. 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  I  hope  long  before  the 
next  election,  of  course. 

I  am  not  able  to  be  very  specific  at  this 
time  as  to  what  the  new  program  will  look 
like.  However,  I  think  I  can  say  with  some 
reasonable  degree  of  assurance  that  many 
of  the  features  of  the  new  capital  program 
will  be  quite  similar  to  the  present  program. 
The  kind  of  illustration  the  member  gave  for 
continued  funding  would  look  to  me  to  be 
very  much  the  kind  of  thing  we  will  be  able 
to  finance  under  the  new  capital  program. 

In  response  to  the  question  about  adver- 
tising, it  is  true,  as  has  been  noted,  that 
the  advertising  accounts  for  the  lottery 
programs  are  very  substantial,  probably 
among  the  highest  in  the  province.  But  I 
must  stress  that  this  is  advertising  placed 
and  directed  by  the  Ontario  Lottery  Corpo- 
ration. That  is  a  crown  corporation  and  does 
its  own  advertising  along  its  own  guide- 
lines. If  at  some  time  the  member  wants  to 
have  a  detailed  account  as  to  those  figures, 
I  am  sure  this  will  be  forthcoming. 


As  far  as  the  criteria  and  the  new  methods 
of  administration  are  concerned,  we  have 
taken  steps  to  streamline  the  program  still 
further.  We  think  that  will  enable  us  to 
make  grants  very  speedily.  So  I  am  looking; 
forward  to  the  continuation  and  to  the 
opening  of  a  new  capital  program  in  the 
new  year. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 
12  noon 

MINISTRY  OF  ENERGY 
Resolution  concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  THE 
ATTORNEY  GENERAL 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  see 
the  Attorney  General.  With  respect  to  con- 
currence for  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General,  may  I  ask  a  question  of  the 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  in  the  At- 
torney General's  absence? 

Last  June,  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney 
General  delivered  to  this  House  the  study 
of  mind  development  groups  and  cults.  A 
question  was  asked  of  the  Premier  (Mr. 
Davis)  as  to  what  action  the  government  was 
going  to  take  on  this  report  and,  on  June 
17,  the  Premier  said  the  report  would  be 
assessed  by  the  minister  and  would  then 
be  coming  forward  to  cabinet  for  whatever 
recommendations. 

I  got  the  clear  impression  from  the  Attor- 
ney General  when  I  posed  the  same  question 
to  him  a  few  days  later  that,  at  some  time 
in  this  session,  we  would  be  advised  as  to 
what  he  or  his  ministry  was  planning  to  do 
with  that  report.  We  have  heard  nothing.  I 
wonder  if  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Jus- 
tice, as  a  member  of  cabinet  where,  accord- 
ing to  the  Premier,  this  issue  was  discussed, 
might  be  able  to  give  me  some  intimation  as 
to  what  the  plans  are  for  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Is  there  any  other  member 
who  wishes  to  make  any  comments? 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  unfor- 
tunate that  the  Attorney  General  is  not  here. 
I  understand  he  is  not  well  and  I  certainly 
wish  him  a  speedy  recovery.  There  is  a 
rumour  that  he  is  convalescing  at  the  Albany 
Club  but,  of  course,  that  is  just  a  rumour. 

It  is  slightly  more  than  a  year  since  we 
debated  in  this  House  and  defeated  a  bill 
which  would  have  established  a  procedure 
for  citizens'  complaints  against  police  action. 
There  was  a  very  good,  solid  reason  why 
that  bill  was  defeated.  If  you  recall,  Mr. 
Speaker,  it  not  only  set  up  numerous  road- 


5324 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


blocks  for  citizens  who  had  legitimate  com- 
plaints, but  it  ensured  that  the  police  would 
continue  to  investigate  themselves. 

However,  there  has  remained  on  the  Order 
Paper  a  bill  which  does  set  out  a  procedure 
which,  first,  involves  the  citizens  directly 
and  allows  them  to  take  their  complaints 
directly  to  a  place  other  than  a  police  sta- 
tion, and  which  allows  for  the  independent 
investigation  of  such  complaints.  That  bill 
was  put  forward  by  my  party  and  stands  in 
my  name  on  the  Order  Paper,  and  it  has 
been  there  for  a  year.  Of  course,  the  result 
of  the  inaction  by  the  government  is  that, 
for  the  citizens  of  Metropolitan  Toronto  and 
other  urban  centres  throughout  the  province 
who  have  complaints  against  police  actions, 
there  is  still  no  complaint  procedure. 

I  think  the  situation  is  intolerable. 
Frankly,  I  do  not  understand  why  the  gov- 
ernment sits  so  complacently  while  we  con- 
tinue to  have  unfortunate  incidents  occurring 
within  our  city  and  in  other  cities  as  well.  I 
would  like  to  know  whether  the  government 
intends  simply  to  allow  the  issue  not  to  be 
answered  and  why,  when  it  has  been  pretty 
clearly  indicated  by  the  House  that  the  gov- 
ernment plan  was  unacceptable,  and  when 
there  is  a  very  clear  alternative  sitting  on 
the  Order  Paper,  the  government  simply  can- 
not adopt  that  alternative  so  that  the  citizens 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  can  have  a  citizens' 
complaint  bureau,  which  they  have  long 
asked  for  and  which  numerous  government 
investigations  and  reports  have  also  said  is 
necessary  and  important  to  have  in  our  city? 

I  am  very  discouraged  by  the  kind  of 
complacent  attitude  being  shown  by  the 
Attorney  General.  I  fully  understand  and 
appreciate  that  the  secretariat  cannot  be  held 
responsible  for  the  actions  of  the  Attorney 
General.  None  the  less,  perhaps  he  could  try 
to  enlighten  us  as  to  what  the  government 
policy  is  and  whether  a  proper  citizens'  com- 
plaint procedure  will  ever  see  the  light  of 
day. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  just  briefly 
join  my  colleague  from  Scarborough-Elles- 
mere  in  echoing  my  disappointment  about  a 
problem  which  has  been  underlined  now  for 
at  least  six  or  seven  years  by  a  number  of 
reports:  the  Maloney  report;  the  present 
Ombudsman,  Mr.  Morand,  discussed  citizens' 
complaints  as  did  the  Marin  investigation  of 
the  RCMP,  and  so  on.  It  is  truly  disappoint- 
ing and  I  think  somewhat  shameful  of  this 
government  to  find  itself  in  December  1980 
without  a  bill  dealing  with  this  very  im- 
portant problem,  at  least  for  the  metro- 
politan  area.   It  is   shameful   and   somewhat 


reflective  of  this  government  which  did  not 
want  to  compromise  just  a  bit.  Had  they 
compromised  and  taken  some  of  the  sugges- 
tions by  the  members  of  the  opposition, 
they  would  have  a  bill  here  today.  I  repeat, 
I  am  deeply  disappointed  and  think  it  is 
shameful  on  the  part  of  the  government  that 
they  did  not  see  fit  to  deal  with  that 
problem. 

I  wish  you  would  convey  a  further  matter 
to  the  Attorney  General,  to  whom  we  wish  a 
speedy  recovery.  I  wish  you  would  convey 
to  him  as  well  that  we  have  had  a  commit- 
ment in  this  House  about  new  legislation 
dealing  with  prescription  periods  in  Ontario. 
This  is  not  even  contentious  legislation.  This 
is  legislation  which  would  receive  whole- 
sale and  wholehearted  approval  on  the  part 
of  all  members  in  this  House  and  all  citizens 
of  Ontario.  Again,  it  is  deeply  disappointing 
that  in  December  1980  we  do  not  see  legis- 
lation to  correct  the  problem  of  limitation 
periods.  I  do  not  have  to  remind  you  that  in 
1980  it  is  somewhat  ironic  that  we  still  have 
archaic  situations  in  Ontario  society  whereby 
there  is  a  limitation  period  of  so  long  in 
dealing  with  doctors,  with  undertakers,  or 
with  government.  Hence,  the  public  and  the 
citizens  of  Ontario  find  themselves  in  a  situa- 
tion where  this  inconsistency  still  exists. 

We  have  had  commitments  from  the  At- 
torney General.  We  have  had  law  reform  re- 
ports on  the  books  for  many  years.  It  is  dis- 
appointing that,  as  we  close  and  we  pass 
these  concurrences,  we  still  do  not  have  this 
legislation.  There  is  no  excuse.  One  cannot 
say  that  the  opposition  has  in  any  way  im- 
peded progress.  We  have  not  done  any  of 
this.  One  cannot  even  compare  this  to  the 
citizens'  complaint  legislation  that  we  do  not 
have  for  Toronto.  We  are  all  in  favour  of  it 
and  I  cannot  see  any  reason  or  excuse  why 
we  did  not  see  this  legislation. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
make  a  few  comments  on  the  Hill  report  on 
cults,  sects  and  other  groups.  I  am  extremely 
disappointed  that  here  we  have  had  a  report 
tabled  in  the  Legislature.  The  ministry  was 
supposed  to  have  studied  it.  The  Premier  has 
given  us  a  firm  commitment  that  it  would 
be  assessed  by  the  ministry  and  they  would 
come  down  with  some  action. 

The  whole  purpose  of  the  report  was  to 
assist  the  many  parents  as  well  as  individuals 
who  have  been  affected  by  mind  development 
groups  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  province.  A  Norma  O'Donnell  has  been 
in  my  office  practically  daily  ever  since  her 
daughter  had  her  mind  affected  by  exposure 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5325 


to  one  or  more  of  the  cults  common  in  bigger 
metropolitan  areas. 
12:10  p.m. 

I  would  have  thought  the  government,  at 
this  time,  after  having  spent  half  a  million 
dollars,  would  have  some  kind  of  answer  for 
the  parents  who  are  seeking  assistance  for 
their  children,  be  they  young  children  or 
older  children.  They  are  looking  for  help  and 
we  thought  the  government  would  be  con- 
cerned and  try  to  assist  them.  I  am  extremely 
disappointed  that  we  have  spent  this  money 
and  absolutely  nothing  has  happened  as  a 
result  of  the  report.  The  report  is  now  going 
to  die  and  the  many  people  who  have  been 
adversely  affected  are  going  to  continue  to  be 
punished. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  I  would  just  like  to 
comment  on  the  fact  that  the  Attorney 
General  is  not  here.  He  has  been  quite  ill 
since  last  Friday  and  it  is  anticipated  the  flu 
he  has  will  cause  him  to  be  incarcerated  in 
his  own  home  for  probably  the  next  five  to 
10  days.  We  do  hope  he  has  a  speedy  re- 
covery, but  it  is  very  unfortunate  that  he  is 
not  here  at  the  moment  to  respond  more  fully 
to  the  questions  that  have  been  posed  by  the 
honourable  members. 

The  member  for  Kitchener- Wilmot  and  the 
member  for  Windsor- Walkerville  have  raised 
questions  relating  to  cults  and  mind  develop- 
ment organizations.  I  think  it  is  fair  to  say 
that  probably  no  one  in  this  Legislature 
despises  these  groups  more  than  those  mem- 
bers who  have  spoken  and  we  on  this  side 
as  well. 

It  is  a  situation  that  was  addressed  by 
Dr.  Hill.  I  believe  the  recommendation  in 
the  report  was  that  no  legislation  should  be 
contemplated.  However,  there  were  a  num- 
ber of  very  far  reaching  recommendations  and 
those  have  been  under  active  study  by  the 
Attorney  General,  and  particularly  by  his 
ministry,  since  the  report  was  received. 

Please  keep  in  mind  that  in  the  interim  the 
Attorney  General  has  been  constantly  plagued 
with  the  question  of  the  constitution.  Prac- 
tically every  waking  moment  he  had  between 
the  time  the  report  was  received  and  until 
just  a  few  weeks  ago  was  occupied  by  con- 
stitutional matters  and  he  spent  the  entire 
summer  in  Victoria,  Montreal  and  Winnipeg 
working  on  these  matters.  I  think  it  is  fair 
to  say  that  some  matters  have  tended  to  go  to 
the  back  burner  while  some  of  the  more  im- 
portant concerns  have  been  addressed.  While 
I  do  not  wish  to  take  away  from  the  impor- 
tance of  this  particular  report,  I  think  it  is 
fair  to  say  his  time  has  been  preoccupied  by 


other,  matters  of  great  significance  over  the 
past  spring,  summer  and  fall. 

The  member  for  Scarborough-Ellesmere 
and  the  member  for  Ottawa  East  raised  ques- 
tions relating  to  the  police  bill.  All  I  can 
say  is  that  it  was  those  two  members  and 
their  parties  who  chose  to  defeat  what  was  a 
very  good  compromise  bill.  A  bill  was  pre- 
sented to  this  House  by  the  Attorney  General 
earlier  in  the  year  and  that  particular  bill 
represented  a  distillation  of  feeling  and  had 
the  support  of  virtually  all  the  organizations 
in  the  city  that  were  involved:  the  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto  police  commissioners,  the 
Metropolitan  Toronto  Police  Association  and 
the  Metropolitan  Toronto  police  chief.  Vir- 
tually everybody  agreed  on  the  way  it 
should  go.  It  was  those  two  members  who 
tried  to  change  that. 

Mr.  Warner:  It  was  supported  by  everyone 
except  the  citizens. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  I  think  the  vast  number 
of  citizens  supported  it.  To  the  extent  the 
members  opposed  that  bill,  I  suspect  the 
public  of  this  province  detected  that  they 
are  the  ones  who  are  not  supporting  the  police 
while  we  are  the  ones  who  are  trying  to  put 
forward  something  that  supports  the  police. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of  order. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  What  is  your  point 
of  order?  What  could  be  out  of  order? 

Mr.  Roy:  On  occasion  the  chair  has  made 
the  Attorney  General  retract  comments  that 
somehow  implied  that  by  opposing  this  legis- 
lation we  are  undermining  the  police.  I  think 
there  was  a  retraction  involved  in  some  of 
the  comments  made  by  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough-Ellesmere. I  want  to  put  it  very 
clearly  on  the  record  that  any  minister,  in- 
cluding the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice, 
who  tries  to  put  on  the  record  that  some- 
how the  opposition  does  not  have  faith  and 
confidence  in  the  police  and  is  trying  to 
undermine  them  by  opposing  this  legislation 
is  distorting  the  facts.  I  want  to  make  that 
very  clear  and  if  that  was  the  minister's  in- 
ference, he  should  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  point  of 
order:  As  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Ottawa  East  mentioned  on  an  earlier  oc- 
casion the  Attorney  General  tried  that  silly 
nonsense  of  suggesting  that  because  the  op- 
position party  disagreed  with  what  the  gov- 
ernment wanted  we  were  not  supporting  the 
police.  I  raised  it  as  a  point  of  order  and 
the  Speaker  at  that  time  asked  the  Attorney 
General  to  withdraw  that  allegation.  The 
Attorney  General  did  so.  I  would  ask  that  on 


5326 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


this  occasion  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Jus- 
tice also  withdraw  that  silly  accusation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  I  have  never  heard  sillier 
nonsense  in  my  life  than  what  is  coming  from 
the  other  side.  What  I  said  was  the  public  of 
this  province,  in  my  opinion,  has  come  to  the 
conclusion  these  are  the  people— the  Liberals 
and  the  N  DP— who  are  undermining  the 
police. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  I  have  listened  care- 
fully and  I  am  sure  all  members  who  have 
spoken  have  made  their  points  of  view  heard. 

The  resolution  for  concurrence  in  supply 
has  already  been  placed  before  the  House  at 
the  beginning  of  the  debate.  Is  it  the  pleasure 
of  the  House  that  the  resolution  be  con- 
curred in? 

Those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion  the  ayes  have  it. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  TRANSPORTATION 
AND  COMMUNICATIONS 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Speaker,  my  question 
to  the  minister  is  with  reference  to  the  new 
Highway  8,  between  Highway  401  and  the 
existing  Freeport  Bridge  in  the  city  of 
Kitchener.  The  minister  will  perhaps  recall 
this  project  has  been  ongoing  for  consider- 
able time.  I  believe  it  is  called  the  Highway 
8  diversion. 

The  residents  of  that  area,  along  that 
strip  of  the  road,  have  met  with  officials  of 
the  ministry  on  a  number  of  occasions,  most 
recently  in  September  1979.  They  have  in- 
dicated their  concern,  not  about  the  diver- 
sion itself  but  about  an  access  road  to  that 
diversion  and  the  amount  of  noise  and  other 
types  of  pollution  that  would  result  if  it  were 
placed  where  ministry  engineers  want  it 
placed. 

They  proposed  some  alternatives  to  min- 
istry officials  but  these  were  rejected.  During 
the  winter  and  summer  of  1980  they  con- 
tacted a  number  of  experts  in  the  environ- 
mental field  and  in  the  engineering  design 
field.  They  had  planned  to  come  back  to  the 
minister  and  ask  for  an  environmental  assess- 
ment hearing  because  their  concerns  are  of 
an  environmental  nature.  However,  recently 
they  discovered  quite  by  accident  that  on 
January  23,  1980,  an  exemption  from  an 
environmental  assessment  hearing  was 
obtained  by  the  ministry  from  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott). 

These  people  feel  in  something  of  a 
quandary  because  they  feel  they  have  legit- 


imate reasons  to  have  an  environmental 
hearing.  The  first  two  reasons  given  for  the 
exemption  deal  with  the  possibility  of  result- 
ing delays  in  construction.  The  project  has 
been  under  way  for  a  number  of  years.  It 
has  been  one  full  year  since  the  exemption 
was  requested.  I  guess  the  exemption  was 
probably  requested  before  that.  There  is 
still  nothing  happening  there. 

My  point  to  the  minister  is  that  new 
information  has  come  to  light.  The  residents 
were  not  aware  the  exemption  had  been 
requested  and  obtained.  I  would  ask  the 
minister  if  he  would  now  ask  that  this 
exemption  be  withdrawn  and  give  those 
residents  the  right  to  have  an  environ- 
mental assessment  hearing  on  their  concerns. 
12:20  p.m. 

1  would  also  ask  the  minister  if  he  could 
indicate  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  when 
this  project  will  now  proceed  and  whether 
there  is  sufficient  time  to  hold  an  assess- 
ment hearing.  I  understand  the  residents 
would  be  quite  prepared  to  have  that  con- 
fined to  a  short  period  of  time  because  the 
factors  involved  have  now  been  sharply 
focused  and  it  should  not  take  very  long. 

Hon.  Mr.  Snow:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  some- 
what shocked  to  hear  this  from  the  honour- 
able member,  but  I  will  have  to  look  into 
the  situation  on  that  particular  job.  Like 
many  other  jobs  that  were  well  along  in  the 
planning  stages  when  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  became  effective  on  the 
ministry,  exemptions  were  obtained  for 
these  jobs.  This  was  a  high  priority  job. 
There  has  been  great  pressure  from  the 
city  of  Kitchener  and  the  area  municipali- 
ties to  get  the  job  proceeded  with.  An 
exemption  was  requested  and  obtained.  If 
the  member  wants  us  to  go  back  and  start 
from  square  one  on  the  project,  then  we  will 
have  to  look  at  a  probable  delay  of  at  least 
three  years. 

Mr.  Sweeney:  Mr.  Speaker,  may  I  respond 
to  that? 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  No.  This  is  con- 
currence. We  are  not  in  committee. 

Mr.     Sweeney:     We    are    not    asking    to 
review  the  whole  thing. 
Resolution  concurred  in. 

JUSTICE  POLICY 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  make  a 
comment.  We  were  going  to  let  this  thing 
slip  through  innocuously,  but  we  won't  after 
listening  to  the  minister's  invective  of  just  a 
few  seconds  ago  in  defending  the  Attorney 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5327 


General  in  his  blatant  and  political  attempt 
to  try  to  undermine  the  opposition  in  the 
responsible  roles  we  play  in  this  place  and 
in  attempting  to  say  that  we,  who  wanted  a 
bill  to  protect  the  citizens  and  at  the  same 
time  give  some  flexibility  to  the  police,  by 
demanding  such  a  bill  and  by  refusing  to 
support  the  bill  brought  forward  by  the 
Attorney  General  somehow  are  showing  a 
lack  of  confidence  or  undermining  the  work 
of  the  police.  The  Attorney  General  has  tried 
that  stunt  before,  but  I  am  surprised  that  the 
provincial  secretary  would  repeat  it  again, 
although  I  have  known  him  in  other  in- 
stances when  he  was  potentially  capable  of 
saying  such  nonsense. 

I  want  to  say  to  the  Provincial  Secretary 
for  Justice  that  this  is  not  the  role  of  the 
opposition.  We  have  as  much  faith  in  the 
police  as  he  has.  At  the  same  time,  there 
are  three  reports  on  the  book  existing  for 
seven  or  eight  years  saying  that  there  is  a 
problem  and  that  a  new  mechanism  must  be 
found  for  citizens'  complaints.  One  of  these 
people  is  now  the  Ombudsman  of  Ontario 
and  one  is  the  former  Ombudsman,  Mr. 
Maloney,  and  a  good  Tory  at  that.  The 
minister  should  be  listening  to  people  like 
that. 

To  suggest  that  we  in  the  opposition  who 
are  supporting  the  recommendations  in  these 
reports  are  somehow  showing  a  lack  of  con- 
fidence in  and  undermining  the  police  is  pure 
rubbish  and  the  provincial  secretary  should 
know  better.  I  think  the  record  should  be 
clear  on  that  point. 

Interjections. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  rather  sad 
that  the  government,  instead  of  taking  the 
opportunity  to  bring  in  a  bill  which  is  des- 
perately wanted  and  needed  by  the  people  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto  and  other  urban  centres, 
would  choose  instead  to  try  to  suggest  that 
the  opposition  parties  are  against  law  and 
order.  What  patent  nonsense! 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  I  think  the  member  fully  knows  I 
did  not  say  the  opposition  parties  were 
opposed  to  law  and  order.  They  may  well  be, 
but  I  did  not  say  it.  I  am  inclined  to  think 
maybe  they  are,  but  I  did  not  say  it. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  had  the  mem- 
ber taken  the  time  to  read  the  bill  which 
stands  in  my  name,  he  would  have  found 
there  was  greater  protection  for  police  officers 
under  that  bill  than  under  the  government 
bill  which  was  defeated.  The  government  had 
it  in  its  head  that  ordinary  citizens  would 
be   given   the   power   to  fire  police   officers 


immediately,  without  recourse.  What  we  said 
in  our  bill  was  that  the  chief  of  police  was 
still  in  charge  of  the  force  and,  upon  the 
basis  of  a  complaint  being  substantiated,  the 
chief  of  police  could  choose  to  issue  whatever 
disciplinary  measures  he  chose.  The  police 
officer  would  still  have  the  right  of  the 
grievance  procedure  through  his  union. 

We  built  in  some  protection  in  the  case  of 
complaints  which  could  not  be  substantiated, 
or  in  the  situation  wherein  an  arbitrary  de- 
cision under  the  government's  bill  could 
simply  be  made  by  citizens.  What  we  ad- 
dressed instead  was  the  process  under  which 
a  citizen  could  easily  and  quickly  lodge  a 
complaint,  have  it  heard  immediately,  have 
it  investigated  independently  and  resolved.  It 
would  not  be  the  gobbledegook  that  the 
government  had  for  a  citizen. 

I  would  submit  that  if  any  citizen  wanted 
to  lodge  a  complaint  under  the  government 
bill  which  was  defeated,  he  should  first  hire 
a  lawyer  so  he  could  work  his  way  through 
the  maze  that  was  set  up.  It  was  incredible. 
There  is  not  a  citizen  in  this  city  who  would 
go  through  the  hoops  chat  the  government 
had  set  up.  A  reasonable  person  could  look 
at  that  bill  and  construe  from  it  that  per- 
haps it  was  deliberately  set  up  that  way  so 
that  it  would  not  have  any  hope  of  working. 
My  major  point,  which  still  remains,  is  that, 
regardless  of  the  difference  of  opinion  in  this 
place,  we  still  do  not  have  a  procedure. 

I  would  have  thought  that  the  government, 
having  had  its  bill  defeated,  would  have  come 
back  with  a  new  proposal  or  another  sugges- 
tion. Is  the  government  so  lacking  in  imag- 
ination, determination  or  political  will  that 
it  cannot  come  back  to  the  House  with  an- 
other proposal?  It  is  very  disturbing  to  think 
that  the  government  is  so  complacent  about 
citizens  who  have  complaints  against  police 
action,  and  that,  despite  the  many  years  of 
investigations,  reports  and  submissions,  they 
choose  to  sit  idly  by.  On  this  occasion,  on  this 
concurrence,  part  of  the  blame  rests  with  the 
Provincial  Secretariat  for  Justice,  because  I 
suspect  that  there  is  no  such  secretariat,  and 
that  they  never  meet.  We  asked  earlier  for 
the  dates  on  which  the  justice  policy  group 
met,  and  who  was  included.  We  never  got 
an  answer. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  The  member  never 
asked  me  that. 

Mr.  Warner:  Let  us  try  it  again  this  morn- 
ing. How  often  have  you  met  in  the  last  year? 
Who  attends  those  meetings? 

Hon.  Mr.  Pope:  Once  a  week. 


5328 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Warner:  It  is  a  sad  commentary,  but 
the  Provincial  Secretariat  for  Justice  is  use- 
less. 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  no  in- 
tention of  participating  in  the  debate  on  this 
concurrence  but,  frankly,  I  find  the  minister's 
comments  during  the  previous  concurrence  an 
affront.  The  reason  is  that  I,  as  a  member  of 
this  Legislature,  have  campaigned  for  a  long 
time  in  support  of  the  provincial  police  in 
northern  Ontario.  It  is  through  the  efforts  of 
people  like  municipal  politicians  and  mem- 
bers on  this  side  of  the  House  that  we  have 
been  trying  to  persuade  this  government  to 
make  a  commitment  to  provide  adequate 
funds  to  the  provincial  police  so  that  they 
can  hire  the  staff  they  need.  They  cannot 
fulfil  their  responsibilities  with  the  lack  of 
staff  they  have  now.  This  government  has 
done  absolutely  nothing  about  it. 

We  had  the  Attorney  General,  in  his  guise 
as  the  Solicitor  General,  get  up  a  couple  of 
years  ago  and  say  he  wanted  to  hire  100  to 
150  constables  to  bring  the  OPP  up  to  staff 
requirements.  Then  he  cannot  push  it  through 
the  Management  Board.  He  gets  great  head- 
lines about  how  he  wants  more  money  for 
the  police,  and  then  he  cannot  put  his  money 
where  his  mouth  is. 
12:30  p.m. 

If  this  government  really  supports  the 
police,  as  this  provincial  secretary  would  have 
us  believe,  it  is  about  time  it  put  its  money 
where  its  mouth  is  and  hired  the  number  of 
police  officers  we  need  in  order  to  allow 
policemen  in  the  remote  areas  of  the  north 
and  in  rural  areas  of  southern  Ontario  to  do 
the  job  they  want  to  do.  This  government  has 
not  come  up  with  the  money  and  it  is  about 
time  it  did.  Instead,  what  are  they  doing? 
They  are  regionalizing  police  operations  in 
northern  Ontario  so  that  someone  from 
Kapuskasing  or  Hornepayne  has  to  go  to 
Hearst  to  get  a  policeman  late  at  night  if 
they  have  a  problem.  It  is  going  to  take  at 
least  an  hour  for  a  response  to  that  kind  of 
call. 

If  this  government  calls  that  adequate 
policing  and  service  to  the  public,  I  think  it 
is  crazy.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  between 
Sault  Ste.  Marie  and  Thunder  Bay  on  High- 
way 17,  the  only  police  force  that  gives  24- 
hour  service  is  the  township  police  depart- 
ment of  Michipicoten.  Every  OPP  detachment 
closes  at  midnight  or  1  o'clock  in  the  morning 
and  there  is  not  any  service  after  that  time 
except  Zenith  numbers.  For  that  matter,  this 
government  does  not  even  give  that  township 
police  force  adequate  funds  because  the  small 
municipalities  do  not  get  the  same  subsidies 


as  regions.  They  have  done  nothing  about  that 
issue  either,  so  they  are  underfunded  as  well. 
If  this  government  really  does  believe  in 
the  support  of  the  police,  it  is  about  time  it 
put  its  money  where  its  mouth  is  and  gave 
us  adequate  policing  in  northern  Ontario. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  cer- 
tainly wish  the  rest  of  the  members  of  the 
opposition  would  support  the  police  as  ve- 
hemently as  does  the  member  for  Algoma. 
It  is  just  unfortunate  that  the  rest  of  his 
colleagues  do  not  agree  in  the  same  way. 
There  was  a  perfectly  good  bill  that  was 
presented  before  this  House  and  that  bill 
was  decimated  by  these  characters.  I  think 
I  will  leave  it  at  that. 

A  moment  ago  I  said  that  the  citizenry 
was  quite  opposed  to  what  was  being  done 
here  by  the  two  opposition  parties.  There  is 
not  a  policeman  in  this  province  that  I  know 
of  who  does  not  believe  that  the  opposition 
parties,  the  Liberals  and  the  NDP,  pulled 
the  rug  out  from  under  them  just  a  few 
months  ago.  There  is  no  question  but  that 
their  name  is  mud  with  any  policemen  in 
this  province. 

I  would  just  like  to  say  to  the  member  for 
Scarborough-Ellesmere,  who  seemed  to  have 
thought  he  asked  me  when  we  met,  and  did 
not  ask  me  when  we  met,  but  I  am  glad  to 
tell  him  now-he  seems  to  have  forgotten 
that  he  did  not  ask  the  question  but  having 
now  remembered  that  he  did  not  ask  the 
question-that  the  cabinet  committee  on  jus- 
tice meets  every  Thursday  morning  as  a  gen- 
eral rule.  In  fact,  in  the  last  three  months 
we  met  on  September  18,  1980,  which  was 
a  Thursday;  we  met  on  September  25,  1980, 
which  was  a  Thursday;  we  met  on  October 
2,  1980,  October  9,  October  16,  October  23 
and  October  30.  The  member  is  not  taking 
these  dates  down,  and  I  refuse  to  continue 
on  with  these  until  he  is  prepared  to  write 
them  down. 

Mr.  Speaker,  allow  me  to  leave  it  at  that 
point.  May  I  suggest  that  while  we  are  into 
this  area  of  discussing  police  matters,  if  vou 
might  be  prepared  to  call  the  item  standing 
in  the  name  of  the  Solicitor  General,  which 
is  quite  a  bit  further  down  the  way,  I  would 
be  prepared  as  a  courtesy  to  the  opposition 
to  stay  around  and  answer  a  question  or  two 
about  the  Solicitor  General's  estimates  if  you 
call  that  matter  at  this  point. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  The  resolution  for 
concurrence  in  supply  was  placed  before  the 
House  at  the  beginning  of  the  debate. 

Is  it  the  pleasure  of  the  House  that  the 
resolution  be  concurred  in? 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5329 


Those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  ayes  have  it. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

Hon.  Mr.  Gregory:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wonder 
if  the  House  would  agree  to  revert  to  pre- 
senting reports  so  we  could  receive  a  report. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Is  there  unanimous 
agreement? 

Agreed. 

REPORT 

STANDING  GENERAL 
GOVERNMENT  COMMITTEE 

Mr.  Ashe,  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Cureatz  from 
the  standing  committee  on  general  govern- 
ment, reported  the  following  resolution: 

That  supply  in  the  following  supple- 
mentary amounts  be  granted  Her  Majesty 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1981: 

Office  of  the  Assembly  program,  $2,376,- 
700;  administration  of  the  Audit  Act  and 
statutory  audits  program,  $110,000;  Office  of 
the  Ombudsman,  $83,000. 

CONCURRENCE  IN  SUPPLY 

MINISTRY  OF  THE 
SOLICITOR  GENERAL 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  would  like 
to  make  a  few  comments  on  the  concurrence 
in  supply  for  this  ministry,  in  view  of  the  fact 
I  was  dealing  with  the  Solicitor  General  in 
the  estimates. 

The  police  bill  was  raised  in  the  estimates. 
The  same  day  we  were  raising  the  matter  of 
citizen  involvement,  there  was  an  article  in 
the  Toronto  Star  by  Marilyn  Dunlop  out- 
lining how  a  procedure  like  that  is  in  effect 
in  Chicago,  and  it  produces  results.  The  op- 
position parties  have  advocated  a  procedure 
of  that  nature.  When  we  brought  this  to  the 
attention  of  the  Solicitor  General  he  ada- 
mantly, absolutely  and  bullheadedly  refused 
to  consider  the  idea  that  there  should  be 
some  kind  of  citizen  involvement  in  the  re- 
view process. 

I  think  that  indicates  the  stultified  nature 
of  the  government.  It  is  sitting  on  what  I 
consider  to  be  a  ticking  time  bomb.  There  is 
a  lot  of  resentment;  there  are  a  lot  of  people 
who  feel  they  have  no  recourse,  that  they  are 
powerless,  that  they  are  abused  by  those 
kind  of  situations.  The  minister  absolutely 
refuses  to  deal  with  the  problem  in  a  way 
that  has  been  shown  and  demonstrated1  to 
have  worked  in  other  jurisdictions. 


If  such  legislation  had  been  in  effect  in 
Toronto  for  the  last  three  or  four  years, 
where  the  citizens  had  recourse  to  a  citizen 
review  board  and  felt  they  would  get  fair 
treatment,  perhaps  we  would  not  have  had 
the  Albert  Johnson  situation  developing.  The 
citizens  would  feel  they  could  deal  with  those 
situations  in  a  similar  manner. 

It  was  pointed  out  in  that  article  that  when 
citizens  complain  they  are  able  to  get  some 
recourse.  Somebody  would  move  in  and  try 
to  rectify  the  problem  in  a  matter  of  hours, 
not  days  or  weeks.  The  matter  would  not  be 
dragged  on  through  various  groups,  reports, 
commissions,  et  cetera. 

Another  matter  was  raised  in  the  Solicitor 
General's  estimates  that  I  think  should  come 
to  the  members'  attention,  considering  how 
much  the  government  supports  the  police  and 
how  much  it  is  fighting  crime.  The  fact  is 
that  the  motorcycle  gangs  in  this  province  are 
taking  over.  Booking  agencies  are  becoming 
legitimate,  but  at  the  same  time  are  using 
violence  to  intimidate  people.  They  pressure 
the  strippers  et  cetera  in  the  various  bars  in 
Ontario  to  go  with  these  booking  agencies 
that  are  being  operated  by  motorcycle  gangs. 

This  is  a  growing  problem;  it  is  develop- 
ing. The  Solicitor  General  is  allowing  to  de- 
velop in  this  province  what  originally  was 
considered  to  be  a  totally  illegal  group  of 
people.  People  who  had  no  commercial  stand- 
ing in  society  now  are  able  to  operate  in  a 
legal  manner.  On  the  one  hand  the  booking 
agency  is  legal,  it  operates.  On  the  other  hand 
it  ensures  that  its  clientele  is  coerced  through 
force  to  become  part  and  parcel  of  this 
operation. 

We  had  evidence  produced  to  us  in  the 
estimates  of  at  least  three  people  who  were 
beaten  up  by  the  motorcycle  gangs,  and  other 
people  have  been  threatened.  The  police  have 
done  absolutely  nothing.  When  the  performers 
went  to  the  police  to  lay  complaints,  they 
were  scoffed  at.  Evidence  was  given  where 
one  of  the  crown  attorneys  refused  to  go 
ahead  with  the  prosecutions  on  various  cases. 

Also,  in  the  matter  of  indecent  perform- 
ances and  so  on,  the  Liquor  Control  Board 
of  Ontario  seems  to  sit  back  and  allow  these 
hotels  to  continue  to  operate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  member  knows  very  well  when 
it  comes  to  entertainment  that  the  Criminal 
Code  of  Canada  provides  for  this.  He  should 
start  on  me. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  The  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations  is  sensitive.  We 
are  talking  to  the  matter  that  was  raised  with 
the   Solicitor   General.    But   there   is   a  very 


5330 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


grey  area  as  to  what  is  legal  and  what  is 

illegal. 

12:40  p.m. 

The  point  is,  the  liquor  control  board 
can  walk  in  there  quite  often  and  close 
down  a  hotel  when  drinks  are  served  be- 
yond closing  time  or  to  minors,  but  I  have 
yet  to  see  the  LCBO  do  something  about 
some  of  these  institutions  that  insist  the 
girls  carry  out  what  they  consider  indecent 
and  perhaps  illegal  performances  that  go  on 
in  the  hotels. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Once  again,  Mr.  Speaker, 
the  member  knows  full  well  that  is  under 
the  Criminal  Code;  it  is  under  the  Attorney 
General;  it  is  under  the  local  crown  at- 
torney. By  virtue  of  a  court  decision  made 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ontario,  the 
LLBO,  not  the  LCBO-get  that  right;  the 
member  ought  to  know  after  his  adventures 
with  them— the  Liquor  Licence  Board  of 
Ontario  has  no  jurisdiction  in  entertain- 
ment. The  obscenity  provisions  of  the  Crim- 
inal Code  of  Canada  prevail.  If  the  member 
is  so  misguided  that  he  thinks  the  Criminal 
Code  of  Canada  is  administered  by  the 
Liquor  Licence  Board  of  Ontario,  I  humbly 
suggest  he  do  a  bit  of  research. 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  Your 
point  has  been  made. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  just  want 
to  say  they  do  not  hesitate  to  move  into 
everything  else.  When  service  clubs  decide 
to  hold  a  game  of  chance,  they  move  in  there 
very  quickly  and  find  out  there  is  a  regula- 
tion. When  girls  are  threatened,  beaten  up 
and  everything  else,  they  cannot  seem  to 
find  the  opportunity,  the  wherewithal  or 
the  backbone  to  move  in  there.  That  is  the 
point. 

I  agree  that  it  is  under  the  Criminal 
Code  and  everything  else.  Unfortunately, 
the  administration  of  justice  in  this  province 
is  such  that  they  cannot  seem  to  get  a 
conviction  under  the  Criminal  Code.  There 
does  not  seem  to  be  an  opportunity  for 
convictions  to  be  registered  and  prosecuted 
to  the  full  meaning  of  the  law. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  You  give  me  the  backing 
and  I  will  run  it. 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  The  other  point  I  want  to 
raise  is  a  fact  that  was  also  brought  out 
in  the  estimates,  the  understrength  of  the 
Ontario  Provincial  Police,  who  have  lost 
something  like  300  members  at  a  time  when 
crime  in  Ontario  is  actually  expanding;  it 
is  becoming  more  sophisticated  and  has 
large  resources  to  operate  with.  The  OPP 
does    not   have   the   men   to   deal   with   the 


problem.  Instead  of  crime  in  Ontario  going 
down  or  at  least  being  controlled  at  a 
certain  level,  it  is  on  the  increase. 

The  matter  of  the  so-called  friends  of  the 
police  was  raised.  The  minister  is  not  a 
friend  of  the  police.  The  way  he  is  acting 
he  must  be  friends  with  somebody  else,  not 
the  police.  The  OPP  does  not  have  adequate 
resources  to  deal  with  the  crime.  If  they 
did,  we  would  not  have  this  problem  of 
gangs  becoming  legitimate  or  moving  up 
into  legitimate  fronts.  I  suggest  to  the 
Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Rela- 
tions that  perhaps  he  should  consider  licens- 
ing those  booking  agencies.  It  might  be  a 
way  to  control  some  of  those  operations. 

I  wish  to  conclude  by  saying  that  the 
Solicitor  General  in  Ontario  had  better  pull 
up  his  socks  and  start  looking  seriously  at 
the  OPP  in  terms  of  providing  them  with 
the  resources  they  need,  because  organized 
crime  in  Ontario  has  an  ability  to  move 
from  one  city  to  another  city.  It  moves 
around;  it  does  not  operate  within  one 
metropolitan  area  or  one  regional  area  where 
the  police  can  do  something  about  it.  The 
OPP  is  the  only  group  of  police  available  in 
Ontario  which  should  have  the  resources  to 
be  able  to  follow  crime  right  across  the 
province,  not  just  the  efforts  made  in  mu- 
nicipalities or  regions  or  cities  where  they 
cannot  really   control  it  as  they  should. 

Mr.  Warner:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  different 
topic,  there  is  an  item  that  should  be  a 
source  of  deep  embarrassment  and  shame 
to  this  government. 

I  understand  that  in  November  1976  an 
Ontario  fire  code  advisory  committee  was 
established.  It  did  some  very  important 
and  useful  work,  the  end  of  which  culminated 
in  a  speech  given  by  the  member  for  Lon- 
don South  (Mr.  Walker).  He  made  a  speech 
in  Hamilton,  and  part  of  it  says  he  has 
been  instructed  to  inform  the  gathering  of 
fire  chiefs  that  the  fire  code,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  retrofit,  shortly  will  be  law  in 
Ontario. 

He  made  that  speech  on  May  7.  In  June 
Bill  141  was  introduced.  It  still  remains  on 
the  Order  Paper  and  is  about  to  die.  What  on 
earth  happened?  It  was  obviously  a  hollow 
promise.  He  ended  up  misleading  quite  a  few 
fire  chiefs  who  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  and 
effort  and  committees  that  worked  very  hard 
to  come  up  with  a  new  fire  code. 

The  elements  that  had  been  suggested  were 
published  in  the  Ontario  Gazette  and  went  a 
long  way  in  addressing  some  of  the  very 
serious  problems  that  exist.  Everyone  was 
led  to  believe  that  this  bill,  which  was  intro- 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5331 


duced  in  June  following  the  big  announce- 
ment by  the  provincial  secretary,  was  going 
to  be  debated  and  passed.  Instead,  when  we 
rise  today  the  bill  will  die.  All  of  that  work, 
those  four  years  of  effort,  we  must  assume 
have  gone  down  the  drain.  For  what  reason? 
It  is  very  difficult  to  understand. 

Normally,  in  these  situations  it  is  because 
pressure  has  been  applied  that  is  commonly 
known  as  lobbying,  and  I  would  like  to  know 
by  whom.  I  wonder  if  it  is  HUDAC.  They 
say  in  their  letter  of  June  4  that  they  are  not 
terribly  pleased  with  the  way  in  which  the 
fire  code  is  developing  in  view  of  the  stated 
policies  of  the  government  to  reduce  its  in- 
volvement in  the  affairs  of  business.  I  wonder 
if  HUDAC  was  part  of  the  pressure  group. 

I  would  like  to  know  several  things.  I 
would  like  the  minister  to  tell  us  why  the 
government  has  broken  its  promise;  secondly, 
what  it  intends  to  do  with  respect  to  the  fire 
code,  since  the  bill  obviously  dies  today;  and, 
thirdly,  who  is  pressuring  him.  Where  is  the 
lobbying  coming  from?  Why  can  the  people 
of  Ontario  not  have  a  modern,  up-to-date  fire 
code  that  would  be  of  assistance? 

Part  of  the  new  fire  code  addresses  itself 
to  an  interest  that  I  have  had  for  some  time. 
Just  the  other  day  I  introduced  a  bill  to 
amend  the  Nursing  Homes  Act.  That  bill,  if 
passed,  would  direct  that  sprinkler  systems 
and  smoke  detectors  be  installed  and  that 
there  be  training  for  staff  on  fire  procedures 
and  evacuation  procedures.  The  bill  was 
developed  out  of  the  jury's  recommendations 
from  the  tragic  fire  at  the  Mississauga  nursing 
home. 

Quite  frankly,  the  bill  I  introduced  should 
not  be  necessary  if  the  new  fire  code  were 
introduced,  because  the  new  fire  code,  as 
printed  in  the  Ontario  Gazette,  contains  sec- 
tions that  would  address  the  problems  I  raised 
in  the  bill  I  introduced  the  other  day.  I  would 
withdraw  my  bill  if  I  knew  that  a  new  fire 
code  were  going  to  be  introduced  that  con- 
tained those  measures.  I  would  be  more  than 
pleased  to  withdraw  my  bill,  because  the  new 
Ontario  fire  code  would  be  more  comprehen- 
sive. It  would  mean  that  the  people  trained 
in  fire  safety  would  be  the  ones  who  would 
be  doing  the  inspecting,  and  not  the  nursing 
home  inspection  branch.  To  me,  that  is  very 
sensible  and  reasonable.  Instead,  four  years 
of  work  have  gone  down  the  drain.  The  fire 
chiefs  of  this  province  are  very  unhappy  with 
this  government  for  abandoning  a  promise 
that  had  been  given  to  them  and  because 
four  years  of  work  apparently  have  been 
scuttled. 

12:50  p.m. 


Mr.-  Lawlor:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be  very 
brief.  Mr.  John  Holtby,  my  friend  of  some 
years  past,  has  just  reminded  me  that  this 
may  be  the  last  opportunity  in  which  I  will 
be  able  to  speak  in  this  House.  I  trust  not, 
because  it  has  been  at  the  back  of  my  mind 
to  prepare  a  major  oration  for  the  delecta- 
tion of  everyone  present  on  some  subsequent 
occasion,  mostly,  of  course,  on  the  budget. 
I  can  sum  up  my  brief  career  here  by  quot- 
ing from  a  recent  cartoon  in  the  New  Yorker 
magazine,  "I  only  made  one  mistake:  I  did 
it  my  way." 

•I  have  a  word  or  two  for  the  Solicitor 
General.  We  all  know,  regretfully,  how  bitter 
and  partisan  issues  can  be,  particularly  when 
elections  are  in  the  offing  but,  artificially  to 
engender  and  construct  some  appeal  to  the 
police  community  in  a  totally  invidious 
fashion,  such  as  the  minister  is  currently 
doing,  does  him  little  credit  and,  in  my 
opinion,  simply  will  not  work.  He  needs 
issues. 

Is  the  government  so  bereft  of  substance 
that  this  is  the  kind  of  measure  it  has  to 
resort  to?  They  have  produced  a  ramshackle 
and  convoluted  piece  of  legislation  which 
confuses  even  themselves  and,  working  under 
that  smokescreen,  they  are  seeking  to  bring 
both  opposition  parties  into  disrepute  in  this 
particular  guise.  Nothing  anyone  will  say  will 
prevent  them  doing  it  largely  because  of  the 
dearth  or  paucity  of  thought  on  issues  on 
their  side.  They  have  so  much  to  apologize 
for,  in  terms  of  economics  and  in  terms  of 
their  tenure  in  the  past  few  years,  that  any 
straw  will  be  grasped1  at. 

I  want  to  raise  my  voice  against  that  at 
this  stage  and  say  that,  in  our  conversations 
with  senior  police  officers  et  cetera,  which 
we  have  had  outside  of  caucus  and  as  a 
result  of  caucus,  we  seemed  to  have  a  very 
good  reception.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  have 
found  greater  areas  of  concordance  between 
what  we  proposed,  particularly  in  the  rela- 
tions of  the  chief  of  police  vis-a-vis  the 
policeman  on  the  beat  et  cetera,  than  what 
his  legislation  is  proposing.  One  could  go 
into  it  at  length  and  thrash  about.  Irra- 
tionality in  these  matters  rules  the  day,  and 
there  is  little  more  one  can  say. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  say  one 
word  to  the  acting  Solicitor  General,  the 
Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice.  He  has  at- 
tempted all  morning  to  try  to  associate  the 
opposition  with  somehow  undermining  the 
police,  as  my  colleague  the  member  for  Lake- 
shore  (Mr.  Lawlor)  said. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  I  haven't  tried  to  do 
that.  That  was  done  by  you  months  ago.  I 


5332 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


just  reminded  you  that  you  did  it  to  your- 
selves months  ago. 

Mr.  Roy:  Some  of  the  people  across  the 
way  even  had  the  nerve  to  applaud  that 
shallow  rubbish  coming  from  people  who 
find  themselves  in  deep  trouble.  It  is  some- 
what ironic  they  should  say  the  police  some- 
how feel  the  opposition  is  not  supportive  of 
the  role  they  have  to  play.  I  do  not  think 
any  of  us  has  to  apologize  for  being  con- 
tinually supportive  of  the  police. 

If  he  thinks  he  can  win  the  campaign  by 
saying  that  the  opposition  parties,  by  playing 
their  role  as  a  true  opposition  and  not 
rubberstamping  the  bills  put  before  them, 
are  somehow  undermining  the  police  by  that 
approach,  that  we  are  not  supportive  of  the 
police,  and  that  somehow— and  this  is  the 
worst  statement  of  all— the  police  in  this 
province  feel  they  do  not  even  have  the  time 
of  day  for  the  opposition,  I  want  the  minister 
to  try  that  sort  of  that  campaign  and  ap- 
proach in  my  riding.  Let  him  come  in  and 
try  to  get  that  sort  of  support  from  the  police 
in  my  riding. 

It  is  unbecoming  in  one  who  is  supposed 
to  be  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  to 
say,  when  the  opposition  is  doing  its  job, 
fulfilling  its  role  and  questioning  government 
legislation,  that  somehow  it  is  undermining 
the  whole  administration  of  justice  and  does 
not  have  the  confidence  of  the  police.  Min- 
isters of  the  crown,  or,  at  least  provincial 
secretaries  who  are  involved  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice,  should  not  stoop  to  such 
depths. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  let  me 
begin  by  paying  tribute  to  the  member  for 
Lakeshore  (Mr.  Lawlor)  and  say  that  I  hope 
this  is  not  his  last  moment  to  be  speaking 
before  the  House.  Fortunately,  we  have  had 
many  years  of  great  input,  and  I  am  cer- 
tainly pleased  that  the  honourable  member 
was  not  nearly  as  provocative  as  the  member 
for  Brantford  (Mr.  Makarchuk),  who  at- 
tempted here  to  incite  us  all  to  make  com- 
ments that  we  might  not  want  to  make.  It  is 
difficult  and  almost  impossible  to  try  to  be 
calm  and  to  respond  when  faced  with  that 
kind  of  provocation. 

In  any  case,  let  me  say,  with  respect  to 
the  police  forces  of  this  province  that  they 
are  second  to  none;  while  the  member  op- 
posite made  some  invidious  comparisons 
with  respect  to  the  Metropolitan  Toronto 
Police  Force,  I  think  it  is  one  of  the  great 
police  forces  in  this  country,  indeed,  in  North 
America.  I  would  hope  the  member  would 
not  continue  on  the  bent  he  was  attempting 
to  display  here  earlier. 


Organized  crime  is  probably  a  number 
one  priority  with  the  Attorney  General  and 
with  the  Solicitor  General.  They  have  both 
attempted  to  provide  us  with  very  good 
police  activity  in  the  entire  area  of  organized 
crime.  The  Ontario  Provincial  Police  and  the 
police  forces  of  Ontario  have  an  enviable 
record  with  respect  to  this  area. 

The  member  for  Scarborough-Ellesmere 
(Mr.  Warner)  brought  up  matters  relating  to 
the  fire  code.  Yes,  I  made  that  speech  in 
Hamilton  on  May  7,  and  I  said  that  legisla- 
tion was  soon  to  be  the  law  of  Ontario.  A 
bill  was  introduced  within  a  month  and  a 
half  of  that  speech  and  would  have  been 
dealt  with,  I  am  sure,  this  week.  The 
Solicitor  General,  when  he  spoke  to  his 
deputy  just  yesterday,  said  he  wanted  to 
be  down  here  to  put  forward  the  fire  code. 
Had  he  been  here  this  week  and  had  he  not 
been  incapacitated  with  illness,  I  am  sure 
this  week  would  have  seen  the  dealing  of 
that  particular  bill. 

I  can  also  tell  the  honourable  member 
that  this  bill  will  be  the  very  first  one  intro- 
duced in  the  new  year  and  if  we  come  back 
in  March— 

The  Acting  Speaker:  The  member  for 
Scarborough-Ellesmere  has  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Warner:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  You  realize  as  well  as  the  rest  of 
us  that  certain  ministers  of  the  crown  have 
parliamentary  assistants,  and  it  is  normal  pro- 
cedure in  this  chamber,  when  a  minister  is 
absent,  that  his  parliamentary  assistant 
carries  forward  with  the  legislation.  That 
means  in  this  case  that,  had  the  Solicitor 
General  the  desire  to  bring  forward  the  bill, 
his  parliamentary  assistant,  the  member  for 
Carleton-Grenville  (Mr.  Sterling),  would 
have  done  so.  The  parliamentary  assistant 
was  here  this  week. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  That  is  not  a  point 
of  order. 

On  motion  by  Hon.  Mr.  Gregory,  the 
House  agreed  to  continue  sitting  beyond  the 
hour  of  1  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  bill 
will  be  introduced  as  soon  as  we  return  in 
the  spring.  I  am  led  to  believe  it  will  be  the 
first  one  introduced.  I  suspect  it  will  be  not 
changed  at  all  from  what  we  see  on  the 
Order  Paper  today.  If  there  are  any  changes 
in  the  interim,  I  suspect  they  will  be  very 
modest. 
1  p.m. 

I  would  say,  with  reference  to  the  parlia- 
mentary assistant  to  the  Attorney  General, 
there    is   no    parliamentary    assistant   to    the 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5333 


minister  whose  estimates  and  whose  con- 
currence is  before  the  House  today.  The 
member  is  the  parliamentary  assistant  to 
the  Attorney  General,  and  not  to  the  Solici- 
tor General.  I  do  not  think  the  member  can 
properly  raise  that,  and  I  know  the  Solicitor 
General,  had  he  had  the  opportunity,  would 
have  dealt  with  this  matter  this  week  and  it 
would  have  been  resolved  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  chiefs  of  this  province  consistent 
entirely  with  the  speech  I  made  on  May 
7.  Having  been  made  an  honorary  chief, 
I  think  I  can  speak  for  them  in  that  way. 

The  member  for  Ottawa  East  (Mr.  Roy) 
talked  about  the  role  being  played  by  the 
opposition  and  them  doing  their  job.  Yes, 
everybody  here  expects  the  opposition  to  do 
the  job;  no  one  doubts  that  at  all.  But  when 
the  opposition  goes  to  the  point  of  con- 
fronting legislation  that  is  reasonably  decent 
legislation,  legislation  that  has  the  agree- 
ment of  all  those  individuals— the  Metropoli- 
tan Toronto  Police,  the  Metropolitan  Toronto 
police  commissioners,  the  police  association, 
the  Metropolitan  council—  I  think  one  has  to 
say  at  that  point  that  what  they  stooped 
to  was  nothing  more  than  decimating  the 
legislation  before  the  House  at  that  time, 
and  I  think  that  is  taking  opposition  far  too 
far. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 


MINISTRY  OF  HEALTH 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  have  two  short  questions, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

I  wonder  whether  the  Minister  of  Health 
is  aware  of  a  recent  story  that  appeared  on 
the  front  page  of  the  Sault  Ste.  Marie  Star, 
which  was  headlined,  "If  You  Are  Sickly, 
Don't  Live  in  Dubreuilville."  It  went  on  to 
say  that  if  you  did  get  sick  in  Dubreuilville 
it  should  be  on  a  Wednesday,  because  that 
is  the  only  day  there  is  a  doctor  present  in 
that  community. 

The  Ministry  of  Health  officials  have  told 
Dubreuilville  residents  the  government  can 
help  provide  financial  incentives  to  an  area 
declared  medically  underserviced,  but  the 
search  for  a  full-time  doctor  requires  citizen 
participation.  That  apparently  is  ignoring 
the  fact  that  the  citizens  of  the  municipality 
of  Dubreuilville  have  been  working  very 
hard  to  try  to  attract  a  doctor  to  their  com- 
munity. The  officials  then  went  on  to  say 
the  community  could  still  be  five  years  away 
from  having  a  full-time  doctor. 

I  wonder  if  that  is  the  position  of  the 
ministry  and  what  is  being  done.  There  is  a 
physician  who  has  expressed  some  interest 
in   going  to   Dubreuilville,  according  to  the 


municipal  officials,  and  there  seems  to  be 
some  objection  by  the  ministry  to  that. 
There  may  be  good  reason  for  that,  I  do  not 
know,  but  I  would  like  to  know  what  is  go- 
ing on  there. 

Also,  in  relation  to  the  attempts  by  the 
residents  of  Dubreuilville  to  obtain  a  dentist, 
apparently  the  ministry  says  the  community 
is  of  such  a  size  that  they  can  have  half  a 
dentist!  If  this  is  the  case,  what  is  being 
done  to  try  to  co-ordinate  the  attempts  to 
attract  a  dentist  to  that  community  and  to 
Wawa?  What  is  being  done  to  try  to  give 
assistance  to  the  setting  up  of  a  dental 
clinic,  which  would  make  it  easier  to  attract 
a  professional  to  that  area?  Also,  what  is 
being  done  to  try  to  ensure  that,  if  there 
is  to  be  a  dentist  shared  with  Wawa,  that 
dentist  has  an  understanding  and  a  capa- 
bility in  the  French  language? 

Mr.  Makarchuk:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a 
brief  point  and  this  again  arises  out  of  the 
discussions  in  the  Solicitor  General's  esti- 
mates regarding  the  administration  of  the 
fire  code  and  so  on. 

It  is  evident  that  there  is  no  proper  burn 
treatment  unit  available  for  Toronto.  It  is 
a  matter  of  concern  right  now  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  Mississauga  incident  could 
have  created  quite  a  few  burns  and,  with 
the  complexity  of  industrial  technology  and 
the  use  of  various  chemicals  et  cetera,  the 
danger  exists  that  one  could  run  into  some 
kind  of  situation  where  a  lot  of  people 
would  or  could  be  burned.  We  discover,  on 
examining  the  available  facilities,  that  in 
Toronto  there  is  not  an  adequate  burn  unit 
where  there  are  the  beds  or  the  equipment 
to  treat  these  people  properly  in  any  one 
of  the  hospitals  here. 

The  minister  should  look  at  that  very  care- 
fully and  discuss  it  with  the  physicians  of 
the  various  hospitals,  because  they  have  also 
stated  that  there  is  this  problem  and  we 
have  no  facilities  to  cope  with  it.  That  is  a 
dangerous  way  to  live,  if  one  cannot  take 
care  of  people  who  get  burned. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  may 
take  the  questions  in  reverse  order,  there  does 
exist  in  a  number  of  the  hospitals  in  and 
around  Metropolitan  Toronto  a  capacity  to 
deal  with  burns,  particularly  at  the  Hospital 
for  Sick  Children. 

There  has  been  a  proposal  on  the  books 
for  several  years  to  establish  a  new  burn  unit 
at  the  Wellesley  Hospital,  which  is  on  our 
list  of  projects  for  discussion  of  new  initia- 
tives in  the  next  couple  of  years.  It  is  a  matter 
of  availability  of— if  I  remember  correctly— 
something    in    the    order    of    $1    million    for 


5334 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


capital  costs  and  I  cannot  recall  the  figure  for 
operating  costs,  but  it  is  under  consideration. 

As  regards  Dubreuilville,  the  member  for 
Algoma  (Mr.  Wildman)  and  I  have  corres- 
ponded on  a  number  of  occasions.  To  the 
best  of  my  recollection,  Dr.  Copeman,  who 
heads  our  underserviced  areas  program,  does 
have  Dubreuilville  on  our  list.  The  member 
says  there  is  a  physician  who  is  interested  in 
establishing  in  Dubreuilville;  I  would  ap- 
preciate it  if  he  could  get  me  his  name,  and 
I  will  make  sure  Dr.  Copeman  is  aware  of 
his  name. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  think  he  is  aware  of  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell:  Then  I  know  of  no 
reason,  if  the  physician  is  interested  and  Dr. 
Copeman  has  been  made  aware  of  it,  why  he 
can't  be  brought  in.  I  would  still  like  to  have 
the  name,  if  the  member  would  not  mind, 
so  that  I  can  take  it  up  with  him. 

As  regards  a  dentist,  the  volume  of  work 
for  a  dentist  is  quite  a  different  matter  from 
that  for  a  physician,  and  we  have  to  be 
looking  at  sharing  a  dentist.  As  the  member 
knows,  we  would  expect  the  community,  per- 
haps with  the  assistance  of  the  Minister  of 
Northern  Affairs  (Mr.  Bernier),  to  look  after 
at  least  the  professional  accommodation .  if  not 
the  personal  accommodation.  The  Minister 
of  Northern  Affairs  has  been  extremely  help- 
ful in  a  number  of  communities  in  the  north 
in  assisting  in  the  provision  of  both  profes- 
sional and  personal  accommodation.  I  will 
take  that  up  with  Dr.  Copeman  as  well. 

If  the  member  could  get  me  the  name  of 
that  physician  who  is  interested,  I  know  of 
no  reason,  if  he  is  interested,  why  he  could 
not  be  brought  in  under  the  program. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

SOCIAL  DEVELOPMENT  POLICY 

Mr.  McClellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  not  in- 
tended to  speak  on  the  concurrences  and  I  do 
not  intend  to  take  more  than  a  few  minutes 
but,  in  view  of  the  fact  the  minister  did  make 
a  statement  today  with  respect  to  the  govern- 
ment's plans  for  the  International  Year  of 
Disabled  Persons,  I  want  to  make  a  few 
comments. 

I  do  not  have  my  file  with  me,  but  I  think 
I  can  remember  from  the  minister's  statement 
a  sentence  on  the  second  page— she  can  correct 
me  if  I  am  wrong— which  read,  "The  govern- 
ment plans  to  continue  with  its  previous  com- 
mitments during  1981."  The  rest  of  the  state- 
ment is  completely  empty  of  any  specifics. 

We  want  to  suggest  to  the  provincial 
secretary  that  if  the  government  is  serious 
about  a  meaningful  program  in  recognition  of 


International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons,  there 
are  a  number  of  very  specific  things  that  can 
and  should  be  done  based  on  previous  com- 
mitments that  this  government  has  made  but 
not  honoured.  Let  me  try  to  be  specific. 

Part  V  of  the  Ontario  Building  Code  should 
be  brought  forward  to  cover  residential  ac- 
commodations. The  transportation  service  for 
the  physically  handicapped  should  be  ex- 
tended beyond  the  limited  hours  it  is  now 
available  so  that  the  physically  handicapped 
can  have  a  public  transit  service  that  is 
available  for  social,  cultural  and  recreational 
use,  as  well  as  the  current  limited  service, 
which  is  available  only  to  and  from  employ- 
ment or  school  or  on  a  very  complicated 
booking  system  for  other  kinds  of  activities. 

1:10  p.m. 

The  government  should  move  forward  on 
the  group  homes  issue,  on  which  I  gather  the 
government  is  moving  backwards;  certainly 
there  is  no  progress  there.  If  the  government 
were  serious  about  ending  the  violation  of 
human  rights  by  virtue  of  exclusionary  build- 
ing bylaws,  it  would  take  action  to  make  sure 
municipalities  are  not  empowered  to  violate 
human  rights.  I  understand  there  is  an  appeal 
from  the  Ontario  Municipal  Board  before  the 
cabinet  now,  and  it  has  been  sitting  on  the 
cabinet's  plate  for  a  long  time,  with  respect 
to  a  group  home  in  the  borough  of  Etobi- 
coke.  Again,  the  provincial  secretary  can  cor- 
rect me  if  I  am  wrong.  The  cabinet  has 
not  dealt  with  that,  and  I  believe  the  pro- 
vincial secretary  may  have  something  to  say 
in  a  few  days  about  Metro  plans. 

If  the  government  is  serious  in  its  rhetori- 
cal commitment  to  employment  opportunities 
for  the  phvsicalh'  handicapped,  the  govern- 
ment is  obliged  to  do  something  about 
sheltered  workshops.  I  do  not  think  the  pro- 
vincial secretary  has  actually  seen  the  survey 
of  sheltered  workshops  that  was  done  for 
the  Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices. If  the  provincial  secretary  had  read  it, 
she  would  have  realized  that  it  was  not 
limited  to  sheltered  workshops  for  the  men- 
tally retarded;  it  also  dealt  with  sheltered 
workshops  for  the  physically  handicapped. 
The  figures  I  was  quoting,  the  so-called 
wages  I  was  pointing  out  in  that  study- 
wages  in  the  order  of  30  cents  an  hour,  on 
average— applied  not  exclusively  to  the  men- 
tally retarded,  but  also  were  being  paid  to 
physically  handicapped  people  working  in 
sheltered  workshops.  These  so-called  wages 
are  a  result  of  the  government's  inadequate 
funding  program. 

I  would  suggest,  if  nothing  else,  that  if  the 
provincial  secretary  has  difficulty  finding  proj- 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5335 


ects  for  the  $12  million  she  has  announced 
today,  a  priority  should  be  to  upgrade  the 
salaries  of  disabled  people  who  are  working 
in  sheltered  workshops.  But,  leaving  that 
aside,  I  understand  the  Minister  of  Labour 
(Mr.  Elgie)  is  engaged  in  a  study  of  sheltered 
workshops,  because  he  is  on  the  hook  too 
since  he  issues  exemptions  from  the  minimum 
wage,  and  the  new  Human  Rights  Code  will 
provide  a  means  of  having  hearings  against 
these  kinds  of  situations. 

If  the  provincial  secretary  is  serious  during 
the  International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons, 
I  would  suggest  the  time  has  come  to  estab- 
lish a  provincial  manpower  program  that  has 
a  specific  mandate  to  create  jobs  in  a  serious 
way  for  physically  handicapped  people.  I 
would  suggest  to  her  that  she  look  seriously 
at  the  British  Remploy  model,  which  is  a 
crown  corporation  engaged  in  productive  and 
successful  manufacturing  enterprises  that  em- 
ploy thousands  and  thousands  of  physically 
handicapped  people  in  Britain  and,  miracle 
of  miracles,  unlike  our  sheltered  workshops, 
manages  to  pay  them  a  decent,  adequate 
living  wage. 

I  think  there  is  a  role  for  public  sector 
involvement,  not  just  in  terms  of  preaching, 
as  is  the  wont  of  the  provincial  secretary, 
but  also  actually  in  developing  meaningful 
programs,  including  crown  corporations  that 
can  provide  employment  opportunities.  We 
have  successful  models  in  other  countries.  It 
is  not  as  though  we  do  not  know  what  to  do. 
It  is  not  as  though  there  is  no  interest.  The 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board  seems  to  be 
more  interested  in  the  Remploy  system  than 
either  the  Minister  of  Labour  or  the  Provin- 
cial Secretary  for  Social  Development. 

Finally,  we  want  to  deal  with  the  income 
security  needs  of  handicapped  people.  The 
International  Year  of  Disabled  Persons  is  a 
good  opportunity  to  get  serious  about  uni- 
versal accident  and  illness  insurance.  Unless 
we  move  away  from  our  current  philosophy 
that  the  physically  handicapped,  unless  they 
are  on  workmen's  compensation,  are  con- 
signed to  welfare,  and  move  towards  a  notion 
of  providing  income  support  to  the  physically 
handicapped  on  the  social  insurance  principle, 
we  are  never  going  to  be  able  to  help  them 
to  get  out  of  the  poverty  trap. 

The  combination  of  employment  oppor- 
tunities and  social  insurance,  I  would  respect- 
fully submit  to  the  provincial  secretary,  is 
urgently  required.  I  realize  she  cannot  im- 
plement programs  of  this  magnitude  during 
the  course  of  a  12-month  period.  But  there 
is  a  great  opportunity  for  the  government  to 
begin  the  process  of  seriously  studying  uni- 


versal accident  and  illness  insurance  to  de- 
termine what  kind  of  scheme  in  precise  terms 
would  make  sense  in  Ontario;  to  develop  a 
serious  provincial  manpower  program  that  will 
pull  together  all  the  existing  manpower  pro- 
grams currently  spread  over  three  or  four 
ministries,  put  them  into  the  house  of  the 
Minister  of  Labour  and  permit  that  ministry 
the  opportunity  to  create  real  employment 
opportunities  in  a  meaningful  and  serious 
way,  and  to  move  away  from  the  paternalistic 
and  inadequate  past  measures  that  currently 
consign  physically  handicapped  people,  even 
though  they  are  working  30  or  40  hours  a 
week,  to  a  position  of  subpoverty. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to 
make  a  few  comments  to  the  Provincial  Sec- 
retary for  Social  Development.  They  refer 
to  a  field  in  which  municipalities  always  say 
it  is  not  their  responsibility.  When  we  talk 
to  the  Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell)  and 
the  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Serv- 
ices (Mr.  Norton),  they  insist  it  is  the  munic- 
ipalities' responsibility. 

I  am  referring  to  the  physical  standards  for 
rest  homes,  boarding  homes  and  lodging 
homes.  My  own  municipality  insists  it  is  the 
responsibility  of  the  provincial  government 
to  set  these  standards,  yet  I  understand 
municipalities  have  the  authority  to  set  the 
standards.  It  would  be  better  if  the  standards 
for  the  three  types  of  accommodation— rest 
homes,  boarding  homes  and  lodging  homes- 
were  uniform  right  across  the  province, 
whether  they  be  in  the  city  of  Windsor  or 
in  some  smaller  municipality  outside  any  one 
of  our  metropolitan  areas. 

I  would  suggest  to  the  minister  that  she 
should  convince  the  municipalities  they  have 
an  obligation  to  see  that  rest  homes,  board- 
ing homes  and  lodging  homes  meet  certain 
physical  standards  as  well  as,  in  some  in- 
stances, have  a  minimum  type  of  program  for 
the  inhabitants  of  these  rest  homes,  boarding 
homes  or  lodging  homes,  depending  on  the 
type  of  facility  in  which  individuals  could 
benefit  by  some  type  of  program. 

The  fact  is  that  municipalities  have  the 
authority  but  it  is  not  uniform.  I  would 
suggest  to  the  minister  that  she  either  con- 
tact or,  in  some  fashion,  see  that  the  munic- 
ipalities know  that  it  is  their  responsibility 
to  provide  a  certain  type  of  standard,  which 
I  would  prefer  to  have  set  by  the  provincial 
authority,  by  her  ministry  or  the  Ministry  of 
Community  and  Social  Services  or  the 
Ministry  of  Health. 

I  am  referring  first  to  physical  standards. 
When  one  gets  calls  from  constituents  and 
goes  into  one  of  these  homes  and  then  into  a 


5336 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


second,  there  is  so  much  variation  in  the  size 
of  rooms,  the  type  of  beds  the  individuals  use 
and  just  the  general  physical  accommodations 
in  a  building. 

There  are  two  things  I  am  suggesting  to 
the  minister:  First,  the  physical  standards  and, 
second,  the  programming— so  that  the  people 
who  have  to  be  in  these  accommodations  are 
not  simply  warehoused  but  can  have  a  pro- 
gram so  their  days  can  be  just  as  fruitful  to 
them  as  our  days  are  to  us. 

1:20  p.m. 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased 
to  have  the  opportunity  to  reinforce  the  com- 
ments of  this  morning  with  regard  to  the 
International  Year  for  Disabled  Persons. 

This  government's  interest  and  participa- 
tion in  the  lives  of  disabled  persons  does 
not  begin  with  an  international  year.  Our 
commitment  has  taken  place  over  a  number 
of  years.  We  have  continued  to  develop 
programs  that  make  it  possible  for  the  dis- 
abled people  within  Ontario  to  enjoy,  in 
many  instances  for  the  first  time,  accessi- 
bility to  transportation,  to  living  accommo- 
dation with  support  service  and  to  many 
other  programs  that  are  very  innovative  and, 
certainly,  to  my  knoweldge,  far  ahead  of 
those  of  many  of  the  other  provinces  here 
in  Canada. 

The  honourable  member  is  shaking  his 
head.  I  have  just  come  back  from  a  federal- 
provincial  meeting  of  social  welfare  min- 
isters, who  were  very  pleased  to  hear  what 
we  were  doing  in  this  province  and  who 
have  asked  me  for  all  the  up-to-date  in- 
formation so  that  many  of  them  will  be 
able  to  follow  the  lead  that  Ontario  has 
taken   in   providing  many   of  these  services. 

Twelve  million  dollars  may  not  seem  like 
a  great  deal  to  have  dedicated  to  programs 
for  this  year,  but  I  would  like  to  remind 
the  honourable  members  that  that  is  in  addi- 
tion to  the  many  millions  of  dollars  we 
already  spend  on  programs  for  the  disabled 
in  this  province.  These  are  going  to  supply 
some  of  the  programs  that  the  disabled 
people  themselves  have  indicated  are  their 
priorities;  that  is  what  I  am  really  interested 
in,  the  priorities  of  the  disabled  people 
themselves.  I  am  sure  that,  out  there  today, 
many  of  them  are  very  happy  to  have 
heard  the  announcement. 

The  specifics  that  the  member  has  asked 
for  will  follow  in  the  ensuing  months  as  the 
ministers  responsible  for  the  new  programs 
will  make  those  announcements.  I  think  the 
member  will  be  very  pleased  with  what  he 
hears. 


He  also  made  reference  to  amendments 
to  the  Ontario  Building  Code.  Those  are  all 
ready  to  go.  He  will  be  hearing  announce- 
ments in  the  very  near  future.  The  agree- 
ment has  been  reached,  and  those  building 
code  regulation  amendments  will  go  for- 
ward. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Someone  promised  it  at 
the  end  of  November. 

Hon.   Mrs.   Birch:    It  is   going  through. 

As  I  say,  I  think  that,  although  perhaps 
we  have  not  been  able  to  provide  everything 
for  the  disabled  people  in  Ontario,  we 
certainly  are  attempting  to  make  their  lives 
much  more  meaningful  by  providing  them 
with  opportunities  so  that  they  can  make 
a  contribution. 

The  member  made  some  comments  about 
the  transportation  program,  which  is  held 
up  as  an  example  to  every  other  province 
across  Canada.  We  have  been  trying  to 
persuade  more  municipalities  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  it.  The  money  is  there,  the  incen- 
tives are  there,  but  the  municipalities  have 
to  indicate  their  interest.  We  are  hoping, 
although  we  have  some  30  municipalities 
involved  now,  that  by  the  end  of  1981 
many  more  will  become  a  part  of  this 
program. 

The  member  for  Windsor- Walkerville  (Mr. 
B.  Newman)  mentioned  the  possibility  of 
the  government's  becoming  involved  in  the 
licensing  of  lodging,  boarding  and  rest 
homes.  More  than  a  year  ago,  I  sent  a  letter 
to  every  municipality  in  this  province  in- 
dicating to  them  their  responsibility  for 
carrying  out  such  licensing.  It  is  well  within 
their  purview  to  do  so.  Many  have  written 
back  and  asked  for  samples  of  bylaws  they 
might  use.  We  still  feel  very  strongly  that 
should  be  done  at  the  local  level.  We  are 
perhaps  going  to  take  a  look  at  some  of  the 
standards  but,  as  far  as  the  responsibility 
for  licensing  and  inspection  goes,  that  is 
a  local  responsibility  and  we  would  not  like 
to  take  that  over. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  I  was  essentially  inter- 
ested in  standards. 

Hon.  Mrs.  Birch:  Perhaps  that  is  some- 
thing we  are  having  a  look  at. 

As  the  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social 
Development,  I  know  we  have  not  been 
able  to  do  all  the  things  that  everyone 
would  like  us  to  do.  I  can  only  say,  as  an 
individual  who  has  been  interested  in  social 
welfare  programs  for  many  years  before 
becoming  a  politician,  that  I  am  very  proud 
to    be    a    part    of    this    government    which 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5337 


really  does  show  that  it  cares  for  the  citizens 
who   are   disadvantaged  in   this   province. 
Resolution  concurred  in. 

RESOURCES  DEVELOPMENT  POLICY 
Resolution  concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  INDUSTRY 
AND  TOURISM 

Mr.  Laughren:  When  I  tried  to  raise  an 
issue  this  morning,  the  Minister  of  Industry 
and  Tourism  attempted  to  respond  in  a  very 
flippant  and  irrelevant  manner  to  my  direct 
and  piercing  question  which  was  put  to  him 
concerning  the  food  processing  machinery 
industry  in  Ontario.  The  minister's  loud 
words  are  much  louder  than  the  actions  he 
carries  through  with.  He  talks  about  putting 
on  trade  shows  and  about  encouraging  the 
various  sectors  out  there  but,  when  some- 
body approaches  him  to  get  assistance  in  do- 
ing it,  he  does  not  even  give  them  the 
decency  of  a  reply.  After  exactly  one  year 
and  four  letters— the  first  letter  was  on 
October  23,  1979,  and  the  last  one  was 
October  23,  1980- 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Send  them  over.  I 
want  to  see  them. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  will  send  them  over  if 
the  minister  will  send  them  back  again.  We 
have  not  heard  the  last  of  this  matter. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Or  this  minister. 

Mr.  Laughren:  We  may  have  heard  the 
last  of  this  minister  in  his  present  portfolio. 
The  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S.  Miller)  is  not  par- 
ticularly happy  with  the  performance  of  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  and  that 
means  his  position  is  precarious.  We  all  know 
who  really  calls  the  shots  in  this  govern- 
ment. One  more  wrong  move  and  he  will  be 
Minister  of  Government  Services. 

I  am  sorry  there  is  no  concurrence  in 
supply  for  the  estimates  of  the  Minister 
without  Portfolio  (Mr.  Pope).  Why  is  there 
not  a  concurrence  in  supply  for  the  Minister 
without  Portfolio  or  a  food  terminal?  Surely 
he  spends  money.  Why  is  there  no  concur- 
rence for  what  he  does  here?  I  guess  it  is  a 
rhetorical  question,  because  he  has  not  done 
anything.  When  the  minister  was  elected,  he 
was  elected  on  a  promise  that  there  would 
be  a  food  terminal  in  Timmins  for  the  peo- 
ple of  northeastern  Ontario. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  talking 
about  the  concurrence  in  supply  for  another 
ministry. 

Mr.  Laughren:  This  has  to  do  with  the 
Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism,  who  knows 


full  well  there  should  be  a  food  terminal  in 
Timmins  to  look  after  the  people  there. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  When  the  member 
for  Nickel  Belt  starts  talking  about  food 
terminals,  I  think  he  is  becoming  a  little  bit 
repetitive.  It  has  nothing  directly  to  do  with 
the  question  before  the  House. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Really? 

Mr.  Speaker:  Really. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  think  the  point  is  made, 
Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Speaker:   On  many  occasions. 

Mr.  Laughren:  I  will  send  the  letters 
across  to  the  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tour- 
ism. He  should  feel  free  to  duplicate  them 
as  long  as  he  gets  them  back  to  me.  Our 
indication  is  that  his  ministry  simply  has  not 
responded  to  this  very  reasonable  and  modest 
request,  and  the  minister  should  do  it. 

A  good  processing  machinery  industry 
would  facilitate  the  operation  of  a  food  ter- 
minal in  northeastern  Ontario.  I  hope  the 
minister  without  a  food  terminal  will  not 
try  to  get  re-elected  yet  again  on  a  food 
terminal.  He  promised  it  and  he  was  working 
for  it.  Then  they  called  him  into  the  cabinet 
and  he  forgot  all  about  it. 

1:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  we  cannot  pos- 
sibly concur  in  these  estimates  as  long  as 
the  minister  is  not  going  to  give  us  the  in- 
formation pertaining  to  the  advertising 
budget  of  the  various  ministries.  He  must 
know  that  up  to  $20  million  is  being  spent, 
mostly  by  himself  but  also  by  his  colleagues, 
and  used  practically  for  the  sole  purpose  to 
aggrandize  the  Progressive  Conservative 
Party.  It  obviously  needs  all  the  help  it  can 
get,  but  even  the  $20  million  from  the  public 
purse  is  not  going  to  save  it  from  extermina- 
tion. 

I  for  one,  cannot  concur  in  these  estimates 
unless  that  information  is  forthcoming. 

Mr.  B.  Newman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not 
intend  to  be  lengthy  but  I  would  like  to  ask 
the  minister  if  he  sets  any  priorities  in  his 
search  for  industry  in  the  province  in  those 
municipalities  that  have  above-normal  un- 
employment indices?  The  minister  knows  the 
municipality  to  which  I  am  referring.  The 
industrial  promotions  commissioner  and  the 
mayor  of  the  city  have  been  attempting  to 
lure  new  industry  to  the  community.  De 
Havilland  was  one;  an  electric  auto  manufac- 
turer was  another. 

Has  the  minister  assisted  them  in  any  way 
in  their  search?  Is  he  giving  priority  to  the 
city  of  Windsor  as   opposed  to  some  other 


5338 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


municipality  so  that  all  things  being  equal- 
other  than  the  unemployment  index— Windsor 
can  have  a  little  higher  employment  index? 
Our  city  has  from  17,000  to  22,000  unem- 
ployed, depending  on  who  you  talk  to.  Re- 
gardless of  the  number,  any  number  above 
the  national  average  or  provincial  average  is 
much  too  high. 

I  do  not  intend  to  comment  further.  The 
minister  knows  all  about  it  and  I  would 
appreciate  some  answers  from  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Speaker,  unfortu- 
nately I  am  going  to  have  to  talk  long  enough 
for  my  assistant  to  get  back  with  the  reply 
to  the  four  letters  the  member  for  Nickel 
Belt  sent  over,  because  he  did  make  such  an 
issue  out  of  it.  I  will  filibuster  on  many 
issues,  save  the  food  terminal,  because  that 
would  be  out  of  order. 

Mr.  McClellan:  Is  it  not  your  estimates? 

Mr.  Laughren:  It  is  not  out  of  order. 
What  you  are  talking  about? 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  The  food  terminals 
are  out  of  order  during  this  discussion. 

Mr.  Laughren:  No,  that  is  in  your  ministry. 
They  are  out  of  existence. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  They  will  be  in  exis- 
tence when  the  member  is  out  of  existence. 

I  regret  I  am  unable  to  get  the  support  of 
the  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  in  these 
concurrences.  I  would  do  almost  anything  I 
could  to  get  his  support  for  any  item  I  have 
before  the  House.  Lord  knows  I  would  give 
him  the  shirt  off  my  back,  but  I  cannot  give 
him  what  I  do  not  have.  To  date  I  have  not 
been  able  to  assemble  for  him  the  vast 
amount  of  information  I  know  he  wants.  I 
had  hoped  I  would  be  able  to  by  the  time 
we  finish  this  session,  because  I  know  he 
would  be  obliged  to  stand  in  his  place  and 
take  back  a  lot  of  the  allegations  he  has 
been  making.  No  doubt  he  would  be  im- 
pressed by  the  incredible  return  the  govern- 
ment and  taxpayers  of  the  province  are 
getting  on  our  advertising  dollars.  We  will 
have  a  chance  to  test  that  more  adequately 
some  time  next  year. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  It  will  be  tested  in  the  cam- 
paign. 

Hon.  Mr.  Grossman:  We  will  run  on  our 
record  and  against  the  member's  leader. 

The  member  for  Windsor-Walkerville  as 
always  has  raised  some  very  important  con- 
cerns with  regard  to  his  area.  He  will  know 
we  have  been  working  hand-in-hand  with 
the  fine  industrial  development  commission 
in  the  Windsor-Essex  area.  I  think  they  are 
making  substantial  gains.  They  have  a  good 
reputation  in  Europe  among  those  very  many 


people  who  are  now  looking  at  opening  up 
auto  related  industries  and  plants  in  Ontario. 
I  am  fairly  optimistic  we  are  going  to  see 
some  of  those  over  the  next  year. 

Having  SITEV  America  in  Toronto  next 
June  will  be  of  tremendous  advantage  to  the 
people  in  the  Windsor-Essex  area,  because 
they  will  be  able  to  take  some  of  the  foreign 
decision-makers  who  would  never  be  in 
Ontario  otherwise  out  to  that  fine  area.  They 
can  show  them  the  work  force,  the  various 
plants  that  are  available  and  some  of  the 
other  attributes  the  area  has.  The  Windsor- 
Essex  industrial  development  commission  has 
always  been  very  aggressive  in  doing  those 
kinds  of  things,  and  that  will  also  show  very 
well. 

The  member  for  Windsor-Walkerville 
raised  the  question  of  the  possibility  of  get- 
ting de  Havilland  into  Windsor  and,  of 
course,  the  problem  I  have  is  that  I  get  all 
sorts  of  advice  as  to  where  the  Dash-8  proj- 
ect should  go.  The  member  for  Windsor- 
Walkerville  thinks  it  should  go  to  Windsor. 
The  member  for  Downsview,  understandably, 
thinks  it  should  go  to  Downsview.  I  want  the 
record  to  note  that  some  members  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party  caucus  have  ap- 
plauded. 

The  leader  of  the  NDP,  on  the  other  hand, 
I  say  to  the  member  for  Windsor-Walkerville, 
thinks  it  should  go  to  Windsor.  We  do  have 
his  support,  though  we  do  not  appear  to  have 
the  support  of  the  member  for  Bellwoods  or 
the  member  for  Algoma,  and  so  we  have  the 
NDP  with  two  different  opinions. 

Of  course,  the  good  member  for  Peter- 
borough has  made  a  very  fine  presentation  on 
behalf  of  his  municipality.  I  report  to  the 
member  for  Windsor-Walkerville,  the  member 
for  Downsview,  his  leader  and  the  member  for 
Peterborough,  all  of  whom  have  spoken  on 
behalf  of  different  communities,  that  our  role 
as  the  provincial  government  is  to  put  forward 
Ontario  as  the  place,  and  it  appears  we  have 
succeeded  in  convincing  the  federal  govern- 
ment that  de  Havilland's  inclination,  which  is 
to  stay  in  Ontario,  should  be  followed.  Hav- 
ing done  that,  I  say  to  the  member  that  we 
have  argued  that  case  on  the  basis  of  allow- 
ing de  Havilland  to  make  the  proper  business 
decisions  and  that  it  should  not  be  diverted 
by  way  of  a  political  decision.  Having  done 
that,  we  must  now  be  consistent  and  say  to 
the  federal  government,  "Allow  de  Havilland 
to  locate  where  it  makes  the  best  business 
sense." 

I  cannot  indicate  to  the  member,  because 
I  do  not  know,  where  de  Havilland  will  ul- 
timately select  to  go.  I  will  say  that  the  efforts 
made  by  Windsor,  Hamilton,  London,  Peter- 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5339 


borough,  Downsview,  Metro  Toronto  and  the 
other  municipalities  have  all  been  first  class, 
and  I  am  fairly  satisfied  that  all  of  the  neces- 
sary efforts  have  been  made,  all  the  infor- 
mation is  at  hand  and  all  those  who  have  had 
an  opportunity  to  get  the  Dash-8  project 
have  done  a  very  fine  job.  All  of  the  munic- 
ipalities may  rest  assured,  at  least  in  my 
opinion,  that  the  decision  made  by  de  Havil- 
land  will  be  made  on  the  basis  of  full  and 
complete  information,  and  those  that  do  not 
get  it  may  rest  assured  that  it  was  not  a 
political  decision  or  a  decision  made  because 
of  a  lack  of  information.  Having  said  that,  I 
cannot  give  any  more  guidance  as  to  where  it 
is  likely  to  go. 

I  would  just  conclude  by  saying  that  the 
auto  industry  will  continue  to  be  a  first 
priority  with  us  as  we  work  with  the  federal 
government  and  the  auto  industry  to  see  what 
we  can  continue  to  do,  as  I  indicated  during 
question  period  this  morning,  to  happily  still 
outperform  our  neighbours  to  the  south  while 
we  try  to  get  through  this  difficult  time. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

Resolution  for  supplementary  supply  also 
concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  COMMUNITY 
AND  SOCIAL  SERVICES 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  intend  to  be 
very  brief  in  my  remarks,  but  this  is  the 
festive  season  and  I  want  to  make  sure  the 
minister  remembers  the  two  situations  which 
have  dragged  on  from  well  before  this  House 
resumed  in  the  fall  and  which  are  going  on 
today  and  look  as  though  they  will  be  going 
on  over  the  Christmas  break.  In  particular, 
I  refer  to  the  situation  at  Participation  House 
in  Hamilton,  where  handicapped  people  have 
been  temporarily  evicted  from  their  homes 
because  of  a  labour  dispute  that  only  the 
minister  can  have  any  true  understanding  of. 

The  management  of  Participation  House 
has  made  it  very  clear  for  weeks  that  it  be- 
lieves it  has  no  more  money  and  that  its 
original  offer  of  eight  per  cent  will  have  to 
stand.  The  staff,  quite  reasonably,  and  cer- 
tainly with  my  support,  is  requesting  an 
increase  to  a  decent  living  wage.  The  minister 
indicated  in  committee  he  believes  there  is 
room  for  further  negotiation.  This  has  been 
communicated  to  both  sides,  and  yet  nothing 
has  happened.  While  the  minister  is  at  home 
with  his  family  before  the  fire  over  Christmas 
—and  while  I  wish  him  no  ill  will— I  hope  he 
is  thinking  of  those  handicapped  people  who 
have  been  moved  out  of  their  homes  and  can- 
not enjoy  Christmas  in  Participation  House 


with    their    friends    because    of    his    miserly 
approach   to  the  funding  of  those  kinds   of 
organizations. 
1:40  p.m. 

I  am  particularly  concerned  that  I  am 
receiving  reports  that  the  people  are  not 
even  able  to  get  their  stereos,  televisions 
and  other  things,  which  are  still  in  Parti- 
cipation House.  They  have  been  moved  out 
with  whatever  they  were  able  to  take  with 
them  and  everything  else  is  still  locked  up 
in  that  place. 

It  is  about  time  the  minister  came  to 
grips  with  the  funding  of  those  kinds  of 
organizations  and  with  solving  that  prob- 
lem. He  is  the  only  person,  to  this  day, 
who  can  be  seen  to  be  impartial  in  any 
sense  of  the  word.  He  has  seen  the  books 
of  that  organization;  therefore,  he  knows 
whether  they  can  afford  to  settle. 

The  other  situation  is  the  one  concern- 
ing the  St.  Catharines  Association  for  the 
Mentally  Retarded.  The  spokesperson  for 
that  association  has  clearly  taken  the  posi- 
tion that  the  wage  increase  the  employees 
have  requested  is  justified,  but  they  cannot 
be  paid  unless  the  ministry  gives  the  asso- 
ciation some  assurance  that  it  will  increase 
the  association's  budget  to  allow  for  the 
increase.  I  am  sure  this  minister  could  do 
something  towards  providing  that  assurance, 
ending  this  17-  or  18-week-oId  dispute  and 
getting  that  association  back  in  business  as 
well. 

Mr.  McCIellan:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  not 
take  more  than  30  seconds.  I  wish  to  ask  the 
minister  whether  he  intends  to  release  his 
day  care  policy  statement  before  Christmas, 
after  Christmas,  after  the  Easter  break  or 
after  the  election? 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  two 
short  questions  for  the  Minister  of  Bah 
Humbug.  I  am  a  little  concerned  about  the 
fact  that  it  seems  to  take  an  awfully  long 
time  for  this  ministry  to  be  able  to  deal  with 
the  question  of  funding  and  budget  ap- 
proval for  agencies  such  as  the  Children's 
Aid  Society  for  Sault  Ste.  Marie  and  Al- 
goma  District. 

I  understand  that  agency  is  still  awaiting 
approval  of  its  1980  budget  when  it  is  al- 
most spent;  it  is  reaching  the  end  of  the 
year.  I  understand  it  took  until  just  recently, 
with  a  review,  to  get  their  1979  budget 
approved.  I  note  they  originally  asked  for 
$2,281,000.  In  February,  the  ministry  indi- 
cated they  could  have  $2,271,000  for  their 
1979  budget.  For  their  1980  budget,  they 
were  cut  back  to  $2,150,000  in  July.  As  far 


5340 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


as  the  agency  is  concerned,  it  has  not  been 
able  to  cut  its  projected  costs.  They  are 
spending  what  they  projected  and,  because 
of  the  ministry's  decision  in  July,  they  have 
automatically  been  put  into  a  budget  deficit 
position.  Therefore,  they  requested  a  re- 
view of  their  1980  budget  as  they  had  to 
do  for  their  1979  budget,  and  they  have 
not  yet  received   that  review. 

I  am  wondering  why  that  takes  so  long, 
and  when  can  we  anticipate  they  will  have 
their   1980  budget  reviewed  and  approved? 

The  other  issue  I  would  like  to  raise  is 
my  serious  concern  over  the  fact  that  the 
district  of  Algoma  was  excluded  when  the 
minister  made  his  announcement  of  a  $400,- 
000  fund  for  the  provision  of  French- 
language  services  to  children  in  northeastern 
Ontario.  I  do  not  understand  why  that 
should  be  so  when  approximately  20  to  25 
per  cent  of  our  population  are  francophones 
and,  as  the  minister  knows,  we  have  some 
communities  that  are  almost  wholly  French- 
speaking. 

As  a  result  of  the  questions  I  have  raised 
with  the  minister  and  the  communications  I 
have  had  with  ministry  officials,  I  understand 
they  are  prepared  to  communicate  by  cor- 
respondence in  the  French  language  with 
people  in  Algoma  who  are  francophone,  but 
no  funds  are  provided  to  enable  the  ministry 
itself  or  agencies  that  receive  funding  from 
the  ministry  to  provide  services  directly  with 
French-speaking  staff. 

I  also  understand,  as  a  result  of  the  ques- 
tions I  raised  with  the  minister  and  the  ques- 
tions raised  by  certain  agencies  such  as  the 
CAS,  that  the  ministry  is  looking  at  this  prob- 
lem. I  wonder  when  we  can  expect  a  de- 
cision on  that  review  of  how  this  ministry 
might  be  able  to  work  out  a  shared-cost  basis 
with  various  agencies  that  might  need  pro- 
fessionals who  can  work  in  the  French  lan- 
guage and  other  ministries  who  might  need 
that  kind  of  service.  Because  it  is  the  Christ- 
mas season,  I  hope  the  minister  will  be  able 
to  give  us  some  indication  he  is  moving 
quickly  to  provide  the  funding  necessary  for 
services  to  be  provided  in  the  Algoma  district. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  realize  it 
is  the  Christmas  season,  as  a  number  of 
members  opposite  have  reminded  me  al- 
though, I  must  say,  Santa  Claus  has  not  yet 
paid  his  visit  to  ComSoc. 

Mr.  Wildman:  That  is  why  I  called  you 
the  Minister  of  Bah  Humbug. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  I  did  not  catch  what  you 
said.  I  missed  that.  I  was  going  to  check 
Hansard  to  see  what  you  said  and  whether 
I  ought  to  protest. 


In  response  to  the  concern  expressed  by 
the  member  for  Bellwoods,  it  had  been  my 
hope  I  would  be  able  to  present  to  the  House 
the  day  care  policy  in  its  entirety  before  we 
rose  today.  Unfortunately,  out  of  the  neces- 
sity to  tie  some  ends  together,  it  has  been 
necessary  to  delay  that  announcement  until 
some  time  next  week.  I  can  assure  him  it  is 
fully  my  intention  to  do  that  as  soon  as 
possible.  I  assure  him  he  will  be  advised 
when  it  will  be  done  and  I  will  provide  him 
with  the  information  that  will  be  released  at 
that  point.  It  will  certainly  be  before  Christ- 
mas and,  I  believe,  before  the  end  of  next 
week. 

The  situation  raised  by  the  member  for 
Algoma  is  a  complex  one  with  respect  to  that 
particular  children's  aid  societv  budget.  I 
know  he  is  familiar  with  the  difficult  circum- 
stances the  society  faced  last  year  which  de- 
layed presentation  of  its  budget  in  the  first 
instance.  Then  a  protracted  labour  dispute 
complicated  its  spending  patterns  and  budge- 
tary requirements  during  that  fiscal  year.  As 
a  consequence  of  that,  he  is  quite  correct  in 
saying  it  was  only  fairly  recently  that  its 
appeal,  or  the  review  of  its  budget  from  last 
year,  was  completed  through  the  review 
process.  It  was  impossible  for  us  to  proceed 
with  the  review  of  its  1980  budgetary  re- 
quirements, which  has  also  been  requested, 
until  the  1979  base  was  finalized. 

I  have  appointed  the  review  committee  for 
the  1980  review.  To  the  best  of  my  knowl- 
edge the  date  has  not  yet  been  set  for  the 
hearing  but  I  can  assure  the  member  that 
the  ministry  and,  I  am  sure,  the  society  are 
very  anxious  to  get  on  with  that  without 
delay. 

With  regard  to  French  language  services, 
I  want  to  make  it  clear  that  Algoma  was  in 
no  way  excluded  in  terms  of  its  eligibility  for 
funding  under  the  francophone  initiatives. 
However,  the  way  in  which  the  funding  was 
allotted  was  dependent  upon  proposals  in- 
vited from  the  various  communities  and 
agencies  in  those  communities  through  north- 
ern Ontario.  The  available  funding  was 
allocated  on  the  basis  of  the  evaluation  of 
those  proposals  and  the  assessment  of  the 
needs  in  those  communities. 
1:50  p.m. 

There  was  certainly  never  any  decision 
that  Algoma  in  some  way  would  be  out- 
side an  area  of  eligibility.  I  am  sure  the 
honourable  member  knows  that  with  our 
northern  regional  office  located  in  Sault 
Ste.  Marie,  the  staff  of  my  ministry  in  that 
area  is  very  keenly  aware  of  the  specific 
needs  he  has  identified. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5341 


I  would  also  like  to  emphasize  that  the 
provision  of  services  in  the  French  language 
need  not  always  require  specific  additional 
funding.  In  addition  to  the  specific  initi- 
atives, we  are  also  trying  to  encourage 
agencies  that  serve  communities  in  which 
both  French  and  English  are  widely  spoken 
to  recognize  as  part  of  their  mandate  that 
they  have  a  responsibility  to  serve  both 
cultural  and  linguistic  groups  in  their  own 
languages.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  need  not 
necessarily  cost  more  money  to  hire  some- 
one as  a  child  care  worker,  for  example,  who 
has  the  capacity  to  speak  in  both  French 
and  English.  That  is  something  I  think  the 
local  agencies  have  a  responsibility  to  ad- 
dress in  their  hiring  practices. 

Mr.  McCleUan:  So  do  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Norton:  Of  course  we  do.  We 
are  doing  that  as  well.  The  member  for 
Bellwoods  should  go  around  and  visit  some 
of  our  area  offices  and  he  will  find  we  do 
have  a  very  significant  number  of  bilingual 
staff— in  fact,  multilingual  in  some  instances. 
That  is  part  of  our  ministry's  recently 
identified  or  recently  announced  policy  on 
French-language  services.  It  was  clearly 
stated  at  the  time  that  in  terms  of  our 
hiring  practices  for  those  communities  where 
there  are  significant  numbers  of  French- 
speaking  people,  we  would  seek  to  hire 
staff  who  have  the  capacity  to  speak  in 
both   English  and   French. 

Certainly  I  would  hope  the  honourable 
member,  in  speaking  to  the  agencies  in 
his  community,  would  remind  them— as  I 
will,  and  I  intend  to  continue  to  pursue 
that  with  the  agencies-that  they  need  not 
see  their  responsibility  to  provide  services 
in  French  as  being  discharged  only  if  there 
is  specifically  earmarked  money  for  that 
purpose,  although  some  initiatives  will  be 
necessary  on  an  ongoing  basis  to  enrich  ser- 
vices to  French-speaking  Ontarians. 

I  want  to  assure  the  member  for  Went- 
worth  that  I  will  take  his  advice  to  heart. 
I  can  assure  him  the  concern  he  has  raised 
is  something  that  is  constantly  on  my  mind 
these  days.  I  wish  I  knew  of  a  simple 
solution.  The  one  he  has  proposed  con- 
tinues to  look  difficult  from  my  point  of 
view.  However,  I  am  continuing  with  staff 
to  try  to  find  ways  in  which  we  might  en- 
courage the  parties  to  both  of  those  dis- 
putes to  find  a  way  of  finding  resolutions. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 


MINISTRY  OF  CONSUMER  AND 
COMMERCIAL  RELATIONS 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  in- 
terested in  some  of  the  comments  put  for- 
ward by  other  members  concerning  the 
proposed  new  fire  code,  and  I  suppose  it 
will  be  six  months  before  we  have  any 
legislation. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  No,  no. 

Mr.  Haggerty:   No,  it  is  not  in  the  min- 
ister's  area.   What  I  want  to  direct  to  the 
minister  is  that  where  the  Ontario  Building 
Code  relates  to  smoke  detectors- 
Interjection. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  We  are  on  the  same  track 
now,  are  we,  Frank?  Great. 

Where  the  regulations  apply  to  smoke 
detectors  in  certain  high-rise  buildings, 
would  he  not  make  the  amendments  to  the 
regulations  include  all  residential  units,  re- 
gardless of  height  and  size?  There  is  an 
exemption,  I  believe,  under  the  act. 

I  am  thinking  in  particular  of  a  fire  in 
the  city  of  Port  Colborne  this  past  summer. 
If  they  had  had  a  smoke  detector  in  that 
rented  property  I  do  not  think  we  would 
have  had  the  loss  of  two  young  children. 
I  suggest  the  regulations  should  be  changed 
to  apply  to  the  older  homes,  as  mandatory  in 
every  residential  unit  and  housing  accom- 
modation. I  know  the  minister  thinks  it  is 
going  to  cost  money,  but  in  the  long  run 
it  is  going  to  save  lives. 

The  other  area  I  want  to  discuss  with  the 
minister— I  have  raised  the  matter  with  him 
on  a  previous  occasion  and  I  know  that  on 
December  1  of  this  year  he  met  with  elected 
representatives  of  the  city  of  the  town  of 
Fort  Erie— concerns  the  matter  of  the  future 
of  the  Fort  Erie  racetrack.  Has  the  ministry 
or  the  cabinet  come  to  any  decision  as  yet  on 
what  kind  of  financial  assistance  will  be  pro- 
vided to  the  horse-racing  industry  in  Ontario? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  ques- 
tion of  smoke  detectors,  I  am  never  concerned 
about  the  cost.  We  have  gone  further  than 
any  other  jurisdiction  in  North  America  on 
new  buildings,  because  we  said,  "We  do  not 
care  what  the  advice  is."  The  advice  was  that 
we  do  not  need  all  of  them,  but  I  went  the 
whole  route,  both  the  halls  and  the  inside.  I 
would  be  very  glad  to  look  at  the  honourable 
member's  suggestion,  but  the  problem  there 
is  this  is  coming  into  the  retrofit  area,  the 
residences  there,  et  cetera. 

It  seems  to  me  that  1981  is  a  good  time  to 
study  that,  because  I  hope  for  a  retrofit  code 
as  well  as  a  rehabilitation  or  renovation  code. 
There  is  a  difference  because  with  the  retrofit 


5342 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


one  is  not  doing  anything  but  with  the  reno- 
vation one  is.  Those  two  particular  areas  are 
under  very  active  review  and  actually  being 
written  at  this  time. 

(Certainly  with  the  renovation  code  ,which 
is  being  done  by  ourselves  and  the  Ministry 
of  Housing,  the  smoke  detector  issue— no 
question  about  it— will  be  addressed.  But  I 
really  think  the  key,  as  the  member  is 
suggesting,  is  in  the  retrofit  area.  Again,  the 
Ministry  of  Housing  and  ourselves  are  very 
actively  involved  in  that.  I  hope  the  fire 
chiefs  will  get  involved  in  that.  I  sense  a 
reluctance  by  them  in  that  area.  That  con- 
cerns me. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  They  are  involved  in  it,  but 
they  need  some  teeth  in  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  I  have  had  some  minor 
involvement  in  the  evolution  of  the  fire  code 
—very  minor  and  on  the  periphery.  Obviously 
it  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Solicitor  General. 
One  of  the  things  that  suddenly  disappeared 
from  the  fire  code,  and  indeed  from  the 
statement  read  by  the  member  for  Scar- 
borough-Ellesmere  (Mr.  Warner)  today,  was 
retrofit,  which  suddenly  was  left  out.  I  have 
some  very  significant  concerns  in  the  retrofit 
area  because  more  and  more  it  is  not  the 
structure  of  the  building  or  the  way  it  was 
constructed  or  the  number  of  exits  or  all  the 
things  we  have  looked  at  in  both  new  and 
old  buildings  in  terms  of  renovation  codes. 
The  very  significant  thing  today  is  the  con- 
tents, that  is,  retrofit. 

To  a  lot  of  people  retrofit  involves  another 
fire  extinguisher,  another  smoke  detector. 
Granted  they  are  important,  but  it  is  those 
contents.  That  is  a  particular  area  this  minis- 
try and  my  colleague  the  Minister  of  Housing 
(Mr.  Bennett)  will  be  addressing.  I  would 
hope  perhaps  the  fire  chiefs  have  taken  retro- 
fit out  of  the  fire  code  for  a  technical  reason, 
because  it  is  a  difficult  thing  within  the 
scope  of  a  fire  code.  But  I  would  certainly 
hope  they  would  provide  us  with  input  be- 
cause they  are  inside  those  buildings  seeing 
what  contents  did  what  to  whom. 
2  p.m. 

I  am  sure  my  colleague  has  made  notes 
of  the  member's  comments  on  the  renovation 
code  and  particularly  on  the  retrofit  code  for 
smoke  detectors.  I  appreciate  his  concern,  but 
with  me  it  is  never  the  cost. 

On  the  question  of  racing  in  Ontario,  I  was 
in  the  town  of  Fort  Erie  on  December  1  and 
they  issued  a  very  nice  little  press  release 
about  my  being  there.  I  met  with  the  elected 
council,  plus  the  chamber  of  commerce  and 
the  town  administrator.  Unfortunately  I  did 
not  meet  the  mayor,  who  could  not  be  there 


because  of  a  death  in  the  family.  We  went 
over  the  matter  very  fully  and  frankly.  I 
told  them  I  was  reasonably  optimistic  that  I 
would  be  back  before  Christmas  and  would 
give  them  the  Christmas  present  they  want. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  Are  you  coming  in  a  red 
suit  or  a  blue  suit? 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  That  is  one  member  who 
has  never  had,  does  not  now  have  and  never 
will  have  any  Christmas  spirit. 

The  question  of  Fort  Erie  is  a  very  signifi- 
cant one  to  me.  I  am  cautiously  or  reasonably 
optimistic  that  I  will  be  there  before 
Christmas. 

I  also  welcome  the  members  support  on 
new  incentives  and  tax  rebates  in  the  racing 
industry,  both  for  harness  and  thoroughbred 
racing.  In  return  for  doing  that,  surely  I  can 
expect  the  member  to  do  something  where  I 
have  run  into  a  total  blank  wall.  I  am  a  nice 
guy.  I  am  not  being  vindictive.  Certainly, 
whatever  I  accomplish  for  the  Fort  Erie  area, 
no  matter  how  good  the  foundation,  there  has 
to  be  an  approach  to  the  federal  government 
for  offtrack  betting.  Nice  as  I  am,  the  present 
impediment  of  offtrack  betting  is  immense. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Fort  Erie  needs  your  help. 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  He  does  not  speak  to  me 
any  more.  I  speak  to  him  and  he  abuses  me  on 
TV,  but  that  is  life.  I  am  sure  the  member 
understands  what  I  am  conveying  in  a  very 
nonpartisan  way. 

Since  the  racing  question  has  been  brought 
up,  I  would  like  just  another  brief  second. 
There  are  two  matters  that  I  think  are  of 
great  significance  to  the  racing  industry  this 
year.  Unfortunately,  in  my  estimates  there 
was  an  urgent  desire  to  discuss  a  movie. 
No  takers?  There  was  an  urgent  desire  to 
debate  a  movie  day  after  day.  No  takers?  No 
guts  any  more.  What  happened  to  principle? 
Thirteen  days  before  Christmas  and  principle 
goes. 

I  was  not  able  to  discuss  the  racing  in- 
dustry. This  year  saw  the  death  of  Mr.  Conn 
Smythe  who  made  enormous  contributions  to 
that  industry.  As  the  minister  responsible,  I 
would  like  on  the  summation  of  my  estimates, 
which  is  this  concurrence,  that  his  passing  be 
marked.  Unfortunately,  time  does  not  allow 
for  an  adequate  description  of  his  contribu- 
tions, not  only  to  the  racing  field,  but  to  all 
of  Canada. 

Also,  this  was  a  very  significant  year  be- 
cause it  was  the  first  Queen's  Plate  which 
has  been  run  in  modern  times  where  Mr. 
E.  P.  Taylor  was  no  longer  on  the  executive 
committee  of  the  Ontario  Jockey  Club.  The 
firm  foundation  for  the  things  I  am  99.9 
per  cent  sure  I  am  going  to  be  able  to  do  in 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5343 


Fort  Erie  and  for  the  other  tracks  was  laid 
by  Mr.  Taylor  over  the  years.  Mr.  Taylor 
has  been  very  helpful  to  me  as  a  minister. 
He  has  helped  me  with  advice.  He  has  pro- 
vided me  with  a  tremendous  amount  of  input 
into  the  economics  and  the  employment 
economics  of  the  industry,  and  I  would  like  to 
recognize,  in  this  summation  of  my  estimates 
in  regard  to  racing,  the  fact  that  Mr.  Taylor 
has  retired  from  very  active  participation  in 
the  decision-making  process. 
Resolution  concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  NATURAL 
RESOURCES 

Mr.  Wildman:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  a  few 
short  comments.  I  will  not  take  very  long. 

On  one  particular  issue  in  northern 
Ontario,  some  comments  by  ministry  officials 
have  raised  a  great  deal  of  concern  among 
sportsmen.  That  is  the  recent  announce- 
ment, made  since  the  minister's  estimates 
were  completed  in  committee,  that  the 
lottery  system  for  moose  licences  is  going  to 
be  extended  from  the  very  limited  areas 
where  it  is  now  in  operation  throughout  the 
moose  hunting  areas  of  the  province,  and 
that  this  will  be  done  over  some  period  of 
time,  which  has  been  left  rather  vague. 

I  wonder  if  the  minister  could  give  some 
indication  of  what  schedule,  if  any,  there  is 
at  this  time  within  the  ministry  for  the 
implementation  of  this  across  the  whole  area. 

For  one  thing,  there  have  been  suggestions 
that  this  might  take  place  over  a  20-year 
period.  If  that  is  the  case  what  areas  are 
going  to  be  affected,  and  when?  Does  the 
minister  have  any  idea  of  how  this  is  going 
to  operate? 

There  is  a  lotterv  system  for  moose 
licences  in  one  particular  area  of  my  riding, 
south  of  Hearst  and  Kapuskasing.  The  min- 
istry has  indicated  that  in  that  particular 
area  in  the  last  few  years  they  have  had  to 
go  that  route  because  of  severe  pressure  on 
the  moose  population.  They  have  moved  to 
a  system  in  which  residents  of  the  province 
seem  to  have  a  better  opportunity  than  they 
initially  did  when  they  first  brought  in  the 
lottery  system,  when  it  appeared  that,  in  a 
way,  nonresidents  had  an  easier  chance  of 
obtaining  a  licence  because  there  were  fewer 
of  them  applying.  That  has  been  changed, 
and  I  am  glad  of  that. 

I  am  wondering  if  that  lottery  system  is 
going  to  be  spread  into  Algoma  district  first, 
or  if  it  is  going  towards  other  parts  of 
Cochrane,  or  whatever.  Will  the  minister 
give  us  some  indication  of  that? 


The  concerns  that  have  been  raised  by  the 
sportsmen  have  some  validity  in  the  sense 
that,  although  many  of  them  are  in  favour  of 
conservation  and  certainly  want  the  moose 
population  to  survive  and  to  increase,  they 
are  concerned  about  a  lottery  system  in 
terms  of  the  working  man  being  able  to 
schedule  holidays.  They  may  normally  sched- 
ule their  holidays  for  the  moose  season  but, 
if  they  are  on  a  lottery,  they  will  not  know 
whether  they  have  obtained  a  licence.  They 
also  will  not  know  how  this  lottery  system  is 
going  to  be  operated  in  conjunction  with  the 
new  pair  licence  approach.  They  will  not  be 
able  to  schedule  their  holidays  with  their 
comrades  to  ensure  that,  if  the  two  who  wish 
to  hunt  together  do  obtain  a  licence  they 
will  indeed  have  holidays  together.  I  wonder 
if  there  is  any  way  that  can  be  resolved. 

I  would  also  like  to  know  if  the  minister 
can  give  us  some  indication  of  how  long  it 
is  going  to  take  his  officials  to  evaluate  the 
effectiveness  of  the  pair  licence  system  which 
has  been  instituted  this  year,  to  decide 
whether  they  want  it  to  continue,  or  whether 
they  might  look  at  a  group  licence,  as  has 
been  suggested  by  many  people,  including 
hunters  and  anglers. 

That  is  the  major  issue  I  wanted  to  raise. 
There  are  a  couple  of  other  very  small  ones. 

I  wonder  if  the  minister  could  react  to 
the  suggestion  made  by  a  candidate  for  the 
Conservative  nomination  in  Algoma  that  the 
Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  should  be  do- 
ing something,  either  by  itself  or  in  con- 
junction with  the  Ministry  of  Northern 
Affairs,  to  ensure  that  the  Ministry  of 
Natural  Resources  road  between  Mead  and 
Oba  is  kept  open  all  year  so  that  Oba  will 
have  a  road  access  throughout  the  year, 
instead  of  being  shut  off,  except  for  railroad 
access,  for  all  of  the  winter.  Is  that  being 
considered  by  the  ministry? 
2:10  p.m. 

The  last  point  is  a  concern  that  has  been 
raised  by  some  people  in  Blind  River  because 
of  rumours  they  have  heard  that,  as  a  result 
of  the  establishment  of  Eldorado  in  Blind 
River  by  the  federal  government,  the  long- 
standing plans  by  the  Ministry  of  Natural 
Resources  for  the  establishment  of  a  pro- 
vincial park  in  the  vicinity  of  Bland  River— 
when  and  if  they  ever  resolve  the  treaty 
Indian  land  claim— have  been  shelved  by  the 
ministry  because  they  do  not  want  to  have  a 
provincial  park  in  close  proximity  to  the 
Eldorado  plant.  If  that  is  the  case,  I  want 
to  know  whether  the  ministry  does  have  some 
sincere  concerns  about  the  possibilities  — 


5344 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Van  Home:  Wind  it  up,  boy.  We 
want  to  get  home  before  Christmas. 

Mr.  Wildman:  My  friend  has  never  said 
anything  in  this  House;  so  he  has  never  pro- 
longed anything. 

Does  the  ministry  have  some  concerns 
about  emissions  from  that  plant,  and  is  that 
why  it  is  moving  away  from  the  plan  to  estab- 
lish a  park  for  overnight  camping  and  only 
have  a  picnic  area  for  day  camping  in  the 
Blind  River  area? 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  want  to  say 
one  thing  before  we  concur  in  these  esti- 
mates, and  that  is  to  express  my  continuing 
concern  about  the  Nakina  fire  disaster. 

The  minister  knows  it  was  16  months  ago 
that  seven  young  people  were  burned  in  a 
situation  in  which  the  ministry  had  responsi- 
bility. The  matter  has  been  discussed  in 
estimates,  but  I  say  to  the  minister  that  I  was 
less  than  satisfied  with  the  responses  because 
the  inquest  continues,  although  it  has  been 
going  for  more  than  a  year.  The  reference 
to  the  Supreme  Court  interrupted  it  for  many 
months,  and  the  judge  in  the  Supeme  Court 
indicated  there  were  indications  of  bias 
which  under  his  direction  had  been  corrected 
in  the  inquest.  But  as  far  as  I  know  the  in- 
quest continues. 

I  well  recall  the  community  was  certainly 
in  a  shock  when  it  heard  the  news  and  was 
very  glad  when  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  made 
the  statement  the  following  day  that  he  would 
spare  no  effort  to  see  that  the  information 
and  responsibiliy  for  this  matter  was  examined 
and  made  clear.  Sixteen  months  later  this 
has  not  been  done. 

lit  may  well  be  that  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  resources  development  will  find  it- 
self seized  of  the  issue  again  in  1981.  My 
own  view  is  that  it  could  be  dealt  with  more 
effectively  and  in  a  more  appropriate  way 
than  that.  I  have  already  made  my  sug- 
gestion to  the  House  and  the  minister  is 
aware  of  it.  But  I  tell  the  House  that  the 
minister  cannot  help  but  be  under  some 
kind   of   cloud  of  responsibility. 

We  know  that  the  minister  has  adminis- 
tered the  ministry  as  well  as  it  has  been,  as 
far  as  that  goes,  and  he  is  highly  regarded. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  a  part  of  his  per- 
sonal responsibility  is  to  see  to  it  that  this 
matter  does  not  continue  in  abeyance  in  a 
more  unreasonable  period  of  time  and  that 
we  have  some  thought  for  bringing  out  all 
of  the  information  clearly  as  to  the  re- 
sponsibility in  this  matter  and  to  do  all  we 
can  to  set  the  very  troubled  minds  of  the 
parents  at  rest. 


Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  try  to 
be  brief.  Regarding  the  comments  and  ques- 
tions from  the  member  for  Algoma,  as  far  as 
the  lottery  system  for  moose  licences  is  con- 
cerned, its  extension  will  relate  to  those  areas 
where  the  moose  population  appears  to  be  in 
trouble.  As  I  am  sure  the  member  is  aware, 
we  applied  it  this  past  year  to  those  areas 
where  the  moose  population  had  declined 
severely,  where  the  hunting  pressures  were 
the  greatest.  That  is  really  the  yardstick. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  those  more 
remote  places  will  be  the  ones  that  will  be 
the  last  to  be  affected,  if  ever,  because  the 
pressures  are  less  and  the  population  is  doing 
well.  The  only  thing  that  might  change  that 
is  if  the  number  of  hunters  increases  and 
they  start  going  to  the  less  easily  accessible 
areas  then  we  might  have  to  do  something 
about  it  until  such  time  as  we  get  the  herd 
on  good  footing  throughout  the  province. 

I  am  well  aware  of  the  concerns  of  hunt- 
ers who  normally  hunt  in  groups.  Part  of  the 
joy  of  hunting  is  being  with  one's  friends. 
We  are  looking  at  some  change  in  the  pres- 
ent system,  but  I  expect  it  will  be  another 
couple  of  months  until  we  really  have  been 
able  to  assess  the  information  from  the  hunt 
that  has  just  finished.  I  have  indicated  that 
the  seasons  are  going  to  be  less  changeable. 
This  year  we  have  announced  the  1981  sea- 
sons already.  Last  year  we  were  delayed  be- 
cause of  changes  in  regulations  at  the  end 
of  February  or  early  March  which  made  it 
very  difficult  for  many  people  to  plan  their 
fall  activities. 

I  think  we  will  be  able  to  operate  the 
lottery  earlier  because  we  know  when  the 
season  is.  With  the  new  system,  we  should 
have  our  information  on  the  hunters'  suc- 
cess earlier.  I  suppose  there  is  a  problem 
in  getting  it  too  early  because  then  things 
may  happen  to  the  individual.  If  the  lottery 
takes  place  in  February,  for  instance,  the  in- 
dividual's own  plans  or  those  of  his  group 
might  change. 

As  far  as  the  Progressive  Conservative 
candidate's  comments  about  the  road  to 
Oba  are  concerned,  I  would  find  it  hard  to 
disagree  with  him,  particularly  since  I  have 
not  heard  them  firsthand. 

Mr.  Wildman:  I  was  not  asking  you  if  you 
disagreed  with  him.  I  was  asking  you  if  you 
agreed  with  him. 

Hon.  Mr.  Auld:  I  would  find  it,  not  quite, 
but  almost  as  difficult  to  agree  with  him 
until  I  heard  them  firsthand. 

Regarding  Blind  River,  I  am  not  aware 
of  any  concerns  that  we  have  for  changing 
our  plans  for  the  eventual  establishment  of 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5345 


a  park  there.  I  am  sure  the  federal  project 
will  be  operated  properly  and  there  will  be 
no  more  danger  there  than  there  was  in 
Port  Hope.  In  fact,  there  will  be  less  effect 
because  a  lot  has  been  learned  since  Eldora- 
do was  established  in  Port  Hope.  I  think  our 
biggest  single  problem  there— and  I  have  no 
idea  when  that  will  be  resolved— is  the  ques- 
tion of  the  discussions  with  the  natives  about 
native  planning. 

Finally,  in  response  to  the  comments  of 
the  member  for  Brant-Oxford-Norfolk,  all  I 
can  say  is  I  am  aware  of  his  suggestions 
about  a  royal  commission.  He  is  aware  there 
are  three  judicial  or  quasi-judicial  proceed- 
ings going  on  at  the  moment.  The  inquest, 
I  understand,  should  be  completed  fairly 
soon.  Civil  actions  are  still,  as  I  understand 
it,  in  what  one  might  call  the  waiting  stage. 
None  of  the  actions  has  yet  appeared  for 
trial  on  the  court  calendar  although  I  under- 
stand one  or  two  of  them  may  be  heard  in 
the  early  spring.  That  is  the  information  I 
got  from  the  Ministry  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral. There  are  criminal  charges,  which  I 
gather  have  been  laid  and  may  well  be 
heard. 

I  do  not  think  the  government  as  a  whole 
would  be  anxious  to  have  a  royal  commis- 
sion or  any  kind  of  a  public  hearing  going 
on  when  the  charges  are  being  dealt  with 
in  the  courts,  where  the  details,  obviously, 
will  be  fully  brought  out.  All  I  can  say  is, 
as  far  as  I  am  concerned  I  am  anxious  to 
see  the  matter  dealt  with.  I  am  sure  the 
parents  of  those  who  died  are  equally  anx- 
ious that  there  be  finality  to  this  tragedy 
and  I  certainly  will  not  stand  in  the  way  of 
that  happening.  In  fact,  as  far  as  my  minis- 
try is  concerned,  we  are  doing  everything 
we  can  to  see  that  things  proceed  to  a  con- 
clusion. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

Resolutions  for  supplementary  and  ad- 
ditional supplementary  supply  also  concurred 
in. 

2:20  p.m. 

OFFICE  OF  THE  OMBUDSMAN 

Resolution  concurred  in. 
Resolution  for  supplementary  supply  also 
concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  LABOUR 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  We  were  trying  to  move  it 
a  little  too  fast,  Mr.  Speaker. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  No,  we  didn't,  you  are  a  little 
too  slow. 


Mr;  Mackenzie:  I  have  no  intention  of  tak- 
ing more  than  two  or  three  minutes,  but  I 
feel  there  are  a  couple  of  things  that  have  to 
be  said  in  the  Ministry  of  Labour's  estimates 
and  concurrence  in  those  estimates,  and  that 
is  to  at  least  touch  on  four  or  five  of  the 
areas  I  think  are  of  considerable  concern  in 
Ontario  and,  hopefully,  ones  we  are  going 
to  deal  with  when  the  budget  is  being  pre- 
pared for  the  coming  year. 

The  issue  that  we  dealt  with  briefly  in  the 
plant  shutdowns  report,  which  is  justification 
in  terms  of  plant  closures  where  workers  are 
affected  and  what  kind  of  planning  the  gov- 
ernment should  be  involved  in  in  terms  of 
seeing  to  it  that  it  is  not  the  workers  in  the 
communities  who  are  paying  the  highest  price, 
is  an  area  that  involves,  to  a  great  extent,  the 
Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie)  and  his 
ministry. 

The  second  area  I  think  should  be  touched 
on  before  we  finish  the  concurrence  is  the 
women's  issues  that  are  involved,  specifically 
the  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal  value  issue 
in  Ontario.  It  is  an  area  where  we  have  been 
going  backwards  in  spite  of  all  of  the  good 
intentions  and  supposed  affirmative  action 
programs  and  it  is  an  area  that  I  do  not  think 
we  can  continue  to  either  stay  equal  or  move 
backwards  in.  It  is  an  area  where  we  have  to 
rectify  what  is  a  very  basic  position. 

There  are  improvements  needed  in  the 
Employment  Standards  Act.  I  do  not  know 
how  long  this  government  can  continue  to 
keep  certains  groups  out  of  coverage,  and 
I  am  referring  most  specifically  to  domestics. 
I  think  that  is  a  major  injustice  in  Ontario 
and  one  that  there  is  just  no  rationalization 
of  or  no  defence  for  and  it  is  an  area  that  is 
going  to  involve  some  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  Minister  of  Labour. 

In  the  vacation  area,  it  is  not  fair  for 
somebody  who  is  not  fortunate  enough  to 
have  a  union  and  spends  20  or  30  or  40  years 
of  faithful  service  with  some  plant  to  see 
their  neighbours  who  have  had  the  availability 
of  a  union  or  the  guts  to  organize  a  union 
where  they  can  negotiate  after  10,  15  or  20 
years'  service  for  four,  five  and  six  weeks 
vacation  and  it  is  not  extended  to  somebody 
who  does  not  have  the  same  bargaining 
power.  There  are  many  nations  on  this  earth 
that  take  care  of  additional  vacations  for  those 
who  have  given  good,  loyal  and  faithful 
service  and  I  think  it  is  an  area  that  should 
be  in  our  legislation. 

The  other  area  in  terms  of  employment 
standards  is  the  minimum  wage  area.  I  think 
it  is  a  disgrace  that  we  are  tied  for  last  place 
in  Ontario.  I  do  not  accept  some  of  the 
fear  tactics  that  are  used  in  so  many  areas. 


5348 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


We  should  do  a  decent  job  on  the  minimum 
wage  in  this  province.  It  is  an  area  I  would 
hope  the  Minister  of  Labour  and  his  ministry 
are  taking  a  serious  look  at  in  the  coming 
year. 

The  fourth  of  the  handful  of  points  that  I 
think  are  important  to  point  out  is  that  we 
have  spent  a  lot  of  time  on  this  and  we  saw 
some  fair  increase  in  the  budget  in  terms  of 
health  and  safety  improvements,  but  we  have 
not  yet  done  an  adequate  job  in  terms  of  the 
toxic  substances  and  the  number  we  have 
dealt  with.  We  are  still  talking  about  regu- 
lations for  the  first  six  or  seven  substances. 
We  should  have  been  dealing  with  20  or  30 
as  a  minimum  by  this  stage  of  the  game. 

We  also  have  the  first  signs  of  some 
problems  with  Bill  70  and  we  had  better 
be  aware  of  it  very  early.  I  recognize  the 
minister  is  looking  at  a  shakedown  period 
and  for  the  joint  committees  to  work.  Those 
joint  committees  will  work  if  they  are  work- 
ing from  a  position  of  equality.  As  I  have 
tried  to  tell  the  minister  in  the  estimates, 
and  as  there  have  been  questions  in  this 
House  raising  this  particular  issue,  they  are 
not  operating  from  a  position  of  equality, 
and  the  compliance  factor  is  becoming  an 
increasing  concern  to  orgpnized  labour  and 
to  those  involved  in  the  health  and  safety 
field  right  across  Ontario. 

They  are  finding  they  cannot  reach  agree- 
ment with  the  companies  even  where  there 
is  a  joint  safety  and  health  committee. 
They  decide  they  have  to  go  to  the  Min- 
istry of  Labour  to  see  that  the  provisions 
and  the  protection  in  the  act  are  there.  The 
inspectors  seem  to  be  holding  off  or  saying, 
"Hey,  call  another  meeting,"  or,  "Work  it 
out,"  or,  "This  is  why  we  have  set  up  the 
committee/'  Even  though  there  may  be  a 
clear  violation,  I  think  there  is  enough 
indication  we  are  not  getting  the  ministry 
enforcing  where  there  are  clear-cut  cases. 
That  is  beginning  to  be  talked  about,  not 
just  in  one  or  two  cases  or  one  or  two 
conferences,  but  generally  throughout  the 
labour  movement.  I  am  telling  the  minister 
there  is  an  area  of  concern  that  is  going 
to  be  a  problem  down  the  road  if  we  do  not 
take  a  look  at  it  now. 

There  are  two  final  points  I  want  to  make 
with  the  minister.  One  is  directly  involved 
with  labour  and  one  is  probably  a  little 
more  peripheral.  I  dealt  briefly  and  privately 
with  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Com- 
mercial Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  on  it  just  in 
the  last  few  minutes.  I  want  to  deal  with 
another  issue  that  covers  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  but  also  the  Ministry  of  the  At- 
torney General,   namely,  the  use   or  misuse 


of  police  in  labour  disputes  specifically.  I 
think  we  have  to  look  at  that. 

There  is  an  excellent  suggestion  I  might 
put  to  the  Minister  of  Labour  and  he  might 
try  passing  it  on  to  the  Solicitor  General 
or  the  Attorney  General.  It  might  be  time 
that  we  involved  key  people,  educational 
people  or  the  leadership  of  the  trade  union 
movement  at  the  Ontario  Police  College  at 
Alymer  and  any  other  training  sessions  for 
the  provincial,  regional  or  municipal  police 
in  Ontario.  They  could  be  scheduled  to 
spend  a  few  minutes  at  the  courses  in  police 
training  to  give  their  side  of  it,  a  labour 
side  of  a  labour  dispute  or  to  supply  under- 
standing  that  may   not   always   be   there. 

I  find  in  my  own  talks  there  is  a  lot  of 
resentment  by  a  number  of  the  police  at 
being  asked  to  participate  in  rather  nasty- 
picket  line  situations.  Conversely,  there  are 
a  few  who  are  literally  bully  boys,  but  not 
too  many.  They  are  not  happy  with  the 
situation.  I  think  some  work  could  be  done 
in  advance  to  see  that  in  labour  disputes  we 
do  not  get  the  kind  of  misuse  of  the  police 
forces  who  almost  invariably  are  seen  as  an 
adversary  by  the  strikers.  In  many  cases 
the  strikers  are  fighting  for  their  jobs  and 
their  livelihood.  That  is  not  healthy  for  the 
justice  system  in  Ontario.  It  is  a  direct  area 
of  concern  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour  to  try 
to  do  something  to  diffuse  that  and  to  put 
the  police  in  a  position  where  they  are 
more  neutral  and  not  seen  as  taking  sides. 

Mr.  Rotenberg:  Just  tell  the  strikers  to 
obey  the  law  and  then  we  won't  have  any 
problems. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  Tell  the  strikers  to  obey 
the  law,  Boy,  it  shows  his  perception  of 
workers'  struggles.  To  leave  aside  Attila 
the  Hun  over  there,  I  say  to  the  minister 
that  this  is  the  kind  of  back-bencher  he  is 
propping  up. 

The  final  issue  I  want  to  refer  to  is  the 
question  of  the  increasing  number  of  workers 
in  Ontario  who  are  getting  hurt  in 
bankruptcy  situations  where  a  firm  goes  into 
receivership  and  where  anywhere  from  hun- 
dreds to  thousands  of  dollars  in  wages  or 
benefits  are  lost  by  the  workers.  In  Ontario, 
they  cannot  collect.  I  recognize  it  is  basically 
federal  jurisdiction,  but  just  about  the  last 
claim  on  the  assets  of  a  company  going  into 
bankruptcy  are  workers'  wages.  This  govern- 
ment's approach,  if  we  cannot  handle  it 
specifically  with  provincial  legislation,  has  to 
be  really  to  put  pressure  on  the  federal 
authorities.  I  am  told  they  are  not  unsym- 
pathetic to  making  some  changes  to  see  that 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5347 


workers'   wages   are   a  first  and  not  a  last 
consideration  in  a  bankruptcy  situation. 

These  are  the  points.  There  are  probably 
a  number  of  others  I  wanted  to  raise,  but  I 
think  these  are  some  of  the  danger  signals 
ahead  and  some  of  the  areas  we  have  not 
adequately  dealt  with  yet  in  terms  of  labour 
relations  in  Ontario.  I  hope  in  the  concur- 
rence we  are  now  dealing  with  of  the  min- 
ister's estimates  of  this  year,  these  points  are 
flagged  and  we  take  a  serious  look  at  them 
when  we  are  preparing  the  estimates  for  the 
coming  year. 

2:30  p.m. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Mr.  Speaker,  since  this  is  the 
last  opportunity  afforded  us  to  make  a  small 
contribution  to  the  debate  on  concurrence  in 
supply  for  the  Ministry  of  Labour  I  want  to 
speak  specifically  to  the  problems  within  the 
Workmen's  Compensation  Board. 

I  want  to  mention  some  of  the  deep  con- 
cerns I  have  about  the  process  that  injured 
workers  have  to  use  to  collect  some  type  of 
monetary  payment  in  lieu  of  their  lack  of 
ability  to  work  because  of  on-the-job  in- 
juries. First,  I  want  to  touch  on  the  fact  that 
workers  who  are  injured  on  the  job,  having 
had  the  injury  caused  by  a  third  party  in 
the  province,  are  unable  to  have  recourse 
against  the  third  party.  I  want  to  explain 
a  specific  situation  to  the  minister.  He  will 
understand  the  matter  very  thoroughly  when 
I  am  done. 

Let  us  say  a  truck  driver  or  a  bus  driver 
is  involved  in  an  accident  in  the  course  of 
carrying  out  his  responsibilities.  By  law,  the 
fault  may  be  placed  totally  on  a  third  party. 
That  particular  worker  has  two  options.  He 
can  try  to  obtain  benefits  from  the  board 
and,  when  doing  so,  he  has  to  sign  a  waiver, 
which  means  he  cannot  take  action  against 
the  third  party  but  must  accept  payment 
only  from  the  board.  Alternatively,  he  can 
choose  not  to  accept  payment  from  the 
board  and  take  a  substantial  risk  by  trying 
to  receive  some  type  of  monetary  payment 
from  the  third  party.  Basically  that  means, 
if  a  person's  job  lasts  only  six,  eight  or  nine 
months  of  the  year,  he  may  lose  substantial 
benefits  in  the  unemployment  insurance  area, 
he  may  not  be  able  to  be  compensated  for 
pain  and  suffering  or  he  may  lose  his  job 
altogether. 

I  want  the  minister  to  answer  specifically 
why  it  is  not  a  matter  of  course  here  in 
Ontario,  in  circumstances  such  as  this,  to 
allow  injured  workers  to  have  recourse 
against  the  third  party  and  let  the  courts 
decide.  There  is  supposed  to  be  no  fairer 
system   in   our   society   than   the    system   of 


justice.  So  I  say  let  that  system  decide.  Let 
the  courts  and  the  judges  decide  whether 
that  injured  worker  deserves  payment  in  lieu 
of  pain  and  suffering  or  in  lieu  of  other 
benefits  that  may  be  lost.  That  has  been  one 
of  my  concerns  with  the  Workmen's  Com- 
pensation Board. 

Secondly,  I  want  to  make  a  comment  or 
two  concerning  the  Weiler  study,  which  has 
called  for  broad  and  comprehensive  changes 
in  the  operation  of  the  board.  We  have  had 
reports  similar  to  the  Weiler  report  in  the 
past,  and  what  has  been  accomplished  by 
those  is  a  positive  headline  or  two  in  the 
local  press,  saying  broad  changes  are  pro- 
posed for  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Board  and  outlining  many  of  the  suggestions 
of  Mr.  Weiler  or  some  other  commissioner 
who  may  have  studied  this  before.  That 
pacifies  injured  workers  and  almost  lulls 
them  into  a  sleep,  waiting  months  on  end 
for  a  final  report  given  by  the  minister. 

I  say  to  the  Minister  of  Labour  I  hope 
this  does  not  happen  in  this  particular  case. 
I  hope  he  has  not  used  the  Weiler  report  to 
obtain  a  few  headlines  in  the  local  media  in 
Toronto  and  elsewhere.  The  second  study  is 
basically  a  study  of  the  original  Weiler 
study.  It  was  done  so  that  he  can  feel  abso- 
lutely sure  Mr.  Weiler  has  recommended  the 
most  positive  things— things  I  assume  he  be- 
lieves to  be  reasonable  and  affordable.  I  hope 
it  was  not  done  at  this  time  just  so  they  can 
lull  the  injured  workers  to  sleep  until  after 
this  coming  provincial  election.  I  hope  the 
minister  is  a  better  man  than  that  and  is  not 
taking  that  tack.  In  order  for  the  Minister  of 
Labour  to  show  good  faith— Pardon? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  was  just  talking  to  the 
member. 

Mr.  Mancini:  The  minister  should  be  listen- 
ing to  me.  I  am  just  teasing. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  could  have  listened  to 
you  in  estimates  if  only  you  had  come.  We 
could  have  talked  then  in  detail. 

Mr.  Mancini:  Yes,  I  want  to  talk  about 
them  in  detail. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  address  my  comments 
to  you  because  I  know  you  are  vitally  con- 
cerned and  listen  to  every  word.  The  Minis- 
ter of  Labour  should  show  good  faith  and 
over  this  coming  recess  step  up  review  pro- 
cedures. He  should  make  sure  he  hears 
promptly  from  all  the  groups  he  wants  to 
hear  from  and  that  a  final  report  is  ready 
when  the  Legislature  is  called  back  this 
spring.  He  could  propose  legislation  to  imple- 
ment the  things  he  agrees  with  and  thinks 
are  reasonable  and  affordable. 


5348 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


If  that  is  not  done,  we  are  going  to  be 
highly  suspicious  of  the  motives  behind  the 
report,  the  fact  that  it  is  taking  so  long,  and 
the  need  the  minister  feels  to  have  a  study 
done  of  the  original  Weiler  sudy.  If  the 
minister  really  has  that  much  faith  in  Mr. 
Weiler  and  thinks  as  highly  of  him  as  he 
told  the  Legislature  he  does,  surely  some- 
thing should  be  there  right  now  to  be  put 
into  law  to  assist  injured  workers. 

Another  thing  has  happened  over  at  the 
board  that  has  caused  me  deep  concern.  I 
know  we  have  a  new  chairman  of  the  board. 
I  want  to  make  sure  he  uses  the  policy  in- 
troduced by  the  government  and  passed  by 
the  Legislature  equally  and  fairly  for  all  in- 
jured workers.  As  much  discretion  as  possible 
should  be  removed  from  senior  board  officials 
and  they  should  be  made  to  follow  strictly 
the  line  of  the  law. 

I  want  to  take  this  opportunity  to  add  a 
few  words  about  the  vital  matters  before  the 
plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment 
committee.  Unlike  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  (Mr.  Martel),  members  of  the  committee 
were  not  prepared  to  compromise  with  the 
government.  Unlike  the  member  for  Sud- 
bury East,  we  were  not  prepared  to  accept 
severance  pay  with  some  type  of  sunset  regu- 
lation tacked  on  to  the  end  of  it.  We  wanted 
severance  pay  without  sunset  legislation, 
without  trying  to  make  some  tricky  deal  with 
the  Minister  of  Labour. 

I  am  told  the  member  for  Sudbury  East 
has  tea  and  crumpets  on  a  regular  basis  with 
the  Minister  of  Labour  while  they  banter  back 
and  forth  as  to  what  the  government  will 
allow  and  how  the  NDP  is  going  to  squirm 
into  such  a  position  they  can  support  it.  I 
want  to  say  that  Hansard  recording  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  plant  shutdowns  committee 
will  show  the  members  of  the  Liberal  Party 
on  that  committee  were  unwilling  to  go  along 
with  the  recommendation  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party  member  for  Sudbury  East;  we 
were  unwilling  to  accept  severance  pay  with 
a  sunset  regulation  tacked  on  to  the  end 
of  it.  Thank  goodness  we  were,  because  less 
than  48  hours  later  the  Minister  of  Labour 
acceded  to  our  request  and  respected  the 
decision  made  by  the  select  committee  on 
plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment. 
In  less  than  48  hours  we  got  some  positive 
benefits  for  laidoff  workers. 
2:40  p.m. 

In  order  to  allow  the  proceedings  to  end  at 
a  reasonable  time  today,  I  would  like  to 
finish  my  comments,  but  we  will  be  waiting  in 
the  spring  for  the  minister's  recommendations 
on  the  Weiler  report.  We  will  be  here  and  we 


will  not  allow  him  to  use  Weiler  and  his 
report  for  political  purposes;  I  can  guarantee 
that. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  delighted  to 
be  back  here  this  afternoon  to  say  a  few 
words  to  the  Minister  of  Labour  and  to  the 
minister  without  food  terminal.  I  want  to  ask 
the  Minister  of  Labour  whether  the  inspec- 
tors are  up  there  making  sure  that  building 
is  being  constructed  properly. 
Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  It  is. 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is?  That  is  fine.  I  hope  the 
member  for  Essex  South  (Mr.  Mancini)  does 
not  leave;  I  have  a  few  choice  things  to  say 
to  him  just  to  set  the  record  straight,  as  my 
friends  to  the  right  are  wont  to  do.  They  want 
to  be  on  all  sides  of  all  issues. 
Interjections. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  about  the  government? 
Mr.  Martel:  I  will  come  to  them.  Just  sit 
quietly. 

Mr.  Roy:  Let's  throw  them  out  this  after- 
noon. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  will  come  to  them  later  on. 
Let's  deal  with  you  fellows  first. 

I  want  to  talk  about  the  labour  bill  that 
was  before  us  and  the  position  taken  by  my 
friends  to  the  right-to  the  right  of  everybody, 
even  to  the  right  of  Genghis  Khan.  If  they 
can  get  any  further  right  than  that,  I  don't 
know  how. 

Just  to  put  the  record  straight  before  the 
member  for  Essex  South  leaves— I  would  not 
want  him  to  leave  without  hearing  these 
pearls  of  wisdom.  For  absolute  hogwash,  the 
last  five  minutes  have  been  totally  and  com- 
pletely misleading.  What  the  member  for 
Sudbury  East  said  and  has  done  is  to  try 
to  find  a  way,  and  I  think  through  negotiations 
he  has  found  a  way,  to  get  severance  pay 
as  a  reality  in  Ontario  whenever  we  come 
back  some  time  in  March. 

Following  up  on  the  Premier's  words 
when  he  said  the  pension  scheme  was  just 
an  interim  measure,  I  suggested  to  him  then 
that  as  they  were  looking  for  an  interim 
measure,  one  possible  way  of  having  sever- 
ance pay  included  was  as  an  interim  measure 
similar  to  pensions.  The  committee  clarified 
its  position  in  the  second  report,  which  it 
tabled  yesterday,  that  as  an  interim  measure 
we  should  have  severance  pay.  I  suggested 
that  if  the  government  were  prepared  to 
bring  back  legislation  when  we  return,  we 
would  be  willing  to  see  the  bill  enacted  as 
it  is,  while  putting  in  the  severance  pay  and 
sunsetting  it  when  the  committee  reported 
back  to  the  Legislature  and  new  legislation 
was  introduced. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5349 


My  friend  forgot  to  tell  the  House  that.  I 
do  not  think  he  did  it  deliberately;  he  would 
never  do  that  deliberately.  It  is  just  a  typical 
Liberal  position. 

It  reminds  me  of  Bill  70.  The  members 
recall  Bill  70,  do  they  not?  My  friends  to  my 
right  were  in  favour  of  having  all  the 
workers  in  Ontario  under  labour  legislation 
that  would  provide  for  health  and  safety. 
Then,  interestingly  enough,  there  was  a  by- 
election  in  Sault  Ste.  Marie  the  day  we  were 
holding  the  vote  here  and,  despite  the 
Liberal  literature  that  said  that  every  worker 
in  the  province  would  be  under  this  bill 
except  agricultural  workers,  lo  and  behold, 
we  excluded  teachers,  hospital  workers, 
policemen— go  on  and  read  the  list.  My 
friends  to  the  right  in  their  literature  were 
saying  that  all  workers  should  come  under 
Bill  70. 

Now  my  friend  across  the  way  gets  up 
with  his  claptrap  and  very  deliberately  tries 
to  leave  the  impression— 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Remember  we  are  on 
Ministry  of  Labour  concurrences. 

Mr.  Martel:  We  are  talking  about  Labour 
concurrences.  I  believe  there  was  money  in 
the  minister's  estimates  to  draft  the  par- 
ticular piece  of  legislation  that  died.  I 
happen  to  be  speaking  to  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  would  say  you  are  not. 
Mr.  Martel:  I  will  address  my  friend  over 
here  first,  just  so  that  he  does  not  try  to 
mislead  the  House,  because  that  is  the  name 
of  the  game.  We  asked  for  that  as  one  pos- 
sibility, but  we  ultimately  saw  an  agreement 
reached  that  severance  pay  would  come  back 
when  the  Legislature  reconvened  and  would 
be  retroactive.  Tell  me  the  difference  be- 
tween that  and  introducing  another  piece  of 
legislation  and  sunsetting  the  old  bill.  But, 
it  is  nice  to  have  it  both  ways. 

I  well  recall  the  discussion  of  yesterday 
morning  and  I  am  sure  the  Speaker  does  too. 
On  Wednesday  morning,  the  member  for 
Niagara  Falls  (Mr.  Kerrio)  wanted  to  redraft 
the  Unemployment  Insurance  Act  to  dove- 
tail everything,  and  he  was  going  to  rewrite 
labour  history.  Then  we  saw  last  night's 
performance  by  the  Liberals  when  they  voted 
down  every  effort  of  this  party  to  improve 
pensions. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  I  will  vote  against  you  for- 
ever. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  am  glad  to  hear  that.  I  hope 
the  member  is  in  the  committee  when  we 
write  the  final  report  because  we  are  going 
to  separate  the  men  from  the  boys. 


Mr.-  Kerrio:  You  Socialists  have  ruined 
every  country  you  have  ever  touched. 

The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  A 
little  order,  please.  Can  we  get  on  with  con- 
currence for  the  Ministry  of  Labour? 

Mr.  Martel:  I  do  not  want  to  name  coun- 
tries that  are  in  a  state  of  disarray- 
Mr.  Kerrio:  England  and  Sweden.  I  can 
name  them  all. 

Mr.  Martel:  There  are  countries  I  do  not 
want  to  name,  but  I  want  to  tell  the  member 
for  Niagara  Falls  that  it  is  a  disgrace  where 
his  type  of  government  has  been  in  power. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  Right  here. 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  is  right  in  saying 
right  here.  He  is  talking  about  Pierre  Elliot 
Trudeau.  When  I  mentioned  country,  he 
said,  "Right  here."  I  am  glad  he  agrees  that 
the  federal  Liberals  have  slowly  decimated 
this  country. 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Martel:  Let  me  talk  to  the  minister. 
I  have  five  minor  issues  I  want  to  talk  to 
the  minister   about. 

Mr.  Roy:  Don't  be  too  critical  because 
you  will  be  voting  with  the  government  this 
afternoon.  You  did  that  last  week. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  will  be  critical  this  after- 
noon but  you  voted  with  them  eight  times 
last  night. 

Mr.  Roy:  You  and  I,  let  us  throw  them 
out  this  afternoon. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  May  I  remind  the 
members  that  they  should  address  the  chair. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  who  has  the 
floor? 

The  Acting  Speaker:  May  we  have  some 
order? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Friday's  child  is  loving 
and  giving. 

Mr.  Martel:  That's  right.  It  is  the  first 
Friday  in  five  years  that  I  have  seen  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  here. 

Mr.  Roy:  Let's  throw  them  out,  you  and 
I,    this   Friday. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  guess  things  were  not  very 
lucrative  in  the  courts  today  because  the 
member  for  Ottawa  East  is  here. 

Mr.  Roy:   I  am  here  to  throw  them  out. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  Given  your  legal 
background,  you  should  know. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  guess  I  got  carried  away. 

Mr.  Speaker:  That  is  right.  You  did  get 
carried  away.  We  are  talking  about  con- 
currence in  the  estimates  of  the  Ministry 
of  Labour. 


5350 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Mr.  Martel:  We  are  talking  about  the 
Ministry  of  Labour  right  across  the  field. 
I  have  so  far  spoken  about  severance  pay 
and  the  pensions  bill  which  was  introduced 
as  a  result,  with  some  prompting  from  the 
Minister  of  Labour,  and  which  my  friends 
to  the  right  were  not  wont  to  improve  to 
make  it  good  legislation.  They  were  pre- 
pared to  accept  half  a  crumb  or  less. 

2:50  p.m. 

I  want  to  talk  to  the  minister  about  a 
couple  of  points.  My  colleague  the  member 
for  Hamilton  East  (Mr.  Mackenzie)  talked 
about  wages  and  how  in  the  case  of  a 
bankruptcy  the  workers  come  last  almost. 
There  is  an  interesting  case  going  on  in 
one,  the  Ministry  of  Natural  Resources, 
which  gave  a  contract  out  to  a  firm  in  the 
Chapleau-Foleyet  area  to  plant  trees.  One 
hundred  and  forty-six  students  worked  for 
this  outfit.  The  individual  who  got  the 
contract  did  not  do  the  work  appropriately. 
The  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  held  the 
money  back.  The  students  who  worked  for 
part  of  the  summer  are  without  pay.  In 
fact,  I  have  one  who  gave  up  his  unemploy- 
ment insurance  and  went  to  work.  He  was 
going  to  use  that  money  to  go  back  to 
school  this  fall.  The  company  went  bank- 
rupt. The  kid  gave  up  his  unemployment 
insurance  and  he  has  no  money  to  go  back 
to  school  this  fall.  The  Minister  of  Natural 
Resources  gave  out  the  contract. 

Interjection: 

Mr.  Martel:  It  is  just  north  of  Foleyet. 
I  do  not  know  whose  riding  that  is. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  were  not  building  a  food 
terminal  there? 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  they  were  not  building 
a  food  terminal.  I  cannot  say  that.  I  heard 
the  Speaker  this  morning  get  my  colleague 
to  refrain  from  talking  about  a  nonexistent 
food  terminal.  It  is  just  pie  in  the  sky;  that 
is  all. 

That  situation  is  desperate— 146  students 
without  the  monev  they  tried  to  earn  to  go 
back  to  school  this  fall.  Surely  there  has 
to  be  some  protection  for  people  who  do  the 
work.  That  is  their  only  means  of  survival. 
Everybody  else  gets  paid  off  first  while  the 
people  who  actually  do  the  work,  in  this 
case  the  kids,  do  not.  Some  of  the  kids  have 
not  got  a  cent,  some  have  a  little  and  others 
have  nothing.  As  I  illustrated  in  the  case  of 
the  student  who  went  off  unemployment  to 
earn  money  to  go  back  to  school,  he  loses 
both  ways. 

Mr.  Roy:  They  are  supposed  to  have  a 
mechanic's  lien. 


Mr.  Martel:  Sure,  supposed  to,  but  there 
is  nothing  to  lien  against. 

Somehow  there  has  to  be  some  input 
from  this  government.  Surely,  if  it  is  a 
government  agency,  some  of  those  students 
should  have  been  paid  from  the  money  that 
is  withheld.  If  the  contractor  was  not  doing 
the  approximate  work,  then  the  lads  who  did 
the  work  are  entitled  to  the  pay  for  the 
work  they  did.  Someone  has  got  to  come 
good.  I  am  not  sure  that  will  occur,  because 
as  long  as  I  have  been  here  that  has  been 
the  problem  and  it  has  not  changed  much 
despite  some  minor  modifications. 

The  other  day  in  the  House  I  drew  this 
to  the  minister's  attention.  I  raised  the  matter 
of  Elliot  Lake  with  respect  to  the  fact  that 
the  federal  government  is  now  in  the  process 
of  revising  some  of  the  regulations  for  uran- 
ium mining.  While,  as  I  understand  it,  Ontario 
is  moving  towards  establishing  standards  of 
one  milligram  per  cubic  metre  for  silica 
dust,  the  Liberals  federally  have  dropped 
it  totally  and  are  going  to  come  back  with 
two  milligrams  per  cubic  metre,  which  will 
put  them  at  odds  with  the  province  in  pro- 
tecting the  workers  in  the  Elliot  Lake  area, 
and  the  federal  legislation  and  the  federal 
regulations  supersede  the  Ontario  regulations. 

Tests  in  the  last  two  years  in  Elliot  Lake 
and  the  crushing  areas  have  shown  that  67 
per  cent  of  the  samples  have  exceeded  what 
we  thought  would  be  the  case.  If  the  federal 
people  are  going  that  route,  I  tell  the  minis- 
ter, if  he  has  had  trouble  already,  he  is 
going  to  have  more.  My  understanding  is 
that  they  are  doing  the  same  now  with  the 
decibel  levels.  Yes,  back  on  September  10 
to  be  precise,  the  federal  authorities  under 
Labour  Canada  removed  the  90  decibel  level 
for  work-exposed  areas.  I  understand  Ontario 
will  ultimately  move  to  85  decibels,  hope- 
fully. That  was  what  was  recommended  in 
the  report  by  Doctors  Pearsall  and  Alberti 
and  the  group  that  headed  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Ninety. 

Mr.  Martel:  I  think  they  recommended 
85;  I  think  you  should  read  the  report. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:   No,  90  moving  to  85. 

Mr.  Martel:  Is  that  not  what  I  said?  The 
important  thing  is  that  the  federal  govern- 
ment, through  Labour  Canada,  is  moving 
into  another  area  of  conflict. 

Mr.  Roy:  What  have  we  got  here,  a  one- 
man  filibuster? 

Mr.  Martel:  The  member  is  going  to  have 
some  time  later  on  today.  I  am  not  depriving 
him  of  it.  If  he  wants  to  drop  his  57  minutes 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5351 


in  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  concur- 
rence, he  can. 

Mr.  Stong:  We  already  have. 

Mr.  Roy:  I  have  all  the  time.  If  the  mem- 
ber wants  to  sit  here  until  midnight,  I  will 
be  here.  That  is  no  problem. 

Mr.  Martel:  If  the  federal  authorities  have 
dropped  the  standards  for  exposure  to  work 
levels  and  the  province  is  moving  in  the 
opposite  direction,  the  minister  is  into  an 
area  of  conflct  that  has  not  been  resolved 
yet,  in  that  they  determine  whether  a  pro- 
secution will  occur.  I  said1  to  the  minister 
about  a  year  ago  that  the  day  will  come 
when  he  will  have  no  choice  but  to  say  to 
the  federal  authorities,  "If  you  are  not  going 
to  allow  us  with  our  inspectors  to  apply 
the  standards  and  regulations  that  are  here, 
then  we  will  get  out  of  the  ball  game." 

There  is  no  way  Ontario  can  protect  the 
workers  in  the  Elliot  Lake  area.  In  fact, 
my  colleague  just  handed  me  a  note  telling 
me  there  has  been  another  death  in  the 
mines  at  Elliot  Lake.  That  is  six  or  seven 
this  year.  When  there  is  a  fatality  in  which 
police  are  involved,  how  quickly  everyone 
says  we  have  to  bring  back  capital  punish- 
ment. Yet  I  think  there  have  been  some- 
thing like  20  miners  killed  in  Ontario  and 
Quebec  alone  this  year,  and  that  does  not 
seem  to  bother  too  many  people.  It  bothers 
me  because  I  know  some  of  those  people. 
The  game  just  goes  on. 

If  an  underground  miner  loses  some  of 
his  hearing,  it  impairs  him  from  being  able 
to  do  his  work  underground.  The  tapping 
necessary  to  determine  where  the  loose  is 
plays  a  role  in  whether  he  detects  if  it  is 
faulty.  When  the  federal  government  is 
moving  out  of  the  field  from  90  decibels  and 
we  are  talking  about  85,  we  are  into  a  trap 
because  we  do  not  know  what  applies.  If 
the  federal  authorities  determine  that  85 
decibels  do  not  count  and  the  companies 
under  federal  jurisdiction  appeal,  they  will 
win.  So  workers  will  be  impaired. 

I  would  like  to  tell  the  minister  a  couple 
of  other  things,  such  as  my  colleague  alluded 
to,  like  paying  for  committees  under  Bill 
70.  The  large  mining  companies,  such  as 
Inco,  have  now  determined  they  are  not 
going  to  pay  workers  beyond  the  regular 
shift  time.  In  other  words,  if  a  man  stays 
after  the  shift  for  six  or  seven  hours— and 
this  just  happened  recently  to  one  of  the 
workers  I  know  in  the  Sudbury  area— he  is 
supposed  to  donate  that  time. 

Mr.  Haggerty:  It's  a  waste  of  time  listen- 
ing to  you. 


Mr.  Martel:  I  am  glad  the  member  for 
Erie  is  here.  I  would  not  have  known. 

If  they  are  not  going  to  pay,  how  in  the 
world  can  we  expect  workers  to  stay  for 
hours  and  hours  to  do  the  type  of  inspec- 
tion necessary?  I  saw  a  directive  sent  out 
by  the  legal  counsel  for  the  Ministry  of 
Labour  that  says  this  is  the  case.  Under 
their  interpretation  of  the  bill,  there  is  en- 
titlement to  pay.  If  that  does  not  occur, 
then  we  are  going  to  have  problems. 

Finally,  I  want  to  speak  briefly  about 
Stobie  mine.  A  new  type  of  blasting  is  going 
on  at  Stobie.  I  am  told  Inco  is  blasting  in 
two  directions  for  the  first  time.  The  filler 
in  the  centre  is  what  has  caused  the  prob- 
lems we  recently  had  with  the  loose  falling 
in  the  mine  in  Sudbury.  That  matter  has 
to  be  looked  into  carefully  because  I  am 
told  the  stress  that  is  left  there  now  is  so 
great  it  can  only  lead  to  more  problems.  I 
am  told  the  blasts  are  now  so  big  that 
they  are  using  six-inch  blast  holes  rather 
than  the  normal  one-inch  blast  holes.  They 
are  stuffing  them,  and  the  blast  is  just 
tremendous. 

3  p.m. 

What  is  happening  is  that  the  cracks  in 
the  ore  are  much  greater  than  previously. 
In  conjunction  with  blasting  going  in  two 
directions,  that  is  creating  a  serious  prob- 
lem which,  as  we  know,  in  Stobie  has  led 
to  loose  falling  at  least  on  three  ocacsions. 
For  people  who  do  not  understand  loose,  it 
is  material  that  falls  from  the  roof.  In  this 
case,  it  was  eight  tons.  I  don't  know  if 
eight  tons  falling  on  someone's  head  around 
here  would  hurt,  but  that  will  certainly  kill 
a  worker.  We  know  loose  to  be  the  most 
serious  problem  in  mining.  I  say  to  the 
minister  that  particular  area  of  Stobie  has 
to  be  looked  into  very  carefully. 

With  those  few  remarks,  I  will  resume 
my  seat. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Simcoe 
Centre. 

Mr.  Laughren:  We  know  his  views  on 
unions.  The  member  for  Simcoe-Mississippi 
strikes  again. 

Mr.  G.  Taylor:  There  are  those  in  the 
New  Democratic  Party  who  have  remem- 
bered the  earlier  label  that  was  applied  to 
me  by  the  then  Leader  of  the  New  Demo- 
cratic Party.  I  am  pleased  this  afternoon 
to  speak  in  the  concurrence  in  supply 
debate. 

I  would  like  to  talk  to  a  few  of  the  items. 
The  present  Minister  of  Labour  (Mr.  Elgie) 
has  a  particular  habit,  though  I  don't  know 


5352 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


whether  he  actually  knows  it  takes  place. 
Since  I  have  the  label  of  sometimes  being 
the  Tory  in  the  caucus  on  the  back  bench, 
the  Minister  of  Labour  feels  that  if  I  accept 
some  of  his  proposals  he  must  at  least  be 
moving  in  the  right  direction.  However, 
when  I  do  have  my  discussions  with  the 
Minister  of  Labour,  I  must  confess  to  my 
colleagues  in  the  Legislature  that  they  are 
primarily  concerned  with  the  problems  of 
all  the  workers. 

I  guess  we  get  into  positions  in  this  Leg- 
islature where  we  view  things  from  different 
vantage  points.  I  know  I  probably  perceive 
the  members  of  the  New  Democratic  Party 
as  always  viewing  things  from  the  organized 
union  perspective,  while  they  have  the  per- 
ception of  me  as  being  able  only  to  view 
things  from  the  side  of  management,  which 
is  not  altogether  accurate. 

I  want  to  say  there  are  some  things  I 
hope  the  Minister  of  Labour  will  arrive  at, 
although  they  are  not  entirely  within  his 
ministry.  They  include  such  things  as  the 
Attorney  General  has  just  put  forward  in 
his  paper  on  mechanic's  lien  revisions.  I 
hope  these  mechanic's  lien  revisions  will 
address  themselves  primarily  to  giving  the 
highest  priority  to  wages  of  workers  and 
tradespeople.  I  have  not  yet  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  look  at  that  document,  but  I  hope 
it  is  in  there.  If  it  is  not,  I  hope  the  Min- 
ister of  Labour  will  bring  that  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Attorney  General  when  he  brings 
forward  the  legislation. 

Another  thing  is  the  matter  of  pensions. 
That  has  been  discussed  in  the  committee 
on  plant  shutdowns.  That  is  not  this  minister's 
entire  responsibility.  I  know  we  are  waiting 
for  the  Haley  commission  report  to  appear. 
I  would  hope  there  would  be  some  package 
put  together  in  the  same  way  as  we  have 
a  common  package  in  insurance,  for  life 
insurance,  for  annuities  and  other  things 
I  would  hope  there  would  be  a  common 
package  that  one  could  negotiate  on  behalf 
of  all  workers,  be  they  unionized  or  non 
unionized.  Then  if  one  were  going  to  his 
employer  regarding  pensions,  one  could  say: 
"This  is  what  it  must  be.  Could  I  buy  that 
package  or  could  we  contribute  to  it,  you 
as  the  employer  and  I  as  the  employee?" 
One  could  then  buy  the  extra  pension 
schemes  that  one  so  desired  over  and  above 
those  that  are  instituted  in  the  federal  Can- 
ada pension  plan,  old  age  security  and 
Gains.  There  would  be  some  other  feature 
that  could  be  legislated  for,  rather  than  try- 
ing to  put  legislation  in  place  to  assist  those 
plans  that  are  in  place  for  some  but  not  all 


employees  in  this  province.  I  would  suggest 
a  better  route  would  be  examining  the  pos- 
sibility of  putting  together  a  plan  that  would 
be  available  to  all.  Indeed,  I  would  hope  the 
insurance  companies  and  those  people  deal- 
ing in  pensions  would  be  in  the  forefront  of 
putting  together  this  package  so  that  it  is 
not  legislated. 

Another  item,  after  pensions,  is  that  of 
severance  pay  which  we  have  just  discussed 
and  which  has  been  put  forward  as  an  earlier 
recommendation  and  was  noted  again  in  the 
recent  interim  report  of  the  plant  shutdowns 
committee.  I  will  mention  a  document  I  re- 
quested that  I  just  received  in  the  mail  to- 
day. It  was  written  by  Robert  B.  McKersie, 
and  is  titled,  Plant  Closed— No  Jobs.  It  says, 
"What  to  do  about  the  unemployment  now 
being  caused  by  shutdowns.  An  expert  sug- 
gests, among  other  things,  that  the  business- 
men should  take  the  initiative  in  softening 
the  blow,  lest  they  find  tough  legislation 
thrust  upon  them." 

I  think  that  is  a  very  precise  and  concise 
description  of  what  takes  place  and  has  a 
possibility  of  taking  place  with  this  par- 
ticular legislation.  I  would  think  the  business 
community  would  be  well  advised  to  take 
that  short  pithy  statement  and  look  upon  it 
and  themselves  because  there  could  be  pieces 
of  legislation  that  come  out  of  this  that  may 
be  more  than  they  want  to  accept;  and  may 
be  far  more  than  the  community  should 
accept.  They  should  be  before  our  committee 
when  it  returns  during  the  January-February 
break,  so  they  can  put  their  positions,  and 
tell  us  what  they  are  going  to  do  and  what 
they  should  be  doing.  They  should  start 
thinking  about  it  instead  of  thinking  about 
it  after  the  fact.  That  is  my  position  on 
severance  pay. 

(The  member  for  Hamilton  East  (Mr.  Mac- 
kenzie) mentioned  bankruptcy.  I  have  spoken 
on  more  than  one  occasion  with  the  Minister 
of  Labour  on  that  and  I  have  the  same  posi- 
tion. When  I  acted  as  a  lawyer  in  many  of 
these  situations,  away  down  the  list  behind 
those  professional  people  looking  after  them- 
selves within  the  law  now  in  place,  namely, 
the  secured1  creditors,  the  mortgagees  and 
those  others,  the  last  in  the  line  and  probably 
the  ones  carrying  the  greatest  burden  and 
who  could  least  afford  the  loss  were  the 
workers.  Their  wages  were  not  there.  That 
is  an  obvious  suggestion  from  the  member 
for  Hamilton  East  that  the  minister  should 
pick  up.  I  know  that  it  is  not  within  our 
jurisdiction,  but  is  one  suggestion  we  should 
be  putting  heavily  to  those  at  the  federal 
level. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5353 


Let  us  look  at  a  couple  of  positive  steps. 
Some  of  these  provisions,  such  as  mechanic's 
liens,  pension  plans,  severance  pay  and  bank- 
ruptcy situations,  are  those  that  are  covering 
up  problems  that  are  there.  They  are  a  Band- 
Aid,  as  has  been  suggested  by  some  others. 
It  is  a  makeshift  program  that  tries  to  cor- 
rect the  problems. 

Let  us  look  at  some  other  positive  steps 
that  should  be  taken.  The  route  we  should 
be  following  is  professional  training  and 
apprenticeship  training.  All  of  those  positions 
should  be  made  more  positive— more  positive 
for  industry  to  take  up,  more  positive  for 
businesses  to  take  up  and  more  positive  for 
universities,  colleges  and  schools  to  take  up. 
We  do  have  a  very  versatile  working  force 
which  is  one  of  our  great  resources  in  this 
community  of  Ontario.  Without  it,  some  of 
these  other  programs  would  not  be  necessary, 
and  indeed,  would  be  superfluous. 

We  must  have  a  very  positive  program 
going  forward  first,  and  I  hope  the  Minister 
of  Labour  will,  with  the  other  ministries 
involved,  put  together  some  very  positive 
programs.  There  are  many  good  ones  out 
there  that  need  improving  and  more  emphasis 
to  carry  on  the  good  work  being  done  by 
this  minister  and  other  ministers  for  the 
workers  and  people  of  this  province. 

Mr.  Laughren:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  wanted  to 
speak  to  the  minister  briefly  about  the  whole 
question  of  skills  training  in  Ontario  because 
I  am  very  worried  that  there  is  a  regional 
component  to  the  lack  of  skills  training.  I 
know  of  a  manufacturer  in  North  Bay  who 
expanded  elsewhere  because  there  were  no 
skilled  tradespeople  available  in  North  Bay. 
I  am  worried'  that  there  will  not  be  skilled 
tradespeople  available  in  Timmins  when  the 
food  terminal  eventually  opens  there. 

3:10  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  the  ad- 
vice of  the  member  for  Nickel  Belt  (Mr. 
Laughren),  I  am  going  to  respond  to  all 
members  except  the  member  for  Sudbury 
East  (Mr.  Martel),  the  member  for  Hamilton 
East  (Mr.  Mackenzie)  and  the  member  for 
Nickel  Belt.  It  that  right? 

Mr.  Laughren:  Sure;  that's  fine. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Seriously,  I  realize,  as 
they  do  and  as  I  know  you  do,  Mr.  Speaker, 
we  have  discussed  these  topics  at  great  length 
publicly  in  estimates,  although  some  mem- 
bers may  not  have  been  there  for  that  special 
occasion,  and  before  the  select  committee  on 
plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjustment. 

On  the  issue  of  justification  of  plant  clo- 
sures, I  think  I  have  made  the  government's 
position  very  clear.  We  have  serious  doubts 


about  the  value  of  it.  We  have  serious  doubts 
about  it  as  a  disincentive  for  business  set- 
ting up  in  this  community.  But  we  have 
made  it  clear  all  along  that  we  think  there 
is  a  very  important  need  to  look  at  the  very 
human  aspects  of  plant  closure  and  the 
hardships  that  occur  from  it.  We  have  made 
it  very  clear  from  the  beginning  that  those 
are  the  issues  we  have  particular  interest  in. 

I  have  made  my  own  position  very  clear 
on  the  issue  of  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value.  I  think  the  member  for  Hamilton 
East  (Mr.  Mackenzie)  is  on  a  funny  wicket, 
because  this  province  has  a  record  with 
regard  to  women's  issues  that  cannot  be 
compared  with  that  of  any  other  province. 
We  are  far  ahead  of  all  of  them  in  all  areas. 
We  have  an  equal  pay  act  that  is  effective 
and  working,  and  we  have  equal  oppor- 
tunity programs  that  other  provinces  are 
now  starting  to  model  theirs  after. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  If  they  are  such 
wonderful  programs,  why  is  there  only  one 
woman  at  National  Steel  Car? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Oh,  take  two  Aspirins 
today.  The  one  the  other  day  did  not  work. 

The  federal  government  also  is  starting 
to  introduce  an  affirmative  action  program 
based  on  ours.  There  are  some  changes  in 
the  regulations  being  considered  by  the 
government.  I  am  not  prepared  at  this  time 
to  comment  on  the  state  of  those  considera- 
tions, but  they  relate  to  the  matters  raised 
by  the  member  for  Hamilton  East. 

We  have  discussed  at  great  length  the 
issue  of  occupational  health  and  safety  and 
the  effectiveness  of  Bill  70.  I  happen  not 
to  be  as  pessimistic  as  some  of  the  mem- 
bers from  the  third  party.  I  think  there  is 
evidence  of  great  co-operation  starting  to 
develop.  The  degree  of  compliance  with 
regard  to  health  and  safety  committees  now 
is  approximately  95  per  cent  in  all  areas. 
The  honourable  member  knows  that.  He 
knows  it  is  a  good  act. 

Mr.  Mackenzie:  I  want  to  keep  it  a 
good  act. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Keep  quiet  for  a  minute. 
It  gives  workers  the  right  to  refuse  to  work 
and  the  right  to  participate  in  the  process; 
that  is  starting.  At  the  end  of  year  one,  I 
have  to  say  we  have  seen  a  lot  of  changes 
take  place  and  we  have  a  lot  to  be  proud 
of.  I  will  not  make  any  apology  for  Bill  70 
or  the  way  it  is  going  now. 

The  bankruptcy  situation  has  been  dis- 
cussed by  several  members.  I  know  the 
member  for  Simcoe  Centre  (Mr.  G.  Taylor) 
has  indicated  on  many  occasions  his  con- 
cern about  the  federal  bankruptcy  laws  with 


5354 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


regard  to  unpaid  wages.  I  have  told  the 
House  on  many  occasions  that  I  have  in- 
dicated my  own  support  for  improving  the 
position  of  wages  in  the  bankruptcy  legis- 
lation. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Davison:  Would  you  like  to 
tell  us  Joe  Clark's  position  on  that? 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  The  member  is  a  lovely 
young  man.  Why  does  he  not  go  and  see 
his  mother?  He  may  need  some  help. 

I  was  delighted  that  the  member  for 
Essex  South  (Mr.  Mancini)  had  finally  come 
to  the  realization  that  there  was  a  Weiler 
report  and  that  it  did  contemplate  some 
changes  in  workmen's  compensation  legisla- 
tion. I  think  it  is  kind  of  anomalous,  though, 
that  during  all  those  months  when  Professor 
Weiler  was  reviewing  it,  his  party  was  one 
of  the  groups  that  were  criticizing  the  way 
we  had  proceeded.  Members  of  his  party 
said  we  were  trying  to  move  too  quickly 
and  they  suggested  a  royal  commission, 
which  would  have  taken  several  years.  I 
happen  to  think  we  did  the  right  thing  in 
acting  quickly  and  I  make  no  apology  for 
that. 

I  am  not  involved  in  a  second  study  of 
the  Weiler  report.  I  have  asked  for  com- 
ments from  those  who  had  indicated  an 
interest  in  the  Weiler  study.  To  not  do 
that  is  to  negate  the  concept  of  responsible 
government,  and  the  member  knows  it.  If 
the  member  wants  to  say  something  funda- 
mental, he  should  say  it  on  real  issues. 

On  the  issue  of  silica  standards,  the  mem- 
ber for  Sudbury  East  (Mr.  Martel)  talked 
to  me  about  that  before.  I  am  aware  there 
have  been  some  suggestions  of  silica  stand- 
ards being  considered  by  the  federal  gov- 
ernment, and  we  will  review  their  docu- 
ments. As  he  knows,  the  issue  of  jurisdiction 
in  health  and  safety  in  uranium  mines  seems 
to  be  quite  clear.  We  have  a  pretty  good 
working  arrangement  at  present,  but  we 
will  continue  to  try  to  improve  it. 

Miners'  deaths  in  this  province  have  been 
a  particular  concern  of  the  ministry.  We 
have  appointed  a  tripartite  commission  to 
look  into  that,  including  the  events  at 
Stobie  mines  that  the  member  was  talking 
to  us  about.  My  own  inspectors  have  re- 
viewed the  matter  and  made  certain  recom- 
mendations. The  industrial  inquiry  into 
mining  deaths  has  also  reviewed  that  issue. 
I  think  we  are  approaching  it  from  several 
directions  and  that  we  will  see  a  satisfactory 
resolution  of  it. 

Mr.  Martel:  You  are  playing  games  with 
us  and  you  know  it. 


Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  I  don't  know  that.  In- 
stead of  playing  games,  what  have  we  seen 
in  the  past  year  and  a  half?  We  have  seen 
them  agree  to  start  paying  for  the  inspector 
service;  we  have  seen  them  incorporate  the 
act  by  reference;  we  have  had  conversations 
with  them  as  a  result  of  the  committee's 
report  from  Hydro;  and  they  are  willing  to 
consider  any  further  references  that  may  be 
required  to  make  certain  that  the  process  is 
a  legal  one.  I  have  not  seen  anything  but 
co-operation.  The  member  may  not  think 
everything  is  perfect,  but  people  are  not 
putting  up  roadblocks  to  improving  it. 

I  think  that  basically  summarizes  most  of 
the  issues  that  have  not  been  covered  in 
especially  great  detail  in  other  committees 
at  other  times.  I  thank  the  members  for 
their  comments. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Shall  those  estimates  be 
concurred  in? 

Mr.  Martel:  No,  Mr.  Speaker,  not  for  a 
moment. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  You  can  only  speak 
once.  That  has  been  the  precedent  in  this 
House   even  before  you  came. 

Mr.  Martel:  Mr.  Speaker,  the  precedent 
was  all  mangled  the  night  before  last  when 
people  would  go  out  and  come  back  into 
estimates.  This  afternoon  the  minister 
mangled  it. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  resolution  for  con- 
currence in  supply  has  already  been  placed 
before  the  House  at  the  beginning  of  the 
debate.  Is  it  the  pleasure  of  the  House  that 
the  resolution  be  concurred  in? 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  TREASURY 
AND  ECONOMICS 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

OFFICE  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY 
(Supplementary) 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

OFFICE  OF  THE 
PROVINCIAL  AUDITOR 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  AGRICULTURE 
AND  FOOD 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  will  speak  only  very 
briefly,  Mr.  Speaker.  Before  you  cut  me  off 
on  my  supplementary  this  afternoon,  I  was 
trying  to  impress  upon  the  minister  that 
funding  has  to  be  provided  to  eastern 
Ontario  farmers  who  find  they  cannot  grow 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5355 


soybeans  because  of  the  lack  of  handling 
and  storage  facilities.  I  have  asked  for  more 
detailed  information  on  this.  If  the  minister 
were  to  read  the  last  edition  of  Farm  and 
Country  he  would  find  an  article  where 
this  is  outlined. 

The  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 
(Mr.  Henderson)  invited  the  opposition 
critics  to  attend  the  press  conference  he 
was  having  in  the  last  two  or  three  days 
announcing  a  conference  which  his  ministry 
was  establishing,  to  be  known  as  Growing 
with  Agriculture  in  the  1980s.  I  failed  to 
comment,  as  I  was  asked  to  do,  at  the  end 
of  that  press  conference.  When  I  become 
somewhat  annoyed,  I  think  it  is  always 
best  to  give  myself  a  few  minutes  to  see  if 
my  annoyance  is  justified.  I  did  give  it  a 
few  minutes  and,  in  my  opinion,  this  latest 
announcement  is  just  another  in  a  series  of 
conferences  this  ministry  has  hosted,  de- 
signed to  make  the  public  believe  his 
ministry  is  actively  promoting  agriculture 
in  this  province. 

I  know  there  was  a  lot  of  criticism 
levelled  at  the  minister  during  the  estimates 
that  for  some  reason  or  other  this  govern- 
ment places  a  very  low  profile  on  agricul- 
ture. Just  as  sure  as  I  am  standing  here, 
we  are  going  to  be  having  a  conference  in 
February  for  no  other  reason  than  to  try 
to  improve  the  minister's  and  ministry's 
image  across  Ontario. 
3:20  p.m. 

The  reason  I  say  this  government  places 
very  little  emphasis  on  agriculture  is  that 
the  Agriculture  and  Food  budget  is  only  half 
of  one  per  cent  of  the  total  Ontario  budget 
when  one  discounts  the  land  tax  rebates 
which  should  not  have  been  collected  in  the 
first  place,  the  crop  insurance  which  is  re- 
paid by  the  federal  government  and  the  tile 
drainage  loans  which  are  repaid  by  the 
farmers,  although  the  interest  rate  is  sub- 
sidized. 

Mr.  W.  Newman:  What  are  you  repeating 
the  same  speech  for?  You  already  read  it 
in  estimates. 

Mr.  Riddell:  No.  I  am  dealing  with  this 
conference  and  the  money  being  spent  on  it. 
It  is  abundantly  clear  there  is  no  solid  com- 
mitment by  this  government  to  an  expanding 
agricultural   industry   in   this   province. 

At  last  month's  annual  convention  of  the 
Ontario  Federation  of  Agriculture,  an  agri- 
culture and  food  strategy  for  Ontario  was 
recommended  to  the  government.  This  strat- 
egy pointed  out  the  great  opportunities  pre- 
sented to  Ontario  by  its  agriculture  and  listed 
a  number  of  proposals  for  its  development. 


At  a  press  conference,  the  minister  forecast 
a  doubling  of  corn  production  in  the.  next 
20  years.  This  would  require  the  drainage 
and/  or  clearing  of  two  million  acres  of  land. 
Much  of  this  land  would  be  difficult  to  drain 
and  it  could  cost  $1,000  an  acre  to  clear 
and/or  drain.  That  acreage  would  require  $2 
billion  of  capital  financing  and,  over  a  20- 
year  period  with  the  present  tile  loan 
formula,  the  government  would  have  to  triple 
its  present  $25  million  a  year  ceiling  to  $75 
million  a  year.  That  money  would  require 
constant  increases  to  match  inflation. 

Rather  than  a  conference,  what  we  need 
is  more  research  to  cope  with  the  problems 
created  by  one-crop  farming  systems.  We 
need  grants  and  loans  to  farm  groups  anxious 
to  operate  cold  storage  plants.  We  need 
more  processing  plants  and  grain-handling 
facilities.  We  need  a  lifting  of  the  present 
three-year  limit  on  research  projects  funded 
by  the  government.  We  need  to  restore 
morale  and  confidence  among  our  agricul- 
tural scientists  in  the  future  of  their  work. 
We  need  to  plan  now  so  our  rivers  and  dams 
can  handle  the  increased  drainage  waters. 
We  need  planning  and  legislation  to  prevent 
the  erosion  of  land  and  the  silting  of  our 
rivers  and  streams  which  will  be  caused  by 
increased  cash-cropping  on  Ontario  soils.  We 
need  a  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  Ontario 
government  of  the  importance  of  agriculture 
in  this  province  and  a  commitment  to  food 
self-sufficiency. 

We  do  not  need  a  series  of  government- 
financed  conferences  just  before  a  provincial 
election.  We  need  action  and  commitment 
from  this  government  in  the  future  of 
Ontario  agriculture.  I  say  to  the  minister  that 
those  are  my  views  on  the  money  he  is 
prepared  to  spend  on  a  conference  in 
February. 

Mr.  T.  P.  Reid:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  be 
brief.  I  want  to  make  one  last  plea  to  the 
Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  concerning 
the  Rainy  River  land  clearing  and  drainage 
project.  I  know  the  minister  is  going  to  reply 
that  it  is  up  to  the  federal  government 
through  the  Department  of  Regional  Eco- 
nomic Expansion  agreement  to  do  something 
about  this  matter.  We  have  had  this  con- 
versation numerous  times,  but  I  would  sub- 
mit to  the  minister  that  if  there  are  problems 
with  the  federal  government  because  funding 
or  the  amount  of  money  that  was  going  to 
go  to  this  program  is  not  available,  or  what- 
ever, then  the  provincial  government  should 
the  lead  in  this  matter  and  start  a  pilot 
project  funded  with  at  least  a  million  dollars 
or  so  to  start  so  that  we  can  get  on  with 
the  job. 


5356 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


It  was  interesting  that  the  local  people, 
through  the  Ontario  Federation  of  Agricul- 
ture, Rainy  River  branch,  came  up  with  this 
program  and'  did  a  great  deal  of  work  in 
preparing  what  I  consider  an  excellent  brief 
on  this  whole  project.  The  minister  and  his 
predecessor  have  been  dragging  their  feet 
for  three  years  on  this  matter,  studying  it 
from  all  possible  angles.  If  there  is  a  prob- 
lem with  the  federal  government,  let  us 
get  on  with  the  matter.  Let  us  start  some- 
thing under  the  initiative  of  the  Ontario 
Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  and  let 
us  get  that  program  in  place  for  this  coming 
spring  so  we  can  get  on  with  the  job  of 
improving  the  productivity  of  the  farming 
community  in  the  west  end  of  the  Rainy 
River  district.  It  is  going  to  be  of  benefit 
not  only  to  the  people  in  the  area,  but  to 
the  Ontario  economy  as  well. 

I  would  hope  the  minister  would  make  a 
commitment  here  this  afternoon,  at  Christ- 
mastime, that  if  there  is  no  action  from  the 
federal  government  in  the  next  couple  of 
months,  he  will  go  ahead  on  his  own  initia- 
tive and  provide  the  necessary  funds  or  what- 
ever to  get  this  program  going  this  coming 
spring  of  1981. 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I 
might  respond  to  the  member  for  Rainy 
River  (Mr.  T.  P.  Reid),  he  is  well  aware 
of  the  commitment  I  made  a  few  days  ago 
during  my  estimates.  That  commitment  still 
stands  as  I  made  it  then.  Prior  to  that,  I 
had  spoken  to  the  member  and  suggested 
he  should  try  to  encourage  the  government 
of  Canada  to  get  on  with  the  job,  a  job 
they  promised  us  almost  a  year  ago,  yet  we 
still  do  not  have  the  necessary  agreement. 
Respecting  a  pilot  project,  he  is  also  aware 
that  we,  as  a  province,  already  have  carried 
out  pilot  projects  within  his  riding.  The 
proof  is  there  that  the  ground  will  produce 
with  the  appropriate  drainage  and  cultiva- 
tion. 

The  member  for  Huron-Middlesex  (Mr. 
Riddell)  referred  to  the  soybean  crop  in 
eastern  Ontario.  I  am  sure  he  is  aware  that 
this  is  the  first  year  we  have  actually  pro- 
duced soybeans  in  such  supply  that  they 
really  needed  storage  in  eastern  Ontario. 
He  is  aware  that  we  have  come  out  with 
new  varieties  that  the  farmers  will  be  pro- 
ducing next  year.  There  are,  at  this  moment, 
no  plans  respecting  storage,  but  I  will  be 
speaking  to  my  staff  with  respect  to  this 
and  will  see  what  arrangements  can  be 
made. 

The  honourable  member  referred  to  a 
conference  we  are  going  to  hold  on  Febru- 


ary 4  and  5  of  this  year  in  the  Skyline 
Hotel.  I  am  really  disappointed  in  him  for 
thinking  that  the  farmers  should  not  have 
the  right  to  come  out  and  have  input.  It 
is  pretty  shocking  for  that  member  to 
make  that  type  of  a  statement  that  the 
farmers  should  riot  be  at  a  conference.  It 
is  really  shocking  and  disappointing  because 
he  represents  a  rural  riding. 

Mr.  Riddell:  You  don't  know  whom  you 
are  inviting.  It  was  a  thought  on  the  spur 
of  the  moment 

Hon.  Mr.  Henderson:  There  is  no  spur 
of  the  moment  about  it.  The  member  can 
check  when  the  reservations  were  made.  1 
re-emphasize  that  I  am  really  disappointed 
at  his  not  wanting  the  farmers  to  have 
input.  It  is  shocking  to  say  the  least.  The 
part  that  is  really  shocking  is  his  negative 
outlook  on  the  future;  his  attitude  towards 
our  farmers  is  very  disappointing.  I  just 
cannot  believe  he  believes  our  farmers  are 
that  type  of  people. 

During  the  past  decade,  our  farmers  have 
almost  doubled  production  within  this  prov- 
ince and,  as  I  said  in  my  estimates,  they 
will  do  that  again  in  the  very  near  future. 
I  have  confidence  in  the  farmers  of  this 
province.  I  have  confidence  in  the  people 
of  this  province  and  believe  that  we  will 
continue  to  be  the  leading  province  and 
the  leading  state  in  North  America. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Shall  this  resolu- 
tion be  concurred  in? 

Those  in  favour  will  please  say  "aye." 

Those  opposed  will  please  say  "nay." 

In  my  opinion,  the  ayes  have  it. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

Resolution  for  supplementary  supply  also 
concurred  in. 

MINISTRY  OF  HOUSING 

Mr.   Roy:    Mr.   Speaker,   I  cannot  let  my 
good  friend  from  Ottawa  South  (Mr.  Bennett) 
get  off  that  easily.  I  have  a  very  few  brief 
comments  to  make  to  the  minister. 
3:30  p.m. 

This  morning,  in  looking  over  the  mail,  I 
saw  that  something  is  happening  in  eastern 
Ontario  to  which  the  minister  does  not  seem 
to  be  invited.  There  are  invitations  to  the 
Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 
(Mr.  Norton)  and  the  Minister  of  Govern- 
ment Services  (Mr.  Wiseman)  to  attend  the 
official  opening  of  new  kitchen  facilities  at 
the  Rideau  regional  centre.  The  member 
for  Ottawa  South  (Mr.  Bennett)  is  not  even 
invited  to  that.  Since  we  are  embarking  on 
an   electoral   period,    I   want  to   say  to   my 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5357 


good  friend  from  Ottawa  South  that  there 
is  going  to  be  an  official  ribbon  cutting  of 
an  outhouse  in  my  riding.  I  want  to  ask  the 
member  how  many  ministers  he  can  bring 
over  for  that. 

Mr.  Ashe:  As  long  as  you  are  underneath 
it,  we  will  bring  the  whole  government. 

Hon.  Mr.  Bennett:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  under- 
stood the  particular  facility  was  to  accom- 
modate all  the  friends  of  the  member  for 
Ottawa  East.  Those  are  my  comments. 

Resolution  concurred  in. 

MANAGEMENT  BOARD  OF  CABINET 
Resolution   concurred   in. 

MINISTRY  OF  THE  ENVIRONMENT 

(concluded) 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe 
we  agreed  the  Liberal  speaker  will  take  10 
minutes,  then  the  New  Democratic  Party 
speaker  will  take  up  to  10  minutes  and  I 
will  conclude  with  10.  Was  that  agreed  to 
by  the  House?  I  am  more  than  prepared  to 
stand   down. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  I  don't  know  what 
the  agreement  is.  I  understand  it  was  agreed 
outside  the  House,  so  I  will  have  to  ask 
the  House  if  it  is  agreeable  to  that  agree- 
ment. 

Agreed. 

Mr.  G.  I.  Miller:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a 
real  pleasure  for  me  to  have  this  oppor- 
tunity to  stand  up  today  to  speak  at  this 
particular  time  in  the  history  of  Ontario.  I 
think  we  are  coming  to  the  crossroads  in 
dealing  with  our  liquid  industrial  waste.  We 
certainly  need  to  get  a  handle  on  it.  What 
happened  on  November  25  was  a  true  indi- 
cation that  this  government,  which  has  been 
around  for  37  years,  has  not  taken  into 
consideration  the  simple  principle  of  the 
rights   of  individual   citizens. 

I  would  like  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  House  that  the  government  made  a 
decision  to  locate  an  industrial  waste  plant 
on  640  acres  in  South  Cayuga  of  class  one 
and  two  agricultural  land.  As  the  member 
for  that  area,  I  am  certainly  concerned.  We 
have  had  the  support  of  the  town  of  Haldi- 
mand,  in  which  the  site  is  located,  and  of 
the  region  of  Haldimand-Norfolk  and  the 
town  of  Dunnville.  A  lot  of  very  interesting 
things  have  taken  place  in  the  past  two 
weeks  as  far  as  that  area  is  concerned. 

The  Haldimand-Norfolk  Organization  for 
a    Pure    Environment    was    organized    and 


came  to  the  rescue  of  the  residents  there. 
They  have  made  presentations  to  this  House 
through  myself  as  a  member,  and  I  noticed 
this  morning  the  minister  indicated  some 
concern  about  my  responsibility  as  the  mem- 
ber for  Haldimand-Norfolk.  I  would  indicate 
to  the  House  and  to  the  people  of  Ontario 
that  I  take  my  responsibilities  seriously.  I 
am  concerned.  We  have  to  stand  up  for  the 
rights  of  individuals,  and  I  have  tried  to  do 
that. 

Last  week  300  letters  were  addressed  to 
the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  and  to  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  (Mr.  Parrott).  I  would 
like  to  put  on  record  a  copy  of  one  letter 
that  gives  an  indication  of  the  feeling  of 
the  citizens  in  my  riding.  It  is  from  J.  L. 
Mitchener  Public  School,  PO  Box  99,  Cay- 
uga,  Ontario.   It  reads: 

"Dear  Premier  Davis: 

"Although  I  am  not  yet  of  voting  age,  I 
am,  nevertheless,  deeply  concerned  that  any 
provincial  government  in  a  free  democratic 
country,  such  as  Canada,  should  arbitrarily 
suspend  citizens'  right  to  full  independent 
hearings  on  such  an  important  project  as 
the  South  Cayuga  dump  site  that  is  now 
before  the  Legislature.  I  am  appalled  that 
our  government  would  blatantly  ignore  the 
laws  of  the  Environment  Assessment  Act, 
the  laws  that  our  government  created.  This 
not  only  affects  citizens  of  South  Cayuga, 
but  is  a  denial  of  citizens'  rights  to  every- 
one in  Ontario." 

It  is  signed  Chris  Clinton.  I  am  speaking 
on  behalf  of  the  future  generation  because 
that  is  my  responsibility  and  that  is  my  con- 
cern. We  are  not  only  dealing  here  with 
waste  that  is  of  real  concern,  but  we  are 
going  to  locate  it  in  a  virgin  area  of  Ontario, 
between  the  Grand  River  and  Lake  Erie, 
a  distance  of  three  short  miles.  It  is  class 
one  and  two  land. 

The  government's  own  study,  the  Mac- 
Laren  report,  brought  out  in  1979,  indicated 
clearly  that  class  one,  two,  three  and  four 
agricultural  land  should  not  be  used  for 
waste  disposal.  They  pointed  out  that  17 
sites  were  available  in  Ontario,  which  they 
indicated  on  maps,  but  South  Cayuga  was 
not  mentioned.  Just  this  past  summer  they 
approved  another  study,  which  cost 
$425,000,  to  justify  using  the  site  for  liquid 
industrial  waste  storage.  I  think  this  clearly 
indicates  they  are  using  our  money  to  try 
to  utilize  this  site  for  waste  disposal.  They 
did  not  come  to  the  region  of  Haldimand- 
Norfolk. 

I  believe  at  the  end  of  November  or  be- 
ginning of  December,  after  the  new  council 


5358 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


was  inaugurated,  it  passed'  a  resolution  ask- 
ing for  an  environmental  assessment  hearing 
and  asking  the  Premier  to  rescind  the 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  request  that 
the  environmental  studies  not  be  heard. 
The  town  of  Dunnville  also  brought  in  a 
resolution  supporting  the  region  of  Haldi- 
mand-Norfolk.  All  they  are  asking  for  is 
simple  justice,  that  the  legislation  of  Ontario 
be  adhered  to.  I  will  ask  again  today  that 
the  minister  reconsider  his  proposal  and 
support  the  democratic  system  so  that  we 
can  have  a  fair  hearing  for  the  future  of 
that  part  of  Ontario. 

On  Thursday  of  this  week,  we  had  an- 
other group  come  in.  They  were  represented 
by  the  mayor  of  the  town  of  Dunnville 
and  his  council.  They  did  have  a  meeting 
with  the  minister  in  the  hallway.  I  will  not 
say  that  was  the  best  place  to  meet,  but  in 
order  to  make  a  point  I  think  they  had  to 
use  some  method  to  get  the  attention  of 
the  minister,  and  I  think  they  were  making 
that  point  very  clearly. 

Those  people  are  responsible  people  and 
will  sit  down  and  be  rational  if  approached 
the  right  way.  I  would  offer  my  support 
to  do  that  because  I  think  we  are  making 
a  decision  that  is  going  to  affect  the  future 
generations  and  that  is  going  to  affect  that 
part  of  Ontario  where  the  Grand  River 
runs  into  Lake  Erie.  The  fishing  industry 
is  dependent  on  good  clean  water,  and 
the  fishing  industry  there  provides  some- 
thing like  70  per  cent  of  all  the  freshwater 
fish  in  Ontario  or  50  per  cent  of  the  fresh- 
water fish  in  Canada.  It  is  an  issue  we  have 
to  be  concerned  about. 

3:40  p.m. 

I  think  agriculture  can  play  a  role  in  the 
economy  of  Ontario  and  Canada  since,  as 
our  agriculture  critic  pointed  out  to  the  min- 
ister today,  we  are  importing  $2  billion 
worth  of  agricultural  products.  Half  of  that 
can  be  produced  here.  We  are  importing 
$1.8  billion  worth  of  farm  machinery  and 
exporting  $800  million,  leaving  a  deficit  of  $1 
billion.  Agriculture  can  play  a  crucial  role; 
and  that  particular  area  of  Ontario  is  class 
one  and  two  land,  the  second  highest  heat 
area  in  Canada.  We  can  have  access  to 
irrigation. 

When  the  government  purchased  the  land, 
although  a  lot  of  figures  have  been  used,  it 
paid  $25,640,524  for  it,  which  works  out  to 
about  $2,000  an  acre.  That  may  well  be 
cheap  land  as  we  go  down  the  road  into  the 
future.  During  a  conversation  I  had  with  our 
junior  farmers  only  a  week  ago  in  Delhi,  I 
learned    from    one    of    them    who    went    to 


Germany  on  an  exchange  tour  that  the  only 
way  one  gets  access  to  land  is  through  its 
being  handed  down  from  generation  to  gene- 
ration. They  are  paying  a  price  of  up  to 
$10,000  an  acre.  Given  the  fact  we  do  have 
a  peak  in  agriculture,  I  think  we  have  to 
protect  that  land,  and  we  can  barter,  when 
we  have  agricultural  products  to  exchange, 
for  energy.  I  think  that  is  the  future  not 
only  for  the  agricultural  area,  but  for  indus- 
try. That  is  very  important. 

We  have  to  make  sure  that  the  democratic 
system  is  utilized  properly.  That  is  all  we 
are  asking,  that  simple  first  principle.  I  would 
hope  the  minister  will  see  it  justified  and 
will  try  not  to  put  the  cart  before  the  horse 
and  will  go  through  the  proper  procedures. 

Mr.  Isaacs:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  pleased  to 
be  able  to  join  in  this  debate. 

Hon.  Mr.  Elgie:  Where  are  your  friends? 

Mr.  Isaacs:  I  don't  know  where  they  are. 

I  am  pleased  to  join  in  this  debate  on 
concurrence  in  supply  for  the  Ministry  of 
the  Environment.  I  was  not  the  environment 
critic  for  this  party  at  the  time  the  minister's 
estimates  were  being  considered  by  com- 
mittee, nor  when  this  debate  was  started 
back  on  June  18,  but  I  have  found  it  a  fas- 
cinating experience  to  take  over  the  respon- 
sibility for  this  party. 

I  want  to  take  just  a  few  moments  to 
comment  on  some  of  the  things  which  we 
have  seen  happen  in  the  last  three  or  four 
months.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Minister 
of  the  Environment  must  have  received  a 
shot  of  liquid  industrial  adrenalin  some  time 
back  in  the  summer,  because  since  mid- 
summer or  thereabouts  he  has  been  moving 
faster  than  I  have  ever  seen  any  minister 
move— not  always  in  the  right  direction,  but 
he  has  been  moving. 

Back  in  the  summer,  he  bypassed  yet  again 
what  my  colleagues  in  the  Liberal  Party  call 
the  democratic  process,  except  that  time  it 
was  affecting  Inco.  Instead  of  going  through 
the  normal  hearing  process  and  the  normal 
control  order  process,  he  bypassed  everything 
and  went  straight  to  a  cabinet  order  to  deal 
with  the  Inco  emissions  problem.  Maybe  at 
that  time  we  should  have  seen  what  was 
coming;  we  should  have  seen  the  way  that 
haste  is  overtaking  reason  and  the  democratic 
process,  and  maybe  we  should  have  said, 
"Come  on,  we  need  hearings;  we  need  the 
full  process."  But,  of  course,  we  did  not 
because  we  knew  there  was  a  real  crisis  at 
that  time  and  we  were  prepared  to  allow 
the  minister  to  deal  with  his  ineptitude  in 
the  past  by  taking  crisis  decisions  and  going 
directly  to   cabinet. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5359 


Since  this  summer  as  well,  he  has  moved 
on  the  problem  of  the  Keating  Channel 
dredging,  although  he  has  not  moved  as 
far  as  we  would  like.  He  has  moved 
dramatically  on  some  of  the  crazy  schemes 
that  were  before  us  back  in  the  spring, 
particularly  the  proposal  for  his  co- 
proponentship  in  liquid  industrial  waste 
facilities  in  Thorold  and  Harwich.  He  has 
also  taken  actions  which  have  resulted  in 
the  abandonment  of  projects  in  Ajax  and 
Middleport.  Sewer  and  water  projects,  as 
the  minister  often  indicates  in  his  speeches, 
have  also  been  moving,  hindered  only  by 
the  present  abandonment  of  the  funding 
under  the  community  services  contribution 
program  by  the  federal  Liberal  party. 

It  is  the  minister's  statement  of  November 
25  that  is  the  focus  of  attention  today.  It 
is  that  statement  on  which  I  want  to  focus 
for  a  few  moments.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my 
mind  that  the  minister's  statement  of 
November  25  is  his  best  shot  yet  at  dealing 
with  the  problem  of  industrial  waste  dis- 
posal. The  minister  has  come  forward  with 
a  proposal  for  proper  facilities  on  a  clean 
site  run  by  the  right  people,  a  crown  corpo- 
ration. We  have  no  quarrel  with  any  of  those 
aspects. 

Unfortunately,  there  are  two  big  flaws  in 
the  proposal,  as  we  understand  it,  that 
exists  today.  One  is  the  minister's  inter- 
ference in  the  impartial  MacLaren  study, 
which  has  raised  in  many  people's  minds 
doubts  about  the  validity  of  that  study  as 
a  site  selection  document.  The  second  is 
his  abandonment  of  and  his  getting  around 
the  total  hearing  process  that  has  been 
established  by  this  Legislature  and  written 
into  the  laws  of  Ontario. 

Despite  those  criticisms,  the  minister  has 
still  been  moving  since  November  25.  For 
example,  on  November  25  there  was  no 
comment  about  any  kind  of  hearing.  Today, 
we  know  that  there  will  be  some  kind  of 
hearing  on  the  South  Cayuga  proposal.  On 
November  25,  South  Cayuga  was  the  final 
selection;  it  would  go  there  come  hell  or 
high  water.  One  of  the  concerns  of  the 
people  in  that  area  is  that  it  may  be  high 
water  that  comes  and  puts  an  end  to  the 
project.  Since  November  25,  perhaps  with 
some  nudging  from  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis), 
the  minister  has  agreed  that  the  project 
will  not  proceed  in  that  location  if  the  site 
is  found  to  be  unsuitable  for  a  facility  such 
as  he  is  proposing.  Since  November  25,  as 
well,  my  colleagues  and  I  in  the  New 
Democratic  Party  have  taken  the  steps 
necessary  to  ensure  that  there  will  be  com- 


mittee hearings   on  the  South  Cayuga  pro- 


I  want  to  tell  the  minister  I  see  one  of 
three  possibilities  being  the  major  com- 
ponent of  that  committee's  report.  The 
committee  will  come  forward  recommending 
that  there  should  be  a  full  environmental 
assessment  hearing,  or  it  will  come  forward 
suggesting  that  there  should  be  some  kind 
of  modified  environmental  assessment  hear- 
ing, or  it  will  come  forward  saying  that 
the  minister  has  done  the  right  thing. 

The  minister  is  well  aware  I  think  the 
last  of  those  three  possibilities  is  the  most 
unlikely.  The  minister  is  well  aware  I 
believe  strongly  there  should  be  a  full  en- 
vironmental assessment  hearing.  But  I  do 
not  think  I  am  so  close-minded  as  to  say 
I  am  not  prepared  to  use  those  hearings 
to  hear  the  minister's  point  of  view  and 
to  give  him  the  time  to  try  to  convince 
my  colleagues  and  me  that  what  he  has 
done  is  the  only  way  to  go. 

If,  as  I  suspect,  the  committee  comes 
forward  at  the  end  of  March,  or  whenever 
this  House  resumes,  with  a  recommendation 
that  there  should  be  a  full  environmental 
assessment  hearing,  if  the  Liberal  Party 
supports  that,  and  if  perhaps  even  the  Con- 
servative members  of  the  committee  support 
that,  as  I  hope  they  will  when  they  have 
heard  all  the  evidence,  then  this  House 
will  have  an  opportunity  to  vote  on  the 
report.  If  the  vote  is  positive,  I  believe  the 
minister  will  be  under  an  obligation  to 
listen  to  this  House  and  to  the  people  of 
Ontario  and  to  provide  the  environmental 
assessment  hearing  that  is  being  asked  for. 
It  seems  to  me  that  is  without  a  doubt  the 
biggest  flaw  in  the  minister's  position  on 
any  issue  at  the  present  time. 
3:50  p.m. 

I  do  not  see  how  an  election  in  Ontario 
right  now  will  get  the  people  of  Ontario  and 
of  South  Cayuga  an  environmental  assess- 
ment hearing.  If  the  people  in  the  Liberal 
Party  want  to  get  that  hearing,  and  if  they 
really  believe  that  the  goal  of  the  South 
Cayuga  exercise  is  to  get  an  environmental 
assessment  hearing,  then  they  will  forget 
about  jaunts  to  Germany,  they  will  forget 
about  spending  time  on  things  that  when 
time  is  less  pressing  might  be  important, 
and  they  will  focus  their  attention  on  the 
need  for  the  environmental  assessment  hear- 
ing. They  will  come  to  the  committee  and 
learn  why  that  hearing  was  not  held  and 
how  it  could  be  held,  and  they  will  join 
with  us  in  the  committee  to  bring  forward 
a   recommendation   that   the   Environmental 


5360 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Assessment  Board  be  directed  to  meet  and 
hear  the  South  Cayuga  issue,  site  selection, 
technology  and  everything. 

There  is  no  other  way  to  ensure  that  the 
people  of  South  Cayuga  will  get  that  hear- 
ing. There  is  no  way  we  can  guarantee  the 
people  of  South  Cayuga  that  an  election  will 
get  them  that  hearing.  In  fact,  Mr.  Speaker, 
as  you  know  and  as  I  know,  an  election  is 
likely  to  do  nothing  more  than  give  the 
minister  time  to  get  it  in  before  a  new 
government  can  take  over  and  ensure  that 
the  facilities  are  subjected  to  the  hearing 
they  should  have  before  the  site  selection 
is  made^  final.  We  will  not  be  opposing  the 
minister's  estimates  on  this  item,  but  we  will 
be  coming  forward  with  a  recommendation 
in  the  spring,  which  we  hope  will  get  the 
support  of  all  parties  in  this  House,  to  re- 
quire an  environmental  assessment  hearing 
and  to  guarantee  the  people  of  South  Cay- 
uga the  democratic  rights  they  deserve  to 
have  accorded  to  them. 

To  sum  up,  if  the  minister  keeps  moving 
under  the  charge  of  liquid  industrial  adren- 
alin he  seems  to  be  operating  on,  I  predict 
we  will  have  that  hearing  scheduled  before 
the  end  of  February. 

Mr.  Nixon:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  Before  the  minister  completes  the 
debate,  I  wonder  if  he  would  consider  the 
position  that  he  has  expressed  with  reference 
to  this  House,  when  he  undertook  to  have 
advertised  in  the  Daily  Commercial  News 
of  November  28,  under  the  heading  "South 
Cayuga  Industrial  Waste  Centre,  Owner 
Ontario  Waste  Management  Corporation,"  a 
prefect,  including  a  storage  building  for 
highly  toxic  waste  and  solidification  plant, 
and  a  bridge  to  join  Highway  56  to  the 
access  road  of  the  Grand  River,  as  well  as 
other  facilities,  when  the  matter  has  not 
really  been  approved  here  and  his  money 
has  not  been  voted. 

Second,  could  the  minister  possibly 
respond  to  my  colleague  the  member  for 
Essex  North  (Mr.  Ruston)  who  has  asked 
for  information  concerning  the  contract  and 
salary  of  Dr.  Donald  Chant  in  his  recent 
appointment  regarding  the  South  Cayuga 
toxic  waste  dump?  That  question  was  asked 
on  December  1,  and  the  answer  was,  'It 
will  not  be  possible  to  provide  a  response 
prior  to  the  end  of  the  session."  Surely  that 
is  an  indication  of  a  lack  of  concern  for  the 
requirements  for  information  to  the  Legis- 
lature and  the  taxpayers. 

Mr.  Gaunt:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:    I   am   wondering,   when   the  min- 


ister responds,  if  he  could  answer  my  ques- 
tion to  which  I  made  reference  yesterday. 
The  Acting  Speaker  (Mr.  MacBeth):  That 
is  neither  a  point  of  order  nor  a  point  of 
privilege.  It  is  an  inquiry  of  the  minister, 
but  this  is  not  the  time  for  an  inquiry.  I 
will  ask  the  minister  to  proceed. 
[Applause.] 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  very 
nice  to  have  that  land  of  support. 

We  are  in  the  concurrence  debate  for 
my  estimates,  and  I  want  to  make  one  or 
two  points  in  addition  to  the  ones  that 
seem  to  fascinate  and  dominate,  as  though 
they  were  the  only  things  that  have  happened 
in  our  environment.  Indeed,  there  are  many 
great  activities  of  my  ministry,  and  I  am 
going  to  take  half  of  my  time  to  remind 
this  House  that  really  is  what  this  is  all 
about. 

In  our  estimates  time  we  did  not  spend 
any  significant  amount  of  time  on  the  role 
of  our  laboratory.  Here  is  a  facility  which 
is  without  doubt  doing  yeoman's  service. 
Let  me  give  two  or  three  illustrations.  In 
any  given  year,  we  take  1.5  million  tests 
of  air  or  water  samples.  That  is  a 
tremendous  number.  That  includes  a  great 
range  of  activities.  It  ensures  that  the 
people  of  this  province  have  safe  drinking 
water.  It  ensures  that  they  have  pure  air. 
It  ensures  that  if  people  have  private  wells 
they  can  come  to  a  source  to  get  that  kind 
of  certainty  that  it  is  safe  for  them  to  con- 
sume the  water.  Those  1.5  million  tests  ore 
a  routine  activity  that  goes  on  almost  un- 
noticed but,  without  it,  this  province  would 
be  much  worse  off. 

I  compare  that  to  the  very  rich  province 
of  Alberta,  which  is  only  now  thinking 
about  building  a  facility  of  a  similar  type. 
I  think  it  is  a  testimony  to  my  predecessors 
in  this  government  that  they  saw  in  the 
early  1950s  and  1960s  the  great  need  for 
that  facility  and  built  the  best  laboratory 
facility  of  any  place  in  Canada  to  deal  with 
the  environment.  I  could  go  on  and  on 
and  on.  I  use  that  only  as  an  illustration. 
We  have  1,400  monitors  for  air  throughout 
this  province.  That  is  another  service  that 
goes  on  day  in  and  day  out  very  silently, 
but  very  effectively. 

In  the  two  or  three  minutes  I  have  on 
this  portion  of  the  estimates,  I  want  to  deal 
with  what  I  think  was  a  crippling  blow  to 
that  great  service.  That  was  the  cancellation 
of  the  community  services  contribution  pro- 
gram funds.  I  don't  remember  a  worse  day 
any  government  had  in  its  failure  to  give 
a  commitment  to  the  environment  than  the 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5361 


day  the  federal  government  cancelled  that 
program.  It  was  just  unbelievably  bad.  Let 
me  give  a  couple  of  quick  illustrations.  I 
had  the  sad  task  the  other  day  of  rethinking 
what  that  would  mean  for  one  particular 
small  community  in  southwestern  Ontario. 
Even  though  our  funds  will  be  increased 
considerably,  it  means  that  community  will 
have  a  user  charge  not  of  $160  a  year,  as 
it  was  with  the  program,  or  not  even  $300, 
but  $700.  That  is  the  kind  of  change  it 
will  mean.  It  means  that  kind  of  change  to 
at  least  100  communities  in  this  coming 
year. 

I  would  ask  the  members  opposite,  as 
well  as  those  in  my  own  caucus,  to  write 
to  their  respective  federal  members  and  to 
the  minister  himself,  asking  for  that  pro- 
gram to  be  reinstated.  I  had  the  member 
for  the  city  of  North  Bay  in  the  other  day. 
They  had  put  it  very  squarely.  They  thought 
they  had  a  commitment  from  a  federal 
minister  who  represents  that  area.  They 
were  sure  they  had. 

Hon.    Mr.    Pope:    Jean-Jacques    Blais. 

Mr.  Kerrio:  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr. 
Speaker:  The  gentleman  sitting  next  to  the 
minister  should  not  be  interjecting  when 
he  is  not  in  his  seat. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  I  do  not  think  there 
is  any  such  rule. 

4  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  The  staff  of  the  federal 
minister  looked  us  in  the  eye  and  pretended 
it  was  not  important  to  the  Great  Lakes 
water  agreement  of  this  province,  not  im- 
portant to  the  small  communities.  I  have 
never  in  my  life  seen  such  harsh  treatment 
as  the  cancellation  without  notice  of  the 
community  services  contribution  program 
funds. 

I  tell  the  member  that  this  province  will 
suffer  because  of  it.  Even  more  important, 
our  image  in  the  international  community 
will  suffer  because  it  appears  as  though  our 
federal  government  no  longer  has  the  com- 
mitment to  the  environment  that  we  in  this 
provincial  government  have,  always  had 
and  will  have  forever. 

We  want  to  dwell  for  a  few  minutes  on 
liquid  waste;  of  course,  we  do.  But  perhaps 
before  we  do,  we  could  take  a  minute  to 
talk  about  some  of  the  success  stories  of  the 
last  two  years.  Let  me  refer  the  members 
to  the  tremendous  improvement  in  the  en- 
vironment relative  to  the  Treasurer's  (Mr. 
F.  S.  Miller)  pulp  and  paper  grants  for  the 
environmental  control  and  modernization  of 
those   plants.    I   would   ask   the   members   of 


the  -House  to  go  to  the  town  of  Dryden 
where  they  will  see  a  whole  new  com- 
munity. It  is  the  success  story  of  this  decade. 
There  is  a  river  now  without  foam;  there  is 
air  without  particulate  matter;  the  odour 
is  gone.  That  is  the  land  of  success  story 
we  do  not  hear  much  about,  but  such  stories 
are  there,  are  real  and  are  happening  day  in 
and  day  out  in  this  province. 

For  the  last  three  or  four  minutes,  I 
should  turn  to  the  item  of  liquid  industrial 
waste.  It  has  dominated  this  particular  ses- 
sion of  the  Legislature  for  a  variety  of  rea- 
sons. We  have  seen  the  things  of  the  past 
and  we  have  all  become  concerned.  There  is 
no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the  members 
opposite  have  a  genuine  concern,  but  as  I 
read  my  mail  and  I  understand  the  commit- 
ment on  both  sides  of  the  House,  I  get  far 
more  mail,  requests  and  help  from  this  side 
of  the  House  in  doing  something  positive  to 
solve  the  problems  of  liquid  industrial  waste 
in  this  province.  It  is  that  simple. 

Last  night  I  had  what  I  considered  one 
of  the  most  revealing  discussions  I  have  ever 
had.  I  thought  it  was  incumbent  upon  me 
to  go  down  and  see  the  member  for  Haldi- 
mand-Norfolk  (Mr.  G.  I.  Miller)  in  his  office. 
I  would  like  to  have  a  moment  to  put  this 
on  the  record. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  I  saw  a  member  who 
was  genuinely  concerned— I  do  not  challenge 
that— but  I  also  saw  a  member  who  did  not 
really  understand  the  bright  and  possible 
future  of  tomorrow.  He  is  misguided  in 
what  he  thinks  will  occur.  He  wants  quiet 
discussion,  and  I  believe  in  that.  But  I  think 
it  is  now  time  that  it  happens.  It  is  not  time 
for  the  rowdyism  of  yesterday  afternoon. 

I  was  encouraged  tremendously  by  the 
fact  that  he  would  orchestrate  such  quiet 
discussion  because  it  was  to  his  people  and 
to  the  people  of  Ontario  I  said  I  offer  the 
hand  of  understanding.  What  we  need  at 
this  time  is  understanding,  knowledge  and 
then  action.  I  say  to  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  that 
we  will  provide  that. 

I  find  it  rather  interesting  when  a  member, 
and  particularly  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
(Mr.  S.  Smith),  says  to  us,  "Why  have  you 
done  this  thing  in  such  a  political  way?"  Yet 
this  very  morning,  when  asked  where  he 
would  put  it,  he  said  he  would  put  it  in 
Woodstock.  That  is  kind  of  an  interesting 
comment  which  I  will  remind  the  Liberal 
candidates  of  some  time.  That  is  exactly  how 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  went  about  the 
business  of  finding  where  to  locate  a  site. 
The  member  will  have  a  little  trouble  with 


5362 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


that  in  the  great  county  of  Oxford.  He  ought 
to  have  a  little  better  understanding  of  the 
problem. 

In  conclusion,  I  want  to  say  one  sentence. 
Interjections. 

The  Acting  Speaker:  Order,  please. 
Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  Not  only  do  we  in  this 
government,  and  myself,  oifer  to  the  people 
of  this  province  the  hand  of  understanding- 
Mr.  S.  Smith:  With  a  knife  in  it. 
Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  —we  will  offer  to  them 
the  hand  of  co-operation.  In  this  vital  area 
we   can   build   a   better   tomorrow;   we   will 
build   a   better   tomorrow.    The   environment 
is  our  heritage;  we  will  protect  it.  Nothing 
short  of  that  would  be  what  this  government 
would  have  for  the  great  province  of  Ontario. 
That  is  our  promise  for  the  future.  It  is  a 
great,  bright  tomorrow. 
4:10  p.m. 

The  House  divided  on  the  resolution  for 
concurrence  in  supply  for  the  Ministry  of 
the  Environment,  which  was  concurred  in 
on  the  following  vote: 

Ayes 

Ashe,  Baetz,  Belanger,  Bennett,  Bernier, 
Birch,  Bounsall,  Breaugh,  Brunelle,  Bryden, 
Cassidy,  Charlton,  Cureatz,  Davis,  David- 
son, M.,  Davison,  M.  N.,  Di  Santo,  Drea, 
Eaton,  Elgie. 

Germa,  Grande,  Gregory,  Grossman,  Hav- 
rot,  Henderson,  Hennessy,  Hodgson,  Isaacs, 
Johnson,  J.,  Johnston,  R.  F.,  Jones,  Kerr, 
Lane,  Laughren,  Lawlor,  Leluk,  Lupusella, 
MacDonald. 

Mackenzie,  Maeck,  Makarchuk,  Martel, 
McCaffrey,  McCague,  McClellan,  McNeil, 
Miller,  F.  S.  Mitchell,  Newman,  W.,  Nor- 
ton, Parrott,  Philip,  Pope,  Ramsay,  Renwick, 
Rowe.  Scrivener,  Smith,  G.  E. 

Snow,  Stephenson,  Sterling,  Swart,  Taylor, 
J.  A.,  Taylor,  G.,  Timbrell,  Turner,  Ville- 
neuve,  Walker,  Warner,  Watson,  Welch, 
Wells,  Wildman,  Williams,  Wiseman,  Yaka- 
buski,  Young. 

Nays 

Blundy,  Bolan,  Bradley,  Breithaupt,  Camp- 
bell, Conway,  Cunningham,  Eakins,  Epp, 
Gaunt,  Haggerty,  Hall,  Kerrio,  Mancini, 
McEwen,  McGuigan,  McKessock,  Miller, 
G.  I.,  Newman,  B. 

Nixon,  O'Neil,  Peterson,  Reed,  J.,  Reid, 
T.  P.,  Riddell,  Roy,  Ruston,  Sargent,  Smith, 
,S^,  Stong,  Sweeney,  Van  Home,   Worton. 

^air:  Edighoffer  and  MacBeth. 

Ayes  78;  nays  33. 


SUPPLY  ACT 

Hon.   F.  S.  Miller  moved  first  reading  of 
Bill  231,  An  Act  for  granting  to  Her  Majesty 
certain  sums  of  money  for  the  Public  Service 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  May  31,  1981. 
Motion   agreed   to. 

Mr.  Nixon:  Mr.  Speaker,  on  a  point  of 
order:  I  have  great  confidence  in  the  ad- 
vice the  House  leader  of  the  Conservative 
Party  has.  However,  it  seems  to  me  in  the 
past  this  bill  for  providing  to  His  Honour 
the  money  required  for  the  government  is 
passed  after  the  budget  is  approved  or,  in 
this  case,  defeated. 
4:30  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  I  asked  that  same  ques- 
tion earlier  when  this  procedure  was  sug- 
gested. It  has  been  pointed  out  to  me  that 
since  we  changed  the  rules,  the  debate  we 
have  had  and  which  we  will  be  concluding 
in  a  few  minutes  is  an  amendment  to  the 
motion  that  this  House  approve  in  general 
the  budgetary  policies  of  the  government. 
It  is  not  the  motion  we  used  to  have  a 
few  years  ago,  before  the  new  rules,  with 
the  House  going  into  committee  of  ways 
and  means,  which  meant  that  the  motion 
had  to  be  passed  before  this  bill  could  be 
presented.  Once  the  estimates  have  all  been 
concurred  in  and  passed  by  this  House,  it 
is  perfectly  in  order  to  put  this  bill. 

Mr.  Nixon:  If  I  may  speak  again  to  the 
point  of  order,  Mr.  Speaker,  might  we  have 
some  advice  from  you?  While  my  memory 
perhaps  is  faulty  in  this  connection,  I  do 
not  recall  ever  having  to  pass  the  supply 
bill  which,  of  course,  is  acceded  to  when 
the  budget  is  approved.  It  does  not  seem 
reasonable  for  the  House  leader  to  present 
a  supply  bill  to  us  in  this  House  and  then 
go  on  with  the  debate  on  the  budget,  which 
may  or  may  not  be  successful. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
House.  It  was  my  understanding  too  that 
the  supply  bill  would  come  after  the  motion 
for  the  support  of  the  budget  would  come 
along. 

Mr.  Breithaupt:  It  has  to  be  approved  in 
general  first. 

Mr.  Speaker:  It  has  received  first  reading. 
Second  and  third  readings  also  agreed  to 
on  motion. 

MOTIONS 

STANDING  COMMITTEES 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  following 
standing  committees  be  constituted  and  au- 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5363 


thorized  to  sit  during  the  interval  between 
the  fourth  and  fifth  sessions  of  the  31st 
Parliament  with  authority  to  consider  busi- 
ness, as  follows: 

The  standing  committee  on  administration 
of  justice  to  consider  the  annual  report  of 
the  Minister  of  Housing  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1979,  and  to  consider  the  annual 
report  of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1980;  and  that  the  committee 
be  authorized  to  release  its  reports  during 
the  interval  by  depositing  a  copy  with  the 
Clerk  of  the  assembly;  and  that,  upon  com- 
mencement of  the  fifth  session  of  the  31st 
Parliament,  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
shall  bring  the  reports  before  the  House 
in  accordance  with  the  standing  orders;  and 
that  Bill  140,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Chil- 
dren's Law  Reform  Act,  1977,  remain  com- 
mitted during  the  interval  and,  upon  com- 
mencement of  the  fifth  session,  be  deemed 
to  have  been  introduced  and  read  the  first 
time  and  deemed  to  have  been  read  the 
second  time  and  referred  to  the  standing 
committee  on  administration  of  justice. 

The  standing  committee  on  resources  de- 
velopment to  consider  the  annual  report 
of  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  for  the 
year  ending  March  31,  1979,  and  to  con- 
sider the  annual  report  of  the  Minister  of 
Natural  Resources  for  the  year  ending 
March  31,  1979,  and  to  consider,  as  time 
permits,  Bill  127,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Pits 
and  Quarries  Control  Act,  1971;  and  that, 
notwithstanding  the  prorogation  of  the 
House,  Bill  127  remain  referred  to  this  com- 
mittee for  clause-by-clause  examination  and, 
upon  commencement  of  the  fifth  session  of 
the  31st  Parliament,  the  bill  shall  be  deemed 
to  have  been  introduced  and  read  the  first 
time,  be  deemed  to  have  been  read  a  second 
time  and  referred  to  the  standing  committee 
on  resources  development;  and  that  in  its 
consideration  of  the  Environment  report  the 
committee  be  authorized  to  employ  counsel 
and  such  staff  as  it  deems  necessary  and  to 
hold  meetings  and  hearings  in  such  places 
as  the  committee  may  deem  advisable,  sub- 
ject to  budget  approval  by  the  Board  of 
Internal  Economy; 

The  standing  committee  on  social  de- 
velopment to  consider  Bill  209,  An  Act  to 
revise  and  extend  Protection  of  Human 
Rights  in  Ontario;  and  that,  notwithstanding 
the  prorogation  of  the  House,  Bill  209  re- 
main referred  to  this  committee  for  clause- 
by-clause  examination  and,  upon  commence- 
ment of  the  fifth  session  of  the  31st  Parlia- 
ment, the  bill  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been 
introduced   and  read   for   the  first  time,   be 


deemed  to  have  been  read  a  second  time 
and  referred  to  the  standing  committee  on 
social  development; 

The  standing  committee  on  public  ac- 
counts to  consider  the  annual  report  of  the 
provincial  auditor  for  1979-80  and  the 
public  accounts  for  1979-80; 

And  that  these  standing  committees  be 
authorized  to  meet  during  the  interval  be- 
tween sessions  in  accordance  with  the 
schedule  of  meetings  agreed  to  by  the  three 
party  whips  as  tabled  earlier  today;  and 
that  on  the  request  of  a  standing  committee 
the  committee,  while  sitting  during  the 
interval,  may,  if  necessary,  ask  Mr.  Speaker 
through  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  to  issue  his 
warrant  or  warrants  for  the  attendance  of  a 
witness  or  for  the  production  of  papers  and 
things  deemed  necessary  by  the  committee. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

SELECT  COMMITTEES 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  select  com- 
mittees, meeting  during  the  interval  between 
the  fourth  and  fifth  sessions  of  the  31st 
Parliament,  do  so  in  accordance  with  the 
schedule  of  meetings  agreed  to  by  the 
committee  chairmen  and  the  three  party 
whips  as  tabled  earlier  today. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

SUBSTITUTIONS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that,  notwithstand- 
ing the  standing  orders  of  the  House,  sub- 
stitutions be  permitted  on  the  standing  com- 
mittee on  procedural  affairs  during  the  inter- 
val between  the  fourth  and  fifth  sessions 
of  the  31st  Parliament  with  notice  of  sub- 
stitution to  be  given  to  the  clerk  of  the 
committee  by  the  whip  of  the  party  con- 
cerned; and  that  the  standing  committees 
authorized  to  meet  during  the  interval  have 
power  to  substitute,  provided  that  written 
notice  of  substitution  is  given  to  the  chair- 
man of  the  committee  before  or  early  in 
the  meeting. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

COMMITTEE  TRAVEL 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that,  as  previously 
authorized  by  the  House  on  June  19,  1980, 
members  of  the  standing  committee  on  pro- 
cedural affairs  be  authorized  to  travel  to  the 
United  Kingdom  to  examine  the  committee 
system  at  Westminster. 

Motion  agreed  to. 


5364 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


SELECT   COMMITTEE 
ON  THE  OMBUDSMAN 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  select 
committee  on  the  Ombudsman  be  authorized 
to  release  its  report  during  the  interval  be- 
tween the  fourth  and  fifth  sessions  of  the 
31st  Parliament  by  depositing  a  copy  with 
the  clerk  of  the  assembly. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON 
CONSTITUTIONAL  REFORM 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  select 
committee  on  constitutional  reform,  as  ap- 
pointed June  3,  1980,  continue  with  its 
terms  of  reference,  including  power  of  sub- 
stitution and  release  of  report,  as  set  out  in 
the  motion  of  the  House  of  June  3,  1980. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

COMMITTEE  REPORTS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that,  notwithstand- 
ing the  prorogation  of  the  House,  all  govern- 
ment orders  on  the  Order  Paper  for  resuming 
adjourned  debates  on  motions  to  adopt  re- 
ports from  committees,  except  for  the  De- 
cember 2  report  from  the  select  committee 
on  plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjust- 
ment, be  placed  on  the  Order  Paper  on  the 
second  sessional  day  of  the  fifth  session  of 
the  31st  Parliament. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

SUBSTITUTIONS 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells  moved  that  the  following 
substitutions  be  made  on  the  select  commit- 
tee on  company  law,  Mr.  Rollins  for  Mr.  G. 
Taylor;  on  the  select  committee  on  consti- 
tutional reform,  Mr.  Stong  for  Mr.  Roy,  Mr. 
Epp  for  Mr.  Conway  and  Mr.  Mitchell  for 
Mr.  G.  Taylor;  on  the  select  committee  on 
Ontario  Hydro  Affairs,  Mr.  McKessock  for 
Mr.  Bradley,  Mr.  Jones  for  Mr.  Cureatz  and 
Mr.  Lupusella  for  Mr.  Mackenzie;  on  the 
select  committee  on  plant  shutdowns  and 
employee  adjustment,  Mr.  Cooke  for  Mr. 
Renwick;  on  the  standing  committee  on  ad- 
ministration of  justice,  Mr.  Kennedy  for  Mr. 
G.  Taylor,  Mr.  Mitchell  for  Mr.  McCaffrey, 
Mr.  Rowe  for  Mr.  Williams,  Mr.  M.  N. 
Davison  for  Mr.  Ziemba,  Mr.  Hall  for  Mr. 
Roy  and  Mr.  Eakins  for  Mr.  Stong;  on  the 
standing  committee  on  resources  develop- 
ment, Mr.  Watson  for  Mr.  Yakabuski,  Mr. 
Young  for  Mr.  Di  Santo,  Mr.  Isaacs  for  Ms. 
Gigantes  and  Ms.  Bryden  for  Mr.  Mackenzie; 
on    the    standing   committee    on    public    ac- 


counts, Mr.  Cureatz  for  Mr.  MacBeth;  on 
the  standing  committee  on  social  develop- 
ment, Mr.  M.  Davidson  for  Mr.  Grande,  Mr. 
Young  for  Mr.  R.  F.  Johnston,  Mr.  Warner 
for  Mr.  McClellan  and  Mr.  Mackenzie  for 
Mr.  Bounsall. 

Motion  agreed  to. 

BUDGET  DEBATE 
(concluded) 

Resuming  the  adjournment  debate  on  the 
amendment  to  the  motion  that  this  House 
approve  in  general  the  budgetary  policy  of 
the  government. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  a  pleasure 
to  be  able  to  wish  you  and  members  of  the 
House  a  Merry  Christmas,  the  compliments 
of  the  season  and  a  very  happy  new  year.  I 
am  not  sure  where  Santa  Claus  is  right  now, 
but  I  did  suggest  to  Santa  that  as  far  as  we 
New  Democrats  were  concerned  81  in  '81 
would  be  an  appropriate  new  year's  present 
to  bring,  and  I  know  that  Santa  will  be 
happy  to  oblige. 
4:40  p.m. 

We  look  forward  to  the  fact  that  come 
spring  there  will  be  an  election  in  Ontario. 
We  are  all  going  to  be  on  the  hustings. 
That  election  campaign  effectively  is  going 
to  begin  with  the  turn  of  the  new  year.  I 
do  want  to  say  to  my  friend,  colleague  and 
neighbour  from  Ottawa  East  (Mr.  Roy),  that 
seldom  have  I  seen  such  a  sense  of  relief 
on  the  faces  of  so  many  Liberals  as  when 
the  New  Democrats  decided  not  to  oppose 
concurrence  in  supply  for  the  Ministry  of 
the  Environment. 

Mr.  Roy:  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.   Speaker:   Order.  You  don't  have  the 
floor. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  member  for  Ottawa 
East  has  not  been  here.  Some  people 
observe  a  meatless  Friday.  The  member  for 
Ottawa  East  observes  a  legislativeless 
Friday  because  he  is  up  in  Ottawa  all  the 
time. 

Mr.  Roy:  We'll  throw  them  out  now. 
Let's  throw  them  out. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  When  he  says,  "Throw 
them  out,"  it  is  to  be  noted  that  usually 
he  himself  is  out  and  it  is  very  seldom 
he  is  here. 

When  the  Liberal  Party  is  at  the  number 
of  no-confidence  motions  that  New  Demo- 
crats have  put  in  the  Legislature  since  1977, 
and  we  are  up  to  11  right  now,  compared 
to  only  four  from  the  Liberal  Party— then 
we  will  start  to  take  their  motions  seriously. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5365 


I  remember  last  year  at  this  time  it  was 
the  Liberal  Party  that  was  propping  up  the 
government.  Do  members  remember  that? 
We  are  coming  through.  The  snows  are 
flying.  Nobody  wants  a  winter  election 
except  the  member  for  Ottawa  East.  We 
will  have  an  election  in  the  spring. 

It  will  happen  very  shortly  after  this  place 
resumes  in  the  middle  of  March,  if  we  ever 
resume  in  the  middle  of  March.  I  know 
that  Hugh  Segal  is  busily  preparing  the 
press  releases  and  the  announcement  that 
the  government  intends  to  make,  either  to 
be  put  into  the  election  manifesto  which 
will  be  read  from  the  Speaker's  chair  by 
the  Lieutenant  Governor,  or  released  to  the 
press  in  a  grand  flurry  of  activity  some  time 
around  the  end  of  February.  I  want  the 
government  to  know  that  when  the  election 
comes,  we  in  the  New  Democratic  Party, 
here  in  this  House  and  across  the  province, 
will  be  ready  to  take  our  record  and  the 
government's  record  as  well  across  the 
province. 

We  have  been  around  this  place  for  three 
and  a  half  years.  We  have  done  a  great 
deal  to  make  minority  government  work, 
but  there  is  no  question  that  the  Legis- 
lature is  starting  to  get  stale.  There  is  no 
question  that  the  government's  mandate  is 
running  out.  There  is  no  question  that  there 
is  no  fresh  blood  on  the  back  benches  of 
that  party  to  refresh  the  Conservatives.  It 
is  time  for  the  entire  Legislature  to  go  back 
and  get  a  mandate  from  the  people  of 
Ontario.  When  we  do,  I  am  confident  that 
mandate  is  going  to  give  Ontario  more  New 
Democrats  in  the  Legislature  than  we  have 
ever  had  in  this  Legislature  before. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  It  is  a  funny  way  of  show- 
ing your  confidence. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  told  the  member  for 
Hamilton  West  that  we  might  have  been 
prepared  to  go  along  with  them  today,  but 
the  fact  is  that  the  snow  started  to  fly  and 
it  will  become  deeper  and  deeper  over  the 
course  of  the  next  few  weeks. 

Mr.  Wildman:  There  is  more  snow  from 
over  there  than  there  is  from  anywhere  else. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  That  was  what  they  said 
last  year.  I  am  just  taking  my  leaf  from  the 
Liberal  leader's  book.  The  people  of  the 
province  can  judge.  They  can  judge  the 
Liberal  Party  for  the  way  they  cozied  up 
to  the  Conservatives  last  night  on  the  ques- 
tion of  pension  benefits.  When  we  said  it 
was  time  to  protect  workers  and  give  port- 
able pensions,  where  were  the  Liberals? 
They  were  in  bed  with  the  corporations  and 
with  the  Progressive  Conservatives.  On  eight 


amendments,  when  it  was  a  choice  between 
the  workers  and  the  Tories,  the  Liberal 
Party  chose  the  Tories.  The  problems  the 
government  is  creating  for  the  people  of 
the  province  continue.  It  is  clear  they  will 
not  have  a  new  approach  to  take  to  the 
people  when  we  come  to  the  eelction  in  the 
spring. 

Today,  the  Minister  of  Education  (Miss 
Stephenson)  is  still  lacklustre  when  it  comes 
to  ensuring  that  school  children  and  school 
board  workers  are  protected  against  asbestos 
in  schools.  This  week  the  Minister  of  Health 
(Mr.  Timbrell)  expressed  surprise  when  we 
pointed  out  to  him  that  close  to  40  per  cent 
of  full-time  specialists  in  the  medical  pro- 
fession in  Ontario  have  opted  out.  That  is 
why  one  cannot  get  a  gynaecologist  in  Sud- 
bury who  is  opted  in.  That  is  why  one  can 
hardly  get  an  anaesthetist  in  any  hospital 
of  the  province  who  is  opted  in.  That  is  why 
the  problems  of  medicare  continue  and  that 
is  why  it  is  time  we  had  a  government  com- 
mitted to  restoring  one-price  medicare  in 
Ontario.  We  will  never  get  it  from  this 
particular    government. 

Over  the  course  of  this  fall,  we  have  re- 
peatedly raised  the  issue  of  day  care.  In 
Ottawa  there  are  a  thousand  parents  look- 
ing for  day  care  for  their  children.  They 
are  on  waiting  lists  and  unable  to  get  it. 
In  Metropolitan  Toronto  there  are  4,000 
parents  looking  for  day  care  for  their 
children.  As  the  member  for  Bell  woods 
(Mr.  McClellan)  has  pointed  out,  today  and 
recently,  there  has  actually  been  a  decline 
in  the  number  of  subsidized  day  care  places 
available  in  Metropolitan  Toronto.  The  same 
thing  is  happening  across  the  province. 

The  $1  million  that  came  forward  from 
the  government  as  a  part  of  the  mini-budget 
is  simply  a  drop  in  the  bucket  and  is  not 
nearly  adequate  to  meet  the  needs  of  tens 
of  thousands  of  families  who  are  forced  to 
make  inadequate  provisions  for  the  care  of 
their  children,  who  are  compelled  to  have 
two  incomes  and  who  cannot  find  decent 
care  for  their  children  because  of  the  lack 
of  commitment  from  this  government  over 
the  question  of  day  care. 

We  have  a  government  that  hears  no 
evil  and  sees  no  evil  until  its  attention  is 
brought  to  the  problems  that  exist  in  the 
province  by  New  Democrats.  My  friend 
the  member  for  Welland-Thorold  (Mr. 
Swart)  has  repeatedly  come  into  this  Legis- 
lature to  point  out  what  is  happening  to 
food  consumers  in  the  province  as  a  result 
of  the  treatment  they  get  at  the  hands  of 
supermarkets.    The    Minister    of    Consumer 


S366 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


and  Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea)  seems 
to  think  his  job  is  the  protection  of  corpo- 
rations and  not  the  protection  of  consumers. 
The  Attorney  General  (Mr.  McMurtry), 
whose  diplomatic  'flu  has  lasted  for  a  week 
and  a  half,  is  still  sick  from  eating  crow 
the  other  week.  He  was  trying  to  tell  us 
why  this  Legislature,  as  the  supreme  court 
of  the  province,  should  not  have  access  to 
documents  to  find  out  what  happened  to 
the  investors  who  lost  their  life  savings  in 
Re-Mor. 

The  member  for  Welland-Thorold  has 
repeatedly  asked  the  Minister  of  Consumer 
and  Commercial  Relations,  "Why  won't  this 
government  protect  the  consumer?  Why 
won't  the  minister  create  a  food  prices  re- 
view commission  that  will  come  to  the  de- 
fence of  the  consumer?  Why  does  he  sit 
back  and  insist  that  the  policing  be  done 
by  New  Democrats  in  the  Legislature?  Why 
can't  we  count  on  the  government  to  start 
doing  some  protection  for  consumers  in 
Ontario?" 

The  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Mr. 
Parrott),  the  minister  for  the  anti-environ- 
ment, the  minister  of  dumps,  is  still  in  his 
place  in  the  Legislature.  I  want  to  point  out 
to  that  minister  that  the  problems  we  have 
been  talking  about  over  the  course  of  the 
last  three  or  four  weeks  did  not  begin  just 
two  weeks  ago.  They  began  two  and  a  half 
years  or  more  ago.  I  went  into  a  dump  in 
Oshawa,  which  the  minister  said  was  under 
control,  and  the  leachate  was  there  to  be 
seen.  Anybody  with  a  truckful  of  industrial 
waste  could  have  driven  in  and  dumped 
it  in  it. 

We  brought  it  to  the  minister's  attention 
two  years  ago;  yet  at  Walker  Brothers 
Quarries  near  Thorold  Just  a  few  weeks  ago 
the  people  from  W5  were  able  to  bring  in 
their  truck.  We  told  the  minister  about  the 
barrels  of  waste  that  were  there,  and  one- 
barrel  Harry  said,  "We  will  take  one  barrel 
out  and  have  a  look  at  it,  and  if  that  is 
okay,  we  are  going  to  say  the  problem  is 
contained." 

Hon.  Mr.  Drea:  Come  June,  you  are  going 
to  be  in  that  dump. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  I  think  the  Minister  of  Con- 
sumer and  Commercial  Relations  knows  a 
bit  more  about  dumps  than  I  do.  All  I  have 
to  say  is  that  we  are  going  to  continue  in 
that  committee,  when  it  meets  in  January, 
to  press  until  we  get  an  adequate  environ- 
mental hearing.  I  think  the  minister  should 
simply  admit  now  he  was  wrong  to  try  to 
avoid  the  legislation. 


I  really  wonder  about  those  people  in 
the  ministry  who  conceived  that  campaign 
last  summer,  paid  for  by  the  taxpayers, 
along  the  theme  of  "preserve  it,  conserve  it." 
Would  they  have  been  able  to  look  at  them- 
selves in  the  mirror  every  morning  if  they 
had  known  that  within  a  matter  of  weeks 
the  Minister  of  die  Environment  was  going 
to  Jettison  completely  that  piece  of  legisla- 
tion that  was  hailed  as  being  the  saviour  of 
the  environment  when  the  Environmental 
Assessment  Act  was  brought  in  in  1975?  I 
do  not  think  so.  The  government's  treatment 
of  the  environment  is  going  to  be  an  issue 
in  the  election  campaign  as  well  as  its  lack 
of  respect  for  local  communities  and  its 
sloganeering  that  is  not  backed  by  facts.  If 
South  Cayuga  is  not  safe,  then  what  area 
of  the  province  is  going  to  be  safe? 

Hon.  Mr.  Parrott:  By  that  time,  the  mem- 
ber may  understand  what  we  are  doing. 
4:50  p.m. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  The  minister  keeps  on  say- 
ing I  do  not  understand.  I  do  not  under- 
stand the  minister,  but  I  understand  what 
the  legislation  says.  I  don't  understand  the 
minister  and  how  he  chickens  out  from 
using  the  law  when  the  law  is  there  to  be 
used. 

We  have  a  government  that  mouths  slo- 
gans about  economic  equality  for  women, 
but  blocked  the  New  Democratic  Party's 
bill  when  we  brought  it  in  and  torpedoed 
our  bill  for  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal 
value  when  it  was  brought  back  to  the 
Legislature.   I  say  shame  on  them. 

Mr.  Wildman:  They  found  they  are  sink- 
ing in  liquid  industrial  waste. 

The  Deputy  Speaker:  Order. 

Mr.  Cassidy:  We  have  a  government  that 
for  two  years  has  said  it  believes  in  the 
principle  of  severance  pay  but  not  in  the 
practice.  It  was  not  until  we  got  to  the 
final  week  of  the  session  that  the  govern- 
ment finally  understood,  with  their  own 
back-benchers  deserting  their  ship  almost 
every  day,  that  they  had  to  move  and  they 
had  to  make  the  commitment,  not  just  in 
principle  but  also  in  practice. 

That  decision  by  the  government  was  a 
clear  victory  for  the  New  Democratic  Party 
and  for  the  working  people  of  this  province. 
The  workers  understand  that  if  they  lose 
their  jobs  because  of  a  layoff  or  shutdown, 
they  should  not  just  be  kicked  out  on  the 
streets  with  nothing  to  fall  back  on.  If  a 
worker  invests  his  or  her  life  in  a  corpora- 
tion, that  worker  is  due  something  in  re- 
turn if  the  company  is  forced  to  shut  down 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5367 


or  decides,  because  of  some  absentee 
owner's  decision,  it  is  going  to  pull  out  of 
the  province.  That  principle  should  have 
been  accepted  a  long  time  ago,  and  it  is 
time  the  Minister  of  Labour  accepted  that 
it  is  not  good  enough  to  let  those  corpora- 
tions pack  up  their  tents  without  justifying 
what  they  are  doing. 

I  sat  in  on  the  plant  shutdowns  committee 
on  a  number  of  occasions.  I  heard  corpora- 
tions like  Essex  International  Canada 
Limited,  which  is  the  most  sorry,  disgrace- 
ful excuse  for  a  multinational  corporation 
I  have  seen  around  this  province  for  a  long 
time,  say  they  paid  only  $4.09  an  hour. 
There  was  no  severance  pay  in  the  contract 
and  there  was  no  pension  provision  in  the 
contract.  The  personnel  manager  told  us 
he  could  not  agree  to  a  manpower  adjust- 
ment committee  because  he  was  not  in 
Canada  often  enough  to  take  part  in  such 
a  committee. 

That  is  the  kind  of  sony  excuse  the 
Minister  of  Labour  was  trying  to  defend  in 
the  course  of  the  debate  in  concurrence  of 
his  estimates  today.  That  one  company  took 
$21  million  out  of  the  province  in  dividends 
in  the  three  years  before  it  shut  down.  But 
it  was  not  prepared  to  come  up  with  a 
few  hundred  thousand  dollars  to  give  some 
recompense  to  the  workers  who  were  hit 
by  the  severance,  nor  was  it  prepared  to 
justify  it  in  any  way. 

We  are  going  to  keep  fighting  that  issue 
because  it  is  important  to  working  people 
across  the  province.  They  want  an  assur- 
ance that  their  job  security  is  not  jettisoned. 
They  want  an  assurance  that  there  is  a 
government  here  that  will  protect  workers' 
rights  and  not  just  protect  the  rights  of  cor- 
porations. There  is  a  very  strong  suspicion 
in  the  minds  of  the  working  people  of  this 
province  that  this  government  puts  far  more 
credence  in  the  rights  of  corporations  than 
in  the  rights  of  workers. 

I  could  say  more  about  the  government, 
but  the  point  I  want  to  make  is  simply  this. 
Minority  government  has  gone  on  now  for 
three  and  a  half  years.  Its  time  is  coming 
to  an  end.  We  have  worked  in  this  House 
to  make  it  work  responsibly  and  sometimes 
constructively.  It  has  been  proved  that  in 
certain  areas  this  minority  government  is 
not  effective.  That  is  why  we  have  to  go 
back  to  the  people  and  that  is  why  we  will 
be  doing  so  in  the  near  future  in  the  spring. 
If  I  look  back  over  the  last  two  years,  the 
primary  issue  in  the  province  has  been  the 
issue  of  jobs  and  job  security.  On  that  issue, 
there  has  still  not  been  an  adequate  response 


from  the  government.   That  is  going  to  be 
the   issue   when  the   election  comes. 

Every  economic  forecast  says  that  things 
are  going  to  get  worse  in  the  new  year  for 
Ontario's  working  people,  for  the  citizens  of 
Ontario.  We  face  an  all-time  high  in  the 
level  of  unemployment,  according  to  the 
forecast  we  are  getting  right  now.  We  face 
a  dismal  economic  performance,  which  is 
the  combined  result  of  Tory  economic 
policies  here  in  Ontario  and  Liberal 
economic  policies  in  the  government  of 
Canada,  with  a  bit  of  help  from  John 
Crosbie  and  his  friends.  We  face  a  situation 
where  there  has  been  absolutely  no  planning 
for  the  future  of  the  province  coming  from 
the  Davis  government. 

The  precarious  position  we  are  in  has 
been  worsened  by  the  continued  flirtation  of 
our  central  bank  and  by  Liberal  and  Con- 
servative politicians  with  the  monetary 
policies  that  are  wreaking  such  havoc  in  the 
United  States   and  in  Great  Britain. 

In  Great  Britain  in  18  months,  Mrs. 
Thatcher's  government  has  driven  unemploy- 
ment from  1.3  million  workers  to  2.1  million 
workers.  They  are  heading  for  three  million 
next  year.  Inflation  has  risen  from  10  per 
cent  to  15  per  cent.  The  interest  rates  are 
rising  almost  daily  since  the  Iron  Lady  came 
into  office.  The  decline  in  manufacturing 
output  in  the  last  two  years  in  that  country 
rivals  the  opening  years  of  the  great  Depres- 
sion. 

I  had  a  letter  today  from  a  friend  who  was 
a  manufacturer  in  the  Manchester  area  of 
Great  Britain.  It  was  a  very  sad  letter.  They 
are  on  short  time.  They  do  not  know  how 
they  can  protect  the  jobs  of  their  workers. 
The  whole  area  is  suffering  enormous  un- 
employment. Contracts  are  drying  up.  Busi- 
nesses are  being  driven  to  the  wall.  That  is 
the  monetarism  which  Tories  and  Liberals 
alike  in  Ottawa  have  endorsed.  If  this  gov- 
ernment has  not  endorsed  it,  its  protests 
have  been— to  put  it  mildly— very  feeble. 

(Together  the  interest  rate  policies  of  the 
Liberals  and  Conservatives  are  threatening 
every  home  owner,  they  are  threatening 
every  small  business  person,  they  are  threat- 
ening the  jobs  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
workers  and  they  are  threatening  the  pros- 
pects for  recovery  of  firms  that  are  on  the 
brink,  like  Massey-Ferguson  and  Chrysler 
Canada.  I  say  it  is  time  we  called  a  halt  to 
slavish  following  of  economic  doctrines, 
whether  they  come  from  Chicago,  Great 
Britain,  Washington  or  anywhere  else.  It  is 
about  time  we  had  a  made-in-Canada  in- 
terest   rate    policy,    about   time   we   had    a 


5368 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


made-in-Canada  economic  policy  and  about 
time  we  stopped  making  the  economy  of  our 
country,  the  economy  of  our  province  and 
jobs  of  our  workers  captives  to  economic 
doctrines  that  are  being  imported  from 
other  parts  of  the  world. 

Time  and  time  again  over  the  last  two 
or  three  years  we  have  been  looking  for 
leadership  for  the  economy  of  Ontario,  and 
it  has  not  been  coming  from  the  government. 
There  have  been  rare  exceptions.  I  mention 
the  Urban  Transit  Development  Corporation 
because  that  crown  corporation  is  in  the 
high  technology  area,  has  been  doing  re- 
search and  development  and  now  is  starting 
to  sell  a  high-tech  product  that  is  on  the 
leading  edge  of  technology  in  that  one  area. 

We  have  been  saying  for  a  long  time  there 
has  to  be  leadership  and,  where  necessary, 
governments  have  to  be  prepared  to  move  in 
and  provide  leadership  to  the  economy  which 
the  private  sector  will  not  provide.  I  ask 
myself  why  it  is  we  are  not  doing  the  same 
kind  of  thing  in  the  area  of  mining  machinery 
and  the  machinery  sector  in  general  where 
we  have  a  $5  billion  trade  deficit  with  the 
rest  of  the  world.  Why  are  we  not  doing  it 
in  the  automobile  parts  industry,  which  is 
so  important  to  this  province,  where  we  now 
have  a  $4  billion  trade  deficit  and  no  indica- 
tion that  things  are  going  to  get  better? 

The  electrical  industry  and  the  micro- 
electronics industry  are  areas  of  enormous 
importance  to  the  future  economy  of  the 
province,  but  they  are  areas  where  we  are 
losing  tens  of  thousands  of  jobs.  They  are 
areas  where,  like  UTDC,  we  could  use  some 
government  leadership,  but  it  is  not  coming 
from  this  government  and  not  coming  from 
the  government  of  Canada  either.  These  are 
just  examples  of  why  we  need  a  fresh  turn 
in  terms  of  economic  policies  from  the 
government. 

The  fact  is  that  in  the  four  years  since 
the  1977  election  nothing  has  changed.  The 
Conservatives  are  prepared  to  offer  grants  to 
industry  with  no  conditions  attached.  They 
are  prepared  to  wring  their  hands  a  bit. 
They  are  prepared  to  exhort  industry  about 
what  it  should  be  doing  about  the  training 
of  skilled  workers.  They  are  prepared  to 
issue  fancy  brochures  to  try  to  attract  indus- 
try to  come  in  from  the  rest  of  the  world. 
That  is  the  sum  total  of  their  economic 
policy. 

Ontario  simply  cannot  afford  to  let  key 
industries  that  we  need  to  rebuild  our  econ- 
omy be  killed  off  by  corporate  irresponsibility 
and  by  monetarist  dogmas  of  high-interest 
rates,    while    the    government    stands    and 


shakes  its  head.  New  Democrats  say  that 
Ontario  has  to  move  forward  and  change 
with  the  1980s  and  we  have  to  guarantee 
security  in  change  for  the  people  of  Ontario. 
There  is  an  old  ideology  in  this  province 
that  says,  "The  profits  create  the  wealth 
that  drives  our  economy/'  I  have  heard 
a  fair  amount  of  that  from  the  mem- 
ber for  Brock  (Mr.  Welch)  and  from  his 
colleagues  in  the  Conservative  Party.  But 
the  reality  of  the  1980s  is  that  jobs  are  the 
bottom  line  for  healthy  economies.  That  is 
why  New  Democrats  say  it  is  working 
people  who  create  the  wealth  of  this  prov- 
ince. We  have  a  very  straightforward 
economic  strategy.  We  say  very  simply  that 
everyone  has  the  right  to  earn  his  or  her 
own  way  in  life.  We  say  that  economic 
leadership,  with  job  creation  as  its  main 
goal,  can  stop  the  flood  of  manufacturing 
imports  that  is  costing  us  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  jobs  in  this  so-called  industrial 
heartland  of  the  nation. 
5  p.m. 

We  say  that  Ontario  can  throw  off  its 
dependence  on  secondhand  technology.  We 
can  develop  new  products  for  our  industries, 
new  processes  for  our  factories  and  new  jobs 
for  our  people.  Ontario  can  make  the  same 
commitment  to  progress  that  other  nations, 
like  Japan,  West  Germany  and  France,  made 
when  they  faced  the  choice  of  continuing 
as  economic  colonies  of  the  United  States 
or  building  their  own  future  and  standing 
on  their  own  feet. 

Like  those  countries,  we  can  pick  the 
winners  and  we  can  throw  our  support  be- 
hind them,  not  reluctantly  fiddling  with  the 
sacred  free  market,  but  aggressively  show- 
ing the  way  we  want  our  industry  to  de- 
velop and  creating  jobs  and  security  in  the 
process.  That  is  the  kind  of  approach  we 
want  to  see.  When  we  come  to  the  election 
campaign  in  a  few  months,  we  New  Demo- 
crats are  going  to  make  a  commitment  to 
security  for  workers  and  for  families  in 
Ontario.  We  know  there  is  a  sense  of  in- 
security abroad  among  working  people  in 
this  province  such  as  we  have  not  seen  for  a 
very  long  time.  It  is  not  an  insecurity  that 
is  going  to  be  met  by  the  mishmash  of 
answers  that  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
(Mr.  S.  Smith)  and  the  Prime  Minister  of 
Canada  (Mr.  Trudeau)  are  prepared  to  pro- 
vide. We  know  the  record  of  the  Con- 
servative government;  they  are  prepared  to 
give  big  handouts  to  friends  in  industry 
but  they  are  not  prepared  to  sit  down  and 
do    the   detailed   planning   and   provide   the 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5369 


leadership  the  economy  of  this  province 
needs. 

We  are  looking  for  security  for  women 
in  Ontario,  and  the  number  one  priority 
there  is  going  to  be  to  bring  in  legislation 
for  equal  pay  for  work  of  equal  value  so 
that  women  no  longer  have  to  be  second- 
class  citizens  in  the  work  places  of  Ontario. 
We  are  looking  for  security  for  women  in 
Ontario  so  that  they  have  a  chance  at  jobs 
as  presidents,  Premiers  and  vice-presidents, 
as  directors  in  marketing,  as  machinists,  in 
the  jobs  where  there  are  high  wages  and 
high  status  to  be  gained,  rather  than  having 
to  work  constantly  as  secretaries,  serving 
persons  in  shops,  waitresses  in  restaurants 
and  those  kinds  of  thing. 

We  are  looking  for  security  for  women 
through  the  form  of  affirmative  action  pro- 
grams to  ensure  they  get  access  to  those 
jobs  that  will  pay  well  and  give  them  status 
and  responsibility.  We  are  looking  for 
affirmative  action  programs  to  ensure  that 
women  can  train  for  the  skills  from  which 
too  often  they  now  are  excluded.  We  are 
looking  for  affirmative  action  in  a  recogni- 
tion that  the  number  of  places  in  the  em- 
ployer-sponsored training  program,  which 
had.  six  women  in  it  last  year,  should  be 
increased  to  almost  half  the  number  of 
places  available  rather  than  being  reduced 
to  only  five  spaces  for  women,  as  it  was 
this  year. 

(We  are  looking  for  a  commitment  to 
security  for  women  and  for  families  through 
universal  access  to  day  care  for  the  families 
of  this  province.  That  is  a  commitment  we 
will  make  when  we  come  to  the  election. 
That  is  what  we  mean  when  we  talk  about 
security  for  women.  We  are  looking  for 
security  for  families  in  Ontario.  We  will  take 
that  commitment  to  the  people  of  this  prov- 
ince as  well. 

I  mentioned  day  care.  We  do  not  like  cut- 
backs in  day  care.  We  think  families  who 
need  it  should  have  access  to  day  care.  We 
do  not  think  that  a  spouse  should  be  forced 
to  stay  home  because  of  an  antiquated  gov- 
ernment that  still  thinks  women  should  be 
barefoot  and  pregnant  in  the  kitchen  and 
does  not  understand  what  has  happened  in 
our  society. 

We  think  families  should  have  the  security 
of  good  health,  which  they  no  longer  are 
getting  from  this  Conservative  government. 
I  mentioned  the  degree  of  opting  out.  Many 
of  us  in  this  House  have  had  the  experience 
of  having  to  deal  with  opted-out  doctors.  We 
need  to  assure  the  families  of  this  province 
that  the  cutbacks  in  health  care  that  have 


continued  under  the  Conservative  govern- 
ment will  no  longer  take  away  from  the 
quality  of  health  care  in  the  province. 

We  need  to  assure  people  that  they  will 
be  able  to  have  access  to  a  doctor  without 
having  to  pay  a  42  per  cent  premium,  cour- 
tesy of  the  Premier  (Mr.  Davis)  and  the 
Minister  of  Health  (Mr.  Timbrell).  We  need 
to  ensure  that  the  security  of  people's  health 
is  protected  by  means  of  a  program  of  pre- 
ventive and  community  health  care  such  as 
has  never  been  put  forward  by  the  Con- 
servative government  in  this  province. 

We  want  security  for  consumers  in 
Ontario;  and,  with  interest  rates  spiralling 
out  of  sight,  never  was  there  more  need  than 
there  is  right  now.  I  have  spoken  about  the 
failings  of  the  Minister  of  Consumer  and 
Commercial  Relations  (Mr.  Drea).  We  want 
consumers  to  know  that  when  they  walk  into 
Loblaws  or  any  store  in  the  province  they 
have  a  friend  at  Queen's  Park;  that  there  is 
a  prices  review  commission  prepared  to  pro- 
tect consumers,  rather  than  leaving  them  to 
the  mercy  of  the  marketplace. 

We  want  people  who  have  homes  and  are 
facing  very  substantial  increases  in  their 
mortgage  rates  to  know  that,  if  their  incomes 
are  very  modest,  they  will  have  protection 
from  the  government  of  this  province.  We 
want  a  fair  tax  system  so  that  people  on 
modest  incomes  are  not  victimized  and  driven 
to  the  wall  because  of  property  taxes  they 
can  no  longer  afford. 

We  want  security  for  the  working  people 
of  Ontario.  We  want  job  security,  and  we 
have  put  our  program  down  on  the  Legis- 
lature; it  is  a  pity  the  government  saw  fit 
to  block  it.  We  want  adequate  notice  for 
workers  threatened  by  layoffs.  We  want  sev- 
erance pay.  We  want  pension  protection, 
which  the  Liberal  Party  yesterday  opposed 
in  this  Legislature.  We  want  an  assurance 
that  corporations  thinking  of  shutting  down 
will  be  required  to  justify  any  shutdowns 
before  they  can  proceed  with  them.  That  is 
mandatory  and  it  is  a  means  of  ensuring 
security  for  workers.  Of  course,  that  is  easy 
to  say  but  harder  to  do;  however,  we  will  do 
it  when  we  form  a  government. 

We  want  a  policy  of  full  employment  In 
Ontario  to  ensure  that  working  people  have 
the  security  of  knowing  they  will  have  a  job, 
they  will  have  an  income,  and  they  will  not 
have  to  be  a  charge  on  the  state  because  of 
the  unemployment  furthered  by  the  policies 
of  this  particular  government. 

There  will  be  a  choice  in  the  election. 
Either  we  hide  from  the  1980s:  to  preserve 
and    conserve    the    past   the   way   the    Con- 


5370 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


servatives  will  propose;  to  stay  in  the  atti- 
tudes and  the  preoccupations  of  the  past; 
to  let  Ontario  drift  and  be  at  the  mercy 
of  events  and  decisions  made  outside  our 
borders;  and  to  keep  on  trying  to  blame 
someone  else  the  way  this  government  has 
been  trying  to  do.  Or  we  can  get  Ontario 
moving  forward  again:  we  can  secure  the 
future  for  ourselves  and  our  children;  and 
we  can  make  a  commitment  to  progress  that 
will  put  us  out  front  again  in  technology 
and  in  humanity. 

We  can  face  the  realities  of  this  decade 
with  20/20  vision  or  with  the  hindsight  of 
37  years.  I  believe  the  people  of  this  prov- 
ince have  the  guts  and  the  hope  to  face 
the  challenges  of  the  1980s  and  to  win. 
The  political  challenge  for  us  is  to  do  the 
same.  We  New  Democrats  are  prepared  to 
go  to  the  people  of  this  province  in  the 
spring.  We  are  prepared  to  take  our  pro- 
gram to  them.  We  are  prepared  to  offer 
them  a  fresh  start;  we  are  prepared  to  offer 
them  security.  I  believe  the  people  of  this 
province  are  prepared  to  respond  and  bring 
an  end  to  37  years  of  Tory  rule. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  Mr.  Speaker,  I  find  it  odd 
indeed  to  be  rising  to  speak  right  after  that 
rousing  address  by  the  leader  of  the  third 
party  in  which  he  roasted,  and  justifiably  so, 
the  government  on  virtually  every  aspect  of 
its  budgetary  policy,  when  I  know  full  well 
that,  in  half  an  hour  or  an  hour  from  now, 
he  will  rise  in  his  place  to  vote  in  favour 
of  that  very  budgetary  policy. 

I  understand  these  things,  believe  me. 
We  have  had  only  four  years  of  this 
minority  government,  and  the  leader  of  the 
New  Democratic  Party  does  not  wish  to 
seem  to  be  premature  in  bringing  it  to  a 
close.  It  is  perfectly  all  right,  of  course, 
that  the  Premier  may  well  decide  himself 
to  bring  this  government  to  a  close.  Some 
of  us  may  find  it  is  only  after  we  are  again 
returned  in  our  constituencies  that  we  come 
back  into  this  chamber,  but  I  suppose  it  is 
okay  if  the  Premier  calls  the  election  in 
the  meantime.  All  the  leader  of  the  New 
Democratic  Party  is  prepared  to  do  is  to 
complain,  and  rightly  so,  about  the  useless 
nature  of  the  budgetary  policy  of  the  gov- 
ernment, but  he  is  not  prepared  to  put 
whatever  remains  of  NOP  principles  where 
his  speeches  are. 

Unfortunately,  therefore,  we  will  find  that 
the  initiative  will  pass  over  to  the  govern- 
ment, and  they  will  be  able  to  go  to  the 
people  and  say  they  have  been  able  to 
rule  through  a  full  term  of  minority  govern- 
ment   and    the    opposition    has    not   laid    a 


hand   on   them.    Let   the   people   know  we 
have  been  ready  to  have  an  election,  if  need 
be,   for  some  time  now  because  we  mean 
what  we  say. 
5:10  p.m. 

On  rising  to  speak  on  the  last  day  of  the 
House  just  before  Christmas,  as  it  gets  to 
the  hour  and  everybody  wants  to  be  out  of 
this  place,  it  is  a  faintly  ridiculous  position 
to  have  to  stand  and  start  to  say  things 
that  are  entirely  predictable  anyway.  No- 
body expects  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition 
to  stand  and  say  anything  other  than  what 
he  is  about  to  say,  namely,  that  he  dis- 
agrees almost  totally  with  the  general  ap- 
proach towards  budgetary  policy  of  the 
present  government  of  Ontario  and  feels, 
most  sincerely,  that  he  and  his  party  could 
do  better.  That  will  come  as  no  surprise  to 
anybody,  and  it  has  fallen  to  my  lot  to  have 
to  stand  in  this  House  and  make  a  speech 
at  this  time,  followed  by  a  vote,  when  we 
all  know  what  the  result  will  be. 

That  is  not  to  say  I  should  necessarily 
give  up  this  opportunity  without  at  least 
putting  on  the  record  some  of  the  feelings 
we  had  when  my  excellent  colleague  from 
London  Centre  (Mr.  Peterson),  a  man  with 
all  the  abilities  to  be  a  much  better  Treas- 
urer of  this  province  than  the  one  who 
currently  occupies  that  area,  proposed  the 
motion  that  was  seconded  by  the  former 
leader  of  this  party,  a  man  without  peer  in 
this  chamber.  It  is  an  excellent  motion 
which  I  have  the  pleasure  and  the  honour 
of  reading  to  this  House  again,  and  I  shall 
read  it  part  by  part  with  a  view  and  ap- 
propriate commentary  on  each  portion  and 
placing  emphasis,  of  course. 

The  amendment  said  the  House  finds  this 
governments  failure  to  implement  an  eco- 
nomic strategy  has  contributed  significantly 
to  the  economic  decline  of  Ontario.  Let  me 
speak  to  that  portion  for  a  moment. 

We  are  all  realistic  persons.  None  of  us 
would  be  so  naive  as  to  believe  that  the 
government  of  Ontario,  on  its  own,  could 
somehow  have  remedied  all  the  economic 
calamities  and  catastrophes  that  have  beset 
and  befallen  the  people  of  Ontario,  Canada, 
the  United  States  and  indeed  the  whole 
world.  We  are  well  aware  that  there  is  a 
limit  to  what  a  government  in  a  province, 
even  a  province  as  important  as  Ontario, 
can  accomplish. 

But  we  say  things  could  be  better  than 
they  are  now  for  our  people,  and  we  can 
prove  that.  We  point  out  that  our  country, 
although  enjoying  at  the  moment  a  sur- 
plus in  merchandise  trade,  will  suffer  from 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5371 


a  deficit  in  international  trade  in  manu- 
factured end  products  of  $18.6  billion.  It 
is  hard  for  me  to  believe  that  the  manu- 
facturing sector  of  our  economy,  which  after 
all,  is  our  main  job  here  in  Ontario,  needed 
to  fall  that  badly  behind  our  competitors  in 
other  parts  of  the  world.  I  believe  the  people 
of  Ontario  are  every  bit  as  smart  as  the 
people  of  Japan.  I  believe  the  educational 
investment  we  have  made  in  Ontario  is  every 
bit  as  large  as  any  other  people  has  made 
on  any  part  of  this  globe.  I  believe  the 
people  in  Ontario  could  be  competitive  with 
any  people,  anywhere  in  this  world.  I  agree 
this  is  not  so  in  the  low-wage  type  of  manu- 
facturing but,  particularly  in  the  high- 
technology  areas,  why  have  we,  an  advanced 
industrial  centre  that  used  to  export  all 
kinds  of  machinery,  fallen  behind  techno- 
logically? Why  have  we  not  risen  to  the 
challenge  of  the  high-technology  industries 
which  the  rest  of  the  world  somehow  have 
been  managing  to  get  ahead  with? 

We  have  not  had  an  industrial  strategy. 
We  have  fallen  behind  and  we  have  failed 
a  generation  of  young  people  who  are  now 
having  to  consider  where  their  future  lies 
and  who  are  not  able  to  be  used  wiselv 
and   well   in   Ontario. 

We  have  fallen  to  a  position  I  am  not 
happy  about.  In  the  late  1970s,  we  fell  to 
tenth  and  last  in  Canada  in  terms  of  eco- 
nomic growth  and,  in  1980,  the  Conference 
Board  in  Canada  predicted,  and  I  quote: 
"Ontario  will  bear  the  brunt  of  the  1980 
national  slowdown.  Real  output  in  the  prov- 
ince is  forecast  to  decline  by  1.6  per  cent 
this  year  and  to  remain  below  1979  produc- 
tion levels  throughout  most  of  1981." 

It  gives  me  no  joy,  even  as  Leader  of 
the  Opposition,  to  read  that  forecast.  I  am 
not  saying  it  could  have  been  perfect  had 
Liberals  been  in  power.  I  am  not  saying 
one  could  have  done  a  whole  lot  to  change 
the  entire  pace  of  the  Canadian  and  Ontario 
economic  picture,  but  I  say  this  sincerely: 
I  believe  our  young  people  have  been  let 
down  by  the  government  over  the  past  six, 
seven  or  eight  years  when  there  were  clear 
trends  showing  high  technology  would  be 
the  order  of  the  day  by  the  time  we  got  to 
the  late  1970s. 

The  Japanese,  the  Swedes,  the  Germans 
and  to  some  extent  the  Americans  moved 
well  ahead  while  all  we  did  was  sit  back 
and  let  our  foreign-controlled  manufacturing 
industries  continue  as  they  have  been  doing. 
We  let  many  Canadian  small-  and  medium- 
sized  businesses  go  under  for  lack  of  financ- 
ing availability,  and  we  were  confident  that 


somehow,  by  doing  just  what  we  used  to  do, 
everything  would  turn  out  all  right.  It  has 
not  done  so. 

We  went  on  in  this  motion  and  said  the 
House  criticizes  the  government  for  a  decade 
of  irresponsible  spending  practices  and  high 
levels  of  public  debt.  I  do  not  have  to  tell 
you  about  that,  Mr.  Speaker.  That  is  true. 
That  is  absolutely  true  today  as  it  was  when 
we  said  it.  After  former  Premier  Robarts  left, 
the  notion  that  one  piles  up  a  surplus  in  good 
times  and  has  deficits  in  poor  times  went  out 
the  window  and  we  piled  up  deficit  after 
deficit  even  in  good  times. 

I  realize  the  government  of  Canada  has 
done  the  same  thing.  Frankly,  it  is  unfor- 
tunate it  did  but,  if  one  looks  at  the  deficit 
of  the  government  of  Canada  and  subtracts 
from  that  the  transfer  payments  made  to  the 
provinces,  including  Ontario,  where  the 
spending  decisions  are  local  decisions  and 
the  federal  government  supplies  the  funds, 
one  sees  that  the  deficit  spending  in  Ontario 
is  every  bit  as  bad  as  that  in  the  federal 
sphere.  I  ask  the  House  to  consider  that. 

We  also  said  in  the  motion  that  we  con- 
demn the  government  for  giving  public 
moneys  to  companies  that  have  no  need  of 
such  grants,  especially  without  guarantees  of 
important  benefit  to  Ontario  in  terms  of  job 
or  wealth  creation.  The  prime  example  has 
to  be  the  tens  of  millions  of  dollars  given 
away  that  could  have  provided  much  more 
stimulus  in  research  and  development— money 
given  away  to  paper  companies  which  have 
made  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  in  the 
last  couple  of  years  in  profits  and  had  no 
need  of  that  money. 

Nobody  believes  those  paper  companies 
would  have  suddenly  closed  up  or  failed  to 
build  the  appropriate  new  plants  unless  they 
had  the  government  contribution.  Not  a  soul 
would  be  foolish  enough  to  believe  that.  If 
one  is  going  to  spend  $116  million  or  what- 
ever one  of  those  companies  was  spending, 
surely  one  is  not  suddenly  going  to  change 
just  because  the  government  will  not  kick  in 
its  $10  million.  If  it  is  worth  doing  for  $106 
million,  it  is  worth  doing  for  $116  million. 
One  either  does  it  or  one  does  not,  and  the 
important  matter  for  the  paper  companies^ 
as  we  well  know,  has  been  the  lower  Cana- 
dian dollar  which  enables  us  to  sell  in  the 
United  States.  They  have  done  very  well  and 
have  prospered.  They  had  no  need  of  that 
money.  That  is  one  of  the  great  errors  this 
government  has  made. 

In  addition  to  that,  the  paper  companies 
have  not  properly  looked  after  the  forests, 
and  we  actually  face  an  almost  unbelievable 


5372 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


situation  where  this  province  may  well  run 
out  of  marketable  timber  at  the  turn  of  this 
century,  an  absolutely  inconceivable  result 
but  one  that  stares  us  in  the  face  as  a  con- 
sequence of  government  policy. 

5:20  p.m. 

We  went  on  to  say  we  indict  the  govern- 
ment for  its  failure  to  introduce  programs  to 
ameliorate  record  high  levels  of  unemploy- 
ment, especially  among  our  young  people. 
Surely  I  need  say  no  more  about  that.  It  is 
obvious  this  has  been  our  worst  unemploy- 
ment year,  taking  the  year  month  after  month. 
We  have  the  worst  unemployment  since  the 
Depression,  particularly  among  our  young 
people.  We  went  on  to  say  we  deplore  the 
fact  that  in  the  provision  of  additional  assist- 
ance to  senior  citizens  the  government  has 
chosen  to  do  so  in  an  inequitable  manner, 
giving  less  to  those  most  in  need. 

I  think  this  is  the  important  part.  The 
government  lacks  the  ability  and  leadership 
to  respond  to  the  challenges  facing  Ontario. 
It  has  failed  to  provide  policies  to  support 
research  and  development  activities,  to  assist 
and  encourage  Canadian-owned  enterprises, 
to  train  our  young  people  to  meet  the  skilled 
manpower  needs  of  industry,  to  promote  con- 
servation programs  and  alternative  sources  of 
energy. 

In  the  five  years  I  have  been  associated 
with  politics  in  Ontario  one  thing  stands  out 
very  clearly:  The  government  opposite  see 
crises  that  occur  from  time  to  time  and  it 
attempts  to  respond  in  some  ad  hoc  manner. 
The  people  in  the  Liberal  Party  see  chal- 
lenges and  hope  for  the  future. 

The  government  sees  the  energy  crisis 
as  a  terrible  problem.  It  complains  and 
worries  about  the  price  of  oil  and  so  on.  We 
see  the  energy  situation  as  a  tremendous 
challenge  and  opportunity  for  Ontario.  I 
see  ahead  an  Ontario  in  which  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  our  people  will  be  working  in 
some  of  the  advanced  alternative  forms  of 
energy.  I  see  them  working  in  the  fuel 
alcohol  industry.  I  see  them  employed  in 
ways  that  would  alter  our  automobiles  so 
they  can  burn  alternative  fuel.  I  see  Ontario 
chemists  and  scientists  developing  the  most 
modern  equipment  in  the  world  that  will 
use  energy  efficiently,  that  will  conserve 
energy. 

I  do  not  see  the  energy  crisis  as  a  time 
of  gloOm  for  Ontario  or  a  time  for  a  shoot- 
out with  Peter  Lougheed,  as  the  present 
Premier  of  Ontario  seems  to  see  it.  I  see 
the  energy  crisis  as  a  great  opportunity  for 
Ontario    to    create    unheard-of    possibilities, 


new  technologies  and  new  industries  for  the 
young  people  of  Ontario. 

Things  are  bad  in  the  auto  industry 
today.  We  understand  that.  But  instead  of 
seeing  just  a  crisis  in  the  automobile  indus- 
try and  disaster  for  Windsor  and  the  people 
there,  I  see  people  who  now  are  available 
for  retraining.  Instead  of  seeing  unemployed 
people  who  have  nothing  to  do  but  stay  at 
home  feeling  more  and  more  depressed  with 
themselves,  our  people  see  workers  who 
desperately  need  retraining,  who  could  be 
upgraded  so  that  when  the  automobile  in- 
dustry picks  up  again  they  will  be  ready 
for  the  new  technologies  and  the  new  kind 
of  auto  industry  that  will  be  facing  us  in  a 
few  years.  We  see  people  who  should  be 
retrained.  All  the  government  sees  are 
people  who  somehow  or  other  have  to  be 
counted  as  statistics  that  are  somewhat 
embarrassing  to  the  government.  That  is 
the  differenc  in  our  attitudes. 

Interest  rates  are  high.  We  understand 
that  is  because  of  what  has  happened  in  the 
United  States.  That  is  a  federal,  rather 
than  a  provincial,  policy  and  responsibility. 
We  understand  that,  but  we  see  thousands 
of  small  Ontario  businesses  that  are  going 
to  go  under  and  add  to  the  already  record 
number  of  bankruptcies  in  the  province- 
people  who  went  into  business  on  their 
own,  facing  the  challenges,  risks  and  prob- 
lems of  going  into  business  nowadays.  They 
have  taken  on  those  risks,  and  suddenly  the 
interest  rates  have  shot  out  of  all  propor- 
tion and  all  predictability. 

Why  should  these  people  go  bankrupt? 
Why  should  they  be  taught  that  the  entre- 
preneurial spirit  in  Ontario  is  simply  foolish- 
ness and  should  be  forgotten?  Why  should 
those  people  get  that  kind  of  negative  lesson 
when,  with  a  decent  policy  to  help  them  out 
with  the  interest  rates  they  are  facing,  these 
businesses  and  others  can  prosper  and  we 
can  give  the  message  that  Ontario  can  once 
more  be  a  good  place  to  do  business? 

The  Treasurer  stands  up  day  after  day 
to  say  he  cannot  help  the  small  businesses 
of  Ontario  with  these  interest  rate  prob- 
lems; only  the  federal  government  can  do 
it.  He  has  $260  million  in  his  mini-budget 
which  he  is  able  to  fritter  away  on  reducing 
sales  taxes  so  that  people  who  were  going 
to  buy  vans  anyway  can  buy  them  a  little 
bit  earlier. 

In  some  ways  I  think  one  can  argue  the 
government  has  been  responsible  for  some 
good  things;  Ontario,  after  all,  is  a  pretty 
good  place  to  live,  a  place  we  all  love  and 
enjoy,  and  obviously  the  government  has  to 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5373 


take  some  of  the  credit  for  the  fact  that 
things  have  been  good  in  Ontario  over  the 
years.  But  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  that, 
although  we  are  growing  more  slowly  and 
have  negative  growth  this  year,  we  are  not 
to  the  point  of  being  a  poverty-stricken 
province  by  any  means.  So  I  am  willing  to 
recognize  it  is  not  just  black  and  white. 

But,  with  great  sincerity,  we  see  that  in 
the  budgetary  policy  being  followed,  al- 
though it  looks  good  in  the  sense  that  there 
are  no  tax  increases  and  all  that  kind  of 
thing— which,  of  course,  everybody  likes  to 
hear— there  is  no  vision.  There  is  nothing 
there  that  will  enable  us  to  take  advantage 
of  the  challenges  we  face.  There  is  nothing 
there  to  retrain  our  young  people;  we  are 
going  to  be  short  of  35,000  skilled  workers 
by  1985.  There  is  nothing  there  to  show 
how  Ontario  will  prosper  in  the  future.  The 
ship  is  adrift.  There  is  no  leadership.  There 
is  no  one  at  the  helm.  What  we  say  to  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  is  that  we,  with  great  sin- 
cerity, put  forward  this  motion,  and  the 
motion  finishes,  as  you  know,  by  saying 
that  this  House  declares  it  has  no  confi- 
dence in  this  government. 

I  will  finish  with  just  one  point.  A  lot  of 
people  visit  the  United  States  and  a  lot  of 
them  work  there,  and  many  of  them  come 
back  and  say  Canada  is  really  a  great  place 
to  live.  It  is  indeed.  It  is  the  finest  country 
in  the  world,  and  Ontario  is  indeed  a  very 
great  province  in  which  to  live;  no  question 
about  that.  But  one  of  the  reasons  it  is  a 
such  a  great  province  is  that  people  can  walk 
safely  on  the  streets  of  Toronto  and  of  other 
cities  in  Ontario,  which  is  something  they 
cannot  do  in  many  parts  of  the  United 
States. 

Let  us  ask  ourselves  for  a  moment  why 
that  is.  A  lot  of  people,  including  the  folks 
opposite,  will  say  that  to  be  able  to  walk 
safely  and  so  on  in  the  streets  of  Toronto 
means  we  must  have  more  police;  that  the 
reason  we  can  walk  safely  in  the  streets  of 
Toronto  is  that  we  have  a  police  force;  that 
we  have,  somehow  or  other,  law,  authority 
and  that  sort  of  thing.  There  is  some  truth  in 
that,  of  course. 

The  real  reason  we  can  walk  safely  in 
Ontario  and  Canada  is  that  we  do  not  have 
the  desperate  poverty  and  the  total  aliena- 
tion that  occurs  when  there  are  pockets  of 
such  hopelessness  and  despair  as  there  are  in 
many  American  cities.  The  people  here  do 
not  have  to  lose  their  life  savings  to  get 
health  care.  The  people  here  have  health 
insurance.  The  people  here  have  a  decent 
welfare  program  which,  although  it  does  not 


pay  quite  what  it  should,  is  still  a  decent 
welfare  program.  That  is  the  reason;  make 
no  mistake  about  it.  Those  yahoos— I  do  not 
say  they  are  opposite,  but  they  exist  in 
Ontario— who  occasionally  say  there  is  too 
much  money  going  for  such  social  programs 
and  more  of  it  should  go  for  more  police 
and  so  on,  so  that  we  would  have  safety  in 
the  streets,  fail  to  realize  that  the  safety  here 
is  based  on  the  traditions  of  Ontario  and 
the  programs  of  Ontario,  which  give  people 
a  stake  in  the  community. 
5:30  p.m. 

The  most  important  stake  people  have 
ever  had  in  Ontario  is  home  ownership,  the 
ability  to  own  a  home  and  the  hope  that 
some  day  they  will  own  a  home.  That  is 
what  has  given  the  young  people,  the 
middle-aged  people,  all  people  in  Ontario  a 
sense  that  they  have  a  stake  in  society.  Yet 
because  of  the  prices,  home  ownership  is 
becoming  a  distant  dream  for  most  of  the 
people  and  certainly  for  the  young  people 
in  Ontario. 

Think  of  those  people  who  have  managed 
to  get  into  a  home,  who  have  managed 
somehow  or  other  to  scrape  up  from  their 
income— and  sometimes  two  incomes  are 
necessary  to  do  this— enough  to  pay  the 
mortgage  payments  and  who  are  facing  in- 
creases in  mortgage  payments  of  45  per 
cent,  50  per  cent,  55  per  cent  because  the 
mortgage  may  be  going  up  from  11  to  16 
or  17  per  cent.  Think  of  what  it  means  to 
them  if  they  are  now  going  to  have  to  lose 
the  opportunity  to  own  their  home. 

He  is  obviously  not  going  to  do  it  today, 
but  I  plead  with  the  Treasurer  during  the 
next  month  or  two  to  bring  in  the  program 
we  have  proposed  to  help  people  having  to 
pay  the  new  mortgage  interest  rates  when 
they  are  rolling  over  old  mortgages.  I  plead 
with  him,  do  not  wait  until  thousands  and 
tens  of  thousands  of  our  people  are  forced  to 
leave  their  homes.  Act  now,  with  a  decent 
program.  The  government  has  the  money.  If 
it  costs  $50  million  or  $100  million,  it  is 
much  less  than  the  money  the  government  is 
giving  away  on  the  vans  and  the  refrigerators. 
Do  something  to  help  people  maintain  that 
stake  in  our  society  that  is  represented  by 
home  ownership. 

Let  me  summarize.  We  will  be  going  to  the 
polls.  It  is  obvious  that  the  New  Democratic 
Party  will  be  supporting  the  government  and 
and  so  we  will  not  be  going  now,  but  it  is 
evident  that  we  will  be  going  to  the  polls 
some  time  this  spring.  The  Premier  said  four 
months.  The  Minister  of  the  Environment  said 
three  months.  At  some  point  or  another,  we 


5374 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


will  be  going  to  the  polls.  At  that  time,  we  in 
the  opposition  recognize  our  responsibility. 
We  will  have  to  portray  to  the  people  of 
Ontario  a  genuine  alternative  to  the  govern- 
ment that  exists.  We  will,  of  course,  have  to 
criticize  government  policy  but  we  will  have 
to  propose  alternatives.  We  shall  do  so. 
The  people  of  Ontario  will  then  find  that  they 
are  faced  with  a  real  choice,  and  for  the 
first  time,  a  choice  between  only  two  parties, 
the  government  party  and  the  official  opposi- 
tion. We  are  very  glad  to  be  judged  by  the 
people  of  Ontario. 

We  say  simply  we  have  put  forward  our 
motion  amending  this  budget  motion,  this 
no-confidence  motion  of  ours,  with  deep 
sincerity  and  with  the  belief  that  although 
the  Conservative  government  is  not  all  bad, 
we  believe  basically  that  Ontario  could  be, 
should  be,  deserves  to  be,  and  will  be  a  lot 
better  off  than  it  is  now. 

Mr.  Speaker:  The  member  for  Brock. 
Mr.  Peterson:  Why  do  you  send  a  boy  to 
do  a  man's  job? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  after  that 
last  contribution,  I  would  think  the  member 
would  be  pretty  quiet.  Not  one  positive  state- 
ment with  respect  to  alternatives  for  Ontario 
came  from  that  speech  all  the  time  I  sat  here 
and  listened  to  it. 

It  will  come  as  no  surprise  to  you  that  I 
am  very  pleased  to  have  been  asked  to  wind 
up  this  particular  debate  on  behalf  of  the 
government  and  to  seek  the  support  of  this 
Legislature  for  a  program  of  political  and 
economic  action  which  has  moved  effectively 
to  serve  the  very  broad  social,  economic  and 
political  interests  of  the  people  of  this 
province. 

There  is  a  great  temptation  even  at  this 
late  hour  on  this  snowy  December  evening 
in  1980  to  dwell  in  some  partisan  way  on 
those  very  serious  miscalculations  and  mis- 
judgements, one  could  even  say  misfortunes 
of  our  friends  opposite. 

Was  that  a  siren  outside?  Here  come  the 
guys  with  the  butterfly  nets. 

As  the  member  for  Haldimand-Norfolk 
(Mr.  G.  I.  Miller)  would  know— as  we  are 
friends  over  breakfast— to  do  that  would  be 
seen  by  some  to  be  somewhat  provocative.  I 
have  learned  from  my  leader  the  Premier 
(Mr.  Davis)  that  being  provocative  during 
the  Christmas  season  is  probably  not  the 
best  approach.  I  will  follow  his  advice  and 
share  these  remarks  in  the  true  spirit  of  this 
particular  season. 

Perhaps  it  would  be  inappropriate  for  me 
to  be  excessively  partisan  at  this  time  and 
dwell  too  much  on  the  mistakes  and  misfor- 


tunes of  our  friends  opposite.  I  might  say  to 
the  member  for  London  Centre  (Mr.  Peterson), 
who  surely  has  learned  some  courtesy  at 
someone's  knee  during  his  lifetime,  that  the 
people  of  Ontario,  at  least  the  people  who 
live  within  the  boundaries  of  the  provincial 
constituency  of  Carleton,  did  have  a  chance 
to  pass  some  judgement  of  their  own. 

They  did  not  do  so  through  any  circuitous 
motions  at  committees;  they  did  not  do  it  in 
the  Legislature;  they  did  not  do  it  through 
the  presentation  of  petitions  or  the  writing 
of  speeches,  and  they  did  not  do  it  through 
hyperbole,  which  we  so  often  associate  with 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Mr.  S.  Smith), 
who  has  now  rushed  out  to  the  cameras  to 
make  sure  he  catches  the  six  o'clock  news. 

The  people  of  that  constituency  did  not  do 
it  in  that  way  at  all.  They  did  it  simply  and 
directly  through  the  force  of  their  franchise, 
the  best  poll  we  know  in  our  democracy.  On 
November  20,  a  substantial  percentage  of 
the  people  of  Carleton  came  forward  to  give 
this  government  and  our  candidate,  the  mem- 
ber for  Carleton  (Mr.  Mitchell)  and  the  pro- 
gram we  put  before  this  Legislature,  a  re- 
sounding vote  of  approval. 

I  want  the  record  to  show  that  my  col- 
league the  member  for  Lincoln  (Mr.  Hall) 
was  giving  me  some  type  of  signal.  I  do  not 
know  what  that  means.  Even  the  member 
for  Lincoln  knows  that  one  expects  the  party 
in  power  to  lose  some  strength  during  a  by- 
election,  even  to  have  its  overall  percentages 
reduced  because  of  the  lack  of  any  serious 
consequence  on  the  day-to-day  operation  of 
government.  As  the  member  for  Lincoln  has 
studied  the  figures  as  the  chairman  of  his 
caucus,  when  one  looks  at  the  low  turnout, 
this  might  have  been  a  plausible  expectation 
for  this  particular  constituency.  But  I  remind 
this  House  that  the  result  was  just  the  oppo- 
site. Bob  Mitchell  and  the  Conservative  Party 
won  a  resounding  victory  on  November  20. 

Mr.  Riddell:  We  will  let  the  people  know 
how  he  won  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Is  the  member  trying  to 
suggest  that  the  electorate  did  not  know 
what  they  were  doing  when  they  went  to 
the  polls?  Is  he  suggesting  that  to  the  people 
of  Carleton?  They  had  the  greatest  power  in 
their  hands,  the  ballot,  and  they  put  it  in 
the  box  for  this  side.  The  members  opposite 
can  worry  about  all  the  polls  they  like,  but 
we  happen  to  win  the  right  polls  and  we 
know  that. 

5:40  p.m. 

Mr.  Riddell:  It  was  the  most  erroneous  and 
nonfactual  information  you  could  put  out. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5375 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Is  the  member  against 
the  results  of  democracy?  Oh,  my  word. 

Mr.  Riddell:  I  am  all  for  honesty.  That  is 
what  I  am  for. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Volume  was  never  a 
very  effective  rebuttal. 

Mr.  Riddell:  And  I  will  say  honesty  is  still 
the  best  policy,  and  we  will  win  on  that. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  That's  what  you  did  down 
in  Essex. 

Mr.  Riddell:  We  will  win  on  that.  There  is 
still  something  to  be  said  for  honesty. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  When  the  member  for 
Huron-Middlesex  hollers,  it  has  to  indicate  a 
very  weak  argument.  Argument  weak,  shout 
like  hell;  that  is  his  philosophy. 

The  results  of  November  20  spoke  elo- 
quently to  the  opposition,  and  I  would  say 
this  to  the  member. 

Mr.  Peterson:  You  wouldn't  know  an 
honest  political  thought  if  it  came  around 
and  bit  you  on  the  leg. 

Mr.  Speaker:  Order.  I  think  the  comment 
I  heard  quite  distinctly  from  the  member  for 
London  Centre  he  would  want  to  take  back. 

Mr.  Peterson:  You  are  right.  No  self- 
respecting  dog  would  want  to  bite  him  for 
fear  of  such  a  disease. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  am  sorry.  I  did  not  hear 
that. 

Mr.  Peterson:  I  was  mumbling  so  you 
would  not. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  would  ask  you  to  withdraw 
it. 

Mr.  Peterson:  What  I  did  say,  to  clear  the 
record,  is  that  no  self-respecting  dog  would 
actually  bite  him  for  fear  of  catching  a 
disease.  But  I  will  withdraw  both  those  re- 
marks. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  You  shouldn't  bite  the 
hand  that  feeds  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  May  I  remind  the  House, 
in  a  quiet  way,  that  obviously  the  results  of 
November  20  spoke  eloquently  to  an  opposi- 
tion, led  by  the  member  for  Hamilton  West, 
which  has  been  negative  and  cantankerous, 
shallow-minded  and  without  fundamental 
alternatives  in  almost  every  major  area  of 
public  policy.  That  has  to  be  understood. 

During  the  kind  of  tough  economic  times 
in  which  this  country  finds  itself,  in  fact,  in 
which  all  of  North  America  finds  itself,  one 
might  well  expect  that  the  land  of  partisan 
opportunism  exhibited  by  the  opposition 
might  be  seductive  from  time  to  time.  How- 
ever, the  facts  speak  eloquently  in  the  oppo- 
site direction.   May  I  share  some  comments 


before  the  member  for  Ottawa  East  (Mr. 
Roy)  leaves? 

While  this  government  has  been  moving 
consistently  to  assist  high-technology  industry 
in  this  province,  to  promote  Canadian  owner- 
ship, to  advance  sustained  employment  op- 
portunities for  our  people,  to  relieve  the  tax 
burden  upon  the  senior  citizens  of  this  prov- 
ince, to  assist  consumers  in  almost  every 
conceivable  fashion,  to  ensure  continuing 
secure  and  stable  energy  supplies  and  prices, 
the  opposition  has  offered  the  kind  of  nega- 
tive gloom  and  doom  approach  which  has 
commended  it  to  no  one,  least  of  all  its  own 
supporters,  including  the  member  for  Lincoln, 
who  must  be  embarrassed  with  that  attitude 
over  there. 

For  our  good  candidate  Bob  Mitchell  to 
have  done  as  well  as  he  did  in  the  by-election 
in  Ottawa-Carleton  indicates  not  only  strong, 
continued  support  from  those  who  have  tra- 
ditionally supported  this  party,  and  indeed 
this  government,  but  also  significant  erosion 
in  the  core  support  of  the  Liberal  Party  of 
this  province.  That  is  not  due  to  the  great 
tradition  of  that  party,  but  to  the  inept  and 
destructive  opposition  it  has  been  offering 
this  province  on  issues  on  which  the  people 
of  this  province  have  the  right  to  expect  more 
and  better. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Speaker,  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  Premier  made  a  comment  once 
that  is  worth  being  repeated.  He  was  referring 
to  the  opposition  in  one  of  his  many  speeches. 
This  is  my  Premier  talking  about  the  op- 
position. He  said,  "They  seem  to  have  lost 
their  capacity  to  differentiate  between  a 
political  party  and  a  government,  which  they 
have  every  right  to  oppose,  and  a  province 
whose  successes  and  opportunities  are  critical 
to  the  welfare  of  all  our  people.  They  are  too 
much  preoccupied  with  their  own  narrow 
partisan  interests  and,  therefore,  they  deny 
themselves  the  opportunity  of  that  broader 
look  throughout  the  whole  province,  and  that 
is  regrettable  for  a  political  party  of  that  par- 
ticular status." 

Let  me  give  some  examples  to  those  who, 
like  the  member  for  Niagara  Falls  (Mr. 
Kerrio)  are  prepared  to  listen.  I  ask  you, 
Mr.  Speaker,  did  that  group  over  there  re- 
joice in  this  Christmas  season  in  the  tre- 
mendous successes  of  the  Urban  Transpor- 
tation Development  Corporation  and  the  de- 
velopment of  a  massive  export  job  oppor- 
tunity and  high  technology  for  the  people  of 
Ontario?  Did  they  rejoice? 

Some  hon.  members:  No. 


5376 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  agree  with  my  col- 
leagues. I  find  no  rejoicing  on  the  record  at 
all.  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  did  they  rejoice 
in  this  also  joyful  season  in  the  decision  taken, 
in  Vancouver  in  one  respect  and  in  another 
fashion  in  the  city  of  Los  Angeles,  to  en- 
dorse the  technical  superiority  of  a  transit 
system  developed  by  the  people  of  Ontario, 
by  technicians  in  this  province,  by  industry 
in  this  province,  in  a  fashion  that  is  helpful 
to  public  transit  deeds  worldwide?  Did  they 
rejoice? 

Some  hon.  members:  No. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  am  inclined  to  agree 
with  them.  I  fail  to  see  any  evidence  of  that 
rejoicing. 

Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:   Now  that  the  member 
presses  the  point,  did  they  rejoice  or  even- 
Interjection. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  will  be  over  to  the 
third  party  in  a  minute.  Just  wait  a  minute. 
They  are  next. 

Did  they  rejoice  in  or  even  take  note  of  the 
major  investment  decisions  made  by  large 
corporations  with  respect  to  the  automotive 
industry  in  this  province  with  respect  to  the 
computer  and  microelectronic  industry,  with 
respect  to  alternative  fuel  development  in 
northern  Ontario?  Did  they  rejoice  for  that? 

Some  hon.  members:  No. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  am  inclined  to  agree 
with  them  once  again.  That  is  not  their  style. 
You  see  what  happens,  Mr.  Speaker.  Thank 
goodness  you  are  impartial.  Over  there  they 
prefer  to  be  merchants  of  gloom  and  pur- 
veyors of  doom.  If  I  were  prompted  I  might 
even  go  on  to  say  they  are  a  negative  bunch 
with  a  negative  hunch  headed  nowhere  fast 
and  at  great  speed;  there  is  no  question  about 
that.  One  has  to  admit  though  that  their 
opposition  is  different  from  the  opposition 
being  offered  by  our  friends  in  the  third  party. 

However  misguided  I  think  that  opposi- 
tion is,  however  wedded  to  the  ideology  and 
doctrinaire  statism  of  another  time  it  is 
nevertheless— and  I  want  this  to  be  on  the 
record  quite  clearly  without  interjection- 
opposition  that  is  offered  in  good  faith.  They 
are  sincere  people. 
5:50  p.m. 

Mr.  Martel:  God  help  us.  Save  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  am  not  going  to  ask 
my  colleagues  if  they  rejoice  in  that  state- 
ment. That  might  be  pushing  my  luck  just 
a  little.  But  I  believe  that  our  friends  in  the 
third  party  are  optimistic  about  the  future. 
Let  me  hasten  to  say  before  the  member 
for  York  South  (Mr.   MacDonald)  lights  his 


pipe,  the  way  in  which  that  group  would 
do  something  about  that  optimism  would 
make  the  rest  of  us  a  little  more  pessimistic 
about  the  future.  But  they  really  are  en- 
titled to  that  view.  They  are  entitled  to 
that  misconception  about  the  role  of  the  in- 
dividual, the  role  of  the  state  and  the  role 
of  freedom  in  a  competitive  and  effective 
free  enterprise  economy. 

But  in  their  misguided  and  somewhat  old- 
fashioned  ideology  they  continue  to  express 
some  confidence  in  the  people  of  this  prov- 
ince. One  has  to  give  them  marks  for  that. 
That,  of  course,  is  a  confidence  that  we  on 
this  side  of  the  House  share  most  profound- 
ly with  them.  It  is  a  confidence  that  assures 
us  that  the  wrongheadedness  of  our  friends 
in  the  third  party  will  never  be  endorsed  by 
the  public  in  Ontario.  The  public  is  too 
well-informed,  too  pragmatic  and  too  opti- 
mistic about  opportunities  available  to  the 
individual  in  our  society  to  ever  be  taken  in 
by  that  kind  of  simplistic  doggerel. 

We  on  this  side  have  endeavoured  to 
proceed  with  care  and  with  compassion  to 
address  the  salient  issues  and  challenges 
which  face  all  the  people  of  this  province. 

I  cannot  help  but  be  quite  pleased  with 
the  $165  million  energy  program  announced 
by  my  ministry  and  supported  by  this  gov- 
ernment. It  is  obvious  in  his  remarks  that 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  was  not  even 
familiar  with  the  details  of  the  program.  I 
hope  the  energy  critic  of  the  official  oppo- 
sition will  bring  him  up  to  date.  It  happens 
to  be  the  kind  of  program  that  will  provide 
choices  and  options  for  the  people  of 
Ontario  in  the  future.  It  is  the  kind  of  pro- 
gram which  will  reduce  our  dependency  on 
foreign  crude  as  a  nation  and  contribute 
significantly  to  greater  independence  and 
self-sufficiency  within  the  context  of  our 
provincial  and  national  self  interest. 

It  is  a  very  responsible  program.  It  is  one 
premised  upon  support  for  the  highest  levels 
of  Ontario  ingenuity,  technology  and  fore- 
sight. It  is  a  program  premised  upon  incen- 
tive and  opportunity.  It  is  also  a  program 
that  will  serve  the  long-term  energy  inter- 
ests of  the  people  of  this  province  most 
effectively.  If  we  had  a  little  more  time  to 
go  into  that,  the  member  would  understand. 

My  colleague  the  Treasurer  (Mr.  F.  S. 
Miller)   and  member  for  Muskoka— 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Hear,  hear. 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller:  Thank  you,  Mr.  Premier. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  My  colleague,  the  Treas- 
urer and  member  for  Muskoka— 

Interjections. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5377 


Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  If  the  opposition  notices 
certain  members  of  the  cabinet  pounding 
their  desks  there  is  a  reason  for  that.  There 
are    certain    meetings    coming   up    soon. 

The  Treasurer  put  two  budgetary  pro- 
posals before  this  House  this  year.  Unlike 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition's  friends,  those 
kissing  cousins  in  Ottawa,  he  did  not  raise 
any  taxes.  Unlike  the  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion's friends  in  Ottawa,  he  did  not  increase 
the  burden  upon  consumers  and  taxpayers 
in  this  province.  Unlike  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition's  friends  in  Ottawa,  he  did  not 
increase  the  burden  upon  the  small  business 
sector  or  the  farming  sector  or  the  corporate 
and  industrial  sector.  A  wise  man. 

I  know  what  is  almost  ready  to  fall  from 
the  lips  of  the  member  for  Kitchener- Wilmot 
(Mr.  Sweeney)  who  is  now  speaking:  "What 
did  he  do,  Mr.  Speaker?''  That  is  what  he 
was  going  to  ask  by  way  of  interjection.  Let 
me  anticipate  that  question  and  give  him  an 
answer:  the  Treasurer  of  Ontario  did  not 
increase  one  single  tax.  He  absolutely  kept 
the  commitment  of  this  government  to  put 
the  interests  of  the  average  Ontarian  first. 
For  our  senior  citizens,  he  made  good  on  a 
commitment. 

Mr.  Laughren:  What  about  people  in 
Timmins?  When  are  you  going  to  put  a  food 
terminal  there? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Wait  a  minute;  the 
member  should  not  get  provocative  at  this 
late  hour.  Just  think  of  what  we  did  for  the 
senior  citizens. 

The  Treasurer  of  Ontario  made  good  on  a 
commitment  made  during  the  1977  election 
campaign  by  the  party  I  have  the  privilege 
to  speak  for  on  this  occasion,  to  reduce  the 
burden  of  municipal  and  educational  taxes 
upon  the  senior  citizens  of  this  province. 
They  have  paid  those  taxes  all  their  lives 
and  have  now  earned  the  genuine  right  to 
have  some  relief  from  that  burden,  and  we 
are  proud  of  that  program. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  And  some  of  the  mem- 
bers opposite  take  credit  for  it  in  their  own 
weekly  columns. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  There  has  been  some 
criticism  from  across  the  floor  and  this  was 
to  be  expected,  but— 

Interjections. 

Mr.  Riddell:  There  is  not  one  of  you  who 
has  the  courage  to  make  that  kind  of  speech 
outside  this  House. 

Hon.  Mr.  Davis:  Some  of  us  made  it  in 
Carleton  and  look  what  happened. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Would  they  deny  the 
senior  citizens  that  program?  Did  they  vote 


against  that  program?  Across  this  province 
today  there  are  senior  citizens  with  a  greater 
measure  of  independence  and  financial 
security,  dignity  and  self-respect  in  large 
measure  because  of  the  extra  care  this  gov- 
ernment, led  by  the  Premier,  has  taken  to 
serve  their  interests  and  advance  their  cause 
during  difficult,  national  economic  times  and 
we  are  proud  of  that  program. 

My  colleague  the  member  for  Lambton 
(Mr.  Henderson)  would  urge  me  to  include 
in  these  remarks  that  the  government  moved 
to  protect  the  farmer  from  excessive  interest 
rates.  These  are  the  result  of  tired  monetary 
policies  being  pursued  by  the  federal  Liberal 
government  that  has  lost  touch  with  the 
needs  of  the  average  Canadian  in  matters  of 
economic  importance. 

This  is  not  pleasant  news  for  our  friends 
in  the  official  opposition  to  have  to  face  up 
to;  we  understand  that.  But  the  truth  is  clear 
and  the  substance  is  known  in  every  home 
in  this  country.  The  federal  Liberal  govern- 
ment is  letting  the  people  of  Canada  down 
in  this  very  important  matter. 

Interjections. 
6  p.m. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Do  you  mean  that  is  then- 
excuse  for  being  insensitive  to  public  needs? 

Mr.  Kerrio:  They  have  a  majority. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Despite  the  partisan 
divisions  that  divide  this  country,  divide  the 
politics  of  this  government  from  the  govern- 
ment in  Ottawa  and  divide  us  across  this  floor, 
the  government  of  Premier  Bill  Davis  has 
stood  firm  for  the  kind  of  constitutional  re- 
newal which  enshrines  the  monarchy,  pro- 
tects minority  language  rights  where  num- 
bers warrant,  protects  the  rights  of  Canadians 
to  move  from  coast  to  coast  and  province  to 
province  to  pursue  their  own  wellbeing,  and 
does  so  within  the  context  of  patriation  of 
our  constitution,  something  which  has  been 
called  for  consistently  since  the  days  of 
Premier  John  P.  Robarts,  something  which 
is  long  overdue  for  all  Canadians. 

Mr.  Nixon:   What  about  the  Queen? 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  The  Queen  is  in  there.  It 
is  the  enshrining  of  the  monarchy,  absolutely. 
Is  the  member  opposed  to  that? 

Mr.  Peterson:  I'm  very  much  in  favour  of 
the  Queen  and  so  is  Mr.  Roy. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  want  the  record  to  show 
that  is  the  wisest  decision  both  of  you  have 
made  since  you  were  elected. 

We  have  shown  leadership  on  that  issue 
and  on  matters  economic  and  fiscal;  leadership 
on  matters  of  industrial  development  and  on 


5378 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


matters  of  agricultural  protection  for  our 
farming  community;  leadership  in  environ- 
mental protection  and  controls  without 
parallel  in  the  free  world;  leadership  in  sup- 
port for  social  order  and  the  role  of  the 
police  within  the  context  of  a  free,  demo- 
cratic and  safe  society;  leadership  with  re- 
spect to  important  matters  of  northern  de- 
velopment and  expansion  and  in  important 
social  areas  such  as  special  education,  reduc- 
ing the  welfare  rolls  through  increased  work 
incentives,  extra  assistance  for  day  care  and 
continued  first-class  funding  for  the  best 
health  care  system  in  the  world. 

I  think  there  is  not  a  member  in  the  House 
who  would  not  agree  that  these  have  been  the 
hallmarks  of  the  session  which  now  draws 
quickly  to  an  end'.  It  is  that  kind  of  leadership 
which  the  people  of  this  province  have  every 
right  to  expect  from  Bill  Davis  and  the  Pro- 
gressive Conservative  government  of  Ontario. 

It  is  the  kind  of  leadership  we  all  need  if 
Ontario  is  to  seize  those  opportunities  and 
capitalize  upon  those  circumstances  which 
can  promote  and  deepen  the  industrial 
strength  and  the  economic  opportunity  which 
benefits  every  single  person  in  this  province 
in  the  months  and  years  ahead. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Is  the  TV  interview  over 
now?  I  thought  I  would  send  over  a  mirror 
before  he  went  out.  The  man  who  pretends  to 
be  the  great  statesman  who  avoids  discussing 
issues  and  would  rather  attack  people  and 
their  motivation.  He  never  goes  anywhere 
in  the  province  without  having  some  type  of 
smear  campaign  against  either  the  incumbent 
or  the  Conservative  candidate.  I  just  cannot 
understand  that  approach  to  politics. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  What  are  you  talking  about? 
Every  one  of  your  people— Larry  Grossman. 
Keith  Norton— has  been  making  a  personal 
attempt  to  get  me. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  I  have  never  heard  him 
address  issues.  He  is  always  attacking  people. 
He  is  doomed  to  have  the  same  political  fate 
as  John  Wintermeyer  because  of  the  type  of 
campaign  he  is  going  to  run. 

Mr.  S.  Smith:  I  hope  you  will  keep  them 
up. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  No.  We  will  discuss  the 
issues  in  my  constituency.  I  have  noticed  at 
least  his  candidate  had  the  courtesy  to  leave 
the  dirty  work  to  him. 

There  are  many  who  have  spoken  in  rather 
depressing  terms  about  the  1980s.  We  on  this 
side  of  the  House  have  no  reason  to  be  de- 


pressed and  every  reason  to  be  optimistic 
and  positive.  That  is  why  we  are  here. 

Our  approach  will  be  to  seize  on  those 
fundamental  areas  of  economic  opportunity 
which  can  be  strengthened  in  a  way  that 
demonstrates  the  will  of  the  people  of  this 
province  to  assert  their  own  economic  inter- 
ests and  to  do  so  in  a  fashion  that  advances 
the  broad  economic  interests  of  the  whole 
country.  That  opportunity  is  not  only  ours 
in  this  most  fortunate  province,  it  is  an  op- 
portunity which  we,  as  Canadians,  enjoy  and 
with  the  leadership  of  this  government,  with 
the  continued  support  of  this  Legislature  on 
the  budget  motion  at  present  before  us,  the 
government  and  the  people  of  Ontario  can 
continue  to  exert  the  kind  of  leadership  that 
will  serve  the  future  of  this  country  of  ours 
well  indeed. 

As  is  customary  in  circumstances  such  as 
these,  notwithstanding  that  the  Leader  of  the 
Opposition  felt  the  outcome  of  this  vote  was 
already  predetermined,  I  feel  quite  satisfied 
now,  having  listened  to  the  entire  debate, 
that  there  is  an  opportunity  for  us  all  to  join 
forces  and  to  have  a  vote  of  unanimous  sup- 
port with  respect  to  this  particular  resolu- 
tion. I  appeal  to  all  members  of  this  House 
to  associate  themselves  with  the  budgetary 
proposals  put  forward  by  my  colleague  the 
Treasurer,  the  member  for  Muskoka,  and  to 
dissociate  themselves  from  the  negative,  self- 
serving  and  nonproductive  no-confidence 
motion  put  forward  by  the  official  opposition. 

Interjections. 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  Don't  you  think  so, 
Eddie?  Today  is  the  day.  This  is  his  shining 
hour  to  show  us  the  kind  of  independent 
spirit  he  really  is.  Today  is  the  day.  We  will 
even  call  it  Sargent  Day  in  downtown 
Queen's  Park  if  he  will  join  with  us  and 
confirm  our  commitment  collectively  to  the 
future  of  Ontario  and  to  turn  aside  those  who 
have  put  that  future  in  second  place.  Does 
he  not  agree  he  should  support  this? 

The  House  divided  on  Mr.  Peterson's 
amendment,  which  was  negatived  on  the 
following  vote: 

Ayes 
Blundy,  Bolan,  Breithaupt,  Campbell 
Conway,  Cunningham,  Eakins,  Epp,  Gaunt, 
Hall,  Kerrio,  Mancini,  McGuigan,  McKessock, 
Miller,  G.  I.,  Newman,  B.,  Nixon,  O'Neil, 
Peterson,  Reed,  J.,  Reid,  T.  P.,  Riddell,  Roy, 
Ruston,  Sargent,  Smith,  S.,  Stong,  Sweeney, 
Van  Home,  Worton. 

Nays 
Ashe,     Auld,     Baetz,     Belanger,     Bennett, 
Bernier,  Birch,  Bounsall,  Breaugh,  Brunelle, 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5379 


^ 


Bryden,  Cassidy,  Charlton,  Cureatz,  Davis, 
Davidson,  M.,  Davison,  M.  N.,  Di  Santo, 
Drea,  Eaton,  Elgie. 

Germa,  Grande,  Gregory,  Grossman, 
Havrot,  Henderson,  Hennessy,  Hodgson, 
Isaacs,  Johnson,  J.,  Johnston,  R.  F.,  Jones, 
Kerr,  Lane,  Laughren,  Lawlor,  Leluk,  Lupu- 
sella,  MacDonald. 

Mackenzie,  Maeck,  Makarchuk,  Martel, 
McCaffrey,  McCague,  McClellan,  McNeil, 
Miller,  F.  S.,  Mitchell,  Newman,  W.,  Norton, 
Parrott,  Philip,  Pope,  Ramsay,  Rowe,  Scriv- 
ener, Smith. 

iSnow,  Stephenson,  Sterling,  Swart, 
Taylor,  G.,  Taylor,  J.  A.,  Timbrell,  Turner, 
Villeneuve,  Walker,  Warner,  Watson,  Welch, 
Wells,  Wildman,  Williams,  Wiseman,  Yaka- 
busld,  Young. 

Pair:  Edighoffer  and  MacBeth. 

Ayes  30;  nays  78. 

The  House  divided  on  Hon.  F.  S.  Miller's 
main  motion,  which  was  agreed  to  on  the 
same  vote  reversed. 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  declare  the  motion  carried. 
It   is   resolved   that   this   House   approves   in 
general  the  budgetary  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment. 
6:20  p.m. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
of  Ontario  entered  the  chamber  of  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly  and  took  his  seat  on  the 
throne. 

ROYAL  ASSENT 

Hon.  Mr.  Aird:  Pray  be  seated. 

Mr.  Speaker:  May  it  please  Your  Honour, 
the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  province 
has,  at  its  present  sitting  thereof,  passed 
several  bills  to  which  in  the  name  and  on 
behalf  of  the  said  Legislative  Assembly  I 
respectfully  request  Your  Honour's  assent. 

First  Clerk  Assistant:  The  following  are 
the  titles  of  the  bills  to  which  Your  Honour's 
assent  is  prayed: 

Bill  82,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Education 
Act,  1974; 

Bill  118,  An  Act  respecting  the  Registered 
Insurance  Brokers  of  Ontario; 

Bill  167,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Chiropody 
Act; 

Bill  168,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Juries  Act, 
1974; 

Bill  169,  An  Act  to  provide  for  Liability 
for  Injuries  caused  by  Dogs; 

Bill  172,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal 
Affairs  Act; 


Bill  *  177,  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Safe 
Use  of  X-ray  Machines  in  the  Healing  Arts; 

Bill  182,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipality 
of  Metropolitan  Toronto  Act; 

Bill  185,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Assessment 
Act; 

Bill  187,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Retail  Sales 
Tax  Act; 

Bill  188,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Highway 
Traffic  Act; 

Bill  190,  An  Act  respecting  Urban  Trans- 
portation Development  Corporation  Ltd.; 

Bill  192,  An  Act  to  revise  the  Toronto 
Hospitals  Steam  Corporation  Act,  1968-69; 

Bill  193,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Municipal 
Act; 

Bill  199,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Ontario 
Unconditional  Grants  Act,  1975; 

Bill  200,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Regional 
Municipality  of  Peel  Act,  1973; 

Bill  201,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Legislative 
Assembly  Act; 

Bill  204,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Executive 
Council  Act; 

Bill  205,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Denture 
Therapists  Act,  1974; 

Bill  214,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Pension 
Benefits  Act; 

Bill  215,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Wine  Con- 
tent Act,  1976; 

Bill  216,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Farm 
Products  Payments  Act; 

Bill  221,  An  Act  to  amend  the  Mining  Act; 

Bill  Prl8,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Ottawa; 

Bill  Pr36,  An  Act  respecting  the  Town  of 
Midland; 

Bill  Pr41,  An  Act  respecting  the  Institute 
of  Chartered  Secretaries  and  Administrators 
in  Ontario; 

Bill  Pr42,  An  Act  respecting  the  Italian 
Canadian  Benevolent  Corporation  (Toronto 
District); 

Bill  Pr45,  An  Act  respecting  the  Powers  of 
the  Jewish  Family  and  Child  Service  of 
Metropolitan  Toronto; 

Bill  Pr46,  An  Act  respecting  the  Borough 
of  York; 

Bill  Pr48,  An  Act  to  incorporate  Redeem- 
er Reformed  Christian  College; 

Bill  Pr49,  An  Act  to  revive  Gradore  Mines 
Limited; 

Bill  Pr50,  An  Act  respecting  the  City  of 
Kingston; 


5380 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Bill  Pr51,  An  Act  respecting  the  Hamil- 
ton Club; 

Bill  Pr53,  An  Act  to  revive  McColl  Farms 
Limited. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  In  Her  Majesty's 
name,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  doth  assent  to  these  bills. 

Mr.  Speaker:  May  it  please  Your  Honour, 
we,  Her  Majesty's  most  dutiful  and  faithful 
subjects  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the 
province  of  Ontario  in  session  assembled, 
approach  Your  Honour  with  sentiments  of 
unfeigned  devotion  and  loyalty  to  Her 
Majesty's  person  and  government,  and 
humbly  beg  to  present  for  Your  Honour's 
acceptance,  a  bill  entitled  an  Act  granting 
to  Her  Majesty  certain  sums  of  money  for 
the  Public  Service  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
March  31,  1981. 

Clerk  of  the  House:  The  Honourable  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  doth  thank  Her  Maj- 
esty's dutiful  and  loyal  subjects,  accept 
their  benevolence  and  assent  to  this  bill  in 
Her  Majesty's  name. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
was  pleased  to  deliver  the  following  gracious 
speech: 

PROROGATION  SPEECH 

Hon.  Mr.  Aird:  Mr.  Speaker  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislative  Assembly:  It  is  a 
pleasure  to  address  you  at  the  official 
closing  of  the  fourth  session  of  Ontario's  31st 
Parliament  and,  in  so  doing,  to  give  due 
recognition  to  the  work  and  achievements 
of  the  past  nine  months. 

It  has  been  a  period  in  which  govern- 
ment activity  throughout  our  nation  and,  in 
varying  degrees,  the  daily  lives  of  all  Cana- 
dians have  been  centred  on  problems  of 
constitutional  reform.  For  our  part,  as  a 
province,  we  have  been  able  to  demonstrate 
a  fair  measure  of  accord  on  all  sides  of  this 
House,  on  the  basic  convictions  and  prin- 
ciples underlying  the  current  national  de- 
bate. These  convictions,  we  venture  to  sug- 
gest, reflect  the  opinion  and  sentiment  of 
the  vast  majority  of  the  people  of  Ontario. 
The  government  of  Ontario  is  dedicated  to 
pursuing  all  the  means  possible  which  it 
feels  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  a 
harmonious  resolution  of  the  prevailing 
difficult  situation. 

Pendant  toute  cette  session,  les  pro- 
blemes  de  reforme  constitutionnelle  ont  ete 
au  centre  de  l'activite  gouvernementale  dans 
tout  le  pays  et,  a.  des  degres  divers,  de  la 
vie  quotidienne  de  tous  les  Canadiens. 


Dans  la  province,  nous  avons  montre 
pour  notre  part  que  nous  etions  en  grande 
partie  d'accord,  quelle  que  soit  notre  place 
a,  l'assemblee,  sur  les  convictions  et  les  prin- 
cipes  qui  sont  a  la  base  du  debat  national 
actuel.  Nous  pensons  pouvoir  affirmer  que 
ces  convictions  refletent  les  opinions  et  les 
sentiments  de  la  vaste  majorite  des  residents 
de  l'Ontario.  Le  gouvernement  de  l'Ontario 
est  fermement  decide  a  continuer  d'utiliser 
tous  les  moyens  qui  lui  semblent  suscep- 
tibles  de  contribuer  de  facon  positive  a  la 
solution  harmonieuse  de  la  difficile  situation 
actuelle. 

This  Legislature,  in  an  unprecedented 
week-long  debate  on  Confederation  before  the 
Quebec  referendum  last  May,  passed  a  unani- 
mous resolution  on  a  number  of  basic  prin- 
ciples. These  included  support  of  full  nego- 
tiation of  a  new  constitution,  opposition  to 
the  negotiation  of  sovereignty-association, 
and  an  appeal  to  all  Quebeckers  to  join  in 
building  a  national  constitution  for  Canada. 

In  subsequent  weeks  and  months,  with  in- 
creasing manifestations  of  discontent  among 
western  Canadians,  the  scene  may  have 
shifted  somewhat  from  Quebec,  but  in  our 
view,  the  same  principles  apply.  They  remain 
imperative  to  building  the  future  of  our 
nation— a  task  to  which  Ontario  is  fully 
committed. 

The  economic  difficulties  facing  our  prov- 
ince, among  others,  are  in  great  measure 
linked  to  the  larger  national  issues,  in  particu- 
lar as  they  affect  determination  about 
Canada's  energy  future.  Ontario  continues 
to  emphasize  the  need  for  economic  initiatives 
that  derive  from  responsible  leadership  at 
the  national  level  and  which  seek  to  secure 
the  co-operation  of  all  regions  of  Canada. 
Much  remained  lacking  in  this  regard  in  the 
recent  federal  budget. 

As  a  result,  Ontario  last  month  introduced 
its  selective  tax  relief  initiatives  to  give  im- 
mediate stimulus  to  the  province's  economy, 
and  embarked  on  a  realignment  of  programs 
for  industrial  and  economic  development  over 
the  next  five  years.  These  measures  support 
and  enhance  the  provisions  of  the  provincial 
budget  outline,  in  April,  of  the  current  year's 
economic  and  fiscal  program  in  which  pro- 
tection against  tax  increases  was  the  key 
factor. 

Government  assistance  to  industry  has  be- 
come an  increasing  necessity  as  a  means  of 
creating  new  private  sector  jobs  and  protect- 
ing existing  ones  in  a  slow  economy.  This  is 
one  of  the  objectives  of  the  employment  de- 
velopment fund  which  formed  part  of  the 
government's  overall  economic  plan  last  year. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5381 


Since  then,  the  fund,  which  is  now  giving 
way  to  a  more  dynamic  industrial  leadership 
and  development  initiative,  will  have  gener- 
ated more  than  $3.5  billion  in  private  sector 
investments  in  Ontario  industry,  on  the  basis 
of  some  $300  million  in  direct  provincial 
government  aid.  A  potential  19,000  new  jobs 
will  result  from  these  investments. 

The  employment  development  fund  has 
been  the  source  of  vital  assistance,  particu- 
larly to  the  pulp  and  paper  industry,  providing 
incentives  for  investments  in  mill  modern- 
ization, pollution  abatement  and  energy  con- 
servation and  generation.  This  assistance  has 
helped  to  assure  the  long-term  security  of 
20,000  mill  working  and  logging  jobs,  mainly 
in  northern  Ontario. 

The  most  serious  industrial  situation  the 
province  has  faced  this  year  has  arisen  from 
the  crisis  in  the  North  American  automobile 
industry,  which  is  having  to  come  to  grips 
with  the  need  to  adapt  to  meet  energy 
efficiency  and  conservation  demands.  A  key 
role  has  fallen  to  governments  on  both  sides 
of  the  border  to  help  turn  the  industry  around 
and  secure  its  future.  Automobile  and  auto 
parts  manufacturers  alike  project  substantial 
capital  investments  in  Ontario  over  the  next 
few  years  as  these  major  adjustments  are 
made. 

6:30  p.m. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  recognized  that  re- 
search and  development  must  play  a  stronger 
role  than  ever  in  terms  of  automobile  pro- 
duction, as  well  as  for  new  market  oppor- 
tunities. The  Ontario  government  has  ensured 
that  initiatives  to  assist  both  segments  of  the 
industry  have  included  this  factor.  In  May,  the 
province  reached  an  agreement  offering 
Chrysler  Canada  Limited  a  $10  million  grant 
towards  a  research  and  development  facility 
in  Windsor,  and  also  announced  plans  for 
an  auto  parts  technical  centre  at  the  Ontario 
Research  Foundation. 

Significant  employee  protection  measures 
have  been  considered  during  this  session, 
through  a  five-point  program  to  deal  with 
employment  adjustment  problems  arising  from 
manufacturing  plant  closures.  These  additional 
provisions,  covering  such  matters  as  pensions, 
termination  entitlement  and  fringe  benefits, 
are  being  thoroughly  examined  by  members 
of  this  Legislature,  and  the  process  will 
continue  in  the  coming  months. 

Taking  into  account  provisions  for  man- 
power adjustment  committees,  and  the  work 
of  the  new  select  committee  on  plant  shut- 
downs and  employee  adjustment,  an  overall 
assurance    of    fair    treatment   and    assistance 


can  be  developed  for  employees  who  may 
be  faced  with  this  particular  hardship. 

The  Ontario  youth  employment  program, 
begun  in  1977,  was  continued  this  year. 
Through  government  subsidies  of  hourly 
wage  rates  for  employment  in  businesses 
and  on  farms,  some  50,000  jobs  were  created 
for  young  people  between  May  and  October. 

In  the  spring,  the  government  established 
a  $25  million  farm  interest  assistance  pro- 
gram to  help  the  farming  industry,  which 
was  especially  hard  pressed  during  a  period 
of  high  interest  rates,  and  in  the  face  of  a 
need  for  short-term  working  capital  to  main- 
tain production. 

As  well,  legislation  has  since  been  enacted 
under  a  new  Nonresident  Agricultural  Land 
Interests  Registration  Act,  as  a  means  of 
monitoring  agricultural  land  ownership  in 
Ontario  and  to  help  protect  this  vital  indus- 
try. 

Among  the  most  important  plans  of  action 
presented  during  the  session  is  a  compre- 
hensive energy  program,  announced  in  the 
House  on  October  10,  which  forecasts  ex- 
penditure needs  of  $165  million  for  a  num- 
ber of  specific  projects  over  the  next  10 
years,  in  the  drive  to  reduce  our  depend- 
ence on  crude  oil. 

In  recent  years  the  effects  of  steeper  in- 
creases in  energy  costs  have  been  felt  even 
more  in  rural  areas,  where  the  cost  of  elec- 
tric power  is  shared  by  fewer  people  and  is, 
therefore,  much  higher  on  average  than  in 
urban  areas.  The  government  has  made  a 
commitment  to  alleviate  the  burden  on  cus- 
tomers who  pay  excessive  rates  by  establish- 
ing a  system  of  direct  discounts  in  the  next 
fiscal  year,  pending  moves  by  Ontario  Hy- 
dro to  eliminate  the  undue  differential. 

It  remains  a  fundamental  policy  of  the 
government,  and  one  to  which  it  gives  par- 
ticularly high  priority  in  the  existing  eco- 
nomic climate,  to  maintain  the  quality  and 
variety  of  the  many  social  programs  dedi- 
cated to  the  needs  of  all  Ontarians. 

Substantial  increases  in  provincial  assist- 
ance to  senior  citizens  were  introduced  in 
the  Ontario  budget  in  April.  In  implement- 
ing the  higher  benefits,  a  new  program  was 
put  into  effect  which  removes  the  delayed 
payment  of  the  former  tax  credit  system 
and  replaces  it  with  payment  of  direct  grants 
to  offset  property  taxes  and  help  pensioners 
cope  better  with  rising  costs. 

Amendments  to  the  Education  Act  place 
a  legal  responsibility  on  the  publicly  sup- 
ported school  system  for  the  education  of 
all  Ontario  students,  thus  entrenching  in  law 
the  duty  of  school  boards  to  include  appro- 


5382 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


priate  special  education  provisions  and  ser- 
vices for  exceptional  children  in  their  pro- 
grams. The  right  to  operate  schools  for  train- 
able retarded  children  has  been  extended 
to  Roman  Catholic  separate  school  boards. 

A  joint  initiative  relating  to  developmental 
programs  for  mentally  retarded  people  in 
nursing  homes  and  homes  for  special  care 
has  been  launched  by  the  Ministries  of 
Health,  Education  and  Community  and  So- 
cial Services.  The  four-year  project  will  use 
interdisciplinary  assessment  teams  and  sup- 
porting consultative  resources  to  determine 
the  needs  of  some  3,000  clients  on  an  in- 
dividual basis,  to  be  followed  up  by  indi- 
vidual training  and  treatment  plans. 

General  health  expenditures  were  in- 
creased by  approximately  12  per  cent  in  this 
fiscal  year.  Shorter-term  priorities,  such  as 
an  expansion  of  services  in  certain  cate- 
gories of  care,  have  been  provided  for  with- 
in a  framework  of  continued  careful  plan- 
ning for  the  long-term  health  care  needs  of 
the  population. 

The  health  and  safety  workers  in  hazard- 
ous occupations  and  attendant  risks  to  the 
safety  of  the  public  at  large  have  been 
among  the  matters  of  foremost  concern  to 
the  government  throughout  the  session.  A 
royal  commission  was  appointed  in  April 
to  examine  health  and  safety  matters  re- 
lating to  the  use  of  asbestos  in  Ontario. 

A  disturbing  increase  in  the  number  of 
accidents  and  fatalities  in  the  mining  indus- 
try in  the  first  half  of  the  year  led  to  the 
establishment  of  a  joint  federal-provincial 
industrial  inquiry  commission  in  July.  The 
joint  undertaking  makes  possible  the  in- 
vestigation of  the  entire  Ontario  mining 
industry  by  enabling  the  inclusion  of  ura- 
nium mines  which  are  within  the  federal 
government's    jurisdiction. 

In  the  administration  of  government,  on- 
going steps  to  improve  services  to  the  public, 
such  as  the  customer  service  and  regula- 
tory reform  programs  are  being  reinforced 
by    a    third    initiative    of    considerable    im- 


portance. Following  a  three-year  study,  the 
final  report  of  the  Commission  on  Freedom 
of  Information  and  Individual  Privacy  was 
published  this  fall.  An  undertaking  has  since 
been  given  to  this  House  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  legislation  in  response  to  the  report. 
A  number  of  complementary,  nonlegislative 
measures  are  already  being  implemented 
and  policy  guidelines  have  been  issued  to 
civil  servants  in  the  spirit  of  the  recom- 
mendations. 

Major  reforms  comprising,  in  effect,  a  new 
Human  Rights  Code  for  Ontario  have  been 
introduced.  The  revisions  are  the  most  exten- 
sive since  the  code,  the  first  in  Canada,  was 
enacted  18  years  ago.  The  bill  proposes  to 
extend  coverage  against  discrimination  to 
new  groups  or  classes  or  persons.  Protection 
is  also  offered  against  certain  types  of  con- 
duct which  were  not  previously  prohibited. 
Finally,  among  various  administrative  re- 
visions proposed,  the  Human  Rights  Code 
would  be  binding  on  the  crown  and  would 
ultimately  have  primacy  over  all  legislation 
in  Ontario. 

Honourable  members,  the  program  laid 
before  you  at  the  opening  of  the  session  has 
been  put  into  effect.  Your  unstinting  efforts 
in  dealing  with  these  and  other  matters  that 
are  the  responsibility  of  government  speak 
well  of  your  devotion  to  Ontario  and  her 
people. 

In  declaring  this  session  prorogued,  I  wish 
you  all  a  safe  return  to  your  families  and 
friends,  and  the  peace  and  goodwill  of  the 
season. 

In  our  Sovereign's  name,  I  thank  you. 

Hon.  Mr.  Wells:  Mr.  Speaker  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislative  Assembly,  it  is  the 
will  and  pleasure  of  the  Honourable  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  that  the  Legislative 
Assembly  be  prorogued  and  this  Legislative 
Assembly    is    accordingly    prorogued. 

The  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor 
was  pleased  to  retire  from  the  chamber. 

The  House  prorogued  at  6:39  p.m. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5383 


APPENDIX  A 

(See  page  5322) 


HOSPITAL  BEDS 


377.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Health  indicate  the  total  number  of  active 
treatment  beds,  by  individual  county  as  of 
December  1979?  Will  the  minister  table 
the  number  of  active  treatment  bed  addi- 
tions for  1980,  both  opened  and  those  plan- 
ned, and  will  the  minister  table  these 
statistics  specifying  the  individual  hospitals 
who  have  acquired  these  additional  beds? 
Will  the  minister  table  total  number  of 
active  treatment  beds  by  individual  county 
as  of  August  1980?  (Tabled  October  27, 
1980.) 

378.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Health  table  statistics  on  the  following 
chronic  care  facilities?  (a)  Will  the  minister 
indicate  the  number  of  chronic  care  beds 
which  have  been  opened  in  1980,  both  the 
total  and  by  individual  county?  (b)  Will  the 
minister  indicate  the  number  of  chronic  care 
beds  proposed  to  be  opened  for  the  re- 
mainder of  1980,  and  in  the  future,  and 
specifically  the  hospitals  and  chronic  facili- 
ties which  will  receive  each  of  the  proposed 
additions?  (Tabled  October  27,  1980.) 

379.  Mr.  Breaugh:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Health  indicate  the  total  number  of  chronic 
care  beds  in  Ontario  by  county  as  of  De- 
cember 1979?  Will  the  minister  indicate 
what  percentage  of  these  beds  are  located 
in  each  of  active  treatment  hospitals,  nurs- 
ing homes,  or  other  chronic  care  facilities? 
(Tabled  October  227,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell: 


HOSPITAL  AND  EXTENDED 
CARE  BEDS 


1979 

1980 

March  31 

To  date 

Opened  and 
planned 

Number 

number 

of  beds 

of  beds 

Acute 

38,050 

37,634 

Chronic 

10,820 

14,138 

Extended  care 

Nursing  home 

27,847 

29,186 

Home  for  the  i 

aged 

13,026 

13,107 

Total  89,743  94,065 

The  ministry  does  not  maintain  hospital 
statistics  by  individual  county,  therefore  the 
county  breakdown  information  requested  can 
not  be  provided. 


REGIONAL  LIBRARY  BOARDS 

398.  Mr.  Van  Home:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  give  to  the  House  the 
terms  of  reference  of  regional  library  boards 
of  directors,  pointing  out  their  responsibilities 
in  personnel  and  budgetary  matters?  Will  the 
minister  report  on  the  personnel  turnover  in 
the  Lake  Erie  regional  library  system  since 
January  1977,  pointing  out  how  many  em- 
ployees left  on  their  own  resignation  and 
how  many  were  fired?  Also,  does  the  minister 
do  a  regular  audit  of  the  financial  affairs 
of  the  Lake  Erie  regional  library  system? 
(Tabled  November  14,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  The  terms  of  reference  of 
regional  library  boards  are  contained  in  the 
Public  Libraries  Act.  Regional  library  boards 
are  comprised  of  one  member  appointed  by 
each  public  library  board  in  each  municipal- 
ity having  a  population  of  15,000  or  more 
in  the  region  and  one  member  appointed  by 
each  county  library  board  having  jurisdiction 
in  the  region. 

In  the  Lake  Erie  regional  library  system 
there  are  nine  appointments,  three  of  whom 
are  from  Oxford,  Middlesex  and  Elgin  county 
boards  and  three  of  whom  are  from  Wood- 
stock, St.  Thomas  and  London  boards,  the 
other  three  appointments  being  ministerial. 
The  regional  library  system  is  under  the  man- 
agement, regulation  and  control  of  a  board 
which  is  a  corporation  under  the  Public 
Libraries  Act.  The  regional  board  is  respon- 
sible for  the  policy  of  the  regional  system. 
The  board  determines  the  services  that  are 
to  be  provided  to  member  libraries.  It  also 
appoints  a  regional  library  director. 

The  regional  library  director  administers 
the  policy  as  determined  by  the  board.  The 
library  board  provides  a  plan  for  co- 
ordinating and  developing  library  service 
within  the  region  and  submits  a  summary  of 
this  plan  to  the  Ontario  Provincial  Library 
Council,  the  minister's  advisory  body.  The 
director  of  the  regional  system  hires  staff  and 
prepares  a  budget  in  line  with  the  plan 
determined  and  approved  by  the  board. 

In  answer  to  your  question  of  staff  turn- 
over since  January  1977  there  have  been  four 
staff  members  resign  and  one  staff  member 
terminated  by  the  Lake  Erie  regional  library 
board. 

The  board  has  on  October  29,  1980,  signed 
a  collective  agreement  with  the  Canadian 
Union  of  Public  Employees,  Local  217. 


5384 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


The  board  of  the  Lake  Erie  regional 
library  system  sends  an  annual  audited  report 
(auditor  Thorne,  Riddell)  to  the  libraries  and 
community  information  branch,  Ministry  of 
Culture  and  Recreation. 

RADIUM  LEVELS  IN 
DRINKING  WATER 

417.  Mr.  Isaacs:  Will  the  minister  indi- 
cate all  the  scientific  literature  which  was  re- 
viewed as  the  basis  for  the  Ontario  govern- 
ment's initiative  in  raising  the  acceptable 
level  of  radium  in  drinking  water  from  three 
picocuries/litre  to  27  picocuries/litre,  and 
will  the  minister  table  as  well  all  corre- 
spondence with  federal  regulatory  authori- 
ties related  to  this  matter?  (Tabled  Novem- 
ber 26,  1980.) 

See  sessional  paper  337. 

NUCLEAR  FUEL  WASTE 
MANAGEMENT 

421.  Ms.  Gigantes:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Energy  provide  copies  of  the  minutes,  and 
appendices  to  the  minutes,  of  all  meetings  of 
the  Canada/Ontario  Nuclear  Fuel  Waste 
Management  Co-ordinating  Committee,  held 
to  date  in  1980?  (Tabled  November  28, 
1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Welch:  In  accordance  with  the 
practice  on  earlier  requests  for  release  of 
minutes  of  the  co-ordinating  committee  to 
the  select  committee  on  Ontario  Hydro 
Affairs,  the  ministry  has  forwarded  this  re- 
quest to  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  sug- 
gesting that  he  consider  making  available 
the  minutes  of  the  co-ordinating  committee  to 
the  Legislature  through  the  Minister  of 
Energy. 

As  the  next  meeting  of  the  co-ordinating 
committee  will  not  be  held  until  January, 
the  ministry  is  unable  to  provide  the  mem- 
ber with  the  committee's  response  to  the 
question   prior   to    the    end    of    the    current 


MUNICIPAL  ASSESSMENT  REVIEW 

427.  Mr.  Epp:  Would  the  Ministry  of  the 
Attorney  General  provide  figures  as  to  the 
amount  of  assessment  lost  due  to  review 
court  of  appeals  for  1976,  1977,  1978,  1979, 
for  all  the  municipalities  in  Ontario?  Would 
the  ministry  present  the  information  includ- 
ing the  following  figures:  assessment  before 
appeals;  assessment  after  appeals;  assessment 
lost  (gained);  percentage  of  total  assessment 
lost  (gained);  tax  dollars  lost  (gained)  (in- 
cluded in  this  figure  would  be  the  amounts 


from  cities  +  schools  +  county  or  region)? 
Would  the  ministry  give  a  further  breakdown 
of  the  immediately  preceeding  categories 
under  the  following  headings:  residential; 
commercial  and  industrial;  subtotal;  busi- 
ness, total?  (Tabled  December  1,  1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  McMurtry:  The  Ministry  of  the 
Attorney  General  does  not  maintain  records 
which  indicate  assessment  before  appeals  or 
assessment  after  appeals,  increase  or  decrease 
in  assessment  following  appeals,  nor  tax 
dollars  gained  or  lost  through  assessment 
appeals.  I  have  been  advised  by  officials  of 
the  Ministry  of  Revenue  that  neither  are 
such  records  kept  by  them. 

ITALIAN  CANADIAN 
BENEVOLENT  CORPORATION 

432.  Mr.  Di  Santo:  Will  the  Minister  of 
Culture  and  Recreation  give  the  following 
information?  1.  What  was  the  amount  of 
capital  grant  given  to  ICBC  (Italian  Canadian 
Benevolent  Corporation)  for  the  construction 
of  the  Columbus  Centre  at  Dufferin  and  Law- 
rence? 2.  When  was  the  application  presented 
and  when  was  the  grant  given?  3.  Was  there 
any  delay  in  the  conversion  of  the  grant  and 
if  yes  for  what  reason?  (Tabled  December  3, 
1980.) 

Hon.  Mr.  Baetz:  The  total  amount  of  capital 
grants  approved  for  the  Italian  Canadian 
Benevolent  Corporation  is  $4,240,363.  The 
total  amount  of  grants  paid  to  date  is 
$4,073,845.23. 

The  application  was  presented  November 
25,  1977,  and  approval  was  issued  for  the 
cultural  support  capital  program  grant  of 
$500,000  on  August  16,  1978,  and  for  the 
Wintario  capital  grant  of  $3,740,363  on  July 
12,  1979. 

There  was  no  delay  in  the  first  payment  of 
the  grants. 

INTERIM  ANSWERS 

On  question  422  by  Mr.  Dukszta,  Hon. 
Mr.  Baetz  provided  the  following  interim 
answer:  It  will  not  be  possible  to  provide 
a  response  prior  to  the  end  of  the  current 
legislative  session. 

On  question  425  by  Mr.  Ruston,  Hon. 
Mr.  Parrott  provided  the  following  interim 
answer:  It  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  a 
response  prior  to  the  end  of  the  current 
legislative  session. 

On  question  426  by  Mr.  Philip,  Hon.  Mr. 
Bennett  provided  the  following  interim 
answer:  It  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  a 
response  prior  to  the  end  of  the  current 
legislative  session. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5385 


On  questions  428  and  429  by  Mr.  Breaugh, 
and  435,  436,  437,  438,  439  and  440  by 
Mr.  Cassidy,  Hon.  Mr.  Timbrell  provided  the 
following  interim  answer:  It  will  not  be 
possible  to  provide  responses  prior  to  the  end 
of  the  current  legislative  session. 

On  question  431  by  Mr.  Warner,  Hon. 
Mr.  McMurtry  provided  the  following  in- 
terim answer:  It  will  not  be  possible  to  pro- 
vide a  response  prior  to  the  end  of  the  cur- 
rent legislative  session. 

On  question  434  by  Mr.  MacDonald,  Hon. 
Mr.  Henderson  provided  the  following  in- 
terim answer:  It  will  not  be  possible  to  pro- 


vide a  response  prior  to  the  end  of  the  cur- 
rent legislative  session. 

On  question  441  by  Mr.  Philip,  Hon.  Miss 
Stephenson  provided  the  following  interim 
answer:  It  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  a 
response  prior  to  the  end  of  the  current  legis- 
lative session. 

INTERIM  RESPONSE  TO  PETITION 

Re:  petition  presented  to  the  House, 
sessional  paper  331,  Hon.  Mr.  Parrott  pro- 
vided the  following  interim  response:  It  will 
not  be  possible  to  provide  a  response  prior 
to  the  end  of  the  current  legislative  session. 


5386 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


APPENDIX  B* 

ALPHABETICAL  LIST  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE 
LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 

(125  members) 

Fourth  Session  of  the  31st  Parliament 
Lieutenant  Governor:  Hon.  John  B.  Aird,  OC,  QC 
Speaker:  Hon.  John  E.  Stokes  Clerk  of  the  House:  Roderick  Lewis,  QC 


Member 


Constituency 


Party 


Ashe,  G 

Auld,  Hon.  J.  A,  C. 

Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C.  . 

Belanger,  J.  A 

Bennett,  Hon.  C.  ... 
Bernier,  Hon.  L.  ... 

Birch,  Hon.  M 

Blundy,  P 

Bolan,  M 

Bounsall,  E.  J 

Bradley,  J 

Breaugh,  M.  

Breithaupt,  J.  R 

Brunelle,  Hon.  R.  . 
Bryden,  M 

Campbell,  M 

Cassidy,  M 

Charlton,  B 

Conway,  S 

Cooke,  D 

Cunningham,  E 

Cureatz,  S 


Davidson,  M 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G. 

Davison,  M.  N 

Di  Santo,  O 

Drea,  Hon.  F 

Dukszta,  J 


Eakins,  J 

Eaton,  R.  G 

Edighoffer,  H.  (Deputy  Speaker 

and  Chairman)  

Elgie,  Hon.  R.  

Epp,  H 

Foulds,  J.  F 


Gaunt,  M 

Germa,  M.  C 

Gigantes,  E 

Grande,  A 

Gregory,  Hon.  M.  E.  C. 
Grossman,  Hon.  L 

Haggerty,  R 

Hall,  R 


Durham  West 
Leeds  


Ottawa  West 

Prescott  and  Russell 

Ottawa  South 

Kenora  

Scarborough  East  ... 

Sarnia  

Nipissing   

Windsor-Sandwich  . 

St.  Catharines  

Oshawa  

Kitchener  

Cochrane  North  

Beaches- Woodbine 

St.  George  

Ottawa  Centre  

Hamilton  Mountain 

Renfrew  North 

Windsor-Riverside  .. 
Wentworth  North 
Durham  East 


Cambridge  

Brampton  

Hamilton  Centre 

Downsview  

Scarborough  Centre 
Parkdale  


Victoria-Haliburton 
Middlesex  


Perth  

York  East 

Waterloo  North 

Port  Arthur 


Huron-Bruce  

Sudbury  

Carleton  East  

Oakwood  

Mississauga  East 

St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick 


Erie    .... 
Lincoln 


PC 
PC 

PC 

PC 

PC 

PC 

PC 

L 

L 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

L 

PC 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

L 

PC 

NDP 

PC 

NDP 

NDP 

PC 

NDP 

L 
PC 

L 

PC 

L 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

NDP 

NDP 

PC 

PC 

L 
L 


*The  lists  in  this  appendix,  brought  up  to  date  as  necessary,  are  published  in  Hansard  on  the 
first  Friday  of  each  month  and  in  the  first  and  last  issues  of  each  session. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5387 


Member 


Constituency 


Party 


Havrot,  E 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C.  

Hennessy,  M 

Hodgson,  W 

Isaacs,  C 

Johnson,  J 

Johnston,  R.  F 

Jones,  T 

Kennedy,  R.  D 

Kerr,  G.  A 

Kerrio,  V 

Lane,  J 

Laughren,  F. 

Lawlor,  P.  D 

Leluk,  N.  G 

Lupusella,  A 

MacBeth,  J.  P.  (Deputy  Chairman 

and  Acting  Speaker)  

MacDonald,  D.  C 

Mackenzie,  R 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.  

Makarchuk,  M 

Mancini,  R 

Martel,  E.  W 

McCaffrey,  B 

McCague,  Hon.  G 

McClellan,  R 

McEwen,  J.  E 

McGuigan,  J 

McKessock,  R 

McMurtry,  Hon.  R.  

McNeil,  R.  K 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S 

Miller,  G.  I 

Mitchell,  R.  C 

Newman,  B 

Newman  W 

Nixon,  R.  F 

Norton,  Hon.  K.   

CTNeil,  H 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C 

Peterson,  D 

Philip,  E 

Pope,   Hon.    A 

Ramsay,   R.  H 

Reed,  J 

Reid,  T.  P 

Renwick,  J.  A 

Riddell,  J 

Rollins,  C.  T 

Rotenberg,  D 

Rowe,  R.  D 

Roy,  A.  J 

Ruston,  R.  F 


Timiskaming   PC 

Lambton  PC 

Fort  William  PC 

York  North  PC 

Wentworth NDP 

Wellington-Duff erin-Peel  PC 

Scarborough  West NDP 

Mississauga  North  PC 

Mississauga  South PC 

Burlington  South  PC 

Niagara  Falls L 

Algoma-Manitoulin    PC 

Nickel  Belt  NDP 

Lakeshore  NDP 

York  West  PC 

Dovercourt  NDP 

Humber  PC 

York  South  NDP 

Hamilton  East  NDP 

Parry  Sound  PC 

Brantford  NDP 

Essex  South  L 

Sudbury  East  NDP 

Armourdale  PC 

Dufferin-Simcoe  PC 

Bellwoods  NDP 

Frontenac-Addington  L 

Kent-Elgin  L 

Grey  L 

Eglinton  PC 

Elgin  PC 

Muskoka  PC 

Haldimand-Norfolk  L 

Carleton     PC 

Windsor-Walkerville  L 

Durham-York    PC 

Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L 

Kingston  and  the  Islands PC 

Quinte  L 

Oxford  PC 

London  Centre L 

Etobicoke  NDP 

Cochrane  South  PC 

Sault  Ste.  Marie  PC 

Halton-Burlington  L 

Rainy  River  L.  LAB. 

Riverdale  NDP 

Huron-Middlesex  L 

Hastings-Peterborough  PC 

Wilson  Heights  PC 

Northumberland     PC 

Ottawa  East L 

Essex  North  L 


5388 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Member 


Constituency 

Cornwall 

Grey-Bruce 

St.  David 

Simcoe  East 

Hamilton  West  

Oakville  

York  Mills  

Carleton-Grenville    

Lake  Nipigon  

York  Centre 

Welland-Thorold    

Kitchener-Wilmot  

Simcoe  Centre 

Prince  Edward-Lennox  

Don  Mills 

Peterborough  

London  North  

Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry 

London  South  

Scarborough-Ellesmere    

Chatham-Kent    

Brock  

Scarborough  North  

Algoma    

Oriole  

Lanark  

Wellington  South  

Renfrew  South  

Yorkview  

High  Park-Swansea  


Party 


Samis,  G 

Sargent,  E 

Scrivener,  M 

Smith,  G.  E 

Smith,  S 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.  

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.  M. 

Sterling,  N.  W 

Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E 

Stong,  A.   

Swart,  M 

Sweeney,  J 

Taylor,  G 

Taylor,  J.  A 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.  .... 

Turner,  J 

Van  Home,  R 

Villeneuve,  O.  F 

Walker,  Hon.  G 

Warner,  D 

Watson,  A.  N 

Welch,  Hon.  R 

Wells,  Hon.  T.  L 

Wildman,   B 

Williams,  J 

Wiseman,  Hon.  D.  J.  .... 
Worton,  H 

Yakabuski,  P.  J 

Young,  F 

Ziemba,  E 


NDP 

L 

PC 

PC 

L 

PC 

PC 

PC 

NDP 

L 

NDP 

L 

PC 
PC 
PC 
PC 

L 
PC 

PC 

NDP 

PC 

PC 

PC 

NDP 

PC 

PC 

L 

PC 

NDP 

NDP 


DECEMBER  12,  1980  5389 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COUNCIL 

Hon.  W.  G.  Davis  Premier  and  President  of  the  Council 

Hon.  R.  Welch  Minister  of  Energy  and  Deputy  Premier 

Hon.  J.  A.  C.  Auld Minister  of  Natural  Resources 

Hon.  R.  Brunelle  Provincial  Secretary  for  Resources 

Development 

Hon.  T.  L.  Wells  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs 

Hon.  L.  Bernier  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs 

Hon.  J.  W.  Snow  Minister  of  Transportation  and 

Communications 

Hon.  M.  Birch  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development 

Hon.  C.  Bennett Minister  of  Housing 

Hon.  F.  S.  Miller  Treasurer  of  Ontario  and  Minister  of 

Economics 

Hon.  D.  R.  Timbrell  Minister  of  Health 

Hon.  H.  C.  Parrott  Minister  of  the  Environment 

Hon.  B.  M.  Stephenson  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of 

Colleges  and  Universities 

Hon.  R.  McMurtry  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General 

Hon.  L.  C.  Henderson Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food 

Hon.  K.  C.  Norton Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services 

Hon.  F.  Drea  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial 

Relations 

Hon.  L.  Grossman  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism 

Hon.  G.  McCague  Chairman  of  Management  Board  of  Cabinet 

and  Chairman  of  Cabinet 

Hon.  L.  Maeck Minister  of  Revenue 

Hon.  R.  C.  Baetz  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation 

Hon.  D.  J.  Wiseman  Minister  of  Government  Services 

Hon.  R.  Elgie  Minister  of  Labour 

Hon.  G.  Walker  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice  and  Minister 

of  Correctional  Services 

Hon.  M.  E.  C.  Gregory  Minister  without  Portfolio 

Hon.  A.  Pope  Minister  without  Portfolio 

PARLIAMENTARY  ASSISTANTS 

Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Energy 

Eaton,  R.  G.  (Middlesex)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Transportation 

and  Communications 

Hodgson,  W.  (York  North)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Housing 

Jones,  T.  (Mississauga  North)  Assistant  to  the  Provincial  Secretary  for 

Social  Development 

Kennedy,  R.  D.  (Mississauga  South)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Education 

Lane,    J.    (Algoma-Manitoulin)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Northern  Affairs 

McCaffrey,  B.  (Armourdale)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Culture  and 

Recreation 
McNeil,  R.  K.  (Elgin)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Agriculture 

and  Food 

Ramsay,  R.  H.  (Sault  Ste.  Marie)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Labour 

Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Intergovernmental 

Affairs 
Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Industry 

and  Tourism 

Sterling,  N.  W.  (Carleton-Grenville)  Assistant  to  the  Attorney  General 

Turner,  J.  (Peterborough) Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Health 

Watson,  A.  N.  ( Chatham-Kent )   Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Community 

and  Social  Services 
Yakabuski,  P.  J.  (Renfrew  South)  Assistant  to  the  Minister  of  Natural  Resources 


5390 


LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


STANDING  COMMITTEES 


Administration  of  justice:  Chairman:  Philip, 
E.  (Etobicoke  NDP);  Bradley,  J.  (St.  Catha- 
rines L),  Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L), 
Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP), 
Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L),  Hall,  R. 
(Lincoln  L),  Havrot,  E.  (Timiskaming,  PC), 
Kennedy,  R.  D.  (Mississauga  South  PC), 
Kerr,  G.  A.  (Burlington  South  PC),  Makar- 
chuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP),  Mitchell,  R.  C. 
(Carleton  PC),  Sterling,  N.  (Carleton-Gren- 
ville  PC),  Renwick,  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP), 
Rowe,  R.  D.  (Northumberland  PC),  Scriven- 
er, M.  (St.  David  PC),  Swart,  M.  (Welland- 
Thorold  NDP);  Clerk:  Forsyth,  S. 

General  government:  Chairman:  Cureatz,  S. 
(Durham  East  PC);  Vice-Chairman: 
Hodgson,  W.  (York  North  PC);  Ashe,  G. 
(Durham  West  PC),  Charlton,  B.  (Hamilton 
Mountain  NDP),  Dukszta,  J.  (Parkdale  NDP), 
Epp,  H.  (Waterloo  North  L),  Hennessy,  M. 
(Fort  William  PC),  Leluk,  N.  (York  West 
PC),  Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L),  McEwen, 
J.  E.  ( Frontenac-Addington  L),  McGuigan, 
J.  (Kent-Elgin  L),  Mitchell,  R.  C.  (Carleton 
PC),  Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC), 
Samis,  G.  (Cornwall  NDP),  Smith,  G.  E. 
(Simcoe  East  PC);  Clerk:  Nokes,  F. 

Members'  services:  Chairman:  Campbell, 
M.  (St.  George  L);  Vice-Chairman:  New- 
man, B.  ( Windsor- Walkerville  L);  Bryden, 
M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP),  Jones,  T. 
(Mississauga  North  PC),  Smith,  G.  E. 
(Simcoe  East  PC),  Watson,  A.  N.  (Chatham- 
Kent  PC),  Worton,  H.  (Wellington  South  L), 
Young,  F.  (Yorkview  NDP);  Clerk:  Arnott, 
D. 

Procedural  affairs:  Chairman:  Breaugh,  M. 
(Oshawa  NDP);  Vice-Chairman:  Davidson, 
M.  (Cambridge  NDP);  Charlton,  B.  (Ham- 
ilton Mountain  NDP),  Mancini,  R.  (Essex 
South  L),  Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights 
PC),  Rowe,  R.  D.  (Northumberland  PC), 
Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L),  Sterling,  N. 
W.  (Carleton-Grenville  PC);  Clerk:  White,  G. 

Public  accounts:  Chairman:  Reid,  T.  P. 
(Rainy  River  L);  Vice-Chairman:  Hall,  R. 
(Lincoln    L);     Cureatz,     S.     (Durham    East 


PC),  Germa,  M.  C.  (Sudbury  NDP), 
Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP),  Leluk,  N. 
(York  West  PC),  Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford 
NDP),  Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L), 
Ramsay,  R.  H.  (Sault  Ste.  Marie  PC), 
Sargent,  E.  (Grey-Bruce  L),  Taylor,  G. 
(Simcoe  Centre  PC),  Turner,  J.  (Peterbor- 
ough PC);  Clerk:  White,  G. 

Regulations  and  other  statutory  instru- 
ments: Chairman:  Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC); 
Vice-Chairman:  Cureatz,  S.  (Durham  East 
PC);  Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre 
NDP),  Eakins,  J.  (Victoria-Haliburton  L), 
MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP),  Mc- 
Caffrey, B.  (Armourdale  PC),  McKessock,  R. 
(Grey  L),  Rollins,  C.  T.  (Hastings-Peter- 
borough PC);  Clerk:  Forsyth,  S. 

Resources  development:  Chairman:  Ville- 
neuve,  O.  F.  ( Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry 
PC);  Vice-Chairman:  Lane,  J.  (Algoma- 
Manitoulin  PC);  Bryden,  M.  (Beaches- 
Woodbine,  NDP),  Eaton,  R.  G.  (Middlesex 
PC),  Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP),  Johson, 
J.  (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel  PC),  McNeil, 
R.  K.  (Elgin  PC),  Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand- 
Norfolk  L),  Newman,  W.  (Durham-York  PC), 
Reed,  J.  (Halton-Burlington  L),  Riddell,  J.  K. 
(Huron-Middlesex  L),  Taylor,  J.  A.  (Prince 
Edward-Lennox  PC),  Van  Home,  R.  (London 
North  L),  Watson,  A.  (Chatham-Kent  PC), 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP),  Young,  F. 
(Yorkview  NDP);  Clerk:  Richardson,  A. 

Social  development:  Chairman:  Gaunt,  M. 
(Huron-Bruce  L);  Vice-Chairman:  Kerrio,  V. 
(Niagara  Falls  L);  Belanger,  J.  A.  (Prescott 
and  Russell  PC),  Blundy,  P.  (Sarnia  L), 
Davidson,  M.  (Cambridge  NDP),  Jones,  T. 
(Missauga  South  PC),  Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara 
Falls  L),  Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East 
NDP),  O'Neil,  H.  (Quinte  L),  Ramsay, 
R.  H.  (Sault  Ste.  Marie  PC),  Rowe,  R.  D. 
(Northumberland  PC),  Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchen- 
er-Wilmot  L),  Turner,  J.  (Peterborough  PC), 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP), 
Watson,  A.  (Chatham-Kent  PC),  Young,  F. 
Yorkview  NDP);  Clerk:  Arnott,  D. 


DECEMBER  12,  1980 


5391 


SELECT  COMMITTEES 


Company  law:  Chairman:  Breithaupt,  J.  R. 
(Kitchener  L);  Blundy,  P.  (Sarnia  L),  Cun- 
ningham, E.  (Wentworth  North  L),  Germa, 
M.  C.  (Sudbury  NDP),  Hodgson,  W.  (York 
North  PC),  Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP), 
Lawlor,  P.  D.  (Lakeshore  NDP),  MacBeth, 
J.  P.  (Humber  PC),  Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River 
L),  Rollins  C.  T.  (Hastings-Peterborough 
PC),  Rotenberg,  D.  (Wilson  Heights  PC), 
Smith,  G.  E.  (Simcoe  East  PC),  Van  Home, 
R.  (London  North  L),  Yakabuski,  P.  J. 
(Renfrew  South  PC);  Clerk:  Nokes,  F. 

Constitutional  reform:  Chairman:  MacBeth, 
J.  P.  (Humber  PC);  Campbell,  M.  (St. 
George  L),  Di  Santo,  O.  (Downsview  NDP), 
Epp,  H.  A.  (Waterloo  North  L),  Johston, 
R.  F.  (Scarborough  West  NDP),  Leluk,  N. 
G.  (York  West  PC),  McCaffrey,  B.  (Armour- 
dale  PC),  Mitchell,  R.  C.  (Carleton  PC), 
Ramsay,  R.  H.  (Sault  Ste.  Marie  PC), 
Renwick  J.  A.  (Riverdale  NDP),  Samis,  G. 
(Cornwall  NDP),  Stong,  A.  (York  Centre 
L),  Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener-Wilmot  L), 
Taylor,  J.  A.  (Prince  Edward-Lennox  PC), 
Villeneuve,  O.  F.  (Stormont-Dundas-Glen- 
garry  PC);  Clerk:  Forsyth,  S. 

Ombudsman:  Chairman:  Lawlor,  P.  D. 
(Lakeshore  NDP);  Campbell,  M.  (St.  George 
L),  Eakins,  J.  (Victoria^Haliburton  L), 
Havrot,    E.    (Timiskaming   PC),    Isaacs,    C. 


(Wentworth  NDP),  Lane,  J.  ( AlgomaJMani- 
toulin  PC),  McClelland,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP), 
Miller,  G.  I.  ( Haldimand-Norfolk  L),  Taylor, 
J.  A.  (Prince  Edward-Lennox  PC),  Ville- 
neuve, O.  ( Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry  PC); 
Clerk:  White,  G. 

Ontario  Hydro  affairs:  Chairman:  Mac- 
Donald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP);  Vice- 
Chairman:  Foulds,  J.  F.  (Port  Arthur  NDP); 
Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC),  Belanger,  J.  A. 
(Prescott  and  Russell  PC),  Bounsall,  E.  J. 
(Windsor-Sandwich  NDP),  Haggerty,  R. 
(Erie  L),  Hennessy,  M.  (Fort  William  PC), 
Jones,  T.  (Mississauge  North  PC),  Kerrio,  V. 
(Niagara  Falls  L),  Leluk,  N.  (York  West 
PC),  Lupusella,  A.  (Dovercourt  NDP), 
McGuigan,  J.  (Kent-Elgin  L),  McKessock,  R. 
(Grey  L),  Williams,  J.  (Oriole  PC);  Clerk: 
Richardson,  A. 

Plant  shutdowns  and  employee  adjust- 
ment: Chairman:  McCaffrey,  B.  (Armour- 
dale  PC);  Vice-Chairman:  O'Neil,  H.  (Quinte 
L);  Cooke,  D.  (Windsor-Riverside  NDP), 
Cureatz,  S.  (Durham  East  PC),  Mackenzie, 
R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP),  Mancini,  R.  (Essex 
South  L),  Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East 
NDP),  Ramsay,  R.  H.  (Sault  Ste.  Marie 
PC),  Taylor,  G.  (Simcoe  Centre  PC),  Turner, 
J.  (Peterborough  PC),  Van  Home,  R. 
(London  North  L),  Williams,  J.  (Oriole 
PC);  Clerk:  White,  G. 


5392  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


CONTENTS 

Friday,  December  12,  1980 

Forest  fire  report,  statement  by  Mr.  Auld  5303 

Ontario  educational  services  corporation,  statement  by  Miss  Stephenson                5304 

International  year  of  disabled  persons,  statement  by  Mrs.  Birch  5305 

Management  of  nuclear  fuel  waste,  statement  by  Mr.  Welch  5306 

New  committee  system,  statement  by  Mr.  Wells  5308 

Point  of  order  re  use  of  American  dictionaries:  Mr.  Sweeney,  Miss  Stephenson  5308 

Interest  rates,  questions  of  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller:  Mr.  S.  Smith,  Mr.  Laughren,  Mr.  Peterson  5308 

Environmental    assessment,    questions    of    Mr.    Parrott:    Mr.    S.    Smith,    Mr.    Cassidy, 

Mr.  Riddell,  Mr.  Isaacs  5310 

Use  of  asbestos  in  schools,  questions  of  Miss  Stephenson:  Mr.  Cassidy,  Mr.  Mancini, 

Mr.   Bounsall  5312 

Employment  agencies,  questions  of  Mr.  Elgie:  Mr.  Cassidy  5313 

Rape  examinations,  question  of  Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Stong  5314 

Auto  production,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Bounsall,  Mr.  Ruston  5314 

Services  to  mentally  retarded,  questions  of  Mr.  Norton:  Mr.  Blundy,  Mr.  McClellan  5315 

Dioxin  testing,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Isaacs,  Mr.  Gaunt  5316 

SCA  pipeline,  questions  of  Mr.  Parrott:  Mr.  Kerrio,  Mr.  S.  Smith  5317 

Aid  to  pensioners,  questions  of  Mr.  Maeck:  Ms.  Bryden,  Mr.  Peterson  5318 

Ontario  produce,  questions  of  Mr.  Henderson:  Mr.  Riddell  5318 

Food  processing  machinery,  questions  of  Mr.  Grossman:  Mr.  Laughren  5319 

Point  of  order  re  opinion  polls:  Mr.  T.  P.  Reid  5319 

Point  of  privilege  re  supermarket  pricing  systems:  Mr.  Swart,  Mr.  Drea  5319 

Point  of  privilege  re  Rembrandt  homes:  Mrs.  Campbell,  Mr.  Drea  5320 

Point  of  privilege  re  ministry  advertising:  Mr.  Nixon,  Mr.  Grossman  5320 

Report,  standing  committee  on  resources  development:  Mr.  Villeneuve   5320 

Report,  select  committee  on  Ontario  Hydro  affairs:  Mr.  MacDonald  5320 

Motion  re  committee  sitting,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5320 

Business  Corporations  Act,  Bill  229,  Mr.  Drea,  first  reading  5321 

Highway  Traffic  Amendment  Act,  Bill  230,  Mr.  Cunningham,  first  reading  5322 

Tabling  answers  to  questions  398,  421,  427  and  432  on  Notice  Paper:  Mr.  Wells  5322 

Third  readings,  Bills  172,  177,  188,  190,  192,  193,  201,  204,  205,  214,  215,  216  and 

221    5322 


DECEMBER  12,  1980  5393 


City  of  Ottawa  Act,  Bill  Prl8,  third  reading  5322 

Third  reading,  Bill  Pr36  5322 

Concurrence  in  supply, 

Ministry  of  Culture  and  Recreation  5322 

Ministry  of  Energy   5323 

Ministry  of  the   Attorney  General   5323 

Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Communications  5326 

Provincial  Secretariat  for  Justice  5326 

Report,  standing  general  government  committee:  Mr.  Cureatz  5329 
Concurrence  in  supply, 

Ministry  of  the  Solicitor  General  6329 

Ministry  of  Health  5333 

Provincial  Secretariat  for  Social  Development  5334 

Provincial  Secretariat  for  Resources  Development  5337 

Ministry  of  Industry  and  Tourism  5337 

Ministry  of  Community  and  Social  Services  5339 

Ministry  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  5341 

Ministry  of  Natural  Resources  and  supplementaries  5343 

Office  of  the  Ombudsman  and  supplementary  5345 

Ministry  of  Labour  5345 

Ministry  of  Treasury  and  Economics  5354 

Office  of  the  Assembly  (supplementary)  5354 

Office  of  the  Provincial  Auditor  5354 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Food  and  supplementary  5354 

Ministry  of  Housing  5356 

Management  Board  of  Cabinet  5357 

Ministry  of  the  Environment  5357 

Supply  Act,  Bill  231,  Mr.  F.  S.  Miller,  first,  second  and  third  readings  5362 

Motions  re  standing  committees  and  select  committees,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  '5362 

Motion  re  committee  reports,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5364 

Motion  re  committee  substitutions,  Mr.  Wells,  agreed  to  5364 

Budget  debate,  concluded: 

Mr.  Cassidy  5364 

Mr.  S.  Smith  5370 

Mr.  Welch  5374 

Royal  assent  to  certain  bills,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor  5379 


5394  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 

Prorogation  speech,  the  Honourable  the  Lieutenant  Governor   5380 

Prorogation  5382 

Appendix  A:  answers  to  questions  on  Notice  Paper: 

Hospital  beds,  questions  of  Mr.  Timbrell:  Mr.  Breaugh  5383 

Regional  library  boards,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Van  Home  5383 

Radium  levels  in  drinking  water,  question  of  Mr.  Welch:  Mr.  Isaacs  5384 

Nuclear  fuel  waste  management,  question  of  Mr.  Welch:  Ms.  Gigantes  5384 

Municipal  assessment  review,  questions  of  Mr.  McMurtry:  Mr.  Epp  6384 

Italian  Canadian  Benevolent  Corporation,  questions  of  Mr.  Baetz:  Mr.  Di  Santo  5384 

Interim  answers:  Mr.  Baetz,  Mr.  Parrott,  Mr.  Bennett,  Mr.  Timbrell,  Mr.  McMurtry, 

Mr.   Henderson,  Miss  Stephenson  5384 

Interim  response  to  petition:  Mr.  Parrott  5385 

Appendix  B:  Alphabetical  list  of  members  of  the  Legislature  of  Ontario,  members  of 
the  executive  council,  parliamentary  assistants,  and  members  of  standing  com- 
mittees  and  select   committees    5386 


DECEMBER  12,  1980  5395 


SPEAKERS  IN  THIS  ISSUE 


Aird,  Hon.  J.  B.;  Lieutenant  Governor 

Ashe,  G.  (Durham  West  PC) 

Auld,  Hon.  J.  A.  C.;  Minister  of  Natural  Resources  (Leeds  PC) 

Baetz,  Hon.  R.  C.j  Minister  of  Culture  and  Recreation  (Ottawa  West  PC) 

Bennett,  Hon.  C;  Minister  of  Housing  (Ottawa  South  PC) 

Birch,  Hon.  M.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Social  Development  (Scarborough  East  PC) 

Blundy,  P.  (Sarnia  L) 

Bounsall,  E.  J.  (Windsor-Sandwich  NDP) 

Bryden,  M.  (Beaches-Woodbine  NDP) 

Campbell,  M.  (St.  George  L) 

Cassidy,  M.  (Ottawa  Centre  NDP) 

Cunningham,  E.  (Wentworth  North  L) 

Davis,  Hon.  W.  G.;  Premier  (Brampton  PC) 

Davison,  M.  N.  (Hamilton  Centre  NDP) 

Drea,  Hon.  F.;  Minister  of  Consumer  and  Commercial  Relations  (Scarborough  Centre  PC) 

Edighoffer,  H.;  Deputy  Speaker  (Perth  L) 

Elgie,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Labour  (York  East  PC) 

Gaunt,  M.  (Huron-Bruce  L) 

Gregory,  Hon.  M.  E.  C;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Mississauga  East  PC) 

Grossman,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Industry  and  Tourism  (St.  Andrew-St.  Patrick  PC) 

Haggerty,  R.  (Erie  L) 

Henderson,  Hon.  L.  C;  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Food  (Lambton  PC) 

Isaacs,  C.  (Wentworth  NDP) 

Kerrio,  V.  (Niagara  Falls  L) 

Laughren,  F.  (Nickel  Belt  NDP) 

Lawlor,  P.  D.  (Lakeshore  NDP) 

MacBeth,  J.  P.;  Acting  Speaker  (Humber  PC) 

MacDonald,  D.  C.  (York  South  NDP) 

Mackenzie,  R.  (Hamilton  East  NDP) 

Maeck,  Hon.  L.;  Minister  of  Revenue  (Parry  Sound  PC) 

Makarchuk,  M.  (Brantford  NDP) 

Mancini,  R.  (Essex  South  L) 

Martel,  E.  W.  (Sudbury  East  NDP) 

McClellan,  R.  (Bellwoods  NDP) 

Miller,  Hon.  F.  S.;  Treasurer,  Minister  of  Economics  (Muskoka  PC) 

Miller,  G.  I.  (Haldimand-Norfolk  L) 

Newman,  B.  (Windsor- Walkerville  L) 

Newman,  W.  (Durham-York  PC) 

Nixon,  R.  F.  (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk  L) 

Norton,  Hon.  K.;  Minister  of  Community  and  Social  Services  (Kingston  and  the  Islands  PC) 

Parrott,  Hon.  H.  C;  Minister  of  the  Environment  (Oxford  PC) 

Peterson,  D.  (London  Centre  L) 

Pope,  Hon.  A.;  Minister  without  Portfolio  (Cochrane  South  PC) 

Reid,  T.  P.  (Rainy  River  L) 

Riddell,  J.  K.  (Huron-Middlesex  L) 

Rotenberg,  D.  Wilson  Heights  PC) 

Roy,  A.  J.  (Ottawa  East  L) 

Ruston,  R.  F.  (Essex  North  L) 

Smith,  S.;  Leader  of  the  Opposition  (Hamilton  West  L) 

Snow,  Hon.  J.  W.;  Minister  of  Transportation  and  Communications  (Oakville  PC) 

Stephenson,  Hon.  B.;  Minister  of  Education  and  Minister  of  Colleges  and  Universities 

(York  Mills  PC) 
Stokes,  Hon.  J.  E.;  Speaker  (Lake  Nipigon  NDP) 


5396  LEGISLATURE  OF  ONTARIO 


Stong,  A.  (York  Centre  L) 

Swart,  M.  (Welland-Thorold  NDP) 

Sweeney,  J.  (Kitchener- Wilmot  L) 

Taylor,  G.  (Simcoe  Centre  PC) 

Timbrell,  Hon.  D.  R.;  Minister  of  Health  (Don  Mills  PC) 

Walker,  Hon.  G.;  Provincial  Secretary  for  Justice,  Minister  of  Correctional  Services 

(London  South  PC) 
Warner,  D.  (Scarborough-Ellesmere  NDP) 
Welch,  Hon.  R.;  Minister  of  Energy,  Deputy  Premier  (Brock  PC) 
Wells,  Hon.  T.  L.;  Minister  of  Intergovernmental  Affairs  (Scarborough  North  PC) 
Wildman,  B.  (Algoma  NDP) 


JOURNALS  AND  PROCEDURAL  RESEARCH  BRANCH 

DIRECTION  DES  JOURNAUX  ET  DES  RECHERCIffiS  EN  PROCEDURE 

ROOM  1640,  WHITNEY  BLOCK 

QUEEN'S  PARK,  TORONTO,  ON  M7A  1 A2