___ 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