Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill 100, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 100. An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972. I notice that the parliamentary assistant had an amendment to section 1. Would he like to place that first of all?

Mr. Walker moves that section 1 of the bill be deleted and the following sections 2 to 15 be renumbered 1 to 14 respectively.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, why is the minister deleting that? Simply as a matter of information, why are you deleting that?

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): It’s a change since the bill was printed; that’s about all it boils down to. I suspect the Treasurer (Mr. White) felt all his powers were being denuded giving them back to the municipalities and he wanted to keep this one to himself.

Mr. Renwick: I am quite happy with the renumbering. No; obviously, since the bill was presented to the assembly there has been a change in the policy; and I’d like to understand what it’s about.

The explanatory note stated that the purpose of the amendment was to provide that the Minister of Health would represent the government of Ontario in respect of the agreement with the government of Canada referred to in section 3, subsection 1 of the Act. And now apparently, as you say, the Treasurer feels threatened, I guess, that he won’t have enough to do.

Has he clashed head on with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and decided that come hell or high water he is going to be party to that agreement? Is that what the parliamentary assistant is saying to us? And did the parliamentary assistant succumb because you happen to sit for one of the London seats, and the Treasurer sits there, whereas the poor Minister of Health just comes from Muskoka? Is that why? Did you lend your weight to subverting your minister?

Mr. Walker: I was able to levy upon the minister and get him to change this?

Mr. Renwick: What is the reason?

Mr. Walker: I’m really being facetious.

Mr. Renwick: I was, too, but there must be a reason.

Mr. Walker: The change was quite obviously a change of heart on the way through. I think the feeling of the Treasurer was that where dealings are on an intergovernmental basis it would be better if the Treasurer were conducting the negotiations, being the Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It was merely to maintain some consistency which had been overlooked when we made the original change.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I want to make a suggestion for some future consideration, in regard to one of the sections of the bill. It is section 12 on page 6.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 12?

Mr. Renwick: In the interests of efficient dispatch of business, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would take time to comment on each of the sections? There is a series of amendments and the explanatory notes are reasonably clear but there’s much more that needs to be said. I don’t mean to take up a lot of time but I think it is most important that we talk a little bit about what these various amendments carry out. If that’s acceptable, it might be an efficient way to deal with it.

Mr. Walker: One by one?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: On section 2.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if the hon. member wishes me to go through it in total at this point or as we come to each section.

Mr. Renwick: Each section as they come up.

Mr. Chairman: Commence with section 2, then.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, section 2 and section 3 are somewhat related. Section 2 establishes some alterations in the medical review committee. As you know, the medical review committee is made up of representatives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and these people sit in judgment on matters referred to them by the general manager of OHIP; matters such as overpayment and the like.

In this case, it will --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Is there not an ability for someone concerned to go to the medical review committee directly?

Mr. Walker: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Singer: Is there not an ability, for someone who is unhappy with the decision of the general manager, to go to the medical review committee directly?

Mr. Walker: I believe the general manager must refer any matter to the medical review committee about which you’re now making reference. It goes that route and the proper appeal procedure is established, of course.

Formerly, the medical review committee consisted of up to seven physicians. I believe in this case there were, in fact, seven physicians on it, and there were lay people on the board. This will create a medical review committee made up of six members nominated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, presumably physicians, and two members not to be practitioners or physicians to be appointed by the minister. These, of course, would be the lay people.

Part of section 2 relates to the quorum and the fact that the expenses of the MRC will be paid by the ministry.

Section 3 really is somewhat related in that it establishes the practitioner review committee for the other bodies paid under OHIP -- the other bodies being chiropody, chiropractic, dentistry, optometry and osteopathy. In these areas this completes the balance of disciplines paid under OHIP. The practitioner review committee would be established for each of those five bodies, to include two lay people and three of the particular professional body.

It again parallels section 2 by identifying the size of the quorum and the remuneration, expenses.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Singer: On section 2, Mr. Chairman, would the parliamentary assistant not think it reasonable and logical that there should be in the statute some fixed periods when this committee should sit? I had an experience some months ago when I was trying to process a complaint through the various bodies set up by the original statute. And even though the statute had been on the books for some months, I found some difficulty in ascertaining what the procedure was. Eventually the procedure was more or less ascertained by substantial reference to the statute and explanation to the civil servants concerned that this was what the statute said so it had to be done. Then we had trouble in getting the committee to meet because they had never met before.

I just wonder whether there might not be some provision in here that the committee shall meet, say a minimum of three times a year, or four times a year, or on some kind of regular basis. It is all very well to set these things out in statute, but in the event that the people who are on these committees decide not to meet, there is very little that someone who wants their advice and help, or who wants to take advantage of the statutory provisions, can do about it.

I think it might be very salutary if the Legislature did write into this statute at this time some provision to the effect that they shall meet at least three or four times a year; I don’t want to be particularly arbitrary about that.

But it was a great new experiment. In the case I was interested in they had never met before; and they might never meet; and they didn’t know how they would meet, or if anybody could attend, or if they couldn’t attend -- and so on. I wonder if it shouldn’t be tightened up a little bit.

Mr. Walker: On the first point, Mr. Chairman, the medical review committee, as it is now constituted and as it is presently acting, probably meets something like 12 months of the year. It has matters referred to it; it is complaint-oriented, so to speak.

When the general manager of OHIP, Mr. Fetherston, refers a matter to the medical review committee it then goes into action. The first thing it does is review the matter and order investigations. We have so many now referred to the medical review committee that, in fact, they have developed a backlog. But they are going through the process of continuous investigations. They charge the party to do the investigation and that party -- usually accountants and otherwise -- conducts his investigation and then reports back to the medical review committee. From there certain procedures are taken.

But there is no problem on the question of meeting. They are meeting sort of continuously.

Mr. Singer: To allay my fears can you tell me how many times the medical review committee met in the months of June, May, April, and March, 1974?

Mr. Walker: I can’t tell you, but I can request my assistants here to obtain --

Mr. Singer: We could sort of pause for a moment while you get that information.

Mr. Walker: -- to attempt to obtain the information from whomever and I will try to give it to you. It will probably be later on in the bill as we are proceeding through.

Mr. Singer: Yes. If you can’t give us the information now perhaps we should stand down section 2 until you can, because I think this is most important. It is very easy for the parliamentary assistant to say that they meet frequently and regularly and almost constantly, but I would like to know, for the last three months, how many times they have met, how many complaints they have dealt with.

If they are somewhat difficult to pin down to a specific meeting then perhaps we should get to the point where we do write directly into the statute that they shall meet a minimum of -- and my mind is quite open and I am willing to accept the parliamentary assistant’s suggestion -- they should meet X times a month, or every three months, or whatever. But I think it should be there. I think we should tell them that they have to work.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest here is that the bill be proceeded with and I will request one of the people here to contact Mr. Fetherston, who would have this information. If we can reach him, I will convey that information to the member tonight during the clause by clause. If, as a result of the information, an amendment is forthcoming I wouldn’t be averse to reopening section 2 of the bill.

Mr. Singer: We can withhold the passage of the bill in the committee, Mr. Chairman, with what the parliamentary assistant has said, until he can bring us that information. I am not necessarily saying there should be an amendment. But I am a little concerned about it and I would like to know how often they meet.

Mr. Chairman: We can hold it for a while at least, until we get the information for you.

Mr. Singer: Yes. All right. Let’s hold it for a while and see what happens.

Mr. Chairman: That is section 2.

Section 3? Carried? Do we wish an explanation for that?

Mr. Walker: I’ve given it to the members.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, they were together.

Mr. Walker: There are other parts of section 3 that I didn’t touch on.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Don’t bother. It is carried.

Mr. Walker: Sections 5 and 6 -- well I won’t bother, maybe that will be easier.

Mr. Deans: You can’t take a hint, can you?

Mr. Walker: Not quickly enough.

Mr. Chairman: Any comment, question or amendment on a later section of bill?

An hon. member: Section 7.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before 7.

Mr. Singer: What about section 3?

Mr. Walker: We just finished that.

Mr. Singer: I’m sorry if I was being a little lax. Could I ask the member a question? In these practitioner review committees, why is the plan sensible that each of these committees has a majority of members of that particular discipline? Would it not be more logical that they have a majority of members who are not of that particular discipline?

I was very fascinated yesterday, in fact, to hear a gentleman from the College of Physicians and Surgeons explaining the complaints committee related to the college. He was standing in great dignity and beating his breast and saying they had a very good committee, which consisted of three doctors and one lay person. The one lay person, yes, it was true, didn’t have a vote, but the one lay person really had always indicated to them that she agreed with everything they had said. As much respect as I have for Betty Kennedy, who is the one lay person on the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ complaints committee, even she might be a bit overwhelmed by the presence of three doctors who gave her an opinion and said: “Now, Betty, do you agree or don’t you agree?”

If these review committees and complaints committees and so on are going to have the real confidence of the people of Ontario, and since the minister is going to appoint them, what would be wrong in having a majority of people on these committees who are not members of that particular discipline?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, as this particular body sits in judgment of bills, of accounts, of overpayments primarily, and the decision that it renders is then a decision made primarily by its peers; it has the lay numbers there to ensure that the public has an interest and the public’s interest is respected in it. By the same token, the majority, like the medical review committee, being of the profession, so to speak, then peers are sitting in judgment on the question of overpayment. I think that’s not unlike the Law Society. On any overpayments that we may be involved in, our peers render an opinion.

Mr. Singer: Maybe we are around to the time, Mr. Chairman, when we should begin to rethink that. Even the Law Society might do it that way; perhaps even the Law Society could be in error. I think this might be the time right now to consider having members who are independent and dissociated from a particular group. This is the great day when we talk about conflict of interest frequently. A chiropodist -- and that’s sub (1) of the new 5 -- who sits in review of his fellow chiropodist’s bill, might be a little more inclined to say: “Good old Joe, who I went to chiropody college with, is not an unreasonable fellow, and his bill surely isn’t unreasonable,” while a person who is not a chiropodist might want to look at it a little more realistically. It’s the same thing with chiropractors, dentists, optometrists, and osteopaths. If we are going to bring in this new kind of idea about public participation -- I’ve heard the Premier (Mr. Davis) say so many times that this government is the government of the people -- why don’t we trust the people to make this kind of decision? I think it is something the parliamentary assistant should think about a little more thoroughly.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this section stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Walker: I have more faith in the peers and I’m satisfied, if one chiropractor or chiropodist who happened to be a friend of one of the parties submitting an account, the other four people, two of whom would be lay and two of whom would be in the profession, would ensure that the rights of the public are protected.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this section stand as part of the bill?

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments on a later section of the bill?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Section 7.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland South.

On section 7:

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit concerned about this section.

The explanatory note reads:

“Section 24(1)(c) of the Act requires the general manager to serve notice on a claimant where the general manager reduces the amount claimed for payment for an insured service. The amended clause will only require notice that a claim is reduced where the claim is reduced to an amount less than the amount payable by the plan.”

Mr. Chairman, I happen to represent an area that is pretty close to the American border and our neighbours to the south. In a number of cases, persons in my area have to go to the major hospitals in Buffalo for medical treatment. They are sent there by their local family physician or doctor for special treatment. There is a problem, however, in that the Ontario Health Insurance Plan only covers a certain percentage of the fee that is charged in the United States. In some cases, quite a bit is left owing, and the person himself has to pay the additional cost.

I can recall an instance where a young family man was in Buffalo and had a heart attack on the city’s main street, I believe. He was rushed to one of the major hospitals there for heart surgery. I believe the hospital bill alone was close to $12,000. There was quite a bit of communication between myself and the Minister of Health about that particular bill, and it was finally paid. But now the person is confronted with the doctor’s bill, which I believe amounts to about $1,300 or $1,400. He is faced with paying this large bill, which has just come in now, almost a year after the surgery. I have a letter off to one of the minister’s staff in the hope that he will give consideration to the payment of this charge.

There are a number of Ontario people who travel down to the United States, particularly in the winter months, and who sometime require special medical services in places like Florida. If they do, they sometimes are left with a large bill to be paid for the medical services rendered there.

I know people can go out and buy special coverage -- I believe Blue Cross has special premiums that cover this -- but surely it should come under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. A person shouldn’t have to pick up this extra charge that is required in the United States. It’s a misfortune if a person does become sick in the United States, and I believe it is a responsibility of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan to pay the bill in full.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the merits of the point, of course, relate to other sections of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and not particularly to this one. This section speaks only of the type of notice that would be required where the general manager reduces or limits the amount to be paid to a figure something less than is provided in the OHIP schedule.

For instance, if a bill from the United States was $5,000 and the maximum tariffable payment was $1,000 for the same matter, and if OHIP intended to render an account of moneys for $800, then in that case proper notice would have to be served upon the individual.

The points about which the member makes reference may well have some merit but, of course, they don’t relate to this particular section.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 7 stand as part of the bill?

Section 7 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything on a later section?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Section 8.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East.

On section 8:

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I’m a bit concerned about the import of section 8, and I would like to make the following comments to the parliamentary assistant.

This section deals with overpayments and such, but it seems to me that we have been discussing in this House, at least since 1971, some methods of keeping an eye on the question of overpayment, or the payment made to doctors.

One of the first things that the ministry should be doing -- in fact we discussed this situation when the member for Carleton East (Mr. Lawrence) was Minister of Health -- why wouldn’t all the people insured under the plan have a card; and when billings are made and when doctors provide services, then the patient gets a copy?

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that would be one of the first things that would at least reduce the incentive for doctors to be submitting claims when services have not been performed.

I would like to an answer from the parliamentary assistant as to why this system has not been functioning. As I understand it, isn’t that the way it operates presently in Quebec? You work on the basis of a credit card. Every time a service is performed, the patient receives a copy showing this.

It seems to us that is a practical way of doing things. The way it is now, the doctor is billing through the plan, and very often the patient doesn’t know this -- there is no check on this. In this way, you could enlist the services of the general public of this province to keep an eye on this.

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that I feel it is a very small minority of the profession who might be abusing it. But even the president of the profession mentioned this in his address here in Toronto last week; that there are some doctors that are gouging the plan. Unfortunately, these few doctors are giving the profession a bad reputation.

I wonder why this system has not been enacted yet in this province? That is the first question I have; and perhaps the parliamentary assistant might respond to that,

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, in responding, I must say that the card is being very actively considered within the ministry. Some of the considerations relate to some of the drawbacks. There are some significant costs to installing a credit card system for every person in Ontario who has OHIP. We have given very serious consideration to that. There is an additional cost for some kind of machine in every doctor’s office in Ontario.

Mr. Roy: Oh yes, but what is $5?

Mr. Walker: I have never seen a $5 machine. I think at least we are talking in excess of $25, and probably something higher than that for every doctor’s office.

Mr. Roy: Get together with Gulf Oil or some other oil people among your friends.

Mr. Walker: We’ll borrow the Gulf Oil card.

Another consideration is, do you have the person sign? Would you have the person sign?

Mr. Roy: Why not?

Mr. Walker: One of the problems is that many of the services are given to people who are incapable of signing. For example, many are in beds and the services are rendered, perhaps while they are not even awake. They are in hospitals, or they are otherwise incapacitated.

These are some of the considerations that have been looked at. I generally tend to think that a card would be a preferential thing. However, these other considerations do weigh somewhat heavily.

Nevertheless, all those comments do not relate at all to this section, particularly 8(2). This section is our means of getting at doctors who do not use OHIP -- who have opted out. This is the opting out section. And of course a card would be useless in that case, because they don’t participate in OHIP. This is the opting out section; it allows us the opportunity to recover through civil process, going to the courts.

Mr. Roy: Do you mean this section applies only to those doctors who are opting out?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Mr. Roy: What are you trying to recover?

Mr. Walker: Overpayment.

Mr. Roy: Overpayment to whom?

Mr. Deans: That doesn’t really make much sense.

Mr. Roy: I don’t quite understand it.

Mr. Walker: We would not be able to recover from people who do not have an ongoing account, as is now the situation. Where there is no ongoing account with them, we then could not make a deduction from the account for any overpayment purpose. This allows us the process of going to court to recover that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why couldn’t they go to court anyway?

Mr. Roy: That’s what I don’t understand. Why couldn’t you go to court anyway. As I understand it, the patient pays directly to doctors who are not in the plan, and then the patient is the one who submits the bill to OHIP?

Now, we are talking about an overpayment to whom, exactly?

Mr. Walker: This will be for overpayment for charges made when the doctor gives an account to a patient and the patient then submits the account to OHIP. The overpayment is made to the patient who then sends on the money to the doctor. In that case, the recovery becomes very difficult as we do not have the running accounts from which we can make the deduction.

Mr. Roy: I see.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 8 carry?

Mr. Deans: No; I just have one question to ask. I suppose it is not directly related. It may well be and you can correct me if I am wrong. There was a recent case in the newspaper with regard to a doctor who had seen some extremely large number of patients --

Mr. Roy: He claimed for 155 patients in one day.

Mr. Deans: -- during a number of different days in two or three different months and it bothered me. It bothered me not that he had claimed to have seen the patients because it is entirely possible he did see the patients although it may be very difficult to imagine.

Mr. Renwick: The member for Ottawa East in his legal practice sees more than that doctor.

Mr. Deans: I will tell you what bothered me about it.

Mr. Roy: I’ve never seen more than 125.

Mr. Deans: If a person in the Province of Ontario were to steal something -- it wouldn’t matter what it was -- if they were to steal anything; if they go into a store and steal a loaf of bread or they go out and steal something, they get dragged into court and they get 30 days or whatever and $100 fine.

I had a case about a year and a half ago when a lady, on a first offence, stole some meat during the month of December. She got 10 days or $100 but she had two small kids and there was no way she could go to jail. We had a lot of trouble getting the fine put together to pay for it. That woman was treated pretty harshly by the courts.

I want to know what you do with a doctor who is obviously stealing from the system? He is making claims for services which really couldn’t be rendered and it’s obvious they couldn’t be rendered. If they were being rendered, it would have to be an inadequate service in order to have done it. I read in that one case, for example, there were two or three well-baby examinations, a couple of general physicals and all kinds of things which were supposed to have done, yet he was able to see all these patients in a given day.

When are we going to start treating those people the same way we treated that woman who stole the meat in the store? Maybe even a little differently; maybe more harshly because there is no need for stealing at that end. There may well have been need in the case of the woman. When are we going to start treating those people that way, making it plain to physicians, in fact to all kinds of people, that we are just not going to tolerate this abusing of a system which is intended to help them and help patients?

This is a great benefit to a lot of doctors, this system. It cuts down on overhead. It cuts down on problems of collection. It provides them with a substantial income from people they might not have been able to collect from. For them to go ahead beyond that and virtually to steal money out of the public Treasury, I can’t feel very badly for them.

I feel badly for the public purse and for the Ministry of Health. What are you going to do? There are more and more doctors being examined; their accounts are being examined. More and more of them in this day and age are being reviewed to determine what they are doing in regard to services being rendered.

What is the Ministry of Health going to do? Are they going to lay charges against this fellow who, a couple of weeks ago, stole from that system? Are they going to take him to court and have him convicted of theft? Are you going to try to do that? When you find somebody stealing like that, is he going to be treated the same as everybody else with 30 days and a $1,000 or something? Will you tell me what you are going to do about it?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the member raises a very good point. I do not wish to comment directly on the case he has raised or as to whether charges will be laid in that particular case. However, I will tell the member that an individual who finds himself perhaps in a fraudulent situation suffers from three particular penalties. One, which he’s likely to appreciate, is having his privileges withdrawn by the college involved. In the reference you have made, if I recall the newspaper story, this individual was suspended for six months. The period was delayed pending the appeal -- or at least the immediacy of the suspension was delayed pending the appeal and if the appeal falters, I presume, of course, the suspension will go on.

Mr. Roy: The sentence was suspended, if I recall the case.

Mr. Walker: No, suspended pending the appeal. I read that quite carefully.

The other penalties, if we can call them that, available to the individual are certainly the recovery of the overpayment; that’s a penalty and that’s appropriate justice of course. The third one is that all of these matters are referred to the police and to the Attorney General and charges for fraud, presumably, or other charges, if there are others, would be laid against the individual, if in the opinion of the Crown officers it is warranted, but these are in fact referred. I can tell the member right now that there is one matter actually being prosecuted, to which he made reference but not related to the individual case he brought up. Others are under a great deal of investigation by the police.

Mr. Roy: I just wish to comment briefly, Mr. Chairman, on the point raised by the parliamentary assistant and by the member for Wentworth.

I quite appreciate that prosecution of doctors for the type of scheme that the member was referring to are extremely difficult. I have had discussions with a number of Crown attorneys and I appreciate that it is extremely difficult. I intend to raise the question in the Health Disciplines Act when we get into the discipline thing. It appears to me, by and large, that the discipline afforded in relation to overpayment and this type of thing or to outright fraud has not been stiff enough. It seems to me there is a false sense of priorities.

Possibly I have got this thing all wrong, but this article appeared about a doctor who had seen 155 patients. I would think that someone seeing that many patients and performing other services would not be rendering much service to any patient. When you are cranking out people at that rate, surely you can’t be spending any time with them. It is questionable whether any patients are getting benefit.

This doctor had a penalty that was suspended, and we don’t know what the penalty is. In the same newspaper on the same day there was a doctor who was found guilty of having sexual intercourse with a patient. This doctor had his licence suspended. I just wonder which of the two was the worse. Which is the more severe, a guy who abuses 155 patients or a doctor who takes advantage of one patient?

There is something wrong in the system maybe. I know it is one of the cardinal sins of that profession to take advantage of a patient -- that is traditional -- but on the other hand it seems to me there is something lacking when you get that type of result from similar cases.

Sections 8 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 2 has been momentarily held over. Is there any comment on that?

Mr. Walker: The member for Downsview is not here. I had hoped he would be in in time for these remarks. I am told the medical review committee meets every two to three weeks, and during the interim periods reviews much of the background material provided by its secretariat.

Section 2 agreed to.

Bill 100, as amended, reported.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

House in committee on Bill 101, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there comments, questions or amendments, and if so, on which section?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, we made certain comments on second reading, and possibly the questions I have are on the latter part of the bill dealing with the immunity from action of these inspectors acting in good faith. We said if the provincial inspectors had immunity from action, we feel that inspectors for local boards should have the same immunity.

I would just like to ask the parliamentary assistant, Mr. Chairman, whether he has any. His explanation this morning -- I did not want to say it to you publicly -- I thought was somewhat weak, and I apologize for being so direct.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): You can say it now.

Mr. Roy: You are not proposing any amendments, are you? There were more people here this morning and I didn’t want to take advantage of the situation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments?

An hon. member: That is in a later section, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Later than what? We haven’t called a section. This is just a --

Mr. Laughren: Pull yourself together.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale. Which section?

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): The same section as --

Mr. Chairman: That is a later section. Does the hon. parliamentary assistant have a --

Mr. Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is in my desk. I think the section --

Mr. Roy: I think it’s section 11, isn’t it? Isn’t that the section we are interested in? Section 11?

Mr. Dukszta: I am interested in section 2 just to get another answer from the parliamentary assistant on the question of immunity. That really comes by extension from section 2 if you apply it to the board. It’s the same question I raised this morning.

I got some funny answer from you in the morning; and also later when we were talking outside. I wonder if you could give us a legal reason why immunity could not be extended to the members of the board?

I will give you an example why it is really essential. Abatement orders were issued against Toronto Refiners & Smelters on May 24; now the board has been taken to court on grounds of bias. But if the board was independent or was protected from this type of thing, they could proceed more straightforwardly with their work. In this way, I think the boards, specifically the board in Toronto, are hamstrung entirely in their actions.

I wonder if you could comment on it.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, are we up to section 11?

Mr. Chairman: I think the question was on section 2, was it not?

Mr. Dukszta: It’s under section 2? Well I stand corrected.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the member’s point is well taken. It’s actually section 2, subsection 2c, where we talk about immunity at the provincial level. That is the section. Yes, subsection 2c. This is at the bottom of page 2 of the bill.

The member’s point, I take it, is that if we are going to give immunity, it should be given in that section.

Mr. Dukszta: Yes, by extension to the board. That is why I want to discuss it now.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, allow me to comment on the immunity question. There is some inferential reference to it, certainly, in section 2 of the Act; but it does specifically fall within section 11 of the Act. However, there were two questions raised; one relates to the immunity of the inspector, raised by the member for Ottawa East, and the other to the immunity of the board member, raised by the member for Parkdale.

In the question of immunity for the local inspector or the inspector working for the local board of health, as I indicated this morning to extend the immunity to a body other than a person reporting directly to the province is an extension of precedent that I don’t think we should proceed along.

It may be subject to very careful review over the next year or so, but to go that route means there would then be no liability for the local inspector. To whom would the public then look for redress? Well they couldn’t look to the board, because the member for Parkdale would have it removed from the board as well. So, in fact, the public would have no redress other than for some type of gross negligence.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): They could estreat the board, the same as the province estreats --

Mr. Walker: We in the province have retained our responsibility by indicating in section 2 on page 3, subsection 2, that we would retain our liability and not be relieved at all for any tort committed by an agent or servant of the Crown who would otherwise be subject. The Crown is liable under the Proceedings against the Crown Act for any such tort in a like manner as if subsection 1 had not been enacted.

On the other hand, if you eliminate the liability for the local inspector of the local board of health, presumably he might have some redress against the directors of the local board. However, the local boards have never indicated that they’re prepared to accept that responsibility. We in the province have said we would accept the liability for tort.

The local boards of health have not accepted that. If they came to us and indicated they were prepared to accept it, that might be another question, but we would be imposing an obligation upon them, a liability, and we would be rightly criticized for so doing.

If we went as far as what the member for Parkdale indicates, in addition to what the member for Ottawa East suggests, we would eliminate the liability on the board. The board being not liable, the local inspector being not liable, who would be liable for a tort? There would be no one liable for tort and the public would not have proper redress.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, what you’re trying to do in subsection 2(c) -- you’re not saying an inspector is not liable or cannot be sued for a tort. You are saying that he cannot be sued for a tort or for any action which is done in good faith. If an action is done in good faith, it’s a defence for the inspector and it’s a defence for the Crown. If it’s not done in good faith, and it is a tort, it is not a defence for the inspector and it is not a defence for the Crown. That is basically what this bill says, as I read it. You could have the same thing for the local board -- that it is immune to any action for any act done in good faith. But, if it’s a tort, he is responsible and the municipality is responsible; his employer is responsible.

The way I read your argument is that subsection 2 on page 3 makes the Crown liable. It does not make the Crown liable for any act of the inspector when he acted in good faith. It makes the Crown responsible for a tort, as I read it. That says “if it’s not done in good faith.”

I don’t get your point at all. The Crown only takes responsibility for a tort and we’re not trying to ask you to put in legislation to remove all responsibility. All we’re saying, basically, is make certain people immune from responsibility for acts done in good faith.

That’s the way I read it.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, on this point, does it not seem somewhat inconsistent in view of the fact that the inspection done, say under part 6 of the Environmental Protection Act -- the inspection of the installation of private sewage systems -- is done by local boards of health inspectors in areas where the province has made an agreement with the local board of health? Where the Minister of the Environment has made an agreement with the local board of health, it’s the local board of health inspectors who are doing the inspection under part 6 of the Environmental Protection Act.

In otter areas, where the inspectors are doing it under the Minister of the Environment -- doing the same job where they have retained that and haven’t turned it over to the local boards of health -- we included this protection in an Act about two weeks ago under the Minister of the Environment, for provincial inspectors. Here you have two inspectors doing exactly the same job, the same person; except the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Newman) has farmed it out to the local boards of health by agreements which usually run about three years.

Does it not appear somewhat inconsistent that one should be excluded from liability and the liability is taken by the Crown, yet the other inspectors who have taken over the job, with an agreement from the Ministry of the Environment, are not given that exemption?

Mr. Walker: I don’t think I follow that. Is the member saying that in the Ministry of the Environment, where there are local inspectors reporting to a local board of health, the liability is assumed by the Crown?

Mr. Good: No, it isn’t; that’s in your bill.

Mr. Walker: Then at last we are consistent with what the environment people are doing.

There’s no lack of consistency there.

Mr. Good: But when their inspectors do the same job in areas where they don’t have an agreement with the local board of health, we put this into that bill two weeks ago.

Mr. Walker: Then that’s consistent.

Mr. Good: But there are two people doing the same job and one is protected and the other isn’t.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Dukszta: Let me go over that point again. The Toronto Refiners & Smelters brought this motion at the divisional court against the board of health in Toronto, alleging bias against the three members of the board. Would you agree that this is a direct interference, if you like, by way of negating the work of the board, which they were doing in terms of the possible lead poisoning in the area, because they have no immunity here? Because they have no immunity the smelters could bring this motion and paralyse the action of the board; and at the same time by alleging that this is a bias, well if they were not elected officials, who are not particularly frightened by this sort of thing, it would frighten most of the members of the board. Consequently, it’s a paralysis of die action of the board. If you offer immunity to the members of the board this probably would not occur and they would continue doing the function which they are constituted to do without any fear.

Do I make a point here?

Mr. Walker: You make a point, but I am very concerned about immunity being given to bodies other than those directly within the control of the province.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this section carry?

The hon. member for Ottawa East has an amendment to some section?

Mr. Roy: No, not to this bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Oh I see. Any further comments, questions or amendments to this section?

Mr. Renwick: Section 11,

Mr. Chairman: Section 11. Anything before 11? All right, the member for Riverdale.

Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Renwick: I’d just like to ask the parliamentary assistant why in section 11 he doesn’t extend that authority to the local board as well as to the medical officer of health of the municipality. And, in order to make my point perfectly clear, I have an amendment.

Mr. Renwick moves that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding the words, “or the local board” after the word “health” in the first line of subsection 1 of section 87 of the Act.

Mr. Renwick: So the first line would then read: “The medical officer of health or the local board of a municipality or any inspector or other person in the employ of the local board acting under his instructions may enter any premises....”

Mr. Chairman: Any comment on this?

Mr. Roy: While the parliamentary assistant is reviewing this, Mr. Chairman, possibly I could make a few comments.

As I understand local boards, these are ratepayers who are named to the board. Is the member for Riverdale saying that he would suggest that these people on that board may enter premises in a municipality as inspectors -- may enter any premises at all reasonable times? Isn’t the function of the board really something supervisory and isn’t it the job of the medical officer of health and inspectors, to go out and do the work? I mean, I just don’t quite understand. Maybe the member for Riverdale can explain. Would he have the board enter --

Mr. Renwick: What I am trying to say is that the local board on occasion, as has happened in the city of Toronto, seems to be having difficulty between itself and the medical officer of health. It would appear to me in a situation such as has developed in Toronto that the local board itself should be able to go and take the action set out in section 87, including the making of the order that the premises be closed. If we leave it entirely with the medical officer of health, who is appointed by the province, you have this conflict between the local board whose job it is to make certain that the health standards of the community are maintained.

Mr. Roy: I thought the MOH was an employee of the board.

Mr. Good: He’s hired by the board. He’s not appointed by the province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Any comment?

Those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

Mr. Renwick: Is the parliamentary assistant not saying anything?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): No, he doesn’t know anything.

Mr. Walker: I thought I’d get away with that.

I tend to think, Mr. Chairman, that as the member for Ottawa East has suggested, the local board is of course the non-professional part of the operation. They’re usually individuals who are not trained in the field of health in the sense that an MOH, of course, would be.

It seems to me that it would be more appropriate for the medical officer of health or his employees to enter upon the premises and make the professional judgment that would be required in matters of cleanliness, sterilization or other matters that might relate entirely to health problems.

We are dealing here, of course, with health problems. I think of a dairy; I can see the local board of health members, who might be a gasoline station operator or other lay people, walking in and not being able to render a very proficient judgment on the basis of what they might see in any particular establishment.

The purpose of the board of health is to sit in judgment on the professional evidence tendered to it. I really think there would tend to be a lack of professionalism about the evidence that might be coming forward for a variety of other reasons. But truly, if they’re to sit in judgment on matters of health, they should have the professional advice before them and see it with a properly open mind.

Mr. Renwick: I raised the question and I recognize that the drafting of that amendment, in order to make the point, may leave something to be desired.

What I’m endeavouring to say is that the local board should be able to instruct the medical officer of health or members of the medical of health officer’s staff to go and make an inspection and to submit a report to the local board, on the basis of which the local board could make the order with respect to the rectification of whatever the dangerous situation was.

If I understand the problem, and my colleague from Parkdale would have a clearer appreciation of the nature of the problem, the problem at the moment is that for practical purposes the local board of health can’t instruct the medical officer of health to do anything, because the medical officer of health is appointed by the provincial government and the local board is a representative body of citizens.

I think that we have to accept the nature of our system is such that a local board is of necessity going to be a lay body or an amateur body, just the same as we’re amateurs here. But we also have to give them credit for being able to accept advice, to give instructions and to deal with a situation where there may be some reluctance, as there obviously has been on the part of the medical officer of health of the city of Toronto to really deal with the question of lead pollution in the areas of the Canada Metal plant and the Toronto Refiners and Smelters plant.

Mr. Walker: I agree entirely with what the hon. member is saying. If this is the interpretation of his amendment, I don’t feel that the amendment achieves that purpose.

Mr. Renwick: I admit that.

Mr. Walker: That being the case, let me say that the situation that you suggest as being appropriate -- in other words, that the MOH be directed -- will now come to pass, as the MOH becomes the employee of the board. The MOH is removed from the board by this particular section. At one point in time he was an equal officer with whatever number of members were on the board that existed.

Following passage of this bill, if the Legislature so grants, it will remove the MOH from the board; therefore, he becomes an employee of the board. In fact, the case in Toronto, it is my understanding -- I stand to be corrected on this, but it is what I think to be a very valid understanding -- is that the MOH is appointed from or by the city. In this case the recommendation will now start to come from the board of health as to who the MOH should be or the decision of hiring and firing. The MOH is there really, now, with this bill, to execute the will of the board.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on one point; I take it what the parliamentary assistant is saying is that he would be prepared to accept an amendment which would provide that on receiving the report of the medical officer of health, the inspector or whoever makes the inspection, that then it is the local board that can issue the order with respect to the closing of the plant. I don’t see that this section as presently drafted, or with my amendment, accomplishes that purpose.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask you about this point? It has been anomalous that an employee, as you call the medical officer of health that, is able to defy any order or ruling by the board. And when I look at this, you are now assuring me that he becomes an employee of the board. That is to say, I assume he has to obey what the board tells him. I am not a lawyer, but as I look through this Act I don’t see in which section you say this is going to be accomplished.

The inspectors are surely different from a medical officer of health. In the very first line it says: “The medical officer of health of a municipality or any inspector or other person.” To which section are you referring which makes it so doubly sure that he now becomes an employee?

Mr. Roy: Just to support the member for Parkdale, I heard you say that this morning when we were discussing this bill. I glanced at it as well, and I don’t see anything like that in the bill. I can see that the medical officer of health is not on the board. That is obvious from section 4, because we say who is going to be on the board.

But there is nothing in this legislation that I have seen -- and maybe I have missed it as well -- which establishes a sort of servant role for the medical officer of health; that he has to follow instructions once they are given to him by the local board of health. I really don’t see where that is the situation in this legislation. Is the medical officer of health not appointed by the province?

Mr. Walker: No, not by the province. He is appointed under the Act, but not by the province.

Mr. Good: By the municipality.

Mr. Walker: He is appointed by the municipality.

Mr. Roy: Why is it, then, in section 5, that the medical officer of health ceases to hold office at 65 years of age, but the municipal council may retain him on a year-to-year basis after that, with the approval of the minister? The minister has to approve if he is over 65, then?

Mr. Walker: He is appointed by the municipality.

Mr. Roy: In any event, where is it in the legislation that says he has to follow instructions from the board of health; he is a servant? I don’t see anything --

Mr. Walker: It is just inconceivable to think that he would not now follow the instructions of the board of health. The Public Health Act, chapter 337, section 1(k), describes a medical officer of health.

Mr. Dukszta: Which section? I am sorry.

Mr. Walker: Section 1(k) of the Act-the medical officer of health of the municipality or of a health unit appointed under the Act. The Act is used as a basis to appoint the individual, to give the MOH the appropriate powers, and so on. But he is the employee of the municipality; the employee of the board of health.

Mr. Haggerty: He is not appointed by the municipality any more.

Mr. Walker: Pardon?

Mr. Haggerty: He is not appointed by the municipality any more.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the department does not refer to the municipality, but refers to the Ministry of Health. That is in the Act itself. He is appointed by the minister, indirectly or otherwise; but he is not appointed by the municipality. Unless you specify in the Act that he should be directly responsible to the board, the same condition will continue in which the medical officer of health is not responsible to the local board and acts as an independent satrap.

An hon. member: A good point.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) is looking for a job, you know.

Mr. Walker: I have long ears. Section 41 of the Act --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Walker: Section 41, the medical officer of health is the executive officer of the local board, and with the local board is responsible for carrying out this Act and the regulations under the public health or sanitary bylaws of the municipality. Very clearly, he is set out as the executive officer of the local board. He is the employee of the local board.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what is not clear.

Mr. Walker: We are eliminating his so-called status as a board member by this particular Act. He therefore reverts to being definitely an employee rather than being both an employee and a board member. There is no question he is an employee, and with respect to the city of Toronto he is appointed by Toronto.

Mr. Renwick: Could I ask just one question? Can the local board make the order that the premises be closed and remain closed until the condition no longer exists in or about the premises? I take it from the reading of the Act that the local board cannot make that order.

Mr. Walker: I think probably the member is correct that the board itself cannot do a closing and that it requires the MOH to make the decision. However, it is inconceivable that he would disagree with the board as the situation now stands. His job is, of course --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Walker: I think the hon. member missed some of the information earlier. The MOH would, in fact, be dumped if he didn’t follow the policy of the board.

Mr. Haggerty: The parliamentary assistant has missed it.

Mr. Roy: If I may be of assistance to the parliamentary assistant, as I read section 87(1) the people who could make the order to close the premises are the medical officer of health, any inspector or other person in the employ of the local board. I take it, then, under this section, if the medical officer of health, let’s say, did not want to follow the instructions of the local board, the local board could employ someone or instruct someone else to go down there and make the inspection, and under the instructions of this inspector that they have sent out, they could then close the premises if they found it to have something wrong under clauses (a) and (b). Isn’t that the way this thing reads, that it’s one of these three people, these three alternatives, who can make the order?

Mr. Walker: Yes, that’s the way I read 87(1). The medical officer of health, any inspector or other person in the employ of the local board can then make an order to close the premises.

Mr. Renwick: The local board should be able to make it.

Mr. Walker: Section 3 relates to revoking the order that may be given. If the MOH gives an order to close, then under certain circumstances he may revoke that order; for instance, compliance.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the motion lost.

Section 11 agreed to.

Bill 101 reported.

PRIVATE VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 73, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Private Vocational Schools.

Mr. Chairman: In Bill 73, the bill had been carried, except for one section where Mr. Renwick made an amendment. I think there was supposed to have been a conciliation between the hon. member and the parliamentary assistant or some such arrangement.

Mr. Renwick: My friend, the member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott), had very kindly shown me the two additional provisions which would reflect in substance the points which I made on the second reading of the bill. I would move both sections. I’ve had an opportunity of considering subsection 5 and also subsection 6. I’m perfectly happy with subsection 6 and I’m content with subsection 5.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Renwick moves section 18 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(5) Where a private vocational school is convicted of an offence under section 18, any person who has entered into a contract with the private vocational school may at his option void the contract by delivering a notice personally or by registered mail addressed to the private vocational school at the address shown in the contract, and the private vocational school shall forthwith return any moneys received or realized in respect of the contract.

“(6) Any person who enters into a written contract with a private vocational school in respect of a course or courses of instruction may rescind the contract by delivering a notice personally or by registered mail addressed to the private vocational school at the address shown in the contract within two days after the duplicate original copy of the contract first comes into the possession of the person, and where the contract is rescinded the person shall immediately return any goods received under the contract and the private vocational school shall return any moneys received or realized in respect of the contract.”

Mr. Renwick: I would withdraw the former motion which I had placed before the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’m wondering if the parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, might wish to comment on the amendment first and that might save us some debate.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Yes, I think it might, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to suggest to the member for Riverdale that we do appreciate the comments that he made on that. I am quite prepared to accept the second of those proposed amendments. That is labelled section 18, subsection 6. There is agreement by myself on the second of those two amendments that you have in front of you, Mr. Chairman.

On the other one, as you know we had a section presented in written form by the member for Riverdale and we’ve given it a fair amount of consideration. It was reworked into the draft form which the member read, and it’s our opinion after a good deal of consideration that that section is perhaps best done under regulations, as suggested when we debated the bill previously.

I don’t know whether the other members of the House would like to hear my reasons for that, but to answer the member for Kitchener, the position is that we are quite prepared to accept subsection 6 as indicated there and not 5.

Now, if you want me to proceed with our arguments at this time we will.

Mr. Chairman: You are placing the two separately. First of all, I understand there is agreement on subsection 6 so I’ll place that first.

Those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment, which will be known as section 18, subsection 6 --

Mr. Parrott: Five. It will be known as 18(5) if you take it first, Mr. Chairman, I believe.

Mr. Chairman: It’s 6 here. It is the second one anyway.

Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: All right, that one is carried.

Those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s other amendment --

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the member for Riverdale might have some further comments that would encourage the parliamentary assistant to change his mind. If he doesn’t, then I daresay the vote will simply have to go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: Well, I don’t know whether I can do anything to change the member for Oxford’s mind on the topic.

I can understand that he believes it can be done by regulation. The basic point, and the only point, was that if a contract between any person and one of these private vocational schools has any term or condition in the contract which contravenes the regulations or the Act, then the person should be able to void the contract at his option. And that was the purpose of it.

The redraft, as the parliamentary assistant discussed it with me, and the one which I read, which I had thought until this evening would be acceptable to the parliamentary assistant, was to tie it to the question of a conviction for a breach of the regulation of the Act, I was prepared to accept that, even though I would have preferred the more straightforward method that I had indicated rather than to have no section at all in the bill.

It doesn’t seem to me that by passing the section as it has been proposed, tying the matter to the conviction, would preclude you at all from dealing with other aspects of the same problem by way of regulation. I would certainly urge that it be accepted and passed.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Oxford.

Mr. Parrott: In reply to the member’s comments, I want to assure the member and the House that, indeed, we appreciate the arguments that have been put forward. But we think subclause (n) of 20, where we discuss regulations, will indeed give us the element of speed which is extremely important in consumer protection.

I think this is perhaps the overwhelming factor in making a decision in that favour. If it were necessary to go to the courts to have that determination made, perhaps time would delay the possibility sufficiently that indeed we wouldn’t be able to accomplish what the member wants to do.

There is no disagreement between what the member is suggesting and what we wish to do. We are in agreement in principle; I think it’s a matter of whether we think we can do it better under regulations or under a subsection in the Act. It is on that portion, I guess, we are in disagreement; but certainly not the principle and I want to emphasize that. We think we can do it quite nicely under section 20(n).

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of the portion of Mr. Renwick’s motion in question, will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the motion lost.

Shall the bill, as amended, be reported?

Agreed.

Bill 73, as amended, reported.

PARKWAY BELT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 85, An Act to amend the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, I indicated before I had an amendment to make to the bill because of section 2 not coming into force until proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out, and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“3(1) This Act, except section 2, comes into force the day it receives royal assent.

“3(2) Section 2 comes into force on a date to be named by the proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments, questions or amendments on this bill? If not, shall the bill, as amended, be reported?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Chairman, do I understand the minister to say that sections 3 and 4, which relate to the taxation revenue, will be dealt with when they come up with the provincial parks legislation later on? Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, that is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. We have only had first reading and we can’t have this bill come into force until we have the other enacted which will be in the fall. We have to have taxation of some sort.

Mr. Deacon: What really concerns me is trying to work out a formula under the provincial parks formula.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is the same formula that exists.

Mr. Deacon: I realize that, but working out a formula which will apply to areas well away from urban areas and subject to much fewer pressures, and a formula for an area such as the parkways in municipalities which have completely different revenue requirements are not the same. The pressures on the parkway land are so different.

I have talked to some of the members of council in the area which will be affected in my riding and they, too, are concerned. I hope there is going to be room in that other Act to take care of the discrepancies and the differences in the conditions.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I think that matter was brought up before by the member for Waterloo North. That is one of the reasons we are quite happy to look into in the fact of taxation, that is where the lands are situated.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill as amended be reported?

Agreed.

Bill 85, as amended, reported.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 86, An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments on any of the first five sections?

Mr. Breithaupt: I want to inquire, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister is bringing forward any amendment in this bill to deal approximately with the same thing? If he is, perhaps the minister could place the amendment and then there may be really nothing further that requires much involvement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to bring forward the amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“6(1) This Act, except section 5, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

“(2) Section 5 comes into force on a day to be named by the proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.”

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, before accepting that amendment, I have some comments on earlier sections of the bill and we haven’t got to that yet.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps we could agree to pass section 6 and then go back to other general things.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre. I will recognize him.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. During the course of the debate I said I wanted to get more clarification from the minister about the use of the Ontario Municipal Board as hearing officer and for some elaboration of the Treasurer’s statement that the OMB was going to be expanded in staff and in scope. During the course of the debate, it may have been because of the time being after 6 o’clock, the minister was not able or didn’t comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I forgot. The OMB has been expanded by four new officers recently and will be expanded by quite a few more in the near future. This is what you asked?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I am sorry, I wasn’t aware of the announcement of the appointments. I must have missed it in my mail.

There’s a real problem in this, Mr. Chairman, and that is that the background and the training of the OMB people, the members of the OMB, tends to encourage them to act in a quasi-judicial kind of fashion. The hearing officer technique which is being developed under the Planning and Development Act and the two related Acts is an innovation in legislation in the province, as the minister is aware. It seems to me -- I am not completely familiar with it -- that the kind of qualities that are needed in a hearing officer are going to be different from those that are needed in members of the OMB. If OMB members were always doing a job, they may not necessarily always be doing the job that they should do.

Certainly, for example, a lawyer is ill fitted, I would suggest, to take on the job of a hearing officer under the requirements that are put into this bill and put into the Planning and Development Act. It may be that some of the other people with financial training or municipal legal training and municipal administrative training who have tended to get appointed to the OMB are also not particularly well suited to the kind of work that is required to be done in this particular case.

On the other hand, one can argue that the experience of OMB commissioners in going around the province and listening to objections and getting some feeling for what people are talking about in planning these days does fit them better than just an ordinary layman for doing the job. Unfortunately, too many of those OMB commissioners just don’t know where it’s at and the reputation --

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): That’s not so.

Mr. Cassidy: That is true. The reputation of OMB as being sensitive to what’s happening and as being the citizen’s friend and this kind of thing was based on the tenure of J. A. Kennedy and the cases in which he was either directly involved or to which he sent two or three of the OMB members who were particularly sensitive to these considerations. I see the OMB decisions on a regular basis through the news clippings that come in, and I would judge right now that the OMB is completely quixotic in its decisions and that it really depends on who you get as to what kind of decision you get from OMB.

In some cases, they are exceptionally responsive or sensitive to citizens groups, and in other oases they simply ignore them completely. If I can cite a couple of examples, without trying to inflame the House: the lengthy series of hearings that went forward in the Kingston township case; and on the other hand, the treatment of citizens who sought to object to the west St. James Town case in Toronto about six or eight months ago, when even David Crombie, for example, was told, “Well, okay, who are you anyway?

What are you doing here?” There was simply no common-sense recognition that David Crombie had a legitimate right to be there and speak, even though he wasn’t a resident of the immediate area, and that citizen groups also had the right to come and speak even though they were not incorporated -- another rather silly decision that was made by some commissioners of the OMB.

It is this uneven quality and unpredictability of the OMB, as much as the lack of training of OMB members for the hearing officer role, that I think raises very serious questions in the government’s decision, which the Treasurer announced, that the OMB commissioners will serve as hearing officers.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, in this bill and in the Planning and Development Act, which we passed without putting into committee, it refers to the appointment of “one or more hearing officers” to conduct the hearings, and then it says that “separate hearings may be conducted at different times and places in respect to different parts of the [Escarpment] planning area.” It says, “A hearing officer shall fix the time and place for the hearing or hearings as determined under subsection 2,” and then in subsection 6 of the amendment it says, “Not more than three months after the conclusion of the hearing, or hearings, the hearing officer conducting the inquiry will report a summary of representations made to the commission, together with a report stating whether the plan should be accepted, rejected or modified; giving his reasons therefor,” and then if he wants modifications he will make those recommendations to the commission and the commission, in turn, will submit them to the minister.

The point about this is that, in the first place, the reference indicates that the government expects that it will be one hearing officer carrying out this function rather than two or three. It is not mandatory that it be one, I quite agree about that, but I think the minister will agree that where it says, “the hearing officer will set the date and place of the hearing and the hearing officer who conducted the hearing will report to the commission,” the expectation, I think, when the legislation was drafted was that normally one hearing officer would sit.

Again, without being partisan about this, I would be happier about that precedent if it weren’t people from the OMB, but I have had, personally, a rather grievous experience of that period of a year or so when under the legislation passed in this chamber the OMB was permitted to have single-member hearings on OMB cases. In the case of Rose Fletcher, the speech therapist in Ottawa who was originally rejected in a hearing before one OMB officer, there was an appeal to cabinet, a rehearing was ordered and subsequently I think two OMB commissioners heard the final appeal, which was again rejected on the basis of complaints by four people in the immediate neighbourhood who had been conducting a vendetta against that particular woman and the very good work that she has been doing with young children for many years.

The problem there was that, the original decision having been made by one OMB commissioner, when the members of the commission came back a year or so later to rehear the thing, on orders of the cabinet but without instructions from the cabinet, there was a very strong tendency for them to stick to the club in the same way as Tory back-benchers will stick to the club, or, for that matter, NDP back-benchers will support each other here in the NDP.

The OMB has got that collegiality as well, and therefore, in that particular case, two supported one rather than going another way. The one-member hearings of the OMB, if that was any indication, proved to be a grievous mistake and that is why they were dropped as quickly as they were, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think that they are conducting them like that any more, except in certain very limited cases such as procedural matters.

I don’t want to condemn the board outright, because it has done a lot of good work, and because it is a unique institution, and because the OMB over the last five or six years earned itself quite a reputation and has been widely supported by municipal people across the province. I think, though, that the minister -- I will sit down in a second -- might comment on the qualification of the OMB to carry out the hearing officer function, talk about what alternatives were considered by the government and talk about what steps were being taken by the government and what discussions have been held with Mr. Palmer, the chairman of the OMB, in order to strengthen the board’s capacity to carry out the role of hearing officer.

The minister may recall, although he wasn’t directly involved, when these three bills came forward a year ago there was heavy emphasis made in the committee that looked at the bills on strengthening the particular clauses of the bills which are parallel to section 10, I guess it is, of this Act, section 6 of the Planning and Development Act. We did a great deal in strengthening it; but if the OMB simply treats it as a perfunctory formality, then all of that work could be destroyed. A very useful innovation in planning technique and one that well may be adopted in many cases by the commissioner, when you get him, who looks into the Planning Act could become discredited because of over-reliance on a body that is getting rather creaky and may, in fact, not be capable of carrying out that responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would say to the member we are considering whether or not the role of the OMB should be expanded or retracted in certain ways. I think some of their functions can be handled by our ministry in particular. As for the new appointments which will be forthcoming. I would expect that certainly considerable emphasis will be placed on qualifications in regard to hearings such as this. I agree it is not necessary to have everyone a lawyer.

In the past the practice was to have the majority lawyers. I do know this is a matter to which the chairman and the government are giving very careful consideration as to the appointments in the future. Although it may take a little longer than it should to get good people, I think it is better to wait than to appoint some we might be sorry for. All I can say to the hon. member is we are aware of the situation, we are trying to improve it, and we will do our best.

Mr. Cassidy: The present members of the municipal board hold office at pleasure. In practice that has meant they have had life tenure in the post. I gather they tend to retire around the age of 65, but they stick around for a fair amount of time. I cannot remember exactly what the recommendation of the OMB committee, the select committee of this House, was in terms of tenure. I think we may have talked about a fixed tenure of five or seven years or something like that. The minister was involved with that and he recalls that better than I do.

I wonder whether the government might not consider in a very gentle, gentlemanly, polite kind of way some kind of an early retirement programme which would find alternative places for some of the present OMB members to go to, or which would permit those who wish to take an earlier retirement than 65 to go out with a reasonable kind of pension which would permit them to go back into business or to quit at 60 or something like that.

In other words, if the government is now intent on improving the qualifications and capacity of people who serve terms on boards, if that is the route they chose, I wonder if they couldn’t accelerate the infusion of new blood into the OMB, by gently accelerating the rate at which people leave it, with particular regard to these new functions which are being given and which are pretty demanding in relation to what the OMB has done in the past.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I really don’t know whether there is any one or more persons that we should remove.

Mr. Cassidy: No, I didn’t say that I just said encourage them to move.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is somewhat similar.

Mr. Breithaupt: Something like having a senate.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, we will investigate the matter.

Mr. Cassidy: I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, relating to these three bills. When the Treasurer commented on these, he said that the government was prepared to make advance purchases, if land is offered that would ultimately be needed, and if the owners were suffering hardships because of government policies. I think that applies to the Escarpment as well as the parkway belt. Could the minister elaborate on that rather sketchy or streaky declaration of government policy?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not too fully. All I can say is that the government, through our ministry, has recently settled on a formula as to what we should do in the way of advance purchase and purchases in general.

I expect that hardship cases will be dealt with much more quickly than they have in in the past. I mentioned this before when we were debating it. We realize that some cases have been too slow, and we wish to relieve those who are hardship cases. All I can say to the member for Ottawa Centre is that we will do our best to alleviate any hardship problems.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the minister can clarify what I understood the member for Ottawa Centre to infer, namely that the Municipal Board was fraught with incompetent personnel in terms of the membership. I have that impression from what the member for Ottawa Centre said, and I think that should be clarified. In my opinion, the personnel of the Municipal Board are very competent indeed and comprise members from all walks of life and all professions.

Surely the minister isn’t concurring that there should be early retirement or that the present membership should be encouraged to leave because of a need to change in some way the makeup of that board.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Chairman. I clearly stated that I didn’t know of any person or persons who should be changed. I said we would look into the situation. The officers we have, as far as I’m aware, have done a very good job. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre may disagree and the member for Prince Edward-Lennox may agree. However, I think we should make sure that the qualifications of the ones we hire in the future are suitable for the jobs they are going to perform. That is what I was saying.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister should want them to do an even better job.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I think they may be able to do a better job. I’m not saying they’re not doing an adequate job now.

Mr. Taylor: Have not the members been chosen from a point of view of looking at their qualifications and ascertaining that they are competent to do the job for which they are appointed? In the past you have taken on people from the accounting area, from the engineering field and a number of planners; you have all kinds of competence on the board.

I am wondering if there is some problem in connection with the discharge of the function of those members. I hate the impression to be left with the House that that board is not functioning as well as it might in terms of the quality of its personnel.

Mr. Cassidy: No, no. It isn’t functioning as well as it should.

Mr. Taylor: It may be lacking in numbers of personnel, but that’s a question of quantity, not of quality.

Mr. Cassidy: I have said what I wanted to say about the OMB. I would judge them by the results. They’re dedicated people, sure; and they are doing their best. But the results are quixotic, their decisions are uneven in quality and there are really some serious questions to be raised.

Were there any women in the four recent appointments to the OMB?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Cassidy: There is not a since woman on that board. Are you not going to do something about that? I would have thought, when it comes to these questions of the hearing officers, for example, that it might be useful if women occasionally were to be looking at the problems that are environmental, such as land use, the future of communities and so on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’d be happy to look into that.

Mr. Cassidy: Why don’t you do something about it as well?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If you’ve got somebody who wants to take the job, that’s fine. We haven’t got anybody who wants to yet.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a standard cop-out on the part of the government. You never wait for men to apply for the jobs; you go out and look for them. That’s what happens.

You should be looking for qualified women as well -- and the member from Rosedale should be helping you. But you should be out actually looking. There are a lot of qualified women around who could do a very good job on the OMB as well as many other boards and commissions, if it weren’t for the anti-women attitude of this particular government.

Bill 86, as amended, reported.

PLANNING ACT

House in committee on Bill 88, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments to any of the first five sections?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Chairman --

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): On the Planning Act, Mr. Chairman, I understood there were some amendments --

Mr. Chairman: We will have amendments, starting at section 6. Is there anything before section 6?

Mr. Breithaupt: Could we have the benefit of copies of those amendments, Mr. Chairman, so that we might be somewhat better prepared to discuss them when they do come forward?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. Mr. Chairman, could I table the amendments?

Mr. Chairman: You had better start out with the first one anyway.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s on section 6.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we finished section 5.

Mr. Breithaupt: In the other bill, there were just those particular amendments in 84 and 85 which dealt with that problem of assent. Perhaps it might be more practical then to take this bill in the ordinary way and get the comments in a more routine fashion.

Mr. Chairman: That’s what we are trying to do. We have four amendments to section 6, will the minister place the first one?

Mr. Good: To what section are we going to have the first?

Mr. Chairman: Section 6.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to speak on section 4.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, section 4.

Mr. Good: I’d like to know what are the implications of subsection 2 of section 4 coming into effect on Dec. 17, 1973? Could the minister tell us what the reason for that is?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’ll have to ask the member to repeat the question.

Mr. Good: Subsection 2 of section 4 is shown to come into effect on Dec. 17, 1973.

I am wondering what the reason for that is?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I understand the reason for the subsection, but I must confess I don’t know the reason for the actual date. I’ll try to get it from the staff, if you’ll let me proceed with the rest of it.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on section 4? On section 5? The minister has an amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves that subsection 1 of section 37(a) of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(1) In this section,

“(a) ‘dwelling unit’ means any property that is used or designed for use as a domestic establishment in which one or more persons may sleep and prepare and serve meals.

“(b) ‘residential property’ means a building that contains one or more dwelling units but does not include subordinate or accessory buildings, the use of which is incidental to the use of the main building.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine also moves that subsection 7 of section 37(a) of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be amended by inserting after “$20,000” in the 13th line “for each dwelling unit contained in the residential property in respect of which the demolition permit is issued.”

Mr. Chairman: I am wondering, Mr. Minister, if we can carry the first amendment and then deal with the one that you have just read.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The amendments I have are all on the same section.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: I just wanted to ask a question. I presume that the reason for putting in this residential property definition is to avoid the one apartment in an otherwise commercial building where perhaps there might be an apartment for the superintendent or there might be a penthouse in which the owner might choose to live or whatever, but basically it remains --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s residential by the definition.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, that becomes a residential building. Oh, I see, I had misunderstood that on the theory that I was looking at the incidental use. But it’s only additional buildings to which this incidental-use situation pertains.

Mr. Cassidy: An outhouse.

Mr. Breithaupt: So I was wrong in that if there is one residence within a building, even if it’s a commercial building, it still does include itself in this definition.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: On behalf of the NDP, I would say we’re willing to accept these amendments which simply toughen the penalties, as I understand it, in the case where a property owner demolishes a building without permission.

Hon, Mr. Irvine: That is correct.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, the two penalty clauses are both toughened up and we certainly accept that. I think the intention of the government was that the penalty clauses be so severe that in effect nobody’s going to risk flouting municipal wishes by simply tearing down a building and going ahead and doing something else without getting a permit. We would accept that.

However, I also have an amendment to subsection 1 of 37a as set out in section 6, and possibly you could pass the minister’s amendment and then I would be able to move my amendment as a further amendment to his, if that’s okay.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 6 subsection 1 carried.

Hon. Mr. Irvine also moves in section 6 that subsection 7 of section 37a of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be amended by inserting after “$20,000” in the 13th line, “for each dwelling unit contained in the residential property in respect of which a demolition permit is issued.”

Motion agreed to.

Hon, Mr. Irvine moves that subsection 13 of section 37a of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be amended by inserting after “$20,000” in the fourth line, “for each dwelling unit contained in the residential property, the whole or any portion of which has been demolished.”

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves that subsection 15 of section 7a of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be amended by striking out “notwithstanding” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “subject to.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have a further comment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have an answer, if I might, to the Dec. 17 matter. I have been informed that it comes into force on Dec. 17, 1973, because that was the date that subsection 5c was originally enacts. So, we want this re-enactment to be at the same time as the original.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Ottawa Centre have an amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I want to propose a couple of amendments here and I’ll refer to them both quickly.

One would be to extend the application of these demolition control procedures to include non-residential properties as well as residential properties, while maintaining the exemption that the minister’s proposals have for subsidiary or ancillary buildings. This would be outhouses, sheds, porches, garages and that kind of thing, I would assume.

A second amendment which I would like to put forward after that one will be to require a municipality to set out a policy to govern its decision about demolition control in a demolition control area.

The third one, which I’ve discussed with the minister’s officials and also briefly with the minister, would be to clarify that housing standards -- maintenance and occupancy standards -- remain in full force in an area of demolition control except in the circumstances where a property owner has applied for a demolition permit. And that’s governed by a particular procedure in this bill.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 37a(1) of the Act as set out in section 6 of Bill 88 be amended to add at the end the words “(c) a non-residential property means a building not used for human habitation but does not include subordinate or accessory buildings, the use of which is incidental to the use of the main building.” And that section 37a(2) and (3) of the Act as set out in the bill be amended by inserting after the word “residential” the words “or non-residential.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the effect of that would be that a definition of non-residential property is inserted into this section 37(a). In effect, what the amendment says is that non-residential property is everything that isn’t residential and the only exemption would be in the case of ancillary or subordinate or accessory buildings.

Secondly, subparagraphs 2 and 3, I guess it is, where the reference is to the power to issue or refuse a demolition permit and to create and to prevent the demolition of any property within that demolition control area, is extended to include non-residential property as defined in the previous section as well as residential property.

I don’t want to argue for a long time about this, Mr. Chairman. I think that the points have already been made in the debate, and the points were also made in the discussions that Mayor Crombie and others have had with this minister, and the points were made at Toronto city council in its meeting yesterday.

City council, which was the instigator of the demolition control procedures that we are considering in the House, and which sought unsuccessfully on two occasions in the private bills committee to get this legislation passed, on June 27 decided to request the provincial government to amend the demolition control legislation so that it is applicable to all types of structures -- and that was one of the two major requests that they made in commenting on the proposals.

Now, as I recall, the promise that was made by the minister to the private bills committee, when the private bills committee narrowly defeated the city of Toronto private legislation, was that he would bring in legislation that was acceptable to the city of Toronto.

As I said during the second reading, certain things here are different. For example, the six-month feature of the city legislation has been extended to the possibility of having a permanent demolition control area designation. But the city’s request covered both kinds of property.

The member for Riverdale has a riding that is particularly affected. It is even more jumbled in terms of uses than is my riding in central Ottawa. He certainly put forward a very cogent case. It doesn’t make any sense to tie the city’s hands in areas that are predominantly residential, for example, by preventing it from refusing demolition permits to buildings that just happen to be commercial or industrial, while allowing that jurisdiction over neighbouring buildings that are residential. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

I would suppose that if we were all to sit down and work at it we might come up with a further compromise that said where there are non-conforming uses, or where there was commercial property or non-residential property in an area that was largely residential, that the demolition control powers would extend to that commercial property; but wouldn’t extend to the Globe and Mail building on King St. at York in downtown Toronto because the area there is predominantly commercial. I suppose that some saw-off s like that would also be possible.

But it seems to me that the most sensible thing to do is simply to give the powers for both non-residential as well as residential property. I don’t think you are going to see abuses. I think that the present situation in Toronto and in downtown Ottawa indicates that where other measures are available to channel, curb, control or create a pause in the redevelopment of the downtown core, those measures are being used right now.

It is, therefore, not going to lead to an over-reliance by municipalities on demolition control legislation in the downtown commercial areas. That is not going to happen.

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, in my area of Ottawa where there is now a 35-ft height limit as a part of a major planning study, it would be damn useful sometimes if the developers who were tearing buildings down could be forced to hold back for a bit until decisions were made about the future. They are pre-empting decisions about the future of that particular area when they tear down commercial property in an area that, depending on the outcome of the plan, may prove to be ultimately residential, or mixed residential and commercial, or possibly high-rise commercial.

Those decisions haven’t been made yet, but the developers and the owners of that property pre-empt those decisions if they apply for and get demolition permits, and they will not be controlled under this particular law.

I know, and I think the minister may have already commented on it, that there is the possibility of preventing parking lots as a permitted use. But that, in fact, may not be what’s required. It may be that in one area of downtown Hamilton or downtown Windsor or downtown Ottawa, it doesn’t make bad sense to allow the transitional use of certain lands as parking lots. But in another area it is very important to preserve the buildings for a period of time until it is decided what is going to come after.

So you can’t come forward and suggest that a blanket prohibition on parking lots as a permitted use will be effective in every case. In certain cases, there may be quite other circumstances that prevail. The minister, for example, if he makes that argument, or his officials make that argument, didn’t comment on the fact that under federal legislation there are important tax advantages involved in tearing down a building which is otherwise perfectly worthwhile in keeping. I see the minister nodding his head. I don’t know if that was deliberate or not.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I think I was falling asleep. I am sorry.

Mr. Cassidy: It was an accident, okay. When the Toronto Star building, for example, was demolished, Mr. Chairman, it was clearly because of tax write-off provisions within the federal Corporations Tax Act. It was more profitable to the owner of that property -- the Toronto Star, I guess -- to destroy the building and deliver the site in a levelled condition, and therefore not to have to pay recaptured depreciation to the federal tax collector, than it was to hand over the building as a standing and useful structure that could have easily been renovated. That is a bizarre quixotic kind of result of federal tax law which won’t be stopped simply by a prohibition on parking lots as a permitted use.

People may say that it’s still to their advantage to tear down their building to sell a lot that is empty and to let it sit idle for three or four years before redevelopment without any use whatsoever, because of the tax write-offs that are available to them. Clearly, that is about the worst of all possible worlds. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox should know about these things, having --

Mr. Taylor: I know about them and it maybe that it’s a lousy federal law.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, but we --

Mr. Taylor: If the laws don’t make sense then maybe the laws should be changed.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, but as provincial legislators, we can’t change the federal laws, although there are some of us who have been arguing for a long time that we should, and there are others of another party, the government party in this House, who have been defending the corporate interests to thwart the tax laws of the country for a long time up in Ottawa. But whatever we think about those federal laws, we can’t change them in this chamber overnight.

It’s important, it seems to me, if we are concerned about the future of our cities, to prevent the kind of gapped-tooth effect of the mammoth creation of parking lots, the mammoth creation of unneeded, dirty space which is simply staying there idle while speculators wait for something to happen to it. We don’t want to create that and we shouldn’t encourage it. That’s why non-residential demolition should be covered by these provisions and not just residential demolition. Maybe the minister could comment on some of those points.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps before the minister comments, I should read into the record the amendment moved by Mr. Cassidy.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 37a(1) of the Act as set out in section 6 of Bill 88 be amended to add at the end the words, “non-residential property means a building not used for human habitation but does not include subordinate or accessory buildings, the use of which is incidental to the use of the main buildings;” and that section 37a(2) and (3) as set out in the bill be amended in line 9 by inserting after the word “residential,” the words “or non-residential.”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: I would like to put a question to the mover of this amendment, if I could. It would seem to me that if this is adopted -- and of course I am supporting it, as I indicated originally -- but would it not be suitable to move an amendment whereby this would apply where a municipality had by bylaw a non-resident standard of occupancy? Because then it would clarify the situation so that it would apply generally, and not specifically to a completely residential area.

It would seem that following the form and the philosophy of this bill, and knowing that this is in effect in Toronto, it might be useful to insert that or to move an amendment for that purpose.

Mr. Cassidy: I agree with what the member for St. George says. It’s loosely covered in section 2 where it says that the bylaw to declare a demolition control area applies “in any area within the municipality to which the standards and maintenance of occupancy bylaw applies.”

That’s rather slim, but I think that if the minister accepts the amendment -- as I am sure he is going to do -- then we can sort out the point that you have made -- and make the amendment. It’s obviously in the spirit of the thing that we would assume that demolition control area covering commercial property would require the passage of a maintenance and occupancy standards bylaw for commercial property.

Actually, the standards are probably less needed as a prerequisite for commercial property than they are for a residential property. If you are not applying minimum standards to try to bring up the quality of your residential housing stock, then the government argues -- and I think it is right -- to say that you don’t have the right to go ahead and stop people from demolishing, because you are not doing anything else to bring the area up.

So let’s see the municipality do its bit first, before denying to property owners what had been their right before -- to tear down the place if they didn’t like the look of it.

But if you would accept as granted that when the minister accepts the amendment we can tidy it up -- okay?

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I don’t quite accept it in that term. It seems to me --

Mr. Cassidy: If you could draft the different wording, I would be happy to accept it.

Mrs. Campbell: It just seems to me that we have to cover the threat of the non-residential standards so that a municipality is not tied simply to the situation of the non-conforming use in a residential area. I have concerns that this could happen on the amendment which is proposed.

However, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is prepared to reply and if, in fact, he is interested in accepting the amendment as proposed; then there would be no problem in having that portion redrafted to cover the point I am making.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I think we can dispense with further conversation in this particular part, because I thought I had outlined the government’s position before. We had considerable debate. There is nothing to add to what I said.

Mr. Cassidy: You have had four hours to change your mind, though.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I said we would only consider residential property at this time. For us to change our minds -- four months, four years -- I don’t know. But in any event --

Mr. Cassidy: I am considering that it took you a year and a half to get to this particular point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We will take it into consideration. It’s not loosely covered in section 2 of 37a, whereby you have to have maintenance and occupancy standards. It is very properly covered there. Not only our legal officials but officials of the city, officials who are outside in private business in the legal profession, have said that is the proper word for that section: “maintenance and occupancy standards must be enforced at all times.” So, Mr. Chairman, I reject the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to argue a long time about this. There’s some hope we may even get home before the end of next week if we go fairly quickly now.

The minister is right about the drafting of the second part of it. I was talking on a slightly different matter. I would ask him and his officials though, to monitor very closely the application of the demolition control bylaws and to look particularly at the questions of, say, the inability of a municipality to control demolitions of commercial property or industrial property where it is in non-conforming use, or in areas that are predominantly residential. It is not covered right now.

You could have a situation where the zoning is residential and yet the property can be demolished without the municipality being able to do a thing about it. I think that is wrong. Even though we would go further and say it should apply to all property, we will divide on this one, Mr. Chairman, but we are willing to stack this vote with a couple of other votes that are coming at a later time.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add that we are going to be giving very careful consideration to all parts of this particular section of this bill, and we will, if necessary, amend it.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

You are prepared to stack this vote?

Does the hon. member have any further amendments under section 6, section 37?

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 37a(3) of the Act, as set out in section 6 of the bill, be deleted and replaced by the following:

“37a(3): Subject to subsection 6, a municipality shall set out the grounds on which demolition permits shall be granted or refused for each area that is designated as an area of demolition control, and where application is made to council for a permit to demolish residential property, the council may issue the permit, or refuse to issue the permit, and shall make its decision in accordance with the policy statement referred to in this section.”

Mr. Cassidy: I will comment on this briefly, Mr. Chairman. For two or three reasons I suggested there was a need for a council to try to decide the guidelines by which it would make its decisions on granting or refusing demolition control permits.

One reason was so that property owners knew where they stood. A second reason was just that maybe it would help the council itself to decide what it was doing and why, and therefore avoid future difficulties in making the decisions when applications came before it.

A third reason was that where a property owner was refused a permit, or chose to go to the OMB because he hadn’t had an answer within a month from the council, it would help to serve as a guide to the Ontario Municipal Board commissioner hearing the appeal of the property owner against the refusal to grant the demolition permit. In other words, if the OMB could see that the application was directly contrary to the municipal policy, and if the OMB was satisfied that the municipal policy was a reasonable one, it might be more liable to support the municipal decision than it would be in the absence of any guidelines.

In the absence of any guidelines you might have a situation in which the municipal solicitor would go before the OMB to say, “We don’t want to allow demolitions in this area for these three reasons.” But the developer or the property owner’s solicitor would then go before the OMB and say, “We think we should have the right to demolish because the right to demolish is part of the sacred rights of private property.”

Given the kind of quixotic way in which the OMB tends to work in the absence of dear directions in policy from a government body -- like the cabinet or the government or the municipality -- it might lean toward the rights of private property over what the municipal solicitor said. Whereas if there was a policy required by law and laid out by the municipality, it wouldn’t be just the municipal solicitor saying, “We cooked up this policy a couple of days ago because we knew we would have to defend our refusal to grant the demolition permit at this hearing.”

It would be the representative of the municipality saying, “This was our policy. The property owner knew the policy and he has still chosen to come to you despite the fact that his request for a demolition permit is clearly against the policy which has been laid out publicly and passed by the municipality.”

Those are the three reasons I think guidelines should be laid down by the municipality. If the minister accepts the idea -- I don’t think it s an objectionable amendment -- if he accepts the idea and wants to clean up the drafting, I would cheerfully allow the clause to be stood until it could be redone by one of the officials.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, it is our opinion that the OMB should deal with the matter before it on grounds of natural justice and not conditions which the municipality is going to set out in refusal of a permit. We feel it will be dealt with quite fairly.

I don’t share the member’s views that the OMB has not done its best in all cases. I do share his view that we can always improve in the future and therefore I would like to see that we have the OMB deal with the particular cases as they come before it on the merits of whether the permit should be refused or granted.

Mr. Chairman: Did the hon. member for St. George have a question?

Mrs. Campbell: No, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the answer given by the minister; let me put it in these terms. I am not, in expressing my concern, reflecting in any way upon the abilities or the integrities or anything else of the Ontario Municipal Board. However, I am sure there wouldn’t be many judges, learned in the law or otherwise, who would wish to undertake the hearing of an appeal without knowing what the ground rules were for that appeal.

I am speaking now purely in the legal sense and I cannot see how a body of this sort or of any sort could make a decision as to whether or not the city were right or the individual were right in the absence of any land of criteria. While I thoroughly understand the principle of natural justice, I could see that the whole matter of demolition control could be thwarted by the Ontario Municipal Board simply on the basis that a person has a natural right, prior to the legislation, to demolish his own property. Therefore, it would almost consistently, I should think, grant that right because there were no criteria upon which the municipality relied for refusing a demolition permit.

The Premier is present. I don’t know whether he calls himself a lawyer today but he certainly is of that profession. I would seriously doubt the advisability of not having the municipalities set out some criteria upon which they base the refusal of a demolition permit. How can you sit in appeal from the city’s refusal if you have no guidelines?

I would submit that you are imposing upon the Ontario Municipal Board a very difficult task of decision. I notice the minister is shaking his head. I hope one day he is a judge and that he sits on cases without any law or any precedent to back his decisions.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): We can’t arrange that until after July 8.

Mr. Deans: Frankly, I hope the minister never is a judge.

Mrs. Campbell: But surely that is standard? If you have got a law, you have got to have some basis for making a decision. Why is the minister so resolute in this position? Is it because he really doesn’t want the demolition control section to function? Because if it is, then all I can say is, don’t play games with municipalities in this way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the member for St. George has said exactly what she said this afternoon and not really very much more; if anything, I would say she has said less.

What we are trying to say to you is this: We know this bill will work. We have had many people involved in this particular legislation, and I think they are much more learned than the hon. member --

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, now, that remark should be withdrawn. You should withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would say, with all respect to the hon. member, that maybe we should let this legislation be in force for a few months to find out if there are some problems --

Mr. Cassidy: The member for St. George is learned in the law; the minister shouldn’t draw odious comparisons.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I say to you that the OMB is well able to judge on matters of planning -- and this is what it is; it is a matter of planning for the development of a city or a municipality, whatever the case may be, and I think the OMB can do that.

We have had absolutely no objections from anyone except the hon. member for St. George and the member for Ottawa Centre as to this particular wording of the appeal to the OMB, and I would like to say, with all sincerity, that I think we should wait and see; if we have a problem we will amend it.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Chairman, the minister provokes me to rise. I haven’t been a participant in this debate, but he and I were members of the OMB committee --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I beg your pardon?

Mr. MacDonald: You were on the OMB committee, weren’t you?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes. And one of the things we learned and discussed at great length, particularly after we watched the operation of comparable boards in Manitoba, say, was the firm advice that the OMB is an interpreter of the law; it doesn’t make the law. Indeed, the chairman of the Manitoba Municipal Board said: “If we have a case come before us and the law isn’t clear, we call a halt on the case, and I write a letter to the government saying, ‘What is the law here?’ Until we know what the law is, we can’t operate.”

Mr. Taylor: Same thing here.

Mr. MacDonald: What do you mean it’s the same thing here?

Mr. Taylor: Why certainly.

Mr. MacDonald: The same thing is valid here?

Mr. Taylor: The proposition is just as valid here. That’s what happens.

Mr. MacDonald: What I am saying is --

Mr. Taylor: Matters of law are now decided by the courts, not by the board.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister’s comment was that he is leaving the board to make a decision on the basis of natural justice. Now that, of course, is nonsense.

Mr. Taylor: There is a legal interpretation.

Mr. MacDonald: What is natural justice when you come to the question of a demolition? Is it natural justice to deny somebody who owns a property to do as he pleases with it? That’s the kind of natural justice that many people --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, no.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, just a minute. That is the old concept of natural justice, and there is a conflict in terms of keeping public interests in balance to those traditional private interests. But the only way you can get the kind of operation which I think is desirable is that the law should be clear, whether it be in a municipal bylaw or in a provincial law. Then the OMB knows clearly within what framework it has to operate, and it doesn’t have to go off into a vague philosophic concept of natural justice. Natural justice is a last resort in trying to achieve justice when you haven’t got a law that is clear on the issue. It seems to me that the minister has defeated his own case.

Mr. Taylor: Your concept of justice is unnatural.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No further comment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment moved by Mr. Cassidy, the second amendment, carry?

Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall this be stacked along with the previous amendment and any subsequent amendments to this bill?

Mr. Deans: Yes. Let me just clarify something. We are quite prepared to have all of the votes in committee stacked and held at the end when we complete all the bills.

Mr. Chairman: Is Mr. Deans’ suggestion agreeable to the House?

Mr. Deans: As long as you keep a running tab of whose amendment is what.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: On subsection 7, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have an amendment written out but this is the section which says if you get a building permit to build something else, you can get a demolition permit notwithstanding anything else. I said during the course of the debate that we disagree but rather than prolong the debate, I would suggest very seriously to the government, on subsection 7, that we are unhappy with the section in its present form. We would recommend that there be either a delaying procedure or some other technique in order to prevent the automatic right of a builder to get a building permit if he wants a demolition permit.

For one thing it refers here to an application to construct and substantially complete a new building. It doesn’t say what kind of new building. For example, it might be possible for a property owner who wished to be difficult, who wished to blockbust, to put up a new building of very small value, of marginal value -- a set of garages or something like that if that happened to be a permitted use -- in order to get away with a demolition. That doesn’t seem to be acceptable.

I think the clause should be thought through much more carefully than it is now. I would just say that we would disagree with subsection 7.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on section 6? Any subsections of section 6?

Mr. Cassidy: On subsection 15, Mr. Chairman. I have spoken to the minister about this. I wonder if I can persuade him to accept an amendment now.

If I can take the House through the 14, 15 and the proposed 15(a) I am going to suggest: Section 14 says that health and safety rules remain in full force in a demolition control area. Subsection 15 says “subject to health and safety regulations, a building for which a demolition control permit is sought remains subject to health and safety regulations,” but any proceedings under housing minimum standards bylaws which may happen to be taken out or be out against the building on which a demolition permit is sought are stayed until a decision is reached on the demolition permit.

As the minister knows there have been objections from Toronto city council which has looked at this carefully. John Sewell says, with the support of city council, that this would mean if somebody had a place which didn’t come up to housing standards, he would simply seek a demolition permit on it rather than conform with the housing standards order.

I am prepared -- we are prepared -- to go along with the situation that’s put in subsection 15 for now to see whether or not it is abused. Health and safety standards would continue to apply to that building, even if a demolition permit had been sought, and even if it was dragging out for six months before the OMB. That seems to be okay; we are willing to try it.

However, what the bill doesn’t make clear is the express intention of the government that housing standards bylaws will remain in full force in a demolition control area with the single exception of dwellings on which a demolition permit has been applied for. It says health and safety rules remain in full force everywhere, even on buildings where you apply for a demolition permit.

Mr. Taylor: They have got to. They may be a hazard. The building may burn partially down and be a hazard to the passing public. We have to have safety rules.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, health and safety rules apply. It doesn’t say, though, that housing standards continue to apply to all buildings except those on which demolition permits are being applied for.

Mr. Taylor: The bylaw would still be in effect.

Mr. Cassidy: The bylaw is still in effect, but the way the bill is worded is ambiguous, because by saying that health and safety rules remain in full effect there is an implication which the lawyers, like the member for Riverdale and the member for Lakeshore, would appreciate that because it doesn’t mention maintenance and occupancy standards that, therefore, those standards may not apply.

I’ve known municipal solicitors who tended to be a timorous bunch and I’ve known too many of them advise the counsel against taking an action which was fully within the law because the municipal solicitor could foresee the slimmest chance of somebody upsetting him.

Mr. Taylor: They are faint-hearted.

Mr. Cassidy: They really are faint-hearted, yes. They tend to be faint-hearted and I would therefore move an amendment.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): You know what Falstaff said.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 37a of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be amended by adding a new subsection 15(a) as follows:

“37a(15)(a): A bylaw prescribing standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property remains in full force and effect in respect to residential property situate within an area of demolition control save in the case of property mentioned in subsection 15.”

Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry I don’t have copies of that, Mr. Chairman, but maybe the minister could comment while I finish writing this out.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to comment. The amendment is not necessary; we already have this covered. You can’t have a demolition control area unless you have a maintenance and occupancy bylaw to begin with, so you tie the two in together.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister says it’s not necessary; I say it’s necessary. The minister says that it’s covered elsewhere. I can’t find the place where it is explicitly covered elsewhere.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Right at the first, 37a(2), maintenance and occupancy standards. I mentioned it to the member before.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ve seen that, Mr. Chairman; I’m not satisfied. I suggest that there are reasonable grounds for doubt and since there’s so much redundant legislation on the statute books anyway and since I don’t happen to consider this amendment is redundant, I think it’s a necessary one, and since the minister and I are agreed on what it is we want to achieve -- there’s no disagreement between the government and the NDP on this particular matter; we both agree that the housing standards ought to apply on all property save properties for which a demolition permit has been applied for -- would the minister, therefore, not succumb to our doubts and accept the amendment?

Mr. Foulds: Accept Mr. Cassidy’s seductive blandishments.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No. It’s not necessary. I suggest that the member save his strength.

Mr. Renwick: As part of the legal staff of the New Democratic Party’s caucus I think the member for Ottawa Centre has a very valid point. It’s extremely difficult and I’m not trying to be legally technical about it. It’s difficult in the sense of what exactly is meant by subsection 14 and subsection 15. Subsection 14 appears to say that so far as health and safety are concerned there must be compliance. If that was all that was in the bill that would be fine, but then subsection 15 says: “Notwithstanding -- “

Mr. Cassidy: “Subject to”; it’s been changed, “Subject to subsection 14....”

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Cassidy: Sorry about that.

Mr. Chairman: We have the amendment made by Mr. Cassidy that I should put at this time.

Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Shall this be stacked with the others?

Are there any questions, comments or amendments on any other section of this bill?

Shall the bill be reported, subject to the division on the stacked votes, as we agreed?

Bill 88, as amended, reported.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, was the minister able to get the answer to the question I asked about, subsection 2 of section 4?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member was out at the time. The original date applied when the bill was enacted previously, so we want to tie it in with the original Act.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT

House in committee on Bill 22, the Health Disciplines Act.

Mr. Chairman: Any questions or comments on any section of this bill?

Mrs. Campbell: The member for Ottawa East has something on the Health Disciplines bill.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East, on which section?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): We want to deal with the title.

Mr. Good: Talk about the title.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the first section I want to discuss in this bill is section 17.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 17?

Sections 1 to 16 carried.

Section 17, the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, section 17 originally read that the limitation period in relation to actions against these professional people was to be a period of two years. Then there was a discretion in the courts to extend it further on the basis of a prima facie case.

I recall discussing this matter with the minister, first of all, on second reading of the bill. I was surprised at that time, Mr. Chairman, that we had not heard much from the professions or the disciplines about this section because it was a section originally which was a precedent-setting section. In other words, it had a limitation period, the right being granted to the court to extend it. We discussed this section in committee and, unfortunately, when the amendment was made I did not participate in the voting when the decision was made. I notice the minister reverted back to one year. As it reads now, it states that the limitation is within one year from the date when the person commencing the action knew or ought to have known the fact or facts of the alleged negligence or malpractice.

Mr. Singer: We are on the limitations, aren’t we?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. Singer: How about the other sections?

Mr. Roy: I have nothing to say about the others.

Mr. Singer: Well, I did.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Downsview apparently had some comments to make about some earlier sections.

Mr. Renwick: It is unfortunate, but those sections have been passed.

Mr. Singer: Oh, no, I have been waiting all night for them. I wasn’t even here then.

Mr. Renwick: Sections 1 to 16 were passed.

Mr. Roy: I think, Mr. Chairman, you will agree that when a bill is called in a hurry like this, there should be some discretion given to members who are just waiting outside to make it here.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East has the floor on section 17.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. We have been waiting all day for this bill,

Mr. Renwick: What does the member mean?

Mr. Good: We were waiting on the member for Ottawa Centre to finish. We have been waiting on the minister and on the House.

Mr. Renwick: Some discretion for members waiting outside? That is stage talk. That is waiting in the wings.

Mr. Roy: We were waiting in the wings. We are always ready.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: ln any event, Mr. Chairman, if I possibly might complete my comments in relation to section 17, and state to the minister --

Mr. Renwick: They always miss their cue. That’s their problem.

Mr. Roy: -- that I feel, respectfully, that we went possibly too far the first time. And we certainly have gone too far this time by bringing the limitation back to one year, which it was originally. We have known traditionally and experience has told us that in relation to a malpractice action there is great difficulty in proving it. Often there is great difficulty in determining the time when the action started, and this type of thing.

We feel that no citizen in this province should be denied the right to have an action in relation to malpractice because of a limitation period. We feel that by reverting back to one year we are getting back on the old point on which we were originally, and it’s really not an improvement to the situation. I will be moving an amendment to section 17.

Mr. Roy moves that after the word “within” in the fourth line of section 17 the words be changed from “one year” to “two years.”

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Singer: No, that’s wrong.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That should be --

Mr. Roy: Well, you can talk about it if you like. Basically, these are my comments in relation to this section.

Mr. Chairman: I’ll hold this particular amendment and we’ll revert back to accommodate the hon. member for Downsview. What section?

Mr. Singer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I do want to address some later remarks to section 17, but I think there are several earlier sections that deserve comment. The first one I wanted to talk about was section 6.

Mr. Chairman: All right. Is there anything before section 6? Shall sections 1 to 5 carry?

Sections 1 to 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Singer: Section 6, Mr. Chairman, establishes a body to be known as the Health Disciplines Board. The board shall be composed of not fewer than five and not more than seven members to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor on the recommendation of the minister, and the Lieutenant Governor shall designate one of the members of the board to be chairman and one to be vice-chairman.

The only limitation on who the Lieutenant Governor may appoint is that he shall not be a person who is in the public service of Ontario, or an agency of the Crown, or a member of a council, or a person who has been registered under this Act.

I suppose that eliminates members of any of the disciplines, Mr. Minister? Or just officials of those disciplines?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Members of the disciplines.

Mr. Singer: Members of any of the disciplines? So we have a board that is going to sit in review over the various disciplinary bodies, as set out in section 58, and we have a two-tier effort to deal with complaints relating to discipline.

I don’t understand at all why the thrust of this statute separates disciplinary problems and remedial problems, and why they can’t be dealt with together. Because when you come to the other sections that deal with the remedies, particularly the legal remedies, those are oft separate and apart and the two things conflict, one as against the other.

The availability of records? There is nothing here about the availability of records at all. Granted, by the time you get to this board, whatever the complaints committee has done, you may have exhausted weeks and months in time. There’s nothing here in 58, which is the later section, that indicates that people may appear in person. Finally, there is something about a decision being forwarded to the complainant.

There is no compulsion to make the medical records available, which is a most important thing. Really the concern is not necessarily related only to discipline. Surely the two matters are companion matters, the disciplinary matter as well as the remedial matter, or even the matter of damages? Because if a person has been injured by the negligence or malpractice of a member of one of these disciplines, he may be left as a cripple; he may be left with serious, permanent, physical injury, and he may have no remedy at all unless he goes to court, and unless he has available to him independent and expert medical evidence; and also, usually, unless he has available to him an awful lot of money.

The government doesn’t seem to come to grips with this at all in setting up this board. Why is the board not able to deal with the question of remedies; the thought that people might be rehabilitated or the thought that there might be damages? Why is the resort still left to the courts, which stand over and separate and apart?

I’ve just taken part in a very interesting television programme arranged by the CBC, and I had the privilege of listening to several persons who suffered serious damage to themselves or their relatives as a result of what they said was medical malpractice. They spoke of their inability to get attention from the college, to get records, to get independent expert advice -- they were absolutely limited -- their inability to prosecute actions in court, and the delays incurred.

My colleague from Ottawa East was talking about the limitation period of one year. That’s not sufficient at all, because these procedures as they now exist often drag on long over a year and the information available to the complainant is, in fact, non-existent. There is nothing in this, Mr. Chairman, that I can see that compels the matter to be dealt with quickly. There is nothing in this that hurries up the procedures provided for in section 58. There is nothing in section 6 that, in fact, establishes an independent body of experts to be available to complainants. And there is nothing in this that requires the production of records, that often is a very difficult struggle.

Surely if the minister has in mind fairer treatment for the people of Ontario, why, in fact, does he not take some of these basic steps? Why does he continue to be ruled by the attitudes of the officials of the medical association or of the dental association who want these things kept separate and apart?

Did the minister read, just the other day, a report made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons about the number of cases they had heard and how they dealt with them? Did he read about the very minor punishments in the very small percentage of cases they actually felt were worth dealing with? I have read them and I am sure the minister did too.

Really, it is an interesting commentary on the way the complaints group of the college does, in fact, work. That complaints group, as I understand it, meets three or four times a year and handles maybe 15 or 20 complaints each time it sits. But they receive, according to Dr. Metzler, who is now the chairman of the complaints committee, or another doctor who is the registrar, 40 telephone complaints and 50 letters a week, an average of 90 a week, and they deal with maybe 60 in the whole course of a year.

Surely the minister has to come to grips with this very serious kind of a problem? Surely he has to knit together, not only the disciplinary aspects that have to be brought out into the open, but he has to make available in some way to members of the public who may have legitimate complaints, records and the ability to find independent medical advice? Is there anything radical or wrong with the thought that either the college or this board should maintain a list of available experts in various fields of medicine, dentistry or any of these other disciplines, who can be called upon to give independent evidence?

In this same programme I was talking about, there was a discussion with a doctor from New York City who specializes in this kind of legal practice, and he answers the problem about getting independent evidence by coming to Toronto to get good doctors who will give evidence. I suppose if you start one of these actions in Toronto you would find it easier to get a medical expert from New York to come and give evidence.

Surely there is something wrong there? And surely within the Health Disciplines Act the time is here that the government should be much more concerned than it is with the protection of people who want to assert a claim?

That is what I find wrong with section 6. The board is going to be given the power, if it wants, to consult independent advisers. Whether or not it asserts that power is going to be up to the board. But shouldn’t there be some kind of compulsion upon it?

This is in section 7(2): “The board may seek expert or professional advice.” Why shouldn’t the complainant have resources made available to him in the names of people -- doctors, dentists, chiropractors, any one of them -- who can be called upon to appear if necessary before this board and give evidence? And why shouldn’t we be brave enough to write in, either to section 6 or to section 7, the thought that the records must be made available? Why shouldn’t that be part of the statutes of the Province of Ontario?

I tried to argue this at the time this bill came before the standing committee, but as usual the two-ring circus was going on -- and there was the Land Speculation Tax Act.

The minister was somewhat reasonable and some of these things that are underlined and that have the hands going backwards and forwards, were put in as a result of discussions that took place at the hearing. Rut it doesn’t go nearly far enough.

It seems to me that there should be mandatory provisions about the availability of records; mandatory provisions to limit delays. Surely time limits can be set. Mandatory provisions that would allow for the -- well, would instruct the setting up of a panel of independent experts who will be available to the complainant to give advice. Mandatory provisions about the availability of records.

And then, even though it may sound quite radical, and even though this is a non-judicial body, this body should have the right to order rectification and/or award damages with the right of appeal to the courts from there on in.

Why should that be such an anathema to the government?

This is the time. If you are going to make any change; if you are going to take a real advance, this is the time to do it. Because once this bill gets onto the statute books, and it gets on in its present form, it’s going to take another 50 years before in fact it is changed. I think that’s wrong.

I would urge the minister to take another serious look at sections 6 and 7 and 8 before we get too much further in the progress of this statute.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, if I may I will talk about sections 6, 7 and 8 together; because they are really on the same subject and I’ve been touching on 7 and 8. Let’s look at 8(1):

“Where a complaints committee has made a disposition of a complaint respecting a member of its college in accordance with the provisions of the applicable part of this Act governing that college, the registrar of the college shall send to the member and to the complainant by pre-paid first class mail, a copy of a written decision made by the complaints committee and the reasons therefor, if any....”

Now if they’ve come to a decision, surely there should be reasons therefor; and why do you put in the words “if any”?

Are you continuing to encourage the kind of correspondence that citizens regularly have been getting from the college after repeated delays -- some delays have gone on as long as two or three years? They get the standard form letter; all they do is change the heading: “Dear Mr. Smith, we have investigated your complaint and find that there is nothing in it. We are sorry. Yours very truly.”

No reasons. And if you are going to give them an escape hatch with the words “if any” in subsection 1 of 8, you are inviting this thing again. When the complaints committee does this, surely they can and should be compelled to state reasons.

And we come to section 58 again, and the complaints committee is going to have one lay member on it, who maybe now is going to be able to vote. Betty Kennedy was put on there along with three doctors. Three doctors and Betty Kennedy on the complaints committee. And they said “Even though Betty Kennedy doesn’t have the right to vote, in all of the hearings in which she sat, she never once disagreed.”

Betty Kennedy is a very fine lady who has done great community service. But I imagine she would be overawed at the presence of three doctors, and she is the only lay person on that committee. Besides which she doesn’t have a right to vote. Besides which there are no reasons that anybody writes down. Besides which the records are not made available. Really, it is a kangaroo court kind of system.

That’s what we are concerned about. All you are doing is paying lip-service to some of these ideas. While you put in, in section 7, that the board may seek expert or professional advice from an adviser independent of the parties, the burden is put on the complainant to provide his own independent expert advice, whether or not he has any money and whether or not he can find a sympathetic doctor, dentist or chiropractor to come and give evidence on his behalf. The minister must know that this is a very difficult task, because doctors don’t like to testify against doctors, dentists don’t like to testify against dentists, and so on through the other disciplines. Surely you have to remedy that.

I could go on at great length, Mr. Chairman, I could read you the provisions of the private member’s bill that I have before the House, but I think I have covered the main principles which concern me.

What I am anxious to get is some kind of fairness brought to these very serious problems, I think the government has to lean over backwards to guarantee to the citizen who feels that he has a complaint, the opportunity to properly pursue that complaint -- to get prompt answers, to have hearings, to be represented by counsel at all levels, to get the records and to get rectification.

I don’t know if there is any point in trying to move amendments to sections 6, 7 and 8. Probably not. Suffice it to say that I don’t think the government has come to grips with the problem set out in this field. They have paid some lip-service, but really they are not going to provide any adequate remedies. I would feel much more confident if the minister were prepared to have a much better and closer look at all of the ramifications of this, as he seemed to indicate when the matter was before the standing committee, or at least the first time I was there.

Mr. Chairman, those are my remarks on sections 6, 7 and 8. I’ll have some more on section 17 and some of the other sections, but that’s it for the moment.

Mr. Chairman: Any further questions or comments on sections 6, 7 or 8?

Shall these sections stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Singer: Is the minister going to reply?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Chairman, no amendment was made, and I quite agree that we discussed this at length in the committee. In fact, I would like to say in general that I appreciated the comments made in that committee by members of both the opposition parties. I thought they were useful, and I thought we made a goodly number of changes that helped us to improve this bill throughout.

I also have to say that at the time we discussed these parts, I felt the member tried to expand the role of the Health Disciplines Board into a court function and was losing track of the fact that we have courts to look after appeals from the disciplinary decisions of the disciplines committees; and we have courts to look after civil actions against practitioners in any field. I believe we should leave those functions to the courts.

This Health Disciplines Board has a certain duty, and that is to make sure that complaints are dealt with fairly and that the public has an opportunity to appeal to someone other than the discipline itself to ensure that those complaints are looked at. That really is the function, as first stated we’ve expanded the role to give them certain protections, as you know; to give them the right to appear before the board, which is something they didn’t have in the first draft, and to make sure that reasons are given when reasons are available.

Since there is no amendment before the House, I simply say that I did give it serious thought and I did discuss it with counsel, both at the time and between our meetings, and I am satisfied that the role as described in the statute is correct.

Mr. Singer: Well, I am glad we got the minister to say something. But he is really copping out if he says that because there is no amendment here, it is hardly worth getting up and talking about it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I was just trying to avoid bothering you tonight, because I knew we should get to the dentistry part for your benefit.

Mr. Singer: You are quite right. However, the antibiotics I got are having an effect, and I think the swelling is going down. There is nothing wrong with my voice, so you can bother me as much as you want. I am equally going to try to bother you.

I don’t see why there is this distinct, or there has to be this distinct separation between the so-called court function and the disciplinary matter. Surely the two things are intertwined? If you want to put some judges on this or some lawyers, fine; if you are worried about giving a judicial function to people who aren’t legally trained, put a few legally trained people on this board. There is nothing to prevent you from doing that; there is nothing to prevent you from putting in a section which says that. The two things are companion matters.

You must know, as I know, as probably every member of this House knows, when you try to go through the college on a complaint procedure, the answers are slow; they lose correspondence; they give no reasons if they can avoid it. You are giving them the excuse to avoid giving reasons again; there is a fight always for the availability of records.

How does the complainant reasonably get an opportunity before the board to present his case, unless he is prepared to take the best legal counsel available and pay a substantial amount in fees and unless he is prepared at that point to fight the fight to get the records -- it’s a hard fight to get the records -- unless he is prepared to seek out independent practitioners of the particular discipline and to pay their very expensive fees? The complainant, really, in order to find out whether or not there is a reasonable ground on which to object, is put to all this great difficulty.

There is no facility here other than another board which the minister is setting up and which is going to handle the very unsatisfactory procedures that the various disciplines now provide, particularly the medical disciplines.

Surely, if you are going to start off on somewhat of a new track, put something in there which will make the task of the complainant a little easier. Is it too much to ask? Without my proposing the amendment, is it too much to have the minister put in an amendment which will say the complainant is entitled on his own request to get the records? Is that too much to ask? Is it too much to ask that you put in time limits so that these complaint procedures don’t threaten to run out beyond the limitation period; which is a very serious problem because your section 17 cuts the limitation period back to a year?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: Yes, from the time one knew or ought to have known. If you are going to hang your hat on the phrase “ought to have known,” I’ve lost you long ago on that; you are all wrong.

These things are most peculiar and I don’t understand why the minister is so reluctant to exercise a little bravery.

Carve a few new paths. You could be doing a great public service. Other jurisdictions have done it. In New York State, for instance, there is no question that a patient or his counsel is entitled by law, and it is written in their statutes, to get the medical records. Why shouldn’t that be so here?

There are procedures, and you can play that game with them and you get the delays. You get the delays all the way through from the college and there is no guarantee that the board is going to move expeditiously or quickly. Why can’t you come part of the way along the line and provide some real protection to people who believe they have a grievance?

Mr. Chairman: Shall sections 6, 7, and 8 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Singer: No.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of these sections standing as part of the bill, will please say “aye.”

Opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it; and 6, 7, and 8 stand as part of the bill.

Mr. Singer: That is good. We will accept that, the bill without 6, 7 and 8.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: No, I think you understand what I meant. There was no amendment; so we take it again.

Shall sections 6, 7 and 8 stand as part of the bill?

Those in favour, please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it. Sections 6, 7 and 8 stand as part of the bill.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything else before section 17? On section 17: the member for Downsview. We have an amendment on section 17 also.

On section 17:

Mr. Singer: I don’t think really it would have stood, no matter how you had said it.

On section 17, Mr. Chairman; I wonder if the minister has ever bothered to look at the report of the Law Reform Commission on the limitation of actions. It’s a very interesting volume. I wonder if the minister’s advisers ever looked at that before they put in section 17.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): He looks mystified.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: What is the name of it?

Mr. Singer: I will read it to you. For those slow learners, I will read it slowly.

Mr. Deans: In its entirety?

Mr. Singer: Yes, the whole thing. I would like to tell the minister a little bit about the history of the present Limitations Act. Believe it or not, the Limitations Act, as it stands on the statute books of Ontario, comes from the English statute of limitations of 1623 in its entirety -- 1623!

Mr. Renwick: That was just before Charles lost his head.

Mr. Singer: That’s right. And it has had effect in this jurisdiction, originally in the Province of Upper Canada, since 1792, and it really hasn’t been changed since that time. The classifications are based on the old forms of actions long ago abolished and are obviously hopelessly out of touch with modern tort law. Negligence and nuisance, for example, have grown out of old actions on the case -- and that word “case” is a very important word in this context --

Mr. Lawlor: That’s different from “access and trespass.”

Mr. Singer: -- a term which is now almost archaic; and I am sure the member for Lakeshore will tell us about actions on the case in due course.

Mr. Lawlor: I was going to say, I can remember some.

Mr. Singer: To continue:

“Thus negligence actions are subject to a six-year period, which is undoubtedly too long in most circumstances, particularly in personal injury cases. This state of affairs has been a major factor in special interest groups seeking and obtaining individual treatment by the Legislature.”

Does the minister know about the hodgepodge that we have in the Province of Ontario with limitation periods?

The commission here recommends that a two- or three-year period is clearly desirable for all personal injury actions. And you know who is on the commission. You know who is on the Law Reform Commission and who signed this report? Allan Leal and James McRuer and Richard Bell and Gibson Gray and William Poole; the same people who still constitute the Law Reform Commission.

“It considers the present six-year period for negligence insofar as it results in injuries to the person is too long. It also believes that if the periods appropriate to modern conditions are established for all kinds of actions as well as personal injury claims, there will be no longer any justification for the special limitation periods that now exist.”

And then the most noteworthy: The one-year limitation periods of the Highway Traffic Act and the Medical Act; a three-month period in the Municipal Act. Special limitations are separately discussed later on -- and let’s look at some of these limitation periods. This is the mess that we have in the Province of Ontario now, and the minister is further compounding the mess.

The following are periods applicable to professional negligence and malpractice actions: 12 months against doctors -- that is what the minister is continuing, apparently, if he gets his way on this section 17. Twelve months against radiological technicians -- I guess it’s whichever lobby managed to speak the loudest that got the limitation. Six months against dentists -- six months against pharmacists, six months against veterinarians; and believe it or not, three months against funeral directors and embalmers.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Yes. I guess they bad the best lobby of the whole bunch -- funeral directors and embalmers.

Mr. Lawlor: They were very powerful in 1623.

Mr. Singer: It sort of boggles my mind, in any event, to anticipate --

Mr. Good: There has never been any need for it.

Mr. Singer: -- the kind of action that one would want to maintain against a funeral director and embalmer for professional negligence and malpractice. But I suppose it is possible. However, the likelihood of such an action ever being brought has pretty well been taken away by the Legislature.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Six feet under.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: There wasn’t enough room.

Mr. Singer: The report goes on to say the 22 special limitation periods all give protection to “special interest groups.” You know the special interest groups that have been omitted completely -- lawyers, architects, accountants, engineers. They can all be sued under that famous phrase “action on the case,” up to a period of six years. Surely there should be some reasonable uniformity? For hospitals, against hospital people, the limitation period was six months. That was changed in 1972 to two years. And now the minister is going to have apparently two limitation periods if he gets his way -- one for these disciplines of a year, and one for hospitals of two years.

Now, why there couldn’t have been uniformity when one of your predecessors -- I think it was the member for Carleton East decided that the six-month period for hospitals was too little and it should be changed for two years; why couldn’t you even have accepted that uniformity?

That change was brought in only two years ago. Surely the very modest suggestion put in in the form of an amendment by my colleague makes some sense. Two years, I think, is far too short. If the minister will buy that, I am prepared to have him do it; but it doesn’t make any sense at one year.

All of these procedures you now set out within the disciplinary body of the college, and within the board procedures, will exhaust the year’s period.

And let me emphasize again that these disciplines have retained on permanent, or near permanent retainer, some of the best legal advisers as there are available in the Province of Ontario. And that they stick on these limitation periods; and if you are beyond them one day, you are out -- and there is no question.

Why doesn’t the minister, when he comes to rewriting an Act like this one, pay some attention to some of the expert knowledge that has been brought before this Legislature, and some of the things that are done in other jurisdictions?

It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, to contrast what was put forward in the first draft, and what comes forward now. In the first draft, section 17:

“No duly registered member of a college is liable to an action for negligence or maintenance by reason of professional services requested or rendered unless such action is commenced within two years of the date, except that the court may extend the time for commencing an action either before or after the time so limited on such terms as it considers proper where, if it is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for relief, and no substantial prejudice or hardship will result to any person affected by reason of the delay.”

It may well be that the person who drafted that original section 17 had paid a little attention to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, because there are points: One is the length of time, and the other is the ability to extend it.

There is a very important section of this report that talks about the ability to extend it. I am reading now from page 99 of this report:

“There should be one general provision relating to disabilities Which would apply to all causes of action. The running of time should be suspended whether or not the disability existed at the time the cause of action occurred to that person.”

What are they talking about when they talk about a disability? If the plaintiff is unable to proceed, by reason of his physical or mental condition, the time runs anyway. If we are going to adopt section 17, he is just out of luck whether he is able mentally or physically to carry on, “Tough; the limitation period has expired.” And someone who may have a just claim that he wants to pursue, if he has been mentally disabled, is going to be completely unable to pursue his claim because the limitation period has run out. And that is a matter that did concern the Law Reform Commission:

“Time should begin to run against a person when he ceases to be under a disability on the following basis.”

Now surely that kind of a recommendation makes sense?

“A person should be entitled to the longer of either the period he would have had to bring his action had he not been under a disability running from the time the cause of action arose, or such period running from the time that the disability ceased, except that in no case should the period extend over more than six years beyond the cessation of liability.”

Now surely that makes some sense? Surely if a person is in such a physical or mental state that he is unable to proceed with an action in court, the limitation should not run against him. And that’s what the law commission report says, and they say it most firmly, and that was one of the ideas, I guess, that the original draftsman had in mind. But the minister was wooed by Mr. Shibley -- I said the other night Mr. Porter -- acting on behalf of the dentists.

Let me tell you. The Shibleys and the Porters who are retained by these professional associations earn every penny of their retainer. They are good lawyers and their job is to protect their clients, and they protect them. Their concern is not to protect the public. That has got to be our concern; that has got to be the minister’s concern, and I say that you were wooed and succumbed to Shibley.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I was?

Mr. Singer: Yes, you succumbed to him; absolutely. You gave in, you were seduced. That is what happened and you should have read this Law Reform Commission report.

Mr. Lawlor: If you weren’t the committee members of your party were -- in bulk.

Mr. Singer: It goes on:

“The provision recommended with regard to disability should not apply where an infant is in the custody of parents or guardians or the affairs of a person of unsound mind are being administered by the public trustee.

“The onus of showing you are a person entitled to a benefit of disability provision should rest on the person claiming that.”

And that’s logical. A man can go before the court and say: “I had a disability, therefore I wasn’t able to proceed.” There are a couple of other recommendations in connection with disability.

Well then, what about the absence of knowledge? You’ve got this wonderful phrase now, “knew or ought to have known.”

There is one very famous case that has been written about in the newspapers and which was talked about in that television programme “Tonight” where the complainant didn’t know for three years after the first operation what in fact was wrong. It took three years and a variety of operations and a variety of medical opinions until finally the correct diagnosis was given. According to this statute, tough. Oh yes: “You ought to have known.”

What does “ought to have known,” mean? Maybe a court could say. and certainly the Shibleys and Porters are going to argue before a court: “Well, if you had gone to the right doctor in the first place, you ought to have known.” Why don’t you define it here? What does “ought to have known” mean?

Mr. Givens: A definite maybe.

Mr. Singer: Yes. The judges are not the legislators, we are. If you are going to sit there and say that phrase “you ought to have known” is an umbrella that’s going to protect anybody, I say you are wrong. I say you are quite wrong.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: No. Why can’t you go back -- at least be brave enough to go back -- to what your draftsman wrote in the first draft that you brought before us. At least go back to that. That’s a halting step forward, not nearly as brave as what the Law Reform Commission suggests.

You know all the members of the Law Reform Commission; I read their names to you. They are not rebels; they are not radicals, they are trained people who have had a multiplicity of experience in the law and in other fields, and when they make recommendations the fact that they are not paid any attention to just continues to be a source of amazement.

On page 102. sub 3 there, they talk about the Davies committee, which was an English committee that wrestled with these same problems.

“An injured person should not be liable to have his claim defeated by operation of the Limitations Act if he satisfies the court that he could not reasonably have been expected to discover the existence or cause of his injury in time to start proceedings within the limitation period.”

Well if you think those words “ought to have known” mean that, why don’t you take the wording of the Davies committee and put it in that way so it is clear what we are talking about? Because if that’s going to be the ministry’s argument, why don’t you just put in language that the judges will be able to readily interpret?

The Davies committee also says that he may start the proceedings -- and this is the complainant -- within 12 months of the earliest date on which he could reasonably have been expected to make the discovery. Why don’t you elaborate? Are we short of paper, or short of words, or short of sentences that you’re afraid to spell it out?

The Law Reform Commission in conclusion, at pages 108 and 109, recommends: “There should be an extension procedure where a plaintiff is not aware that he has a cause of action” -- not that he ought to have known.

I would ask the minister to catch the difference in the phraseology in the Act in the section before us and what the Law Reform Commission says. In the section before us the words are, “ought to have known.” The Law Reform Commission says: “There should be an extension procedure where the plaintiff is not aware that he has cause of action.” Why couldn’t the minister put that in?

“The extension procedures shall be applicable only to personal injury or property damage action and professional negligence action is not covered by (a) and (b). The extension should be granted where a potential plaintiff was unaware of the material facts which, if he were a reasonable person knowing the facts and having obtained appropriate advice with respect to them, would have been of a decisive character in determining that he had an action that: (a) would have had a reasonable prospect of succeeding; and (b) would result in the award of damages sufficient to justify bringing it.”

It goes on, the fourth and fifth recommendations, on this line:

“Applications for extension should be made to the court which would have jurisdiction over the action and should be required to be made within 12 months from the time the potential plaintiff became aware of the relevant and material facts. The notice of the application be served on the potential defendant.”

And 5(b) gets off into fraudulent statements. I don’t want to talk about that one; that gets off into another field altogether.

Are those suggestions unreasonable? When the minister takes Mr. Shibley’s words he puts the onus onto the plaintiff, he throws it into court and the judge is going to say: “Ought you to have known as a reasonable person?” The Law Reform Commission says,

“The extension should be granted where a potential plaintiff was unaware of material facts which, if he were a reasonable person knowing those facts and having obtained appropriate advice with respect to them, would have been of a decisive character in determining he had such an action.”

Again, we’re not short of paper. These recommendations were prepared by excellent draftsmen and by people very learned in the law.

One of the gentlemen on this commission was the dean of the law school, the chairman. One of the gentlemen served many years honourably as Chief Justice of the High Court and wrote the tome which has been responsible for so much law reform in this province. Other people on the commission were Richard Bell, a cabinet minister in a Conservative government, a man whom I’m sure the minister must know all about; a man of high reputation, a good lawyer; Gibson Gray, an outstanding lawyer; William Poole, another outstanding lawyer.

Surely, when all of those persons come before this Legislature with this kind of recommendation the minister makes a fool out of the legislative process if he lets himself get wooed by the comments of a Shibley in a couple of hours on the standing committee. He didn’t even pay attention to what his people told him in the first draft.

He gave in: On one year; and “ought to have known.”

It’s inadequate. It is not a step forward. It is retrograde. It continues grave injustice, and there is no way in which that section 17 should continue to be a part of the Health Disciplines Act.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, we will support the Liberal amendment. May I say I’m delighted with the member for Downsview’s remarks tonight.

Mr. Givens: There must be something wrong.

Mr. Lawlor: They’re well researched, well thought out. He can really come through at the 11th hour.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): He is always like that.

Mr. Givens: Don’t you feel contrite?

Mr. Lawlor: What the hon. member has just said is both erudite and poignant and I certainly subscribe to it.

Mr. Givens: It’s what? Erudite and poignant?

Mr. Lawlor: I remember during the course of the one evening which I attended there this particular problem arose and I got the distinct impression there was a bit of a snow job being performed and that the minister was seduced with some degree of charm. I never saw him give in so easily before on a measure that was proposed, coming from a self-interested group in this regard.

Regarding what has been said, with respect to the extension of time particularly, you know, in modern English law, for a century something called equity -- and I think the word carries its own connotations, fair play, the business of flexibility and adaptation to circumstance -- for a century equity became harsh, equity became calcified and very much the same as the common law with its rigorous rules and its unbending precedents. Equity was designed to smooth out and alleviate injustices.

And, as I say, it ossified through the 19th century under laissez-faire doctrines and economics. The whole mentality was that way. Everything had to be technical and according to technique and hard rules or not at all. And in this particular, of recent years, particularly in the English jurisprudence and particularly with perhaps the greatest living judge, Denning, Lord Denning of the English Court of Appeal -- a man who has brought such creativity and completely new thinking into English law, always in the direction of humanity, always to the direction of alleviating ills -- Denning has moved in this particular way and the whole British jurisprudence is switching to getting away from the determination, the dogmatism and the arbitrariness of narrow rules.

Now you return to it. In your first draft you showed a modicum of compunction with respect to the matter, particularly on the business of that extension of time. It’s with great loathing that I see that deleted with a wave of the hand, so to speak, from the legislation.

I argued in the committee that that was something that was kind of an ongoing feature of our law at the present time. If you look at bill after bill that has appeared in this Legislature -- true, not with respect to the operations of the courts particularly, but with respect to tribunals of all kinds, with respect to ministerial hearings, with respect to the times at which submissions may be made -- almost invariably now your legislation says that some alleviation will be given under certain circumstances. You have done it and then you took it out. You affirmed the principle and then you deleted it -- and it’s a grotesquerie for you to have done so -- substituting in its place this one-year business.

The very least we can do to make this legislation at all palatable, from the point of view of the public at least, is to have the two-year period in there. We should go on and even alleviate from that in the exigent circumstances as they arise for the reasons that have already been cited, which there is very little point in my reiterating in this particular section.

Also, in the committee, the member for St. George, I remember well, spoke well on that particular subject of the sneaking, weasel phrase. Mr. Shibley didn’t like the word weasel. Maybe he doesn’t like weasels at all. But he certainly didn’t like the use of the terminology “or ought to have known.”

This is Shibley’s amendment, you know. This is introduced through those auspices -- “known or ought to have known” -- with that maleficent sense of being the very paragon of rationality which he carries about him like a cloak.

It’s quite a marvellous thing. I dare say Shibley doesn’t even walk down Bay St. -- he floats, avoiding all obstacles.

Well, it’s part of negligence law. We see it in the Criminal Code --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: -- the “known or ought to have known,” It’s a well-accepted portion of our general jurisprudence.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: I say it isn’t right in the context of this particular kind. This is a complaint situation, this is where the incident arises, where they become cognizant of the injury done. What a cavalier time any lawyer can have with “ought to have known.” I can see him standing there with his finger up three inches from the nose of the poor devil who is hardly conscious because some doctor has wrecked his life. He’s half demented in the witness stand.

“Didn’t you twig at 2:20 a.m., according to your examination in chief. Didn’t your bowels move? Oughn’t you to have known?”

Mr. Singer: He ought to have known that.

Mr. Lawlor: It was in the divination. The Romans could lay it out and haruspicate and scry this particular text.

In area after area we get this twist, this self-serving, legalistic, lawyer’s wisdom trick.

Why should you fall victim, you who are so innocent of all these machinations, and this type of deviousness? The very fact is that you are particularly innocent in this regard -- I hate to say even naive in face of those masterminds. You have fallen prey to this particular piece of legerdemain, this exquisite legal footwork, I can tell you that. Boy, did you ever fall for it I So you ought to have known.

Since I’m sure we’re not going to get any of these things, as they presently stand, I would ask you to bow your head on one thing and accede to the two-year limitation. You know what’s been mentioned about other professional bodies with the six-year pile. Shibley’s argument was the opposite way. He said under this particular form, with the very wording involved here, one year from the date when the person commencing the action knew -- and let’s leave out the weasel words “or ought to have known” -- the fact or facts upon which he alleges negligence, that that may extend any time into the future; and that a doctor, one year running thereafter, would be subject to it, even if the real cause of knowledge came to be 20 years from now. He said this was far more detrimental to the dentistry boys or to the medical people generally than what the other situation is.

I just don’t feel that that is so, particularly if, as the other wording runs, such an action is commenced within two years from the date when, in the matter complained of, such service is terminated. I have misgivings about that too, because two years after they terminate it, it might not -- but then you had the good grace to forfend and to introduce the saving clause.

You have to balance these things out; the loss of the saving clause over against that particular wording here with respect to having known, the time at which the knowledge came into being. The loss of the saving clause is very much outweighed in a detrimental way by this new wording, if you balance them off. The only way that you can rectify the ill caused by the thing is to come down the middle between them now and be gracious enough, in the interests of the public and not in the interest of these other people for whom these very shrewd fellows, are the spokesmen, to substitute the word two.

I would like to ask the minister to consider it very profoundly. I am asserting that it will do a great deal of good and will reach the cause that you, as the Minister of Health, seeking to serve the general public and not a specialized profession or professions, should serve. That is the ambit of your responsibility. You have a wider perspective. If you’re going to ameliorate the thing at all, then for heaven’s sake at least do that.

Mr. Chairman: Any other hon. member?

Mr. Roy: Is the minister prepared to accept the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Chairman, if I were subject to seduction, then these sweet sibilant sounds that have poured from these two masters of rhetoric in the last few minutes would have definitely caused me to change my mind.

Mr. Cassidy: Just lean back and enjoy it, eh?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I found the first draft of this bill quite acceptable when it was put before me and discussed in committee. To the best of my knowledge, the major objections to it were raised by the members of the committee, not necessarily by the lawyers who quite properly represented their clients.

Mr. Singer: I’m not saying they didn’t have a right to be there. They were good lawyers doing a good job.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I must say, with the words going onto the record rather than into the air, the quality of the English expression has improved tremendously.

I think, though, that you have both missed the point. Most certainly there were very few times in all of our discussions when we had unanimity among the legal fraternity. I take at face value that you are both serious. I am not questioning your good intent in making this suggestion. The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission or the times that are mentioned in the report, I believe, stem from the time an incident occurred.

In our first case, it also stemmed from the time an event occurred. And the court could only extend that time on prima facie evidence. And this required, as I understand it, two sets of hearings. One to determine whether one could have a case, and, secondly, the case if leave were granted to issue the writ.

Mr. Singer: No, not in the set-up recommended by the Law Reform Commission.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am talking about the one in section 17 as it first was written.

Now we have simplified it and that suits one of the intents that you mentioned. We have not set any time limits. It is not six years; it is not one year; it is not five years. It is whatever time it is required for a patient to have an awareness of the fact that he or she is suffering from a complaint that could have been related to a duty performed by a health person at some time in his life.

We recognized in this discussion that there were many times when a person could go on, under the care of a physician particularly, who allegedly had carried out some improper act; and could have continued to believe in that physician or dentist, or whoever it may have been, so he or she thought that the symptoms they had were not caused by malpractice or lack of competence. But then, he or she could then go to someone else, or symptoms could appear to cause them to suspect that something had gone wrong. It could be many years down the line; and that’s why the expression “ought to have known” was put in. It gives a person far more protection than two years ever would have given them.

Therefore, after listening to the arguments -- and they were very good arguments -- I am inclined not to accept the amendment proposed by the member.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I find the minister’s remarks very disappointing. He didn’t deal with the question of disability. What about a person who is under disability; a person who is mentally or physically unable either to know or even to “ought to have known,” whatever that might be?

The Law Reform Commission has got several pages dealing with that aspect. This someone is in such a mental state that they aren’t able to make up their mind or be aware of what’s going on; unless they are in a provincial hospital and come under the care of the public trustee.

“Known or ought to have known.” When is it?

The Law Reform Commission says: “Look after the people with disability.” You don’t.

The member for Lakeshore talks about those weasel words “ought to have known.” That’s the trap. Any lawyer who is worth his salt who is defending the doctors or the dentists is going to have the greatest time with those words “ought to have known.” They will say: “As a reasonable person, Mr. Jones, wouldn’t you know when you had a pain in your left toe? And you went to Dr. Smith for a year and a half, and he didn’t do anything about it? Didn’t you know you should have gone to Dr. Jones; or shouldn’t you have gone to see an orthopaedic surgeon? Really, ought not you to have known?” The reply: “Yes, my lord, he ought to have known.” And the learned judge sits down and says: “That is what the Legislature tells me to determine. He had a pain and he didn’t go to see the orthopaedic surgeon and he didn’t change doctors. He ought to have known and the time is over -- one year is gone. Tough, out you go.”

Mr. Givens: What did the Legislature intend by those remarks?

Mr. Singer: My colleague from York-Forest Hill says “What did the Legislature intend by those remarks?” They intended the judge to apply the test: “Ought to have known.”

And the mythical reasonable man, who was supposed to act reasonably and intelligently, is not really a reasonable man at all. He is a person who has a pain. He is a person who has a stomach that doesn’t work. And he ought to have known that “Dr. A” was no good and he ought to have gone to “Dr. B.” But he didn’t do it-tough.

And there is Shibley, there is Porter or there is Laidlaw pounding a table and saying: “My Lord, anyone ought to have known that they should have done something.” The year is over -- out. It’s not fair. Let me try one more appeal to the minister.

Mr. Givens: He is not even listening. He is callous.

Mr. Singer: Can you not take section 17 back? Redraft it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: Take a look. Tonight as your bedtime reading read a few pages here in this Law Reform Commission report. Talk to Leal. Talk to McRuer. Talk to Bell.

Mrs. Campbell: Talk to Welch.

Mr. Singer: Yes. Talk to some of these people.

Mr. Givens: Talk to the birds out in Muskoka.

Mr. Singer: You admitted your naivety in matters of this sort. Why don’t you take advantage of these people who have served Ontario well and find out what they really had in mind when they wrote this report in 1969, and whether they really think that what you have before this House makes sense? Will you try that before you ram it through the House?

That’s my last effort, Mr. Chairman, I hope it will work.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Lakeshore wait just one minute. We have a very distinguished guest who just came into the Speaker’s gallery -- Elmer Sopha, who used to be the member from Sudbury. Let’s all welcome him.

The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. B. Newman: He will be back.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Back where?

Mr. Singer: He made a good speech on this one too.

Mr. Lawlor: How we miss you. May I also seek once again, and finally, to prevail upon the minister in this regard. The minister does something that is passing strange indeed and something that a layman might be disposed in all graciousness to do and that is, he said a moment ago that that phrase “ought to have known” was designed, and he construes it as being designed, to be favourable to a plaintiff. All I can beg you to understand is that for invidious lawyers nothing could be further from the truth.

I think we’ve said that, and yet you replied in a vein to think that somehow it can be beneficial. The phrase is a trap and a snare. It’s designed precisely to mulct people who, for indisposition, because of the state of their mind, because of the state of their body, for heaven’s sake, are unable or for many, many reasons -- neuroses, mental illness, al those things that grow out of shock and the biology of a situation -- are ill-disposed within that period of time to make any overtures or to go to the courts.

One year is not enough to determine this. Why don’t you give those people more time? Once the time has gone it is too late -- the guillotine falls; it’s the end of the road.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: Now we are moving in the Highway Traffic Act at least to place it over for two years, because how many innocent people in this province and even relatively innocent lawyers have been victimized by that particularly condign piece of legislation.

Now you bring it into being in this particular piece of legislation. You are doing a great disservice, I can see that you’ll rue the ay on some future occasion when some poor devil is three days over the one year, simply because of his debility and this disorientation, due to his illness, and pleads to the minister’s office to do something about it because some doctor has placed him in that plight.

Two years is a minimum; it is the least you can do.

Mr. Givens: Come on, make it two.

Mr. Good: Make it two.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak on section 17 before I put Mr. Roy’s amendment?

Mr. Roy moves that the word “one” in line 4 of section 17 of Bill 22 be changed to “two.”

All those in favour of Mr. Roy’s amendment, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Roy: Stack it.

Mr. Singer: No stacking.

Mr. Chairman: No stacking.

Mr. Singer: No stacking on that.

Mr. Chairman: The Clerk says there is an agreement to stack.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on!

Hon. Mr. Miller: Earlier I thought we had an agreement to stack votes, did we not?

Mr. Haggerty: That wasn’t the Health bill.

Mrs. Campbell: That was another bill.

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, that wasn’t another bill. With great respect, I would say it wasn’t another bill. Stack it, please.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed?

Mrs. Campbell: No.

Mr. Singer: No.

An hon. member: There was unanimous consent to stack all bills.

Mr. Singer: I refuse to give unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, that is your privilege, of course.

Mr. Singer: All right. We are not stacking it. We have a right to vote on it, so let’s vote.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Then I would like to vote very quickly.

Mr. Singer: We can vote as quickly as you can bring in your members.

PLANNING ACT (CONCLUDED)

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to section 6 37a(1) of Bill 88 which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 20, the “nays” are 43.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to section 6 37a(3) of Bill 88 which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to section 6 37a (15a) which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

Bill 88, as amended, reported.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT (CONCLUDED)

The committee divided on Mr. Roy’s amendment to section 17 of Bill 22 which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost and the section carried.

Any comments on sections 18 or 19?

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, no one rose in opposition to that vote so I believe the vote must have carried.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): He said the same vote.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Same vote.

Mr. Chairman: On sections 18 and 19?

The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Section 37 is the next section I am interested in.

Mr. Chairman: All right, 37. We are into part II on dentistry then; does section 37 come in that?

Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: It covers a lot of ground, 37.

Mr. Roy: I have amendments to section 37.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before 37? All right, the member for Ottawa East on section 37.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman: in relation to section 37, this is the section dealing with the powers of the discipline committee and whatever they might be able to impose. There was considerable discussion in committee on these sections and whether the disciplinary committee of the various disciplines -- and here we are talking about dentistry -- was able to impose fines.

Mr. Roy moves subsection 5 of section 37 be amended by adding a clause (f) to read:

“Levy such fines as deemed appropriate to a maximum of $5,000 to be paid by the member to the consolidated revenue fund.”

Mr. Roy moves that section 37 be further amended by adding a new subsection:

“(g) direct that the member pay part or all of the cost of the investigation to the college.”

Mr. Roy: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that these amendments be dealt with separately.

Mr. Chairman, and I address my remarks to the minister, we have discussed this point at length --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: Order. This is very important.

Mr. Roy: I see the minister is having great difficulty in listening to my remarks.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: First of all, all the professions dealt with under the Health Disciplines Act have been asking the ministry for the right to impose costs; we would limit the costs, of course, to the cost of the investigation.

The reason the minister doesn’t want to accept this, apparently, is that he is relying on the McRuer report; and, having relied on the McRuer report, he has asked for an opinion from his justice section, which relies on the McRuer report in denying these rights to the profession.

I have scrutinized the McRuer report, and I want to thank the member for Lakeshore for having lent me his copy of the report. If I might speak to the first amendment, I would like to read from McRuer where he deals with the question of sanctions available to disciplinary bodies. I am reading, Mr. Chairman, at chapter 83 in report No. 1, vol. 3 of the McRuer report:

“In all other cases, except the Public Accountancy Act, the only sanctions available to the disciplinary body are suspension and cancellation of the right to practise. In the Public Accountancy Act the only sanction available is cancellation of the right to practise. This is unsatisfactory. Unless the disciplinary body has power to impose a lesser penalty than suspension of the right to practise, it is likely that one of two undesirable results will follow.

“Either the professional body will refuse to take disciplinary action against the practitioners who have committed minor offences, which will be a dereliction of the duty owed to the public to maintain high professional standards; or the professional body will take action in all cases and thus produce a situation in which the sanctions imposed may be out of all proportion to the offence committed, which may be grossly unfair to the individual practitioner involved.

“We recommend that all disciplinary bodies have a full range of sanctions made available to them, ranging from reprimand to revocation of the right to practise, except the right to impose fines as is given in the Dentistry Act. We do not think any self-governing body exercising judicial powers should have power to impose fines, especially when the fines are paid to the treasury of the body.”

Dealing first of all with the question of fines, Mr. Chairman, it is exceedingly difficult to follow the argument of the learned commissioner. Is he against fines because he feels that they are paid to the treasury of the body, or is he against fines per se? In reading his last comment, he says:

“We do not think any self-governing body exercising judicial powers should have power to impose fines, especially when the fines are paid to the treasury of the body.”

Mr. Chairman, as you will note in our amendment, we feel that in fact such fines should be paid to the consolidated revenue fund and not to the treasury of the body; so that takes away part of his argument.

The second point, a point that has been made consistently by the profession, is that given just these limited ranges of sanctions, you have situations which are ridiculous. And we have had some just last week. We had a doctor who apparently saw 155 patients in a day and conducted other operations or saw other patients in other capacities. He received something like a suspended sentence. We feel these types of sanctions are not appropriate and that the body itself should have the power to impose these fines, especially when the fines are being paid to the treasury.

I would like to know from the minister why his legal section has decided it is against this principle. In an area where a practitioner is the only practitioner in the community, what do you do with an individual like that when he is guilty of professional misconduct? Do you remove him from practice?

Mr. Good: That’s what they ought to do.

Mr. Roy: Why not have the right to impose fines? Certainly that seems a sensible approach.

Secondly, what do you do in a situation where you are facing malpractice by a doctor? Your choice is to impose certain restrictions which are not adequate. Do you take away his livelihood? The whole approach to sanctions in the criminal field is working in a direction of the imposition of fines or making some form of retribution to the victim. It seems to me that you shouldn’t do this at the expense of the community. That is what you are doing by limiting the use of fines by the bodies.

The third point to be made is that if all the disciplines under the Health Disciplines Act are asking for this type of legislation which will affect only the members to their own bodies, why should they not be given that right? They are unanimous in this, all the disciplines apparently including the nurses. Why wouldn’t you give them that right to impose fines?

Mr. Chairman, having said this about the fines, I feel in the area of costs, it is even more important. We have bodies, such as the Law Society of Upper Canada. I recall the minister saying they are moving in the area where they even want to take that right away from the law society. I can just imagine what’s going to happen if you try to do that. You are going to get the lawyers opposing it.

In any event, in relation to the question of costs, if costs for any investigation, costs of procedures against a person who later is found to have breached one of the rules of the discipline and is found guilty of professional misconduct, are borne by the profession at large, what happens? Obviously if you incur this type of cost, the fees to the profession have to increase, and if you increase their fees they are going to turn around and increase their fees to the public. So again the public is supporting this.

Why should the individual who has breached a statute or one of the professional roles of a particular discipline not be made to pay a part or whole of the cost? This has worked exceedingly well in relation to the Law Society, and I don’t see why you would want to take it away. McRuer states on the questions of costs that the imposition of costs is something which should only be a judicial function. Our amendment deals only with the cost of the investigation. We are not talking about party costs or costs for a fellow’s lawyer or the cost of other matters. It is the cost of the investigation that we are talking about.

I would ask this of the minister. During the course of the debate in the standing committee, we tried to approach legislation on this particular bill without any partisan approach. We tried to make it the best bill possible, all members who were on this committee including the minister. I would congratulate the minister for the fairness with which he approached most of the amendments we discussed, whether the amendments were brought by the professionals themselves or members on the committee.

By and large, we have all contributed to making this a better bill. I would ask you, now we are in committee again, why would you not leave the question of costs or even the question of fines? Why do we have to split on a partisan basis? Why don’t we have a free vote on something like this? Surely we as members here should not take a partisan approach to something as important as health disciplines or whatever sanctions that the various disciplines should impose. I see you shaking your head. Why don’t you do that? Let us have a free vote. Just get all the members in here --

Hon. Mr. Miller: We didn’t. I’ll quote you chapter and verse.

Mr. Roy: You’ll quote me chapter and verse on what?

Hon. Mr. Miller: On partisanship. In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, this issue got a lot of attention. It’s interesting that in the final summation the other day I had one lawyer state that he was for fines and not costs. Another lawyer stated that he was for costs and not fines and a third lawyer stated that she was for both.

Mr. Roy: That’s right, and you’ll probably get as many opinions as that if you poll all the members who are here. I personally feel that they should have the right to impose fines and costs but I think the professions, or the disciplines here, can live with either one. But they should at least have the one, and it seems to me if I were to put emphasis on anything I would put it on the question of costs.

The question of fines is maybe a strong remedy for something other than a court as a disciplinary body. But if I were to put emphasis on anything it would seem to me I would put it on the question of costs. An individual who is being investigated for malpractice, and who is subsequently found guilty of professional misconduct or otherwise, such individual should be the one to bear the costs of the investigation and it should not be his colleagues in that particular body who pay the costs of this because, eventually, the public will pay.

We’ve seen the system work and work well with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Why shouldn’t this system work now? So, on the question of costs, I would say to the minister, yes, there is a variety of opinions and I don’t think that you’re right and I’m wrong or somebody else over here would be right or wrong. But put it to a free vote.

Surely, we members here are not going to take a partisan approach to this. We don’t want to shout or scream at you; what we want is to have the best bill possible. Why doesn’t the minister put it to a free vote of the members of the Legislature, because I’m sure that all members have certain feelings about whether a disciplinary body should have these powers or not.

I ask you, this is a challenge I leave to you. You’re an objective minister. Look around you; leave it to a free vote just as we did in committee when we were voting. Why shouldn’t you have an open mind on this question?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I think the minister at the committee stage of the Health Disciplines Act is well aware of my feelings on this matter. I rise in support of the amendment that would allow professional organizations and their discipline committees to levy fines with the amount so collected to go to the consolidated revenue fund. And I so do on the simple argument that it should be one of the tools that the discipline committee has of levying against a member who has been incompetent or, in some way, has not practised correctly.

I say this because I’m particularly conscious of our communities in the north, or any community in Ontario which is cut off the rest of Ontario and has only one or two practising dentists or medical doctors in that area. If the discipline committee has a choice between letting the person go and imposing no penalty whatsoever on him, or suspending him for a period of time or withdrawing his licence altogether, that isn’t really much of an alternative. In many instances they’re going to have to go to the first one because the withdrawal of a licence for a short period is going to cause real hardship on the people in that area as that service is withdrawn.

If they had, as an additional tool for that committee, a fine which they could levy on that person, particularly with that fine being non-taxable, not eligible for a tax deduction, in fact that would constitute a severe reprimand on that professional person.

I would urge the minister, for the same reasons that the member for Ottawa East has, to allow this to come to a free vote. There certainly isn’t a matter of principle involved here that adheres to any sort of party line and, on the matter of both these amendments, they should come to a vote. I personally can see a lot of good justification in having fines as one of the tools to be levied by the discipline committee of these societies.

On the second amendment, I must admit I’m one of those who feel that costs should not be included. I would admit here I was rather in agreement with the minister at the time in committee when he said: “The cost of these discipline hearings, the cost of conducting those hearings to the society, is one of the costs of that society having the right to discipline their fellow members and should be so viewed as such, one of the costs of having that particular right.”

As a subsidiary argument, I also feel that if costs of the discipline hearings were not allowed to accrue to the society inevitably this would turn up, not so much in higher costs to the community when you are talking about dentists and medical doctors and nurses, but rather as a cost on their professional fees. If professional fees were required to be raised because of the number of discipline hearings involving a charge of incompetence or malpractice I feel that when doctors and dentists met socially one of the topics of conversation would indeed be the fee increases and that there would be a sort of joking admonition to each other that they had better not increase each other’s fees by malpractising.

This, at the very grassroots level, might have some effect upon the individual professional. Many of them will go all through their lives without coming anywhere close to malpractising, but this might have a beneficial effect on the odd one who might tend to, but who has been reminded for months or years by his colleagues that it’s adding to their costs and coming out of their pocketbooks.

For those reasons I would say that this bill shouldn’t include costs but should indeed include the power of the discipline committees to levy fines.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to express my appreciation to the minister who, unlike his colleague, would seem to indicate that perhaps my legal opinion at least stood with others as having some equal merit -- or perhaps not, as you see fit.

I spoke on this in committee and I did not speak on the matter of the limitations because I felt that I had said all that I could say usefully at that time. But I think now circumstances have altered somewhat since we discussed the position taken by the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) in this particular matter. We have now seen the precedent set where this government has not seen fit to follow the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in another instance.

If I may, it seems to me that in this particular situation the report is very ambiguous as to its intent. It seems for once to speak, as it were, out of both sides of its mouth, because on the one hand there is a concern expressed that the disciplinary bodies ought to have available to them tools other than suspension and/or revocation. Then of course it’s quite true that at the same time the report speaks of the necessity to keep for the courts the matter of fines and costs.

Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to look at what could be the effect of this particular lack in legislation if it continues. You have a disciplinary body; it has an obligation to investigate and presumably to investigate fully. I am advised that some of the investigations which have been undertaken have run into very substantial costs. If there are no costs available, then I would feel that it would be very likely that the investigations would be greatly curtailed and a serious injustice done to members of the public.

As I said in committee, supposing the disciplinary body took the position that, having no other recourse, they would either suspend or revoke? If it were in the city of Toronto and they suspended or revoked, there might be little hardship done so far as the public is concerned. But if, in those parts of Ontario which may only have one dentist, having no other alternative open to them, they were to suspend or revoke, surely then there would be a hardship to that community?

My information is also that very often the investigations are not a matter of malpractice, they are not a matter which indicates the incompetency of the person against whom the complaint has been made, but it is perhaps a matter of ethics.

So we have the situation where the disciplinary body decides that in the absence of any other recourse it will suspend. In the alternative, without any other penalty, that same body could very well take the position that it did not think that the offence merited suspension, and, therefore, would take no action at all governing the ethics of its own profession.

It would appear that nothing that we say is going to be effective in this matter, but I would urge upon the minister that he take into consideration the fact that this government does not follow slavishly the law reform report even when it’s very positive in its recommendations. Here, where you have a distinct dichotomy within that report itself -- an ambiguity, virtually -- surely it is time when the disciplines themselves and the members of those professions ought to have the opportunity to regulate the bodies as they see fit within the ambit of the amendments posed by my colleague.

Something was said earlier about the costs being passed on to the community. I would say that that would be exactly and precisely what would happen if the costs were not recovered. If the college has to pay thousands of dollars for an investigation, there is no doubt in my mind that in that case the costs would be passed on to the community. Either that or they would not undertake an investigation at all, and that to me would be no protection to the public. None whatsoever.

Here you have the very rare case where individual members of these disciplines have said, “We want the disciplinary body to have this recourse.” We sit here and say, “No, no, no,” because of a very ambiguous statement in the Law Reform Commission report.

Mr. Chairman, I can see the minister looking the way he looked in committee when he had absolutely no intention of listening. But I hope that if I can’t convince him that some others in this room may be able to put the matter more strongly than I can and that he might be once more seduced by arguments on this side.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have been seduced three times tonight.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, thank you. There are three alternatives in this particular situation. You can take the fines and say that is legitimate; or you say no, and take the costs and say they are legitimate; or you say they are both legitimate. And there is a fourth, of course; that none of them are. The minister has taken the fourth. It is kind of a purblind stance.

I don’t think it is any breach of faith to say in this House I thought I had an understanding with the Attorney General of this province about this particular piece of business. I thought that understanding was that we would accept fines in this legislation, and I wish he were here. We would accept fines and we wouldn’t accept costs.

The reason we would accept fines, as I understood the situation, was that monetary penalty was all to the good. It was one more weapon in the arsenal, and a very valid weapon. If you don’t want to reprimand, if you don’t want to suspend, if you don’t want to counsel, you can fine them a hundred bucks. It has a lasting effect. It is not as good as getting off scot free.

Because of the weight of money on people’s minds in our civilization it is very often a very effective way, without immolating a person and without placing them under severe detriment with respect to their livelihood, to simply say: “We think that the penalty here ought to be 500 bucks; not just a slap on the wrist.”

If you are in some kind of wilfully self-sacrificing mood and remove that particular weapon from the arsenal, then you have left yourselves with an inadequate way in which to approach.

McRuer says that there is nothing against fines being levied. As a matter of fact, the text that has never been quoted so far as I know is contained quite a bit later on in his book, at page 1206. He comes down quite strongly in favour of fines, if you read it.

I am not going to take the time of the House to read the several paragraphs. He says there is only one caveat, namely that the money be paid into the public treasury. He says that in no case should a private prosecutor have a monetary interest in the result of that prosecution. He points out that in some statutes it is paid into the treasury of the self-governing body; and in other cases, such as the Law Society Act or the Public Accountancy Act, it is paid into the public treasury.

So there is no uniformity in this particular regard. Therefore, for that very reason, to preserve a monetary penalty as having validity in our time, we would agree with the understanding that the money be paid to the public treasury. I don’t go for the argument, or think it is very valid or has much weight, that this would increase the cost to the public. I just don’t think that is true.

The amount of penalty in this regard, or in the matter of costs, can very well be borne. It is a privilege to be a self-governing institution. It is a benison extended by the general public. They don’t exist for their own sake. They exist to serve, solely and entirely; and they are to be measured solely and entirely in those terms. They are in no wise to benefit themselves, either in hard cash terms or in the disposition of prerogatives and powers which are specifically reserved to the courts and to judicial moves.

The business of costs, we can’t agree with. It’s all right for the member for Ottawa East to say he doesn’t mean certain things to be covered by costs, namely the lawyer’s fees.

But as we said in committee, and I don’t think there is any harm in putting it on the record, costs tend to be, regrettably or not, a lawyers’ in-game.

You line somebody up; he makes $1,500 a day. The society itself lines up its boy; he wants a commensurate fee otherwise he’ll feel terribly inferior and downgraded. He might charge even a little bit more because he’s right at the meal head. This goes on for 35 days and at the end of the day the fellow is adjudged guilty, -- if I may use criminal language in this context -- and he’s bereft of his livelihood. He’s also paying $50,000 to some lawyer on the other side, apart from what he has to pay to his own lawyer by way of costs. Now that’s just not admissible.

If the costs were confined to the transcripts of evidence; to obtaining expert witnesses; to the hotel and travelling expenses of such witnesses; or even expert consultants of various kinds which would be better, that would be a different thing.

But there is no such nice discrimination in the proposal before us at this time. Therefore, we will reject in this party the notion of costs, except to the extent already in the legislation, which seems to me quite legitimate:

“Where the discipline committee is of the opinion that the commencement of the proceedings was unwarranted, the committee may order that the college reimburse the member for his costs in such proportion thereof as the discipline committee fixes.”

I suppose that, too, should legitimately cover legal costs. In that particular context a man acquitted, innocent from the very beginning, shouldn’t have to bear the weight.

To get into adversary concepts and into the business of dividing up costs seems to me to tarnish and to render subject to mercenary motives the whole range. The lawyers no doubt appearing before the committee would be wise enough in their own interests -- the evil of the day is sufficient thereof -- to want these costs. We certainly don’t find them palatable.

I would, before I sit down, finally seek to prevail upon you to give recognition to some kind of money being involved in this situation, and let the motion with respect to (f) go through and make it part of the law of this province.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Singer.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I support both the amendments put forward by my colleague. It seems to me that the penalties presently being assessed against erring members of these disciplines -- I wish I had the minister’s attention because some of us think this is a very important debate. I’m going to pause until the minister gets back and pretends he’s interested.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am really listening.

Mr. Singer: I think you owe the House the courtesy of being in your seat and listening to the debate on this bill, which is your bill.

An hon. member: Sage advice.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Don’t be such a pompous ass.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It happens that I was thinking.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, sit down and think.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, as I started to say, I think the amendments put forward by my colleague are sensible. I have been disturbed recently.

There was an article in the paper the other day in which the College of Physicians and Surgeons reported on the penalties it had awarded against certain erring members of the profession. They seemed picayune in relation to the offences as they were described in that article. The offences described seemed very serious to me and the penalties assessed were short-term removal from the rolls; limitations on practice for a short period of time.

In the legal profession, when the Law Society embarks upon a search, say, of a lawyer’s trust funds, it brings in accountants and checks out with various clients and people shown on the rolls. If it finds the lawyer, as they sometimes do, has mishandled his trust fund, the cost of those investigations can run into many thousands of dollars. Why should either the public -- and the public is eventually going to pay -- or the profession, apparently, because it’s charged to the profession and the professional fees go up -- why should those fees to the professional members have to go up to protect society against their erring members?

Why shouldn’t the erring members pay? It would be my hope -- and I don’t think I am going to realize it -- it would be my hope that somewhere under the new provisions of the Health Disciplines Act, that there would be a little greater verve and a little more zeal attached to both the disciplinary bodies and the new boards that they are setting up which would force them into the position of really getting at these complaints -- which would force them into the position of examining them thoroughly; which would force them into the position of calling in outside advisers who would give them advice.

These things are going to cost money if they are going to be done properly and if the public interest is going to be protected. And why should those costs be assessed back as against the public, because it’s the public which is eventually going to pay?

Surely it makes some sense that if a member of a particular profession, one of these disciplines, has been found under these procedures to have carried on improperly, and the process has cost somebody a lot of money -- it’s the public allotted money -- surely there should be power to award those costs as against that erring member.

There is no point in prolonging this. The minister is obviously disinterested. The Act is going to go through exactly the way it went through the standing committee. However, the point is there. The minister, I think, is wrong. He is as wrong as he can be. The minister is stubborn. So be it; he’s got more votes than the opposition has tonight. That’s fine. There will be another day.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’d appreciate your carrying on.

Mr. Singer: The minister is not listening at all. But to my mind, the amendments put forward by my colleague, make good sense -- and I am going to vote for them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’d appreciate your carrying on for another five minutes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I am not as pessimistic as many of the former speakers. I have a great feeling of faith in the minister and that he has listened to these Reasonable arguments that have been put forward tonight.

All the speakers have been lawyers up to now and I had no intention of entering this debate until yesterday, when a friend of mine who is a former past president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought me out to speak to me about this very matter.

He has sat on the discipline committee and as a member of the present discipline committee which is in session these days and will be next week, they are most unhappy, very much concerned and can hardly understand the reason behind this present amendment.

Presently they have the power to fine up to $1,000 and can add costs, if I am not mistaken; and can only suspend a licence for six months without it going to a higher body.

Under the new Act they can have indefinite suspension, but the matters of fining and costs have been taken from them.

It would appear to those concerned that they are losing a very great deterrent with the matter of fines taken away from the disciplines committee. The only recourse -- that is, of either revoking a licence or suspending a licence for a period of time -- could conceivably be of very little consequence to a dentist of considerable means.

If he has his licence revoked for six months, he can take a cruise or a holiday from his Toronto or his big city practice. He conceivably could have a holiday and the community at large would not suffer, because his practice would be divided at that time among other dentists.

But it was pointed out to me quite forcibly that most of the cases before the discipline committee deal with discrepancies with Blue Cross or OHIP-things that do not affect the competence or the ability of the professional to perform. And when a professional person, such as a dentist, is taken out of the community where there is only one in service or two to serve the whole community, it’s the community that suffers, more so than the person who has only had a licence to practise revoked or suspended for a period of time. There is an interesting point here, Mr. Minister, and if I might make a rather crude comparison, I think it is very applicable.

The other day, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), who is now in his seat, brought before this House legislation to amend the Milk Act. The gist of the legislation was simply this. The minister asked for penalties to impose on farmers who did not comply with the regulations and the quality that was required by the Milk Commission.

Up until then, Mr. Minister, the only thing open to the Milk Commission was to refuse the milk or to have the milk dumped down a drain, and that, Mr. Minister, was not considered good enough. Why should we waste the product when something could be achieved to bring about a correction of the situation through a penalty or a fine?

Why, in this instance, should we waste the professional abilities of a person by suspending his operation when something could be achieved through a fine or a penalty imposed against him? In the case of minor infractions. I am sure the discipline committee will not be as disposed to seek out all the implications of the charges and to look into them further and deeper if it means piling up additional costs which cannot be or will not be allowed to be met by the person if he is found guilty.

Now the comparison with the penalties against farmers under the Milk Commission in the Milk Act may be a crude comparison, but I think it shows that you are not tied to the principle that non-judicial bodies should not have the right of penalties or fines. We have already changed one Act this very week, Mr. Minister, which deals with this very point, and surely you cannot have the Attorney General tell you that you must abide strictly by the new recommendations of McRuer. I feel very strongly about this after the three-quarters-of-an-hour talk I had last night with my friend who is faced with a lot of these problems. And to me they are very real problems.

It has been mentioned that costs are very considerable; costs run up to large amounts. If these costs have to be paid entirely by the college, there is no alternative, Mr. Minister, but that they be passed on in the form of higher service charges to the public at large, if increased fees to the college are levied through the profession.

Revoking or suspension of a licence is a tool which sounds very practical; we have to be practical, we can’t be idealistic about this. And if this is going to work a hardship to the public because that is the only tool at the disposal of the discipline committee, then I would say to hang with the Law Reform Commission report if the Law Reform Commission report says that a non-judiciary body should not have this --

Mr. Roy: Not the Law Reform Commission, it’s the McRuer report.

Mr. Good: Or if the McRuer report says that we shouldn’t have this power.

Mr. Minister, I wish and I hope that you have consulted those professional people who have been working on this discipline committee. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this discipline committee, as it sits presently, has a lay person and professional people sitting on it. And the lay person I am sure is amazed at the work that is involved in turning out a self-disciplinary professional group. We have it in other disciplines, and we have it in this one. And if we are moving away from the idea of allowing fines and penalties, I think we are making a great mistake.

In all sincerity, Mr. Minister, I would ask you to give this fuller consideration. As I say, I had no interest in, or very little knowledge about this subject until yesterday, when I was sought out by and had this long talk with my friend who, as I say, is a past president of the college and sits on the discipline committee. They feet so strongly about it that he could hardly believe it when I said it was going to become law this week.

He said: “Is there anything that can be done?” I said: “Well, we will do what we can.” I have taken the best part of today talking to people in the Legislature, trying to get some support for this, so we leave this in the hands of the minister, Mr. Chairman, and I sincerely hope that he will reconsider this amendment.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, may I just make one further comment in relation to my amendment?

I feel, Mr. Chairman to the minister, that if you reject both of these amendments, then in fact you are going to have to go, for instance, against a body like the Law Society of Upper Canada and take away its right to impose the costs of the investigation. Let me tell you, I think you are going to have problems there.

The second thing that has to be kept in mind by the minister, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that there is a right of appeal. There is a right of appeal under section 13. If you are afraid that a non-judicial body is imposing fines or costs that they might be abusing, that might be too stringent or that might not be adequate, then there are provisions in your Act for the court of appeal to review these. So what are we afraid of? The right of appeal is open to us.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Not to levy fines.

Mr. Roy: Well, as I read section 13, it says: “Any party to proceedings before a discipline committee may appeal from its decision or order to the Supreme Court in accordance with the rules of court.” That is an order under section 37, subsection 5. It’s an order to revoke the licence, to suspend’, to impose restrictions, to reprimand the member, to direct the imposition, to levy fines and) to levy costs.

As I read this, there’s a right of appeal.

An hon. member: Oh yes, sure.

Mr. Roy: Pardon me?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Not on costs.

Mr. Roy: And on the fines; and on the fines.

Mr. Good: If you put them in. They are not in now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, the question becomes a very interesting one on the bask of chapters 84 and 85 of McRuer. I don’t know whether the hon. members have read McRuer --

Mr. Roy: I have read McRuer in the debate.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- but the point is that what we are faced with here is the fact that McRuer is very definite, in his report on civil rights, that only a court should fine. Even the Legislature of Ontario can’t fine. It can provide for an offence and leaves it to a judge to make the fine. If I understand it, the opposition is now saying that it wants, as an alternative, to give the power to a self-regulating body to impose a fine.

Mr. Deacon: Penalty.

Mr. Good: Penalty.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, I mean, a rose is a rose is a rose.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Good: It’s a penalty.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, no, that’s not a fine. No, it’s entirely different in this particular matter. In fact, it was because of that that we went into this. What the Milk Commission is doing is, as I recall it -- the Minister of Agriculture and Food can speak to this himself -- the distribution of the costs to be distributed among those who actually suffer a loss because of the imposition of --

Mr. Breithaupt: I think, Mr. Attorney General, that --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- those amendments to the Milk Act are not perhaps in that form. It was my understanding, certainly, of those amendments that the principle of dealing with that statute was to give an alternative to pouring the milk down the drain by saying to a farmer, “You have not reached the standard but we can use your product for some other purpose, but you are penalized.”

Mr. Deacon: Right.

Mr. Breithaupt: The result of that penalty has been to allow us to use the resource at a cost to the producer. In this case, when you are dealing with the health disciplines matters, again you are still able to use the service of the individual, especially in a community that may have no alternative, but you are imposing a penalty on that individual. I would like to hear from you, Mr. Attorney General, as to why the two are different, why the principle is not equivalence which allows the disciplinary body to have this alternative, always on the basis that the alternative can only be granted subject to review by the courts?

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, If I might just read this section from the Milk Act: “The amount of the penalties and the method by which the penalties are calculated, the payment of the penalties to the marketing board constituted to administer any plan -- so we are speaking of --

Mr. Deacon: That was at the time at which the penalties were payable.

Mr. Good: Right, at which the penalties are payable. Now those are straight penalties paid in money by the offending farmer. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Deacon: It provides for use of the penalties by such marketing boards.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a comment to the Attorney General. I read -- and in fact the member for Lakeshore has it right here -- the McRuer report, and part of it --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Do you disagree with McRuer?

Mr. Roy: No, no way.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Okay. Then this is quite specific.

Mr. Roy: No, I don’t disagree with McRuer, but McRuer said this, that you should not let bodies impose fines when these fines are being paid to the body.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s what he says?

Mr. Roy: Well let’s get the book over here. That’s what he said.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let’s be fair. I disagree with him, and I disagree with that wording. He says, in the first place, that he disagrees with fines. He says if there must be fines -- if there must be fines -- he goes the next step and says they should be payable to the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Roy: It is not that clear in his statement.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is quite clear to me.

Mr. Good: This is a case where there must be fines and they must be paid to the consolidated revenue fund.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let’s not misrepresent things. McRuer is opposed to self-regulating bodies imposing fines. He says if they must impose fines as an alternative they should be payable to the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Lawlor: There is a page in McRuer which we did not read in the health disciplines committee downstairs, and it is not the page that you are thinking of. It is 10 pages later on. This is at 1206. You are thinking of the stuff back here at 1195, where he comes down flatly, you think. But he didn’t finish, he goes on. I won’t read the first paragraph, although it is in my favour and against you -- you are just not read up on your McRuer at the moment:

“The self-governing statutes, being public Acts, are passed for the benefit of the public. It is difficult to see on what principle the fines imposed for breaches of these statutes should not be paid into the public treasury.”

That is all he says. That is enough. There is nothing wrong with the fines, as you say, per se. It is a question of where they go.

“The public provides the courts and all the facilities for the prosecution of the offences. It may be that these bodies engage their own counsel and for their own purposes conduct private prosecutions. This may be permissible, but it is a practice that ought not to be encouraged in any case, and it is particularly undesirable that it should be encouraged by statutory provisions that the fines imposed by the court should go to the private body.”

Mr. Good: That’s straightforward.

Mr. Lawlor: He says: “In no case should a private prosecutor have a monetary interest in the result of a prosecution.” Then he goes on in the same vein. He doesn’t object to fines, I suggest to you, as such. You heard what he said, and it is quite a different thing. By the way, I thought the Attorney General and I had an understanding about this whole thing -- namely, that the fines weren’t objectionable in principle at all and that it was a viable monetary way in which to deal with a wide range, the whole panoply of instruments?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, if you want to raise the question of understanding, I consulted with you and I consulted with my critics in the Liberal Party and I found you both at variance. I found you in favour of fines and him opposed to fines; you against costs, and him in favour of costs. Now if you want to get that on the record, let me put that quite clearly.

Mr. Lawlor: You didn’t discuss it with me --

Hon. Mr. Welch: You are not my critic.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. member for Oxford wants to speak.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Now do you want to put it on the record that --

Mr. Lawlor: I think you should at least have the courtesy to come back and give me some indication of what your intentions were, because as you left, I understood you to have rejected costs and accepted fines.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. member for Oxford has the floor.

Mr. Parrott: Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat difficult for me to speak on this without letting my professional bias show through, but I will attempt to do so. I don’t really feel I can get into the debate on a very sound basis on the difference between fines and costs. I would think that perhaps the Minister of Health and the Attorney General might come to some understanding of how that might be best done. I would plead for some compromise to be reached on this particular issue. Maybe there’s a point I can give testimony to tonight on the basis of a treatment procedure. If you leave the only alternative to the discipline committee to suspend me -- I’m now talking as though I were a practitioner -- if the only choice was to suspend me or to reprimand me, indeed, I think it destroys the need to give me more than a reprimand and to discipline me in some way. If you suspend my licence you disrupt my practice, my personnel in my office and the quality of the service I can render.

If I can use the illustration only to make the point -- I’m sure it’s true of other disciplines -- if you destroy a continuity of appointments in my office, indeed, you destroy my treatment. I may not have been guilty. I may not have been guilty of bad ethical practice but a bad monetary policy if that can illustrate the point. You’re not going to discipline me, surely, by destroying the quality of care I was attempting to give. You should hit me where it hurts, in the pocketbook. That’s the area where I offended.

I would ask the two ministers in this particular instance to give very serious consideration to some compromise which would hurt me as a practitioner for the offence I am guilty of but, please, do not destroy the kind of treatment that frequently a fairly decent practitioner -- as far as his treatment procedures are concerned -- would render. If you suspend me for three months, I can see some of the treatment I would render not only to the individual -- my staff might leave me -- I can see a great effect upon the procedures I would do in my office.

I hope that many of the logical arguments presented tonight would come to you in such a way that, perhaps, you would allow fines or costs. I guess the fairer thing would be to allow fines because it would put it back into the public purse and I feel there has been an offence, in this instance, against the public. I would be quite happy to see the fines levied by a discipline committee go back into the public coffers because, really in truth, this was an offence against society and society should benefit.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, if I might just comment for a moment, I think that, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, we should set the record very clear about McRuer. With the greatest respect to the member for Lakeshore, the references he was making had nothing to do with fines but rather with penalties with respect to violation of regulations,

Mr. Lawlor: With the greatest respect --

Hon. Mr. Welch: May I, with the greatest of respect, draw his attention to page 1195 of McRuer --

Mr. Lawlor: Take a look at 1207.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- report No. 1, vol. 3. Let me read now. The commission said:

“We recommend; that all disciplinary bodies have a full range of sanctions made available to them, ranging from reprimand to revocation of the right to practise [and listen to this] except the right to impose fines as is given under the Dentistry Act.”

Mr. Roy: Carry on.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It goes on:

“We do not think any self-governing body exercising judicial powers should have power to impose fines, especially when the fines are paid to the treasury of the body.”

Mr. Roy: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He goes on to qualify, I appreciate that, but surely there can be nothing more explicit than that?

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Minister, there is something more explicit than that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Wait a minute. You’ll have your chance. After all there is no rule about the number of times you can speak. That is the reason the government, in espousing the general principles of this particular royal commission inquiring into civil rights, has taken the position at this stage that it has. McRuer goes on to talk about the question of costs.

I realized in the standing committee there was some difficulty with respect to both of these matters. I consulted with the member for Lakeshore and I consulted with the member for Downsview and I found a difference of opinion with respect to what the compromise would be. The government has brought the bill to committee of the whole House consistent with McRuer.

I want to be sure that what we are hearing tonight is a request from the opposition to amend McRuer; in fact, not to follow McRuer with respect to these two recommendations. That’s what we are being asked to consider this evening, because McRuer is quite clear on both the question of the imposition of fines and the recovery of costs against the member of the profession* who was found guilty of some misconduct. It may be that the hon. member for Oxford has provided us with a compromise; if that is the compromise I’d be glad to chat for just a minute with my colleague, the Minister of Health. But let’s have the record clear as to what we’re talking about.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I do not wish to tax the minister on what is obviously a misunderstanding between us. We’ll let that go. Would you please tm-n to your book at page 1207 which is 15 pages further on? I read the first portion; just let me read the final paragraph if you think McRuer is not more explicit than that. He says:

“For reasons that we have already expressed with respect to the power to impose fines, we recommend that in all cases fines for breaches of the self-governing statutes should be paid into the public treasury.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s right -- “ ... of the statutes ...” Read it.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s quite clear he is affirmative toward fines payable into the public treasury.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You are both right.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s the way I read him.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: If I may say this to the Attorney General --

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the opposition wants us to amend it --

Mr. Deans: We want you to amend the bill; we’re not even dealing with McRuer tonight.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, we are.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the former Chief Justice of this province. I think he wrote an excellent report and he is still making a great contribution to this province. But if it means that we disagree with him on this point, we disagree with him on that point. I’m saying it’s not that clear. I want to make sure the Attorney General understands what we’re saying; it’s not all that clear because he put that caveat in this line. He says, “Especially when these fines are being paid to the treasury of the body.”

The second thing on the question of costs is not that clear either. We’re not talking about party costs or the discretionary costs imposed by a court. That’s what he’s afraid of because this is a discretionary thing for the court -- the costs -- and are not appealable. By our amendments, we’re talking about the costs -- all or part -- of the investigation, and, secondly, we’re talking about a situation or an order which is appealable.

You show me where that’s not appealable if we look at section 13. It is an order of the disciplinary body and is appealable to the court of appeal. We’re saying that on that basis these bodies should have the right to impose a fine and to impose part or all of the costs of the investigation.

I’m saying to you that if you don’t give these disciplines this right, you’re going to have to turn to the Law Society and say, “You cannot impose the costs of investigation any longer.” Do you intend to do that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: May well have to.

Mr. Roy: I’ll bet you will back off on that, because it’s a system that has worked well for the Law Society.

Hon. Mr. Welch: They don’t fine them.

Mr. Roy: No, they don’t fine; I quite agree with you they don’t fine.

Mr. Breithaupt: They levy costs.

Mr. Roy: They levy the costs of the investigation and that’s what we’re talking about here. We should have some systematic approach or at least some consistency in our approaches to all professions in this province. This is why we feel there should be something else but the remedies or the sanctions imposed by that section.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Chairman, there is no question that both in committee and in the debate tonight, this has been the most difficult issue for me to assess. We heard very persuasive arguments in the committee. While earlier tonight I was accused of always listening to the mercenaries, I don’t think I did. I had to try to listen to the varying legal opinions that emanated from the people present. The very fact that there was a great deal of disagreement in those legal opinions, apart from those of us who were trying to assess it as laymen, made life all the more difficult.

We went through some somersaults in the bill. I have to say that I truly believe that one of the prices that disciplines pay for having the right to govern themselves is the fact that they must be willing to accept the costs of governing themselves.

I have listened very carefully to all your arguments tonight; I have listened to my own member for Oxford. I have to say to you that I am prepared to accept costs; I am prepared to accept fines.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Roy has moved that section 37(5) be amended by adding new subsections (f) and (g). We’ll deal with subsection (f) first.

All those in favour of this amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare the amendment carried.

Mr. Roy further moved that a new subsection (g) be added.

All those in favour of this further amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Is there any further discussion on any section of the bill?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, similar amendments will have to be made in the medicine section, the pharmacy section and the optometry section.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, parallel amendments will have to be made in the other sections of the bill. Perhaps somebody could tell us the points at which they should be made.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the first amendment will have to be made in section 60(5).

Mr. Chairman: Is there any comment on any previous section?

Mr. Singer: I want to talk about section 58.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll deal with that subsection. Does the minister agree that the amendment we just passed applies to that subsection? I think it does. Agreed?

The hon. member for Downsview wanted to comment on section 58.

On section 58:

Mr. Singer: It’s very difficult to comment without the minister being here. If the minister is gone for a moment or two, I’m quite happy to wait until he comes back. Only the minister is going to do anything, if anything is going to be done.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister will listen to the comments of the member for Downsview on section 58.

Mr. Singer: I will be very brief, because frankly I am getting a little weary. Section 58 deals with the complaints committee, and I would think that it would be sensible, logical and fair if there was written into section 58 a provision that the complainant had a right to be present at the sittings of the complaints committee.

Again, I draw to the minister’s attention some remarks I made earlier tonight where the registrar of a college was explaining how these complaints are handled. They like people to come in for interviews, but they don’t like people to be there while they are deliberating. His figures were that they get 40 written complaints and 50 oral complaints a week, and the complaints committee sits three or four times a year and deals with 15 or 20. He expressed the opinion that he’s concerned with the facts; he doesn’t want to hear people. I don’t really know how, in fairness to the person complained about and in fairness to the complainant, that the complaints committee can properly deal with the complaint unless there is an opportunity for a public hearing.

Why, if a complainant feels that he’s not satisfied with what the complaints committee has decided, should he be denied the opportunity to confront the person he is complaining; about and to get the reasons and to have it taken down in a transcript?

It is a question of simple and obvious justice to me, and I would think that before the complaint committee comes to any decision it should give the complainant and the person complained about an opportunity to be there to hear all the evidence. It is as simple as that. I won’t elaborate on it. It is an obvious principle I hope the minister would be prepared to do something about.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I guess we discussed this in the second reading debate and you have to realize that at that point in time I did accept a variation of your proposal. I’ve given it quite a bit of thought and I’ve realized that a great number of complaints do reach the discipline itself, many of them of a kind.

Many of these are settled by simply talking to the person and satisfying them on the telephone or some other way that in fact the complaint he imagines is not valid.

We have made each person have a right of appearance before our committee at one stage of the complaint procedure and that is when it gets to the Health Disciplines Board on the assumption that the college did not deal with the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant.

I feel that one chance is enough. I feel that the precedents that are set by this review if, in fact, the discipline ignores complaints or deals with them in a high-handed way, will make them realize there is no use doing so when the person can approach before a Health Disciplines Board later and state his case.

I have to look at the speed of service and the way with which these things are handled. I have to come down on the decision that we are better to leave it the way it is knowing that each person who feels he has not been properly treated has one chance to explain his case.

Mr. Singer: Let me reply very briefly to the minister, again. I’m all in favour of mediation if you can mediate. We’ve had some reasonable success in that, under the laws dealing with human rights. The whole theme of those statutes, human rights commission and so on, is mediation -- not litigation, not confrontation. “Let’s see if we can’t solve it. Let’s talk to the complainer and the complainer and let’s see if we can’t come to an agreement.” That’s great, nothing wrong with that.

But if that fails -- and I see no ability within the present system for complaints made at the first level to be dealt with properly now, because at best a person can come in for an interview -- and when I heard the registrar say, “They really haven’t got time to listen to people. We’d like them to come in for an interview in advance; but we can’t do it with the hearing business,” then I began to worry. Because if it doesn’t have to drag on into the second level, isn’t that better for everybody?

I’m prepared to agree with the minister that out of the 90 complaints that they get in a week, 40 written and 50 phoned in, that probably an explanation is going to satisfy a substantial percentage of those people. And if a mediator goes out and says “Did you know that this is the practice and this is the problem”- and so on, you could solve a few more.

But when it comes to a hearing, surely it’s an important principle of our law that if a person’s rights are being dealt with -- and there are two sets of people whose rights are being dealt with; the person complained about and the person complaining -- they are entitled to have a hearing and to know what the evidence is. Maybe you’ll avoid a lot of work before the board if this happens. What bothers me is a hearing in camera and a hearing without witnesses. And who really knows what happens? The reasons may or may not be given; I made that point a little earlier.

Unfortunately, I have seen just too damn many of these letters from the complaints body of the college. I can read you half a dozen that I have in my file and they are non-answers. The person who has a grievance reads the letter -- and the person didn’t file the grievance because he thought lightly of it, he was upset -- and he gets a non-letter and he is bothered. Maybe justice has, in fact, been done but it doesn’t appear to have been done.

And that is what we’ve been talking about in human rights and civil rights and the whole system of British justice: Justice has to appear to have been done. When you get a small group of people -- what is it, four that you are going to have, three doctors and one lay person? -- meeting behind --

Hon. Mr. Miller: Three lay persons.

Mr. Singer: No, on the complaints; three doctors and one lay person, all right.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Actually one lay person on each.

Mr. Singer: Yes, the medical one; when you have three doctors and one lay person meeting behind closed doors making a decision and not having to give reasons for it, aren’t you aggravating the cause? Aren’t you keeping the wound open? Shouldn’t there be another opportunity for that person, if he feels it is still necessary?

Have your mediation procedures, sure. But shouldn’t there be an opportunity for the person who feels he is aggrieved to come before the first body, speak his piece and get it over with?

The minister has had some municipal experience and he has dealt with local ratepayers. Certainly in my experience I have found that if me public was brought into the confidence of the local council or had an opportunity to have its day in court -- and you can put that phrase in quotation marks -- then by and large most people were satisfied if the people hearing their grievance listened to them and listened to them in public.

That is all I am asking. I think it is reasonable. I think it is logical. It will do the people of Ontario a lot of good that the procedures appear to be fair, even though they might be fair without appearing to. It will save the board an awful lot of trouble by and large. The tough ones will go on, but the simpler ones, where there is an opportunity to talk and an opportunity to hear what the other side says, will be disposed of.

I don’t think it is unreasonable and again, I haven’t the strength at this hour to start writing amendments. But it is a simple proposition. The proposal has been made many times -- in this House. Why did the Attorney General -- and I am sorry he is not here --

Mrs. Campbell: He is here. He is right here.

Mr. Singer: Right. Why did the Attorney General ask that we do away with grand juries? What was the major objection to grand juries? That they sat in camera? That the accused wasn’t allowed to be there? That he wasn’t allowed to have counsel to represent him? Everything went on behind closed doors and it gave an appearance that justice wasn’t being done. Probably in most cases the grand jury did justice but the appearance was not there.

That is the appeal I make to the minister in regard to this section 58 and all of these complaints come into it. It is a simple one, an obvious one, and it is consistent with some of the steps we have taken, the one the Attorney General took the other day.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 58 carry? Carried.

Mr. Singer: The minister doesn’t want to reply?

Mr. Chairman: Section 60, subsection 5. I am advised that Mr. Roy’s amendment would apply to section 60, subsection 5; section 84, subsection 5; section 107, subsection 5; and section 133, subsection 5. Is it agreed that the same amendment will be made to these sections? Carried.

Are there any further comments on any other sections?

Mr. Roy: To be clear, Mr. Chairman, just amendment (f) is added to each of these sections.

Mr. Chairman: Amendment (f) -- that’s correct.

Mr. Good: And (g) if you want it, but --

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on any other sections of the bill?

The hon. member for Oxford.

Mr. Parrott: Mr. Chairman, before the bill is reported --

Mr. Cassidy: The new part of the opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Parrott: No, indeed, it is quite the opposite in this occasion. I haven’t had that much experience in this House, in truth, but I don’t think I’ve ever had the pleasure of sitting on a committee that looked at the issues as well and as thoroughly as this particular committee did. It was a pleasure to sit with the minister who tried to listen and indeed did listen. I think tonight was an illustration of that point.

It’s a rare occasion when I have seen us -- and I think the other members might join with me in this regard -- as a House, looking at a bill as well, as intelligently and as non-partisanly. I could go on and on, but this isn’t the time. I want to express the appreciation of, I hope, many of the members of this House for the great attention the minister has given to this bill and also to the members of that committee. I think they did a first-class job.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a word of comment to what has been said. I think that during the course of this committee every single person was working in what he felt was the best interests of this particular bill. I found the minister to be very open in listening to what we said. In my opinion, he made a great effort to try to accommodate as he could the opinions of those who were at the committee. So in a sense, if I may, I second the motion of the member for Oxford.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 22, as amended, reported.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

House in committee on Bill 95, An Act to restructure the County of Oxford.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill as reprinted with proposed amendments be considered by the committee.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): I’ll agree with that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, that is satisfactory to the opposition.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s okay with us, Mr. Chairman. I understand that if we objected to any of the amendments that are outlined in the bill we would then vote to delete the amendment as reprinted in the bill. Is that right?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, that would be agreed, I believe.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, amendments or questions on any section of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Section 2, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McIlveen: Carried.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Oshawa is apparently anxious to go home.

Mr. McIlveen: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: I understand it is the custom for the Leader of the Opposition to comment first on the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: If he has an amendment on section 1 or section 2, then I happily yield to him. That’s fine.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t have an amendment. I have some comments on section 2. The hon. member may certainly go ahead. I would be delighted to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Cassidy: The Leader of the Opposition is welcome to go ahead.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Leader of the Opposition on section 2.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you very much, gentlemen. I simply want to ask the minister if the amendments in section 2 establishing names for the new lower-tier municipalities were the result of the consultation last week which was undertaken by the minister and by his officials? I presume that is the case, but I wonder if he is convinced that the names suit the people who are going to be living in the areas. I wonder why he wouldn’t have left the procedure that has been used elsewhere, that it would be left up to a referendum for the names to be decided locally. I think that it is of some importance. I must say that I have had no complaints directed to me from anybody in the area. But there has really been very little opportunity for that to occur.

I would presume then that the amendments indicated in section 2 are as a result of those consultations. If the minister can assure us that they suit the people, he perhaps should tell us in the same way how he got their opinion because, as he knows, we’ve had an argument before as to what constitutes the opinion of the community.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to answer the Leader of the Opposition. We have had our staff meet with the elected officials of the municipalities involved in the new area municipality. And the previous local municipalities agreed on the names, except in the one instance where they are saying they wish to have a referendum.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And there were no objections expressed from any other members?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Good: One short note on that. When it comes to a referendum, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister doesn’t put very similar names on the ballot, as was done at the Lakehead. There was a “Lakehead” and “The Lakehead” and “Thunder Bay” put on the ballot. The result was that the Lakehead vote was split in half, and the name ended up Thunder Bay -- when in my opinion and that of many others, more people wanted the name Lakehead in one form or the other. And I would hope that you don’t pull something like that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, no; we would like to put the names on that they want.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But you didn’t do that in the Lakehead.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I know that. I realize that.

Mr. Good: The name is designated by the minister, the way this section reads, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three general comments to make, which I will make at this time rather than interspersing them through the bill; and they will be very brief.

I just had the opportunity, after reading the second reading debate, to look through the study committee’s report on which the work for preparing the bill was based a couple of years ago. And there is one thing that comes to my mind in looking through that that I think is important.

It was argued during the course of the bill, Mr. Chairman, that the pressures of urbanization require the creation of a very strong upper tier in the county council, and worked against decentralization of as many powers as possible to the seven or eight newly created lower tier municipalities. That was the government’s argument.

But just for the record, I would point out that the growth in Oxford county was at the rate of 1.8 per cent, between 1951 and 1961, and 1.3 per cent in 1961 to 1966. But in the last three years that they covered, 1966 to 1969, the rate of growth of population in the county was only 1.1 per cent. That means that town and rural area alike were not growing at anywhere near the average rate for the province or certainly nothing like the rate of population growth for London or Kitchener-Waterloo or for Metro Toronto. The area has been depopulating; and the kind of pressures that the minister has spoken about simply haven’t existed in anything like the measure that they existed elsewhere in the province.

Therefore, it would see to me that the need for the excessive degree of powers at the upper tier is not proven by the situation that exists in the county.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 2 of Bill 95 be amended by adding new sections 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) as follows:

“2(a) Each area municipality shall create a community advisory committee to advise the area municipality for the people of each of the police villages dissolved under section 2, and may create such other community advisory committees as it deems necessary.

“2(b) A community advisory committee shall have no less than five members elected by a general meeting of the residents of the community, called by the clerk of the area municipality, to serve for a period of not more than one year.

“2(c) Community advisory committees shall advise the area municipality council on matters affecting the community and may, by bylaw of said council, be delegated to carry out functions on behalf of the area municipality.”

Mr. Cassidy: There was a specific recommendation by the study committee, Mr. Chairman, that with the dissolution of police villages, which is occurring not because of local wishes but because of provincial government policy, the study committee recommended that community advisory committees be established in the existing villages to work with and advise the municipal council.

The report that was prepared and sent up to the minister just in the last few weeks said specifically -- well, it didn’t say it specifically; and I think that’s the problem. It says that the area municipalities are not forbidden to set up community advisory committees. I am suggesting that in this particular case, where there was a police village, a community advisory committee should be set up. If the ministry wants to accept the principle, then one could possibly put a two-, three- or five-year limit on the mandatory feature of those community advisory committees so that thereafter it would be an optional kind of thing on behalf of the area municipalities. I am suggesting that the power to set up these advisory committees and to delegate to them be created as well in case an area municipality wants to use it elsewhere.

It seems to me that it is time we stopped beating around the bush on this. The government was asked to create similar advisory committees in the case of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. It said at the time: “Well, it’s too early. It’s too soon. They have got too much to do. There is too much reorganization going on. We can come to it later.”

The effect is to seriously weaken local involvement in the new kind of county or regional government. The reasons for avoiding the advisory committees in Haldimand-Norfolk, if they were valid, which we dispute, don’t exist in the county of Oxford, where we have an established county that has been around for a century or so and are restructuring within an established county’s boundaries and where we have communities that are not subject to the rapid growth that may occur in some of the communities of Haldimand-Norfolk. It seems to me that the permissive and, in certain cases, mandatory powers that we suggest ought to be acceptable to the ministry, and if it does believe in acceding to local wishes, it should go along with the recommendations of the study committee.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to say something before the minister replies. The police villages referred to -- Drumbo. Plattsville and Princeton -- are all in the Blenheim township area, and the village of Bright is just on the entire of the Blenheim township area. I personally am familiar with them -- very familiar indeed.

The hon. member for Oxford has the honour of representing the other areas and no doubt is as familiar as I am with the very strong community spirit that has developed in these police villages. They have, of course, come under the general township jurisdiction for a long period of time, with the village trustees having only residual or very small powers over local matters. The concept of a community advisory committee in many ways would simply replace the trustees that have been operating and representing to the extent of the responsibility left with them over these years.

I have no objection to the amendment, and I can see some distinct usefulness in approving it: we therefore intend to support the amendment. I don’t want to spend the time of the House on an ancillary argument which I intend to bring forward perhaps at another time, comparing it with the situation that prevails with the county board of education, which is a one-tier type of government.

I feel that such a community advisory committee might very well function at the same time with respect to the board of education if the two could be harnessed in that way, where the communities have a real necessity, I think, for strengthening a local voice in that connection. I would feel that the need and the rationale would be at least as strong in education matters as it is in the general course of municipal duties.

I have read the recommendations as they pertain to Haldimand-Norfolk. I would have liked to have seen it apply there as well, but I could see some sense in the feeling expressed at the time that since it was a totally new approach, with two large counties being brought together in a new region, that perhaps there was some reason not to experiment with that further complication.

But in this instance, where the present board of trustees would be replaced by the community advisory committee with somewhat similar responsibilities, since the trustees have very limited powers at the present time, I think it would be very reasonable to allow these committees to be established and to try them under these circumstances. I hope that the minister would give it some consideration, and I would like to see it brought into the bill. Therefore, we intend to support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, our view on this matter is that each area municipality should have the right to create any advisory committee if it wants to, and not have it mandatory. We feel there is a great deal, as both the members have said, in having advisory committees and we encourage them but we think the area municipality itself should determine whether or not it wishes to have the advisory committee, whether it is related to police villages or boards of education or whatever it may be.

The government’s view is therefore that we would have only permissive legislation whereby the local elected people decide if they want to have an advisory committee for police villages.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the minister has said, I wonder whether I can persuade him to accept this amendment, slightly altered. He is saying he thinks the urban municipalities should have the right to create these advisory committees. It’s not spelled out in the legislation, but I presume you are saying it is not prohibited either.

The right to delegate to a community advisory committee does not exist in legislation. I wonder, since the minister has got the amendment in front of him, if the legislation said the area municipalities may create a community advisory committee for each of the police villages and such other community advisory committees as were deemed necessary, would he accept the rest of the amendment on that basis which would be permissive rather than mandatory, even in the case of the police villages but would also give them the option of delegation if they saw fit. Would the minister accept that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Chairman, because we feel it’s a matter which the elected representatives must be responsible for. The advisory committee reports to the elected people and they make the decisions; but certainly not to delete the authorities to an advisory committee.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems to me they could take such things as local recreation funds, maybe some other local improvement funds, maybe some various programmes -- winter works programmes and that kind of thing -- and certainly administer the money under the general guidelines of the area municipality council. It would be a very useful kind of innovation to try. I’m sorry the minister is short-sighted and rather difficult on that.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Ottawa Centre wish to change his motion, changing the word “shall” to “may”?

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t see any need, Mr. Chairman. The minister has indicated he will oppose it no matter what we do to try to accede to his declared intentions.

Mr. Chairman: I will place the motion, therefore, as you have submitted it.

Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion please say “aye.”

Those against please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and section 2 will stand as part of the bill.

Are there any further questions or discussion on any other section of this bill? On section 3?

Mr. Cassidy: On section 3, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking you were deaf from listening to the “ayes” and “nays” on that vote.

I have one amendment I would like to move.

Mr. Cassidy moves that subsection 3(a) of section 3 of Bill 95 be amended by changing the word “may” in line 1 to “shall.”

Mr. Cassidy: This is in order to make the division of each of these areas into wards mandatory rather than optional in the hands of the minister. I think we have stated on a number of occasions that we believe wherever possible the ward system should be applied rather than having elections at large and that is why we have put it in in this particular section. I think that were we to do it again the representation for the city of Woodstock ought to be very seriously reconsidered. The way it is right now they have eight members at large, with the top five going on to the county council. It seems to me it should be possible to have some kind of a ward system within Woodstock of such a nature that everybody had their own representatives rather than simply having people elected at large.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on the fact that if the minister by law had to divide every one of the lower-tier municipalities into wards, while it might be a very proper procedure for Woodstock and perhaps Ingersoll and Tillsonburg, I can’t see a great advantage for the largely rural areas. My own feeling is that in a rural area election at large does not lead to a hiving of the representation, and it doesn’t have the same value as it would have in an urban area. For that reason, I think it might very well be left to the discretion of the minister, directed by the wishes of the community concerned.

I can see an advantage, as the hon. member pointed out, in the concept of wards in urban areas, but I am not impressed at all in rural areas where the area representation or the representation in each locality is not of such prime importance. I am not of a mind to support that amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, as the Leader of the Opposition says, where there is a community of less than 10,000 people I think the principle should be accepted by the government. We have just seen today in the Ottawa-Carleton amendments a case where the province is accepting the wishes, not of the community -- it has never sought the wishes of the community -- but of the counsel of the school board in this particular case, which is seeking to protect its own position and has been blocking the views of the public from making themselves felt in the system of representation. So long as you allow municipal councils to make decisions about at-large elections and so on, it is obvious they are liable to do what suits their own electoral fortunes rather than what best serves the people. There is a certain tendency to do that in redistribution too.

Mr. Good: Just one point here, would the minister assure us that in any instance where, say, Tavistock and East Zorra are going together, there would be a division of representation from the former community of Tavistock and from the rural area? This has worked well in Waterloo, in Elmira, Woolwich and Waterloo. There are representatives from each of the former areas and there is a ward system where there has been a former municipality taken in with a large rural area, so that all the representation doesn’t come from the former municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I can’t assure the hon. member that this will happen, but I can agree with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition whereby he said this generally does happen in rural areas. I think it will in this particular case cited by the member for Waterloo North.

I would think that what we should do is accept this principle as outlined in the bill. We have met with the area municipalities and with as many people as possible. If it comes about later on that the people wish to change, we are quite receptive to having a resolution from them and changing into a ward system, but I believe we are incorporating in this bill what the people want in regard to representation.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything on section 9?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am sorry; I just want to lay something on section 9. I am just glad to see that the minister has abandoned what I thought was a cockeyed idea of having the warden required by law to vacate his position as head of the lower-tier municipality upon his election. I don’t know whether he was convinced by the arguments on second reading or whether the reaction of the good people in Oxford was strong enough to make him withdraw that idea, and I am going --

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Oxford said he was out of touch.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, well, that’s good. So I am glad to see that that’s been replaced, and he has even got that elaborate procedure whereby in the election of the warden there is by lots procedure to break any possible tie. As a matter of fact, it’s probably very appropriate that that section be put in because Oxford has a tradition of extremely hard-fought elections for the wardenship. In the county of Brant which is right next to it, of course, the wardenship tends to be handed around in a very polite way.

Down in the former county of Haldimand the county councillors had to declare their politics, Liberal or Conservatives, when they were elected, and the wardenship alternated one way or the other. I don’t know, they never got around to a three-way split there for some reason. But I thought that was a very interesting way to proceed. But in Oxford --

Mr. Cassidy: The day will come.

Mr. Deans: These things only happen when the electorate is involved.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): They never will in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But in Norfolk, which is another county that was in my constituency, there used to be a hot election for the chairman of the committee of the whole and then he automatically became warden the next year. But in Oxford it was just a good political fight. And there are instances where -- Harry, would there be 20 ballots?

Mr. Parrott: Oh, sometimes 60.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And they would vote for hours and hours and days and days and the chores weren’t done and everybody was in tears back home, but they would eventually elect the warden.

Mr. Cassidy: We shouldn’t put this section in then; we shouldn’t disturb tradition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So that under these circumstances at least the warden, once he is elected, maintains his basic responsibility back in his own area of the regional municipality. Also I like subsection 3, although it is a little odd, for a procedure to break my tie.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I reacted to the wishes of the people in both cases there. That’s all. They are, shall we say, very convincing in their arguments and I thought this was the way to handle the situation.

Mr. Cassidy: You were very wrong in your proposals. Mr. Chairman, I subscribe to --

Mr. Parrott: Another illustration of the minister’s good sense in listening to all.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, no, we congratulate him for recognizing that he was wrong.

Mr. Parrott: He wasn’t wrong.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t like to use the expression “wrong”.

Mr. Cassidy: All right. At any rate, the amendment as put forward in the reprinted copy of the bill is an enormous improvement. I had intended to move an amendment on that section but since the minister has, in consultation with the local people come up with an acceptable alternative, we accept it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 9 stand as part of the bill?

Section 9 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion?

Mr. Good: Yes, on 11.

Mr. Chairman: On section 11?

Shall section 10 carry?

Section 10 agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Good: Would the minister explain why the subclause: “The warden does not have a vote except in the event of an equality of votes”? Why is that taken out?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am sorry, I couldn’t hear.

Mr. Good: Why is that taken out, that the warden has the tie-breaking vote if there is a tie, especially when you have 20 men on the council?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He still has the tie-breaking vote.

Mr. Good: Why don’t you take it out in the revised version?

Mr. Cassidy: He wouldn’t have a regular vote before --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, he has the vote as a representative from his municipality in any vote in case of a tie.

Mr. Good: That part is taken out.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 11 carried?

Section 11 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on any other section of this bill?

Mr. Good: Section 13, Mr. Chairman.

Section 12 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 13.

On section 13:

Mr. Good: I’d just like to make a short comment on 13 to remind the member for Oxford that he can see that the name “chairman” which was copied from all the regional government bills is now being changed to “warden” all through the rest of the bill, which proves that these sections were all taken out of regional government bills.

Mr. Chairman: Section 13?

The member for Ottawa Centre.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: That was a well taken point, you know.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 13(3) of Bill 95 be amended in line 5 by changing the word “may” to “shall.”

Mr. Cassidy: The effect of this would simply be that where there is a vacancy on the county council the successor would have to be a member of the area municipality’s council and I could I not be brought in from right outside. I think it is a reasonable kind of thing in view of the fact this is an upper-tier government and in view of the fact we have just increased the number of people who will sit on the councils of the lower-tier municipalities by about 50 per cent in every case. The councils were five, six or seven members and now they are going to be eight, nine or 10 members.

I suspect if one looked at the precedents for where your deputy reeve came from and how the deputy reeve or the reeve was replaced on a county council if he happened to have to go it would be normal -- in the same way as a mayor can only be replaced on a municipal council by another member of the council -- that the reeve, under the old system, could only be replaced by another member of council. The reeve, of course, was the local municipal representative on the county council.

In other words, under the normal old system if the reeve retired or had a heart attack or whatever between elections, he would have to be replaced on his area municipality council, his local council, by somebody already on that council. He could not be replaced from outside.

I am open to some correction from the officials on that. I don’t think we should change it now and allow somebody who hasn’t been around before to be put on. You have made an exception here for the head of council of an area municipality but that indicates, of course, that the mayor cannot be replaced in a local area municipality by somebody who isn’t on the council, I just think the precedent should be followed. That’s the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion? Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and section 13 will stand as part of the bill.

Is there any further discussion on any other section of this bill?

Is there anything before section 30?

Sections 14 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Section 30, Mr. Chairman, says, “The county council shall adopt a plan of road construction and maintenance, and from time to time thereafter shall adopt such other plans as may be necessary.” That is the current wording of the section.

As the member for Waterloo North pointed out this, like many other sections in the bill didn’t spring full-blown out of the brow of the minister or his officials. It sprang full-fledged out of the existing regional government Acts in the statute books. I think the drafting very confusing and might allow things which may not be desirable.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 30 of Bill 95 be amended by deleting all words after the word “thereafter” and substituting the following, “may amend such plans.”

Mr. Cassidy: It is a tidying-up kind of amendment but I thought I’d put it since, from time to time, Mr. Church and his assistants are redrafting or revising or improving the regional government legislation and they may be able to take this as a model.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a good improvement. Why doesn’t the minister accept it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t think there’s any difference. I would like to have someone tell me the difference between “the county council may adopt such other plans” and “may amend such plans.” If they adopt other plans, they are amending plans.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Can’t they have more than one plan?

Mr. Cassidy: What are the other plans? Are they plans about water works or plans about planning or plans about day care?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If you are amending a plan, it’s the same difference, isn’t it? I think they are doing exactly the same thing.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment, please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it,

I declare the amendment lost and section 30 will stand as part of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Section 35, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before section 35?

Sections 31 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Riverdale always prides himself on making at least one change to a bill, and I think I will find my opportunity here. Even in the reprinted version, the marginal note says, “sidewalks accepted”; I think it should say “sidewalks excepted.” I wonder if the minister would accept that piece of momentous change.

Mr. McIlveen: Oh yes, give him that.

Mr. Breithaupt: He would accept it, except that --

Mr. McIlveen: Give the member for Ottawa Centre that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Accepted.

Mr. Cassidy: All right.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 35 carry with the amendment of one word as indicated?

Mr. Singer: You have an amendment, but the member hasn’t written it out. That is against the rules.

Mr. Chairman: Carried. Anything before section 70 of the bill?

On section 54:

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to comment on sections 54 and 55, Mr. Chairman. The redraft has left certain zoning powers in the hands of the area municipalities, whereas the original proposal that we saw a week or two ago put all planning and zoning powers in the hands of the county council.

I can see an opportunity for a real conflict here and I would like the minister to comment on it. If I could refer, with the consent of the House, to section 55(4), it says:

“The council of an area municipality may exercise the powers provided in sections 35, 36 and 38 of the Planning Act, but if there is a conflict between a bylaw passed by the county council and a bylaw passed by the council of the area municipality in the exercise of such powers, then the county bylaw shall prevail.”

I understand what you are getting at there, but since both the county council and the area municipality council have the power to pass zoning bylaws under this particular part, there is a potential for conflict there. I think reasonable people can avoid it, but I wonder if that was anticipated by the minister and his people in doing this drafting and how they or the county felt they could avoid any such conflicts?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, we understand exactly what is in here. First of all, it says that planning and all matters related to that would be at the upper tier. In talking with the local people, they expressed the wish to have some of the exercise in planning left at the area municipality level; we felt that zoning was one that could be handled quite easily, but we don’t think they should be able to zone in conflict with the planning at the upper level in the county. Therefore, we have stated in this Act that the county council has the final say. If the area municipalities act in conjunction with zoning bylaws that are passed by the county council, there is no problem. But if they pass a bylaw that is in conflict with the bylaws, then there is certainly the right of the county council to step in and say, “No, that bylaw will not be approved.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the more normal situation would be where there was an official plan at the county level and zoning bylaws at the area municipality level which had to conform with the official plan. What is unusual, and I don’t think I have seen it before, is that the county council has got the powers of the municipality, including the powers of zoning, and the local municipality has the power to zone as well.

Presumably what the minister hopes is that in areas where the local municipality wants to zone, it will be left to do so; the county won’t try to interfere and will say, “Look, you go ahead and zone, but make sure you respect our official plan.” In other areas, perhaps the local council won’t want to zone and that will be handled by the county. But the possibility of conflict is left there, and the legislation is not airtight; it has left a potential for conflict which probably shouldn’t be there.

I will let that one go and hope it works out okay. I hope the officials look into that one, because I think the drafting could be improved to avoid that possibility of conflict by making sure that they choose which level will handle the zoning.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 54 of Bill 95 be amended by adding after the word “necessary” the words “and shall appoint an advisory planning committee for each of the area municipalities as constituted by section 2.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, this makes mandatory the appointment of advisory planning committees at the area municipality level, rather than leaving it at the option of the county council. It seems to me that this is not only desirable as a matter of principle and not only in terms of decentralizing inputs into the planning process, but it becomes more necessary given the fact that zoning may now be exercised at the local level when previously the minister intended that zoning be carried on exclusively by the county council.

Once again we have this tension between the Tory tendency to try to put everything up at the top, centralize it all, make sure that when the warden comes to Queen’s Park he has the whole shebang in his briefcase and can handle everything on behalf of the county, possibly with an assist from the local member --

Mr. Taylor: What section are we on?

Mr. Cassidy: Section 54 -- and our desire to keep as much power as possible as close to local people as possible. Power is measured not just from the ability to do things but also in having the formal right and the informal access to influence decisions made sometimes by higher levels of government. I hope the minister will accept this particular amendment.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, possibly the minister could point out the section of the bill that gives the county government the power to zone.

Mr. Cassidy: The local government.

Mr. Taylor: No, the bill provides for the area municipalities to do the zoning.

Mr. Cassidy: They would have the function of zoning.

Mr. Taylor: Yes. Did you find the section?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Section 55(4). And as far as the other section 55(5) goes, it says: “The county council may delegate to an area municipality the powers in respect to subdivision agreements.”

Mr. Taylor: We’re on section 54.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m talking about the amendment now which the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has brought forth. We feel again that it’s the same philosophy and that it should be permissive and not mandatory. What we think is we should leave it up to the local people to decide whether they want to have an advisory committee. We think they will have an advisory planning committee. However, in some cases maybe they can’t get somebody to act as advisory. Therefore, we make it permissive.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I’m wondering if I could have an answer to my question. I was asking if the power was expressly given to the county council to pass zoning bylaws?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, in section 54(1) where the county was made a municipality for the purposes of the Planning Act, a municipality has got the power to zone under the Planning Act.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that but what the member is saying is that there may be a conflict between the zoning bylaw of the area municipality.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Taylor: -- and the bylaw of the county council. It’s provided that the bylaw of the county council shall precede the bylaw of the area municipality.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Taylor: Then, what’s wrong with that?

Mr. Cassidy: There is a potential conflict there which is not settled at all. The county could come in and negate the bylaw at the local level if there was a lack of co-operation.

Mr. Taylor: It’s only if there is bad faith that you would experience that problem then.

Mr. Deans: What is going on?

Mr. Breithaupt: Do you two want to go somewhere?

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion will please say “aye”.

Those opposed will please say “nay”.

In my opinion, they “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and everything up to section 54 shall stand as part of the bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t be so rough.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before section 70?

Mr. Good: Section 71, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is just a bull-headed man.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, section 71 dissolves all police commissions and boards as they are now constituted and says new boards and commissions of police or police committees shall be established in the manner provided under the Police Act. The Police Act says the new commissions would be composed of a judge appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; another person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the head of the municipality.

We have been opposed to this idea of the composition of police commissions in this party for a number of years. It was just about this hour in the morning that we argued the point on the Niagara bill about six years ago. Here we go again.

Mr. Good moves that section 71 of the Act be amended by striking out all words after the word “be” in the fourth line and substituting therefor the words “composed of one person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the head of the council and one member of the council of the area municipality in which a local police force has jurisdiction.”

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, this would bring local autonomy to the police commission, something which we have never had in any police commission in this province. It would remove from police commissions a judge, as has been recommended by the present Solicitor General of the Province of Ontario -- but has never been acted upon by the government. We would find there would be the head of council for the area municipality, one member of council and an appointee of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I would ask the minister to look upon this amendment favourably and take this forward step.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member for Waterloo North to allow the Act to stand as it is until we come in with the report on the task force on policing. We know there are going to be some changes. We realize this will come about in time. I think there is some merit in what the member is saying, but I just feel it is premature to change it now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what the government has been saying for years.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make a comment in the same part -- if we can deal with the parts -- because I want to make a comment that relates probably to the suggestion of the member for Waterloo North and also to something we wanted to say as well.

The government says with one voice, as the minister just said, “Wait until the report of the government on the question of municipal policing.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Until we act on the report,

Mr. Cassidy: Until the government acts on it, okay. Yet on the other hand, they take the bill here and in the revision it has the effect of giving the minister or the government the power to establish a regional police force whether or not people in Oxford county want it. That is the question that is put forward in section 74. If they want it, he can refuse them or he can accept it. If they don’t want it, he can give them a regional police force and make them pay for it as well.

Now, all of the evidence indicates there is no particular pressing desire or need for reform, Oxford county is a low crime area. In 1967 and 1968, according to a study committee, it had 16 reported crimes per 1,000 people; which compares with 49 reported crimes per 1,000 for the province as a whole and 38 for the Lake Erie region -- which apparently is safer than some other parts of the province. The level of policing in those areas of Oxford county that have their own police forces is also much higher than the provincial norm.

Now, clearly, there is no crisis in the police in Oxford county and there is no need to rush into a regional police force. It just seems to me to be wrong that the province is taking the power to ram a regional police force down people’s throats --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is not in section 71 --

Mr. Cassidy: It’s in section 74.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let’s vote on 71.

Mr. Good: Vote on 71.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, let us put it on the record very clearly that we have given our word and we have it in writing, that we will not be changing the police forces in Oxford unless the municipality requests a change. We have this section in there in order that we may act if they want a change in their police forces. They will have exactly the same police force as they have now as long as they want it.

Mr. Cassidy: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, the original section 74 said that the minister may make a reasonable request; it does not refer to the request from the council at all -- and he still retains those powers.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are still on section 71.

Mr. Cassidy: We will oppose section 74, Mr. Chairman, without further discussion.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Good’s amendment please say “aye.”

Those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it. I declare the amendment lost and section 71 stands as part of the bill.

Section 71 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 74?

Section 74, Mr. Good.

Mr. Good: I would like to reinforce and put into legislation the words that the minister just said that there would only be a regional police force established in Oxford county at the request of the county council.

Mr. Good moves that section 74 be amended by deleting the words “or on his own initiative” in the first and second lines.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You can’t turn that one down.

Mr. Good: I would simply state that I see no need for the words “or at his own initiative.” I don’t think it is proper policy for the minister at his own initiative to be able to force a regional police force on Oxford county.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has given his word of honour he won’t.

Mr. Good: In that case there should be no problem in accepting this amendment. I do feel the council of Oxford county would certainly want to look around at regional police forces in other areas -- at the cost, their effectiveness and the difference created within a regional or county municipality by having a regional policy force in contrast to a local police force. I’m sure, without hesitation, they would not solicit from the minister that he establish a regional police force. I wouldn’t wish that on any other region. I hope the minister would accept this amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is correct and I think the minister seriously destroys his own credibility if he doesn’t accept the amendments of the member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Deans: There is one point I want to make on this. I wasn’t really asleep. It just occurred to me as I was sitting listening to the debate.

Mr. Cassidy: You are trying to prove you’re in the House at this time. It is now 2:30 a.m.

Mr. Deans: A matter was brought to my attention with regard to policing being done by the Ontario Provincial Police in the Hamilton-Wentworth region, which may well have application in this. The Ontario Provincial Police, I’m informed, don’t have jurisdiction to enforce local bylaws.

Mr. Good: It is done by law officers.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I was going to say so and I was going to add to that. It would seem to make sense, where regions are formed and the OPP do continue to police in the local area, that they might be given a little wider power in order to carry on the normal policing function which is available throughout the remainder of the area but is not available in some small segments.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There are, I think, two things which were given to the people of Oxford especially by the minister following consultation. The first was the retention of the term “warden.”

Mr. Breithaupt: As reprinted.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As reprinted -- and secondly his promise that it would not be necessary to impose regional policing on the whole area. The taxpayers, being canny Scots a lot of them, have seen what’s happened in other areas where the tender mercies of the minister’s predecessors have imposed regional policing and where the costs have mounted tremendously. The minister, however, made it quite clear that he would not guarantee regional policing -- let’s say the two types of policing -- in perpetuity.

I might as well be candid with the minister and say it’s the feeling of some people up there, who have not been successful in convincing him of too many things, that it is the government’s intention to impose regional policing without much delay, say a year from now, once the bill is through and people settle down a little bit. Now the minister has said here that he gave a personal undertaking that such was not the case and would not be the case until and if the people in the area, the appropriate councils, requested it. I really believe he ought to accept the amendment as a token of his good faith in that regard.

Mr. Parrott: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Oxford.

Mr. Parrott: Mr. Chairman, obviously I will not enter this debate in great dialogue tonight because I’m sure the minister is speaking for the wishes of the people.

Some hon. members: Can’t hear you; use your microphone.

Mr. Parrott: Do you want me to shout, too? I do want to draw one statement from the remarks just made by the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, there has been a lot more granted to the people than the title of “warden” and this statement on police. I think you would have to appreciate the number of amendments the minister has accepted all the way through. We dealt with this --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like changing chairman to warden.

Mr. Parrott: That is a totally semantic consideration and it’s so far from needing comment that I shan’t even be tempted to do so. If you cannot accept the number of changes that the minister has made, then you just don’t understand what he has done in that community for those people. When the minister says --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are talking about the amendments to Bill 95.

Mr. Parrott: I am talking about section 74. When the minister says --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t amount to a hill of beans.

Mr. Good: Even though he says differently.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Parrott: The minister says he will not impose a regional police force on the restructured county of Oxford -- and I am going to say it one more time than you: It is the restructured county of Oxford; you can say “region” as long as you want, but I am going to live in that community and I am going to say “restructured county” more often than you are going to say it the other way.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We will see who believes it.

Mr. Parrott: We will see who believes it. We will see that very clearly.

Mr. Good: Will you support the amendment or not?

Mr. Parrott: I know this kind of debate really isn’t in the spirit of the way we have tried to deal in the House tonight, but I do want to impress upon the minister that I too will remember his words that there will not be a regional police force. I believe he means it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I not only mean it, but I am quite willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. Singer: Before that is officially approved by the House, could I ask the minister if there aren’t powers for the Solicitor General under the Police Act to amalgamate police forces? I have been looking for it, but I couldn’t find it. I am not quite sure what the provisions are, but it seems to me that quite apart from what’s in this statute, there are certain powers lying with the Solicitor General about the co-ordination and/or amalgamation of police forces.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member may be quite right. I can’t speak to that particular subject. I would think the Solicitor General does have some powers, but I don’t know what they are.

Mr. Singer: So if the Police Act says what I think it does, and I am not quite sure, accepting the amendment really doesn’t mean anything, does it?

Mr. Good: Oh, we will deal with that one later.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We will deal with that later.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Good’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on any other section of this bill?

Mr. Good: I have one question on section 76(7).

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 76?

On section 76:

Mr. Good: Am I interpreting this correctly when I say that you backed off a little bit on the county running the whole water and sewage programme, including the distribution of water and the collection of sewage, and that the county can now make agreements with existing municipalities to carry on the distribution? Is that the correct interpretation?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Your interpretation is correct in regard to the county being entitled to enter into an agreement with the local municipalities. I said that in the first instance when I was in the area. I told them this could be done, but it wasn’t clear enough for them in the Act, so we inserted this subsection 7 to make it absolutely clear that they could enter into an agreement.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments on any other section of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: On section 115, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 115?

On section 115:

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we are going to oppose this particular section. If the government wants to do some serious thinking about what has been called emergency measures in a civil kind of way, that’s fine; but when it starts to talk about the War Measures Act and this kind of relic of the cold war keeps on cropping up in local government across the province, it is about time we took it away. This is as good a place as any to start.

We will oppose this section, which refers to a civil defence organization, emergency headquarters, emergency appointments of people in case of nuclear attack and all that kind of garbage.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): So what else is new? You opposed everything else.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 115 stand as part of the bill?

Those in favour, please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes” have it.

Section 115 agreed to.

An hon. member: I didn’t hear anything.

Mr. Deans: I didn’t hear a single “aye.”

Mr. Chairman: Anything else on any other section of this bill?

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the section was deleted?

Mr. Chairman: I asked shall section 115 stand as part of the bill. I took it the “ayes” had it.

Mr. Cassidy: There were no “ayes.” There were only “nays,” Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Havrot: Oh, come on. You are difficult.

Mr. Cassidy: If we have to take the vote over again, fine; but there were no “ayes” on that vote.

Mr. Havrot: You love yourself so much, the only person you hear is yourself.

Mr. Chairman: I ruled that the “ayes” had it.

Is there discussion on any other section of this bill? Shall the bill be reported as amended? Carried.

Bill 95, as amended, reported.

Interjections by hon. members.

TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY ACT

House in committee on Bill 115, An Act to establish the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments on any section of this bill?

Mr. Deacon: On section 2, Mr. Chairman.

Clerk of the House: The minister has amendments.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): If you would permit me, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The minister has certain amendments to this bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are you withdrawing the bill?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have a couple of amendments that I would like to propose.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister came back, after being in hiding all night.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Section 1.

An hon. member: Stop fooling around. Let’s get to work.

On section 1:

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I wanted to keep it until the end so the member would be here.

Hon, Mr. Rhodes moves that section 1, subsection (a), be amended by deleting subclause (i) and renumbering subclauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) as subclauses (i), (ii) and (iii).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes also moves that clause (g) of section 1 of the bill be amended by deleting subclause (i) and renumbering subclauses (ii) and) (iii), as subclauses (i) and (ii).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes further moves that subsection 2 of section 2 of the bill be amended by deleting “five” in the first line and by inserting in lieu thereof “four” and by deleting “Durham” in the sixth line.

Mr. Cassidy: That is a pretty big comedown, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know how anybody can oppose the bill after that.

An hon. member: That certainly clears it all up.

Mr. Good: He has changed the whole principle. You have to bring in a new bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: I think those amendments are all out of order.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Kitchener has the floor.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, this amendment, of course, substantially changes everything except the explanatory note and I suppose that should be changed too. Perhaps the minister, before we discuss the amendments, since they deal with several areas and. several sections, might advise us what led him to this deletion.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, at the time of the proposal to develop this particular authority, contact was made with all of those regions that would be involved -- that we had hoped to have involved -- in this particular legislation. The region of York, the region of Peel and the metropolitan area of Toronto, all passed resolutions within their councils endorsing the principle of this particular authority. The regional municipality of Durham did not.

We had contact with the region of Durham and we had anticipated that this matter would be dealt with at their regional council meeting which was held I on Wednesday of this week. Unfortunately for some reason the matter was not dealt with and as a result we did not have a resolution from the region of Durham, indicating their desire to be part of this particular authority.

There is a resolution that has been passed by that regional municipality saying they did not wish to belong. We had hoped that they would reverse that decision prior to this bill being introduced. They have not done so, therefore we are deleting them from the bill. However, there is nothing at all to prevent the region from changing its mind, changing its position, and we would be most happy to amend the bill in the fall if that is the case, and include them in it.

I do not think that it changes too much, the effectiveness of the authority, in that 85 per cent of the inter-region transit, which this ill is involved with, is outside of the region of Durham; it removes only about 15 per cent. That may grow in the future and I am confident that when the council does meet again and has time to deal with this matter, that they will ask to be included.

Mr. Chairman: Shall these amendments in section 1 carry?

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the minister does not want to have a region pushed into this. It is regrettable that they are not going in from the beginning, especially after talking to some of the members from the regional council out there. They seem to have changed their views from their previous concurrence but --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is one fellow who is causing us a problem.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is usually quite helpful.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 carry as amended by these two amendments of the minister?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I think we know now, seeing the amendments, why the minister delayed and hid behind the dais there until the very last minute to bring in these amendments.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: He was really upset about what he had to do and so he wanted to cloak it here at a quarter to 3, rather than bring it forward in the full light of day.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On a point of privilege, for the benefit of the hon. member. I was not hiding behind the dais; I wasn’t even in the building. I was entertaining the Minister of Urban Affairs for the State of Victoria, Australia. Now, if you would like me to give you a detailed explanation of where we were and what we did, I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Spare us the details.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But so help me, I wouldn’t hide from you, Cassidy, on any occasion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Shall section 1 be carried as amended?

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We are now on section 2.

On section 2:

Mr. Deacon moves that sections 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c) be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “(b) one member from each of the regional councils of Peel and York appointed by their respective councils from among their members; and

“(c) one member of the metropolitan council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto appointed by the council from its members.”

Mr. Deans: That’s a very useful amendment. I don’t know why you won’t accept it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe he will.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, the reason I suggest this amendment is that different members of council have indicated that they still would have the right to appoint the chairman if they so wished, but if there was some member of council who was particularly interested in transportation, this would leave them free to appoint him. If the chairman was overloaded with other work, it wouldn’t require that they have him take on this responsibility. I certainly hope the minister will agree with this amendment.

Mr. Deans: I think the point is well taken. There are two reasons why it should be someone delegated to attend as opposed to the chairman.

The first reason is this, that the chairman, just by the very nature of his function, is an extremely busy person, involved full time, in all aspects of the work of the region and probably has about as much on his or her plate as can reasonably be handled.

The other point that’s worthy of note is this. The chairman in each instance is already appointed; he is not elected by the electors at large. It would make some sense that there be an opportunity for an elected person to serve on the transit authority rather than to further enlarge the sphere of influence of the appointed chairman.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I know it is very obvious from earlier discussion that the hon. members opposite would like to see that section changed to have the members of this particular authority be elected representatives. The comment is, so would the councils.

That obviously isn’t correct because all three of the regions we are including in this particular bill have passed resolutions supporting coming into this particular authority under the terms presented to them. These included the membership being the chairmen of their particular regions, so obviously the councils do support this particular position.

The fact that there are members of the various councils who do not agree doesn’t come as any great surprise. There are bound to be those who wouldn’t agree, but we are going by what the majority said.

Secondly, I have been told that the chairmen of these regions are extremely busy. Well, they are busy men but most people are these days and I don’t think we are adding a great amount to their workload. This is only an operating agency, only an operating authority, and it will not be meeting that regularly. So, Mr. Chairman, we will not accept the amendment and we would like it to stand as it is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deacon: I would have hoped the minister would react differently because they still have the opportunity to elect a chairman if they so wish, but why should we make this legislation so rigid? As long as we insist on leaving it as it now is, we are saying to the regions, “No matter what you want, you can’t change it, because this is the way it is in the Act.” What I am suggesting is an amendment that provides for the election of the chairman or any other member of the council and I would hope that the minister could see that. Why not change it? Why can’t you be as flexible as some of your predecessors on other bills have been? Please.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I just want to prolong it two or three seconds longer. I can recall in the city of Toronto bill of last year or the year before, when the mayor of Toronto was the appointee by law to the hydro commission, I think it was. The mayor of Toronto appeared and asked if they wouldn’t make an amendment because he said he was so busy it would be nice if he could appoint someone else to take his place. I suggest that the same sort of thing prevails here.

If you tie it down to the chairman and the chairman is busy with all of the other meetings that the chairman must attend, this may be the one thing that may well go by the board. The council should be able to look among their numbers and find a person who can devote most, if not all, of their time simply to the matters of transit, as opposed to the chairman having to devote so much time to overseeing and taking part in all of the other functions.

They could appoint the chairman, if that’s their desire, but I am sure that wasn’t the reason why the various municipalities approved entering into this agreement. They didn’t do it because the chairman was the person who was going to be appointed to sit. They just simply may not have registered any strong objection to it. They could still have the chairman if they so desire.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be worthwhile for the minister to consider this amendment We have looked through various university bills over the last several years and have found that changes have been made where a mayor at one point was a representative on the university’s board in many cases. Now invariably it’s a member of council or it may be a member from a regional council that has taken the place of a person who used to be warden of the count)’.

I think it is quite apparent that there may well be a member of one of these councils who has a particular interest in the subject, whereas the regional chairman may simply not be able to attend, possibly because of disinterest but more likely because of greater commitments in other areas. It would seem that as a result, if these chairmen do not attend, once again the burden of this particular planning and this particular decision-making is going to be held by non-elected officials.

If you wish to get elected officials involved and persons who have a particular interest, the best way to do it is to encourage them to choose from among themselves a person who is interested in that line of endeavour. You will also get the best co-ordination, through their responsibility, of the appointed persons who are serving them. They would be served best if they were being led by people who had a direct interest in this particular matter.

Mr. Deacon: I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that there is an item in section 2, near the end of it, about remuneration, I would think the chairmen are already being paid pretty important salaries for the job they are doing as chairmen and here we have another remuneration but it excepts those in the public service in the Province of Ontario. Why have we left them out if we are not leaving out the chairmen of these councils who are already being paid? Is this the reason the chairmen are so anxious to have that job nailed down specifically for them?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think the last comment isn’t worthy of reply. I think the hon. member knows that is not the case. The gentlemen are not looking for the --

Mrs. Campbell: Then delete it.

Mr. Cassidy: The point is well taken and it is part of the job as chairman.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have looked at the makeup of this particular authority. It is our opinion that it can best be started in this area and can best function properly at the very beginning under the way we have it presently made up, and that is to have the chairmen of the region involved.

All of the chairmen I have spoken to -- and I have spoken to all three who will be involved here -- have indicated their interest in serving on this authority. They recognize it as an important part of their responsibility as chairmen of the regions. They recognize that this can provide a better transit system for their regions and for all of the regions; and they wish to serve on these.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Without an elected person --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We think this is the way it should go. There is nothing at all to prevent amendments to this particular bill in time to come; but we feel that this is the way to start it. It’s the first time that we’ve gone into this sort of thing; we’d like to see how it’s going to work.

As I say, there is nothing to prevent amendments in the future, but not at this stage. We will continue to present the bill as it is proposed.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, your government talks so much about local autonomy. What we are trying to do on this amendment is to ensure that there is local autonomy where, indeed, the regional councils and the metropolitan council have the opportunity to choose their representative. And yet you are not giving them that opportunity -- and you should. You should let them know whether they are going to have their chairman or somebody else.

Mrs. Campbell: At least delete the remuneration.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the local autonomy is certainly there. We have recognized that local autonomy by asking all of the regions that will be involved to indicate whether or not they wish to be a part of it as it was proposed.

Mr. Deacon: Oh, you haven’t given them a chance to get into that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And just earlier this evening we recognized that one of those regions did not wish to take part, and we have not included them. What more local autonomy can you get than the opportunity to choose whether you wish to be part of the authority or not?

Mr. Deacon: You haven’t given them autonomy to choose their own person at all. You just said: “This is the way we are going to set it up.”

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Deacon’s amendment please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost and section 2 carried.

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments on any other section of this bill?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Chairman, section 6.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3, 4 and 5 carry?

Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Section 6; the member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, the reading of my amendment would be fairly lengthy to do it twice. The effect of it is to insert in section 6, wherever we find the reference to interregional or regional transit, the word “surface.” It would have the effect of stating that this authority deals only with surface transit at this time.

It’s in order to clarify the concern of some of the people that there may be some misinterpretation of the function. If it were to come at a later date, after council had the opportunity to discuss it, it would be then in order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for St. George really wants it worded that way? The use of the word “surface” would, of course, prohibit the possibility of going underground and developing the subway. There is certainly nothing wrong, I am sure, with developing the subway into that area.

Mrs. Campbell: I recognize, Mr. Chairman, the validity of that remark. The minister is aware of the fact that I am concerned only that we do not get into air service at this time. I would leave the drafting of it, if he has other suggestions to make. At this hour of the morning I am afraid I am not up to it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ground.

Mr. Deans: Ground transportation.

Mrs. Campbell: Ground or underground; I think if you said ground it would have the same effect as surface.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t say it has to have wheels.

Mrs. Campbell: I wonder if someone could assist me? If the minister is prepared to accept that as an amendment that is what I would like to see.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think I know what the hon. member is driving at; I gathered that fear from a question she asked me earlier today.

Mr. Breithaupt: What she is driving at, not flying at.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can assure her that we have no intention of running aircraft into Toronto Island as part of this. I would accept the amendment as long as we can, with her agreement, build a subway if we wish.

Mrs. Campbell: I have no objection to the underground; it is just the air I am concerned with.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Chairman, if I may, there is some discussion of having hovercraft from Port Credit to Toronto harbour. I hope there is no objection --

Mrs. Campbell: I think that would be surface.

Mr. Kennedy: -- to the authority dealing in that type of transportation as well?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, but I would suggest to the hon. member for Peel South that, by the grace of God, any hovercraft will remain on the surface.

Mr. Kennedy: Of the water.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Of anything.

Mr. Chairman: Members of the committee, it could well be an important point so I think, even at this early morning hour, I should read the amendment so the minister can hear it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Dispense.

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mrs. Campbell moves that section 6 of Bill 115 be amended by inserting in clause (a) line 2, “surface” so that the clause will read “to design, establish and operate or cause to be operated an efficient and economical interregional surface transit system.”

In clause (b) lines 1 and 2, “surface,” so that clause will read, “To co-ordinate the operations of interregional surface transit systems and regional surface transit systems.”

In clause (c) in lines 2 and 3, “surface” so that the clause will read, “to provide information, advice, design assistance and coordinating services to interregional surface transit systems and regional surface transit systems.”

Mr. Chairman: Do I understand, Mr. Minister, that you accept this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would accept that amendment as it is proposed. We won’t go into the question of underground or on top of the ground.

Mr. Chairman: Right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sure when it comes time to put in a subway the hon. member would agree to an amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, if one wishes, if you would like, we could add “surface or subsurface.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let’s do that.

Mrs. Campbell: That would be in order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surface or subsurface.

Mr. Chairman: If we are in agreement, shall this amendment stand as part of this bill? Agreed.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything on any other section of this bill?

Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 115, as amended, reported.

Mr. Breithaupt: Somebody move that the committee rise and report.

Mrs. Campbell: Aren’t we going to the Workmen’s Compensation bill now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You realize we can bring submarines into the Island?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, we know, that is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s subsurface.

Mrs. Campbell: If it is turned over to Toronto at the end of the year, you will have to deal with Toronto.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Such a friendly place here.

Mr. Good: We haven’t had a good fight.

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report eight bills with certain amendments and one bill without amendment, and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I would like to say --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Why so early?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- that I would compliment the members opposite for their integrity in dealing with the matters that we dealt with today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Come on, don’t give us that baloney.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would say that tomorrow, in accordance with what we have discussed, we will deal with Bill 116.

I would make one exception to what I’ve said this evening. I heard the late press release made by the House leader of the Liberal Party. It disturbs me because I didn’t beat him to the punch.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3:05 o’clock, a.m., Friday, June 28, 1974.