Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House this afternoon that we have visiting with us 40 pupils from the Sherwood Public School, from the great townships of Sherwood, Jones and Burns in Renfrew county, and that this group is led by Mrs. Edna Cybulski, the principal, and Mr. J. Chippior.

Mr. L. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): I would like to introduce to the House 35 students of grade 8 from Heatherbrae Middle School, Rexdale, Ont., under the guidance of Mr. A. Diana. Would the House join me in welcoming them?

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to introduce to the members of the Legislature 65 students from St. Anne’s Separate School in Mattawa, grades 7 and 8, under the direction of Mr. K. Kennedy and four other teachers. I would ask the members to welcome them.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: I rise to draw to your attention statements of the Minister of Agriculture and Food within and outside this House from which, after last Tuesday’s questioning of him, he has now significantly shifted his ground.

On May 6, during consideration of the Agriculture estimates, the minister stated that the BC Agriculture Minister “pleaded with us to come back to Ottawa to discuss with the federal government a means whereby British Columbia could be saved from the situation in which they found themselves, because they simply could not afford and cannot afford the programme they now have in place. That’s the truth, right there.”

Outside the Legislature, the minister had brought the whole issue into the Ontario scene with such statements, as reported by Farm and Country, as, “The OFA is trying to force us into the same mess that BC is in.”

Mr. Speaker, despite the minister’s assertion, that isn’t the truth, and the minister himself has now acknowledged it. Outside this House on Tuesday, he is reported as denying that he said BC Agriculture Minister Stupich had stated that BC would be bankrupt because its programmes were proving too rich for the province.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I never said that.

Mr. MacDonald: Instead, at this late date he now states this is merely his interpretation of what BC government spokesman said and what the impact of the farm income protection programmes would be on the province. It’s an altogether different matter for the minister to assert at this late date that these are his views but not the views of the BC minister. When that kind of misinterpretation has gone on for nearly --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I fail to see that this is a point of order. What is the point of order, if I might ask?

Mr. MacDonald: I am just about to draw it to your attention.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The minister of Agriculture and Food should resign anyway.

Mr. MacDonald: When that kind of misinterpretation has gone on for nearly six weeks and only now has been corrected, I ask you, in light of your decision last Tuesday with reference to myself, to consider what your obligations are with reference to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. By his own admission he has deliberately misled the House and the public for some weeks, and he has done so with impunity.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I fail to see that it is a point of order.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Now forget you are a Tory and rule, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Wait until I’m finished, if you please. My ruling was on the charge in the House, not the content of any message or subject of argument. That is not my decision or a matter for me to concern myself with. It’s a fact that the hon. member did accuse another member, irrespective of who he was, of a falsehood. That was the point on which I ruled.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, but the minister has now acknowledged that his statements weren’t true.

Mr. Speaker: I can’t rule on the justification of a member’s comment; it was just that statement I ruled on.

I know the hon. members of the House would be interested in knowing we have a distinguished visitor in our Speaker’s gallery this afternoon, a person who used to be well known around these chambers for some 20 years, a former minister in various departments, William A. Goodfellow. We would ask you to welcome him back.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, Ross Whicher is here too.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on that point of order. I acknowledge that what you were ruling on on Tuesday was the fact I had indicated this to be a lie. The point I am drawing to your consideration is that the minister has now acknowledged it was not the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: What do you feel your obligation is?

Mr. Speaker: No, it was the charge. As I say, I don’t rule whether anything is a lie or whether it’s not a lie. I can’t possibly do that.

Mr. MacDonald: He has conceded that it was.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I never conceded it was.

Mr. Speaker: The rule is, you shall not charge another person in these chambers of uttering a falsehood.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has brought shame and disrepute on the whole Tory party. He is destroying the faith of Middlesex county.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): And incidentally, they have lost the farm vote.

Mr. Lewis: He is a disgrace to Edmund Burke.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. leader of the NDP please pay attention?

Statements by the ministry. The hon. Minister of Industry and Tourism.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), I’m pleased to announce the launching of a new programme designed to help Ontario industry reduce operating costs through efficient use of electricity, gas and oil.

Last year my ministry undertook a number of seminars in co-operation with Ontario Hydro, aimed at acquainting industries with methods of saving a minimum of 10 per cent of their electrical energy usage.

This year the enlarged programme will strive to reach all industries in the province with the introduction of a new booklet called, “Energy Management for Industry.” The booklet outlines methods whereby industry management can start to put together an overall energy savings programme, along with some practical suggestions for taking stock of energy usages. It describes key areas where companies have been able to make improvements and introduce methods for taking actions to reduce energy consumption.

Coupled with this, my ministry, through its technology branch, has trained staff to provide assistance to industry in getting started on an energy management programme. Assistance is available by requesting from our field officers an energy questionnaire which, when completed and returned to the ministry, will provide the basis for analysis and reporting of potential areas of savings.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you and the members of the Legislature a special service for those companies in the province of Ontario whose energy usage tops $25,000 a year. This mobile support unit, or, as it has been named, the Energy Bus, is designed to provide on-the-spot analysis of the use of energy and assist in the development of a complete energy audit as a basis for ongoing energy management programmes in the province.

This unit will be manned by qualified specialists from my ministry, who will be assisted by third-year students from the co-operative programme at Mohawk College in Hamilton. The Energy Bus is equipped with a minicomputer which will analyse electrical power consumption and provide an immediate readout of dollar savings that can be achieved. As well, the Energy Bus features a variety of energy-saving demonstrations covering such areas as heat and its loss, unnecessary and inefficient lighting and poor insulation.

The Energy Bus will be outside the Legislature for the balance of this day, and I would invite the members and the press to visit it and to have it described in greater detail by the people who are professionals at it.

Mr. Speaker, these services I have introduced today will play an important part in the overall programme of the government of Ontario to encourage the management, and thus conservation, of energy resources available to the citizens of Ontario.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That should be worthy of a full-page ad in all the papers.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ WEEK

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): It is my pleasure to announce the official observance of senior citizens’ week, which begins this Sunday, June 15, through to Saturday, June 21.

This is the fifth consecutive year that the Province of Ontario has set aside a special week in recognition of the 650,000 senior citizens in Ontario, and to focus attention to their contributions to the province over the years.

Hon. members will find buttons on their desks this afternoon with our special theme this year, “It’s the Time of Our Lives -- A Nous la Belle Vie.”

Mr. Roy: I thought it was our campaign slogan.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It could serve; it could serve, true.

This theme is meant to emphasize the capacity to make one’s retirement years interesting and full of leisure, learning, recreation and community activities -- pursuits that one cannot always take full advantage of while fully employed. We are all, on the average, living longer lives, and retirement from the work force should mean the beginning of a new and rewarding lifestyle.

There are many myths about aging and its effects which we want to dispel. The fact is that 70 per cent of our senior citizens enjoy good health and are active in their communities. Only 26,000 are residents in homes for the aged, where many residents today are living very active lives. Many others reside independently in Ontario Housing for seniors.

Throughout Ontario, special programmes and opportunities for the elderly are expanding every year. We are attempting to meet the special needs of seniors in many ways. We are providing more and more services designed to keep the elderly at home in their own communities. We finance such things as satellite homes, clubs and centres, vacation care, day care, meals-on-wheels, homemakers and nursing services, special buses and transportation needs, and other community outreach programmes. New programmes for senior citizens include the GAINS programme --

Mr. Lewis: Just provide a decent income; just give them a decent pension.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- free OHIP and approved prescription drugs, free legal aid, home care and special assistance aid.

Mr. Lewis: Just too much to take.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In preparation for senior citizens’ week, over 20,000 resource kits have already been distributed to senior citizens and individuals who work with the elderly. Included in this kit is a booklet the members will find on their desks this afternoon. This special booklet, “Resources for Senior Citizens,” details where help for seniors may be found.

A variety of activities will be taking place during this special week in communities throughout the province. Indeed, many members have taken a personal interest in senior citizens’ week and have helped us in distributing posters and resource kits to their constituents.

We have found that senior citizens’ week has been most helpful in creating lasting outreach programmes between senior citizens’ homes and clubs and the community at large. It has helped to erase stereotyped ideas that have traditionally been held both by seniors and the general public, and thus Ontario senior citizens’ week has helped to close the so-called “generation gap.”

You will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that we have heard from over 1,000 elementary and secondary schools throughout the province who plan to participate in a variety of ways in celebrating this special week, such as by sponsoring art contests and picnics, inviting seniors to their classrooms, and other planned activities. Many restaurants, shopping plazas, theatres and other organizations have also arranged special activities, as well as reduced prices for the elderly during this special week.

In keeping with the spirit of this year’s theme, I would like to praise the work of the senior citizens’ clubs throughout the province, and also the residents’ councils in the various homes. Through these active organizations, many thousands of senior citizens are assisted in making their retirement years the time of their lives.

The theme for this year’s special week was submitted by Unionville home for the aged in Unionville in a contest. Our special poster depicts a resident and a volunteer teenager at Unionville working together in the greenhouse.

While senior citizens’ week begins this Sunday, we hope the special programmes and events will continue all year long -- that this special week will be an impetus for beginning new programmes, as well as greater community concern and involvement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank many of the hon. members for their participation and support, which will certainly help to make this special week a most successful one.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Labour.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT AMENDMENTS

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On May 6 last, I announced a number of measures which the government had adopted to assist those workers in Elliot Lake who have been adversely affected by exposure employment in the mines. In that statement I referred to a proposed increase in the ceiling on earnings covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act to $15,000, and indicated that an appropriate amending Act would be presented to the Legislature as soon as possible.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board recently completed this review of the various benefits payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. A series of significant changes in benefit levels has now been adopted by the government and I am pleased to introduce an amending Act to the Legislature today.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Maybe he’ll tell us what is going to happen.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am pleased to announce that the amending Act, which is to be effective July 1, 1975, will contain the following measures:

1. As previously mentioned, the ceiling on earnings will be increased from $12,000 to $15,000 per annum. This will mean the maximum rate of compensation payable will rise from $173.08 to $216.35 per week.

This new ceiling will not only benefit workers injured on or after July 1, but will also apply to those workers receiving compensation for temporary disability as a result of accidents occurring prior to July 1, and to those receiving disability pensions where their earnings exceeded the ceiling in effect at the time of their accidents.

The increase will apply in those cases to benefits for periods from July 1, 1975, onward. The board will be reviewing all continuing claims for temporary disability and the pension records, to identify those workers who will be eligible on the basis of their earnings at the time of their accidents.

2. The present minimum compensation for temporary disability is $55 per week, or earnings, if they are less. The new minimum compensation for temporary disability will be $90 per week, or earnings, if less. This means those workers earning over $120 per week will receive the usual tax-free 75 per cent as compensation. Those earning between $90 per week and $120 per week will receive the minimum of $90 per week, even though this will be more than 75 per cent of the earnings in many cases. All workers who earn $90 per week or less, including part-time workers, will receive tax-free compensation equal to their full earnings.

3. Effective July 1, 1975, the absolute minimum for permanent total disability will be increased from $260 to $400 per month and this will benefit workers injured before July 1 as well as after.

The current absolute minimum for permanent partial disability will also be raised proportionately so that the absolute minimum for a 50 per cent disability will rise from $130 to $200 per month and the absolute minimum for a 25 per cent disability will be $100 per month rather than $65 per month.

4. Disability pensions awarded for accidents in any year prior to 1975 will be increased by a further 10 per cent in respect of the year 1974.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is just out of his mind.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: This extends the escalation measures for upgrading disability pensions which commenced on July 1, 1974.

5. The 10 per cent increase will also be applied to all dependency pensions so that a dependant widow’s pension will be raised to $286 monthly and a dependant child’s pension will rise to $77 monthly.

Mr. Lewis: What’s wrong with the minister? What has he got against widows?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The minister should withdraw that paragraph. It is just ridiculous!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Six: The burial allowance will be increased from $500 to $600 and the initial lump sum payable to a widow for incidental expenses will also be raised to $600.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister is making a statement.

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): The member for Scarborough West should control himself.

Mr. Lewis: What does the member mean, control myself? Has he spoken to the widows of the Elliot Lake miners?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): It is an insult.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Seven: The escalation factors provided last year for increasing permanent disability awards and the additional 10 per cent escalation factor for 1974 already referred to, will now also be applicable to continuing claims for temporary disability and will apply to payments in those cases on and after July 1, 1975.

Mr. Lewis: Why does the minister do intelligent things about one part and such stupid things on the rest?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: This will ensure that the worker who, because of a serious injury has been on temporary compensation benefits for a long time, will receive the same increases in benefits which apply for permanent disability pensions.

8. Last July, amendments were introduced to help solve the light work problem for temporarily disabled workers; the worker who was medically considered only temporarily partially disabled but who could not obtain suitable employment because of his disability became entitled to full compensation, provided he co-operated in medical or vocational rehabilitation measures and was available for an accepted employment suitable for his condition. This has proved to be a very satisfactory measure which recognizes that different workers with different backgrounds and skills are affected differently by temporary partial disability, and compensation benefits are now paid on this basis.

The board has in recent years been paying additional compensation by way of pension supplements to workers with permanent disability where the clinical percentage of disability based on medical evaluation did not fully recognize the worker’s actual earnings impairment. The Act will now be amended to clearly provide for higher levels of benefits, up to 75 per cent of earnings, for those permanently disabled workers whose real earning capacity is seriously impaired as a result of their accidents.

9. A clothing allowance is currently payable for wear and tear of clothing caused by upper or lower prosthesis provided by the board for pensionable disabilities. The clothing allowance will now be available to those who experience wear and tear of clothing as a result of wearing a back or leg brace provided by the board for a compensable permanent disability.

The changes in benefits which I am recommending are substantial. They are designed to provide equitable compensation to all those affected by industrial injury or disease.

The costs of such changes are also substantial; they have a total capitalized value of $108.2 million. Assessment against industry will be increased by the board to raise the additional funds required and inevitably this will affect the cost of goods and services provided by industry. It is my belief that the proposed increases are necessary and that society --

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): At 1.5 per cent of payroll, that sure isn’t --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- should be prepared to pay the increased costs which they involve.

I therefore seek, Mr. Speaker, the support of this House for the amending Act so that the higher levels of benefits will be available to Ontario workers effective July 1, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The member for Kitchener.

COMMENTS BY HOUSING DEPUTY MINISTER

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: Is the minister prepared to comment on the statement made by the resigning deputy minister, Mr. Michael Warren, with respect to the comment that there is “a selfish majority,” as he states, of people in this province who oppose new housing because it would affect their lifestyle or their economic well-being. Does the minister have any statement with respect to those observations by Mr. Warren?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, certainly I am delighted to make an observation today. First of all, may I say that I regret very much to have Mr. Warren resigning. He is going into private business and I wish him the very best in the future. We had a great relationship.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He realizes the bankruptcy of the minister’s housing programmes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have had a great relationship in the past few months during which I have been Minister of Housing. I wish him the very best and I am sure all the members would like to join me in that wish.

Mr. Warren expressed the views which I have expressed many times, that there are many communities and many people who will not accept family rent-geared-to-income housing, or senior citizen housing in some cases, or integrated housing, because they feel it may affect their lifestyle and may affect their communities. That is what Mr. Warren was saying: That we must be in a position in the future to be able to accept all kinds of housing in any community in any municipality, and that to this date we haven’t got that acceptance.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener with a supplementary.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would the minister then agree that at least part of the housing shortage which we are facing is because of this lack of a positive regrettable attitude, which should have been encouraged but which apparently does not exist in many communities? If such is the case, will the minister have anything to say about the continuing comments by his parliamentary assistant that apparently the majority of the reasons for the housing shortage remain as part of a plot by the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have always been very forthright in saying that the federal government has to assume a responsibility. As a matter of fact, it was very clearly brought out by all the ministers responsible for housing on Tuesday of this week, when we met with Mr. Danson from 9 a.m. to approximately 1 o’clock in the afternoon.

At that time we said to Mr. Danson: “Take back to your colleagues the very clear message that you are not providing adequate funds for housing across Canada.” I am sure the hon. members are well aware of what I have requested -- $390 million more in funds for Ontario. This is almost double the amount we have been allocated right now; $442 million has been allocated to Ontario, half of that being federal programmes.

Again, we would say that we have to have the implementation of the programmes by the municipalities and the provinces and not by the federal government. My parliamentary assistant, my deputy and myself have said consistently that the federal government has to share the responsibility for housing and the indications are right now that we haven’t got the federal government sharing that responsibility. I am hopeful that on June 23 Mr. Turner will have received the message loud and clear from Mr. Danson and will have the acceptance of his cabinet to come forth with a budget which will give housing the stimulus it has to have, in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary; the member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does the minister then agree with or dissociate himself from the remarks of his parliamentary assistant that the federal cutback in funds was “a dirty trick” because the Liberal Party in Ottawa supported by their lackeys in Queen’s Park -- she has a felicitous turn of phrase --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: Right on.

Mr. Lewis: Right on.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- were using low-income families as helpless pawns in political struggles. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary assistant is always very direct in her statements and I applaud her efforts to bring out the truth.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): She is twice the man the minister is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we are saying is that if this is not the case then we would like a clear indication from the federal government what their views are and what their actions will be.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister believe what Mel Lastman said about him?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We haven’t received anything whatsoever from the federal government. I want that clear in the event that they have taken exception to what was said by my parliamentary assistant before and what has been said now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Pass the buck.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is on the record, let them reply.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a supplementary I would like to ask the minister. Since the loss of Michael Warren is the loss of an exceptionally able deputy, could the minister indicate to us --

Mr. Deans: Could be the member for London South (Mr. White) asked him to stay on.

Mr. Lewis: -- what the reasons were for his decision to leave? In the process could the minister tell us whether it is in fact true that six to eight months ago Deputy Minister Warren asked for a commitment that certain housing projects and undertakings be carried through, which commitment he could not get; and that he asked for it again about six weeks ago on specific projects around Ontario, indicating that the housing-by-headlines game was not enough and there had to be some concrete housing development, which commitment again was not forthcoming, and ultimately the resignation occurred?

Can the minister indicate to us whether it was in fact some anxiety about the development of housing in Ontario which led to the unhappy -- I agree with the minister -- resignation of a very able civil servant?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again I agree with the leader of the NDP. Mr. Warren is a most capable civil servant.

Mr. Lewis: He doesn’t feel the same way about the minister.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Capable but frustrated.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He is most capable, there is no doubt about that. But let me put it very clearly on the record, as we have stated through the media, that his resignation has nothing to do whatsoever with the housing programme implemented by the Ontario government.

Mr. Roy: Has it something to do with the minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It was his desire to get into private business. He indicated not only to myself but to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and to my colleagues a long time ago that he wished to get into private business. We encouraged him to stay on longer than he intended to and finally he made a decision.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He has only been there a few months.

Mr. Lewis: An unusual resignation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: His resignation is effective at the end of the month and he has fulfilled very capably his duties as deputy minister.

Mr. Lewis: Something pushed him out.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I appreciate the work he has done on behalf of the people of this province. I am sure the member would agree with that.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview, a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us, in view of this resignation, in view of prosecutions, in view of firings and in view of sentences, if he doesn’t believe that now is the time to instruct a royal commission to inquire into the chaos in the Ontario Housing Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, no. The resignation has nothing to do with Ontario Housing Corp. and has nothing whatsoever to do with what I’m saying to the hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Lewis: The chaos exists with or without the resignation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The resignation is a personal desire of the deputy minister to improve his lifestyle and, I repeat, his wish.

Mr. Singer: The youngest deputy minister and the shortest time in office.

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary. The member for York Centre.

Mr. Roy: Do you know what that means, Mr. Speaker, one more?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Would the minister not agree that most of the municipal resistance to his projects of senior citizen homes and low-cost housing is really due primarily to the concern of municipal councils about the increased tax burden these projects will bring on the municipality, and therefore his OHAP assistance programme should be greatly increased?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, no, but it is an awfully good excuse for the councils of whatever municipality doesn’t want housing to say we’re not providing enough grants.

Mr. Sargent: The minister is passing the buck.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: First of all, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has supplied unconditional grants which are greater than any other province in Canada.

Mr. Deacon: I’m talking about covering the costs --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: With unconditional grants to the municipalities of $2.7 billion and a total expenditure of $5 billion, I think it is pretty evident that this government has responded to the needs of the municipalities. All they are trying to do is step aside from a responsibility which they have to share --

Mr. Singer: Everybody’s against the minister!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- with the federal government and the provincial government, and they won’t do it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Deacon: We have public housing in my area and I haven’t --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We spent 10 minutes on the first question. I think if there are further questions --

Mr. Roy: That is the minister’s fault.

Mr. Speaker: No; order, please. We are straying a bit far afield from the original question. Does the member for Kitchener have further questions?

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), to whom I would presume the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) reports. In the absence of the minister --

Mr. Deacon: Perennial absence.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- and also of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier)) and the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman), I’m wondering if the minister can encourage one of those three worthy gentlemen to make a statement in this House with respect to the recently reported situation in Grassy Narrows, of which it is stated that freezers and ice-making equipment which were to have been delivered some six weeks ago have not arrived, solely because while a resolution was passed, apparently two areas of government, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, cannot decide which will make this payment?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I have permission to accept that question, which I had anticipated. The Minister of Natural Resources, the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) are attending a dominion-provincial conference in Edmonton. I discussed the matter with them this morning by telephone. I am informed that the total content of the article is not accurate and that there will be a statement in the House on Monday.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Are the freezers on the reserves or are they not?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In some cases, yes; but that will be explained on Monday.

Mr. Lewis: What does that mean, “in some cases”?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In some cases, yes.

Mr. Lewis: Some cases, yes; and in some cases, no.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could inform us at the same time, or have his colleague inform us on Monday, whether or not the road that was to have been cut through to the uncontaminated lake has been started yet?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will ask if that can be included in the request.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): A supplementary, if I may: Could the minister also indicate whether or not there is someone in the vast 62,000 to 70,000 civil servants who could have come up with an idea of what kind of refrigerators might be useful there, rather than hiring an outside consultant?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As I said, the member will find that some detail of the article is inaccurate, and that will be explained on Monday.

Mr. Singer: As a matter of fact, the last one showed it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Lewis: The minister had better act, not think.

Mr. Singer: The minister is the former Treasurer’s (Mr. White) friend.

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. Breithaupt: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the home buyer program. Following his statement in the House some time ago that there had been some 20,000 inquiries, of which several thousand were proceeding toward receiving the grants, can the minister advise how many of those grants are being applied for by non-Canadian citizens -- if that information is available -- and particularly, can he advise us what grants are going, apparently, to US citizen, particularly in the Niagara and the Windsor border areas who are taking advantage of this, perhaps to the detriment of Canadian citizens?

Mr. Roy: Produce the list.

Hon. A.K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall making any statement that there were some 20,000 applications.

Mr. Breithaupt: Inquiries.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, it may well have been inquiries. To date, in rounded figures, my ministry has received about 7,500 applications. Currently, there have been about 2,800 approved, and presumably the cheques have been sent out. There are another number, of about the same magnitude, possibly 2,500 or 3,000, that would appear to meet most if not all the criteria, and would appear to be imminently ready for approval.

Within that context, though, I have to tell the House that I do not know how many are nationals of Canada and how many are not, because that information is not contained on the application forms, since it is not one of the criteria set out in the legislation.

Mr. Roy: Why isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The form does not ask the nationality of the applicant.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Windsor-Walkerville have a supplementary?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, why does the minister insist on giving this $1,500 gift to our American friends, when the intent of the legislation, in the discussion of the House, was to preclude such a thing from taking place?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. The hon. member knows that the legislation, when introduced and when passed, never did bear any reference to Canadian nationality as a prerequisite. It is simply a matter of residence. When a person has taken up residence in the home he has purchased, certifying that it is his first home, he then has qualified. There is no criteria in the Act as to the nationality of the applicant.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West has a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Since residence and nationality were probably implicit in the members’ minds, if not explicit, during the course of the debate, can the minister give us a rule of thumb, a guess, a sense of how many he thinks are non-citizens in the process of making the application or receiving the grant? Might it be worth his endeavouring, on a random basis, to find out? Or does he think it matters not at all; that the number would be so small?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of numbers we would be talking about among the applicants who would not be actual Canadian nationals.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Huron-Bruce have a supplementary?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact we have an obligation to assist and encourage home ownership among Ontario residents, does the minister agree with realtors in Ontario who are advertising homes in Ontario to United States residents on the basis that they can qualify for the $1,500 grant?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, they would have to move to Ontario and take up residence in Ontario in order to qualify. I have no idea who might be advertising south of the border or elsewhere. They might be advertising likewise in England or on the continent, for all I know, to encourage people to come here and settle. The fact of the matter is that if they come and it becomes their residence they are resident Ontarians, and whether they are naturalized Canadians or otherwise really, I think, is of no great consequence.

The thrust of the legislation, sir, is to get people buying homes and, with the incentive of the purchase of the home, to get out and buy other white goods to furnish that home; that’s possibly one application of the money.

Mr. Deacon: I thought we had a housing shortage here which the government was trying to solve. Does the minister think that’s solving the housing shortage?

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Surely the primary concern of this programme is to increase home ownership among our own people.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are not to debate it. Is there a further question?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, would the minister talk to his colleague sitting next to him, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), and ask him to instruct the real estate registrar to issue instructions to all real estate brokers to stop advertising this programme as an incentive to United States citizens to buy homes in the province?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of whether that kind of advertising is taking place.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister find out?

Hon. Mr. Meen: If it were taking place. presumably it would be in a foreign jurisdiction.

I might ask, Mr. Speaker, that the member, if he wishes, direct the question to my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, if he wants to question it --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we will have one more supplementary from the member for Wentworth and then we’ll have to get on to other questions. The same subject may be brought up later if it’s a new question.

Mr. Deans: Am I correct in assuming that the home purchased must be the principal residence of the individual? Secondly, would a person purchasing a home in Ontario have to be a landed immigrant at least in order to qualify?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Deans: One has to have a job in order to get the mortgage, surely?

Mr. Breithaupt: Buy it for cash.

Hon. Mr. Meen: They would have to be here legally, presumably, or they would not be buying. I would suppose one could live in one of our border cities and be employed across the line in, say, the United States.

Mr. Deans: Can an American citizen live in Ontario and work in the United State without having landed immigrant status?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I do not know that answer although if I had to speculate I would say I suppose he could.

Mr. Deans: They can?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): They are speculating.

Mr. Deans: Then it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: He is here illegally.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the member for Kitchener.

PCV LICENCES

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the resolution which has been passed by a number of municipalities concerning the expiry of truck licences under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act -- which as we know is March 31 -- asking for an extension to April 15, particularly with respect to the probability of snow clearing and such matters: Is the minister taking this matter under advisement and is he able to state now whether he will consider extending the term so the spring storm problem which does come up could be resolved in that way by a two-week extension?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this concern and at present we are looking at that situation. We are having discussions on it within the ministry now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT AMENDMENTS

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to ask the Minister of Labour, based on his statement today, by what conceivable logic does he raise the minimum pension for disability to $400 a month for the injured workman when alive, and pay to the widow a maximum of $286 a month? Why has he made that distinction in law?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, over the years there has been a distinction made. The member is saying we are putting up one to $400; the point I think is that the widow is not disabled and in some cases may be able to go out and get full employment.

Mr. Deans: What about those who can’t?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: This may depend on the number of children she has. One can say that in some cases it will work an injustice. I’m ready to grant that $286 a month is not very adequate for a widow to live on if she has to stay at home. On the other hand, if the widow can go out and obtain employment, the $286 may be quite adequate. It’s difficult to find a figure which is just in all cases. This is the figure we propose and I think it’s rational and reasonable.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Does the minister mean that in the basic increases he has made, which consist of substantial percentage increases in the other parts of the legislation for disability, he thinks that that is legitimate on that hand -- obviously he does -- but a 10 per cent increase since the last amendment of the bill for a widow’s pension he considers to be legitimate (a) in the light of inflation; (b) in simple human terms; and (c) in terms of what we now know about the numbers of widows on compensation dependent on that sole income in Elliot Lake, Johns-Manville and related situations? Does he really think that is fair or logical?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I can just reiterate what I did say. In some cases I think it is adequate; in other cases it will not be easy. But we can’t differentiate in the law that we are preparing and say, “All right, in some cases you can do this and other cases that.”

Mr. Deans: It is better to overpay a few than to underpay many.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We treat them all the same and $286 is the figure which we think is reasonable and fair to the average case.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Maybe the minister can make them all royal commissioners and then the per diem will equal the monthly payment.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Minister of Housing if he is aware that applications are now coming to the Ontario Housing Corp. at the rate of 1,000 a month, most of them concentrated in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and that those applications are related to the pressures on the rental market?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware -- 1,000 per month, the hon. member said?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. That was revealed this morning by Betty Meredith Niddrie -- a good possibility for deputy minister, by the way.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: A very fine lady and certainly a very fine person for the Ontario Housing Corp. to employ.

Mr. Roy: Does she speak well of the minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t believe it is 1,000 per month as far as I am concerned; I have been informed very precisely each week. She may have some figures that I am not aware of at this time; the last I have is much less than that.

Mr. Lewis: Would the minister like to check it out, since she keeps track of those things, and reveal the figures at an open meeting?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Certainly.

RENT CONTROLS

Mr. Lewis: And may I also ask of the minister, is it his intention, in view of what is happening to the rental market -- this extraordinary pressure now documented -- to move into the area of rent control of a kind that mirrors the Crombie amendments that are coming to the Legislature -- or may come to the committee within the next week -- as a way of providing the landlords of Ontario with a basic minimum increase equivalent to the cost of living while still providing no particular redress for the tenants?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I said before we are very carefully analysing the situation from day to day. It was very interesting in our meeting in Ottawa on Tuesday where I had the opportunity to discuss with the ministers from British Columbia, Quebec and other provinces what happens if you have rent control or rent review boards and I will be making a submission to cabinet.

I would like to have the opportunity though, Mr. Speaker, to have a talk with the member for High Park who came out with some very revealing statements today, I believe. Possibly I might have the benefit of his views in regard to rent control.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let the member for Scarborough West ask him what he said.

Mr. Cassidy: In other words, no action.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That wasn’t a private question either.

Mr. Breithaupt: He really should go to caucus once in a while.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I carry a shoulder holster. You just hold on.

Mr. Reid: The member should have a bullet-proof vest on backwards.

Mr. Lewis: Apart from the minister’s most ungracious effort to cast aspersions of my exemplary colleague from High Park, did the minister slide into his answer the suggestion that he was about to make a submission to cabinet following his conversations with the ministers from BC and Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, that is exactly right. But I said I would like to talk --

Mr. Lewis: That’s fine. I will speak to him about it. We chat all the time.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to the member for High Park because I do respect his opinion in this matter in particular, if I am correct in what I heard.

Mr. MacDonald: The trouble with the minister is that when the member happens to agree with the minister the minister respects him, but all the times he disagrees he denigrates the member.

Mr. Lewis: The minister knows we are going to have rent control and the minister is going to have to introduce it -- and that will be a day to remember.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let the member listen to his colleague from High Park and see what happens.

FARM STABILIZATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, when is he bringing in the farm income protection or assistance programme? When is he introducing the legislation for the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, that legislation is under consideration at the moment. I have made no secret of the fact that I want to know what the legislation in Ottawa does before we add on a programme here in Ontario. There is no secret at all about the fact; and it has been well published. My hon. friend, who was ejected from the House the other day for having said I said a lie in the House --

Mr. Lewis: No, answer me.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- should he have read the piece that was beside the picture that he quoted from in the paper, would have noted that I have proposed to the federal government and to my provincial colleagues across Canada, a solution to the stabilization programme for all farmers across Canada that is a better programme than anything that we have today in Canada, in my opinion at least

Mr. MacDonald: That is the minister’s view.

Mr. Lewis: That is the minister’s view.

Mr. Roy: We know what that is.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: In my opinion at least; but he chose not to do that.

Mr. Bounsall: Let the minister do it in Ontario now.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We want to know what their programme really will do. As of Monday last, the programme had not been approved by the House of Commons. As I understand it, it has gone from the standing committee on agriculture back to the House of Commons, and to my knowledge has not yet been approved.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary from the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Yakabuski: Careful now.

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the minister: Is the cow-calf subsidy plan, or insurance plan, going to be part of the overall plan, or will that be a separate programme -- and can we expect that shortly?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh yes. You can expect that shortly, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. MacDonald: I should hope so.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- but it will not be a part of that overall plan. We just simply couldn’t wait to get that in. It will be separate and apart from that, because the federal programme for beef -- as I’ve explained before -- does not cover beef calves. I feel that it has to be a specific programme in the Province of Ontario. It would be an ad hoc programme introduced separate and apart from any other programme that I would like to see and, hopefully, will have introduced in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South with a supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: If the federal programme is delayed significantly through this fall or conceivably throughout this whole year -- and sometimes that happens in Ottawa -- does that mean that Ontario’s Throne Speech commitment and the budgetary allotment of $20 million add up to nothing for this year?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t. It simply means that we want to see the federal programme before we make commitments of any kind.

Mr. MacDonald: It is just a nonsensical promise.

Mr. Lewis: So the $20 million is wasted.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, the $20 million is already there simply as an amount that was in the estimates. It doesn’t really mean that it will be enough or more than enough.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: It might be window dressing.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It may not be anything like enough; it may be too much. We don’t know.

Mr. Martel: Why are they window dressing?

Mr. MacDonald: The minister means it may be bigger and bankrupt the province.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have to say that it is not window dressing -- I’ll tell the member that. I have to say this: We are not going to make any commitments at all until I know what that programme is in Ottawa. To make a commitment and then find out that the Ottawa programme is over and above, and we would be in contravention of what their proposal is, would be quite wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: He is just like the Minister of Housing. He is always blaming Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, my hon. friend over there would have us --

Mr. MacDonald: He is backing off.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not backing off anything.

Mr. Lewis: Yes he is.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: He was put to the wall.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: These people over here, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my estimates speech -- from which my hon. friend accurately quoted today, interestingly enough --

Mr. Lewis: Always.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He quoted from that today, but he didn’t quote -- as I said to him that night -- that if we were to introduce a programme in Ontario similar to British Columbia’s programme, it would require specific production controls on every commodity.

Mr. MacDonald: And OFA is willing to develop them.

Mr. Lewis: That is the minister’s red herring.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the bunch over there in the NDP wants to establish a bureaucratic nightmare for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: And the minister is losing the farmers because of it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: And that’s the NDP misconception.

Mr. Lewis: Even the farmers are leaving the government on this one; and they are angry at the minister about it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, no they are not.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We just have a few more minutes left and we haven’t got off the leadoff questioners as yet. I think we should leave any further supplementaries for later, if there is time. Does the hon. member have new questions?

Mr. Lewis: You just instructed me to ask no more.

Mr. Speaker: No, I just suggested you might not.

The member for Renfrew South has a question.

Mr. Gaunt: Oh, they have been at it again.

Interjections by hon. members.

CANNING MATERIALS

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, and if the opposition feel that it’s not one that has a lot of merit, then they can say so. But, anyway --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Did he plant this one?

Mr. Yakabuski: Is the minister aware that because of the rampant, spiralling inflation, many individuals and families are planting gardens and others are very anxious to do a considerable amount of canning this season --

Mr. Roy: That’s what is going to happen to the member in the fall.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- and is he aware that in the United States of America it is said that many of the canning companies have bought up all the caps and lids and that there is a great shortage there and a great shortage is developing here?

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Question. Question.

Mr. Yakabuski: Would the minister assure this House that he will use all the powers at his disposal to ensure that there is an adequate supply of caps, lids and other canning materials for the people of this province this year?

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. member for Renfrew South having trouble filling his orders?

Mr. Foulds: Put the lid on!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the situation but I would be delighted to look at it to see if we could put a lid on the problem for the member.

Mr. Lewis: Conflict of interest.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George, first of all, with a question.

HYDRO BLOCK

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): My question is to the Minister of Housing. I would ask the minister if he would clarify the position on two statements which he has made in this House and advise which is the correct statement.

Mr. Cassidy: They’re both wrong.

Mr. MacDonald: Even if they are contradictory.

Mrs. Campbell: On May 29 the minister said in connection with the lease arrangement for the Hydro block -- and I quote: “This new approach was made possible through an agreement which I signed May 1, 1975, with the hon. Barney Danson, Minister of State for Urban Affairs.”

On June 2, in answer to my request that he table the agreement that was reached between himself and Mr. Danson, he answered -- and I quote: “I think I have to again point out to the hon. member that the agreement reached was a verbal agreement in principle.”

Could I know which statement is correct?

Mr. Lewis: Both of them.

Mr. Singer: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. George should understand that both are correct --

Mr. MacDonald: A verbal agreement isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: First of all, the agreement that I said was signed in the first instance is a master agreement for the rent supplement between the federal government and the provincial government for all non-profit organizations. Secondly, the other agreement I was talking about was the one especially for the Hydro block, which is a verbal agreement between the regional director representing CMHC and ourselves, agreeing in principle that the proposals put before the House would work and would be accepted by the federal government. So both are correct.

Mr. Singer: The minister doesn’t express himself too well. He’s very hard to understand.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for St. George have a supplementary? We will allow one supplementary from her.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I was aware, of course, of the other agreement. Is the minister now prepared to table this agreement to which reference was made and which is now, in our understanding, a written agreement, so that we do know what arrangements, if any, are being made for the Hydro block?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member has to be confused -- she has to be! I am saying the first agreement I can table any time; it was signed a long time ago. It doesn’t apply to the Hydro block especially. The other one is a verbal agreement. When we have an agreement in writing from the federal government, I’ll be happy to table it. But we have to work through the city of Toronto’s non-profit organization, first of all, to achieve this particular proposal, which we hope we’ll have this fall to start developing the site. I can’t table something which hasn’t been decided upon yet.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPORTS

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that through the use of forged documents, the Ark Animal Exchange in Vankleek Hill, Ont., which is near Ottawa, has been importing numerous endangered species, from where they have been distributed all over North America, specifically to many labs in California? How long has his ministry had this information? Why have no charges been laid? Has the Federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, sent the minister copies of the documents which he has had for many months?

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): How is “Pistol-Packin’ Pete”?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of the matter before. My guess is that if they were brought in under permit, they will have to be brought in under permits issued by the federal government.

Mr. Shulman: Forged permits.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They may be forged permits, but if they don’t come to our ministry, how are we to know? They are federal responsibilities if they are coming in under import permits.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister not inspect the companies importing animals in this province? Does he not have authority for their supervision?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not sure whether or not endangered species are in that category. I shall check and find out. I am not sure about that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware that many seriously handicapped individuals live in homes which require substantial changes so that they can get around? Would the minister consider expanding his Ontario Home Renewal Programme and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme to enable them to make the changes in the homes so they can live more comfortably?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be glad to reconsider the programme of our own, the Ontario Home Renewal Programme. As the member knows the other one is a federal programme so I can’t very well do much about that but I would suggest there is good merit in considering this proposal.

Mr. B. Newman: Can we expect some action on the part of the minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

BOILER INSPECTION

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister aware that as of March 25, 1975, 9,109 boilers and air receivers were overdue for inspection in the Province of Ontario? Does he not feel he is abdicating his responsibility toward public safety by allowing this situation to continue?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, first of all I am not aware that the figure the member mentioned is factual. I will have to check that out before I respond to the second part of the question.

Mr. Bounsall: Does the minister doubt the member’s word?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

GRANTING OF BAIL

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General.

Mr. Ferrier: Where is he?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): How’s that? Did the member have a good holiday?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Where has he been? Where did he lose his necktie?

Mr. Sargent: The minister throws the book at shoplifters yet a man charged with capital murder -- one of three -- in shooting a policeman in Toronto --

Mr. Jessiman: Question.

Mr. Yakabuski: Question. We have listened to the preamble; what is the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: -- was allowed out on $2,000 bail today. In line with the programme against violence, the police opposed this release. What are the special circumstances, John, which you know and we don’t know?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You do not address the members by their names.

Mr. Sargent: You know what I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker: I know.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But does the member?

Mr. Sargent: Well, sometimes, Jimmy.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an answer?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): I have no personal knowledge of that particular matter. I did see it reported in the press. I don’t know what the circumstances are which led the court to make the decision to release that particular person but I will find out. I think it would be improper for me to comment until I have had a chance to look at the transcript. I will do that for the member and perhaps send him a copy of the transcript if he would like to have it.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. Roy: It is not a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

ALLEGED BEATING BY POLICE

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): I have a question of the Solicitor General. Could the minister give me an answer to a matter brought up in a letter by Mr. Delduko who had been beaten by the police on June 2? Has he made any investigations and if he has made any investigations what were the results and what does he propose to do about it once it is established?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That matter, Mr. Speaker, was drawn to my attention by the member for Parkdale in a letter dated, I think, June 9; I received it on June 11 or in that area. I directed that an investigation be started and reported to me and when I have that information I shall impart it to the member for Parkdale.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Would the minister consider having a chat with his real estate registrar from the point of view of having him issue instructions to all brokers throughout the province to stop advertising the home grant programme in the United States as an incentive, a matter to which we have previously made reference?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know under what legislation or regulations I would ask the registrar to stop the practice. I would certainly be prepared to have a talk with him as the member suggests. We do have pleasant chats from time to time and I will find out what is going on.

If the member has specific instances of advertising of that nature it would be helpful to me in my chat with the registrar if I had examples of it in my possession.

Mr. Gaunt: I have, sir, and I will see the minister gets them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

CHILD WELFARE LEGISLATION

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: On May 13 he met with a group of people in the Nipigon Room to discuss the Child Welfare Act, at which time a proposal was presented to him. He indicated he was going to consider that proposal. Has he decided to proceed with that proposal and has he decided to reconvene that group to indicate to them whether he intends to proceed with the proposal as presented on that occasion?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was present at that meeting and if he recalls, I mentioned that before another meeting would be called I would bring this matter to the attention of the two social policy fields, and this will be done.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

PRISON INMATE MURDERS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General and the acting Solicitor General --

Mr. Singer: And the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

Mr. Roy: Yes, the Provincial Secretary for Justice and chief law officer for the Crown: Is the minister satisfied that all the matters and all steps --

Mr. Singer: And deputy minister, too.

Mr. Roy: Yes, just wait until the question --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will you proceed with the question?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Why is he wasting the time of the House?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Don’t get excited; I have been waiting a long time to be on my feet.

I would like to ask the minister whether he is satisfied that all steps have been taken in the investigation and prosecution for the murder of two inmates, one at Collins Bay, Benjamin Stiltz, and one in January, H.J. Andrews, at Millhaven Penitentiary? Two inmates were murdered and we have a statement that apparently there were eyewitnesses. The director has said there is direct eyewitness evidence. Is the minister satisfied the witnesses have been guaranteed protection and that all steps have been taken in the investigation and prosecution of these cases?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I read the article the other day and directed an inquiry to find out just what the present status was. I have no other knowledge than in the article that I think the member refers to for his question. I read it with interest and have inquired as to what has happened in those particular matters. As I read the article, it would seem they are not willing to come forward or to testify.

Mr. Roy: They weren’t in the Landry case either.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In the other matter that’s referred to in that, they were when one of my predecessors guaranteed certain security to prisoners. I understand in that case the prisoners were willing to testify as long as they were assured security. In this one, as I read it, I didn’t gather they were willing to testify whatsoever. That’s why I have initiated an inquiry.

Mr. Roy: Will the minister make a report to the House on the investigation?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Rainy River.

HOUSING IN THUNDER BAY

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Housing related to housing in Thunder Bay. Can the minister indicate what the hold up is in the project of some 221 units by Community Projects Corp.? Is it the Ministry of Housing’s problem that is holding this project up? Can he give us a report on that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to. We have asked the federal government to reconsider the economic viability of the project. It is very marginal. I haven’t got an answer from Ottawa. I wrote some while ago and I hope I will have one this week. If I have, I will report to the hon. member directly.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, if I may: Had the federal government not given its approval for the project previously?; and did not the minister’s predecessor (Mr. Handleman) also approve this project by order in council some months ago?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right; the federal government did approve it some months ago, but conditions have changed since then. I think we have to reassess the feasibility of it as of today, which is not the same as a year ago or so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

MOPEDS

Mr. Samis: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In view of repeated questions and the fact that summer is fast approaching, can he give us an idea if he definitely will bring in legislation regarding mopeds? He said he would study the matter. Can he give us some idea of when he might come in with some regulation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have that in before this session is over.

Mr. Samis: May I ask a supplementary? Has the minister eliminated any considerations from the study; that is, are there regulations he won’t bring in? Are there any things he has decided not to cover in the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh many, yes.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired. I recognize the member for Grey-Bruce. Is it a point of order?

Mr. Sargent: I have been in this House about 100 years, and I still don’t know how you run the question period.

Mr. Foulds: It just feels that way.

Mr. Sargent: We had 30 minutes of ministers’ statements. I don’t know how you run that chair, Mr. Speaker, but I think what is most important is to have the members get their views across in this House. I know you try to do a good job, but slow those guys down over there, because it is coming off the question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think those remarks were uncalled for. I recognize the member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, seated in the east gallery are 34 students from Ecole Jean XXIII in Cornwall. I hope the hon. members will join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Morrow from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Whereas the matter of the proposed amend- merit to Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, has been referred to the Committee to determine whether or not at this time the amendment alters or varies the meaning of the original bill, and whereas such amendment may properly be moved by a member of the private bills committee, your committee therefore recommends that this total matter be referred back to the private bills committee for such conclusion as it may determine.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth presented the report of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for the year 1974.

Mr. R. K. McNeil, from the standing resources development committee, reported the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

Ministry administration programme .... $27,605,000

Planning, research and development programme .... 16,328,000

Safety and regulation programme .... 25,787,000

Provincial roads programme .... 434,952,000

Provincial transit programme .... 37,097,000

Air programme .... 3,184,000

Municipal roads programme .... 286,299,000

Municipal transit programme .... 120,090,000

Communications programme .... 2,191,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in order that the newly created Urban Transportation and Development Corp. can assume the activities and projects currently carried on by the Ontario Transportation and Development Corp., it is necessary that powers be provided to the Ontario corporation to allow it to dispose of its assets and liabilities, and for the Ontario government to receive securities from a company called the Urban Transportation Development Corp. This latter company has been created under the Canada Corporations Act.

The amendment being proposed will allow the OTDC to transfer almost all of its current property to the UTDC, whose ownership, like the OTDC, is restricted to provincial and federal governments.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, most of the amendments contained in this bill are relatively minor matters and all of them are designed to benefit municipalities, either by enabling them to administer their affairs more effectively or by granting them greater discretions.

One item in this bill could be of special benefit to the elderly, the infirm and the handicapped. Under existing legislation, municipalities are empowered to remove ice and snow from sidewalks in the front of residences where the occupants have not done this job themselves but, in such circumstances, the municipalities are required by law to recover the expense of the service from the owner. The amendment in this new bill empowers municipalities to provide snow removal at municipal expense on sidewalks beside properties owned or occupied by certain classes of persons, such as the elderly or the handicapped.

Members of this House may recall that an earlier amendment to the Municipal Act provided municipalities with wide powers of discretion in making grants to individuals or groups. The bill I am presenting today augments that earlier legislation by giving municipalities the authority to approve the making of loans or the guaranteeing of loans among the grant-giving powers.

Another item in this bill empowers counties to prohibit heavy vehicle traffic on county roads. It is a provision that will give county councils a measure of control over noise pollution and over motor vehicles and a means of reducing wear and tear on their own roads.

In a further amendment to the Act, municipalities are permitted to amend their employee pension plans without the approval now required from the province. In another pension measure, certain technical changes are made to provide a more generous formula for paying retired employees whose incomes are drawn both from the Canada Pension Plan and from the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, or from some other approved pension scheme.

Other parts of this bill clarify present legislation permitting municipal taxation of telephone companies and delete various items which are now unnecessary because of other amendments.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a section providing municipalities with the power to licence, regulate, govern and inspect body-rub parlours.

Mr. Singer: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the hon. Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the members of the House some students from South Edwardsburgh Public School, Johnstown, in the great riding of Grenville-Dundas. They are in the west gallery and I would like them to be welcomed as usual.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to introduce students from Frank Casey Public School in Sturgeon Falls. There are 40 students along with five teachers.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table answers to questions 12 and 21 standing on your order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The eighth order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 86, An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies.

OMBUDSMAN ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: I believe when we rose, the member for Nickel Belt had the floor. He adjourned the debate so he may speak first.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the principle of this bill. It seems that the longer a government is in office the greater the need is for an ombudsman. For a government that warns us about the bureaucracy of socialism, it’s remarkable that they’ve built the kind of bureaucracy they have in Ontario.

There certainly is a need for an ombudsman and we support the principle of the bill.

I think that the office of Ombudsman should be a very, very public office and that reports should be made regularly to this Legislature, and made in some detail, in terms of the ongoing role of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman’s office, in terms of the problems that the Ombudsman is facing in carrying out his duties and, also in terms of suggestions that he might have to make to this Legislature that might involve changes in the Act itself, or changes in the operation of government. More specifically, I would hope that the Ombudsman would seek advice from the members of this chamber who, after all, were his predecessors in many ways. He is 117 ombudsmen rolled into one and I think that there is some very good advice that could be had from the present members.

I would like to give some specific direction to the Ombudsman, Mr. Speaker. I think that regional offices should be established for the Ombudsman and I’m thinking, of course, in particular of an office in northern Ontario. I think of what happened with the citizens inquiry branch established here in Toronto, which serves primarily only the people in Metropolitan Toronto or certainly in the lower mainland in southern Ontario. The people in the north get virtually no benefit at all from the citizens inquiry branch and I am concerned that the same kind of thing might happen with the Ombudsman’s office.

I see no reason why there could not be regional offices. I see no reason, either, why there could not be a mobile department within the Ombudsman’s office which could cater to the small extremely neglected communities in northern Ontario, communities that have no government offices to turn to when they run into trouble. Very often they have no idea where to write, there is no address available to them and they really are at a loss. So I would hope that the Ombudsman would seriously consider that.

I also hope that the Ombudsman would establish specific sections or departments within the office; for example, I think that there will be need for a special Workmen’s Compensation Board department within the Ombudsman’s office. I would be interested in knowing from the minister how he sees the role of the Ombudsman in dealing with compensation problems. I represent a highly industrialized area with many, many compensation problems and I can imagine that at the beginning there is going to be a very large number of dissatisfied injured workmen across the province who will be making application to the Ombudsman’s office for some kind of relief. I would hope that by establishing such a department there would be a degree of expertise developed within the office to cope with problems like the Workmen’s Compensation Board problems.

I think if he does do this the Ombudsman’s office should be equipped to appeal directly to the Compensation Board and not merely to rule on whether or not the Act has been correctly interpreted, because there are many cases with a compensation problem where it really is a judgement call rather than a strict interpretation of the Act, and I would hope that a special department be set up within the Ombudsman’s office.

I think, too, that there should be some kind of department that deals with the equivalent of class actions. I am way over my head in this area because I don’t know anything about the legal fraternity, but it seems to me that there are groups which might want to deal with the Ombudsman’s office as a group and that a class action might very well be the answer. While it might not be a legal parallel to a class action, such action on the part of groups of people might very well be useful and I hope that the Ombudsman will consider that.

In the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Ombudsman is prepared to establish a very large complement early on, because I suspect the creation of the Ombudsman’s office might be something like being elected for the first time as a member. In the early stages every person who is dissatisfied with the previous judgement comes to the newly elected member. It certainly was my experience. I can imagine what is going to happen in the early months when the Ombudsman takes office. There will be an influx of requests, demands, that will be very difficult to deal with, and I can see where in the first six months there will be enormous pressures on the Ombudsman’s office, which may very well decline after a period of a year or so. I hope the Ombudsman is prepared to deal with that fairly quickly so that people don’t become disenchanted early on with the speed with which queries and complaints are handled.

We in this party are going to support the bill, of course, because we believe there does need to be an ombudsman in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview. Before the member starts speaking, I’m sure I express the sentiments of all members of the Legislature when I say I am pleased he has been restored to health sufficiently to attend the Legislature again.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate that. I was going to say --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the member starts speaking -- I know he would approve -- with only five Conservative members in the House, I would like to call a quorum.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): We want a better audience than this for the member for Downsview.

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

Mr. Speaker: We now have a quorum. The member for Middlesex South.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome to the House students from Westminster Central School, London, Ont.

Mr. Singer: Can I speak now?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say, before that point of order was raised, that I want to thank you for your kind remarks and all the members who were kind enough to express to me their concern about my state of health. I was just talking to the Attorney General. It’s rather sobering for someone who has been blessed with good health all of his life to find that these things can happen to him too, and rather an interesting lesson that we are all a little bit mortal and these things can catch up to us. This morning I spent some time going through the Instant Hansard of Tuesday, and one cannot help but take a little pride out of the very kind remarks made about me by pretty well everyone who took part in this second reading debate.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): They had heard the member was critical.

Mr. Singer: And I might never read them, yes. I might never read them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: However, I am here. I am going to be here for a long time yet; next year over there.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is the member crossing the floor?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased that the government has seen fit to introduce an Act called, “An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies,” which is a somewhat similar title to Bill 2, called, “An Act to provide for the Appointment of a Commissioner to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies, and to define the Commissioner’s Powers and Duties.” My title was a little longer but I think it makes better English. We didn’t try to incorporate a Scandinavian word; we used the term parliamentary commissioner. However, the government chose to use the word ombudsman. I don’t think there is very much in that. I would have preferred to see the British legal tradition carried on and call him parliamentary commissioner.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): The member always makes good suggestions.

Mr. Singer: However, Mr. Speaker, comparing Bill 2 and Bill 86, the similarity is just much more than coincidental. There isn’t a section in Bill 86 that isn’t found somewhere in Bill 2. They reversed the numbers and moved sections from here to there, but by and large there is very little new thinking brought to this by the law officers of the Crown or the parliamentary draftsmen or whoever did it, but there isn’t really a great deal of new thinking to be brought to this subject.

The point is, is the principle going to be accepted? It is gratifying that after 10 years the principle is now about to be accepted. I have read with very great interest -- and it has been a good debate up to this point -- the comments of the various members who have taken part. It is true -- and I have never hid it; I think I made it abundantly clear the first time I introduced the bill -- that the bill was modelled after the New Zealand Act with certain Ontario ramifications attached to it. It is not modelled after the Scandinavian Acts. With great respect to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), our system of law is different from the Scandinavian system of law, and if we are going to choose as a model a system of law to follow, surely we have to follow the British system. That is what our common law is based on, it’s what our criminal law is based on and it makes some sense that something that evolved under the British procedure be part and parcel of the Ontario procedure, as it is part and parcel of the Canadian procedure.

So, it is logical that we accept, as a guide, the New Zealand bill. It was adopted in Alberta, substantially, and in other provinces in Canada, and that is the bill that I used as my model before there was another ombudsman bill in Canada. The government has now seen fit to accept that suggestion and for that I compliment it.

Some of the hon. members have spent a great deal of time worrying about particular phrases, about particular powers, about particular restrictions, and I say this is probably setting up straw men. This is going to work if we have a capable man at the head and it is going to work if the person who is charged with the responsibility is given the support of this Legislature.

I would think now that it almost goes without saying that the Ombudsman is going to get the support of all parties in this Legislature. Well, it should be said -- it should not go without saying.

It also should be said that the government’s selection for the first occupant of this post is a good one, an outstanding one.

I commend the government for having chosen Arthur Maloney, whom I have known -- I was at law school with him -- and for whom I have great respect, and not only as a lawyer, because I have seen him in court and I know how he operates in court; he has got a good mind and he is well trained in the law.

The most recent example of his performance and his ability was indicated to us when he brought forth what I think is a very important report on the handling of complaints about the police in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. That showed us, in a substantial volume, the ability of this gentleman to listen to arguments, to sift evidence, and to come forward with a series of suggestions as to how a better, fairer and more reasonable complaint procedure dealing with police matters could be established in Metropolitan Toronto.

I regret I wasn’t here when that portion of the Solicitor General’s estimates came before the House because I intended to make that point at that time and to suggest to the Solicitor General that Mr. Maloney’s suggestions could well be the model for handling police complaints throughout the Province of Ontario. Perhaps that suggestion was already made, or perhaps the Solicitor General already has that in mind, but I say that it is part of the measure of this man and it is important that the first occupant of this office be of that calibre and have that kind of intelligence and integrity so that the job can be carried on and carried on well.

We can write anything we want in this statute, but it isn’t really going to be worth the paper it is written on unless the person who is charged with the responsibility is going to make it work. That’s why, while the points that are made by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), the member for Ottawa Centre and some of my colleagues here are important -- a member earlier this afternoon said there should be offices all around and a great complement of employees -- while all these suggestions may have some merit in their place, unless the Ombudsman or the parliamentary commissioner is going to be able to make the thing work or to make the clock tick, so to speak, then the system isn’t going to work at all.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Province of Alberta embarked upon an ombudsman system, their first appointee was a retired commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Some of us who were somewhat familiar with this theory of government assistance thought this was a very unfortunate appointment. We didn’t believe -- I, for one, didn’t believe -- that a person who comes from solely a police background should have been the person charged with this kind of responsibility. Well, it’s very easy to prejudge, and I was wrong about the first Ombudsman in Alberta, because he turned out to be one of the outstanding men to hold this position in the western world. He did an outstanding job.

I am prejudging Mr. Maloney. I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House, that on the basis of his ability, and his background and his past record of performance, Mr. Maloney should perform an outstanding job. I hope I am right; I think I am. But until the thing gets under way, we are not going to know, because until it got under way in Alberta we didn’t know. The Ombudsman in Alberta did a great job; he served seven, eight or 10 years, I think, before he retired and he has now been succeeded by another gentleman. That’s fine.

There have been appointments to some of our boards and commissions here that have been less than fortunate. This is not the appropriate time to single out any particular one, but it is so vital, so important that the right choice be made as the first occupant of this important position.

I don’t think there’s any point in trying to say to Mr. Maloney in this legislation that he hire a very large complement. What is a very large complement? Is it 1,000 people? Is it 50 people? Is it 10 people? Should they all be lawyers? Should seven of them be social workers, or 2.5 be secretaries, and one driver?

I think Mr. Maloney has to be able to determine that. He is the servant, not of the government but of the Legislature. He should be able to say: “I need this much help and I want so many of this and so many of that, and those are the ones I want.” He should be given the dollars that he asks for; and we should be prepared to give it to him.

I’m sure the Attorney General is going to agree that’s the way in which the position should be handled. I’m certain that, as he feels his way -- and he’s going to be new to this; anyone in Ontario is going to be new to this position -- he’s going to say: “Yes, Workmen’s Compensation is very important.” But I don’t think that we have any right, if we want this position to work properly, to say: “You have to have a Workmen’s Compensation section.”

He has to have an Ombudsman’s section; one section. What’s he going to do? He is not, Mr. Speaker -- as many of the members have said -- he is not a super MPP. He’s a buffer. He is going to have the job of standing between the citizenry and that mass of 70,000 nameless and faceless civil servants and to protect the people from decisions -- arbitrary decisions, unknown decisions, traceless decisions -- made by civil servants against the citizenry. He’s not a court. He’s not a final court of appeal, but he’s going to be able to react.

One of the things that bothers me, and I’m sure it bothers you, Mr. Speaker, is when a constituent calls you up and says: “You’re my member and I work for the Province of Ontario. I’m one of those 70,000 people. My supervisor doesn’t like me and, therefore, I’m not being promoted. You’re my member; why don’t you do something about it?” That is in the category of the most difficult kinds of complaints I have to deal with. I don’t really know how properly you go about it.

You phone up the department concerned and say: “John Smith said he isn’t being promoted because his supervisor doesn’t like him and would you please do something about it?” What is the reaction going to be? Who are you speaking to, the top boss or the second top boss or down the line? No matter how a member tries to do that kind of thing, he’s going to end up in trouble.

If you’re interfering in the day-to-day internal management of a particular branch of the civil service, you really have no business doing it, because you haven’t got the information. You haven’t got the personnel files. You haven’t got the ability of calling civil servants or the supervisory people there and saying: “What about John Smith? Is he stupid? Is he honest? Is he able? Does he come in late? Does he take holidays when he shouldn’t?”

This is the kind of thing that the Ombudsman should be able to do with facility. He can summon supervisory personnel. He can say: “Come on in, I want to talk to you about Joe Doakes, who feels he has been wronged; bring his files with you.”

That is something that we have no ability to do. He’s not just a super MPP in being able to do it. That’s something, I’m sure, that is going to take up a fair bit of his time.

It’s the question -- and I noticed my colleague, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) was concerned about it -- of being able to look into the books of the Ontario Housing Corp. I would think he can. I would think he can do that very easily, because if you look at some of these definitions, they’re broadly, broadly drawn: “The definition of government organization means a ministry,” and so and so, “and includes any agency thereof.”

My good friend, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook), was worried about the broad use of that word. What does it mean? I think the member for Riverdale was also worried about what it means. It’s going to mean substantially what, in the first instance, Mr. Maloney says it means. I think it means anything that this government has set up, whether it be Ontario Housing, or the Northland Railway, of the Science Centre, the St. Lawrence parks or whatever. As long as it’s being paid for by the taxpayers’ money collected at Queens Park, then it is a part of the government and the Ombudsman can look into it.

The more specific we get, the greater trouble we’re going to get into. I think this Act, in its general form, is not bad. It’s not perfect but it’s not bad. It’s not bad at all. It’s had the testing of time in other jurisdictions.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): It’s very like the member’s own.

Mr. Singer: It is almost identical. I said that before the hon. member for Lakeshore came in.

Mr. Lawlor: I arranged it that way. I wouldn’t want to cut off the member’s criticism; it is delightful.

Mr. Singer: I spent one day comparing section to section --

Mr. Lawlor: So did I.

Mr. Singer: -- and I found hardly any variance at all.

Mr. Lawlor: They took his bill.

Mr. Singer: Yes, without even any royalties.

Mr. Lawlor: He can see what a lousy draftsman he really is.

Mr. Singer: Without even any royalties -- I was very hurt about that but I would be glad to put it into the public realm.

Mr. Speaker, my word of caution in this is that the Legislature does not attempt to trammel and confine and hem in Maloney. There hasn’t been one speaker who has questioned his ability or failed to commend the government for choosing him as the first occupant of this important office. If it’s going to be able to work here in Ontario, I think Maloney can make it work.

While these suggestions have some substantial value -- I went through them; I saw what the member for Lakeshore said and I was impressed; I saw what the member for Riverdale said and I was impressed; and my colleagues from St. George and from Sarnia -- I’ve got all sorts of notes and I’m not going to go on too long this afternoon.

My doctor said I shouldn’t get too excited or call the Attorney General nasty names so, by and large, I’m going to be fairly pleasant and say this is a great move forward. I feel some substantial pride of authorship in relation to this. I hope it’ll work. I think it’ll work. It is important that we get regular reports and I’m sure Maloney knows it’s important that we get regular reports.

Two additional words of caution I would perhaps throw at Mr. Maloney. One is that while it says complaints should be in writing, I think he should have available in his office, wherever it is, people who can write out complaints for other people who want to complain but who can’t write properly. A lot of people have difficulty in expressing themselves. There are a lot of people who will want to complain, who might be being unjustly treated, and who will need assistance in drafting a formal complaint.

I think there should be available in the main office a multilingual service to deal in their own language with all the residents of Ontario who have complaints. Some of the people who feel they have complaints will be unable at all to express themselves in the English language. Certainly there should be immediate facilities in French and some of the other major languages we use in Ontario -- Italian, German and what have you.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there was some worry in the minds of some of the members that complaints could only be brought by the people affected. Section 15, subsection 2, uses the word “affected.” I would think it would require no great legerdemain of statutory interpretation to say that a member of the Legislature is a person affected and that a member could complain on behalf of his constituents if he so desired. If somebody believes there’s any doubt in this, it could be a kind of minor amendment to 15(2) which would make it clear.

I don’t think it really needs to be made clear. It is not the original English system by which only the Members of Parliament can complain. The persons affected can complain and I would think that if a constituent of mine has something bothering him, as his representative l am a person who is affected.

My colleague from Rainy River (Mr. Reid), for instance, was awfully concerned that we write statutes like this in legal language or great legalese. I don’t know how you can write a statute like this unless it is in legal language. It’s one lawyer saying you’ve got to write language that other lawyers can understand but if you don’t write statutes in language lawyers can understand you get into trouble.

It’s all very well to say write it in simple English but I would like one of the members who says write it in simple English to try to redraft one of these sections, say what the section apparently says it does and say it in a more obvious and more simple manner. I think you would find it a very difficult task in fact to do.

Mr. Speaker, those are my remarks in connection with this. I know there will be discussion in committee probably today. I don’t think I am going to expend my good fortune and new-found strength much longer. I commend the government for having brought this in and having indicated the first appointee. For goodness sake, let him alone and let him do his job. If we don’t like it in a year, then we can come back and can all do something about it.

One remark that I think the member for Riverdale said was let’s not fool ourselves; once we get something on the statute books we are reluctant to change. This is new enough and this is different enough that many of us will be most anxious and concerned to make it work. If it is not working by reason of something that is in these 10 pages, then certainly there will be great agitation for change. If it is not working because of the lack of ability and/or intelligence or physical strength of the first appointee, I would think he would be the first person to remove himself, because he would recognize that immediately.

It is a piece of legislation that we all must watch carefully; it is a piece of legislation that is important. It is not an alternative for the courts. It is something for the people of Ontario who deserve to have a system that will protect them from actions of nameless and faceless civil servants. Let’s get it through and let’s let Maloney get to work as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to support the principle of the creation of the office of the Ombudsman. I am not sure that I support the principle of this bill. I will vote for it because I have a certain feeling of goodwill and a certain feeling of charity that it can possibly work. But as I listened to the debate on Tuesday, and I listened to the debate very carefully and I especially listened to the remarks of my colleagues from Lakeshore and for Riverdale, I was filled with a certain amount of despair because as they delineated the restrictions, the limitations, of Bill 86, it struck me most forcefully indeed that this is a bill typical of this government.

Just one example of that circumscribing of the authority is clause 15, subsection 4. It always has been my perception of the role of the Ombudsman that he could cut through bureaucratic red tape and that he could help the citizen who gets enmeshed in the great bureaucracy of this government with its commissions, boards and ministries. But, if I read that section correctly, he cannot do so while the process is going on. He cannot do so until the person has exhausted within the ministry or within the commission or within the board all the appeal procedures and, I gather, including appeal to the courts. What that means is that the Ombudsman can not be an expediter. I regret that very much.

It struck me that the government has had a history of acting in this way when it comes to protective officers or positions. I just want to hit three or four examples that sprung readily to my mind. The government created a whole ministry, the Ministry of the Environment, to protect the people of Ontario from pollution. Yet that ministry is so circumscribed by its weak-kneed legislation that the people of Ontario still suffer. People in my riding are drinking water that has asbestos in it and it may very well be a hazard to health. The Indians in Grassy Narrows are still subject to mercury poisoning. The Ministry of the Environment does not take initiative action.

The government has created a Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, presumably one whose responsibility is to protect the consumer, and nothing is done in terms of protecting him. There are offices within that ministry like the superintendent of insurance, which has a protective function in its ideals, yet all the superintendent of insurance is allowed to do is take in information and grudgingly reveal it to the public if there has been something which has acted against the interests of the consumer.

This government created an Ontario Energy Board which has no power to roll back prices.

Finally, there is the other example I want to use because I think it is most pertinent to the role of the Ombudsman -- whose role, presumably, is to protect to some extent the civil liberties of the citizens of Ontario. Several years ago this government created the Ontario Human Rights Commission and that commission has to stand by without any initiative powers, because of its legislation or because of the direction it gets from its minister, and cannot take any action against slanders cast upon the native people of this province by the likes of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) or by the likes of Eleanor Jacobsen in that scurrilous book “Bended Elbow.”

All of these bodies I have mentioned -- and I have mentioned only a few -- in my view and, I think, in the view of the people, the public out there, should have some protective functions but we find after a number of years that function is not being carried out. I am very much afraid that this bill, which creates an Ombudsman who is to be a protector of the rights and liberties of the individual citizens against arbitrary decisions by government, has so circumscribed his authority that he will not be able to carry out his function in the way the people out there hope he can do.

That won’t become apparent within one year because it has only become apparent, I think, within the last two or three years that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a patsy and an apologist for the government. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that in a piece of legislation we cannot trust to luck. In other words, in a piece of legislation we have to enshrine the authority for the office and not hope that the first appointee and subsequent appointees will be able to carve that out. We shouldn’t create a position in which the appointee has to work against the odds.

I have one other comment I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, and that is I for one am not worried that the Ombudsman may usurp to some extent the role of the MPP. I think the bill, in an unfortunate way, does not relieve the case load, or work load of the MPP at all because of clause 15, subclause 4. Unlike some other MPPs I would have been delighted to be relieved of some of that responsibility so that I could turn my attention more to being a legislator. I could spend more time preparing a reasoned and thorough analysis of this particular bill and the one I am going to be responsible for tomorrow.

I think the role of the MPP over the years has become perverted to some extent. The executive of the government has usurped such authority that the MPP is not a legislator in any meaningful sense any more and because the caseload we have is so heavy he cannot free himself from that to turn his attention to his responsibilities in this chamber. Anyway, those are some of the thoughts that I wanted to express --

Mr. Martel: It is obvious by the numbers here.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): There are seven Tories here.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, by the numbers here, even though this may be one of the most crucial bills that we discuss, it is fairly obvious that most of the people elected to this chamber aren’t interested in the legislative function.

As I say, those are some of the thoughts I wanted to express and some of the very severe reservations that I have. I hope that in his summing up, the Attorney General, once again a good person in terms of his authority --

Mr. Martel: Stout fellow.

Mr. Foulds: A stout fellow, one of my colleagues whispers in my ear --

Mr. Martel: I don’t know why he is hiding today, though.

Mr. Foulds: -- and capable man that he is, I hope that he can allay some of the reservations and fears expressed by myself and my colleagues, because we sincerely do want to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t intend to be lengthy on the bill, but I certainly would like to make a few comments, especially since my colleague has been attempting to get the government to consider such legislation for many years. I could almost say it is 16 years, because yesterday was 16 years to the day that he was elected to this House. I don’t think he actually introduced any bill at that time, although I am fairly certain it is well over 16 years that he has had the idea of the need for an Ombudsman, but it is 10 years or so since he actually introduced legislation in the House that would set up such an office.

My colleague doesn’t use the term “Ombudsman” but rather the term “commissioner.” Really the two are almost synonymous; it is a matter of semantics as far as the naming of the office is concerned.

Those of us who have been in this House for the past 10 or 15 years have seen a rapid escalation in the number of ministries, the number of civil servants and the number of boards and commissions. It’s near the point where it’s almost difficult to comprehend the number of boards and commissions, the number of government agencies and the number of employees that are in a decision-making position that can affect an individual, either adversely or favourably. It is the difficulty of an individual to get redress when he considers himself being unfairly dealt with, I would assume, that originally brought up the idea of an Ombudsman.

I don’t see this legislation at all taking the place of the member. I think the member’s responsibilities will continue to be just as onerous in the future as they have been in the past. I would like them not to be as onerous so that those of us who have to process citizens’ complaints would have a little more time to pay more attention to legislation, rather than being so-called office boys and attempting to resolve constituents’ problems.

I can only see this office as being complementary to responsibilities of the member, taking from the member those types of complaints or problems that the member has attempted to resolve but has come up against a dead end and can no longer find an area or an individual to whom he can actually put the complaint and find redress for the constituent. I can foresee this supplementing the responsibilities of a member, maybe taking a bit of the dead-end load off the members’ shoulders and having an official person responsible for resolving or bringing the problem to a termination.

I can recall, Mr. Speaker, the difficulties I have had in the number of years that I’ve been here and finding nowhere to turn. I can recall trying to find answers from the Liquor Licence Board over the years as to why one individual would be unable to obtain a liquor licence for an establishment, yet an individual two doors away had no difficulty in obtaining that licence or finding two similar situations in different municipalities, within one municipality an individual being successful in his application while in the other municipality, in spite of his having a similar case, an individual being refused the privileges to which, in my estimation, he would have been and should have been entitled to. Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, I’ve been confronted with that type of problem, not necessarily with the Liquor Licence Board but with a myriad of government ministries and agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I can see the problems that arise with the Ministry of Housing. We’ve discussed them in the House here where we attempt to get certain information and find it is not available to us. It should be available to us but, if it is not, we can at least hope that the person selected as Ombudsman, or as the member for Downsview prefers, as a commissioner, could have access to all of the necessary information and access to all of the offices and maybe even give to us answers to problems that we ourselves are unable to get in the House, either through question period or through questions on the order paper. Many a member here has been dissatisfied with the replies by ministries and with the replies to questions placed on the order paper. I would think and would hope that the Ombudsman would be the vehicle by which members could get correct information as well as information that they have requested.

Mr. Speaker, I look at the problems of individuals attempting to build homes in certain parts of the province and the difficulty they go through. I can recall one that I worked on for an individual for almost a year and still couldn’t get a resolution to the problem. I would hope that possibly an ombudsman or a commissioner could through his ability to cut through red tape resolve the problem.

One of the areas which I think this bill may not cover and that it possibly should include is where an individual’s rights are trampled on by government agencies, be they provincial and/or federal. I can recall in my own community where the Canadian Pacific Railway all of a sudden simply decided that they wanted to triple-track properties that belonged to them. As an individual, I couldn’t come along myself and do with my property whatever I wanted to. I would have to get some type of permission from city hall. Yet a government agency -- and in this case I’m referring to a federal agency but I would say it could also be provincial -- can come along and do as they please with the property simply because it is theirs, not taking into consideration an environmental assessment of what they contemplate doing.

I think it is awfully important that the citizen have someone that he can turn to when all avenues have been expended by him in an attempt to get a resolution to his problem. I can’t foresee the Ombudsman supplanting the citizens inquiry branch. I would think that that would probably always be needed because citizens quite often hesitate to call government agencies, to call their own members, or to call other members in an attempt to get information. Some citizens are very independent, and as a result would like to try to resolve problems themselves but would like a bit of information, and I would think that the citizens inquiry branch could provide them with that information.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York South): What about that being put under the Ombudsman?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, my colleague from York Centre makes mention of the possible transfer of the citizens inquiry branch under the office of the Ombudsman. I think that might be a partial answer to better efficiency from the citizens inquiry branch.

I wanted to mention to you, Mr. Speaker, one area of complaint that does disturb me very much and that is the citizen complaint concerning police. It is extremely difficult for a citizen to make a complaint. They are always scared that if they do make the complaint their name is going to be brought up. In fact, I have had it specifically brought to my attention within the last two weeks that where a citizen registered a complaint against another citizen the first thing that happens is the police come down and say, “Mr. so-and-so, your neighbour, complained about you.”

I don’t think, under any circumstance, they should come along and be telling the name of the citizen who complained, because I think you are only creating more problems by doing a thing like that. It would be better to see if there is justifiable cause for a complaint without revealing the source of the information, because what we are doing by revealing the source of the information is, we are telling the citizen not to complain at all because if he does complain he is going to find himself in difficulty, maybe not only with the police but also with the other citizen. I would hope that the Ombudsman, or ombudsperson, or the commissioner might be someone the citizen could turn to and the source of the complaint wouldn’t necessarily be revealed.

The member for Downsview in his comments made mention concerning a civil servant having possibly just cause for complaint, and then if one of us as members approached the branch of government or department of government and made a complaint, we would sort of blackball that civil servant simply by making that complaint, and then there is always the fear that the civil servant may be picked on by his superior officers. I have always found this a great concern, Mr. Speaker -- the fear of the citizen to complain because by complaining he is sort of blacklisting and blackballing himself.

I can recall dealings with the Workmen’s Compensation Board over the years. When I was first elected to this House I got a complaint from a citizen concerning the unfair treatment he claimed he received from the WCB. I processed the complaint year after year and year after year was able to get nowhere. Finally, after 14 years -- yes, 14 years, Mr. Speaker -- Workmen’s Compensation saw the justice in the individual’s complaint and resolved the problem. But why should any individual have to fight for 14 years against government to get what he is rightfully entitled to in the first instance? It doesn’t speak well for the approach taken by some branches or agencies of government.

I would hope that the Ombudsman, in his report, would always give a reason for the final action on the part of the ministry; the reason for either the success or the failure of his attempt to resolve the problem. I also would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Ombudsman would have at his disposal people familiar with the different languages used in the province. Those unable to speak the English language but familiar with other languages, would be able to place to the Ombudsman or his agent the problem that they are confronted with in the language that is easiest for them to communicate in.

Likewise, I would hope that the Ombudsman, in the course of his resolution of problems, would be instrumental in pointing out to various agencies possible improvements in their operation. For example, very often one gets a constituent who complains concerning his family benefits allowance. All of a sudden, a cheque arrives in an amount different to that received the previous month, with no explanatory note and he has no idea why all of a sudden he received less or more.

The federal agencies are exactly the same. The Department of National Health and Welfare will mail an old age security cheque to an individual for one amount one month, a second amount the second month, a different amount the third, and yet a different amount the fourth month. There isn’t one of us here in the House who hasn’t had that type of a complaint.

Now, if it happens on the federal level, I would assume, Mr. Speaker, it would also happen on the provincial level. Because civil servants are just human, the same as you and I, and quite often we tend to take the easy way out, instead of the more responsible way out.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of the bill. I also speak most highly of the appointment of Mr. Maloney. I sat in the House with Mr. Maloney’s brother. I know that, coming from the Maloney family, he is an individual of extremely high calibre; one who will start the programme and set the pattern for future appointments after he decides that he no longer wishes to continue as Ontario’s first Ombudsman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any other member? The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the New Democratic Party has long advocated the appointment of an ombudsman, I felt I should just make a few remarks today to mark the occasion. The field has been very fully covered, so I shall not repeat remarks that have already been made.

When I first heard about the ombudsman years ago, his work in Sweden and other countries, I naively pictured a wise old gentleman, probably with a beard, somewhat like our minister, only long and white and flowing and without Mafia glasses. And I pictured him as dispensing wisdom in solitary serenity or serene solitude. But now that I am older and wiser, I realize that this office will entail a staff of considerable size, and this reduces my enthusiasm somewhat.

When pressed to appoint an ombudsman, the former Premier, the hon. John Robarts, was fond of saying that we didn’t need one because this Legislature already had 117 ombudsmen, each member being one. When he gave up the Premiership and had to handle his own constituency cases, I understand that he became an even firmer believer in the ombudsman role of the private member.

We shall then have 117 part-time, more or less, amateur ombudsmen; plus a whole office full of professional ombudsmen under the supervision of the chief or the official Ombudsman. If this is the case, then the duties or the burdens of the individual members will become less onerous. If we members are to be relieved of our most vexing cases --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): The member is too optimistic.

Mr. Burr: -- which take so long --

Mr. Martel: That Ombudsman office won’t help this Legislature one jot.

Mr. Burr: This is my opinion.

Mr. Martel: Not one jot

Mr. Burr: I know some cases which have taken weeks of my time, which I would have given to an ombudsman gladly.

Mr. Martel: The member will just have more to take its place.

Mr. Burr: If we are to be restricted to solving the more routine complaints which come to our attention, the Legislature should not be enlarged to 125 seats. It should be reduced to the same number of seats as in the federal parliament -- 88 or whatever it is from time to time -- with the same provincial constituency boundaries and names as for the federal ridings.

My concern, in addition to those mentioned by the members for Lakeshore, Riverdale and others, is that we are transferring to the Ombudsman the most difficult of the problems which each member encounters from time to time and that we are doing this at considerable added expense. I am pleased to see the burden transferred from the members but regret that a compensating reduction in numbers of members and resulting expense has not taken place at the same time.

After the next provincial election, most re-elected members will be representing fewer constituents than before and as a result of the establishment of the Ombudsman’s office, I personally would anticipate that each member will have fewer really tough cases to handle. It may even be that the challenge will largely disappear from the constituency casework of all members. In addition to some of the other concerns expressed by my colleagues, this is my particular point of view.

I have one suggestion. I should like the minister to consider the advisability of recommending to the newly-appointed Ombudsman that when the first deluge of cases descends upon him and his office, he might give priority to those cases which have been outstanding for a very long time rather than take the cases -- as he probably will later on -- in the chronological order in which they are received; that is, the order in which they are postmarked. That’s the only suggestion I have, Mr. Speaker, and I will support the bill, of course.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, two points I want to bring to the minister’s attention. First of all, I don’t agree with the last speaker with regard to the decrease in member’s workload. I think the problem of increasing load has been due to the trend in government to centralize so much authority instead of leaving it to the local municipalities.

We’ve deprived them of so much of their resources and their authority that it’s made it much more difficult for the citizen to deal with things close at hand. He has to resort to his member down here and the load in the eight years I have been a member has multiplied enormously. It has nothing to do with the numbers of people. I would suggest it is because the province has tended to move unfortunately in the direction of bringing more and more authority to the centre. Let’s hope a change of government will occur and we’ll change that direction.

I would urge the minister to have the citizens inquiry branch placed under this office as I feel it would co-ordinate a great deal the services already provided and would also provide the Ombudsman with a feeling of the type of inquiries coming in and the concerns citizens are having. Perhaps it would help him make recommendations in his report which would be helpful to the general direction of government in the province.

Other than that, I am delighted the government has followed the recommendation of my colleague from Downsview a recommendation he has made so valuably over the years, and it’s great to see it finally come to fruition.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment very briefly on this mostly to express my enthusiastic support for the bill which is being brought forward. I think the merits of it have been very well covered in the debate, so I won’t dwell on that. I appreciate that members do carry out many duties which we would identify with this office. Nevertheless, with the ever-increasing involvement of government in our lives, it is necessary, in my mind, that we have this very important post.

I am sure the role will be very meaningful and that citizens generally will feel some comfort to know that the government is interested in insuring against what could be, when one gets big government and more involvement, a frighteningly heavy clout. I would hope that this isn’t inadvertently applied to any citizen, no matter how humble he or she is. I think it is a very important stop-gap measure, in that regardless of a person’s station in life he can feel he is a very important person, as he is.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I heartily endorse it and I commend the minister for bringing it forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, I realize that most of what’s being said now is probably repetitious, but I would just like to put on record --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Say it anyway.

Mr. Samis: Don’t worry -- on behalf of the people of Stormont that I welcome the bill. I think it’s long overdue. I’m glad to see that Ontario’s catching up to the other, I believe, five provinces that now have an ombudsman. I’m not one of those who regards the creation of an ombudsman as a competitor for the role of the MPP. Rather, I think of it as a complementary service. I would hope that as a complementary service that the new Ombudsman and the office of the Ombudsman will keep all members extremely well informed of cases involving their own constituents I think this is the right of any member of the Legislature. I think if the MPP and the Ombudsman can keep each other informed that the purpose of the entire bill, the people, will be better served and have a greater sense of justice.

I do hope that the Ombudsman, as the member for Nickel Belt said, will be highly accessible to the people. I hope that he doesn’t became bogged down in this whole Toronto bureaucracy and become regarded as another part of the whole multiplier-effective bureaucratic civil service here in Toronto and inaccessible to people in other parts of this province.

I am glad to see that the Ombudsman will have a substantial staff to work with. I would also suggest -- and I realize it’s not within the minister’s jurisdiction -- that serious consideration be given to providing adequate facilities for the members to service their own constituents via added funding for such things as riding offices. I’ve noted that jurisdictions, such as California, provide greatly superior services for their constituents and for the members of the legislature in California, and I would think they would have considerable merit here in the Province of Ontario.

I don’t intend to dispute the terms of reference of the Ombudsman, because my legal friends and colleagues from Riverdale and Lakeshore have done this very aptly on Tuesday, as well as the member for Ottawa Centre. The only suggestion I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that for the people of eastern Ontario, especially in my riding, who have a 300-mile distance to cover to Toronto and who feel very distant and cut off from Toronto, being close to the capital city of Canada and being close to the largest city in Canada but quite far from the capital of their province, the Ombudsman would schedule regular periodic tours of regional centres in every year.

I would suggest, for example, if he were to come to eastern Ontario once a year, that he would set up office in Kingston or Ottawa for a set number of days and do the same thing for the north and for the southwest. If the Ombudsman is designed to serve people, we have to get him close to people on a periodic basis. I realize that he has to operate out of Toronto and I fully accept that, but I think it would have great value to the population if he could conduct some periodic tours every single year.

On behalf of the franco-Ontarians in eastern ridings and in my riding, I would hope that all the services and facilities of the Ombudsman’s office would be done in French as well as in English. I realize here in Toronto we would have other languages as well. I would hope that within the office there would be French-speaking staff to service the complaints and problems of people who can speak English but who are not very comfortable in English and would much rather do it in French since they can explain their cases and their problems much more easily in French. I would hope that we would provide them with that service in their native tongue.

I notice that the term of the Ombudsman is 10 years. I understand the reasoning behind that, especially in view of the gentleman appointed. Personally, I would prefer to see it reduced to five or seven years. I have every confidence in the man who has been appointed but I do think 10 years is a bit long. I think that it would be more responsible if it had been a shorter term. However, I do compliment the minister on the man who has been appointed. He obviously is a first-rate person.

I am also glad to see that there are provisions included for travel costs for people in the east, in the north and the southwest, because frequently an office like this has good intentions but it can become bogged down here. For working-class people, unemployed people and senior citizens who just haven’t got the facilities to utilize these services the costs are prohibitive. I am glad to see that the minister has included provisions that do provide for travel expenses.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for introducing this bill. I congratulate him on his choice of Ombudsman. I hope that once this bill goes through committee and possibly certain amendments are added that the office will be in service as soon as humanly possible so we can get this thing closer to the people.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak to the bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have enjoyed the debate which started two days ago, continued throughout the entire day and the night session and was continued today. I am sorry the member for Downsview is unable to be in the House right now but I understand why he had to leave in that he has recently suffered a very serious physical ailment and the demands on him physically have been somewhat substantial. I am glad he was here today to participate in this particular matter. I would have liked, had he been present, to perhaps have had a little fun with him but I will not embark on that line in his absence.

A number of members, Mr. Speaker, have spoken on the bill. I have a list of them all. I don’t wish to become too technical at this time as we can do this when we get into committee. I would like to talk briefly on some of the overall principles that I think we must not lose sight of. In the first place, the office of Ombudsman is not that of a substitute for a court or for an administrative tribunal. The office of Ombudsman is to provide a vehicle through the legislation to look into those decisions made by government which may be of an arbitrary or have the appearance of being of an arbitrary or very improper decision, a type of decision which may be made by someone at some level of administration.

The office of Ombudsman is not going to provide every citizen with that which he seeks from this government. If a person is dealt with fairly by whatever officer or level of administration he is dealing with and there is no arbitrariness involved, and if the decision is made in a fair fashion, even though it is not the decision desired by the member of the public, then that, as I see it, is where the matter ends. Because the person complains that he didn’t win his request or he didn’t obtain what he sought doesn’t mean that the Ombudsman then mounts a white horse and charges through and says, “Ah, ha! I shall use my influence to reverse it.”

I just want to make very clear that the Ombudsman is not being appointed to reverse or to affect decisions, except where there has been maladministration or where there has been some arbitrariness on the part of some agency or individual within the government. I think we must realize that. That is why there have been some remarks made during the debates that people are expressing concern about section 15(4) saying the Ombudsman is not empowered to look into matters before the courts or tribunals until such time as the times for appeal have gone by. Of course not. Why should he?

He will not be interfering with the administration of the tribunals or the courts while those matters are currently before those tribunals or the time for appeal has gone by. He can then look into those matters which he has jurisdiction to inquire into -- and I am sure that he will provide a great deal of assistance to numbers of the public -- but he is not there to reverse or to use his influence to reverse decisions which may not be acceptable to individual members of the public, although fairly made and so on.

I can only add my compliments to the choice of the individual whose name has been put before the House by the Premier (Mr. Davis), in the person of Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC. It was indeed gratifying to sit here and listen to the comments made by the members opposite, and sincerely made, because they recognize the talents that this man brings to this office.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): It’s the first time in a long time that he has made a good appointment.

Mr. Kennedy: They are all good.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I recognize there have been some bad ones; I think of the chairman of the public accounts committee -- but we won’t deal with that one right now.

Mr. Reid: I am sorry I missed that; I was caught up in the debate.

Mr. Deans: No, I think the member is sorry he said it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There were some other comments, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to deal with the matters in chronological fashion as brought to my attention in the House, starting last Tuesday.

There was some reference made by some of the members that it was too bad they didn’t have enough notice on the bill. The matter was called last week by the House leader and I have heard nothing further about that since Tuesday afternoon, when there seemed to be some concern.

The member for Riverdale wondered what the relationship of the Ombudsman would be to the assembly. He directed his remarks and raised certain questions in this respect. I think I can only assure the member for Riverdale that, as he knows, the Ombudsman is really the servant of this assembly and not of the government per se. I don’t feel we have been remiss in the drafting of the bill by spelling out in detail how this relationship should be.

I prefer the position taken by the member for Downsview in his earlier comments, that if the bill becomes too specific in spelling out various matters, in essence it might be very restrictive on the office of Ombudsman. Knowing Mr. Maloney, as I do, I think those who don’t know him but know of his reputation can rest assured that if he finds that he is in any way fettered because of the legislation, he will soon be back before this House to make his position very clear and ask for amending legislation to clear up any matters he thinks are lacking.

The member for Riverdale asked how the rules will be made under section 16 of the proposed bill. I would put to the House that, as I visualize it, a committee of all parties in this House will be created or appointed to develop, along with the Ombudsman following his appointment, those rules for the guidance of Mr. Maloney and his staff. They will have the force of regulations under subsection 2, of course.

I see that committee perhaps being an ongoing committee in the sense that it could be revived at any time should the rules need amending after experience indicates that some or all are not working in the best interests of the public. I think that by having that set of rules drawn in concert, after consultation with the committee and the Ombudsman, that we will derive the guidance rules that are required.

The member for Riverdale asked if it will apply to Canadian citizens only or Ontario citizens only; will there be a time limit; will it continue after death; and so on. There is no time limit. We contemplated that. We thought maybe in deference to the Ombudsman, in order not to see him swamped initially, we should put on a one-year limit; that is, from the date of his appointment he could go back only the one year. Then, of course, one is confronted with the situation of what happens if someone did come forward with a matter which was in excess of a year -- perhaps 14 months -- but really required the assistance and intervention of the Ombudsman? He would be fettered then. Rather than do that, I’ll leave it in the good hands of the Ombudsman to use his own discretion on an ad hoc basis and put no time limit on him, at this time or in the future. I think it’s apparent that should something be a number of years old he might well indicate that the complaint was not justified. I had one myself a year or so ago from a constituent which went back to 1934 and there was no way in 1974 we could even find the parties or the people who made those decisions.

I contemplate no restrictions as to citizenship or residency because I think that what the Ombudsman has to be observant of and watchful for is the system and the effect it would have if it’s badly administered. If someone lives in Detroit and is dealing with our government, or some level of it, I don’t see why that person should not have the benefit of the office of the Ombudsman if someone in this government has been arbitrary in his or her decision, which has adversely affected someone living outside the province. It would be only a matter of time before someone within the system or within the province would be affected by that type of decision. Therefore I see no reason why the Ombudsman should be restricted in that type of situation.

The member for Riverdale submitted there is nothing in the bill referring the report to a select committee of this House. That’s quite true, of course; there is no procedure for that. We want to wait and see what the experience of the ombudsman is. I am aware of the English system and a certain other system. I want to see what the experience is -- whether we will require a select committee or a standing committee or any other committee of this House to deal with or assist the Ombudsman. I am sure I can’t speak for Mr. Maloney but if he finds in due course, with the passage of time and with his experience that he requires that kind of support or assistance or liaison, he will make his recommendation and the government will have to respond, presumably, in accordance with his request.

The member for Riverdale must think I am picking on him but I made a number of notes and I feel I must respond to him on many of the areas he touched on in his remarks the other night. He dealt with the board of education case before the House of Lords and he took the position that, as I understood it -- and I hope he’ll correct me if my understanding is wrong -- he felt the Ombudsman really would have no power under the particular piece of legislation before this House -- the one we are dealing with right now, Bill 86 -- because of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act of 1971, particularly because of the section -- I think it is section 15(4) -- restricting the Ombudsman as to the areas in which he has no jurisdiction.

May I point out to the hon. member for Riverdale that under section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act which reads as follows -- I am just dealing with subsection (1): “On the application by way of originating notice which may be styled ‘Notice of application for judicial review,’ the court may, notwithstanding any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:”

Then subsection (1)1 reads: “Proceedings by a way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.

“2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.”

I think the point that the member was trying to make, at least the way I understood him, is that there are these procedures and, therefore, if they haven’t been explored by the member of the public, the Ombudsman would be barred because the member of the public has not availed himself of this statutory right.

I would like to point out that they deal with extraordinary remedies, obviously, set forth in section 2 of this Act I have just read, and they don’t deal with the merits of the case. If the member will direct his attention to 15(4)(a) it refers to matters dealt with on the merits of the case.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Perhaps I can respond to that when we are in committee.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, all right.

He offered his observation that the Attorney General would be front running for the executive council because of section 26(3) of the bill. I would have to respond by saying that the public interest is the criterion all the way through and, therefore, I cannot accept his observation in that regard.

I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, I will get into the individual sections. Perhaps we can deal with them, if the member for Riverdale will agree, when we get to the section by section treatment. Is that okay?

Mr. Renwick: That will be quite suitable.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member pointed out in his criticism that the Ombudsman would be dealing with matters in private, and I feel that it has to be that way. As I recollect, some of the observations made by McRuer when he looked into the role of the Ombudsman were that he felt strongly that the Ombudsman should not consider himself a public servant assassin by exposure, except in those unusual matters that really need the light of day to bring attention to a particular situation. Not only would the Ombudsman require the confidence of the members of this House whom he serves, but he must also have the confidence of the public and civil service of this province. I think time will show that he will have that because of the very nature of the man and because of his ability. He requires that. We must have the confidence of the people with whom we are dealing, be they adversaries or be they employees or any person. We must have their confidence and respect, and I am sure that he will, if he doesn’t already have it, be assured of having that kind of co-operation from the civil service.

I would hate to think that someone who had made an error -- a human error without malice, acting in good faith, but had made an error -- would have that error exposed where there was no real substantive harm brought about. It would be a source of embarrassment to the civil or public servant involved, and if it was rectified by the intervention of the Ombudsman, is this not his role? Has he not then achieved what we started out to achieve?

The member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott) raised the question, would he have power to look into municipal government, and wondered if that would be extended into the municipalities were they agencies of this government. I would have to take the position that no, they are not. They are corporations under the Municipal Act, and the Ombudsman would not have jurisdiction over them as an agency or creature of this province.

The member for Rainy River, who is present in the House, indicated some concern about the regulations, and he described what he felt to be his understanding of the creation of regulations. As I recall he left out of his submission a very integral part of the procedure and the development of regulations, and that is the examination of regulations by the regulations committee prior to their being forwarded to Her Honour and the council for execution.

Regulations do not go forward to the regulations committee unless they bear the signature of the minister who, obviously by signing them, endorses them and is being supported.

Mr. Reid: Which regulations committee is the minister talking about?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am talking about the regulations committee chaired, I believe, at the present time by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen). I don’t mean the regulations committee dealing with the activities of this House, but the regulations committee presided over by the Minister of Revenue, and usually parliamentary assistants go forward to that committee with regulations which emanate from their ministry. There is a discussion at that point by the regulations committee, and the departmental or ministerial officials and the parliamentary assistant, and they are either approved or amended.

Mr. Reid: That’s still a week late in the whole process.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I suggest not, because they come forward then to cabinet with the observations of the regulations committee. I should point out, the member for Rainy River made some reference to some regulations made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth).

Mr. Reid: Improvement standards.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the industrial standards regulations --

Mr. Reid: Employment standards.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- employment standards. I have noted here that the hulk of those regulations are schedules for different trades. I am talking now about the Industrial Standards Act. The member said employment standards. Well, I am talking about the Industrial Standards Act because I just want to mention something. The bulk of the industrial standards regulations are schedules for different trades, each arrived at and passed by a vote of a conference of the industry involved. They cannot be changed except by the same process. Each industry regards its regulations as important and would be very concerned at any changes that the minister might impose.

Mr. Reid: Is there union representation on that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: As far as I am aware no. If an industry is involved in developing some regulations under that Industrial Standards Act, the industry itself that is going to be touched on in the schedule, or included in the schedule, or whatever you want to call it, has input.

Mr. Reid: And the members have not. That’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, but the regulations can be made in a series of ways. For example, under the Judicature Act there is provision for a rules committee which deals with the rules of the Supreme, county and district courts of this province. That rules committee makes recommendations as to changing rules affecting the procedures mostly in the civil courts: there are some criminal rules involved. Those come forward to the Attorney General of this province who, in effect, is nothing more than a conduit pipe to transmit them to cabinet. I have no right to say I don’t like the change of that rule. I think we are going to alter that.

Mr. Reid: But that’s the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we can discuss that in committee.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Nor should I. This is being studied and submitted by a group, contemplated by an Act of this province, so that that group which presumably knows more about it collectively than I do as an individual, studies the problem, makes recommendations and puts them forward for change by Her Honour. It would be terrible if I, or my civil service, had power to veto that recommendation.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I realize the rules, but to me this is a very fundamental problem. Doesn’t the final proposition in regard to regulations mean that, in fact, they have the force of law; so that people outside of the Legislature, in fact -- if this is what you are saying it is worse than I thought it was -- have the ability to make regulations that are approved by Her Honour and then, in fact, have the same strength under our system as the legislation that we, as members, pass in the House? That’s one of the major problems, as I see it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You have to look at the statute under which a regulation can be created. Most statutes, of course, have a provision, usually near the end of the Act, for the creation of regulations. I would say that probably in 99 out of 100 Acts that sit in the revised statutes of this province, they are made by the ministry that has a responsibility for the carriage of that Act.

There are some pieces of legislation, however -- and the Judicature Act is not an exception, it is one of them -- that say the rules of the Supreme, county and district courts of this province can be varied as follows -- and I am paraphrasing -- then it describes how the regulations committee shall be created, its areas of responsibility and how the matter of changes to the rules of the courts goes forward. So they come forward to the minister who has the carriage of the Act, namely, the Attorney General, who must present them to Her Honour in council.

There are other industrial-type statutes -- I’m talking about this Industrial Standards Act -- that provide for input from the industry. They go forward on the same basis. The bulk of them are dealt with, created here. I don’t draft changes to the rules of the Supreme Court. They are drafted by the rules committee and come forward to me for transmission to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The member questioned why the tenure should be 10 years.

Mr. Reid: I am not going to argue with that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the member questioned whether there would be a loss of objectivity on the part of the Ombudsman. I don’t think he is really concerned about that. I think one has to give the holder of that office a sufficient term of office that he can indeed undertake his responsibilities without being concerned about being reappointed in three or four years.

Mr. Reid: It’s not important.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The hon. member mentioned something about reasons should always be given, and when I heard him debate the other night I very seriously questioned whether that was right. I see the validity in it, but sometimes reasons should not be given, and I’ll tell the member why.

When the Liquor Control Board of this province used to issue orders of interdiction. I have had this experience when I was practising law. The recipient of that order came in and said, “What is this all about?” and I told him what it was. He said, “Why would they do that to me?” and I said, “Obviously someone has drawn to their attention that in their opinion you have a drinking problem,” which, of course, he denied. He didn’t have any drinking problem, according to him.

I inquired into that and found out that a very pathetic and impassioned letter had been written to the board by the man’s wife. The board told me that in confidence really. They were concerned that the husband would find out about it because he had a history of assaults and so on; he wasn’t a particularly credible citizen but she still had to live with him.

If we ever made it compulsory that the Ombudsman in that type of situation, by statute, was compelled to disclose, I think there would be situations where it could be extremely dangerous, extremely harmful and disruptive if not destructive of, perhaps, the family of that particular person. I would be more prepared to leave that in the very good judgement of the person who occupies the office and if he thinks it’s necessary, fine. If, for those reasons I have indicated, he thinks it’s not in the best interests that the person be advised, I would be inclined to rely on his judgement.

Mr. Reid: In the majority of cases he would advise them of that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would imagine he would want to, he would probably indicate the reason. But when you get into these very sensitive areas, as I have described, it could be very harmful.

The member turned his attention to a section of the Act dealing with secrecy -- section 20, subsection 3, maintaining secrecy -- wondering really if that was a good idea. I would direct the member’s attention to some of the secrecy provisions in the revenue statutes of this province. I think there has to be secrecy in certain areas. Under the Venereal Diseases Prevention Act there are areas of secrecy compelling the people involved in that area of activity not to disclose, except under certain circumstances, matters which come to their attention in connection with their work.

I would point out that the very next subsection, subsection 4, says, “With consent of the person in writing” certain things can be done. I would suggest that would probably be obtained in most instances where the person was in agreement with the matter being disclosed. If he wasn’t in agreement, fine.

The member for St. George expressed what she described as a large disappointment in the bill and named a couple of sections, 19(4) and 19(6), I mentioned to her afterwards they were almost word for word the same as in her colleague’s draft bill, 13(5) and 13(7). I mentioned it to her when the House rose the other night and she said she didn’t care, she didn’t always agree with him and in any event she wanted to make her views known to me. I wish she were here now. I am not being critical; I want to point out that she felt certain sections in the bill were not sufficient in her opinion.

As far as having a mobile Ombudsman or a van going throughout the province is concerned, I don’t know. Those would have to be decisions of an administrative nature which the Ombudsman will have to make, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he will consider the mobility and the accessibility of his office to those more remote areas of the province whose people perhaps cannot get down to Toronto as readily as many of us. I certainly wouldn’t want to make it mandatory in the Act. That’s a decision he’ll have to make as he comes to it.

I don’t see any diminishing in the role of the members of this House. I think many of the inquiries the members get are really matters of information. The members respond to their constituents, the information is transmitted back and that’s the end of the matter. The more substantive matters really deal with applications before the Workmen’s Compensation Board and other similar types of complaints and inquiries.

The Ombudsman really is not going to assume any role in that area. He is not going to be the consumer advocate for the workmen. If the Workmen’s Compensation Board, for example, or any individual working for that board arbitrarily or improperly made a decision which certainly affected the constituent, the ombudsman would jump in with both feet. In the day-to-day processing of an application, assuming it wasn’t being delayed unduly, I don’t think the Ombudsman would intervene. He is not going to become the advocate for everybody who has a matter like that before that particular board. He will be there to monitor the activities of boards and agencies and make sure they are carrying out their responsibilities in a responsible and equitable fashion.

The last observation I would like to make is that the Ombudsman will have to work with this Act. It will be his bill of rights. He will come forward with any deficiencies. I take it he has read the bill. I certainly have not discussed it with him. He has a copy of the bill, I presume. He was invited to offer any observations he might have on the bill. I have received none to date. I presume he finds the bill a workable piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as we go through the sections I will be moving an amendment to section 17, subsection 2, to add the words “training school” because the definition under the -- what is it, the Penitentiaries Act?

Mr. Renwick: The Correctional Services Act.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- under the Correctional Services Act does not --

Mr. Renwick: Does not include training schools.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- include training schools. I think we should have that in there so that people who are in training schools can have the right to have their correspondence directed to the Ombudsman without the letter being interfered with or opened.

Those are the general observations I have, Mr. Speaker. As we now turn to the sections, I am sure we will be discussing them in detail. Perhaps I might be able to respond at that time, particularly with reference to the specific sections members touched on during the debate. Even though they are not present in the House, I would like to deal with them.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand it is going to the committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

House in committee on Bill 86, An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of the Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Strangely enough, in section 1, the definition of government organization, we had a sort of dry run at this under the Mechanics’ Lien Act, dealing with what is a commission, board or other administrative unit of the government of Ontario and any agency thereof.

I recognize there is the Crown Agency Act which we discussed at the time we were dealing with those recent amendments to the Mechanics’ Lien Act. The minister saw that there was some merit in looking at the definition for the purpose of modernizing and updating and making more accurate just what was included under the Crown Agency Act. I can’t understand why in a bill such as this that that wouldn’t have been the proper way to deal with it, by referring to the Crown Agency rather than to “a commission, board or other administrative unit of the government of Ontario, and includes any agency thereof.”

For these reasons, I think the Ombudsman -- I’m having trouble with my friend the Attorney General because he insists on putting an extra “s” in there all the time; it’s ombudsman, it’s not omsbudsman.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): How about “the commissioner”?

Mr. Renwick: It seems to me that the government has got to be in a position of furnishing the Ombudsman with a complete list of those agencies of the government of Ontario. I think it’s a difficult problem because of the number of them. I would like to know, for example, specifically, whether it does include the Ontario Labour Relations Board, whether it does include the Workmen’s Compensation Board, whether it does include the Liquor Control Board of Ontario -- that is those particular types of boards that are not necessarily directly the responsibility of the minister.

That’s my point. I think the definition of government organization as defined here should be the definition to encompass the Crown Agency Act; that that Act should be revised to make it a definitive list of what the agencies of the government are; and that the Ombudsman has got to be given all of that information so that he’ll know the extent and the ambit of his operations.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) spoke earlier today on this point. I think the member for Riverdale was absent from the House at that particular moment.

Mr. Renwick: I was at a meeting.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He was at another meeting at the time. The member for Downsview took the position, and I must share his view, that by being definitive, one might exclude through omission an agency. He said, “Surely the test is that if it’s been created by this government and it’s being funded by this government, then it’s in fact an agency of this government.” As far as the Labour Relations Board is concerned or the Liquor Control Board, yes, they very definitely would fall within -- let’s look at the wording here -- let’s say the Labour Relations Board --

Mr. Renwick: But the Workmen’s Compensation Board is not funded by the government.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, but that wouldn’t be the test, you see. Who created the Workmen’s Compensation Board? This government did in 1917. The wording itself says “a commission, board or other administrative unit of the government of Ontario, and includes any agency thereof.” So I certainly would be more than prepared for the ministries for which I have responsibility to supply to the Ombudsman -- I don’t speak Swedish very well by the way -- the list of the agencies and boards and commissions created by this government and supervised and/or operated by those ministries for which I have responsibility. I have no hesitation at all.

There would be some delay, I suppose, in sitting down and actually compiling them, but if that is what Mr. Maloney wants, assuming he is the successful nominee for this high office, then he shall get it. It’s just as simple as that. That was the view, as I understood the observations offered by the member for Downsview today, that in essence if you delineate it and define it, you might by that very rigidity overlook or exclude, and he didn’t want that to happen; nor do I.

Mr. Chairman: Section 1 carried?

Mr. Renwick: It deserves one further comment. I don’t think that is quite the problem. The problem is to make certain that a member of the public, for whom this office is being created, understands whether or not he can approach the Ombudsman about a particular body -- there are so many of them; I guess there must be 200 or 300 -- if he feels aggrieved. That’s what I’m concerned about. I don’t see how the Ombudsman can possibly monitor -- I think this is the word the minister used a few minutes ago -- the agencies of the government unless he knows which ones they are.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: All right. I’m prepared not to press the point at this particular time but if the Ombudsman is going to be given a list of all of the agencies of government I would certainly like the members of the Legislature also to be given a list of them. We have great difficulty in extracting such a list. We try very hard. We have our own version of one here which our own research people make up.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Can I borrow your copy?

Mr. Renwick: It runs to any number of them. We have it broken down, strangely enough, alphabetically and we also happen to have it broken down by the Ministry of the Attorney General. It has the assessment review court under your ministry, the Board of Negotiation; the Land Compensation Board; the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; the Official Guardian; the Public Trustee; the Law Reform Commission; and the Ontario Municipal Board. There are probably a number of others.

Under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, we’ve got the Co-operative Loans Board of Ontario; the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario; the Farm Products Marketing Board; the Milk Commission of Ontario; the Ontario Food Council; the Ontario Food Terminal Board; the Ontario Stock Yards Board. As I say there is an immense number of them.

I think it’s very important. In any event, I think it’s about time the government did find out how many there are, even at the risk of omitting the odd one because it can always be added at some other time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I commend your research staff on the list for the Ministry of the Attorney General, in any event, because the boards referred to by you as being monitored by the Ministry of the Attorney General are correct. You are up to date on that.

I want to make something clear; I know the member for Riverdale understands it, Mr. Chairman. When I use the word “monitor” I mean really looking into after receipt of a complaint. If there was an agency or a board or a commission against which the Ombudsman never received a complaint and he did not on his own initiative think he should look into the activities or decisions of that particular group it really wouldn’t matter that he did not have a list with the name of that group on it.

He is only going to be activated, as I understand the legislation, on receipt of a complaint against a board, agency, etc., or by looking into something on his own initiative. If an agency, board, etc. is, let’s say, doing its job in a responsible fashion, it’s unlikely the Ombudsman is really going to get involved with that agency or board unless, on his own initiative, he has some reason to trigger off an inquiry.

With the greatest of respect, I don’t think that the absence of a list is really going to be harmful to the office of the Ombudsman because if he gets a complaint, he’ll move. He’ll tell them whether they are an agency, board or commission over which he has the power to act under Bill 86.

The point made by the member for Riverdale as to the public reception is a good point. Perhaps it indicates that when this bill goes into force there should be widespread coverage, hopefully by the media if not advertisements -- that’s not my responsibility -- or perhaps an educational brochure advising the public of their rights insofar as the office of Ombudsman is concerned.

Mr. Renwick: Again, I don’t want to labour it but I would, for example, want to know and be interested to know whether in the case of the Council of Regents for each of the colleges of applied art and technology which come under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and are established under the authority of the Act establishing those colleges, an action by the Council of Regents of a particular community college would be properly a matter in which the Ombudsman would be interested in receiving a complaint. I am asking that not as a rhetorical question and not for an answer, but as illustrative of the kinds of problems that I see in that section.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think they would be. It is our opinion that they would be. They were created by the province but they would be subject to this Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Renwick: On section 2, I am just curious as to the reason why the government did select the Swedish term rather than the term “parliamentary commissioner” or some other designated term such as was used elsewhere.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We thought about the use of the phrase “parliamentary commissioner” as has been used in the United Kingdom and in other jurisdictions. It seemed to be the consensus that whatever we did call the parliamentary commissioner or the Ombudsman, he or she would, in fact, be referred to by the public and understood better if we used the name “ombudsman.”

“Parliamentary commissioner” to those of us around here has a certain connotation. The public might think he is a commissioner for taking affidavits and wouldn’t really know the role, but if we use the designation “ombudsman” they do have some perception and understanding of that, particularly in view of the amount of coverage that it has been given in the media over the past few years, particularly with the Swedish experience. We have read about it in various publications. We thought the perception would be much more easily comprehended by the public if we used the word “ombudsman.”

Mr. Renwick: I presume as time goes on that, whether the public perceives the term now, it’s such an unusual word that the perception of it will become more and more widespread.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Renwick: In section 3, is that the way in which the Provincial Auditor is appointed, for example? The Speaker is not appointed that way. We are saying in clause 2 which we have just passed that the Ombudsman is an officer of the Legislature. If I could perhaps use the Clerk of the assembly as an example, is the Clerk of this assembly appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: So the only person is the Speaker who is not appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. He is elected by a motion of the House.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Why is it 10 years? Were they in the terms of bargaining with Mr. Maloney, that he wasn’t disposed to take the appointment of anything under? Most of these appointments in other jurisdictions are for far shorter terms.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In the appointment of someone to occupy this office, it was the opinion of the executive council that we probably wanted someone who is obviously experienced, someone who has a reputation in a certain area of activity. We, therefore, would get someone who is probably in his or her 40s, 50s or 60s, as opposed to someone in the 20s or 30s, to occupy this office.

My experience in recruiting people for senior positions who are perhaps in their 50s has been that if they are about to leave their present area of responsibility, they want some assurance of some continuity of office for a certain term; when you start talking in terms of two or three years, the sacrifice you ask them to make simply is not worth it, and they decline it. As a result, we kicked around the idea of perhaps 10 years or age 65 --

Mr. Lawlor: Does that apply to politics and politicians?

Hon. Mr. Clement: In some instances it does. It doesn’t in mine or yours, of course, we being younger members of the House.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): It did in mine; they promised me 12 years.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We decided that rather than making the appointment “at pleasure,” which we considered, for a two- or three-year term, or for five-year term, that perhaps we should be able to assure the individual who eventually would be approached that he or she, during good behaviour, would have security of office for a 10-year period. There’s no magic in 10 years, but we explored it quite thoroughly.

Mr. Lawlor: In the old days, when I first knew Arthur Maloney, he was called “Li’l Arthur.” Did “Li’l Arthur” get clued in, in terms of consultation with respect to the details of the bill, prior to the time his appointment was arrived at?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I never spoke to Mr. Maloney about the bill at any time until the day he was introduced to the House and he was in the Speaker’s gallery. Knowing Mr. Maloney slightly, I am presuming that when the bill was introduced, he certainly would be one of the first to obtain a copy; but I certainly had no involvement or discussions with him as to the contents of the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Nor your staff, as far as you know?

Hon. Mr. Clement: As far as I know.

Mr. Lawlor: In other words, “Li’l Arthur” was clued in at the same instant as all the rest of us were, as far as you knew.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, my staff never met with Mr. Maloney on this at all.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chairman, section 4 has to do with the appointment, and already the announcement has been made as to who will be appointed. I have had drawn to my attention by some people -- and I have some feeling about it myself -- the question of whether a man of legal training actually should be in this position.

I question whether a lawyer, who understands all the technicalities of laws and everything, really should be the top man in this position. I can understand that he should have legal advice, but I question very much whether a lawyer should occupy this position. As I can envisage the position, it will be more or less a court of last resort for people who have gone to their community services and social services people, to their MPP and probably everyone else and who figure they haven’t been treated fairly. In those circumstances, I suppose they’ll go to the Ombudsman.

I just want to raise the point -- it may only be a minor detail, but I have had it mentioned to me -- that because of the training of people, one wonders whether this particular job should be headed by a legal person. We know one or two legal people will be needed on the staff, but I was interested to learn during the past week or so that my own municipality apparently contacted someone in TEIGA about an interpretation of the Municipal Act as to whether a municipal councillor has to vote or not, and they got two different opinions from two different people on that staff. Those two people may have been involved in the drafting of the bill, although perhaps not, but I really don’t think that a legally trained person should be the head of an area where he will be making representations on behalf of the general public.

I don’t know how you would describe the person who should have that position. I would suppose that he could be a social worker, or should probably be a person with all kinds of common sense and one who understands people’s frustrations. I am just wondering whether legal people, trained the way they are, actually do that. I know that they have people who come to them for advice on many occasions, but I just wanted to throw this out as an opinion of mine and one which some people have brought to my attention.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just correct something, because I left the wrong impression. I’m in error -- the Deputy Attorney General met with Mr. Maloney following his introduction here in the House -- I did not -- he met with him after his introduction here in the House, a day or two or a week later, and produced the draft legislation for Mr. Maloney to look at prior to its introduction. I want to make that clear. I am sorry, but I did not at any time meet with him, other than in a quasi-social sense; I ran into him in the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) office the day he was introduced in the House.

Mr. Renwick: But no changes were made in the bill as a result?

Hon. Mr. Clement: There was one minor one of a housekeeping nature. No substantive changes were made whatsoever.

Mr. Renwick: May I speak to the point made by the member for Essex-Kent? I think it is interesting -- and we discussed this a little bit in a committee a year ago, in the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for justice -- that in the United Kingdom the parliamentary commissioner, or ombudsman, is a highly respected former senior civil servant with an immense knowledge of the operation of government. Apparently it was felt in this case -- they were talking about dealing with members of the House of Commons, because that is where the complaints originate in England, or the channel through which they reach him -- that it would be a good idea to get away from a lawyer: it would be easier for a non-lawyer to deal in day-to-day terms with respect to something called maladministration.

Excepting the present intention of government to appoint Mr. Maloney, with which I don’t have any quarrel, I think there is merit in what the member for Essex-Kent said, and presumably 10 years from now they will heed our advice and appoint a non-lawyer. The problem of selection is a difficult one, as to what the career or background or history of the particular person should be, and I think the intention is to select the person rather than the particular career that the man has been in. I think Arthur Maloney probably fulfils that role, but I certainly would agree with the member for Essex-Kent and under no circumstances should we get the idea that only a lawyer can be the Ombudsman in this province.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any comment?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have listened to the member for Essex-Kent’s observations and, of course, there is nothing in here that says it must be a lawyer. I think the member for Riverdale put his finger on it -- it just happens that the first person to occupy this position happens to have that background and it might well be that a civil servant might be the next one. I wouldn’t like to see it restricted to a designated type of background, because I can think of several occupations that might well lend themselves to being a very effective Ombudsman.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Renwick: Would the minister explain to me the technical reason why the Public Service Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act do not apply to the Ombudsman?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, the Ombudsman is a servant of the Legislature and not a public servant or a civil servant as designated under those two pieces of legislation referred to in the section. Therefore, not being a public servant or a civil servant but a servant of this Legislature, those statutes cannot apply to him.

Pension and that sort of thing are dealt with over the page, but he cannot enjoy the benefits, let’s put it that way, set forth in the Public Service Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act unless he is, in fact, a public servant. It’s part of his independence.

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Renwick: Is it proper or appropriate to ask whether or not the salary as reported in the press is the salary which will be paid to the Ombudsman? I think the figure that was quoted in the press was $60,000 a year. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that is correct.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister on section 6 if there is going to be any provision for indexing as far as pension benefits are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, there is not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. B. Newman: Are you considering that?

Mr. Reid: Can I get the job in 10 years? Pays considerably better than mine.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t think there has been any consideration of indexing his pension any more than there has been for the pension that will eventually be paid to the members of this House. I certainly was not involved in any discussions as to indexing his pension.

Mr. B. Newman: Sixty thousand dollars in 10 years might be worth $6,000.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Try $2,400.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Then we are really in trouble.

Mr. Ruston: It might be the other way around, too.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, in reading it over, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, he may employ such officers and other employees as he considers necessary. I see in some of the other areas, I think in Quebec, they have a staff of 25, and his salary is $35,000 -- an annual budget of $500,000. Our salary is $60,000 so we are up considerably there.

I’m just wondering, and I suppose no one really knows what the operations are going to be. I suppose the people who have day-to-day problems are going to continue going to whatever social agency they can find and their local members. If Friday night comes and they haven’t got their welfare cheque, they will run to their local member and hope that maybe he will buy some groceries for them for the weekend.

We know the Ombudsman won’t get involved in that kind of thing because all the complaints have to be in writing and so forth. But I’m concerned as to what this might lead to. What concerns me is that if we build up a staff of 25 or 50 we are going to defeat the purpose of what we really want. We want to go to some person in special circumstances to see what is wrong with some government agency that isn’t looking after what we think is our fair need.

I am concerned about whether we are going to build up a large staff. I assume they are going to be in Toronto. Is it the intention to have field officers in the province, or is his staff going to be right in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know. These are judgement calls that the Ombudsman is going to have to make as he gets his toe in the water and sees just what the demands are. There have been suggestions here in the House today that there be field offices, that there be a mobile office. These are things that he is going to have to decide, depending on the demand, depending on the geography of the complaints. I would presume that if there was a tremendous number of inquiries coming in his direction out of a particular area and they really couldn’t handle them here that he would seriously consider, if they lasted for any length of time, opening a branch office in that area to deal with them, probably in metropolitan centres.

But these are judgement calls he’s going to have to make after he gets into the job and sees just what is entailed in terms of requirements or area offices. There is no way that I am going to interfere or suggest what he should do. If he asks for any observations from our ministry, I will give him the benefit of my views but he’s the one who has to make the judgement.

Mr. Ruston: What I’m thinking of is our federal members now have an office in each riding, each staffed by one person. That means, I suppose, there are 88 offices in the Province of Ontario where people can go to get assistance. Of the people who go in, probably -- I wouldn’t know; I’ll say a ball park figure -- 75 per cent would have to do with federal responsibilities and probably 25 per cent have to do with provincial and municipal responsibilities. In our cases, as members, we probably have 75 per cent provincial responsibilities and the other 25 per cent which people come to see us for are federal responsibilities. In a way it works out.

I’ve often thought -- and this might come eventually -- instead of a provincial member having an office and a federal member having an office somewhere else, what we should have is a community office which would be financed by the provincial, federal and municipal governments; maybe a very small amount by the municipal government because most of the things would have to do with the provincial and federal levels due to the fact they’re farther away.

I’ve often thought we should have what we call social offices for people to go in. If they didn’t get their unemployment insurance cheque last week that lady or man, whoever it might be, in that office should be able to call up the Unemployment Insurance Commission and say, “Why didn’t he get it?”, instead of him having to run 10 miles to find his MPP or his MP who should be in Toronto or Ottawa looking after parliamentary business. Instead, they come to us.

It seems to me if we had a central office like that these people could probably do three-quarters of the routine applications we get for assistance. The ones they couldn’t do they would say, “You go and see your MPP about this. It’s something you’ll have to get at in Toronto; or go and see your federal member.” Rather than having a whole range of offices scattered all over, I’m wondering -- we set up a large government and a large bureaucracy which, of course, is a favourite word. Lots of people use it but they don’t know what it is; they call it that. Then we have to set up offices to try to get to it.

I’m afraid we’re setting up one federal office where we might eventually set up a provincial office. I have two telephones in my own house and when my wife or the boy are there, naturally they’re the office people who look after it although they pretty well relay it all to me.

What I’m concerned about is that we don’t have all these offices to get to the government and you shouldn’t have to do this. We complain about big business, about the way they react, and maybe we’re getting the same way in big government. Heaven help us, some people want us to socialize more than ever and I guess it’s almost harder to get to big government than it is to get into big business to find out something.

Mr. Lawlor: Now, now.

Mr. Ruston: We’re setting up such a layer of these things and it concerns me a great deal. That’s all I can say, actually, to it. But it does concern me as to where we’re going in this direction. Maybe if this individual will look over all these things -- and I hope he would -- he would consider whether this is a duplication of a federal member having an office and a provincial member having an office. We have some community social services which have opened up offices to assist people and we have storefront legal offices, and so forth. Maybe he would be the one to co-ordinate all these and if the people can’t get any satisfaction out of these offices they would come either to their provincial or federal member, whatever government level the agency belongs to, or directly to the Ombudsman himself.

This is the thing I’m concerned about and perhaps he’s the one to co-ordinate it. I think somebody needs to co-ordinate them at all levels of government so we don’t have so many duplications.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 8 carry?

Section 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Renwick: On 9, I wanted to pick up on the point made by the member for Essex-Kent on the question of branch offices. I agree with and share some parts of what the member for Essex-Kent said because of the personalized nature of this particular office. On the other hand -- I know my colleague, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) would agree with this -- with a province of this size I think it is going to be extremely difficult for people who don’t live in Metropolitan Toronto to understand why his office, for example, is going to be in Metropolitan Toronto. He is there to facilitate the public in correcting wrongs in the administration of the Province of Ontario, and there are a lot of people outside Metro.

It is going to have to come by way of written complaint. That generally means that the citizen has to have some point of contact at which he has an initial discussion with somebody because very few citizens just sit down and write out a written complaint. They will discuss it with somebody. They will want to be told how to go about doing it. I myself think it is essential that the Ombudsman be prepared to travel -- I don’t mean constantly and continuously, but almost on circuit -- at certain points in the year to various parts of the province. If he is going to do that, I think he must have either an advance guard that goes in front of him to talk with people or have a local office somehow or other where people can go and get information. At the risk perhaps of tying it in too closely with the legal profession, it may well be that actual initial discussions could be done with say the local registrar of the Supreme Court, or some person such as that, who could indicate or assist the citizen in various regions of the province. Then the Ombudsman could go on circuit in an orderly way over a period of time, but not for the purpose of having him out of Toronto all the time. I think to make his office meaningful something is going to have to be worked out that way.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: If I could just speak to the point raised by the member for Riverdale, it would seem to me that a coordination of form for this kind of citizen contact would already exist perhaps through the Legal Aid officers, since in each of the counties and districts there is a Legal Aid location and since that programme is, I think, now quite well developed through the operations of the provincial courts and the notices that are given at the beginning of every day’s court and such like.

It may well be that the focal point that could most likely be used would be the office of the Legal Aid director within the county. That office might likely be known by perhaps a greater number of people who are involved with these continuing problems than some other new location. We would save duplication of costs. We certainly already would have the telephone network complete so that publicity for a new framework would not be required.

I suggest to the Attorney General that something along that idea might at least be a useful point to consider so that a parallel frame could be developed whereby persons who are perhaps dissatisfied with the various points that citizens may find themselves dissatisfied with in this day and age would know that they could go to one location that is already well established and that indeed is being paid for with secretarial assistance and with perhaps consulting rooms, wherever it may be. If the Ombudsman were to consider at least using that as the local contact point, it might be mutually beneficial.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the fact that obviously in northern Ontario again we may be in the position that has been outlined. I wonder if any consideration has been given at this time to using the offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources northern affairs officers. To some extent they act as information centres for people and a communications network, but it seems to me that they also do some of the jobs of a member and also some of the jobs that might come under the purview of an ombudsman to a certain extent. Obviously, because of their civil service position they can’t go that far.

It seems to me for the people in northern Ontario, certainly at least initially until perhaps something can be set up along the terms outlined by my friend and colleague from Kitchener, the northern affairs officers in northern Ontario could be a conduit to which many of these problems can be brought to the attention of the Ombudsman.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I repeat what I said earlier, that the Ombudsman is going to have to see what his experience is. If he feels there should be same advertising material available in the form of an explanatory brochure I am sure he will consider utilizing public buildings such as court buildings or, as the member for Kitchener says, Legal Aid. I am sure members of the bar will be familiar with it very shortly. One can utilize banks for distribution centres of material such as this or post offices or a combination of them all.

I think what we are all really saying is we want to make sure that the public know of the existence of this particular individual and the role that he has to play.

Mr. Reid: But they have to have access to him.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They must have access to him; that’s right. If we can carry out all those things or the Ombudsman can carry out all those things then it will be a very positive programme.

Mr. Chairman: Is section 9 carried?

Mr. Renwick: On section 9; I suppose in itself it is a ridiculous question, but it is curious that the Ombudsman will be accepting various responsibilities for the ordering of equipment and all that kind of matter. I am surprised there is not an indemnification provision in here or that the office was not created as a corporation sole with a person appointed to it which would protect him. I suppose it is ridiculous but in a sense he is incurring personal liability under section 9.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would the legislative assembly office perhaps be doing that work for him?

Mr. Renwick: No, it says he’ll lease it. He may lease it. One of his few public statements since that announcement was that he thought it would be a good idea if he was away from the government offices entirely. I just don’t know whether it is silly or not.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have to have them -- they have to keep their distance.

Mr. Breithaupt: They have to be at arm’s length.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- at arm’s length. Thank you, that was what I was looking for. There has to be a sort of an arm’s length proposition. If we made him by statute a corporation sole, then he would not necessarily be responsible to this House. This is one of the problems. I don’t think he has to lease. If somebody else does it for him, well, fine. But I think they want to keep that distance and that is why he was given the specific power here of leasing and obtaining equipment.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that while that arm’s length idea is necessary, especially for the location of his own facility here in Toronto, that we would not have to carry that throughout the province so that we would have any unfortunate duplication of services and costs.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 9 carry?

Section 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Renwick: On section 10, would the minister give me his idea of the estimates of which minister or in what way would the estimate for the requirements of this office come before the assembly. Would it be through the Speaker’s estimates?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: As I understand it, the Speaker himself does not engage in those estimates. Am I correct?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: Does he actually meet in committee?

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could speak to that being at least a little familiar with that operation. It is my understanding that through the Board of Internal Economy supplementary estimates will be suggested and approved in a certain amount and presented to the House. I would imagine they will have to be dealt with by Treasury Board minute, if the House will not do it.

Mr. Renwick: Who will actually handle the money?

Mr. Breithaupt: The moneys will be handled, as I understand it, through the office of the legislative accountant -- that is the Office of the Assembly -- and as a servant of the assembly one might also say that he is becoming a functionary of the assembly, in my understanding.

The Ombudsman would appear himself, of course, to speak to these estimates, just as a departmental director who would come along with the deputy minister, in this case, to answer to the House, and those estimates would be dealt with in committee rather than ever in the House.

Mr. Renwick: I think that’s what I want to get to then, because what the member has just said helps me quite a bit. What we are really saying is that in the case of the estimate that would cover this office, it would be outside the assembly --

Mr. Breithaupt: Outside the chamber.

Mr. Renwick: -- outside the chamber and in committee, so that we as members would have an opportunity to talk to the Ombudsman about what he is doing and be informed about it, which wouldn’t be the case if those estimates were called in this House.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t think that I, as Attorney General, or anybody else, should really have the carriage of these estimates in the House, so it would go, as I understand it, in the Speaker’s estimates to a standing committee of the House and be discussed at that point.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 10 carry?

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: We went over our comments earlier on second reading, and I’d like to reiterate them. I believe the member for Riverdale, as well as myself, mentioned this, and I don’t want to go through the whole argument again. We have a similar problem with the report of the public accounts committee; when it is brought into the chamber it’s tabled and that’s really the last we hear of it.

It seems to me that there should be some kind of mechanism for the report to be debated in the assembly, and it also seems to me that there should be a particular time limit placed on it. Under section 12, the Speaker could supposedly hold back the Ombudsman’s report at his pleasure, till the end of the session or whatever. I wonder if there is any reason why a time limit would not be a necessity. I believe the Auditor’s report is tabled within 10 days of the new sitting. I wonder if there is any particular reason why the Ombudsman’s report should not have a similar clause in the legislation, requiring the Speaker to table the document within 10 days of the new sitting, or within 10 days of his receiving it, if we are in session at the time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I consider those sorts of things and I always say to myself, what happens if he doesn’t? You can put these things all in -- say we had it in there that the Speaker has to table it in 10 days and he doesn’t? I’ll bet you that the members of this House who have an interest in it would inquire of the Speaker why he hasn’t got it there, and that’s really all. He says, “Oh, I haven’t got it from the printers yet,” or something like that. You know, why have it in if it isn’t effective? Does that automatically invalidate the position of the Speaker? What sanctions are there? There is no sense in dressing up the section if it isn’t for any effective purpose.

I ran into some criticism in this House during the estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and it’s the first year in that ministry that we have been using the Statistics Canada criminal statistics. They simply weren’t available to us till about the end of April. In other years we have always used our own. To me it is a perfectly logical reason, and that’s why the report wasn’t ready when I went ahead with my estimates at that time.

Mr. Chairman, I am wondering about the matter of debating his report in the House. With whom do you debate it?

Mr. Reid: Can I say something to that very briefly?

I don’t think it would be necessary, in every and all circumstances and every time we get a report, that it be debated. As the minister is aware some matters can be brought to the attention of the Premier of the province and he can act or not act as he sees fit. It seems to me there should be some redress to the assembly in those matters where the Premier for some reason, and we must remember he is also a political person, may choose not to act. I wouldn’t like to see it as a compulsory thing but I think there should be some provision that on motion of five or 10 members the matter can be debated.

It being 6 o’clock p.m., the House took recess.