Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

LEAD CONTAMINATION

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, later today I will table two reports dealing with lead contamination in the Toronto area. The first report is that of the lead data analysis task force which was completed and circulated recently. The second is the report of the Environmental Hearing Board on the public hearings held during 1975.

The hon. members will recall that the search for possible effects of secondary lead smelting processes began in June, 1972, after an analysis by my ministry detected a high content of lead in dust which had accumulated on a backyard table near a lead smelting plant in mid-Toronto. As a result of this discovery and the widespread public concern, two major studies were undertaken at the direction of my ministry and of the Ministry of Health.

The first was the report of the working group on lead, which included representatives of the ministries of Environment and Health, the Attorney General’s office and the Toronto medical officer of health. This report containing 14 major recommendations was submitted in August, 1974.

The second report was that of the provincial study committee chaired by Dr. H. Rocke Robertson, which was appointed by the Minister of Health. The Robertson report, containing 20 recommendations, was submitted in October, 1974.

The hearings, conducted from January through October last year by the Environmental Hearing Board, were convened for the primary purpose of examining in public the 34 major recommendations of the two joint studies and were held as a result of the varying nature of the two studies, the degree of public concern and the various conflicts of opinion over the issue. Board members are to be commended on performing a most complex and thorough task and on the compilation of a comprehensive report.

The hearings produced the largest volume of transcripts and exhibits ever handled by the board. The report I am tabling represents the distillation of 7,663 transcribed pages of verbal submissions and 243 exhibits, many of these complex technical documents of more than 200 pages. The board has dealt with each of the 34 recommendations of the two prior reports. It visited the three processing plants in Toronto and two in Mississauga to obtain information.

The board’s report is too comprehensive to deal with today in detail. For example, the report supports 28 of the original 34 recommendations wholly or with qualifications. In addition, it contains 15 supplementary or qualified recommendations and 28 further recommendations which are based upon 39 major conclusions. I suggest that those who require additional detail examine the original submissions and documents at the offices of the Environmental Hearing Board on St. Clair Ave.

Staff of my ministry and of the Ministry of Health require time to consider these recommendations and to plant their implementation. This will commence immediately.

While these reports were being prepared, my ministry conducted an ongoing abatement programme against the offending lead companies. A series of control orders issued to the companies has resulted in abatement improvements being undertaken at an estimated cost to the companies of $3.1 million, of which $2.1 million has been spent and $1 million will be spent in the future. This programme is aimed at reducing the likelihood of any health concerns among people living near any of the lead plants.

It includes control orders issued against the Toronto Refiners and Smelters plant and the Canada Metal Co. plant which call for extensive improvements required by my ministry. Eltra of Canada’s Prestolite plant and my ministry are working together to identify and control sources of dust at this plant. The company has undertaken voluntary steps to control in-plant fugitive lead dust sources in an effort to reduce lead in dust fall levels which are being monitored by ministry staff.

With respect to health concerns, the Environmental Hearing Board report includes among its major conclusions, the following:

“No evidence was presented at the hearing that there have been any deaths from lead poisoning in Ontario in the past 14 years and, therefore, the board accepts the conclusion of the Robertson committee to this effect.”

In its general review, the board supports the principle that, and I quote: “A programme for surveillance of community blood lead levels and related home environments be continued by public health authorities.”

The board also recommends: the blood lead testing of children living in the vicinities of lead plants be continued; consideration be given to a testing programme for infants learning to crawl and for pre-school children in the vicinity of lead plants; blood lead testing of expectant mothers living in the vicinities of lead plants be adopted as a routine measure in pre-natal programmes.

I would point out that the report supports the monitoring arrangement of the recently established Advisory Council of Occupational and Environmental Health. This new advisory council, established by the government last September, consists of a chairman, Dr. Robertson, and representatives from the ranks of management, labour, universities, environmental organizations and consumers. In addition, there is one ex-officio member from each of the four ministries concerned -- Health, Labour, Natural Resources and the Environment -- and the council has a small support staff. In addition, an inter-ministerial standing committee has been established to ensure that recommendations of the advisory council are implemented.

Because of the size of the report and the time required to print it, copies are in limited supply for a short period. I have provided copies of both reports to the leaders of the opposition parties. Any other members may obtain copies from the office of the Speaker of the Legislature upon request.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, the members of the Conservative caucus consider it a privilege, as do I see the members of the other caucuses, to be wearing red carnations today in support of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada’s red carnation fund-raising campaign that is to be conducted over the next two-day period.

Mr. Speaker: That is not really a point of personal privilege, but it clears up the mystery that was in the Speaker’s mind.

Oral questions.

LEAD CONTAMINATION

Mr. Lewis: A question for the Minister of the Environment on lead contamination, considering that there is much in the reports that will require time and study.

In the report of the lead data analysis task force, on page xvii, in the summary and conclusions, it says there is a correlation between blood level and concentrations of lead in topsoil. On page 25 of the major report, as conclusion No. 15, it says that the high levels of lead in soil probably contributed significantly to the oral intake of lead by those children whose blood lead levels were high.

Can the minister not, at least on this occasion, with the conclusive nature of the evidence now before him, undertake publicly to replace the topsoil in the immediate vicinity of those plants, or to add additional topsoil, or to pave it over -- or to do something?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In light of the fact that there is no difference of opinion between the findings of the hearing board and the lead analysis task force, certainly either option will have to be undertaken by the government in conjunction with the companies. I am happy to note that the report suggests the company pay for that work.

Mr. Lewis: That is interesting. By way of supplementary, then, can I ask: Will the ministry be using a regulation under the Public Health Act, a piece of legislation in the House, or, what method will the ministry use to order the companies to pay for replacement of the topsoil?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am not sure of this, but if there is a regulation or legislation exists that can be invoked to require the companies to do this, we will do that. However, it may be done by way of control order, or it may be done by way of persuasion. It may be done by way of the government undertaking the works and making a claim against the company for the cost of the works.

Mr. Lewis: It has been four years.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

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

Mr. H. S. Smith: Why did you leave him on at all?

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

[2:15]

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

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, this was not a decision taken by the ministry, The recommendation of Judge Waisberg was that those members of the board who, in his terms at least had been inappropriately appointed to the board and were therefore probably not legally members of the board, should be asked to resign from the board, and that the board should be reconstituted by leaving the two members -- and there are two, Sister Claire being the other -- who are legally, properly constituted members of that board and that, in addition to that, we should appoint at least six members to function as an interim board.

Mr. Lewis: When will we have the report?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are not going through the process of proper printing. We are attempting to reproduce this as rapidly as possible so that the hon. members will have the report.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary: When will we have a newly appointed, permanent board without Mr. Lebel on it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Under the Public Hospitals Act, the corporation of the hospital is of course entitled to elect a new board at its annual meeting, and that annual meeting must be held before Sept. 1.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that there is a petition circulating in the city of Sudbury and receiving widespread support, asking for Mr. Lebel’s removal from the newly constituted board, and would it not be wise for her to dissolve the present corporation and start over from scratch without this person on that board?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think it would be much more appropriate if we were to await the final report of Judge Waisberg before attempting any such action, and I’m not aware of that petition.

KINGSTON HOSPITALS

Mr. Lewis: Another question, if I may, for the acting Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of the very strong feelings on the part of the medical and administrative staff of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston about the cutbacks that took place in the two hospitals in Kingston -- Hotel Dieu and the Kingston General Hospital -- without taking into account their effort to integrate the teaching hospital relationships? Why could the minister not do in Kingston what she did in Hamilton?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is my opinion that in fact the process of potential integration was taken into account in the analysis of the Kingston situation but, as in every other case, the Ministry of Health is discussing with those hospitals the proposals regarding cutbacks and adjustments are being made in those instances in which we are given additional information.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, as the ministry is ultimately doing in Hamilton -- since it has changed the position there dramatically, even in the last 24 hours -- did the minister’s letter yesterday not indicate that Chedoke would have a larger bed complement than was said some time ago?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That was certainly not a change in position on the part of the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: No? Did the minister not announce a number of weeks ago, a significant phasing-out of those beds at Chedoke?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No. If I may respond to that, it was a statement that was sent by the ministry to the district health council in Hamilton, suggesting that on the basis of recommendations made to the ministry, that would be an acceptable course of action. When the district health council of Hamilton suggested it might be given the responsibility, as we had asked previously, to make the adjustments in that city regarding its hospital bed services, we agreed to that course of action and that’s precisely what we followed.

PETERBOROUGH CIVIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask another related question, if I may. Has the minister found the reason for the regression analysis change in the amount of money for the Peterborough Civic Hospital? Could she explain that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I don’t have all of the details -- I have them on paper somewhere, as a matter of fact, if the Leader of the Opposition would like them -- but I do know that the initial regression analysis did not really include as much of the information about the very large outpatient service, which is extremely unusual for a hospital in a city with a population of that size. The outpatient service in Peterborough is remarkably large and remarkably efficient, and in fact it was not included properly within the information given to us: for the regression analysis programme. When that information was amplified and we were made aware of the excellent job they are doing in providing outpatient services, which is precisely what we are asking other hospitals to do, then the position was modified and the request was modified.

Ms. Sandeman: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that the Peterborough Civic Hospital had been providing information about its outpatient services to the ministry since last June in connection with its budgetary problems, and that that detailed information was available to the ministry for almost a year now?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Some of the information was available to the ministry, that is true. Not all of it was, in fact, easily available to the ministry at the time that the regression analysis was done.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Does the minister not find it odd that in every single instance the hospitals of Ontario were at fault in the complexity of this regression analysis and that the Ministry of Health was unfailingly accurate? Perhaps it lies in the other direction, if the minister will give herself a chance to look at it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have not said the ministry was without fault. In fact, I stated in this House not one week ago that the ministry did not, unlike the official opposition, consider itself infallible.

GRAVEL PITS APPEAL

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have in front of the cabinet as yet the appeal from the Ontario Municipal Board decision on the two major gravel pits in the Huron area?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware just where the appeals lie at the present time, but I’d be glad to find out for the hon. member.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT HEDMAN MINES LTD.

Mr. Lewis: One last short question, if I may, for the acting Minister of Health: Did the minister suggest, in a reply a week or two ago regarding the information I had sought about the asbestos levels at Hedman Mines Ltd., that what, in fact, has happened is that the ministry has gone out and done further tests and that she is now awaiting the result of that testing?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, what I had stated was that we had not the complete report at that point, because we did not have the engineer’s report. I may say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the complete report has been sent to him.

Mr. Lewis: It’s on its way? Oh, thanks.

RESIDENTIAL SERVICES REPORT

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Community and Social Services: Is the minister waiting until the Browndale audit is completed before releasing a report from within his ministry, by Magder and Anderson, on the subject of group homes? Does the minister, in fact, intend releasing this report?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Liberal Party will identify the report that he has in mind I may be able to help him. There has been an interministerial committee report on the whole field of residential care that was chaired by Mr. Anderson. If that’s the one that he’s referring to then I would like to know and I could answer him further from there.

Mr. S. Smith: If I may respond, there is an interministerial committee report that the minister is referring to, but there is also a report by Magder and Anderson, which I gather has been on the minister’s desk for a month, and I wondered if he would like to make that particular report, and the other interministerial committee report, public or at least take the House into his confidence?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: First of all, the report has not been on my desk for a month.

Mr. Eakins: Three weeks?

Mr. Good: Twenty-nine days?

Mr. S. Smith: You admit to there being one?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Furthermore, in terms of the interministerial report, when the recommendations are considered by government a determination will be made in terms of its release. In regard to any other report, I will investigate, or at least review it, and if there are further particulars that the leader of the Liberal Party wishes in connection with that then I would be happy to help him.

Mr. Lewis: A quick supplementary: Is there, in fact, a separate report, in addition to that interministerial committee report?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I haven’t seen the report. I was asking for additional information because I know it’s not on my desk. If that report -- a separate report from the one I referred to -- is available then, of course, I will get further information, as I indicated, and be happy to answer further questions on it.

CONESTOGA SCHOOL OF NURSING

Mr. S. Smith: To the Minister of Colleges and Universities: Is it a fact that he is closing the Conestoga College School of Nursing, and, if so, could he explain this action to the House?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, we’re not closing the Conestoga School of Nursing.

Mr. S. Smith: As a supplementary, can the minister confirm that a group of nursing students confronted him in Cambridge, forming a picket line, and they protested the provincial cutback of student places at nursing schools and urged him to keep their school open for one more year to enable them to finish their two-year course? Is there some particular reason they were picketing him?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, indeed. I did visit with those nurses last night but it was a discussion on the closing of the Cambridge branch of Conestoga College and not the Conestoga College School of Nursing. There were five of them, there are now four. I think the president of the college and the chairman of the board spent a great deal of time on that problem.

I know the president visited with them yesterday. I think the nurses are in total sympathy with the concept of the need to reduce the number of registrations. I believe the president and the chairman have worked very hard to resolve a particularly difficult problem for the Conestoga catchment area.

Mr. S. Smith: A quick supplementary: Can the minister assure us that the nursing students who are in the Cambridge branch of the Conestoga College School of Nursing will be able to complete their nursing education within Conestoga College in some reasonable manner?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, they will be able to complete their course this year. I understand that most of them will be able to complete it within the hospital at Kitchener. I’m not sure whether all of them will be able to stay as a class unit but by far the vast majority of them will, and there will be no disruptions in their training as far as they are personally concerned except for a relocation of locale.

Mr. Davidson: I have a supplementary. Would the minister consider the wishes of the girls who are taking their training course at the Doone branch of Conestoga College and who have openly come to him and requested that they be allowed to complete their own year at that school and at the South Waterloo Memorial Hospital? Would he take that into consideration?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe the chairman and the president have given a great deal of consideration to that particular problem. They have consulted with the nurses in training. I think that is their responsibility and it should rest with them. I’ve assured myself unconditionally that they’ve made every effort to accommodate those 38 students to the very best of their ability.

POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer at all concerned about the statement by Mr. Taylor of Nepean Development Consultants who said that various government and private projections concerning Ontario’s population projections, in terms of our growth, differ from each other by as much as 25 per cent and that he feels the estimates are 25 per cent too high? Are we to be concerned about this at all?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not say so. I think the 25 per cent headline is misleading. It’s the difference between the final figure he uses, which is 11 million, and the one we are using, 11.6 million, which is a difference of five per cent and not 25 per cent. Certainly, our figures have been wrong before --

Some hon. members: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- based as they are on Statistics Canada.

Mr. Kerrio: When is the minister going to do his own work?

Mr. Ruston: That’s the accounting of his assessment department.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly, some of the projections -- and we’ve said this -- in the original TCR, for example, use population figures for the province by 2000, as I recall, of up to 13 million. Those were mainly based on 1961 census data and we have revised our figures, of course, since the 1971 data became available in about 1972 and 1973.

[2:30]

We still think the figure of somewhere between 11.5 million and 12 million is reasonable by the year 2000. It doesn’t alter our planning that much; we’ve said this on a number of occasions. Whether we reach a population of 11.5 million in this province in the year 1995 or whether it takes to the year 2010 is not all that important. We’ll adjust the figures closer to the time.

The fact is that we are looking at a population which, either in the next 25 years or in the next 35 years, is probably going to grow by 3.5 million people, and I think our responsibility is to prepare for that. As I say, whether the projection works out exactly to the year 2001, or is a little before or a little later, I don’t think is that significant.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Granted we can assume that at some point in our history our population will expand, but if accuracy doesn’t mean that much can the Treasurer explain why he is paying so many experts in his ministry to come up with these projections? Can he tell us whether we are to pay any attention to the source of projected trends? This person points out that this is going to put into jeopardy the whole York -- Durham servicing scheme. Does he not feel that is true?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t. If the member wants me to be definitive, I will put much greater faith in the experts in my ministry and the federal government and other places than I will in one single commentator, who has turned up in the Globe and Mail this morning from Nepean, in whom the leader of the Liberal Party is putting great faith.

Mr. Singer: Does the minister believe Webster or not?

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the acting Minister of Health. I have listened to the explanation of what happened with Chedoke Hospital and I wonder why the ministry didn’t follow somewhat the same procedure when it came to assessing whether or not Doctors Hospital had to be closed.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, had there been a district health council in Toronto we most certainly would have followed the same procedure. Had we followed recommendations of the one existing health council which has been present within the city of Toronto and had some responsibility in planning for hospital care, I am afraid Doctors Hospital would have been closed six years ago.

Mr. Singer: Why didn’t you close it then? We never would have had Grossman if you had closed it then.

Mr. Grossman: Surely the issue is not who concluded there was an alternate way to save money, but rather, is there an alternate way to save money? Just because it happens to be the district council --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You are debating the minister’s answer. Is there a further question?

Mr. Grossman: Well I want to rephrase it. Had an alternate way to save money been shown in the city of Toronto, as there was in Hamilton, would Doctors Hospital equally have been left open?

Mr. Lewis: Probably it was not given that chance.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, these are two entirely different situations, as a matter of fact. I think they have to be looked upon and examined with the criteria available in both situations. The practice and the process being carried on in Hamilton right at the moment has been carried on in Toronto previously and is in fact being carried on now in terms of the other institutions involved. The criteria upon which the decision was made regarding Doctors Hospital were those used for all the other hospitals that we considered in the same position throughout the province. The criteria, I think, were valid, and continue to be valid in terms of the long-term expectations of the Ministry of Health regarding the improvement of the health care programme.

Mr. Conway: How much is the ministry going to save?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’ll tell the member that later.

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Will the minister find out whether the Ontario Securities Commission has a file 706B which was opened in 1966, later renumbered 88-706B, later renumbered file B88, also known as Priority 88? If there is such a file, would he peruse it, if he has the time, and in due course report to the House as to whether he is satisfied with the investigation that was made, what the cost was to the people of Ontario for that investigation, and whether or not he approves of the methods which were used at that time?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think, along with every other member of this Legislature, I received something on my desk this morning pertaining to that particular matter. Yes, I will look into it; and yes, I will have an answer for the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: The minister should have it at his fingertips.

ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Since it’s now eight years since the first master plan for Algonquin Park was unveiled and it’s now some three years since his definitive policy was outlined by the minister, could he tell me when he’s going to initiate those policies that in the report of the advisory committee and which the minister accepted and made public? I refer particularly to those very simple policies to do with outboard motors, the banning of bottles and cans completely from the park, as well as some regulatory system as to the numbers of people who are allowed to stay within the park at specific places.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the hon. member well knows there were something like 32 recommendations in that particular report. We accepted 28; I think we accepted in principle parts of two other recommendations; and there were two that we rejected.

I have to say to the member that we are going through an educational period at the present time. We issued a number of brochures that we’re distributing to visitors to Algonquin Park in order to prepare them for what will come in the weeks and months and years ahead -- one being, of course, the banning of outboard motors in a year or two.

The ban on cans and bottles is something on which we’re working very closely with the Ministry of the Environment, and I hope to have something more positive to say later on this year.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary: Does the minister not consider eight years a long enough period of time to go through some type of dialogue with the public before he comes down and puts in effect the recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it’s been eight years. But I have to say in this particular event we did invite and receive -- and we appreciate the amount -- public involvement in the preparation of what is the master plan. I think it’s one of the finest master plans on the North American continent for any park.

Mr. Reid: It hasn’t taken that long in Quetico.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Now that we’ve got this information, we’re moving with it. We’ve accepted the recommendations and we’re going to work with the public in implementing these recommendations of the advisory committee.

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) does not have a definite plan of any sort for cans or bottles, does the Minister of Natural Resources not consider that he’s placing Algonquin Park in considerable jeopardy if he waits for the Minister of the Environment to come out with the plan?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL GOLF CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEES

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I had a question from the member for Windsor-Walkerville on Friday, April 23, concerning the membership fee of $10 being charged at municipal and other golf courses, and at the time he asked the question he indicated that this fee was a requirement of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

I can advise the House that under the Liquor Licence Act, 1975, golf courses which are of regulation length and which are open to the public upon payment of a fee or other admission charge are classed as a recreational facility. These courses are eligible for a dining lounge licence, a dining room licence, a lounge licence or a public house licence. There is no membership fee involved; the Act, in fact, requires that the facility be open to the public on a pay-as-you-go basis.

A private golf club is defined in the Act as not being operated for pecuniary gain and these clubs are required to have members who must pay an annual membership fee of not less than $10.

Mr. Speaker, I know of no private golf course in Ontario where the membership fee is less than $10.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Is the minister aware of the other attachment I gave him, with the statement on the back that this is a $1 fee toward a final $10 fee for the right to play golf at a golf club?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The document which the hon. member gave me was clearly from a municipal golf course and I have just explained that under the Liquor Licence Act there’s no requirement on a municipal golf course to set any membership fee whatsoever.

INCO FATALITIES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minster of Natural Resources, if I can get his attention: Of the five fatalities which have occurred at International Nickel this year already, three have occurred on the 600-ft level within 100 feet of each other. Can the minister indicate if investigations have occurred; the results of those investigations; and what in God’s name we have to do to reduce the number of fatalities that are occurring on the 600-ft level at Frood?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, both Inco and my ministry worked very closely on this particular situation. It’s quite true, I believe, there have been three fatalities in the last three or four months, for a number of obvious reasons. Inco, on its own, did close certain levels and we encouraged the company to close some others.

I haven’t had a report from my staff lately but I’ll certainly check into it to find out where that issue stands and what corrective measures are taken, because it was my understanding they would not be opened up until they were declared entirely safe for future employees.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: Would the minister at the same time examine the experience and the age of those men involved to determine if it’s possibly inexperience and lack of training which has led to these fatalities?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to do that.

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Now that the minister has had a considerable length of time to examine the recommendations contained in the waste management report on soft drink containers, can he give this House some idea of the type of legislation he intends to introduce -- or favours -- to increase the use of refillable containers in the province?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I hope to introduce legislation either tomorrow or Monday to amend the Environmental Protection Act. Because it’s not quite clear as far as power to make regulations is concerned, I hope to amend the Act to give the government -- the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- the authority to pass the necessary regulations to implement the recommendations in that report.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister taking any action to require that the soft drink industry develop standard refillable containers by the time the metric system is fully operative in Canada beginning in 1977? Will that be part of the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was one of the recommendations in the report -- the question of the standard generic bottle size and shape -- and I would assume that would be dealt with in the regulations as well.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister’s legislation or regulations mean that both the city of London bill and the city of Windsor bill, which are awaiting action in the committee, will not be necessary?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It really depends on what happens to my legislation as it goes through the House.

SUDBURY FLOODING

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: I’m aware the mayor of the city of Sudbury has requested certain authority to control flooding in the city of Sudbury. Is the minister aware that due to negligence on two different occasions by the Nickel Belt Conservation Authority the city of Sudbury was endangered? Will he turn over the power of controlling the Maley Dam and the Frood Mine Dam to the corporation of the city of Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can’t totally agree with the hon. member’s comments about the negligence of the conservation authority. We have some 38 conservation authorities in the Province of Ontario which have been given the responsibility for flood plain and flood control. They’ve done an excellent job over the last 27 years, as has the Nickel Belt Conservation Authority in my opinion.

I would he very reluctant to turn over authority for those particular dams to the city of Sudbury, knowing full well the experience and expertise the conservation authority has in this particular area. I do think that maybe a system of increased co-operation can be worked out between the conservation authority and the city, and I’d be prepared to take that on as an obligation to make sure that co-operation is improved.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How does the minister square that with the event which happened recently? The mayor of the city of Sudbury had to break into the control valves at the Maley Dam -- he is now possibly facing criminal charges for breaking and entering -- in order to save the city from being flooded out because there was nobody from the conservation authority in the city of Sudbury or in the area?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of those particular circumstances. I can’t really condone anyone doing what the mayor did, but of course the courts will have to decide that. It’s not up to me to comment on it.

I would have to say to the hon. member that the conservation authority is responsible for an area much larger than just the city of Sudbury, and while there may be some misunderstanding or some problem in this particular case, I don’t think it will be a regular occurrence.

[2:45]

FEES FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS

Mr. Worton: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In regard to the minister’s announcement on Tuesday about fees to be charged foreign students by Ontario, has he given any special consideration to rates in regard to students from the third world, as we would term it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, we have given a good deal of thought to that particular portion of it. We feel it is very definitely related to negotiations that we are carrying on with the federal government. I think I would like to remind the member that if one makes the assumption that a student from the third world necessarily is poor, that is not a favourable assumption to make. On the other hand, if we can be assured that a student from a third-world country is poor and is prepared to return to assist that third-world country in its development, then we will pursue that course of action with the federal government. We think there is a very direct relationship here with the federal government, and that’s the approach we are taking.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: Will the minister be able to table for us shortly some statistics indicating precisely how many students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programmes at universities in the Province of Ontario are either non-Canadian or do not have landed-immigrant status? Is it possible to obtain those figures shortly?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am able to give the approximate percentages now. I don’t have the exact number. If the hon. member would be satisfied with the approximate percentages, there are five per cent in the undergraduate courses, about four per cent in the community college system and slightly less than 15 per cent -- 14-odd per cent -- in the graduate departments of our universities.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Has the minister given any consideration to reciprocal agreements with other jurisdictions so that Ontario’s students could get a lower tuition fee, instead of getting more money for Ontario by charging foreign students a higher fee?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can’t say I have given any consideration to that. I think that is something that will have to be negotiated through the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He and I have had a great deal of correspondence on this whole subject and we are proceeding to negotiate many items with that particular department. I don’t think I can add more to that at this time.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, would the minister consider making a detailed supplementary statement to the statement he made about the fees for foreign students, advising the assembly of the extent to which funds are available by way of bursaries, loans, scholarships or other assistance, either through this government or the government of Canada, and what the procedure is by which it would be possible to maintain reasonable access to the universities in the Province of Ontario for students from other parts of the world, particularly from the third world?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will be glad to add to my previous statement, but I would have to remind this House that there is no limitation on the access to our system now. I would certainly not want to allow that assumption to go unnoticed, If the hon. member wishes more details, for instance, on the fees that are charged by any particular country, or by several countries, we have those and I will be glad to supply them.

TEMACAMI AREA BUILDING FREEZE

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On April 23, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) asked me a question with respect to the caution on 110 townships by the Bear Island Indian band. I would reply as follows:

In July, 1974, two lawyers from the Crown law office met with the chief of the band and the band’s legal counsel in order to attempt to obtain background information concerning the claim, so as to advise this ministry and prepare any litigation which might have ensued. Subsequent to that meeting, the Ministry of the Attorney General and my ministry collaborated on an examination of the issues involved and the development of a submission to present to cabinet.

In April, 1975, I advised the hon. member that the draft of the submission was in a final form and would soon go to cabinet. However, soon after that the lawyer from the band served notice of his intention to seek redress on behalf of the band under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Since it appeared that the matter would be brought before the courts by the band, no further action was taken. However, the band has not pressed this matter of seeking redress in the courts. As a consequence we are again pursuing the matter with cabinet. At this time the submission is before me and will be presented to cabinet shortly. Once the cabinet has made its decision, it is our intention to act upon it as quickly as possible.

SOUTH RIDEAU DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: I wonder if the minister has decided who will pay the costs of discovering the costs for putting in artificial lakes around his proposed OHAP development in the South Rideau area; who will pay those final costs?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If I understand the hon. member correctly, I thought she said who would pay the discovery costs?

Ms. Gigantes: The costs.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I understand that there has been a substantial change in what the costs were originally anticipated to be to take care of this problem. The cost in that particular case I would have to assume would become part of the cost of the development of each of the units that would be serviced by that particular facility.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Is the minister aware that Mr. Larry South of the Ministry of the Environment, who wrote to members of the South Rideau urban community committee, indicated the costs for controlling pollution in that area were unknown? They are still unknown, and I am wondering who is going to pay for finding out what those costs are and who will pay for the cost in the final analysis?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am aware of the letter to which the hon. member is referring. I should inform the hon. member and the House that Mr. South’s assessment is not correct. I have received information as to what the final cost could be; it has been estimated to be in the area of $100,000 and this works out to approximately $60 per unit. That would, of course, be assessed against the particular units using that service.

Mr. Lewis: A hundred thousand dollars for artificial lakes? Come on, John.

HIGHWAY 11 ACCIDENT STRETCH

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Is the minister aware that in the year 1974 on that 2.5-mile stretch of Highway 11 north of Highway 7, which serves a population of over 6,000, there were: one fatal accident; 44 personal injury accidents; and 113 property damage accidents? Last year there were 35 personal injury accidents and 83 property damage accidents. And is the minister aware that out of the 23 intersections on that stretch of highway only two are governed by stop lights?

What is the ministry doing with respect to installing more traffic lights and/or reducing the speed limit? And is the minister aware that the council of Richmond Hill passed a resolution early in 1975 requesting that the ministry tend to this matter?

Hon. Mr. Snow: To start with the last part of the question first, I was not aware of that resolution in 1975. I was not the minister at that time but I will inquire about the resolution. I will also look into the statistics that the hon. member has recited; I obviously am not aware of all those statistics on that particular highway.

SOUTH RIDEAU DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I believe I may have misled the hon. member for Carleton East with my answer. I misunderstood what the original part of her question was.

I was referring to the necessary costs that would be incurred to bring into development the Borden farm. I apologize to the hon. member; I was not referring to the whole south urban community.

Ms. Gigantes: I mean Sidney Handleman’s 3,000 acres.

Mr. Lewis: You can call it the Handleman dam.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member means the entire south urban community? Well, I can only say that if it is my colleague from Carleton’s, I want nothing to do with taking one part of it.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

Ms. Sandeman: A question of the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware that conflicting initiatives by the two ministries for which she now has responsibility seem to have resulted in a virtual standstill in negotiations between public health boards and their employees across the province?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there most certainly have not been conflicting initiatives. As a matter of fact, the ministries have been working together attempting to persuade the public health boards to return to negotiations with the public health nurses in the Province of Ontario.

There has been certainly no conflict. There has been a good deal of co-operation and we are very hopeful that as a result of this cooperation -- which has been, I will tell the member, at the deputy minister level within both ministries -- this difficult situation may be resolved.

Ms. Sandeman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not agree that there is some kind of a conflict when the Ministry of Labour assures the employees it will help them get some kind of compulsory arbitration process for public health units, and the Ministry of Health, in a letter to the employers, tells them that the government will not pay for arbitration awards over eight per cent?

Mr. Nixon: The one ministry doesn’t know what the other one is doing.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can tell the member that one of the letters sent from the Ministry of Health --

Mr. Reid: Schizophrenia is terrible.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- was sent before I was Minister of Health. However, that is not a solution to the problem. Indeed, we have been working -- both ministries have been working together -- in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. Certainly there is no conflict.

Mr. Lewis: You’re not yet Minister of Health. That was an interesting slip.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Kerr presented the report of the Environmental Hearing Board on public hearings held on lead contamination in the Metropolitan Toronto area; and the report of the lead data analysis task force.

Mr. Breaugh, on behalf of Mr. Lawlor, from the standing private bills committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Dovercourt Baptist Foundation.

Your committee further recommends that the House give unanimous consent to the suspension of standing order 61(e) so as to permit clause 5 of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, to be reported without amendment and the remainder of the bill with certain amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Before I put the question for unanimous consent, as was requested in the report, are there any hon. members who wish to speak to this matter?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that a word of explanation to the House would be in order. The particular rule the private bills committee is requesting be suspended by unanimous consent is rule 61(e) of the standing orders of the House. It’s in connection with Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

The rule states that in the event of the commissioners of estate bills reporting that in their opinion it is not reasonable that the bill submitted to them shall pass into law, such bill shall not be further considered.

At the hearings yesterday, Bill Pr9 was considered at great length. An excellent submission was made on behalf of the applicant for the private bill. There was no opposition to the bill. While the commissioners of estate had indicated -- Mr. Justice Jessop giving the opinion -- that the bill should not be proceeded with in that form, nevertheless, after careful consideration and canvassing of it by members of the committee, it was decided that the bill should be reported to the House, provided unanimous consent could be obtained.

I may say that the committee was unanimous on that matter as well. There was no division in the committee, there was no opposition to the bill and the matter was thoroughly canvassed.

While I understand that there is no exact precedent for doing so, I understand that in the days of a previous government a bill was actually passed through this assembly dealing with an estate matter without any reference to the commissioners of estates. For whatever solace that kind of a precedent may be, I would ask that the bill be reported and that the unanimous consent to suspend the rule insofar as it relates to Bill Pr9 be granted by the House.

[3:00]

Mr. Nixon: As a member of the committee, I would certainly urge the members of the House to grant unanimous consent for the suspension of that rule. Being a member of the committee, as I say, and listening to the submissions, it was certainly my personal opinion that the suspension of the rule would be very much in order so that the bill might be properly reported back to this House and enacted, without any delay, into law.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent as requested in the report?

Agreed.

Report agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that, notwithstanding the standing order 87(e), the Estimates of the Provincial Auditor be referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee and that no time be deducted from the proceedings in the committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

WINDSOR BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of Windsor and Teachers Dispute.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill,

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think the title of the bill and the knowledge the members have of this situation make this legislation self-explanatory. I certainly regret having to be here today to introduce this bill. I believe the best way is for people to settle their own problems themselves or in this case arrive at a negotiated settlement. However, this has not happened in the matter concerning the Windsor secondary school teachers and their board. In the interests of the thousands of students who are now well into some 20-odd days of missing classes, I think the duty of this government and this Legislature is now to reopen those schools and to provide for a means of settling the dispute and that’s what this bill does. I hope we will be able to proceed expeditiously with it today and that the schools in Windsor will be open next Monday morning.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Deans: Where is the home warranty Act? That’s the one I want to see. We have been waiting three years for it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The amendment provides a means for registering security interests that were registerable but were not registered before the Personal Property Security Act came into force on April 1, 1976.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the amendment permits, upon request, the registration of a double surname as the name of the child.

CITY OF THUNDER BAY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the City of Thunder Bay Act, 1968-1969.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this Act provides for the extension of the time in which the city of Thunder Bay would otherwise be obliged, under the Municipal Elections Act, to file information relating to subdivisions for purposes of compiling a municipal voters’ list for the elections to be held before the end of 1976.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Bounsall moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to prevent additional discrimination in employment in all its forms on the basis of physical disability, criminal record, political affiliation and sexual orientation.

Mr. Singer: Just got that in under the wire.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 10th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I have two. One, because I wasn’t here at 2 o’clock, I thought I might give now; and one is a brief note.

Members will recall that it was announced in one of the papers issued with my 1976 budget a month ago that a commission would be appointed to receive submissions and make recommendations on the new property tax system we are proposing for Ontario.

Today I’m pleased to be able to announce that Mr. Willis Blair, of the Ontario Municipal Board, will be serving as chairman of this commission and that nine other very well-qualified citizens have consented to serve with him.

Mr. Blair and his commission will begin early in June to conduct a series of meetings at which they will receive submissions and solicit comments from local government leaders, property taxpayers and all other interested parties. Discussion will focus largely on the 15 proposals set out in the budget paper, as the foundation for the new tax system based on market value assessment.

The commission will be holding its meetings throughout the summer and part of the fall and will be making its recommendations to the government in the late fall.

In addition to Mr. Blair, the commission will consist of Mr. Allan Cooper, of Toronto; Mr. John Darling of Waterloo; Mr. Henry Davis of Essa township; Dr. Joseph Fyfe of Sudbury; Mr. Dean Henderson of Mississauga; Mr. Edward Mitchelson of Niagara Falls; Mrs. Irene Mooney of Kingston; Mr. Robert Simon of Mississauga; and Mr. Ronald White of London township. There may be an additional name in a week’s time.

I’m fully confident that this new commission through the generation of public participation will do much to further the basic objective of this reform programme, which is to establish a taxation system based on market value assessment that will be as efficient and equitable as possible.

I thought I might just make a couple of introductory remarks at this time. It’s nice to have Mr. Blair with us today. He is well known to members of the House. We are grateful to the Municipal Board for seconding him to us for this purpose. I think an identification paper, if that’s the right word, was distributed of the various votes and items and how we suggested they might be handled. Several of the distinctions between votes, I might say, confused me, but we can deal with that when we come to it.

I did want to make a couple of introductory remarks, two or three brief observations. First, it might be useful for members to know that my ministry has recently initiated a series of organizational realignments. Some of these have been made to permit us to increase our emphasis on the economic development of the province, particularly through the reduction of regional disparities and the provision of jobs. Other organizational changes reflect the government’s desire to make maximum use of human and other resources in view of the need for restraints on spending.

With these objectives in mind, three basic realignments have been brought about: First, the function of regional economic development has been brought into closer association with the functions of economic policy planning and economic analysis by including them within the same division. Second, there has been a consolidation of those activities involving project development, project implementation and project management. Third, we have consolidated to the greatest degree possible all functions and units in my ministry which deal with local government. Three other divisions, namely, fiscal policy, treasury and intergovernmental affairs remain unchanged.

By combining certain functions in the manner I have just described and by introducing improved processes and procedures, my ministry has managed to reduce its administrative overhead even while continuing to provide administrative support to several ministries, agencies, boards and commissions. In making these changes, we believe we will make better and more flexible use of our manpower resources, that is our senior management as well as our professional, technical and support people. We are confident that the result will be an improvement in both the quality and the quantity of the work produced by the ministry and its associated agencies, boards and commissions.

As another means of improving efficiency, we will be making increasing use of multi-disciplined task groups and project groups to handle such responsibilities as policy development, programme delivery and project management. Under this new arrangement, the top management of the ministry has been reduced from five to four. The deputy minister and the three assistant deputy ministers are functioning as a combined management team. Each of these senior officials has a set of regular responsibilities but is subject as well to special assignments, such as directing or coordinating special tasks within the ministry or between our ministry and others. This is a flexible system that enables us to employ these senior people in accordance with their individual expertise and the needs of the ministry, and indeed of the government as a whole.

In short, we have realigned and tightened up the structure of my ministry to meet changing needs and conditions of the times within and outside the government. The results are flexibility, better interplay of related work units and more effective co-ordination of related functions.

Mr. Sargent: Fire the whole bunch and start over again.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The government’s programme of spending restraints has demanded careful allocation of resources, particularly human resources. I am pleased to report that within my ministry such allocations have been effectively made and the resulting targets have been met.

As members will recall, my budget statement of April, 1975, set out a programme for reducing the complement of the civil service. Even at that time, the complement of my ministry had already been reduced to 826 positions from a peak of 885 at the time of its formation three years earlier. Further reductions have been brought about more recently, largely by means of transfers elsewhere and normal attrition. As a result, the complement is down to 735 positions today. Another 35 positions, including five senior executive positions, will be eliminated by next March 31, bringing the ministry’s complement down to an even 700.

[3:15]

What I am saying in essence, Mr. Chairman, is that my ministry is undergoing some rather severe economies, chiefly through cutbacks in its administrative resources, and yet it is managing, in spite of that, to enhance the quality of its services to the government.

If the members have any doubts that these cutbacks are being translated into actual dollar savings, they need only refer to the item on administrative expenditures. They will see that the estimates for 1976-1977, in the amount of $25.3 million, represent a decrease of $5.5 million from last year’s estimates. More than half of this decrease consists of reduction in the amounts to be paid for salaries, wages and employer benefits. It is worth noting as well, Mr. Chairman, that such salaries, wages and benefits, being in the amount of $16.3 million, constitute less than one per cent of the total estimates for this ministry.

As the members can see, the total estimates for my ministry amount to approximately $1,742 million. The largest components of this total consist of approximately $1,048 million for interest on the public debt; $414 million for transfer payments to local governments; and $140 million for loans to municipalities and other local bodies, largely through statutory appropriation.

In regard to public borrowing, I believe it is worth pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that Ontario in the past several years has been breaking new ground on behalf of the Canadian investment community by enlisting the services of Canadian underwriters and banks in the foreign money markets of the world. The employment of Canadian companies as underwriters in the United States is, of course, a well-established practice. In fact, Canadian companies now underwrite some 35 to 40 per cent of Ontario government issues in the United States.

For the members’ interest, our US syndicate is co-managed by three firms: two Canadian firms, Wood Gundy and McLeod, Young, Weir; with McLeod being appointed as new co-manager only recently. Other firms in New York are Bell Gouinlock, Bruns Fry, Dominion Securities, Equitable, Greenshields, Midland Doherty, Nesbitt Thomson, Pitfield Mackay and Richardson Securities. But the use of Canadian financial houses of Wood Gundy and McLeod overseas -- in the money markets of Europe and Wood Gundy and McLeod, with the able support of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, in the Middle East -- is a relatively new practice, and one that demands a high degree of ability and knowhow.

The investment houses and banks we have assigned to this work have demonstrated their capacity in a most impressive way, confirming our belief that Canadian financial institutions have an expertise and a sophistication that rank them among the best in the world. The Ontario government is proud to have made such opportunities available to them, and we hope our recognition of this financial resource within Canada will inspire others -- provincial governments and Canadian corporations alike -- to follow our example.

I would also like to inform the members that we have reorganized our European syndicate, which now includes the Deutsche Bank, the Union Bank of Switzerland, Wood Gundy, McLeod, Young, Weir, Salomon Bros., Swiss Bank Corp. and Warburgs.

Returning for a moment to the question of administrative costs, I have a final comment, Mr. Chairman, bearing on the important issue of ministry morale.

The restraints in spending and the reductions in complement I have described have placed severe limitations on the resources available to the people of my ministry. It is not an easy thing to carry on one’s duties and perform at the best of one’s ability when spending is extremely tight and the work complement is being constantly reduced.

We have all heard and read those sentiments expressed from other sectors, again and again, since the inception of our restraint programme last year. Such complaints, however, have not been the response heard from those in my ministry who have been facing these limitations as a matter of daily routine. Instead, they have carried on their duties well and, indeed, have risen to the occasion by improving upon their already high standard of performance.

I realize the staff of TETA are already highly regarded throughout the government for their standards of efficiency and effectiveness, but I wanted it on the record, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate their dedication, particularly at this time.

Mr. Lewis: If you hadn’t frittered away last night you could have made a better opening presentation.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It was the company that did it.

Mr. Swart: As the introductory speaker for my party, I am going to deal almost exclusively with the subject of municipal taxation. I confine it to this issue deliberately, first of all because the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) passed over it intentionally rather lightly in her budget speech in order for it to be dealt with more fully at this time. And, secondly, we consider this a very critical issue and, like the hospital cutbacks, one on which we find ourselves at very substantial variance with the government of this province.

In view of the Treasurer’s remarks about the appointment of a commission to examine assessment and taxation, I want to say that in spite of that we have to deal with the problems facing municipalities now. That report may come in in a year or two years’ time. It may or may not be dealt with by the government when it comes in. So, today, we must give our attention to the very serious situation in which municipalities find themselves.

I want, first of all, to put this year’s financial transfers from the province to local government in their proper perspective. The Treasurer says there is, in fact, no overall cutback -- it is just a reduction in the increase. I want to say that that statement won’t stand up to any in-depth examination. There is, in fact, a genuine reduction.

In 1975, provincial assistance to local government increased by 22 per cent. Allowing for the 10 per cent inflation rate, that was a real improvement in assistance of some 12 per cent. This year’s increase in dollars is 7.8 per cent. By the Treasurer’s own estimate, there will be a nine per cent inflation rate in 1976; that is then a shortfall of 1.2 per cent in real dollars.

For the municipalities it is worse, because their transfer increase is only 6.5 per cent in dollars. They, in fact, then have a reduction in transfer, in real money, of 2.5 per cent.

The minister makes this statement in his recently tabled budget statement on 1976 assistance to local governments. I quote:

“The municipal liaison committee [I think we are all aware that is a committee composed of the municipal associations in this province] indicated that a 10 per cent average growth rate on spending for the municipal sector was probably realistic and made it its own target.”

Taken out of context that statement is true. But the MLC also made it clear that they expected the province to make transfers to them at that level too.

In addition, the MLC at no time indicated that the 10 per cent target applied to local government expenditure. School boards and other local boards and agencies were not mentioned, and their requirements have generally proven much larger than the local municipalities’. So, no one should interpret the MLC as indicating that they predicted local government could operate within a 10 per cent increase.

It appears now that the local municipalities, on the average, and distinct from regional ones or other boards, are living within the 10 per cent objective. But the province is not meeting its share of that 10 per cent.

In contrast to local government, this government says in its budget that it will increase its expenditures by 10.4 per cent -- and that, in fact, is a phoney statement. To get the 10.4 per cent they include the 7.8 per cent increase in transfers to local government. This government’s expenditures will be 11.3 per cent higher than last year.

Municipalities are really doing a much better job than the Tory government, and they are being penalized for doing so.

I think the property tax situation is now becoming evident in this province. The picture on the composite tax -- that’s education, regional and local -- is coming into focus.

A report in the Toronto Globe and Mail during April quoted the Treasurer as saying that property taxes this year will increase by only 11 or 12 mills on the average. I tell him today, and he probably knows it, that it’s not turning out that way.

A survey of 22 municipalities, with a total population of three million and broadly representative of the municipalities in Ontario -- in regional government and out; in counties and out -- indicates increases in total tax levies of 16 to 17 per cent, with average mill rates increasing by approximately 14 per cent. It will represent some $80 in the increase in the tax bill to the average homeowner. The final figures, in fact, may be slightly higher. The great majority of municipalities have not yet passed a composite mill rate bylaw and the delay seems to be longer where tougher decisions, such as heavier increases, have to be made.

Our survey indicates that the average increase in educational tax levy is 20 to 25 per cent. In the regions or counties, it is 12 to 15 per cent, but if you take out the counties, the regions are much higher. And in the local municipalities, they are in fact staying within the 10 per cent limit.

But this doesn’t tell the whole story by any means. It doesn’t tell about the property taxes which are now being raised by some other equally regressive rate or levy. For instance, transit fares in Toronto are up 21 per cent; in Hamilton, they are up 33 per cent; in Ottawa, they are up 33 per cent; in Welland, in my riding, they are up 40 per cent. This is another way in which the municipalities are trying to find the money of which this Treasurer deprived them.

It doesn’t tell the story about the transfer of tax levy user charges to some other form. For instance, in Oshawa, where much of the sewer rate has been charged on the general property taxes, they are now charging it as a surtax on the water rate, and people are paying it in that manner. It makes the rate in Oshawa look much lower than it would be otherwise, but it’s saving no money to the taxpayers of that city.

It doesn’t tell about the use of reserves of the municipalities. North York is proposing -- and it seems to be about final -- to use up $3.8 million of their reserves; the city of Hamilton kicked in over $2 million of their reserves. In every place where we talked to the financial people in a municipality, they said that to rid themselves of all their reserves is poor financial operation. In fact, most of these financial people would like to see the municipalities build up greater reserves so they don’t have to spend so much in terms of interest on the borrowed money.

The mill rates also don’t tell about cuts in services. North York, for instance, is cutting out its dental plan to schools; the Niagara region has cut its budget for dental care -- not only for welfare, incidentally, but also for family benefits and other fields where they supplement it -- from $300,000 to $50,000. It doesn’t tell about Matchedash township, which the Treasurer reported in this budget paper would have a local mill rate increase of 15 mills. In fact, they have set the rate now, and the increase is 19.2 mills. And even that doesn’t tell that they have reduced their road construction programme this year to zero.

Mr. Lewis: Another mistake in regression analysis.

Mr. Swart: It also doesn’t tell about what’s happening to services in the educational field. I have with me a press release from the Renfrew Board of Education, which they issued on April 28 after they set their budget. Incidentally, it was a budget where the tax levy increased by 37 per cent, although their expenses only increased by 11 per cent. This is what they say in that press release:

[3:30]

“Budget cuts have been wide-ranging and severe. Despite increases in the costs of goods and services as high as 50 per cent, principals’ budgets will be reduced below last year by 10 per cent for elementary schools and 20 per cent for secondary schools. Curriculum and professional development expenditures have been reduced to approximately one-fifth of what was spent in 1974 and less than half of what was spent in 1975.

“Reductions of over $150,000 have been planned in the requirements of plant maintenance. Reduction in secretaries, caretaking and maintenance personnel and other non-teaching positions will go as high as 10 per cent. Instructional administration will be reduced by 30 per cent over a year ago.

“Since over two-thirds of the budget is earmarked for teachers’ salaries, it has been necessary to seek reductions in teaching staff. These are currently being negotiated with the teachers, as well as the size and the rate of increase of salaries.”

And that isn’t the highest mill rate for education in this province either. As a matter of fact, in the northern town of Kapuskasing the mill rate there has been set at 56 per cent higher than it was last year.

We believe that this kind of increase is intolerable. It is far greater than the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines or the increase in the cost of living or the average raise in wages and salaries. The fault rests squarely with the Ontario government for limiting its assistance to local governments to 7.8 per cent. I say that that 7.8 per cent level of transfers this year breaks a solid commitment made to local government three years ago.

In recent years there has been an increasing lack of good faith by the Treasurers of this province in their financial dealings with local government. The treating of the Edmonton commitment symbolizes, I suggest, the shifting and shifty attitude of the present Treasurer and his predecessor towards promises which they have made. Item 2 of the statement by Hon. John White at the Edmonton trilevel conference -- and the Treasurer, of course, is aware of this -- on Oct. 22-23, 1973, said:

“The Ontario government therefore gives this guarantee to its local governments: Provincial assistance in future years will grow at a rate not less than the growth rate of Ontario’s total revenues.”

The wording was changed in subsequent documents to take out the words “not less than.” But at the provincial-municipal liaison committee meeting of May, 1974, when questioned about the revised wording in the 1974 budget by the PMLC chairman, the then Treasurer, Mr. White, said:

“The policy remains intact. I am sorry the wording was changed. We had no intention of modifying the Edmonton commitment.”

Mr. Lewis: Boy, oh boy!

Mr. Swart: The significance of the Edmonton commitment is the promise to increase transfers to local governments in an amount not less than the growth rate of Ontario revenues and makes no mention of recovery in a subsequent year of any transfers made above the provincial growth rate.

In fact, no mention was made of this new Tory interpretation until October, 1975. This year when provincial revenues are escalating by 19.4 per cent, the Treasurer quotes the ambivalent 1974 budget statement, which his predecessor has rejected and repudiated, and uses this devious interpretation to cut municipal transfers to 7.8 per cent.

If the Treasurer had had the decency to say that the government is changing its policy or even providing a new interpretation of the commitment, it might have been slightly more acceptable. But these tactics simply promote mistrust by local governments 2nd the public of this province. The Treasurer attracts further municipal distrust by his actions since his Dec. 11, 1975, statement to the Legislature, “Advance notice to municipalities of Ontario’s 1976 spending,” which told municipal councils in these words that he would not recover his alleged 1975 overpayment to them. These are the words:

“The province is prepared to increase its support by some eight per cent. This enrichment is the result of deferring the 1975 overpayment in determining our Edmonton support level for 1976.”

He repeats that promise several times afterwards -- not to recover the 1975 so-called overpayment -- and as late as Feb. 3 of this year he said to a meeting of Metro politicians, “The overpayment to date will not be deducted in the 1976-1977 fiscal year.”

In spite of these statements he proceeds to recover, in his 1976-1977 budget, all the alleged $119 million overpayment with the exception of $21 million. The doubletalk on this issue in the budget paper, 1976 Ontario Assistance to Local Government, must be a classic, even by the Tories’ own standards.

Mr. Philip: Not all the fudge comes from the kitchen.

Mr. Swart: It is worth repeating and I quote:

“The net result of all the changes since December, 1975, has been modest and totals transferred to the local sectors are now expected to increase by about $225 million in 1976-1977 compared to an estimated $230 million during the January tour.”

This statement was made during the January tour. That is a reduction of $5 million. At least that is the way I interpret it, to $225 from $230 million. However, four lines later these words appear:

“The total amount of transfers will exceed the level announced in January, 1976, while using the impact of a tax increase to reduce the outstanding balance under the Edmonton commitment.”

I say: what nonsense. It’s a fast shuffle of words, from dealing with increases of this year over last year to total payment. No one but this Treasurer could increase and decrease the same transfers at the same time.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I don’t know.

Mr. Swart: He is more of an expert at it, at least. The facts are that the increase in transfers to local governments, as announced by this Treasurer in the budget, compared to last year’s transfers is $5 million less than he estimated it would be last January.

Mr. Samis: It is shameful.

Mr. Swart: No one but the Treasurer would decide not to recover his so-called overpayment and then use previously unannounced tax increases to do exactly what he said he would not do less than four months previously.

I had thought some time ago of including in my remarks earlier that we should repatriate the Edmonton commitment. After all, it was made out in Edmonton. I have, though, come to the conclusion that I would still repatriate it but for a different reason. I thought we should bring it back here. Now I think we are doing an injustice to the people of Edmonton by naming the so-called commitment after their city.

I also say that the Treasurer’s method of determining the transfers this year is also really a breach of faith. He has stated many times that there is going to be a move toward unconditionalization to give more autonomy to the municipalities and yet this year, in the crunch year for municipalities, you have determined exactly how they will spend those increases which they get this year. It is not left to them to decide whether they want to increase their expenditures on social services by 5.5 per cent. This government tells them they shall hold it to 5.5 per cent. In every method it has, this government has made more permanent the conditionalization of the grants it provides to local governments.

The most serious breach of faith, however, is one, I think, of fundamental principle. This government, like other provincial governments in Canada, has pledged itself to a policy of “increasing its financial support for local governments in order to reduce the burden of financing which falls upon the slow-growing and oppressive property tax.” That quote is from the 1969 budget paper B of this government.

Admittedly, since then substantial steps have been taken by all provincial governments in this regard and it had been expected it would continue in this province, or at least there would not be a direct about-face.

As late as 1974, the then Treasurer John White said, and again I quote:

“Because the property tax has two inherent drawbacks as a revenue-raising device -- low growth potential and regressive characteristics -- local government should not be forced to rely on greatly increased use of this traditional revenue source. This course of action would be clearly retrogressive. It would definitely offset the steps that have been taken in the past to stabilize property tax burdens and distribute them on a more equitable basis. A fairer and more realistic remedy is one which would provide local government with access to new, faster-growth revenue sources.”

In assessing the significance of that statement, it must be noted that it was made after the Edmonton commitment and after the property tax credit system was operative. Yet, this year, it is all repudiated.

I think, too, the Treasurer of this province has broken faith with the public. They supported the Anti-Inflation Board which has set very strict limits on the wages and salaries of the people in this province. The Treasurer is part of the cutback process in wages, and yet he deliberately caused property taxes to increase substantially above the very guideline that it appeared he was saying he supported.

Mr. Philip: More taxes on the middle class.

Mr. Swart: The Treasurer’s dealings with local government make a hypocrisy of his statement at the meeting of provincial finance ministers with the Ottawa government on April 1. In part, this is what he told the federal government.

“We, as provinces, do not quarrel with the federal government’s objective of achieving greater control over its own budgetary expenditure. What we do quarrel with is the unilateral way that the ceilings have been imposed, and implication that the provinces must bear the full responsibility for effective programme economies while being in a shared-cost straitjacket.

“In our opinion, the provinces are bearing far more than their share of the tough decisions, especially when it is remembered that much of the cost of escalation is, in fact, due to the federal government itself insofar as it insisted upon the introduction of universal health programmes and insofar as it failed to effectively contain inflationary pressures in the economy.”

The newspaper article goes on to say:

“Mr. McKeough was concerned about the federal government’s intention to end the revenue guarantee by the federal government. If the guarantee is not continued or replaced by another arrangement the provinces will have to increase their taxes to meet their commitments.”

What a statement of principle -- righteously condemning the federal government for encouraging provinces to get into cost-shared programmes and then unilaterally cutting back on its share; denouncing the federal government for proposing to renege on its revenue guarantee. Yet, 3½ months before the Treasurer attacked the federal government on these grounds he had announced the same policy and programme to be applied to local governments in this province in an even more brutal fashion.

Mr. Warner: Shame.

Ms. Bryden: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Mr. Swart: One could read the word “municipalities” in place of “provinces” in the Treasurer’s statement and one would have the municipalities’ complaints to the province exactly. How does the Treasurer respond to the complaints of municipalities to his cutbacks? According to the Toronto Star of Feb. 26, 1976, I quote: “He angrily attacked critics of the government’s restraint programme and accused municipal politicians, particularly in Metro, of playing a political poker game instead of trimming their own wasteful spending.”

The Ottawa government can sure use the pattern set by the Treasurer of this province toward its municipalities in refusing any requests that he makes to the federal government. The Treasurer’s 1976 budget makes a mockery of all of these principles and pledges that they have espoused for years. It contradicts all the things they themselves have been saying.

[3:45]

I guess that’s not normally too serious. If you contradict what they say, it usually makes you right. But in this instance it is serious because tax injustices are amplified and cutbacks in municipal services are hurting people. No other provincial budget which has been tabled in Canada this year provides the degree of cutbacks in increased assistance to local government as does the budget of the Treasurer of this province.

The provincial Treasurer constantly alleges that the property tax credit system has largely removed the regressiveness of the property taxes and it has, admittedly, reduced it by some degree. It is still, however, substantially regressive. What’s more the system now used by this government causes a greater percentage increase to low- and middle-income earners when municipal taxes increase than it does to higher-income earners. I would like to repeat that just in case the Treasurer did not hear that statement. The system now used by this government causes a greater percentage increase in property taxes to low and middle-income earners when such taxes increase than it does to higher-income earners.

Let me show this House just how regressive the property tax still is. I’ll take a hypothetical home assessed at $5,000, a municipal mill rate of 100 -- there are still a few mill rates this low, but not too many. Applying the tax credit, an earner with $2,500 of taxable income would pay $320 taxes; with $5,000 taxable income, he pays $370 taxes; with $10,000 of taxable income, he pays $470; and with $11,500 of taxable income, he pays the whole $500.

This means that with a 100 per cent increase in taxable income, if you’re fortunate to have 100 per cent more than somebody else, you will pay an increase of 16 per cent in your property taxes. The next $2,500 increase in income, where you go by 50 per cent, increases taxes by 14 per cent. The next $2,500 to $10,000 increases it by 12 per cent. Putting it another way, a person with a taxable income of $ 10,000 pays only 47 per cent more than an owner with $2,500 taxable income, or one-quarter of the income.

That is some progressivity and some method of taxing on ability to pay. Of course, it may be argued that a person with a taxable income of $10,000 would likely own a more valuable home than a person with $5,000 of taxable income and thus pay higher taxes. Fair enough. But the home would have to be worth more than 60 per cent more before there was any degree of progressivity. That just doesn’t exist. That’s not the case.

Let us compare these foregoing property taxes with income tax and its relative progressiveness. A person with a taxable income of $10,000 pays eight times as much as the person with $2,500 of taxable income. Relate that to 47 per cent more on the property tax and he pays two and half times as much as the person with $5,000 of taxable income. What a contrast that is to the property tax! Apart from eliminating the regressivity of the property tax, there is another cruel irony of the property tax credit system. It causes tax increases to fall more heavily on the lower-income taxpayer than the higher one.

Take my own modest home, as an example. I paid property tax last year of $437.61. My taxable income was $14,179.96. I therefore did not qualify for any tax rebate. Although it is not yet final --

Mr. Lewis: That’s a New Democrat!

Mr. Swart: -- my property taxes will increase this year by approximately 15 per cent, again making me ineligible for any tax credit. However, if the person owning my home had a taxable income of $5,000, he would have paid a net of $313.85 for last year and $372.73 this year, an increase of 19 per cent. If the taxable income of the owner of my house was only $2,500 -- and that’s possible because I’ve a modest home -- his property tax would go from $263.85 to $322.73, an increase of 22 per cent.

Not only are you forcing an unreasonable increase in the municipal taxes but, by not adjusting the tax credit system -- and you’re not -- you are forcing a much higher percentage of net tax increases on the lower incomes than on the higher incomes. I say to you that’s gross injustice.

Mr. Lewis: That’s an awfully well put together exposition.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Housing, everything has gone up for consumers so your typical person might have an increase in his taxable income relative --

Mr. Swart: Of course, but it is still also true that the regressivity I talk about would still apply. I’m sure you must admit it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He may have had an increase.

Mr. Swart: Sure, he may have had, but that does not take away from the point that I am making.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not quite as much as you.

Ms. Bryden: The credit doesn’t go up in proportion.

Mr. Swart: Both of these regressive injustices are aggravated by the lapse of time between the due date of the property taxes and the income tax credit derived from them. At present interest rates, it reduces the value of the property tax credit by six to 12 per cent. This is true whether an owner has to borrow money to pay taxes or whether it is withdrawn from a bank account. This adverse effect, again, hits the low-income earners the hardest because they are the ones, rightfully so, receiving the tax credits.

The same is true of tenants but to a much greater decree. The units which they occupy are generally assessed at something like 75 to 100 per cent higher in relationship to market value than individual family dwelling units. Those taxes are passed through to them in their rents so not only are they paying more initially but the increase hits them harder.

I suggest you should do, and immediately do, what you did for condominiums. You should bring in a revision so the taxes are lowered but, if you do, you must also bring in legislation to assure it is passed back to the tenant and not gobbled up by the landlord.

There’s no doubt this year that the government’s policies have increased the regressivity of the property tax to residential property taxpayers generally and particularly to the tenants of apartments.

Other taxpayers have never really had any alleviation from the regressivity. Commercial and industrial taxpayers, including tens of thousands of small businessmen, pay huge property taxes without any relationship to ability to pay. The unfairness of this is equal to or surpasses any other tax injustice in the province except, of course, the tax exemption to speculators and to developers. Yesterday, and this was coincidental, I was talking to the owner of a small industry in my area. His property taxes last year were $5,250. He made no profit; in fact, he went into the red.

Another small industry in the neighbouring municipality made over $100,000 profit from its operation but the owner’s property taxes were almost identical to the owner I mentioned previously. There is a tremendous regressivity on commercial buildings, especially small businesses.

Assuredly, there is no equity whatsoever in the property taxes on small businesses or large ones and I hope the Treasurer does not use the excuse that businesses can deduct it from their income tax and therefore it is not unjust. That point can be made legitimately on residential property tax versus commercial or industrial tax but it has no validity whatsoever in comparing a marginal business with a profitable business. In passing, I think I should mention that the tax reform proposals tabled in the budget will increase property taxes on small business to the point of destroying them. I’ll cover that more fully in a future debate.

The greatest inequity of all, of course, is the preferred treatment given to developers and speculators. During consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue, I presented a couple of examples of the tremendous tax concessions to the land speculators and developers.

Mr. Warner: Nice friends.

Mr. Swats: There are some inequalities in the level of taxes paid by the various classifications of the property taxpayers, but they all bear some reasonable relationship to the value of the property owned. Not so with developers and speculators; during consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue, I presented a couple of examples to show the tremendous tax concessions they receive at the hands of this government.

I named River Realty Ltd. and Doro Investments Ltd. as developers who had sold 45 acres of land in Welland to the Ontario Housing Corp. in the fall of 1974 for $1,092,000. It was bought by them in 1966 for $75,000. The year in which they sold that property for better than $1 million, in 1974, it was assessed for $1,350, or 1/735th of its value, and it paid taxes of $143.24.

Ms. Bryden: How does that happen?

Mr. Swart: Another 14 acres of land in St. Catharines was purchased for $27,310 in 1965, and sold to a developer in August, 1974 for $256,040 -- just over a quarter of a million dollars. In 1975 that property paid taxes of $339.54 -- substantially less, incidentally, than the taxes on a moderate home in that area.

Mr. Warner: Did their income go up at all?

Mr. Lewis: What were they assessed at?

Mr. Swart: I haven’t got the assessment figure on that one; I have got two more here. I want to give another couple of examples of acres of land to Birchwood Builders for the same sort of thing.

In 1974, Eleanor Person transferred 26.37 acres of land for the sum of $527,480. This is prime fruit land in west St. Catharines. The same year it was transferred to another developer, obviously for more money, but that is not reported in the registry office; I think the sum of $1 is recorded for that. That land, worth over half a million dollars, was assessed that year for $2,855, or 1/185th of its value; and the taxes paid were just under $300.

Barnes Wines transferred 54.726 acres of land to Dundel Properties in 1974 for the sum of $1,231,385. The assessed value of the land is $4,810 --

Mr. Warner: That’s shameful.

Mr. Swart: -- or 1/256th of the value for which taxes of less than $700 were paid just last year, in 1975. A slightly better than average house in St. Catharines thus pays more taxes than a developer whose property is worth more than $1¼ million.

In every city in this province, speculators and developers get the same kinds of exemptions. Tens of millions -- and it is in this amount -- tens of millions of dollars of tax money annually is never levied against them, because this government over the decades has simply refused to make the simple change in the Assessment Act to plug the loophole. As a result, the homeowners and other taxpayers pick up the tab for the developers, because somebody has to find that money.

Mr. Warner: Squeeze the homeowner and the tenant.

Mr. Swart: I say to the Treasurer, when is he going to have the courage to stand up to the developers and the speculators?

Mr. Reid: Who is going to build the houses? These guys?

Mr. Swart: Of course, he can’t. They are part and parcel of the Conservative inner circle. But, believe me, they are not part and parcel of this party’s circle. And by God, when we are on that side of the House, they will pay their fair share of taxes, the same as everyone else.

Mr. Hodgson: You will never make it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That must strike terror in their hearts.

Mr. Lewis: They are not terrified, but they are apprehensive.

Mr. Swart: Yes, from some of the phone calls I have been getting, they are.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Welland will continue.

Mr. Lewis: I talked to the house builders, my friend, not developers.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Welland.

Mr. Hodgson: Tell us about your house and how much you made on it.

Mr. Lewis: Thanks to the speculative allowances of your government.

Mr. Hodgson: How much did you make?

Mr. Lewis: It is all on the record.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I’ve talked about the magnitude of the property tax this year, about its regressivity, and about its unfairness between property-tax-paying groups. I want to say something about a particular region of the province, and that is the north.

On many occasions I have listened to my colleague behind me complaining bitterly about the treatment of the north -- and sometimes it gets to me. One of your people over there said to me one time that he was going to come over and muzzle one particular person himself if he heard him say anything more about, “What have you got against the north?”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You are just lucky that the Deputy Speaker is the Deputy Speaker, because we are missing his contribution.

Mr. Swart: When I’ve gone into this budget, particularly the municipal part of it, I find that their complaints are right. On page 13 of your budget paper, the last paragraph reads:

“The maximum rate will be 25 per cent of the 1975 net general dollars levied. However, in situations involving former mining municipalities, which are unduly constrained by the 25 per cent limit, the maximum will be increased to include 15 per cent of their 1972 formula, the formula mining revenue payment. This latter provision will terminate in 1977.”

That is kind of an innocuous-sounding paragraph. But do you know what it means? It means that the limit had been cut from 30 per cent last year to 15 per cent this year. Do you know that it means -- and these don’t sound like large figures, but to small mining municipalities they are -- a cut in payments to 28 mining municipalities from the $700,000 they got last year to something below $350,000 this year. That is not a big amount, but it is typical of what the government is doing to the north.

The north is an area that produces a large amount of our resources. It is an area where municipalities and people have it the toughest in terms of distances and temperatures -- and for many other reasons -- and you have to give them a special cutback; a special cutback to the mining municipalities in the north. It is only $350,000, but I say to the Treasurer of this province, for goodness sake replace it.

There is another serious aspect of these tax increases, and it is the effect on rents. Ever since its inception, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) have attacked rent review. They want somehow or other to discredit it, so it can be discarded without political repercussions for them. They are trying to blame all the problems, really, on the NDP. First, for forcing them into rent review, and then for forcing changes for more comprehensive protection.

I say to you on the opposite side that the problems with rent review administration are not inherent in rent review and they are not attributable to this party, they are simply caused by the incompetence of this government and its inaction on controlling the costs of housing accommodation.

You failed to get the rent officers appointed and rent control machinery set up in time to deal with the review when it was supposed to start. Then electrical rates increased by 22 per cent -- and it would have been more if you had had your way on that part of the House. Heating gas went up 41 per cent in December. In spite of protestations otherwise, your opposition to it up to the present time has largely been half-hearted and political posturing.

It’s no wonder there have been 230,000 applications for rent review -- requests for increases by landlords by and large -- during the period up to this time. You’re assuring a further multitude of such applications by your deliberate policy of increasing municipal taxes. From your own property tax credit you admit that property taxes are 20 per cent of shelter costs -- you find that out when you make out your income tax if at no other time. Some checking by our party puts it closer to 23 per cent. In any event, these taxes have a major effect on rents. A 20 per cent increase in municipal taxes, such as is taking place in Ottawa and a great many other municipalities, will mean a four per cent to five per cent increase in landlord’s costs with a resultant rash of applications for rent increases.

By your refusal to provide adequate increases in assistance to local government, you’re not only escalating the tax regressivity in this province but you are making shambles of your own rent control. We believe the Ontario government should live up to the Edmonton commitment. It should not endeavour to recover the $98 million this year from its self-interpreted overpayment. This additional transfer would reduce the property tax rates across the province by about four mills or almost down to the inflation factor and the AIB rates. The proposal of the private bill tabled by the member for Downsview (Mr. di Santo) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine which would establish a select committee of the House to examine the tax structure, should be implemented by this government in place of the politically appointed commission which was further announced today.

If future transfers to local governments are to be tied to provincial revenue, then they must be based on a three-year moving average so that political tax cuts, as made by your government last year -- and don’t ever try to deny it -- do not destroy the municipalities’ financial viability in subsequent years. Also, that select committee should give consideration to other forms of revenue, which the Treasurer so stubbornly refuses to do.

In view of the determination by the Ontario government to stop the open-ended programmes, that select committee should give consideration to transferring total responsibility for unemployment welfare from the municipalities to the province with service delivery still being provided locally. Unemployment welfare payments are the single greatest open-ended programme at the municipal level. If the province determines it is not going to leave that open-ended, then the province and the federal government, which have a prime responsibility for the state of the economy, are the ones that should have to pay it, not the local municipalities.

The government of this province must, I suggest, give some substance to its often-voiced partner relationship with local government. Each year, preferably in the fall, negotiations in good faith should take place between the local government associations and the province to determine the relative future priorities in the coming year and years, and financial adjustments should be made to accommodate them. Between every level of government, federal and provincial and provincial and municipal, there are over a period of time substantial changes in their responsibilities and in the amounts of money that they must spend relative to other levels of government. That should be negotiated in good faith year by year.

I want to conclude on that partnership theme. A partnership principle involves mutual respect, co-operation and adherence to commitments. The action of your government toward local governments, particularly this year, and particularly in the last five or six months has made a mockery of that word partnership.

Mr. Lewis: We dare you to reply.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am speechless.

Mr. Lewis: I thought so.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to comment on the opening of these estimates on behalf of our party. I will not go on at great length because many of the subjects I and our party want to address ourselves to were commented on in the budget debate. I will restrict my remarks generally to the overall estimates themselves.

First of all, the estimates cover approximately eight general areas and at the outset we would like to know, for example, if the ministry has received any extra funds, by way of Management Board order or otherwise, which are not revealed in the reconciliation statement of the estimates. I would like, of course, to thank the minister for the summary sheet which will make it a little easier to understand these details.

I would also comment generally that you will note that of the eight major areas, approximately six had purportedly declined or stayed the same as the expenditure level for the year before. It appears that in the Treasurer’s opening statement he gave some reasons for this but I want to suggest, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we must be careful in how we read these particular figures. I think we are going to have to relate them not only to the estimates in 1975-1976 -- and their reductions, purportedly, in 1976-1977 -- we have to read them in relationship to the actuals for 1975-1976, which we will be asking about, and relate them and compare them to the actuals for 1974-1975. If we look at that, we will see not reductions but some very substantial increases. It could well be that there were some major changes which took place in that one-year period.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: North Pickering.

Mr. Shore: North Pickering? That’s the $300 million -- I appreciate that -- but I am talking about the non-statutory and the operational aspects. In almost every section of the ministry’s operational aspect, not the statutory, there have been anticipated increases in 1976-1977. I would like to have some explanations on that.

The other item in the general approach to this thing is that we will be asking very substantial questions in the area relating particularly to the salary aspect, the staffing aspect and the service aspect of these estimates. The service section includes professional fees, advertising and so on, and we would like to know a little bit about these things.

I looked at the general breakdown and found, as the Treasurer’s observed, that of the $1,742 million, well in excess of $1 billion is statutory, of which the largest sum is the interest payments. Approximately $400 million is the operational aspect of the ministry.

As we go through these various sections, you will see that a very large part of the ministry relates to what is known as planning, policy and areas like that. I submit that it’s that area we want to hear a little more of because I fail to see anything substantial in the real planning, the real fiscal management and the real policy aspects of the ministry and particularly of the government. For all intents and purposes what I see is the Ontario budget for 1976 and that’s an important item which I think we should be looking at.

[4:15]

In relation to the area of municipal funding, I won’t dwell on it as much as the NDP has through its speaker. But we did stress it very strongly and very importantly during the budget deliberation. In my opinion, the municipal-provincial relationship is probably one of the most significant areas and I must agree with the comments made by the speaker for the NDP just now that if there is any area that requires a commission or a study committee, and particularly of this House, it is that area. It should be much broader, on the lines that we have debated in this House a week or 10 days ago on this member’s bill.

In relation to the question of the 1974-1975 estimates, it appears to me that it was North Pickering that created quite a substantial part of this increase. But as I look through these estimates generally, it is very clear that there are some major changes that took place in 1974-1975, that increased a little bit in 1975-1976 and then went back down substantially in 1976-1977. The real thrust has to be to compare it to what happened there for a two-year period, which created a substantial increase in the operations of this ministry.

I would also want to stress during the discussion on the particular votes themselves that not only will we be discussing the input of dollars but I think we should be concentrating to a very large extent on what we are getting for these dollars. In other words, what is the output? What is the result of what we are putting in?

I think too little time has been spent on these cost-benefit analyses and I think it is important that we should have it, I repeat, on this area of planning and policy and management. It seems to me that with a ministry that’s responsible for the Treasury in the fiscal responsibility of this province it seems to me not unreasonable, with a staff of 800 or 750, that it should be expected, or could be expected, that multi-year planning should be a factor for consideration.

I asked that question in London, Ont., some few weeks ago -- I guess it is a couple of months ago -- when the Treasurer and the travelling group were around discussing the restraint, or constraint, or whatever it might be programme. The answer I got, in my opinion, was not satisfactory. Basically, it stated that that would be difficult to do. I would suggest that as difficult as it may be to do, it is equally essential that it must be done.

I am sure that the minister would recognize this, or hope he would, and have the imagination or the staff or both to start to develop that type of programme. Because I am suggesting to you with all the difficulties that we are having with this -- particularly the provincial-municipal relationship and the property tax problems and all these other things -- as bad as they are, including the closing of hospitals and all these other things, there should be at least a plan, a programme, or it thought in fiscal management.

That doesn’t mean you couldn’t have a two- or three-year plan that has to be adjusted periodically, but I suggest to you that if there were a plan at least you could see the direction that the province wants to take. You could see what its objectives are. You could see what its desires are. Similarly, and most importantly, the municipalities could do the same type of thing.

I think of all the injustices that I could put my fingers on in this whole revenue problem with the municipalities, the property tax base, the whole aspect, to me the most significant one is the unfairness to municipalities at least, and I think to the province generally. With all the restraints they should at least be given the opportunity of knowing more than one month or two months or three months or one year in advance, for that matter, some type of plan or programme that they could work towards. If we had that I think many of the difficulties could be overcome.

We also will be commenting strongly in the area of the finance section particularly in the area of funding. The minister has said several times that he feels borrowing from the Canada Pension funds and the superannuation funds are not public borrowings. It is a little naive, in my opinion, to suggest it isn’t. It is still borrowing.

Very clearly in the budget statement itself the minister takes great pride in the concept of developing improvement for small businesses. I just look at his speech to the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association about a week or 10 days ago when he is pridefully bringing to the attention of that group that he has done unbelievably good things for the small businessman and the small corporations. He stresses that one major measure, the reduction of the corporation tax for small businesses as defined under the federal jurisdiction from 12 per cent to nine per cent, was a major move, and I must say it was a substantial move. He does not say in that statement that it will mean very little dollar change or improvement totally; that it will just spread the same dollars over a larger percentage of people.

He goes on to say that the budget also includes two other actions of particular interest. The one I am particularly interested in -- and I wish to say that it’s a positive thing and I would like to ask, when he is responding, whether we may see something on this -- is the area of the venture investment corporation. He is strongly suggesting that that would he coming forward, hopefully, to help stimulate investment in small businesses. I agree with that and I would like to know just when that might come forward.

These are the things we would be talking about. We’re going to be responding to the public debt situation and we will be responding further to the whole area of urban and regional affairs. I would like to conclude this statement by saying that I believe that the minister truly is desirous, and hopefully he is, in wanting to hear positive, constructive criticism from the opposition parties.

On a semi-personal vein, but really from the point of view of the opposition parties and particularly from our party’s point of view, I would like to suggest for his consideration, since he has a staff of 700 or 800 or whatever it might be, if he truly believes this -- and I’m prepared to respect him and say that he does -- that there be some direct contact within the ministry. If our research people or myself or anybody involved in this area of criticism wishes to get information -- I’m talking basically about public information, not cabinet information -- they should have a source or contact to that person so that they can flow through that person information that could be helpful in us developing this, because I must say that it is truly very difficult sometimes to get the information or just to find the person to talk to.

I would just like to leave this aspect of the general discussion with the comment that I would hope the minister would respectfully accept that it’s important for the parliamentary process and it’s important for us as critics to be able to have a source for public information in the ministry. I noticed the minister raised his eyebrows. Maybe that’s difficult; maybe instead of reducing his staff to 800 --

Mr. McEwen: Give or take 100.

Mr. Shore: -- he’ll reduce it to 801 and we’ll have one person who we can communicate with and do something like that. I think it’s a positive statement. I certainly don’t want any brown envelopes or pink envelopes, but I believe there would be nothing harmful in having some source so that information that should be available can become available.

These are the conclusions of my remarks and we will be debating this on the individual votes as we go along.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to reply or answer the questions during the debate?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think we will get into the items under the votes and perhaps best deal with them there.

On vote 1001:

Ms. Bryden: There are a few questions I would like to ask under this vote.

It seems we have a new form of brown paper envelope. A week or so ago I literally found a printout from the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs blowing in the wind in front of the Sutton Place Hotel.

Interjection.

Ms. Bryden: It’s dated 7/12/75, so it’s fairly up to date.

Mr. Ferrier: What happened to the shredder?

Ms. Bryden: It appears to be a printout of public accounts payable. Unfortunately, there are no figures on it so all it tells me is that the government apparently owes money to a great many American associations such as the American Bar Association; the American Gas Association; the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers; the American Institute of Planners; and so on. Of the 31 items I think 18 are American organizations.

It intrigued my curiosity as to what sort of accounts we had with all these organizations but it doesn’t tell me whether we gave them $2 million or $20. However, it did seem rather strange that it was blowing in the wind.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the John Birch Society on that list?

Ms. Bryden: It stops at the As, unfortunately.

Mr. Lewis: You could launch an OPP investigation into that.

Ms. Gigantes: Where did the As go?

Ms. Bryden: You mean the Bs.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In response to the question, I really don’t know why we owe money to any one of those names mentioned. I assume that perhaps the Attorney General -- I’ve forgotten the ones you mentioned -- subscribes to something in the American Bar Association. Of the four or five you mentioned, none of them, I think, is anything which the Treasury has anything to do with directly.

It’s a legitimate question because, of course, we are responsible for the preparation of the public accounts.

Ms. Bryden: Yes, I understand that. To get on to, perhaps, a more serious question, I would like to still pursue the question of whether the government really is reducing its staff.

The Treasurer spoke again about his complement being down to 700 but he has not yet given us figures for the total number of contract employees on the same base as the tables in the budget which show the complement figures. I assume these dates are March 31, on page 27 of budget paper C.

I would very much like to have similar figures for 1975 and for 1976, for the same dates, on (a) the number of contract employees, and, (b) the number of casual or other unclassified employees so that we can really see whether there has been a reduction of staff in all ministries over the past 12 months.

It seems to me we’re only getting half of the story. I asked for this information at the time of the budget lockup. I understood it was coming but it hasn’t yet come so we’re still waiting for the breakdown, ministry by ministry, of the number of contract and the number of casual employees. The two dates are March 31, 1975, and March 31, 1976. Particularly, we would be interested in the ones for this ministry as a starter.

Another question that interests me is what progress the ministry is making in implementing the report of the executive co-ordinator of women’s programmes regarding the upgrading and moving of women into more of the senior executive positions. Mrs. McLellan in her report, says only four per cent of the senior executive structure, as she calls it, was filled by women at the time of her report, which was, I think, about March 31, 1975. I would like to know what percentage of the senior executive structure is filled by women in the Treasury department.

Does the hon. provincial Treasurer have on his staff a women’s adviser for affirmative action? Does she have a separate budget? Is it a full or part-time job? What progress has been made in increasing the number of women in training programmes as well as senior executive positions?

[4:30]

A third area I would like more information on is the total expenditure on publications of the ministry. I see there is an information services division which has about $425,000. I presume this is not the cost of all the publications that come out from the ministry. Is there a figure on the total publications budget or is that scattered through all the various votes and is it possible to isolate it?

I would also like to know the cost of the tour that the hon. provincial Treasurer and his officials took in December, January and February to explain the so-called restraint programme, including the cost of the presentations that were made, the literature handed out, any slide shows, travel and the hiring of halls and so on. I think it would be very interesting to know how much that particular public relations exercise really cost the people of this province -- to tell them really that their municipal taxes were going up so that their provincial taxes might not go down but at least the provincial deficit would go down.

Those are some questions that I would like to leave with the hon. Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know that I can remember all the questions that were asked. Perhaps if we start taking them one by one it might be helpful. We will just clean up a couple of them. In the information division, publications are scattered throughout the estimates. For example, the blue book would be, I assume, under the municipal finance branch. Regional planning studies would come under urban and regional affairs, and so on. There would not be very much under the information branch itself but will be glad to sort out just what is there.

You asked about complement. The member had a question on the order paper about contract employees which will have to be answered by the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) or by the Civil Service Commission. So far as the government is concerned, the question was answered, I think, in response to a question from the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) for last year.

I wouldn’t hold your breath because apparently it took about four weeks to assemble that information for last year and I don’t think the Chairman of Management Board or his staff are busting a gut, if I can put it that crudely, to go through the same exercise again.

Mr. Bullbrook: Would you mind a specific question?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is Ian Macdonald on contract with you?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Ian Macdonald? No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Fine, I just wondered.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, he was a civil servant. He was retained for, I think, three months after April 1, 1974, as a consultant during that period of the changeover. But I don’t think that he is --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, there was an overlap. But I don’t think that he has been paid in any way since that time.

Just coming back to the question of what we call the human resources. If I can understand this table, there were 735 civil servants as of April 1, 1976. The unclassified -- the people who were on for over six months, in man-years, 126.66; for less than six months, 81.76. The total resources of the ministry, expressed that way, are 943.42. As of April 1, 1975, they were 1,049.33. There is a reduction then, expressed in man-years, of 105.91 people, so that there is a reduction both in terms of complement and there is a reduction in terms of either classified or unclassified contract employees.

I think, from a quick look at this, there has actually been a bigger reduction in the amount of contracted-out personnel -- at least, not contracted-out but contract employees. Just looking at it quickly, there is a slightly bigger reduction there than there is on the permanent civil service staff.

Ms. Bryden: I am not clear. These unclassified employees include both contract and casual or can you give us a breakdown of the two? We would like the contract employees separated from the other unclassified.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t, at this moment, other than to -- no, I can’t at this moment. We have it broken out for this year as of April 1; we don’t have it broken out as at a year ago. But expressing the whole thing in man-years, it is a reduction of 105.

Ms. Bryden: Can you get me those figures?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: For a year ago? No, I don’t think so. We simply weren’t keeping track of those figures a year ago, or prior to this year. Essentially, it was a matter of dollars and cents up until this year, and I don’t know whether we were required to keep it this way or not.

Up until that time, essentially, what we were required to account for was the number of civil servants on contract or on complement. Then it was left to the managers over and above that and they were given a certain amount of money to do the job. We are now being required -- I think properly so, out of the questions which have been asked and which we were asking ourselves -- to keep track of, in some way, the amount of purchased time, if I could put it that way, over and above those people on complement.

There was one other question. Yes, Glenna Carr is full-time and has a secretary and has a budget attached to the deputy minister’s office. A year ago I tabled, or read rather, a rather extensive series of notes on this. I won’t do so again. I don’t think there has been any change -- I am just taking it off the top of my head. I don’t think any females have been moved into senior positions within the last 12 months. We have, in fact, really done away with about five senior positions within the ministry and there have been few promotions, period.

As vacancies occur, it may well be that they may be filled by women but there just haven’t been the vacancies as we have been constraining both at the top and at the bottom or both at the bottom and the top.

Ms. Bryden: I also asked about trainees and training programmes. Have you any statistics on the number of women in training programmes now as compared to a year ago?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I haven’t got it here. The assistant deputy points out that the answer is yes. We have a number of them. Those things are contained in the annual report from each of the ministries to the women’s co-ordinator for the government and will be tabled soon, apparently. I haven’t got those figures here. I will get them for you.

Mr. Shore: Firstly, in my opening remarks I related two or three questions. Can I assume that the hon. minister heard them and then I could forget about them for the time being?

Or do I have to continue?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let’s take them one at a time because my notes aren’t that good.

Mr. Shore: All right. You have me caught here. I forgot what they were.

The first question I had was if there was any additional spending, by the Management Board or otherwise, that wasn’t revealed in the estimates?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it is not a question of not revealing. We are the authors, I think it is fair to say, of what is disclosed by us in the quarterly report. The assistant deputy tells me that we had two Management Board orders during the course of the year, which is not unexpected. One on the unconditional grants had been underestimated in 1975-1976 by about $14 million and that would show up. The interim estimate for unconditional grants is $345 million. From what was shown as being voted last year there is a difference of about $14 million, which was added by way of Management Board order just before the close of the year.

There was an addition to the winter capital works programme -- simply an underestimate. That’s really a pass-through of moneys from Ottawa. Finally, there was quite a deliberate move, which is as good a point as any to ‘fess up to -- I don’t know that I have got the details of it here and I don’t know whether the Chairman of Management Board touched on this -- since there is no provision in the Financial Administration Act for us to accrue at the end of the year, we are in effect on a cash basis, or until the books close. I can’t tell you the amount offhand -- I should have this -- but in the budget and, presumably, in Management Board’s estimates, and I haven’t looked at it, you will find a figure for contingency --

Mr. Shore: It’s $171 million.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- of $171 million. Part of that is retroactive to 1975-1976. To include that in the $1.889 billion cash requirements, we in effect made some payments before the end of the year and reduced them in the next year, in this present year, and by book entry we will adjust that back again. There were payments made to the Ontario Land Corp. of $22 million; the Educational Capital Ad Corp. and, I think, the Universities Capital Aid Corp. at the end of the year, so that the amount of estimated salary which is going to be paid in 1976-1977, which really applies to 1975-1976, is shown in the $1,889 billion.

That has to be one of the more unsatisfactory explanations that I have given. By the time we discovered all this, we would not have wanted to come to the House and said that our cash requirements last year were only $1.850 billion, for example, when in fact they are really $1,889 billion. So we made those transfers and will transfer it back as of April 1, 1976, so that the $1.889 billion in respect of the salary payments expected is as honest a figure as we can make it.

Also the payments in lieu were increased by about $2 million by Management Board order.

Mr. Good: Does that meet future requirements?

Mr. Shore: As I understand it and I think I grasp what you are saying, one of the purposes of that was to help offset the statutory or whatever requirements under the Financial Administration Act, to help offset the problem that you can’t accrue. Is that the rationale?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. We can accrue some things. We can accrue until the books close. We accrue until April 22, I think the date is. This year it was April 22. As it turned out, though, those salary awards have still not been made and may not be made for several months.

Mr. Shore: Is that something unique to this last year that you never had to face in the last few years? I would like to just understand why you wouldn’t have had to do that the year before or the year before that.

[4:45]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, it may not have been unique but two of the contracts expired, I think, on Oct. 1, 1975; the remainder of the eight contracts expired on Jan. 1, 1976. It may not have been unique but we were certainly talking of a much larger sum of money than we’ve ever talked before.

Mr. Shore: Thank you. In vote 1001, in almost all the areas, salaries and wages have been decreased quite a sum from the 1975-1976 estimates. I would like to know if this is primarily and principally from reduction of complement of the civil service and if it’s been offset to any great extent by contract employees. No. 2, I would like to ask if there’s anything unusual between the estimates and the actual. In other words, can you point out if there’s anything unusual in these estimates in relation to what the actual might be in this year? Or can I assume that these comparisons are reasonably accurate? No. 3, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I would be talking about the --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let’s take them one at a time. First of all, the answer to your question is yes: The differences would basically be accounted for -- I think I said this in the opening remarks -- by a reduction in staff in nearly every instance. I qualify that by pointing out that some of those people obviously were entitled to an increase -- let’s assume it’s eight per cent -- and some of those increases, from either Oct. 1, six months, or Jan. 1, three months, are part of that $171 million reflecting back into last year’s. The amount which is estimated they would receive in increases during the full year is all in that $171 million.

I think it’s fair to say that in previous years the printed estimates have normally not included any provision for expected salary increases other than merit increases. We may have padded the revenues sometimes to get ready for it. This is the first time that we have spelled out -- and I’m sure Mr. Auld said this -- the $171 million which includes not only the expected salary increases -- not all of which may end up happening; I suppose it could be more -- plus the retroactive portion.

The answer to your question is that the big reduction between the two years is straight staff. The assistant deputy minister assures me there has been no increase in this area -- in fact in most areas but I think in this area particularly -- in contract staff. It has remained about the same if not being down a bit.

Your final question was is there much variation between the 1975-1976 voted estimates and the actual figures. We haven’t got that here and won’t have it here until the books are audited but my guess would be that there would be underspending in most salary categories and in the service categories. When the restraints were first applied in July and the embargos were put on, we felt them and we met all the targets.

My guess is that there will be substantial underspending in practically every one of the administration votes. That, I hasten to say, means that they’re probably between what actually happened in 1975-1976 and what is estimated to happen in 1976-1977. There won’t be quite the gap there would appear to be in these estimates but there will be a gap. There is, I think I’m satisfied, an absolute reduction in dollars.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, could I have the Treasurer comment on several of these items under the first vote? For example, in the ministry office the actual for 1974-1975 was $612,000; then it went up to $941,000; then back to $807,000. He sort of explained that the differential between the 1975-1976 estimates and the 1976-1977 estimates won’t be that great a spread. I noticed throughout the whole TEICA section there appears to be a very substantial increase between that 1974-1975 actual period, in almost all the items, and the 1975-1976 estimates. I wonder if there’s an obvious blanket-type rationale, or what it is. It distorts this concept of efficiency, because it all happened in a one-year period, more or less -- a sudden thrust upward and then a levelling off. I wonder if there’s some general statement that would have created that -- or am I missing something here?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, you’re right on. I think part of it -- we could take one of these and break them out -- but part of it is undoubtedly tighter budgeting. There is no question that between 1974-1975, 1975-1976 -- and remember that those estimates were probably prepared in October-November of 1974. They would have been checked after that and approved by Management Board, but we were still in a growing, expansionary time at that point in terms of government services. I don’t like to link the change to the departure of the former member for London South, which was about Jan. 15, 1975 -- get that back to him, though -- but that’s when we started to save money.

Mr. Breithaupt: And everything’s been looking up since.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We’ve been saving money ever since. But that was at the point where government started in the spring of 1975 and really got very serious by July, 1975 -- the beginnings of the special programme review -- and really started cutting expenses pretty dramatically. We obviously were cutting down on complement at that point. We had a complement freeze with no replacements being made for -- three months to six months -- the deputies put that off. We still have some in that category now, I’m told. Basically, that’s just about the time we started to get pretty tough about expenditures.

I’ve been passed a note that the 1975-1976 actual in the ministry office will also be low by about $175,000. In other words, that 1975-1976 estimate of $941,600 is probably being underspent, according to this note, by $175,000. This would bring it down to $786,600 -- if these figures hold up -- which is practically the same as the $807,100 projected for this year.

Mr. Shore: I’m getting the picture, because that’s why I asked if the actual 1975-1976 expenditure was going to be significant, and you observed that it probably could be to a certain extent.

When we first look at the statements you get a picture of a period of two to three years and it looks significant. But the anomaly is that if you look at 1974-1975 actual, and then compare it with 1975-1976, you see a very substantial jump, and then you see a dropping off. But now, in hearing this type of information, we’re seeing that it isn’t the case. As I observed at the beginning, out of these major votes six of them were reduced -- if the ministry office is somewhat typical of some of the others.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Shore: It isn’t? Okay. That’s where the real efficiency takes place; right?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Or the real fat, depending on the minister. No, the ministry office is probably not typical. We’ll take a look at some of these others -- the general administration, accounts and office services, personnel administration -- take a look at two or three of those.

Mr. Shore: All right, but I see a pattern; and that’s what I’m really trying to see.

In the services under the ministry office, could the minister pick out two or three of the largest and tell me how the dollars are used? For instance, the $102,700.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, aircraft rentals would be a service; any temporary help -- that’s not a very large item. That figure, the chargebacks, is a catch-all as much as anything, and that’s why I am saying that the ministry office is often not typical. I think this is true of a number of ministries. Sometimes consultants are hired for one reason or another -- not here, particularly, but they would be charged in -- or an outside study, and if you can’t find any other place to put it, it goes into the ministry office. The relationship between this figure at the beginning of the year and the end of the year, I think in most ministries, would be pretty far-fetched.

Mr. Shore: is it possible to have roughly what the three largest items of that $102,000 are, and how much?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is estimated: Aircraft rentals, $12,000; consultants, $48,000; temporary help, $9,000; conferences and seminars, $13,000 -- but I would tell you that’s a guess.

Mr. Shore: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just while I am on that, I would answer the question that my friend from Beaches-Woodbine asked about --

Ms. Bryden: About the restraint tour.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, the tour. The member has a question on the order paper on that and it will get an answer. It was minimal; there was no --

Ms. Bryden: I’d be glad to get an answer. That’s why I asked again.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know whether it has left our office and gone to the House leader. He holds these answers up quite often. No, that’s not true, because I did see a note that they were waiting for an answer from our office. You could either put a very high figure on it in terms of the number of ministers who made the trip, or charge them out at nothing, which some people would do and, in fact, they are charged out at nothing. A number of the halls were donated.

I will get that figure. We will have that answer, but it was a minimal amount. I don’t think we went overnight more than once or twice in the whole time, so there were very few hotel rooms. It was a minimum expense. The only goody we gave away was coffee, and I think in a couple of instances doughnuts -- and I think the local people paid for those in a number of instances.

I will get the figure for you as soon as we can. I won’t guarantee, though, that it’s going to be a completely accurate figure, because we didn’t encourage other ministers to charge back their expenses to Treasury. If my colleague the House leader ran up a big bill on the trip to wherever he went, and if he’s left it in his ministry office’s expenses and didn’t charge it back to Treasury, we haven’t phoned up and said, “Please, Bob, will you send us the bill?”

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Waterloo North have a brief question before the committee rises?

Mr. Good: A brief question. I don’t know how brief the answer will be. The Minister of Revenue, Mr. Chairman, had indicated to us that the deposits of the Ontario Savings Office go directly to the consolidated revenue of the province without the issuance of any debt instrument. I can’t find in the budget, under non-public borrowing or any other area, where that $200 million is indicated as being used by the Treasurer and the consolidated revenue of the province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is shown in the budget --

Mr. Good: It is not under non-public borrowing.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, you will find it on page 19, Province of Ontario Savings Office net deposits, an estimated increase of $31 million.

Mr. Good: Yes, that’s the net figure which I presume is the --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s the estimated increase of the amount on deposit during 1976-1977.

Mr. Good: Yes, but where does the actual $200 million fit into your financing picture?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You would have to go to the balance sheet to find that. The budget only deals with the one year.

Mr. Good: You just don’t treat it as a loan secured by the province for the savings office?

[5:00]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it’s just that it’s an amount that’s available for us to use. In 1974-1975, with the Ontario Energy Corp., we had $100 million on deposit separately. That’s not a good example. We just show the increase. We don’t show the total that’s available, any more than we show the total outstanding anywhere here to the Canada Pension Plan.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we could terminate the questioning at this point and continue again?

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 6

Clerk of the House: Private member’s notice of motion No. 6, Mrs. Campbell.

Resolution: That the Human Rights Code be amended so as to include the provision that no person shall discriminate against another by reason of sexual orientation or affectional preference.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member moves the motion standing in her name. The hon. member may continue.

Mrs. Campbell: I could hope that this matter being of such serious concern to the people of this province, that it might be permitted to go to a vote rather than to be treated with the usual consent accorded private members in their resolutions and bills in this hour.

I am very proud to say to this House that this resolution was put to a general meeting of the Liberal Riding Association of St. George and was passed unanimously by those present. I would like to illustrate for you some of those who were present.

We had in that meeting some of the quite elderly people of the riding. We had some of the young people of the riding. We had many people representing various multicultural groups in that riding. I was proud that this was unanimously adopted by them.

Democracy is a plant of very tender growth. It seems to me that it must be guarded by all of us, but for those in government there is a very special onus and responsibility.

I was reading recently the story of the trial of a young Lithuanian girl. The evidence against her was that she was spreading underground propaganda. She was, I suppose, since she dared to write articles for and disseminate Roman Catholic teaching in an underground newspaper. One of her very real offences was that she helped an elderly, sick man, who was a former priest. For these offences she was sentenced to three years at hard labour and three years’ exile.

It couldn’t happen here. We believe, we say, in individual liberty. I say to the House that the moment one human being shall be denied the right to work or to find accommodation because he or she may vary in lifestyle from what we regard as the norm, we have taken that first long step to break down the fundamental principle of the democracy which we all profess.

I can recall being on the board of control of the city of Toronto when the boys and girls from Yorkville came before us. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, they really weren’t, I guess, that welcome. They had created a lot of problems. When they came before us, Controller Lamport, who was a man who had very swift and simplistic solutions to every problem, believed firmly -- perhaps our Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) would agree with him -- that if we could just put a hockey stick in the hands of every man there would be no problems in our community.

Mr. Nixon: Let them hit each other with them.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes. In any event, to my horror and that of others on the board of control, Controller Lamport was of the opinion that there should be special rules applied to these young people in order that they might be permitted to address the board of control. They had complied with all of the standard rules for any appearance before that body but he didn’t like their lifestyle. He didn’t really approve of their lifestyle and therefore there had to be some other sort of provision for them. I can remember the horror I felt because once that can happen it is so easy to take the next step down the road.

We have all read in the newspapers the stories of the so-called Damien case and I cannot, in truth, comment upon it because I believe it is a matter still before the courts. But the very fact that it could be a question in our society, the fact that the question is raised in the surrounding circumstances that perhaps a human being lost his right to work and his right to employment because he was a homosexual, is a very disturbing thing to me because one starts with that and then says, “Who’s next?” That is the ugliness of it all.

I would like to tell members something that I don’t think too many people really give too much consideration to. In the courts, we faced this lifestyle in young people. I don’t think that too many of us were that adept at understanding. I personally was most grateful for the assistance given to the courts by the various groups in the community who understood so well the problems of these children. They co-operated with us, helping us to locate these children when they ran, as most of them did if they could, helping us to understand a little. It is sad that in many cases these young boys who we saw were cast out by their families. We have to wonder what our principle of living is in a democracy.

I have a very real sense that somehow or other our democracies are being surrounded, in many ways, by other political persuasions or beliefs where there is no recognition of the human right of an individual to live his or her lifestyle providing that he or she does not thereby damage the community. I say there is no evidence that there is damage to the community, that people who have other ways of life than the norm are doing any harm to anybody. They simply want to live freely in accordance with their own philosophies and their own beliefs.

I feel that there does come a time when those of us who believe in depth in democracy must speak out in support of it lest we lose it altogether in a world which is becoming more and more authoritarian and more and more inelastic in the preservation of human liberty.

Mr. Grossman: In rising I would like to firstly congratulate the member for St. George on what I think to be a very important resolution and I suppose also to recognize the full support she has of her constituency organization and give them equal view. In fact, in listening to the composition of it, I suspect it was more startling for me to hear about their unanimity than it was for me to hear about the member for St. George’s support and birth of this resolution.

I wouldn’t be surprised hearing it from her -- but from others, sometimes, unfortunately -- the fact that I and others can stand here today and refer to the fact that unfortunately there are others who find the lifestyles of other people personally distasteful or foreign to their own way of life and their our method of thinking, that they cannot help themselves and perforce sometimes find themselves discriminating, either by forethought or otherwise, against those who simply have a different lifestyle.

[5:15]

I don’t think it sits well in the mouths of lay persons such as myself to get into an analysis of the background, the reasons for some of the different lifestyles that we would run up against in the course of our experience. I don’t think it lies well in our mouths to categorize them as emotional, mental or physical problems, hereditary or otherwise. It is hardly for me to say. In fact, we should not go around trying to categorize. The whole idea of categorizing a person’s lifestyle sorely is foreign to a democracy and surely is foreign to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The preamble of the code reads:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations;”

And it goes on, interestingly:

“And whereas it is public policy in Ontario that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights, without regard to race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, nationality, ancestry or place of origin . . .”

Surely the first part of the second preamble is as important as the words which follow and which I hope are not limiting, other than as they are presently written into the Human Rights Code.

“Every person is free and equal in dignity and rights” -- that’s the key part of that preamble. The question is, from time to time, are we going to look at the Ontario Human Rights Code and decide whether or not it has kept up with some new and different practices which sadly, shockingly and unfortunately, we sometimes see growing up around us? And need we wait until they have grown up around us? At the slightest hint of any general discrimination against any person, particularly when it is only with regard to one’s own private, personal preferences, surely we ought to move immediately. Surely the Ontario Human Rights Code, dealing as it does with human feelings, emotions and, sadly again, prejudices, must be a living document; surely it must be viable and changeable enough to add to it any items which actually or by appearance appear to be becoming a criterion, a hook, an excuse for prejudice.

As the previous speaker, the mover of this resolution, pointed out, our society quite rightly much values individuality, individual uniqueness, the right to do your own thing. How contradictory then it is for us not to enshrine the right of someone to do his own personal thing, to practise his own individuality and express himself or herself, in whichever way he or she feels appropriate, comfortable and right. Surely that is precisely the type of thing which the Ontario Human Rights Code ought to be malleable enough to accommodate easily.

It is all too easy for armchair, small-l liberals to say. “Sure, I’m in favour of the Ontario Human Rights Code. You’re darn right. I’m four-square behind it. I don’t like people who discriminate against race, creed or colour.” I’m not so sure they say that about sex. Nationality, ancestry or place of origin are all very easy things. People say, “Sure, I don’t have any prejudice.” But I wonder if they really deal in their own minds with the type of prejudice that is the subject matter of this resolution.

Too many people don’t even call that prejudice. Too many people think they are not being prejudiced, and they are not practising discrimination, but they are just supporting and doing the natural thing, what is right, and what is conventional. The fact they don’t even recognize that is all the more reason why we ought to take a forward, positive step to enshrine it, to slam it into the Ontario Human Rights Code and say: “You’re darn right that’s discrimination. You may not think it is, but it is. It’s enshrined, and there it is and you cannot practise it.”

In order for a person to live truly freely in a democracy requires each and every person to rest assured that he needn’t face a real, apparent or, most of all I suppose, legal obstacle to the freedom to practise his own individuality in his awn realm, free from any external forces, rules or regulations. I suppose we really can’t stay entirely out of the definition I’ve just talked about. But as far as possible, particularly in the area in which a person does not bother anyone else, or infringe upon anyone else’s rights, surely we must give that person and each and every person the peace of mind and the freedom to walk around entirely free of any shackles, hints, secrets, or whisperings of prejudice of any sort whatsoever.

It’s not enough to say, “Yes, I’m a pretty tolerant fellow.” If you’re tolerant, it means you’re putting up with something, and one would hope that this subject would not be called something with which one has to put up. In fact, it should not be the subject matter of tolerance. Anything that this Legislature could do to enshrine this concept in the Ontario Human Rights Code would be entirely consistent with that code and its object and, I suggest to you, something which each and every elected member ought to be primarily concerned with -- equality and freedom in our democratic system.

Mr. Bounsall: Resolutions to include sexual orientation in the Human Rights Code as yet another area of discrimination which should not be allowed in Ontario were passed by the southwestern Ontario regional conference of the New Democratic Party last spring and passed this fall by the Windsor-Sandwich NDP Riding Association and, I understand, by now by several other NDP ridings associations across Ontario. The resolutions that were passed will come before the NDP provincial convention to be held in Kitchener later this spring, May 11 to 13. I have full confidence that on the principle of the matter those resolutions so presented would have a successful passage at that convention and become formally a part of party policy.

I would hope, however, that we wouldn’t have to wait too long before this present government recognizes the very great need for this change in the Ontario Human Rights Code. It may be only a matter of time, the government might say, before this does come in, but whenever it comes it will not be soon enough. We were assured a year ago last fall that amendments to the Human Rights Code would be presented to the house as of a year ago, that is last spring. Those were not presented, and since then we have the Human Rights Commission engaged in a review of the entire Human Rights Code and on a tour around the province they are meeting with anyone interested in changes to this code. I must view that as a delaying tactic and I would decry it on that basis. It is a delaying tactic to bringing in very meaningful changes in the code, especially since research has been done in all the areas at which they may be looking.

We don’t any longer need to have any delays in building into the code that discrimination is to be disallowed on the basis of things like physical disability, political orientation, criminal records and importantly, sexual orientation particularly as it involves hiring. These are four areas that should be in the code now. I am concerned that this review by the Ontario Human Rights Commission simply is going to cause a much longer delay than necessary to have these matters built into the code.

It seems very strange to me as a person, and someone who has considered, over the last four or five years, the operation of the Human Rights Commission and what should be placed in the code, to be standing here today enunciating the principle that persons have a right to have their own sexual preferences and not be discriminated against because of those preferences. It is such a basic right that human beings, in Ontario or anywhere, should have a preference in whatever field they so choose, on whatever matter they so choose, including sexual orientation and not be discriminated against because of having that view.

If that is basically accepted, and I can’t see how any right-thinking man or woman considering the situation cannot accept those views, then our Human Rights Code cries out for a thorough and clear statement in the Act that sexual orientation is not a basis on which discrimination can occur.

My main interest in this is in the area of employment. My personal experience has been that a person has been a willing and valued worker up to the time at which that person announces, finally, after much hesitation and after much doubt, because of our societal attitude toward homosexuals, that he or she is, in fact, a homosexual. There has been no decrease in the quantity or quality of his or her work and yet that person is discriminated against.

In many cases it’s just a hassle, not, in most cases, by his or her fellow workers and not necessarily by immediate supervisors, but by upper levels of management in the company where it is somehow felt that the person is now a detriment to the company as an employee. Yet that person was a valued employee beforehand. The fact that he or she has a sexual preference or a sexual orientation which is not the majority view in Ontario should be no grounds whatsoever for that person in his or her employment to he found to be an unacceptable employee. On those grounds particularly, the Human Rights Code must be changed and must be changed immediately to include sexual orientation therein.

I think the matter was highlighted by the John Damien case -- a homosexual employed by the Ontario Racing Commission. I won’t comment on the rights and wherefores of that case because I gather it’s before the courts but the initial reasons given for his firing is that he might -- might -- be prejudicial in his decisions because of his homosexual leanings, in favour of jockeys or others who he knows may have those leanings. Yet at the time there was not a shred of evidence produced that a bias of any kind was operating or that John Damien was biased in that direction.

[5:30]

Why are homosexuals, people of different sexual orientations, discriminated against in our society now, or why are they treated differently? Basically, it’s a fear that in whatever job they are in, they could be blackmailed in that job, a fear that exists only because we don’t have discrimination against persons on the grounds of sexual orientation in the present code. If there were no grounds by which someone should be blackmailed because it was now in the code quite clearly that they can’t be discriminated against for that reason, then the fear of blackmail itself would completely disappear.

In order to remove that fear in persons’ minds, we need, therefore, to clearly include this in the code and Ontario needs to take, through its various boards and commissions, a much more mature attitude than it has toward its employees in matters of this sort. Certainly the subject matter we are debating today and what has been proposed -- the inclusion of sexual orientation in the code -- is long overdue in Ontario and definitely and categorically should be included.

One could go on and give further examples. One could go on and philosophize and give more reasons as to why it’s against basic human rights for discrimination on these grounds to occur but it can all be summed up very simply. It’s a discrimination which is not justified. It’s a discrimination which should not be allowed to continue. It seems inconceivable that it could continue in our present-day society. We simply need a change in the code to ensure that no discrimination in a formal sense -- and in my interest, which is particularly in the area of employment -- should continue.

Mr. Reed: It is with a sense of deep pride that I rise in support of this resolution, which is a matter of principle. It is not every day in this House that we have the opportunity to debate a matter of principle and while our principles prevail, and hopefully prevail in the decisions we make, this is a direct matter of principle. I would like to commend my colleague from St. George for presenting this resolution and expressing her case most eloquently. I should also like to acknowledge the words of the member from St. Andrew-St. Patrick and the member for Windsor-Sandwich who both spoke in support of this resolution.

In our opening prayer when we begin the proceedings of the day in this House, I recall the words “where freedom and justice prevail.” How delicate is that freedom and that justice, and how much care we must take from day to day to see that those freedoms and that justice do prevail. The resolution deals with a proposed amendment to the Human Rights Code. For the people of different sexual orientation, freedom and justice in the province are still smothered by prejudice and while we can change the law it often takes some time to change people’s hearts. I believe one of the roles of government is to express the highest ideals on matters of principle, the highest intent and not to become the victim of the prejudice and the narrow-mindedness still harboured by some.

I’ve said we cannot legislate an end to discrimination, and we can’t. But we must take a stand, and while some of us will have to stand alone sometimes when it comes to matters of principle, I think that’s one of the responsibilities we have.

I support this resolution wholeheartedly and it is my earnest hope that it will become a part of the Human Rights Code of Ontario. “Where freedom and justice prevail” must always be kept before us. We must always be cognizant of its import.

The actions between consenting adults in private should not be the business of the state, and in this resolution we can move forward in that direction.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking against the resolution for two basic reasons. First, I think we have to put the whole debate into its proper perspective. The Human Rights Code, I would point out, deals with the basic conditions of man. It deals with man’s race, his creed, his nationality, his colour, sex, and age, as well as marital status. I suggest that the Ontario Human Rights Code was not designed nor intended to be Ontario’s answer to Emily Post’s book of etiquette and social behaviour.

The resolution we have before us is endeavouring to legislate a form of social behaviour. It could well be argued in this House as well that someone should bring in a similar amendment which, in place of the words “sexual preference,” would provide for sartorial preference or perhaps leisure time preference.

The point is the statute is not designed to legislate social behaviour. We cannot legislate, I suggest, morality nor social behaviour, nor was the Act so intended in the first place. It was to protect a fundamental condition of man which does not relate in any way to his daily activities or personal preferences whether they be sexual or otherwise.

So I think that is the fundamental argument one can use against arguing for expanding the definition of provisions in the Act to relate it to human activity rather than to basic condition of man. A great deal of the discussion this afternoon has been on the area of social activity, and is related to the area of homosexuality.

The proposal of the resolution has suggested that in this swinging age of ours, where we have different and varying lifestyles, we should be tolerant of these various attitudes and preferences, and with that I do not disagree. But what I do disagree with is the fact that the problem before us has been minimized to simply represent a new swinging type of lifestyle rather than the fact that it may represent some deeper-rooted problems.

It was suggested by my colleague that he did not want to discuss the technical or medical or professional consequences of homosexuality. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and this is the other point I wish to make and why I speak against the bill, that to in fact enact such a clause into the statute would be giving a legal form of endorsement to a social activity that would imply a state of normalcy and general public acceptance.

The Criminal Code was amended in 1969 so as to remove prohibitions against homosexual acts between consenting adults in private, and so it should have done. As such, I think it provided a degree of security and protected the civil rights of persons who engaged in homosexuality, whether they be male or female, that heretofore had not existed. They did, in fact, have to carry on their personal preferences and activities in a cloak-and-dagger style. I suggest with that amendment having come forward that this is no longer the case, that they do have their civil rights, which are unimpeded, and that they can carry on their activities in their own personal ways. But to suggest, as this amendment would, Mr. Speaker, that there is total normalcy associated with homosexuality, I will turn to one of the professionals for some guidance and advice. And I would, in so doing, turn to a perceptive editorial that was published in the American Journal of Psychotherapy in April of 1973. At that time the learned editor of that publication stated in part as follows:

“It would appear to be a distortion of reality to deny that homosexual behaviour when there are heterosexual partners readily available, constitutes a gross distortion of basic drives that are applicable to all animals in whom there is a differentiation between males and females for reproductive purposes.”

The basic purposes of sexual differentiation, even limiting this phenomenon to mammals, is for the propagation of a species. This does not mean humans must reproduce to be normal, since reproduction can lead to overproduction which would be harmful to the species, a problem we are experiencing during the current period of demographic over-concentration.

However, distortions of basic, instinctive animal drives upon which the survival of the species could theoretically depend cannot be considered in the same light as psychodynamic and psychophysiologic disruptions such as frigidity, premature or retarded ejaculation, and the like.

Overt, compulsively-repeated homosexual acts when heterosexual patterns are freely available constitute a distortion or deviation from basic, instinctual drives.

[5:45]

Mr. Nixon: That article favours birth control.

Mr. Williams: To continue:

These acts in themselves are documentations deserving of the label of illness, even if the individual functions well vocationally and socially in other ways. We cannot agree, then, with the ideas expressed by some that many homosexuals function in a way that cannot be considered an illness, nor do we countenance the almost frivolously expressed view that homosexuality in itself merely represents a variant sexual preference, with the implication that it is abnormal only because society traditionally has disapproved of it.

The so-called scientific backing accumulated by the spokesmen for the various gay liberation groups that implies homosexuality is a variation of normalcy is, for the most part, poorly conceived both conceptually and methodologically. Such pseudoscientific inaccuracies should be exposed for what they are and should not be utilized to obtain justifiable legal rights. Justice should not be based upon pseudo-fraudulent briefs based upon material that has pseudo-validity.

Homosexuality is usually just a tip of a psychodynamic, psychosocial iceberg. Homosexuality does not exist in splendid isolation but is usually intertwined with a gamut of other psychological problems of varying magnitude, very often of severe proportions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has one minute.

Mr. Williams: Those are not my observations, Mr. Speaker. Those are the observations of a learned member of the profession and were in an article in the American Journal of Psychotherapy.

This, in a professional way, responds to the suggestion that the activities of the homosexual movement are now to be considered normal and no longer different and apart. I think they have to be respected and given their rights as individuals themselves. I have so stated; and the amendment of the Criminal Code, I think, accomplished that. However, I do not think we can suggest by legislating such a provision into the law that a mantle of normalcy should be bestowed upon persons who do not behave in a totally normal social way as recognized by society.

I do not limit it to this particular situation of homosexuality but it has been used as the specific example today so I have spoken to that specifically. To come back to my main point, I oppose this resolution because the Ontario Human Rights Code was designed to protect the basic conditions of man, not to legislate and dictate the social behaviour and activity of man.

Mr. Samis: You belong in the 18th century.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak as succinctly as I can in support of the resolution put forward by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) and supported by all who have spoken up to now, except the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams).

The resolution specifically states: “The Human Rights Code be amended so as to include the provision that no person shall discriminate against another by reason of sexual orientation or affectional preference.” I want to speak a little later on about the wording of it and to make a suggestion which I hope will be helpful both to the government and to the Human Rights Commission in connection with the insertion of the concept in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

First of all, I can say no better than the leader of our party has stated in replying to correspondence, of which he has a significant volume, about the position of this party: The NDP supports the inclusion of the concept of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code. Our member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall), my colleague who spoke earlier in this debate, has spoken on other occasions about the matter.

I understand that the Human Rights Commission is presently doing a complete review of the code and will be making recommendations to the government on changes. It would be more productive to get the commission to include sexual orientation as one of the recommendations than to rely on an opposition member’s resolution in the Legislature, although all efforts have value. I intend to raise a number of items with the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Tom Symons, and your particular point is one I will urge him to include.

First of all, it is the position of our party to support the inclusion in the Human Rights Code of the concept of sexual orientation. I think, in fact, the time has passed, from the comments made by the leader of this party in replying to the particular inquiry to which I have just referred. It is now a matter of some significant urgency that the government seriously consider, particularly in view of this debate today, the amendment of the Human Rights Code without having the matter further protracted.

There are an immense number of other fields of discriminatory matters which will have to be dealt with by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in its review. I would suggest that the time has come when this matter can now be dealt with without in any way taking away from the overall review to be made by the Human Right Commission.

I, too, do not want to comment about the John Damien case because it is sub judice and the rule of this assembly precludes any discussion of it. I know that to be so because I spoke earlier today with the office of John Laskin, who is acting for the Ontario Human Rights Commission when that matter will come before the Supreme Court of Ontario either later on this spring or in the fall.

I do, however, urge the need for simplicity and clarity of language if the amendment is going to be introduced by the government. I think whenever there is a code of rights, whether you are talking about the Habeas Corpus Act or whether you are talking about the Bill of Rights in England, or whether you are talking about the first amendment to the constitution of the United States, known as the Bill of Rights, it’s important that the words be clear and as simple as the English language permits for adequate communication of exactly what is being said. I want to return to that point in a minute or two, if I may.

I want to point out why I think it’s urgent. In Saskatchewan what has become known as the Douglas Wilson case was decided by the court of Queen’s Bench and the Crown side earlier this year I have here a copy of the decision of Mr. Justice Johnson of that court when he dealt with the specific situation. Very briefly, the facts of that case are quite simply.

Mr. Douglas Wilson is a graduate student in the College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, and is also employed as a sessional lecturer in the said college. In an advertisement which appeared in an issue of the Sheaf, the campus newspaper, Mr. Wilson publicly associated himself with the gay liberation movement and apparently sought to promote an academic gay association. Mr. Wilson is an admitted homosexual. He also admits his male gender.

Shortly after the advertisement appeared, Mr. Wilson was advised by the head of the department that he would not be allowed to go into the public schools to supervise practice teaching to be carried out by students of the College of Education. This decision was confirmed and supported by the dean of the college and the president of the university.

On the complaint to Mr. Wilson, to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, and after two officers of the commission had attempted to effect a settlement, the university was served with a notice of formal inquiry over the signature of the chairman of the commission which alleged that the University of Saskatchewan had discriminated against Mr. Wilson in regard to his employment, or any term or condition of his employment, by refusing to allow him to supervise practice teachers because of his sex, and in particular because he is a homosexual, contrary to section 3 of the Fair Employment Practices Act of that province. That section, as it was amended in 1972 in Saskatchewan, stated:

“No employer shall refuse to employ or to continue to employ or otherwise discriminate against any person in regard to employment or any term or condition of employment because of his race, religion, religious creed, colour, sex, nationality, ancestry or place of origin.”

The case before the court was a clear-cut case dealt with entirely on the construction to be put upon the word sex as it appeared in that section, which is significantly similar to the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The court clearly said other grounds had been raised but it didn’t have to consider those grounds. We had one of those situations in which the case is clear and simple. In that case, the question the court posed to itself is:

“In short, does discrimination against a homosexual, because of his homosexuality and his publicizing of the fact, constitute discrimination against him on the basis of sex as that word appears in the Fair Employment Practices Act?”

The court went on to give the cardinal rules of interpretation and recited the traditional authorities:

“If the words of the statute are themselves precise and unambiguous then no more can he necessary than to expound those words in their ordinary and natural sense. The words themselves alone do, in such a case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver.”

It makes a further quotation, that it may not be necessary to so resort to dictionary meanings if their meaning “as they would have been generally understood the day after the statute was passed is clear.”

The point which the court made was not retrogressive in its view, in any sense. It simply said that at the point in time when the word sex was introduced into the Saskatchewan Fair Employment Practice Act in 1972, it was in obvious response to the demands of women for equal pay for equal work and equal rights to employment of all kinds. It was the time when all references to distinction of gender on the economic scene were discouraged.

The court went on:

“It is also noteworthy that in recent years the public attitude to homosexuality and lesbianism has undergone a marked change. It is a far cry from the days of Oscar Wilde. The Criminal Code has been amended to permit homosexual activities between consenting adults. If the Legislature had intended the word sex, as it appears in section 3 of the Fair Employment Practices Act, to cover homosexuality or lesbianism, it ought to have said so in express language. Its failure to do so confirms my view that it did not so intend.”

Therefore, the matter was clearly decided.

I think it’s fair to say that one doesn’t have to think too far to indicate that quite likely, on a similar issue before a court in the Province of Ontario, that is the decision a court, of necessity, with a view to the interpretation of statutes, would come to in our case.

I am suggesting, in the two minutes which are before me, that the amendment should be made, but my concern is about the words “sexual orientation or affectional preference.” I took the trouble to get the dictionary meanings of orientation and affectional. I find that if one reads it they are among those more or less abstruse words of the English language with no clear, defined meaning. Orientation in one meaning means facing toward the east and I couldn’t see that a court would be greatly helped by having that word orientation in the Act.

Mr. Nixon: Certainly if you were the judge it would be a little difficult.

Mr. Renwick: I’m simply pleading with the government to introduce the amendment now. I think it’s consistent with the position of all three of the parties, although individual members in each particular party may have some reservations about the problem.

I would ask, if the amendment is to be introduced, that the word used is homosexualism and not the words affectional preference or sexual orientation because of the haziness which surrounds those concepts. On the basis of that Saskatchewan case, what the judge said is that if the Legislature is going to enact in this field, it should do it in clear and unambiguous terms. I would suggest the word to be included is simply homosexualism and that would solve the problem.

I would seriously ask the government House leader if his government would not consider the introduction into this assembly of an immediate amendment to the Human Rights Code to cover this problem so that persons in Ontario will not be subjected to the kind of discrimination that was referred to in the Douglas Wilson case. It is a clear-cut case. I think our courts, by and large, would follow that decision. There’s no need laboriously to wait until that event occurs; and there’s no need for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, in my view, to further consider the problem.

Mr. Speaker: It being 6 o’clock I do now leave the chair. We will resume at 8.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.