31st Parliament, 1st Session

L045 - Tue 8 Nov 1977 / Mar 8 nov 1977

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with second reading of Bill 73. I believe the hon. member for Bellwoods had the floor.

Mr. McClellan: I am rising to oppose Bill 73 on second reading. I would like to set out for the House the basis of our opposition to this bill. I see it as the final step backward or the final step in the dismantling of what was once an excellent provincial minimum income program. When the GAINS program was first introduced in 1974, it represented an excellent bit of progress for this province of Ontario. It was in its structure a very good piece of legislation.

While we on this side of the House had arguments against the adequacy of the benefit levels, we approved -- in fact we had demanded -- some kind of a minimum income program for Ontario’s elderly pensioners. We were pleased when the GAINS program was introduced. As I have said, we were unhappy with the low level of the minimum income ceiling that had been established under GAINS, but in its structure it was an excellent program and it offered much potential for building upon.

The first step in the destruction of the provincial GAINS program took place the last time an amendment to the bill was before us, when the residency requirement was changed from five years to 10 years. We on this side of the House fought that as vigorously as we could, because we saw that as a destructive step which established in this province two classes of citizens: Those who have been here for long periods of time and these who are newcomers to this province, those who are immigrants and new Canadians.

They were discriminated against under the amendments to the GAINS bill that were introduced, I believe, in 1976. They are Canadian citizens who are living in my riding of Bellwoods, in the ridings of Dovercourt, Oakwood, High Park, Parkdale and Downsview and in all of the communities in this province where new Canadians have come and settled. They are Canadian citizens who are discriminated against under the legislation, and that is very tragic.

We now have the final dismantling of what was once a minimum income program for all of the people of this province. What this bill does, through the mechanism of a relation to the residency and eligibility requirements of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, the changes that were implemented by the federal government in July, is to remove any concept of a minimum income for new Canadians. That essentially is what this bill does. There is no other way of cutting it; there is no other way of describing it.

I can cite some remarks from the compendium of information that was provided to the critics by the ministry. I quote from page three of the background statement: “In order to avoid substantially increased benefit and administration costs created by the federal change, parallel changes to GAINS qualifications will be made.” They go on to explain that they have brought the GAINS program into line with the federal program for this simple reason. They have done this, the compendium says, “because the calculation of the GAINS guarantee has been based upon the full old age security level, therefore, partial old age security recipients would have the difference between partial and full old age security made up fully by the GAINS payment if no change in GAINS qualifications were made.”

That’s it in a nutshell. The fact that the federal legislation was bad legislation and the fact that the federal legislation discriminates against new Canadians and against immigrants does not justify the destruction of the provincial GAINS program.

What should happen, as is suggested on page three of the background statement, is that despite the fact that the federal government has imposed residency requirements on OAS and GIS which effectively exclude new Canadians -- that is to say, people who arrive in Canada after July, 1977 -- from obtaining full old age security and GIS benefits for 40 years, despite the inequities and injustices of the federal law, Ontario should have continued to provide a minimum income program for all senior citizens.

It is simply iniquitous that this change to parallel the federal changes has been made. It is an enormously complicated bill technically. I don’t propose to go into the technicalities of the bill, but I need to try to describe to you, Mr. Speaker, what in fact this bill does. As I said, it establishes two classes of recipients. There are those who are referred to under the legislation as entitled to increments. Ministry officials refer to them as “increment people.” These are people who meet the full residency requirements in order to qualify for old age security and guaranteed income supplement either now or in the future. They and only they will be entitled to a minimum income. These are the only people in Ontario who will be entitled to a minimum income.

Mr. Wildman: It is discriminatory.

Mr. McClellan: It is discriminatory. The other category of recipients who are entitled to a monthly benefit under the amended GAINS legislation, referred to as monthly benefits recipients by ministry staff, are entitled only to partial old age security and guaranteed income supplement. For them there is no minimum income. There is no income floor below which they will not be permitted to fall. That, as I said, was the essence of the old GAINS program. For every citizen of this province who had been here for five years and who had no other income, a basic income floor had been set by the GAINS program below which no citizen would be permitted to fall. Now that has effectively been undermined and destroyed for those who come to this country after July, 1977.

There is another group of people who are here now and who will have the choice of applying either under the old regulations or under the new federal regulations, but it will take a chartered accountant to make the choice rationally as to whether one should apply under the old provisions of OAS-GIS or under the new provisions of OAS-GIS. That is a situation that nobody in this province, or in this country, should have to undergo.

What’s being offered to new Canadians in a nutshell is that they can go on welfare. They can go on welfare or they can go on family benefits -- if they reach their retirement years and they qualify either not at all because they have not been here for 10 years, or they qualify only for a portion of OAS-GIS and GAINS. And again, to qualify for the full OAS-GIS GAINS you have to be here for 40 years. And it is simply unacceptable to establish those kinds of discriminations as between long-term residents of this country and those who are going to be new arrivals.

On the basis of my own experience as a representative of a multi-cultural riding I find that my constituents will not go near a welfare office. My constituents, when they are faced with unemployment and not being eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, or if they are on Workmen’s Compensation and are having difficulties with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, they will not go to a welfare office. There is that much stigma attached to going on welfare within new Canadian communities. That is a simple reality that anybody who represents a new Canadian community is well aware of. Yet the only recourse -- and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick knows what I am talking about --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That makes one of us.

Mr. McClellan: The only recourse, I put to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick and anybody else who is willing to listen, that is being offered to the elderly from this point on, is to go to the welfare office and then transfer onto family benefits. But the concept that had been available under the old GAINS program of a minimum income ceiling below which no one would be permitted to fall, based only on your current income, no longer exists.

We opposed the changes to the GAINS legislation when they were introduced previously bringing the requirements up to 10 years. We oppose this final dismantling of the GAINS program that is before us today. There is no room in this province for two classes of citizens. There is no room in this country for two classes of citizens.

That the federal government has so estranged itself from the realities and experiences of what was once a very strong part of their constituency is their problem, but the injustices and inequities built into the federal amendments to OAS-GIS last spring should not be built into Ontario provincial programs. We should go back to an adequate GAINS program, which establishes a minimum income for all the elderly in this province based solely on an income test.

All of this nonsense about residence requirement has only to do with residual nonsense, dating from the Elizabethan poor laws, that ought to be scrapped. It has no place, it has no business in a modern industrial society. Human rights do not attach themselves to people by virtue of their nationality. Human rights accompany people by virtue of their humanity. When people come to this country they bring those rights with them and one of those rights is the right to a decent and adequate income in their old age, without the stigmatization and degradation and humiliation of having to apply for welfare.


I hope that my colleagues to my right will have the wisdom to appreciate the rightness of what I’m saying and will reconsider their position. Because this is --

Mr. Riddell: The member has to make his argument a lot more convincing than that. Why should a person be able to qualify for --

Mr. McClellan: I regret that, but the reality is this legislation is discriminatory and should be opposed.

Mr. B. Newman: I rise to support this piece of legislation. I do it because of some of the comments that the previous speaker made. He mentioned that this legislation makes two classes of citizens. Unless we have parallel legislation with the federal legislation we would have two classes of citizens. We would have one class that would qualify under provincial legislation; we would have another that would qualify under federal legislation.

Mr. Wildman: And some wouldn’t qualify at all.

Mr. Philip: Because the federal government is wrong doesn’t mean we have to be wrong.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If you had your way everyone would qualify for welfare.

Mr. B. Newman: I think it’s quite important to have uniformity if at all possible, and it is possible in this case.

But that isn’t the only reason. There is no one in this House who isn’t concerned for those in need; everyone is, be they to the left of us, across the aisle or on my right or in my immediate vicinity. We’re all concerned and we want to see that everyone that comes into our country is treated fairly.

But, Mr. Speaker, the members on the right, as members of the Legislature, think that they should qualify for maximum members’ pensions after three or five years. It’s the same thing. Sure they’re talking about the same there. They want an individual to come into the country and immediately qualify without making a substantial contribution.

Mr. Conway: Give away the store.

Mr. B. Newman: They can become Canadian citizens in three years. So in three years they would qualify for maximum benefits. That’s what they want them to do. Yet the UAW itself and all the unions fought for a 30 and out and a 35 and out.

Mr. Wildman: What’s that got to do with it?

Mr. B. Newman: Why didn’t they fight for a three years and out? The principle is exactly the same. If it’s good for 30 and out or 35 and out, then it’s also good for three and out, with a maximum pension.

Mr. Laughren: You are an embarrassment.

Mr. McClellan: This is old age security we are talking about.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, all pensions are generally based on contributions. To make any pension actuarially sound, it should be based on contributions.

Mr. Bounsall: These are not actuarial.

Mr. B. Newman: I know this is not one you can base necessarily on contributions --

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, it destroys your argument.

Mr. B. Newman: -- but provision is being made in here to take care of the senior citizen or the individual who comes into Canada and does not necessarily live here for the 40 years. After all, it’s two and a half per cent for each year of residency, essentially so.

One place where I do differ with the government is that I think that any GAINS programs should be indexed. If the federal government indexes their OAS and their GIS, GAINS likewise should be indexed in the same fashion.

Some of the members don’t realize that those of us who live in border towns could have thousands of repatriates coming into Canada and others just crossing the border, living for three years, collecting what they would be entitled to from the American side plus what they could get after a three-year residency or some short period of time.

I think out of all fairness the legislation we have here today does not necessarily meet all of my concerns, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Laughren: What a sad performance.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Collecting what they would be entitled to.

Mr. di Santo: I rise in opposition to the bill, not because of the very ludicrous argument made by the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Laughren: Silly arguments.

Mr. di Santo: In all honesty, I think he must have been speaking of a different bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You were whipped into line; that’s why. Your leader said do this and you are doing it. You’re a bunch of sheep.

Mr. di Santo: We are not talking tonight of the requirement that immigrants or Canadian citizens should have in order to have a full or partial pension. We are talking tonight of a bill which is modifying the GAINS program instituted by this government in 1974. GAINS is a supplement given to those Canadian residents or citizens who do not qualify for the minimum pension. It is for those Canadians who have been working for a number of years, who have not been able to contribute towards the pension plan and who don’t qualify for that minimum income about which even the government’s counterparts in Ottawa are talking today. If you read today’s newspapers, Mr. Speaker, you will see the federal National Health and Welfare Minister Monique Begin is talking of trying to work out a guaranteed minimum income system.

With this bill we are removing that basic attempt made by the government of Ontario in 1974 to bring about some equity for those senior citizens who have been residents of this country for a number of years but didn’t have a chance to contribute fully towards the pension plan. With the GAINS program this government gave them the possibility of getting a minimum of income which would allow them to live in dignified way. As my colleague from Bellwoods said before, we thought when the GAINS program was introduced it wasn’t good enough. Even today a pensioner who gets the maximum of GIS and the maximum of GAINS and reaches $294.82 a month is still below the poverty level.

We recognize that, but what this government is doing with this bill is subtracting money from those people who came to this country and who are Canadian citizens, whether they have been living in this country for 15, 20 or 25 years. They are subtracting from their pensions, from their supplement, an amount of money which is quite substantial. In fact, it can be seen from the background material supplied by the minister that if a person has been a resident of this country for 30 years and then qualifies for full GAINS supplement, he or she will get $294.82. But if somebody has been living in this country for 10 years, then he or she will get $181.99, which is more than a $100 difference.

What does that mean not only in financial terms for a pensioner, but in human terms? We are treating citizens of this country in two different ways. We are treating citizens who have certain requirements of residency in one way, while citizens who for reasons we may not know, for reasons that are their own, citizens who have left this country before the 40-year requirement, we are treating in a different way. That’s discrimination.

I think this is one of the ways this government has always treated the most vulnerable and weakest group of our people. We know that the government takes a different attitude when we speak of Inco. When Inco lays off 2,800 workers, they don’t talk the same way to Inco.

We read today in the Financial Post that there are big Canadian companies -- Alcan and Co-Steel -- which are investing money in the US. The government is not threatening to withdraw their tax exemptions, but when they come to pensioners and immigrants they do not react to them. That’s why they hate them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Such absolute balderdash. You don’t know what you are talking about, Odoardo. You are badly misinformed.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, go back and go to sleep.

Mr. di Santo: This is the same cynical attitude that we have repeatedly noticed in the Minister of Labour when she deals with the injured workers. The last example was the opening of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll deal with Bill 73, please.

Mr. di Santo: Yes, but Bill 73, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, --

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, she is an emotional cripple.

Mr. di Santo: Bill 73, unfortunately, reflects the general attitude of the government of which the Minister of Labour is one example.

Hon. B. Stephenson: At least I am intact, which is more than I can say for you.

Mr. Wildman: That’s true.

Mr. di Santo: As I said before, we oppose this bill which has nothing to do with the pension or qualifications for a pension.

Mr. Warner: The coffee bean is waiting over there.

Mr. di Santo: We’re not advocating full pensions for residents of this country after three or five years, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville was saying. We’re not saying that. We are talking about the supplements which are a minimum amount of money.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s the same principle.

Mr. di Santo: We are talking about the $38 which is subtracted from the people who most need it and for this reason we are opposing the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member who wishes to enter the debate? If not, the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the members for their comments on this bill. I was interested to hear the remarks from the members for Erie and Windsor-Walkerville. They both appeared to have a good insight as to the intent and purpose of the bill, and indicated the support of their party for it and I thank them.

I think the point the member for Erie made was quite true. It will assist more recent residents, dwelling in Ontario for 10 years or more. I think that’s the most important point.

In listening to the arguments raised by the member for Bellwoods and, latterly, the member for Downsview, I’m nonplussed at how they arrive at the rationale for their argument.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There is no rationale.

Mr. Warner: We wouldn’t expect you to understand.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: We are talking about the guaranteed annual income supplement, a benefit paid in Ontario impartially to all persons who can qualify, in the first instance, for the old age security pension and subsequently for the guaranteed income supplement. We’re providing a benefit. It’s not a pension; nor is it a peg to income in the way the member for Bellwoods seemed to imply and as his colleague did as well. I will come to that in just a moment.

Here is a benefit which is now going to be extended and broadened to include a whole new range of people who previously did not qualify. This is especially true for the family and relatives of new Canadian citizens who have come here to be with their relatives and who previously did not qualify in any way. Now, after 10 years’ residency with one year in Ontario, they will be able to qualify for a partial old age security pension, a full guaranteed income supplement if their incomes permit it --

Mr. McClellan: That is double speaking.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: -- and a full GAINS benefit if their incomes permit it.

Mr. McClellan: You don’t understand the bill yourself.


Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I will say it another way. In computing the way a recipient is paid GAINS in Ontario, the recipient who has a full pension is considered to have a full pension in the way we compute our supplement payment. To put it another way, the amount of the monthly benefit paid in Ontario will be equivalent to the monthly increment that would be payable to such persons were they entitled to receive a full monthly pension under the federal Act. We do not take it down in terms of the number of years required in residency as that is pegged to the old age security pension.

In talking about this bill, the member for Bellwoods and his colleagues referred to the matter of discrimination. I suppose it’s predictable in terms of the philosophy of their party --

Mr. Wildman: We don’t believe in discrimination.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: -- but I thought it was not a very strong argument and certainly it was one which failed to convince me; they didn’t even express it very strongly themselves.

If there is discrimination, I submit that it is really in the order of dual discrimination at the federal level. In the first instance, if there is anything discriminatory at all, it is discrimination against those who qualify in some way for the old age pension and for the subsequent benefits as against those who do not because they lack the residency. In the second instance, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville has pointed out, there is also an implied discrimination against those who have lived and worked in this country over a period of years and how they have achieved their residency.

Mr. Laughren: Shameful.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Frankly, I think what we are talking about is a really excellent program and one that leads in its field, and has led from the time it was introduced in 1974, in terms of what it does -- and this I can say with impunity -- over any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Mr. McClellan: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Warner: The minister of crumbs.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: What we are talking about is a provision in Ontario for a whole new group of pensioners who will receive the same amount that they would receive if they qualified for a full pension. There is no discrimination in terms of residency in terms of the way GAINS is paid.

Mr. Warner: That’s a real big “if.”

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you live on the $38 supplement?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: The point of the bill is that the benefit is pegged to income as is the federal guaranteed income supplement, and it is intended to assist senior citizens who are resident in Ontario and who require that supplement.

Mr. McClellan: But there is no income ceiling.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: As has been already mentioned, there are other benefits available for those who do not have their residency qualifications, and I refer to family benefits.

Mr. di Santo: Yes, sure. Welfare.

Mr. Laughren: Lick somebody’s boots.

Mr. Walker: More crumbs. You spend your time crushing crackers over there.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Finally, I thank the members of the opposition party for their support. I have to say that I find it regrettable that the members of the third party are not supporting this bill. I think that it is no credit to their party.

Mr. Warner: We are the conscience of Ontario.


Mr. Speaker: Order.

The House divided on the motion by Hon. Mrs. Scrivener for second reading of Bill 73, which was approved on the following vote:

























































(Simcoe East)






(Prince Edward-Lennox)


(Simcoe Centre)


Van Horne





Worton -- 64.







(Hamilton Centre)

di Santo












Wildman -- 18.

Ayes 64; nays 18.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.


Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moved third reading of Bill 73, An Act to amend the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of third reading of Bill 73 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.


Hon. Mr. Parrott moved second reading of Bill 25, An Act respecting Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister not going to make a statement?

Mr. Speaker: The bill has passed second reading. What is your wish?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that ruling, I was talking to my colleague at the time. We were under the impression with regard to these amendments to the Ryerson bill, since they have been put off for some time and since we were under the impression as well that the members of the board wished to be available to us for this debate this evening and present in the House, that there would be a ministerial statement. If that was to have been the case -- and we certainly expected that that was to be the case -- as a result, I would ask for the reconsideration of that matter because that was certainly the expectation we had.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the evening, and it seems so very pleasant in here this evening, we should perhaps accept the suggestion that we do have debate on second reading, although I have no opening statement.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if I may just speak to the point of order, we were waiting our opportunity. Usually you recognize the official opposition first.


Mr. Martel: We were waiting our turn for the Liberals to be recognized and we would appreciate if Mr. Speaker would give us an opportunity to take part in the second reading debate. I don’t think there is that much difference in what’s going to transpire, but I think it would be important that we give the bill the consideration it deserves.

Mr. Nixon: He should be running for leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think this only highlights the need for members to pay attention to what is going on.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You wouldn’t get away with that at Ryerson.

Mr. Speaker: The question was duly put and members were given an ample opportunity to respond as they saw fit. I heard nothing.


Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of what has been said and given the spirit of the House tonight, I’m willing to forget what has gone on before. We will consider second reading of Bill 25. The hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot has the floor.

Mr. Sweeney: I have been advised by the minister that he would like to get this bill through as quickly as possible, but that other one was absolutely ridiculous. Let me say at the opening to the minister I have no intention of unduly delaying this bill. I would however want to point out, and I think it should be on the record at this time, that when amendments were made to this bill back in 1971 and 1972 there was a clear commitment by this minister’s predecessor -- I guess two predecessors back -- that it would come back in for review within two years.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is ordered in fact by the bill.


Mr. Sweeney: Okay. It has been put off and put off. As a matter of fact, as early as 1975 we had a clear indication it was supposed to be coming forward. It was put off again in 1976 and now into 1977. I make that observation only because we in all three parties have been given some indication by the Ryerson community they want this bill to go through. However, I think they should recognize if it were held up even tonight, it certainly wouldn’t be our fault.

I also want to point out to the minister that I intend to support the bill. I want to make some reference to certain aspects of it and some of its implications, but I certainly will support the bill itself.

There are two chief points to this bill. The first one is the expansion of the board of governors from 13 members to 23 members and also a broader representation of that board of governors. One of the broader representations is that the government appointees will no longer have the very heavy influence on that board they have had in the past. I will certainly speak to the reason why I think that’s necessary.

The second major change in this bill is to legitimize, to legalize, the academic council at Ryerson. Ryerson, since it is usually considered along with the universities in this province has not had, up to this point in time, an academic council, a senate, whatever you will, making the major academic decisions, the major curricular decisions and it’s well nigh time it did. One of the reasons why I will not hold up this bill any longer is because at the present time the board of governors at Ryerson, I would suggest, because of some recent revelations from that institution, is somewhat demoralized and need an uplift of spirits. There need to be some changes on that board and we will speak to it.

The second point for not holding it up is because after speaking to all the various constituent communities of Ryerson -- the faculty, the students, the support staff, the administration staff -- they all indicate to me that basically the bill is the best possible compromise given all of their wishes and desires.

With respect to the board of governors, we very much want to see some changes, but in order to highlight those changes, to move down, if you will, the influence your government has had on this board, I want to highlight a few points from the past. I’m not bringing up the past solely for its own sake. Rather we need to emphasize some of the things that have gone wrong in the past before we’ll fully appreciate the need to make some changes in the future.

I would draw the minister’s attention to the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, Ryerson is the only post-secondary institution in this province that, for some reason or another, has found it necessary to release all four of its presidents. The board of governors has taken action to dismiss all four presidents of Ryerson -- for different reasons and under different circumstances, but nevertheless, that is a fact. It has occurred. I don’t know of any other post-secondary institution that has had to do that and it speaks to me of some serious internal problems in that institution.

At this point I want to make it very clear that to the best of my understanding and knowledge and from my association with him, the existing president is doing a fine job and should be strongly supported. I would not want any of the points I would make to be a reflection on his administration.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But.

Mr. Conway: But he’s running for the leadership of the NDP.

Mr. Sweeney: No, that’s beside the point.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If we overdo it, he might.

Mr. Sweeney: I indicated before I feel there has been undue influence, indirectly albeit, from this government on this board.

Mr. Nixon: Indirectly?

Mr. Sweeney: Let’s just look at some of the members who have been appointed to this board. Let’s just look at some of them. William Kelly.

Mr. Ruston: Oh, I got a letter to our school wanting money for the party. I’ve got it right here.

An hon. member: The famous William Kelly?

Mr. Sweeney: Hugh Macaulay has been appointed to this board.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Walter Pitman.

Mr. Ruston: Who is he?

An hon. member: Oh, no. Some columnist dog.

Mr. Sweeney: Clare Westcott has been appointed to the board.

Mr. Ruston: Oh, no! Who’s he? Whoever heard of him?

Mr. Sweeney: And the present secretary of the board is a former defeated PC candidate --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All your guys are on the bench in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Sweeney: -- handed to the board, which was told: “This is going to be your secretary.” It is these kinds of things that would suggest to us that there has been undue influence.

Mr. Nixon: How much are they paying him?

Mr. Martel: Sounds like the federal Liberals, doesn’t it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: Let’s take a couple of specific examples. At a point in time in the fairly recent past, the faculty of Ryerson, supported by the board of Ryerson, decided that they were going to buy a Honeywell computer. A message was brought to them: “No, you won’t buy a Honeywell computer. You’ll buy an IBM computer.” It just so happened that at that particular point in time IBM was the only computer company that had any contracts with this government -- lease, sale, anything. There was direct interference by the government itself at that particular institution.

Some hon. members: Shame.

Mr. Sweeney: And yet the minister makes reference to the autonomy of the institution.

Mr. Nixon: They have got a lot of trouble with computers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can’t hear the speaker for the interjections.

Mr. Sweeney: Let’s take a look at this incredible Korey affair again, because I think it is indicative of the kinds of things that have been happening that should not have been happening.

Mr. Peterson: I agree.

Mr. Sweeney: In 1973, while there was a crisis going on because of the dismissal of another president and a lapse as to who the new president would be, this absolutely incredible contract was drawn up. It’s one that, as far as I know, once again, has no parallel in the annals of post-secondary education in this province; and if it has, I would certainly like to hear about it. It was a contract worth in excess of $1 million and lasting for 14 years -- 10 years definite, three more years at an option and another year of sabbatical on top of that, at a salary of $65,000 a year. That’s more money than the Premier gets.

Mr. Nixon: You would think he could play hockey.

Mr. Warner: He’s not worth that

Mr. Sweeney: There are a couple of other things that flow from this. The first one is that despite section 7(c) of the existing Act -- not the new one; the one we have been working under -- which clearly says the president has to be kept informed of what’s going on with respect to the staff there, the current president of Ryerson was not apprised until less than a year ago of the contents of that settlement. He didn’t know what the salary was. He didn’t know what the terms of reference for the job were.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What, his own?

Mr. Sweeney: No, not for himself; for this vice-president who was appointed. Granted, he wasn’t there when the deal was made but if any board had any integrity at all as far as their president was concerned, surely he would have been informed. One of the reasons we suspect he wasn’t informed is that when one looks at the contract he was given and at the terms of reference of his job, he was for all practical purposes the acting president of that institution. No wonder.

Another thing we have just discovered recently is that several of the board members weren’t aware of that particular contract and the contents of that contract. Look at what has happened recently: the so-called settlement, which is costing Ryerson $322,000 at the very same time that Ryerson has a $960,000 deficit for the 1977-78 year. It is already suffering financially and we throw another $300,000 plus into the pot. These are moneys that are not available to the students for the kind of program that we want there.

That’s an incredible saga. We really have to wonder, why do they make that kind of a settlement? Is it possible, for example, that under the Corporations Act the individual members of that board might even have been financially liable? is that one of the reasons? I don’t know, but at least I believe it perhaps should be considered.

Let’s consider some of the other things that have happened there. Just two years ago, in 1975, it came to our attention -- and the deputy minister finally had to advise Ryerson of it -- the board approved $325,000 of provincial grant money that should have gone for the day-by-day operation of the academic program of the school was diverted to non-academic uses. Clearly a statement from the minister’s own deputy that was not permissible, should not have happened, and yet it did, under the direction of this board.

We have on that board a noted architect; a very fine man, a very reputable man. But was it correct that an architect on the board was also involved in the design of the Ryerson Institute? I am not sure whether that’s the best kind of thing to happen. I am not suggesting any lack of integrity there, but that is kind of questionable. I don’t think that kind of thing should take place.

One very recent incredible thing -- we talk about this board and its chairman, in particular. Does the minister realize that the chairman for the last 16 months has not been the chairman of the board? He has been acting as chairman, but he hasn’t been the official chairman. He was appointed in June, 1973, for a three-year term that should have ended in June, 1976. Apparently nobody knew, not even the chairman himself, that according to the bylaws of that board if he were going to continue as chairman he would have to be renominated.

Let me just read what Mr. Kennedy himself said, when this was brought to his attention. Kennedy said: “It’s three years, is it? An election is quite possible, then?” Even at the next meeting, what a flippant attitude.

I would have to question what has happened to that board in the last 16 months. Where does that put the decisions that they made? I am not sure. I wonder if your staff knows. And Jack Gorman, the secretary of the board, admitted that he knew that this was going on and yet at the same time said nothing about it. He said: “You asked me if it was my responsibility; it isn’t specifically stated in the bylaws. I suppose it could be construed that way.” The secretary of the board, who by the way, was earning a salary in the vicinity of $50,000. That’s more money than you make, Mr. Speaker. You know, sometimes we have to wonder --

Mr. Reid: That’s more money than the minister makes.

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, more money than he makes. Sometimes we have to wonder with these kinds of salaries: $65,000 for the vice president; $50,000 for the secretary of the board. We have to wonder whether this board thinks it is running General Motors or something. A dismissal settlement of $322,000. In 1975, the president of Ryerson brought to the attention of the board that the salaries of the top administration staff should be frozen. What did the board do? Oh, we can’t do that. It might put us out of the competitive running. Competitive running for what? Stelco?

These are the kinds of things we have to look at. I am suggesting to the minister all these things go on and on and on and on.

Okay. What does it boil down to? It boils down to two things. First of all, a clear need to change this board. A clear need to change the chairman of this board. A clear need not to have this government, through its appointment of members of this board, continuing to use Ryerson literally as a plaything.

That’s a serious charge, I’ll recognize that, but that is the way it has to be perceived. What does Ryerson mean to the government anyway? It’s a unique institution in this province, the only one we have -- I’d like to speak to that in a few minutes. But clearly changes need to be made.

Mr. Conway: Fire the minister.

Mr. Reid: We can’t fire him. He is cheaper than the board comes.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s true. Section 3 of this Act speaks to the purposes, the goals and the aims of this institution. I think it’s important at this point in time to take a couple of minutes to look at that.

I want to come back to the point I just made. Ryerson is unique in this province. In a way, that’s somewhat sad because Ryerson stands for the training of graduates going into our society in the whole area of sophisticated technology. Not only are they top-notch technical people, but they also get a good social training as well.

That’s exactly the kind of people that our society needs right now. Economists have been telling us over and over again that the only way that this country is going to survive is to start moving into this area of highly sophisticated technology. We can’t compete with some of the Third World countries in lesser industries. Yet if we look at any one of our trading partners, Germany, Japan, Sweden and even England, which we have always thought, recently at least, was less technologically advanced than we were, or had more economic problems, every one of these has clearly recognized the need for polytechnical institutes. Every one of them has many more than we have in proportion to their other post-secondary institutions. We have 16 universities, 22 community colleges and only one polytechnical institute.

It makes me ask again, does the minister really appreciate, and really understand what an institution like this stands for and how needed it is in our society?

Let’s just take one other example in terms of high technology. There are several ways in which Canada has shown leadership in the world. One of them is in nuclear energy and it isn’t something that happened yesterday. It goes way back 10 or 15 years. We knew at that time we were going to need sophisticated technicians to handle that equipment. Yet what did we do in this province? We’ve debated this before but it alludes to this particular debate. We didn’t do anything to train them; Hydro did train some. Why are we in the position now where we have to bring over all those technicians from England?

I realize they have a longer history in nuclear technology than we do, but we’re not babies at it. We knew 10 years ago we were going to need these people. The same thing applies to our basic technicians. Is the minister aware of the fact that right at the present time the majority of top-notch skilled technicians in this province, particularly in industry in this province, are European immigrants? These are men who are in their late forties and early fifties. Thank God they came! They came from eastern and western Europe and helped staff our industry. I don’t know where we’d be now if they didn’t because we weren’t training them ourselves.

The tragedy of this is that when one looks behind those people, there aren’t enough young Canadians coming up to take their place. We aren’t meeting that need. We aren’t meeting that need for high technology technicians, especially in our industry. Ryerson is the very kind of place that can do it. Again, let me repeat, it isn’t just because of their sophisticated technical skills. It’s also because of the broad social backgrounds they’ve got. That’s what we need. We need this kind of dual man. We perhaps need him more than we need anything else today.

Can the minister continue to justify having only one polytechnical institute in this province? I would have to suggest to him that we should consider almost immediately setting up at least two more, say one in eastern Ontario and one in northern Ontario. I’m not even suggesting that we add on. I’m suggesting that we take one of the community colleges in each of those areas and upgrade it, and I don’t think the residents of any of those areas are going to object to an upgrading of a facility, so that we are really meeting some of the advanced needs of this province.

One of the points I want to draw to the minister’s attention, and he probably knows something about it, is that the staff at Ryerson right now are making intense personal sacrifices in terms of their budget and in terms of their time to do some long-range planning for Ryerson. Where does it go in the future? They’re making those sacrifices. I think it’s time for the government to make some indication it supports them in those sacrifices.

When we look at the kind of support they’re getting, when we see that they’re $960,000 in deficit for this year, when we notice that their BIU is 1.3, which is about as low as they can get -- well, they can go as low as one -- compared to the university funding, and they’re lumped in with university funding, we really have to wonder how serious the government is in financing this institution.

Ryerson came to the attention of the public shortly after the Second World War when the veterans flooded back. We discovered that men and women could come back to this country highly motivated, but many of them without too great academic backgrounds, and torn out to be tremendous people that once again have been very good for our country. I would suggest we’ve got a similar pattern here right now. We’ve talked about this in your ministry estimates, that there surely is a need in our society now to provide high technology training; in terms of opting in for people who are already out there, people to whom maybe we haven’t given a chance, or maybe we haven’t offered the right thing to them.

What I am saying overall is that I think Ryerson is a pretty important place. I want to see it run as well as possible. I think the provisions of this bill are going to make it a better place, but it is only going to be a better place if you and your government are equally dedicated to it. If you can match the dedication of the president and the staff of that school, and of the students and of the faculty and of the support staff, if you are as committed to it as they are; if we can take a look at Canada’s needs for today and tomorrow and see that a place like Ryerson, and a couple of more Ryersons are going to help meet those needs; then what we are doing will be well worthwhile and I will certainly support you.

Mr. Bounsall: I rise in wholehearted support of this Act respecting Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. First and foremost because it finally assures the formation of a board of governors at Ryerson who, as opposed to the boards we have had there in the past, will be solely dedicated to the best interests of Ryerson. That is very much what we need at that institution. They have grown; they have prospered; they have made great academic achievements and turned out graduates who are extremely useful to our society --

Mr. Laughren: Right here.

Mr. Bounsall: We have one in our caucus on this row as well, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), extremely useful to our society and among those who have self-fulfilled themselves in spite of some of the machinations which have gone on there.

The previous speaker mentioned the various government appointees to the board who were very closely associated, in one capacity or another, with the present government in power. I think some of them were capable of making good decisions, but I think that sort of close tie-in was a type of tie-in which is not needed at any of our so-called autonomous institutions of post-secondary learning. In fact it acted, I suspect, to the overall detriment of Ryerson in its board decisions.

Here we have a board which will in fact from the composition of it, ensure that the best interests of Ryerson, not necessarily the best interests of the government of Ontario, are first and foremost in their considerations. The addition to the board of three members from the alumni and two members from the academic staff, meaning the members of the support staff bargaining committee, are in fact very worthwhile additions to any board of governors, and in particular this one. That there will also be three members from the teaching faculty and three members from the student body is indeed a welcome addition.

I have read over the submissions by the various bodies at Ryerson, it seems such a long time ago, for the formation of this new board of governors. Some may quibble on that representation, but from my contacts with them I can assure the House that the bill, as presented by the minister, is one on which all sections of Ryerson are indeed happy in terms of how they feel their board of governors should operate. I would say to the minister that in his appointment of the nine members -- or the appointment by the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- that they do not fall into the errors which they have in the past in appointing people who the government feels they can influence, or who can be counted on to be a mouthpiece of the government if that has in fact been the case. I suspect it has been. I would say to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that she go out of her way for this unique institution to appoint persons who will be sincerely dedicated to the best interest of that very good institution and not ones who will necessarily be holding the line for the government or giving forth a policy for the government.

I very much regret that this bill was not brought in and debated in this House sooner than tonight. The original date on the bill for the formation of the board was to be November 1 of this year following the elections from those various constituent bodies. The bill was introduced in the spring; it should have been debated then so that this board, a much more dedicated one, could have been in place by now. It should have been debated in July when it was again introduced so that this board could still have been in place now.

I gather that the minister is making an amendment which changes the date on which, following election, the board members will take office. It is to be July 1, 1978. I don’t quarrel with that date, because for it to be done any sooner one would have to have elections for the students and the faculty, and some mechanism for the alumni elections, which are impossible, really, at a very much earlier date now.

I regret very much that the minister could not ensure that the bill was in fact debated -- not that it being such a good bill it needs much debate in the House, but so that the board could have been in place now.

There are many interesting aspects of the bill on which I could speak at some length, but I rather thought the member who spoke earlier and who was occupying the chair at the start of the debate, was perhaps in tune with the feelings of the House when he indicated that the bill had passed second reading without any comment from this side of the House. He was a bit perceptive about the need to get this bill passed and in operation. Very little in fact needs to be said about a bill which has met with such widespread approval within the institution of Ryerson itself.

The minister has made comments from time to time about this bill not setting a precedent for boards of governors of other institutions. I think he’s right in one respect in that statement in that every bill for any institution is a separate bill, brought in on its own and it need not necessarily set a precedent. But the very fact that this is a board which has members of the support staff bargaining unit on it, that provides for parity between students and faculty members, and has the same parity with alumni, is a pattern that is going to be rather irresistible for other institutions which may want to follow the trend. It is a pattern which can be welcomed; a pattern which the minister, as bills come forward for amendment -- the University of Toronto Act, for example, should be before us very soon -- a pattern which the minister need not shy away from. In fact the minister can point to this bill as one which met with approval from Ryerson and one which, as far board representation is concerned, could well be followed and not be feared by any other university in this province.

In looking at the bill in terms of comparing it with the other Ryerson bill, the bill under which Ryerson has operated up to now, we can certainly say that the reappointment and re-election clauses are an improvement and certainly reasonable. Two terms maximum before a board member must go off; but here again if you find an excellent board member whose contribution has been superb, after one year that board member may be brought back on.

I think that the provision for vacancies is an improvement over the previous Act under which if a member had, without having had a leave of absence, attended less than a third of the meetings, he would formerly have been off the board. That’s now been increased to half. I think that’s a valid increase. It means that you really shouldn’t be sitting on that Ryerson board unless you are dedicated to doing a job for that board, and the increase to one-half from one-third is a positive step.


Again, the method of filling vacancies when they occur is quite reasonable. The academic council appointed under this particular bill, now that it’s finally established, is of course a necessary thing at Ryerson and represents quite a step forward. It is comparable to what one usually refers to as the senate in other universities, but the term “academic council” is much more descriptive of what takes place and less pretentious, and it is to the credit of Ryerson that they call the council that deals with all academic matters an academic council rather than some name which does not aptly describe the function. Of course, the meetings of both the academic council and the board are open to the public.

I just wish to say, Mr. Speaker, a very few words on the situation of Dr. George Korey, knowing full well these remarks are really out of order since we’re really speaking on a bill to establish a board of governors and an academic council and the conditions under which they operate.

The situation of Dr. George Korey, who if nothing else it becomes clear is a superb negotiator, is indicative of the fact we needed a board reorganized as it has been in this bill. A board such as this would not have let those conditions develop; it is a board which --

Mr. Wildman: Was Alan Eagleson working for him?

Mr. Bounsall: -- would be more in tune with academic considerations in this province than the previous board must have been when, in 1973, they made the incredible arrangements, of which we are now aware, for and with Dr. Korey for his continued participation at Ryerson.

The question arises, this same board had to do with his termination. I’m not getting down on that board, I don’t know what the considerations were with respect to the lump sum payment finally arrived at, $217,316.32 Canadian funds, pertaining to finally getting rid of Dr. Korey, but I suspect with the problems which may well have arisen if a settlement of this sort had not been arrived at, the legal battles which may have ensued and the time they would have taken from the other proper activities of board members and administrative officers, it might have been relatively cheap at that price. I’m not privy to all the ins and outs, but I can imagine the amount of time spent, the amount of time taken away from other activities in which the board and the administrator should be engaged, which might have occurred if we had arrived at a situation of unpleasantness at Ryerson with respect to this particular person’s termination.

I don’t pass judgement one way or the other on it, those are just my feelings.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Ryerson is a very typical institution in the province of Ontario. It has tremendous strengths. It has a president who is respected all across Ontario; who is seated in our Speaker’s gallery tonight listening to the debate. He is a former member of this House who was well respected in this House while he was here, and he continues to gain respect.

Mr. Conway: If you only had him now he might do something with that bunch.

Mr. Martel: At least there are possibilities beyond the pale.

Mr. Bounsall: The suggestion came from the Liberal critic for Colleges and Universities that here in Ontario, we should develop another couple of polytechnical institutions similar to Ryerson. Ryerson has always done a good job in the past, in spite of its board, in spite of its lack of academic council. We have a bill before us which allows Ryerson to fully develop as a democratic consultative institution within its internal structures, as it should have long ago but is about to as of July 1978.

I would hesitate to try to reproduce anywhere else in this province, by upgrading or otherwise, an institution equal to what Ryerson is at the moment, and will most certainly continue to be. I think we should all rejoice in a bill which gives Ryerson, in every respect, it’s proper structure to carry on the excellent job which it has done in the past in full confidence. It will continue to grow and do a most excellent job in the future.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I could not let this event pass without expressing myself.

Mr. Martel: Is that in your riding?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Martel: I thought it was.

Mrs. Campbell: The great institution in the great riding of St. George.

I am here to congratulate the minister in bringing this legislation forth. We have been discussing it for a long time. It seems to me the sooner we pass it, the sooner we may clarify, at least, the issues which still must be faced in the interim in this institution.

It is indeed a great and singular institution in this province. I hope that under the new regime we will never again face the kinds of experiences we have evidenced in the last few years. I, too, want to add my voice in congratulation to the president of this great institution, because he certainly, in my opinion, has pulled a great deal of this place together against rather long odds.

Mr. Reid: We like him better now than we did when he was here.

Mrs. Campbell: I did not know him when he was here so there are no comparisons to be made.

Mr. Reid: He was the only sane NDP member they had.

Mr. Martel: Like the only Liberal Labour member in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: He doesn’t know where to sit now.

Mrs. Campbell: I would like to point out one of my concerns, and that is the way in which we have dealt with this recent contract, and the way in which we have employed personnel. Mention has been made of at least one position. We went through anguish when we were trying, against what we foresaw in those times to be desperate odds, to save the open college program. I am prepared to welcome the new regime, deeply confident that that sort of dichotomy will never again occur in this institution.

I would add to what my colleague has said by way of training. At this point in time in our history in this province it is a pity as I see it, that we are also having to watch one of the ministries of this government, namely the Labour ministry, import personnel to supervise the occupational health and safety legislation.

Mr. Reed: That’s a shame.

Mrs. Campbell: Surely this is a function that Ryerson could be uniquely prepared to undertake. I also join with my colleagues in this House, both of them, in urging that there should be more polytechnical institutions in this province. I would accept that they should be in eastern Ontario and in the north where we have a great need to develop the skills such as Ryerson had developed, but I would remind those who are so interested in the establishment of those two new institutes that Ryerson is the flagship of them all.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I also wish to pay tribute to a man who was a former member of Parliament, a former member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and who presently is a renowned runner in the city of Toronto as well as being the president of Ryerson, and a man for whom I have a great deal of respect; and who is sitting in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, observing the proceedings.

Mrs. Campbell: You are not allowed to do that.

Mr Warner: If cabinet members can do things like that then we mere opposition members can.

The minister, having presented us with some very desirable and long-sought legislation, should now bring back the Act respecting community colleges and amend it accordingly so that at one fell swoop those 22 institutions finally will have represented, at their locations, students, support staff, teachers and other administrative people as well as a real cross-section of the local community involved in the setting of the business of those community colleges.

It’s about time -- and we have done it here; we have dragged the board out of the closet and we are finally going to be able to see what they do. We are going to have some idea of how they carry on their affairs and we have a little better opportunity now to have some sort of balance.

The kind of situation the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) raised with respect to a contract, or whatever it happens to be, is the kind of thing that should not happen. It has happened and it continues to happen because of those patronage appointments and because it’s a closed shop. For all intents and purposes it really is a closed shop. The minister finally has opened the door of the closet, because for too long we have been operating in a closet in having those decisions made and people not knowing what’s going on. The institution is not able to respond and the community is not really represented.

I know the minister will tell us tonight that we have put token women on boards and we have had token representation from labour in some communities, but he really hasn’t had his heart in it. He really hasn’t tried to get a cross-section of the community represented on the board. That has got to stop, and the minister now provides an opportunity.

Mr. Conway: Are there any good Liberals on there?

Mr. Laughren: Name one.

Mr. Conway: I am available, Floyd.

Mr. Samis: He said a good one.

Mr. Warner: We know that -- and for free.

I would like to know how the minister intends to carry on from here. He has presented some decent legislation. What will he now do with respect to those other institutions in Ontario? How does he intend to get those other universities to enact the good legislation that’s in here? What kind of influence is he now going to use with those other institutions?

We did see the McMaster bill earlier, a year or so ago, where we made some improvements -- not enough but some. The improvements, quite frankly, were not as good as what’s in this bill dealing with Ryerson, but they were a modest beginning.


I’d like to know what kind of a timetable the minister has set out for himself to bring about the improvements for the remaining universities, and if he is now prepared to deal with that one Act respecting the 22 community colleges, because that is extremely important.

At the same time, I think he should be telling the House what he intends to do to ensure that the kind of contract that was handed out at Ryerson, the kind of contract that even Bobby Orr couldn’t get in his heyday, or any other of those overpaid characters, won’t be repeated ever again. Because surely the members of this House, and the public members of the boards of these institutions, should not be expected to have to spend their time rooting around trying to find out where they are being ripped off.

Surely that is something that can be stopped right at the outset by the minister himself. I’d like to know what he intends to do to make sure we don’t have any more of these economic leeches hanging around. That kind of business has got to stop.

I know the minister is going to acknowledge that the blame comes back to the very beginning of the patronage appointments. What else can you expect when you start filling up those vacancies with defeated Tories? Heaven knows there’s enough of them around, but what else do you expect? Or from appointing -- somehow it makes a great deal of sense to start appointing to the board of Ryerson or any other place, the heads of corporations, and I don’t understand that. Most of those people have never worked a day in their life, but somehow they are going to understand the plight of students. Somehow they are going to understand what the college should be doing in order to educate those students so that they can get a job. Ridiculous.

This bill happens to go a step along the line of eradicating that kind of nonsense. It is a beginning, a modest beginning -- a good one, and I applaud it as others have this evening; but it’s a beginning. I now want to know what the minister is going to do to follow it up so that this whole business of patronage appointments, of non-representation from the community, can be answered once and for all.

Can it be done in the next two years? I think the minister can do it within two years. I call upon him to do exactly that, so that within two years we have made the kinds of changes that are in this Act apply to every community college and every university in the province of Ontario.

The challenge is there for the minister, if he has the interest and the desire to confront all those defeated Tories.

Mr. Van Horne: I support Bill 25 and my comments in support will be brief, however I hope they will be meaningful.

Let me note at the outset that I am proud to say that in the academic year 1951-52 I was a Ryerson student. I am proud to be able to say that those days in the old buildings were rather different, I suspect, from the days a student might experience now at Ryerson. But I did perceive, in those days, a very dedicated staff and a talented student body.

Mr. Conway: Obviously.

Mr. Van Horne: Ryerson, in my opinion, was good then and it is almost great now, in spite of what I perceive to be some of the meddling of our present government. It is interesting to note, and I am sure many of you have, that there are apparently more of us on this side of the House who consider this to be an important issue than there are on the other side of the House. Witness the numbers present.

Mr. McClellan: Gross indifference.

Mr. Baetz: We have quality if not quantity.

Mr. Breithaupt: Six are enough.

Mr. Van Horne: My colleagues from Kitchener-Wilmot and St. George, and also the members for Windsor-Sandwich and Scarborough-Ellesmere have all spoken very eloquently about the excellence of education at Ryerson and they have brought to our attention some of the political warts on the surface. I would sincerely hope that this bill, and even more important the discussion tonight, will act as a source of motivation for the ministry to make sure the educational process and not the political process is first and foremost in all our minds.

Generally, I think we all concur that the expanded board is a positive move. I do have one or two personal reservations with a section or two of the bill and I would like to at least have this noted on the record. It strikes me, and I say this by way of reservation, that there is a little bit of discrimination in section 4(10), which specifically excludes members from the teaching faculty, administrative staff and the student body from ever being chairman or vice-chairman. One would have to wonder if there isn’t a case that could be made for the involvement of these people at least in a compromise position as vice-chairman.

I would suggest, in keeping an eye on the implementation of this bill, that the minister consider the possibility, particularly if there is further recommendation or representation from faculty and students, of a later amendment. I would suggest that we also all have great hope for the academic council and its role. There has been considerable criticism about the apparent lack of planning to meet the needs in our 1977 technological age. My colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot made particular note of that, as did the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I would like to suggest that academic council, in the role as defined in section 10, has a very important part to play in the life of this great institution.

In summary, it is a pleasure to be able to make these remarks in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Conway: Now this is conflict of interest.

Mr. Cureatz: Where did he graduate from?

Mr. Laughren: It was not my intention to take part in the debate, but as another graduate of this fine institution I felt I really should say a few words.

Mr. Conway: Was it really that valuable then?

Mr. Laughren: Contrary to the opinion of some members of the House, I received a very fine business education at Ryerson. For those of the other parties who think we couldn’t run a corner grocery store, I can assure you that I could run a store much larger than that. As a matter of fact, I’d like to run the store called Ontario some day.

Mr. Cureatz: Never.

Mr. Warner: You guys opposite would sell the store to the Americans.

Mr. Laughren: Just give us the chance.

I am very happy, by the way, to see the expanded board and to see what we’ve always called parity on the board. I can remember the debate back before I even got here. I can remember reading through Hansard, when I was the critic for Colleges and Universities for the New Democratic Party, and reading the rather heated debates over what parity meant and some of the rather strange pronouncements that came from different people in the university community, who should have known better, talking about parity, and from members opposite as well.

I can remember the position of the then minister, I think it was John White, and some of his vacillations on the subject. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we need to approach that kind of co-operation, not only in places like Ryerson but in many other institutions in our society. Other speakers tonight have made the point very well -- that it is not something to be feared but rather something to be encouraged, and I think that Ryerson serves as a very useful model.

When I went to be an instructor at a community college in Ontario, because of my background I always had in mind the institution of Ryerson. I think that really was a very suitable model upon which community colleges were built in the province. I think they have contributed a great deal and will continue to contribute a great deal to the educational process in Ontario. So I am very pleased to add my voice of support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to get involved in this debate? if not, the hon. Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be brief in my reply to the various speakers. When the member for Kitchener-Wilmot got to the middle of his speech this evening I thought perhaps I had misread this House rather badly, that I didn’t see the spirit I thought was there; it sort of dissipated for a few moments there.

Mr. Sweeney: But true.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: But he wound up on the right note, so we’ll forgive him all those nasty comments.

Mr. Conway: Dentists have such thick skins.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am very pleased you have admitted that by consultation we have reached the best possible compromise. You know that’s high praise for this government, and I don’t presume to say that I deserve that myself but it is certainly nice to hear the members opposite say that by consultation we have reached the best compromise possible. I think that should he underlined in Hansard and I am glad to see it on the record.

Mr. Conway: It’s a rare thing.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Quite frankly, very few of the remarks by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot were on the principle of the bill. I shall not reply, therefore, to those remarks at any length whatsoever.

Mr. Mancini: A cop-out.

Mr. Warner: What an easy way out.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am apt to praise the president of the institution, as he holds his office today, in fine style. I am even prepared to forgive him his misspent youth on the benches opposite. I don’t think we should hold that against him. Now that he has matured I am sure that he, like you have said, is doing an excellent job as the president of a great institution.

Mr. McClellan: What are you going to do when you grow up?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You know, it’s just wonderful to stand in this House and have total support from all sides and all members. There is one contradiction, however, that worries me a little bit, and that is members indicated the past presidents were all wrong, past members of the board were all wrong,

Mr. Sweeney: I said they were dismissed.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That was the way it came through; and yet at the same time the institution was a great institution.

Mr. Sweeney: In spite of it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I suspect that you know it’s pretty difficult to separate the presidents and the boards from the quality of the institution today, as you make the point, as it was in the past.

Mr. Warner: Kind of like your election. It happened by accident.

Mrs. Campbell: The faculty and the students.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I accept your comments that Ryerson is a great institution both today and previously, and I predict it will be a great institution, as great as it is today.

I must take exception to comments, particularly the comments from the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, that Ryerson is the plaything of government; a grossly unfair statement, Mr. Speaker, I think that was entirely uncalled for.

Mr. Sweeney: When you interfere that much what else can we think?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Because in my opinion there have been some excellent people serve on that board in the past. There will be excellent people serve on it in the future, and to suggest that this government --

Mr. Warner: Name names.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- has considered Ryerson a toy is a great disservice.

Mr. Sweeney: You misused it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, the hon. member said that, and at great disservice to a fine institution. But I am being a little provocative when I say that and I shouldn’t continue on that line.

Mr. Lewis: Do you know any members of the board? Name one excellent member of the past boards.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do want to say though, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the commitment of the faculty and staff and students, I am not going to deny that for a moment --

Mr. Lewis: It is not students.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- but I think this government has always matched the dedication of the students and the staff and faculty. In fact I don’t think there is a jurisdiction that has put greater emphasis on post-secondary education than the province of Ontario over the years, and that’s as it should be. But I think we can say, on this side of the House, we do match the dedication and the commitment to post-secondary education that we see in the institutions.


Mr. Conway: Dream on, Harry, dream on.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to say to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that five of the 15 universities have had their Acts updated in recent times. Carleton and York are on their way now; the Toronto Act will be before the House when Dr. Macdonald’s committee has reviewed the U of T governing council. So that I don’t see a great number of bills coming forward, other than the three I named, in the near future.

There really is very little more for me to say, except to again express my pleasure that so many members of this House have expressed their endorsation of the bill and of the institution. Let it be on the record that this government has always considered Ryerson a unique institution and one that deserves a great deal of praise. I’m sure it will have a continuing history of fine academic record in training people for the various endeavours in Ontario.

During the committee of the whole House, and I hope that’s where it might go for a few minutes, there is a very small amendment to change the effective date from November 1977 to July 1978, that I hope we can address at that time.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.


Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Motion agreed to.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.


Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.


House in committee on Bill 25, An Act respecting Ryerson Polytechnical institute.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The only amendments I have, Mr. Chairman, the critics have notice of. They are to section 17 and section 19.

Mr. Philip: I’d simply like to comment to the minister --

Hon. Mr. Welch: We are on Bill 25.

An hon. member: You are on the wrong bill.

Mr. Chairman: This is Bill 25.

Mr. Philip: Okay, sorry.

Mr. Lewis: It was the House leader’s error.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Be careful, I will be quoting Dr. Seuss.

Mr Lewis: Oh? That would raise the level of the debate.

On section 1:

Mr. Sweeney: On section 1(2), I would like to ask the minister why that section was put in. My understanding is a specific Act always takes precedence over a general Act and therefore it would appear that this section is not necessary. Why is it put in?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think that detracts at all from the bill. I think it clearly identifies that in a conflict the Corporations Act will have precedence, or at least this Act will prevail. I see no problem; I really don’t understand the difficulty.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I’m not objecting to it. I just wondered if there was some reason to put it in because I can’t see any point to it. All right. Let’s leave it at that.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Sweeney: Section 4(1)(e): The terminology used there is “two members elected by the administrative staff from among themselves for a term of two years.” Is the term “administrative” used here to include support staff? I understand that’s the intent, but I want to be sure the minister means that.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As I go to the definition, I read “‘administrative staff’ means the full-time employees of the board who are not members of the teaching faculty,” and I think what you’re saying is correct.

Mr. Sweeney: Good. Thank you.

Section 4 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Sweeney: Section 6(1)(p): We have to go back and check a couple of things. It says the academic council will recommend with respect to such things as degree programs; the board, in consultation with the minister, will in fact accept the program. Just exactly what does “in consultation with the minister” mean, because it is my under- standing at the present time the minister may in fact decide there shall or shall not be a degree program at Ryerson? Does “in consultation” mean something else?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In this particular institution, the degree-granting portion has always had very limited connotations and to ensure that continues, the Act clearly states it must be “with consultation” rather than in a university community, where that consultation isn’t required.

Mr. Sweeney: I understand that’s been the practice in the past, but now we are legitimizing and legalizing the academic council and if I may move ahead, just to illustrate the point, to section 10(c) and then again subsection (h), it would appear the new academic council has expanded powers and duties beyond what the old board had. At least that would be my interpretation. That’s why I’m asking whether in fact, Ryerson is entering a different kind of era than in the past with respect to its own autonomy to decide whether or not it shall have a degree program.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Not with reference to degree programs.

Section 6 agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Sweeney: Section 8(3) is a new item: “The board shall make available to the public an annual report including an annual financial report in such form and manner as the board may determine.” Given some of the difficulties of the past, why would the board make that decision rather than the minister?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In section 8(1) we are in a position where we can ask for the financial report. The key words in subsection 1 are “financial report.” It’s quite conceivable that the board might wish to have additional information for the public in addition to the annual financial report; so it gives the board an opportunity to make a fuller report if they so wish. Obviously the minimum is a financial report, which is required by the ministry.

Mr. Sweeney: I appreciate the point the minister is making in subsection 1, but under subsection 3 does that mean that if the board were to make information available to the public in such a form that was unacceptable to him and his ministry, that there is nothing the minister could do about it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think we’re getting into the area of institutional autonomy. Our main concern, and rightly so, should be the financial report of that institution. There are many other matters which are not necessarily under the jurisdiction of the ministry, and I don’t think that we should put into the Act the restriction that it would be our requirement for the type of information that must be supplied. If we’re going to give the board the accountability and responsibility that they have under the Act, then we should give them this leeway.

Section 8 agreed to.

Sections 9 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Parrott moves that section 17 of the bill be amended by striking out “November 1977” in subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4 and inserting in lieu thereof in each instance “July 1978.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Section 18 agreed to.

On section 19:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Parrott moves that subsection 2 of section 19 of the bill be amended by striking out “November 1977” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “July 1978.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

Bill 25, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, we were going so fast a few moments ago that we seemed to have slipped through third reading of Bill 84. I find that I have a very minor amendment which I agreed to introduce. I would like to ask the concurrence of the House to deal with both Bill 84 and Bill 85 in committee.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are prepared to agree, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t hear anything from me.


Mr. Chairman: I would have to ask the House to reconsider that. I just don’t know if the committee has the authority to do that or not.

Mr. Lewis: I think we would have to ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I think we have consent on that with your permission.


House in committee on Bill 85, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, amendments on any section?

On section 1:

Mr. Philip: I am particularly pleased to see section 1 of this bill. The minister will recall that the previous member for Durham East and I brought up this whole issue of medical records in April. We were very concerned about what would happen about the privacy of the medical records. The minister fairly promptly responded then that action would be taken to safeguard the privacy of the individuals and we appreciate the sensitivity that he has shown in bringing in this bill, and then in handling it in section 1.

I am still not convinced, and I might add neither are a good many of the trucking companies or their drivers or their personnel, that it is necessary for the MTC to still collect this data, and why it wouldn’t be sufficient to simply set standards and to have a medical practitioner certify that the person concerned then came up to the standards. However, be that as it may, certainly we agree and we are very supportive of the intent of section 1. We welcome the fact that the minister has responded to this.

The only other item that I will have to bring up is some question on section 15 unless there is someone who wishes to speak on a section earlier to that.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Philip: My understanding of the definition of a highway was that this could include concession roads. Many farms have had roads pushed through their property as the area gradually changes from being a rural farm area to suburban or sometimes rural residential. My concern is with subsection 2. I wonder if the minister would comment on the necessity of having animals deprived of using the highways in certain municipalities, where, perhaps, cottagers or residents from urban areas may in fact be able to control councils. Would this not present a problem to the original rural inhabitants? Would he be willing to consider at least deleting that one small section of the subsection?

Hon. Mr. Snow: This amendment involves the deletion of the words “on which the maximum speed limit is 50 miles per hour.” At present, a municipal council can pass bylaws to prohibit certain vehicles, animals, et cetera, from using a highway under its jurisdiction on which the speed limit is 50 miles per hour.

This reduction or deletion of the speed limit gives the municipality the same right to limit the use of that highway, for instance, if the speed limit happened to be 40 miles per hour. From experience, not necessarily with all roads but most of the rural roads that we are concerned with as far as animals are concerned, the speed limit would have been 50 miles per hour in any case and the municipalities, the townships, already have that right.

The purpose of this particular amendment is to allow more built-up municipalities to control the use of vehicles on those of their streets that may have speed limits of less than 50 miles per hour, such as not allowing bicycles or other types of vehicles on a particular street. I don’t anticipate there would be any problem for any rural municipalities prohibiting animals, because in most cases they can do it now since most of the roads have 50 miles per hour limits.

Mr. Philip: With all respect, one can understand why the minister would want to prevent horses and cows from running down the streets of Etobicoke. However, in those transitional communities and where farming is active this will pose a problem to the local farmers.

It’s a concern that I checked out with some people at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They, in turn, expressed some concerns on that one particular item that it would cause problems for some of their members. I am wondering if perhaps in this one case then that the minister might consider deleting the word “animals” from that section.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There has been a communication from the Federation of Agriculture to the ministry. I was not aware of it until this moment. Certainly it is not the intention of this amendment to interfere in any way with the agricultural community or with a farmer from moving his animals from one side of the road to another. As I say, in most cases a rural municipality could do this now because most of the roads have a 50 miles per hour limit. I just can’t envisage any municipality passing a bylaw that would prohibit the movement of animals on a rural road.

I can see a municipality passing a bylaw where it would want to limit or prohibit animals, oxcarts or whatever it might be from travelling on Yonge Street. At the present time, they could not do that because Yonge Street doesn’t have a 50 miles per hour speed limit.

I can understand the hon. member’s concern, but certainly there is nothing intended here to do that. If we were to remove the word “animals” from the regulation, then that would not allow a municipality to prevent someone driving a herd of animals down the main street of a municipality.

Mr. Philip: I don’t want to prolong the debate because I recognize that it may not be a matter of immediate provincial importance. However, could the minister not simply handle that problem by simply adding the word “non-farm animal”? That would get away from the problem of people driving oxcarts and things like that down the streets of Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I still say that does not serve the purpose that is intended here -- to give municipalities the same power to control animals on a 30 miles per hour road as they presently have on a 50 miles per hour road. Certainly the necessity for this control is more so in a 30 miles per hour zone than in a 50 miles per hour in a built-up municipality.

Section 15 agreed to.

Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 85, as amended, reported.

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

Mr. Philip: Point of order, Mr. Chairman, before that motion is put, I understand that the minister had an amendment to make to Bill 84.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You will have to go back into the House.

Mr. Lewis: You forgot another one. That is what I told you. You are just not a very competent fellow -- you are well meaning and earnest but bumbling.

Mr. McClellan: You couldn’t run a peanut stand.

Mr. Lewis: You have never met a payroll on Main Street -- you can tell that.

Mr. Chairman: Is there a further amendment to Bill 85?

On section 19:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that subsection 1 of section 19 be amended by inserting after section 7 in the first line “16” and that the said section 19 be further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) Section 16 comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.”

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

Bill 85, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported certain bills and asked for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the third reading of Bill 84 be rescinded.

Mr. Speaker: As you know, this is a departure and we don’t want it to be taken as a precedent in this House. It just highlights the need for members and ministers to pay attention.

Do we have unanimous consent? If we have unanimous consent, it’s in order for you to move the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The minister can now move the amendment that he proposes to Bill 84.

Mr. Lewis: This is a humiliating night for the government.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I apologize for this but this is a minor amendment which has been discussed. I’m not sure it’s necessary but to alleviate any concerns I would like to move it.

Hon. Mr. Snow moved that subsection 2 of section 7 be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof: “(2) Subsection 3 of the said section 9 1(a) is amended by striking out ‘to a municipality’ in the first line and by inserting ‘in lieu thereof pursuant to an agreement under subsection 2’ and by striking out ‘by the municipality’ in the second line.”

Mr. Makarchuk: That is very clear.

Mr. Riddell: Let’s have an explanation.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to dispense with the reading of it by the Chair? Is it understood?

Mr. Philip: We appreciate the amendment. In conversation with the minister before the bill was introduced, in lieu of my introducing a different amendment that attempted to do the same thing and to clarify an area we thought was not completely clear, he agreed to introduce his own amendment. His own amendment suffices to do that. So we are in support of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.


The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 84, An Act to amend the Public Transportation Highway Improvement Act.

Bill 25, An Act respecting Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.

Bill 85, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before moving the adjournment, because this is a change from the program that was announced last Thursday, we will take into consideration tomorrow afternoon the private member’s motion standing in the name of Mr. Germa, being notice of motion No. 11.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.