31st Parliament, 2nd Session

L139 - Tue 5 Dec 1978 / Mar 5 déc 1978

The House met at 2 p.m.




Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today a report on Ontario’s pulp and paper industry prepared by an interministerial task force.

Members will be interested in this document because it deals with the problems and prospects of one of our most important industries and the economic mainstay of many of our northern communities. It proposes some practical ways for the government of Ontario to assist this industry in undertaking the major new investments needed for pollution control and for modernization of the mills. As members know, this government is committed to achieving both of these objectives: a stronger industry and a cleaner environment.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I will be introducing a series of amendments to the Municipal Act for the consideration of the Legislature. Several of the amendments will be of particular interest to members and I would just like to draw brief attention to them now.

There are two areas which can assist condominium owners throughout the province. One is an amendment to permit municipalities to enter into agreements with condominium corporations for the provision of such services as road maintenance, snow clearing and the maintenance of sewer and water pipes on condominium property. Many members will know through personal experience, as I certainly do, of condominium owners who have encountered serious problems in relation to these services. This amendment should help alleviate some problems in those instances where an agreement can be worked out between a municipality and a condominium corporation.

Recognizing that condominium developments are in fact private property, municipalities will be given the prerogative of determining whether or not to charge a fee for the specific services provided. It should be noted that this amendment closely parallels a recommendation of the Ontario residential condominium study group which reported near the end of last year.

The second amendment which I believe will assist many condominium owners in a very practical way and which is also patterned, I might say, after a recommendation of the study group, has to do with unauthorized parking of motor vehicles. Actually this amendment is quite broad in its application because it deals with unauthorized parking on private property in general as well as on municipal property. The particular relevance to condominium owners arises mainly from the fact that the amendment now fully defines a property owner to include a board of directors of a condominium corporation or a person designated by the board to act on its behalf in requesting enforcement of parking bylaws.

What this means is that random parking on condominium property will henceforth be controllable according to local bylaws affecting parking on private property. Unauthorized parking has been a real problem in many condominium developments partly because it has been unclear in the Municipal Act as to who is the legally defined owner in a jointly-owned property. With the broadened definition, however, full enforcement of the municipal parking bylaws will be possible.

Two amendments included in the package this afternoon are designed to help physically handicapped persons. They give municipalities the full authority to exempt vehicles carrying physically handicapped persons from the local parking bylaws through the use of a permit system and to require owners of public parking lots to provide parking spaces for the sole use of vehicles operated by or carrying physically handicapped persons.

There is an important amendment dealing with taxicab licensing. As members know, under the present situation a municipality can pass a bylaw making it illegal for a cab to pick up a fare in the municipality if it is not licensed there unless the cab is returning with the fare to its home jurisdiction. This has been virtually impossible to enforce, however, and problems have been created for cab owners in certain municipalities. The prime example, of course, is here in Metro where Metro cab operators are up against unfair competition from cabs licensed in neighbouring jurisdictions where licence fees are much lower.

The amendment will help rectify the inequity of this situation. While it will apply equally to all municipalities, it is worth noting that it follows specific requests from both the Metropolitan Toronto council and Metro cab owners. The amendment will make it possible for a municipality to pass a bylaw prohibiting cabs from picking up a fare in the municipality unless it is licensed there.

Mr. Warner: Darcy wouldn’t do it. He kept refusing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In other words, in a municipality where council decides to enact such a bylaw, cabs licensed in neighbouring jurisdictions would be prohibited from picking up a fare there. There is one exception arising from our concern not to disrupt the quality of service provided to and from airports. Thus, while a municipality may pass a bylaw as I have described, it may not prohibit a cab with a federal airport licence from picking up a fare in a municipality provided that the fare is destined for a federally-owned and operated airport.

A further amendment permits municipalities to place term deposits with credit unions in the same way that they are now permitted to place funds with banks and trust companies. This provision will give municipalities additional scope to make the best use of funds available for short-term investments.

It also recognizes the stature and stability of credit unions, which as members know are now operated under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act passed by the Legislature in 1976. Worth noting also is the fact that we have a number of very fine credit unions in this province operated by various municipal employee groups including, of course, firemen, policemen and teachers.

There are several other amendments in today’s package which are designed to increase the flexibility of municipalities in various practical matters. I would just draw the attention of the members to a few of these. They include provisions to empower municipalities to allow permit parking on municipal streets; to simplify the procedures for renaming municipal streets; to let municipalities license off-road vehicles such as trail bikes so that their operation can be better controlled in instances where they are disruptive; and to let municipalities insure council member and local board members against liability arising out of acts performed in the course of their duties.

There are other amendments to the Municipal Act included in this package to be introduced today. This has just been a brief summary of some of them. However, I believe the ones I have covered are perhaps of particular interest to members and of course we’ll have an opportunity to discuss them all as the bill moves through this House.



Mr. S. Smith: I will address a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Assuming that the article which quotes him in the Toronto Sun today is accurate and that the minister doesn’t know where he can find the money to allow a TTC fare freeze, may I ask the minister how he can make a statement of that kind when in the first place we pointed out to him yesterday the possibility of cancelling that silly line from Union Station to the Canadian National Exhibition?

Secondly, is he not aware there had been approval given by his ministry for $55.6 million for capital expenses to the TTC in the coming year and that, according to the latest report of the TTC of November 17, 1978, they shall only need $50,750,000? In other words, there are some $5 million approximately that will not be required in capital expenses.

Is he also not aware that last year, instead of spending on the rapid transit and light rail vehicles $77 million as approved, they only spent $70,350,000, according to their preliminary actual figures? The province’s share of saving is $5.25 million in that instance.

How can the minister continue to say he doesn’t know where the money is coming from? Is it his intention to come up with the money at the last minute and act the role of a great hero? Why doesn’t he admit the money is right there right now, and can be used for a fare freeze?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There were a number of statements and questions there. I will try to follow through them.

First of all, at this time in the current year’s budget, of course, there is no money included in my budget for the proposed ICTS line, either in Toronto or in Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are very excited about it in Hamilton.

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, jumping up and down.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes. I might say, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a letter from the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth --

Mr. McClellan: Are you saying Toronto is not excited about it?

Mr. Speaker: That wasn’t a part of the question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- saying how interested they are in this system.

Also, as of this time when we are still in the process of finalizing budgets for the 1979-80 fiscal year and because there has been no decision made on the ICTS program, I have no money in my 1979-80 budget allocated at this time for the ICTS program in either Toronto or Hamilton.

With regard to capital expenditures in the past for the TTC, there has been on occasion an under-expenditure. Each year our budget is set up based on the best information available from the TTC on their capital programs. After consultation between my officials and the TTC we establish an amount of money in our budget for our 75 per cent of that capital program.

Mr. Mancini: Yes or no; yes or no, Jim. Are you going to give the money?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There have been cases where the money has been under-expended because of strikes; because of late deliveries of equipment; because of, on occasion, tenders coming in at lower than anticipated prices. In that case, there have been occasions when there has been under-expenditure in that capital program, as in some cases there are under-expenditures in other capital programs.

We budget to the very best of our ability for those situations and I would say that in the last two years in a budget that I am sure the honourable member knows is something in the neighbourhood of $1.1 billion for my total ministry’s operation, we have been in the area of much less than one per cent of meeting the total allocation of our budget.

Mr. S. Smith: I am not sure, by way of supplementary, if the minister is apologizing for the fact that money has been saved. Surely he must understand that isn’t the point.

The point is, how can the minister maintain the money isn’t there when about $5.5 million or $5.6 million would be needed to have a fare freeze for the coming year, and about that much money was saved out of last year’s capital budget and about that much money seems not to be required after the preliminary estimates of next year’s capital budget?

Why doesn’t he simply come out and admit the money is there and give it to them without making them beg and making it seem like a big heroic deal when he finally comes across with the funds --


Hon. Miss Stephenson: What about budgeting, Stuart?

Mr. S. Smith: -- which I have no doubt he will find probably by the end of the week, somewhere, won’t he?

Mr. Villeneuve: Go on back to Hollywood.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the honourable member is so confident I will be able to find that funding. I am not nearly as confident as he is but it’s very easy to explain the current year. When I found out some three months ago that there would be an under-expenditure in capital for the TTC this year, I had a great many requests from municipalities for supplementary allocations for the municipal roads programs --

Hon. Mr. Davis: In ridings of some of the leader’s colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- many of which were supported by letters from the leader’s colleagues, sitting on both sides of him and to the rear.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Look at the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) blush.

Mr. S. Smith: And you gave it away to roads. Now we can’t have it for a fare freeze.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I sure did. Mr. Speaker, when that situation became obvious I reported this to my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) and asked for authority to use some of the under-expenditures on transit capital to assist some of the smaller municipalities with their road programs.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why he can say publicly that he does not know where he would find the money in order to help prevent a TTC fare increase in 1979, yet his government can announce the ICTS project with the consequential funds and have the assurance that somehow those funds are going to be available? Why is it he can get money for hardware out of thin air, but cannot find a dime to keep transit fares in Metro frozen?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I have explained in this House on several occasions, and I am sure you recall them, Mr. Speaker, as well as I do --

Mr. Kerrio: Ad hoc planning.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- the whole matter of transit fare subsidies, transit capital subsidies and new technology development are all distinctly separate budgets within the ministry.

Mr. S. Smith: What has the minister got against Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Why isn’t the member worried about the Sault Ste. Marie by-election at this moment?


Mr. S. Smith: I will ask a question of the Premier because the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and a number of his colleagues are absent once again. Is the Premier aware that in Canada last year the property damage through known cases of arson has been about --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Here he is.

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll shift the question to the Solicitor General who should know more about this.

Mr. T. P. Reid: But not necessarily.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How many days did the Leader of the Opposition spend in the Sault last week?

Mr. S. Smith: How many days in the Sault?

Mr. Speaker: Order, that’s irrelevant.

Mr. S. Smith: A lot more than the Premier was there; a lot more than he was there, that’s for sure. And they want us to debate northern policy there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I understand the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about arson.

Mr. S. Smith: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That’s policy, yes.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the Premier of the province directs a question to humble me, I have no choice but to answer the Premier’s question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Humility is not one of your long suits. it is not even a humble suit.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s true. Is the Solicitor General aware that property damage due to known cases of arson in Canada in the last year was approximately $400 million? Approximately 150 lives have been lost in a year, apparently due to arson. Is the Solicitor General not concerned with the apparent increase in arson? Those are only known cases. Fire losses to insured properties in 1977 in Canada were $811 million and one would have to add another 30 per cent to that for those that were not insured.

Does the Solicitor General think it may be time now to reinstitute an arson squad in some of our police forces in Ontario, either the OPP or Metro police, so as to begin to make a concerted effort to deal with what looks to me like a very serious crime problem, the problem of arson?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There is no doubt that it is a serious problem. I think it is also related to increased economic problems in relation to insurance matters. I am advised by the police that they do have experts who are involved in arson investigations. Whether or not there are actually squads called arson squads as opposed to, for example, a special investigation force in the OPP, I am advised there are many police officers in this province with a great deal of expertise in relation to arson investigation.

Judging by the number of successful prosecutions, there is indication that the police are carrying out their responsibility effectively in this area.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, judging from the apparent increased incidence of this very serious crime and the number of lives being lost as a consequence of it, would the Solicitor General not feel it would be wise to implement a greater degree of co-operation between the fire marshal’s office and the various police forces to set up a task force on arson or an arson squad of some kind and also to increase the amount of co-operation with insurance investigators and the fire marshal’s office and police forces?

Is he aware of the difficulty now created where the fire marshal will board a place up and how difficult it sometimes is for people to pool their investigative data? Does he not feel there must be a serious approach taken to the matter of arson? Would he not agree that something like a task force on this matter involving the fire marshals, the insurance companies and the police forces would be a worthwhile undertaking at this time?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition didn’t intend to suggest that the police forces in this province did not take the matter very seriously. To suggest otherwise would be very unfair to them. I am not aware of any problem of communication among police forces, the fire marshal’s office and insurance investigators.

But in view of the interest of the Leader of the Opposition in the matter, I will review the matter with the senior police officials and discuss this question of adequate communication to see whether or not they are satisfied with the resources at their disposal.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: When the Solicitor General is making his review, will he also be in touch with the Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau, which in fact is an arson squad, and make himself aware of the expertise that private group has obtained over the past few years in preventing arson?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I shall be happy to do that.


Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism, in view of the fact that the peak selling season for small appliances is just before Christmas, and in view of the fact that Canadian General Electric’s small appliance plant in Barrie has had its employment drop from 1,000 four years ago to 400 today and is going on layoff on December 8.

Is the government aware that CGE is giving the impression on its imported appliances that these imported appliances are made in Barrie because of the relative prominence of the wording “Canadian General Electric Company Limited, Barrie, Ontario,” compared to the very minuscule wording which says “Made in Japan”? If so, what is the government prepared to do about it?

Here is another example: “Général Electrique du Canada, Barrie, Ontario. Made in Japan.” What action is the government prepared to take?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the honourable member wants to suggest that there is misleading advertising going on, then he might more properly direct that question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). I really can’t offer him any more advice than that.

Mr. Mackenzie: Answer the question.

Mr. Warner: You won’t do anything.

Mr. McClellan: You simply don’t understand, do you?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If they are participating, for example, in our Shop Canadian program under false pretences, then the member might send that information over to me. It is better than the gifts the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) used to send me. I would be happy to receive that --

Mr. Warner: You didn’t do anything about that either.

Mr. Swart: You never returned it. That wasn’t a gift.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and look into it as well as I looked into the last matter.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister of inaction.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the very expensive promotional campaign which is now being carried out on behalf of the Shop Canadian concept, is the government aware that both Eaton’s and Simpsons here in downtown Toronto are not using any government-supplied promotional material for the Shop Canadian campaign in their small appliance departments? Is the government prepared to require the co-operation of large retailers, as well as requiring manufacturers to use the Shop Canadian stickers where they are selling domestically-produced products?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, we have had a great deal of success in a volunteer fashion in dealing with the Retail Council of Canada, which has co-operated with us.

Mr. Laughren: Sure you have.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might add that in the next several months you’ll see something like 170,000 different items carrying Shop Canadian labels. That is because I think we approached them on a sensible basis, asking for their co-operation and assistance. If the government were to come down with some sort of legislation and force everyone to put these labels on, then I might say we’d have to get involved in a lot of other more difficult situations. For example, what shall comprise Canadian-made goods? To what extent shall components be included; how many components; what percentage?

I might say that the agreements reached with the Retail Council of Canada on a voluntary fashion have proved to be very successful. Members will see more and more of them over the months to come.

I believe they’ll see that Eaton’s will be joining the campaign in full force in the next few weeks, to cite one example. The simple answer to the member’s question is no, we’re not going to force anyone to join in the Shop Canadian program.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the microphones used in the public accounts committee and in committee rooms 1 and 2 are made in Korea?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No; but where are the member’s sunglasses made?

An hon. member: Where are yours made, Larry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Eddie, how about some of the stuff you sell?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll be happy to discuss that matter with my colleague, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: If the minister is unwilling to require and would prefer to negotiate, is he willing to discuss with Canadian General Electric its policy of importation from Japan, apparently for packaging in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated, in terms of the Shop Canadian program all of the ways in which products become identified as Canadian-made products were the subject matter of discussions with the Retail Council of Canada.

Mr. Warner: You’re a Canadian-made disaster.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As people want to participate in the program, and we’re very aggressively working towards getting them to participate in the program, these are matters that come up in the day-to-day discussions.

In terms of the government I might add -- the previous speaker mentioned that as well -- the government is carefully looking at everything it purchases to see where we might be buying Canadian-made goods instead of imported goods.


Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment arising out of the urgent need to establish an appropriate disposal facility, or incineration facility, for PCBs here in Ontario.

Since the Minister of the Environment said on March 2 of this year that an environmental assessment board hearing on the burning of PCB-contaminated oil at the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Mississauga would begin in late summer, could the minister explain why the ministry has not yet released the background data and recommendations which have to be released before hearings can begin? And when does the minister now expect that assessment will begin?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We expect that hearing will occur in February of this coming year -- if not late February early March. I think the process of putting forward the information prior to that hearing has required more time than anticipated.

I also think it is important, prior to that occasion, that we have an opportunity to put on the public record, as I indicated in the House some time ago, all of the known technology, not only for the burning of PCBs but of how to handle other toxic wastes. I think it would be very helpful if we can get the technology known and put on the record prior to considering the same type of information at a public hearing. This would be done so that we may divorce, if you will, the hearing from the technology and the explanation of the technology. Surely it would be best if all that were known ahead of a hearing; then at the hearing itself we can deal with the specific issues as they relate to the site.


Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would it not be more appropriate that the test data which has been collected in Mississauga be available now for evaluation by the public, as well as by the ministry staff who are now looking at it? Is the minister also stating his intention that the material about means of disposal of PCBs will be released separately, and therefore will not be subjected to the scrutiny of any kind of a public hearing? Is that now the government’s intention?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, that is not the government’s intention. I think it just makes a lot of good sense, in a non-emotional, very technical way, to put this information on the record. I think at any hearing there is emotion -- and that emotion is very logical and very much understood -- but surely there is a need for all of society to know what can and cannot be done, not only when it comes to burning PCBs but in treating other industrial wastes.

I hope in the months of January and February we can put forward, not from the ministry but from the known experts in the field, what is safe and what will protect the people of this province in that kind of a setting; then when we go to our hearing we can judge the information that will be put forward at that time.

There is no intent on the part of the government not to allow full disclosure of that information, but we want to see it judged in the proper context.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister aware that the state of Michigan has looked into this problem quite deeply and has finally decided upon the construction of a facility, by the state itself, for the burning of toxic chemicals? It found no other alternative, even allowing private enterprise to build a facility. Private enterprise has refused.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m not as yet persuaded that, given the new waybill system where the amount of substance will be known and controlled, that the private sector is not interested. In fact to the contrary, since those statements were made we have had several approaches to the ministry from the private sector expressing their interest. This interest is not just in incineration but in some of the other processes that are so necessary in treating the whole problem.


Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Since the minister has just told us that the public hearings on the use of the St. Lawrence Cement plant for the destruction of high-level PCB-contaminated material will not start before February, almost a year after the hearings were ordered; and since these hearings may take several months and there is now no facility in Ontario or in the United States for the destruction of these very hazardous materials will the minister tell us whether he has yet identified a site or sites where these materials may be safely stored in the meantime; and when can we expect an announcement of such a site other than the Smithville facility, which he has pledged to use for emergency purposes only?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think I said about 10 days ago that I would report on that in the House when those sites were known. I can tell the member we have 14 sites we think are possible; but I think, on further reflection, that it would be very wise not to put those sites on the public record at this time, for a lot of very valid reasons, the best of which is the fact that if we are going to use any site in Ontario we have made the commitment that, as you know, there will be a hearing.

I think to do justice to that hearing all the information should be known. We want to do that carefully and well. I can assure the member we have made a pretty conscientious effort at finding various possible sites. As I said, we have 14 we think have possibilities, but I would prefer not to identify where they are at this time.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: In that event, it would appear that the Smithville site will be used for a considerable time for emergencies as determined by the minister. Have the new conditions applicable to the Smithville facility been finalized yet; and are they satisfactory to the residents of the area?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can’t answer whether they are satisfactory to the residents of the area. I can say that we have had three or four meetings with the council; we had our last one last week. I think we have reached substantial agreement. There are one or two items yet, I think, to be debated. Perhaps the greatest problem for me at the moment is that, as the member indicated, we do not have a facility. We do expect that in the short term we will have to store. We have made the commitment to Smithville, as the member knows.

There are many places where we can store these materials on a short-term basis. We are very hopeful that in 1979 facilities for their disposal will be found. But, given the sensitivity of that particular problem, to rush in and not put all the information clearly on the record in the first instance is likely to doom that facility to failure. I think we have seen that in the past, and it would be a grave error of judgement on our part if we did so again.

I assure the member that there will be hearings, but we are not going to jeopardize any of those facilities by premature announcements with insufficient information.


Mr. Yakabuski: I have a questions of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that no sooner had the extension to Highway 417 been opened than it became apparent a traffic light was required at the intersection of Highway 44 and Highway 17?

Mr. Breithaupt: Did you widen it too?

Mr. Yakabuski: Is he also aware that the former member for Carleton and a member of this Legislature, Erskine Johnston, recommended to his staff a number of years ago that a light be installed at that location when the new highway would be designed?

Mr. Peterson: What year was that?

Mr. Breithaupt: Put a historic plaque on it.

Mr. Yakabuski: Would he have his people look immediately into the very serious situation, because I’m told in the past two weeks the situation at times has been chaotic?

Mr. Eakins: The question is what took you so long.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that particular situation.

Mr. Breaugh: Now that’s a disgrace. You should resign if you don’t know that. Incompetence prevails.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But now that the honourable member has --

Mr. Makarchuk: And when you are installing it make sure you put the Tories on the platform; you forgot them yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- made me aware of the situation I will --

Mr. S. Smith: You never mentioned it before in 15 years.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- have it investigated immediately.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere on a point of privilege.

Mr. Warner: Yesterday I had the opportunity to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding harassment of tenants at 15 Orton Park. The minister responded in part, quoting from Hansard: “If the member has any evidence of illegal rent increases or demands for illegal rent payments, if he will bring them to my attention or that of my parliamentary assistant, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), we will be pleased to investigate them at once.” I have that information, Mr. Speaker, and I now wish --

Mr. Speaker: You could have brought that to my attention after question period. If you want to send the information over to the minister I am sure he will be happy to deal with it. It is not a point of privilege.


Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Solicitor General. As a result of the fatal shooting of lawyer Frederick Gans at 11:30 this morning in the Supreme Court of Ontario building at 145 Queen Street while representing a client in divorce proceedings, would the minister indicate what security was available, and would he take steps to tighten that security in any event, so that judges, lawyers and witnesses alike may be protected from such tragic occurrences?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this whole matter will, of course, be reviewed very carefully in the context particularly because of the very tragic occurrence this morning. I know that the Deputy Attorney General and the director of courts administration were at the scene of the shooting very shortly thereafter, and certainly the whole matter of security will be reviewed very carefully.

Mr. Stong: While the minister is investigating that situation, could he also investigate the accuracy of a report being aired on a local radio station which would indicate that a warning was received one hour before the shooting; and indicate what extra precautions were taken as a result of receiving that warning?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly that will be part of our review. The information I have, which is only tentative and I cannot vouch for its accuracy at this moment, is that some form of warning had been transmitted only minutes before the tragic shooting, not an hour, and that there was a police officer either just arriving on the scene or about to arrive when the shooting occurred. I will review all the circumstances.


Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Northern Affairs provided funding for the recently released FENCO Consultants study of industrial opportunities in the city of Sault Ste. Marie, and in view of the fact that officials from MNA and MIT participated in the study through giving technical advice, can the minister tell the House what response the government will now make to the study’s conclusion that “it is essential that immediate steps be taken towards implementation of a positive program to promote industrial development”? In particular, will the minister let us know what specific action he will take to supplement primary manufacturing in steel and lumber-related industries with secondary manufacturing employment opportunities?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the recommendations of that particular study now, and I will have a statement to make in due course.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: In his statement, will the minister be prepared to explain where the jobs will come from to sustain the projected population of 100,000 by the year 2001, in view of the fact that the consultants expect the increased use of new technology in the steel industry to reduce the rate of employment growth at Algoma Steel?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be reviewing all aspects of that report.


Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. Concerning the private member’s resolution I introduced in the House on October 26, 1978, as honourable members are aware, my resolution asked the government to introduce legislation to provide salary and other income benefits to the dependants of deceased police officers, firemen or prison guards who are killed in the line of duty. This week three firefighters were killed --

Mr. Speaker: Question? Do you have a question?

Mr. Hennessy: Yes, I have.

Mr. Speaker: Please put it.

Mr. Hennessy: I am coming to it. If you will just be patient I’ll --

Mr. Speaker: Please put it, or I will recognize another member.

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to know, when the legislation is approved will it be made retroactive to cover the benefits concerning this tragic accident?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the whole subject matter of the honourable member’s resolution is being reviewed now by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The wisdom of such legislation is being reviewed and, if such legislation is introduced, whether or not it should be made retroactive to assist the widows.

Mr. Swart: The member for Fort William wants too much.

Mr. T. P. Reid: In view of the fact that conservation officers are required to carry guns, particularly when they are carrying out their duties as conservation officers and particularly at night, and have on occasion been shot at by moonlighters and other people, if this matter is under consideration, would the Solicitor General consider including them under any such legislation if it is forthcoming?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, we will consider that.


Mr. Riddell: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware of the great concern that has been expressed over recent purchases of blocks of agricultural land in the counties of Bruce, Huron, Kent and Lambton by foreign interests? Can the minister tell us how widespread this practice is?

Hon. W. Newman: I am well aware of the fact that people from other countries have bought farms. Some of them are farming those farms and are excellent citizens in this province.

Mr. Mancini: That’s not the question.

Hon. W. Newman: Others who have bought farms are leasing those farms out to neighbouring farmers as a rule. I don’t think the practice is really widespread. I had some figures the other day; I have forgotten the exact figures, but the amount of foreign ownership of farm land in the province of Ontario, percentagewise is not high. As the member knows, we also have the land transfer tax in the province of Ontario which still applies to farm land in foreign ownership. That certainly has some effects on the purchase of land by people outside of Canada in the province of Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: How many acres?

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Is it not true that foreign interests are circumventing the transfer tax by forming an Ontario corporation? Will the minister immediately undertake a survey of current foreign ownership of rural lands in Ontario and monitor all new land transfers to private or corporate foreign ownership, as was recommended by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture at its recent annual meeting?

Hon. W. Newman: It’s a great thing to say will you do this and that and everything else, but it all costs a little bit of money.

Mr. Peterson: Just do something.

Hon. W. Newman: If the member would like us to do a particular printout in a particular county where he feels there is concern, we’ll do so ourselves, but to do the whole province at this point in time is just beyond the limitations of the stall I have at my disposal.

Mr. Riddell: The federation is doing it and it shouldn’t have to.

Hon. W. Newman: I realize the federation has asked for it and I realize what the situation is. Perhaps the member doesn’t realize there are people who are buying land in the province of Ontario because they have a lot of confidence in the future of this province.

Mr. McClellan: They know they can make a fast buck.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They know you are on your way out, that’s why.

Hon. W. Newman: They know they are going to be farming that land for a long time. As the member knows, in his own county farm land is being held for farming purposes and will be farmed for many years to come.

Mr. Riddell: How can our farmers compete for land other than by leasing it?

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Would the minister tell us what action he might be willing to take in the near future if it is brought to his attention that an enormous amount of land is being bought by people from outside our boundaries? Would the minister be willing to explain to the House if it would be necessary to prevent this by regulation or legislation?

Hon. W. Newman: The member is making a lot of assumptions. As I recall the figures, though I can’t give them to him exactly, the percentage is away below one per cent of the farm land. Don’t forget there are people who do come here, buy land and farm that land. They turn out to be very excellent citizens of this country.

Mr. Mancini: That’s not the question.

Hon. W. Newman: Some people are buying land here because land prices in other countries are perhaps far in excess of our prices. As far as I am concerned, that land will be farmed for many years to come.



Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Would the minister please inform this House about any information that he has on the tragic fire at the Kimberly-Clark warehouse in Etobicoke? In particular, does he know if any instructions were given to the company concerning the stacking of the rolls of paper to a height of 15 feet after either the 1975 fire or the 1977 fire?

Mr. S. Smith: I asked that question yesterday.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, when the investigation has been completed, I will report the results to the members of the Legislature.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us what charges he intends to lay as a result of the company’s negligence when the investigation is over?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: How can you lay charges before the investigation?

Mr. Lupusella: It’s unbelievable.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We laid lots of charges but we investigated first.


Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Treasurer would comment on the unemployment figures as they relate to Ontario.

Mr. Martel: I’m glad you asked that.

Mr. Bradley: You’re wasting the question period.

Mr. Kerrio: Tell him how it’s the feds’ fault -- those rascals in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We really thought you might ask about them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the figures I have just appeared today. Unemployment in Ontario rose over last month on an actual basis from about 6.1 per cent to about 6.6 per cent of the labour force. Seasonally adjusted, that is seven per cent and 7.3 per cent. I think, though, it has to be related to two other things: what the Canadian average is and the change in the work force. It is interesting to note that of 10 provinces in Canada only one actually had more people at work in November 1978 than in October 1978; that was Ontario. Ontario had an increase in the total number of people at work.

An hon. member: And a much higher percentage out of work.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The increase in the unemployed is regrettable, but it is entirely due to an increase in the work force during that month. I might point out that the total growth in jobs, year over year, as of November 30, was 154,000.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s hard for you to accept over there.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since we in eastern Ontario are facing yet another winter of double-digit unemployment, and since the Treasurer has not yet taken the opportunity to give any indication what, if any, winter works programs will be forthcoming from this government to alleviate that very serious regional unemployment problem, I wonder if he would add to those earlier comments any of his government’s plans to redress the serious unemployment in eastern Ontario and areas like Renfrew county in particular.

An hon. member: Get rid of the Grits in Ottawa.

Hon. F. 5. Miller: Mr. Speaker, most certainly we have recognized that eastern Ontario requires assistance. In fact, the honourable member may recall I said I have asked for -- and Mr. Lessard, the federal minister, has implied that he will sign -- an agreement with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion covering eastern Ontario, within which we hope to have a number of work projects incorporated and which I hope will be signed in time to have some assistance in the near future.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the level of seasonally adjusted unemployed in Ontario of 312,000 last month is at its second highest point in the past two years, can the Treasurer say when he intends to bring down the package of job-creation measures which he said he would have in preparation after the first ministers conference?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is getting very high priority. We are taking actions. In fact, the tabling of the report today on the pulp and paper industry was part of that. We wanted to make members opposite aware of some of the specific things we are talking about so that we can have actions incorporated in a package when it comes. To give an exact time is difficult; as quickly as I and the other ministers involved -- because there are about four of us -- are able to get the package put together, we will be announcing it.

Mr. Laughren: Before we adjourn?

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr Speaker: Regarding those communities which would not fit under the DREE program -- we recognize some in Ontario do and some don’t -- does the government have any specific programs for communities such as the city of Sudbury, which even before the strike experienced high unemployment, and the city of St. Catharines, which I understand has the second highest rate of unemployment in the province of Ontario? Does his government have any specific programs or projects for those communities in this particular year that might assist in alleviating the problem on a short-term and eventually a long-term basis?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Sudbury would be under a northern agreement. That’s being negotiated right now. Obviously, St. Catharines is not in an area that DREE is designating. The member is correct when he says that of the centres listed, it shows the second highest rate in November of 1978, but interestingly enough, that’s one of the few communities where employment has improved over the last year. In some of the others, the percentage has been going the wrong way.

Mr. Kerrio: It’s gone from 10 to 15.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We are very anxious to assist in that area. Luckily, that area has a number of natural factors in its favour. I’m sure the member would agree. There is proximity to major markets. I’m aware that some major corporations have been eyeing that area, hoping to be able to locate there. It may well be that major employment opportunities will open up without our involvement.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not in Atikokan.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the member would admit that is best. On the other band, we will not be leaving out of our program those measures which will apply to all the province, not just the designated areas.

Mr. Peterson: I have a wonderful supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve had four already. New question.


Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. In the two or three weeks we have remaining in this session, would the minister introduce comprehensive human rights legislation in line with at least some of the 97 recommendations of the report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which was released a full year and a half ago? Surely the minister would not feel satisfied that one evening of debate, as we had in this House last spring, is sufficient to address improvements in the human rights code.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, my staff and I are very intimately involved at the moment in carrying out the preparation of such a legislative document. I might tell the member that it’s not as easy as it may seem on the surface. For instance, Life Together overlooked a certain number of matters. If he reads the report carefully, he will find it overlooked the problem of due process in appeal of a human rights decision not to have a board of inquiry. These are matters we have to face, but I can give him assurance that I have the same concerns he has that such legislation gets before the Legislature as soon as is humanly possible.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary: I thank the minister for the information. When the minister brings this forth, would he introduce revisions to the 16-year-old provincial code which would support primacy of the human rights legislation as it co-exists with all other legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Certainly that’s an issue we’ll have to face. It’s an issue that other provinces have faced and not always agreed with, but it’s certainly a problem we have to discuss and reach a decision about.


Mr. M. N. Davison: I have a question to the Attorney General. In view of the fact that it’s one year to the day since the Donnelly commission submitted its non-report on the acquisition by the Ministry of Housing of certain lands in North Pickering; and in view of the fact the government still has before it several suggestions and recommendations of long standing from the Ombudsman and the select committee on the Ombudsman which it has ignored totally; will the Attorney General please tell this House when he is going to do something to see that the former landowners in this area get a fair hearing into their cases?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I recall, when questions were asked previously in relation to the North Pickering matter, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) said, and I think quite properly so, that he would not pursue the matter of North Pickering until he had the report from Mr. Follett, the acting Ombudsman, who as the member knows has had hearings extending over many months in relation to claimants in regard to the North Pickering matter. The Minister of Housing advised this House some time ago, and I again emphasize I think quite wisely so, that it would be unwise for the government to make any decision in this respect before it had the Hoilett report.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Surely the Attorney General is aware that the Donnelly commission report is before his ministry, not before the Ministry of Housing. He should also be aware that it’s quite likely the Hoilett hearings will not be concluded in the form of a report for another six to nine months. Does the minister not think that is an unacceptable length of time for these people?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, the Donnelly commission report was to the government. It was not a report specifically to my ministry more than to any other ministry.

Secondly, I am advised that the Hoilett hearings evidence is now terminated. There may be a day or two left. I can’t be certain about that, but the hearings, I am told, have been concluded so far as the hearing of evidence or taking of evidence is concerned.

Mr. Lawlor: Get some of the witnesses back.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister is a disgrace.


Mr. Van Horne: I have a question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell us, in light of such recent reports as that by the Oxford county medical health officer indicating the tremendous increase in the number of suspensions for alcohol abuse in schools in Oxford county, if she is prepared to table a report which we understand has been commissioned by the ministry, a report of a Dr. White of Info-Results Limited here in Toronto, which examines this problem of drug and alcohol abuse in the schools of Ontario? Will she tell us, too, what plans the ministry has to take on this problem and provide better curriculum and direction for our schools?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The study by Dr. White of Info-Results, I think, can be printed and released to the honourable member for his perusal. It is interesting that the findings of the study would indicate alcohol has a very limited effect on the classroom behaviour of most Ontario students. It has more impact, I gather, on extracurricular activities than it does on the intramural activities of the students.

Some of the findings, indeed, are interesting in terms of the difference between the results of the study and the public perception of the problem related to the schools. This is an area in which I have some very real concern, and one which we intend to pursue with the curriculum guidelines group related specifically to the area of physical education and health. We hope we will be able to be perhaps more definitive in the guidance and the materials which we can provide for the assistance of teachers where this is specifically a problem.

Mr. Van Horne: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister indicate to us, in addition to the studies that have been done, if in fact the Addiction Research Foundation has provided input for her?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In almost any study related to alcohol the services and the information developed by the Addiction Research Foundation are utilized.


Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In view of the fact many smaller plants and companies in the Windsor area are being forced to hire skilled tradesmen from outside the country; and in view of the fact the new Ford plant in Windsor will result in increased demand for workers in skilled trades; and in view of the fact community colleges and training programs are suffering from a severe lack of resources; can the minister tell us what she is prepared to do in order to ensure Ontario residents can be adequately prepared for these employment opportunities?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are very much concerned, not just about the requirements which the Ford plant itself will have but about the requirements for skilled construction workers in that area during the construction of the plant, and specifically about the requirement for the skills for supportive industries which will in fact employ many more than those who will be employed by the Ford plant.

At the present time, we are doing a number of things, including negotiating with the Canadian Tooling Manufacturers’ Association to encourage a very much larger number of apprentices through increased apprentice training and incentive programs for partially trained workers to upgrade their skills.

We are aware that the number of semiskilled workers in that area who wish to have upgrading has, in fact, doubled enrolment in the local programs which are available to them. We are very much aware that St. Clair College is working over capacity at the moment, and is actually running two shifts in order to ensure there is skilled training provided for those who wish to acquire at least minimum skill, or those who wish to upgrade their skills.


We are, through the CMITP, presently upgrading more than 1,000 semi-skilled workers in the whole Windsor area. We are very much concerned about the employment requirements which will follow the construction of that plant in Windsor. We are doing our very best to ensure there will be an adequate number of appropriately trained skilled and semi-skilled workers available to all of the industries in the area.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that by 1981 there will be a requirement for over 1,000 new skilled tradesmen in the Windsor area; and in view of the fact these smaller industries I in Windsor are concerned the new Ford plant will be pirating these skilled tradesmen from their plants; what specifically has Ford done to prepare workers already working for them there to upgrade their skills? Should Ford not be required to participate in this program since it was this government and the federal government that handed out $68 million to them? Do they not have some requirements to provide skilled tradesmen?

An hon. member: No, of course not; they can do whatever they want.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, Ford has its own apprenticeship training program --

Mr. Cooke: There are 140 at present.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- which has not been exactly wildly enthusiastically supported in the past, but there has been a very significant increase, almost a doubling of individuals involved in the apprenticeship program --

Mr. Cooke: From 70 to 140.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- in the tool and metal cutting areas.

Mr. Swart: He knows more about the numbers than you do.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That specifically is what Ford is doing. But we have some very real concerns, we are aware that Ford will probably entice --

Mr. Warner: You are quite an apologist for Ford.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- certain of the skilled people from the other industries in the area and we feel a grave responsibility to ensure that those other employers will have available to them people who are skilled. That is why we are actively working with the local people in Windsor -- with the secondary schools, with the community college and with the industries in Windsor -- to ensure --

Mr. McClellan: Don’t talk to Ford, you might upset them.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- there will be apprenticeship programs established as rapid as possible to accommodate all of those skills.

Mr. McClellan: They might give you your money back if you speak nasty to them.


Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, as one Miller to another. It’s basically similar to the DREE questions that were asked before, but in a different area. I wonder if the minister would consider looking at the DREE program being instigated in the area of processing of fruit such as peaches in specific areas like the Niagara peninsula? Would he consider also improving drainage in areas where there is a need for assistance in order to stimulate the use of agricultural land?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are both Millers upon which the wheat subsidy has been discontinued.

Mr. McClellan: Back to used cars.

Mr. Warner: You are half-baked.

An hon. member: That’s not as funny as your yellow tie.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh well, I guess half a loaf is better than none. In any event, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) --

An hon. member: Don’t count on him.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Even the press gallery is hissing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It doesn’t take much to provoke them to do that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has impressed upon me several times the essential nature of those very programs, and I can assure the member that we will not escape his eye as we prepare our program.

An hon. member: The first commitment he has got from you.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: In view of the fact it states in an article here that provincial and federal cabinet ministers recently accepted this new DREE program in principle, and it always talks about eastern and northern Ontario, did the minister agree to this program leaving out that important part of Ontario -- Dufferin, Simcoe, Grey, Bruce, Huron and Wellington -- that was under the last program?

Mr. Laughren: Cover all of Ontario.

An hon. member: Waterloo.

Mr. McKessock: Or are they included in the new program as well?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the honourable member is confused again. DREE is a federal program with which we work.

Mr. Nixon: He is talking about the Drea program.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mine always work.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did you see the price today? Eighty-nine cents a pound.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The other program to which I just referred will be a provincial program. They are quite separate.

Mr. Kerrio: How does it compare with last year’s?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, much less.

Mr. Conway: Has anyone impressed upon this Treasurer the need and requirement to make an announcement on DREE and other job-creating programs for this winter season before this session of this Legislature adjourns in a very short period of time? Can he give us an assurance that he will make a statement on this government’s commitment to these kinds of job-creating programs for this province for this winter season?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would love to give the House this commitment. I have, however, been back only six days from Ottawa; and, really, six days in a time frame is not all that much. We are doing our best.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is not a jet lag problem, is it?

Mr. Mackenzie: What were you doing all the time before you went to Ottawa?

Mr. S. Smith: You don’t do anything. You are not here, you don’t answer questions; a new strategy.

Mr. Cassidy: You were meant to have those ready when you went up to Ottawa.


Mr. Sweeney: A question of the Solicitor General: Given that the present legislation does not empower the Solicitor General to intervene in the derision of a local police commission with respect to the report on Waterloo Region, what did he mean by the statement: “If necessary to clarify the legislation, that will be done”? Is he referring to retroactive legislation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I’m not referring to any legislation at all, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, I’m pleased that the honourable member has asked me a question in this area because I think there has been some confusion, judging by press reports, as to what was said.

Mr. Warner: They always misquote you.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have a report by the Ontario Police Commission, after a lengthy hearing, which has made some 94 recommendations. In view of some initial reports I was asked what would happen, because there were some reports, whether they were factual or not, emanating from Kitchener-Waterloo to the effect, “What if the report is totally ignored?” Given some 94 recommendations, I stated quite clearly that I didn’t expect that the local commission would ignore the report, but that if the report was totally ignored the matter couldn’t be allowed to lie there. I’m confident that the report will not be ignored.

I rather regret that so much of the press speculation has focused on one of the 94 recommendations --

Mr. Nixon: I wonder why that would be.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- namely, whether or not the local chief of police would be discharged. There were two recommendations, one in the alternative. I made no comment whatsoever on that particular recommendation and I want to make that quite clear. Until the local commission has an opportunity of considering this report -- which I’m confident it will consider and consider carefully -- I don’t think it would be proper for me to make any further comment.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired, by something like two and a half minutes.


Mr. Laughren: Point of privilege: On November 20, I raised in this chamber a question of the practice of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in reducing injured workers’ benefits when they applied for Canada Pension Plan Benefits. The Minister of Labour has not replied to this date. In view of the urgency, and in view of the fact that workers are still to this day having their benefits reduced simply because they apply for Canada pension -- not because they’re receiving Canada pension even -- would the Minister of Labour make a commitment to reply to this, and preferably reply in a way that indicates that he’s directed the compensation board to cease and desist in this practice?

Mr. Speaker: Questions of privilege or alleged questions of privilege that arise out of something that was said in the question period should properly be raised in the question period. However, if the Minister of Labour has something to contribute I’d be willing to hear him.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I just apologize. The delay hasn’t been intentional. I certainly will look into it.



Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing administration of justice committee be authorized to meet the afternoon of Wednesday, December 6, if required.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on Thursday next the House meet at 9 a.m. with the luncheon interval from 1 to 2 p.m., routine proceedings be called at 2 p.m. and the standing committees scheduled to meet that morning be permitted to sit concurrently with the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: With respect to that motion, am I correct in assuming that it is only for the purpose of dealing with Bill 103, the act to amend the Condominium Act, that the House will be sitting on that morning, or might there be other business called in committee, which I understand it is the intention of the House leader to have the House deal with?


Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s right. Not being able to predict how long it will take to complete the committee work on Bill 103, we are working on the assumption that we would complete that bill, and that if there were additional time we would do other legislation; and we would indicate that perhaps this evening, as we know where we are in the legislative program.

Motion agreed to.



Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 195, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 196, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to protect the employment of an employee who attempts to enforce the provisions of this or any other act, or who testifies or otherwise participates in a proceeding or hearing under this or any other act before a court of law.


Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to repeal certain provisions of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972, that restrict the composition of collective agreements negotiated under the act.


Mr. Samis moved first reading of Bill 198, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: This is an updated version of an earlier bill. The purpose of the bill is to enable independent grocery store owners to sell beer and Ontario wine.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, for purposes of information, I wonder if I might indicate that in addition to the legislation which is set out in the statement at each member’s desk we are adding Bill 186. I know there has been some notice. I wanted to make sure members knew that Bill 186 could be called this evening.

Mr. Nixon: Is that the gland bill?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The pituitary gland bill.

I might point out it is understood if there are divisions during the course of the day, the House bas concurred in deferring any divisions until 10:15 this evening in order to facilitate handling of this particular legislation we have before us. That’s just for the information of those working at the table.

Mr. Speaker: You are not asking for an agreement on that, are you?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well I assume the House concurs on this.

Mr. Speaker: Is there concurrence with that?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am always prompted to rise on a point of order, with your permission, when this is put forward. This is an agreement that has been entered into -- I think the phrase is behind the Speaker’s chair, and that is quite easily facilitated these days -- but for it to be put to you, sir, and for you to ask if there is a formal agreement, somehow does not go down right. Are we setting aside some rules, or what? I think not. I would just simply say again to Mr. Speaker that what the House leaders decide is really --

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think it is sub judice, that is what it is.

Mr. Nixon: I suppose. I actually do not feel that it should be put to you, sir, and then to the House, as some sort of an amendment to the rules for this day.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I like to use these opportunities to disseminate certain information; I do not speak particularly to the question of rules. Five members of this House can stand up at any time and ask for a bell. If they are working under some understanding that there is going to be a bell later on in the day they should not be prejudiced by knowledge of that arrangement in standing up at another time. I just want to make sure there is no confusion, that is all. Whether or not that is behind the chair, behind the scene, sub judice or whatever it is, just want to make sure everybody knows what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker: If the member from Brant would speak with the member for Brock behind my chair this would never arise.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to speak further to the point of order, with your permission, because that is precisely what happened. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to think in your former capacity, before your present elevated position, when you participated in the workings of one of the parties here in the House. Do you recall a debate in which the enthusiasm in support of a matter of high principle, that perhaps was not recognized as such a high principle by everyone in the House, would lead you or one of your colleagues on that occasion to call for a vote because anything else would be less than satisfactory to democracy? Surely that could still happen, though God forbid, in the debates this afternoon on the University of Toronto bill and certain others. What I do not like is for you to put it forward, which really makes it rather impossible for those high moments of debate and high principles to occur again. I do not want to put a lid on those things, and I know you do not want to either.

Mr. Speaker: I want to assure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, with all the sincerity and conviction I can muster, if anything arises in this House this afternoon or this evening that is in contravention with the rules, every member’s rights will be protected.



The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 137, The Metric Conversion Statute Law Amendment Act, 1978.


Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 147, An Act to amend the University of Toronto Act, 1971.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Until recently, it was my understanding that this bill had been accepted by all elements of the University of Toronto. However, two weeks ago I received a letter from the president of the University of Toronto Faculty Association which raises one specific issue. I should like to clarify this issue in order not to prolong unduly consideration of the bill.

The University of Toronto Faculty Association objects to the wording of section 2(5) of the bill, which re-enacts section 2(14)(b) of the act. The association claims that the new wording “will open up the possibility that academic freedom may in fact be infringed upon, because the president may delegate his authority to appoint, to promote, to suspend or remove staff members to such other officer or employee of the university designated therefor by the president,” and, of course, approved by the governing council.

I should like to assure the members of the Legislature and the faculty association of the University of Toronto that they really need have no concern. The case cited by the faculty association was that of the attempt by some members of the University of Toronto board in 1941 to dismiss Professor Frank Underhill. Because the required recommendation from the president had not been received, the beard could not dismiss Professor Underhill and academic freedom was upheld.

The proposed amendments before the House would not change the outcome of any case similar to the Underhill case should such occur in the future. In 1941, some members of the board were attempting to dismiss Underhill with no recommendation from the president. A recommendation from the president or his delegate will still be required to dismiss a professor.

The issue becomes whether the president should be allowed to delegate his personal responsibilities. It should be noted that the University of Toronto’s policy on appointments and remuneration makes very clear that recommendations for suspension or removal shall be made by the president. The president does not intend to delegate the powers to recommend suspension or removal of academic staff and has so informed the faculty association.

It must be remembered that the University of Toronto has many more nonacademic employees than it has academic employees. In any organization of the size of the University of Toronto, delegation of authority on personnel matters to line managers is routine. The new wording being proposed will simply relieve the president of many routine personnel matters.

The governing council and the president could agree to delegate his authority on academic personnel matters. Presumably the president would only agree to do this if he had total confidence in his delegate. Presumably that delegate would be someone in the academic hierarchy who would be equally sensitive to the issues of academic freedom. Presumably, as well, the president would withdraw a delegation if he thought an improper recommendation were to be made. Presumably the governing council would still seek the advice of the president in any controversial case.

I have to say that if the Legislature of this province cannot trust the president of the largest university in Canada to delegate his authority responsibility, then we have reached a sorry state indeed. Even if a presidential delegate were to make a grossly unjust recommendation for dismissal to the governing council, that council could choose to ignore the recommendation and could revoke the delegation. In Professor Underhill’s days, there were no faculty members on the board. Today, there are 12 on the governing council who could argue the case of academic freedom.

Failing all else, the affected professor could appeal to the courts based upon the provision of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, 1971.

The letter of the faculty association of the University of Toronto suggests that this bill is the first indication of this proposed amendment. May I inform the honourable members that this proposed amendment came from the governing council’s report of October 30, 1974, and that there are 12 faculty members upon that council comprising 24 per cent of its membership.


Secondly, the Macdonald report, published by the university in 1977, contained a recommendation identical in principle to the clause which is now objected to. Thirdly, in February 1978, the faculty association advised, following extensive discussion by its executive and delegates, that it strongly supported the Macdonald report. Fourthly, the governing council, on September 21, 1978, approved changes in its original submission of 1974, but these changes did not include the points now raised. Fifthly, on October 19, 1978, the governing council approved a policy document on appointments, suspensions and removals which provides for internal procedures, including delegation by the governing council and the president.

I believe the facts speak for themselves. However, be that as it may, this Legislature has placed responsibility on the governing council for the government, the management and control of the University of Toronto. That university is a very large, complex, internationally known and respected institution. Its governing council consists of 50 citizens: The chancellor, the president, two other officers, 16 persons appointed by this government, 12 members of faculty, eight students, eight alumni and two administrative staff. Based upon their performance to date and upon the recommendations contained in the report referred to, I have full confidence that the governing council will carry out its duties in a very responsible manner.

If I had any concern at all that the clause in question might be used in any way to infringe upon academic freedom I would withdraw it immediately. But I am sure that no such danger exists.

Mr. Sweeney: The statement of the minister highlights a point I would like to make at the very beginning. With respect to the amendment to the University of Toronto Act, in our reviewing of that act we must keep in mind that the University of Toronto is not like any other university. Words are frequently used with respect to that university which do not necessarily in any way intend to convey that I am down-playing any of the other universities. I would hope that would not be assumed.

In many ways, and in many publications, the University of Toronto is frequently referred to as the provincial university. I think the intent by such writers and such speakers is to convey that the University of Toronto does have, in the minds of many if not legally, a somewhat pre-eminent position. The importance of that perception is that the kinds of things that are done at that university and the kinds of points and positions that are in the act of that university have a greater weight than they would if they were found elsewhere. They are perceived in many ways to be precedents.

What I am trying to say is that when we deal with this act and when we deal with amendments to this act, we have to keep uppermost in our minds that they will be perceived by many in the academic community outside this chamber as precedents. When we look at the case the minister just mentioned and I’ll come back to it in a minute -- that is going to be perceived as a precedent because my review of all the other university acts in this province does not reveal to me that there is one single one of them -- not one -- that allows that kind of delegation. The closest we come to it is in the McMaster act which does allow a delegation, but it goes through their senate where there is a built-in protection.

I am not specifically at this moment dealing with the issue itself, but the way in which our handling of that issue will be perceived. I think we have to realize that what the University of Toronto does is perceived as a precedent in many ways by other university jurisdictions. For example, although it has nothing specifically to do with the bill but perhaps to make the point, when the University of Toronto decided to lower its admission standards -- and it did so, an in a sense that does have something to do with this bill because the bill speaks to the board of governors having the right to control and to regulate the admission standards of the university -- but when it did that the university tried to suggest to the public it was doing it on its own. “We already have the highest admission standards in the province and therefore we can afford to do it, it’s not going to affect anyone else.” That was the attitude. But what they forgot was the filtering-down effect. If they dropped their admission standards by five or six or seven percentage points, many of the universities, simply to maintain their enrolments, had to do the same thing.

We have that precedent, and we have it in this particular issue. We are dealing in this act with giving the board of governors power over programming and curriculum. That’s a precedent that we have to keep in mind.

I see the minister shaking her head. I am simply trying to highlight that when we deal with issues within this act we must do so with a certain weight we might not feel encumbered by if we were dealing with the act of another university. That’s really the only point I’m trying to make. It has that special quality to it.

I would like to put on the record at this point that we have been waiting a very long time for these amendments to come through. As a matter of fact, in the 1971 act section 19 very clearly said that within two years the act would be reviewed and recommendations would come from the governing council to the government and then to the Legislature. In fact two years after the act actually came into force -- which was in 1972 -- a submission was made to the minister’s predecessor that certain changes should take place. That was in October 1974.

In the spring of 1973 the changes were actually laid before this Legislature -- March of 1973 to be precise -- and the then chairman of cabinet, the Honourable John White, was asked in a series of correspondence when they were going to be brought forward. As part of his response he made this observation: “It will now be introduced in the next session following the election.” The date of that is August 1975. In other words, it should have been brought forward in 1974. It should have been brought forward in the spring of 1975. It was promised to be brought forward in the fall of 1975.

One of the very first questions I raised with the then minister in my role as critic in this Legislature in November of 1975 was this issue. The issue was raised again privately, behind the scenes, behind the chair -- whatever the expression is -- every spring and every fall since then. And it was put off for one reason or another.

Mr. Mackenzie: You wouldn’t want them to rush it, would you?

Mr. Sweeney: The only reason I bring that up is that we are under some subtle pressure now to, “For heaven’s sake let this bill get through. Don’t hold it up. We're going to talk about student representation. Don’t hold it up. We’re going to talk about the issue of possibly infringing upon academic freedom. Don’t hold it up. We’re going to be talking about the theological school. For heaven’s sake, it dates back to July 1978; it’s retroactive in a sense. Don’t hold it up.

I’ll go on record at this time: I’m not going to hold it up. I think all of those concerns are valid, but I want the record to show that if it did get held up it would not be our responsibility but the responsibility of the government the minister represents. It has held up changes to this legislation since 1974, four years. I know that during that four-year period of time the university itself has made some changes, but that’s because it was waiting and waiting and waiting for the government to do something.

Of course, after you make recommendations and two years later the government hasn’t acted on them, you might want to go back and take another look and say: “Do we still agree with those recommendations? Wait a minute, we want to take another look.” That’s reasonable. But it has been this government, nut us and not the universities, that held these amendments up for four years. I think the record clearly has to show that.

One of the major intents of these amendments is -- I think in the minister’s own words -- to streamline the operation of the governing council, and I don’t quarrel with that whatsoever. I have no quarrel with it at all. But if we are going to talk about streamlining the governing council, we also have to take a look at representation on that governing council and there are a couple of things about that representation that concern me. No, I am not going to hold it up, but I think the expression needs to be made.

First of all I want to talk about student representation. Let me say right at the very beginning, if there is any constituent body at the University of Toronto which has taken the high road, which has put the best interest of the university ahead of themselves on all occasions, it has been the students.

We have heard from the faculty association with theft particular concerns. We have heard from the governing council with their particular concerns. We have even heard from the support staff with their concerns. But the one group, the one constituent body, that has said over and over again -- and demonstrated, over and over again -- that the overall good of the university comes first, has been the students.

In order to appreciate that I think we have to go back a little bit. Before the act of 1971, a very important change in the University of Toronto Act came into being. There was a committee of the university set up to look into the kinds of changes that might be made and to make recommendations, first of all to the university and latterly to the government. One of the things that came out of that recommendation was that there should be equality of representation between the students and the faculty on the university governing council. I just want to read one sentence from that report dated 1969-70.

“For this reason” -- and there is a whole series of reasons, and I am sure the minister has read them too, but I just want to be sure we understand that it was a clear and precise and specific recommendation. The statement reads:

“For this reason we have accepted parity in the representation of students and teaching staff.” That was the original recommendation by the committee drawn up in 1968-69, which reported in 1969-70 on the whole issue of representation. They recommended parity. But the record shows that after undue pressure, a lot of pressure within the university community, the students yielded that position. They wanted parity; they believed they should have parity; but for the good of the university they yielded and they ended up with the representation -- what was it? -- 12 faculty, eight students.

The next step: Prior to the 1974 recommendations being presented to the government, there was another committee, an internal working committee. Again a cross-section -- administration, faculty, students, government appointees. They also recommended parity. They brought that report in. Once again rather intense pressure on the students:

“Don’t block this. Don’t apply that kind of personal concern. Think of the good of the university.”

What did they do? They agreed, so the report that came through to the minister’s predecessor -- this is the report dated October 30, 1974 -- recommended, not parity but at least the next best thing to it, near parity. They recommended that there be 13 members of the teaching staff and 11 members selected from the student body.

I just want to put a little notation that is on the side here. “This model was duly voted upon and passed by the governing council” -- not parity, but near parity. Once again the students, in the best interest of the university, gave way to what they believed they should have and what they wanted.


Let’s go one more step. Prior to the final recommendations coming in to the minister, I understand during the summer months and finalized in September of this year there was another review of this. The students started out by insisting that this at least they should get. This had been agreed upon. In her own statement the minister referred back to what had been agreed upon, but once again the pressure is applied.

Once again the students are told: “For the good of the university, don’t push it. Let’s not upset the apple cart. We are going to upset the other constituent bodies if we give you even near parity,” and once again the students have backed off and they have accepted the status quo, 12 faculty members, eight students.

We are not changing the act. I am not going to introduce an amendment to the act, though I was going to, because I believe the students have a good position, particularly when one looks at this Metro Toronto area. The other two large university institutions, York and Ryerson, both have an equality of representation between faculty and students on their boards of governors. The numbers are not large but they have equality. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the other university, the University of Toronto, and its student body should require and should expect the same kind of treatment.

I am not going to make an amendment, and I will tell the minister why: because the student body themselves and their representatives came to me and asked me not to. They still believe they are right. They still believe they are entitled to at least what the council passed, but for the good of the university and so the bill would not be held up, so we would not create more dissension on that campus over there, they said: “Don’t.”

I think the record should show the high road the university students on the campus have taken on this issue and I hope that somewhere down the line -- I understand that we may be reviewing this again five years hence -- I hope somewhere down the line we don’t forget the kinds of sacrifices that group made and that we remember that maybe we owe them something.

Okay. One of the other issues with respect to faculty representation that concerns me are the 16 appointees from the Lieutenant Governor, which, of course, means the cabinet and which probably to a large extent means the minister herself. Going back to 1971, again in 1974 and now, there has been verbal representation made that we would want and we should have a better cross section of people appointed to that board governors by her body, because she is the only one who has that large block of 16 appointees who could have that.

It has been suggested that there should be representatives from the local community within which the university has to live physically and geographically; there should be representation from the secondary school teachers federation, because they are the ones who have the students before the university gets them; there should be representation from labour, both organized and unorganized; there should he representation from the local municipal councils that have to relate to that university because it’s part of this community.

I have not noticed any great attempt by the government to consider that kind of broad-based representation. As a matter of fact, in the 1976 list of the members of the hoard of government, there is pretty well business and professional people. I understand a small chink has been made. Someone even suggested there’s at least one member of that council in the minister’s appointed body who is a member of one of these two parties as opposed to that one. Someone told me that there is at least one person --

Mr. Breithaupt: Mistakes do happen.

Mr. Sweeney: Mistakes do happen, my colleague says -- that there was at least one from labour. Okay, that’s a beginning. I would like to go back again though, and I am referring here to the 1912 report of the Commission on Post-Secondary Education in Toronto, headed up by Professor Wright. He makes a valid point here, which I want to emphasize, referring to representation on governing bodies of universities, and this is the sentence:

“To exercise these many functions, the lay element on governing bodies should be broadly representative of their communities. Boards dominated by corporate elite have become an anachronism in our society.”

Once again, I am not going to introduce an amendment that that be done specifically. My colleague from the NDP will introduce such an amendment. The point I want to make is that the minister has it within her power and the cabinet has it within its power to see to it that their 16 appointees do have this broad-based representation.

I am emphasising this point because I have sent the minister a copy of the minutes of the governing council dated May I 18, 1978. I am tying it in with the two comments I made with respect to the students and with respect to a broader-based representation on that council. They were referring to the possibility of a majority on some of the committees of the university, a majority coming from one particular constituent body. They decided that they needn’t be concerned about that.

This is the sentence that refers to it: “As long as the governing council is fully representative, this would provide the required protection to ensure that proposals are considered on merit.” That is from the minutes of the governing council itself on May 18, 1978. They recognize the validity and the importance of the broad-based representation of that council. So, if some other committee of the university were to become unbalanced, in the final analysis, when the final decision was being made, it would go back to a governing council where there would be this broad-based representation.

I want to speak very briefly to the minister’s statement with respect to the change in the delegation authority of the president. I refer the minister to her own statement on page three. My attention was caught in the paragraph in the middle of the page, where the minister used the word “presumably” four times. I don’t know whether it was deliberate; but the word “presumably” means to me, “You know, folks, I’m not really sure, but we would kind of hope that’s what would happen.” That’s the way I interpret the word “presumably.”

If the minister bad only used it once, I probably wouldn’t have caught it. But when it was used successively four times in four sentences, then I have to believe that even the minister is not as convinced as she would like to encourage us to be.

Mr. Sterling: I am convinced.

Mr. Sweeney: The minister will have the opportunity to relate in a few minutes why she used that word. But that’s one of the ways in which I would have to refer to it.

One of the other points the minister makes in her statement is -- and I have understood this from talking to the members of the university community itself -- that the president has no intention of delegating his responsibility with respect to the suspension or dismissal of academic staff. I spoke to a couple of members of the governing council and they told me the same thing. They said, “What are you worried about? We’re going to tell you now that we have no intention of approving the president’s delegating his authority in this area.” That is, the suspension and dismissal of academic staff.

If neither one of them has any intention whatsoever of ever using that power, the obvious question has to be, why put it in the legislation? Why not clearly say in the legislation that the president has the power to delegate all of these various authorities? I agree with what the minister has said. I think it is absolutely ludicrous, and I have some experience to fall back on as a former chief executive officer of a large educational body. I think it is ludicrous for the chief executive officer, which is what the president is, to make all of those decisions on his own. He should delegate most of them. I support the amendment from that point of view.

But I am concerned, as the faculty association has expressed their concerns, that this is not a good area to delegate. It would seem to me that we can clear up this whole issue if the minister would change that section of the amendment and say that we will allow the president to delegate everything except the right of suspension and dismissal of academic staff. If the minister truly believes this won’t be done; if the president says it won’t be done; if the governing council itself says it won’t be done, then I can’t think of any convincing argument. I am open to listening to one, but I can’t think of any convincing argument as to why not the legislation shouldn’t reflect what in fact we intend to happen, what the president intends to happen, what the minister intends to happen, what the governing council intends to happen. We can clear up this whole concern right here. Why go ahead with it?

Finally, I want to speak briefly to the theological school. First of all I will say I support the principle that is being enunciated here. I think it makes tremendous sense; it makes significant sense that we should allow the various constituent colleges of the university to come together to set up a theological school and to get the kind of support this bill will give them. It makes a lot of sense.

I have a couple of questions. First of all I would like the minister to advise me in what ways this could be expanded; or does the legislation freeze it the way it is? The present constituent bodies which happen to be in place at this point in time, are they in and everybody else out; or is there some way it could be expanded?

For example, I would raise the point that I notice all of the constituent bodies are of the Christian denomination. Are there possibly other religious groups which could become part of it? For example, members of the community of the Jewish faith -- could a Judaic organization become part of that? I don’t know. I’m asking.

Secondly, I would like to know, going back to my very first point, now that the University of Toronto has made this particular arrangement, are we leaving it open to other universities? For example, the university in my own area, the University of Waterloo, which has four affiliated colleges all having a theological part to their curriculum, could they possibly do that? In other words, can’t we accept the principle that this is a precedent that others can look at?

We’re going to be dealing with some of the specific parts of this bill and I will raise further questions at that particular point.

Mr. Cooke: I will be very brief. I just want to raise a couple of issues in the legislation; namely, the makeup of governing council and the issue of academic freedom. I’ll talk about the issue of academic freedom first, since that’s the one the minister addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t agree with the position the minister has taken. As the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has said, she herself agrees that the idea of delegating the authority for suspensions or firing of academic staff will not be used. It will not be delegated to other people within the university and, in fact, the president will be responsible for approving those actions.

I would simply say to the minister that if it is not going to be used, if it’s not going to be implemented in the way the bill allows it to be, then why not accept an amendment -- we’ll have an opportunity to debate that later on -- an amendment that I am going to be putting forward that would simply give the president the authority to delegate the responsibility for hiring or promotions to someone else within the university, but leave the responsibility for firing or for suspensions with the president?

In actual fact we know that the president of the university can delegate that authority and that someone else in the university would make the recommendation. What we’re really talking about is who has to take the final responsibility for either firing or suspending a staff member. I would think that in a university it’s not such an onerous responsibility that it could not be left with the president of the university. Since this issue has raised a fair amount of controversy I would ask the minister to seriously consider accepting my amendment when it comes up for debate.

I would agree with the minister that the faculty association would have been better to raise this issue a few years back when it was first talked about within the university. It probably could have been resolved outside the Legislature and never would have had to have been debated here. I think the faculty association now recognizes that problem. It’s unfortunate that it’s here in front of us; it should have been resolved at the university.


I think we’ll get into the debate on this particular issue more extensively when the amendment comes up during the committee stage.

I am going to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk again about the representatives on the governing council; first, concerning student representation. Back in July 1971, when the University of Toronto Act was first brought into this Legislature to introduce the unicameral form of government, my party, through its spokesman at that time, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), took a position that there should be equal representation between faculty and students on the governing council. We have maintained that position.

Unfortunately -- I say unfortunately, because I do regret it -- the students have decided not to pursue this particular issue, even though I am sure they have done it in the interests of the university. We still maintain our position that students and faculty should have equal representation.

The students have told me there are so many committees associated with the governing council that it is difficult for eight students to adequately handle their academic work as well as serve and perform a role on the committees. I think that is probably a concern of theirs that has some validity.

I would think that now, at a time when funding of universities seems to be a problem and the participation rate in universities is declining, students as well as faculty and all members of the university community are very concerned, but students face the possibility of losing a lot in their courses and the quality of their programs faces the possibility of being affected.

I know the minister may not agree with that, but it is something that is being discussed in the universities. Universities are facing budget problems. I think students face the possibility of losing a lot and therefore should have an equal voice in the decision-making process with the faculty.

The other area of appointments is the 16 members who are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or, in effect, by the minister or the cabinet. At present, I understand, there is no labour representative on the governing council; there has been in the past. It would seem that those representatives are token representatives and do not represent a really solid commitment on the part of government to make sure that the governing council represents the community and Toronto as a whole.

The government should have made sure that those 16 appointees are not just members of the Progressive Conservative Party, or not just members of a certain segment of our community, but that they are representative of the entire community; that includes labour, community groups, city council, the boards of education and other professions, such as teachers at the elementary and secondary level, as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has mentioned. I think that is a very important thing.

In the past it was important for governing councils to have people from business and influential people in the community on boards of governors, because it was important to go out and raise money for the university. But now that universities are funded through the government to a great extent -- I think about 85 per cent of the money comes from government -- there is really no need to have those types of people in the majority on governing councils. They certainly need to be represented, just as all people in the community do.

Later, I will be presenting an amendment which I hope will have some influence on the government in making sure that in the future their appointments are truly representative of the community.

I cannot see, when the majority of the representatives on the governing council are from professions or from business, how the university can be sensitive to the problem of accessibility of low-income and working-class people in this province. The only way universities are going to develop new programs to bring new types of students into universities is if the representatives on the governing council are sensitive to that type of problem.

I do not think a large number of people from business and from the professions really understand the problems that working-class people in this province face in attempting to get into university.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Many of them started there.

Mr. Cooke: Some of them may have started there. But the fact is that, once they are there, they seem to forget their roots.

Mr. Germa: Started where?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As working-class people.

Mr. Cooke: The figures indicate very clearly that the students are overwhelmingly from professional and high-income families.

Mr. Nixon: It’s the old boy and old girl network at work.

Mr. Cooke: We have made very little progress over the years in getting new types of students in universities.

I think the minister recognizes that, and if she doesn’t she is burying her head in the sand and not recognizing the facts.

There will be two amendments presented by this party. I hope the minister will look at them and look at them seriously in a non-partisan way, supporting them when the time comes for debate.

Mr. Nixon: I am certainly much impressed by the comments made by my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot who, as we have grown to expect from him, has kept up on this matter, his responsibility for our party pertaining to colleges and universities in a very careful way indeed. He has visited almost every campus in Ontario to get the views of the faculty, administrators and students and I know you, Mr. Speaker, paid as careful attention to his useful remarks on this bill as I did.

I just wanted to make a comment or two about this review of the University of Toronto Act. I can recall the high degree of controversy which surrounded the new act when it was presented in 1971, because the students at that time were calling for a significant representation on what was then the new unicameral system.

The hearings in the then education committee were particularly significant because it was our party that put forward the amendment that increased the representation by the students to eight members. This was quite strenuously opposed, particularly by the representatives of the faculty.

I don’t know whether this is recorded in the Hansard of the time, but I do recall among the representatives of the government party on the education committee -- the Conservatives then had a heavy majority -- were some grand old gentlemen who were more or less heading out to pasture. Many of them are now in receipt of the pensions a grateful public has provided them. They were not generally thought to be the kind of people who would jump over the traces particularly and do anything other than what was suggested by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who I think was the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) at that time. Perhaps not. I think it was still Davis at that time. I know the minister is just entranced with every comment I make in this connection.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Hanging on your every word.

Mr. Nixon: It is interesting to recall that the faculty, through their representatives, came over and presented the ease against the students having this much representation. The result of their presentation was such that even the backbench good old boys of the Tory party rejected the recommendation of the government and increased the student representatives by that amount.

You remember, Mr. Speaker, it was our good friend Matthew Dymond who spoke as well as any in this regard when he indicated how disappointed he was at the rather reactionary approach taken by the faculty at that time and they were turned down by the House. I’m proud to say it was a Liberal amendment and there weren’t very many successful Liberal amendments in those days, or even now for that matter. But certainly we were very proud of what we had accomplished.

I simply mention that because I’m interested to note that no other university in Ontario followed what we thought at the time was quite an interesting and innovative new approach in establishing the unicameral system at the University of Toronto, supposedly the provincial university, in some mysterious way. This may well be because most university governing bodies are quite satisfied to have the representatives of the faculty more or less hived in a senate where they have special responsibilities and through their representatives could influence the decisions taken by the direct university administration.

Not having had experience with a unicameral system but dealing with whatever information comes to me, I feel the bicameral system probably remains the system of choice. I think the faculties have shown by their responses to various proposals for innovation that they tend to be small “c” conservative in this connection. I think probably in their political philosophies they tend to be sort of red radicals. Their approach is, as is often the ease with any professionals -- or I suppose anybody else, having to begin with to do with self preservation and then beyond that -- is the aggrandizement that goes with those who have an opportunity to influence their own destiny, whether it may be the destiny of their personal influence or the destiny of their remuneration.

Mr. Breithaupt: They are what is known as small “r” reactionaries.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps that’s what I am searching for. Certainly it is not my intention to make a speech critical of any professional group, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, no, particularly not lawyers.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe I have been around here long enough that I can say these things without passing on any bad reflections on my colleagues, particularly my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot who is so dedicated to excellence and independence in the university and particularly the academic community.

Mr. Germa: Go ahead.

Mr. Nixon: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am getting quite concerned not just about the University of Toronto, but about all our post-secondary institutions. They seemed to be gripped by some of the problems that seem to be found in almost all groups, I suppose legislators included.

I was quite interested, for example, in my son and daughter who attend provincially assisted universities in Ontario, who contacted us last Sunday with glee and enthusiasm indicating the fall term for them ends on December 8 and the next term begins January 8. One has no exams and the other has one exam during that period.

Now I am quite sure if a person was attending medical school or law school or anything else there would be a lengthy series of carefully timetabled examinations. The professors must be hard put indeed to keep up with their heavy and growing responsibilities. Yet my response to my kids was, “Why don’t you complain?” or, “why don’t you insist that the professors are paid by the lecture? Why should you be looking forward to a month off and then a study week three weeks later when we are pumping money into the post-secondary system?” Certainly, we are getting complaints, and valid complaints, that our universities and colleges are not adequately supported. Perhaps if one goes by the levels of gargantuan support and increases in support from 1967 through to 1975, there is ample room to complain. Frankly, speaking in an independent capacity in such a sensitive area I am very much concerned as a taxpayer and parent that my kids are not getting value for money.

Mr. Cooke: Your critic says they are underfunded.

Mr. Nixon: In this direction, I simply indicate there are certain perhaps inadequately informed portions of the community. In this connection, I associate myself with that group who feel that a month without lectures now and a study week later on is too much -- and at a certain other provincially assisted university I helped pay fees to, a study week just finished back in November. All of those things are great, I suppose, and contribute to the independence of the student concerned, which of course, is much to be desired.

It also contributes, in my opinion, to the reduction in certain pressures on those people who have a larger and larger share in the governments and administration of their university. I simply say and give notice to you, Mr. Speaker, and anybody else who is listening, that I am concerned about this. I will no doubt hear from some of the people Who are very much concerned on the other side. I would regret that my remarks be misconstrued to mean that our universities are overfunded.

I do think the faculties tend to take a rather unprogressive view in some of these things. As well as the initiatives and the well known and often reinforced independence that the faculties and universities have, and must continue to have, we in this House still provide 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the funds. That doesn’t mean we call the tune, but we can express our concern about the level of activity at some of these provincially funded institutions, which I now do.


Hon. Miss Stephenson: Simply to clear up one or two points which were raised by my honourable colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot, perhaps I should review the chronology of this bill.

In 1971 the University of Toronto Act was re-enacted. Section 2(19) of that bill called for a review to be tabled in the Legislature within two years, as was noted by my colleague.

On October 30, 1974, the governing council review was sent to the then Minister of Colleges and Universities. On March 13, 1975, that review was tabled in the Legislature. From there on there is a slight difference in the perception of the chronology. It is my information that in October 1976 the governing council of the University of Toronto decided to initiate an external review of the unicameral system.

Mr. Sweeney: Two years later.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: October 1976. In January 1977 they established the terms of reference for that review and Dr. Macdonald was appointed to carry it out. In December 1977 that review was published. As the member is aware, we both read it in The Varsity at that point. In July 1978 the theological colleges and the University of Toronto signed the memorandum of agreement. On October 23, we introduced the bill.

To state that it was the responsibility only of the government that there was delay in the introduction of this bill would be entirely erroneous because there were other factors involved as well.

Mr. Sweeney: October 1974 to November 1976 is a two-year delay.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There were other factors involved.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, the government was afraid it couldn’t get the bill through.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There were factors other than those suggested by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Mackenzie: He should know better than to argue with the minister.

Mr. Nixon: I thought perhaps the minister could share the other factors with us since she was so positive about their existence.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The other point raised by my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot was that in most of the other universities their presidential recommendation is required for dismissal of academic staff. In actual fact that is true in terms of relative numbers because it is required in nine universities. But in five universities in this province it is not required at all, so the concern expressed by the faculty association at the University of Toronto is apparently not shared universally, or if it is, I fail to understand why indeed that requirement is not a part of the structure and function of those institutions.

My concern about the suggestion that there be an amendment to this specific portion of the revision to the act is that this recommendation was an integral part of the document which was approved by the governing council and supported totally by the governing council. I would anticipate that any revision or amendment to that would have to be submitted to the governing council again for its approval before we could introduce it into the House. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the luxury of that period of time if we are concerned, particularly about the theological institutions.

The question of parity for students is a very interesting one. The remarks which have been made I shall consider very seriously and remember very carefully because this subject will arise in many other discussions that we have with the Ontario Federation of Students and other bodies related to the post-secondary institutions within our province.

I would remind the honourable member that parity at York University is not a factor of legislative action. It was established at the recommendation of the board of governors of that university which is entirely elected, as I am sure he is aware. That parity was established as a result of that kind of structure and not granted by this Legislature. That is simply one example of parity which has been established in a specific kind of way within the province at a post-secondary institution.

The suggestion was made that the board be more representative of the community which the university serves. I would agree philosophically that the board of any institution has to represent the community which it serves. There are myriad communities, however, within our society.

My concern would be, which of the communities does one eliminate, or which of the communities does one not include in the representation which is made by the government of the province to that board of governors? It would seem to me that there are those who might very logically anticipate that they would have membership on that board and might not in fact achieve that membership because one other community had to be served. Therefore the wisest thing to do is continue to attempt to appoint those who may be drawn from a community but who will represent the entire community rather than one specific sector within the general society. That, of course, has been the philosophy under which all members of the board of governors have worked so ably on behalf of the people of this province as the governing council of the University of Toronto.

The member for Kitchener-Wilmot asked a question about other universities and other theological institutions. There are specific conditions related to the development of such an arrangement which I would be pleased to submit to him for his information or for transmission to the university which is concerned about it. I don’t think I need to take up the time of the House spelling them out at this point, but there are established criteria which that university perhaps could meet without too much difficulty.

I am most anxious to urge upon the members of the House that we proceed rapidly with the approval of this bill because, in spite of its long pregnancy, delivery is absolutely essential and required to be carried out before that most important natal day of the year, December 25. I would hope members of this House will support me in vigorous passage of this bill in record time.

Mr. Nixon: Vigorous?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Vigorous.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

House in committee of the whole.


Consideration of Bill 147, An Act to amend the University of Toronto Act, 1971.

On section 1:

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps this would be an appropriate way to get a bit more in I formation from the minister about the delay in the presentation of this bill. I wasn’t going to pursue it but she was so definite that it could not have been brought forward before now that I just want to bring to her attention an occasion in 1975 when I was still leader of the Liberal Party.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: A well revered leader you were. You should have so remained.

Mr. Nixon: The administrators of the University of Toronto, after discussing it with the minister and the Leader of the Opposition, asked me to attend a meeting, it might have been the fact that Malim Harding, the chairman of the board, was from Brantford, and we had a very interesting discussion. I got the distinct impression at the time they were already a bit concerned about the delay. While they were far too sensitive to suggest it, I had the distinct impression that since we had entered into a minority House and there were one or two small matters in the proposed bill which were not completely acceptable to all parties in the university family, the minister of the day had decided that maybe he shouldn’t push it through or bring it forward hastily since he wasn’t going to be able to ensure its enactment in precisely the state it was presented.

I’m glad to say the minister now, who still can’t ensure anything to anybody about that, at least has the fortitude to present the bill in a form such as this. I presume it will be enacted with few, if any changes. But I just wanted to ask her what else has been delaying this thing except the chicken-hearted attitude of the government -- which has changed, now that she is the minister.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I certainly rise to defend this government from any such accusation. There were, I gather from my colleague, certain recommendations which were made by certain people in authority at that institution which provided for some pause in the pursuit of the presentation of this bill to the House. I am aware that I heard that on at least two or three occasions.

Mr. Nixon: In terms of the 1971 bill the delays were in at least one sense illegal, were they not?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure they were illegal. The 1971 bill required a review hut did not necessarily require amendments too. That is my understanding. Perhaps I may not be totally correct here, but it was my understanding that was so.

Mr. Sweeney: Just to come back to the so-called legality: I am not interested in the legality, but I want the minister to recall something that was said by John White, who was the minister at that time. The whole issue of the review dealt with this parity of representation on the board of governors and this is what John White said: “When this” and he is referring to the model of 12 faculty and eight students -- “is combined with another amendment which I will be offering to the Legislature a short time from now, that the review be two years from the date of proclamation rather than five years, it seems to me that an opportunity will be given in the foreseeable future for students to make their case again to those who are members of the Legislature and those who are members of the Legislature committees.”

He made a very precise -- he said: “Look, fellows, don’t worry. You’ve given in, you’ve made the sacrifice, but I am making you a promise. We are not going to wait five years as we normally would.” We have waited six years, seven years. “I’m telling you we are going to do it in two years.” He said “I’ll even put it in the legislation -- I will enshrine it in the law that there will be a review.” Yet nothing.

This business about the university finally deciding, in the fall of 1976, we’d better take another look at it; I don’t blame them. They put their first proposal before the government in the fall of 1974, two years earlier. The government has done nothing with it. It is no wonder they wanted to take another look at it. I still think you are responsible for the delay.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have a different opinion.

Mr. Pope: So what? Let’s get on with the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Sweeney: I have one question, simply for clarification, because I don’t understand why it is necessary to put it in. I am sure the minister has a reason.

In section 1(2)(l) were you including a definition of the word “student”? According to the notes, this is “to clarify that student does not include a person studying at the secondary level.”

I am not aware of a problem where this kind of clarification would be necessary. Could the minister enlighten me?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There have been, as you are aware, certain transitional-year programs at universities. It is my understanding that this was to ensure that those students who were eligible for membership would be those who were full-time students in the university undergraduate program, not in the transitional year program.

Mr. Sweeney: So therefore the transitional-year student is not deemed to be a full-time student at the university, is that the interpretation? My understanding was that the purpose of the transitional year was to offer the program within the university setting as opposed to in a secondary school setting, for a whole range of social reasons. I was unaware -- if this is what the minister is now telling me -- they are not considered to be a student at the university.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As the honourable member I am sure is aware, they are funded in a slightly different manner than the students within the whole range of programs. But it is an experimental program, if I may say so, one whose existence may be continued or may not be. It is being examined at this point and this is related, of course, to the structure of the secondary school within the province and certain matters which are inherent within that.


Mr. Breithaupt: Madam Minister, with respect to that, surely where mature students were being involved in programs on entry into university those programs would be continued, even though the programs which might otherwise be available for younger people at the secondary school level might be in question. Where you have mature students, they are going to be continued anyway.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. And you are absolutely right, my understanding of this was erroneous, since the section I gather is defined specifically to mean students who are at University of Toronto Schools and those at the Institute of Child Studies specifically, rather than the transitional year.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cooke moves that section 2(3)(b) of the bill be amended by adding “and shall be representative of the community including two persons recommended by the Ontario Federation of Labour.”

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I simply feel that the 16 appointees from the government have not been representative of the community. I think an important aspect of our community, labour representatives, have not been adequately represented on the governing council. I believe right now there are no labour representatives although in the past there have been, one at each time. I think Lynn Williams and Jim Gills were on the governing council at one point in time.

I feel that the other sections, the students and the faculty and the administration, that are on the governing council do have a vested interest in the university and to some extent their interest is in keeping the status quo. Therefore to a large extent it’s up to the community representatives to make sure there are changes -- and I reiterate what I said earlier -- changes to extend the accessibility of universities and other new programs that will make it easier for working class and low-income students to get into university, it’s up to the community representatives to push for that.

I certainly do not want to indicate to the minister or the members of the assembly that I feel just low-income people should comprise the 16 members. Representatives from business, representatives from different professions as well as city council reps, if that became necessary, board of education reps, teachers, members of citizens’ groups as well as labour representatives and community citizens’ group reps should all be among the 16 government appointees.

In this amendment we specifically point out the representatives from the Ontario Federation of Labour. We do this because we feel that they are a significant group in the community that need to be mentioned in the act because in the past the record of the government is such that they have not been adequately represented. We feel labour has not been adequately represented on the governing council, therefore they are specifically mentioned and the other section of the amendment referring to “representative of the community” means representatives from community groups and boards and so forth, as mentioned before.

I hope that I can expect support from the government and the Liberal Party.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman and Madam Minister, I support the principle of this amendment. The minister will recall that I spoke at some length to that principle in my opening remarks.

However, for the reasons which the minister herself enunciated I have some difficulty in accepting one particular group for specific mention, and on the understanding that I mean the broader community as I described it, I would move that the amendment be further amended by striking out all words after the word “community,” so the amendment by Mr. Cooke would now read: “I move that section 2(3)(b) of the bill be amended by adding and shall be representative of the community’.”

Mr. Chairman: Would the honourable member send a copy of the amendment to the table?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to speak briefly --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside was on.

Mr. Breithaupt: He was going to speak to this amendment too?

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I knew that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot was going to be presenting that amendment to the amendment. While I would prefer to see the amendment in the way I have presented it to the assembly, rather than having no amendment to the section passed, we are prepared to accept the amendment from the member for Kitchen-Wilmot. We will support the amendment to the amendment in order to make sure that there’s an amendment to this section.

Mr. Chairman: I now have the amendment to the amendment: Moved by Mr. Sweeney that all words after the word “community” be struck therefrom.

Mr. Sweeney: I appreciate that in some ways this does out change the act itself. The purpose of my colleague’s amendment, and the reason I support what I think is the major portion of the amendment, is to put on record that the government is responsible, clearly responsible, and responsible in legislation, for being much more careful about the range of appointees it makes.

I can’t accept what the minister says, that because a particular man or woman happens to physically live in this community -- whether “this community” means the city or the Metro area or what, I am not sure -- therefore they can speak for everybody in the community. I don’t accept that. I think my colleague from Windsor-Riverside ably put the point a little while earlier that there are constituent bodies out in that community that need to have someone speak for them. If you have not participated in that particular constituency, I don’t think you can speak for them.

My whole thrust, and I believe that of my colleague, is to ensure to the best of our ability that we put the minister and the government on notice that we want that kind of broad-based representation. If, in fact, they don’t do that, then they can be sure that we are going to refer back to this section of the act at some future date.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, while I am aware of the reasons for the suggestion which has been made for an amendment by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot in general support of the philosophy expressed by the member for Windsor-Riverside, I think the amendments which have been suggested are out of order, because the revised bill deals only with the term of office and not with the composition of the governing council.

The amendment which has been suggested belongs properly not in the section mentioned but in section 2(2)(e) of the act, and that section is not in the process of being amended under this revision.

Mr. Nixon: Actually, we are dealing with the minister’s amendment. The bill is an amending bill. The minister has simply indicated she does not feel it is in order. Presumably we will hear from you, Mr. Chairman, after you have had a little advice on that.

The argument has recurred frequently; almost every time a university bill has been before the House, there have been those, quite uniformly representing the NDP, who have felt that the bill ought to say that the appointments by the Lieutenant Governor to the various boards should directly represent groups within the community. The amendment indicates in this instance that representatives of organized labour, among others, would be one of them.

My colleague has added his amendment to that, saying we are not calling for a representative from a specific group but simply adjuring the government to make appointments representative of the community.

Would the minister perhaps care to consider that, either to assure us of the type of appointments she and her predecessors have and will make, or perhaps even to accept the amendment to the amendment?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I think that I would have difficulty accepting the amendment to the amendment or the amendment as suggested by the member for Windsor-Riverside, since I do not think it is in order.

I should like to assure my colleagues that I have had for many years some concern that institutions which are established by the public to serve society should be governed by a council or a board which is in large part representative of that society which it is to serve.

The concerns expressed here so well by both my colleagues will be kept very closely in mind in the actions which the government will take to augment the membership of the governing council Of the University of Toronto. I should like to give them that assurance.

I do not think I can accept the amendment, because I really do not think it is in order.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Would you be prepared to indicate whether you think we should pursue this? If it’s out of order, we might as well --

Mr. Hennessy: You’re always out of order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The section is 2(2) (c) of the University of Toronto Act, 1971, which does not form a part of the act which we are debating today.

Mr. Chairman: Rather than discuss this further at the moment as to whether Or not it’s in order, I would like to reserve the right to review the situation and the precedent here in the past. It should not take me too long. If the committee would agree to continue, I think there is another amendment.

Mr. Cooke: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment that this section clearly is talking about appointments by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; while it does refer to the term of office, it still does refer to the appointments. We simply are adding a section which says those appointments that are for a three-year term must be representative of the community. I cannot see how the minister can say that is out of order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If I may, the definition of the composition of the board is not a part of the section that is being amended at this time. Section 2(2)(c) is where the definition of the composition occurs, and that is where that amendment would most appropriately be placed.

This is related specifically to the term of the appointment.

Mr. Sweeney: May I please disagree with the minister? The note clearly says new subsection 3(a) comes under section 2(2) of the act, which deals with appointments.

It may not have been the minister’s intention to deal with the matter of appointments but the fact remains, if we are dealing with section 2(2) of the act, then it is quite proper for my colleague to make another amendment, because we are dealing with that very section of the act.

Mr. Chairman: If the committee is agreeable, I will reserve the right for a short period of time to make that decision.

Is there anything further on this section? It seems to me there is another amendment to this section.

Mr. Cooke moves that section 2 (5)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(b) appoint, promote, suspend and remove members of the teaching and administrative staffs of the university and all such other officers and employees, including pro tempore staff appointments, as the governing council considers necessary or advisable for the purpose of the university or University College, but no member of the teaching or administrative staffs except the president shall be appointed or promoted unless recommended by the president or such other officer or employee of the university designated therefor by the president under section 5(4)(a), and no member of the teaching or administrative staffs except the president shall be suspended or removed unless recommended by the president”


Mr. Cooke: This amendment goes part way to meeting the objective of the original amendment. The amendment would provide that the president can delegate his authority to promote or hire staff to someone else in the university, but the responsibility for firing or for suspension would still remain with the president of the university. Although, in practice, I think the minister would agree there will be a delegation but the final approval and responsibility will still remain with the president of the university.

As the minister has said in her opening remarks, it is the intention of the university to keep this type of administrative procedure in place, but they want the amendment to the act. I don’t quite understand why the university needs the amendment.

I fear that in the future this amendment will be enacted and there will be changes in the administration and the president will delegate the authority to suspend or to terminate employment of staff. Although the University of Toronto is a large institution, I really don’t think it’s that large a task to ask the president to make the final approval of the firing or the suspension of staff.

I understand -- as the minister is talking to someone in the gallery -- that she disagrees with that. Administrative procedures can be put in place whereby the actual work and the actual recommendation can be made from someone else on the staff. The responsibility in law and in legislation should still remain with the president in order to protect some of the concerns I that have been enunciated by the faculty and in order to preserve fully the academic freedom the faculty is concerned about and about which I also have some concerns.

Mr. Sweeney: In my opening statement the minister will recall I encouraged her to make this particular change because she had assured us the president and the governing council had no intention of using this particular section. If I recall correctly, when she came back the issue she raised with that of the process rather than the product. In my judgement she seemed to be unduly concerned with the way in which this particular amendment is being brought forward.

The governing council had made one submission to you and here you have another constituent body within the university making a different kind of submission to you. Surely, in a situation like this, the issue itself is what is paramount. The process is important. I accept that premise. I accept the concern you have expressed that we don’t want to have constituent bodies with the universities making an end run around the governing council. I think that’s an important principle too.

I accept the premise you’ve put forward that the faculty ought to have done something earlier. They should have known better or whatever other expression you want to use. That’s right. You’re right. They were clearly at fault in not catching this earlier. In no way am I trying to defend that fault, but I would raise with you the issue itself, Let’s go through it.

The student body is not unduly concerned about making this change. The governing council is not unduly concerned with the change itself. Even the president has pointed out he is not unduly concerned with the change. The major objection, even from those bodies, is with the procedure being used to get this change.

But there is one constituent body that is very concerned. That’s the faculty. Here we have, on the one hand, the faculty members who have a deep sense of concern and who have expressed it the best way they know how, albeit a little late. We have all the other constituent bodies which are willing, as I understand it, to accept this kind of amendment, or to give a guarantee that they would never use it anyway. They are upset by the process.

I have to ask you where does the balance lie? Surely it lies with that one constituent group that has a deep personal involvement type of concern as opposed to the other constituent bodies that are upset by the process. That is why I think we have to give serious consideration to this type of amendment or some other amendment that the minister would want to bring forward which does the same thing. I would be prepared to support that as well. I am trying to concentrate on the issue that we are dealing with, rather than the process.

Let’s not forget one other point. It’s easy to say that this particular amendment, the one that is in the bill now, was brought forward as early as October 1974. But let’s not forget the history we discussed earlier. That thing has been hanging in the air and dangling and it looked as if nobody was going to do anything about it.

I would have to admit I was really quite surprised when you brought this bill forward with the dispatch you did. I say that quite frankly and quite openly. I wasn’t prepared for it. I had been speaking to your predecessor, as I said before, every spring and every fall, saying, “When are we going to get this darn thing?” I had practically given up on it. Yet you have moved with relative speed and dispatch. I compliment you on that and I know some of the reasons why you have done it. But it isn’t hard to understand that the faculty association could have been caught off guard. I think we will both admit it wasn’t a deliberate attempt on their part.

They were caught off guard not only by the fact that you made the announcement four weeks ago that you were going to bring it forward, but that you then very quickly actually laid the bill on our desks. I can sympathize with the fact they were caught. They should have known better and they should have acted earlier, but surely in this Legislature in other pieces of legislation we have taken that human element into consideration. I would only ask that you be less concerned in this instance with the process and more concerned with a very important issue that is truly important to one group and really not that important to the others.

I can say on this point I have spoken to students and I have spoken to the governing council. They have both said to me they are upset with this type of amendment, mainly because of the process that is being used as opposed to the basic issue itself, particularly when it was drawn to their attention that we are not denying the president the right to delegate in every other situation except suspension and dismissal.

I think we all recognize this is going to happen relatively infrequently. It is not going to be used that often. We are concerned with the chief executive officer of that institution being over-burdened with this kind of work. In many other situations, as you yourself described, when we have to deal with all the non-academic people in the university that makes a lot of sense. We have already agreed with you on that. This is not going to happen very often. The president said, “I don’t intend to delegate anyway.” The council has said, “We don’t intend to allow it to be delegated anyway.” It is a small pout. It really is.

Mr. Nixon: That’s right.

Mr. Sweeney: I would suggest to you, it is unnecessarily going to upset the faculty associations all across this province. It just is not worth it, in my judgement.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sure that the honourable member’s judgement is excellent. In my judgement the University of Toronto faculty association has absolutely nothing to fear from the amendment which has been suggested. I think they are unduly concerned because the basis of their argument is mistaken; they have not really examined the process which did go on back in 1941. They are not aware of the fact at this point that it would require the presence and the support of the president to ensure that any dismissal would be carried out.

I think it is absolutely unreasonable to produce this amendment, which would make the president responsible for every single dismissal in person. That is an incredible amount of responsibility and extra weight to put on the president of an institution as large as the University of Toronto with a non-academic staff as large as they have there.

The president has suggested and the governing council has agreed that the delegation of authority for dismissal for the academic staff will not occur. I think we have to accept the word of that president, a president who has served the people of this province already with distinction and will continue to do so I’m sure in his tenure at the University of Toronto.

This whole matter was examined carefully. A policy on appointments, remunerations, suspensions and removals was developed by the governing council and was agreed to by all members thereof. It is therefore, I think, entirely wrong to introduce at this point, on the basis of an argument which cannot really be totally and vigorously supported, an amendment which would burden the president with responsibilities which I think are quite inappropriate for the president of such an institution.

Ms. Bryden: I rise to support this amendment because I think it deals with a very important principle -- namely the protection of academic freedom and the livelihood of people who work in universities.

The minister says she would not proceed with the clause in question if she thought academic freedom would be jeopardized in any way. I say to her this is a judgement call.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think my judgement is at least as good as yours.

Ms. Bryden: The faculty association of the University of Toronto, as recently as November 21 of this year, in a letter to the minister, stated that this clause “poses an extremely serious potential threat to academic freedom at the universities.” If the minister questions this statement of the faculty association, she should have referred the bill to a standing committee where the faculty association could have come and debated the question with her, but that did not happen.

Several members on this side of the House, including the member for Windsor-Riverside who moved the amendment, feel that this clause, unamended, does constitute a danger to academic freedom. That is why we feel this amendment is essential at this time. When you are dealing with the question of academic freedom, you are dealing with the very foundation stone of our democracy and our educational system. When you are dealing with the powers to suspend or fire, you are dealing with a person’s livelihood. It is an area which is so sensitive you should have fail-safe legislation. That is all that we are asking for.

We are not opposed to the delegation of authority in the broad areas of promotions and appointments which affect a great many people. It makes sense in a large organization. What we are asking for is a limitation of that delegation of power when one gets into the sensitive areas of firing or suspension. We submit, as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has, that there will not be a great number of cases which will come under this particular amendment. It will not be too onerous a job to leave the final responsibility in the president’s hands in those cases.

That does not mean that the president may not have people who work for him investigate cases and study cases and make recommendations to him. But the final authority in such a sensitive area should remain with the president.

The minister spent a great deal of time anticipating how an improper recommendation by a delegated person could be corrected or reversed. Our amendment would eliminate the possibility of such a recommendation or of any infringement on academic freedom by the actions of a delegate. The responsibility would remain with the president.


The minister says the president of the University of Toronto does not intend to use the delegation authority for suspension or removal of academic staff and has so informed the faculty association. If this is the case, why does the minister object to our amendment? It simply recognizes the status quo for academic staff and eliminates any discrimination in treatment between academic and administrative stuff regarding firings or suspensions. I fail to see why there should be any difference in treatment of the two classes of staff at the university.

For those reasons, I would ask the minister to reconsider her position and to accept the amendment which, presumably, will not change what the president has said will go on at the university in the future and has gone on in the past; namely, that no firing or suspension will take place without his approval, and which will simply give equal treatment to the academic and administrative staff in this respect.

Mr. Nixon: I am really surprised that this controversy has come to the floor of the House. After all, there have been negotiations, as we have already discussed, for years. It could be that no amendment is necessary at all. If I understand this correctly, there is no objection from the representatives of the university to the president’s keeping the responsibility, which I am sure he would not want to relinquish, of being the final authority for the suspension or anything else having to do with the academic and top administrative staff.

There is nothing in this amendment that requires him to approve the dismissal of a sweeper or somebody like that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, yes, there is.

Mr. Nixon: There is a misunderstanding here. While I have great confidence in the minister, I also have in my colleague, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. Actually, I have never really noticed tremendous waves of layoffs at any of the universities, but the ones that are difficult are the ones that involve the academic staff in anything that might interfere with their tenure or hopes for tenure. That is obviously where the president, in his judgement, must be the final authority.

We don’t want to interfere with that and it is evident that the representatives of the university don’t want that interfered with either. Surely there is nothing in the amendment that I am aware of that means that the president has to make all the final decisions on every person at every level.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is precisely what it says.

Mr. Nixon: There is a difference of opinion. It would certainly help to clear it up because at the present time my feeling is that I would support my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot. Since this is an amendment from our colleagues to the left, if that happens, there is not much sense putting ourselves through too much, as long as we know what it means.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think the honourable members should be aware that the policy on appointments, remuneration, suspensions and removals, which has been developed and agreed to by all members of the governing council, is specific about the classifications and the groups for which the direct presence of the presidential decision must be a part.

The appointments of principals, deans, associate deans, directors of academic divisions, directors of centres and institutes and chairmen of departments must be recommended by the president to the academic affairs committee for approval and then reported to the governing council. This mechanism is exactly the same in reverse for dismissal of all of those individuals.

There are certain ranks of perhaps the lesser academic staff for which I think the president should have the capability to delegate authority in terms of their hiring or their dismissal. The director of that division or that area of responsibility within the university should surely have the responsibility for hiring and for firing in his own academic field in order to ensure that the purposes and the objectives of that course of learning are being pursued properly. The president may not be in close touch with the aims and objectives of that specific course and would require the support or the decision of the director.

Surely that is not an unusual recommendation to make about those who are chairmen of departments in certain areas. For the appointment of those who are responsible for the pursuit of excellence within the various divisions of the university the principal must have direct and specific authority. That is precisely what the president has suggested should be retained and this is what has been established in this policy paper which has been agreed to by the entire governing council.

Surely I think with that kind of agreement we could support the decision which has been made.

Mr. Sweeney: Madam Minister, if I can go back to square one, the section of the act we’re dealing with represents the powers and duties and responsibilities of the board of governors, right?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Right.

Mr. Sweeney: This particular section we are now debating says, as I interpret it, that the board of governors makes these decisions, appoints, promotes, suspends, et cetera --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: On the recommendation.

Mr. Sweeney: -- on the advice or on the recommendation of the president, as the present act sits. The change we are making, if I follow it correctly, is that the president now has the power to delegate to someone else, with the approval of the governing council, any of those duties: the power to appoint, promote, suspend, remove -- all the way down the line. The amendment we are proposing, which I am supporting, says all of those stand. We’re not going to change any of them. The president still, with the approval of the governing council, delegates all those responsibilities to someone else. He can still do that, with one simple exception: the power to recommend to suspend or dis miss. Just that one, nothing else, must be retained by the president himself. He can’t delegate that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: For everybody.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s the only issue we’re dealing with. We’re only dealing with academic staff and the top administrative staff. That’s what we’re talking about.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what this says.

Mr. Sweeney: It is not correct to say that we are overburdening the president with all of these decisions; we are not. We are simply saying that whatever you call that paper, the decision by the governing council, be put in here anyway.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The policy statement?

Mr. Sweeney: There is no dispute between what they have already decided they are going to do and what we’re suggesting should be in here. There is no dispute. There is no disagreement as to what in fact is going to happen. The only disagreement we seem to have is whether or not we should put it in the legislation.

May I say, Madam Minister, because you raised it, in no way are my remarks to be interpreted as having any lack of confidence in the governing council or in the president.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I didn’t suggest they were.

Mr. Sweeney: No, but you raised the issue. You raised it and I wanted to put that on the record. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. I don’t want to get involved in that kind of personal discussion.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I can only say that the information I have would lead me to believe that both the governing council and the president of the University of Toronto feel strongly that a measure of capability for delegation is required under this act. Indeed, in the special circumstances of such a large institution this power of delegation must be available. I do believe we can trust the integrity of both the governing council and that president to ensure that the responsibility which the president has will be carried out in the best possible manner. It’s impossible for me to accept that amendment since in fact it covers, as far as dismissal, suspension or removal is concerned, every single member of staff of the University of Toronto, which is thousands of people. That’s exactly what it says.

Mr. Cooke: The remarks of the minister are complete nonsense. While the amendment does what she says, the minister knows as well as I do that in practice what will happen will be that the responsibility will be delegated, but the final responsibility for approval in suspensions or removal will lie with the president of the university. There is nothing wrong with that.

The same procedure was in effect when I was at the Windsor Board of Education. Any staff that was let go by the Windsor Board of Education was recommended by the director of education to the board, and it had to be recommended first.

The same thing is in effect when you want to appoint a director of education. The local board of education actually does the interviewing and makes the choice and makes a recommendation to the minister, but you have to make the final approval.

It is no different than what is in place in many other statutes and pieces of legislation already under the province. To try to make out the president will have to go out and supervise the caretakers at the university and make a decision himself as to whether that person should be removed or suspended is complete nonsense and you know it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That’s exactly what you are saying in that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on the amendment?

Is the committee ready for the amendment?

Shall the amendment carry?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We cannot support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will say aye.

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: We will then revert to the previous amendment.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, after speaking with legislative counsel I have a revised version of that amendment which I think can be ruled in order.

Mr. Chairman: Does the honourable member wish to withdraw the original amendment?

Mr. Cooke: Yes. I withdraw the original amendment and will present one which I think will be acceptable.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Kitchener-Wilmot withdraw the amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Sweeney: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I haven’t seen anything yet.

Mr. Cooke: I am sure you will be satisfied with it. It incorporates your ideas also.

Mr. Sweeney: I will trust my colleague -- until I see it, anyway.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot and the member for Windsor-Riverside have withdrawn the amendment and the amendment to the amendment. The new amendment reads as follows:

Mr. Cooke moves that section 2(6)(b) of the act as referred to in section 2(3) of the bill be amended by adding “and shall be representative of the community.”

Mr. Pope: No way, that is out of order. No way.

Mr. Foulds: What do you mean it is out of order?

Mr. Pope: It is out of order.

Mr. Foulds: Have you read the bill?

Mr. Pope: Yes. It is out of order.

Mr. Foulds: When you get to be chairman you can make that decision.

Mr. Nixon: I would simply like to point out to you that by withdrawing the amendment and the amendment to the amendment and replacing it with the words you have now read to us, you have essentially what my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot put forward as his amendment to the amendment. So from the first go-round, what was the initiative of my colleague now becomes the initiative of the member for Windsor-Riverside. And that is fine.

Mr. Cooke: I would be pleased to add on another section.

Mr. Nixon: I am sure the minister will agree with me it is an extremely valuable concept that the appointment be representative of the community. One of the nice things we might do is just have her accept it, since she has been telling us how representative the appointments have been. The advice she is getting is good.

Do you accept it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Pope: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, are you ruling on whether or not that amendment is in order?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Have you ruled it is in order? It is exactly the same amendment as the last one.

Mr. Foulds: Nobody has challenged it.

Mr. Chairman: I just placed the amendment and no one got up on a point of order suggesting that it was out of order.

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, I am raising that matter now.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments? Madam Minister.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, you suggested that you would rule on my suggestion that the original amendment, which bears striking similarity to the second amendment, was indeed out of order. Have you made your decision about that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The previous amendment was withdrawn. This is a new amendment and if anyone wishes to speak to the point -- Madam Minister?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I guess I was not paying full attention at the time this was happening, but indeed it seems to me that it is precisely the same amendment, slightly reworded, and that it is again out of order in this place.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on the amendment?

The member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Sweeney: I would have to reiterate a point I have made earlier since you are being asked to rule on it. The section of the act we are dealing with, section 2(2) deals with the composition of the governing council. The notes in this bill on section 2 relate to section 2(2) of the act. Now I fail to understand how anyone can say that when the minister brings in a bill that somehow amends section 2(2) of the act that we do not have the right to further amend section 2(2) of the act. It doesn’t make any sense. If that section weren’t even in it I could understand it, but it is there.

Mr. Pope: With respect. the amendment is out of order. The true purpose of the amendment moved by the minister deals with the term and this amendment proposes to deal with a completely separate matter.

Mr. Foulds: I would submit to you that this amendment is in order and I would cite as a precedent an amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), to the amendment to the Art Gallery of Ontario Act which we debated on Thursday last, I believe. At that time a similar amendment was put which was not challenged by any of the people in the House at the time. It dealt with the composition as this deals with the composition. I would cite that as a parallel and an example and although at that point the amendment was defeated, it was not, with due respect, ruled out of order.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Chairman, I have a precedent I believe it was you, Mr. Chairman, who, on a proposed amendment to the makeup of the racing commission when we were considering the Ontario Racing Commission Act, ruled precisely such an amendment out of order.

Mr. Sweeney: We are not dealing with horse races, we are dealing with universities.

Mr. Pope: Why don’t you think about it?

Mr. Sweeney: Attending university today is like a horse race though.

Mr. Chairman: If there are no further comments, the amendment placed by Mr. Cooke is before the committee; an amendment to section 2(3)(b). As I look over the section 2 before the committee, I look at 2(h) and I see that the bill already is amended and sets out the determining factors for the composition of the board and also who will make the appointments. I am going to have to rule that this amendment is in order.

Are you ready for the question?

Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If I may return to section 5(4a), the subsection which has to do with the responsibilities of the president.

Mr. Sweeney: I have another question on section 2 before we leave it. Have we agreed to that section?

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mr. Sweeney: I am referring to section 2(5)(nd) on page four of the bill. In the last three lines are the new words, “combine trust moneys belonging to various trusts in its care into a common trust fund.”

The minister will recall that we had a major problem involving trust funds at Scarborough College, part of the University of Toronto, specifically dealing with student trust funds and various student funds. There was a report commissioned by the minister’s predecessor dealing with that entire issue. I am wondering if this particular change incorporates that particular problem and is the response to that particular problem; or does it not deal with it at all?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I’m sorry, I can’t answer that at the moment.

Mr. Sweeney: Well, if the minister can’t answer it, she can’t answer it.

I am not going to push it, it is just that the particular issue I mentioned, and I am sure the minister is familiar with it, is of such recent happening. Since it caused so much consternation, not only at Scarborough College but at the administrative offices of the university itself, in terms of financial affairs, I would have expected that while such an amendment as this was taking place, they would have taken that factor into consideration.

I raised the question only because, to my way of reading it, it is not sufficiently clear as to whether or not it is covered. That is my only reason for raising it. If the minister is unable to deal with it now, perhaps at a fairly early time she might take a look at it and see whether or not it could be. I wouldn’t like to see that repeated.

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

Mr. Sweeney: Still dealing with section 2(8) of the bill, which deals with section 2(19) of the existing act -- that is the section which said there would have to be a review within two years. Since the minister has specifically referred to the Macdonald report, I would point out to her that in subsection 15 of the summary of that report the following words are printed: “No change be made in the representational composition of the governing council, and that this topic not be reviewed further for at least five years.”

I am not necessarily supporting that. The question I want to raise to the minister is that there is nothing in this bill whatsoever. You are repealing section 2(19) which calls for a review within two years -- and we all know why -- but there is nothing whatsoever in I the bill which would call for a review within any period of time. I am wondering if that is an oversight, whether the recommendation of John Macdonald is not agreed to, or what the situation is.

I think the issue of representation, as we discussed it earlier in the opening remarks, is still an issue. I would feel, Madam Minister, that some mention should be made of this.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, the recommendation of Dr. Macdonald is most certainly accepted by the governing council and will be adhered to. The span suggested by Dr. Macdonald was five years, but is it totally appropriate to include that kind of suggested action, or action that will be pursued within the bill, which governs the function of the governing council of the University of Toronto? It would seem to be an unnecessary addition to the bill, since it is the governing council’s intention to review it in five years, as suggested by Dr. Macdonald.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly have to agree with something which the minister left unspoken, that even though there was a section in the former bill which said there must be a review within two years and, in fact, as far as this Legislature is concerned, such a review did not take place for six, almost seven years, then maybe it does not make much difference whether we put it in or not. Perhaps just having this little dialogue in the Hansard report will put the minister, the ministry and the university on notice that this needs to be reviewed.

On section 3:

Mr. Nixon: I read a news report about the board of governors, or whatever it is, of this Toronto School of Theology. Does the minister have those names handy?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not at hand.

Mr. Nixon: I can’t list them all, but --

Mr. Breithaupt: The chairman comes to mind.

Mr. Nixon: Yes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The chairman, I’m certain, will come to mind.

Mr. Nixon: John N. Turner, QC. It seems to me that one of the mining moguls --

Mr. Breithaupt: Steve Roman.

Mr. Nixon: -- Steve Roman is on that board. Although the minister doesn’t have the list there, it seemed to me a fantastically impressive list of those people who had cornered large chunks of this world’s goods. We can only assume that they are attempting to store up treasure where neither rust nor moth corrupt it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Nor thieves break in and steal it.

Mr. Nixon: Nor thieves break in. I certainly wish them as much success there as in their other endeavours. But I must admit I am unfamiliar with this really impressive initiative. I have been known to support the United Church of Canada from time to time with a few dollars. I am intrigued when I am told by knowledgeable people that one of the important purposes of section 3, in the institution of the Toronto School of Theology, is that it will permit the theological students and the school to receive the kind of public assistance that is available to the broad range of post-secondary endeavour. Is that correct?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Basically it permits that kind of assistance and the appropriate kind of funding to the institutions in order to ensure that they receive equal treatment.

Mr. Nixon: I may be the last one who has some small reservation about this, particularly since the school has been so successful in getting outstanding community leaders to act on its board and to promote its efficacy and status across the province and really far beyond that.

I suppose I would be the last to object to public funds going to a purpose as noble as this, and yet I always thought it was the basic cornerstone of true Progressive Conservatism that public dollars were never directed to such a moderate and balanced purpose. Does the minister know what I’m talking about?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. But --

Mr. Nixon: How come the Tories have all of sudden decided that it’s such a good thing to support these noble -- and I say that most sincerely -- theological initiatives?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They’re students. This is post-secondary education.

Mr. Sweeney: You realize the implication?

Mr. Nixon: Okay, fine. The minister and I are not quite on the same wavelength. Certainly I would be the last to oppose this, but I just wanted to bring to your attention the fantastic support that this new organization has from the financially successful and powerful representatives of the community for almost the sole purpose of getting public moneys channelled in there.


There is a certain anachronism that interests me in this connection. I'm glad that the government now feels that this sort of education is worthy of public support. I hope their consistency is not going to be hound by any political aspects in the future.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Probably the primary purpose was not the funding purpose specifically but the capability of the University of Toronto to grant degrees in the theological area.

Mr. Nixon: They never had any problems granting degrees.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not in theology.

Mr. Nixon: The country is thick with degrees.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The University of Toronto has not had that capability. Other universities have because they evolved from church-supported institutions. Because the University of Toronto had a different source, a different genesis, it has never had that capability. We felt, I think quite reasonably -- and I’m sure the honourable member in his wisdom would support this philosophy --

Mr. Nixon: I’m going to support it, and I’m delighted that you are supporting it too.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- that the University of Toronto should have that capability.

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Nixon: You get it both ways, you people. Always.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on any section of the bill?

Mr. Nixon: Judgement comes.

Mr. Sweeney: On section 8(3).

Mr. Chairman: Anything prior to section 8?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In the light of the amendment which has been proposed, I think inappropriately, to section 2, I wonder if the honourable members would consider this amendment, which should be inserted in section 5(4a), under “duties of the president,” rather than as has been suggested earlier under the duties of the governing council.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Miss Stephenson moves that section 5(4a) of the act as amended by section 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “(4a) The president, subject to the approval of the governing council, may delegate his duties under subsection 4, other than a recommendation to remove a member of the teaching staff, to any other officer or employee of the university.”

Mr. Sweeney: I can only speak for myself on this issue. I would support that move.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I think that accomplishes precisely what the honourable members have been suggesting is essential in terms of removal, dismissal et cetera, but places it in the most appropriate section of the act, under the duties of the president. If they agree that that is the only portion in which they had concern, about the president’s ability to delegate, I would hope the honourable members would support that amendment and consider deleting the amendment which was passed earlier related to section 2.

Mr. Cooke: I would like to ask the minister, if the amendment were withdrawn -- the original amendment to the other section

-- would this still give the president the authority to delegate his authority to promote, fire, suspend or hire administrative staff? Is that correct?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Under the statement of policy related to this specifically, there would be certain areas of responsibility which could be delegated. Within that statement of policy it’s very clearly spelled out -- those specific sections of responsibility which the president would assume and would carry out.

What this amendment suggests is that in all cases the removal of a staff member would be the responsibility directly of the president with no room for delegation of that authority.

Mr. Sweeney: It’s a reasonable compromise.

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on any other section of the bill?

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Nixon: My colleague indicated, for the edification of the minister and myself, that it may be because Massey College is only a graduate college, but I notice its omission, so it is not a constituent college of the university under this bill and that may be regrettable. I have often wondered what happens at Massey College, but by so wondering I am not asking for an invitation to high table, believe me. Every time I drive or walk past that place with the high wall and the iron portcullis and the moat, I just wonder what the devil the Masseys have put in there for the good of mankind in general, and a very select group at the University of Toronto in particular.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not the Masseys.

Mr. Nixon: I have a very great affinity for the Masseys. Vincent Massey at one time was president of the Liberal Party in Ontario. I don’t know whether the walls of the college are crumbling at this moment or not, because I have not seen the Masseys pointing to that with much pride recently, but that is a fact. As a matter of fact, Vincent Massey was a defeated candidate federally, and be used to campaign in a limousine with a chauffeur, very much the way the Minister of Education campaigns. I cannot question the Minister of Education’s electoral success as yet, although we are hoping for great things in the future. just in passing, it’s surprising to me that with the very generous endowment of Massey College, it was not considered a constituent college of the university. I have a feeling that there may be some other reason besides the fact that it is just a graduate college, because it really doesn’t fit into any kind of a modern, democratic, let’s say liberal concept, of what should go on at a university or a college. I don’t know whether the minister has been invited to high table and is prepared to defend it here, but I for one am very much concerned that we accept this largesse for this mystical purpose.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Well, Mr. Chairman, in order to feed the honourable member’s envy, yes, I have been invited to high table on at least three occasions at Massey College, and a delightful experience it was, too. The source of all wisdom in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has informed me that Massey is not a constituent college because indeed it is a residential college, not a teaching college, and it functions under its own statute.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask the honourable member if he really would like me to fry to beg, borrow or steal an invitation to the inner sanctum of Massey College for him so that his interest may be supported, his curiosity satisfied?

Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Sweeney: Madam Minister, on section 8(3), dealing with the reporting mechanism. The section points out, “in such form and manner as the governing council may determine.” I raise the question, going back to the issue we discussed a little while ago, and one of the difficulties that your predecessor faced when I, among others, asked him to get certain specific information. We came up with the incredible finding that the minister had no authority whatsoever to determine how this kind of information was going to be put forward or even to get the information. We even went so far as to ask the auditor of the province, given that something like 80 to 85 per cent of the funding comes from the provincial coffers, where he could find out what the blazes was going on. We are still trying to work that one out.

It would seem to me that you may not have faced a lot of those problems yet but I suggest you will, because we had the same problem at two community colleges. The minister was in the same bind that could be corrected if instead of saying “in such form and manner the governing council should determine” it should read, “in such form and manner as the minister shall determine.”

It would seem to me that you, as the minister, should be able to say to the university, “Hey look, I want certain kinds of information from you people and I want it in certain forms.” You are not telling them what they do, you are telling them the way in which you get information.

As I would understand it that would leave you open to ask them when you feel you need to ask them. Right now, according to your predecessor, you are out of luck if you want that kind of an answer because they can tell you to go jump, as they told him. It doesn’t seem a very sensible way to run a government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Section 19 of the University of Toronto Act, 1971, which is not being amended, states and I quote: “The governing council shall make a financial report annually to the Minister of University Affairs” -- and that of course has been changed -- “in such form and containing such information as the minister may require”, so that indeed the form and the content is required by the minister.

Mr. Sweeney: Would the minister then advise me how this particular sections fits in with what she just read? There seems to be a contradiction there. I realize that it is late in the evening but I sense a contradiction.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it’s not late. It is I believe not too late to suggest that the financial statement included in the annual report will include the information required by the minister in the form requested by the minister; and the publication of the annual report will be in the form that the governing council suggests.

The annual financial report which is mentioned in section 19 is required by the minister, it is a report to the minister, and this section relates specifically to the report which is to be made public” so that the governing council would have the authority to make public in whatever form they felt the information which was required in an annual report to the public. In the report to the minister, they would be required to present that information with the contents and form specified by the minister.

We are really talking about two documents, in other words.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 8 stand as part of the bill?

Section 8 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on sections 9, 10 or 11?

Mr. Sweeney: Just one question.

Mr. Chairman: What section.

Mr. Sweeney: Section 10.

Section 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Sweeney: On section 10(2). Given that the Toronto School of Theology has been in existence for a number of years, why would you, in this legislation, suddenly backtrack the coming into force of that particular section? What is the rush? I only raise that because one of the pressures that was brought to bear upon me, among others, is because of this particular section. We’ve got to get the thing through or all of these young people are going to have their degrees in jeopardy and the funding for these degrees in jeopardy. Why?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Here comes the play from the bench.

Mr. Grande: No response?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, this was something of which I was not aware, that the agreements between the theological colleges and the University of Toronto came into effect on the date at the beginning of the academic year of July 1, 1978. Therefore, it was important to enact the legislation in order to support the agreement which had been established between the colleges and the university as of that date.


Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: There is one amendment to section 2 and this will be voted on at 10:15 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Isn’t that the Cooke amendment?

First Clerk Assistant: It has been stacked.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, if I may, am I not correct in stating that the amendment which has been stacked is the one which relates directly to the amendment which I brought in on section 5? Is that not so?

Mr. Chairman: That is correct. However, there was an amendment placed before the committee and there was no withdrawal.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, may I just respond to that? The amendment the minister presented, if she carefully reads her amendment, does not deal with one particular aspect of my amendment; that is suspensions.

Mr. Nixon: Oh well look, let’s not change the amendment.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there was an amendment put to this committee that was not withdrawn. It can’t be withdrawn at this time because it has already been put and voted on by a voice vote. All we did was stack it at that time.

Mr. Chairman: That’s correct, it is stacked, and it has not been withdrawn. As I stated it will be put at 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, possibly the minister and the critic for the NDP might take the opportunity before 10:15 p.m. to find out just which of the amendments resolve the problems they see, or if there are two amendments then could we be advised at that point on what the minister’s wishes are? That might be helpful.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, it is not the minister’s wishes, it is the procedure of this House.

Mr. Breithaupt: However such amendments can still be withdrawn.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, just on the point of order also. The minister knew that this amendment was coming before this House for the last two weeks when this bill was first scheduled, and if she was prepared to negotiate and was prepared to bring in the amendment maybe it would have been better for this House if she had discussed it with me ahead of time. Possibly something could have been worked out.

Mr. Nixon: Good point.

Mr. Cooke: Instead she presented an amendment that only covers half the problem.

Mr. Foulds: At the last minute, with no prior warning.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Nixon: If the matter has been debated then there is nothing left now to do but to vote on the amendment.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Both of them.

Mr. Nixon: I guess so. I just bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that we could dispose of this now if it were your wish.

Mr. Chairman: I believe it was brought up in the House previously that the votes would be stacked until 10:15 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Was it? Okay.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, may I speak briefly to that paint?

Mr. Chairman: Order. I think it has been pretty well taken care of. The matter has been dealt with by the committee. There is one amendment that has been stacked. It has not been withdrawn, therefore it will be voted on at 10:15 p.m. unless the committee wishes to do anything further at that time.


Consideration of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Chairman, I thought with the indulgence of the House, I might deal with some of the concerns indicated by some of the members with respect to section 2.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments on section 1?

On section 1:

Mr. M. N. Davison: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, because we discussed this at some length in second reading and there are no amendments or changes.

I’d just like to point out that to the best of my knowledge this problem was first raised with the government in 1976. I would just like to say once again, Mr. Chairman, that it is not an example of how the government can move at flank speed in dealing with problems. I think that was a very simple amendment contained in section 1; I think the government might have been wise to have gone ahead with that on its own rather than lumping this together with a more controversial amendment. I would hope that when dealing with such changes in the future, the government would consider that reality, then we would not have to wait two years for simple amendments that solve simple problems.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Pope: In his introductory statement to the Vital Statistics Amendment Act the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) --

Mr. Mancini: Don’t give him any credit.

Mr. Pope: -- referred to a section of the bill permitting a person who has undergone transsexual surgery to change the designation of sex on a birth certificate, and commented: “We are not stating that the legal status of a transsexual has been changed. This is a matter for the courts and there is no Canadian precedent for it.”

The proposed amendment to the Vital Statistics Act has resulted in questions on the capacity of a transsexual to marry. The province has no jurisdiction with respect to the capacity of an individual to marry, that power lies with the federal government. The Marriage Act, 1977, which is administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, governs the issue of marriage licences. Under that act, clerks of the cities, towns and villages, along with other persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, are authorized to issue marriage licences. I have been requested to comment on the ministry’s policy with respect to the issue of a marriage licence to a transsexual.

If it comes to the attention of the issuer of the licence that the applicant has undergone transsexual surgery, the issuer must consider the implications and may refuse to issue the licence. In that case, the applicant may appeal to the Supreme Court for judicial review and a determination will be made of the individual’s right to a marriage licence. From a practical point of view, it is highly unlikely that the issuer would be aware of the fact that the individual has undergone transsexual surgery because the birth certificate would be accepted at face value.

The deputy registrar general has checked with the officials in other provinces where legislation similar to that proposed in this bill is in force. He was told that no problems have been encountered. It is not our policy to pursue any individual with a view to preventing him or her from marrying; nor shall the ministry, through the use of local registrars, attempt to do so. However, I want to point out that it is in the best interests of a transsexual to obtain advice as to his or her legal sexual status or capacity to marry. If necessary, he or she should have the issue determined either by the courts or by federal legislation. Otherwise, any marriage entered into may be a nullity.

Mr. Mancini: Give them a break.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, the comments made by the parliamentary assistant are useful as you review the initial comments made just six months ago tomorrow by Mr. Grossman, who was then the minister with this responsibility. It is difficult to recall all the details, but the parliamentary assistant has refreshed our memories on this particular point.

I hope the concerns which people might have as a result of the difficulty that had arisen, have now been explained; and that the problems which might have been expected won’t happen. I appreciate the comments that have been made with respect to other jurisdictions as well as the investigation that has taken place. And I hope this will resolve the matter satisfactorily.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Chairman, I share the honourable member’s hope that this will resolve the matter satisfactorily. As you are aware, in debate on second reading, I announced my intention to move an amendment to this section. That amendment would have changed the phrase “cause a notation to be made” to “cause the birth registration of the applicant to be altered.” I felt this would have dealt with the question effectively.

However, I’m perfectly willing to accept the parliamentary assistant’s current interpretation of the reality. It is at variance with the original interpretation put by Mr. Vetere. I assume that, because the parliamentary assistant’s interpretation of the reality takes place after Mr. Vetere’s, that, from the point of view of the ministry his is the operative interpretation.

I leave it at that except for one thing. This does not extend only to marriage. The select committee on the Ombudsman, which has followed this matter since it was originally raised and is responsible for the original recommendation that made everyone aware of this concern of creating a third sexual designation in the province, commented on the other element in its fifth report. I would like to put those on the record. They are very brief and I doubt if representatives of the ministry have read them so it will be useful for them to hear them.

“The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, commenting upon the committee’s recommendation number 18 during a debate in the House, stated that the province lacked jurisdiction to implement such a recommendation on the grounds that the federal government, pursuant to the British North America Act, had exclusive authority to effect the legal status of individuals for the purpose of marriage.

“The deputy minister advised the committee that in his opinion implementation of the committee’s recommendation would not fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the province.

“The committee discussed this recommendation in more detail with one of the ministry’s legal counsel. Counsel also confirmed to the committee that Bill 11 does not, and was not intended to establish a new sexual status for post-operative transsexuals, nor does it attempt to answer the legal implications raised by the transsexual operation on the following grounds:

“Firstly, it is beyond the scope of the Vital Statistics Act; secondly that other provinces with similar legislation have disclosed no problem foreseen by the committees.”

That is, if I may say as an aside, the position put by the parliamentary assistant today, subject to his explanation of what will really happen when this practice comes into being.

If I might continue and conclude with what the committee had to say: “In the committee’s opinion, the issue of marriage has served to cloud the committee’s central concern in respect of potential consequences to one undergoing such a sex designation change and seeking their birth certificate amendment as provided by Bill 11. The question of marriage is but one example of the great uncertainty which will surround the individuals affected as the provisions of Bill 11 are implemented.

“The committee considered many other examples whereby, as a result of the sex designation change and the birth certificate amendment, substantive questions are raised as to the legal rights of the individual; for example, rights under the Family Law Reform Act and rights under other provincial acts with gender as a factor.

“It may be that the government intended that the rights of the individual flowing from these various provincial acts would not be affected by the operative procedure of the birth registration amendment That notwithstanding, the uncertainty which will surround persons affected will in itself, at least in a practical way, affect their rights in law.

“For this reason, and in the committee’s opinion, the government has a duty, to the extent that it is within its legislative competence, to clarify and define the status of the individuals under the laws administered by the province. Additionally, in the committee’s opinion, the province has a duty to prevail upon its counterparts in the federal government to enact legislation on a Canada-wide basis removing any doubt or uncertainty in respect of legal status of these individuals.”

What I would hope, Mr. Chairman, is over the supper hour the parliamentary assistant can read that again so that he fully understands it. Perhaps he will communicate with the minister or other members of the ministry staff so that when we leave this bill, hopefully at 10 minutes after eight o’clock tonight, we will have a response to those two other points put by the committee:

One, what are you doing to get in contact with your federal counterpart to see that some changes are made to clear up this matter across the country? And two, I would like a definitive statement from the ministry as to what in their opinion will be the effects under other pieces of legislation which are within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

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

Ms. M. N. Davison: I would appreciate hearing some response from the parliamentary assistant, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Chairman, quite frankly I am not aware of what communication has taken place between the provincial Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the federal counterparts, so I am unable to advise the honourable member any further.

I am unable to determine what effects this legislation will have on other pieces of legislation, other than some discussion that has taken place as to what the effects might be of the proposed amendment the honourable member had in mind, and that was some of our difficulty with it.

I am aware of the deliberations of the Ombudsman’s committee. Mr. Cooper appeared on behalf of the ministry before the Ombudsman’s committee and put the arguments to the committee. I am aware of their resolution of it.

The main purpose of my reading this statement was to indicate, with the cooperation of Mr. Vetere and Mr. Cooper, what the actual state of affairs would be with the hope of allaying any doubts in the minds of certain of the honourable members as to whether or not we would seek out these people. That is not our intention. I tried to make that clear with this statement.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I am not going to continue. Obviously, in my opinion the ministry’s response is crummy. I guess it devolves on the select committee to pursue this topic with the ministry. I don’t think, however, that has to be a cause for delaying this bill, which should have been in place a year ago.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Miss Stephenson the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment and progress on another.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.