30e législature, 3e session

L091 - Mon 21 Jun 1976 / Lun 21 jun 1976

The House met at 10 am.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we will have regular proceedings at 2 o’clock. Therefore, this morning I would begin with the second order.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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


House in committee on Bill 81, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

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

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman I gave notice on Friday last, when I spoke on the second reading of this bill just before the adjournment on Friday, that I intended to move an amendment which was consistent with the decision and direction given by the convention of the New Democratic Patty 10 days ago as to what position the caucus should be on this question.

Mr. Renwick moved that clause (c) of section 1 of Bill 81 be amended by adding thereto the following:

(ea) providing a schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years of the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage.

Mr. Renwick further moved that section 1 of Bill 81 be amended by adding thereto subsection 2 as follows:

(2) The regulations made under clause (ea) of subsection 1 shall be filed pursuant to the Regulations Act not later than July 1, 1977.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Inasmuch as the second part of this amendment deals with subsection 2, perhaps we should deal with these individually, or is it the wish of the committee that we deal with them collectively?

Mr. Renwick: The addition is simply to add a subsection 2 to section 1 and is an integral part of the first portion of the motion which I moved. I would, therefore, suggest that we put the whole matter as a single entity.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, that is satisfactory to us.


Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. member for Riverdale wish to speak further?

Mr. Renwick: Not at this moment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: I feel the amendment before us is one which our party cannot support and not only that, the amendment in fact is a demonstration of why it is that the party seated to our right, the New Democratic Party, can never govern the Province of Ontario.

I think you are aware, Mr. Chairman, as is everyone else, that the New Democratic Party won 38 seats in this Legislature. They did so on the basis of a programme which was presented to the people of Ontario. They proudly trumpeted the fact that they were the party that raised issues and presented solutions. I have here in front of me a part of that programme headed, correctly enough, “Programme.” There are a number of things written there. One of them says “An NDP government would phase out over a maximum of two years all non-refillable soft drink containers.” We are now told that all that is simply to be considered inoperative.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s another flip-flop.

Mr. S. Smith: We in this party made a number of procedural changes of mind earlier in this session in order to accommodate the people of Ontario but never have we gone back on the platform that we sought votes on before the people of Ontario in the last election.

We are told that they have had a convention since then, that it has been drawn to their attention that many jobs are in jeopardy. We worry about that too and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) made clear that he worries about it as well. We all do. But does that mean we are to read every bit of this programme with various provisos added such as, if we hear from unions in the meantime we may have to drop these parts from our programme?

On that same sheet of paper where they point out the need for a land-use programme, are we to assume that that’s naturally dependent on the fact that there will be no representations in the meantime from some farmers who oppose it?

When we read that they want to oppose the Maple Mountain ski resort complex, are we to assume that naturally that opposition depends on no more representations coming forward from various unionized Maple Mountain workers who might oppose that as well?

When we read that the Pits and Quarries Control Act will be enforced in a different manner, are we to presume that the NDP means they will only enforce it, provided they don’t hear from pits and quarries union people in the meantime, telling them that they mustn’t continue to oppose it?

What in their programme is to be believed and what are we to say is dependent upon getting the word from the union bosses? That is the question and that is why this party, which is fundamentally divided between a labour party, a socialist party and a liberal party, can never govern. That is why the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) can stand in this House and say that doctors should all be on salaries and the member for Durham West (Mr. Godfrey) can stand and say that doctors should be paid on a fee-for-service basis. The member for Durham West must be in a very difficult position. I can understand why he might not be here this morning. He was drawn into that party because of their environmentalist stand among other things and he finds himself having to deal with the socialist views of the member for Parkdale and the labour union trumpetings which are now being presented by the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I wonder if the hon. member would return to the crux of the amendment.

An hon. member: How about him starting?

Mr. S. Smith: It is the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruston: He is right on the amendment to the bill.

Mr. S. Smith: The amendment is a five-year hoist. The member for Durham West, Mr. Chairman, I remind you, stood in this House and berated the government for a six-year delay in bringing forward something to do on the business of non-refillable non-returnables. I will tell you after watching the government’s delays and listening to this party, I have come to the conclusions that the 38 seats they are sitting in are non-refillable and the government is non-returnable.


Mr. S. Smith: It is rare for me to have to agree with any member on the government side but let me say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the point made by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) when he rose in this House some time ago was a very good one. He suggested that there are tough decisions to be made, that when it comes to a question of whether you run Spadina through the neighbourhoods of Toronto, thereby creating employment, or allow this present 28 per cent unemployment in the construction and road building industry to continue, sometimes you have to make a decision that opposes the interests of those who legitimately require jobs and work.

It’s this very party, the New Democratic Party, that goes about the province pointing out over and over again how adjustments are possible in this economy, how technology advances, how we all have to adjust and how businesses that complain that they need money from the government to help them adjust are just crying wolf. It is this very party that is always telling us how adjustable people are. They are all adjustable apparently except for some of the union bosses who support the NDP.

We in the Liberal Party feel that we have to come to terms with the planet we are living on. Surely the time has come that we have to recognize the finiteness of the resources of this planet. Surely we have to recognize that pollution cannot just continue and continue, that psychological change has to occur. We have this famous garbage gamble I keep hearing about and in which members of both other parties seem to be very interested. The gamble seems to be whether or not the garbage in the NDP programme is to be believed. The fact is that tough decisions do have to be made. This province cannot elect the government that is unable to make the tough decisions. We have already waited six years.


I know there are problems in the jobs in the glass industry and in the can industry, and we are not suggesting that cans be banned outright immediately. We are suggesting that non-refillable bottles certainly should be, and we agree with the task force that presented an excellent report to the Minister of the Environment. We see no reason to deviate from that particular report and we believe that the Minister of the Environment has given assurances to this House that he will implement, by means of regulation, the aspects of the task force report that are worthy of implementation.

Where are we to start? Where are we to draw the line, Mr. Chairman? Are we simply to continue to assume that the NDP programme is aimed at some distant utopia whenever, in fact, it comes into conflict with the labour unions as they presently exist? Does everything the NDP stand for suddenly get pushed off to the 21st century because of the need for job retraining in the 20th century?

The fact is that the interests of various groups in this province are naturally going to be opposed to the interests of other groups. Life is too complicated for it to be otherwise. If you try to improve the environment you probably work against the interest of an industrialist. If you try and improve the life of some farmers you work against the interests of a proper land-use policy. There are always going to be conflicts and a tough government isn’t always going to have somebody else call the tune.

They are not going to have the big industries call the tune or the big labour unions call the tune. It’s going to be the needs of the people of this country, of this province, of this planet that will come first. This is a shocking climb-down by the NDP. They are fortunate indeed that we are having a morning meeting today because the press gallery is absent.

Mr. Deans: Oh shame.

Mr. S. Smith: But the fact is that this is the first major flip-flop we’ve seen. We know that the NDP programme also contains free university education and we know how they soft-pedal that one as well, because they know perfectly well that that would be again a subsidy for the well-to-do in our society since the poor don’t even get to the gates of the universities or consider getting in. So they push that one to the background as well.

The fact is, the task force is clear. They have studied the matter. It is going to be difficult. We must have retraining. We must have, to some extent, a programme which will help create employment in this province, but you know whenever it is suggested that the small businessmen of this province should be given some assistance so that they can provide the employment that is desired it is the NDP that stands up and opposes them.

It’s the NDP that say you don’t increase any form of taxes except corporation tax. That’s the only one they know how to increase. How is that going to create employment? How is that going to help people retrain for other jobs?

It’s the NDP that would not stand up to any hospital workers at all in the Province of Ontario and say to them, “Yes, under an NDP government you, too, might lose your job, because the fact is we have to cut expenditures.” I have not heard the NDP speak to any employee of the government or of any other group in society to say “You would lose your job if an NDP government were to come around.” They can simply continue to spend and spend and spend. They would continue to protect and protect and the fact is that the province has to make tough decisions --

Mr. Renwick: That is the one correct statement you have made this morning.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and that is what government is about, and that is what this party has just climbed down from in the most shameful way that I have seen in my short parliamentary career here. I want to tell you that the Liberals are committed to a change in this whole philosophy of over-packaging that we have, these fancy bottles, these fancy containers.

We want to come to grips with this planet and this would be a tremendous psychological move in the right direction, and we hope that the minister will, in fact, apply the regulations that he will be able to make under the provisions of this bill in the way in which all of us would like. We understand he’s given an undertaking to bring those regulations before us before their application, and we appreciate that and we think that’s how minority government should operate.

I draw my remarks to a close, Mr. Chairman, and simply say this: The people of Ontario are prepared to move in the direction of conservation, of protection of the environment, of coming to terms with this planet, of making the tough decisions that have to be made to make sure that our way of life can survive in a way that we would all like it to.

We in the Liberal Party are not in any way being dictated to by the big industries and the big unions. We are responding to the voice of the people. I want to promise you, Mr. Chairman, when something appears in the Liberal Party platform, we are going to be prepared to stand by it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We really don’t have any objection to the two amendments that have been submitted by the hon. member for Riverdale. As far as the first amendment is concerned, adding clause (ea), we feel really that it could be considered redundant. If the hon. members would refer to the existing clause (e), which would be just before the proposed subsection, it does give the minister and the government quite extensive powers in “requiring, regulating and prohibiting the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of any packaging or container, or any material or combination of materials used as packaging or a container.” That is quite a broad section covering all types of containers that would be defined in the bill.

The amendment reads that there will be a schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years. That phrase, within five years, is important. I would suggest that that clause combined with the new subsection 2 would indicate that at the latest after one year from about this point we could bring in regulations and provide a schedule as provided in the proposed new subsection.

Again we have no objection to the new subsection 2. As a matter of fact, it is a provision requiring the government to meet a deadline, something that really doesn’t exist in the bill now. In my opinion, the deadline is a reasonable one and one that we can support. With these words, we have no objections to these amendments.

Mr. Renwick: I’m delighted that the government has seen fit to support the very realistic amendment which we’ve put forward. I may say that the basic reason for putting forward the amendment was to give some sense of structure to a programme by the government which would give some assurance to the people in Ontario that there was going to be a phase-out of the non-returnable containers for any beverage in the province.

I think it was important that that be done when one considers the bylaws which were being passed and the private bills, one of which was submitted and others that certainly have been forthcoming, to provide on a very local basis for the ban of non-returnable containers and non-refillable containers. It did seem to us that any realistic assessment of the problem required that it be dealt with on a province-wide basis. We were very concerned, not so much in the good faith of the minister or of the ministry, about its intentions. We were concerned, however, that there be a visible sign of a structural scheme to be put forward for public discussion and then, in due course, filed as regulations under the Regulations Act showing how this will be carried out, not only from the point of view of those who have significant environmental concerns, but for those who have significant job concerns. It does seem to us that this is the kind of situation in which, without a clear framework under which this phase-out is going to take place, you would otherwise not be seen to be fair to either of the two groups which are very much concerned. Without drawing it in a very black and white sense, I think it’s fair to say that those who have a basic interest in the job component of the problem, also have very real and distinct environmental concerns as well. I am quite certain that those of us who have real environmental concerns about these matters have very real concerns about the job security part of it.

Therefore without elaborating further, we think that this method will provide a public forum for a discussion of the schedule and the programme to be put forward by the government by way of these regulations to make certain that it is fair and equitable and recognizes the diverse interests which are concerned in this bill.

We are, therefore, very pleased that the government has seen fit to support this amendment. We think it is worthwhile and we have a feeling it will be applauded by the people of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the member for Riverdale to speak to a particular point? Is it his intention in this amendment, and does he feel the wording accomplishes that, to simply say that at some point within five years, a schedule could be provided and a schedule could read in any way whatsoever, even that it starts tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, or does he mean that it must be phased over five years? Because his amendment as written now does not indicate that it must be phased-in over a period of not less than five years. In fact, the way it is written, it could happen tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

Could he speak to that point?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the point. I think the language is as clear as it is possible for us to make it. We want to provide a schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years.

Mr. S. Smith: Tomorrow or the next day?

Mr. Renwick: I tend to try to be realistic about political problems. I think that a planned schedule is contemplated, whereby at the end of a five-year period there will be an end to non-refillable and non-returnable containers for beverages in the Province of Ontario. And if, as part of the development of that programme by the government -- and it is a governmental role to develop the programme -- the regulations are filed not later than a year from now, and if in the meantime there is adequate public discussion and consideration which the minister gave us in the sense of assurance that that would be so when we met with him to discuss this bill, then we think that the five years is the end of the period of time during which this programme will be worked out. We are always essentially reasonable about these matters. I think the wording of this amendment adequately reflects the intention of this party with respect to the solution of this problem.

Mr. S. Smith: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate with interest, as I am sure you did, over all of Friday. A good part of that time was spent sating that we must delay this matter so that the phase-in occurs over not less than five years in order to protect jobs.

Let us be clear, Mr. Chairman, whether this amendment is instructing the minister to phase this in over not less than five years, because that is the time that the NDP thinks it will take to protect the jobs, or whether the five years is just being written in as some type of a deadline and that it could be done in six months. I really think we must be clear on what it is this amendment is doing.

Does the member for Riverdale accept, Mr. Chairman, that the way this amendment is written now means that the minister could introduce it tomorrow, as long as it is within the five-year period -- that it doesn’t have to be delayed so that the phase-in takes place over the five-year transition period, as requested by the convention of the New Democratic Party?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there is any need to elaborate longer on the meaning of the English language in the political context that we are speaking about. I am satisfied from the discussions which --

Mr. Breithaupt: Five years if necessary, but not necessarily five years.

Mr. Renwick: -- we had with the minister about this problem, that we are thinking about the same problem; and that is that it will require a significant time span, which we believe to be a five-year period, for such a programme to be implemented and carried out equitably and fairly, having regard to the diverse aspects of the interests of the persons who are concerned.


I am fortunate that we are not having to persuade you as the government as to what the meaning of it is. The minister understands, and we are in complete agreement with the minister, as to what the course of action will be over the next several months as this amendment is implemented. I am quite happy to have the government carry out the intention as reflected in the language of this amendment.

Mr. S. Smith: Is that right? You are going to delay it for five years?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There may be some confusion here. As the hon. member for Riverdale has said, referring particularly to the report of the Waste Management Advisory Board, it takes time to implement a programme, particularly an efficient programme dealing with the distribution and the redistribution of soft drink containers and other types of containers. The waste management report indicates in one of its recommendations that within three years regulations should be drafted. In one instance they recommend they be filed; in the other instance they recommend they not be filed. They use the time space of three years for non-returnable containers and then they refer to the period of five years, I believe, for those types of non-returnable containers that may be sold and dispensed via vending machines.

I have to disagree with the hon. member for Riverdale if he is saying, as suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton West, that the phrase means not less than five years. I am quite sure that within a framework of that period the intent and purpose of that sub-amendment will be in effect, but certainly the government does not want to be held to a period of five years from today or from July 1, 1977. As I say, by drafting regulations, by phasing in regulations and by having those regulations perused by the opposition and other public groups which may be interested in this whole subject matter, it will take some time.

The hon. member for Hamilton West is correct when he is saying that probably tomorrow or a year from tomorrow I could phase out or prohibit the use or offering for sale of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage. However, that flexibility must exist. The whole intent of this legislation, as the hon. members are aware now, is to give the government a certain amount of flexibility so that the strategy behind the waste management report can be implemented and the regulations can be phased in. I think that it should be made clear that the phrase does not tie the hands of the government for a five-year period.

Mr. S. Smith: If that’s the case, may I ask what the purpose is of adding these words at all to the bill? If the words “five years” are not in fact indicating to the minister that he should delay for five years -- and I agree with him, he shouldn’t -- and if they are not saying that five years is the limit by which he must have acted, if he in fact intends to act immediately, then what do we need the whole amendment for at all? Could the member for Riverdale explain whether it is anything other than just a lot of fancy words, including the words “five years” somewhere in there, so as to please his labour union friends? Is there any other meaning to the bill? If it is not going to stay the hand of the government, and it is not going to provide a deadline, what is the point of it?

Mr. Renwick: In response to the minister, this clause does read exactly as it is stated in the amendment which is proposed. The purpose of the bill is to provide for a grant of regulatory power to the minister to make regulations providing a schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years of the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage.

It is my anticipation that in the light of this amendment, some time during the next year you will provide draft regulations which will be for the purpose of establishing that schedule. And that schedule will provide the method by which at the end of a five-year period -- namely in 1982, if they are filed on July 1, 1977 -- the problem of the non-returnable, non-refillable container for beverages in Ontario will have been solved. That is the intention of the proposal as we put it forward.

Mr. S. Smith: A deadline, in other words.

Mr. Renwick: I was certain that you had understood that in discussions which we had and I certainly believe that it is consistent with what the convention of this party decided at its convention 10 days ago.

Mr. S. Smith: How can the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) keep a straight face on this one?

Mr. Renwick: This is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I would then simply ask that as a result of the amendment, I presume that the prohibition may not be necessary to have this five-year time in the amendment. It would seem that we are not necessarily producing an amendment which will prohibit these bottles within five years. So it is a situation like that old Mackenzie King phrase, “Prohibition within five years, but not necessarily prohibition within five years” -- depending upon which way you want to read it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to my friends on the left; if they wish to move a sub-amendment under the rules of the House, they are permitted to do so. I would suggest they move their sub-amendment and then we’ll go ahead with the business of the House.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, as you see very well, what we are talking about here could be construed by some as an effort to confuse and to posture without in fact affecting the legislation at all. If we have an amendment brought before this House, I suspect it is a reasonable thing to ask that it be a clear amendment as to what is going on.

When one mentions five years, Mr. Chairman, surely one is either setting a deadline by which these things must be in place -- and if it’s in place tomorrow, then it is quite acceptable, because that’s within five years -- or, if one is not setting a deadline, one is setting a limit “not less than” which must be adhered to before the legislation is in place. It’s one or the other. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning years at all.

The member for Riverdale refuses to stand in this House and speak like an honest person would do --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. S. Smith: I take that back; I withdraw that.

He refuses to stand up and speak in a clear, straightforward manner on this subject. It’s very simple. Is the five-year period in this amendment supposed to mean it is to be implemented within five years -- at any time within five years -- or is it supposed to mean that the final enforcement must not take place until the five years are up?

That is the question. We are entitled, as representatives who have to vote on this amendment, to understand what the minister understands by it and to understand what the mover understands by it; despite the fact that they’ve had some private conversations which each of them seems to understand differently anyhow.

Mr. Kerrio: That is the way the bill is drawn.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Renwick: I think so, Mr. Chairman; very briefly.

The purpose of the amendment is that at the end of the five-year period -- which would commence on July 1, 1977, when the filing of the regulations would take place -- at the end of that period, the programme of the government would be such that there would be no non-refillable and non-returnable containers for any beverage in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Is it okay if it happens sooner? That’s what I want to know. That’s the question.

Mr. Renwick: If you want it sooner, move your amendment.

Mr. S. Smith: Does this amendment allow it to happen sooner? That’s what I want to know.

Mr. Renwick: May I perhaps try to help the member for Hamilton West?

Mr. S. Smith: Does the amendment allow it to happen sooner? That’s the question. Does the minister understand it is to happen sooner?

Mr. Renwick: The policy of the New Democratic Party is that with the objective of eliminating the use of all non-returnable beverage containers in five years, the NDP would initiate a five-year phase-out.

The government has brought forward a bill granting enabling power to itself through regulations which, if passed, will give it the power, if it chooses to do so, to implement that objective. And that’s our objective. That’s what we are talking about -- a political problem.

Our objective is that at the end of a five-year period, commencing on July 1, 1977 -- which in my calculations would take us to July 1, 1982 -- the objective under the programme, equitably worked out, would be to eliminate non-returnable beverage containers in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, the minister is going to have regulatory powers governing this matter. Consequently, he is going to take direction from this proposal and he is going to exercise that power. We cannot vote intelligently, given the fact there are some private meetings involved, unless we know how the minister understands this. If he won’t give us a clear understanding, then we’ll have to ask the ruling from the Chair as to what this particular amendment means. Is it merely a deadline or can it happen before? That is the question. That is the essential matter. The NDP is attempting to have it both ways, and they can’t. I will insist that the minister give me his understanding. Can it happen before 1981 or 1982, according to the minister’s understanding of this amendment -- notwithstanding his private conversations with the member for Riverdale?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, am I led to believe that the leader of the Liberal Party, who announced at the beginning that he would not support the amendment, is now considering the possibility -- if he understands it the way he wants to -- that he will now support the amendment? Is that what you’re saying?

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s what he says.

Mr. S. Smith: Until we vote, we consider everything. What is the matter? You can’t have it both ways; let’s have it clear.

Mr. Renwick: May I, Mr. Chairman, say to the --

Mr. S. Smith: We won’t support a ban that takes five years. That’s for sure.

Mr. Renwick: -- leader of the Liberal Party --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- and if he is not aware of it, to the House leader of the Liberal Party; that if the Liberal Party wishes to move a sub-amendment to this amendment --

Mr. S. Smith: You won’t get us to do your dirty work for you.

Mr. Renwick: -- in order that they can let us know what their position on this amendment is, we will be glad to consider it.

Mr. S. Smith: As soon as we understand the amendment, we will let you know what our position is.

Mr. Renwick: In the meantime, the explanation which I have given I am sure is clear to the minister. I don’t mean by that that he necessarily agrees with it, but that is the intention of the amendment which we propose.

Mr. S. Smith: Is it a deadline or a limit?

Mr. Breithaupt: I appreciate the suggestion made by the member for Riverdale which would, by the placing of the amendment from this party, allow his party to avoid the situation as to whether this will be within five years or at the end of five years. If it is the understanding of the minister and of the member for Riverdale that this is to happen at the end of five years, then certainly it is something which we cannot support.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment?

Mr. S. Smith: Which one is it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Chairman, I can’t help but be repetitious. I had to read the language of the amendment presented to us and the conclusion that we had from that amendment -- and there has been some confusion, and I regret it. There was a phrase used, “within a five-year period” -- and now the phrase is “within five years of the use, offering for sale, or sale in Ontario” -- and so on. In my opinion, within five years meant not later than five years and it does not mean not less than five years.

I question really, despite the importance that the hon. member for Riverdale may attach to this, in light of the recommendations of the Waste Management Advisory Board, and some of the remarks I made on Friday in respect to the phasing in of regulations, whether this is all that important to the hon. member.


I realize that a resolution was passed at the NDP convention a week or so ago and this matter was discussed. However, I think that to tie the hands of the minister and the government for what amounts to a six-year period is not acceptable to either the government or the minister, and I don’t think that the hon. member for Riverdale should expect that it should be.

Mr. S. Smith: Okay, that’s it. Now we know.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have a programme and we have recommendations that have been submitted to the government --

Mr. S. Smith: Want to withdraw the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- after years of contemplation about this whole subject matter. These are in a report that took at least a year to compile and in which I have a great deal of faith as being the strategy and the route to take in respect to throw-away containers. I would suggest that the amendment, as presented here, is acceptable to us and that it means just what I said it means.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no disagreement with the statement made by the minister as to the meaning which he has attributed to the amendment.

Mr. Gaunt: Okay, we have got it.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I hate to be repetitious, but my understanding with what the minister said is that this amendment means only that he is to act some time within five years, and it could be within a year or two.

An hon. member: Exactly.

Mr. S. Smith: That is my understanding of what he said, and he has not corrected me on this -- and I have stated it many times. I’m certain that that’s correct. It is obvious, therefore, that the amendment being brought in by the member for Riverdale has no effect of delaying this matter for five years in the way in which his convention directed him to. It is obvious that the wording of this amendment, despite his private meetings with the minister, is not designed in any way to protect the jobs that he is talking about. It is designed merely to go on record saying something that includes the words five years, because it has no effect at all on the minister except to make sure that he acts at least before 1982. The minister has already told us very clearly that he intends to act much sooner than that. That is our understanding of what this piece of paper is about.

Therefore, we would invite the member for Riverdale to withdraw this essentially useless piece of paper, this amendment, which the minister has already said does nothing but assure that he acts at least at some point before 1982, and in no way prevents him from implementing an immediate ban, should he so desire. Let us be clear that the NDP has not protected any jobs with this amendment. The NDP has simply said a few words, a little gobbledegook using the words “five years,” and it thinks that that’s going to fool the people of Ontario. Let me assure the NDP, it will fool nobody.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I again make an effort -- and probably the last effort I’ll make on this particular matter -- to clarify the thinking of the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Withdraw it. It’s worthless.

Mr. Renwick: Let me read to him the whole of the provision of the policy of the New Democratic Party and then, perhaps --

Mr. S. Smith: Withdraw it. Put it into the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- he will then understand why I said to the minister, and why I said during the course of this morning, what I believe the meaning of the amendment is. I find no difficulty in having the meaning attributed to this amendment by the minister coinciding, in my mind, with what I have been saying. Here is policy statement:

“With the objective of eliminating the use of all non-returnable beverage containers in five years, the NDP would initiate a five year phase-out programme on the use of non-refillable beverage containers where feasible alternatives exist. This would be accomplished by -- “

Then we list six particular items to work it out.

If the member for Hamilton West wishes to consider that by tomorrow night there will be a ban on non-returnable containers in the Province of Ontario, then he is misunderstanding the position of the government as we understand it. I understand, with minor exceptions, the government is accepting the provisions of the task force. The timing problem is a very real problem.

Since we are not the government, we are quite content to leave it to this government to take into account the identical concern which we have with respect to an equitable method of phasing out non-returnable containers. We believe that it will take him five years to do so. We take our assurance from the commitment which the minister gave to us in the private meetings, over which there were no controversy whatsoever and which the minister would have extended to you, had you had enough brains to ask to discuss the problem --

Mr. S. Smith: You are not allowed to call somebody dishonest but you are allowed to say he doesn’t have brains.

Mr. Deans: No, he didn’t say you didn’t have brains, he said you didn’t have enough.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- then you could have reached the same conclusion which we have reached, that if the regulations for the phase-out of non-returnable containers are put to all interested groups in this society for public discussion before they are filed, then we are satisfied that the end result of those regulations will be a phase-out over a five-year period in accordance with the intention of the policy of the New Democratic Party, decided at convention, and in accordance with the language contained in the amendment which I have put forward.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the member for Riverdale believes that this will not be accomplished before five years. He has just said so. I believe that the minister does not view it in that light, and certainly this party does not view it in that light. If it’s clear that the amendment, which the minister said he is going to accept, is in the opinion of the member for Riverdale a commitment not to act before a five-year term, then I think the amendment is quite incomprehensible.

Mr. Renwick: That is not what we have said.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for Riverdale has just said he believes it will take five years. I don’t believe it will take five years. I think that the leadership of this government should not allow it to take five years, and therefore I still believe that the amendment is unsupportable.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in the light of the fact that the city of Windsor now has special legislation and can pass a bylaw banning non-returnable containers, and if that experiment shows that it is successful within six months or within a year, would the minister be prepared to accept that period of time that it took a small municipality to phase in a programme as the period of time required to phase in his programme?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, not necessarily. It’s very much easier to prohibit the use of non-returnable containers -- and again I would like to know whether that particular legislation refers for example, to a deposit on existing non-returnables so that they are returnable, or are we talking about refillable containers; there is a substantial difference. It’s much easier for a municipality to prohibit the use of non-returnables than it is for a province. All that happens really is that the various companies don’t deliver non-returnable bottles to Windsor, and the people in that city have soft drinks available in refillable containers.

Frankly, I think the passing of a provision in a private bill oversimplifies a very complex system here. If you refer to the recent Waste Management Advisory Board report, you will see there are many things that report feels should be done before there is a ban. They don’t refer to deposits, but before there is a ban there’s a certain strategy, as I have indicated many times during this debate, involving the whole question of an efficient distribution system so that when people bring back empty cans or empty bottles, for example -- if you go the deposit route -- there is a system whereby they are paid a deposit and that those cans and bottles are recycled.

That is why we feel, as the report feels, that there should be a phasing-in of this programme. For example, when Oregon, Alberta and British Columbia practically overnight, eliminated the non-returnables and placed a deposit on all containers there was serious disruption and there was also bedlam in many of the stores. The whole conversion and the change in the system was very costly and the fact is it did very little toward reducing solid waste disposal, which is one of the main objectives in our legislation. If you take a number of bottles and cans that are being recycled to some depot and then a truck takes those bottles and cans from the depot to the local dump, you’re not really achieving very much, except having a rather costly recycling and returnable system. You’re not achieving what we’re attempting to achieve in implementing certain recommendations set out in the Waste Management Advisory Board report.

It’s hard to make comparisons between a province-wide regulatory control in this industry and just one municipality.

Mr. B. Newman: You’re aware that the city does not intend to impose a ban overnight but it is setting up a committee which is going to study the implications and complications of any legislation it may introduce before it actually introduces legislation. The city is going the public participation route and I would assume that by going that route it would foresee a lot of the problems you’re mentioning here. As a result, I would think and would hope that the legislation eventually introduced by the city would resolve the problem much sooner than you anticipate on a five-year programme.

Mr. S. Smith: Because I believe it’s deliberately obscure, I wonder if the member for Riverdale or the minister would like to comment on whether they might make a change in the amendment, just for the sake of clarification. After the word “prohibition” it says “a prohibition within five years”; could that be changed to “a prohibition over the course of five years”? I believe, from what I heard, the NDP convention said they intend this to be delayed over the course of five years for the sake of adaptability and job creation and so on. Yet the minister has said, notwithstanding the private conversations which are persistently referred to by the member for Riverdale that his understanding is that all this amendment does is give him a limit; he must act by the end of five years which could easily be a year or two from now.

If the member for Riverdale would like to change his amendment to read as he obviously intends it to mean -- over the course of five years rather than within five years -- at least we would all be clear on what it is he’s talking about and he would talk out of only one side of his mouth. Is it acceptable to him to change it to “over the course of five years” rather than “within five years”?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it’s not acceptable to change the amendment for that purpose.

Mr. S. Smith: Now we know. Now it is clear.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Kerrio: That is posturing. Flip-flopping.

Mr. Renwick: The purpose of the amendment hinges upon a word “schedule”.

Mr. S. Smith: Over the course of.

Mr. Renwick: “... a schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years of the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage.”

Mr. S. Smith: What’s wrong with “over the course of”?

Mr. Renwick: The advantage of a schedule -- and in the absence of this amendment there would be no such schedule --

Mr. S. Smith: “Within” is only a time limit.

Mr. Renwick: The advantage of the schedule in this regulation, coupled with the commitment of the minister for public discussion of the problem, is that if there is public satisfaction with the regulation how he does it is the government’s problem. Our convention resolution says how we, as the government, would have done it. How he, as the government, does it is fine.

Mr. S. Smith: Why is the minister accepting that? You know he’s trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Mr. Renwick: We happen to be committed to the proposition that public input would convince the government that it takes a carefully regulated procedure by which --

Mr. Breithaupt: It takes five years.


Mr. Renwick: -- at the end of a period of time, which we believe to be five years, there would be no non-returnable containers. That’s his problem. If he thinks he can do it in a shorter time, that’s his way of doing it.

I’m simply saying that when the public representations are heard with respect to the schedule which he must put forward for public discussion before it is filed, then it is his problem as to how he does it. If he wants to do it in less than five years, that’s his problem. What our convention resolution says is that if we were the government we believe it is feasible for us to work out such a schedule so that at the end of the five-year period there would be no non-returnable and non-refillable beverage containers in Ontario.

The Liberal Party may differ, the government party may differ; all we are saying is, in fairness to everyone concerned, there must be a public discussion of the method by which this programme takes place.

I hope that has helped to clarify the position of this party. We think, as we have said in our amendment, if we were the government that’s how we would do it. We think it is possible to do it in a fair and equitable way over that period of time. We are not the government. The government has said that it will accept this amendment to introduce a schedule for public discussion and for filing a year from now, on July 1, 1977, as to how it would do it within a five-year period.

To the extent that they differ from us, that’s because they’re the government. What we would do is clear in our resolution, and the fundamental key to it is it will be a schedule publicly discussed, publicly settled, publicly filed and then implemented by the government. That’s a very significant distinction between the government position and our position, but in introducing this amendment at least we will have provided a public forum for the discussion of the method by which this is going to be carried out, and they bear the responsibility as to whether it’s fair and equitable in all the circumstances.

I hope that’s made it clear. I don’t quite know what the position of the Liberal Party is. The position of our party is as stated in the convention resolution and as stated in the statement which we put forward in this amendment. We recognize that the government is not prepared to say that it will be over a five-year period, but that’s the position of this party. That’s the position of this party, and in the amendments to this bill, I want to get the public commitment of the schedule of the method by which this will be done --

Mr. Breithaupt: There’s nothing about that in the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: -- a schedule of the method by which this will be done, coupled with the public commitment of the minister to making certain that there will be public discussion.

Mr. S. Smith: There is nothing about this.

Mr. Renwick: You can be quite certain that if we were the government we would be phrasing this within the framework of our convention resolution. We’re not the government. What we are trying to do is accomplish in this political process the maximum amount that we think we can achieve toward implementing our policy, and we did it by this amendment. We did it by this amendment because the government has said it will accept this amendment; it won’t accept anything more.

Mr. S. Smith: They can’t.

Mr. Renwick: We’re quite prepared to accept that much, the government coming this far toward the position of this party. We’re not trying to put our interpretation on what the government will decide is the meaning of this clause. All we’re saying is we want to get as much of what we as a government would have implemented in this legislation, and I’m quite satisfied if at the end of this morning, or tomorrow morning, or the next morning, we have a commitment from the government that it will go publicly with draft regulations, that it will prepare this kind of a schedule and that it will listen to what people have to say and if, as a result of that, it phases them out within three years, or 3½ years, or three years and eight months, or two years and eight months, that’s the government’s problem and that’s what we’re saying to it. We know very well that in trying to phrase this amendment we can’t always get exactly what we want, but we are prepared to go with this amendment because it is as far as we believe we can go as the opposition party in implementing the policy of the New Democratic Party in the face of very real differences of opinion with the government.

By the time it is worked out, by the time the schedule is prepared, by the time the public discussion has taken place, I am prepared to have a private bet with the minister and with the member for Hamilton West that it will be, comme ci comme ça, about five years from July 1, 1977, when the equity of the situation will permit the objective to be achieved.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Hamilton West, it seems to me that the comments are becoming a bit repetitious and perhaps that we are recycling the debate. We should limit our comments a bit when it becomes repetitious.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I invite you to understand that I don’t enjoy engaging in repetitious debate of this kind. But it is very clear that the purpose of this amendment which does absolutely nothing, according to the member for Riverdale’s last statement, to bind the government to delaying the matter for five years, is merely to somehow give what he calls a vehicle for expression of what the New Democratic Party would do if it happened to be the government. Now, one does not present amendments to be incorporated into laws simply as a means of explaining --

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is not for the purpose of giving expression to the New Democratic Party convention resolution.

Mr. S. Smith: That is what you just said.

Mr. Renwick: If it were for that purpose it would have been worded quite differently.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s what you said.

Mr. S. Smith: You said to get as close as possible.

Mr. Renwick: I said it was to get as close as possible to an amendment that the government would accept in the light of our convention policy. That is an entirely different thing from saying that this amendment reflects the New Democratic Party’s convention resolution of the political difficulties of the problem.

Mr. S. Smith: And there is nothing more than that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member has stated the point of order. The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, that’s exactly what I said, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does nothing to alter the law; it does nothing to make it impossible to bring in the ban in fewer than five years; it says nothing about having public consultations or public hearings; it does absolutely nothing except give as much reflection as possible to the New Democratic Party’s position; and it has absolutely no effect on the law, according to the minister and according to the member for Riverdale.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the reason that this repetitive engagement is occurring right now is because I can picture -- as you can sir, in your own riding, when you act as a member other than as chairman -- the postures that will be struck in front of the working people whose jobs are jeopardized by such a ban. They will say: “We thought, we stood, we introduced an amendment that would delay it for five years, and look at the way the minister went and just sneaked it in early.”

Why the minister can’t fathom this ploy is totally beyond me, because it’s perfectly clear --

Mr. Lewis: That’s a very personal viewpoint.

Mr. S. Smith: -- there is absolutely no effect on the law by this particular amendment. It is a pure posture to reflect, as much as is possible, the NDP convention.

Mr. Lewis: Then don’t vote for it. Vote against it.

Mr. S. Smith: And the thing that concerns me, Mr. Chairman, are these alleged private meetings that have occurred between the minister and the member for Riverdale.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They were taped!

Mr. S. Smith: I want to know exactly what was promised to the New Democratic Party with regard to this ban.

Mr. Lewis: Do you think money changed hands?

Mr. Maeck: Which way?

Mr. S. Smith: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the very amusing comments that the Leader of the Opposition is inserting at this time do nothing to detract from the --

Mr. Lewis: You are not going to draw me into the debate. I don’t want to do that.

Mr. S. Smith: -- from the hilarious performance given by the member for Riverdale. Let me be clear about this -- and we will let the minister have the last word on this, Mr. Chairman -- this amendment does absolutely nothing to delay the ban. If they wanted to delay the ban they would have introduced an amendment that would say that the ban should take place over the course of not less than five years, and they are capable of that much English. They could, in fact, say over the course of not less than five years in the amendment. And then the minister would not accept it, as he knows very well, because he stood and told this House that he will not have his hands bound to such a lengthy delay. And we will not accept such a lengthy delay.

Instead, they have come up with something that does nothing to the legislation, that in no way binds the minister to any sure form of delay, that says nothing about public consultation, and they will go out and posture and say “We tried to get you five years.” That is what the game is. You know it, everybody here knows it, and that is why we have had to be so repetitious, despite the clever attempts of the member for Riverdale to obscure the situation. In my best days in March I was not capable of the kind of gymnastics we are now seeing from the NDP.

Mr. Swart: I have listened now on six or seven occasions to the member for Hamilton West getting on his feet and whining and complaining about the amendment that has been put forward by this party. His course is perfectly clear to him. If he doesn’t think there is sufficient clarity, then he can move another amendment to clarify it. If it doesn’t say what the Liberal Party wants to say then he can move another amendment to say what the Liberal Party wants to say. If he doesn’t like it all, then his party can vote against it. I think it is time he either shut up or put up!

An hon. member: That is what you call a political shot.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, this is quite unparliamentary. Really, that is the Darcy McKeough style of discussion.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order. I would ask the hon. members to observe a little better parliamentary language.

Mr. S. Smith: At least it is four letters. It is better than the Treasurer is capable of.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to the House and the Leader of the Liberal Party that it is evident what his intention is. His intention is, of course, to effect a ban immediately and to hell with the jobs, and that’s the unfortunate part of their position and that’s one of the difficulties that you always face in politics.

Mr. S. Smith: They have the guts to bring in a delay.

Mr. Deans: The matter is more important than that. To begin with, no one knows whether it will take five years or not; not I, nor anyone else in the House.

Mr. S. Smith: Except the New Democratic convention. The New Democratic convention knew. They said five years.

Mr. Deans: The sense that we have, of the immense problems that will confront the majority of people in the Province of Ontario who were directly involved in the production of cans and the like, is that it will take, five years to resolve. It may, in fact, take longer to resolve.

Mr. S. Smith: Then have the guts to put it in the amendment.

Mr. MacDonald: Have the guts to move an amendment if you want it clarified.

Mr. S. Smith: You put it in the amendment. Say what you believe.

Mr. MacDonald: Move an amendment if you want to clarify it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, the hon. member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. MacDonald: You don’t understand either the political or the legislative process, that’s your problem.

Mr. S. Smith: Say what you believe. I understand what you are doing; so does everybody else.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I think it would be rather foolish if we were to establish a minimum period of five years only to discover that the ban could have been effected in four years with all of the necessary safeguards for employment and the like taken into account. It would be foolish.

Mr. Kerrio: You want to get by an election on this. Smart move!

Mr. S. Smith: So what is the amendment for then? What is it for at all?

Mr. Deans: What we are saying to the minister is this; that when you sit down to draft your regulations --

Mr. S. Smith: Think of the number five. That is what you are telling him.

Mr. Deans: -- you begin from the position that it will likely take an extended period of time, that you don’t accept the Liberal position that you can do it overnight, that there is recognition paid to the effects and the costs of making this kind of a ban hurriedly and without due consideration. That’s what we are saying.

Mr. S. Smith: But, it doesn’t say it there.

Mr. Deans: We are saying that if it is possible -- if it is possible, and I don’t believe it personally -- to phase in a programme that will not only effect the desires of those people concerned about the ecology but will be threatened in terms of their economy then, of course, you ought to do that.

We are saying to the minister, in fact, the five years could have been 10 years, because it may even take that long, but it certainly will be longer than one year or two years. I am saying to the minister that my main concern is the same today as it was on Friday last, when the member for Hamilton West wasn’t here, and on the other days when I have discussed this same matter.

Mr. S. Smith: It was different from your programme which said you would phase it out over two years; it is changed since then.

Mr. Deans: My main concern in this matter is that we not act in such a way as to threaten the many people whose jobs are directly related to the production of these materials.


I recognize on the one hand that it is desirable for the overall good that we move toward the elimination of the litter we have. But I understand on the other hand that the life expectancy of a great many people and their capacity to earn sufficient in order to provide a decent income for themselves and their families has to be a prime concern, if not the prime concern, of the Legislature.

Mr. Kerrio: Then write it that way.

Mr. Deans: We are writing it that way.

Mr. Kerrio: You are posturing.

Mr. Deans: We are saying to the minister that as you draft your regulations keep in mind that it is better to err on the side of caution, in terms of the ban, and to make sure that all the programmes are in effect and all the necessary legislative actions are taken to ensure that the economies of those few selected people aren’t so detrimentally affected that they will not recover from it.

When I spoke to the minister on Friday in the Legislature I said to him that I had little confidence in the government’s capacity to bring in the kinds of manpower policies necessary. If we had manpower policies already in effect in Ontario which had been able to deal rationally and sensibly with many of the massive layoffs and plant closings which have occurred over the last few years, of course, we could adopt the position of the Liberal Party that they are already there and therefore you can ban the can overnight and the workers may well be taken care of or they may not.

As I see it, because there are no clear policies already in place and because the government hasn’t been able to articulate the position it would take with regard to retraining and the guarantee of certain incomes for people who may be threatened or lose their livelihoods as a result of the legislative action of this parliament, we have to stress caution to the government --

Mr. S. Smith: How can the minister accept such nonsense?

Mr. Deans: -- and that is what we are doing. We are stressing that the government has to be very careful in the way in which it implements the ban. It has to be very careful and test all along the process to make sure that it is not only those workers and their families who are directly involved who carry the burden for what is the common good.

Mr. S. Smith: You are right, but why wasn’t that mentioned in your supplement? You left out a sentence in your programme last year.

Mr. Deans: I didn’t leave out any sentence in the programme. I didn’t draft the programme. The strange thing about this party is that the programmes of the party are drafted by the convention and approved by a convention representative of people from all across the province.


Mr. Deans: Therefore we are not in the position of drafting it sitting here, unlike the Liberals who come up with instant policy overnight, whether or not it is consistent with the policy written in their booklet or otherwise.

Mr. S. Smith: You didn’t say it was only provided -- your next convention agreed. Maybe it is on the back?

Mr. Deans: What I am saying is that we think it will take five years. We think it might take more. When you sit to draft your regulations we want you to pay heed to the fact that we are not going to be riding your back continuously to bring about that ban if there is clear evidence that it can’t be brought in without detrimentally affecting, over a long term, the people of the Province of Ontario who are directly involved in the production of these materials. That’s a concern the Liberal Party doesn’t share with us.

I am going to say to the minister and to the leader of the Liberal Party that one of the difficulties I see is it would be easy to bring in regulations banning these products six months from now. It’s not a matter of drafting regulations to ban them. It’s not difficult to choose any of a number of groups and to make the thing stick legislatively. The difficulty isn’t that at all. The difficulty is in doing it in such a way as to cause the absolute least disruption --

Mr. S. Smith: But not offending the union; yes. I understand.

Mr. Deans: I am offended by that, by the way, and you know better.

Mr. S. Smith: You damn well should be offended. You have gone back on your own programme that --

Mr. Deans: I have not.

Mr. S. Smith: -- said two years and no union provisos.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: What I am saying is that it has to be done in such a way as to cause the least detriment to the people who are most affected by this particular legislation. I don’t understand the Liberal position. I think they would like to ban the can tomorrow morning and would do so if they had the power.

Mr. S. Smith: We will ban the bottle tomorrow. The can will take three to five years.

Mr. Deans: That’s the reason they can’t have that kind of power. They don’t have any recognition of the need of the people in the Province of Ontario who are affected by this.

Mr. S. Smith: Why didn’t you include it? Why didn’t you include that part of it?

Mr. Deans: It is easy for the member for Hamilton West to stand up and talk about moving ahead more quickly --

Mr. S. Smith: It is your programme, not mine.

Mr. Deans: As far as I am concerned the effect on the people who are employed in the business is the effect we have to concern ourselves most with. I don’t care whether they’re unionized or not, because not everyone who is involved or who will be affected detrimentally is in any trade union. There are a great number of people who are not in trade unions who will be affected by this legislation. For the member for Hamilton West to try to draw in a lot of red herrings, in an effort to try to extract his party from a very difficult position, is something that I don’t quite understand -- maybe I do understand, because that is the position he’s taken since the day he was elected leader.

Mr. S. Smith: You are in a difficult position, my friend. We are the ones for the ban. We have always been there. You are the ones in a difficult position. You are the flip-floppers who have gone back on your promise to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: My position is perfectly clear; I ask you, Mr. Minister, to move with deliberation but not to move hastily.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right. That is the first time you have said that.

Mr. Deans: I can suffer the barracking of the Liberals, because I’m talking about real people -- people who have mortgages to pay, who have children to raise, who have problems in the Province of Ontario finding alternative employment --

Mr. S. Smith: The people paving the Spadina are real people too, you know.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: -- people for whom there is no alternative in terms of finding employment at this time, many of whom are getting on in years and don’t have the capacity to go back to school to be retrained for other jobs. Not having that psychiatric hardness, I can’t find it in myself to neglect them.

Mr. S. Smith: The ones who live in apartment buildings are also real people. So are the farmers whose lands you are going to freeze.

Mr. Deans: I say to the minister that as he brings in his regulations, he should remember that we are talking about the effect on people in the province and that, without question, before this ban is fully operative -- assuming that it ever is -- it will take a five-year period to ensure that everyone who is currently involved in the production is taken care of in such a way as to guarantee those people that they won’t have to carry the full burden of what this Legislature does and to make sure that they are not asked to give up unfairly the things they have expected for themselves and their families because of the kinds of attitudes of the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Like the farmer whose lands you would freeze.

Mr. Ruston: Using up all the agricultural land for garbage.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Before I recognize the next speaker, perhaps I should reread the amendment that Mr. Renwick has placed before us so that we will not be repetitious and will only raise new points pertaining to the proposed amendment.

Mr. Renwick has moved that section 1(c) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following:

(ea) providing a schedule for the regulation and the prohibition within five years of the use, offering for sale or sale in Ontario of non-refillable or non-returnable containers for any beverage.

He further moved that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto subsection 2 as follows:

The regulations made under clause (en) of subsection shall be filed pursuant to the Regulations Act not later than July 1, 1977.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister is going to get hell for bringing it in sooner.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I suppose one learns that sooner or later, in almost every debate, the opposition is going to bring in an amendment which, in some instances, looks after their special-interest groups. Today they’ve succeeded in bringing in just one amendment but one that looks after two of their special-interest groups at the same time.

The point of their amendment, of course, is so that they’ll run out to the environmentalists and say: “Look, George Kerr was prepared to let this thing drag on forever and never bring in any of those regulations. We, the NDP, were the ones who forced him to do it by a given date.” On the other hand, with the eloquence of the member for -- we could pick any one of a number of them, but let’s take the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) -- they will then go to the employees and say: “Look, we told George Kerr there’s no hurry, because your livelihoods, your right to earn a living and so on are so important that, for once, the NDP are not going to push, push, push for action tomorrow morning regardless of its implications on the economy and your right to earn a living.” They’ll go to the employees and say, “We delayed it for five years,” but they’ll go to the environmentalists and say, “We moved it up, we forced it, within five years.”

Mr. Kerrio: It’s smart business.

Mr. S. Smith: So, why accept it?

Mr. Grossman: I understand the game, and they understand the game, and I use the same amendment but for different purposes to different groups.


Mr. Grossman: I wanted to rise at this particular point to say that the legislation, in its original form, expressed faith in the ministry and the way it’s been run, in order that all of the concerns raised by the opposition and, indeed, by the Liberal Party as well, could be met in a sensible, orderly fashion over the next ensuing years. The minister has made it clear that he intends to solve this problem within the time limit set out in the amendment, and thus the amendment is obviously acceptable to the minister, I understand.

That’s fine. It’s because he’s confident, I suppose, of his ability to perform within that schedule that he can accept that amendment. I think myself that it would have worked equally well, perhaps better, if some leeway were given so that the ministry could use its hand, play its cards whichever way best met the demands of the employees, the very legitimate demands of the employees, and the problems of industry and the environmental problems that we’re facing.

Let me tell you that those of us on this side of the House, and I suppose my friends in the Liberal Party, somewhat get a little irritated at having the member for Wentworth and others suggest, throughout this debate particularly, that only they are concerned about the jobs of the employees. The minister has been under severe criticism from that party, the opposition party, for many years about the environmental issue, when are they going to buckle down to doing away with the non-refillables, when are they going to bring it about?

Then when the time comes and the minister begins to move very strongly -- I should say, accurately, continues to move very strongly -- then they get a little panicky that perhaps the NDP is going to be blamed for early problems in that industry. So the ministry, with every bit of sensitivity, the same amount of sensitivity for those jobs that the NDP has and maybe even more, says, “Well, we won’t put a definite cut-off date in there, we’ll work toward it, we’ll bring in these regulations, give us the power and we’ll get about it.” Then they start to panic. They don’t want to be blamed, so they’ll bring in their two-way amendment.

I’m confident that the ministry can meet those deadlines -- the minister obviously feels he can -- but I did want to rise at this particular point to get on the record, before it happens, that the opposition is going to take their amendment and walk with it in two directions -- but they’re good at it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’m really disappointed that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick fell for the sophistry of the leader of the Liberal Party this morning and thought for one single moment that that’s what either we were about or anyone in the New Democratic Party was about.

Mr. Kerrio: We know what you are about, Jim.

Mr. Renwick: There’s one thing that we do know how to do better than either your party or the Liberal Party, and that is --

Mr. Ruston: Change places in the middle of the stream.

Mr. Renwick: -- to have our policies made at the conventions of the party.

Mr. Kerrio: Flip-flop when the press isn’t here.

Mr. S. Smith: You lacked the courage to present your policy in the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: I just want to clarify finally, so far as I am concerned, what the amendment is about. I understand quite clearly, and have understood right from the time that this discussion was initiated by our party in a request to the minister to meet, I have understood quite clearly that he was not prepared to accept an amendment which said, “over the course of a period of five years,” or, “within a period of five years,” indicating that that was the phase-out period that he was bound to. I have understood that very clearly.

Mr. S. Smith: Good. Why didn’t you say that right away?

Mr. Renwick: What we wanted to make certain was that we did get an amendment on this bill, acceptable to the government for two purposes and two purposes only. One, that there would be a schedule in the regulations showing how the government planned to implement is policies with respect to this question. That’s the first point.


The second point, while it is not stated in the amendment, is a commitment made by the minister in this House on second reading -- and which he made to us when we met with him to discuss this bill -- that the regulations would be circulated to all interested parties to the extent that those parties made themselves known to the ministry and to other members of this assembly for discussion and input before they were filed in order that the government could hear the reflection to them of all kinds of representations, but particularly the representations of those persons who are concerned about their jobs.

Our party is sufficiently broadly based across the province that when we have 1,200 people assembled in the convention of the party in Kingston to discuss these matters openly on the floor, in the light of a request which we put as a caucus to ask for a resolution of the problem, that we will honestly and fairly state across the province what the position of this party is. And if anybody thinks that we’ll play footsie with this kind of a regulation, or this kind of an amendment to a bill for the purpose of playing to one group and then to another group, then they mistake, each of them, their party for this party.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, don’t talk nonsense. The member doesn’t have the guts to bring in the amendment he really wanted.

Mr. Renwick: The Conservatives mistake their party; they mistake the character and quality of their party and the character and quality of the Liberal Party for the character and quality of this party.

I am disappointed, as I said, in the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I can understand the problem --

Mr. S. Smith: This is the member’s darkest hour.

Mr. Renwick: I can understand the problems of the member for Hamilton West, who apparently has bottomed out -- I don’t know what that phrase means; it certainly is ambiguous to me.

Mr. S. Smith: We have never gone back on the platform with which we got votes in the Province of Ontario, and the NDP have.

Mr. Renwick: I am certainly saying to the Chair that that is what I mean by the amendment we proposed. Had we thought for a moment that the government would have accepted an amendment which contained the phrase “over the course of a period of five years,” then we would have included that in our amendment. We get always in this assembly what little crumbs we can from the master’s table.

Mr. S. Smith: I wouldn’t even give those guys a crumb; they are crummy already.

Mr. Renwick: Fortunately, the master has to pay somewhat more heed now than he did in other days, so we’ve moved a little bit further. We get certain amendments. We think they’re valuable. We think they’re extremely important. We think that time will tell in the public discussion of the schedule for which we are requesting the government to assent to, and we will get the kind of programme for the phasing out of non-returnable or non-refillable bottles that will be a good programme simply because of the public input and because this amendment provides for the schedule.

As I said at the beginning, that is as close as we can come to the government. I’m saying to them that as far as we’re concerned, we’re pleased that the minister stated he would accept the amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Leader of the Opposition has not disposed of his “push-me-pull you” doll, because obviously he could present it to the member for Riverdale after that last series of comments.

It seems important for us to recognize the fact that, in the view of the member for Riverdale, he is attempting to bring forward his party’s policy as best he can to a ministry which is not prepared to fully accept it. If he was prepared to bring forward that policy, one would have thought he would have drafted his amendment in those particular terms, because it is clear that this view of what his party stands for is in the amendment he has brought forward. He has chosen to amend this in order to attempt to explain to his own delegates to that convention that they were able to influence the government in a way which should encourage them to continue to draft resolutions.

The minister, however, does not view this in the same light. The minister has explained that he is not intending to be bound by this particular time limit, and we would agree that he should not be bound by this time limit. We believe that the work must be accomplished and accomplished quickly to ban non-returnable bottles in this province and to phase out non-returnable cans, probably within a three-year term,

Mr. Renwick: The member’s leader said three to five years 10 minutes ago.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is something which the New Democratic Party used to believe in, and it is something which we are prepared to agree to right now.

Mr. S. Smith: The advisory board said three to five years.

Mr. Breithaupt: Certainly three to five years; there’s no question about that it must be done. So far as non-returnable bottles are concerned, we’re prepared, as we have committed ourselves to do and as the New Democratic Party used to commit itself to do, to go on and resolve this problem forthwith.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, I thought, was entirely correct and I hope that if the minister is, in my view, unfortunately talked into accepting this amendment, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick at least and other colleagues who may think as he does will join with us and oppose this amendment.

It is not that we do not care for the jobs which are obviously going to be involved. Of course we care. We care for the jobs as much as we care for the jobs of the men who might be working on Spadina or the men who might be building apartment buildings or the women and men who are involved in every other industry in this province.

We’re not prepared, obviously, to allow the New Democrats to be the only ones concerned presumably with the interests of various groups within this society. If they can carry it off, more power to them, but I think the people of the province are finished with that kind of an approach which on one occasion calls for support of a particular group but on every other occasion does not.

We think this situation must be resolved and the government must be encouraged to accept the task force report forthwith. The minister should proceed to deal with these matters as soon as possible. The time limit which the New Democrats are attempting at least to read into this whole debate is a time limit with which we cannot agree. We certainly believe that the minister should not have his hands bound by this kind of an approach and we cannot support the amendment in view of the way that amendment has been put forward.

Mr. S. Smith: Neither should the minister and he knows it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Breithaupt: We will stack the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall we stack it? Does the committee agree?

Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

This completes the debate in committee on Bill 81.


House in committee on Bill 94, An Act to provide for Certain Protections for Purchasers of New Homes.

On section 13:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I believe at the time the committee rose we were considering section 13 and an amendment Mr. Renwick had moved. Perhaps I should read the amendment to refresh the memory of the members of the committee:

Mr. Renwick moved that section 13 of Bill 94 be amended by inserting after clause (b) of subsection 1 the following clauses:

(c) that the site of the home drains properly;

(d) that there will be no subsidence of the land beneath the footings of the home or around the building or along utility lines;

and that item (h) of subsection 2 be deleted.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there’s any need to repeat what I’ve said. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister if he would consider the amendment we have proposed as divisible. If we were to withdraw, with the consent of the House, the question about subsidence and simply keep in subsection 1 of section 13 -- let me go at it another way: Leave clause (h) of subsection 2 alone where it is and introduce into subsection 1 of section 13 the drainage at the site. Would that possibly be acceptable to the ministry as being a matter, to us, of the kind of significance that should put it into subsection 1 of section 13?

Mr. Drea: No, but I don’t want to leave it at that. First of all, we will turn to the drainage. Under this bill, every home that is built has to be built within the terms of the Ontario Building Code. As you know, part IX of the building code now covers the drainage immediately adjacent to the dwelling. So that in terms of the drainage very close in on your own lot, or on the dividing line, or in the back or along the utility line -- and I presume when you are talking about the utility line you are talking about the underground one -- this is already covered by part IX of the code.

Going into the aspect of the subdivision, the municipality now has control over the overall or the master drainage for the subdivision. So really, by putting drainage in here, on the one hand, for any provision that the home buyer would be compensated for, or where repairs would have to be done, it is already there. The warranty already covers that. If the drainage around that house is not proper, if there is flooding of the basements, or even if you want to go into the subsidence, if there is subsidence because of poor drainage around the house it is already covered and you can be either compensated in terms of dollars or the repairs will be done. So really the question of the drainage is somewhat redundant. I can understand the concern about it, but your problem is you would really have no way under this warranty, if the original development drainage or the subdivision drainage was done in an improper manner or was not according to the plan that was filed with the municipality, no matter what we had in, you would still have to go after the municipality. I suggest to you the practice in municipalities has been that where development drainage is done there is a hold-back, or a bond, so that if the swales are done improperly, if the land is drained from back to front instead of front to back, by a miscarriage of the plan, then there is a remedy for the municipality and for the people whose homes are affected. I am not going to say that it has always been carried out properly by the municipality. There are some municipalities which have been somewhat lax in this, but nonetheless, in terms of this legislation you are protected for the immediate drainage around your home and for the overall you are protected us much as you have ever been. Quite frankly, I would suggest to you, in the case of this bill, that you are getting indirectly additional coverage, because if the drainage around the house is the responsibility of the builder, then all the contributing factors that go into the creation of a bad drainage around the dwelling, are going to be the responsibility of the people who are carrying the insurance or providing the additional warranty coverage, and they indeed will go after the municipality to make sure that their own payments are lower.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Hall: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would be concerned about the requirement of making the home builder responsible for all subsidence along utility lines, because there is a great deal of lack of control by the builder as to when a lot of these utilities are run in. They include such things as the phone company or the cable company. The builder has no way whatsoever in the quality of the workmanship that these people do, and therefore it has to relate to the powers of the municipality rather than the powers of the individual builder to control the quality of such work.


The bill already covers the subsidence of any land underneath the footings of the home. That seems to be quite clear. With regard to the point that the site of the home drains properly, it is a very broad statement and it is another general redundancy. It seems to me that that is implied in many current pieces of regulation that the individual builder has to follow. The word “properly” in itself doesn’t imply a great deal in our minds; so we don’t see that these particular amendments are adding any particular value to the bill.

Mr. Deans: I am sorry I missed the remarks, though I caught some of them on my speaker. I had to go up and make a call. The difficulty, as I see it, is that many of the drainage problems, the leaks into the basements and the erosion that takes place, occur because the lands are not adequately drained. I heard the parliamentary assistant say there was recourse through the municipality in some instances because of the filing of drainage plans. Was that my understanding?

I have found in the numbers of properties I have had to deal with that if there is recourse in that direction it is of little use to the individual homeowner and that it hasn’t been effective at all. It would seem to me as part of the final approval of an overall project or an individual home that the grade of the property and the drainage that has been approved should be checked. The reason for that is that unless that is checked in the final inspection and guaranteed to be in keeping with the overall plan as filed, then the likelihood of difficulties arising are that much greater.

I don’t know why the government would balk at that. I would have thought that one of the objectives of this legislation was to cut down as much as possible in the problem areas the likelihood of problems arising; that that’s what we would all be striving to achieve and, wherever possible, if by a simple phrase in the legislation, we could eliminate a problem, then we would simply move to do just that. That is what the amendment is really addressing itself to. What the amendment is saying is that the inspector, in making that final inspection -- and we are going to talk about inspectors in a few moments, I hope -- will not only guarantee that the appropriate interim inspections have been made and that the property of the home itself is in sound condition, but that all of the overall plans as filed for the development have been adhered to and that the drainage is as per the official drainage plan as filed both with the municipality and, in the case of Ontario Housing Corp. properties, with the Ontario Housing Corp.

There is no way for the average individual to be able to tell otherwise. The average homeowner would never know. The average homeowner walking out couldn’t tell whether the drainage was at the appropriate runoff level or whether the swales were in the right place. In fact, they can’t even identify their property lines in many instances and therefore they would be unable to tell. That’s the basic reason for it. If it is on that final inspection sheet, which is handed over to the property owner and which says that all of these things which are required to be done have been checked and have been done, then it does two things. It puts an onus on the builder to have done them; and it puts an onus on the warranty programme to have checked them. In the most likely circumstances it will have cut down on the after effects of the work not having been done properly.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Deans: Could I have a response?

Mr. Drea: First of all, were it not for part IX of the Building Code, which specifically obligates the builder to provide the proper drainage around a dwelling -- and it is part of this Act that the dwelling must be built in accordance with the Ontario Building Code -- I would share many of your concerns about drainage.

I agree that up until now, for the homeowner faced with a perennially flooding basement -- and I’m not just talking about a little leak down a crack, which can be taken care of very easily; it’s a very substantial problem -- it has been extremely difficult to move, because the builder has tended to pass the buck to the municipality and back and forth down to a subcontractor who read the plans wrong.

Under this legislation -- and let’s just take as a practical example a basement that floods -- the first attempt to have the situation remedied is under this plan. If the council finds it is not the fault of the builder, that he carried out his obligation under this bill and part IX of the Act, but that the municipality was lax and that the drainage was improperly constructed, then obviously there is a very clear-cut case against the municipality.

What you are suggesting by this -- and this is the concern I have -- is that you would make the warranty plan cover not only what the builder does but what the municipality fails to do. The municipality is charged with the obligation of making sure there is proper drainage. Far too many of them, up until this time, have regarded that duty as having their engineer check the plans and that every bulldozer operator, every earthmover or every sewer company somehow always does things correctly.

I agree with you that the average homeowner doesn’t know why the water is in there or how the water got beside the house; all they know is that it’s there. Now there are going to be people who tell them why it is there; and, first of all, if the builder had not carried out his obligations under this Act, then it will be remedied then and there. It’s a clear-cut responsibility. If he has carried them out but the municipality has failed to do so, there is a clear-cut action against the municipality. In view of the fact that the municipalities now have performance bonds, holdbacks and a great number of other resources to remedy this, quite frankly I think that will be asking far more of the new homeowners than I would be really prepared to go. You’re asking them to buy additional costly insurance against the negligence of the municipality -- not against the negligence of the builder and not against the negligence of the inspector. Furthermore, you’re asking an inspector under this Act to certify the accuracy of the performance of a municipality when he has no control over the municipality. That’s where it seems to me it breaks down.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I’m not exactly asking that. First of all, I want to make it clear to you my only concern is that when a person purchases a home, that home will be as free from defect as is humanly possible. I’m not terribly eager to have the builder come back and fix things. I’m hoping that the end result of the legislation will be that there will be better-quality homes built in the Province of Ontario. That may be an odd way to put it, but I’m not interested in having builders rushing back and correcting problems; I’m interested in having the thing done properly in the first place. I wanted to include drainage in the overall final inspection for two reasons. One is, with that provision in the Act, it is more likely that the builder will pay particular attention to that aspect of what has been a major problem. The second is that if the inspection is then made and it is found that the drainage is inadequate in whatever way -- I’m not talking about inadequate in the inspector’s opinion but rather that the overall plan has not been properly followed -- that can easily be corrected before the other problems are brought about.

One final point on that. If the inspector inspects and says, “You are going to have a drainage problem because of the municipality,” I assume, I hope correctly, that the inspector will be prepared to appear as an expert witness in whatever course of action may have to be undertaken thereafter by the individual homeowner. The only way to ensure that that person can appear as an expert witness is to have him involved originally in the inspection. That’s the only way to get him there.

Mr. Drea: But they are.

Mr. Deans: Not in that inspection, they are not. They are inspecting the home but not the property itself.

Mr. Drea: Sure he is.

Mr. Deans: No, he is not. Under section 9 he is not, because you have already said he doesn’t have to concern himself with the inspection of the drainage patterns because it then falls within the jurisdiction of someone else. If section 9 -- am I correct? It is section 9?

Mr. Drea: Part IX.

Mr. Deans: Part IX. If part IX is fully operative and put into force by this Act, we don’t have to worry because the inspector should obviously be inspecting it in any event.

Mr. Drea: Excuse me. We are talking about the Ontario Building Code and part IX is already operative. Now you have raised the point that you want something in it -- simple, blunt and direct -- concerning drainage. There is nothing more simple, more blunt or more direct than saying that dwellings must be built according to the Ontario Building Code.

Granted that building code only concerns the drainage in proximity to the dwelling being built but if you were building 10 houses in a row the inspector is going to be in all 10 of them. It’s all right to say if it is a vacant lot and there are houses around it, he will be doing one.

If it is a subdivision -- and this is where the drainage problems come in; you very seldom get them with a vacant lot -- that inspector or his colleagues are going to be involved with all the dwellings in that subdivision. They are going to be specifically concerned about the adequacy of the master or developmental drainage because if that master or developmental drainage hasn’t been done properly, the individual builder is going to have to take extraordinary steps to make sure that the drainage in proximity to the dwelling is sufficient so there isn’t a problem for the homeowner.

I’m not suggesting that the inspector under this Act should close his eyes to what the municipality does. Of course, he will be an expert witness against the municipality if the municipality has failed to carry out its obligations. I think that’s of great benefit to the homeowner because until now it has been very difficult to find the resources to hire a consulting engineer or to find one with time available to go into one of these proceedings.

As I said before, the first step for the homeowner if something goes wrong -- I am with you; I don’t want the builder coming back; it’s to be built properly in the first place -- the first decision that has to be made is on the failure of the drainage. Is it the fault of the builder? If it is the fault of the builder that’s immediately rectified. That’s the end of that.

If it is the fault not of the builder but of someone else, you already have an expert witness in the inspector or the people who come from the warranty council. They have said it is not the fault of the builder of house A or of house B; it is the fact that the drainage plan as registered with the municipality was not carried out. It is the municipality’s responsibility. I think that’s a very clear-cut way of doing it.


Mr. Deans: It would be clear-cut if there were a requirement on the part of the inspector, (a) to inspect, and there isn’t at the moment; and (b) to appear on behalf of the homeowner in the event it turned out that it was the responsibility of a party other than the builder, for whom the home warranty plan is a protection if you will.

At the moment, under the law as you’re proposing it, there is no requirement on the inspector to inspect that matter. He can come, he can look at a problem if brought to his attention. If the inspector looks at that problem and says that it is not the responsibility of the builder because the builder complied with the existing laws and regulations and approved plans, that’s the end of the inspector’s responsibility. It ends right there, the inspector has no obligation to go further.

Mr. Drea: No, that is not true.

Mr. Deans: It’s true. The inspector has no obligation to go beyond that point, nor can the inspector be required to go beyond that point. If the inspector comes in and looks at a basement with six inches of water in it and says to the home purchaser, “I regret that you have six inches of water in your basement, but I have reviewed the plan and the builder has built according to the plan. I have reviewed the structure, and the structure is in no way defective. I have reviewed the drainage pattern as approved by the municipality, and it appears that the builder has built according to the drainage pattern approved by the municipality,” then that inspector and that builder is no longer involved in the case.

Mr. Drea: It is not true.

Mr. Deans: Yes, but it is true.

Mr. Drea: They can review it. They’ve got a few more steps to go.

Mr. Deans: But the appeal can only be within the ambit of the law.

Mr. Drea: But the ambit of the law, in all fairness, is that the dwelling has to be built under the Ontario Building Code. All right? What you’re saying is that the inspector says the home was built within the provisions of the Ontario Building Code. You disagree. After the inspector, you can ask for mediation from the council. If you’re not satisfied with that, you have the right to appeal to CRAT. You’re saying that the inspector isn’t required to go any further. The inspector has to justify his decision to, first of all, the council, and then, secondly, to CRAT.

At that point, surely an inspector who has worked hard enough on the project -- and it is not the builder’s fault, it is that of the municipality -- when CRAT comes down with its decision its decision may be, in the first instance, or one half of it may be, that the builder and the planner are not responsible, but the second half is that the municipality is. I don’t know where you could get a clearer case of action against the municipality. It’s a simple procedure.

Mr. Deans: No one is denying that.

Mr. Drea: Just one other thing; you’re saying the inspector isn’t going to certify anything about drainage on his final remarks. By virtue of the fact that he has approved the house for possession, that it has been completed, and it now bears the start of the warranty, he has certified that the drainage and everything else that’s within the scope of the Ontario Building Code has been completed properly, that the drainage on the entire plot of land has been completed, if it is not satisfactory you have immediate cause for redress under the warranty programme.

Mr. Deans: Then I need a clear answer on the record. If you’re saying to me that the inspector having once given his approval, has certified that every single aspect of the Building Code, including drainage, has been complied with, then I assume that the warranty programme is, therefore, responsible for any error on the part of the inspector. If, as a result of that, it turns out the approved drainage plan has nothing at all to do with what the inspector sees, if the municipality approves a drainage plan which turns out to be wrong, that doesn’t matter, because the inspector has approved what the Ontario Building Code says and not what the plan of drainage has said. You have to decide, because one must take precedence over the other.

Now the Building Code probably says in part IX that the matter of drainage shall be attended to in a manner which will allow the property to drain properly without causing any difficulty to the home. Let’s say the builder or the developer files with the municipality a plan for a system which, when in actual operation does not provide adequate drainage, if you are telling me that this bill, by virtue of reference to the Building Code, takes precedence over the plan filed with the municipality, then I accept it. I accept it and I agree with you that the recourse is clear and we have no difficulty. But if you are telling me that over here some place the approval given by the municipality will be taken into consideration, then I say to you there is no requirement on the part of the inspector to appear as a witness at all.

Mr. Drea: Well to answer you, and just to make it absolutely clear, of course there is precedence. The municipality must approve the drainage before any construction can start. It can’t issue a permit without it.

Mr. Deans: But it’s possible to approve something not in compliance with the building code -- right?

Mr. Drea: No, they cannot.

Mr. Deans: But it is possible they could have approved something not in compliance with the building code.

Mr. Drea: Well then the municipality is liable for that.

Mr. Deans: But the inspector represents --

Mr. Drea: No. Let’s start from the beginning. We are talking about two different things. First of all, the developmental drainage is a responsibility of the municipality, nothing can start until that is approved by the municipality.

Mr. Deans: So suppose they make a mistake.

Mr. Drea: Pardon?

Mr. Deans: I said suppose they made a mistake?

Mr. Drea: All right.

Mr. Deans: As they frequently do

Mr. Drea: All right. You are saying that the plan doesn’t do it. The plan always does it; it is the way the plan is carried out that fails. All right; the municipality is liable for that. And I am telling you that in a subdivision, under this Act, even where there is no authority by the municipality, that situation will be detected very early on in the proceedings.

Mr. Deans: By whom?

Mr. Drea: By the inspector, because the inspector has to look at the drainage around the individual lot. If he finds something the matter with the drainage, he checks to see if the drainage is in accordance with part IX of the Ontario Building Code. If he finds it is, then obviously something is the matter further back. These inspections aren’t done just when the house is completed; there are a number of inspections almost from the start of the excavation.

If the fault lies further back with the municipality and with the municipal drainage inspector or drainage engineer, then very early on liability for that is going to be assigned to the municipality. But more important than that, the work on the individual units is going to stop until the municipality, or whoever did it, corrects that situation. Now at the present --

Mr. Deans: Where does it say that in this bill?

Mr. Drea: Look, the inspector has the obligation to get the houses built as perfectly as possible so there are no claims on the fund -- that is his obligation. He is not going to let work continue if he knows the overall drainage is going to lead to very substantial problems.

Mr. Deans: But he can’t tell until final grading.

Mr. Drea: That may be very true in the case of the individual house, but he certainly is in a position to notice or to observe that very early on in construction there appear to be substantial problems with the drainage. And having looked, inspected and found the drainage fault is not with the way the houses are being built or the drains are being put in around them, then obviously something is the matter with the overall drainage. At that point, he’s not going to let the construction go on.

Mr. Deans: Let me just make one final point. I won’t take up more time other than to tell you this. If that home is built, if the overall development starts in the summer, you will find it is extremely difficult to determine the actual drainage patterns of the area. It happened on Hamilton Mountain just recently under a home ownership programme that a house was built where a virtual river -- a stream, I guess, is a better term -- runs down the driveway. It is 3 ft deep at the driveway. It’s about 7 ft deep at the end of the lot. I fell into the thing trying to find it one day in the snow.

I want to tell you that if you were to go there now or a month from now, you wouldn’t know it existed because it is the drainage for the entire drainage area. One inspector going in looking at the properties in the summer would never know it was there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it was going to be a problem until some time in the spring. He couldn’t then have taken the corrective action. The difficulty with all of this is that it backs up. When you start trying to repair it, to fix it, you’re then going through any number of properties all the way back up to the source of the problem. That inspector will not have inspected all of those properties nor will he have the authority to inspect them because many of them are not within the overall development and therefore it is hard to pinpoint the responsibility.

Anyhow, I’m going to tell you, as obviously we’re not on the same wavelength on it, that you’ll find one of your biggest difficulties will be the one we have just discussed. Unless the inspector has the final authority, the overall approval, which includes drainage, and makes sure that the final inspection takes that into account, I say to you you’re going to be faced with serious difficulty. I leave it at that.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is only one thing I wanted to raise in the debate. I felt the comments made by the parliamentary assistant were accurate, particularly when he said that when the certificate is approved really what is happening is that the inspector is approving some things over which the builder does not have particular knowledge or control. However, the builder becomes the conduit through which the other approvals can all be related to that house and therefore that flows throughout the piece. If there are particular difficulties in other areas, it was my understanding that the certificate would have that effect of completing that chain. I thought that was the burden of the remarks made by the member for Scarborough Centre and I agree with him. That was all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Makarchuk: I want to mention a few comments. I think in this case that the parliamentary assistant is making a very serious mistake in denying this particular amendment. He is a man of the world. He certainly is not a naive person; he has been involved in these situations and he knows what goes on.

I think there are two major problems you should consider. In the first place, when the homeowner gets into the home, it is too late at that time to come to grips with a drainage problem. You cannot move out; you have to go and chase everybody all over the place and so on. This is one item that has to be considered.

The other item is the fact that there are very many ways in Ontario to get approval of a subdivision. Even though the plan of subdivision may initially appear to provide for adequate drainage, there is a possibility in the construction of that subdivision that the watercourses can be changed. They can be blocked partially or fully blocked. In this case, although initially there was no drainage problem, when the buildings are on the site drainage problems develop and become very serious.

The point once again is, it may affect one or two homes. The owners of the new residences at this time are unable to get back at the municipality. There is no hold-back. The municipality will probably find that the problem is caused by drainage somewhere further upstream or new development further upstream that is causing the problems in a downstream subdivision. You cannot get back at the municipality.


I will give you a situation that exists along Paris Rd. in Brantford which involves a CNR culvert, which involves a major highway and which involves a lot of things. It affects two homes which should not have been built there in the first place, and the homeowners have really no recourse -- they have nowhere to go. They are stuck with their homes, they are locked into a mortgage, and they have a backyard that’s swamp at the best of times and a danger to the children in the worst of times. It fills up during a storm to about 9 or 10 ft of water, and there is a possibility of children drowning.

Once again, in this situation, there is nowhere they could go to try to resolve this problem. It seems to me that by eliminating this amendment, nebulous as it may seem perhaps, you are in effect not giving as much protection to the prospective owner as you could ordinarily.

Mr. Hall: In connection with the problems of responsibility in different areas, I would like to point out that to the best of my knowledge subdivision agreement requires the subdivider to place a performance bond or some other surety method relative to the proper execution and completion of all the works that are set out in the subdivision document. This, of course, includes site elevations on each lot. Moreover, there is a maintenance period after the completion of all the works at which time the municipality still holds the surety from the developer.

I submit to you that the nature of the problems that the amenders of the bill are suggesting would, in the normal course of events, be very well taken care of by a complaint to the municipality. Such a complaint would ensure that, to the extent there is a deficiency on grading or poor water drainage, the subdivider has an obligation under the terms of the subdivider’s agreement, aside from part IX of the building code and aside from the other standards that go on. So it still seems to me to be redundant.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): The “nays” have it, sorry.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute, your opinion was right the first time. We will stack.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): We will stack it?

Mr. Deans: You guys should listen.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, we agreed with another chairman that we would deal with section 13 subsection by subsection. I would like to move an amendment

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): Mr. Renwick moves that section 13 of Bill 94 be amended by inserting after subsection 1 the following subsection 2:

(2) The owner may elect to treat a major structural defect as defined by the regulations as a condition of the contract for the sale of the home to the owner or for the construction of the home for the owner and not as a warranty, and if the owner so elects, the owner may reject the home and treat the contract as repudiated.

and renumber the subsequent subsections accordingly.

Mr. Drea: Do you have a copy?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I regret that that is my last copy. I had innumerable copies of these various amendments. I distributed them all and I gave a copy to the minister. I gave a copy to my colleagues in the Liberal Party but, unfortunately, I have no further copy of that amendment.

Mr. Drea: Not that one, the other one.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, that’s the one.

Mr. Drea: I haven’t got it.

Mr. Renwick: You have it?

Mr. Drea: I have not.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps you could have a look at that. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant, in due course, would send one back to the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, and extremely briefly because I dealt with this at some point on second reading, we are dealing only with major structural defects in this proposed amendment. And it is a clear statement that in the event of a major structural defect as defined in the regulation that, in those circumstances, rather than treat the matter as a warranty, the owner, that is, the purchaser of the home either from the vendor, from the previous owner or the builder, may treat it as a condition of the contract and, on that basis, repudiate the contract and not take the home. It’s just that simple.

The reason for it is that we do, and have, for many, many years, indeed, going back into the last century, provided that identical situation in the sale of goods. Our fundamental principle throughout the debate in this assembly has been very simple: If you’re talking about the major investment made by most citizens in the Province of Ontario over the course of their lifetime, that person should not be required to take a home necessarily which has a major structural defect as defined by the ministry. He should be able to elect, if he cares to do so, not to treat it as a warranty but to treat it as a condition and to say: “I repudiate the contract and I don’t want the house. You take it back.” I emphasize, it’s related solely to major structural defects.

Mr. Deans: And an excellent amendment.

Mr. Renwick: The amendment is the reverse of the situation which is set out in the Sale of Goods Act but has the same purpose. The Sale of Goods Act says:

“Where a contract of sale is subject to a condition to be fulfilled by the seller, the buyer may waive the condition or may elect to treat the breach of the condition as a breach of warranty and not as the grounds for treating the contract as repudiated.”

In the case of a sale of goods, if there is a condition in the contract, the buyer of the goods may treat the condition as a warranty and not repudiate the contract but take it as a claim for damages.

What we have said is that in the case of major structural defects, he may say: “I do not accept this as a warranty. I elect to treat it as a condition and have the right to repudiate the contract and to turn the house back.”

The reason we say that is that if one looks at the definition of warranty, wherever it’s used, then one usually finds that it is a term collateral to the main purpose of the contract and it’s that breach which gives rise to the right to damages but not to the right to reject the item of the contract and treat the contract as repudiated.

It does seem to us, that in the case of major structural defects, you have to give the owner that particular right of election. In that case we think this bill would be immeasurably strengthened if the ministry could see fit to accept that amendment.

Mr. Hall: I will speak briefly on it. Do you want to respond first?

Mr. Drea: I would like to respond now, Mr. Chairman.

I am not going to accept that amendment. First of all, it takes me back about a year and a half because here we are on the same thing about rescission involving real property as we were in committee on Bill 55, the Business Practices Act. You will recall, while it dealt with used homes, it didn’t deal with new ones. At that time one of the problems was the time limit, the time span, the impact all along the line on the purchase and sale of real property. Very seldom is there an isolated case; it is always contingent upon something else happening.

On this particular one, before we get to the real impact of rescission, one of the things that interests me is, with the price of houses climbing, after three or four years what does the person get? Do they get what they paid for the house? How do they get their interest back? When you buy a house in the first three or four years you may very well put down only $3,000 or $4,000. Your interest really is about 99 per cent of your monthly payment. You accumulate very little equity. To me, it would be extremely difficult to arrive at a fair method of reimbursing, in terms of dollars, a home buyer who was unfortunate enough to be in a situation in which a major structural defect had occurred.

When you are talking about general warranty law you are talking about the defect being a condition because under general warranty law there is no obligation on someone to remove or correct that substantial defect. In this legislation there is an obligation; you’ve already paid for it.

Furthermore, as part of this programme, which is not part of any general warranty programme, there is inspection all the way along the line until the completion or the production of the product. In terms of the Sale of Goods Act there is no inspection under your control or by which you participate as a purchaser in the production of the goods or chattels.

In this particular case, if there is a structural defect, in practical terms of the housing market, in terms of the least inconvenience to and the most desirable results for the afflicted party it will be repaired, even if the repair costs $100,000 or $200,000. It brings the property back up to standard and that, surely, is much more desirable.

I would suggest to you while this amendment certainly isn’t clear as to the compensation or the damages which might be possible after rescission there is no court, at least none that I know of as a layman, which would say that because you bought something in 1976 at a value of X dollars which turned out to be faulty and now, in 1980 or 1981, it costs $X plus $500 you have to be compensated for the $500 because you are now going out and starting all over again.


You would be into immeasurable difficulties about taking back. When you are considering the amount of the interest payment, that may be easy to determine. But how do you determine the amount of use the particular person or the family has had out of the dwelling place? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, having cited just a number of practical difficulties plus the overriding consideration that there has to be consistency and finality in real property transactions, otherwise real property transactions turn into chaos, and on those grounds the amendment is not acceptable to the government.

Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, the member for Scarborough Centre has covered some of the points involved. I’m not a lawyer but I really don’t know how the member for Riverdale would, in law and in equity, put such a circumstance to finality in terms of the passage of time, the increase in value of the asset or the decrease over the period of years.

While there might be, on the surface of it, a feeling that it is fair to say, “They didn’t do it right, so they should get it back,” the purpose of the guarantee fund is to provide the dollar amount for it, and I submit it’s the only possible way of coming out with fair damages to a person who is entitled to compensation by reason of a structural defect that has occurred. The other route which this amendment suggests would raise more problems than it would solve, even though the intent at first glance is one of an attempt at fairness. I would have to feel that the guarantee fund would offer better hope.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment will indicate by saying “aye.”

All those opposed will indicate by saying “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Deans: We will stack it.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): Stack it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant will probably recall and the House may recall we indicated that unless at least two or three of the major amendments which we were proposing to the bill were acceptable to the government we would be required to vote against the bill on third reading and we have just reached that point.

The question about the nature of the corporation that was to administer this Act, the question of the kind of warranty with respect to drainage, and now this question as to whether or not a major structural defect could be treated as a condition falls within that category, as do other of the amendments and particularly this next one which we will now propose.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Gregory): Mr. Renwick moves that subsection 3 of section 13 of Bill 94 be amended to read as follows: “An inspector appointed under section 18 shall deliver to the owner a certificate certifying the date upon which the home is completed for his possession and the warranties take effect from the date specified in the certificate.”

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the member for Wentworth, pointed out in the course of second reading of the bill the essential missing link in the bill which the government has put before us, and that is the role and position of the inspector. If one reads section 18 of the bill, you are really only talking about an inspector in the aftermath of having accepted the home. The clause dealing with inspectors, as drafted in section 18 of the bill, does not relate clearly and definitively in any way to the provision contained in section 13 (3), which presently reads in the bill:

The vendor of a home shall deliver to the owner a certificate specifying the date upon which the home is completed for his possession and the warranties take effect from the date specified in the certificate.

There’s nothing in that clause which indicates in any way that the owner must accept the certificate. It’s the mere handing of the certificate, whatever that may mean, from the vendor to the owner, which completes the procedures outlined by the ministry in the bill; and the owner of the home, the person who’s buying the home, has absolutely no alternative but to accept that certificate.

I see the parliamentary assistant shakes his head, but if he then wants to put in this bill the specific provision that not only shall this certificate be delivered to the owner, but shall he accepted by the owner on his part, so that there are two parts to it, that at least gives the owner the opportunity to say, “Well, I want to have this home inspected before I accept this certificate.”

The parliamentary assistant is scratching his head. I don’t know whether it’s because of something I said or because the hour of the day it is.

Mr. Drea: Just scratching.

Mr. Renwick: Just scratching, that’s fine.

You see, if a person is sufficiently well-to-do to have a builder build a home and to hire an architect as well to stand between himself and the builder with respect to the procedures to be followed for the acceptance of the home, then it’s normal and customary procedure, not only with respect to draw-downs on the building of the home but on the final completion of the home, for the architect’s certificate to perform the function which you’re now allowing the vendor unilaterally to perform. There is no one independent in the relationship between the vendor and the owner with respect to this certification; it’s the end of the road -- the vendor simply gives it to the owner, who has to take it and who is stuck with it.

It seemed to us to make very good sense that the inspectors, whoever they may be that are going to be provided under section 18(1) of the bill -- and we have a consequential amendment requiring the corporation to appoint inspectors -- they are the ones who should give the certificate with respect to compliance with the provisions of the bill. We would urge that if the government will not accept our provision with respect to the inspector’s certifying, at least they make provision to protect the owner by saying that the vendor must give a certificate but the owner must accept it before he’s required either to take possession or before the time under which the warranties begin to run commences; then the owner of the property, if he so wished, could arrange to have the property inspected or arrange, during the course of the construction, to have it inspected.

The kind of bill we envisage, and the kind of bill we’ve been talking about, must provide for that kind of independent inspection to be carried out by the inspector so that he is the one who has the obligation to give the certificate with respect to these warranties.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Deans: The point I want to make is this: The bill is not a very good bill to begin with, in my opinion, but if you were to make adequate provision for proper inspection, then at least that aspect of the bill that will benefit the purchaser would be guaranteed. There is no requirement anywhere that inspection take place during the course of building. There’s none. There’s no requirement on anyone to inspect. If the person who is lending, or the mortgage company doesn’t inspect properly, there is no guarantee that there will be any inspection of any kind.

The municipalities across the province don’t provide for inspection of homes as they’re being constructed. The Ontario Housing Corp. has done away with the inspection that it had up until now. Central Mortgage and Housing only inspects those homes which fall within its jurisdiction. At this point in time there are no inspectors inspecting the homes as they’re being built to determine that they will be built according to any standard. There are no inspectors under the Ontario Building Code who will be doing any inspecting in the homes. There are no inspectors.

Mr. Drea: The local building inspector.

Mr. Deans: The local building inspector does not inspect homes other than to determine that they comply with the municipal bylaws.

Mr. Drea: That’s now the Ontario Building Code.

Mr. Deans: It is not. There is no guarantee of any kind that there will be an inspection for the purpose of this warranty of every home as it’s being built. There’s none. My God, you had inspectors for years under the Home Ownership programme, and they didn’t inspect much of what was going on because there weren’t enough of them, and it just is impossible to imagine the municipalities assuming that responsibility. They can’t assume it.

So if you’re relying on municipalities to hire a sufficient number of inspectors to inspect on an ongoing basis to ensure that the home was built to standard, you’re wrong. And if you think that by virtue of simply having inspectors available to inspect deficiencies as they’re brought to the attention of the programme, you’re also wrong. And if you believe that the inspection process is the key to ensuring that the home will be built according to a reasonable standard, then you have to have some control over that inspection process.

I suggest to you that since there has to be a final inspection, and since that final inspection has to be done in accordance with and paying recognition to all of the other inspections that should have taken place throughout the development of the project, then there is no harm and a great deal of benefit in having that final inspection produce a certificate which is then given to the purchaser saying that all of the inspections have taken place, and that the home is now built according to the standards set out in this Act, and this Act is now operative on your behalf.

It’s not the responsibility of the builder to do that. It is the responsibility of the inspector. I urge that that be done and however that is transmitted to the purchaser, that it be on the authority of the inspector who did the final inspection, and on no other authority.

Mr. Cunningham: The point I would make here is that from my point of view as a non-lawyer, there would not be a privity of contract between the inspector and the buyer of the home. This disturbs me in that I think the fundamental relationship is between the buyer and seller. Anything that can be done, assuming there are any defects at the time of the purchase of the home, should be rectified and settled between the buyer and the seller. Then we would be in the position, hopefully, that we wouldn’t have to look at a remedy through the courts or through the warranty programme with the buyer and the seller, but rather settle what few and minimal difficulties I would anticipate are going to occur once this piece of legislation is in effect, and once the people that are involved in construction of houses are forced to operate within the confines of that legislation. So with that in mind I don’t think our party can support this amendment.


Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a very brief comment in view of the comment made by the member for Wentworth North. The bill specifically provides, without being legal about it, that a warranty is enforceable notwithstanding that there is no privity of contract between the owner and the vendor.

It would seem to me that what we are simply saying is that the certificate we are making provision for in subsection 3, by amending the bill in accordance with this amendment, is specifically to provide that there is an independent person in between the vendor and the owner, who will make the certification upon the basis of which the warranties will then commence to run. The person who is buying the home will then be in a position to say, “I am taking possession of this home on the basis of this certificate and on the certification that various things have been done, and I now have the benefit, if they have not been done, of the warranty which is provided.” I would hope the assembly might support us, even though the ministry and the Liberal Party would not.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, the reason that we are not going to accept this amendment is that it’s not necessary. Let me explain why it is not.

First of all, all this particular section does is to set a date for the commencement of the second phase of the warranty programme.

The first phase is, as you know, prior to completion and acceptance. If something goes wrong with the deposit, you get your deposit back. The second stage is for one year after the completion and this involves the relatively minor matters that the member for Wentworth North has talked about. Then thirdly, there is the five-year span on the major structural defects.

The forms that are already being used in the HUDAC programme are not merely for delivery by the builder of a document on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and if you don’t want it you are stuck with it. There are two sections on the back of them. One is the builder’s certificate; one is the purchaser’s certificate. Each has to sign. The builder certifies that,

“The home described on the face thereof is substantially completed and ready for possession by the purchaser on the date of possession, and subject only to the completion of seasonal work and items of a minor nature, more particularly described on the face hereof.”

The second part is that the warranty commences on that date of possession. The purchaser’s certificate, which he signs, says,

“The purchasers have inspected the home described on the face hereof, and such home is substantially completed and ready for possession by the purchaser on the date of possession, subject only to the completion of seasonal work and the minor matters described on the front of the certificate.”

They both have to sign. The way the programme will work --

Mr. Renwick: That is not what this says.

Mr. Drea: That is not what what says?

Mr. Renwick: It is not what the Act says.

Mr. Drea: All the Act says is, “The vendor shall deliver to the owner a certificate specifying the date upon which the home is completed for his possession…” If the purchaser does not complete the back of the form, there is no completion of the dwelling. There is no warranty that goes into effect. Both have to sign.

Mr. Renwick: It says so in the Act.

Mr. Drea: Yes, I know, and the corporation has the right to make bylaws, and right now the corporation has the bylaw that both have to sign on the back before the transaction can be considered completed for possession and the second two phases of the warranty programme go into effect.

Mr. Renwick: But the bylaw can’t override the statute.

Mr. Drea: But the statute does not infringe upon the bylaw. It says he shall be there with a copy of this to deliver it.

Mr. Renwick: It doesn’t say anything about that.

Mr. Drea: If the purchaser does not sign it, there is no delivery. There is no completion for possession date. It goes back to square one.

Mr. Renwick: That isn’t what the Act says.

Mr. Swart: You are wrong, Frank.

Mr. Drea: I am not wrong. I am right. I am right. You are being redundant over there as you have been all day. If I could point out: “On or about the closing of the sale and possession of the house by the purchasers the builder will complete the upper part of the certificate” -- that’s the certificate of the builder that I described -- “and the purchaser and the builder will make a joint inspection of the house and note any and all deficiencies that require correction or completion. Both will sign on the reverse as indicated.” If one of the two doesn’t sign, obviously there is no agreement that the dwelling has been completed for its session. It’s still under the first phase of the warranty programme, which means that your deposit and so forth are protected.

To have an inspector there at that time would mean you are going to tie up 20 to 25 inspectors across this province. The purchaser is going to have to pay the salaries of those inspectors. Bear in mind that the particular dwelling has been inspected three, four or five times in each phase of construction.

Mr. Hall: Probably 25.

Mr. Drea: My friend from Lincoln says probably 25 -- and with the amount of money at stake it may very well be.

Whatever deficiencies there were have been corrected. By virtue of the fact that this house is considered completed for possession, the inspector has already certified that it is free from substantial defects. When you say completed for possession there is a tendency around here to think we’ve built a shell house. It’s not true at all. There are certain things you simply cannot do and shouldn’t do in December in terms of the product you are buying -- as simple a matter as sodding or perhaps the asphalting of a drive or a few things like that that means that it is almost completed for possession. I think that is a very fair arrangement.

If the purchaser does not agree to sign the back of that form, does not in effect say “I am satisfied that the dwelling is completed for possession purposes,” what happens then? The immediate step is that the council of the corporation comes in and mediates. And whom would they use as the mediator? Obviously it will be the inspector or his supervisor, who went through all the proceedings as that dwelling was being erected. If at that time the purchaser still isn’t satisfied, then obviously he has other remedies through the council and on up to the Commercial Relations appeals tribunal.

It is not simply a matter of the builder strolling along the street, coming up to you and saying, “Here is your copy; the dwelling is completed for possession purposes,” and you not having any rights in it whatsoever. You have every right in the world. As a matter of fact the form takes them into account. On the front there are about 18 lines -- there is plenty of space to list anything that you consider to be a deficiency.

It obviously isn’t a status quo document. It is a document that says you are ending the first phase of the warranty programme and are entering into the second and into the third. There has to be some date for the one-year and the five-year protection to commence on. There has to be some coming together by the vendor and the purchaser to look at the product.

It is really that simple. To tie up an inspector whose function is to ensure that the dwelling is completed with the least number of defects -- to tie him up handing out certificates -- really begs the question of the whole inspection process. The inspection process is not for delivery -- it is a preventive process to make this entire programme financially viable and within the means of the average home buyer. The point is that for the first time the average home buyer will have the benefit of the architect, will have the benefit of the specialist and will have the benefit of the general contractor with experience. No longer will that be left to those who have substantial means. To try to compound all of that by bringing in one additional person just to hand over a document and just to walk you through the dwelling is just one more attempt to undermine the scope of the entire bill.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the reasons given by the parliamentary assistant --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Excuse me just for a moment. If there is to be further discussion on this amendment, this might be an appropriate time to move that the committee rise and report and we will resume this discussion when we get back into committee.

Mr. Drea: Are you going to be long?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Is there very much more discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Breithaupt: There are amendments that will have to be put anyway, won’t there? But this could be completed now.

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 122, An Act respecting the Lake Superior Board of Education.

Mr. Swart: It is unlikely that we in our party will ask to divide on this but what are the special circumstances whereby the Lake Superior Board of Education should be given an exemption from having to have the approval of the Minister of Education when all other boards will still be required to do so?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to answer my friend’s questions. If he’d conferred with his colleague, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), I think he could have learned the special circumstances concerned. This is being done to a large degree in consultation with and at the urging of the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Shore: They are not talking to each other obviously.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Education Act provides that in order to sell property a school board must declare that it does not need that property any longer. I don’t think that general principle should be changed in the Education Act. The Lake Superior Board of Education owns a number of residences, which up to the present time I understand they have been renting to teachers. They would like to sell those residences to the teachers who are teaching for the board but with the special arrangement that they can buy back the properties when those teachers leave the community, if they do at some time in the future.

That means that the board cannot in good conscience pass a resolution saying they do not need that property any longer because they do not wish to say that. They want the teachers who are there to have those houses and the property on which they stand while they are teaching there, but they also want to be able to put this special arrangement in so they can buy back the teacherages, as they are called, when or if those teachers decide to move out of the area.

It’s the opinion of our lawyers that this cannot be legally done under the present Education Act. It is also our opinion and my opinion that we shouldn’t do this generally for every board in the province. Because the Lake Superior board and the member for Lake Nipigon and others have suggested that it would probably be something that could be done specially for this board, we would do it. It should be done as a private member’s bill, but since the time for that has passed we agreed to bring it in as a government bill.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.



The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 122, An Act respecting the Lake Superior Board of Education.


Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Deans: Due to the lateness of the hour, I just want to say that these are matters which were brought before the Board of Internal Economy during its deliberations of the estimates and at other times, and they are the result of deliberations by the Board of Internal Economy with regard to a number of concerns and changes that have to be undertaken in order to keep pace with the times.

I’d like to make a comment or two with regards to the provision of research funding. It has been my belief, ever since I entered the Legislature, that every member of the Legislature should, by right, be entitled to access to adequate research. I think it was an oversight on the part of the Camp commission not to include that recommendation. I think lack of research facilities has been an oversight on the part of the Legislature for a number of years. Somehow or other we assumed that because the government back-benchers were the government back-benchers, they were automatically able to get the kind of research done on their behalf through the ministries that would enable them to carry out their functions as a member of the Legislature to a degree which would satisfy their constituents.

I’ve never believed that, and I don’t believe it now. I think that all members are entitled to have access to a research facility which will enable them to not only peruse the estimates adequately, not only look at the legislative proposals with some confidence that they’re being guided properly, but will enable members of the Legislature to act on behalf of their constituents with regard to research which may not, as yet, be before the House in terms of bills or expenditures.

So with that in mind, as a member of the Board of Internal Economy and as a member of the Legislature, I am delighted to take part in ensuring that no matter which party occupies the government benches, that the back benches of that party should be funded to the extent that they will be able to carry out their legislative responsibilities in a way which is commensurate with the powers and the positions that they have obtained at the polls.

The other matters before us in this bill are self-explanatory. They either respond to particular and unique circumstances of northern members, or they respond to some changes in costs which are now being experienced by all members of the Legislature required to come to Queen’s Park and to carry out the business of the province. For that reason, we will support the legislation.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just briefly in speaking to this bill, it does, as the member for Wentworth says, deal with certain items which have been dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy, of which I happen to be the member representing the Liberal Party.

The situation with respect to research is one which may cause some particular comment in committee, as there is a difference in opinion as to the use of certain funds and as to how government back-benchers should be provided with certain research facilities within the Legislature.

We’re not prepared, of course, to divide the House on a bill like this, even though we have a view with respect to research which we can have made known in committee. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the bill goes to committee of the whole House later on today, those points can be raised at that time.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand you are prepared to direct it to committee of the whole House?


Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.


Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to present my first major speech of this session. As a new member of this Legislature and a new Canadian, I’m honoured to be given the opportunity of serving the people of Ontario. It is out of my desire to fulfil this obligation that I must express distress at the general tone and the specific provisions of the budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in early April.

The approach of this government is best summarized on page 4 of the budget. Let me quote the section to which I am referring:

“My colleagues and I believe that the thrust of provincial policy should be to rely on private sector expansion to generate growth and employment. This does not imply a purely passive role for the government. It requires an active role in ensuring that the necessary resources flow into private activities and are not usurped by government spending and borrowing.”

That is the heart of the matter and the heart of Conservative and Liberal philosophy -- using the government to ensure that the resources flow into private activities, and that is precisely what this budget serves to do.

The funds are flowing from the hands of the working people of this province into the pockets of big business, the major financial institutions and the wealthy. Cutbacks in social services, closing of hospitals in small towns and in a major ethnic area of Toronto, raising of Ontario Health Insurance Plan fees, forcing municipalities to increase property taxes, failing to raise the minimum wage above poverty levels, raising the residency requirement for senior citizens to get access to the GAINS programme and imposing the federal wage and price controls on provincial employees -- these are ways the government is actively attacking the working people of Ontario.

This is particularly clear in the area of health and safety. While this budget makes people pay more for basic health care, the government continues to do less than it should to ensure the health and the safety of the people of Ontario. We get some sense of the state of affairs in industrial safety when we note that Ontario, along with the rest of Canada, has the highest incidence of industrial accidents among the major western industrialized nations.

We keep hearing how many strikes we have in this country. In Ontario in 1973, 1.6 million person-days were lost due to strikes, but 4.6 million person-days were lost due to injuries. Accidents caused almost three times as much lost time as strikes. The chance of being injured on the job in this province is very high indeed.

Taking the figures of the Workmen’s Compensation Board alone, which doesn’t even cover all workers, we find that the number of reported injuries in 1974 was 443,234, or approximately one for every eight workers. Three hundred and seventy-six people were killed at work -- more than one per day. Whatever safety measures the government has taken have been insufficient because the rate of injury and death is going up faster than the size of the work force.

But, should a worker get injured, his or her real troubles are often just beginning, for in most cases they fall under the jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The Workmen’s Compensation Board in design and in operation is one of the real disgraces of this government. Although most of its employees mean well, the board has become an added burden to the injured worker, not his helper in time of trouble. From the outset, the purpose behind setting up the Workmen’s Compensation Board was couched in the liberal social welfare rhetoric of seeing that injured workers were properly protected. In actuality, the board is a cheap insurance plan for employers. This fact is clearly spelled out in the Workmen’s Compensation Act itself.

Mr. Grande: He’s right.

Mr. Lupusella: Part I, section 8, states that an injured employee forfeits his or her rights to any legal action against the employer, however negligent the employer has been, if that employee accepts benefits from the Workmen’s Compensation Board. How nice for the employer. By paying a small fixed sum, the employer is protected against the great majority of legal action to which he might otherwise be subjected.

In setting out the details of the operation of the board, this government’s stinginess to the victims of unsafe working conditions is disgusting. For example, clothing allowances for amputees are only available upon application. Every amputee who applies gets the allowance but the government saves money because some amputees do not know about the allowance, and therefore do not apply.

Hon. B. Stephenson: They are all informed.

Mr. Lupusella: You know that you had better change this Act. In a province where the average cost of burial is $1,200, the Act only allows $600 for the burial of a worker killed on the job. I guess the difference is sort of a deterrent fee.

Widows of workers killed on the job get a miserable $260 a month. For each child under 16, the family also gets $70. Scrooge himself would quake at such stinginess.

If a worker survives his or her accident, but is permanently and totally disabled, life is none too bright. Most permanently and totally disabled workers are forced into poverty permanently and totally. At best, they can get $216.35 a week, but only the few who earn over $15,000 a year can get this much. Most injured workers get closer to the minimum pension of $400 a month -- a pension that gives a yearly income $2,700 below the poverty level.

Permanent and total disability means permanent and total poverty for the majority of injured workers, because of the stinginess of this government.

For partial disability, the worker receives payment according to the permanent disability rating schedule. I will illustrate the policy with the case of a person who has a foot amputated. Remember, total disability gets a worker 75 per cent of his or her former salary up to a maximum payment of $216.35 a week. The person who had his foot amputated gets 25 per cent of 75 per cent of his former pay. If he made $150 a week before the injury, his pension as a result of the loss of his foot will be 25 per cent of 75 per cent of $150 or $28.13 a week.

As you might imagine, a manual labourer with one foot has limited job prospects. He cannot return to construction. But, typically, because of his lack of other skills and education few other jobs are open to him.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What about the rehabilitation process?

Mr. Lupusella: It is not working. It’s a failure; it’s chaos.

Those jobs that are open tend to be at the very bottom of the wage scale, yet $28.13 is supposed to compensate the worker fairly.

The light work that is supposed to be available to partially injured workers is mostly non-existent or unavailable.


One other unacceptable feature of the Act is its failure to provide adequate protection for workers injured many years ago. While their pensions have been adjusted from time to time, the Act has never come near to keeping up with the cost of living. Also, a normal worker’s income increases with his or her seniority, but an injured worker’s level of income at the time of the accident is the ceiling. Not only has the Act failed to protect the injured worker from the ravages of inflation, it has also failed to make adequate provision for normal wage growth due to seniority.

My comments to this point on workmen’s compensation have been to show how the government has been unfair to the workers of Ontario in the way it has drafted and revised the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Now I would like to show that the government’s stinginess and unfairness is matched in full measure by the board itself.

Where the government sets pitiful compensation limits, the board functions to minimize its payments to workers within these limits. The board is reluctant to classify anyone as totally and permanently disabled. In the only year for which detailed data are available, 1971, out of 367,000 injuries the board was only willing to classify 54 as total and permanent disabilities. Only one per cent of all injuries were labelled as partial, permanent disabilities, and even these were given the smallest of pensions possible.

I must say that in the course of my case work, I run across many government agencies. I know none that makes life more difficult for its clients than the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The difficulties in getting information, delays in payment, lost or misplaced files are regular occurrences at the board. When a worker appeals, the troubles double. The appeal process is often long and the worker treated as an opponent.

The opposition of the board to the interests of the injured workers is also seen in their reluctance to supplement pensions, even when revisions in the Act give them the power to do so. Of the hundreds of thousands of injured workers eligible for pension supplements in 1973, only 956 were granted supplements. Again in 1974, out of the many eligible, only 1,022 permanently disabled workers were granted pension supplements.

Hon. B. Stephenson: How many applied?

Mr. Lupusella: You don’t know those figures? I think you should move to do something --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Dovercourt has the floor.

Mr. Lupusella: The Act keeps injured workers below a decent standard of living. The board finishes the job by allocating as little as possible, treating injured workers as if they were dishonest cheaters trying to take money to which they are not legally and morally entitled.

I might add that the board’s stinginess is not out of economic necessity. At the moment, the board has about $600 million invested in Hydro bonds for future reserves.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s not for future reserves; it’s for present reserves.

Mr. Lupusella: So why don’t you give this money to the workers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s being used. That’s where the funds come from.

Mr. Lupusella: It pares the income of destitute injured workers to the bone.

The behaviour of the board and the implications of the Act can be most clearly seen in some of the actual cases of injured workers with whom I have been involved. Since the abuses are so rampant, any of a thousand cases would do. I will simply bring one to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Because the case is still being appealed, I will use fictional names but otherwise present the actual facts of the case.

The case is that of a Mr. Salvatore Alviani. While working on a construction site, he was struck on the head with a crane hook and knocked unconscious. Since that time, Mr. Alviani has been completely helpless. He needs constant supervision as he is unable to feed or clothe himself. He simply sits, day in and day out, gazing vacantly. He very frequently falls and is often covered with bruises.

Here is a man who was a good worker, with an unblemished work history, who is rendered a vegetable by being struck on the head with a crane hook.

What is the reaction of the board to this man whose life is literally destroyed by his injury? They talked about a provisional award of 10 per cent to 30 per cent which meant between $11 and $33 a month. How in the name of God a family is supposed to live on that I don’t know. Maybe the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) knows. It would barely buy one week’s groceries.

The board has tried to suggest that Mr. Alviani’s difficulties are psychiatric and mostly unrelated to his injury. Fortunately, some courageous employees of the board and Mr. Alviani’s doctors have not let the case rest.

Mr. Alviani’s Workmen’s Compensation Board file reports the following result of Mr. Alviani’s assessment at Queen St. mental hospital:

“The doctor informed us that a series of tests have been carried out and all possible examinations have been done for Mr. Alviani but they felt that there was nothing they could do for Mr. Alviani. He [the doctor] felt Mr. Alviani was totally disabled and that there was no hope for him. He wanted to inform Mrs. Alviani that considering that they could not do anything more for Mr. Alviani, they were ready to release him if she wanted him home.

“[Two months later, another report continues] The Alvianis have been contacted regularly since my last report. Mr. Alviani was discharged from the hospital and in care of his sister, who found him unmanageable as he required constant supervision and assistance in shaving, dressing and eating. She felt she could not cope with him and became ill and returned him to Queen St. mental hospital.

“Mr. Alviani was then released once again because he developed stomach problems and he was admitted to St. Joseph’s for a gall bladder operation. Meanwhile, his wife was also there. She was apparently on the critical list for some time. When I last visited her she was again in bed with severe pain over her operated area and Antonio, the little boy, had just come home to boil an egg for her.”

Here is a man whose life has been destroyed and a family struggling to make do.

The doctors are in agreement that Mr. Alviani is completely and totally disabled, and that this disability is the result of his accident. The psychiatrist to whom the board referred Mr. Alviani gives this report in December, 1975:

“We do not have evidence that this man ever suffered from mental illness prior to the occurrence of the accident and on the basis of the information which I was able to gather from the board’s documentation and from his case worker and from his cousin, it appears Mr. Alviani was a rather well-adjusted man prior to the occurrence of the accident and he also has a good work record. I do not believe that any form of psychiatric intervention would be likely to determine any improvement. I think that we have extensive evidence to consider Mr. Alviani 100 per cent disabled.”

We have a man injured six years ago. He is still waiting for the board to award him a full permanent disability pension for an injury his doctors agree caused his total disability.

Two other points arise from this case. One of the board doctors, who has been fighting for Mr. Alviani, points out a disturbing fact in a recent memo. He said: “Mr. Alviani was struck on the head and the possibility of a brain injury has arisen and had really not been properly settled.”

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that we now find out that in the boards rush to class this as an unrelated psychiatric problem it has not properly settled the issue of the brain injury?

A second concern of mine comes from a recent memo from a senior board doctor. Admitting that, in his words, “we should now consider him to be 100 per cent disabled,” this doctor adds: “Limitations should apply.”

This means, in the board’s language, that they should pay less than the full compensation due. The doctor then explains why there should be limitations. I want you to listen to his exact words. I quote: “As he did have restriction of intelligence, education and cultural background that were, in effect, pre-existing psychological difficulties.”

The implications of this statement makes it beyond contempt. Being an immigrant, and not having had the opportunity to complete grade 13 are considered psychological difficulties. According to this senior board doctor, this should allow the board to reduce the worker’s totally deserved pension.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this type of --

Mr. Davidson: Discrimination in the board.

Mr. Lupusella: -- thinking is all too typical of the board.

I have many other cases here, but I need not go further to make the point that something is seriously wrong. The past operation of the board deserves serious investigation by a royal commission. The almost half a million workers injured in Ontario each year deserve better than they are presently getting. The social and cultural bigotry that appears all too often in the decisions of this board must be stamped out. That is what you have to do.

When a worker is injured, he or she should not have to face another ordeal and be subjected to poverty. The terrible record of the Workmen’s Compensation Board makes is clear that it should be put out of business and replaced by a universal accident insurance plan that protects all people whether injured on or off the job.

Negligent employers should remain liable for legal action, whether compensation is paid or not. The health and safety laws should be vigorously enforced by the government.

Injured workers should be eligible for full compensation. There should be no ceiling. The compensation should take into consideration the changes in the cost of living and the normal wage increments to which the worker would have been entitled had there been no injury.

All injured persons should have the freedom to choose their own doctors. Should there be disagreement about the nature or extent of disability, the patient’s doctor, and the government doctor, would agree on a third doctor to arbitrate.

Pensions to widows and widowers would include the full cost of a decent burial, and future support, depending on the full expected earning capacity of the deceased, taking into consideration changes in the cost of living as well.

It is my own view, as I said a moment ago, that there should be a royal commission inquiry into the operation of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. For too long the workers of this province unlucky enough to be injured have had to suffer unduly because of the way the board has operated. The modifications introduced in 1974 have not changed the fundamental problems. The dark corners of the board need to be exposed to the light of day. The many dedicated employees of the board, who are themselves ashamed of the overall board operation, need to have the record set straight. The workers who have been victims of 19th century racial and ethnic conceptions on the part of the board need to be given their due. The whole operation is badly deserving of a comprehensive impartial, and public investigation.


But more must be done to prevent accidents and assure safe conditions on the job. More must also be done to reduce environmental damage. The government’s record in these areas is terrible. Only constant pressure forced the closing of the United Asbestos mine and mill in Matachewan, in spite of some of the worst asbestos pollution ever recorded. Other cases are less dramatic, but show the government’s reluctance just as clearly.

In my own riding, a small bed-spring factory, Kelson Spring Products Ltd., has been violating anti-noise regulations for some time. We have had to fight for several years to get any action taken. The residents of the neighbourhood can’t sleep, and generally have their lives seriously restricted, because of the excessive noise of this factory. I am afraid to imagine what it is doing to the hearing of the employees who have to work in the noise day in and day out.

Because of the failure of the government to act, citizens finally laid two charges against the company -- one for violating the city anti-noise pollution bylaw and one for violating the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. Both charges were heard last December and were dismissed on a technicality. Now comes the most revealing part of the story. After the charges were dismissed, the head of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s anti-noise branch -- the chief person responsible for enforcing the anti-noise law -- offered congratulations and handshakes to the company. He is quoted in the Globe and Mail of Dec. 9, 1975, as saying afterwards: “We don’t think prosecution is the way to do it.”

Just think of this: The government’s agent for enforcing the law congratulates the accused for getting off on a technicality and then says he doesn’t believe the law should be used anyway. Mr. Speaker, I find this absolutely appalling.

In regard to lead pollution, the critical decisions are in the hands of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) right now. I hardly need to remind all of us, Mr. Speaker, of the widespread citizen concern about lead pollution at the Prestolite Battery Division on Dufferin, Toronto Refiners and Smelters on Bathurst, and Canada Metal on Eastern Ave. in Toronto. After a number of children were found to have dangerous lead levels in their blood, citizens demanded that these polluters be forced to clean up. The companies resisted actively.

Although steps were taken to reduce the lead emissions, there remained considerable worry that years and years of excessive lead emissions have led to a massive buildup of lead in the soil of the houses and play yards near these plants.

A number of committees, hearing groups, and others have officially investigated this issue. In reports to the Minister of the Environment, the Robertson committee and the working group on lead agreed that the danger level for lead in the soil is 1,000 parts per million. Soil with that level of lead has to be removed. The companies have tried to discount the importance of lead in the soil and recent reports of the lead data analysis task force have made it clear that lead in the soil is the concern. Let me quote the report:

“It is clear that people living near the plants studied, have an increased risk of acquiring an elevated concentration of lead in their blood. Exterior sources of lead such as dustfall and soil would seem to be mainly responsible for blood elevation in the plant areas.”

The reason I raise this issue now is that the minister has just received the recommendations of the Environmental Hearing Board. It agrees that toxic soil is a danger and must be removed but, unlike the usual standard of toxicity of 1,000 parts per million, the Environmental Hearing Board recommends only removing soil with 3,000 parts per million.

I urge the government not to allow its budgetary policy of helping funds flow into private hands to serve as the basis for allowing companies to get off with this lax standard. They must be made to remove all toxic soil, and the definition of “toxic” must not be changed from 1,000 parts per million, the usual definition, to 3,000 parts per million, just to save the companies money. The health of our children is too important.

I am also distressed by the minister’s comments after receiving the Environmental Hearing Board report. He is reported to have said that he was not too fussy who removed the soil as long as it was removed. I agree with his desire to have toxic soil removed, but the polluters must be made to bear the costs of the removal, not the taxpayer. If this government wants to save money, here is fine place to begin. Make those who have polluted the soil and made profits in doing so, pay the bill to fix the environment up. And make them fix it up now, and completely. No redefinition of terms to get them off the hook should be allowed.

The need for change is great. In so many ways, the capitalistic philosophy of both the government and the Liberal Party has worked to the permanent disadvantage of the average person in our province. This budget has provided more examples of this, both by what it has included and what it has failed to include.

The people of Ontario deserve better than they are getting, and I hope some of my comments will point to how we may move ahead.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes? The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. David.

Mr. Grossman: St. Patrick, we haven’t taken over that one yet. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to participate in this debate to discuss an issue that suddenly has reared its head again not only in my riding but across Metro Toronto, and that is the paving of the Spadina arterial.

Now, the decision of the Premier (Mr. Davis), somewhat altering the 1971 decision, was made on Aug. 8 last.

Mr. Nixon: Some altering -- you mean reinstating it.

Mr. Breaugh: Read it.

Mr. Grossman: I am going to read part of it and we’ll also discuss the Liberal position on it, if time allows but --

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, I hope so.

Mr. Grossman: The Liberal position on it isn’t all that important. We probably shouldn’t take too much time on it.

Mr. Nixon: Well, it is the only position that has remained unchanged in the three parties.

Mr. Ruston: You guys keep flip-flopping on it.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can’t resist the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk talking about how the position hasn’t switched but it has continued to be jelly. For example, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) and the member for Armourdale (Mr. Givens) still want the thing paved, as the member for Wilson Heights so delicately says, to Rochester and the member for Armourdale wants it to go to Bloor --

Mr. Nixon: I think you are a classic example of a member of a caucus.

Mr. Ruston: You don’t agree with your Health minister.

Mr. Nixon: She is afraid to sit in front of you.

Mr. Grossman: And, from time to time, they want it to go to Eglinton. It is a consistent position to this extent. In 1971, when the Premier announced that it was to be stopped where it was, up at Lawrence --

Mr. Ruston: “Cities are for people.”

Mr. Grande: What happened then?

Mr. Grossman: -- the Liberal Party then said that they thought it should go to Eglinton, so they are long on record as being in favour of taking it down to Eglinton.

Mr. Nixon: Our position hasn’t changed.

Mr. Grossman: I wanted to get that point right on the record.

Mr. McClellan: It always changes.

Mr. Grossman: Now, secondly --

Mr. Grande: What exactly are you saying?

Mr. Grossman: I am consistent, and I must make this point. I am consistent. My position to the expressway --

Mr. Ruston: What about your party’s?

Mr. Grossman: -- has been long on record. I don’t think it should go one inch south of where it was stopped in 1971. That’s always been my position. Notwithstanding that, I am a responsible, I hope, enough member of this assembly to do a little more than some members of the opposition will do than to just lie in the ditch, now that the Premier has somewhat altered that decision, and say: “No, I don’t like it. I’m going to lie in the ditch.”

As a member for a riding directly affected by that decision to pave to Eglinton --

Mr. Grande: Which one is that?

Mr. Grossman: -- I feel an obligation to do a little more than to hold picnics and say: “Please don’t pave the ditch.” Lying in front of the tractors when the decision has been made to go to Eglinton is going to do nothing for my constituents who may be affected by the paving to Eglinton.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you threaten to resign?

Mr. Grossman: Dr. Soberman, when he did his now famous report which was not, as we know, entirely implemented, said on page 133, summarizing his considerations and drawing some conclusions:

“There are two possibilities for making major improvements to arterial road capacity which could significantly reduce road deficiencies in the area and which at the same time should have minimal community impact.”

He goes on to recommend that there be an impact study and unfortunately, at the instigation of Metro council, the government chose to go ahead with some parts of the Soberman report without, in fact, having an impact study. I’m also long on record as stating I think that’s a serious error.

What do we do then? The province has decreed that it shall go to Eglinton. One thing --

Mr. McClellan: Throw the Tories out, that’s what.

Mr. Grossman: -- is to be sure that the various provisions for that paving to Eglinton are implemented in such a fashion that Soberman’s predictions on the effects on the neighbouring residential communities is minimal. Instead of lying in the ditch, I think that all members of this assembly should be making sure that the --

Mr. McClellan: Tell us about the new Harbourfront.

Mr. Grossman: -- requirements set up in the Premier’s Aug. 8 statement are met. Most specifically at the top of page 12 of that statement: “As a further proviso, we would require that Metro council develop a plan to ensure that traffic generated by the new roadways will remain on other Metro arterial roads.”

I might say that subsequent to that statement not too much was heard from Metro. They did not even begin to develop that traffic plan. They ignored it. They worried about (a) the lawsuit; and (b) designing ramps and designing the paving to Eglinton in such a fashion that perhaps they could bang it through further.

On Nov. 7 I used a fair portion of my maiden speech in this Legislature to discuss the various requirements that ought to be placed upon Metro in paving to Eglinton. Some of those were subsequently ratified and implemented, others were not. I must say that I have to draw attention to that Nov. 7 date because very many people in the city of Toronto somehow did nothing about the situation until just recently when the court decision came down, the contracts were ready to be let and the plans were drawn. Others of us were fighting those plans back in November.

I also have to comment that since 1970, some members of the opposition with ridings affected -- I understand they have to look after their people, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young), now the member for Downsview (Mr. di Santo) as well, I suppose -- have not exactly been what I would classify as front-and-centre on the issue. They’ve allowed their party to get up front. They’ve hidden quietly in the background so that they wouldn’t terribly offend their voters. I understand that. Indeed I understand the position taken by the members for Armourdale and Wilson Heights. I think they’re totally wrong and foolish, but I understand they see their jobs as looking after their constituents. I must say that Richard Soberman acknowledged that their constituents had a problem, as did the Premier acknowledge that their constituents up there had a problem.


I can tell the House this: As the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, I don’t have to try to look for an easy route. I am not that sort of member anyway. I don’t have to say I live up in the northwest quadrant and therefore I am in favour of going through, or I am down in the middle of the city and therefore I am against the expressway.

My constituents now, let me make it clear, some of whom were formerly totally opposed to the expressway, are very worried that in a couple of years they are going to want it to go all the way down to Bloor to get the traffic past them; instead of dumping it on Eglinton, get it down to Bloor. My position is one which, no doubt in any event, will offend some of my constituents. My task isn’t quite as easy as that of some other members of this House but it is easy for me. My position has always been that of 1971: Do not pave it.

In order to be a reasonable, fair politician representing his people I am prepared to do more than lie in the ditch. I am prepared to do something more than the NDP’s colleagues on city council, some of whom felt obliged to vote against extending the Bloor St. subway while they stand up here and talk about the only solution being more transit.

Mr. McClellan: Give us your resignation.

Mr. Grossman: My job is to stand here, to work within this government and in this Legislature to see that assurances are made so that pressure does not build up in the north end of my riding to complete the expressway to Bloor St.

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you tell us about park and ride?

Mr. Grossman: Let’s talk about park and ride. That was the member for Dovercourt, wasn’t it? Anyway, it was an NDP member over there who wanted to know about park and ride facilities. For us edification, he may not have read the Premier’s statement of May 17 last, at the conclusion of a meeting at which I took Mayor Crombie and Mayor White and other members of the councils of Toronto and the borough of York to see the Premier on this subject. Item 5 of that statement was:

“The province will ensure that its share of the funding required to meet the cost of park and ride facilities at Eglinton and Lawrence or at some intermediate points between is available. Adequate facilities for this purpose are to be developed to coincide with the opening of the Spadina subway.”

There is the provincial support for the park and ride facilities -- I might add, whatever park and ride facilities the municipality wishes to build, The province has not decreed where they should go or for how many cars and has put no limit on its contribution in terms of raw dollars to the construction of that facility even with the restraint programme going on.

Mr. Grande: Those are just words.

Mr. Grossman: Yes, those are just words.

Mr. McClellan: What about access?

Mr. Acting Speaker (Smith): Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: I thought members might be interested in some glowing words, a tribute the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) made in 1969 in this Legislature.

He quoted glowingly from an editorial in the Globe and Mail which referred in turn to an article by Jane Jacobs. He felt obliged to read the entire editorial into the record because he thought it was such a fine one. Let me quote one portion of that editorial in context:

“The expressway cannot be stopped north of Eglinton Ave. Construction to that point is almost complete. Two blocks south of Eglinton the expressway enters the ravine and follows it to Cedarvale Park. Homes have been demolished and excavation for the expressway is finished along this stretch.

“[Further on] So the Spadina can be stopped somewhere between Eglinton and Bloor with little real loss. The only questions are where to stop it and what to do with the traffic that spews out of its southernmost end.”

Members won’t catch the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick reading that article to this Legislature with glowing references because I don’t think it can be stopped or ought to have been stopped as far south as Eglinton.

Let’s talk about what ought to be done.

Mr. Lawlor: You are reading out of context.

Mr. Grossman: You haven’t even read it. How do you know if it is out of context? You presume it must be because how could the member for York South say something like that?

Mr. Acting Speaker (Smith): Order, please.

Mr. McClellan: Resign.

Mr. Grossman: Let’s talk about the conditions of going to Eglinton now. Firstly, I don’t think it ought to be opened. The arterial to Eglinton ought not to be opened until the subway is open. As I referred to it earlier, the Premier has seen fit to require that the park and ride facilities be in place by the time the subway opens and I think the arterial should be held back until that time. The park and ride should be in place. The subway should be in place prior to the opening of the arterial to Eglinton. A traffic plan, as required time and again by the Premier and most recently on Nov. 25 by the Minister of Transportation and communications (Mr. Snow). I quote from his letter to Paul Godfrey:

“While the roadbed is under construction, the province requests the inauguration of an ongoing study to provide a traffic control system that, with continuous monitoring, will ensure any traffic generated by the new road will remain on other Metro arterial roads.”

Needless to say, Metro council being what it is, has entirely ignored that paragraph as well, and they have not, “while the roadbed is under construction”, prepared this study.

I say the province should not permit the opening until that traffic plan is developed, is in place, and is satisfactory. A great portion of the justification for paving to Eglinton was that it would not have capacity sufficiently high to destroy Eglinton, and the neighbouring communities.

Unless Metro develops that roadway pattern which has been requested three times by the Premier, and the minister, then there can be no assurance it will not destroy Eglinton.

Single-lane ramps have been required. They have been referred to in Soberman’s report. It is part and parcel of the Premier’s Aug. 8 statement, the minister’s Nov. 25 letter, and the Premier’s further statement of May 17, 1976. Metro must be sure it drops its plans, which sometimes show two lanes and sometimes show one lane, and make sure they honour that commitment.

The Premier’s statement bears some comment. On May 17, 1976, after the meeting in the Premier’s office, the Premier issued a statement which contained many points. I would like to read some of them into the record because many people who are busy signing newspaper advertisements, and are busy lying in the ditch, are not terribly aware of some of the provisions of this statement.

Mr. Grande: Who does that?

Mr. Grossman: No. 2:

“The province will take title to the Spadina right of way south of Eglinton, including housing, ravine lands, and unopened road allowances, so as to stop up and close the right of way. Eventual dedication of both housing and lands will be determined in discussions involving Metro, the city, and the borough.

“[Item 4] Plans will be reviewed to ensure that single-lane ramps will be built on to Eglinton and off of Eglinton, although some modification may be required at the intersection to provide for turning patterns for the traffic.

“[6] Metro is to be asked to provide, at the earliest possible time, the required traffic control system to ensure that the traffic generated by the Spadina arterial road will remain on other Metro arterial roads rather than on local roads. The city, and borough, are to be involved in the development of this plan. The question of speed limits on the Spadina arterial road extension was raised by the city and borough spokesmen who suggested that it should be established at 30 miles per hour. The Premier indicated he would arrange an early meeting with Chairman Godfrey and Mayor Crombie and would like to discuss all these points.”

May I say, I think the 30 mile per hour speed limit is essential if that road is to remain truly an arterial road. Now, those assurances -- “do I agree with them?” let me tell you. I am not convinced, I may say to the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), that any of these measures, or all of them, will be enough to protect the people on Eglinton and points south. I am not. I would have liked to have seen an impact study but the time has come when we have to apply ourselves to resolving that problem, to ensuring that Eglinton is not devastated.

I want to comment that one way to make sure it is devastated in the interim is to adopt the Liberal Party position that the 400 should be dropped. I personally am going on record as being against the Spadina arterial and the 400 arterial. The Liberal position, I suppose because they have ridings only affected by the Spadina, is to pave the Spadina arterial and drop the 400.

Mr. Nixon: You have already spent millions of dollars on the Spadina.

Mr. Grossman: We know what’s going to happen with the one third of the traffic that was going to go down the 400 arterial. That third can go back on to the Spadina extension being paved to Eglinton.

Let me say that, granted the statement of the Premier that both of them are going to go ahead, the worst thing that could be done for the people of St. Andrew-St. Patrick and in the heart of this city would be that the 400 be dropped as the Liberal Party wants to see it happen. That would dump all that traffic on to St. Andrew-St. Patrick and it ought not to go there.

Mr. Nixon: It certainly takes a stretch of the imagination to. --

Mr. Grossman: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to get the record clear. A lot of people are running around saying that the Premier ought to give back his transit award, on the basis that they believe the transit award he got in 1973 --

Mr. Nixon: We don’t say that. We thought it was --

Mr. Grossman: -- from the American Transit Association was for stopping the expressway.

Mr. Deans: You know something? Some of us don’t care.

Mr. Grossman: Indeed. Well a lot of the member’s candidates care.

Mr. Deans: We don’t care if he gives it back or keeps it. I thought it was a bunch of nonsense.

Mr. Nixon: Melt it down and make it into a halo.

Mr. Acting Speaker (Smith): Order, please. The hon. member from St. Andrew-St. Patrick will continue.

Mr. Grossman: Okay. I want to quote from the press release which accompanied the award given to the Premier in 1973 -- it’s from the American Transit Association. Gates -- he’s the president of that association -- points out that:

“Davis’ leadership is providing the finances, including operating assistance necessary to support municipalities in developing innovative trends and services. In addition to granting operating aid, the Premier has focused on urban transportation problems by carrying out broad-based regional studies and starting experiments with computer rail and dial-a-bus services. In addition, he is providing the impetus for the development testing and implementation of a brand new public transit mode.”

Those are the reasons --

Mr. Nixon: That was Krauss-Maffei, remember that?

Mr. Grossman: -- that he got that award. Not for the stoppage of the Spadina expressway.

I have just a few moments left but I did not want to sit down without commenting on some of the remarks made the other day by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). He just could not resist getting back to the problem of salaries and moneys and, as he called it, “back-dooring” of members of this assembly. That makes some of us furious.

I have not been engaged in that sort of junk -- discussing whether or not more money is needed, nor criticizing him for suggesting that it might be appropriate. But he did make the point that a lot of us were serving on too many select committees and that that was a way of back-dooring.

Let me say that there are 37 positions on select committees to be filled. This party has only 24 back-benchers to fill those 37 slots. Therefore, if the member will take his pencil in hand, he will be able to ascertain that some of us have to do double duty or else we will not be able to staff the 37 spots on those committees.

Mr. Nixon: You are not on two select committees!

Mr. Grossman: Secondly -- I’m on three select committees.

Mr. Nixon: At $50 a day?

Mr. Grossman: As are the members for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) -- the latter, by the way found time as well to be chairman of one of those committees.

Mr. Nixon: Both of them are smart though.

Mr. Grossman: So a lot of us are overworked. But none of us are back-dooring. I want to tell that to the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Lawlor: Am I chairman of one of the select committees as well?

Mr. Nixon: He is chairman of a standing committee.

Mr. Grossman: I’m sorry. Mr. Lawlor is chairman of a standing committee and is on two select committees. I suspect that takes even more time than just being on three select committees.

Mr. Nixon: That sounds like a Tory --

Mr. Grossman: Finally, his party over there had 37 members -- the reverse situation that we had. They had 37 members to fill 29 slots but they only used 24 of their members to fill those 29 slots. They could have spread out their -- to use the words of the member for Sudbury East -- back-dooring among more members. But no, they kept it down so that some of their better members like the members for Lakeshore and Riverdale -- could be on two or three committees. Not so over here. We have a numbers problem. We are proud to have served on those committees and it is not any more back-dooring on this side than it is on that side. I say it is not back-dooring on either side of this House.


Mr. Grossman moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed.

Mr. Speaker: We will now have statements by the ministry.


Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on April 14, 1975, the Hon. John Rhodes, then Minister of Transportation and Communications, reported to this House on the activities and plans of this government surrounding the need to develop improved urban transit systems and, more specifically, the intermediate capacity transit system.

At that time, Mr. Rhodes set out the objective of the government, and, I quote:

“...and that objective, quite simply, is to be able to provide municipalities with a tested, commercially viable, intermediate capacity transit system meeting user, community and operator requirements and produced, to the greatest extent possible, under Canadian leadership and with Canadian resources.”

Mr. Rhodes went on to state that, and I quote:

“It is now proposed that the intermediate capacity transit system development programme will be divided into five phases.”

He authorized the Ontario Transportation Development Corp., now the Urban Transportation Development Corp., to conduct phases 1 and 2.

Phase 1 was to collect all the data currently available, define all future programme activities and, finally, to determine what the municipal planners, the transit operators, and the public require in terms of transit. This phase has been completed and the statement of needs is endorsed by planners, including Metro Toronto, and operators, including the Toronto Transit Commission.

Phase 2 was to continue the technical development, including the preparation of preliminary designs for a prototype system, detailed estimates of system development and implementation costs and programme plans. This too, is complete.

Phase 3 would include detail design and testing of prototype hardware, plus the construction of a facility for system testing.

Phase 4 would consist of the manufacture and test of pre-production vehicles using soft tooling, and phase 5 is the licensing of the proven designs and systems, for commercial production.

As Mr. Rhodes stated, the first two phases would take 13 months to complete at an estimated cost of $6.1 million. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that these phases have been completed on time and under budget.

The key conclusions of phases 1 and 2, contained in a summary report, are:

1. Any new system must be competitive with subways, bus and streetcar systems from a capital and operating cost point of view.

2. Any transit system that can be operated, at-grade or elevated, will result in a capital cost savings of $20 million to $25 million per mile in 1975 dollars, versus a tunnelled or subway system.

3. Any new at-grade or elevated systems must achieve community acceptance. This acceptance is dependent upon low noise levels, reduction of size and scale of stations, vehicles and guideways. Therefore, all technical development must be directed toward meeting these requirements.

4. Any new system requires exclusive rights of way not accessible to other traffic or pedestrians to achieve the capacity demanded by municipal planners and transit operators.

Mr. Lawlor: You have got capital on the mind.

Hon. Mr. Snow: To continue:

5. Finally, testing and experimental facilities are required to prove technical developments for advanced transit systems, and conventional rapid transit equipment.

UTDC’s repost to the government outlined those areas where significant technical developments were required, and, therefore, where the technical and commercial risks exist. These were:

1. The development of a steel-wheeled suspension system that incorporates steerable axles, resilient steel wheels and a linear induction motor for acceleration and braking; such that the vehicles would be significantly quieter.

2. A vehicle, a guideway and a station design with sufficient capacity and service capability in a small enough physical scale to be acceptable in all communities.

3. The completion of the automated control system design and testing under actual operating conditions.

Their report stressed that these development and test programmes were required for any form of advanced transit that has application in Ontario municipalities. Their report recommends that this government proceed with phase 3 and this recommendation is endorsed by its board of directors and technical advisory board, specifically, that: 1. The government of Ontario continue the development of detailed system prototype hardware and testing, and; 2. develop a transit test centre for conventional and advanced transit.

I would like to point out that the results of both recommendations will contribute to the successful development of advanced transit systems. It will also contribute to improvement of current systems, for example, quieter suspension systems with steel wheels on steel rails; induction motors; steerable axles; and the capability of combining manual and automatic controls.

After reviewing UTDC’s conclusions and recommendations with qualified experts and my colleagues in cabinet, the government of Ontario has decided to proceed with phase 3 -- the development of an intermediate capacity transit system with a major transit test centre.

The government of Ontario has made this decision to continue to provide leadership and co-ordination in the development of improved forms of public transit for these reasons:

1. This government has consistently opposed the continuing domination of the automobile in the cities.

2. Our cities will continue to grow. Thus, if we are to assist in the development of the satellite core areas proposed by municipal planners, then affordable, efficient transit will be required.

3. Subways can’t be our only rapid transit option. Current estimates of the capital costs for a single cross-town subway system in Toronto now reach $1 billion.

If the balance of the proposed Metro Toronto rapid transit plan had to be built underground, one of two results would occur:

(a) the cost would be several billions of dollars and the province’s commitment to a 75 per cent capital subsidy would leave little or nothing for transit in other Ontario cities such as Ottawa, Hamilton, Windsor, Thunder Bay and other developing centres where extensions and improvements will also be needed; or (b) the balance of the transit plan would never be built and the smaller centres would be left with no rapid transit at all as the capital costs of subways could not be justified. Further, it is unlikely these other municipalities would be able to afford their 25 per cent share of the subway capital costs.

4. Acceptable at-grade or elevated transit systems could cut Metro’s transit capital bill almost in half and permit needed transit service to these other centres.

5. Without a continuing commitment to transit by governments, private enterprise cannot finance the technical development required. The federal government is unwilling to assist in the development of realistic and affordable transit system’s despite the promises of Messrs. Trudeau, Marchand, Basford, Danson, Gillespie, Lang and Drury. Therefore, Ontario must.

Mr. Nixon: They wanted to build you a $1 billion airport but you didn’t want it.

Mr. Kerrio: You are the experts.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Reason No. 6: The continuing pressure on petroleum reserves and the rising prices of such fuels means that continued emphasis must be placed on oil conservation. Switching to electric-powered transit is a desirable conservation alternative. Thus, affordable new design systems must be developed.

7. Finally the approval of phase 3 means a major transit development will generate employment at the test site to be established in eastern Ontario for UTDC’s subcontractors such as Spar Aerospace, KVN/Abam Ltd., Canadair, ITT Canada, and H. H. Angus. All of these companies will also locate technical teams at the test facility.

We will introduce supplementary estimates in the fall for this project. However, in order that the project may commence immediately I will ask Management Board to provide for interim financing by means of a Management Board order. The average expenditure for 3½ years will be $15.5 million annually to complete phase 3.

We anticipate this entire programme will produce a constant flow of improvements to both conventional and advanced transit. It will also provide Canada with its first transit test site.

The need for improved transit is obvious and Ontario will lead so that our cities will always have a choice: A choice between transit or more automobiles consuming more energy, requiring more and more land space for future expressways.

Whatever this House wishes to call these new systems -- advanced light rail systems; advanced light guideway systems; mini-subway systems; or intermediate capacity transit systems -- really doesn’t matter.

Mr. Lewis: Or no system!

Hon. Mr. Snow: We propose to develop them and they will be acceptable to the community, to the municipal planners and to the transit operators and at an affordable cost. They will operate on fully exclusive rights of way, at grade as much as possible but, where necessary, they can be tunnelled or elevated.

I am tabling UTDC’s report to the government. This is a summary report on phases 1 and 2 containing their conclusions and recommendations, and an outline of the preliminary design for the ICTS system.

I would like to add that UTDC will continually update the government of Ontario on this programme and I will keep the Legislature informed of all significant developments.


Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on June 17, the hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) asked a question about Ontario’s mining tax yield. Specifically, why revenues dropped between 1974 and 1975. The way he phrased the question indicates an abysmal ignorance about our mining tax, indeed about the mining industry itself.

Mr. Nixon: That’s a nice why to start.

Mr. S. Smith: Abysmal has more than three letters; are you sure you can handle it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Little wonder then that the socialists periodically ensue forward with suggestions to take additional hundreds of millions from this vital industry.

Mr. Breithaupt: A nice balanced statement.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In 1975 --

Mr. Lawlor: Antagonism will get you nowhere!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In 1975, the mining industry in Canada --

Mr. Lewis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Your point of order?

Mr. Lewis: If you intend to permit ministerial statements or responses to be as deliberately provocative as you are now allowing the minister to be, you must accept that during the question period there will be those responses in kind from the opposition. You have to understand that. Whatever we do to indulge the lovely, gentle, prima donna nature of the Treasurer in this House -- however we may handle it -- you, Mr. Speaker, by permitting it, I submit to you, are inviting the responses in the Legislature which will allow the question period to deteriorate. I ask you only to apply the rules equally in those terms.

Mr. Speaker: I think the comments are well taken. The purpose of ministerial statements as to reply with a more lengthy answer --

Mr. Breithaupt: You are supposed to enlighten the House.

Mr. Speaker: -- than would be allowed during the regular question period -- to state the government’s position on various matters of policy and what have you. I would think that controversial statements or argumentative statements should not form part of a ministerial statement.

The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in 1975, the mining industry in Canada experienced a cyclical downturn in response to a worldwide drop in demand and a softening of prices. This followed the boom year in 1974, when production and prices rose substantially. Ontario’s mining tax was specifically designed to be sensitive to such cyclical fluctuations in the industry, and revenue yield reflected exactly that.

The key thing which the member for Sudbury East apparently fails to understand is that the Ontario mining tax is a tax on profits, not a royalty on production. The two other provinces of socialist persuasion did attempt to secure revenues from the mining industry in the form of royalties on production. In our neighbouring province to the west it was called a variable volumetric royalty, while to the far west it was called a super royalty. I don’t want to go into history here, but both of these socialist royalty schemes collapsed under the weight of reality, to be replaced by --


Mr. Lewis: Are you editing as you go?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- you guessed it, a tax on profits. Let me now explain to the member in simple ABCs how a tax on profits works.

When a mine extracts ore from Ontario, there are three basic steps to go through to generate tax revenue for the province. First, the ore or refined metal must be sold to produce income. Second, the cost of production and processing mint be paid, including wages to the workers.


Hon. Mr. McKeough: Third, the balance of income after paying off costs is the profit and this is what we tax.

Mr. Singer: Written by Darcy’s own hand.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Turning to the figures for 1974 and 1975, here is how our tax system worked in practice:

(a) Metal sales in 1975 declined 30 per cent from the level in 1974; i.e., gross income was down.

(b) Operating costs increased about 15 to 20 per cent over 1974 levels; i.e., expenses were up.

(c) Net earnings, which are the difference between gross income and expenses, were down by over 40 per cent in 1975.

(d) Ontario’s mining tax has a graduated rate structure based on the size of profits or net earnings. As the profit base increases our effective tax rate increases; conversely, as the profit base shrinks our effective rate reduces. And 1975 was one of these years when the profit base shrunk, so the cumulative impact of declining metal sales, rising costs and shrinking profits, was a reduction in our mining tax revenue from $153 million in 1974 to $62 million in 1975.

In summary, in 1975 over 1974 metal production was down four per cent; metal sales were down 30 per cent; operating costs were up 15 per cent; profits were down 42 per cent; and mining tax revenue was down 59 per cent. I would like to conclude these remarks by pointing out to the member for Sudbury East the positive features of our mining tax on profits.

Mr. Shore: This is supposed to be an answer to a question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because it is a tax on profits, or as some people would say, on success, there is no incentive to cut back production and employment in response to a temporary downturn in sales. In 1975, for example, the value of metal production fell only four per cent in Ontario, versus 17 per cent in British Columbia. In short, our producers stock-piled production and maintained jobs during a year of depressed demand.

Because it is a graduated tax, it captures a proportionately greater share of profits during good years, as in 1974, and a lesser share in bad years such as 1975. This helps to smooth out the inherently cyclical nature of the mining industry with positive benefits to the workers and communities involved, because it incorporates significant --

Mr. Shore: Like the farm income stabilization plan.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- incentives for further processing, Ontario’s mining tax ensures that we enjoy a maximum share of the total value added that derives from ore mined in Ontario. And finally, because Ontario’s mining tax structure has proven itself demonstrably superior to any other in Canada, one province after another has copied its basic ingredients to apply in their jurisdiction.

Mr. Shore: What was the question again?


Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report briefly on my attendance at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, known as Habitat, which concluded recently.

With the Minister without Portfolio from Lambton (Mr. Henderson), I shared the honour of being Ontario’s principal representative on the 70-member Canadian delegation.


Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We were supported by a small professional staff and, in addition, the hon. members for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) also attended as official observers.

The members have read and heard a great deal about Habitat in the past few days. A major question seems to be whether or not the conference was worth holding, and therefore attending, in the first place. In my opinion the conference was an achievement in international relations leading to discourse and understanding. I say this notwithstanding the fact that several --


Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- highly political and controversial resolutions were introduced and debated by conference members during the later sessions. I refer, of course, to the actions of the so-called Third World nations in forcing their differences with Israel upon the conference. These issues, it seemed to me, were not properly within the terms of reference of the Conference on Human Settlements.

However, the conference provided a positive forum for the consideration of many issues which we face here in Ontario and which will be major dilemmas of the future for virtually all of the 185 nations represented at Habitat.

These principal issues are: The need to provide clean, uncontaminated water to more than 85 per cent of the world’s population which now lack a resource which we here in Ontario take for granted; the question of nuclear development as a source of energy; the issue of public ownership of land and, linked to this, the question of the morality of profit from speculation in land ownership; and the migration of population to cities and the resulting clutch of problems which this overcrowding of cities poses in the light of the projected doubling of the world population in the next 25 or 30 years.

These issues are challenges which we in Ontario have been discussing for some time and for which all of us must seek solutions. Significantly, Habitat revealed that these problems are universal in scope and they pose high barriers to the survival and future of man on this planet.

These questions were approached on an international and co-operative basis in Vancouver. While no positive solutions emerged from the conference, substantial progress was made in universal identification of the problems.

Mr. Sargent: The same comments that Barney Danson made.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I’m certain that all citizens of the world now know that we must work together, nation with nation, government with government, individual with individual to develop, ultimately, satisfactory solutions to Habitat. In this context, the Habitat conference will emerge in historical perspective as a starting point for the international effort which must be mounted in order to solve our problems in human settlements.

I must impress on the members that these issues are not going to go away. As Canadians, graced as we are with advantages and resources unknown to any other peoples, we shall be expected to contribute to forming solutions and to leading the way. Canada will undertake considerable post-Habitat activity, commencing, I expect, with a conference of the Canadian delegation to be held this fall at which a plan for action will be considered.

As a starting point for our own discussions here in Ontario, I wish to point members’ attention to an event to be held this week. The Human Settlements Festival is being held this Saturday at Harbourfront in Toronto from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. This festival has been organized by non-governmental organizations from all parts of Ontario, many of which were represented at the Habitat forum.

The festival is open to the public and offers exhibitions related to human settlement, including several excellent films which were part of the presentations made at the conference.

I might add that it was my pleasure last week to be host at Ontario Place to 64 Habitat delegates who were here to tour and inspect provincial and municipal projects and facilities. This extension of the conference will see the delegates move on to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to complete the tour of our country. As a result of these activities, we’ve learned much more about each other and our different approaches to mutual problems.

In conclusion, I am pleased to inform the members that they will be able to obtain copies of two brochures prepared by the Ontario secretariat for Habitat staff, which I believe they will find very informative. These are now in your mail boxes and many more are available upon request. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, will there be no statement from the Chairman of Cabinet regarding the rather unfortunate meeting with the Indian leaders on the weekend?

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing of that. Oral questions.

Mr. Lewis: I’ll start off that way.


Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the Chairman of Cabinet would like to make a statement to the House about his interpretation of the events at Whitedog over the weekend. Perhaps he would like to clarify his observation -- I believe it appeared in the Toronto Daily Star -- something to the effect that he, the government, must have been doing something wrong for a long time.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to give a brief report on the meeting that took place last Friday afternoon.

The meeting was not as productive as I would have liked it to have been. I was accompanied by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), and Mr. Herridge, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for resources. This meeting had come about as a result of a telephone conversation with Chief Mandamin, the chief of the Whitedog Indian reserve. We thought if we met and discussed various items maybe we could be of some assistance.

The meeting ended rather abruptly shortly after an hour after we had commenced. There was considerable discussion on the question of the mercury in the English-Wabigoon River system. They submitted a brief to us and in the brief there were seven items, Mr. Speaker. Of those items, many are under consideration. Most of them we are prepared to act upon. Some have already been acted upon. However, we really didn’t get to those items because the meeting ended abruptly on the third item. If I may read into the record this third item, it goes as follows:

“That the Province of Ontario agree to close the river system to all fishing other than fishing for fun; that the Ministry of Natural Resources enforce a system whereby all parties are permitted to catch fish for sport but to prohibit retention of the fish and consumption of the fish.”

I indicated, along with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, that it would be most difficult to enforce such a regulation. I gave as an example that a tourist could catch, say, a five-pound pickerel. He wishes to show it to his family and to his friends. He would take it home, take some pictures and then he would be obliged either to bury the fish or destroy it in some way, and the enforcement of this would be most difficult.

There was considerable discussion, and it’s easy to understand why we only issue warnings. We say that a tourist, for example, can go to that area for a one- or two-week period, and eat fish maybe twice a day. But that’s only a small consumption. The native people are eating fish maybe twice a day for 200 days a year, and eventually the accumulation of the mercury increases to the point where it can the a real health hazard. This is rather difficult for many to understand. It’s really the amount, the quantity, that is the real hazard.

However, I indicated to the chief that we certainly are very concerned. We are prepared to do all we can to assist the band. I also mentioned that there was a federal responsibility in this area.

Mr. Lewis: Of course.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This morning, as soon as I arrived in the office I contacted the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, who I understand is the chairman of an interministerial committee at the federal level.

Mr. Lewis: God help us.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: He indicated to me that he would be prepared to meet with his colleagues and our provincial colleagues some time soon to discuss this very important question.

I would like to repeat again, Mr. Speaker, to all hon. members in this House, that it is a very complex question. This question of pollutants is not only mercury -- it’s DDT, PCBs, lead, asbestos. I am told there are more than 100 lakes and closer to 200 other bodies of water in other parts of the province -- northeastern, central, northwestern, southeastern, southwestern -- that have large percentages of pollutants -- mercury or PCBs and so forth. Therefore, this whole question of banning sport fishing in one area has implications in other areas.

I would like to repeat that we certainly will do all we can to work closely in conjunction with those two Indian bands in that area and also with our federal colleagues to try and solve some of these very difficult social, health and economic conditions.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, appreciating the minister’s response.

Did he know when he went up to Whitedog that the report from the doctors sent jointly by the Province of Ontario and the federal government, I think, to Japan to look at the consequences of Minamata disease and the incidence of the disease apparently contains a recommendation asking that the English-Wabigoon River system be closed to fishing precisely in order to save the lives of the guides who are most exposed? Now that he knows that is true, a recommendation by doctors whom he himself commissioned to do the study, how is he going to resist the reasonable and legitimate demands of the Whitedog reserve?


Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, my understanding, and I can be corrected on this, is that there was a report submitted to the Ministry of Health as a result of a team which went from this province to Japan and, I believe, to Iraq. I also understand that the federal government had another team which went about the same time. In other words my understanding is that there are two reports.

The report the member refers to is a report which the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) has recently received. I have not seen that report. I have seen briefly some of the recommendations as late, I believe, as Thursday or Friday; I guess it was Thursday. I haven’t seen the report. The report is still in the Ministry of Health. It’s quite true that parts of that report, I’ve heard, do recommend that it be closed.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister going to do now?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed several times. It’s coming up for discussion again on Wednesday. There’s no easy solution.

May I ask the hon. leader this question, Mr. Speaker: Supposing we were to close the English-Wabigoon River system; does he honestly think this will solve the problem? Does he honestly think that no one is going to fish and that no one is going to eat any of those fish from those contaminated waters? Does he honestly believe that?

Mr. Lewis: May I answer that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think not.

Mr. Lewis: I think it is a superb first step. It is what the minister should do.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Do I take it that the minister fails to agree with the opinion of the chief and the council that the guides and their families, who are the ones most at risk in this whole business, would be discouraged from eating if they were not always guiding the fishermen and getting their meals that way? Do I take it that he disagrees totally with the chief and band council who have expressed that opinion and the experts quoted by the Leader of the Opposition and from whom I brought forward evidence two or three months ago?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the leader of the Liberal Party, there are a few things I’d like to mention. My understanding is that the Minister of Health -- I believe it was the acting Minister of Heath (B. Stephenson) -- wrote to every fishing resort operator in that area this spring requesting that alternative food supplies be provided to the guides.

I also wish to mention that we are considering -- when I say we, this is the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) under the Tourism Act -- that regulations be amended to provide an alternative food supply at no cost to the Indian guides. This is being actively considered. It means a change in the regulations. It’s quite true that the guides are certainly the ones who are the most liable to mercury contamination.

Mr. S. Smith: And their families and their children.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker; I’m quite concerned that the minister’s reason for not proceeding with the closing is simply that he could not undertake to enforce it rigorously and so he comes back with a rhetorical question, “Do you not think there will be some people still fishing?” Surely the minister would agree that that is not a legitimate nor a sufficient reason not to proceed with the closing of the system? One salutary effect would be that it would be an indication to everyone -- the Indian community, many of whom still continue to eat the fish; the outfitting community and others, the tourist community -- that we do consider it a serious threat and we are prepared to take serious action. Anything else is going to be misconstrued.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, and that’s why I read it into the record, at our meeting on Friday they did not ask us to close sport fishing in the English-Wabigoon River system. What they asked us was about fishing for fun and whether we would implement such a programme.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a reasonable compromise which they put and you refused to accept.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We refused to accept it for the reasons we have outlined. How can we accept it if we can’t enforce it?

Mr. Lewis: You could enforce anything if you wanted to.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Does the hon. member realize that there are over 3,000 square miles that are contaminated with various kinds of pollutants?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on.

Mr. Nixon: The people would know it would be illegal. It would be like the seatbelt law.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are a responsible government. There’s no use bringing in a regulation if you can’t enforce it.

Mr. Lewis: Well, by way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ll allow another supplementary from the hon. Leader of the Opposition and one from the member for Wilson Heights, then that will be it.

Mr. Lewis: Surely the minister recognizes that these difficulties are manageable. The government understood it couldn’t enforce the seatbelt law, universally, but understood the impact of the law once passed by this Legislature. Does the minister not see the enormous impact it would have on the future life and health of the Indian guides, and to alert the entire community of the northwest, if he were simply to promulgate the regulations and do his best to enforce them? Surely that makes sense to him.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to reiterate, there is a real problem in law enforcement. With reference to the hon. member’s second point about health, as I asked him earlier, does he honestly believe that --

Mr. Lewis: Yes. Yes, I do.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- if we were to close that river system, the native people would not continue to fish and would not eat those fish?

Mr. Lewis: I believe it would help greatly. Yes, I do.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio himself is involved, his colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller), for a while the acting Minister of Health (B. Stephenson) was involved, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) is involved, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) is involved and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) is involved -- that’s six, if my arithmetic is accurate --

Mr. Lewis: And the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Singer: -- wouldn’t it make more sense if the cabinet determined that one minister could have authority for the whole of the government and make one decision --

Mr. Lewis: Or one member.

Mr. Singer: -- instead of kicking it around like a football?

Mr. Lewis: Or one member.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, that’s the reason why I was appointed to that very happy position.

Mr. Singer: Yes, you’ve mentioned five of them this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. It took more time than I expected. I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour, if I could, would it be possible for her to review the situation of one Fred Solley, who is past-president of the local at the Canadian Porcelain Co. Ltd. in Hamilton, who is now suffering severe disability from silicosis, and who had it revealed to him in 1974 that he was suffering from silicosis as far back as 1969, as shown in x-rays which were in the hands of the Ministry of Health and Workmen’s Compensation Board but which he never knew about until late 1974? Can she see whether there is an action in law which Mr. Solley might be entitled to take, or whether the government could provide special compensation, given the apparent negligence in this case?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly undertake to investigate this situation.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much. Could I then, in the process, send over to the minister -- I shall do so -- the legal opinions and ask the minister, in the process of examining it, not to be defensive, in terms of the government’s potential liability, but to see what might be done in this -- a finally demonstrated incident of an instance of a men having silicosis on his x-rays for five years before anyone thought to tell him about it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, not having seen the x-rays, not having seen any of the reports, I have no idea whether what the hon. Leader of the Opposition says is, in fact, actual, but I shall most certainly investigate the case thoroughly and report.

Mr. Lewis: Well, the minister knows not to trust me, of course, from long ago, but I’ll give her the workmen’s compensation report.

Mr. Speaker, I believe lurking in the precincts is the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells). Is he hiding behind the throne?

Mr. Nixon: Behind your skirts maybe?

Mr. Lewis: I am most anxious to ask him about Margaret Laurence.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you might have the opportunity later.


Mr. Lewis: May I have one last question, then, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications? Given the fiasco of Krauss-Maffei, why is the minister now committing another $46.5 million to the third phase of this now-epic experiment, since he admits, in his statement on page four, that there are serious technical and commercial risks on the steel wheels, the suspension, the axle, the linear induction motor, the vehicle, the guide-way, the stations and the automated control system?

Mr. Breithaupt: Nothing left but the people.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister not think that that is, all in all, quite a risk to be setting aside such a large sum of money for, in a programme which he appears to have decided on, in advance, without community participation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would point out the statement does not mention any place about serious risks.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the Minister said “significant technical developments were required and therefore where the technical and commercial risks exist ...” Significant technical developments I thought probably made it serious, maybe not. Why is he proceeding without having a greater public discussion of the next three years, since three years is a long time to lose for an experiment which may never turn?

Mr. Nixon: It’s already five years late.

Mr. Breithaupt: It seems like five years already.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us know that in any new development of any new project or any new product, there have to be some risks involved in developing it. Henry Ford didn’t invent the automobile without risks; Edison didn’t invent the light bulb without risks.

Mr. Nixon: Like five years late.

Mr. S. Smith: Ford has a better idea.

Mr. Singer: Maybe you should bring him back and let him advise you.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The government has seriously considered the full statement. I am sure you will be getting, if you have not already got one, a copy of the full documentation. I would suggest that you read that in detail. We will all be able to discuss it better at that time.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us, in light of the announcement of this programme, what the estimated capital cost per mile is of this system in commercial operation, and the estimated operating cost per mile?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, all this information, I believe, is in the detailed material that is being made available to all caucuses. The cost is, I believe, about half of what it would cost to build a subway.

Mr. Lewis: Right now.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s obvious, I think, from the statements by all people concerned in this field that the cost of subways is just too much.

Mr. Singer: I am not asking about subways.

Mr. Deans: It looks as if a subway would work.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this system will proceed, and that it will answer a great many of the needs of our communities.

Mr. Singer: How about the cost? Can’t you answer the cost figures?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? Order, please. We have spent over 15 minutes -- 18 minutes now -- on the first set of questions. Are there further questions, the Leader of the Opposition, or can we get on?

Mr. Kerrio: There must be some answers.


Mr. Lewis: I feel rather anxious about this one. Could I ask the Minister of Education just this and he can reply briefly? Is it possible for the Minister of Education publicly to say -- or to send a letter to the boards of education and directors of education, which says -- that Margaret Laurence is a fine Canadian writer, and that her book “The Diviners” is a splendid, superlative piece of writing; that before these intellectual oafs, who characterize themselves as directors of boards of education, remove books from lists which his ministry has sent out, they might at least read the book and not apply censorship in a vacuum? Even if the minister can’t intrude on municipal autonomy to that extent, at least give his own public approval, or his own declaration of support, to such a fine writer so this nonsense stops in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, that sounded more like a speech than a question.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it’s ridiculous that Margaret Laurence --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I certainly agree that Margaret Laurence is a fine Canadian author. I certainly do not object to her book being included, but I think we have to recognize that if we do believe in local autonomy and giving people the right to do certain things and exercise certain prerogatives in running their school systems, and asking them to be elected and represent the people in their particular area, we have to give them certain rights to make either good or bad decisions.

Mr. Lewis: Sure, I agree.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Given that, I have to leave it to those people to have this kind of debate from time to time about certain books. I certainly don’t agree with the attitudes that some people take toward certain books --

Mr. Lewis: That’s all I wanted to hear.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- but I do respect the right of local trustees to have discussions of this nature and to make decisions where those decisions have been left to them by this Legislature.



Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware of the recently reported cases by the Indiana State Board of Health in the United States which have found very high concentrations of PCBs in milk from cows that graze on pasture where city sewage sludge was spread as a fertilizer?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Is that PCVs or PCBs?

Mr. S. Smith: PCBs.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, I’m not aware of that study.

Mr. Nixon: What about PCVs for the cows?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s the other one he knows about.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the minister comment on what Ontario is going to be doing about sewage sludge which comes from industrial areas since Environment Canada’s report indicates that there are high levels of PCBs in much of this sewage sludge and that the ministry is still, in fact, encouraging municipalities to buy this sludge as fertilizer? Given the results where corn in Guelph has been shown to pick up high quantities of PCBs although still not to dangerous levels, what steps will the ministry be taking about this?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: First of all, the ministry isn’t encouraging the farmers to use on their land untreated sludge from waste disposal sites. At the present time, the arrangement is that someone has a contract to haul the sludge away from a sewage treatment plant and it has to be dumped on an approved site, the same as we would approve a waste disposal site of any kind. If farmers are using that sludge as it comes untreated from a sewage treatment plant, I would suggest they not do that. There is a possibility that certain metallic substances that may be in the sludge, or some degree of PCBs, may be such that it would not be wise to use it as fertilizer.

As I indicated to the hon. member when he asked that question before, we have a number of research projects going on, one at the University of Guelph and one in the Windsor area, where we are attempting to treat the sludge. We must remember that sludge itself is treated waste and then in turn, we are attempting to treat the sludge by removing --

Mr. Singer: You haven’t reached John Root’s heights yet. He gave a much better speech.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- as much as possible, some of the foreign ingredients that I have mentioned. We are achieving a certain amount of success with these experiments but certainly, as I’ve said and as the speaker at our recent symposium, from which the hon. member derived this question, said: We don’t recommend that farmers use the sludge as it comes from the sewage treatment plant, directly on their land for fertilizer.

Mr. S. Smith: Just a final supplementary on that: Will the minister not admit that members of his own ministry feel even the treated sludge, which is made available as fertilizer to farmers, contains PCBs and other dangerous chemicals? As far as dumping the sludge, will the minister not admit that even the disposal areas are such that PCBs can be leached out of that area into the adjacent waterways?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with the second part of the question, when we approve a waste disposal site, we take into consideration the possibility of leaching and the possibility of water tables being in the area of that site. The site wouldn’t be approved if that danger existed. Again, as I have indicated, from our experiments, it would seem that it is possible at least to neutralize certain foreign or metallic substances that are in the sludge. The hon. member must realize that fertilizer, whether it is raw fertilizer or whether it is manure or what have you, isn’t what you would call a pure substance. At some stage, it can be purified --

Mr. Singer: Very good.

Mr. Peterson: Depends on what you are using, too.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- to the point where it can be used as fertilizer and it depends on the type of crops, for example, with which you use this fertilizer.

Mr. Singer: John would never have said that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am going to get out of this.

Mr. S. Smith: You are up to your knees in it.


Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Labour: With regard to the arenas in Ontario that apparently are in contravention of building codes and are unsafe, can the minister assure us that the government will do everything possible, including a massive use of Wintario funds, to make sure that before this fall and this winter season these extremely important facilities will be usable by the small towns and the people of Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on at least three occasions in this House, the primary concern of this government at the moment is the safety of those structures for the children who will be using them. We have no intention of limiting in any way the hockey or skating programmes in this province, and I am sure that the hon. member for Hamilton West will be happy to know that we are in the process of drafting a complete statement about this so that the communities involved will be aware of the route and channels of communication which they will be asked to use in order to allow us to help them in solving the problems which the safety programme insists upon.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Could the minister indicate whether that statement will be ready by tomorrow in order that those of us in the House can have a chance to question it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Deans: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is no autonomy left in the municipalities -- all they can do now is collect their own garbage; that’s all they can do now -- why doesn’t the minister stay the hell out of that business and let the local building inspectors look after that, rather than her people? The minister should stay here and mind her own business, because she has got enough problems here.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to agree with the peripatetic member for Grey-Bruce who comes to the House at least once a month --

Mr. MacDonald: Is that a medical condition?

An hon. member: Oh, Eddie, don’t let her say that; that’s mean.

Hon. B. Stephenson: At any rate, it would be very sudden and it would be a very happy situation for us to leave the responsibility for safety to municipalities. Unfortunately, the municipalities have not seen fit to assume this responsibility.

Mr. S. Smith: He is here an awful lot more than the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston).

Mr. Sargent: You won’t give it to them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are attempting to help them in this assumption of responsibility by ensuring that the arenas are safe. If the member for Grey-Bruce would be happier to take the full responsibility for the arena in Owen Sound, by all means, let him go right ahead.

Mr. Sargent: Just mind your own business!

Hon. B. Stephenson: Okay. And you mind yours!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Yakabuski: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South with a final supplementary.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is going to send them on sabbatical.

Mr. S. Smith: You’d better ask your questions while you are still here.


Mr. Speaker: We are wasting time. The supplementary, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: A supplementary: Local authorities are finding it increasingly difficult to understand why some of these buildings that have been condemned in recent months, mostly local community centres, arenas, etc. --

Mr. Moffatt: Question.

Mr. S. Smith: There is a question coming, I assume?

Mr. Yakabuski: -- were designed by competent and qualified engineers not so many years ago --

Mr. Moffatt: Question!

Mr. Yakabuski: They find it difficult to understand why personnel from the Ministry of Labour now are condemning so many of these same buildings that were designed by qualified people.

Mr. S. Smith: There is a question by a peripatetic member.

Mr. Good: Where was the hon. member when they were built? That is the point.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer that, it is not the members of the Ministry of Labour who are carrying out this function; it is the professional engineers of this province who are employed by the local municipalities to inspect the arenas who are making the statements and the judgements upon these arenas.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, I announced that was the final supplementary.


Mr. S. Smith: A separate question to the Minister of Labour: Is it a fact that it was her intention to announce more than a week ago what her ministry had ordered at Hamilton Match Plate Co., and can she explain to us what the ministry had ordered and the delay in letting the House know about it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we had been awaiting the results of the inspection carried out by the health protection branch, and as soon as that inspection report is completely received within the Ministry of Labour, the directions will be issued and they will be announced.


Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wentworth recently asked a question about a firm by the name of Kustom Enterprises.

The chief of Hamilton-Wentworth regional police has informed me that his force received the first of a number of complaints about this firm in April, 1975. The complaints involved overcharging for moving services. The complaints in each case were examined by the police, although there were no criminal acts committed. As the matter involves unfair business practices, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, business practices division, is now investigating.

The member for Wentworth asked specifically about a Mr. Greathead. There are no criminal charges against him under investigation at this time. Should anything of a criminal nature arise through the investigation by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Hamilton-Wentworth regional police will be responsible for the investigation and follow-through in this area.

As was stated, Mr. Greathead did move from his residence but the police were unable to detain him as there have been no charges against him. As I have indicated, the Hamilton-Wentworth regional police will continue to monitor this situation.


Ms. Sandeman: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Given the fact that it is now six months since the minister terminated the work of the Advisory Council on Day Care and given the fact also that as he did not table the final report of that council and therefore we have no explanatory statement with it, could he now tell us what plans he has for completing the mandate given to that council, particularly the making of a total assessment of the need for day care in this province and the identification of gaps?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: May I reiterate that the advisory council was an advisory council set up by my predecessor to advise the minister. That council submitted three reports. Each of those reports was published and distributed to those who are interested. I would presume that the hon. member would have a copy of that particular report.

We have, since the reporting process, made changes. In terms of day care we have complied with the recommendations which were in the first report, for example, in terms of fire protection and physical requirements. The second report, if my memory serves me correctly, dealt with such things as ratios of supervisory help and staff to children. They wished no change in that and we have respected that request.

Since then we have set up a new post, a director of child care, in my ministry. May I also say that the support staff of that advisory council to the minister were my staff. They still are my staff and we are continuing with them an ongoing review and hopefully improvement of the situation.

Ms. Sandeman: Supplementary: Specifically could the minister tell us what action he intends to take on the recommendations made in the final report?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If the member wishes to discuss some of these, and no doubt she will later this afternoon in my estimates, she can deal in some detail with that particular report. But as I mentioned, some of those recommendations have been implemented. They are under continuous review by my staff. We are exploring and utilizing other methods of day care which have been recommended, of course, apart from the institutional type of day care that some people think is the only form of day care there is.


Mr. Ruston: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware of the invasion of army worms in the wheat crop in Essex and Kent counties? Since the farmers are paying for a large air show all weekend, I wonder if you have any biologists or any people from your ministry checking over the situation?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I am quite aware of the fact that the army worm infestation is worse in Essex county --

Mr. Mancini: I told you Friday.

Hon. W. Newman: You didn’t even know what army worms were when you told me. You asked for it. There are about 10,000 acres of infestation in this county. There has been a great deal of spraying being done over this past week, both with Sevin and Malathion. Our provincial entomologist has been on the scene and has been travelling around the area. The worst outbreak is in Essex of course and in Kent. There has been extensive spraying done and it is still going on. Mainly it’s the wheat crop that’s been affected. Certainly, anyone who has crop insurance is covered for this sort of infestation in the crop insurance programme.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister given any consideration to making spraying of these army worms compulsory so they don’t spread from one field to another?

Hon. W. Newman: I understand there’s been a request by the farmers in the areas that the municipalities do some spraying along the roads but to this point in time there has been no action, to my knowledge, on that particular request.


Mr. Mancini: Did the minister understand my question, Mr. Speaker? I was wondering if the minister would make the spraying compulsory in certain areas, so these worms wouldn’t spread from one field to another?

Hon. W. Newman: No, I won’t make it compulsory. The farmers know the problem; they know how to deal with it. The ag reps are on hand; both of them have been there. Our provincial entomologist is in the field. Certainly, having known what it is like to have army worms controlled, I think the farmers will take good --

Mr. S. Smith: Is it painful?

Hon. W. Newman: It’s very expensive to the farming community, and they’re doing a good job of controlling it at this point in time.


Mr. Mackenzie: Does the Solicitor General have a response to the question of Sunday shopping at the De Pietro supermarkets in Hamilton that I raised with him several weeks ago? Does the minister not recognize this is a deliberate move to circumvent the legislation; and what further damage will be done to the legislation if the other chain stores follow suit with the same type of an operation, which is now rumoured?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: At the request of the member for Hamilton East, I had an inquiry carried out for me and I have had a reply for the member within the last few days. I think maybe I left it back in my office today, but I will get it for him.

However, it involved a fairly large store, where there was a closing off of part of the store by way of partitions. The Hamilton-Wentworth police investigated the matter. Their first time around I think they saw that this was what was happening, but there was no breach of the law as they understood it. I think on further complaints they went back and found that there were items on the other side of the partitions that were being asked for and were, in fact, delivered to the customers. They went back and warned them that that shouldn’t go on, and the store owners agreed that they would not do that.

But as far as partitioning of stores goes, we’ve dealt with that recently in our estimates. That was one of the items that we foresaw and discussed when the bill was passing through committee last fall. I don’t think there’s anything improper about it. If it becomes too common a practice, it may be that when the legislation is reviewed, amendments will have to be brought in to stop that type of action. But as I say, the committee foresaw that it could happen, and in fact it is happening in certain locations.


Mr. Riddell: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Could he report on his meetings with the Ontario Milk Commission on Friday, and, I believe, the meeting he had with Mr. Whelan on Saturday? What does he intend to do to help these milk producers who are ringing our telephones off the hook, telling us that in place of a $3,000 cheque they’re getting $500, and they simply can’t pay their taxes or their hired help? What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting last Friday afternoon with the Ontario Milk Commission and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. I happened to be in Guelph on Saturday at a function, together with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott) and had a meeting with Mr. Whelan for about an hour to outline the problems we’re faced with in the milk industry in the Province of Ontario today. I pointed out to Mr. Whelan at that time that he’s going on a percentage of monthly quota, and you can’t turn a cow on and off. Something has to be done about it.

Mr. Conway: What are you going to do about it?

Hon. W. Newman: Does the member realize it’s a national programme? Does he realize that we’re involved too; we’re trying to work at it from both ends to help the farmers? Surely, he’s aware of that. Don’t tell me he isn’t.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: The $860 deduction that’s being deducted at the request of the Canadian Dairy Commission for a hundredweight and over quota of milk is really hurting, and that’s where the big pressure is coming. We have suggested and are making suggestions to Ottawa that that figure is too high. If they would reduce that figure there would be an automatic repayment to those people who have deductions on over-quota supplies. If they would reduce the percentage allocation from a monthly basis to either six months or a yearly basis, there would be an automatic repayment to those producers. As I said before, you can’t shut cows on and off.

An hon. member: At either end.

Hon. W. Newman: I was to be in Ottawa today to discuss the national egg plan with Mr. Whelan. Unfortunately, certain circumstances at the airport prevented myself and many other ministers from around Canada being at that meeting today. I was told by Mr. Whelan last Saturday that he was quite prepared to discuss it further today.

I have been on the phone today to Mr. Whelan to ask for an immediate meeting, because I know the consequences down the road. I know that the money has been held back; the $860 in the Province of Ontario that has been deducted and has not been sent to Ottawa at this point in time. I’m also aware of the fact that Quebec is doing it on a quarterly basis. There have been no deductions at this point in time. I know when they make their deductions in the July milk cheque what’s going to happen in the Province of Quebec.

It’s a national problem and yes we have some involvement provincially. But I say this advisedly -- don’t stand over there and ask me what we are doing about it. We’ve done something and we are prepared to do more. But we will have to get some answer from Ottawa to help these farmers in the Province of Ontario and across Canada. I am concerned about it and I’ve been trying to get a meeting, and I am hopeful that by the time I get back to my office this afternoon I will have confirmation of a meeting in Ottawa.


Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is the minister aware of the arrest today of a foreign student at Western University who was working for the student council? He was apparently arrested because he didn’t have a work visa.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I wasn’t, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I wasn’t aware of that.

Mr. Eaton: Would the minister look into this matter? Also, because of the concern of the student council as to its position on the matter, would he look into its liability and possible charges that could be laid against it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I will be pleased to do that. From the question, I am not sure whether that is a problem of federal jurisdiction -- Manpower and Immigration -- or whether it is a legal problem for our own ministry. I will be glad to report back to the hon. member.


Mr. Swart: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Is the minister aware that the Bell Telephone company is planning on proceeding, in spite of protests by the Canadian Hearing Society and others, with the introduction of the balanced armature receiver which will prevent those with hearing aids from being able to use the telephone -- or at least interfere with them in the use of the telephone? Has the minister intervened with Bell Telephone through the CRTC or directly in this matter? Or will he do so?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is some little while ago now, but I know we have had correspondence, I believe, with the Bell Telephone company. I would be glad to look that up and get the information for the hon. member.

Mr. Swart: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister agree that the provincial government has intervened on many occasions with regard to Bell rate hearings and therefore that in an important matter like this it is imperative that the minister does intervene on behalf of the hard of hearing if he hasn’t done so? If he has done so, will he intervene again at this time?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as I stated we have had some involvement in this particular matter and as I recall we got the matter satisfactorily resolved. But I would like to look it up and get the details.

Mr. Breithaupt: The question was, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister would find out from Bell Canada whether it is possible for persons who are hard of hearing either to retain the present equipment they have or to have some adapters to any new equipment, so that they would be in the position of being able to use telephone equipment for the mutual satisfaction of everyone involved.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The same answer goes, Mr. Speaker. I’ve had correspondence with Bell Canada. I can’t recite the final details of the answer I got from Bell, but it appeared to me that necessary arrangements have been made to eliminate this situation. If they haven’t, I will certainly make further representation to Bell Canada.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I think we’d better get on with it. We are getting the same answer to each of the questions. No. The hon. member for Grey with a question.

Mr. McKessock: I have a question of the hon. Minister of Culture and Recreation -- I believe he is within walking distance of his seat.

An hon. member: He’s not here.

Mr. Speaker: We’d better have the member for Waterloo North.


Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Why did he wait until May 27 to start the increase given to dump truck operators working for contractors on government contracts? This increase had previously come into effect on all contracts starting April 1, this fiscal year, and there had been a promise from the ministry officials that such an increase would come into effect on April 1.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I think there are several inaccuracies in those statements by the hon. member.

First of all, there has never been any definite date set for when increases for dump truckers come into effect. From time to time we do review the minimum rates which are published in our contracts.

In the actual tender document the contractor bids on, there is a schedule which states the minimum amount that must be paid for contractors hiring dump trucks. That minimum is for the term of the contract. Each year ministry officials consult with the dump truck industry. They review the increases in costs of equipment and operating costs and establish a new rate but it has not been set up and structured for any particular date each year. In 1975, as I recall, the implementation date was in January. This year it happened to be in May.

Mr. Good: A supplementary: Is the minister saying there was not a promise given last December to start the increase on April 1?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly there was no promise by me and in trying to investigate the matter I have not been able to find anyone who gave any commitment such as that.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.


Presenting reports.


Hon. Mr. Welch moved that notwithstanding standing order No. 3 the House will continue to sit between 6 and 8 o’clock tonight.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answer to question No. 59 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 14th order, House in committee of supply.


On vote 2702: (continued)

Mr. Chairman: Is there any discussion on item 3, social services?

Mr. McClellan: I will give the minister about 30 seconds to be seated and get his documents in order.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the hon. minister is now listening, will the hon. member continue?

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that we are on vote 2702, item 3, social services. Time constraints are weighing very heavily on us and we’re going to have to be selective in what we cover. I want, by way of opening the discussion on social services, to deal with the issue of day dare, daycare needs in this province and the record of this ministry in providing daycare services.

It’s very difficult to get a clear handle on this ministry actual daycare performance. I have, in front of me, a variety of conflicting statements from different branches of the ministry and before we go too much further I would really like to get that cleared up.

Sometime in March, the ministry issued a press release indicating it had spent during the past four years -- I’ll read what it says, “During the past four years more than $25 million in capital funds have been provided to add about 7,000 new daycare places, including the recent daycare expansion programme.” It is my contention that you may have provided $25 million for daycare capital but you sure haven’t spent $25 million for daycare expansion.


The minister sent me a letter on Jan. 12 indicating the total expended for each of the years 1973-1974, 1974-1975, and 1975-1976, totalled $11 million. If we add to that the $6.7 million actually spent in 1972-1973, we are still a long way from the $25 million you are running around telling the people of this province you have spent on day care. You continue to play figure games with the media, and with the public of this province. You extend that chicanery into the field of day care as well.

Let me point out to you, in your statement to the Legislature on June 10 -- maybe the minister will recall it was his opening statement as we stated these estimate debates -- you said:

“Provision is made in these estimates for $34 million in operating funds and $6 million of capital for day care. Ontario already has what is reputed to be the finest daycare provisions in North America and the moneys requested for operating costs are double those of last year’s estimates.”

I would like the minister to tell me, and this House, where is the $34 million in operating funds for daycare services in this province? My estimates book says $29,101,300. It may well be, and I would be delighted to hear that the minister has daycare operating funds tucked away in some other items of his ministry’s budget, but I rather doubt it. Is the minister able to clarify this discrepancy of some $6 million in what he claims to be spending and what the estimate book indicates he is spending by way of operating fund?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In response, Mr. Chairman, in item 3, social services, the capital grant for daycare facilities for children, the total item there is $5,539,900. That’s capital.

Mr. McClellan: That’s not what I asked. You said in your statement there was $34 million in operating funds. I am just asking you where it is.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s right, I did and it is here.

Mr. McClellan: Where? Tell us where?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right, be patient and you will get everything you want.

Mrs. Campbell: Is that a promise?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s a promise, assuming of course that what he wants is reasonable.

Mrs. Campbell: Good.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right.

Mr. McClellan: Have you got it?


Mr. Deputy Chairman: We will adjourn the House for grave disorder for a period of five minutes. We will have the strangers removed.

[On resumption:]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Under the circumstances we will now resume the proceedings.

Mr. Lewis: I guess it couldn’t have been a grave disorder. Maybe it was just an uncomfortable disorder.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further comments on this vote?

Mr. McClellan: I have many comments to make on the field of day care and if I may address the third party -- if we could just proceed through my stuff and then carry on to the next speaker. I have a number of points that I want to deal with on this issue.

Mr. Lewis: If the minister would answer you wouldn’t get an interruption.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Again on item 3, subsidies and grants toward operations and maintenance of day nurseries, you’ll see the item $29,101,300 which is the operating moneys.

Mr. McClellan: Right, and that’s very nice but maybe the minister would like to tell this House, maybe the minister would like to tell the media, why he sent out a statement on June 10, that said he was spending $34 million? We’re getting pretty sick of this kind of performance -- $34 million in operating costs and $6 million in capital costs. We’re getting sick and tired of your fun-with-figures games, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Warner: Resign.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Bellwoods would be patient and observant, he would see that there is also the item of $5,031,900 --

Mrs. Campbell: That’s capital.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, for MR, which is the day care for the retarded, which is in there as well.

Mr. McClellan: Where is that, please?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It’s in the operating. If you look at your estimates, under community programmes, toward the bottom of the page you’ll see $15,335,300 and it’s in there.

Mr. McClellan: So there is, in fact, an additional $5 million for mentally retarded persons.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s right -- which totals to $34,133,200.

Mr. McClellan: Very delighted to hear that. Let me simply say, again, that you have consistently, over the last five years, allocated funds for daycare capital expansion which you have, for a variety of reasons, some of them legitimate, been unable to spend. But I don’t think you’ve played fair, frankly, with the people of this province in the way you have described the moneys that have been put into daycare capital expansion and not expended in one year and then carried over -- not technically carried over, but for political purposes, carried over -- into a following year’s budget so that you can claim, now, that the provision of $25 million in capital funds was, in fact, the expenditure of capital funds, over the last four fiscal years, and is substantially less than the trumpeted $25 million that you proclaimed. It makes your assertions, that we need to freeze additional capital funds for the -- and I’m talking about new capital money for new projects in 1976-1971 which, you have asserted, we can’t afford. It makes that assertion so much nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. McClellan: Let me just finish on this and then perhaps you can respond, because I did have a couple of points that I wanted to make, with respect to the need for additional capital funds for daycare expansion in this province.

Let me refer you to a document that was submitted to you, on April 15, 1916, by the Metropolitan Toronto Day Care Study Committee. It’s an advisory committee to the social services and housing committee of the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and I hope you will, if you haven’t read it yourself personally, take the time to do that. It sets out, in a very clear and lucid way, the concerns that I would like to be able to make and express myself, and I’m going to refer to a couple of sections of that excellent document.

They refer to the need, in Metropolitan Toronto, for day care. In contrast with what exists, some 21,249 daycare spaces, the need, conservatively estimated by them, at 51,668 spaces. They comment on the effects of this 5.5 per cent ceiling on the provision of daycare services in this municipality. While it’s too early to assess the full extent of the damages to Metro Toronto’s daycare programme, the following is a list of the programmes which have been lost:

In the field of day nurseries group care: five new centres; three renovated centres, Blake St., St. Clemens, Sheppard Ave.; one centre in a vacant classroom; three centres in the infant care programme, Ancaster, Holliston and Rawlinson; in family day care approximately 50 spaces. In total, it is estimated that 1,200 of the spaces planned for Toronto in 1976 have been lost.

In addition, there will be no new purchase service agreements in 1976 for private centres. Enrolment in existing centres has been frozen as at Oct. 31, 1975, and on and on. The minimum fee has increased 100 per cent.

Just one brief example since the minister had referred to it earlier in the session, I believe; the daycare centre, St. Michael and All Angels, which is in Bellwoods riding and which the minister opened earlier in the spring. They had been counting on receiving 18 subsidized spaces in order to run a viable operation. They received 12 and they are in considerable difficulty. I think you will realize that people can’t do that kind of planning, particularly volunteer groups or community groups, on the basis of clear understandings around commitments and then have those commitments altered in midstream. It is a recipe for disaster.

If I may refer back to the brief again, the deletion of funds for capital projects and research has caused considerable concern. The consequences of these cuts extend far beyond 1976-1977 and it will have impact on the development of day care in Ontario over the next decade. The lack of funds for capital expenditure will not only severely limit the possibility of expansion of day care by municipal governments but will operate to discourage private groups from attempting to start their own neighbourhood centre.

All of the minister’s rhetoric about the importance of the non-governmental sector in the provision of social services is just so much nonsense when we have a look at the record of his ministry with respect to these non-governmental volunteer and private agencies which attempt to operate under the impossible funding policies of this ministry.

The fact remains that there is a tremendous shortage of day care in this province no matter how you want to slice it and there are no grounds and no justifications for cutting back on capital funds. I know the minister is going to say: “We’re not cutting back on capital funds; we’re spending $5 million on daycare capital or $6 million on daycare capital this year.” That’s a lot of bunk.

What you’re doing is picking up projects that were planned in previous years, on the moneys that were in budgets of previous years and which are now coming on stream. If new groups come to you in 1976-1977, you will be turning them away. It is as simple as that. That is going to exacerbate the already critical shortage of daycare facilities in this community.

Let me just wind this section up by referring again to the reality of the daycare shortage, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto where it is frankly easiest for me to document. I have been receiving, over the last few months, reports from a few of the larger more well-established daycare services in this community of Metropolitan Toronto. They have been kind enough to provide not just myself but also the director of the day nurseries branch with a record of their requests for service from month to month -- requests which they have not been able to meet because of the tremendous shortage of daycare spaces in this community.


Victoria Day Care Services wrote me on April 15 and gave me the statistics for March. In the month of March, the following requests were received: 28 from sole support families; 41 from two working parents; five from families with special needs, for a total request for daycare spaces of 74. In March, admissions to group care were two and to private home day care, nine. They were unable to find spaces for that group of persons which had come to them with daycare needs; they were simply unable to meet the needs.

Let me tell you who those folk were. Mr. and Mrs. X have three children, aged four weeks, two years and five years. Their father works in a factory at $150 a week. The mother must return to work immediately. Family situation included a $335 a month mortgage payment and $50 in debts.

Mrs. J is a sole support mother who came to Canada from Argentina two years ago. Her five-year-old daughter, who is in senior kindergarten in the morning, is temporarily being cared for by an uncle for the remainder of the day. Other care must be found or the mother will have to leave her job.

In May, Victoria Day Care Services provided me with their statistics for April. They received the following requests for daycare spaces; 38 requests from sole support families; 46 requests from two working parents; four from families with special needs, for a total of 87 requests for daycare spaces at this one agency alone in the city. They were able to admit six on subsidy, two on non-subsidy basis but no children were able to be accommodated in the nursery. They explored other community resources. They are the kind of agency that does that kind of exploration and referral work thoroughly and conscientiously but they were unsuccessful in the remainder of the cases.

Another case is as follows: Mr. X is a sole support parent with two sons, five and 10 years, and two daughters, 12 and 16 years. He is living on welfare payments and wants to get work. You talk about wanting to make it possible for people on welfare to return to work but at the same time you cut down on the expansion needed in daycare services, the very services that make it possible for sole support parents, male and female, to be able to return to work. It’s patently fraudulent. Until you’re prepared to put the necessary funding into an expansion of day care to meet the real present needs in our communities all of your rhetoric about wanting to help people return to productive employment is seen for the fraudulent nonsense that it is.

One more case. Mrs. T. is a sole support mother earning $440 a month to take home. Out of this she pays $170 rent, all inclusive, in a house. Her only child was born in April, 1971, and she is seeking day care. She has been working in the sheriff’s office and was interested in improving her career so she enrolled in a course at Humber College, a paralegal training programme. It’s a one-year course, precisely the kind of career-oriented programme that ought to be fostered and sponsored on behalf of single parent mothers. She doesn’t have daycare facilities. The opportunity for her to participate in the training programme is jeopardized.

I could go on and on but I won’t because of the time constraints and our commitment to try to share this time equally between the two opposition groups. From this one agency alone material which has been provided to you issues a most compelling case around the shortage of daycare facilities in this community, and tell you very clearly the kind of folk who are unable to receive adequate daycare services and the consequences to them in terms of their inability either to make essential arrangements for their children because of the emotional needs of the family or secondly to return to productive employment or to engage in the kind of employment training and upgrading that is essential for single-parent mothers if they are to succeed in the labour force.

I’ll stop at that point and just put our position to you again. I spoke at length on the issue of day care during my contribution to the budget speech. If you want to know why we in this party attach such importance to day care I invite you to have a look at those remarks. I don’t intend to repeat them now and I think the gist of what I said is very clear: that we are totally dissatisfied with your performance in the daycare field. We reject completely your singling out of day care as a rational area for constraint. We urge you to bring in supplementary estimates before this parliament terminates that would redress a most foolish mistake on the part of this government in cutting back and imposing constraints in the provision of daycare services to this province.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, much has been focused on the Metropolitan Toronto situation.

Mr. McClellan: It is the same --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: May I say that first of all in explanation of the capital programme of the $25 million: Sure there have been carry-overs from year to year, but that is necessary. I think you will appreciate the reasons why, because it is necessary to get sites, to develop plans and so on, to work out the physical arrangements for the building.

Mr. McClellan: I concede that -- it’s the phrasing --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right. So you just can’t press a button and get instant daycare centres. When I took over this ministry I reviewed all of the applications that were in for daycare centres and I was frankly concerned that there was a slowdown in processing those applications that were submitted. That involves Metropolitan Toronto as well.

I did everything I could to expedite it and to get those persons who had applications to get on with their applications -- to see that the centres were built -- if they were sincere. Some of them pulled out. There were others that were brought into the stream. This year we will see some 1,778 new places developed. Sure, we had a carry-over because it wasn’t physically possible to spend the amount of capital moneys that were there. So we had a carry-over of about $6 million.

Remember when you are talking about Metropolitan Toronto and any other municipality that there is a cost that it must bear as well, in terms of the operating costs. And don’t think that Metro wasn’t concerned in regard to its involvement in financing the operating costs of 20 per cent, I was concerned. As a matter of fact it had struck from its budget those five daycare proposals even before the constraint programme was in effect.

I was instrumental in reinstating one of the daycare centres -- the Willow Ridge one. You may recall it. It’s easy to focus on my ministry and say “you are to blame for no more day care” but that’s not the picture at all. And again --

Mr. McClellan: Let me ask you one question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just a minute now. I want to respond to you. If you want to look all the figures and get some perspective on the matter in day care, you will see that we have gone in the last five years from -- I was looking at 1971-1972 -- an expenditure of $4,409,349 -- that’s on operating, on the regular day care. That’s not involving the MR field. In these estimates we have an expenditure proposed of $29,101,300. In five years we have had an increase of 560 per cent in operating costs alone for daycare centres. It is all very well to criticize and say that we’re not doing anything but in my submission that is not standing still.

Furthermore, if you look at what’s happening in the figures, and I have watched the --

Mr. McClellan: You have applied a freeze.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just a minute. I’ve watched the figures and seen what’s happening in terms of the capital cost as well. We used to figure, last fall even, that it was around $5,000 per place for day care. The other day I was dealing with one of the members in the third party in connection with a daycare centre that required some additions. I noticed that it was $6,000 a place.

Our operating costs are running about $2,400 a child per year. Don’t think that we can’t get involved in a lot of money just carrying on with our existing programmes. There are a lot of involvements here. It’s very easy to say: “Why don’t we have more; and press buttons and get more day care?” We have to look at new approaches in terms of day care. We have to look at less capital costs in terms of new construction, utilizing existing facilities where we can.

You made mention of St. Michael and All Angels daycare centre.

Mr. McClellan: That’s an excellent approach.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It’s an excellent one. I’m sorry you weren’t at the official opening. You were conspicuous by your absence.

Mr. McClellan: We went into that before. We got the wrong date from your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Not from me you didn’t I didn’t send out the invitations to that opening. I thought the alert critic would have been at that opening to seize the political opportunity of showing his interest.

Mr. McClellan: Let’s deal with that now?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Apart from that, you made mention of St. Michael and All Angels, and the decline. As you know, they have a purchase of service agreement. We can’t control, in my ministry, the allocation or the purchase of places by municipalities, of all of the places --

Mr. McClellan: It is your freeze that has cut down the space.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- that you may think are necessary and maybe others think necessary.

Mr. McClellan: You should at least have the guts to acknowledge the consequences of your own policies.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s your interpretation. Did you know that in Metropolitan Toronto they’re spending 20 per cent more on social services this year? It’s okay to blame me or my ministry. That’s easy for you. It’s a simplistic approach but it’s not correct. It’s not accurate. The priorities are established at the local level.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, no.

Mr. Chairman, before I embark upon my observations on day care, I wonder if the minister is prepared to extend to the Toronto and District branch of the Canadian Restaurant Association the deep appreciation of his ministry for their obvious concern to maintain the meals on wheels programme for the elderly which is, of course, threatened by the restraints. I would hope that he might, at least, extend his appreciation if nothing else.

I am not going to follow, and give you again, the various information which was given by the critic for the official opposition. I would hope I might try a new approach to this minister. We have somewhat tilted with swords and even sabres in the past, and now I would like to plead with him to understand, if he can, the very real problem of day care, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto.

The critic for the NDP has referred to the experiences of Victoria Day Care Services for a two-month period. I’m not going to repeat them. However, perhaps if we could get into perspective, if we could understand exactly what the demands have been during the year 1975, we could then at least look at some of the needs as demonstrated in the Metropolitan area.


In the first place, in 1975, 4,000 families applied for child care to Family Day Care Services, competing for a possible 246 places; 1,200 families applied for child care to Victoria Day Care Services for a possible 148 places; 1,000 families applied for child care to Cradleship Creche for a possible 188 places. Perhaps this places in perspective the concerns of the opposition, because it doesn’t begin to demonstrate the very real needs in this community.

I would like to say of those requests -- and I quote from a letter from Victoria Day Care, dated April 8, 1976:

“These were requests from pressured, anxious women. Many were sole-support mothers with the total responsibility for their children; many were newcomers struggling to help their husbands establish a home in Canada. This is one small segment of unmet needs in one city in Ontario.”

They go on to say that they believe this need is duplicated not only in the cities but in the rural areas of Ontario.

Perhaps I might continue to read, because it expresses my philosophy and that of the Liberal Party:

“Inadequate services for child care have serious effects on children’s healthy development and the possibility of family stability and independence. Your proposals can have no other result than increased financial cost to the taxpayer and increased social cost to families and communities.”

I think we start from different definitions, and perhaps it flows from different experience -- at least in charity I would like to hope that’s the explanation, because as we move into these troublesome times, as there are pressures on the family and these pressures are reflected on the children, it really isn’t useful to say that we aren’t having to curtail services; you consistently say there is more money available, but the money available does not provide adequately for increases in services at a time when the need is very, very great.

May I also refer you to another statistic coming from the Metro Children’s Aid Society; they say:

“Admissions to care during the year [that is, the past year] showed a marked increase of 13.5 per cent in the five- to 12-year-old group. One alarming factor is that 50 per cent of children in our care are now over the age of 13, requiring more costly types of care. Another significant development is the increased number of children with intellectual impairment requiring CAS services. This figure has now reached 30 per cent of the society’s children in care; many combining this handicap with serious emotional or physical disabilities.”

While that doesn’t relate to the daycare programme, I have read it in in conjunction with what I have been saying about daycare, because hopefully it does show the minister that the costs of this type of service in the Children’s Aid Society, as in the daycare services, are increasing because of increased needs. Surely, during the course of these estimates we may hear from this minister. I would say, not to be provocative, but at long last that he does indeed recognize that restraint programmes really effect cutbacks in services to children. It’s strange that in all these years we’ve had this one government in this province that there has never been a real look by the government at the needs and rights of children. Yet of all of the services which are under attack in this particular vote -- I should allow that there are senior citizens and ones as I have mentioned -- most of them are attacks on children themselves. They wonder if we couldn’t come forward from this minister, with a very firm statement that we are not about to subsidize those awful women who don’t get up in the morning and don’t look after their children. I wonder if we could simply regard it in all humanity as a necessity for children in these times, which are so trying to everyone, and of which they become the ultimate victims.

May I now quote from another philosophy and on perhaps a broader general basis?

“During the past few years, women with pre-school children have been increasingly entering the labour market. For many of these families the choice has been to go on welfare or to find gainful employment. Others have not had even this simple choice. My government feels that it is tremendously important that mothers with young children have the option to make the best decision that fits their particular situation. Consequently, my government has encouraged the orderly development and expansion of daycare services with special priority being given to the one-parent family and to families on low incomes which could not ordinarily afford adequate child care arrangements.”

Of course, I am quoting from: an address by the Hon. Marc Lalonde on Thursday, June 10, 1976, at 7 p.m. There is a philosophy to which we all here subscribe. It is unfortunate that you do not seem to understand the very needs of these people.

In the light of the time restriction I would like to make reference once more to those rather peculiar agencies which don’t really fit in in total with this picture but which again are providing welfare services to children or care to children. Once more, as I did in my reply to the Throne Speech, I refer to women in transition and interval houses who are trying desperately to look after both the mothers and the children who find their way there as a result of the battered wife syndrome or the deserted wife who, with her children, needs care. These programmes are, of course, under the gun, as I understand it. I would like clarification from the minister as to whether he proposes to do something about those because, again, if he doesn’t, these children will add to the financial burden of the other agencies.

In closing, I would like to have from the minister a statement as to what standards we are now employing in day care because there has been no really unequivocal statement made by him. I would like to understand what his position is and whether all of this panoply is for babysitting services in his eye or whether indeed we are embarked on an early learning programme.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I must compliment the new chairman on the order he’s keeping in the committee.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Spence): Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In response, may I say in reference to the last query there has been no change nor do I contemplate any change in terms of the regulations under the Day Nurseries Act in terms of standards, whether they be ratios of supervision staff to children. I did mention that fact earlier in the House today in response to a question.

May I also reiterate that it’s a simple matter to talk about the demand or the need for more daycare places but it’s a very difficult thing to determine in a couple of respects. As you know, with the capital programme we have had, which is providing 100 per cent of the capital, it just couldn’t be taken up within the time frame we had anticipated.

It’s not just a question of money. It’s a matter of translating that money into actual construction and programmes, daycare centres in other words, in the communities. It’s not a simple matter of how much money and that’s why we have a carry-over this year of about $6 million capital --

Mr. McClellan: Otherwise you wouldn’t have a red cent.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It’s all right for you. As I say, its simple to say why don’t you have more, but these things have to come about and it takes a lot of planning.

Mr. McClellan: Despite your ministry, daycare facilities get built.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: There was a big involvement in doing this. It involves a lot of people. It involves the local municipality, the community. It may be a charitable organization; they have to arrange for 20 per cent of funding and they have considerations as well.

In terms of waiting lists, I’ve discussed this with the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto social services committee because they don’t really keep a waiting list as such. It’s a very fluid situation. It may be a parent or two parents requesting day care, maybe in several places. It may be subsidized day care. It’s very difficult to go by the number of applications there might have been to a daycare centre for day care.

Mention was made of the Victoria daycare service and some months ago it came to my attention that the number of applicants had declined. They weren’t getting the same response because the public perception was that day care had been cut out with cutbacks. Therefore people seemed to think from reading the newspapers that there wasn’t any more day care which is entirely false, of course.

Mrs. Campbell: Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: As I pointed out, there are a lot of new daycare places coming on stream.

I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the member’s remark.


Mrs. Campbell: Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much. I thought you were talking about a faint heart for a moment there, and you had me worried.

No, it’s not that. It’s a matter of really what we are doing.

Mr. Philip: At least she has one.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s how it works.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I hope you are not talking about a heart.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I am.

Mr. McClellan: The original thin man.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If you are not careful you are going to develop a sense of humour, and that will ruin your whole act.

We are trying and I think we have made great strides. Look at what we’ve accomplished over a very short period in terms of day care and purchase of daycare services. No doubt we will be getting into other aspects of this. You mentioned children, and when we get to that particular vote we will be dealing with Children’s Aid Societies and that type of operation.

Mrs. Campbell: Child abuse and all the rest of it.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Spence): The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. McClellan: I thought we were rotating. Didn’t we agree to rotate?

Mr. Acting Chairman (Spence): I understood that you were next. The member for Bellwoods.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, are we alternating then? I would suggest that we alternate, Mr. Chairman, to be fair.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Spence): And then the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay, you go ahead.

Mr. B. Newman: No, I think we should alternate, Mr. Chairman, to be fair.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Spence): All right.

Ms. Sandeman: I would like to address myself briefly to the extraordinary confusion that attends the group homes situation in this province at the moment. There are group homes specifically for young people and teenagers in particular.

I have tried hard to make some sense out of the jurisdictional muddle and the funding muddle for group homes. As I understand it, each part of the group homes system at the moment has its own problems, some of them directly under this ministry and some not.

The Children’s Institutions Act, for instance, gives permission for larger institutions to operate under charitable funding, and with subsidies up to 80 per cent from the province for some of the young people in them.

I understand that there are problems right now because this funding is in effect frozen for the rest of this year. The ministry announced that if there were, for instance, eight out of 12 children under the Children’s Institutions Act at the beginning of the year funded by provincial funding, that would be the figure that would be funded for the rest of the year. Even if later in the year there might be 10 or 11 children who would need that kind of funding, the money would not come; and the group homes would be in considerable difficulty.

The Children’s Boarding Homes Act covers the situation where you have over five unrelated children up to the age of 18 years living in one home. Many of those children are there as wards of the Children’s Aid Society. If they have the misfortune, however, to become in need of the care of a group home after their 16th birthday, they exist in some kind of limbo because the Child Welfare Act doesn’t cover them. It’s a real struggle for the group homes to find funding for them.

Then you have many privately operated registered group homes, usually based on an anti-institutional theory of child care. Many of those group homes have only two three or four children, and they get their funding wherever and however they can. There is complete confusion as to which children end up in which kind of group home under which ministry.

The Ministry of Correctional Services can send children to group homes. The Ministry of Correctional Services is also funding group homes with no legislative sanction, as far as I can see. It seems to me very odd that the Ministry of Correctional Services is able to expand its group homes service at a time when, under Community and Social Services, several of its group homes across the province are under threat of closure because of restraints on funding. The Ministry of Health, of course, is funding treatment centres. The Children’s Aid Society, under the Child Welfare Act, is placing children in homes.

I guess the real problem is that group homes in Ontario have no legislative reality as an entity. I can’t count how many pieces of legislation have some bearing on group homes,

There’s a constant conflict between the municipalities and the various ministries about who shall fund these children, how they shall be funded who shall bear the brunt of increasing costs.

We have constant problems about zoning of group homes. For instance, in Metro I understand that group homes can’t be in an R1 area, which would be the natural place that one would expect to find a family home. They can only be placed in R4 zoning areas. There are no unified criteria guiding the physical location of group homes. There are constant jurisdictional hassles as to who should pay, where should the homes be, who should the homes be accountable to.

The problem is that we’re not just talking about institutions, either small or large. We are talking about young people who have already considerable problems living in these homes, who find that their existence in them is very often precarious because the various levels of government, and your ministry, are hassling over the money, the geographical location, legislation, bylaws and so on.

I think at the moment one thing we’re seeing is that the straitjacket on provincial funding is adding fuel to the provincial-municipal conflict over funding. Group homes, which are under direct contract to ministries, seem to be on surer footing -- for instance, the Viking 2 programme under Correctional Services. But the privately run group homes have some real problems, particularly when you have, as you very often do have, highly motivated, highly ethical, highly skilled, child-care people running group homes who may not be such excellent businessmen, but who, in the past, have attempted to operate as thriftily as possible. In some cases I know of, they’ve managed on a per diem of $20 or $21 a day.

Their costs are skyrocketing -- their fuel, their hydro, the food for the children. All the things that children need these days are getting more and more expensive and they would like, of course, to increase the daily rate to a reasonable basis. Particularly if they have staff to pay. They are very conscious that funding or salaries, for staffing group homes, traditionally has been very low. They are conscious that to encourage good staff they must pay good salaries, and yet when they try to increase the per diem from $20 a day, they find they are restricted to a 5.5 per cent increase. This gives them, I think, just a little under $22 a day, which is a ridiculous amount in this day and age to try to run an excellent group home.

Again, I think the children suffer as they do in all situations where their parents, or the adults who are in charge of them, are under constant pressure and worry about money. The situation in the home always deteriorates. I think it’s particularly important, when you have a situation where the children are already under pressure, that the group home parents should be assured of a reasonable funding basis -- not so that they may become rich overnight, but so that the children, and the staff working with them, shall have a decent level of living.

I understand your interministerial committee on residential care is still working away, and several members of the House have asked you questions at frequent intervals about the whereabouts of that committee’s report. I hope you’ll be able to tell us today when that report is to be tabled in this House, and perhaps give us some idea of the kind of material that we shall see in it.

I understand also that consideration is being given to the presentation of a revised Act to come before the Legislature which would in some way incorporate the Children’s Institutions Act and the Children’s Boarding Homes Act under something which is perhaps to be called the Children’s Residential Services Act. That might go some way toward dealing with some of this legislative mishmash that I was talking about earlier.

Even if we managed to sort out some of the jurisdictional hassles and get rid some of the contradictions and anomalies in the non-system as it presently exists, it doesn’t really go very far toward solving the problem as I see it for children who end up in group homes, It seems to me that a very strange thing happens to children at the moment and the disposition of a child in a group home, I think, is made almost entirely according to the agency with which he or she first comes in contact.

You may have a child who has real difficulties in living in his own home. If he is picked up and taken to juvenile court, he will become, as it were, a corrections child and will probably go to a correctional services group home. If the Children’s Aid Society is called in to help him or help his family, he will probably go to a group home run by the Children’s Aid Society. If a local mental health organization gets involved with the family, he will probably end up in a Ministry of Health group home.

In other words, the decision is made not really on the perceived needs of the child but on the frame of mind of the agency which first comes into contact with him. Children in all these different homes with all their different philosophies may well have very similar problems. I think until we can, in some sense, rationalize children and not the needs of the agencies providing the services, the children are not always going to be best served by the group homes or wherever they end up.

At the moment, as I say, we have no rational plan for children’s services in this province. We have group homes provided by two or three ministries, funding from all over the place, and endless hassles about who does what for whom.

I think with regard to group homes, we need some kind of clear understanding that there’s a real gradation of need for children as regards homes that are not their own family homes, It is not so much that there are Ministry of Health children or Ministry of Correctional Services children or Community and Social Services children. They are children with different needs. I think those needs probably are on a gradation from a very secure setting with very sophisticated backup staff and psychiatrists, rehabilitative services, what you will, through to a very loose kind of halfway house, a boarding home setting if you like, for older children -- kids who have left school but who still need the anchor of a home to come home to, who are either working or in some kind of training and not living at home and need a safe, secure family. They don’t need the kind of sophisticated expensive services that a deeply troubled 10-year-old does or a child who has been battered or a child who has emotional problems.

There’s a gradation of need which should be met and which shouldn’t really depend on whether or not the child is in court and goes to a correction group home or whether he is with the Children’s Aid and goes to a Children’s Aid home or whatever. I think we have to recognize too, and maybe the minister already recognizes it, that there’s absolutely no guarantee that the more expensive placements for children guarantee a higher success rate.


There are very many dedicated group-home workers who are struggling along on $20 to $25 per diem with children whom they are trying to rescue, as it were, from the ill effects of maybe $100 a day placement. There’s, I think, a kind of hidden assumption that the more expensive services are in some sense better for the children serving them and that the simple kind of private group homes somehow can’t always do as much for the children. I think this clearly isn’t so; we have to give more attention to supporting the smaller group homes and making sure that, where necessary, they have backup services and recognize that for many children they are doing as good a job as, if not better than a training school at $75 a day for instance, or a Thistletown at $120 a day or whatever it may be.

Further, I think we have to clarify what we expect from group homes. I think sometimes our expectations are excessive. We have to clarify for the group home operators just what authority they have -- this comes back to what I was saying earlier about the need for tidying up and clarifying the legislation -- and we have to clarify the responsibility of group homes toward the children and the families they are serving.

When we look at group homes, I think there are three groups that must be protected in this whole business of operating homes for children. First, obviously, the children; they must be protected from inept or destructive operators of group homes. They must also be protected from inappropriate placement. They must be protected, much more than they are now, from the constant shifting around that goes on with kids: “If one group home doesn’t work, try another one.” There really has to be a commitment to finding the placement that will suit a child and helping him or her to stay there, because there is nothing more upsetting and destructive for an already unhappy child than to be moved from one home to another.

Secondly, I think the operators have to be protected -- that is, if they are giving good service; we’ve absolutely no reason at all to protect operators who are cheating the children in any way at all, either emotionally or physically. Good operators, giving a high standard of service in group homes, whether they are under a ministry contract or privately operated, must be assured of stability and must be clearly aware of the expectations we lay on them, because if they have no stability, if the children in their homes have no stability and many of them need some guidelines about what we expect them to do with our children.

Thirdly, the taxpayers have to be protected. There is no way that we want to be fleeced by unethical operators, and I think any legislative sanction for setting up group homes has to make quite sure that licences can be withdrawn from group home operators as well as given by the ministry.

To achieve the protection of these three groups, as I said earlier, we have to, first of all, unify the legislation dealing with group homes. We have to standardize the regulations and rationalize the funding; it probably would be a lot cheaper in the end to get a rational way of providing services for children, and I think your ministry is the obvious place where that should happen. It may have to be an interministerial policy but it needs some firm guidelines -- for funding, for zoning and for inspection. If necessary, you also have to be tough with municipalities that are trying to use zoning bylaws to keep group homes out of their areas; you know that goes on, and I think it has to be stopped.

We have to recognize, of course, that the fact that group homes are necessary at all is a reflection of the failure of families and of the failure of society to ensure the ability of families to be cohesive and to deal with their own children in their own homes. Good group homes are an efficient, effective and economic way of replacing the child’s own home with a stable, warm and productive environment. We have to remember that in the best of all possible worlds -- and I guess we will never get there -- we wouldn’t need group homes. What we do need is genuine preventive and rehabilitative social policies for families and children.

I think perhaps we have to wean ourselves away from too easily falling into the trap of saying, we’ve got a lot of troubled kids and a lot of troubled families, let’s set up more group homes. It seems to me that with preventive and rehabilitative work with the families and kids in trouble we could, very often, prevent the necessity for removing the children from their home.

The Ministry of Correctional Services is beginning to try to do this with its diversionary procedures. They are trying to ensure that they don’t have to send so many kids to training schools. Maybe we could look for diversionary procedures for emotionally disturbed children or families that seem to be cracking up.

I think my colleague from Bellwoods described an interesting and very effective, helpful programme for single mothers bringing up their children alone. The social job programme which he described, I think, could go a long way towards providing economic and emotional stability, for mothers alone with their children. It would make it unnecessary for those kids to end up in group homes.

In many families the divisive factor is financial worries. Obviously credit counselling, getting people back to work, getting the economy moving, might well prevent the necessity for children ending up in group homes. I know it’s not your business, Mr. Minister, to single-handedly provide jobs for all the unemployed. However, I think it is your business to speak to your colleagues in other ministries about the necessity for good preventive services such as birth control. Some families crack up under the pressure of just too many kids in the home with too little money.

Family counselling of all kinds, really tough family counselling -- not just going a couple of times to the family counsellor’s office to see what you can talk about -- is important. If necessary, somebody should live with the family and help them for as long as it’s necessary. This may well prevent the necessity for putting kids in group homes.

Most preventive services, I think, are less expensive to deliver than any kind of institutional service, however small it may be, but they’re invaluable in human terms. They save us millions of dollars in the long run. I hope your ministry will look at the whole gamut of services to children and to families in terms of prevention and then recognize, of course, that there are some families, some situations, that cannot be saved.

It’s better for the child to be taken out of the home in as few cases as possible. When that does happen, we must have services for children that meet the needs of the children and not the need of some bureaucratic system which has been set up by a ministry, an agency or whatever it may be.

I would hope that today you can give us some of the preliminary thinking of your interministerial group that is thinking about group homes and give me some assurance that we are going to have a rationalization of services for kids who can’t live in their own homes.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville --

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I thought the purpose of the debate was to share the time fairly equally.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The Chair was just going to comment for the benefit of the hon. member and of the committee that it is my understanding there has been some consultation and agreement between the House leaders to try to divide the time on an equitable basis. I would just draw to the member’s attention that we could more or less support the concurrence of the House leaders in this case.

The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Just a moment, I think the hon. minister wants to respond to something previous.

Mr. B. Newman: I’ll let the minister reply.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If I may just make some short reply, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the division of time, I may say I’ve been very interested in what the member for Peterborough said. I think she obviously has a real feel and knowledge in this area which I appreciate very much.

The comment that we have to make sure that we look after the child and not the agency as the paramount consideration, I think, is most important. Sometimes we lose sight of that. We lose sight of the substance in developing the form. I think that’s important; the feeling, if I am not mistaken, that we have to ensure that we put a child in a more normal setting. The deinstitutionalization of very structured agencies or institutions wherein we are trying, presumably, to reform the person or make that person more adaptable to the community to solve all of the problems, of course, is the trend in terms of Correctional Services. It is to close down the training schools in much as possible.

There will always be a need, I am sure, for some type of institution, no matter what it is, but certainly that’s the thrust of the Ministry of Correctional Services in terms of its programme for more group homes. I am glad to see that. Whether we talk about the elderly or children, the mentally retarded or whoever it is, it’s a matter of developing community-based settings as much as possible in which we are going to integrate and normalize that person into the main stream of the community.

That’s often difficult and it is difficult as it is reflected in zoning. You have raised the question of zoning and municipal controls. There is some fear, some concern, on the part of municipalities and land use planners that we should not see this mix and when you talk of group homes, it’s all types of group homes -- I am talking about the broad spectrum of group homes. I know it is a very difficult matter and one which we have tackled. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned earlier in the House -- it might have been a month or two ago, I’m not sure, in response to a question from your leader -- we have attempted to develop a zoning bylaw which could accommodate group homes in a community and, hopefully, permit this type of development without causing a division or upset in the community or at the planning level.

These are local problems and I agree we must be firm and hopefully show some leadership in this area. When we look at children’s services in regard to residential care, may I correct the member for Peterborough? It is not my committee; it is the interministerial committee which has reported to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, whom you will have the pleasure of addressing or interrogating a little later today.

That report has been made. I am very involved in many of the aspects of the report and as I mentioned some time ago, again in response to a question in the House, we have drafted a combination of the Children’s Institutions Act and the Children’s Boarding Homes Act, in order to rationalize the field of residential care for children. Hopefully, it will be a Children’s Residential Care Act or some such piece of legislation which will address the problems you’ve raised and deal with them in a very sensible and sensitive way.

Ms. McClellan: How soon can we expect that? Do you have a time limit?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I am hoping we will be able to bring that in in the fall because I would like to see things happen. Rather than talk about it, let’s try it; let’s do something. That is an area I am dealing with now.

In terms of rates, again, I can only agree. I think much of what the member has said is absolutely correct. It makes good sense. Rates don’t necessarily mean you are going to get better care because you spend more money.


In our Boarding Homes Act, for example, I think the average rate in Ontario is about $27.50 a day. In the Children’s Institutions Act, it’s about $26 a day, at the average. If you look at residential rates, they vary. You mentioned from $20 probably to -- I don’t know -- $60. Maybe it’s a little less, maybe $45, if we’re talking about Viking 1, for example. I think it’s in the $45 range, category. When you get into more institutional type of care, of course you’re into the higher sums that you mentioned.

I’m convinced also, that it’s not just a question of the amount of money in these matters. So I can only agree that what you have said, I think, makes a lot of sense. We have to concentrate on the people we’re trying to help. Sometimes that involves maybe upsetting some agencies but, so be it. I’m also happy, incidentally, to hear that you don’t necessarily have to have great expectations. Sometimes we do expect more than we can accomplish. While we must, I suppose, aim high, nevertheless what we must do is our very best to accommodate the people we have who are in need and the people we can help. So I just want to say, I appreciated those comments.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I hope that, rather than alternate speakers, you share the time alike between the two opposition parties because the party to our right certainly hasn’t played fair as far as the time allocation is concerned, Because of the time being so short, I intend to curtail my remarks.

Mr. Chairman, there isn’t one of us on this side of the House, who isn’t concerned with the provision of daycare services. In my own community we’re just as concerned as they are in any other community. We know that because of the minister’s cutbacks, the charges for the daycare services have had to be increased and, as a result, those that really need the services are the ones that find themselves disadvantaged to a greater extent and can’t afford the services.

The fact that you had the young ladies demonstrating here this afternoon in the Speaker’s gallery indicates the great concern of those who provide the services and who know the need for the services. Their demonstration showed to us --

Mr. McNeil: Do you really believe that, Bernie?

Mr. B. Newman: -- that we have been possibly a little lax or a little slow in the provision of services to those who really need them.

I wanted only to make one suggestion to the minister, and I’m talking on this vote -- the social services vote -- because of not the proliferation, but the large numbers of agencies in a given municipality that provide various types of social services to this residents of that municipality, and a suggestion that they happened to make. They’ve suggested that there only be two emergency numbers in a telephone book, and one be for fire and police and the other be for social needs and social assistance, and that that agency, for social assistance, should be funded completely by your department so that the individual who is distraught and calls because of some type of social problem knows where to go and which agency to contact.

In my own community you do happen to have an information services, but it does not operate around the clock and people in need could need the assistance of an agency at all hours of the day. You have only the two numbers. You fund it so that the individual who needs those services can be directed from that number, to call the agency from which he or she can obtain those services. I think it makes good sense when you have 40 different agencies in a community. If a person has a problem, there’s no way of getting hold of any one of the 40 agencies. They wouldn’t know which agency to turn to. But if there was simply the one number for social help in a community, in calling that number the individual could be directed to the agency that could be of maximum assistance to the person calling. I only put that suggestion out. I am curtailing my remarks. Mr. Minister, so that our critic, the member for Nipissing will have a chance to speak at greater length.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, that suggestion may make a lot of sense. I am no denying that, and when I get the calls in the middle of the night as minister, I just refer them to your riding office and to you and I hope that they are looked after from there.

Mr. B. Newman: Not all of them come to my riding office. We know what to do with them when they come to my riding office. But not everyone call my riding office. They call the police. They call the fire --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Well, that may be a good sign. I don’t know. Maybe things are looking up in Windsor-Walkerville. But seriously --

Mr. B. Newman: They have always been looking very well, Mr. Minister. The constituents have always been well taken care of.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You keep telling me that and I have no reason to believe otherwise because you are a very convincing gentleman. But if you are talking about a sort of information centre, or somewhere where a person could phone, and I suppose they call them information and referral, that’s something I suppose could be done at the municipal level. We could subsidize that as a part of their administrative costs. There is one approach that might be taken.

I think that we have to ensure that we have generalists in the field who can understand the gambit of social services. You mentioned about 40 agencies and it’s difficult. Even with the agencies that we do have, if you go to one they may not know where to refer someone else. Instead of the degree of specialization it may be that we need a breed of person who is able to have the overview and the generalist approach and be of some help himself, in terms of that particular person and know here to go if he can’t provide the narrow or the more technical information.

I can see that. As a matter of fact, it may be an aspect of the situation we are dealing with in terms of social service centres. We have several in Ontario where we are trying to effect an integration into a single-thought situation where a person can have the information that he requires -- not only the information but the assistance that he requires -- in one spot instead of getting on the bureaucratic merry-go-round and suffering the aggravation of that and probably not getting the kind of help that he wants. It is something I am pursuing now.

As a matter of fact in York South, I guess it is, there’s a centre that the member is very interested in and which we have been looking at. I propose to see that that is funded for an additional period of time to see what can come out of that.

There’s a rural situation in Frontenac-Addington, another area that is serviced by a centre where you have the medical as well as the social service element implicit in the centre. I think that we can do more in the field. I think we have to really make an appraisal of that system.

When you talk about the number of agencies, we are going to have to get to the agencies and make sure that as the member for Peterborough said, we don’t get lost in the interest of the agency as opposed to the interest of the individual and maybe work together more co-operatively to solve the problems of the individual in terms of a collective social service agency. I think the concept and concern that you have is understood by me.

I would be happy to pursue the information type and referral type of centres that you mentioned. It’s really, I suppose, a 24-hour service that you’re talking about -- to tide someone over regardless of whether it’s day or night. I appreciate your comments and concern.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, it’s extremely difficult at times to get the individual you want in one of the ministries of government. You’ll start with the minister’s level and you’ll go right down the ladder sometimes, and make six or seven phone calls before you get the individual. We who know a little about the operation of government have that difficulty. Think of the person who is distraught and needs assistance and sometimes needs it immediately. There’s got to be a better way.

Just as you made mention toward the end of your comments, I hope that you give it serious consideration. If necessary, I hope you would set up a pilot programme in some community so that we could develop a system where the individual could at least get immediate attention.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the need for a generalist. You can appreciate if you’re trying to get someone on that merry-go-round to 40 agencies who are probably closed -- you’ll never get them to stay open 24 hours a day -- at least it’s not likely that you would. You’d need someone there that had a general overview and experience. It may be that the local welfare office might be the agency that could be open. It could be run through the municipality and subsidized through the administrative costs.

Mr. R. S. Smith: This vote is now 10 minutes past the agreed time but I do have a few comments that I want to make in regard to the Children’s Aid Society which haven’t been dealt with at all. If we pass it now there will be no further dealings with it.

I understand the minister has now made it quite clear by letter to one of the members that he is not interested in carrying on the give-and-take that started last year about this time with his predecessor, in regard to protection and preventive services that could be provided under the same Act as the Children’s Aid Society. In fact, one section of that Act already provides for the service, but the implementation and financing of that service is really in question.

I understand from the member for Sudbury East that he now has a letter from you that there will be no further discussions in that regard. I think that that is a real dereliction of your duty. It obviously shows that there just isn’t the interest in this government in preventative services. Without them, you’re going to fall more and more behind.

In fact, with the restrictions of 5.5 per cent, or whichever you agree to with individual Children’s Aid Societies, put alongside your decision not even to discuss some type of supplement to preventative services, it becomes more apparent that these children who do come under the Children’s Aid Societies and the families who require service from those societies are going to be denied the specific services they require. We’re going to have more children come into care. The cost is going to be greater both in terms of dollars and cents, which seems to be the guiding feature insofar as your ministry is concerned, and in terms of the lives of these young people, which is of more particular concern, as far as I’m concerned.

The other comment I’d like to make in regard to Children’s Aid Societies is this. The other day I indicated that 15 of the 50 Children’s Aid Societies have had their submissions for funding for this year approved as submitted; 19 additional have the ministry approval; four are expected to be appealed; while nine are still being negotiated and three are outstanding. They are now halfway through their fiscal year. I’d like you to tell me in as few words as possible how these Children’s Aid Societies are to operate for six months in the dark as to what they can spend -- perhaps for another three months in some cases, if your process carries on into August or September, before they find out what their budget is, starting last January. Thus, it becomes very difficult. I would specifically like to ask you what the position is now in regard to the Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society and when some resolution of that one can be expected.


I had a number of other comments I wished to make in regard to Children’s Aid Societies, but I do dispute the remark that you made the other day, and which I pointed out to you was incorrect by quoting to you a statement you had made previously, that your first position was they would be at 5.5 per cent; there would be nothing more and nothing less and that was it. You changed your position on that. I congratulate you for changing your position, but I wish you would admit that you made a change, because it was obvious that you did make a change.

The only other thing I can comment on under this vote, in view of the limited time restriction, is the question of increases for the senior citizens in our province insofar as the operational costs of their centres are concerned. Here we have a case where even the 5.5 per cent doesn’t apply; there is no increase, but rather a strict freeze of $15,000 at the maximum, as I understand it. I don’t know how you expect them to do that in light of the inflationary trends and in light of what you said about not cutting back in services, that with the 5.5 per cent or the eight per cent you are allowing, you are keeping the same service as you had last year. But in the particular instance I am talking about there is no increase whatsoever; therefore, to use your own words, we can look for a decrease in service.

The other thing I would like to question again is how you come to 10 per cent or more for the operations of your ministry, eight per cent or 7.5 per cent for the operations of municipal government in this area, and then 5.5 per cent for all the other agencies, including Children’s Aid Societies and many others, and no percentage increase for some, such as community centres for the aged. I can’t rationalize that; it’s very difficult for me. When I add things up they all come to the same thing if I use all the same figures, but apparently that doesn’t apply within this ministry. If you can answer those few questions for me quickly, we could get on to the next vote.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the Children’s Aid Societies, certainly I made it fairly plain during January and February that it would be necessary to set guidelines in terms of an overall percentage increase, which was set at 5.5 per cent. Those were the guidelines that I thought should be followed; at the same time I made mention of the fact that there were some areas of concern to me.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You didn’t mention them.

Hon Mr. Taylor: I mentioned them in a lot of places in January and February when I travelled throughout Ontario, because I was very mindful of the fact --

Mr. R. S. Smith: I listened intently and you didn’t say a word about them.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Well, maybe not when you were in North Bay --

Mr. R. S. Smith: I was there all the time.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I thought you were there -- at least you were there in form, if nothing else -- and I appreciate your comments and your concern.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I was there in mind; you were there in matter.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No matter, never mind, eh?

Mr. Nixon: The question is, you didn’t say what you said in North Bay.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In any event, what I did say throughout Ontario was that I was most mindful of the impact of the repeal of section 8 of the Training Schools Act and the additional physical and financial burden that was in fact being transferred -- to municipalities and Children’s Aid Societies. It was in that area of concern that I did address the problem at the cabinet level and did obtain additional funding. There was, as is reflected in the budget and as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, some $3.2 million that has been used to address these particular areas of concern

If you look at the 50 Children’s Aid Societies, actually 24 have been settled or approved as such. In other words, there wasn’t a dispute in regards to those. There were another 20 that weren’t completely happy with my recommendation, and again I am putting it as nicely as I can.

Mr. Warner: That is a nice way to put it

Hon. Mr. Taylor: They thought that maybe they should have additional funds. In any event, as you know, the municipality must approve these before I can give my final approval. Don’t for a moment think that the municipalities aren’t concerned in terms of their share, which is 20 per cent of CAS budgets, because we had several appeals from municipalities whose interest really was an interest of the taxpayer in terms of saving moneys on the municipal budget. So, we had that situation.

We also had some that held at the 5.5 per cent increase. We have, as I mentioned, about four appeals.

I think it is important to put a little perspective on this. In 1965 we had a new Child Welfare Act, and prior to that the funding was 40 per cent at the provincial level and 60 per cent at the municipal level. That changed to 60 per cent by the province and 40 per cent at the municipal -- so there was reversal of that. It wasn’t until January of 1975 that we introduced the present funding of 80 per cent at the provincial level and 20 per cent financed by the municipalities.

So, you can see the additional funding that has come through the province to the Children’s Aid Societies over a short period of time. If you look at the escalating costs in overall terms, you will see that a year ago the average increase across Ontario for budgets was 23 per cent. Some were higher and some were lower, hot that was additional spending.

There is a need, I think, to settle out as much as possible the ever-escalating costs of running Children’s Aid Societies.

Again, it is not a question of how much money you spend. If you look at the figures last year you will see that more staff was taken on by Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario and additional children coming into care. So, it is not just a question of spending.

I may say that the overall average, with the additional funding, works out to 7.6 per cent. In regard to direct childcare costs, it is probably about 10 per cent additional -- because I address myself to that area of direct child care costs.

As you know, the budgets of the Children’s Aid Societies are divided into three parts. Part one deals with direct child care costs and concern me, because I wanted to ensure -- in accordance with an undertaking that I gave around this province -- that no child in true need was going to suffer because of the constraint programme. And I am living up to that undertaking. It may be that additional costs will be incurred as we experience a further transfer of children from training schools to Children’s Aid Societies, I have said to the Children’s Aid Societies that I am prepared to monitor their experience in this regard. If there is some extraordinary costs involved because of, for example, the repeal of section 8, then I’ll address myself to that problem. No matter how much money you put on the table, it’ll be consumed. I think we have to ensure that --

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is a gratuitous statement,

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It may be gratuitous, but there’s no end to ways of spending money. I think we have to ensure that the money is spent in the best interests of the people we’re trying to help. That was the very point made by the member for Peterborough when she said we have to be concerned about the interests of the child, as opposed to the interests of the agency. I think that’s important.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You can’t do it under our present group homes set-up.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I would like to respond to the question of another committee. I’m familiar with the one you mentioned because the member for Sudbury East mentioned it to me earlier. There was some correspondence on it.

I’m not convinced of the need for another committee. We have a committee on child abuse. We have the interministerial committee on residential care that has reported and does touch on some ways in terms of prevention, if you’re talking prevention. We have other committees. There’s one on emotional problems, I believe, of children that is an interministerial committee. I don’t think we necessarily solve the very real live problems of children by setting up some other committee.

I hope to be able to address those problems as directly, and as quickly, as possible within the structure we have. I want to make mention of that fact because you seem to be somewhat disappointed in the fact that no committee had been set up.

Now, if there are any other points I that I have missed, I’d be happy to address myself to them.

Mr. McClellan: I had just one quick question on the Children’s Aid, and I think we can move on to the next vote. First, the comment that we had asked your executive assistant for the disposition of the budget for the Children’s Aid Societies some time ago. Despite promises of delivery we haven’t received them. That makes it very difficult. I gather there are a substantial number that haven’t settled. Fifteen have settled within the guidelines.

My question is, what happens to the societies that have settled for less than they may turn out to need realistically? There are no provisions, as I understand it, for supplementary budgeting. That is to say, the municipalities can’t deal with a supplementary budget. I hope you’re not taking the position that people who have settled at 5.5 per cent and then find it impossible because of increased workload, or for whatever reasons to live on that, are not going to be subjected to a deduction from their 1977 budget.

How are you going to handle the issue of supplementary budgeting for people who settled below what they need? Secondly, how soon are we going to get a complete settlement? You’re bound by the Child Welfare Act to deal with this budget process by a certain date. You’re continually in violation of the Act. You’re in violation again this year. How much longer are we going to have to wait for a complete settlement of the CAS budget?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, may I say I have personally addressed myself to each of the budgets. The ministry has made its submission to the Children’s Aid Societies. I cannot unilaterally say, “Here, this is your budget.” In the budgeting process, as you may know, there’s a submission from the CAS --

Mr. McClellan: I understand that.


Hon. Mr. Taylor: I cannot give final approval until the municipality has approved it. I have written to all of the Children’s Aid Societies making my submission in terms of the amount I am suggesting for their budget. If the municipality agrees, of course, I would approve it at that amount. I am doing the best I can to finalize those budgets. There are some Children’s Aid Societies which have not agreed to the amounts suggested. Last week, as a matter of fact, I met one of the larger ones which was concerned in terms of obtaining additional funding to what was suggested.

I can’t do anything more than that. If they won’t agree, and the municipality doesn’t agree, I can’t give final approval.

Mr. McClellan: What about the issue of a supplementary budget? If an agency whose settlement is 5.5 per cent, finds it can’t live on it, what are you going to do? Fifteen have settled at the guideline. In the case of one of those which has settled but can’t live with the guideline -- others are getting 10 per cent to 15 per cent increases -- what is going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Very briefly on that. When I went around this province and stated what the guidelines were, I wanted to make sure that those which did their very level best to comply with the guidelines and did comply with the guidelines would not be penalized because of others which exerted pressures and enjoyed additional money. It was for that reason that I examined closely --

Mr. Warner: Those were not legitimate.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- all the Children’s Aid Societies, even those which came in at 5.5 per cent. If it looked to me that in the area of direct child care costs it was not realistic. I wanted to make sure that the budgetary figure was realistic. I want to repeat myself --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Don’t repeat yourself.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- I am monitoring some of these and if there are legitimate costs which are incurred, say, in this area and supplementary budgets are submitted, I will deal with those as well.

Mr. Warner: Are you suggesting the others weren’t legitimate?

Mr. R. S. Smith: I had one question in my previous remarks on this which you didn’t answer. That’s in regard to approvals of the Children’s Aid Society budgets, and the specific one I asked you about was Thunder Bay. Could you give me a short concise answer?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Thunder Bay?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Sure. It is one of those which are presently under negotiation. The percentage increase recommended is 12.3 per cent.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is your last position?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Yes. I have a tabulation of what my submissions to the various societies were after examining their budgets very carefully. I came up with that increase there and again I zeroed in on the direct childcare costs, an increase of 12.3 per cent.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is set, is it?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is in their hands now.

Vote 2702 agreed to.

On vote 2703:

Mr. McClellan: I don’t intend to take up a great chunk of time on mental retardation. I am committed to trying to equalize the time even though we have no run over and I expect that will be possible.

I do want to deal with a concern I raised in the question period last week with respect to the Kenora Association for the Mentally Retarded. I don’t want to dwell on that particular association because I understand that the ministry has been in touch and that some progress has been made in working out their budget, although the latest word I had is they still have had no definite decision with respect to the workshop.

The dilemma of the Kenora Association for the Mentally Retarded illustrates very clearly a potentially disastrous course that the ministry may be on. The minister runs around the province with a lot of rhetoric about the importance of the voluntary sector or the private sector or the non-governmental sector. Let me tell you something; I worked in that sector for a good many years and I know it very well. I know just how difficult it is for volunteers, like the volunteers in associations for the mentally retarded, to run programmes to provide services when government fiddles around, and delays and procrastinates and gives contradictory policy assertions and changes its funding criteria and changes its administrative procedures with staggering regularity.

The blight of the voluntary sector, quite frankly, is having to deal with the vagaries of government administration and government funding policies. More good voluntary services have gone belly-up because of that than probably any other thing that I know of. From the evidence that I have, meagre as it is and limited to a few societies, there are sufficient grounds to give me real concern that you may be heading in the same direction.

If you cannot set up administrative procedures to help local associations to develop this programme, get a package or programme together and then get the thing vetted through quickly. Your whole community-based programme for the mentally retarded is in jeopardy. The whole community living programme is in jeopardy. You simply have to be able to move more quickly than you did in the case of Kenora. It’s simply not going to work to expect the voluntary associations to put together a plan in September or October or November, and then in -- where are we now, in June -- the following June, still have no decision around a programme that was supposed to start in March or April. That’s a recipe for disaster. That’s a recipe to kill the whole community living programme if you allow that kind of thing to continue.

You have to be able to decentralize. You have to be able to give your field people more authority than they seem to have. You can’t be second-guessing the decisions of the district working group which arrives at a plan in January only to find the ministry rerouting parts of it and changing decisions in May, June and on down the line.

Mr. Minister, if you do that, the community living programme is in real jeopardy and I’m impressed enough with the speedy response to the Kenora situation that I’m optimistic that you won’t allow that to happen. It could happen very easily in a ministry as cumbersome as yours and as unaccustomed to dealing quickly with community groups in the community-based services.

I really hope the Kenora situation will give you pause and that if you have problems around your vetting period for the proposals of the district working groups, that you really pay some attention to that and make sure that the process is speeded up and that it operates as quickly and as close to the grassroots level as is possible. Don’t start rerouting parts through the district office and parts through the mental retardation branch because that too is a recipe for disaster.

We’re very committed to seeing the community-living concept work in this party. We think it is a good programme; it’s a good concept. I say we probably couldn’t design a better programme ourselves in terms of the concepts as a model for services for the mentally retarded. It’s excellent. Our concern is that you don’t, frankly, screw it up -- that you don’t, on the one hand, allow situations like Huronia to get out of control and on the other hand that you don’t, though your ministry’s traditional failure to deal as equals and as partners with the social service community, compromise and eliminate the ability of the associations and the district working groups to develop real programmes. That’s basically the main point I wanted to make.

I want very quickly to express real sorrow that you have imposed means testing on daycare services for the mentally retarded. I share the view of the association. That operates as a deterrent to families with mentally retarded kids. The effect will be remove daycare services from some retarded kids. That means the effects of the retardation will be worsened as will be institutional costs in future years. The additional costs would have been unnecessary had they been allowed to enter the daycare programme in the same way that the Ministry of Education provides free services to children who are deaf. You should be doing the same thing. Your policy should be lined up with that of the Ministry of Education.

I will leave it at that for now. I will see how the time goes. I have a number of other areas I could raise, one being my utter bewilderment which is shared by the association and everybody I have talked to about what a community resource centre is. Nobody seems to know.

Let’s leave that, though. If you could deal with the rest of the issues I have raised, then we should perhaps come back to the question of an operational definition of a community resource centre, or a resource centre’s programme.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, the problem in connection with the whole field of mental retardation, as you know, is really a two-way flow or understanding -- the community on the one side and the residence of people we are trying to help on the other. I agree, and I am glad the member agrees, with the philosophy we are practising in terms of the institutionalization and normalization use of the generic services by these mental retarded in the community.

Again, there is a responsibility on your part as well to make sure that we engender a spirit of goodwill in the community, so that we don’t raise apprehensions and misconceptions in regard to the mentally retarded so that they in fact retard our programme to develop more community-based settings, whether they be group homes, workshops, sheltered workshops, or what have you.

I am again delighted you are happy with the progress in connection with Kenora. I take that as a compliment. Now and then you exhibit an overwhelming gesture of generosity. I am going to accept that in the spirit in which it is given. I appreciate the swiftness with which we acted to right that situation. There has been some slowness in processing applications. I was very mindful of that.

When the question came up in the House, I made reference to the fact there was an internal reorganization that had been made fairly recently to accommodate in one section the whole field of workshops rather than the split jurisdiction to expedite the applications.


Kenora was only one. Others have been mentioned. I may say that as recently as today, a dozen letters have gone out manifesting approval, in principle, of different workshops. I am anxious now that we have the moneys in the budget to get on with the work. Let’s see what we can do in this whole field. We have a lot of good people. I know of your experience in the ministry, but I must say things have speeded up since you left -- not because you left; don’t get me wrong, I don’t want a misrepresentation of that -- but in the interlude, from your adventures in my ministry to now, we have streamlined and expedited the processing of applications. With the recent changes, I think you’re going to see some real effects in the field, that’s what I’m interested in, seeing that, on the ground, we have the type of thing we’ve been talking about. We have the resources in the budget to do it and you can rest assured that we’re going to proceed expeditiously in that connection.

I won’t get into resource centres and district working groups. I could do. I would like to give you my interpretation of a resource centre because I think it’s a good concept and I think it’s a concept that has been well-received by district working groups throughout Ontario. Contrary to some remarks that might have been made at provincial association meetings or a meeting -- and I say that singularly or plurally -- really, individually, I think that associations for the mentally retarded are committed not only to the district working groups in that overall community involvement, but also to the concept of the resource centre for the retarded, where the type of programming, the type of analyses, the diagnostic services, the assessment of individuals and that type of thing, can develop. We see specialized treatment for people who are very individual in their needs and their circumstances and I think you’re going to see, in the not too distant future, great strides made because of the development of these concepts.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of things I’d like to bring to the minister’s attention in regard to this vote. Perhaps I should start out by indicating to him that this party supports the promises and commitments that have been made by your ministry over the years, insofar as the so-called policy of normalizations of living of the mentally retarded, and their movement back out into the community from the large institutions, and even their division in the large institutions, have taken place over the past three or four years.

I can recall in my own community that five years ago we had a psychiatric hospital where there was no division made between those people who were mentally retarded and those people who were psychiatric in nature. Of course, they had about 800 or 900 people stuffed into an institution that should have held about 600 and they had three or four, I think, practising psychiatrists to look after those 800-and-some people. So they were all treated the same. They were all, more or less, held in retention and held under drug treatment, rather than any other type of treatment that might have provided any success at all in bringing them back to the community and providing them, at least, with the opportunity to live a somewhat normal life, according to their ability.

This, I believe, was the case right across this province for a good length of time. Not only were those people who had psychiatric problems treated in that way, but mixed in with them were the mentally retarded, many of whom at a very young age entered those institutions and never came out. If they had been given the opportunity, and the training necessary, they could have taken their place, perhaps not fully, in society but in some cases very close to it. I agree, and this party certainly supports, the programme of moving the mentally retarded with special training out into the community, into a great number of varied types of homes, so has been recommended by interministerial task forces.

Your ministry states that it is “making available to all mentally retarded people patterns of life and conditions of every-day living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and ways of life of our society.” That, I believe, is to be a worthwhile goal. I should hope your ministry -- and particularly yourself and Mr. Gordon, the assistant deputy minister -- are intent on achieving that goal. It is of significant importance if the change from Health to Community and Social Services is really to mean anything in regard to the people we are talking about.

So the issue in mental retardation today is whether the government intends to stick to its promises and its commitments and I believe I have outlined those. The key target is normalization in community living for the mentally retarded and we will question you later on as to how far you have come in this regard insofar as the goals that have been set within your own ministry and by your outside consultants.

One point that should be raised, however, is the question of the events that have occurred at some institutions, and I refer particularly to some of the instances at Orillia.

By not responding properly when it appeared that a problem existed at Orillia, I believe that the government has seriously undermined the normalization programme and the entire idea of community living for the retarded. Certainly it has in that community.

We are happy to see an investigative body appointed at Orillia to report on some of the difficulties that have arisen there. This will help allay the fears of the community as to the intent and progress that has taken place within the programmes that your ministry has outlined.

It has been insinuated and said that a great many mentally retarded people have serious psychiatric problems as well. It would be helpful for the public to know how many mentally retarded people really do have serious psychiatric problems. I believe that you will find that perhaps four or five or six per cent have these problems.

The percentage of mentally retarded people who have serious psychiatric problems will not be any greater if and when you release the facts and figures that I know are in your hands now. I don’t believe the percentage will be much different than in the general scope of people right across this province.

I believe that the mentally retarded, so far as that type of overlay is concerned, are no different from the average person on the street. They may or may not have that type of psychotic problem on the same percentage basis that you or I or anyone else walking around may suffer from at one time or another, or are continually suffering from that type of psychotic condition. I believe the same applies to sexual problems, and the questions that come up in that area in that the mentally retarded are not different from the average person in that regard.

You have done studies and I have asked you for a copy of those studies. They were done not by your ministry but outside the ministry. I wrote you a letter some time ago -- just a second I’ll find it here -- in regards to this specific. These are some of the things that we wanted to know but to which we didn’t get the answers.

Some time ago you commissioned a study -- a service needs analysis of the mentally retarded in the different institutions and those that were in the community across the province. Included in that study was a great long list, and a number of questions the answers to which I believe should be available to us and to the public. I think it would answer some of those significant points such as I just brought up -- in regards to their tendency towards sexual or psychotic problems in comparison with the general public.

I think it’s very important if you are to make your programme work in the community that you give this type of information to the public so that they realize these people basically are no different from the neighbour next door, because you are placing them in the community as a neighbour next door. For that reason you need to reassure them they are no different from the people next door. They deserve not only the opportunity but also the support of the community as they move out of the institutionalized living that held them back in many cases for so many years -- in some cases for 20 or 30 years.

I know of cases in my own community where they’ve maintained residency in the psychiatric hospital and they should never have been there in the first place. But they stayed there for a period of 15 or 20 years, and have now come to the point where they are out living in the community. I believe the community should be ready to support those people and should be ready to accept them. But to withhold from the public all the information that is available is to say to the people, “Accept these people blindly and on our word.” I don’t think that helps them and I don’t think it helps the community. I don’t think it helps anybody, but particularly the people who we’re so particularly concerned about and that is the mentally retarded.

I say this for those people who are mentally retarded at any age -- childhood right through to the adults. In my area we are dealing more particularly with the adult, but I think the same applies in many other institutions such as Orillia or Smiths Falls or right across the whole province.

But I wrote the minister that letter on June 3, requesting a copy of the results of the service needs analysis survey. I had the survey as it was outlined in a release from your ministry some months ago. It’s very lengthy and it’s very perceptive of the information that your ministry certainly requires in order to develop a programme. But it is also very necessary for the general public to have the results of this type of thing made available too, for the purpose I’ve gone over. The answer I got from you -- I realize you do have the results -- boil down to -- I’ll just skip through your reply:

“Thank you for your letter of inquiry of June 1st. This survey was carried out according to a questionnaire that you’ve already seen. The information from the survey when it was finally tabulated was fed into a computer from which we can extract as required various types of information for planning.”

I think it’s a little more significant than to be put into a computer so that only your people can find out what’s in there when you want it for some kind of planning. I think the information and the answers to all these questions are significant to the people who are working in the field with the mentally retarded. They are significant to the people who are working in the psychiatric hospitals from where we are still trying to move many of these people. They are also significant to the people who are running the different types of homes that we hope you are beginning to establish throughout the community.


I think if you just stick all this information in a computer and leave it there, and for your people to be able to pull it out as they require it and nobody else really to have public access to it, is not proper. I think that there was $200,000 or $300,000 spent on this survey and I think to make best use of it, it should be available.

However, you went on in your letter of reply to me: “The material, in its most useful form is produced in the form of computer printout by district.” In other words, what you’re telling me is that you don’t have the statistics put together for the whole province, that you’ve done it for each individual district. You also go on to point out to me that it would be available to me to find out from my district what the answer to these questions were. If I got in touch with the coordinator of the district office, it would be explained to me.

The questions are pretty blunt; they’re pretty straightforward. I can understand the questions; I’m sure I can understand the answers if they were given to me. I don’t need anybody to explain the quite simple type of question that was put forward in that questionnaire. I may need some person to explain to me why these questions were put forward and what the significance of the answer is. I do agree that as a layman I certainly would require that type of input. But I am able to get that if I am able to get the answers.

It was really odd, though, the way you ended up your letter:

“As a result of the survey we do have one summary table which we find extremely useful for reference purposes. It indicates the original domicile of the residents in our schedule 1 facilities by ministry districts. [And you said:] And I enclose this in case you find it of interest.”

That’s only one of a whole number of questions; that’s what it is, just one piece of paper. The questionnaire is how many pages long? I don’t know; it’s a good length anyway. There are a good number of questions. I read it through and many of the questions are very much more pertinent than the numbers that you provided here. Although this is of some value in trying to assess what the real problem is across the province insofar as numbers are concerned, it doesn’t give any other indication as to what you’re going to base your programmes on.

I think it’s important that we, as critics in the Legislature, both in the party sitting to my right and ourselves, should have this information available. You say it’s too bulky. Well, I think we can handle it. I don’t think the stack’s too high that we couldn’t have somebody move it over and we could go through it and pick out what we think are significant facts or what the people who are advising us think are significant facts.

The other point I want to make to you is that these facts are not really provincially-based if, in fact, they are all broken down in your computer into districts. There’s no reason why a collation of all those district facts couldn’t be done and couldn’t be produced and provided to us. This is, in fact, what we’re asking for. But in your letter you indicate this is not available.

I would also like to point out to you that in this one printout you forwarded to me you list all the facilities and you list the origin of the people who are residents in those facilities. It comes to a total of 6,076. In fact, as I understand it, the application of the survey was made to a total of 7,800 or 7,900 people. I would like to know what happened to the other 1,700 or 1,800 people who are in facilities 1 and 2, and who obviously had this questionnaire applied to them or to their consulting psychiatrist or physician or whoever in the institutions is providing the answer. I would like a rather broad description of that programme and some definitive answers as to what was in the questionnaire.

To get back to my original remarks, I would like to ask again a number of questions in regard to the policy of the ministry and its orientation towards its proposals and implementation of its plan. There were two different interministerial documents I believe, that appeared in the spring of 1975; we we’re provided with this one, the blue book, dated April 17. There is also another copy of that same programme which is dated spring, 1975 -- that’s the only date on it -- and which differs quite substantially in places from the blue book.

We are told the blue book is the official book, and the other one we have obtained has many more facts and figures and some dollar input as to the actual costs of the different programmes that are envisaged and, in fact, recommended by your own ministry to you, as the minister, to be implemented. When we read both of these, we find that there are some areas where there is a difference in the implementation of the programme and, in fact, there is an indication that there is a difference in what’s being recommended as the programme.

It’s very difficult to follow exactly what you are trying to do. Although the trend is the same in both of these booklets insofar as the general recommendations are concerned, there are some things left out of one and not out of the other; there are also some differences in the methods of implementation and in the programme itself. As well, the total area of costing is not dealt with at any great length whatsoever.

I have a number of questions that I would like to put to you. Perhaps it might be best if you were to reply to what I have said so far, and then I could put five or six questions based on your programme.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: First of all, dealing with the question of the service needs analysis survey: As you can appreciate there were actually two studies; one, of the institutions themselves, was completed. As a matter of fact, I understand you have been sent some information from Mr. Capps of my ministry. The other survey, which deals with the community needs, hasn’t been completed yet.

I want to assure you that there’s nothing secret in this field of mental retardation as far as I am concerned. I appreciate what you said in terms of agreeing with our philosophy in dealing with the mentally retarded; and when we talk about the mentally retarded, as you have mentioned, often it is just not simple retardation or somebody being not as bright as another person, because there are also many people who are multiply handicapped.

You have mentioned the psychiatric problems. In Orillia we have perhaps 25 to 40 people who may have psychiatric problems. Throughout Ontario there wouldn’t be many more than about 100 or so; it may be two percent of the total population in our institutions who are suffering from some psychiatric problem --

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is what that thing says. That is what we want to know.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right. Again, as you pointed out, it may not be much different from the community at large but as you know, the mentally handicapped are often physically handicapped as well. There is a variety of handicaps. Some of them are very difficult. A mentally retarded person may be blind or deaf or both deaf and blind. Trying to develop the potential of those persons is often trying and it is difficult -- we need skilled people and we are doing what we can there.

It’s a big problem and I am very grateful, really I am, that you are committed to our philosophy in terms of giving them as much individual programming, individual attention, as much of the developmental service that we can to develop them to their potential, from the institution, hopefully, into the community. We are trying to do the best we can there.

You made mention of Orillia and, believe me, it troubles me. Something I have been trying to do is to make the community feel as comfortable as it can under the circumstances. As you know, all that has to happen is one mentally retarded person from our institution getting into the community and committing some offence, some crime -- or not even getting out of the institution but committing a crime on the grounds. Then we have a polarization of prejudice like you never saw. The whole institution becomes tarnished with that brush not only of being retarded but being psychopaths and everything else.

There is fear engendered in that and the more we play on that the more we get the community upset and the more difficult it is to tell that community, “We want you to accept the people we have worked with into the community.” You have that problem and you can’t have normalization --

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is not a problem if you deal with it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- unless you have a community in which to normalize. If you have a community which is opposed, if you get a backlash spring up, of course you are in difficulty.

When we have problems as we did and have in Orillia I try to treat that in a sensible way. Let’s get in there. Let’s make the internal changes which may be necessary and I am not saying they are not necessary. Of course we have to make changes. We have to do things and there is a lot to be done.

I want you to know again that I am happy to share with you any of these surveys we have as they become available. I say that to the member for Bellwoods and anyone else because surely we are committed to accomplishing the same thing? There is no monopoly on helping the mentally retarded. If you can help, if you’ve got some ideas, anyone, fine.

We are sharing those reports with the district working groups. We are looking to them for input and it will be in a form, I don’t care how bulky -- you’ve mentioned that you are an uncomplicated kind of a guy. Okay, we don’t have to retrieve stuff from a computer. The district working groups are working with this information; there is no reason you can’t. As I have mentioned, I am prepared to share that information with anyone who can make a contribution.

Believe me, nothing is going to be hidden in this field because I need all the help I can get, even from the member for St. George --

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- in terms of doing our utmost to help develop the potential of the mentally retarded. Too many times they’ve been written off as being some sub-human types of persons who haven’t any feelings, haven’t any skills or abilities to develop. We have proved you can. Not only is it more satisfying for those people and for their families to develop those potentials and to become more a part of the main stream of communities, in economic terms it’s good as well.

We are committed to that and I know you are committed to that. I am certainly prepared to share any information with you that will help not only to alleviate the concerns of the community so that we can develop our community-based programmes and group homes and so on, but to assist in the development of our programmes.


Mr. R. S. Smith: I was going to follow with the questions that I have. I indicated when I sat down that I had these questions. But --

Mr. Acting Chairman (Edighoffer): Order, please. There seems to be a limited amount of time. I believe you did mention you’d like to place a few questions. If you could do that as quickly as possible.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, we had an agreement that we would make up on this vote.

Mr. McClellan: Within five or 10 minutes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, within 10 minutes. Am I right?

Mr. Acting Chairman (Edighoffer): Would the member for Nipissing continue?

Mr. R. S. Smith: I just want to ask specific questions in regard to the blue book then:

“Emphasis was placed on the development of adult training homes, adult group centres and serviced apartments and home co-op living. Capital expenditure was to have been provided for the construction of two core residences as well as a number of small community residences for rural and northern communities. These were to have been special support homes.”

That was edited out of one copy but appeared in another. I’d like to know what was accomplished in the past fiscal year and what there is in this specific estimate for that specific recommendation this year?

I’ll just go on with the others. Work training: What efforts have been made to rationalize existing programmes in work training facilities? Funds were to have been made available to agencies for a number of things including programme managers, protected businesses and a lot of other recommendations.

What funds were made to what agencies and what are your recommendations for this current year insofar as funding of that type of thing is concerned? Maybe you could just give me a ballpark figure in answers so that we can move along.

There’s adult protective services: How many adult protective service workers are there presently and how many should there be? The average cost, as I understand it, from one of the publications is $19,200. That’s from page 55.

Family service workers: Where do we stand on that? What has taken place insofar as both the Williston report and the green paper in conjunction with that? How many of these workers are there and what is their caseload? I’d like to go on to a lot of other questions, but I’ll just stop there for now.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Very quickly because I know the time is limited, may I say that these are some of the results: The establishment of 17 accommodation settings serving 118 individuals; the establishment of four employment settings with 187 individual placements; we have fielded 30 protected service workers serving 900 individuals; established four life-skills training courses serving over 136 individuals; established seven parent relief projects serving 755; three instant stimulation projects serving over 230 individuals; and three recreational services projects, serving approximately 100.

That’s last year. This is what we accomplished last year. If you want cumulative totals, the accommodation places were 1,103; work in training places 3,758; development daycare places 1,350, support services for 1,085 clients -- that’s the protective services -- and we have 57 adult protective service workers, so that you can see that’s the cumulative of the 57 there. It goes to show what we have accomplished and the cumulative effect of that in the last year. I think you’ll agree that we’re proceeding quite rapidly in terms of carrying out the philosophy of -- you mentioned Williston -- the Williston report and what our commitment is in the community.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a couple of other questions I’d like to ask. I’d like to ask two short supplementary questions to what you’ve said. Most of this is being done through the local working groups and, below that, the associations. Are there any moneys that are going to be available to private or non-profit groups in the area of development of such things as camps or recreational facilities for retarded children? Should those groups perhaps look to Wintario as far as recreation is concerned or will that be in your ministry?

I had one other question and that is in regard to the specific problems we had in my area a few months ago. It became just a complete breakdown between you and the Ministry of Health as to what was going to happen to those people in that facility because the community facilities have not been put in place to take these people. Instead of leaving them in the facility you were going to move them away to Smiths Falls, 300 miles away, which would have been disastrous to a number of the people and their families. You are aware of that as well as I am.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In regard to recreation projects, there are 19 that will be funded this year. There are other involvements, as you know, through Culture and Recreation. I am sure there are other avenues that will be, and have been, taken.

I want to say again, and I can’t emphasize too much, that we have to be concerned about the community readiness to accept the retarded and it’s a limiting factor. You mention the North Bay situation in regard to the depopulation of the schedule 1 facility there. My concern is, of course, the well are of the retarded person and, of course, of the family as well. That was a factor. We found in North Bay that there wasn’t the responsiveness in the community to accept the mentally retarded that we had hoped for. We’d planned for community involvement. That didn’t pan out. Because of that, I extended the --

Mr. R. S. Smith: No, that is not correct. That is not quite correct.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is correct because we had hoped for the settlement of between 20 and 30, if my memory serves me correctly.

Mr. R. S. Smith: But you made no moves in developing.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is okay to say let’s get them involved in the community, but we must have a community that is prepared to accept them. You heard earlier today about zoning problems and all kinds of problems that come up when you try to establish a group home.

Mr. R. S. Smith: They are prepared. They already have accepted. The district group will tell you that. You have done nothing.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If the North Bay association is able to develop proposals to accommodate the residents in the Nipissing centre, then fine, we will be happy to work with them. We are working them. This is what we want; we want to get that local initiative. We will do our best in terms of support services to ensure they are accommodated and provided for in the community.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The support is there but the money is not forthcoming from you people.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: We spend our money wisely but that doesn’t mean we are not spending money and a lot of it, as you see from this vote, on accommodating the mentally retarded, and the programmes. There is quite a dramatic increase in terms of the money for community programmes. Of course, that is the emphasis that I think must be made in terms of helping the mentally retarded.

Just one point that you mentioned in terms of the population of the institutions that I should have pointed out to you when you read off from a sheet that you obtained. You have the total population --

Mr. R. S. Smith: You mailed it to me.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Sure I did, which shows and demonstrates our willingness to co-operate and to give you full information in this area. I reiterate my offer to share fully with you, in any of these things. That sheet indicated population in the facility, and the community from which they came. You read not the total of 6,076, but the next column shows what we call the citizens of the world, where they don’t have any identifiable place of origin in terms of community, and you have there another 993. So there is almost 1,000, which makes up about 7,000 or so residents in our schedule 1 facility.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just have one short question.

Mr. Acting Chairman (Edighoffer): The member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: I have asked it before this afternoon, I just wanted to get an answer. It’s with respect to your imposition of means testing on daycare services to the retarded. I have a letter that the Association for the Mentally Retarded sent to you at the beginning of March, It puts out a compelling and, I would say, an overwhelming case in favour of making the policy, with respect to daycare facilities for retarded children, exactly the same as the policies of the Ministry of Education, with respect to deaf children.

Unless you do this you are depriving the retarded children of a preventive service. You are imposing a deterrent, to the kind of preventive service, that will serve to reduce the need for more expensive institutional care. The earlier the disability is caught, as you know, the better the prognosis is for treatment and for success in a community-living kind of programme. It seems to me that you should be opening the way for retarded kids to go into the daycare programme.

The daycare programme is a specialized service, for retarded children, that deals with their disability. It’s not like the normal daycare programme, under the Day Nurseries Act, that the majority of kids in the province take. It’s a specialized treatment service, and, to impose the same kinds of means testing, on that, which you impose on the regular daycare programme, makes no sense at all. It is counter-productive. I hope that you will consider the argument of the association, which we support, and remove means testing from the retardation daycare programme.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Well, just briefly in reply: As you know, we do means tests in terms of our facilities -- and schedule one facility. If a person has a sizable income, and there are cases where estates are left to mentally retarded persons who can afford to pay their per diem rates in institutions, they pay. That’s a fact of life that we live with and I would think it is fair. We do it in our homes for the aged the same way, whether there are poor people, or retarded or not.

In the daycare centres, of which you speak, at present, there isn’t any needs testing. That is the situation now. I’m not saying, if you’re suggesting it that we should needs test. It may be that we should needs test --

Mr. McClellan: I am suggesting that you don’t impose needs testing on day care for retarded children.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You’re asking and I’m just saying that we don’t at present but the --

Mr. McClellan: Are you planning to?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is something that we’ll have to consider, now that you raise it.

Mr. McClellan: Don’t play games. That’s real crap. You have got the letter from the association, dated March 1. Why are you playing these kinds of games?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just calm down, now. You don’t have to get all excited here. We’re trying to deal sensibly with the problem, in terms of diagnostic and assessment work, again we don’t --

Mr. McClellan: Just remember what your responsibilities are and who you’re serving.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s right and I asked you to remember that, too, because surely you can share those responsibilities in doing what you can to assist the people that we’re trying to help. You know, and I know, that we have a lot of community services to help the mentally retarded. We do that and we intend to continue to do that and hopefully to develop, further, our programmes in that regard. But don’t bring up --

Mr. McClellan: Instead of taking cheap shots, why don’t you just read the letter of the association and give them a positive response?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right, if you have a letter that you wish to discuss with me, I would be very happy --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Look, I’m certainly approachable, as you know. Anything that you ask I respond to, and quickly. If you want to discuss that letter with me at any time, then I’m only delighted to review that with you --

Mr. McClellan: March 1, to you.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- or the association or anyone else.

Mr. McClellan: Does it take you three months to read a letter?


Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, it doesn’t, nor does it take me three months to reply. If you want to be co-operative and work with us on this I think it would be more helpful.

Vote 2703 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

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


House in committee on Bill 94, An Act to provide Certain Protections for Purchasers of New Homes.

On section 13:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: When the committee rose earlier today we were discussing Mr. Renwick’s motion to subsection 3 of section 13. Is there any further discussion on the amendment moved by Mr. Renwick?

Mr. Renwick had moved that subsection 3 of section 13 of Bill 94 be amended to read as follows:

(3) An inspector appointed under section 18 shall deliver to the owner a certificate certifying the date upon which the home is completed for his possession and the warranty is to take effect from the date specified in the certificate.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.” In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Deans: We will stack it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall it be stacked?


Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that subsection 4 of section 13 be amended to read as follows:

(4)(a) A warranty under subsection 1, other than with respect to major structural defects as defined by the regulations, applies only in respect of claims made thereunder within three years after the warranty takes effect or such longer time under such conditions as are prescribed.

(b) A warranty with respect to major structural defects as defined by the regulations applies only in respect of claims made thereunder within 10 years after the warranty takes effect or such longer time under such conditions as are prescribed.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think the proposed amendment when read in the light of subsection 4, which we are replacing by this amendment, speaks very much for itself. It is our view that a statute such as this should prescribe at least the minimum warranty period. That’s the first point.

The second point is that it is not possible to lump together the various warranty provisions so that all of them apply only within the one-year period. In the absence of any definition by the ministry of what it is going to prescribe by way of longer periods of time that is what we must take this to mean. It is not possible to lump them together to provide that claims for major structural defects, for example, only apply within one year after the time the warranties take effect.

We have therefore moved that the bill be divided into two separate parts and that the one-year period be extended, in the case of all warranties other than major structural defects, to three years or such longer period as may be prescribed; and in the case of major structural defects to 10 years or such longer period as may be defined.

Mr. Cunningham: In rising to oppose this amendment, I would say that any major structural defect should make itself apparent after a year --

Mr. Deans: Not so.

Mr. Cunningham: We may get some opposition, some disagreement on that. From my point of view and I am sure it is supported by a number of people who have much more expertise in this regard than I, I think it is generally determined that this would be unrealistic.

Very briefly, I would say it would be nice if, in the Province of Ontario, we could come in with a programme which would allow us warranties of up to 10 years but I think we all have to realize that such a cost would be built into every house. The builder would only pass that cost along to the consumer and thereby further increase the cost of housing in Ontario which is something I am sure all of us would not like to see.

Regardless of the warranty programme we are considering right now, I think good houses will still be built by the good builders who exist in this province. Warranty programme or not, that is going to be the best guard, I suppose, the best warranty a home owner can have. Despite the warranty programme we are considering right now, and regardless of whether we put a warranty on it for a year or five years, the only safeguard you really have, I think, is to take your time as an intelligent individual who is going to invest and make the most significant investment you would make as a potential homeowner. You take time to make sure you are buying a home from a reputable home builder and at the same time you make some serious and detailed investigation into what you are buying and what you are getting into.

Notwithstanding that, through this legislation the province will provide people with a warranty as described in the legislation. To increase the length of time of the warranty, as I have said before, will only add to the cost of housing. I think a builder, if he is going to put himself in that kind of position, will anticipate whatever difficulties may arise as a result of covering the cost of potential damages over the course of 10 years and build that into the cost of the housing. We all know that in life, whether it’s buying a home or an automobile or whatever, you don’t get anything for nothing.

Certainly, people, who are buying houses -- especially good houses which I happen to think are the majority in the Province of Ontario -- are going to end up subsidizing the very few poor builders we have. I would hope that with the registration programme we have in this particular bill we are eliminating that kind of individual from participating in the market. I certainly don’t think they have been members of the group which will administer this programme as it is.

Certainly, to provide coverage for the length of time outlined in this amendment would be extremely costly and unrealistic.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, we are not going to accept this amendment for two reasons. The first one is based upon experience -- that is, the experience of Alberta which has had a similar programme, although not a compulsory one, for some time; some of the similar voluntary programmes in identical climates in the United States; and thirdly, the experience of the British home warranties programme which has been around for some time. I’m not going to talk about the major structural defects, but in terms of the minor repair, whatever is going to show up is going to show up relatively quickly after the person takes possession of the house.

The second reason is that with the expanded inspection system which is the key to the programme, the quality of material and the quality of workmanship is going to be under close scrutiny. As an aside, it no longer is merely good business to build a good house. It is a matter of continuing on in business. This is going to produce the type of home that will require relatively few minor corrections.

To extend the minimum period from one to three years, when we know already that beyond 90 per cent of all the complaints about the quality of workmanship or finish in a new dwelling occur within the first 12 months, is really asking the purchaser to pay for an extended warranty that the purchaser really doesn’t require. As a matter of fact, if I could go back about a year and some months, the one-year warranty was spelled out by the Consumers Association of Canada. It was spelled out by a Mrs. Dana Malling, an architect from Winnipeg, who represented the Consumers Association of Canada in discussions among HUDAC, the government of Ontario, nine other provinces, Central Mortgage and Housing and representatives of the federal minister.

She was most vociferous that a one-year warranty would be sufficient and that beyond that, what was really happening is the consumer was going to pay an extraordinary premium which would only accrue to the particular insurance or bonding companies covering the risk.

I would also point out to the member for Riverdale that the corporation now has the authority, if it so chooses, to change the bylaws to extend that one-year warranty. What this clause says is it must be at least one year. If they find out a particular material is defective, certainly they have the right to extend the warranty to cover that particular material or that particular component of the home beyond one year. That is going to be based upon experience.

The major structural defect has been mentioned. You want the time extension to go from five years to 10 years. Again, in section 14, the council has the same power. It must be at least five, but based upon their experience, if they want to extend it, if they find out a particular building material or a particular building technique is found wanting, they have every right to extend the structural defect protection. What they are saying there, too, is it must be at least five years.

In terms of the experience in Great Britain, in terms of the experience in a number of states in the United States where the climatic and soil conditions and the type of house are almost identical to ours, in terms of the Alberta experience, and above all, in terms of the inspection procedures that are going to make sure, for instance, that the drains aren’t built upside down, that the I-beam is of such a quality steel and is installed properly, that the roofing trusses meet Ontario Building Code requirements and are installed properly, five years really should be sufficient for any major structural defects within the definition of that to show up and for either the builder or for the warranty programme to commence the rehabilitation of the home, to bring it into the standard that the person wanted when they bought it.


Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on Mr. Renwick’s amendment?

All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack that amendment?


Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments or amendments to any other section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment on section 14. It’s a distinction which must have a difference to it which escapes me, when we provide that so far as major structural defects are concerned the warranty can expire but you reserve the so-called claim of damages. I don’t understand it. I suppose at some point in time the courts will comment upon the unhappy provision of this bill which refers to the warranty having expired for major structural defects but then a claim being able to be made within a four-year period after the expiration of the warranty.

However, our previous amendment tried to deal with that problem. My next section --

Mr. Deans: Hold it, are we still on section 13?

Mr. Renwick: I thought we were finished with it.

Mr. Deans: I have a question to ask on section 13. Can I ask a question on section 13?

Section 13(2)(b) says that a warranty under subsection 1 does not apply in respect of “secondary damage caused by defects, such as property damage and personal injury.” If there is a defect and that defect causes damage and that damage effects additional damage on the property, is this then saying that that warranty doesn’t cover the repair of that?

Let me give you two examples: There is a major structural defect which causes the house to shift, and there has been built on to that house, subsequent to the time of its original building, a carport or a garage, or a finished recreation room, or another room has been built in the basement. The defect which is covered by this -- it may be a beam that has shifted, it could be the footing that has been improperly installed or whatever -- but there is damage to that. In addition to the normal damage there is damage to the carport, damage to the garage, damage to the recreation room, damage to the room that was built after the home was originally built. Are you telling me that that damage is not now covered as a result of this section of the Act?

Mr. Drea: That wasn’t my understanding. However, if you will give me a moment I’ll explain what I think that clause is really concerned with. Take the example where there is a carport, where the beam shifts and allows a certain amount of lime or something to fall upon the automobile. Then yes, the original carport will be corrected. But the damage to the vehicle or the damage, if you have some type of leak, to your personal property such as your furniture, that is covered under something else. The whole purpose of this is the house, without your personal property in it and without yourself in terms of a personal injury --

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute, we missed something, though, along the way.

Mr. Drea: I am instructed that what you outlined in your original proposition would be covered.

Mr. Deans: It would be covered?

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Deans: Then would you tell me how it would be covered? Because I don’t understand. I don’t want this taken to a court of law where a person asks for damages to, let’s assume, a built-on carport. It wasn’t part of the original building but was built on after the purchase.

Mr. Drea: No, you change the rules then.

Mr. Deans: I didn’t change the rules. That’s what I asked for.

Mr. Drea: I presumed that you were talking about one building.

Mr. Deans: No, that’s what I asked for.

Mr. Drea: All right.

Mr. Deans: I buy a bungalow. I move in. Two months later I have a carport or a garage built on for me. At some future date, six months from now, there is a major structural defect which causes that house to shift. Are you telling me that a garage, which may then be split, cracked, or damaged, or that a carport which may no longer be available for use, and therefore may have to be rebuilt, is not covered because of section 13(2)(b)?

Mr. Drea: First of all, when I answered your original question --

Mr. Deans: No, that’s not the point.

Mr. Drea: When I answered your original question, I was under the understanding you were talking about something that was done at the same time as the house was being completed. All right, we have that one straight. Just so we are absolutely clear, you are now talking about a home that is under warranty. You are talking about the owner going out, at a subsequent time, and putting an addition on of some description and what you want to know is, if there is a major structural defect within the main dwelling --

Mr. Deans: In the original --

Mr. Drea: Within the original dwelling, is the secondary thing -- which is not under warranty at all; there is no way that your carport can be under warranty, built under those conditions -- is the damage to it covered by this programme, by the fact of your major structural defect?

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Mr. Drea: No. This warranty programme provides for what is built originally. It confines itself to that.

By the same token, you could argue that the failure of the builders to waterproof a wall properly within the meaning of part IX of the building code led to excessive dampness in the basement, and that you should have a claim for the very expensive wall panelling or the very expensive addition to the studs that you put in because it all had to be taken apart, and dismantled in order to give you a dry basement. Since that was not done at the time of the building of the house, I would suggest to you that falls into the area of personal property.

All that is remedied, all that is fixed, or all that is compensated for is what was built in the original construction. After all that is the thing that is under warranty. If you don’t have a garage on the house, if you don’t have a carport or if you don’t have a sunroom built on at the back at the time, then surely you cannot extend the terms of the original warranty to cover additions that were made later.

Mr. Deans: I understand you. I again raise the objection with you so that we understand that if that major structural defect had not occurred, then there would be no additional costs to the purchaser. We’ll deal with something very simple.

A person moves in and builds a recreation room. It subsequently appears there is a major defect which requires that work be done in the basement. The cost of removing all of that, the cost of replacing all of that is the responsibility of the owner rather than the builder, even though damage has been effected as the result of that major defect. I think that as long as that particular addition, in whatever form it takes, is built properly and would, under normal circumstances bear up under the normal wear and tear, if a structural defect occurs, and there is damage which requires that owner to expend moneys in order to repair it, that should be covered under the warranty because it is in fact brought about by the negligence of the builder in the first place. I think you should have seen to it that the builder was responsible for damages caused by any negligence on his part.

Mr. Drea: You’re dealing with two parts. Here we have the original structure, which has been inspected and has been warranted. And here you have a second phase, your carport or your recreation room, which you chose not to let the original builder build. Had you chosen to let him build at the time, it would have been an all-encompassing warranty over an all-encompassing dwelling. Now, you’ve gone out to somebody else, over whom the original builder has no control.

Mr. Deans: I did it myself.

Mr. Drea: If you did any part of the house yourself you can’t get a warranty on it.

Mr. Deans: I agree. I understand.

Mr. Drea: The difficulty is that when you add to a house, where is the inspection, where is the quality control? It is not covered under this programme. On the one hand you have a programme over which you have control. On the other hand, it doesn’t cover additions. I suppose it would be just as easy to argue in court that had the carport been built properly that it might not have shifted so badly or had to be dismantled. All right, okay, fine. You laugh, but there is nobody inspecting and there is nobody doing a quality control on the second aspect, and that makes it extremely difficult.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on the same topic, I wanted to ask of the parliamentary assistant who’s piloting this legislation through if shell homes then would be completely excluded from the warranty programme? This is when the individual has the builder build the outside -- and everything is perfect on the outside -- but he wants to finish off the inside himself. Is that out?

Mr. Drea: Yes, under section 13(2)(a).

Mr. B. Newman: Okay.

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

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, section 8 wouldn’t cover it at all. You’re referring to 13(2)(f), are you?

Mr. Drea: No, 13(2)(a) -- “defects in materials, design and workmanship supplied by the owner.”

Mr. Good: What about the shell home supplied by the builder?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, let’s assume a builder has completed the outside of a home perfectly, or supposedly perfectly, and the owner finishes off the interior because of financial reasons. What would happen if some structural defect in the main structure should then come to light? Would you reply?

Mr. Drea: Yes, I would be very glad to. First of all, in order to have the warranty the dwelling has to be fully completed for possession. Now, a shell home obviously is an incomplete dwelling.

In this programme you’re buying a package, and you cannot buy them independently of each other. You are buying protection from the time you put down your deposit until the dwelling is finished and ready for possession. In case the builder or somebody defaults with your money, the house will be completed. Then, for a period of five years from that date you have indemnity against structural loss.

Now, if the dwelling has never been completed, obviously you cannot have five years from the date of completion. If you are going to buy a shell house then you are going to have to buy the risks inherent in it.

Mr. B. Newman: Therefore, shell homes would not come under the warranty programme.

Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. B. Newman: Okay.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Section 14; is there any discussion? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my next comment is on section 18, subsection 1.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Can we assume that the sections 14 to 17 have been carried?

Sections 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that subsection 1 of section 18 be amended to read as follows: “The corporation shall appoint inspectors for the purposes of this Act.”

Is there any discussion on Mr. Renwick’s amendment?


Mr. Drea: This puts me in a difficult situation. Yes, we will accept that, Mr. Chairman. I would point out that to the best of my knowledge -- it may have changed in the last day or so -- at least 10 inspectors already have been hired. I understand there are more coming on stream; they have to give notice to their employers. We will accept this.

The only reason it puts me in a difficult position -- I say this to the member for Riverdale -- I suppose to the number of pieces of legislation that I have handled he has probably proposed around 19 or 20 amendments. I don’t want to startle him by accepting one.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion on Mr. Renwick’s amendment?

Mr. Cunningham: The Liberal Party, as well, Mr. Chairman will support this legislation. The only thing I would add at this time is that I would hope that the Ministry of Housing would attempt to move people from that particular area into the position of inspectors wherever possible so that there would be no dislocation of jobs. If that could be accomplished, I think that would be of great assistance.

Mr. Deans: How about the can workers and their jobs?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall Mr. Renwick’s amendment carry?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit concerned about the validity of the amendment now that we have this support. It does make one wonder a little bit.

Mr. Drea: Do you want me to reject it?

Mr. B. Newman: He’s not used to that.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t know that I would prefer to have it rejected or to accept such small crumbs.

Mr. Ruston: He didn’t put it in.

Mr. Renwick: Maybe I will accept the small crumbs.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall Mr. Renwick’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Conway: Just generosity.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have no further amendment until section 23.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments prior to section 23?

Sections 15 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 23:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that subsection 1 of section 23 be amended in the first line to read as follows: “The corporation may make bylaws subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

Mr. Renwick: I have a comment which I would like the parliamentary assistant to answer. My other point is very simply that the Interpretation Act of the province provides specifically, in section 27, clause (g), that in every Act, unless the contrary intention appears where power is conferred to make bylaws regulations, rules, or orders, it includes power to alter or revoke the same from time to time and to make others.

It did seem to us that it was extremely important that if the government is going to appoint HUDAC, the industry association, forum for the purpose of administering this Act and have no control over that organization, the least it could do is to provide that the bylaws to be made by the corporation which will determine the substance of the efficacy of the Act over the period of time should be subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Then, not only would they be subject to such approval in the original instance but any changes, alterations or amendments to them would also be subject to the same approval.

My second point is in the form of a question. Subsection 2 of section 23 states: “A bylaw passed under subsection 1 shall be deemed to be a regulation to which the Regulations Act applies.” Is it true that means that yes, it will be filed in the office of the registrar of regulations, and yes, it will be published in the Ontario Gazette despite the fact that the government will have nothing to do with it?

Mr. Drea: Yes, it does.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes to both.

Mr. Drea: Yes to both. Now to come back to the main point. First of all, this legislation -- and I can see it is somewhat radical because it does provide for self-regulation -- at least it’s radical to a group over there.

Mr. Conway: That’s radical?

Mr. Drea: Anything being done for the first time since about 1946 or 1947 and reversing accepted trends I consider to be radical. It was on the side of self-regulation. I’ve never been all that concerned about radical things being right or wrong in themselves; I’m just as glad it is radical going to the right as radical to the left.

Mr. Conway: What was that about 1946?

Mr. Drea: To turn this around --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I wonder if the hon. member would return to the radical discussion of this amendment.

Mr. B. Newman: Attaboy, Mr. Chairman; that’s the stuff.

Mr. Deans: Consider yourself chastised, Mr. Chairman. Did you notice the dirty look you got?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t giving you a duty look. I was just collecting my thoughts.

Mr. Deans: The member is trying to get his tongue out of his cheek.

Mr. Drea: I think the point was made.

Mr. Deans: It was. If that had been the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), he would have told you to sit down.

Mr. Drea: We want to continue within the framework of legislation which basically provides for self-regulation underneath an umbrella of government supervision, which is the commercial relations appeals tribunal. Despite some people’s aversion to radical things -- that is somewhat radical -- this amendment would go counter to that self-regulation proposal. What it would be doing is saying you have every right to regulate yourselves but whatever you do must be approved by the government and by the executive council of Ontario.

I would point out that there is one very key section in which we have retained approval by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and that revolves around any terms and conditions on the registration of a builder. That has been done for very obvious reasons.

Since here you have an association of builders through a non-profit corporation not only administering the law on behalf of the consumer but regulating the industry for the purpose of allowing only registered builders to build, the question of who is allowed to build could become one of very intense significance. Regarding the terms and conditions of registration, we have retained it. That is a protection for the people who are involved in the industry so they may not be put out of business by people who might be wanting to deprive them of their livelihood not because of the way they build but in an effort to lessen competition or for other economic grounds.

We would refuse to accept this. If you are going to have self-regulation, you might as well have it all the way through the bill. I don’t believe you can have it 99 per cent of the way through the bill and then suddenly turn around and say, “Notwithstanding all of that and notwithstanding whether the plan works, the government will decide what you can do and what you cannot do”. That would remove any flexibility and any real meaning from the corporation and the council which will be administering this Act for practical purposes.

Mr. Conway: The cabinet is just around the corner.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment will please say aye.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Shall that vote be stacked?


Mr. Renwick: I have a further amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 23 be amended by adding thereto subsection 3 as follows: “3. This Act binds the Crown.”

Mr. Renwick: The reason for the amendment is that the Interpretation Act provides in section 11 that no Act affects the rights of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors unless it is expressly stated therein that Her Majesty is bound thereby. Having regard to the role of the Ontario Housing Corp. and of the Ministry of Housing in the housing developments in the Province of Ontario, we feel it is wise that this Act apply to the Crown and its emanations.

Mr. Deans: Wait a second. Respond.

Mr. Drea: Anybody else?

Mr. Deans: I want to hear what you have to say.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I think we can accept this in principle provided there is a modification that would exempt section 6 through 10, which relate to the actual physical registration, because otherwise you are asking the Crown to register and to be judged by the Crown itself. It isn’t the registration process, because that will be done through the corporation; but a refusal would put the corporation in a very peculiar position because here would be CRAT, which is the Crown, judging the Crown’s ability to operate in this field.

I would suggest to you, and I would suggest to the member for Riverdale, that were he to rephrase his amendment to say that this Act, except for sections 6 through 10, binds the Crown, we would be willing to accept that. I think he would understand the difficulty the Crown would be placed in with regard to the particular sections on registration, since there is an ultimate appeal to the Crown for impartial justice.

I would also say in terms: of practical value, putting this in really wouldn’t have that much impact upon Ontario Housing. It is not acting as its own builder. Other people are doing the building. It may have the proposals, it may have the development and it may be taking the credit at the end, but the physical building of the residential premises, at least up until now, has been done by commercial builders, who will be registered under this programme. However, if you feel that the Crown should be bound, notwithstanding the fact that the Crown is not in the business, we are prepared to accept it, provided it excludes sections 6 through 10, which the marginal notes describe as “registration required,” “registration of vendors and builders,” “conditions of registration,” “registration not transferrable,” “refusal to register,” “revocation and refusal to renew,” “notice of proposal to refuse or revoke,” and so on. I don’t really see any way that the Crown could function under those circumstances, because the Crown would be sitting in ultimate judgement, and how does the Crown judge the Crown.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, subject to what the legislative counsel believes is the appropriate change in the amendment which I propose, we would be agreeable to that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Agreed.

Mr. Drea: Would you like to accept that?

Mr. Deans: That’s fine. We will accept that draft.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the amendment proposed in effect by the parliamentary assistant can replace the other amendment, and it probably can be accepted without any division.

Mr. Drea: Subject to draft.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Perhaps I could read the amendment again, noting the exceptions in the amendment.

Mr. Renwick moves that section 23 be amended by adding thereto subsection 3 as follows: “This Act binds the Crown with the exception of sections 6 to 10.” Is that agreeable?

Mr. Deans: There is only one problem I want to raise with you in that regard so that it can be drafted properly. I am: not sure that all of section 6 should necessarily be excluded in that it says, “No person shall act as a vendor…” while it is entirely possible that the Ontario Housing Corp., through the Home Ownership Made Easy programme, do act as a vendor.

Mr. Renwick: But that’s excluded.

Mr. Deans: But I think they do act as a vendor. They don’t act as a builder, but they act as a vendor.

Mr. Drea: You are quite right, but your whole point is that in order to qualify they would have to be registered.

Mr. Deans: Right.

Mr. Drea: All right, and to get registered --

Mr. Deans: I understand your argument.

Mr. Drea: Okay, but if you don’t exclude section 6 at the very least, you get into the conundrum of the Crown and the Crown.

Mr. Deans: I understand all the other arguments with the exception of the conundrum of the Crown and the Crown.


Mr. Drea: But you have to be registered to act as a vendor, and to get your registration as a vendor of a new home, it comes through the exact same procedure as a builder of a new home. Obviously Ontario Housing cannot act under the Real Estate Brokers Act. They would have to act under this and you get into the registration difficulties.

Mr. Deans: Okay, that’s fine.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Do you wish the chairman to read the amendment again?

Mr. Renwick: Yes. I would like to hear you.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Thank you.

“With the exception of sections 6 to 10, this Act binds the Crown.”

Shall Mr. Renwick’s amendment carry?

Agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

On section 24:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in section 24, what is the intention of the government with respect to the day on which this Act is to come into force?

Mr. Drea: I am instructed, Mr. Chairman, that the intentions are for proclamation in the fall.

Mr. Renwick: For proclamation before the end of the year?

Mr. Drea: Yes, in the fall.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Drea: It’s my understanding that it probably will be September. It may be a little earlier or a little bit later, but before the end of this year.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This completes the discussion on Bill 94, and the amendments will be dealt with when the stacked votes are carried out, I understand, tomorrow.


House in committee on Bill 100, An Act to amend the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1972.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of Bill 100, and if so to which section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think I was causing the delay in the passage of this bill because I didn’t understand what kind of a corporation it was that was going to be incorporated.

I take it that, regardless of what the section says, it’s a corporation that would be incorporated by or on behalf of the municipal corporation for the purpose of carrying on business for and on behalf of the municipality. Am I correct that it’s that kind of a corporation that you’re talking about -- a corporation incorporated by the municipality for the purpose of carrying on business for and on behalf of the municipality or local board, or some such similar board? In other words, it’s an emanation of the particular municipality or of the particular local board and that is why you think it does no harm to extend the provisions of the bill to eliminate indirect conflict of interest in those circumstances?

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, yes. That is precisely my understanding of the wording of the section of the Act. As I attempted to explain previously, the only reason for the change in the article from the definite to the indefinite is to make it possible for persons who might be appointed by an upper tier council to vote in their capacity as a member of a lower tier council on a matter relating to the body on which they held the appointment.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would just -- so that I understand it -- explain the kind of corporation that you’re talking about. Am I correct when I say that it is a corporation incorporated by the municipality or a local board for the purpose of carrying on business for and on behalf of the municipality or local board? Is that the kind of corporation we’re talking about?

Mr. Norton: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Bill 100 reported.


House in committee on Bill 89, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, amendments or questions to this bill and, if so, to which section?

Mr. Swart: After considerable discussion in this on second reading, we proposed an amendment to section 10 of this Act. I don’t know whether there was anything else ahead of that by any other members, if not I will lead --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any discussion on any section prior to section 10?

Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 10(50)(c) be amended by inserting in the fifth line after the words “the council may,” the following words: “develop, subdivide, service” so the subsection will read:

“Where it appears to council that any land acquired under this paragraph is no longer required for the purpose for which it was acquired, or for the use of the municipality, the council may develop, subdivide, service, sell or dispose of the whole or any part of such land for any purpose.”

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman -- oh, I am sorry. I thought he was introducing an amendment on another bill.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, may I then speak to the amendment?

Mr. Norton: Would it be possible for me to have a copy of the proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman? It seems to have been customary practice in the past.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps we could have one sent over.

Mr. Chairman, I think the intent of this amendment is obvious to the House. It gives further options to the municipality. At the present time the municipality does not generally have the power to subdivide property for commercial or residential purposes and it seems to me that municipalities should have that power. If it seemed appropriate that this land should be subdivided for residential purposes, and the municipality owned that land, rather than having to sell that land to private developers they should have the right to develop this land on their own, and sell it off.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that a number of years ago in the city of Welland, by some technique or other some special concession was given to the county to subdivide and develop a rather large parcel of land which they owned in the city of Welland and had owned in conjunction with the homes for the aged. That development and sale of land was a success both to the county and to the purchasers of those lots. That is not exactly comparable with what the amendment proposes here but it is in the same vein in that it gives them that option that they may proceed with the development of that land, or the sale of it, for whatever purpose they deem advisable.

Of course, the municipality would have to go through the procedures of a developer -- any private developer -- in getting such things as zone changes and approval of subdivisions. It would give them that option. It seems reasonable to me, when they have acquired the land and no longer wish to use it for industrial purposes, that they should have this right as well as the right of option to sell it to anybody.

Mr. Good: I have difficulty, Mr. Chairman, understanding the implications. As I understand it, we are talking about land which would have been acquired by a municipality, probably under the development Act -- at least the Development Corporations Act -- especially for the development of industrial sites.

The Act simply states that where the land is no longer required for the original purpose of dividing into industrial sites and for sale by the municipality to industries to attract industry, they can change it. They have permission to develop, service, and subdivide it for industrial purposes. What you are asking here, as I see it, is that if they don’t want it you are giving them permission to do with it what they could have done in the first place.

I am sorry, I just don’t understand the implications. Are you saying they be allowed to ask for a zone change in residential development? Is that the impetus of your amendment, or what? Frankly, I just feel that what you are asking them to do, when they have no further use for it, is exactly what they could do with it when they bought it.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could just answer that specific question. The Act as it is presently written says when the council no longer requires land for the purposes for which it was acquired -- which was industrial purposes or the use of their municipality for zone purposes -- the council may sell or dispose of the whole or any part of such lands for any purpose. At the present time they could sell it for residential purposes, which would require a zone change. Under present legislation they could not service and develop it for residential purposes. I want to give the municipalities the option, if they wish, to develop the land on their own without having to sell it to a developer.

There are many tracts of industrial land a municipality may have for one reason or another that they no longer want for industrial purposes. In the Niagara region and in many areas, changes are being made to various zones. If they don’t need that land for the purpose for which it was acquired, they may now sell it for any purpose. They may develop it themselves for some other purpose than that for which it was acquired. Have I made my point clear?

Mr. Deans: Yes, absolutely clear.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, it is not quite so clear to me. First of all, I would suggest the amendment is redundant in that although this particular wording of this section does not spell out what the hon. member wishes to have it spell out, under the provisions of the Housing Development Act the municipality, provided that the municipality has either a housing policy statement or an official plan, is able to engage in the development and servicing of land as the hon. member indicated.

I think his amendment at this point is redundant, unless it’s his intention to circumvent any of the provisions of the Housing Development Act. If that is the case then I would suggest to him the proper place to do that would be by amendment to the Housing Development Act and not by amendment to this particular provision of the Municipal Act.


Mr. Swart: If I mas speak just once again, the parliamentary assistant knows exactly what I want to do and that is to circumvent the provisions of the Housing Development Act where the municipality already owns this land. I’m sure the parliamentary assistant is aware that at the present time very few municipalities have this approved housing plan which gives them permission to do this. In fact, that provision in the Housing Development Act was put in largely to inhibit the municipality from proceeding with land development on its own.

We formerly had the Land Assembly Act which gave permission and was used by quite a number of municipalities to go ahead with development of land for housing. In the last number of years, although the Act hasn’t been changed to my knowledge, no approvals have been given by the ministry for that. They have instituted in its place an amendment to the Housing Development Act where you must have housing plans. Very few of them have them yet. So this is a deliberate attempt to give the municipality the opportunity, where they own the land, to proceed with subdividing the land and selling it off.

Mr. Norton: If I may just respond briefly to that. It’s my understanding that there has been a fairly large number of approvals of housing policy statements for municipalities around the province. As I think the members opposite know, there are grants available to assist municipalities in the preparation of such housing policy statements. I think the hon. member is misinformed -- and may be misinterpreted by other members of the House -- as to what, in fact, is happening in this area.

I would point out that I think it is important that municipalities have the authority he suggests, and it’s my contention that they are under the proper legislation that was enacted by this House. The other thing that I think has to be borne in mind is that surely any such development ought to hear in mind good planning principles. I think that the protections of the Housing Development Act are more consistent with that than what the hon. member is proposing to introduce into the Municipal Act at this time.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Swart’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall this vote be stacked?


Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill? The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: No.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any further discussions? Does the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands have some comments?

Mr. Norton: I have an amendment to present, Mr. Chairman, to introduce section 12. The hon. members opposite have copies of this and have had for some time.

I’m sorry, apparently you do not have one yet. You ought to have had one last week.

Section 11 agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I can read the amendment into the record.

Mr. Deans: It should be read into the record.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

12. The said Act is amended by adding thereto the following section:

447(a)(1): Notwithstanding the provisions of any Act, no jurisdiction shall be granted or order made by the judge of any court (a) for the removing of an alteration or diversion made in a highway or for avoiding or setting aside any conveyance or proceedings by which a municipality has acquired land for diverting or altering a highway pursuant to a bylaw heretofore passed by the council of a municipality pursuant to this or any other general or special Act by reason only of the fact that the council failed to comply with the conditions mentioned in clauses (a), and (b) of subsection 1 of section 446.

(2) For the purposes of subsection 1, “municipality” includes a regional, metropolitan and district municipality.

(3) Nothing in this section affects or prejudices the rights of any person to a claim for damages against the municipality in respect of such alteration or diversion.

(4) Nothing in this section affects the rights acquired by any person from a judgement or order of any court prior to the day in which this section comes into force or affects the outcome of any action, litigation or other proceeding instituted on or before the day this section comes into force and any such action, litigation or other proceeding may be continued and finally adjudicated in the same manner and to the same extent as if this section had not been enacted, and that the remaining sections of the bill be renumbered accordingly.

Any comments, questions?

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, before the member for Welland-Thorold speaks, might it be convenient for the parliamentary assistant to give us the reasons for this particular item? I understand it was a situation in the Ottawa-Carleton area that has brought forth this legislation.

Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to do that. May I ask if the hon. House leader has a copy of this? There was one provided to his caucus and I’m not --

Mr. Breithaupt: I have seen the amendment but I don’t have a copy before me at this point.

Mr. Norton: You will have one delivered to you momentarily.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, the provisions of 446 and 447 set out the requirements that a municipality, when stopping up, establishing, laying out, widening or altering a municipal road, follow certain procedures -- one of which is to hear any affected parties.

It has come to our attention, as a result of a recent case in the courts of the province, that in one particular case the region of Ottawa-Carleton was found to have failed to comply with the provisions of this section when making alterations to a road within their jurisdiction. As a consequence, it is my understanding that two things have resulted. In the first instance, the court granted an injunction requiring the municipality to remove the road improvements which they had made -- I believe in that case it was building a median in the road. Following upon that, there are still, as I understand it, lawsuits before court in the amount of several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As a result of the decision in that case, particularly at the first instance when the injunction was granted, the ministry has been contacted by a number of other municipalities about the province indicating that heretofore they had not been cognizant of the provisions of these sections and may well themselves stand in breach.

Bearing in mind that situation and the decision of the court and the request of the municipalities which were in this situation to -- in fact, the request was more far-reaching than the amendment we are proposing -- the request in some instances went so far as to ask us to validate retroactively the procedures they had followed in introducing the bylaw for the improvements.

We felt that that was going too far. We did not want, in any way, to deprive citizens of rights which they might have or recourse which they might have against the municipality, which had acted outside the provisions of the Municipal Act, those particular ones set down in 446 and 447. As a result of that, in an effort to protect the rights of any citizen who might be or might have been injured or suffered damages as a result of such an act by the municipality and at the same time recognizing the public interest involved in having municipalities -- we don’t know how many but it would appear there might be many throughout the province -- go to the public expense of removing road improvements or anything which might have come under the provisions of 446 and 447, after the fact, we have decided to introduce this particular amendment.

It would say, as you see before you, that when municipal bylaws have heretofore been introduced in breach of the procedure set down or have failed to follow this procedure set down in 446 and 447 -- I want to make it clear that it does not project into the future; we’re not saying they can ignore it from here on in -- we’re saying when they have introduced a bylaw prior to the date of the enactment of this amendment and have failed to comply with the provisions, the court may not issue an injunction requiring them to tear up improvements they may have made at public expense by expending further public funds.

We are being very careful to stipulate that any person who may in any way have suffered damages as a result of such an act by the municipality -- whether it be by raising or improving the curb in front of the home of an individual and failing to put in access or whatever it may have been -- if they have suffered damages the right to seek damages is protected. The only thing this would do -- as I say it doesn’t project into the future; it is only for those bylaws which may have been previously enacted in ignorance of the provisions or by neglecting to comply, in any event, with the provisions -- the municipality will not be required to go to the public expense of tearing up the road improvements it might have made.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, we first must tell the parliamentary assistant that there are some difficulties in the situation that exists because of municipalities not following this section of the Act. Since the time you supplied this amendment to us we’ve had the opportunity to have some discussion on it and we feel we cannot support this amendment.

First of all, it limits what the judge might feel to be the right method of redress which would be to reverse the action of a council, for instance in closing a road, which can be very serious in some rural municipalities where people who may not live immediately adjacent to the road are greatly affected, adversely. Because a municipality didn’t follow the Act they may have the right, as you say, of trying to collect damages which would be very difficult for them to prove. What they may need is to have the road reopened.

Therefore, we feel we should not limit the judge in what he may do in the way of ordering redress which may not necessarily be to open the road or to revert to the original situation, but he should have that option if he deems it is fair.


Secondly, I think that if the government feels it was not necessary to follow the provisions of the Act and the municipalities should be forgiven for not following it, then, in fact, the Act should be changed.

There may be some areas in which it should be changed, but I don’t think we should pass this amendment which retroactively permits municipalities not to follow that rather important section of the Act which informs the public that these things are going to take place, without at the same time considering amendment of the Act, if you think the Act is not proper in the way that it is. I think either one or the other is the case. Either the Act should be amended or if it is a good Act, the municipalities should have lived up to it and they have to take the consequences for not living up to it.

I think too, it is rather a bad precedent. I’m sure the parliamentary assistant would agree with me on this. If we do it this time what happens in two years’ time when other municipalities don’t bother conforming with the Act and don’t give the proper notices? Do we then have to do exactly the same thing? You’ve set the precedent of passing another amendment which would exempt them up to that time.

It is also a bad precedent I think, in other laws, not just this one. If municipalities disregard other sections of the Municipal Act which requires them to do certain things before they can pass bylaws then they will be inclined to ignore those and think they can get some special provision after the fact.

I think the municipalities have to take the responsibility. I say this as a person involved for a great many years and one who has a lot of sympathy with municipalities. They have to take the responsibility for following the Act as laid down by the government of Ontario. If they do not then they must expect to take the consequences.

Even though it might be done inadvertently, I don’t think we can correct for councils not following the Act. The effect of this is to remove some protection to the citizens and the ratepayers of this province with regard to the closing up, altering, widening or diverting of roads. Where there must have been adequate public notice, adequate public notice was not apparently given. The Act was all followed and therefore we are retroactively removing some of the rights of those citizens and setting a precedent which could take away from them some of their rights in the future. And, therefore, we on our side cannot support this amendment.

Mr. Good: As I understand it, if this amendment were not here, the municipality of Ottawa-Carleton could very well be required to tear up the work they have done, publish their notices in a legal manner and ask for permission to do the same thing all over again.

Mr. Swart: It doesn’t apply to Ottawa-Carleton. It’s done.

Mr. Good: In the nine years that I have been around here, it seems every year we get at least half a dozen private bills, the effect of which is to legalize actions taken by municipalities across the province.

Mr. Nixon: The NDP always supports it!

Mr. Good: I would have thought this should have been in a private bill earlier this session, as was the bill we dealt with last week, on a certain township whose name escapes me at the moment.

The saving feature of this bill, I think, is the fact that the individual is not deprived of his right to seek redress for any damage done because of the construction or because of the work that has already been done. Unless there are some other serious implications beyond what we understand here, I see that there is really no great difference between this legislation and much of the private bills legislation which has come before the private bills committee over the years.

The municipalities do act outside the provisions of the Municipal Act. I can think of one just the other year. Oxford county had land which they had no legal right to hold and we fixed it up by a private bill. You do it reluctantly and you ask --

Mr. B. Newman: That’s right.

Mr. Good: -- their municipal legal counsel and the municipal leaders to be more careful in the future.

In my own municipality the Waterloo-Wellington Airport Commission held land for 20 years which they had no legal right to own because there is no provision in the legislation for an airport commission to own land. So, we had to correct that by a private bill.

This is perhaps a little different, but I see no great purpose being accomplished to have the work torn up, as was required by the judge’s decision, and then have the municipality advertise in the proper manner and probably go ahead and do the work all over again a second time.

As I say, the saving provision is that any individual harmed by this work would have access to redress. So, I would think it would be quite in order for us to support this as I say, unless, in the meantime, we find out that there is some other extenuating circumstance to this.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion on the amendment? Does the parliamentary assistant wish to respond?

Mr. Nixon: All in good time.

Mr. Norton: Very briefly Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Welland-Thorold that perhaps my comments were misleading although not deliberately so. But the amendment does not apply to the situation where there would be the stopping up of a road.

If you recall from my reading of it, or have a look at the copy before you, it applies only to the alteration or diversion of a highway. The specific example which you cited would not be one to which this would apply.

To the hon. member for Waterloo North: With respect to Ottawa-Carleton, it is too late to do anything there because they have already been faced with an injunction to remove the improvement and, as I understand it, have done so. They are at present as I understand it, before the courts facing something in the neighbourhood of $800,000 in lawsuits in addition to the cost of having to tear up the improvements to the road.

I should think that the knowledge of that particular decision and seeing the magnitude of the lawsuits which have been commenced as a result of the municipality’s failure, would be deterrent enough for those municipalities which might, in the future, be tempted to ignore the provisions of sections 446 and 447. We are saying that from this point onward, they must be cognizant of these things until such time as we have had an opportunity to review it completely. It is my intention to notify every municipality in the province of whatever the decision of this Legislature is and to invite from them any suggestions they might have as to how we might amend this section.

We have already had suggestions from some of the municipalities which are most acutely aware of it at this point. I think that to consider the changes is something we do not want to do under the haste and pressure of the end of a session of the Legislature, but we would like to have time to give it a more complete and thorough review.

We view this as an interim measure, simply saying that if they have acted without taking into consideration provisions of 446 and 447, prior to the date of the enactment of this legislation, then although they may still face lawsuits for damages from individuals who are affected, they will not also face the additional public expense of tearing up the improvements which they have just installed. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable interim resolution to protect the municipalities of the province.

Some of them, as you are well aware, act with limited staff and limited access to legal advice and can quite understandably at times be unaware of such things. That’s one of the principal reasons why I am going to encourage our ministry staff to contact each municipality, to point this out to them in terms that I hope will bring it to the attention of those who have not yet been made aware of the decision in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr. Moffatt: That isn’t what you said. You said you would --

Mr. Norton: I’ll sign the letter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Shall the bill be reported as amended?

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, there is one --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Oh, I am sorry, there was one stacked amendment of Mr. Swart’s.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, in order to tidy up the bill in view of the passage of that amendment, I believe there ought to be one further one.

Sections 12 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that section 16 of the bill, now renumbered as section 17, be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

17(1) This Act, except sections 8, 14, 15 and 16, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

(2) Sections 8. 14, 15 and 16, come into force Jan. 1, 1977.

Any comments on Mr. Norton’s amendment?

Motion agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any comment on any other section of the bill? This concludes the debate on Bill 89, with the exception of Mr. Swart’s amendment, which will be dealt with when the stacked amendments are considered.


House in committee on Bill 101, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of Bill 101, and if so, to which section?

On section 1:

Mr. Swart: Yes, Mr. Chairman. During second reading of this bill, I mentioned that we felt it should be amended in the same way as the other regional bills were amended. Bill 55 dealt with the other regional municipalities, which gave the right to the municipalities to pass a bylaw changing ward boundaries, or instituting wards or abolishing wards, subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, and subject to the right of appeal to ratepayers in that area.

We still feel this should be the case in this bill; and with that in mind I would propose to move that the bill be amended by adding thereto a new section 1, as follows:

1. Section 3 of the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, being chapter 131 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection 13:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this or any other Act, upon the application of an area municipality authorized by a bylaw of the council thereof, or upon the petition of electors in accordance with provision of section 13 of the Municipal Act, the municipal board may by order,

(a) redivide the area municipality into wards, shall designate the name or number each ward shall bear, and shall declare the date when redivision shall take effect,

(b) alter or dissolve any or all of the wards in the area municipality and shall declare the date when such alterations or dissolutions shall take effect, and

(c) vary the composition of the council of the area municipality, provided that,

(d) no order made under this section shall alter the total number of members who represent the area municipality on the district council, as provided for in this Act, and,

(e) the mayor of the area municipality shall continue to be elected by a general vote of the electors of the area municipality and shall be head of the council of the area municipality, and shall be a member of the district council, as provided for in this Act.

All other sections of this Act shall be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The Chair would like to study the amendment for a moment. It seems to me that this is introducing a new principle to the bill.

Does the hon. parliamentary assistant wish to speak to it? As I said, I think this is introducing a new principle to the bill.


Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, that was precisely the point on which I was going to rise on a point of order. It would appear to me that this deals not only with a principle which is not embodied in the particular bill before us but is not even a principle that is embodied in the original Act which this bill amends. Therefore, I would suggest that it would be out of order to introduce such an amendment.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, if it is the wish of the parliamentary assistant that this bill be made consistent with the other regional bills which went through the Legislature just last week we would be quite prepared to grant the unanimous consent necessary in order that this be proceeded with.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It would seem to me that this does alter the principle of the bill. If the hon. member wishes to bring in a bill of his own at some point in the future I am certain that the Legislature and the committees would be glad to consider it.

Mr. Nixon: Give it every consideration.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I declare the amendment out of order.

Are there any other comments, questions or amendments prior to section 6 to which Mr. Norton has an amendment?

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that subsection 5 of section 104 of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

(4)(a) Notwithstanding subsection 4, the district council may pay out of the fund established under subsection 3 such sum as it considers desirable to an area municipality to defray in whole or in part the expenses of such an area municipality in acquiring, establishing and maintaining a site for the purpose of receiving, dumping and disposal of ashes, garbage, refuse and domestic or industrial waste.

(5) None of the costs of the district council in exercising its powers under part 111-A shall form part of the levy under section 92 except as provided in subsection 4.

Mr. Norton: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could comment very briefly on why this is being introduced. If you recall the original provisions of the legislation with regard to the pollution control fund that was set there was some question as to whether those area municipalities, which did not have requirements, for example for sewage services, could qualify for any assistance for landfill disposal sites or the disposal of garbage. In their opinion this was an environmental problem they had to contend with and a matter of pollution control.

So on the basis of a request from the municipalities in the area we have introduced this amendment so that at the discretion of the regional municipality they may make allotments of funds from the pollution control fund to those municipalities which require it for landfill sites etc., as well as to those municipalities which require assistance for installing sewers and other means of pollution control.

Mr. Swart: To pursue the question a little bit further, are there any municipalities within the district opposed to this? I can anticipate that because this is a broadening of the expenditure of funds there are some municipalities which have neither sewer services or don’t have garbage collection or disposal -- I am not sure whether there are or not -- where there might be some objection to escalating expenditures and levying it across the whole district when they receive no service from it. Perhaps you could amplify on that. The principle seems sound but I would like to be assured of that.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, the matter was raised earlier by the hon. member for Welland-Thorold. Following his raising of the question, I contacted the member for the riding in which this municipality is located; it is my understanding that he has since contacted the people in the municipality once again and tried to determine whether or not that is the case and that he is aware at this time of no objection. I am certainly aware of none.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to correct a few things, at least in my own mind. The pollution control fund was raised district-wide by something like a quarter of a mill, I believe, on assessments. Sewage treatment is a district function, and they can levy their regular levies against the areas that are affected and receiving the service. Is it correct, Mr. Chairman, that the parliamentary assistant now is asking that the pollution control fund be used in areas that have no sewage disposal and no sewage treatment plants, but do have landfill and industrial waste site requirements?

Mr. Norton: That’s correct, yes. My understanding is that there are at least two municipalities in the district that are faced with rather severe problems in terms of trying to find suitable and appropriate sites; it is in order to assist them at this particular time, and perhaps others in the future, that this is being proposed.

Mr. Good: In Muskoka the collection and disposal of garbage is an area government function. Is that correct?

Mr. Norton: It is my understanding that there is an agreement between the area municipalities and the district calling for a co-operative effort in the area of garbage collection. I am not personally familiar with the details, but apparently there is a co-operative effort based upon an agreement that has been entered into.

Mr. Good: But the real basis of the amendment is to extend funds in the pollution control fund into the areas of establishment of waste disposal sites, whether they be for industrial waste or regular garbage. Is that correct?

Mr. Norton: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall Mr. Norton’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Bill 101, as amended, reported.


House in committee on Bill 106, An Act to amend the City of Thunder Bay Act, 1968-1969.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of this bill? If so, to which section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, unless my colleague from Thunder Bay has any reason to speak on the bill, I think we approved of the bill in principle on second reading. Is that correct?

Mr. Angus: The member for Kingston and the Islands has an amendment.

Mr. Renwick: I see.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion respecting section 1.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that subsection 12 of section 1 of the bill be amended by inserting after “Thunder Bay” in the sixth line the words “unless otherwise agreed upon by the city and the commissioner.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Angus: Fort William, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Sorry; the hon. member for Fort William.

Mr. Angus: As much as we would like to be Thunder Bay, we are still Fort William in the riding.

My colleague, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), and I have met with the legal counsel for both parties, and they find this amendment acceptable. In terms of finishing a six-year dispute between the two agencies, I think this is a very swift procedure and we will support it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 106, as amended, reported.


House in committee on Bill 104, an Act to amend the Provincial Parks Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section, if so, to which section?

Mr. Yakabuski: Before we move into clause by clause discussion, I have a minor amendment to section 1.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Yakabuski moves that section 1 of the Act as set out in section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

(C) District manager means the person in charge of the administrative district of the Ministry of Natural Resources in which the provincial park is situate”;

And that the remaining clauses be relettered accordingly.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Yakabuski moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section: “4. The said Act is further amended by striking out ‘forester’ where it occurs and inserting in lieu in such instance ‘manager’.”

And that the remaining sections be renumbered accordingly.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 104, as amended, reported.


House in committee on Bill 123, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any comments, questions, criticisms or amendments? I understand the hon. House leader is coming to the committee. Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 123 reported.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, that would seem to complete the work in committee of the whole.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Acting Speaker (Morrow) in the chair.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole begs to report five bills, some with amendments, and asks leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there are some third readings; perhaps we could proceed with them?


The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 100, An Act to amend the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Bill 101, An Act to amend The District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Bill 104, An Act to amend The Provincial Parks Act.

Bill 123, An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act.

Bill 106, An Act to amend The City of Thunder Bay Act, 1968-69.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this perhaps isn’t really in order at this I time, but just by way of explanation: Now that we have finished the legislative programme, it was our understanding that following the question period tomorrow we would go into committee of the whole House and look after all the stacked votes that have to be dealt with. We would then come out of committee and do the third readings, and then resume the estimates of the Ministry of Health, if that’s in order. We are going to go to estimates tonight to do the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, followed by the Premier and the Lieutenant Governor. Tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. we start with the Ministry of Health. I think that’s the general programme.

Clerk of the House: The 14th order, House in committee of supply.


Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Provincial Secretary --

Mr. Peterson: More enthusiasm.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development for 1976 amount to $2,015,000. The budget really covers three quite distinct areas of activity, although it all appears under a single vote.

The smallest portion of the funds, to be exact, $582,300, is for the policy secretariat itself. In addition, the four advisory councils which answer to the Legislature through me have a total budget of $688,100. Since September of 1975 the Youth Secretariat, including the youth experience programme, has been under my jurisdiction, and its 1976-1977 spending is estimated at $744,600. The division of the budget in three portions is perhaps a tidy way in which to introduce the work of the secretariat.

What does the provincial secretary do? The question was asked as recently as last Monday by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans). It’s a question that recurs in the Legislature nearly every time a member asks a question about a specific programme within one of the ministries of the social development policy field.

Mr. Conway: Now for the answer.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: For those members who cannot recall the ministries, they are Health, Education, Colleges and Universities, Culture and Recreation, and Community and Social Services.

Mr. Peterson: You mean you have to tell that unruly bunch what to do.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The combined budgets of those ministries account for almost two-thirds of the Ontario budget, and they include scores of programmes of direct and indirect services to the people of this province.

Mr. Conway: That makes you a real power.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You will note on the summary page of the printed estimates that the total estimated spending by the ministries in the social development policy field for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 amounts to more than $7.5 billion. Let me repeat that: $7.5 billion for social services.

Some of our critics would have you believe that it is not a caring government. To me, the expenditure of nearly two-thirds of Ontario budget for social services is proof of this government’s concern.

Mr. Conway: Laura Sabia doesn’t agree with you.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, the role of a provincial secretary was defined by the Committee on Government Productivity, which laid the cornerstone for the development of policy fields. The report makes it clear that policy ministers are responsible for the development of policy recommendations affecting more than one ministry. But a policy minister does not have responsibility for, nor control over, programme management within the ministries. Indeed, it would be impossible to keep on top of each of the programmes within the five ministries included in the social policy field.

The policy secretariat, which operates with a small staff, has a major responsibility in identifying and initiating issues that transcend more than one ministry and often issues that spread over more than one policy field. The work of the four advisory councils, Mr. Chairman, has been very gratifying. As members of the Legislature are aware, the four advisory councils report to the Legislature through my office. They are the Ontario Status of Women Council, and the Advisory Councils on Multiculturalism, on the Physically Handicapped and on Senior Citizens.

Mr. Conway: Think you can get that vote back in Downsview?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Council members bring a diversity of experience and background to their tasks and they have seen many of their thoughtful recommendations turned into action. I can think, for instance, of the positive response of the Ministry of Education to the Status of Women Council’s concern about the sexual stereotyping in textbooks and in career counselling. And this government responded positively to the Advisory Council on Senior Citizens request for the extension of the free drug programme for all pensioners 65 years of age and over --

Mr. Conway: And Bill’s trip to see the Pope.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- and to the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped regarding the provision of services for handicapped residents in apartment-style settings. That same co-operation flows between the Ministry of Culture and Recreation and the Advisory Council Multiculturalism.

The expansion of the work of the Youth Secretariat reflects this government’s concern for the young people and the problems they are facing in a very tight job market. One of the most innovative projects was the development of the Ontario Career Action Programme which was designed to give young people short-term work experience to ease the transition from school to regular employment.

Mr. Conway: That sounds good.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The Youth Secretariat has been working with employers, unions, guidance counsellors, chambers of commerce and others in a practical effort in the coordination of career guidance for young people. The Youth Secretariat continues to co-ordinate the summer work programme. This year’s Experience programme, which was set at $10.3-million in February, was enriched by an additional $2-million in April. The $12.3-million project is providing summer jobs for 9,100 young people in this province.

The work continues. There are new areas to explore and ongoing projects to finish. We are attempting to deal with the inequities built into our systems of care for our senior citizens and we are looking at the transportation problems faced by those who are physically handicapped. With constraints on spending, the co-ordination of services has become even more important.

Mr. McClellan: In the absence of our critic, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier), who has been stranded by the air strike, I have been thrown into the breach. It’s difficult to know what to say about this ministry, because it’s such a mystery to us as we enter this estimate debate, as it was the last time around, what this ministry does, what this ministry is about, what there is about this ministry that justifies the expenditure of over $2 million of public funds.

For the life of us, Mr. Chairman, we are unable to comprehend how any rational government could spend $2 million with so little to show. There is not a shred of evidence that we can obtain with respect to co-ordination between the programmes of the ministries within the social development field. While I don’t for a moment want to downgrade the role of citizen advisory councils to government, it is unacceptable to assume they are charged with a major role of policy formulation and development.

The record of follow-up, with respect to the recommendations of the various advisory councils, is fairly sordid. Am I correct in assuming the advisory council on day care was at one time one of the minister’s advisory councils?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No.

Mr. McClellan: No? It was always the Ministry of Community and Social Services? In that case, I will forgo flaying you with the responsibility for its sabotage and disbanding.

The Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped has made a series of excellent recommendations with respect to transportation services for the disabled. That series of recommendations has disappeared long since into the mire of government red tape and buck-passing between the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. We still seem as far away from the coherent programme to provide transportation assistance to the physically handicapped as we were before the advisory council undertook its long and useful deliberations.

There are gaps in policies that must be looked at. In the field of income security, this government seems to be at sea and adrift, yet the ministry that has responsibility for the development and co-ordination of policy recommendations does not seem to be remotely interested in entering what is probably the most important policy field at the present time, and that is the policy of this government with respect to income security. In view of the major federal-provincial review of income security and social support legislation that is taking place between the provinces collectively and the federal government, we find it absolutely staggering that the Social Development Secretariat has not moved into this area

The absence of policy in this government is very evident. I asked the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) last January if he would table before the House a statement of this government’s thinking on the matter of income security in the review of the Canada Pension legislation. The minister replied that he would go in there with a statement of good old Tory philosophy and that would be that. I didn’t think he was serious. I thought the minister wanted to keep his policy position on income security to himself, to play his cards close to the vest as he seems wont to do, little dreaming that when he said he was going to go in there like one of the good old boys and lay on a strip about Tory philosophy and nothing else he was dead right. He wasn’t kidding, he was serious; that is exactly what he did. He made this province the laughingstock of the country with his know-nothingism at the federal-provincial conference.


At the recent meeting of the Canadian Council on Social Development we had the extraordinary spectacle of the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare laying into the Province of Ontario for its irresponsible, nonsensical and obstructionist contribution to this major review of our income security legislation.

Mr. Lalonde, the minister -- I think it’s useful to read a little of this scathing indictment of your government’s social development policy into the record.

He points out that the Province of Ontario has the largest resources of any government in Canada and one might expect it to make a major contribution to the issue of welfare reform and on the question of the social development policy of this country, probably for the next 20 or 25 years. He says it simply did not do this. He points out the contrast with the other provinces -- that Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba made vigorous arguments with respect to a variety of policy options which were possible before us. He concedes that he disagreed often, particularly with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. That’s to be expected. There are and there were fundamental disagreements, but he acknowledges their contribution. At least they had a point of view. They had something to say. They had clear and well-thought out policy positions on this fundamental issue and they argued them vigorously.

Mr. Lalonde went on to say:

“To be brutally frank, the analytic power which Prince Edward Island brought to bear on our deliberations was substantially in excess of that brought to the table by Ontario.

“As active participants in a useful dialogue, Ontario was nowhere to be seen. Their position, as they sat in isolated silence at the last welfare ministers’ meeting, was then only a logical extension of their position during the review. Having offered no positive alternatives throughout, they decided to oppose the federal income support and supplement plan in principle at the end.”

That was a ludicrous performance by the government of this province and you, as minister in charge of the secretariat responsible for developing social policy for the province, have to share in that opprobrium meted out to this province by the rest of the country. You have made us the laughingstock in the eyes of our colleagues in the other provinces and in the federal government. You have missed the opportunity, I hope not permanently but I suspect permanently, to make a contribution to one of the most important public policy discussions which has happened since the end of World War 2.

I agree with Mr. Lalonde’s conclusion when he says the people of this province are entitled to more than that. There are people in both your ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services who could have made a substantial contribution to that debate. It is nothing short of a public disgrace that this government went in and stonewalled and, as Mr. Lalonde said, sat there in isolated silence and exercised only its power of veto over the successive programmes. In the one instance when it bothered to do a detailed analysis of a policy option, it performed what you might call an autopsy in lurid detail on a proposal which was already dead and buried.

That was an opportunity you had in the field of income security in which you could have made a contribution but you did nothing.

In the work of the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism I have with me here -- I want to say a little bit about this area because of its importance to us in this party, and in a more personal way because of its importance to my own constituents. Again, I don’t downgrade the idea of advisory citizen councils to government but one has to acknowledge, at times, their limitations and short-comings. They can’t be seen as a substitute for government initiatives in policy developments.

The Advisory Council on Multiculturalism has addressed itself to a number of problems which are serious problems; problems which I know the minister, the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) -- I forget the name, the Ministry of Culture and Recreation -- is deeply concerned about. I am afraid he won’t get very much guidance from the report by the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism on a number of areas and it leaves the question of policy development, then, very much up in the air.

For example, the advisory council was asked by the Minister of Culture and Recreation to deal with the question of a grant policy for the province. It’s a very thorny subject, a very complicated subject; I don’t have any illusions about that. But it is insufficient to present, as your sole contribution to a policy discussion, something that is really as cursory as the report from the task group on grants. It is not going to be very helpful to the minister, I assure you. Unless you are prepared to supplement, in a serious way, the work of such citizens advisory groups as this, we are just wasting a lot of time and we are just wasting a lot of money.

This report of the task group on grants avoids completely the fundamental, constitutional question of Ontario’s responsibility for the provision of immigrant settlement services. They don’t even deal with that. And that is a pre-condition for getting an answer to the question; you first have to ask yourself the question. They just move ahead with a series of rather superficial statements, that make a lot of assumptions, that aren’t particularly valid, and then come out with a rather confused proposal for five-year funding, which is probably the reverse of what it ought to be since it has the government picking up about 75 per cent of funding responsibility in the first year and tapering down to 25 per cent in the final year. Maybe that’s their way of addressing the question of the responsibility of the Ontario government in the field of immigrant settlement services, and if that us their day of addressing it, they come out quite clearly and say that Ontario has no responsibility.

So that’s simply not good enough. They don’t address themselves to the question of how payments ought to be made, whether they ought to be made on a block-grant basis, whether they ought to be made, as the federal government is doing, on the basis of purchase for services. They don’t develop usable criteria. In short, we are as much up in the air with respect to a grant policy and a funding policy at the conclusion of the work of this advisory council as we were when we started.

There is a rich opportunity for your ministry, with respect to the development of policy concerning native people. Surely no field in this ministry, in this government, has shown such total -- can I ask, Mr. Chairman, if the background noise can be somewhat lowered?

Mr. Johnson: You have got to be sick, because there is no noise at all.

Mr. McClellan: You may not be able to hear it, but it is increasingly hard to hear from where I stand myself.

Mr. Acting Chairman (McCague): Would the members on the left side of the House please keep things down to a dull roar?

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Acting Chairman (McCague): And on the right too, please.

Mr. Samis: Now we are getting somewhere.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that was nobly done.

With respect to native people, no series of programmes have shown such a complete lack of co-ordination. Nowhere has there been such a total paucity of policy options. Nowhere has there been formulated Ontario’s responsibility for the long-term economic development programmes that are necessary if our native people are to take their rightful place in our society. Nowhere is there anything but a record of fragmentation, of disco-ordination, of futility, as various and sundry ministries stumble all over themselves in what seems only to be a desire to avoid serving the native communities effectively.

I need remind you only of the meeting in Kenora on May 20 at which 12 federal and provincial ministries were present, along with 36 sundry senior civil servants, all stumbling all over themselves to explain and to excuse their failures to develop a coherent and comprehensive programme in northwestern Ontario over the last six years. Again, it’s an opportunity that your ministry could have taken hold of to try to come to grips with the problem -- such action is nowhere to be seen.

I will conclude the major decisions with respect to policy are still taken at the level of the individual ministries. The Ministry of Education develops what it wants to develop. The Ministry of Community and Social Services does what it wants to do. They even, in one of their documents, took pains to point out that the Social Development Secretariat under no circumstances would have anything at all to do with the area of services to the mentally retarded.

We can go through the field; I won’t, but the record is very clear. This ministry is not a super ministry, it is a mini-ministry. It is a sort of big social planning council up in the sky which has its little advisory committees attached to it. They spend some $2 million a year servicing their little advisory subcommittees. They do not fill a policy development role; they do not fill a policy co-ordination role. The ministry is superfluous at a time of constraint and cutback. It cries out itself to be constrained, to be cut back, indeed to be eliminated.

Mr. Warner: Resign.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I must preface my remarks tonight by saying how deeply it pains me to be so critical of a ministry headed by a person who is non-male. I would like to be able to pay great tribute to this minister. Certainly there is no one in this House more committed to the role of women and to the advancement of women, on the political scene as well as in other places.

I have been here for some time now. The only social policy development that really has flowed from this ministry, apart from these council reports, were the infamous daycare recommendations. I don’t think anyone in this province will ever forget the complete unconcern, and I must say from my point of view the complete lack of understanding, of that whole field. Yet that flowed from this particular secretariat. Fortunately, we did have in this House a minister who had a conscience and an understanding, so the hideous effects of that policy were somewhat dissipated by the appointment of the task force to study these matters.


If I were to ask one question, I’m afraid my question would have to be: What do you do? From our point of view, you have not been able to answer questions in the House in the social development policy field, but have left those questions to be addressed to the line ministries within the secretariat or the field of policy development.

I had the misfortune to listen to the minister the other day, when she was replying to a question of my leader with a supplementary question from me. It is interesting that she stated that she didn’t always agree with Laura Sabia. I can well understand it, because I think they operate on two completely different planes. At that time I asked her about the possible appointment of the minister’s office manager as the new chairman of the Status of Women Council for this province. At that time, the minister said she had not made an appointment, not having received any resignation from Laura Sabia.

I have before me an article entitled “New Chairman Expected to Replace Laura Sabia.” I regret that I don’t have the date on it, but it was written by Judy Creighton, CP family editor. In that article she says -- and please forgive me if I’m not correct in my pronunciation:

“Mrs. Tomljenovic said yesterday she expects to be appointed chairman since Mrs. Sabia made an announcement recently that she was stepping down.”

It is interesting that the minister’s office manager would give that statement to the press at a time when the minister herself will not either confirm or deny that appointment.

I would like to know what this lady’s qualifications are. Frankly, I think most women in this province heartily agreed with Laura Sabia’s position when she said, and I repeat, that “women’s councils have become nothing better than pacifiers for government and ladies’ clubs and political appointments, for instance for someone’s campaign manager.”

Mr. Conway: Resign. Shame.

Mrs. Campbell: It is surely apparent that this appointment, if it is to be made, is one which bears out what Laura Sabia has said.

The council itself, I suggest, was virtually precluded from the start from really being able to do as effective a job as it otherwise might have done, because there was no policy commitment to it; if there had been, there would be some decent funding attached to it. Notwithstanding that, I have to say that I think the council has done a very effective job, despite this policy ministry and not because of it.

So far as the other council are concerned, I am not going to labour the matter of the multi-cultural report, because I feel very strongly that the critic or alternative critic for the opposition has put the matter very, very well. Quite often with these appointments it seems to me and it seems to the public that people are appointed who perhaps may be expected to bring forward that which is pleasant to the ear of the minister. I would certainly ask the minister to respond to that. Would she tell me what is her understanding of the problems of multiculturalism? She must have a policy in her mind, other than somebody else’s report. She must have a position that she takes on the status of women --

Mr. Samis: Don’t count on it.

Mrs. Campbell: -- other than appointing her own political appointee to chair the council.

Mr. Conway: Her whole purpose of it.

Mrs. Campbell: She must have some opinions on something dealing with social development policy.

Mr. Warner: Don’t bet on it.

Mrs. Campbell: Yet, with respect, I have yet to hear her voice any opinion or any policy, other than through the daycare fiasco, since I have been in this House. We have had statements about these councils, we have had statements about what other people think or do, but we don’t have anything flowing from the ministry itself.

I am not going into the matter of what the hon. Marc Lalonde stated, but doesn’t it strike this minister that it is rather a tragedy and rather an indictment of her as a policy minister that this province is spending less than any other province in Canada, save Nova Scotia, in the social development field?

Doesn’t it strike her, as it is her responsibility, that we are not developing any preventive services? Does she not, as a person formerly active in the community, understand that perhaps we are spending far too much on those mandatory services because we don’t find the funds to prevent the very things that we are trying to prevent? Prevent poverty, prevent all of these problems of children in our community -- those are the programmes which cost less in dollars, but the lack of which costs infinitely more in social disease, social poverty and the whole bit.

Where is this ministry developing policy? We see social development as a kind of rudderless ship that goes here and there and all over the place.

Mr. Eakins: A headless horseman.

Mrs. Campbell: It really never comes to grips with the needs of the people in the community. Where is this policy ministry in explaining to the people of this province why we are one of the few provinces in Canada that require the municipalities to participate in financial arrangements for welfare? What is the minister’s position on that? Does anyone know? Has she ever explained it to anybody? I would like to hear from her on that score.

I am not going to take more of the time of this House. I simply have to say again, with the sincerest regret, that I don’t find this ministry one which ought to have moneys allocated at a time of restraint. I think it is a useless waste of dollars. I can only say that if there is some justification for it other than regurgitating what other people say, I would like the minister to answer, from her own philosophical point of view, the questions which I have put as to her policies and their proposed development. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Warner: She should resign.

Mr. Acting Chairman (McCague): Does the minister wish to respond to the opening statements?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, I think perhaps I had better. I don’t think there is too much time left and of course I would like to respond.

I don’t think, with all due respect, that the hon. member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) was listening too clearly when I defined the three portions identified in the $2 million. It is not just the Youth Secretariat, it includes the work of the Youth Secretariat as well as advisory councils.

Mr. McClellan: I understood that, of course.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Well you didn’t appear to in your comments.

I would also like to point out how very disappointed I am in your comments about the advisory councils and the work that they are doing. In answer to your comments, and the comments of the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), I think it is a very poor reflection on the people who make up those advisory councils. As I am sure you are aware, they are representatives of all political persuasions. They we representative of all regions of this province, and indeed they are making excellent recommendations upon which this government is taking action.

I have only to point out, for example, one particular council, the Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped. Although the latest council to come into being, in 1975, as a matter of example it has already made six recommendations, five of which are being enacted. I think those are very important recommendations to the people who are physically handicapped throughout this province.

Mr. Philip: Which ones?

An hon. member: Tell us about the blind.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes; the Blind Persons Rights Act, which was a recommendation of that particular council, is now legislation. There is also housing for the physically handicapped on which there were recommendations. You are all aware that there are three projects under way at the moment in providing accommodation for physically handicapped people.

This, again, came as a recommendation from this group of people serving on a council, the majority of them physically handicapped people themselves who have lived with those handicaps for years and years and who know better than any member of this government, any civil servant anywhere within this government, what it’s like to be physically handicapped in this day and age in the Province of Ontario. They have made very reasonable recommendations of which we were very appreciative and we are endeavouring to bring them into being so they too can begin to enjoy what so many of us take for granted.

Mrs. Campbell: You are following the city of Toronto’s recommendations.


Hon. Mrs. Birch: These are recommendations from our own council; and of course the staff person was involved in that as well.

Further, the physical modification of housing units was just announced by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) whereby people who are physically handicapped and living in their own homes are entitled to dwelling modifications, such as stairways and other architectural benefits that will help them to enjoy life more fully in their own homes.

And then there is our involvement in transportation for the physically handicapped. I might add that this, again, is an area where for too long the people who are handicapped in this province have been denied facilities that the rest of us just take as a right.

Mr. Samis: Why don’t you act on it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The transportation for the physically handicapped report was at the policy field level last week. It was sent along to cabinet with recommendations and there are pilot projects that are going to be initiated immediately.

But again, it is going to be a parallel service. It is not going to be a social welfare programme, it is going to be a parallel service with the kinds of transportation policies the rest of us enjoy. We are trying some pilot projects to determine just where the need is the greatest.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Where are the capital grants?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: So that is another area in which I feel one of the councils has certainly zeroed in and found out the real needs of handicapped people of this province. I am assured that they will be continuing to bring forth recommendations until everyone who suffers from some kind of handicap in this province has the same rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy.

Mr. McClellan: When will the programmes start?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Almost immediately.

Mr. McClellan: Will there be an announcement?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, there will be.

An hon. member: She just announced it now.

Mr. B. Newman: How about working on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr)?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The only recommendation that has not been acted upon, and it is under consideration at the moment, is the provision of assistive devices for disabled persons. That recommendation is with the Ministry of Health and it is being considered; I am very hopeful that it also will be approved.

So you see, the councils do have a role to play. The councils are made up of people with direct interest in the problems. As I say, on this particular council if they are not physically handicapped people they are then people who have worked with handicapped people and know their needs.

So I am very delighted with that particular council. I find that the money spent in honorariums and expenses for that council and the other councils is certainly well worth the money spent.

Now the member for St. George -- and I’ll jump around a bit -- has made reference to the daycare report the secretariat announced as policy in this House -- I guess it was in June of 1974. That, of course, was a recommendation of policy coming out of a study that had been ongoing for two years within the secretariat. It had had the benefit of some 36 different groups involved with children’s services, and they had every opportunity at that time to make comment.

The policy, as you are well aware, was not favourably received by those who are involved in the provision of daycare services. When one considers the amount of money that is required to provide day care to all those children who require it, perhaps in the long run someone will acknowledge there was a great deal of common sense in that policy, and perhaps someday that will be acknowledged?

Mr. Conway: What do you think of Laura?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: And of course I can’t let the member for St. George’s comments about the Status of Women Council go unanswered. I thought I had answered the questions in the House the other day very explicitly on the matter of Mrs. Sabia’s resignation.

The council under Mrs. Sabia has only been in operation a little over two years. During that period of time, and particularly within the last year, Ms. Sabia has often announced to the press that the council no longer had anything to offer and that she herself was resigning. But at no time was an official resignation ever received by the Premier (Mr. Davis) or by myself.

The resignation that we refer to was made, apparently, two weeks ago, as the council was meeting, when she announced to the press that she was resigning. A copy of her resignation just arrived in my office yesterday.

Mrs. Campbell: When can we expect the announcement of the appointment of her successor?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The announcement of that appointment will come from the Premier’s Office. I would suggest to the hon. member that it’s the Premier’s prerogative to name the chairmen of all the councils; it would be entirely up to the Premier to make that judgement.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You have no input at all?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I personally would feel very disappointed if, in fact, he did not appoint Mrs. Tomljenovic as the chairman of the Status of Women Council, because observing her over the years that I’ve known her, I believe her to be very qualified.

Mr. Conway: Mrs. Dunlop --

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I believe she would do an excellent job representing the average woman across this province. So I again reiterate that I think that the vice-chairman of the Status of Women Council would indeed be an excellent chairman.

Mr. Conway: What do you think of Laura?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I question again the words “of qualifications.” What kind of qualifications does one require to be the chairman of the Status of Women Council?

Mr. Conway: Tory!

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Not necessarily, but that is a good one.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That would help everybody.

Mr. Conway: Can I nominate Lorne Henderson or Mrs. Keith Norton?

Mr. Moffatt: Does he know something we don’t, Keith?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You also have referred to the fact that during the council’s lifetime that often I have not agreed with what the chairman of the council had to say, but again I have recognized the fact she was quite at liberty to express her own feelings and her own views. Of course that is the prerogative of all the members of all the councils and I think it would be very unseemly of me to impose my viewpoints on any member of the council. In fact that’s what we’re looking for, viewpoints outside of the government from the many citizens who do have a great deal to offer in this capacity.

Mr. S. Smith: You already get those from Mrs. Tomljenovic.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: So I really feel that all of the members of the council have done an excellent job and I don’t feel I have to apologize, either for the amount of money that is spent on council members or for the work that they have been able to provide and the recommendations they have brought to government. I’m very proud of all the council members and their contribution and the recommendations they have brought forward.

There has been reference, of course, to the comments of Mr. --

Mr. Conway: What do you think of Laura? What do you think of her contribution?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think she has made a very good contribution.

Mr. Conway: Have you ever thought of --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please; order. I wonder if the hon. member would permit the hon. minister to continue her remarks and then we will go into a question period.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There have been several comments with reference to the statement made by Marc Lalonde. I would just like to point out to the hon. members that, yes, Ontario did go to Ottawa with a viewpoint and Ontario did attempt to ask the federal minister not to discuss the issue of income security review until such time as the first ministers had met, because at no time were we given an indication of how much money this was going to cost the provinces.

I might also add that regardless of what Mr. Lalonde has said, either at the recent meeting of the social policy group or to the press, that indeed most of the provinces took the same view we did and were very concerned at the lack of financial information that was available to us. Indeed we were not the laughingstock. We were joined by many of our sister provinces in taking that same attitude. Regardless of what Mr. Lalonde had to say, I think that if you had an opportunity to --

Mr. McClellan: He’s not the only one who said it.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Well -- we happened to be there and we know what happened.

Mr. Maeck: He’s never said anything important yet anyway, Margaret.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, I don’t think so either.

Mr. McClellan: This is the one exception.

Mr. Maeck: Never, never.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You also made reference to the lack of policy with regard to native people. I can only point out to you that you’re aware as well as I am what a complex problem this is in trying to meet the needs of the native people of this province. Nevertheless, I think this government is attempting in every possible way to co-ordinate the services and to provide the kinds of services the native Indian people require.

To those ends, of course, the Minister without Portfolio and Chairman of Cabinet (Mr. Brunelle) has been appointed the co-ordinator and our secretariat is represented -- our deputy minister is a member -- on that committee. I expect that over the next few months, if there’s not too much intervention on behalf of the members of the opposition in creating problems, perhaps we may find some of the answers, finally, and be able to help.

Mr. McClellan: What are you suggesting?

Mr. Conway: A select committee?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’m suggesting that if the committee is left alone and left to work with the native Indian people themselves perhaps some answers may be found for the great many problems that exist.

Mr. Warner: It hasn’t happened in 30 years.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: They are not easy to solve; there are other jurisdictions involved and that makes it very difficult, but I am certain that the committee, under Mr. Brunelle, is finally going to be able to resolve many of these issues. I would just hope for and encourage the support of the opposition members.

Mr. Warner: You have had years to do something.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The member for St. George, I guess, is not interested in the answers. She wanted to hear my own personal philosophy, but obviously she really isn’t interested in hearing it.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It will be in Hansard.

Mr. Conway: Collectively, we will tell her.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: So I will just refrain for now and perhaps at some other time, when the member stays in the House, I will let her know about my personal philosophy.

Mr. R. S. Smith: We didn’t think you would be so long-winded.

Mr. Conway: Don’t deny my interest.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think perhaps, unless I have missed a point other than my own personal philosophy, I will just allow any other member who might have some comments to make them.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before we recognize the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) we might decide as a committee how we’re going to deal with these expenditures. It would be my suggestion that we deal with them item by item rather than collectively. Is that agreeable with the committee?

Very well; we’ll start with social development policy item 1 of vote 2501. The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

On vote 2501:

Ms. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly find it difficult to support a vote of $600,000 when you include the provincial secretary with the $582,000 for social development policy, an activity which according to the estimates is supposed to be responsible for development and co-ordination of policy in this field. I fail to see in what way she has co-ordinated policy.

For instance, where is the co-ordination between the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health in keeping people out of hospitals; in providing community facilities to enable home care for convalescent patients, and for psychiatric patients who might be released into the community, if there were services for them when they got there?

Where is the co-ordination between the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the youth employment programme, since OSAP regulations for grants are calculated on the assumption that students will get summer jobs?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Would you have us exempt them?

Ms. Bryden: The shortage of summer jobs is a disaster this year for many students, because failure of the federal and provincial governments to stimulate the economy has caused a drying up of jobs in the private sector. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Youth Secretariat to respond to this cutback by increasing summer jobs for students generally. I recognize there has been an increase but it has been minimal.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is 43 per cent; that is hardly minimal.

Ms. Bryden: It certainly isn’t meeting the need.

I’d like to ask the minister how many applications were received for Experience 76 and how many of those people have obtained jobs? Where is the co-ordination between Culture and Recreation and the Youth Secretariat in regard to activities for young people? Young people are among the groups in our society which have very little political voice, particularly with the government, which is aging and which seems to represent the generation gap.


The young people, at the beginning of the season or the first long weekend, like to get into the outdoors and celebrate springtime festivals, but this ministry, instead of making facilities available for them for such activities, is co-operating with municipalities which are restricting campgrounds for them. It is sending the OPP in to break up their legitimate activities. I have a constituent who had paid his way and was on a campsite. He was minding his own business. They were having a little music, maybe drinking a bottle of beer around a campfire, but they were doing nothing that was illegal.

Mr. Conway: Oh, shame.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, this is Ontario, please!

Mr. Conway: The Red scare.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Ms. Bryden: The OPP came in and evicted them, on the night of May 23, without any reason being given.


Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor, would you have the courtesy to listen to her comments.

Mr. S. Smith: Terry, what are you going to do about that?

Ms. Bryden: I think the secretariat should be looking at ways of developing recreational facilities, for young people with adequate supervision, so that in all provincial parks, as in other places, the lawbreakers would be looked after by the police but the ordinary people who just want to have a good time would have the facilities and not be harassed.

Mr. Conway: Stamp out that singing.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I could go on as to the lack of co-ordination and the lack of policy development, but I also want to ask about the priorities of the secretariat. For instance, the funding of the Canadian Council on Social Development, which just held a very important conference in this city at which various speeches that have been referred to were made by Mr. Lalonde and by Mr. Taylor, Ontario’s Minister of Community and Social Services. That organization relies on government grants to carry out its very valuable research. The Ontario government has been giving it a grant in the past, as have all other provinces. This year seven out of nine provinces have responded to the needs of this organization by raising the grant by 10 per cent, just to allow for inflation. Of the other two provinces, one hasn’t yet replied and the other has not added the 10 per cent.

The richest province in Canada, Ontario, has refused a 10 per cent increase to this organization. That, in effect, means it has cut its grant, because there has been inflation, as we all know. It seems to me that if the minister goes and speaks to an organization of this sort and supports them publicly in his speech, and then comes back and refuses to increase their grant, he is being hypocritical.

Another organization this government has refused to fund -- I’m just giving two examples or three examples to show their priorities -- another organization they have refused to fund is Silent Voice, an organization which tries to integrate deaf people, both young and adult, into the community. It enables them to feel at home, to solve problem and to develop skills before becoming part of the community.

A third organization which has been refused help is in my own riding, the Beaches Lions Club, which was ready to organize a daycare centre for emotionally disturbed children. It has been working on this since 1972. It’s prepared to do all the renovation and provide all the facilities. All it needed was an operating grant to carry on the operation. The ministry agreed there was a need for such a facility in this section of the city of Toronto, but has refused any grant.

These examples indicate priorities; I fail to see that the secretariat is attempting to change any of those priorities or to bring into effect what might be called a progressive social development policy.

The provincial secretary mentioned pilot projects which were coming up for handicapped citizens. They already have a pilot project in Ottawa and Toronto, I understand, and it seems to me that we are past the stage of pilot projects. We know the needs. Such programmes have been operating in the United States for some time and there is no reason for us to put in another pilot project. To me it sounds just like a token project.

Mr. McClellan: We need programmes.

Ms. Bryden: I know we will be coming to the councils in a minute but I want to say that I think the Status of Women Council is another agency the future role of which the ministry should be considering very carefully.

Under Laura Sabia it has done invaluable work. She has been really outspoken and a tremendous influence in drawing attention to areas in which women suffer serious discrimination in our society. But if it continues to speak to a deaf ear in the government its usefulness will decline.

It has made very strong recommendations in the field of daycare, as has the advisory committee on daycare. It has made very strong recommendations about upgrading the opportunities for women in the public service and most of these are still a long way from any implementation.

I can understand the council beginning to feel that it is there for window-dressing purposes only. I think we should very seriously question whether its role should not be enlarged and its influence increased. I think those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Samis: I was on your side.

Mr. S. Smith: I wanted to share a few thoughts with the minister with regard to the whole concept of having a ministry which could co-ordinate the activities of Health and Social Services in particular, although I realize that her realm, in theory, extends beyond that.

There are so many matters which have to concern a thinking person in Ontario today and in which the problems seem to be, at least in part, due to the boundaries that exist between the various ministries. I wasn’t in politics at the time but when I heard that policy development secretariats and co-ordinating secretariats were being set up I was rather pleased because I saw this as having the potential actually to deal with some very thorny problems in which more than one ministry happens to be involved.

Frankly, I have been very disappointed because I don’t believe that this minister’s secretariat has effectively come to grips with the need to co-ordinate Health on the one hand with Community and Social Services on the other. I might, without reaching the point of boredom, I trust, touch on one or two points, where I think this could have been achieved and hasn’t been achieved.

Let me mention, first of all, the whole matter of group homes -- the non-institutional type of care located in a community where one of the principles is that the peer relationship between various people receiving the treatment and the structure required therein is an important part of the rehabilitative process. We are seeing in our time a move away from institutional care. We are seeing in our time a move away from the expense and the institutionalism that occurs when we put large numbers of people into large treatment facilities.

The trend is certainly, and it should be, toward group homes, half-way houses and various rehabilitative attempts in the community itself rather than away from the community, This province should be taking the lead in developing a coherent philosophy about group homes; a coherent inventory on the kinds of people presently being treated and dealt with in group homes and the kinds who might potentially be dealt with there.

This province could be taking a lead in the costing of these group homes as opposed to institutionalization. Instead, what we see are four separate ministries dealing in group homes, mostly Community and Social Services but also, as the minister knows, Correctional Services, Health and, to a very minor extent, Education. There is good reason to believe that the type of person treated in these various group homes really does not differ very much from ministry to ministry. There are some differences, of course, but they are not very striking compared to the differences in budgetary arrangements between the ministries, the differences in licensing arrangements, the difference in inspection and, of course, the general difference in terms of finance.

I feel that one of the things that this minister should have been doing is coming to grips with the matter of the various non-institutional arrangements which I group under the name “group homes,” even though some of these semi-institutions may not fit exactly under that. We should have had a philosophy and a set of criteria which would apply across the board so that we wouldn’t find ourselves in the shocking situation where, for instance, Browndale can charge $64 or $65 a day and convince people that they are getting a bargain, because they compare that with the rates --

Mr. Lawlor: Browndale is an obsessional matter with you.

Mr. S. Smith: My goodness, I touched a nerve there. I have disturbed the member’s sleep; I apologize to him.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Lawlor: You are one of the very few people around here with an obsessional demeanour.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The hon. member doesn’t even know what my leader is talking about.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West has the floor.

Mr. Lawlor: Is Browndale an obsessional neurosis, doctor?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.


Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I may be an expert in the jargon, but I’m sure the hon. member is an expert in the neurosis itself, so I certainly yield to him.

Mr. Lawlor: We have other neuroses, thank you.

Mr. S. Smith: It is quite pathetic that we should have a situation where something like Browndale could claim that $65 a day is a bargain when, for instance, as the minister knows very well, the type of child referred to Browndale is frequently no more disturbed, and even less so, than many of the children taken care of in some of the other group homes around the Province of Ontario.

Interestingly, the group homes under the administration of Correctional Services and Community and Social Services are, in my view, giving Ontario good value for the dollar. There are one or two instances we might question about the licensing and so on, but generally they are giving good value for their dollar. Yet your ministry really has failed to take advantage of their experience. In the realm of health, the separation between Health and Social Services might as well be a 10-ft wall, because you are not bridging that gap; you are not bringing them together under one philosophy; you are not a minister of human resources, as you should be. Instead, you are standing back and watching these various solitudes exist and go their own way. The chaos which has resulted is directly attributable to the fact that you have not co-ordinated between them.

What you have done is you have obtained an interministerial report, a task force report, which deals with this matter -- and I have reason to believe it deals with it rather effectively -- but you have suppressed that report. That report, the Anderson-Magder report, has been done for several months, and you have suppressed that report. If you say you haven’t, then the ministers under you have. Part of your job is to take interministerial reports and make them public so that we can see the advantages of a co-ordinating secretariat, a policy secretariat. Instead, you sat back and dealt with some of your advisory councils and so on -- and I’m not here to knock them -- but you haven’t done anything to draw together the disparate activities of a related nature among the various ministries.

Let me give you another example. You know very well that acute hospital beds are tremendously expensive, and we know the difficulties this province has undergone recently as the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) has tried to deal with those in a way which we needn’t go into here at any length. But homemakers’ services, which in themselves can serve to reduce the pressure on acute hospital beds, come under Community and Social Services; again, there has been no real effort to deal with these in a co-ordinated fashion.


The same goes for old age homes and nursing homes; the old age homes under ComSoc and the nursing homes under Health. The fact is, any backup which occurs in one of these is going to be transmitted one way or another, directly or indirectly, into the other. It will be backed up in the social system and backed up into the health system where it is usually extremely costly and very wasteful.

You haven’t done the job which needs to be done. I don’t say it is a simple one. I don’t say this is a personal attack on you. Your ministry has not, in fact, taken hold of these borderline areas where the one field spills over into the other and come up with a co-ordinated, sensible approach which could be grasped and understood by all levels of government.

I might mention mental retardation as another typical example. As you know, mental retardation was plucked from the Ministry of Health and put into Community and Social Services. I am not quarrelling with that, I think it has some merit. But even then people in the field understood there are certain health aspects to mental retardation, not the least of which was the one we hear about in a somewhat sensational way lately, namely the fact that only in the health field are you entitled to hospitalize someone against his will due to mental incapacity or being a danger to himself or others. Once you take these people out of the health field, there is no longer any mechanism for hospitalizing somebody against his will.

The field of mental retardation happens to straddle very neatly the border between the areas of health and social service. You need some of the aspects we normally apply to mental illness to apply also to mental retardation, while at the same time not defining them as the same.

That requires co-ordination and you haven’t done that. We are left with a mental retardation policy which, even without going into it in detail, because that should more properly be done not in your estimates but in those of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but in this particular aspect it fails miserably. It fails because of the aspect which requires that someone straddle the fields of health and social services to bring together the concepts which are germane to mental retardation in each of those areas. By not doing that, by saying it either must be black or it must be white, we now find ourselves with a situation where we have the sad events of Huronia. We have a full mental retardation programme called into very unfortunate question at a time when we should be gaining community co-operation, not frightening the daylights out of people.

That, again, is because of this holus-bolus idea. You are either Health or you are ComSoc; which one are you going to be? One shouldn’t have to choose. It should be possible -- and your secretariat is the organization that I thought might have been able to do this, your co-ordinating ministry should have been able to do this -- it should be possible to find a way to co-ordinate between health and social welfare in the old sense.

I don’t want to go on at great length. Your advisory council, I think, have some merit. I am very concerned, however, about the appointment of your campaign manager chairman of the Status of Women --


An hon. member: Shame.

Mr. S. Smith: Well, whatever she is.

If you want to know how to go about choosing people for these posts and not be accused of this sort of political nepotism, then what you have to do is simply call for applicants or nominations. Leave it open to the various interested groups to make suggestions to you and give some reason and logic for your choice when you make it. But to just have an arbitrary decision made on the basis of the fact that, according to you or the Premier (Mr. Davis), some particular helper of yours is a typical housewife or something like that, that is not a good enough reason to make somebody a chairman.

Call for applications, call for nominations from interested parties.


Mr. S. Smith: This is what your government has long been criticized for. Most of you over there have a second salary. You criticize people on this side when they want a decent wage, but most of you have a second salary. When you leave the cabinet most of you end up in some government agency or on some government board.

It is true. Why take something like the Status of Women Advisory Council and lower it in this way? If she can compete with others fair and square and win, fine; I won’t hold it against her if she is a Tory or is your helper or friend, that is not to be held against a person. But let her compete fair and square, in the open with other nominees. That’s the real problem you have over there and you fail to recognize.

Mr. Samis: The old free enterprise way.

Mr. S. Smith: May I question just one point with regard to your multicultural council? I was fascinated by the report that came out this year, particularly the part that has to do with the why in which French and English are being taught, not to ethnic groups but to anybody in this particular province at this time. The criticism, with which you may be familiar, points out how the University of Toronto people are entering without being able to form proper sentences or write proper English papers. This, I’m sure, is something shocking to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), he gets very, very upset about this.

Mr. Samis: Hang on, Bill, the best is yet to come.

Mr. S. Smith: Further, there is the matter of the teaching of French in this province being so dreadfully neglected.

Now the multicultural advisory council brought that out to you and I want to know whether you told the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) what these people feel? Those who came seeking other mother tongues are shocked at the way we Ontarians teach ourselves English and French; they are worried that the teaching is so bad it is going to jeopardize the chance of their kids to actually make a go of things in this life. That’s how shocked they are at the way in which English and French are taught in this province at this time, at the fact the standards are so low.

I realize I will be accused of elitism if I suggest we should have standards that are measurable and that we should strive for excellence, because the great proponents of egalitarianism on the right over here will tell me that this is complete elitism. The fact, however, is that the way English and French are taught in the Province of Ontario it’s a shocking thing to anybody who looks at it. Their own council tells you that and I wonder what you’re going to do about it.

I would just sum up: The main point I want to make is that I wish the minister would understand that her real job is not just to sit around looking at reports on youth secretariats and advisory councils.

Her real job is to co-ordinate health and social services, that’s really the problem at stake in this province. These huge budgets are in what they would call in football in a zone defence, but the seams between the various defenders are huge. There are gaping holes in the ability of our government to deal with the problems that face us in health and social services. This secretariat ministry, I’m afraid, has done nothing to straddle and co-ordinate, other than perhaps the press reports from time to time, to straddle and co-ordinate between health and social services.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the hon. leader of the Liberal Party. I would like to point out to him that what he has been suggesting should be the role of the secretariat is exactly what we have been doing. We have been co-ordinating policies, not only within our own policy field but between the ministries involved in our policy field, and indeed outside our policy field.

I only have to point to the whole question of the repeal of section 8, which is a problem we’re all faced with within our policy field, along with input from the Justice policy field, and there will be recommendations there.

Mr. S. Smith: Will you be proclaiming that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: At some time in the future, yes.

There has also been policy co-ordination between Justice in our policy fields on youth and alcohol. Of course mental retardation and family planning are other areas in which there was a great deal of co-ordination within our policy field in formulating policy for this province.

There have been many other areas; again, transportation for the handicapped. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications initiated studies and worked with our policy field in formulating what we feel is a very viable transportation policy for handicapped people in this province.

The members opposite sometimes try to imply that they’re the only ones with the monopoly on concern for children in this province. I would just like to point out to you that those concerns were mine long before I ever entered this House, and on a voluntary basis. They continue to be of great concern to me, but the morass of different legislation affecting children is frustrating in its scope, it isn’t something that can be turned around overnight and changed. But I can assure you that within our policy field it is getting a great deal of consideration, and hopefully within the next few months we’ll begin to see some results.

You refer to a study which was initiated, again in our policy field, by a residential services committee which was interministerial in scope and headed by Mr. Anderson of Community and Social Services. A very excellent group of people served on that committee, but I would like to point out in answer to your criticism of the length of time it has taken that the people serving on that committee are all very busy people, all involved in other ministry duties. It was a very complex question but they have presented us with a very excellent report.

Mr. S. Smith: That was three months ago.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, it wasn’t three months ago.

Mr. S. Smith: Two and a half months ago.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It may have been that.

Mr. S. Smith: Come on; share it with us.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Since that time --

Mr. S. Smith: Why suppress it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There is no reason to suppress it. It is an interministerial committee --

Mr. S. Smith: Give it to us. We have asked for it three times.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- which reported to the policy field with recommendations for residential services for the aged and for the youth, the children, of this province.

Mr. S. Smith: Why can’t we see it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It was at our policy field meeting. It has been recommended to cabinet for consideration as far as the aged are concerned and then we will be concentrating on those residential services which apply to children. We are concerned --

Mr. S. Smith: Why won’t you show it to us?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- I am very concerned, that children seem not to receive the kind of attention I feel they should have. Too often we serve the agencies rather than the needs of the particular child. It is a tremendously complex problem. There are very many agencies involved and it is something one cannot turn around very quickly, but just to assure you --

Mr. S. Smith: Why can’t you show us the report? What are we going to do? Are the Russians going to take us --

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I doubt that very much.

Mr. S. Smith: Why can’t we see it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It is a report which has just been presented to the policy field for consideration. It is not the only policy consideration we have in the policy field. We have been dealing with transportation for the handicapped.

Mr. S. Smith: Why can’t we see it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We’ve been dealing with housing for the handicapped and it takes time.

Mr. McClellan: Behind closed doors.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The policy or residential services will be moving forward.

The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine made several comments about the lack of co-ordination between the youth secretariat and Colleges and Universities. I would point out one programme which has been invaluable to the young people of this province and which was initiated by the youth secretariat in co-ordination with Colleges and Universities. This was the OCAP programme which provided 1,000 jobs for students within government. It has been a tremendously successful programme.

Ms. Bryden: Is that an increase over last year?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: This is a new programme. It has been widely recognized as a very excellent one and one which many students have desired to become involved in.

Ms. Bryden: Are there any vacancies left?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I couldn’t tell you.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine made some comments about provincial parks and about people being harassed at provincial parks. I would like to point out that over the past summer many people in provincial parks have been disturbing the whole area, spoiling it for those who want to avail themselves of a family holiday. It reached a point where something had to be done and that is why the Ministry of Natural Resources made it possible for the staff within the parks to arrest those who were disturbing the peace and spoiling the camp grounds for those who wanted to enjoy a quiet holiday. I can assure you that those who are behaving themselves and not annoying the rest of the campers are in no way being harassed by the OPP or by anyone else.

Ms. Bryden: They were behaving themselves.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think you made some reference to the Ontario youth programme, our Experience 76 jobs, and I say to you that I don’t find $12.3 million a small amount for this government to be providing for student summer activities. It’s an increase from the original amount, by an additional $2 million. When it was noted there were many applications this year, there was an attempt by this government to provide further help for the many young people who are looking for jobs.


I would just like to point out to the hon. member that I don’t believe it’s government’s responsibility to provide jobs for everyone. I think one of the great benefits this summer has been the number of businessmen in the private sector -- I only have to look to my own community, and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) will be well aware of this, of the work of local Lions groups and chambers of commerce -- who are in effect doing everything they can to help provide more opportunities for young people. I think this is the way it should be done.

Mr. Warner: There are 120,000 with no work.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That well may be, but that’s a figure that’s been tossed around rather lightly as well.

Mr. Samis: Are you telling us what you have done is enough?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There is no real determination if in fact it is that number. It only has to be pointed out to you that there are some 12,000 young people in Ontario who will be collecting unemployment insurance this year because they worked for eight weeks last summer. Also, there are many young people who will not be working or seeking employment, who will be doing a great deal of travelling. So it’s very difficult to establish 120,000 as being the number of unemployed youths in this province this summer.

One of the other areas on which the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine commented was the lack of co-ordination in homecare programmes. I would just like to point out to you, again, that there was a recommendation from the Advisory Council on Senior Citizens and that paper is being very carefully considered, with both Community and Social Services and Health, with a view to promoting more programmes for home care to help those who have either chronic illnesses or elderly and would like to remain in their own home.

So there are indeed many programmes, many policies, that are being co-ordinated within the social policy field.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before the debate continues, it was the understanding of the Chair that we were going to deal with these votes item by item rather than collectively. While we did allow some broad debate under item 1 of this vote, it seemed we did stray into the development councils as well as the Youth Secretariat. So I would ask subsequent speakers if they could direct their comments specifically to item 1, and then we will deal with items 2 and 3.

Mr. Warner: The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that in this particular vote, as I understand it, we are talking about the co-ordination which exists between the various policy areas. Therefore by nature we may get into discussing social development councils, but nonetheless I will keep my remarks to five or 10 minutes.

Mr. Shore: Keep it to about three.

Mr. Warner: If it’s not possible at this particular time to give a definitive answer, I would appreciate it if the provincial secretary could come back, at any time, and provide a definitive answer for me; and I tell her why very simply and in a very straightforward fashion.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order please, could we have one debate at any one time? The hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor.

Mr. Warner: Thank you.

Mr. Samis: Actually the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) seems to have the floor.

Mr. Warner: I take it that one of the advisory councils under this secretariat is the Advisory Council on Senior Citizens. I understand that within that council some recommendations may have come forward at some point regarding accommodation for senior citizens and the kind of co-ordinating role you should play between Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health. It is a very confusing situation. I have spent the last three or four months, some considerable time, in trying to put together the picture for a senior citizen who is healthy, who is seeking accommodation. The way I understand it at this point, if that person enters a place which is strictly a home for retired people or home for the aged, there is a price which is somewhat reasonable, somewhat within what you should expect to pay. However, if that person enters a home which has, shall we say a dual purpose, that there are people who are well and people who are not well are staying within the same home, that home receives funding from two ministries but the price suddenly changes drastically.

I’ll just give you three quick examples. At Providence Villa, which is in Scarborough, it is $558 a month to stay in a room with three other people; at St. Thomas House it is $650 a month, regardless of your income; and Fudger House on Sherbourne St. is $642.25. Pretty staggering amounts, especially when you compare it, as I did, with a rate of $157 per person, on a monthly basis excluding food, if you stay at the Holiday Inn, or $276 a month if you stay at Howard Johnson’s. In both of those instances the hotels assured me that the person could stay in the hotel in what we would call luxury accommodation, obtain first class meals and still come under the $558 mark per month.

To me it seems quite absurd that someone can get better and cheaper accommodation in a hotel than that person can receive in a home, simply because of the designation that’s made by the two ministries. It’s that point of confusion that I have not been able to clear up anywhere I’ve asked, and I’ve met with various associations on the question.

Does the minister understand clearly the problem that I put? I realize it’s a complex one, you’re not about to answer it in a few minutes. If at some point you could come back to me with some answer as to where the problem rests and what co-ordinating role you can undertake in sorting out this problem between the Ministry of Health and Community and Social Services so that elderly people are not faced with this kind of horrendous cost, I would appreciate it very much.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would like to comment to the member this is exactly the kind of complex problem we were faced with when we attempted to bring some equity into the system of residential services for the aged. That’s exactly the kind of thing that we’re dealing with in this whole policy paper we will be bringing forward.

Mr. Warner: Soon?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have something to say on the next two votes. We have seven minutes left, so perhaps I could spend some time on the second vote or do you want me to go directly to the third vote?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion on item 1?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. member for Nipissing wish to use some time now on items 2 and 3? It’s unfortunate we can’t carry item 1, but we’ll come back to it.

Perhaps we might get some indication -- I might conclude these estimates approximately at 9:30 and spend an hour on the Premier’s estimates -- is it the wish of the committee that we take a little longer on these estimates and reduce the time on the Premier’s estimates? Is that the agreement of the committee, or do members wish to conclude the schedule at approximately 9:30?

Mr. McClellan: Could we spend an additional 10 minutes on this ministry, Mr. Chairman? Is that acceptable?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay we’ll go to 9:40 on these estimates. I think it would be agreeable to us if we went till 9:40.

Mr. McClellan: We had one more speaker who wanted to make some comments.

Mr. R. S. Smith: We’ll combine the last two votes and we’ll go till 9:40.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please, order. There is altogether too much noise in the chamber.

We have agreed, I think, that we go until 9:40. Perhaps we could deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Nipissing.

Order, please. Just one more thought; how long will the hon. member for Peterborough be in her comments?

Ms. Sandeman: I will be 10 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: In that case, we had better go to the hon. member for Nipissing; then we will come back and you can use the balance of the time.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I should hope so. I have been waiting here since 8 o’clock.

Mr. Samis: Five minutes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You were going to take 10 minutes, were you?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Would the caucusing to my right please discontinue in order that we can hear the hon. member for Nipissing?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your concern.


Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. R. S. Smith: On the second item, social development councils, I would like to ask the minister if this is the study that’s been going on for some period of time, and in northeastern Ontario has Dr. Williams been involved in this study? I asked this of the Minister of Community and Social Services and I didn’t receive a reply. I would just like to know what you are doing in this area, whether these councils are going to parallel the health councils and whether it is the same type of structure. I should like to ask the minister those questions to start with.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, that is an internal study that is being done within Community and Social Services on social planning councils. It wasn’t a policy field decision.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Did you say it is an internal study and has nothing to do with policy?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am sorry; I can’t hear you.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I can’t hear you either, so we are having a good discussion.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Could we have a little less mumbling and conversations in the committee, other than the hon. member who might be speaking and the minister in her response?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay, I will just skip the second part; I will go on to the third item under the vote. Over the last year or so and last fall, I think, when our estimates were up, I was very critical of what was going on within this ministry and what they were doing, particularly insofar as the Youth Secretariat was concerned. Since that time you have appointed a parliamentary assistant, who I understand is in charge of the Youth Secretariat and who did some sort of a study as to the drinking age and a number of things. But am I correct in presuming that he is now in charge of the Youth Secretariat?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay. So now we have a minister and we have a parliamentary assistant in charge of the Youth Secretariat, but we still have a hodgepodge over there because nobody really knows what they are going to do.

Mr. Samis: It’s getting worse.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I will just read a letter of resignation which your parliamentary assistant received. I think it will outline pretty well the general feeling of most of the people who work there, let alone those who are outside.

Mr. Jones: Did one letter tell you about --

Mr. R. S. Smith: No, I have talked to other people as well, but this is one specific letter that I am going to read. I have also discussed it with other people in your secretariat and people who were to be recipients of what your secretariat were doing, and they are still having some difficulty finding out what’s going on. Maybe this pertains particularly to northeastern Ontario and to northern Ontario, but I would think it is apropos right across the whole province. I will just read this letter anyway, if you don’t mind.

This letter is from a person who I believe has been working in your secretariat for a period of two or 2½ years on contract; that way you don’t call her a civil servant. This is one of the dodges that goes on over there so you don’t have to count them; we all understand that. Anyway, I will read this letter. It went to a lot of people, and I happened to be one of them for a specific reason I won’t get into.

“Dear Mr. Jones:

“Before accepting the position as the northern Ontario field liaison person with the Youth Secretariat, I have always been involved in community services at the grassroots level. I welcomed the opportunity of working within the government structure and I had a lot of energy and enthusiasm for the concept of an Ontario Youth Secretariat. When Premier Davis announced its formation in 1972, he spoke of a vehicle which would give young people access to the government and a vehicle to provide the government with a better understanding of its human resources.

“In the 18 months I have worked in the field [she has worked in the field for 18 months, but prior to that I think she was in your office here] it has become glaringly obvious to me that the Youth Secretariat is not fulfilling its mandate.

“Despite constant reorganization, it remains a body crippled by internal mismanagement, lack of direction and its constant response to political crisis issues.”


I think that last point is perhaps the most significant, because it is the basis of all the other problems. This whole secretariat was set up on a political crisis basis. It has never changed and I think all the other problems that it has had, and still has, stem from the fact that it has more to do with politics than it has to do, really, with the youth of the province. The point of the secretariat has been to be in a political position to deal with the youth of the province -- rather than to see what could be done on behalf of the youth of the province. I think that, in effect, sums up what the problem is in this secretariat. I’ll just finish the letter:

“In the paper which the field unit presented to you, methods of creating a vehicle to deal with youth concerns were suggested. Unfortunately, it seems you don’t have the time to deal with the issues which make the secretariat ineffective. Rather than trying to work among constraints, it seems more expedient to me to consider some solutions at this point.”

In other words, the frustrations of this person had reached their limit. Obviously, suggestions had been made from the lower levels within the Youth Secretariat, coming from the people who were in contact with those they were supposedly serving. Those things evolved from the young people within the province and came through the field workers and went from them to those in charge of the Youth Secretariat. But they were obviously being ignored. I know that this is not an isolated case. It just about went on day in and day out, right through this secretariat; I’ve spoken to others who have exactly the same opinion.

I’ve spoken to those at the lower level, the youth of the province, who did have some input at one time. I also spoke to two or three people who were on that youth council we had at one time -- and I don’t know if it even exists any more -- but they had exactly the same opinion. As the letter states:

“The lack of credibility of the Ontario Youth Secretariat in the field, and your inability to consider the importance of this phenomenon makes it impossible for me to represent the secretariat in northern Ontario. It is with deep concern that I have decided not to renew my contract. Yours truly.”

This letter was sent around to enough of you that you all have a copy of it; you all know of whom I am speaking. I will not read the person’s name because I don’t think that is significant. The significant thing here is that this is what I consider to be a true picture of what has been going on at the Youth Secretariat since it as formed. The fact that it was formed on a political basis and has remained as such is where the problem lies. There is no question about it in my mind when I talk to young people in regard to, say, the 1976 programme of hiring. Young people make applications before the deadline and then they are told that the positions are filled. We wonder what kind of a game is being played here. It’s purely political.

Mr. B. Newman: I get the same thing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: A person came to me not two weeks ago. She had made an application, as a high school student, before the date on which the brochure said they could apply. You know she was told: “You’re too late; the positions are all filled.”

Well what was the point of the person even making the application if she wasn’t even going to be considered? That’s the whole basis of that secretariat. It’s a game they play over there. That whole Experience 76 programme is also a game, because there are a certain number of jobs for youth that are set aside. I think this year it was 8,300. Is that not correct? Would you correct me if that’s not the --

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There were 9,100 jobs available.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I was only 800 out; that’s not too bad.

Out of that 9,100 how many were actually employed and given the employment opportunity before the date on which application was actually to be made? I want that question answered, because I think it’s important. Many young people in this province applied in good faith and their applications were not accepted in good faith.

That’s hard to believe, and it’s a significant thing you have to look at as a ministry. In fact the whole advertising programme of the ministry in regard to that programme was a sham, because those jobs were allocated outside of the parameters that were set within the advertising.

I know of more than one case. I just mentioned one, but I know of others who applied and who had no chance whatsoever because the jobs were delegated far before the time limit in the advertisement. I think that fact, along with letters such as this, and from talking to other people, is enough to make me think there has to be something more done for this expenditure of $750,000. I believe, it is being spent for political purposes only.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. I would draw to the hon. member’s attention that more than half of the extended time has been used by the Liberal member. I would assume the hon. member for Peterborough (Ms. Sandeman) also wishes to take part in the debate and the minister wishes to respond, so we’re going to have to keep our comments as short as possible.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I feel the hon. member has made a condemnation of a programme based on one letter from a young person who was disenchanted. I think that’s very unfortunate.

Mr. B. Newman: No, no.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is the same everywhere in this province.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’m aware of that young lady.

Mr. Conway: You don’t run the liquor stores, do you?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I know she did an excellent job. I think she probably was faced with some of the frustrations the rest of us are faced with from time to time, and couldn’t accomplish some of the things she thought were so important as quickly as she would like to have done. But I think it is really unfortunate that you would condemn a whole programme based on that one letter of resignation.

I should also point out to you that the ministries are responsible for all the programmes within Experience 76 and the selection is made by the ministry personnel. It’s made in conjunction with local authorities who, on many of these projects, have a co-ordinated programme with the ministry. So a lot of that selection is done right in your own home community by the agencies participating in these programmes. Again, I don’t think it’s fair to point a finger at the Youth Secretariat. They have nothing to do with the selection of young people who are applying for those positions. Every young person in this province receives notification at the same time. The applications are mailed out to every school and every college and every university; it’s up to the young people themselves to apply as quickly as possible.

I would also like to point out that in addition to the 9,100 jobs this government is supporting through Experience 76 they are also employing in excess of 10,000 young people across this province as summer placements. So, our record is very good in the area of providing summer employment to young people.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for Peterborough.

Mr. R. S. Smith: But you haven’t answered my question.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. R. S. Smith: But that is the basic question.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Peterborough was to have the floor next. Order, please.

Ms. Sandeman: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned very briefly the problems which --

Mr. R. S. Smith: I’m entitled to an answer.

Ms. Sandeman: -- she is facing in considering what to do with the children --

Mr. R. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I’m aware we’re operating under time constraints and I’m willing to let the member go for 10 minutes after, but on the other hand I’m entitled to an answer from the minister to the question asked.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The Chair has been taking direction from the committee and it was on the understanding we would extend the estimates for 10 minutes that you would ask a question which I assumed was answered and then the hon. member for Peterborough would have the floor. I’m just trying to allocate the time fairly and equally between the two parties.

Mr. B. Newman: It wasn’t allocated equally earlier.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I thought it was agreed.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I would point out that your assumption the question was answered was wrong.

Mr. Riddell: Give her a chance to answer the question. She would if you give her a chance.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am sorry. I think the question -- it’s very difficult to hear over here for some reason or other -- I think you’re referring to people applying for jobs before the deadline. Again, I must say to you that many of these selections are made at the local level and the ministry is not responsible --

Mr. Conway: You’re not kidding us.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- the Youth Secretariat is not responsible. It’s up to the local people within your community who are making those selections.

Mr. R. S. Smith: They have to operate within the parameters of your programme.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, they should, and if they are not perhaps --

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s why I bring it to your attention. What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- you should question that and I certainly will look into it.

Ms. Sandeman: I have a very quick comment. The minister commented briefly on the problems of planning programmes for the so-called unmanageable children under section 8 of the Training Schools Art. I would hope the resolution of this problem is going to come very soon.

At the moment the children are in limbo, partly because many judges are behaving as if the repeal of section 8 has already been proclaimed and the communities in which them children live are hard-pressed for alternatives to training schools. Other judges are continuing to sentence children to training school under section 8 because they’re very well aware that their communities have no alternatives. The ministries have had representations from the municipalities, from the Children’s Aid Societies, from Correctional Services and the only voice which hasn’t been heard, I think, is that of the children themselves. As soon as you can possibly do it, they need some help and some direction.

It may be that the real problem is in the dichotomy between social control, which seems to me to be what Correctional Services is about, and social development, which is what you’re about. It takes quite a leap to move from the concept of rehabilitating difficult children to the concept of looking at the environment from which they come, planning for that environment and helping them to survive in that environment. That’s more difficult, much more difficult, than putting children in an institution.

I’d also like to know -- and I guess there isn’t time to know -- what social planning the minister is doing for the young people, aged between 16 and 18, who are currently in our correctional institutions. As you probably know, about a quarter of all the adults incarcerated are between the ages of 16 and 18. If the new federal legislation goes through, you are again going to be faced, I believe, with the dichotomy between control of offenders or help for young persons in need of care. There’s going to be a large number of young people who are going to be in great need of some real tough social planning.

One thing I would suggest to the minister is that she takes a look, if she hasn’t already, at the research report from the Vanier Institute for Women which shows that in spite of all the battery of expert attention brought to bear on those young women in that institution, the thing that had the most bearing on their success in the community afterwards was whether or not they had a strong attachment to the work force. That seems to me to say something about the necessity of making sure that when we’re talking about the needs of young people who are incarcerated in correctional institutions, we don’t get so hung up on rehabilitation that we forget they have social needs, environmental needs and most of all they need a job.

Back very briefly to section 8. If you’re looking at alternatives to locking up kids, I think you have to be very seriously looking at the environment from which they come -- their schools, their homes, their families, back to the earliest days of their childhood. I think one of the most frightening things we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks was the infant mortality figures from the core of this city.

That’s not only a health problem. It’s a social problem of frightening dimensions. I think one could well start from that figure and ask what is wrong? Where are we going in social planning? If we don’t start our preventive programmes with children from the day they are born, we are always going to end up by locking them up at the age of 14.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’d like to respond by saying that the hon. member, I’m delighted to hear, shares many of the same concerns that I have.

Vote 2501 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That concludes the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.



On vote 101:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall vote 101 carry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have a very lengthy statement on the estimates of the Lieutenant Governor in support of the Crown, the monarchy and all of those matters but I take it that everybody across the House supports this concept and the role of the Lieutenant Governor, so I shall make no observations whatsoever.

Mr. Conway: Redundant as usual.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, since the Premier insists on taking up his own time talking about it, it must be said that the Lieutenant Governor is doing an excellent job while the late Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. Ross Macdonald, would have been a hard act to follow at any time; the present Lieutenant Governor is doing remarkably well. I applaud the work she’s doing.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I think it worthwhile perhaps to add a brief comment along the same line --

Mr. Conway: The socialist monarch.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- as the member for Wentworth. It certainly would appear that while we are not usually able to speak at any length with respect to these estimates -- that is not the custom -- it is still, I think, useful for us to remind ourselves and the system of government we have that we are peculiarly and most happily graced by the efforts of Her Honour in this appointment which is a challenge, I’m sure, at any time. Particularly in the way Her Honour has taken on these tasks we are indeed most fortunate.

Vote 101 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: That completes the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.


On vote 301:

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is the custom for ministers to make sometimes lengthy opening statements and as I know the members opposite are anxious to discuss in detail the estimates of the office of the Premier, I have reduced my customary half-hour to about 25 minutes in explanation of the activities of the office.

Mr. Deans: That is your concept of sharing.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is known as restraint.

Mr. Samis: Restraint now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As in other years I do have an introductory statement. It is customary, at the time of the estimates debate, to say a few words about the activities of your ministry or your office and sometimes this includes the staff of the ministry or office concerned. I would like to take the opportunity this evening -- and I feel the members opposite will understand -- to say a few words about one member of my staff. Miss Helen R. Anderson is my secretary. She has served in that capacity for some 14 years --

Mr. Riddell: Can she type?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- initially, while I was Minister of Education and, since 1971, in the office of the Premier. On July 2 of this year -- this is why I’m mentioning it tonight, Mr. Speaker, on July 2, hopefully, all of us will be elsewhere -- Miss A, as she is affectionately known to me and practically all members of the staff, will complete 45 years of service with the government of Ontario.

While this by her own account is not a record it is certainly an achievement which I feel deserves special recognition. In 1931, as a young and recent graduate of the High School of Commerce, she entered the employ of the Ontario Department of Education. At that time, the hon. George Henry was serving as Minister of Education as well as Premier of the province. It has happened on other occasions.

In subsequent years, she served some eight Ministers of Education, four of them -- Mr. Dana Porter; Dr. William Dunlop; Mr. John Robarts; and me -- directly as secretary. During those 45 years the records show that nine Premiers and nine Lieutenant Governors presided over the affairs of the province.

It was my good fortune in 1971, as I moved to the office of the Premier, that Miss A agreed to leave the ministry and assist me in my current duties. No one who has had occasion to call or visit my office need be told of the degree of intelligence, charm and grace that this fine lady brings to her position

Neither do they need to be informed of the loyalty, enduring patience and sympathetic understanding that is applied to her work, day in and day out.

The fact that after 45 years of service, she has been able to maintain all of those commendable qualities, as well as her youthful appearance, in putting up with some of her bosses, myself in particular, is, I believe, adequate testament to her boundless energy, enthusiasm and tolerance.


Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say that she is very tolerant of some of you across the House.

Mr. Chairman, with no advance notice whatsoever -- she didn’t know this was happening, that I was to make these remarks -- Miss Anderson, I think for the first time since I became Premier, finds herself seated under the press gallery to your right. I would ask all members to join with me in paying tribute to her on this occasion.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) is somewhere between here and a speaking engagement and intends to be here in about 15 minutes. I think if the leader of the third party would like to go ahead we would be happy to have him do so until our leader arrives.

Mr. S. Smith: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the first very pressing matter before us came to my attention in today’s newspaper, in which I was very chagrined to find that my cousin in Ottawa has taken to actually locking his cigar humidor when the Premier of Ontario is lurking about. I think that is a disgraceful way to treat a man of the Premier’s stature and a man of his reputation --

Mr. Samis: What about his habits?

Mr. S. Smith: -- to say nothing of his habits, and we better say nothing on that -- and I feel there must be some way I could make this up to him. So I have spared myself, at very small expense I assure you, and I have purchased a cigar for the Premier, which I hope to give to him, to make up for the terrible manners of my cousin. Mr. Chairman, he will find, I am certain, that this cigar is far below -- very far below -- his usual standard in cigars, but he will appreciate that in a time of restraint it is incumbent upon all of us to make certain sacrifices and I trust he will take what little comfort he can from that particular offering.

Mr. Deans: Can you be bribed? It’s a peace offering.

Mr. S. Smith: I feel, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the estimates of the office of the Premier, that, really, one can say nothing and one can say everything. The estimates, of course, are not broken down in any great detail as to the functions the various employees perform. What we do know is that John Robarts was able to function for approximately one-third less of what it requires for the present Premier to function. Although inflation has occurred, it is perfectly obvious the Premier has expanded his office and his functions much more than the bare necessities would require.

It also is very important, not to just sit here sort of nit-picking about this, but it is important, I think, that once in a while we stand back and look at where our whole democratic system is heading. Earlier this evening I made the comment that many reports, including one that was particularly germane to the social policy field, are suppressed. They are kept secret even though they could do no conceivable harm to the national or the provincial interest or to the interest of any particular individuals in Ontario or elsewhere. This makes it awfully tough for those of us who might wish to criticize constructively; who might wish to exercise opposition in a way intended in our democratic system, in a way that is an honourable, a genuine and an important function -- it makes it difficult for us. We have to function with a relatively small number of people, who are dedicated and who do what research is possible on the very large budget the province has. I think that it is sort of just rubbing our nose in it a little, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, to have to face the fact that the Premier is able to appropriate to himself $1.42 million or more for the running of his office.

We realize this office is important. We recognize the Premier requires to be kept informed and to be able to handle a great many engagements. He has to schedule matters, he has to receive people, he has to be up to date on a good many aspects of this province.

But as the leader of an opposition party, I certainly find it very difficult to be the kind of critic of the Premier one would like to be, to be as well-informed as one ought to be for the role that is expected of us in a democracy.

I believe things have gone too far. I think the Premier has allowed his office to expand over the past few years -- although I notice his budget is no greater this year than last -- but I do believe that office has expanded at a time when the opposition offices have had to get along on a pitifully small amount of money.

It may not matter. It’s easy enough for us to do our research and from time to time be criticized for research that may only be 99 instead of 100 per cent accurate, and so on. But we are functioning with very limited resources.

I believe if the people of Ontario really and truly understood the massive amount of money that surrounds the Premier in order to enhance his image and allow him to function, if they understood and could compare that amount of money with the trifling amounts with which I must operate an opposition party, with which I must operate a research department, I would think the people would have something to say about that. I would think the people would demand an accounting from the Premier as to why John Robarts could get along for $400,000 and he requires $1.42 million.

The accounting would have to be more than merely salaries, wages, transportation, services and so on and so forth. It would have to be an accounting in terms of the function of the Premier’s office and an accounting in terms of whether or not we truly believe that opposition parties play an important role in the legislative functions of this province. Anybody can look good if you pile $1.5 million around him; the trick is to be effective and to be a reasonable representative of the opposition view with the trifling amount of money which the Liberal Party and the official opposition have to deal with.

I will not go on at great length. I am not here to nit-pick with the Premier. You see, I even started the evening by giving him a peace offering -- and believe it or not, it will not explode. What it will taste like is a different story.

But I do feel that the Premier has got himself used to a style of life in his office which is, I suppose, rather nice to become accustomed to, but which is really rather shocking in contrast to the way in which the other parties in this House are handled and in contrast to what the people of Ontario truly expect is going on in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps I might reply while we are waiting for the Leader of the Opposition, because I think perhaps the leader of the third party might gain a little knowledge from some recitation of history.

I don’t minimize the extent of funding available to the office of the Premier, but I would point out to him that the function of the office of the Premier has altered somewhat in the past five or six years. I think it was in the process prior to that.

I think in terms of allocations of resources that I can go back those same five years and I can recall the resources that were allocated in terms of funding for opposition caucuses, of funding for research. I happen to know something about salary levels that are paid.

I would say to the member for Hamilton West that if he is talking about image, that really is very silly and it is just totally untrue. I am sitting in an office that is substantially the same as it was when George Henry was there -- believe it or not. There have been minor modifications in terms of physical plants --

Mr. S. Smith: I don’t mean the physical plant.


Hon. Mr. Davis: But let me give the member just one relevant statistic. I know you’re interested in statistics. I think every member has experienced this, but believe it or not, Premiers do as well. In the last year that Mr. Robarts had the honour to administer the responsibilities in the field of correspondence -- we’re all faced with that these days -- if I can find the figures -- I think in 1970-1971 for instance, in terms of first-class mail coming into the Premier’s office, my memory is that we were talking about 12,000 letters. In 1961-1962, it was around 5,000. We hit a high point a year ago -- because of a fair amount of letters in terms of a particular issue -- of around 100,000. Actually, the average this year will probably work out to about 75,000. If my mathematics are approximately correct, that is five to six times the workload in that one area alone of 1970-1971.

Mr. S. Smith: Mine has gone up six times over my predecessor’s too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Fine. And about 40 per cent of them receive direct replies from this office, and that to me is important. It may come as a bit of a shock to the member for Hamilton West but some of the more veteran members will understand this. Part of my office’s time -- not just mine but members of my staff -- is spent quietly assisting some of your colleagues, believe it or not, with some of the problems that they have from day to day. This has been the tradition that we have experienced. I have had some of your caucus members in my office. They’ve been in to discuss problems. They’ve always been welcome, haven’t they?

Mr. S. Smith: They should be. They are representatives of the people. Why shouldn’t they be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s fine. I’m pointing out to the hon. member for Hamilton West that certainly this is all fine and appropriate; I’m just saying to you that in terms of the numbers of people, the workload, etc. --

Mr. S. Smith: My mail has gone up 600 per cent too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Fine, if the member for Hamilton West is saying that he himself feels he needs more resources, fine. Take a look at salaries. You have recently retained the services of, I assume, a reasonably competent public relations or press adviser -- no quarrel with that -- being paid out of the public purse. I would only say to the member for Hamilton West, if my information is correct and I think it is, that it is at a figure substantially higher than my senior press officer in the Office of the Premier.

Mr. S. Smith: You are wrong. You are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have a feeling I’m right.

Mr. S. Smith: The figure you are quoting has nothing to do with the press officer in your office.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. It is still substantially higher, and all I’m suggesting to you is that before you suggest that we are over-extending --

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you tell them what it is? This is really big stuff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, it is. It’s important. I was overwhelmed by the observations because I’ve heard them all before. Something else that has transpired in that four- or five-year period which the member for Hamilton West wasn’t here to experience -- you can be critical of it, others have -- is the whole alteration in the structure of the government.

Although Mr. Robarts, in his last year here, initiated the government study on productivity, it was my responsibility and decision to implement it. The function of the Premier’s office and the cabinet office have substantially changed as a result. Complement numbers have changed and the workload has changed. This has all happened, and you can argue whether or not the reorganization has validity, but I would say with respect to the member for Hamilton West that to talk about having $1.4 million as the surroundings of office to enhance the image of the Premier and so on is really picayune, pretty childish and factually untrue. I wish I had such a mechanism available to me. It just isn’t true.

Mr. Deans: Don’t let him say that to you.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: These funds are used for the administration of this government in what is a fairly onerous area of responsibility. I’m not going to argue with the member for Hamilton West as to his responsibility. It too is onerous. That has become very evident in the past two or three months and I’m entirely sympathetic.

Just to set the record straight, and I’m not criticizing the member for Hamilton West because the press sometimes do make a mistake -- I didn’t go back to the Prime Minister’s cigar box for that second cigar. I took two while it was open. It was one of my colleagues from the Maritime provinces who helped himself to what I understand was a gift from the head of state of Cuba. I do point out that they were pretty good cigars, but unlike those of the member for Hamilton West, my needs and wants are very simple. This White Owl cigar is more than adequate for my purposes, and I thank him very much.

Mr. Deans: Do you have a response? Because I do.

Mr. S. Smith: I have.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Respond -- I’ve got a cold!

Mr. S. Smith: If the Premier could reduce his taste from Castro’s cigars to White Owl cigars, maybe he could also cut down on the estimates of his office.


Mr. S. Smith: The fact is we can stand here and be critical and, of course, he can stand up and say it’s picayune to criticize --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not saying that.

Mr. S. Smith: -- so what’s the point of having the entire discussion about his estimates? There’s nothing written about the function; there are only numbers. All we can say is the numbers look high to us; it’s a lot more than used to be spent. What else can you intelligently say about it? I think that people are entitled to have an expression of that particular sentiment expressed in the Legislature, namely that the Premier is spending what looks to me like an awful lot of money.

Mr. Deans: He’s an extravagant guy.

Mr. S. Smith: I, as a political leader, find that the volume of work in the office of a leader is rather high; in fact, comparing it directly to the measurements made of the volume in my predecessor’s time, one year ago, we find something between a 400 per cent and a 600 per cent increases

But the fact of the matter is that the role of leader, in today’s way of looking at politics, has become a rather complex one. The people expect a lot of the leader; the people, instead of writing to their cabinet minister or their regular representation, send a letter directly to the leader and expect a personal answer. I know the Premier finds that and he’s doing his best to answer; so am I, and I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition is as well.

The fact is that there has to be some reasonable balance between the kind of money available to the Premier and the kind available to the other parties. That’s all I’m saying. I’m bringing to the Premier’s attention that while there has been this tremendous increase in the way in which he has required money for his office, there has not been the same compensating increase to permit a proper keeping up with this particular investment that the people have made in the leadership of the province. There has not been a compensating increase, certainly not in the office of the leader of the party, which despite the fact that it was a very close second in the popular vote, sits as the so-called third party in the Legislature.

I think it’s reasonable for me to bring this up. This is not being picayune; I’m not suggesting that the Premier lives in the lap of luxury in his office, but simply that many of the difficulties and the weight of office which he finds in his role are very similar to those that the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party in the Legislature find themselves shouldering. That’s all I’m saying.

Mr. Deans: For two minutes I want to tell you, I don’t know where you get your money; I don’t really much care. The fact, as I recall it, is what we asked for was what we got. As I recall, what they asked for was what they got too. That’s the way life goes; if you can’t live within it, that’s too bad. I want to tell you something: I don’t like your leadership.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That comes as a shock.

Mr. Deans: I don’t think very much of it, in fact. I don’t want you to think that it’s because of the dollars. I wouldn’t care if they gave you $3 million, $5 million or $10 million, you couldn’t do much better. It’s something to do with your capacity to lead the Province of Ontario and to respond to the needs of the people in the province, and that’s what I don’t like.

Mr. Warner: Resign.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t care if you could do it on half a million dollars, if you could do it well --

Mr. Grossman: At least he’s here today.

Mr. Deans: -- and that’s the key to the whole thing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s a typical NDP stand.

Mr. Deans: When I look at the government and I watch elections --


Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: -- I look around me and I see the leader of my party arriving.

Mr. Breithaupt: Saved by the bell.

Mr. S. Smith: You don’t need the dummy; the ventriloquist is here.

Mr. Deans: But I want you to know something, he’s going to sit down for a minute till I finish. I want to tell you what bothers me about it --

Mr. Grossman: Tell him what you said, so he won’t contradict you.

Mr. Shore: Tell him where you left off, Ian.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I will. Don’t you worry.

Mr. Conway: Listen to the next mayor of Hamilton.


Mr. Deans: It’s interesting how exercised you get. Anyway, I want to tell you something about it that bothers me --

Mr. Conway: It’s your humility, Ian.

Mr. Deans: When you go to the public of Ontario, you speak about the record of your government. In the next election, I hope that, in fact, you will speak about the record of your government --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We will. Don’t worry about that.

Mr. Deans: -- that you’ll be prepared to go to the public of Ontario and put that record on the line as if it were your own, and that you’ll defend each of the statements and each of the positions taken by all of the ministers of the cabinet as if you had made them yourself, because as leader of the party you’re responsible for them.

I want to know that I’ll expect you, as others will expect you, to go out on the hustings and talk about what you were about to do to Chedoke Hospital, what you did to Children’s Aid Societies or what you did to OHIP after never having breathed a word of it to the electorate in the province during the month of September last year. That’s leadership; it’s the capacity to look somebody straight in the eye and tell them exactly what you’re about rather than to look at them, talk about something else and then do to them what they least expect. I’ll leave it to my colleague to talk about what he wanted to tell you.

Mr. S. Smith: Like non-returnables.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just like bottles.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I will just reply to the acting Leader of the Opposition who gave his --

Mr. Deans: I’m not --

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- leader some advice as to what leadership is all about. I would assume that the Leader of the Opposition was listening attentively and that when he goes out on the hustings, whenever this great event is going to take place, he will be looking people in the eye and doing exactly the same thing.

Mr. Deans: That is exactly --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really don’t know how he is going to explain some of the statements of his House leader on some issues. He will have trouble looking people in the eye and explaining what you said on some things.

Mr. Deans: No trouble. What things?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can recall the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba); he will have a little difficulty; the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart); he will have difficulty explaining to the people of the province “I’m really not going to nationalize the pulp and paper industry. It’s only in my colleague’s riding of Welland that I intend to do this; nowhere else.”

The heck it isn’t anywhere else. It’s all over the province.

It’s great to say to me “Defy leadership” and sort of say, “I go out on the hustings and look people in the eye.” I have no hesitation, I say to the Ottawa member --

Mr. Breithaupt: Tell them about the bottles.

Mr. Samis: Tell us about your member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton).

Mr. Deans: Defend the actions of the government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I will have no hesitation defending the actions of my colleagues. I will have no trouble defending them. I have no trouble saying to the people of the Province of Ontario something else, if you are talking about leadership --

Mr. Deans: Tell us what you did to Children’s Aid Societies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I would have no trouble, if it happened to be tomorrow, saying to the people of Ontario --

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you have it tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that in spite of the restraints, in spite of the difficulties, the people in this province happen to be served with the best system of medical delivery anywhere in Canada, including the socialist provinces.

I have no hesitation at all. I have no hesitation saying to the people of this province, the parents and the school students, in spite some of the observations over there, in spite of the difficulties the people of this --

Mr. Conway: Speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- province enjoy one of the finest educational systems. You did it the other night, too. I was substituting for your former great assistant, Dr. Shulman, and I was on with the head of the OSSTF and it came as a great revelation.

Mr. Lewis: Did you get paid as much as he does?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Heavens, no. Not only did I not get paid as much as he does, I didn’t get anything. I was on --

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t think so.

Mr. Breithaupt: He did it for free and he is worth every cent of it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- there with the head of the OSSTF and I wish you would tell the member for Armourdale (Mr. Givens) what he said. In spite of all the criticisms of the government and everything else, he made what I thought was a very interesting, very relevant statement. In spite of all the difficulties, the new head of the OSSTF said simply that we have the finest educational system in Canada, probably the finest in North America, I wish the member for Hamilton West would tell some of his colleagues that. These people have never debated it to quite the same extent. Mind you, it has been improved with the deletion of some 17 members now in this House, from the teaching ranks in the more active sense. That has helped.

As I am talking about some of these other things, I can tell the people of Ontario and the Islands something else --

Mr. Conway: Paul Yakabuski is going on sabbatical.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can say to them, “Look at the economic experience in the Province of British Columbia.” I can say to them, “Look at the economic situation here in this province.”

Mr. Breithaupt: We can look at New Brunswick, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Look what we have been able to accomplish in terms of providing new job opportunities for people. Look what we have been able to achieve in terms of the many programmes which have been beneficial to the individuals of this province I can look them right in the eye, I say to the member for Wentworth, and say, “This government has served the interest of the people as individuals and collectively.” If your leader tells the truth --

Mr. Conway: Tell them about John Yaremko.

Mr. Samis: Thirty-six per cent of the vote.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which he usually does, he will have to tell them that if you people are elected you are going to curb individualism. You are going to kill the economy of this province and our economic future is zilch as a result. That’s what I’ll say on the hustings and it will be partially correct. That has nothing to do with these estimates.

Mr. Warner: Are you trying to be like Ronald Reagan or something?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West; the hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: When I think that just 15 minutes ago I was in the placid little community of Vandorf, speaking to the socialist hordes at a nominating convention --


Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, three or four of them, I think it was. It was one of the many mass meetings which New Democrats address from time to time. I can’t imagine why the Premier is so all fired up. Maybe it’s because the Liberal leader talked about your developing retinue of sycophants. I want to tell Clare Westcott, that’s “syc,” not “psy.” I’ll never forget the --



Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, I don’t begrudge you an increased staff. No, I think my staff went from eight to nine after the election results.

Mr. S. Smith: You two guys really need each other.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, mine was reduced.

Mr. Lewis: Yours went from 404 to 723, or something of that kind, give or take a few hundred. I can’t recall the specifics. In any event, I don’t want to fight the election campaign with you tonight in the Legislature. You’ve got 23 people supporting you in your benches tonight. Out there, in the hustings, no one may support you. Why give you this tactical advantage?

Nor do I want to go over the old chestnuts with you. I say to the Premier, though the Chair, if he wants to fight the campaign on questions of individual initiative and what the NDP may or may not nationalize, and how real is our socialism, or how illusory is our socialism those are things you are welcome to trot out. We are prepared for it. I will be glad to meet you on them -- haven’t got the slightest hesitation about it; I feel confident about the positions we are taking. I am not concerned about those kinds of things trotted out, and if that is the polarization which you want to achieve, more power to you. We will come back to you with certain other, perhaps, inconsistencies or inadequacies in the Tory record, and that too will be a part of the election campaign.


Mr. Lewis: But rather than fight it here in the Legislature, let’s wait for the hustings. Let me say to you, I intend to enjoy every minute of it -- even if I can’t bear it, I am going to enjoy every single minute of it. I am quite looking forward --

Mr. Shore: How can you enjoy it if you cannot bear it?

Mr. Lewis: I knew the member from London would ask that question. I knew that yon, Marvin Shore, would fix on that.

I want to come back to the Premier’s estimates for something quite different. I want to talk to you briefly, very briefly, as the first magistrate of Ontario. I want to talk to you as the man who co-ordinates cabinet policy, and I don’t want to go over all the programmes which have been contentious over the last several months. I want very briefly, and I hope in a constructive and useful way, to deal with a matter which was raised again in question period today and responded to by the Chairman of Cabinet, Mr. Brunelle. I want to pull together, very quickly, the situation in the northwest and appeal to you once again with the constructive proposition, in the hope that as this session winds down, it may be more palatable to you now than it was two or three weeks ago.

Mr. Chairman, I can’t remove the partisanship from the issue, because that would be fraudulent. I feel it in a partisan way, but I can concede to the Premier that we have reached a point in time where clearly everything is kind of poised in the balance, and if, amongst all the members of the Legislature, it’s possible to find an avenue of approach to the Indians of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows, to compensate for the unhappy succession of events over the last six years, then this is the moment to take hold. And if I can play to the Premier’s prejudices for a moment, let me say to him that I also concede that it is complex and intricate and difficult, and given to complexity and obscurity which often many of us can’t fathom, but certain things are real and compelling, Mr. Chairman, through to the Premier.

No. 1, we are in a very serious potential crisis at the moment. The members of the Whitedog reserve have thrown a barrier across the reserve road. Within a matter of days, not to mention weeks, a number of tourist operators will be down here at the Premier’s door begging for some kind of respite.

No. 2, the Chairman of Cabinet and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), I am sure in good faith, went up to meet this last weekend with the Indians of Whitedog, and to their surprise and discomfort, the band council walked out on you after one hour of discussion. That’s another nadir in this continuing controversy.

No. 3, you now have a report on the desk of the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) from the doctors whom this government requested to visit Japan and Iraq to assess Minimata disease there, and to see how it might relate to the Province of Ontario. You have a report on the desk of the Minister of Health saying that the English-Wabigoon system should be closed to fishing in order to preserve the future health, at least of the guides. In other words, you have a series of matters coming to a head.

You had the quite controversial meeting of May 20 at which a series of factors were discussed -- from the provision of a daycare centre for Whitedog through to the expansion of a sawmill for Grassy in order to find jobs. To top it all off, you had the fiasco of the freezer, which whether I was given to hyperbole and error or whether the Minister of Natural Resources was given to hyperbole and error, now seems totally inconsequential. What it does demonstrate is that we haven’t even resolved the problem of the alternative food supply.

I assure the Premier in good faith that when one hears the responses coming from government one senses -- and you as first minister alone are capable of delivering it -- the need for a focus. One senses the need for a member of the Legislature -- it must be a politician above the unrelenting myopia of the bureaucracy -- someone in this Legislature or some small group in this Legislature who can cut through all the obstacles and resolve the issues one after the other. I really think that’s possible.

I was amazed -- and I must put it to Mr. Brunelle, Chairman of Cabinet -- at the concession which the Whitedog band made. I thought they were going to come to you and say, “We want an end to all fishing in the English-Wabigoon,” period. That was the position they took on May 20. They’ve made a significant compromise since then. They have said: “We want an end to all fishing except fishing for fun -- sport fishing. Just arrange to have the fish not eaten. We won’t imperil the tourist operations. Just do that for us and we might be able to persuade our guides and a number of members of the band not to eat the fish.”

That seems to me to be taking a pretty long step in the direction of government. It worries me that the Chairman of Cabinet charged with Indian matters and the Minister of Natural Resources didn’t have the authority to say on the spot, “By God, that is an intelligent compromise. We will accept it. Now let’s move on to items four, five, six and seven.”

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Do you not recall six years ago that fishing for fun was advocated, was brought in but that members said it would not be enforced?

Mr. Lewis: But no one said that eating the fish would be prohibited. And with all of the enforcing problems which I can see, if we did that or you did that, it would go enormous yards towards working out an amicable settlement. That’s, I guess, what I’m coming back to the Premier with.

When the minister, the Chairman of Cabinet, responded today, he also rang in the Minister of Tourism and Industry (Mr. Bennett) who is apparently engaged in some particular peculiar dimension of his and as the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) pointed out, the Minister of Health was involved, and Natural Resources, Chairman of Cabinet, Tourism and Industry, Labour, Environment -- all of these people were involved. No one seems to be giving it a focus.

I simply want to put to you, Mr. Premier, that someone should have the authority to say, “Take off your blockade, we’ll enforce fishing for fun but not for food. We’ll get the daycare money for you, We’ll make sure that the dam is repaired in time for the wild rice crop of 1977 and that the lake water levels don’t rise in 1976. We’ll discuss the sawmill operation and attempt to expand it and we’ll work like the devil to see if an alternative food supply can be found based on the new federal nutrition report,” which landed in your laps less than two weeks ago.

I understand the terrific cultural gap. I understand the problems of communication. I know we’ve tried. Everybody has tried and everything seems to break down. But there is this opportunity to grasp the nettle and solve the problem. The opportunity to make an inroad now is greater probably than any time in the last six years. It’s all there poised on the edge. I think, if it isn’t presumptuous, Mr. Premier, this is your opportunity to designate someone in this House. No one, at least in our party, would have any qualms if it was a first rate back-bench member of your caucus, or if you could work out a triumvirate in the Legislature and simply go in there and get the blessed job done, because everybody who’s spent five minutes on those reserves understands that what is killing it is the never-ending set of obstacles which tie everybody up.

I really sense it’s there. It’s really there. If somebody would just take the first step and be given the authority and do it. I think that’s a constructive suggestion. I think what happened last weekend attests to that; and what’s happening now at Whitedog attests to that. And I think, that when the Minister of Health tables his report tomorrow, it will attest to it.

And yet no one’s doing it. With all the will in the world, everybody who is working is working at cross-purposes. I’m asking the Premier whether, in the next few days -- I know it can’t be done tonight -- he might not reconsider that avenue yet again.

Because unless I’m wrong, if we break through on the English-Wabigoon River problem then we can break through on a succession of five or six other problems and do in a period of months what we’ve been unable to do in a period of years. And that seems to me to be worth the life of this minority government. That would make a real contribution if we did it in that way. And I’m appealing to the Premier on his estimates time to do so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what is the sincerity of the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. I also sense that over this period of time he personally has gained a greater appreciation of the complexity of the issue.

As I say, and I repeat what I said the other day, that as I read and listen to the observations made by members opposite that, once again, it is easier to delineate the problem than it is to, in fact, find solutions. While the Leader of the Opposition may feel that there isn’t the degree of co-ordination -- that ministries may be working at cross-purposes -- I can assure him that that is not factually the case.

I don’t know that I share the same degree of optimism as the Leader of the Opposition, but the next short period of time may present an opportunity to us for a solution. I sincerely hope so. I hope that the fact that I do not see his suggestion that there be a three-member committee to deal with this issue -- representatives from all three parties -- is not considered to be a negative sort of response. I know something of the problem and I have spent some little time in discussing it and assessing it. I would say to him that I do not think that that mechanism or that solution would, in fact, be practicable or workable. I don’t say that in any negative sort of way. That is an assessment I have made and I believe it to be right. But I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that this is a matter, obviously, of concern to the government.

I sometimes become a little annoyed with the criticisms of some ministers because it claims they lack sensitivity or interest. I just have to tell the Leader of the Opposition that is not true. It may be that we haven’t found solutions, but I think there is a tendency on the part of some people who haven’t lived with it, who don’t know it, to oversimplify this issue. As the result, when you oversimplify it, then the solutions appear to be so easy -- and, in fact, they are not.

But this matter, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Leader of the Opposition, is a matter of real concern to this government. We did make some positive steps. Why they haven’t worked is still hard for some of us to understand. But we will be continuing to deal with it, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, I sense in a way that is positive and, hopefully -- and I say hopefully -- will bear some measure of result. I don’t want to become too optimistic, because I have been disappointed before, not just on this issue, but in the odd other one as well. But not because of the lack of effort or because of the lack of sensitivity on the part of the ministries involved.

I would also say to the Leader of the Opposition that I, like him, really don’t want to start the election campaign here at 10:30 on this particular evening. But I do have to say to him that it was his colleague, the member for Wentworth, who did stimulate me somewhat tonight. He doesn’t often. I don’t find him that stimulating on some occasions, but tonight he was. He was a little provocative, and I had to tell him what I knew you would be doing when that election was called. I knew what, in fact, you would be telling the people of Ontario, and I thought I would just share it with the rest of the House.

Mr. Conway: Dear old Santa Claus.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, we’re all set. Any time you people are ready. I’ve got to caution you a little bit; don’t rush.

Mr. Conway: Come to my barbecue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I offer that in the most constructive and sympathetic vein that I can. I say that to you in an attempt to be helpful, which has always been my way of trying to do things since assuming this -- pardon?

Mr. S. Smith: Your great weakness is your helpfulness.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I have been told by some of my very close friends that one of my weaknesses is that I am a little too sympathetic and too understanding. I think I have demonstrated that to the leader of the Liberal Party when I could have been anything but, and with some justification.

So I conclude my limited response to these estimates by thanking the members opposite for their enthusiastic endorsation of this amount of money, and their total support of the activities of the Premier of this province and, more importantly, his very dedicated, very loyal and very competent staff. I have been looking forward to this now for several days; I have spent hours getting ready for them, and I certainly do thank the members opposite for their enthusiastic support of this amount of money.

Vote 301 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Mr. Conway: Where is Eddie Goodman tonight?


Vote 401 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Cabinet Office.

Before I put the motion to rise and report, may I draw to the attention of the members of the committee that there are seven hours left in the committee of supply.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report it has come to certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I would just reiterate what the House leader said would occur tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock. The Ministry of Health will resume its estimates and I think that will carry on between 10 and 1.

Hon. Mr. Parrott moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.