30e législature, 3e session

L141 - Thu 16 Dec 1976 / Jeu 16 déc 1976

The House met at 2:05 p.m.



Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I rise on a point of personal privilege to express my grave concern and disappointment at the publication this morning of information contained in a report which was tabled yesterday before the public accounts committee of this Legislature in response to your warrant, Mr. Speaker, dated December 9.

As is well known to all members of the Legislature, the Ontario Medical Association brought court proceedings to prohibit the information going to the public accounts committee. The Attorney General was named as a party to the injunction proceedings and was represented by counsel from the ministry. My position as Attorney General is that the public accounts committee should have access to this information, but only for the purposes of making its report on public accounts to this House.

It was my view that if the public accounts committee was prohibited from having this information, the legislative assembly would be denied a fundamental right to information necessary for the purpose of effective government administration. However, I am deeply distressed that the information provided to the public accounts committee has now been published and used for purposes other than the work of the public accounts committee. In my view, this can only serve to undermine the confidence of the public in this legislative assembly.

I wish to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the public accounts committee was advised by my ministry that the information should not be used for any purpose other than for the committee’s report to the House. The chairman was advised of the confidentiality provisions of The Health Insurance Act and was told that he should keep such provisions in mind when dealing with the information.

As the Attorney General of this province, I want to make it perfectly clear that I supported the right of a committee of this Legislature to have this information. However, in my view, that information should have been kept strictly confidential to the work of the committee and the names of the doctors should not have been released. To release the information in the form in which it has been published, in my view, has effected a gross unfairness on the individuals involved as it is clearly capable in the form it was published of distorting the actual amount earned by these individuals.

I am seriously concerned that the action of the member or members who released this information to the press may well have constituted a breach of the privileges of this House. It is my understanding that any evidence taken or secured by such a committee which has not been reported to the House ought not to be published by any members of such committee or by any other person. This is, I’m advised, a long-standing principle of parliamentary procedure. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into this matter and report back to us as to whether or not there has in fact been such a breach of privilege.

Mr. Germa: I would also like to express my disappointment in the breach of confidentiality which occurred. I should point out to the House that a motion calling for confidentiality as it relates to this information was passed unanimously by the committee prior to receipt of the information. The Chair accepted the motion with the full intent that the information would be confidential. I would hope that it was not a member of this House who breached the rights and privileges of the public accounts committee.

Mr. Singer: I rise on a point of privilege in relation to certain reports that were in the newspapers concerning the events yesterday at the select committee.

In a front-page story, the Globe and Mail said that the report was tabled by the member for Sudbury and myself. It sounds as though we walked into the committee with the report in our back pocket and suddenly revealed it and now it is public. Unfortunately, that same phrase was picked up by the Star editorial writers and repeated in an editorial that was not uncritical of the chairman and of myself. Let me say, sir, that what happened was that there was a motion moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), which was passed unanimously by all members of the committee, dealing with the receipt of the report from Mr. Fetherston, the general manager of OHIP, who had all those reports in a box. He handed them over after the motion moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur was unanimously passed; it was voted for by the NDP members, the Liberal members and the Conservative members of the committee. It is of the utmost importance to me that that be cleared up in the public mind. There was no report tabled by me nor was there a report tabled by the chairman nor did we have it. What was done was there was an action upon a resolution passed unanimously and moved by the hon. member whose name I have just mentioned. It wasn’t even seconded by me.

The other point, and not quite as serious, is the description of what seems to be a mad chase up University Avenue. May I enlighten the House on this? It is the last time I will ever offer the hon. member for Sudbury a ride from the courthouse to the Parliament buildings because the description of the drive bears no relation to it other than the fact that we came together. I offered him a ride and he accepted.

Mr. Grossman: Were you with him in the courthouse? Were you with him there?

Mr. Nixon: Did the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick vote for the resolution or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order. The hon. member for Lanark only.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I sat on that public accounts committee. We had a special meeting called at 1:30 yesterday and, as everyone has mentioned, it was to study the payments to doctors who had billed OHIP for over $100,000. We passed a motion that we would have Mr. Scott look after the report, the members would get the report and Mr. Scott would review it and come back. The members of that committee would make a decision at that time as to whether it should be confidential or not. The last line of that report mentioned that it would be confidential. I think, Mr. Speaker, through your good offices, perhaps you could investigate to see who did leak that information. It would be of great help to every member on that committee because I, for one, feel -- I am sure all the rest feel the same way -- that there’s a black mark against our honesty and our integrity until this matter is cleaned up. I am sure that every member who sits on that wants that done and if your office gives you that power, I would ask you to do it.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same point? We don’t want to go around the whole chamber on this matter. It has been brought to the Speaker’s attention.

Mr. Williams: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. member briefly.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to dissociate myself from the activities of the committee in the two special meetings it has held during the past two weeks, simply because of the manner and fashion in which they were conducted. The one held by the committee last week to request you to issue the special warrant was conducted without my prior knowledge and without my attendance. Therefore, I was not part and parcel of that particular proceeding.

I would point out that no member of the Conservative caucus was advised of the meeting last Thursday when the special warrant was issued.

As to the meeting yesterday --

Mr. Breithaupt: You really should try to attend the meetings.

Mr. Williams: -- again, I received a telephone call at 1:15 to say there was to be a special meeting at 1:30. Under the circumstances, considering the fundamental private privileges involved in the matter before the committee in these urgent meetings, there is no evidence before me to justify the urgency with which these matters were taken in hand by the committee under those circumstances. To have these disclosures made, I want to be dissociated --

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member has made his point clear. We don’t want to get into a debate about what goes on in the committee. Thank you very much. Will the hon. member take his seat.

Mr. Williams: Simply, Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be associated --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have heard you on that point. Is this on the same matter of privilege, very briefly?

Mr. Foulds: On a similar point.

Mr. Speaker: But not a discussion of all the things that went on in the committee however?

Mr. Foulds: No, Mr. Speaker. As the member substituting for the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) on the committee yesterday who made the motion in the public accounts committee that resulted in the committee receiving the information regarding the names and addresses, et cetera, of those doctors receiving $100,000 or more in payments from OHIP. I am shocked and dismayed that the press obtained that information and that the information has become public knowledge prematurely.


An hon. member: I bet you are.

Mr. Foulds: I thoroughly agree with the Attorney General that it was the right of the committee to receive the information; but it was clearly part of the motion I put, that the information should remain confidential until such time as the committee should decide otherwise, and I cannot express too strongly my dismay that that has been breached.

An hon. member: Call the reporters before the bar of the House.


Hon. F. S. Miller: I’d like to speak to that point of privilege, too. I am not a member of the committee; therefore, perhaps I don’t have to stand to exonerate my own actions. But as the minister responsible for delivering this material on the basis of your warrant, I would like to look at its effect -- not on the particular matter, the information that was revealed, but really the kind of effect this has upon the people of this province who look at this Legislature and who I thought had reason to trust it.

I believe that it would be very difficult to assume that it was not a member of that committee who released that information. I believe that each one of us in this House will suffer as a result of that action. I believe the people in this province had every reason to believe that we were elected to represent the rights of people in this House, whether we agree with the principles expressed by our opposition or not. When this kind of action takes place, I believe that we as politicians have dropped one more notch in the eyes of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Minister of Health has made a very good comment which summarizes the total picture. But just to review the events, if I may take a very brief moment, the warrant was issued; there were certain challenges; the warrant was upheld; and the information then was presented, properly I presume, to the committee. What happened in the committee really is out of the control of the Speaker and the House. It is entirely the responsibility of the committee what happened to that.

As to whether a member of the committee leaked the information or otherwise, I have no way of knowing, but really it is the responsibility of that committee to govern its own affairs as ordered by the House. I will confirm that; I will double-check that to make sure there is no responsibility on my shoulders. But at the present moment I do not see one. If I see otherwise, I will report, hopefully later this afternoon. But at the present time I see no responsibility on the Chair to take any action at this time.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order on that particular point.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not debatable.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I have dealt with all the points of privilege which are all dealing with the same matter. I have dealt with the matter. If the hon. member will please take his seat, we will get on with the business of the day.

Any statements by the ministry? The Minister of Energy.

Mr. Foulds: We know what it is.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Maybe I should sit down; I’d be further ahead. I don’t know.


Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the 1974 Throne Speech the government announced its intention to extend the electrification process to remote northern communities of the province. As a first undertaking, the construction of a transmission line to Moosonee was also announced at that time.

Today, I am pleased to announce a comprehensive electrification programme for those remaining northern communities still without power, where the cost can be justified. Depending on the interest of residents in the communities involved, this new electrification programme could assist nine small communities in northern Ontario and it is estimated to cost the province nearly $3 million over a period of three years.

Under the programme, the province will provide Ontario Hydro with capital funds for local diesel generation or extensions to an existing transmission line. Ontario Hydro will assume full operating responsibility for this programme. To qualify for assistance under the programme a community must have a minimum of 25 year-round customers in total, who are willing to take the service from Ontario Hydro. The nine communities in northern Ontario which appear to meet this criterion are Armstrong, Hillsport, Oba, Collins, Auden, Biscotasing, Sultan, Ramsay and Kormack. On the basis of comparative capital and operating costs, the first six communities would be supplied by diesel generators. In the case of the last three, Sultan, Ramsay and Kormack, the recommended supply is by line extension connected to the Hydro rural distribution system.

Two of the communities, Armstrong and Sultan, already receive service from diesel generators operated by the Ministry of Government Services in Armstrong and by the Ministry of Natural Resources in Sultan. The government-owned facilities in both communities will be transferred to Hydro at an early date. In addition to the diesel supply operated by the Ministry of Government Services in Armstrong, nearly 100 houses receive power from diesel generators owned by the CNR. Canadian National Railways will be approached by Ontario Hydro in the near future to negotiate a transfer of CNR’s power supply responsibilities in Armstrong as well as in two other communities, Hillsport and Oba. In other communities under this programme, power is currently provided by private logging company generators or by the individual homeowner at his or her own expense. Central diesel systems will be installed by Ontario Hydro to replace these private systems, again where there is sufficient demand to justify these installations.

The cost of supplying power from diesel generators is very high, approximately 20 cents per kilowatt-hour in communities accessible by road or rail and 30 cents per kilowatt-hour in communities accessible by air only, or about 10 times the cost of producing and delivering power in the rest of Ontario. It is clear that rates to fully recover costs in diesel-supplied communities would not be affordable or acceptable to the prospective residential customer. Therefore, a residential flat-rate structure will be implemented with a cost for all consumption of 6.75 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is the same charge as will be applied in 1977 to rural residential customers for the first 250 kilowatt- hours of consumption. Non-residential diesel customers, such as government agencies and private businesses, will pay rates equivalent to the true cost of providing the service.

Because of the energy conversion efficiency and cost characteristics of local diesel generation, certain high energy uses, such as electric heat, are inappropriate. Therefore, as is now the practice elsewhere, load-limiting service entrance breakers will be necessary to restrict the power available to each customer to three kilowatts at any given moment in time.

As now envisioned, the diesel electrification programme will begin in 1977 with three communities: Armstrong, Hillsport and Oba. Diesel systems are also tentatively planned for Collins, Auden and Biscotasing in 1978 and a line supply is planned for Sultan, Kormack and Ramsay in 1979. The three-year completion schedule for the nine communities is necessary to permit Ontario Hydro to develop the manpower and resources required for the installation and administration of the diesel systems. The electrification schedule was also strongly affected by the constraints on increases in government spending.

Ontario Hydro already operates diesel generators in five status Indian communities, Fort Albany, Big Trout Lake, Pikangikum, Attawapiskat and Sandy Lake. These installations were made possible by an agreement between the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Ontario Hydro in 1971. The electrification schedule for status Indian communities calls for installations in two more communities, Lansdowne House and Weagamow in 1977. The programme I am announcing today is complementary to the Canada-Ontario Hydro electrification programme in that it provides for the phased diesel electrification of communities under provincial jurisdiction which are remote from the transmission grid.

The same rate schedule, 6.75 cents for every kilowatt-hour, will be charged in status Indian communities, as is planned for communities under provincial jurisdiction. This rate schedule will be a major improvement for Indian diesel customers who are currently charged seven cents for the first 200 kilowatt-hours and 26 cents per kilowatt-hour for the balance of consumption. The province will be making representations to the federal government for that part of the cost not recovered through the new rate schedule at the time the issue of all provincial services to status Indians is reviewed and clarified.

With the establishment of the provincial diesel electrification programme, all remote Ontario communities, regardless of jurisdiction, will now have access to a stable, long-term power supply.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would like to make a statement regarding an important aspect --

Mr. Stokes: A point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: A point of privilege. Don’t you know the rules, for heaven’s sake?


Mr. Stokes: On a point of privilege. I know it’s somewhat irregular and there’s no place in the standing orders to do this, but because of the importance that all residents of northern communities place on this recent announcement, I’d like to take this opportunity on their behalf to give a sincere thank you to all of the ministries which were responsible for bringing this very important service to residents in the north that have been without it for so very long.


Hon. B. Stephenson: I would like to make a statement regarding an important aspect of labour relations administration. It involves the question of the settlement by arbitration of disputes concerning the interpretation of collective agreements under both The Labour Relations Act and The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

As members know, both statutes require unresolved grievances under collective agreements to be submitted to final and binding arbitration. There is a substantial and steadily increasing volume of arbitration under these Acts, especially under The Labour Relations Act. In 1975, 859 awards were filed with the Labour-Management Arbitration Commission. To the end of November of this year, 967 awards have been filed with the commission. In addition to the increase in volume, cases have tended to become more difficult, reflecting the increasing complexity of the substantive provisions of many collective agreements.

In recent months, I have been made acutely aware of mounting criticisms about the capacity of the existing arbitration system to deal with this increased caseload of complex disputes. A major concern that has been expressed has to do with cost. In virtually all collective agreements, provision is made that the cost of arbitration is to be shared equally by the parties. I have received vigorous representations to the effect that it is difficult and sometimes impossible for smaller trade unions and smaller employers to bear the fees now being charged by arbitrators, with the result that in some instances cases believed to be meritorious cannot be pursued.

The assertion has also been made that there is a lack of properly trained qualified arbitrators acceptable to the parties. Consequently, so it is said, a relatively few highly qualified and experienced arbitrators are required to hear the majority of cases. It is argued that this results, inevitably and unavoidably, in delays and backlogs, both in the setting of hearing dates and the issuing of decisions.

A more fundamental issue, perhaps, relates to the structure of the process. In the main, grievance arbitration is conducted on an ad hoc basis by private adjudicators, either sitting alone or as chairmen of boards comprised of union and employer nominees. Under the present scheme, the arbitrator is selected by the parties or their nominees. Failing agreement, provision is made for appointment by the Minister of Labour on the recommendation of the Labour-Management Arbitration Commission. This process may be contrasted to the scheme embodied in The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act where a permanent board, the Grievance Settlement Board, has been established to hear all unresolved grievances.

A further question which has been raised concerns the fundamental rationale for the consensual selection of and direct payment to private adjudicators. There appears to be a difference of opinion as to the desirability and propriety of permitting litigants to select and pay their judges. This raises the question of whether there is a need for a partially or completely publicly funded, permanent body of adjudicators similar to the Grievance Settlement Board, to which I have already referred, or some other structure.

Those are the main concerns that have been expressed to me, with increased frequency I might add, over the past 13 months. I wish to make it clear that as Minister of Labour I have reached no conclusions on any of these difficult issues nor are the issues, as I have defined them, necessarily exhaustive. I fully realize that, in addition to the critics, there are many knowledgeable supporters of the existing system. However, what is clear to me and to my colleagues, is the need for a critical evaluation of the entire grievance arbitration system by an independent commissioner. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the Honourable Arthur Kelly, a former member of the Ontario Court of Appeal, has agreed to undertake the task. He has been appointed under section 34 of The Labour Relations Act as an industrial inquiry commissioner.

I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to table the appointment which defines the commissioner’s terms of reference and which reads as follows: “I hereby appoint the hon. Arthur Kelly as an industrial inquiry commissioner to inquire into, report upon and make recommendations concerning grievance arbitration under The Labour Relations Act, RSO 1970, chapter 232, as amended by 1975, chapter 76, and The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, RSO 1970, chapter 208, as amended by 1972, chapter 152, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

“(a) The structure of grievance arbitration with particular reference to the use of (1) ad hoc arbitrators or boards of arbitration selected and paid by the parties, (2) permanent arbitrators or boards of arbitration, established by statute, and publicly funded, (3) any combination of, or variation in, (1) or (2) or any other structure for the resolution of collective agreement disputes by arbitration;

“(b) The arbitration process, with particular reference to methods and procedures for expediting the hearing and disposition of disputes;

“(c) The availability and utilization of arbitrators, with particular reference to training, tenure and remuneration; and

“(d) Any other matter which, in the commissioner’s discretion, is deemed to be relevant to the prompt, equitable, economic and workable resolution of disputes, by arbitration, concerning the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of collective agreement under The Labour Relations Act or The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

“And to review and make recommendations concerning The Ontario Labour-Management Arbitration Commission Act, RSO 1970, chapter 320.”



Hon. Mr. Snow: On Tuesday, November 30, the Treasurer and I met with Transport Canada Minister Otto Lang and Finance Minister Donald Macdonald to discuss the federal government’s proposed urban transportation assistance programme. Today, I’d like to bring the House up to date on the outcome of that meeting but, before I do, I’d like briefly to remind the members of some of the background leading up to it.

As I believe all hon. members are aware, the federal government has expressed its intention for several years to support urban public transportation. Starting back during the 1974 federal election campaign, Prime Minister Trudeau announced full support of urban public transportation and promised a financial assistance programme which would promote progress in this important area. And in 1975 the then Minister of Urban Affairs, Barney Danson, and the then Transport Minister, Jean Marchand, repeated federal expressions of support. Even since then, Ottawa has consistently proclaimed the needs and benefits of public transportation with announcements promising financial involvement in commuter rail equipment, station developments, public transit vehicles, innovative demonstration projects, to mention a few.

Thus, as far as Ontario goes, the federal government has agreed to provide assistance to certain important programmes and projects in the area of public transportation. The Toronto transportation terminal redevelopment project is an excellent example. From its inception, the federal government co-operated with the provincial government in evaluating the needs of the Toronto transportation terminal. They also co-operated in the development of a plan which would permit the much-needed expansion of urban transit services, the continued efficient operation of federally controlled rail service and the introduction of the improved intercity passenger service. Federal ministers have agreed on several occasions that a cost-sharing agreement be drawn up, laying out federal and provincial contributions for the design and redevelopment in this area.

Another example is the 80 bi-level rail cars now on order being manufactured by Hawker-Siddeley in Thunder Bay at a cost of approximately $38 million. Here, my predecessor, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, received a verbal assurance from then Minister of Transport, Mr. Marchand, that Ottawa would finance the purchase of this equipment. It is important to note that not only will these cars increase capacity on the lakeshore line but they will also free up existing equipment which, along with the Toronto transportation terminal improvements, will make possible the implementation of the Streetsville-Milton GO rail line.

Naturally these various announcements, promises and programme undertakings were greeted with enthusiasm by the public, by the municipalities and the provinces. And why not? Because, simply stated, there’s no question that public transportation is a necessity in today’s urban communities. As well, the need to pursue means of conserving energy is widely recognized. All levels of government are now fully aware that the proper development of urban communities is vitally linked to transportation, and congestion and pollution must be overcome if our cities are to be attractive.

Thus, we welcomed the idea of federal help, which brings me to the federal proposal announced on August 27, 1976, by Mr. Danson and Mr. Lang, again restating their considered concern over energy conservation and an improved urban environment. But the proposed programme not only fell far short of expectations raised by previous announcements, but it raised many new concerns. It was to discuss those concerns openly and directly with Mr. Lang, while offering the full co-operation of this province in structuring a programme compatible with the needs of the municipalities and the province, that I went to Ottawa on November 30.

I’m going to outline as quickly as I can the various components of the federal proposal, then our specific concerns and, finally, the outcome of the discussions. Essentially, the federal government now proposes to lump these urban transit-related programmes with its railway relocation and crossing programme and let them compete for a limited amount of money, which is an annual allotment to Ontario of approximately $16.5 million. In contrast, Ontario had expected to receive at least the $16.5 million to meet its most urgent priorities in grade separations alone.

For this reason, if no other, we cannot agree it’s logical to insist that the dollar costs of all these other programmes be met from such a small allocation. Don’t forget that in contributing to grade-crossing safety projects, the federal government is only discharging its responsibilities which grow out of its jurisdiction over railways. In plain language, the objectives in the grade-crossing programme are quite different from those of the urban transportation assistance programme.

We expressed our views quite strongly to both Mr. Lang and his colleague, Mr. Macdonald, for only they can decide whether or not they can find the funds necessary to discharge their obligations and join us in our programme aimed to increasing the use of urban transit. I am sure, however, that Mr. Lang now recognizes our viewpoint, that the two programmes are totally unrelated and must remain separate. I say that because he did intimate he would lift the freeze on priority grade-crossing approvals.

I also expressed my concern to Mr. Lang over the fate of the Toronto transportation terminal redevelopment. This complete project is dependent upon the previous federal assurances of financial support. The Ottawa government must recognize that its hesitant attitude places this entire project in jeopardy. I have already mentioned the contract for the 80 double-deck cars for GO Transit, to which we committed ourselves at a cost of $38 million only after the federal assurance of financial assistance. I have asked Mr. Lang to clarify his government’s intentions in this matter as early as possible.

Based on our experience in that area, I am not prepared to make a provincial financial commitment to the Toronto transportation terminal project, based solely on any assumption that federal funding is going to be available. This very important project can proceed only when and if there is a firm federal commitment. I shall have to add that if the Toronto transit terminal project is delayed, then the Streetsville-Milton GO rail services will also be delayed because terminal and track improvements are a prerequisite to this new service.

Basically, then, my main concern with the proposed assistance programme is this: It endeavours to cover too many programmes with too little money. Let me quote some figures to place the federal contribution of $16.5 million in its proper perspective. The federal subsidy of about $16.5 million is to cover public transportation, grade separation and railway relocation studies and implementation. Ontario’s financial requirements to meet its annual needs in the transit component alone are now calculated to be $206 million. On top of that, the provincial municipalities also annually spend, at the current rate, approximately $90 million -- this for a total provincial-municipal contribution of $300 million.

Mr. Cunningham: Time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In addition to this is a large expenditure for both the province and the municipalities for grade separation. It doesn’t --

Mr. Deans: He should have issued the statement from his office or something.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- take a mathematical genius to understand that the federal government’s contribution is a mere 5.6 per cent of that total. And since one of my predecessors, the former then Minister of Highways, Mr. MacNaughton, first outlined this government’s commitment to transit, beginning with subway contributions in --

Mr. Deans: I thought the Premier was going to leave tonight.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- 1964, the total provincial expenditures in transit have amounted to $428,855,000 in capital and operating cost subsidies to the end of the 1975-76 year. If you include the current year’s estimated expenditures, this total becomes approximately $635 million.

Mr. Cunningham: Time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Over that, the municipalities have spent many additional millions. Unfortunately, I was not able to pull those figures together for this statement.

Meanwhile, the federal government’s total contribution to public transit in Ontario has been one $10 million grant to cover rolling stock for the Richmond Hill GO line. I’m aware, of course, that Mr. Lang, like all of us, faces problems of funding restraints and cutbacks which, to a certain extent tie his hands. But at this time I must emphasize that both the objective of our grade-crossing programme and the objectives of our urban transportation programmes are too important to sacrifice.

Mr. Lang has indicated to me that he expects to review the results of our November 30 meeting with his cabinet colleagues and get back to me before the Christmas recess. To date, however, I have received no reply.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I am not hopeful that Mr. Lang will get back to me in the very near future. However, I felt that I should inform this House of exactly where we stand on this very important matter.

Mr. Reid: He might even fly in.


Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing The Children’s Law Reform Act. When I introduced The Family Law Reform Act and The Marriage Act for first reading earlier this session, I indicated that there was still one extremely important area of law which had not been directly addressed, that being the law relating to children.

I specifically noted that The Family Law Reform Act and The Succession Law Reform Act give all children the same rights to support and inheritance regardless of the marital status of their parents.

The Children’s Law Reform Act carries forward the programme of family law reform I announced at that time by abolishing the status of illegitimacy for all purposes of the law of Ontario and by providing the legal framework necessary to facilitate establishment and recognition of parentage regardless of the marital status of the parents.

This bill is a direct outgrowth of the family law reform legislation which is before this House and which will be reintroduced next session. Therefore, by presenting as complete a picture as possible of our programme of family law reform, we can achieve a fuller discussion of the programme in our continuing consultation with the public.

Just as allowance has been made for adjustments and refinements in our other bills, so too we would expect that alterations or additions may well be necessary in the details of this bill. In particular, it is my hope that this bill can be expanded as soon as possible to deal with the issues of custody, guardianship and other related matters. I would like to turn now to a brief outline of the main features of the bill.

Part I abolishes the status of illegitimacy and declares that for all purposes of the law of Ontario, the legal status of a child is independent of the marital status of his parents. A child’s rights and obligations will no longer depend on the decision of his parents to marry or not to many.


Part II provides legal means to facilitate establishment and recognition of parentage. Although all children will be equally entitled to their rights, in order to exercise those rights in any given case a child will have to establish that he is in fact a child of the person in respect of whom he is making his claim.

Under part II parentage can be proven or established through three devices, which are differentiated according to the strength of proof they provide.

The most definite method of establishing parentage will be to obtain a judicial declaration of parentage in the Supreme Court or the unified family court, where it exists.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Attorney General has the floor. You may have a point of order in a moment.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General will yield then, please. Your point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: With great respect, it has been half an hour of statements and is this not the kind of statement which should be made --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: -- which should be made at the introduction of the bill --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have ruled it is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Such a declaration will be recognized for all purposes of the law of Ontario unless and until a further declaration is obtained. Limitations are built in to prevent persons from obtaining declarations in respect of deceased persons where there was no strong evidence of parentage in the lifetime of the deceased. It is expected that in most cases it will be unnecessary to obtain a declaration and that parentage will be presumed where defined circumstances exist, just as we have always operated on the presumption that a child born in a marriage is the child of his mother’s husband.

The bill sets out six circumstances in which it is felt desirable to recognize that the man is the father of the child unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities. The first three presumptions, relating to situations where a child is born in a marriage or where his parents marry after his birth, merely reflect the present law. In the fourth presumption the principles of the present law are extended to the situation where a child is born in a union of some permanence but where his parents have not married. The fifth and sixth presumptions deal with cases in which there is a clear public recognition of paternity of the child -- in the one case where the parents have made a joint, formal acknowledgement of the parentage which is publicly registered, and in the other case where a court has made a finding of parentage in a judicial proceeding where parentage was in issue.

The third method which the bill provides for establishing parentage concerns written acknowledgements of parentage that are against the interest of the declarant. In any proceeding where parentage is in issue, such an acknowledgement will be taken as proof of parentage but only if there is no other evidence to the contrary. Thus, in most cases, this kind of acknowledgement will be conclusive only where parentage is not in dispute.

Paternity is notoriously easy to allege but difficult to disprove. A wrongful allegation can often be disproved by blood testing. The bill facilitates the introduction of blood-test evidence and permits the court to make appropriate use of it. The court will be able to approve the use of blood tests in a proceeding where parentage is in issue, but the consent of the person to be tested will always be required. Thus, the tests are completely voluntary. However, the refusal to consent to a test will allow the court to draw such inferences as appear proper in the circumstances. Procedures are set out for obtaining the consent of minors and persons who are mentally incapable of consenting to a test.

Finally, the bill provides that statutory declarations of parentage, judicial declarations of parentage, and statements of judicial findings of parentage will be filed in the office of the Registrar General. However, filing will not affect the evidentiary value of the material filed. The intention is merely to provide a central location where persons, such as executors, may conduct a search for persons who have legal rights or obligations arising out of a birth outside marriage.

The provisions specifically limit the right of inspection to persons who have a proper legal interest in such matters.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize again that while I believe the principles embodied in this bill are fundamental to the progress of family law reform in this province, I recognize that amendment and elaboration may be required. I therefore look forward to a continuation of the informed public comment we have received in relation to our other bills on family law.


Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Some weeks ago I gave an undertaking to this House and particularly to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) that before we prorogued I would be making a statement with respect to the problems that have arisen in relation to wiretaps. Therefore, I would like to advise the members of this House that I have today caused to be issued, in the form of a directive to all Crown attorneys and Crown counsel in my ministry, a three-part document which is an attempt to ensure that all possible steps are taken to preserve solicitor-client privilege in cases where the interception of private communications is authorized under section 178 of The Criminal Code.

It is first of all important to distinguish between those cases where a solicitor is an object of the interception -- that is, where the police have reasonable grounds to believe that the solicitor himself is involved in the commission of a criminal offence -- and, secondly, those cases where there is no allegation or suspicion that the solicitor himself is involved but where the person who is alleged to be involved talks to a solicitor.

As the Algoma District Law Association stated when commenting about a recent case in Sault Ste. Marie which involved a solicitor as an object of the interception: “With respect to breaches of The Criminal Code the solicitors in this province are in no different position than any other citizen.” However, it is important that the clients of a solicitor alleged to be involved in criminal activity, who have no connection with that criminal activity, be ensured that their privileged communications with him are protected and similarly that the clients of other solicitors who might use the same room or telephone as the named solicitor also be protected.

In the second type of case, where there is no allegation that the solicitor himself is involved, we are concerned that the solicitor-client privilege of the person who is the object of the interception be protected.

Let me then summarize briefly the content of this directive, which is a very lengthy one. First of all, it relates to those cases where a solicitor is an object of the interception; that is, where there is an allegation that the solicitor is himself involved in criminal activity.

This directive contains initially a section entitled “Direction to Designated Agents of the Attorney General,” wherein I have told all agents to advise the judge to whom the application for an authorization is made that the object of the interception is a solicitor, and that it is proposed to intercept only those communications that relate to the commission of the criminal offence described. The agent will further advise the judge that it is our desire at least to minimize, if not entirely eliminate, interception of privileged communications. To accomplish that objective physical surveillance will therefore be used where possible and what is described as the “cease” -- or stop -- “monitoring technique” will also be used in every case. We have prepared, in part three of this directive, draft clauses which the designated agent will put before the judge for his consideration. These are clauses which, if inserted by the judge, will in our view accomplish this objective. We have, in part two of this directive, set out guidelines for police officers which we believe will ensure that both the letter and spirit of any restrictive clauses will be carried out.

Dealing secondly with those cases where the solicitor is not the object of the interception, let me also summarize briefly this directive. In part two, we are requesting the police to provide my designated agent with any evidence revealed during the course of their investigation from which it could be reasonably concluded (1) a solicitor-client relationship exists between the suspect and a solicitor and that (2) any one or more of the proposed known locations for interception might reasonably be expected to produce a privileged solicitor-client communication.

In part one of the directive, I have instructed all agents designated by me, pursuant to section 178 of The Criminal Code, that in all cases where it is proposed to intercept the private communications of a person in a jail, courthouse or other similar place where there is a substantial likelihood that a privileged communication between that person and his solicitor will occur, they should draw to the attention of the judge to whom the application is made the question of whether a clause should be inserted in the authorization requiring the police either to not intercept or to cease intercepting at the point in time where reasonable grounds exist to believe that the communication is with a solicitor and is privileged.

The directive goes on, in part two, to advise police officers in detail as to how and when an interception should be terminated and when any interception can be recommenced.

I think it is important to recognize that while the general tenor of this document is the protection from interception of all communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege, even greater steps must be taken to preserve that privilege in respect of accused persons who are in custody.

Acting under this directive, my designated agents with the cooperation of the police will make all reasonable efforts to minimize and, where possible, eliminate the interception of any communication subject to solicitor-client privilege. However, we must all realize that the protection of privacy legislation, as has been stated by the Solicitor General, does provide an effective law enforcement tool and that it would be impossible to prohibit the interception of all conversations in which lawyers may be involved.

I should further state it may well be that this directive does in fact go further in its attempt to preserve solicitor-client privilege than what the legislation itself envisages. Section 178 of The Criminal Code would appear to assume that conversations subject to solicitor-client privilege would be intercepted. However, I am convinced that every reasonable effort must be made to prevent that occurring and that in issuing this directive we have taken every reasonable step to do so.


Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I talked to Mr. Karl Mallette, the head of Gray Coach Lines, about an hour ago. He informs me that during the appeal period Gray Coach will lose about $1½ million which will result in a cutback of the Gray Coach Lines buses to Owen Sound. In the spirit of Christmas, I say to the Premier I am sending over a 26-ounce bottle of Coke.

An hon. member: Is there glass in it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Is it the real thing?

An hon. member: Is it returnable?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest you check it for glass.

Mr. Breithaupt: You had better strain it first.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member knows that wasn’t really a point of privilege, but it’s in the Christmas spirit. Now we will have the oral question period.


Mr. Lewis: Maybe I can pick up on the Christmas cheer extended to the Legislature by asking the Minister of Transportation and Communications, now that the Conservative member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. Johnson) has joined the Conservative member for North York (Mr. Hodgson), in conjunction with members of both opposition parties, to criticize fiercely the decision of the Ontario Highway Transport Board and to appeal for its reversal, how about reversing it in advance without going through the procedure of further information?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The obtaining of the further information that I have asked the Ontario Highway Transport Board to get is a very important matter relating to this appeal. Unfortunately, I do not believe the time schedule that I announced in the House or in reply to a question will be able to be met. I understand the chairman of the Highway Transport Board met this week -- I believe yesterday -- with counsel for the parties involved. I understand, although I have not any direct communication from the chairman, that the counsel for Gray Coach asked that the start of the hearings be delayed from January 3 until January 25. So it is going to be a little longer process than we had thought, but it’s at the request of Gray Coach that the delay is taking place.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary: I am wondering if the minister knows whether Karl Mallette has ever personally visited that rat hole of a bus terminal down on Bay Street?

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s right on the point.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: I want to pursue it briefly by way of supplementary. Since there appears to be developing a unanimity of opinion among members of all three parties in the Legislature that the decision was a mistaken one, why countenance any delays at all? Why not simply insist on early hearings or make the reversal in the light of what his own colleagues are now bringing to his attention?


Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any such communication from any of my own colleagues on this side of the House.

Mr. Lewis: You haven’t?

Mr. Riddell: What do they do? Talk behind your back?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will say that to my knowledge the appeal has not yet been presented by Gray Coach Lines so unfortunately it cannot be dealt with by the cabinet even if cabinet were to decide to deal with it without waiting for the further information.


Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. I take it that the Treasurer is aware that Taft Leisure Parks Limited, of Cincinnati, has an application pending with the Foreign Investment Review Agency?

I’m sorry -- you want me to refer that elsewhere? You want me to redirect it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: To the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Lewis: I’m not quite sure that is so; let me just complete it. Taft Leisure Parks Limited of Cincinnati has applied to the Foreign Investment Review Agency for approval to build in Vaughan township this massive amusement park. I gather that TEIGA has been requested to put Ontario’s position before the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Can the Treasurer indicate publicly what he will say to this extraordinary proposition?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there is an error in the Leader of the Opposition’s question. We have not been so requested. The Ministry of Industry and Tourism is the contact point between FIRA and the government as a whole. We have been asked as a ministry to give our comments to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism; whether we have done so or not I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: I see. You give it to them and they convey it?

May I redirect to the Minister of Industry and Tourism? Surely he is going to tell FIRA that the proposition of Taft Leisure Parks Limited of Cincinnati coming into Ontario to build a vast amusement park in Vaughan township doesn’t sit well with this government -- in fact the whole idea of an amusement park doesn’t sit well with this government -- and if anything is built it will be built here in Ontario by Canadian companies? Surely that will be his answer when FIRA asks him for his views?

Mr. Speaker: I presume that was placed interrogatively?

Mr. Lewis: That’s a question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I shall express the views of the ministry and the government to FIRA under the conditions that have been set, which are of a confidential nature. That is the way the reports have been dealt with, whether it be with this particular application --

Mr. Lewis: Come on. That’s a copout.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Confidential?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg the indulgence of the Leader of the Opposition. With FIRA applications, when this government or this ministry expresses a position from Ontario, it is on a confidential basis. That is the way it has been handled in the past, except when there is unanimous acceptance by the federal and provincial governments that the positions of those governments shall be disclosed.

Mr. S. Smith: Is it possible to ask a supplementary of the Treasurer even though it was redirected from him?

Mr. Speaker: It seems they are both involved with it. We will allow it.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By way of supplementary, has the Treasurer changed his opinion from that which he expressed some time ago in a letter to Vaughan township, in which he strenuously opposed it and indicated that he would not look favourably on that particular Coney Island type of development?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would want to re-examine that letter but I don’t think I strenuously objected. What I pointed out in the letter were some of the problems which we suggested to the township and to the region -- to Vaughan and York -- some of the inherent problems as seen by some of the ministries of the government with that development. Presumably they did so and, as the member is perhaps aware, that particular amendment to the official plan, as I understand it, has been approved by Vaughan and, I think, by the regional council as well.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of policy, to the Minister of Tourism and Industry, leaving aside the specifics --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you going to the Coney Island of Florida?

Mr. Lewis: -- does it strike him as appropriate and useful that this kind of development -- Coney Island was a pretty neat designation of it -- does he think that kind of development is useful here, imported from the United States?

Hon. Mr. Davis: How about Disney World?

Mr. Lewis: If it was Disney World, I might be converted.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: How do you know it is not?

Mr. Hodgson: Why don’t you go and look at it? Why don’t you go down and look at it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, I have not been asked by FIRA to express an opinion on behalf of the province of Ontario -- that’s number one. Number two, I think if the leaders of the two opposition parties would take the time to review the plans, they’d find out it is not a Coney Island in any way, shape or form. Number three, the NDP and the Liberals can sit back and talk about what this government is going to do to produce employment in the province of Ontario, particularly meaningful employment --


Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s it, go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. There are too many interjections here this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This is one thing we are doing in Fort William and Thunder Bay to provide some meaningful employment for young people during the summer period, the university students and so on.

Mr. Nixon: What did you do about Minaki Lodge?

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you build a lodge on a ski jump?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We believe this project, if it should go ahead either under Canadian partnership with an American organization or singularly American, if it should go ahead, that it will provide some employment. We shall, as a ministry, be expressing an opinion, but the opinions of FIRA will be that of the provincial government.

Mr. S. Smith: It is prime farm land.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about Maple Mountain, Claude.

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


Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’d like to get on with the proper question period. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: I know the minister has a talent for building merry-go-rounds, God knows, but I’m not sure that justifies the jobs.

Mr. Roy: That’s not fair, Claude. Use your expertise for ski jumps.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, as the year comes to an end, is there any further statement the minister is prepared to make about the extension of rent review or rent control -- better use rent review and not provoke him -- beyond July 1977, since it is clear now that no legislation will be forthcoming before March or April of next year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Any announcement about future legislation will be announced in the usual way when the government comes to a decision. At the present time, the only statement I can make is that there is no announcement to make.

Mr. Lewis: Fine, thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the uncertainty that the government’s vacillation on this issue has created for the landlords as well as for tenants, and in view of the fact that landlords must in April decide what rent increases to require of their tenants --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a supplementary to this question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Get to it, please.

Mr. Cassidy: What advice or what counsel would the minister give to landlords or tenants who are facing that uncertainty and having to make rent decisions in the new year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t know what rent decisions have to be made. The present legislation requires 90 days’ notice and before the expiration of the Act. That would give them May 1, 1977 before anybody has to make any kind of a decision based on the present legislation. That’s five and a half months away. I can assure the member there will be an announcement before then.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister intend the legislation be passed by May 1, 1977?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have made no announcement with regard to any legislation to be introduced in the usual way.


Mr. S. Smith: A question, first of all, for the Minister of the Environment, regarding the level of radiation in Serpent River. Given the statement which the minister made in Elliot Lake on August 17 that he would be carrying out an examination and taking corrective measures, could he tell the House exactly what he’s intending to do to clear up that problem, particularly among the Indian families who drink that water? And what exactly he’s done up until now, since August?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: First of all, since August the Environmental Assessment Board has conducted hearings in Elliot Lake. We expect they will be resumed early in the year. However, the subject that the hon. member is talking about deals with an Indian reserve which, as the hon. member knows, is under the jurisdiction and control of the federal government.

We have been working with the federal government regarding the possibility of contamination of some of the wells on the reserve. There are one or two which show levels above our standards and our criteria that we’re concerned about. However, the wells generally on the reserve are safe; they’re below the three picocuries per litre.

We have been testing the water itself, the raw water from the Serpent River, and we feel that there is some danger from drinking there and therefore, that the wells should be corrected and used as a source of drinking water.

As the article this morning says, there is some difference of opinion regarding criteria. We feel that ours are more accurate and more realistic, but we’re satisfied that if we continue working with the federal government there will be a source of clean drinking water for those natives on that reserve.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of brief supplementary, would the minister not feel that the time has come to insist that the tailings from the various mines in Elliot Lake be returned to the mineshaft wherever possible? Isn’t it time we actually embarked on a sensible policy of that kind?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, that is one of the terms of reference, shall we say, of the Environmental Assessment Board, that before the two companies that are in Elliot Lake expand their operations or carry out uranium mining, they not only look after existing abandoned tailings areas but they also look after any tailings areas that will result from their expansion and activities there.


Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier, if I might, regarding the difficult situation -- admittedly very difficult situation -- which has arisen over the past years in the area of Windsor regarding a possibility of a French-language secondary school: Is the Premier prepared to intervene in some way, to use his own prestige and authority to help the two sides come together, to offer perhaps whatever funds might be necessary to help resolve the problem without bitterness, so that what seems to be turning into a rather nasty running sore could be healed in time at least for the whole process of national unity, not to be in some way distorted by the difficulties in that area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Education informs me that Mr. McLeod, who is attempting to mediate some of this, is still in the community. He has not submitted a report, but when that occasion takes place we’ll be delighted to communicate that information to the member for Hamilton West and to other members who represent these constituencies.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I can understand wanting to wait for this report, but could the Premier give us some indication of when this report is expected and could he perhaps take some action to hurry it up if possible, so that the feeling there can be dealt with and the matter healed and Ontario improved generally as a consequence?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t give the leader of the Liberal Party any indication as to when this report will arrive. The minister has himself over the past several months, I know, had a number of meetings. Perhaps the leader of the Liberal Party has discussed this with his own member for Essex South, who I understand has some views on this and perhaps has been, as the local member, attempting to reconcile some of these. I am not sure of that, but I would assume that he has, and has communicated this to his leader.

Mr. Sargent: You are the one who is in trouble, not him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Grey-Bruce, before he gets into something about which he knows nothing, which is not unusual, he should check with his fellow member before he says too much. It’s one of those occasions when, if he thought a little bit first before he spoke, it would stand him in very good stead. I know it is unusual, it would be uncustomary --

Mr. Sargent: It is not true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- it has never happened before, but I would suggest with respect he do it.

Mr. Conway: Is that creative tension, Bill?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I might just ask a brief supplementary of the Premier, if I can get his attention.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have my undivided attention.

Mr. Roy: Recognizing the difficulty, as we all do, and I think as my leader does, and I am sure the Minister of Education does as well, and recognizing the fact that taxation or money is one of the issues, would it not be possible for the Premier, in view of the demand by the people in the community and in view of the difficulty by the taxpayers in that community in paying additional taxes -- God knows, school taxes are high enough -- to give some consideration to the province accepting the full load of taxation for this type of project?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually if the member will go back in Hansard a few years, if he wishes to, we have had as I recall it a number of French-language high schools built. They have been built in a number of communities with very little difficulty. There were additional funds provided and there have been certain financial suggestions made, if memory serves me correctly, in Essex, and I think I am right in saying the concern in that part of the province is not totally related to the matter of finance. Some of the member’s colleagues who, I think, are very close to this situation will acquaint him of that fact.



Mr. S. Smith: I have a brief question for the Premier. Regarding the Ontario Securities Commission, can the Premier now report to the House the findings of the advisory board which he set up regarding policy 3-02, the regulations on junior mines? Considering that they have now had over three months to prepare it and that the Premier replied on November 2 that he’d be reporting by the end of this year, is he prepared in fact to make that report?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) is much closer to this matter than myself. I’m going by memory now, but I think the committee expects to have the report by the end of the year. We are anxious to receive it. It may be one of those reports that the member for Hamilton West may read about during the period from 10:30 to when we get together again in this friendly fashion.


Mr. S. Smith: This question was intended for the Minister of Culture and Recreation, but perhaps I could ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Regarding the provincial lottery policy, the second draw is coming up in about two weeks’ time. Could the minister tell us whether there is yet an outline outlining the directions planned for how the money is to be utilized, a policy which is to underline the utilization of this money? Can she give us some assurance that the money will not be thrown at medical research in such a way as actually to distort the entire structure of medical research in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Only in psychiatry.

Mr. S. Smith: No, it can distort it if you just throw the money.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: In answer to the member for Hamilton West, I can just assure him that there is a great deal of consultation going on at the moment. I can also assure him that there will not be a great deal of money thrown into medical research without a great deal of thought being considered beforehand.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, could the minister give us some indication of when we can expect an announcement of how the policy is to be implemented? Secondly, could she tell us whether the government is planning to use either the structure of the Medical Research Council or a similar Ontario structure to give guidance with regard to the awarding of various grants under this programme?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: At this time I am in no position to comment on the question posed by the hon. member, but just again I can reassure him that it is being given a great deal of attention by the people in the policy field.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: I’d like to ask if there is any intention to involve the Legislature in this consultation and discussion so that we may have some opportunity to consider how this money should be allocated?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: At this time I’m in no position to answer that question either.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister why she would not follow the policy of her leader who told the House on July 15, 1976, that prior to the expenditure of any funds the members opposite certainly should have every opportunity to comment on it? Why won’t she follow that policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t you comment?

Mr. Roy: That’s right. Give us an opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have it. You had the whole budget debate.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t think I denied that members opposite will not be given that opportunity.

Mr. Roy: You had better think about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re getting a lot of supplementaries and we’ve been quite a few minutes now into this.

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us when funds will first be made available?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I cannot.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Can the minister tell this House what happened to the approximately $10 million that was Ontario’s share of the Olympic lottery? What has the government done with that money?

Mr. Cunningham: The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) has it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: That is very important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It’s important yes, but not at this particular moment.

Mr. Peterson: It’s Christmas-time. Please be charitable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and would beg the attention of the Attorney General and the Minister of Housing.

Is the minister aware that Vroom Development (Central) Limited has evidently found a way to circumvent The Condominium Act, The Planning Act and The Landlord and Tenant Act by selling apartments in Waverley Park Towers in Thunder Bay, possibly forcing the tenants there either to buy or to seek other accommodation? Further, is he aware that his ministry has always known of the loophole that exists through common law in this respect and will he take action to plug that loophole?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t know how many times we have to announce this: There is no loophole. You cannot sell an apartment except through The Condominium Act.

Mr. S. Smith: You can sell shares in the building.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The person buying shares in an apartment house is not entitled to occupancy. You cannot buy a single unit except through The Condominium Act. I repeat it again: There is no loophole such as described by the hon. member. We know of people who think there is, but we have repeated several times that you cannot do it legally, and as far as we know there is no way of doing it.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: If that is the case, will the minister advise Vroom Development (Central) Limited, after examining the letter and the contract that they have sent out to the tenants, that the action they are taking is, in his opinion, illegal?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: For one thing, I don’t know what they are proposing. We know of the scheme whereby certain apartment owners, in order to get their equity out, are saying to tenants in those apartments: “If you buy your unit, we will be glad to sell it to you.” They can’t do that. They can sell them shares in an apartment building or an interest in an apartment building, but owning shares in an apartment building does not give any purchaser the right to occupancy under The Landlord and Tenant Act. This has been cleared with the Attorney General. If the hon. member would like to send me the literature, we will tell them what the Act requires. We can’t say it’s illegal because we don’t know what they’re asking people to do.

Mr. Kerrio: You need a free-enterpriser over there, Jim.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Housing: In view of the concerns which have been expressed, both publicly and privately, by tenants in Ontario Housing Corporation projects with reference to the management contracts -- those which are contracts with the large developers -- has the minister investigated these contracts? Is he aware of the contents and the responsibilities under them and will he table those in this House so that we may also know what the contents are?

Mr. Philip: In other words, answer the question that I asked in the previous session.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing will answer the first question, please.

Mr. Mancini: If he asked a question --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Eakins: He wants the credit, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He can use as much credit as he can get.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, he hasn’t got much.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am not familiar with all of the individual contracts. I have looked into that matter. I understand that there are some variations in the various contracts. If my memory serves me correctly, I was advised that there were going to be some changes made in the various contracts as they came up for renewal. As far as tabling them in the Legislature, I would like to take the time to see if that can be done without any legal complications involved with the companies that are managing the buildings.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: In view of the answer of the minister, and in view of the fact that he has given an undertaking earlier this year to table some of these Ontario Housing documents, could I ask how much longer we have to wait for him to review the situation and see that the House has the information?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the hon. member, along with others, is aware that I had indicated I could see no problem, from my point of view, of tabling the minutes of the Ontario Housing Corporation provided we did not interfere with the rights of third-party individuals who might be involved, and that we would not jeopardize the position of the members of the board as far as law is concerned.

My legal advice at the present time is that it would not be proper to table the entire contents of the OHC minutes as was requested by motion on the books from the hon. member for Wilson Heights; this would create legal problems and implications for the members of the board and possibly for the ministry itself as it involves --

Mr. Sargent: And the government would fall too.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker; I didn’t hear the comment that was made.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister ignore the interjections?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will listen to the interjection and ignore the source.

If I can clear the problem as it relates to the legal implications for third parties involved, I will have no problem at all with tabling that material in the Legislature. It won’t bring the government down -- if I have to go down anywhere, I’ll find the member for Grey-Bruce there.

Mr. S. Smith: Did you have a cocktail with lunch today?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I don’t drink.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister for Education has the answer to a question asked previously which he may give now.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) raised a question about the English as a second language programme at Heydon Park Secondary School, Toronto.

In responding to that question I pointed out that although local education authorities have a high degree of local autonomy in this area of decision-making, I would be pleased to look into the matter. Discussions with the principal, Mr. Edgar, indicated that although only one teacher was assigned to the ESL programme in September, two teachers have been involved on a full-time basis since October.

The additional teacher was added to the programme because more students who needed English as a second language programmes were identified during the month of September. Since October, each student in the English as a second language programme has been receiving 15 periods a week of 40-minute duration. I understand at the present time the pupil-teacher ratio is about 13 to one in each of four classes.


Mr. Davidson: A question to the Minister of Labour: Given the fact that the following textile companies have closed down since November, 1975 -- Malibu Fabrics of Smith’s Falls; Burford Textiles of Burford; Campbellford Cloth of Campbellford; Riverside Yarns of Cambridge; Armstrong Cork of Peterborough; and Versatile Knitting of Cornwall --

Mr. Riddell: Textral of Goderich.

Mr. Davidson: -- can the minister inform the members of this House what, if any, retraining and upgrading programmes have been implemented to assist these people in seeking other types of employment in these areas?

Mr. Samis: Good question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Although I am aware of the development of Manpower adjustment committees in several of those locations, I am not sure if they have been established in all of them. This service is offered by the Ministry of Labour whenever such a shutdown occurs and has been reasonably successful in many areas.

The reason for the shutdown of many of these plants, of course, has been the competition which imported fabrics have supplied for Canadian-made products. Perhaps it may not be unrealistic to hope that some of them may reopen as a result of the action taken by the federal government in the past two weeks.

The actual retraining programmes, of course, as the hon. member is aware, are under the jurisdiction primarily of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities with which we have excellent and continuous communication.

Mr. Davidson: Taking into account the sector analysis put forward by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism which indicates that mobility is low and many of these workers would find it difficult to obtain alternative employment opportunities, and considering that many of these plants were located in small areas where the employment opportunity is limited at any rate, does the minister not think that rather than wait for someone to come and approach her to implement a programme, the programme should be implemented by her ministry immediately?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The service is offered by the Ministry of Labour as soon as we hear of an impending close-down of any plant. We do not wait for the individuals responsible to contact us. We make the contact.


Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

With regard to a new Purina plant for the town of Trenton, can the minister please tell me if he is aware that in the late spring of this year the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) announced a new agricultural industry to be built in the Trenton area? By the way, I should mention that it was a little hard to understand why the Premier didn’t call me personally to let me announce this but I suppose --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did; you were out. I tried three times. I may have had the wrong number.


Mr. O’Neil: You may have.

However, since this release originally came from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and concerned the building of a $3 million plant by Purina, can the minister tell me whether Purina is proceeding with plans for construction?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that question should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. O’Neil: I wonder if I could redirect it to the minister, please?

Mr. Speaker: Redirect it, yes.

Hon. W. Newman: I believe I caught part of it. The member is talking about the Purina plant. They had considerable time under the ARDA programme getting federal approval for their part of the funding. We did get their portion of the funding approved. Our portion was approved. It was a corporate decision, I believe, at this point in time not to proceed at this point in time. It doesn’t mean the project is dead, but this is a corporate decision of Purina themselves.

Mr. O’Neil: As a supplementary then, since both Purina and the officials of the town of Trenton had asked that the details of this announcement be kept confidential until all plans were finalized, can the minister tell me whether the premature announcement by someone other than the company or its elected member resulted or may have resulted in this cancellation?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, you know that is just a -- well, no, I’ll answer the question.


Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: We are expending public funds under the ARDA programme. We are putting provincial dollars in and federal dollars in, and once that has been approved, and it was asked for by the company, then it is public information. We don’t hide our funds anywhere. We want people to know about them. This has nothing to do at all with this corporate decision.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: In the announcement of the new industry it was said by the Minister of Industry and Tourism that any announcements were kept confidential until such time as the company wanted these announcements made, and I think there should be some clarification on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question? Order, please. No comments are necessary.

Hon. W. Newman: When there is public money involved, when an application is made to ARDA for funding, once that has been approved that is public information and every company knows that.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the side conversations are interfering with the progress of the question period.


Mr. Samis: To the Minister of the Environment: Notwithstanding the amazing ability of the Ottawa River to absorb almost anything, can he explain to the House why charges have not been laid against the CIP mill in Hawkesbury in view of its deplorable record of discharging dissolved waste which is worse than any other pulp and paper mill in Ontario and four times that of Reed?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The mill in Hawkesbury does pose a problem. It is not the worst in the province really. There are others.

An hon. member: Tell us who is the worst.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Again, as the hon. member says, the assimilative capacity of a receiving stream is taken into some consideration, particularly the Ottawa River, which as the hon. member knows, is an interprovincial river --

Mr. Breithaupt: But the polluters will pay.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- soon to be international, who knows?

Mr. Conway: Do you know whether it is wet or not?

Mr. S. Smith: It’s all right if it goes to Quebec.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get on with the answer now?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That plant is one of the plants that are under a control order, or a control order is being negotiated. The city of Hawkesbury, of course, itself is the problem, and hopefully both of those matters will be looked after during the next fiscal year.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the record of this plant in terms of dissolved waste has worsened, not improved, since 1970, and in view of the fact that two other mills within 50 miles have improved their record very, very noticeably -- namely the Eddy plant in Ottawa-Hull and the Domtar plant in Cornwall -- what assurance can the minister give the people in this area that his government will do something to stop the deterioration of the water conditions because of this mill?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I might say that Hawkesbury generally, period, is the last remaining problem area for our government on the Ottawa River. The city will undertake sewage treatment works this coming year -- there are funds in the budget for that -- and our concern about the CIP mill will also be looked after this coming year.

Mr. Conway: The minister mentioned that a control order was being negotiated; am I and the hon. members to assume that it is a normal practice to negotiate control orders?

Mr. McClellan: That’s exactly what he said.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: What we do is discuss with the company the requirements of our ministry and then set down, under an order, certain requirements to be done over a period of time, usually a five-year period. During that five-year period certain deadlines are established in the control order. We attempt to get the approval of the company --

Mr. R. S. Smith: That order has been there since 1965.

Mr. Riddell: Remember the words of the Hon. George Kerr when he said the polluters will pay.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Can I answer the question? I attempt to get approvals during that five-year period -- the consent of the company. If the company doesn’t agree with our directions and our timetable and scheduling then the order is issued in any event.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: No, that was a final supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: There was only one supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: It was the final supplementary.


Mr. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister confirm whether or not he has appointed Mr. David Coons of Burlington to the Environmental Appeal Board?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is public knowledge. That’s gazetted in this Legislature and the answer is yes.

Mr. Cunningham: By way of supplementary, if I may, was Mr. Coons your campaign manager in the last two elections?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That qualifies him to have good judgement.

Mr. S. Smith: He has no experience, absolutely none.


Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment if he has recovered from the last one. In view of the fact that the ministry has announced that the mercury level in pickerel in Batchawana Bay is two to three times the levels acceptable anywhere in the world, can he inform this House what he is doing to determine: First, the levels among other species of fish in the bay, that is, lake trout and others, and in other areas of eastern Lake Superior; second, the source of the mercury pollution; third, the effect on area people who MNR is encouraging to do sports fishing in Batchawana Bay? Can he tell us what he is doing to find out the source and what he is doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: My information is that the hon. member’s analysis of test results is some months old and this is somewhat the same condition that exists in a number of lakes in that area.

The walleye, I believe, is the one source that is of concern to us, mainly because of the size of some of the walleye which have been tested. The other fish have also been tested. I’m surprised the hon. member has not had results from certain other species as well. My information is that the results are available for those species.

We are having problems in locating some of the source. We are convinced there is a natural source of mercury in that area. There doesn’t seem to be any plant which is directly flowing into that lake. There doesn’t seem to be any mine which may be a source of mercury. It’s possible that emissions from plants within a 100 mile radius may be responsible but there must be a natural source which is prevalent in other parts of the province which is now contaminating fish.

Mr. Wildman: A supplementary: Is the minister not aware that an official of his ministry stated this morning in Sault Ste. Marie the test results on pickerel and went on to make an explanation on the radio, publicly? Is he also aware that the Ministry of Natural Resources is in the process of trying to get an agreement from local cottage owners for a boat launching site there to make it possible for there to be more sport fishing at Batchawana Bay?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I haven’t heard the radio programme the hon. member refers to but I’m sure that what that particular official said would indicate the reason there are high readings in walleye. I’m not aware of the Ministry of Natural Resources building a boat ramp there. I’m not aware of that. I am certain if there are high levels of mercury readings in that lake that warnings have been posted.


Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation. In view of the fact that some municipalities this winter are without arenas and have to go to neighbouring towns to play their hockey games, and in view of the fact that crowds away from home aren’t as good and their gate receipts are down and they are having trouble carrying on, would the minister make available funds through Wintario to help pay for their ice time and referees away from home?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know something about the problems that are being experienced in some of these municipalities, but if one were to look at the guidelines or the criteria for Wintario it’s not for operating expenses. If, however, there are some competitions or some type of an activity to which they have been invited -- various teams have been invited to invitational matches -- it may be that Wintario criteria could be made to apply.

However, so that there is no misunderstanding with respect to my answer, the rental of ice time and the normal expenses incidental with respect to league operations are not eligible for Wintario assistance.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: I was well aware that this didn’t fall under the present regulations but under the special circumstances of this year with these arenas not available in their home towns, could consideration not be given to make an adjustment?

Mr. Speaker: That’s a repeat of the first question, I believe. Is there any further elaboration?

Mr. Reid: Will the minister reconsider his policy of not allowing municipalities to raise the 25 per cent of the extra cost for arenas through the selling of debentures or through municipal taxes rather than their having to raise them voluntarily in the community?

Mr. Speaker: That really had nothing to do with the intent of the original question.

The oral question period has expired.


Presenting reports.


Hon. Mr. Bennett tabled the annual report of the Ontario Research Foundation for the year ended December 1, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Essex South have a point of order?

Mr. Mancini: I have a petition to present.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. We will revert to petitions then. I didn’t notice the hon. member standing up.


Mr. Mancini: I beg leave to introduce a petition from the great riding of Essex South. The petition numbers 3,047 names and is also signed by myself. It reads: “We, the citizens of Harrow, Colchester South and Colchester North oppose the 30 per cent cutback to the Gerald Smith ambulance service by the Ministry of Health.”

Mr. Speaker: May I just elaborate? I didn’t see the hon. member standing up because the lights were in my eyes. I want to make that clear.


Hon. Mrs. Birch presented the annual report of the Ontario Status of Women Council.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The report covers the council’s activities and recommendations from October, 1974, to April, 1976. The effective leadership and commitment of Laura Sabia, past chairman of the council, and the dedicated efforts on behalf of women in our province by all of the council members are reflected in this very fine report.

I am sure also all members of the Legislature would want to join me in wishing the newly appointed chairman, Lynne Gordon, and the present council much success in their future endeavours and in welcoming Mr. Andrew Paton of the council, who is with us here this afternoon.


Hon. W. Newman presented the 10th annual report of the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario and the annual report of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario.

Hon. Mrs. Birch presented the 1975 report of the Interministerial Committee on Residential Care.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The committee was established to co-ordinate the relevant data concerning all forms of residential care for the elderly. As the work progressed it became obvious that there was a need to look into the financing and operating policies of a range of facilities that went well beyond the care of the aged. The report, the result of an expanded mandate, has served as a working document for a number of ministries and for the Council on Troubled Children and Youth. Copies will be available on request from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Germa from the standing public accounts committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows:

Your committee recommends: That on the prorogation of the House the standing public accounts committee be continued with authority to sit during the interval between sessions to consider those items of business outstanding in the committee, namely:

1. Ronto Development Corporation tax remission;

2. Minaki Lodge expenditures;

3. Examination of OHIP payments to licensed practitioners;

4. Any other matters the committee deems urgent.

And to compel the attendance before the said standing committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations for which the Honourable the Speaker may issue his warrant or warrants.

Furthermore, that the committee may request such coverage of its proceedings by Hansard and the printing of such papers as the committee deems appropriate.

The committee will meet at the call of the Chair or on a majority of committee members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as we speak to this particular report, I think we should draw attention to the fact that this procedure has not been followed too frequently. In fact, I suppose if there is a precedent for it, there may be only one or two. Appreciating the fact that this committee has some unfinished work, which is set out in points one, two and three of the motion, it has been agreed in consultation with the official opposition that we would delete point four in order to make it quite clear that the committee as a standing committee is being authorized to meet after prorogation to deal with those three items; In other words, Ronto Development, Minaki and the examination of OHIP. Therefore, I would move, seconded by Mr. Deans, that point four be deleted.

I would also draw attention to the fact that later on today we will be talking in terms of the Hansard reporting of committees. It may be, in fact, that we should make sure that the second last paragraph dealing with Hansard is specific in that if Hansard coverage is required, it would be for recording purposes only; there would be no transcription of the results of the recording, but the recording would be available. I would like to suggest that amendment.

With those two changes, the deletion of number four with respect to what the committees will do and the understanding with respect to Hansard, we are prepared to support that.

Mr. Speaker: May I have your amendment in writing, please? In the meantime, I think you have all heard the amendment to the motion; that is, that point 4, I believe is meant to be deleted. Was there to be another part to the amendment? That was the only part of the amendment? All right. I think we understand that. Do we have any further comments?

Mr. Deans: Since there seems to be a momentary delay, I just want to say that it seemed to us in reviewing the request of the public accounts committee that it would not be a good precedent to give carte blanche to any committee to conduct hearings in whatever area it so desired. The general rule which we believe should be applicable in all circumstances is that committees should do work as delegated to them by the Legislature or work for which approval has been given by the Legislature to be undertaken. The public accounts committee is doing such fine work at the moment that it seemed that it should be given the opportunity to continue with that work and to reach a point where we might get the answers to many unanswered questions.

Mr. Breithaupt: With respect to this motion before the House, we have reviewed, with the members who have served on this committee, the proposal made by the government House leader and we are prepared to accept those terms of reference.

I agree with the House leader for the official opposition that it is perhaps best to have specific items referred to a committee, if the committee is to continue, just as specific items are referred to select committees as those committees are developing their work pursuant to the responsibilities given to them by the House. I think that if the committee is able to deal satisfactorily with these three items over the period before a new session begins it will, indeed, be accomplishing a substantial amount of work.

We will support the deletion of item four and we agree with the approach taken with respect to the matter of Hansard for the committee.

Mr. Williams: In speaking to this matter, I do have concerns and I would ask the House leader to consider that in giving notice of these meetings a reasonable period of time be provided. There’s no provision in the motion, as I understand it.

I spoke on a matter of privilege earlier this afternoon, pointing out that there’s been two special meetings of this committee called to which no members of the Conservative Party were invited. I spoke of the other special meeting called yesterday for which 15 minutes’ notice was given. As a result of that I was not able to attend either of those meetings and I think other members were in the same situation.

I think if there are going to be ongoing meetings of a special nature of the committee, in all fairness to all members of the committee, there should be appropriate lead time given as notice of these meetings, whether they are called by the chairman or a majority of the members of the committee.

I cannot accept that the committee would function well if we’re not given sufficient time to make arrangements to attend these meetings when they might be called. I’m wondering therefore, if consideration could be given to this situation.

Mr. Deans: You should be here doing your job.

Mr. Williams: I can’t be there when I’m not called to a meeting, when I have no notice of a meeting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re speaking to this amendment.

Mr. Williams: Frankly, what angers me is that no notice was even given to members, in some instances, of these special meetings. I think some arrangement has to be made to correct that deficiency which exists in the present procedures and I think it’s a reasonable request to have considered.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member is discussing something in the past. On this particular motion, I’m sure the hon. member will agree that he’ll be getting notice of whatever meeting there is called.

We have the motion written here; perhaps I should place it so we’ll know what it’s about:

Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the motion, as presented by Mr. Germa, be amended by deleting item four of those items of business outstanding in the committee, and further that any Hansard coverage be by way of recording only, without transcribing.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of privilege, if I may beg the Chair’s indulgence. I think the Chair will understand because it’s a trifle difficult.

Before the orders of the day today, a number of members of the Legislature, cabinet ministers and members of opposition parties, rose to speak to the question of the publication in the Toronto Globe and Mail and other subsequent journals and on the electronic media, of information which was given to the public accounts committee by the OHIP staff. I shared the disappointment and regret expressed by the Attorney General and other members of the House that it could have happened. I could barely believe it or credit it at the time.

I thought that, as always, the Minister of Health put it with simplicity and candour, that these things do actual and potential damage to the system and for that I am very sorry.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I learned within the last hour or 1½ hours that it was a member, a colleague in my caucus, who was responsible for making the material accessible to the media, my colleague from High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba). I have told my colleague of my deep disappointment at the act, at the way it can compromise colleagues, at the way it can jeopardize the public accounts committee, and at the way in which it can reinforce a cynical view of politics.

I have asked him, and he has of course agreed, to resign from the public accounts committee. I think that he genuinely understands the error in judgement which was made and is profoundly unhappy about it. For the moment, I have no more to say than that. I hope the House isn’t in as punitive a mood as some of the interjections may suggest. I think my colleague wants to say something to the House and I would ask you to allow him to do it, sir.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. member.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, as my leader has said, the material released to the press was made accessible by me. At the time I did it wholly without malice. I was not at the committee meeting yesterday and simply did not realize how serious was the motion and promise of confidentiality. Sometimes, I concede, I handle politics badly. I have a great respect for the process and the last thing in the world I wish to do is bring disrepute upon politicians or political parties.

I offer my regrets and my profound apologies to the Legislature, and beyond. I guess this is the second time I have apologized to this House, Mr. Speaker. I am bound and determined that it will never happen again.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I think no further comment is necessary.


Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Hodgson be substituted for Mr. Smith, Simcoe East, on the select committee on company law, but that upon the receipt of a written application by Mr. Smith, Simcoe East, to the Clerk of the House, Mr. Smith be substituted for Mr. Hodgson.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Drea be substituted for Mr. Hodgson on the standing public accounts committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.



Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 191, An Act to Reform the Law respecting the Status of Children.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Stong moved first reading of Bill 192, An Act to amend The Education Act 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stong: This bill defines compulsory school age and special education and guarantees every child of compulsory school age a right to an education as opposed to a right to attend school. It requires every school board in the province of Ontario to establish special education programmes particularly for those children suffering from learning disabilities.

Mr. Speaker: Any further bills? The hon. member for Ottawa-Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Incidentally that is the second bill on that subject.


Mr. Cassidy moved first reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend The Residential Premises Rent Review Act 1975, Second Session.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: The purpose of this bill is to extend rent review in Ontario beyond the expiry date of July 31, 1977, now set out in the Legislation. The process by which rent review has worked since the beginning of 1976 is unchanged in these amendments. We are introducing it at this time because of our total frustration at the continued indecision and procrastination of the cabinet over this rent review issue.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I’m sure all the members are aware that this is expected to be the last day of sitting and as is customary --


Mr. Speaker: -- we read into the record the names of the young ladies and gentlemen, our legislative pages, who have been serving us well and safely for the last seven weeks. I shall do that now.

Paul Atkins, Weston; Michael Bednarz, Willowdale; Douglas Cameron, Oakville; Michael Darby, Thornhill; Henry deRuiter, Brampton; Cathy Farrow, Toronto; Sue Fleming, Toronto; Melanie Forster, Mississauga; Graham Freeman, Toronto; Marti Gregory, Mississauga; Lars Hansen, Maple; Michael McCallen, Rexdale; Missy Newman, Ashburn; Valerie O’Neil, Thunder Bay; Joanna Pace, North Bay; Janine Roth, Whitby; Wendi Scholfield, Cobourg; Ben von Schwerin, Scarborough; Alastair Westgarth, Bowmanville; Donna-Lee Zmenak, Grimsby.

As is customary, we shall send them a copy of the Hansard so they will know their names are down in the history of this province. Thank you.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 67, 96, 179 and 194 standing on the notice paper. In addition, questions 143, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 172, 174, 175, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 and 198 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Angus: You forgot Merry Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before calling the first order, we had a somewhat flexible programme planned for this afternoon so that if by chance we didn’t finish everything except the windup by 6 o’clock we might invade the supper hour to the extent we needed that extra time. If we have general agreement with respect to that, people can plan their evening meal around that, rotating possibly.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have this agreement?


Orders of the day.


House in committee on Bill 171, Funeral Services Act.

On section 5:

Mr. Wiseman: When we left off last night, we were at section 5(4). I wonder if we could just back up a little, in keeping with the amendment we accepted from the member for Durham East to delete the words in section 5(1) “or directing the providing of.” So that the bill will have continuity, I would move an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wiseman moved that section 5(3) of the bill be amended by deleting the words “or directing the providing of” in the second and the fifth lines.

Mr. Wiseman: This will go along with the amendment that we accepted earlier.

Mr. Moffatt: I’d like to urge that that take place. The parliamentary assistant did indeed give me copies of those amendments and asked that I move them the last day, but during the heat of debate and discussion around this bill they were omitted. I think we should proceed as he asks.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent to revert to those sections in the interests of uniformity?


Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moffatt: Before the Chair now is an amendment to section 5(4). After consultation with the member for Waterloo North and with the parliamentary assistant at the close of the House last evening, we decided that that amendment might be better withdrawn because it would appear that if it were passed, it might work some undue hardship in some remote rural areas. With the Chair’s permission, I would like to withdraw that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have the concurrence of the committee to do that?


Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall moves that a new subsection 5 be added to section 10 of the bill as follows:

“(5) Every person at the time of the purchase of services shall be informed in writing of the existence of the complaints committee and the procedure to file a complaint.”

Mr. Bounsall: I’ll speak very briefly to it as it’s self-explanatory. Of the four committees which are formed under the Act, the executive, licensing, complaints and discipline committees, this is the one that affects the public. If we have a complaints committee, hopefully it will not need to be in operation that much. But it strikes me as being reasonable that the public of Ontario should easily find out about its existence, so they could use it when in their minds the necessity arises and that the simple procedure of how to file a complaint be made known at the same time. I have in mind simply a small card available when the purchaser has completed -- it’s probably best upon completion -- the arrangements for the funeral service. They can simply be handed a card by the funeral establishment director which contains the information that there is a complaints committee should they feel the wish or the need to file a complaint. It can be operated by simply writing to the following person at the following address.

That’s what I had in mind with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comment on the amendment?

Mr. Good: I feel badly that this type of amendment is being brought to this bill. It appears that the whole emphasis of the party to the right is that you can’t trust anyone in the province of Ontario and you’ve got to develop a spirit of confrontation between customer and service, no matter where it is. I don’t think this is necessary.

The present Act requires, and I’m sure the new Act will require, that the licence of the person is hung in a prominent place in every establishment. The licence of the establishment will be there. I’m sure under this Act the board can establish a code of ethics. The code of ethics will be displayed in a prominent place.

This idea of walking into any establishment and the first thing that happens is the proprietor has to give you a card which would say, “You can complain against me by doing this and that” -- to me, that is not the spirit of any group in the province of Ontario doing business with the public.

I’ve given many reasons previously on why I feel the present Act will work very well as it is written. I would have to say that I couldn’t support this type of amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments?

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I’d only say that we can’t support this bill for a lot of the reasons the --

Hon. B. Stephenson: The amendment.

Mr. Wiseman: -- the amendment, I’m sorry -- for a lot of the reasons the member for Waterloo North has mentioned. I wanted to say that we don’t ask a doctor, a lawyer, or anyone like that, when we go to them, to present a little card saying that if they give us false information we can sue. They don’t give us the bar association or the Ontario Medical Association card. I don’t think we should start this.

Mr. Ruston: How about the plumber and the electrician?

Mr. Wiseman: It’s an honour system and the people should know where they can make their complaints if they have any.

Mr. Foulds: Very briefly, I hate to refer to personal experience, but I had a close friend pass away over the weekend. I must say to the member for Waterloo North that you do not notice all these certificates, signs, et cetera, in the funeral home on such an occasion. A discreetly done notice, as outlined by my colleague from Windsor, I think, would be appreciated although very seldom used.

Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question?

All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Vote stacked.

Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I have one each on section 15(2) and 15(3). I have two short amendments to each of these sections. I’ll place them separately.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall moves that section 15(2) be amended by adding after “seven members” in line two the following: “the majority of whom shall be nominated by the Consumers’ Association of Canada”.

Mr. Drea: It’s the same one.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s not the same one. No, it isn’t.

Mr. Chairman: I would have to rule that the question has been previously decided and you can’t introduce it under this section.


Mr. Bounsall: The amendment placed previously referring to consumer representation was to do with the board of Funeral Services and this is dealing with a completely different board or body connected with this Act, which is the review board. It’s completely different from the board.

Mr. Chairman: All right; it’s the Chair’s error.

Mr. Bounsall: Very briefly, the amendment is self-explanatory. It is the review board we are discussing at this point. It’s a board empowered to hear and review other decisions carried out in this Act. The members can review the complaints and the disposition of those complaints and arrive at decisions.

This review board is composed of persons who are not licensed under this Act. The entire composition is of persons from outside the profession, outside anyone associated with the profession or designated under this Act, and the numbers of that review board can vary between three and seven.

If we are going to ensure that there is valid consumer representation -- that is, consumer representation in the sense of a formalized group of consumers brought together for the purpose of being a watchdog on consumer affairs -- this is one point where a majority of those persons appointed could and should be from that particular segment of our society, which keeps a watch upon and has great interest in the protection of the consumer in our society.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Ruston: I don’t think this amendment is necessary. This review board is made up of people appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and they are not to be licensed undertakers or funeral directors. These are people, it seems to me, who are representing the public.

I suppose, with the appointment of people through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, some of us in the opposition seem to think that maybe the government does appoint more of its friends to these boards. On the other hand, the Tories are the governing party and I suppose if we were in the same position we would feel that we should have the power to do that. I think these people are public representatives and I don’t think this amendment should be accepted as far as I am concerned.

Mr. B. Newman: There is no need to include members of the Consumers’ Association specifically because, as you can see, none of the members appointed to the board by the Lieutenant Governor in Council is going to be a licensed funeral director. Subsection 3 of the bill clarifies that quite simply for us so I see no need for the suggestion of the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Wiseman: One comment, Mr. Chairman. I want to say we can’t accept this amendment. I feel that all groups should have a chance to recommend people they might want to see on that board and if this group wants to recommend people I would suggest it sends the names along. I feel, as do some of the other members who have spoken, that it should be representative of everyone. Any group which wants to recommend them, as I said, is perfectly free to do so.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the motion is lost.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member indicated he had an amendment under subsection 3 of the same section.

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 15, subsection 3, be deleted and the following substituted therefor; “No person who has been licensed under this Act shall be a member of the review board.”

Mr. Bounsall: I commend this amendment quite highly to the parliamentary assistant and I think he may well agree with this one or be sympathetic.

The present Act in 15(3) contains the words in the amendment which I have presented. It contains, as you read through it, “No person who has been licensed under this Act, shall be a member of the review board.”

In addition, it disqualifies many and various other persons from being members of this review board for which there is no rationale in my mind. It arises simply because in the drafting of this particular Act -- as has happened in many cases in this Act -- they have simply followed the wording in The Health Disciplines Act.

That Act was set up to give self-governing bodies to doctors, dentists, pharmacists and so on in our society and because they are all so medically involved with each other, or can be, it was indicated that a pharmacist or a dentist should not be able to sit on a committee dealing with doctors; or doctors on committees dealing with nurses. To me, that was relatively reasonable.

With a group of people so completely different from doctors, nurses and pharmacists, there seems to me no reason why a person licensed under The Health Disciplines Act -- if I read this bill and understand it correctly -- that is, a doctor, a nurse, a dentist or a pharmacist, should not be appointed to serve on this review committee, particularly as the parliamentary assistant has indicated that he would be pleased to receive nominations from consumer groups and memorial societies in this province.

Some of the very active members of memorial societies, for example, are doctors and nurses. I would commend to him that he accept this amendment which mainly allows someone governed by one of those other health disciplines -- i.e. dentists and doctors, as I explained before -- would be able to sit or be nominated by these consumer groups for a position on this review board.

I’ve taken out the first part as well. If the parliamentary assistant can explain to me why a public servant or a Crown employee should not be able to sit as a member of the consuming public or be nominated by one of the consumer groups from which he is pleased to accept nominations to this review board, I am willing to be convinced.

On the surface of things, again, it appears quite reasonable to me that one of our 50,000 public servants or Crown employees in the province should be allowed to sit on this review board should that be the choice. I would not like to see their rights further circumscribed by this particular Act.

If you become an employee of the province of Ontario, one of the things you can’t do, no matter what it is you’re doing or what community you’re doing it in, would be to be appointed to this particular review board. It might be of particular interest and appropriate for that particular Crown employee or public servant to be so appointed because of his or her background, their interest or expertise.

Mr. Good: This amendment would make the section less restrictive than it now is and would open the representation on the funeral services review committee to persons who are now excluded. I think there is good reason that members of the public service and members in some of the other health disciplines should be excluded from this board.

This is an appeal board to which the public can appeal any decision of the complaints committee or to which a funeral director, against whom a complaint has been laid, can appeal if he is not satisfied with the findings of the complaint committee. In my view this body should be completely impartial and in no way be connected with any profession or level of government that could jeopardize or prejudice the position of the complainant or the funeral director.

Let me tell you what would happen if members of the public service were allowed to sit on this particular committee. The funeral directors are very much tied up with The Vital Statistics Act as to how they register deaths, how they keep information which is confidential. There are large penalties for giving out information -- even imprisonment up to six months can apply to a funeral director who gives out information to unauthorized persons under The Vital Statistics Act. To me it would not be right if a civil servant could sit on that appeal board to judge this funeral director who is not satisfied with the handlings of the complaint committee.

The Coroners Act and The Public Health Act are also Acts with which the funeral director is in contact on a day to day basis. Complaints or actions under those Acts could well affect a funeral director and a complaint could be brought against him. It would be wrong, in my view, to have a doctor sitting on that review committee, if the complaint against the funeral director had anything to do with an area that might come close to being under The Coroners Act or The Vital Statistics Act.

I think it’s for good purposes that this particular section is written as it is in the Act and I think people sitting on that appeal board must be completely impartial and have no connection with any of the day to day operations in which a funeral director finds himself. So for that reason, I would support leaving the section as it now reads and not accept the amendment.

Mr. Wiseman: I would say that we can’t accept this amendment. I think section 15(3) of the bill dues a better job than the amendment of the hon. member across the way. I think what we have been talking about the last day or two is to keep this board of lay people free of someone who might have some biases. I think the way we have it worded here we have done just that, so we can’t go along with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Any other discussion on the amendment? Ready for the question?

All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 16 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 24:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wiseman moves that section 24(3) of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “The registrar shall not issue a funeral services establishment licence to a corporation unless (a) each one of a majority of the directors of the corporation is a Canadian citizen or a resident of Ontario; and (b) at least one of the directors of the corporation is a funeral director.”

Mr. Good: We agree with this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I spoke on this on second reading and we are pleased to see it in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question?

Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 24 agreed to.

Sections 25 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 33:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bounsall moves that section 33(1)(q) be amended by removing the words “prohibiting or” in lines one and two and adding at the end the following: “and requiring funeral services establishments to display prominently and make available to all purchasers the itemized prices of all services, facilities, equipment and merchandise.”


Mr. Bounsall: The first of my amendments certainly indicated that I have confidence that the board, which will be making these regulations, will be able to govern the advertising of funeral services and funeral supplies in a satisfactory way. But this clause indicates that there would be a prohibition, and it strikes me as coming down a little too strongly that they might be able to do the whole thing, to prohibit advertising. By removing that, it indicates they may govern the advertising but it removes from them any thought of prohibiting advertising entirely.

Where there is advertising of funeral services and supplies, I think it is to be commended and to be encouraged. For example, I have some advertisements here from British Columbia, where advertising is allowed, and I think they are quite informative to the public and in quite good taste. For example, I have here an advertisement from S. Bowell and Sons, which advertises five different plans and gives the prices of those plans. I certainly wouldn’t want to see any prohibition on this kind of advertising. Plan A talks about the contemporary or traditional service, which is worth $397, and the ad indicates what is granted for that. Plan B is simply for a memorial service, and the ad tells what is provided. Plan C, what the company calls minimum service, has a price of $100 and the ad simply states what is provided totally for that service. Plan D, this company indicates, is a prearrangement service; it is simply encouraging, under plan D, the very worthwhile endeavour that many funeral directors encourage, and that is the prearranging of your funeral or your memorial service.

Another ad, from Chapel Hill Memorial Home Incorporated in the state of New York, states that they offer four alternatives; it indicates what is provided in those alternatives and the price for those. One is “immediate cremation,” with a description of what that involves and what is supplied; the price is $225. Another is “immediate burial” and the ad states what is included for a price of $315. For “cremation with viewing and attendance,” the price is $440, and it is stated in detail what is given for that price. And, finally, “burial with viewing and attendance” at $440.

I think we should be encouraging the advertising of funeral services and funeral supplies, and that is the major reason for taking out the words “prohibiting or” in this clause to indicate that this Legislature is in favour of advertising. The particular advertising is still to be governed by the board but this removes the prohibition to ensure that we are encouraging the advertising of services and supplies.

Finally, I’ve added some words at the end of the section which I feel to be very important. They are simply requiring funeral service establishments to have an itemized list available of the prices of their services; the cost of using their facilities; the cost of equipment -- by equipment, we mean things like funeral cars and their merchandise; itemized prices of the particular supplies which accompany the arrangement they are making with the customer.

I would highly recommend this to the parliamentary assistant. It is the type of thing which is found in the code of ethics of various morticians’ groups. They do precisely this and have available to all purchasers itemized prices for their services, facilities, equipment and supplies which, when put together, arrive at a total price for the particular funeral.

If they could see that broken down, item-by-item price, the purchasers would be thoroughly clear and would thoroughly understand precisely what it was they were purchasing either at the time of a prearrangement or when purchasing a funeral service in the midst of family grief.

Mr. Good: The way the Act is written now, while it includes the word “prohibiting” and governs the advertising of funeral services, there is nothing in the Act which says the board will or has to prohibit all advertising. It does give the board power to prohibit certain types of advertising.

I feel the board has acted wisely and in a very just manner up to now. They’ve prohibited certain types of advertising. When I drive to Florida, I hate to see the billboards lining the highway advertising funeral homes every half-mile. You can’t do that in Ontario and I think that’s good.

I don’t think we should have billboard advertising for the funeral homes in Ontario. It’s allowed in certain states in the United States. I don’t think it adds anything to the dignity of a funeral service. I think the board is justified in prohibiting certain types of advertising.

The matter of requiring the funeral service establishment to display prices, this is already required under regulations of the present Act. There must be a certain number of funeral services available, from lower prices up, to satisfy the needs of those who choose a more elaborate and more costly type of funeral service. As long as we have a society such as we have, where freedom of choice is available, funeral directors do have to make available services of varying price ranges.

As far as I know, all funeral homes do reduce prices for services which are not required. This is a standard practice as far as I know. Under the new Act, of course, there will be even tighter regulations available than under the old Act, in that the board can control not only ethical practices but business practices. I’m sure it’s a longstanding practice for all funeral homes to display their prices in their selection room.

Advertising is now very prevalent in the field of encouraging people to come and talk over their personal wish regarding funeral services, prior to need. This is going a long way to allaying the fears of people being pressured at the time of need, when they are under an emotional strain. I think the main thrust of advertising among funeral groups lately has been in that direction. People come in and discuss what their wishes are. They record them and put them in writing. Many people wish to prepay them and, of course, that comes under The Prearranged Funeral Services Act of the province of Ontario. Those moneys are held in trust under that Act and inspected on a regular basis by the board. I remember the days when prices were advertised in the province of Ontario. I don’t think it did anything but mislead some people because the prices were advertised at the low end of the scale and never at the high end, and what one gets in a funeral service varies a great deal.

The trend had been in the last 10 or 15 years that people pay only for those services they wish and they require. For that reason, if a person is advertising it is most difficult to establish what is included in that price with the funeral service. It is not as though you are buying a commodity that includes just one item of merchandise. You are buying merchandise as well as professional service.

I think the advertising aspect has been handled very well by the board. The board has powers here to handle it in any manner it sees fit. I, for one, would not quarrel at all with whatever decision the board makes as to what advertising it will allow and what advertising it will not allow. Certainly under regulations there will be the requirement that prices be established clearly. In all businesses in the province of Ontario it is of utmost importance that the family know exactly what their cost will be relating to the funeral service and that the additional costs be made very plain as relating to cemetery costs, newspaper notices, additional travelling charges and all these matters.

In the last 10 or 15 years, great strides have been made in this regard. Itemization of accounts is available. I think most directors do find that people are comparing prices. I submit that this can be done properly only by a visit to the funeral home prior to need.

Mr. Bounsall: In reply to that, the member for Waterloo North and myself are certainly not in disagreement on that point. If one preplans one’s funeral, one does have the time over a period of weeks to shop around and compare the prices for various services and the various merchandise which is available amongst and between various funeral homes. With that sort of pressure not on a person, he usually can be successful in obtaining the breakdown list. But usually most people -- and we are all human in this regard -- do not tend to preplan their funeral. I think the percentage of people who preplan their funeral and pay for it in advance is much smaller than those who don’t. In the moment of their grief if they find themselves in a funeral establishment in which it is required that they be given a breakdown of price -- for example, how much for embalming -- they can decide whether or not to embalm, embalming being required I understand only for transportation outside of the province. They can decide whether or not to take it in relation to the total price.

This is the sort of thing this amendment does. I might say to the member for Waterloo North that there are some funeral establishments that do resist the itemized price breakdown. In fact, there are some whole communities, I understand, where this practice is resisted. I agree it used to be more resisted but over the last four or five years with the emergence of things like the memorial societies there has been more cooperation and more information in this regard. I would hope that the opportunity we have in this Act would make it very clear that this sort of itemized breakdown will be forthcoming at all of the funeral establishments.

Mr. Wiseman: I’d just like to say that we cannot accept this amendment. I believe that a lot of the worries that the member for Windsor-Sandwich has can be looked after in regulations and will be looked after in regulations where the cost of the funeral and everything will have to be displayed at the funeral home. I feel that our section of the bill is good and should stand.


Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question?

All those in favour of Mr. Bounsall’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 34:

Mr. Bounsall: I have a comment on 34(1)(i). I did have an amendment for this section, Mr. Chairman, but in the interest of time I simply won’t proceed with it in that formal sense. It would be a tack-on after the phrase “providing for a code of ethics.” I had considered building into the Act the phrase, “similar to the code of funeral practice of the National Selected Morticians.” It simply would be a suggestion to the board in relation to the passing of its bylaws and regulations that the code of ethics be very similar to that very good one established by the code of good funeral practice put out by the National Selected Morticians. That is freely and readily available.

I was hoping that my remarks would be sufficient to have that body consider very seriously adopting that particular code. It has within it many of the things which have been a concern of mine and a concern of the memorial societies across Ontario. If adopted as a code of ethics, it would make co-operation between the memorial societies, the public and funeral directors much more positive than it appears to be at the moment. Such a code would ensure that they are receiving exactly the type of service and exactly the type of merchandise that they best want for the prices that are being charged.

Mr. Good: I would like to say a word on this amendment --

Mr. Chairman: It’s not an amendment. It’s a proposal.

Mr. Good: Yes. All right. The proposal is that the board adopt a code similar to the code of funeral practices of the National Selected Morticians. It’s rather significant that they should speak of a code of an American-based funeral association.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to say that I hope the board would adopt a code of ethical practices very similar to that of the Ontario Funeral Services Association. I’m very proud of this code of ethics. We’ve had it for a number of years, and I would like to take a moment to read it. I’m sure all members in the House would agree that this would be a sound basis for the code of ethics referred to in this section, and I’m sure the board would be guided by this.

“1. Members shall provide their services to all who shall require them regardless of ability to pay.” Show me another group that does that.

“2. Members shall not be critical nor appear to be critical of those who desire minimum services at minimum costs.

“3. Members shall have the total funeral price clearly marked on all caskets and shall at the time of making funeral arrangements clearly inform the purchaser of any additional charges which may have been incurred as a result of special requirements or circumstances.

“4. Members shall always be most careful to avoid any possibility of misleading the public as to legal or other requirements relating to embalming or other aspects of funeral arrangements.

“5. Members shall keep in complete confidence all personal information given them.

“6. Members shall at all times observe the requirements of The Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act and shall subscribe to the code of ethics of the Ontario Funeral Services Association and shall faithfully observe the spirit and the letter of this code of ethical practice.”

With my compliments I would like to send a copy to the parliamentary assistant and two copies to the members of the NDP.

Mr. Bounsall: If I may, still speaking to the section, there are certainly funeral establishments in the province of Ontario which are members of the National Selected Morticians and agree to the code of the National Selected Morticians which is more extensive and more explicit than the one quoted. I will not take time to read this particular code but it certainly is much clearer than the Ontario code about the provision of prices in particular and is very clear about making no misrepresentation, written or oral, anything false or misleading, and so on.

I won’t read the sections but to the board making the regulations and adopting this code of ethics, I simply want to say the Ontario code is not bad as a start but it certainly can be extended. The board should have a look at this code of good funeral practice by the National Selected Morticians as the way in which the Ontario code could be extended and expanded upon.

Mr. Foulds: Well put.

Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.

On section 36:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wiseman moves that clause (d) of subsection 2 of section 36 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(d) Where the licensee is a corporation,

“(i) that each one of a majority of the directors of the corporation is a Canadian citizen or a resident of Ontario, and

“(ii) that at least one of the directors of the corporation is a funeral director.”

Mr. Bounsall: On this, I might say, certainly there is no problem and I commend the parliamentary assistant for bringing forward the first section of this, that each one of the majority of the directors be a Canadian citizen or a resident of Ontario. That’s a good addition to the Act.

Not to nitpick, though, I’m a little disappointed -- but I don’t know how you get around it -- that at least one of the directors must be a funeral director. My concern about this is it would not make it possible for a co-operative such as exists in Sudbury, for example, to continue to function unless they put on the board the funeral director whom the co-operative hired. I suppose that would be possible and it’s not disallowed under the Act and in this way the co-operatives could then function.

I see, I think, the parliamentary assistant nodding his head in agreement -- that would be possible under the Act; the employee of the co-op could be placed on the board of directors of that co-op. If that is clearly permissible, of course we’ve no objections to the second section of this clause.

Mr. Good: Speaking to this amendment, I think it is good. It will not create any hardship on any existing funeral home, including the co-operative in Sudbury.

I might say the co-operative in Sudbury has always had a licensed person operating that business. They’ve always had a licensed person. There’s been no problem in that regard and I presume they will continue to have the same licensed person operate that co-operative.

This will not interfere whatsoever with the operation of that co-operative but it will require that one of the board of directors be a licensed funeral director and that the majority of the directors be Canadian citizens or residents of Ontario. I think this is a good amendment.

Mr. Foulds: I’d like to support the motion. I would prefer that the “or” in the third line be “and,” but as this is better than what was previously in the Act, I support my colleague and the caucus will support him.

I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could explain if there are any situations in which it is possible that the people designated in subsection 1(b), as he has outlined it, may well be residents technically of Ontario, but would not be Canadian citizens in their entirety. Are there any situations like that to your knowledge?

Mr. Wiseman: This section was changed because we do have a situation where we have two groups from the States here at the present time. One has Canadian directors on it and the other doesn’t. I feel we’ll have a better control on it if we put this section into the bill.

Mr. Good: If I may add a note to this, this section will not create any hardship. It will require that there be a Canadian subsidiary running the Canadian branches, including the Ontario branches, of the two American-owned corporations that are in Canada now.

I think Canadian citizen is important because the same board of directors will run their branches all across Canada. “Resident of Ontario” would indicate that the person here may be an American citizen, but to reside here and run the operation he would have to be here as a landed immigrant who may not as yet have Canadian citizenship status. When the “or Ontario resident” was added, while it does broaden it a little bit, I can understand the necessity for it. Certainly it means that the actual operation will be from within Canada through its subsidiary.

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if I could just ask that the situation be monitored so that we don’t find ourselves into a rollover situation, that is, that that corporation which has only landed immigrants resident in Ontario doesn’t continue to operate that way after a five-year period, and that these are bona-fide landed immigrants who obtain citizenship within a reasonable five- or six-year period. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could undertake to monitor that situation so that it isn’t a constant rollover situation.

Mr. Wiseman: No, we haven’t got anything in here that I’m aware of that would protect us for that part, but maybe I could ask my lawyers about that. It might well be that the firm from the States would send a landed immigrant up here and that person might take out citizenship papers and stay here. We’re only assuming that he’ll turn over every five years. It’s a possibility but I really don’t think it would happen.

Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question?

All those in favour of Mr. Wiseman’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 36 as amended agreed to.

Sections 37 to 47, inclusive agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We have some stacked amendments and it’s our understanding that the bill will be stood down for a vote at a later time, before the committee rises, so that we can complete the work of the committee before the division. The bill will be stood down just for that purpose.


House in committee on Bill 135, An Act to provide for the limited inclusion of grapes grown outside Ontario in Ontario wine.

Mr. Ruston: You emphasized limited.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: just a point of clarification for the record, since the explanatory notes will not be reprinted when the bill is finally produced, I would like to indicate to the members that the last sentence in the first part of the explanatory notes is incorrect. It should have read “The authorization to sell the wine so manufactured is limited to wines manufactured prior to January 1, 1982.” That does not require an amendment since it is not part of the bill.


On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that the words “where such grapes or wine are not available from Ontario growers” be inserted in clause (a) of subsection 1 of section 1 immediately after the words “imported wine” in the fourth line so that the clause reads:

“(a) fixing for each manufacturer licensed under The Liquor Licence Act, 1975, a quota of grapes grown out of Ontario or the equivalent thereof in imported wine where such grapes or wine are not available from Ontario growers that may be used by the manufacturer in the manufacture of wine for the purposes set out in section 2.”

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, and because I think the amendment and two subsequent ones are rather self-explanatory, my remarks will be brief. We opposed the bill on second reading because we thought that at least it was premature; the surveys hadn’t been taken to show that this bill would be beneficial to either the growers or the wineries. Although the bill received second reading, we think we should try to remove some of the risk that there is in this bill at the present time.

The growers themselves had asked that the word “vinifera” be put in after the words “quota of grapes” and ahead of the word “wine” in this section, but I believe there is some feeling on the part of the minister, and perhaps others, that it is not an exact term and, therefore, it would not be specific enough to include in the bill and perhaps would make it somewhat confusing. He may also argue that the words “not available” may not he specific enough either. But I would point out that either of these is better than having nothing in the bill. The clause now reads:

“(a) fixing for each manufacturer licensed under The Liquor Licence Act, 1975, a quota of grapes grown out of Ontario or the equivalent thereof in imported wine that may be used by the manufacturer in the manufacture of wine for the purposes set out in section 2.” And that gives absolutely no protection whatsoever. They could be Concord grapes or any other type of labrusca grapes which we grow here in this province.

The intent of this amendment, of course, is to assure that we will only bring in the types of grape or wine that are not grown or available in this province. I hope that perhaps even the minister will be willing to accept this amendment to give this added protection to the growers of this province.

Mr. Hall: I have been concerned with providing evidence to the growers that consumption of their grapes will not be diminished in any respect in the process of manufacturing wine in Ontario or by anything that happens out of this blending legislation. I see no objection to the amendment which has been moved. Actually, I propose an amendment to section 5 which might stipulate it in somewhat the same manner. I think it will continue to be necessary for me to move an amendment when I get to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, we will be opposing the amendment and I want to explain quite clearly why because it’s obviously well intentioned. It’s designed to ensure that nobody imports grapes in competition to those which are being grown in Ontario and are now required to be used in the production of Ontario wines.

The amendment says “where such grapes.” I see a lot of pretty eminent counsel sitting around here and I think they would agree with me and the experience I had in another Act where this was used, that “such grapes” refers to imported grapes. How imported grapes could be available for Ontario growers, I really don’t know, unless they become importers of grapes. The wording is a completely ridiculous suggestion. There is no such thing as obtaining wines from Ontario growers -- nobody in Ontario grows wine, so how could such wine be available from Ontario growers? I simply point out that this is a meaningless, unenforceable type of amendment.

If somebody were to apply to the board and ask for permission to import grapes and some grower in Ontario, reading this, took out of it what the mover means -- that he could dispute this -- we could be tied up in the courts for years on the interpretation of what kind of grapes are being brought in. I don’t think wines could ever be a problem because there is no wine, as I previously said, available from a grower.

In terms of grapes, it would be just as difficult to enforce as the word “vinifera.” We can’t get a meaning for the word “vinifera” and the growers eventually agreed that it should not go in the Act.

Here we’re talking about such grapes, referring back to those grapes which are imported. As I say, it would be the most confusing kind of situation. You could stymie a manufacturer, a winery, for years by going through the courts to determine what are such grapes.

Concords are not all the same and there might be some reason for importing Concords that we don’t know about. The price paid for importing grapes is quite high. You give up a number of privileges in order to have the right to import.

In the regulations which have been distributed to those members who are interested in this bill, we have provided that everyone who wishes to import grapes or wine must apply and must outline exactly what they are going to be importing. Obviously, when that information comes before the board and there’s an indication that somebody wishes to import grapes of a kind which could be construed as being competitive to Ontario grapes, we will want to know why.

We feel that that kind of flexibility has to remain in the regulations in order to provide for such eventualities as a crop failure which could happen very quickly and which would make certain grapes not available from one part of the vineyards of Niagara. We have to say that the flexibility provided for in the regulations could prevent unnecessary importation of fully competitive products from anywhere else; but we have to allow that flexibility because of the possible contingency of unforeseen problems arising and requiring certain grapes to be imported on a very fast basis. We will be opposing the amendment.

Mr. Swart: To reply, I would point out, of course, that it’s because of our concern that we are introducing this amendment. We use the words “available from the Ontario growers” in case there is a crop failure here sometime and then they could go outside to get those grapes to make their wine. It doesn’t limit it to a particular variety. If the grapes are available within this province if they’re grown here, they should be purchased here and that is our intent.

We feel it is important to have it in the legislation rather than just in the regulations which can be changed by the ministry. If we are going to allow any grapes to come into this province when they are available here, that decision should be made by the Legislature, I suggest, not by regulations -- regardless of what justification there might be for it. There might be no justification for it.

Clause (b) of that same section gives the minister the further control when it says: “prescribing the terms and conditions under which the quotas mentioned in clause (a) may be used, in providing for their cancellation or reduction.” Surely that gives you all the control by regulation you need.

But we want this principle in the bill and that’s the purpose of moving it.

Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I think we are all trying to achieve the same end here and we have had several discussions with the growers’ representatives and with the wineries. I hadn’t seen the member for Welland-Thorold’s proposed amendment except very quickly before I had to speak on it. I am satisfied that the minister’s explanation of the legal problems that might ensue are a point of concern. I have just now provided the member for Welland-Thorold a copy of the amendment that I will propose to section 5 later on, which I think is heading towards the same target. It would therefore be my reconsidered view that the amendment proposed and just being discussed is not necessary.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to prolong this. I simply want to point out again that under (b), the terms and conditions would only apply to those grapes or wine which could be imported. Once there’s a dispute as to the kind of grapes or wine which could be imported, then the governments right to set terms and conditions under the regulations would be completely proscribed. You can’t set terms and conditions on the importation of something that can’t be imported.

Our concern is to allow flexibility. I am sure the hon. member is aware of this, but we have undertaken that the regulations will be developed in concert with the wine standards committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on which the growers and the wineries and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are all fully represented. We have made that as a commitment. We have distributed what we consider to be good draft regulations but those are not final.

As the hon. member for Lincoln has said, the whole purpose of the Act is to protect and to encourage the growth of grapes in the Niagara region. I can’t understand how, if the amendment which the hon. member for Lincoln proposes to introduce is carried, anything could be done contrary to the purpose of the Act so that we would always have that purpose in mind in administrating the Act. Therefore we have to repeat that we will oppose the amendment.

Mr. Acting Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Deans: I think we will stack this.

Mr. Acting Chairman: We will stack this vote.

Mr. Swart moves that clause (c) of subsection 1 of section 1 be amended by adding thereto the following words: “But in no event shall the quota of grapes grown out of Ontario or the equivalent thereof of wine exceed 15 per cent of the total amount of grapes purchased by any manufacturer from Ontario growers in any year, nor shall a wine made from a combination of imported grapes or wine and Ontario wine contain more than 30 per cent imported vinifera grapes or wine.”


Mr. Swart: Very briefly, I realize again that it is proposed this be provided in the regulations, but because the bill itself puts no limitation and because at some future date there can be some conflict between the manufacturers and the grape growers, if there is a request made to increase the amount, I think a limit should be provided by the Legislation, and if they want to go above these limits then they should have to come back to the Legislature to get it changed, and not leave it just in the hands of the minister with regulations.

Mr. Hall: This matter has been discussed before. All parties are aware that the inclusion of items which are best left in the regulations will remove any amount of flexibility if they are in the Act itself. This is a test programme. It is made quite clear by the explanatory notes that there is a five-year period of time involved. Moreover, as was stated the other night, this is only one of four co-operative programmes being worked out in concert by the Grape Growers’ Marketing Board, the Wine Council and the ministry.

I take it it is understood by all parties that the best place to handle detailed regulations is outside the framework of the bill. I have been reassured in most clear terms by the minister that prior to the final adoption of the regulations discussions will be held with representatives from the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board and the Wine Council. One of the items that will be considered there will also be the matter of annual review of the regulations themselves. Without wanting to make this point too long, I would have to feel that we would not support this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I should repeat again, although we have had it in debate before, that the Act and the regulations have been arrived at by consensus. I feel I should repeat again the commitment I have made on behalf of the government that changes will be made only by consensus and that all parties will be consulted.

This is innovative; experimental legislation. We recognize that. While it is not in the draft regulations at the present time, I want to make clear right now that we will be proposing that an annual report be submitted by everybody who participates in it so that we can review the performance. There may be cases that are unknown at the present time that might require some deviation from this. I can’t visualize them at the present time. I really don’t accept the proposition that has been made to us that we can call the Legislature back in the middle of July and get an amendment to the Act if it proves necessary. Certainly it would not be considered to be that crucial a matter.

We now have in the draft regulations a provision which guarantees exactly what the hon. member has moved as being part of the Act. I understand why he is doing it. But I really do feel in any experimental legislation of this kind that you have to have flexibility at some time. It may very well be in the first year or two of operation we find that 15 per cent should be embodied in the bill because there is no need to deviate from it, and we would not hesitate to bring that amendment if it was necessary.

Mr. Acting 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.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Swart moves that a new subsection 2 of section 1 be inserted, to read as follows:

“(2) A manufacturer licensed under The Liquor Licence Act, 1975, who uses a quota of grapes grown out of Ontario or the equivalent of imported wines shall not make more than 225 imperial gallons of wine per ton of Ontario grapes purchased from the Ontario growers.”

And that the present subsection 2 be renumbered subsection 3.

Mr. Swart: This provision is proposed in the regulations. We think that we should set this maximum in the legislation. The minister states, and rightly so, that the proposals in this bill are innovative and experimental. The adoption of this amendment and the previous two amendments would still leave the bill innovative and experimental up to maximums. We feel that these maximums should be included in the bill because the growers could be severely hurt if there were permanent regulations put in a bill -- perhaps by a different minister -- which provided for a greater amount of foreign wine or foreign grapes to be used. It’s part of the maximum which we believe is reasonable in this innovative and experimental process.

Mr. Hall: Again, we feel it is an item that should be in the regulations and we would not support this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We will, of course, be opposing the amendment. I just wonder if the hon. member from Welland understands that this really has nothing to do with the importation of wine. We’re talking here about the yield from grapes for Ontario wine. In order to participate in this programme you must meet the yield requirements of the regulations of 225 imperial gallons, where at the present time the regulation require 250. Amending this will not in any way change the importation. This is what you must do in order to import; it’s one of the conditions.

I think you should realise that your colleague, the member for Wentworth, expressed some concern about what this would do to one of the major users of labruscan Concords. Our view is, that’s where we require the kind of flexibility to meet individual winery requirements, provided there’s consensus with the growers. We will not move on any departure from that figure for anyone except with the consent of the growers; and that particular winery is aware of that condition.

Mr. Swart: I would suggest to the minister that, although he’s technically correct, it may not affect the importation, it is part of the package that has been largely acceptable to the growers. In fact, it will mean they will have to buy more grapes locally -- I’m sure he would agree with that -- and, therefore, it is part of the package. I suggest it is a very important part of the package; if they could still make 250 gallons of wine, they wouldn’t have to buy the extra grapes which at this time -- perhaps not in the future -- your regulations will provide.

Our amendment would not affect this major user about which we have concern, if he did not import any foreign wine or any foreign grapes. My understanding is that perhaps he would not be doing this, so I do suggest that it is a reasonable amendment and sets reasonable maximums.

Mr. Acting Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

We’ll stack that one.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Acting Chairman: Mr. Hall moves that the bill be amended by renumbering sections 5, 6, and 7, as sections 6, 7, and 8, and by adding thereto the following:

“(5) The purpose of this Act is to permit the introduction of grapes grown outside of Ontario and imported wine into wine manufactured in Ontario, without reducing the use of Ontario grapes in the content.”

Mr. Hall: I might just speak on this briefly, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important to give complete assurance in the legislation to the growers that the purpose of the regulations behind this trial period of wine blending will in no way have an adverse effect on the consumption for use of Ontario wines of grapes grown in Ontario. The regulations need to be subject to review and possible modification, but the Liberal Party is very much concerned to make certain it is patently obvious to the growers that nothing will be done that in any way will further deteriorate the sale of Ontario-grown grapes. They face a considerable problem as it is now. They’ve had a year in which they had several thousand tons that were unsaleable despite assistance from two levels of government. Therefore, I think it is very valid to stipulate in the legislation itself that nothing in the Act will tend to reduce the Ontario grape content in the wine.

Mr. Swart: I just have two comments on this, Mr. Chairman. I obviously am in accord with the principle of this. I would suggest it would have been much more effective if we’d had this in the legislation which required this so that we would assure that there were adequate limits on the amount of foreign wines that could be used. The principle of this is good, except I am wondering if you shouldn’t take off the last three words. It seems to be a bit contradictory; if you are using foreign wine or grapes you are going to reduce the use of Ontario grapes in the content. I think we’d all agree that the purpose of the bill must be that we’re not going to reduce the use of Ontario grapes in total, but in the content of the wine we certainly will be reducing the percentage.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We will be supporting the amendment. I think I should make it clear that in doing so there is no effect of bringing in the purpose of the Act on the interpretation of other sections unless of course it becomes a matter for the jurisdiction of the court. It may then look at the intent of the Legislature in passing legislation. It has no effect on the numbers or things of that nature in the regulations except where a court has to know what the intention of the Legislature was in passing it. If there is a dispute in that they can refer to this section and we think it adds something to the bill.


Mr. Lawlor: Surely the phrase “in the content” ought to be deleted. I would ask the member who moved it to reconsider his position with respect to it. If a bottle has a certain content and part of that content is imported grapes, then obviously the use of Ontario grapes in the content is reduced. That’s the whole purpose of the legislation to so reduce it in the content, but overall it ought not to be reduced, and that’s what you’re trying to get to.

Mr. Hall: I don’t usually wish to correct the member for Lakeshore but I have checked this out very carefully with the Wine Council and the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board. At the present time under the present regulations, if this Act did not exist, the gallonage available from a ton of grapes could be added to with water and or sugar up to 250 gallons. The intent of these regulations will be that where blending occurs, the gallonage produced from one ton of Ontario grapes will be in total only 225 gallons. Where there is an addition of any material to the quantity of juice coming from a ton of grapes, which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 160 to 165 gallons, that will be wine that will be added.

Therefore it is safe to say, regardless of what blending is done, the Ontario content of the grapes on that particular item of manufacture will not go down. This is the very point we wish to make with the growers. Possibly the minister can put it in other words.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I think I know what the member for Lakeshore and the member for Welland-Thorold are concerned about. There is no question that the percentage content, which is now 100 per cent of Ontario grapes, would be reduced. The quantitative content, the volume of Ontario grapes in any particular brand of wine which is blended, will remain the same because of the fact, as the member for Lincoln pointed out, the 15 per cent is equivalent to the reduction from 250 to 225 gallons. If you take a look at that, you’ll find you’ll still have the same amount of grapes percentage-wise.

Mr. Swart: You’re changing it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, of course we’re changing it but we’re not going to reduce the amount of grapes. We’re supporting the amendment in its present form.

Mr. Swart: We are going to support this in any event. You are reducing by 10 per cent in fact the amount they can make, but you’re allowing 15 per cent of foreign wine to be included, and even up to 30 per cent in some particular wines so that in fact there’s a likelihood that the content will be reduced. I would prefer to see it as the use of Ontario grapes, but we’ll support this in any event, although I think factually it’s wrong.

Mr. Kerrio: I think this portion of the bill really deals with the guts of the bill, if you will. We are very concerned about maintaining the quantity of Ontario grapes in the gallonage that is produced here. I think if we want to just stand to get on the record we’d make the kind of statements that have been made over here to my right simply because they don’t understand the bill.

The fact of the matter is that in the production of wines, in Ontario by introducing either wines or imported grapes we’re going to put them in place of water and sugar, which up until now has been used in the production of wines in Ontario. It’s been accepted by the board; it’s produced a good quality wine.

Mr. Deans: We know that.

Mr. Kerrio: In lieu of water and sugar, we’re now going to allow this introduction. We wouldn’t have it any other way. That’s why we stand here supporting the bill. To have an implication here that there’s any chance at all of reducing the amount of Ontario grapes to go into the wine-making industry is wrong and it isn’t going to happen.

An hon. member: You’ll guarantee that?

Mr. Acting Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6, 7 and 8, as renumbered, agreed to.

Mr. Acting Chairman: This bill will be stood down and will be voted on at the end of the committee sitting.


House in committee on Bill 187, An Act to amend The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, 1973.

On section 1:

Mr. Acting Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that section 53a of the Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

(j) ‘Urban transit area’ means the city of Hamilton or such greater area as may from time to time be defined by the minister;”

And that the present clause (j) be re-lettered as clause (k).

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, just a brief word about it. What I want to say really is this: We don’t intend to speak at any length about any of the clauses, because all of them are more housekeeping than anything else, but rather we say at the outset that we anticipate the bill in all of its clauses will probably be back before the Legislature in the next session. I know the regional council are reviewing it, and they do have some suggestions to make with regard to some necessary changes; given that that be the case, we think the bill should go forward at this time in an effort to try to allow the region to take over what we’ve been attempting to have taken over for some considerable period of time.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we too will support the amendment, and the ones that I gather are going to follow, with the understanding that we will discuss this in some more detail in the spring and get further input from our region. I would only echo the sentiments expressed by the member for Wentworth and hope we can look at this again in the spring.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that subsection 10 of section 53b of the Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “shall continue but may be modified or varied by agreement between the regional council and the council of an area municipality” in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth lines, and inserting in lieu thereof “shall by agreement between the regional council and the council of an area municipality be continued, discontinued, modified or varied.”

Mr. Deans: Just one question: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would tell me why the change was made.

Mr. Norton: This specific change is to implement a request that was made by the members of the regional council, who I believe met last Saturday to review a draft of the bill. There were a couple of specific requests that they made -- the first amendment to include a definition of the urban transit area and this amendment. We felt the other wording was adequate, but they preferred this; so we’re including it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that section 53b of the Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(13) The contractual relations in respect of terms of employment, including rates of pay, sick leave credits, holidays with pay and superannuation benefits existing on January 1, 1977, between the company or the subsidiary company on the one hand, and the employees of the company or the subsidiary company on the other hand, remain in force and are binding upon the regional corporation and the board of directors established under subsection 2 of section 53c for the remainder of the term of any subsisting agreement or agreements in that regard.”

Mr. Deans: Just one brief word about it: I anticipated this amendment would be made from the discussion that we had the other night with regard to the protection for employees. I realize that perhaps certain people in the ministry might have felt that it wasn’t necessary, given that the Act itself did mention and deal with the matter of the continuance of employment and benefit. But I do appreciate that this was spelled out in this way since, when we’re making amendments which bring in agencies not previously covered by a major Act, it ought to be made abundantly clear so that there can be no mistake and no need for adjudication or question that employees are protected. It’s difficult enough these days to find employment and it’s hard enough to protect yourself. I think the Legislature should take it upon itself to make sure that employees are protected in most instances, this being one of them.

Mr. Mackenzie: This was the one addition that I wanted to be sure was in the bill and I certainly intend to support it. I would like to comment that I think a section like this should be incorporated whenever we’re doing a bill like this. The protection of the relationship, the wages and the contractual arrangements of the workers should be one of the first things we take a look at, and all too often it’s not in many of the situations we’re dealing with in this House. I think it happens to be a very vital addition to the bill and I welcome it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that subsections 1 and 2 of section 53 of the Act as set out in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(1) the regional council may by bylaw levy against such of the area municipalities as are wholly or partly within the urban transit area the sums required to meet any deficit arising out of the operation of the regional public transportation system within the urban transit area, and such bylaw may include any expenditures made by the regional corporation required for the provision, planning or improvement of the regional public transportation system in the regional area, and such levy may also include any expenditures made by the regional corporation for the provision, planning or improvement of service provided to such area municipality or any part or parts thereof, the costs of providing public transportation service to such area municipality, the revenue miles in such area municipality, actual deficits or the combination thereof pertaining to such area municipality and such other factors that are in the opinion of the regional council relevant to such apportionment.

“(2) The regional council may in its levy under 81(1) include any sums required to provide for any deficit arising out of the operation of the regional public transportation system outside the limits of the regional area insofar as such provision has not been provided for in the agreement entered into under section 53b(11).

Hon. J. R. Smith: I would like to say I am very pleased that this amendment has been put forward because it will protect the taxpayers of the city of Hamilton from the added costs of providing additional services to the developing areas within the county part of the regional municipality, areas that are not so densely populated. When development does take place, one of the first things they look forward to is the providing of public transit. Until the density is such and the customer service can be developed to a high enough level, it is very expensive.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Norton: If I could perhaps make just a couple of brief comments, I realize that we just carried the amendment but they arise actually out of all the amendments and some of the comments of the members opposite me. We appreciate there may well be matters that have to be looked at in the near future again in consultation with the regional government and with the area municipalities. The matter has been dealt with rather quickly within the ministry at the request of the Hamilton-Wentworth region, because as the hon. members know, the agreement was arrived at quite recently after a number of years of negotiation. It was in response to their request that we made every effort to facilitate the implementation of this by having the legislation passed through the House this session.


In conversations with them it is evident that there may be requests coming in the new year for us to have another look at certain aspects of it. But this, at least, should allow them to put the regional transportation system in place at the beginning of the new year. Then we can work with them in ironing out any difficulties that might arise.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, in response to the words of the parliamentary assistant, I think that the regional municipality is delighted that the government has moved so swiftly. I think we all understood that Saturday last was rather short notice for the passage of a bill that would have such an impact -- and this bill has a substantial and significant impact on the total region. It has been a long and difficult process. Getting from the original days, when there was considerable disagreement among the various local municipalities as to how the regional transportation system ought to be operating, to last Saturday, when they came to substantial agreement, was fraught with all kinds of stumbling blocks and difficulties; but nevertheless they did act. I know I speak on behalf of the regional council when I say they are grateful for the fact that the government was able to move so swiftly in order to put into law what they had requested.

There are, as in every bill, areas of disagreement and I think that we all understand that the bill is not perfect in its present form. That is something that we are all going to have to live with. The indication from the parliamentary secretary of the willingness of the minister and the government to make amendments, if, as and when those amendments become apparent and necessary will be welcomed by the regional municipality. If only the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was so accessible and easy to deal with, then life would be much better for all of us here.

Hon. J. R. Smith: I would like to join with the comments of the hon. member for Wentworth and commend as well the members of the regional council of Hamilton-Wentworth and the regional chairman, Mrs. Jones, and also the Hon. Mr. McKeough for bringing forward this legislation. I am glad this House was able to bring it into effect before Christmas.

I would just like to ask of the parliamentary assistant whether or not the provision of the board of directors -- is service on this board to be the same as on a regular licensing committee, or a fire committee and so on of the regional council or is it to be a per diem such as the police commission?

Mr. Norton: There is no specific provision in the legislation that would regulate that. It would seem to me --

Mr. Deans: Would you guys talk to each other?

Mr. Norton: -- that that would be a matter subject to the discretion of the regional government --

Mr. Deans: Would you do this in cabinet?

Mr. Norton: -- in recognition of the fact that regional government of the type of the Hamilton-Wentworth government is a very responsible level of government. I think those decisions can adequately be taken at that level.

Mr. Deans: Absolutely.

Mr. Norton: One other comment I might wish to make, again along the lines of the rather short period of time which we have had, is that the co-operation we have had from the officials of the regional government has been outstanding. I would also like to say that the co-operation between the staff of the two ministries involved -- both the ministry I am associated with and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications -- has been great. In fact, some have sacrificed weekends in order to make it possible for this legislation to be before the House in the short period of time since it came to our attention. I think it’s a good sign that we have such dedicated civil servants in this province who would give up a weekend this close to Christmas.

Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 187, as amended, reported.

Mr. Acting Chairman: That completes the business of the committee. I believe there have been a number of votes stacked.


The committee divided on Mr. Moffatt’s amendment to section 2(2), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 29; nays 73.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Moffatt’s amendment to section 5(1), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to section 10(5), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 10 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to section 15(2), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to section 15(3), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 15 agreed to.


The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to section 33(1)(q), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 33 agreed to.

Bill 171, as amended, reported.


The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to section 1(1)(a), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 29; nays 73.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to section 1(1)(c), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to section 1(2), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 1 agreed to.

Bill 135, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Handleman, the committee of the whole House reported three bills with certain amendments.


The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 189, An Act to establish the Unified Family Court.


Hon. Mr. Handleman moved third reading of Bill 135, An Act to provide for the limited inclusion of Grapes grown outside Ontario in Ontario Wine.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of Bill 135 being read a third time will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Wiseman, on behalf of Hon. F. S. Miller, moved third reading of Bill 171, The Funeral Services Act.

Mr. Foulds moved that Bill 171 be not now read a third time but be read a third time four months hence.

Mr. Breithaupt: Same vote, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We may not be here four months hence.

Mr. Reid: We will all be in the poor house four months hence.

Mr. Conway: It all depends on the Gallup polls.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. As is customary, we will vote on the main motion.

All those in favour of Bill 171 being read the third time will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.


The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 187, An Act to amend The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.


Hon. B. Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The members of the house may recall that the purpose of this bill is to reduce the number of key bargaining situations in the organized industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the construction industry to approximately 25 recognized trades or crafts. The bill will effectively restructure collective bargaining in this sector of the construction industry by consolidating existing bargaining relationships.

Consolidation on the union side will be achieved by grouping together those bargaining agents that bargain for a particular craft and belong to the same international union. Consolidation on the employer side will be achieved by grouping together employers who now bargain with a particular craft union.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will those who are leaving the chamber please do so as quietly as possible? Thank you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The effect will be to create parallel structures for unions and employers. Once these structures are established, a group of employers will be able only to enter into one provincial agreement with its counterpart union group. The result will be what is frequently referred to as province-wide, single trade bargaining.

A second aspect of this bill is its provision for the co-ordination of bargaining in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the construction industry. Co-ordination will not involve the exercise of bargaining rights by the co-ordinating agency but will provide only a structure for the bargaining agencies to exchange information and data and to engage in related co-ordinating activity. Coordination will be of particular value since provincial agreements will be required to expire on a common date. The bill, however, expressly prohibits the coordinating agency from exercising or purporting to exercise bargaining rights held by a bargaining agency.

The reduction of key bargaining situations and the co-ordination of bargaining should eliminate disruptive intra-trade and inter-regional bargaining rivalries and thereby bring a greater measure of rationality and stability to the bargaining process. These new structures also should encourage the parties to adopt broader perspectives in bargaining to the benefit of employees and employers in the province as a whole.

I have certain amendments which have been introduced into a new copy of the bill which is available for all members of the House at this time. It seemed to me that it would make it much easier and much more logical for the members of this House to have at hand for this discussion the amendments which the Ministry of Labour proposes in terms of Bill 176. I think they have been distributed and that the amendments will have the effect of clarifying the purposes of the bill and will ensure that it will be compatible with existing bargaining structures in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the construction industry. I would especially note that residential construction is specifically eliminated from any discussion within Bill 176.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I must say I find the recent developments rather interesting -- the bill with some amendments placed within it. I don’t know where it got to on the top of my desk -- if it was placed on the desk -- but it is not here.

Mr. Bullbrook: We are not debating that bill in any event. Forget about it. We are doing Bill 176.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s right. That’s right. I agree with the member for Sarnia that we’re looking at Bill 176.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am with you at this time.

Mr. Bullbrook: I thought you were with me all the time.

Mr. Bounsall: I was rather disappointed with the minister’s opening remarks in that she didn’t make the mechanism of this extremely clear to the House at this time. I can only assume that that mechanism is that we’ll go through a sort of discussion here tonight on the principle of the bill which we have before us -- and that’s all that will happen. Then a bill will be introduced later in a revised form containing the minister’s revisions and whatever else the minister may consider to include as a result of what is being said here in this discussion tonight. I use the word “discussion” advisedly because that’s the way it must be treated when at this late stage in the session, there is no intent to proceed with further consideration of it.

In fact, I find it rather unusual that there would be a second reading introduction at this time at all. I am told sort of unofficially that it will not be proceeded with in this session. The minister has had persons indicate to her since the introduction of the bill -- which was in any event such a recent introduction -- December 2 -- that they weren’t necessarily happy with the bill in its entirety. The only reason I can see for this discussion now is simply to get across to the minister exactly those parts or portions of the bill that we are finding, from persons who contact us, those portions where the unhappiness lies. Then the minister and her staff can judge that degree of unhappiness between now and March and incorporate those changes into the bill which she will present to us.

About the bill before us, I think we’ve all received telegrams from virtually every major international union in the construction field urging us to send the bill to committee outside the House for a thorough understanding of what the clauses in this bill are going to do. I expect the minister’s phone has been like mine -- I’ve had virtually every group in the province phone me and ask various questions about it -- does section whatever mean so-and-so? Although by and large those people who’ve contacted me are in favour of the overall general principle of province-wide bargaining by trade or craft in the construction industry, they do have a lot of concerns about various sections of the Act. There is not so much opposition to various sections, but rather questions about what it means.

If I say to them I think that section means such-and-such and this is how I feel it’s going to operate, and they then say to me, but why couldn’t it operate in this other direction, I certainly have no answer for them. When the various locals of the construction trades are asking their higher executive officers what it means and are again told they think it means a certain procedure we’ll follow, or a certain type of structure will result, the executives are then asked, “Where does it say that in the bill?” And of course, the bill doesn’t say that. It’s conjecture on their part -- what it means. This very clearly points out the need for a thorough discussion outside this House in committee so that the minister and her staff can respond in detail as to what the bill means. In fact the bill may require the addition of sections and amendments to sections.


One other major point I’d like to make in my simple general remarks on the bill is that most people, unless they have worked some years in the construction industry, find the present bargaining structures, the present patterns and the present relationships within the construction industry very hard to unravel and very hard to follow. When they get into jurisdictional disputes and what have you and when they hear of these between unions and the construction industry, they are usually at a loss to know just what is going on. In fact, several quite bright people involved for some years in the construction industry have said to me that even after all those years they do not thoroughly understand the construction industry. They might understand their one particular craft within it, be it bricklaying, be it ironworkers, or be it carpentry, but they don’t really know much about and can’t get much of a handle on what really goes on in another major craft or major trade in the construction industry.

With people who are knowledgeable in this field and who are quite bright and capable of learning in the field make statements like that, it really is difficult for virtually all of us here as laymen to understand what is actually being said or not said in various sections of this bill. In one sense, this is one of the few bills that I have ever seen where it would have been useful to have a committee discussion outside the House prior to second reading. I gather that may well be the minister’s intent. We are going through a small discussion stage here tonight because it is going to be introduced again in the spring, although again I am sort of conjecturing on that as the minister didn’t say that, if I heard her correctly, in her remarks before the House here tonight.

Perhaps that is really what is going to take place. You have presented to us another copy reprinted for consideration by the committee of the whole House. I suppose it will be in existence for the next three months and people who have concerns can look at it and a further expanded copy which may answer some of their questions. Again, I am in the position of being only able to conjecture that that is the case. Just to make sure that that is the case, I really had expected the minister to indicate that the mechanism was that a second reading sort of discussion be given tonight and that the bill would be re-introduced in the spring so that a thorough committee stage discussion could take place outside the House. I am rather surprised that she didn’t.

Just to make sure that that is what is going to happen -- and I am sure the Liberals would support us in this situation -- unless the minister makes it very clear, I will move, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that Bill 176 be not now read a second time but be read a second time not later than three months hence.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bounsall moves that Bill 176 be not now read a second time but be read a second time not later than three months hence.

Mr. Bounsall: Just continuing on, the construction industry has been around and there has been organized bargaining in the construction industry for a long time. To think that we would introduce a bill on December 2, which would propose the restructuring of the bargaining, all of which was to be accomplished in order that bargaining under the new structured situation take place on April 30, 1977, is a little unrealistic. There is no great rush in this bill.

If the bill had been introduced earlier in the session, when the bill could have gone outside the House and the questions that were in the minds of so many persons could have been answered in committee sessions in time for it to pass at the end of this session. I suppose that would have been acceptable, because perhaps the restructuring could have been done and the internal reorganization of the bargaining agents, both for the employers and the employees, could have taken place in time for meaningful negotiations to take place somewhere around April 30. I certainly wouldn’t expect much negotiation would take place in advance of April 30; it would then take place after the present contracts had expired, because of the reorganization that would be required. That might have been possible if the bill had been introduced early in the session, but its introduction on December 2 clearly did not leave enough time for the committee stage to take place, which is so necessary in this bill.

Turning to the few comments I have on the bill itself, certainly all of the representation that I have received -- and it is mainly from the employees’ side -- is very critical of sections 136, 137, 138 and 139. This is where the outline of the co-ordinating agency is provided. I need not explain to the minister or to the House what that co-ordinating agency is, other than that, according to the bill, if the minister so designates -- and I don’t think it would be here unless she was going to -- through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, a co-ordinating agency is where all the employer bargaining agencies are combined into one co-ordinating agency. Although they are enjoined in section 139 from exercising or purporting to exercise the bargaining rights held by an employer on employee bargaining agency, the fact that a coordinating committee, has solidified into existence certainly indicates to me that this will be being done informally.

The Franks commission report, which contained a study on the bargaining structure, indicated that two of the main groups making submissions -- CLRAO and a group that speaks for the purchasers of construction -- wanted a co-ordinating agency or something of that type in existence with veto power, which was clearly unacceptable. What we have before us is a proposal for a co-ordinating agency that doesn’t have veto power. There’s no question in my mind that once it is formed, and once those people are meeting, that amongst them all they will be indicating to each other on an informal basis what would or would not be acceptable in each of the individual crafts or trades.

To me, it is poor legislation to have to form a co-ordinating agency of employers. In fact, it brings up the point as to whether these clauses in the bill don’t really violate section 4 of The Labour Relations Act, which states: “Every person is free to join an employers’ organization of his own choice and to participate in its lawful activities.” This is clearly an employers’ organization, a co-ordinating agency of all those employer bargaining agencies and, in my opinion, in that respect it violates section 4 of The Ontario Labour Relations Act.

I understand that various of the employer groups are also opposed to the co-ordinating agency. I would suggest there’s a majority involved in the construction trades -- virtually the totality of the employees on one side and some employers on the other side -- who are not in favour of a co-ordinating agency. In that respect this section of the bill, when it comes before us in some revised form, possibly next spring, is not a section that we could support.

Another section of the bill which is of concern concerns section 127 of the Act in which discretion is given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the recommendation by the minister to designate the trades or the crafts involved. Here again, this is nothing personal to this particular Minister of Labour when I say it is poor legislation to give to a particular minister or the ministry this kind of discretionary power to sit in judgement in a bill which is going to completely reorganize the bargaining structure in the province of Ontario. It is poor legislation to give that minister or that ministry discretionary power to decide and designate what trades and what crafts are going to be amongst the group of 25 or so which are going to exist for the purposes of province-wide bargaining under this Act and where the same power to designate exactly the employee bargaining agents which will be their counterparts under this Act and answer those questions which pertain to those.

I don’t know what kind of a judicial-type or semi-judicial-type hearing the minister or someone in the ministry is going to have to hear brief presentations on why or why not.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is in the revised Act.

Mr. Bounsall: If it is in the revised one, we certainly haven’t had time to look at it. If there is something contained in this other Act which has come before us in the House tonight which speaks to that, that is not the Act which we are discussing at this time. It’s the Act as tabled, introduced and appearing in our books that we are discussing at this point. We have in Ontario a very well respected, quasi-judicial body, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, with persons on that board conversant with the problems in the construction industry.

It’s to a panel of those persons from the board that representation should be made as to what forms of trade and what forms of craft and the best employer organization there should be for purposes of the bargaining in this Act. It’s a panel where briefs can be presented and arguments heard. With their knowledge of the construction industry in the province of Ontario decisions can come forth from that Ontario Labour Relations Board from the panel chosen thereon. I would suggest that it should be one single panel dealing with them entirely. It’s that board which should be deciding matters of this kind and certainly not, I say, with no personal reflection intended, the minister or some one body or group within the ministry making this determination. As I say, I haven’t had an opportunity to look at the revised Act tabled before us tonight but I can’t imagine that type of procedure being in any way looked upon as the proper type of legislation we need for purposes of the Act.

One could go on and talk much further about Bill 176; for example, the concern that people have about what is an affiliated bargaining agency when it’s defined as a bargaining agent affiliated or related either directly or indirectly with other bargaining agents. What is a direct relationship? What is an indirect relationship under that sort of relationship? Who is and who is not included, and so on? There are many questions about that kind of loose wording in the Act and everyone seems to have his own interpretation. That again is the type of question which needs to be decided by discussion outside this House so that it’s cleared up to everybody’s knowledge and satisfaction and we know exactly on what we are voting when we support or do not support this particular bill.


Other various mechanics of the bill have been pointed out to me by other and various persons. For example, under this new structure, if you follow the sections of the bill which have been introduced and which would now form new sections from 125 on, in The Labour Relations Act, how are grievances going to be handled? It appears there has been at least a reference left out of section 112(a) of The Labour Relations Act. If that is the intent, to have 112(a) operate again in this section of the construction bargaining, at least a reference to that needed to have been made -- or whatever type of grievance situation is necessary should be spelled out in this bill.

I think that’s all I intend to say on the bill. It’s a bill which should have been introduced earlier if it was to be concluded in this session. It must go for a full discussion outside the House for all those interested persons to have their questions answered. I’m not saying that the purpose for that would be to indicate their opposition or their favour, but more to get their questions answered. It’s my feeling that the majority of employers and the majority of employees in the construction industry in Ontario would prefer to have it on this province-wide basis. That may well be the most rational way to organize this entire industry with respect to its bargaining at contract time. But I would anticipate then that that committee stage would be a series of clearing up questions. It would certainly be an educational process for the members of this House to see the complexity and the different situations that arise in the construction industry as exemplified by their necessary bargaining.

I might say to the minister that we suffer from the same feeling over here as well -- whenever one has a good idea about what might work in a general overall way, the tendency to want to see that idea come to fruition in legislation as quickly as possible is rather overwhelming. But there’s no need to have this in place for the round of bargaining in April 1977. There are certainly some groups of employers and some groups of employees who would very much like it in place -- no question about that. You’ve had representation from those persons as well -- but they happen to be in the minority. Even they are saying to us, with the possibility of change in the Anti-Inflation Board regulations before us, there is no way that we would be willing to sign a collective agreement that would commence on May 1, 1977 -- that was any longer than a one-year collective agreement.

So the minister need not be concerned about this bill being introduced in March, with a thorough discussion taking place and the bill passed somewhat later in the spring to take effect for April 30, 1978, because so many of the contracts which will be signed, effective May 1, 1977, will be one-year contracts, so you’ll still be picking up all of those one-year contracts by bargaining time 1978, and all those other contracts whose normal termination date now is April 30, 1978.

With what is anticipated as the length of contract that would be signed under normal conditions that are prevailing for this coming year, those being one-year contracts, we have no need at this point to rush this legislation through.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I know that you will rule me out of order immediately because it’s not a question on the principle of the bill, but I want to wish you a merry Christmas. I also want to convey to all my colleagues, the clerk’s staff, the Hansard staff, the press gallery and those who abide the tribulations of this House, season’s greetings from myself. I want also to take the moment to point out that it’s been brought to my attention by my colleague from Renfrew North that if the vote goes a certain way this will be the last speech I’ll ever make in the Legislative Assembly.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Which could be a great relief to many people, I am certain. In any event, I want to dispose with the hoist motion right off the bat, if we can. We won’t support the hoist motion because of the fact that it’s a redundancy, it’s not necessary. The minister has had an understanding with it. The bill is not going to proceed, it’s going to die on the order paper as of tonight or tomorrow. What we are attempting here is to signal to those people in the construction industry that it is our intention to support in principle that principle of province-wide bargaining in the construction industry. That’s my total understanding of it. Frankly, I don’t mean to be offensive, but there’s an inference in the hoist motion that perhaps we don’t trust each other around here. I want to say I do trust the minister and I’m not going to ask my colleagues to support that motion at all.

Let’s talk about the bill. We will be supporting the principle of the bill; it is something that’s necessary. I subscribe to some of the comments made by my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich with respect to the legislation. I’d be less than human if I didn’t point out that people might want to reflect upon statements made by the member for Sarnia on May 16, 1968, where he called for the principle of province-wide bargaining in the construction industry, where he called for the principle of coterminous contracts in the construction industry, where he recognized at that time that the leap-frogging and whipsawing that was going on in that industry was leading us down a path towards inflation.

There is no doubt about it and it has to be said that no industry in the Dominion of Canada has been the cause of the inflationary cycle that hit us as has the construction industry, and they’ve got to bear that responsibility. It is indeed unfortunate that the governments on all levels didn’t recognize what was going on because there would be no need for any Anti-Inflation Board in the Dominion of Canada now. Just hark back to what was happening in the fifties and sixties, when it wasn’t a question of competition, but it was a question of having to fill a need. It was a question of building, capital development, houses, shopping centres, plants, factories, schools, public institutions. And what were we faced with? We were faced in my riding, I recall distinctly in 1967, with some of the most ludicrous, ridiculous circumstances that one could envisage in the collective bargaining process.

For example, we had the “chemical valley” shut down as a result of strikes by the trades. Where were some of the trades? While they were on strike in Sarnia, they were working building the Ford plant in Talbotville in St. Thomas. What kind of collective bargaining are you going to get when that goes on? What happened was once the electrical workers came to a conclusion with respect to their contract and everything was fine, we’ll find that the millwrights would go out or the labourers would go out. It was one constant turmoil in the industry. It didn’t require anybody of expertise or knowledge to know that with every contract, as a result of that competition and as a result of that need, it was thrusting up the rates.

I don’t say this to say that the tradesmen should not have been paid more; certainly they should have. They themselves recognized that technological changes in the construction industry had changed the essential ingredient of construction trades bargaining. In my father’s time it was impossible to think of working during the winter. I want to say that I quit law school in my second year to go to work on building the jet base in North Bay; I ran a batching plant there and poured hundreds of thousands of yards of concrete at 20 degrees below, which couldn’t have been done in 1930 and 1920.

One of the overriding considerations in bargaining in the construction industry was the fact that the people couldn’t work the year around in this climate. As a result, they traditionally had to be compensated for that inability to work because of the climate. And yet their outstanding obligation to their families had to continue; there wasn’t at that time any type of social service programme like unemployment insurance.

It seems to me that adequate consideration wasn’t given in the process in the 1950s and the 1960s. What happened was that management knew, no matter what rates were bargained, that there was someone who could pay, because these things that I talked about before had to be built -- schools had to be built. Of course, as the leap-frogging created larger costs, these costs were passed on. They were passed on to the taxpayer when you built a school and to the home owner when you built a house. When you built a plant they were passed on to the manufacturer, who built his additional capital costs into his product -- and the consumer paid again. In the shopping centre they were passed on in the leases to the retailers, who passed it on to the consumers in the eventual cost of the products.

At that time, something had to be done in the construction industry -- and it was spoken of. The Premier of the day and his successor were pleaded with by myself to come to grips with it and to have a look at it, because it wasn’t only the politicians who were concerned; it was the intelligent people who were running the contractors’ associations and the intelligent leaders of the trade union movement. They recognized that the essential value of the dollar that was being bargained for was being eroded by the very process itself and nothing was done.

It is something for which this minister can’t bear the burden, but for which this government has to bear the burden. So does the federal government; it really does. They walked collectively with a blind eye. The discussion that took place at each Premiers’ conference in those years -- about tax rentals and about the shifting of points, which still continues -- was important. But at no time did they ever seem to want to talk about the questions of our economy and where we were going or the question of productivity and where it was going.

If there was no leadership from government, we couldn’t expect to get leadership except where we got it from. Happily we got it -- we got leadership from the construction unions and, to some extent, from the construction industry. They finally recognized they couldn’t continue in this fashion, and there developed an understanding, a rapport, between them. As happy a rapport, frankly, as in any industrial bargaining in Canada, I think, even now takes place in the construction industry.

Certainly if my riding is any example of it, and if the people with whom I’ve met over the last week are any example of it, I want to voice for the record that the only group that I found less than co-operative was the Construction Labour Relations Associations. They’re the only ones. They were adamant and unduly direct in insisting that in no way should we hold up this legislation. They didn’t seem to even care what the quality of the legislation was.


I don’t want to offend the minister by saying this but, surely to goodness, no one in their right minds can subscribe to this legislation when they realize the minister has just brought in what purports to be a reprint of Bill 176 -- it isn’t, in effect, but it purports to be a reprint of Bill 176 -- filled with amendments thereto. I don’t want to waste the time of the House going over the reasons. I had to be adamant in my recommendations to my caucus colleagues that, of course, we support the bill in principle. It’s something that needed to come for a long time but it’s late to compliment the government on the appointment of the Franks commission to study collective bargaining in the construction industry.

I don’t mean to be offensive to the wise professor, but I recall reading the interim report and it put forward all the questions that were plaguing so many people -- but questions also that had been debated in this chamber. I think it’s only appropriate that we give credit to ourselves in that respect. At least we did recognize over the years what the problems were.

In any event, we have the final report which came through in June and this is a sincere attempt by the ministry to adopt some of the recommendations. And so as I say, by way of compliment, further by way of action, we support the principle. I’m very pleased also that it is not going to committee now.

There are certain aspects of the legislation that -- I haven’t had an opportunity, nor has my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich, to look at the minister’s amendment. I appreciate what she’s doing. I think the intention is, as I said, that we all three will signal in the industry that the minister is going to have this legislation in place in March and that the ministry and others will in the meantime be attempting to establish the structure that’s necessary to complement the legislation. The minister, in addition, has seen the need for certain amendments, Mr. Speaker, and is, in effect, advising the public of her intention with respect to the amendments Bill 176.

I want to make some specific recommendations. I would appreciate your indulgence by my referring to certain sections of the legislation, but the minister I think is interested in knowing what the Liberal Party will look to when we come to standing committee. It’s absolutely essential that we have that; I completely support the position taken by our colleague from Windsor-Sandwich. We’ve got to have public input and we’ve got to understand the ramifications of it.

Also our colleague from Windsor-Sandwich was correct that the main concern that’s been expressed by knowledgeable people deals with the co-ordinating agency. There has to be a more significant definition of the structure of the co-ordinating agency itself. I anticipate there’s going to be more than one co-ordinating agency. First of all, I thought there would be 25 co-ordinating agencies dealing with the various trades. I realize it’s out of order for us to get into a dialogue, but maybe by way of assent -- There certainly is an intention that there be more than one co-ordinating agency?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Perhaps.

Mr. Bullbrook: Perhaps. Because when one looks at the wording of the legislation, for example, section 137 says, “a co-ordinating agency” and, of course, the pronoun “a” connotes that there would be more than one, otherwise it would say “the co-ordinating agency.” So I presume there’s going to be more than one co-ordinating agency.

I understand the function that’s intended with respect to the co-ordinating agency. It’s obvious under section 139 that there be no power vested in the co-ordinating agency to undertake the collective bargaining procedure. That’s got to be spelled out in more detail. I think we’ve got to have recommendations with respect to amendments to section 139 that will spell out the exact function of the co-ordinating agency. It’s really one of moral persuasion and education and the dissemination of information, as I understand it, during the currency of the bargaining process. That’s what I understand it to be.

I believe it’s important, therefore, that those people who are involved should meet with the approval of those who are going to effect the collective bargaining. It’s very important. Therefore, I think we’ve got to understand that although we repose great confidence in the Lieutenant Governor in Council, this Legislature especially in a minority context, has to know what’s going to go on.

When you couple section 136 to section 127 to set the designation of the employer bargaining agency and of the employee bargaining agency, there is just too much leeway given to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. We went through this on Bill 138. I want to convey to my colleagues, if I can, that we don’t pass legislation with respect to the incumbency of this government or the incumbency of this minister. I, therefore, will exaggerate for the sake of clarity. Consider for a moment the province of Ontario being governed under this legislation by an extremely radical party which had an almost totally unilateral commitment to one of the parties to the collective bargaining process. Consider that for a moment.

Mr. Gregory: Give us a hint.

Mr. Bullbrook: Perish the thought that that would ever take place, but consider the powers of that government under this legislation. What the minister could do is he could create a co-ordinating agency over-weighted in one fashion. He could render almost nugatory any of the functions of the co-ordinating agency. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be offensive; he or she could.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Thank you.

Mr. Bullbrook: When I say “he,” please read “he or she.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s a generic.

Mr. Riddell: It is safer if you use “it.”

Mr. Bullbrook: Please never read “it,” I hope.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I hope.

Mr. Bullbrook: He could, for example, designate the constitution of the employees’ bargaining agency in a fashion that its powers and its ability to properly bargain were rendered nugatory and were rendered useless.

Mr. McClellan: Is this an inevitability you are describing?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, not at all.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it is a description of doom.

Mr. Bullbrook: As a matter of fact, when I use the phrase “extremely radical” I don’t think there’s anyone at present incumbent who could form part of that government because I have found, frankly, my present colleagues hardly radical at all.

Mr. Maeck: It must be Christmas.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am trying to give an example of how careful you have to be when you pass legislation. You’re now giving that minister the power to recommend the constitution and the establishment of the employee bargaining agency. And, boy, are we going to make that one a dandy. In effect, there is no true collective bargaining left. You’ve got to be extremely careful when you’re enacting legislation that gives these tremendously discretionary powers to the Lieutenant Governor in Council without the Parliament understanding the definition, delineation and restriction of those powers.

That’s why the words under section 127 have to be changed. We’ve got to know what the constitution of the employer and employee bargaining agencies is going to be. We’ve got to know what powers they have. We’ve got to know what powers they have with respect to the local agreement. We’ve got to know the powers of the affiliated bargaining agencies. We’ve got to know what the restrictions are there. Are you going to have local appendices to the provincial concept or are you not? We’ve got to assure that there is adequate representation, satisfactory to the trades themselves. We’ve got to come to grips with the question of the ratification by the affiliated bargaining agents with respect to the provincial agreement. We’ve got to come to grips with the question of voting powers. Are they to be weighted or are they not to be weighted? These are all things that the legislation doesn’t speak to.

Therefore we’ve got to say to CLRAO, as much as we don’t like to, this bill isn’t going to be passed. It’s certainly not going to be passed as far as the Liberal members of the Legislature are concerned. We’re going to take the position that we’ll support the bill but we’re going to want many, many changes. It had been my original intention to go on at great length.

Mr. Eakins: Go on.

Mr. Conway: More.

Hon. B. Stephenson: He never needs any encouragement.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to point one thing out to the minister. Let me show what I think is an apparent absolute difficulty in the legislation. Section 130 reads: “Where an employee bargaining agency has been designated or certified to represent a provincial unit of affiliated bargaining agent, all rights, duties and obligations under this Act of the affiliated bargaining agents for which it bargains shall vest in the employee bargaining agency but only for the purpose of conducting bargaining and concluding a provincial agreement.”

I want to read that section to you in the context of section 112(a) of The Labour Relations Act. If you will bear with me for a moment I will try to find the page as quickly as possible. That section, in effect, says that only a party to a collective agreement can institute a grievance. That’s the intention of that section.

Think of it for a moment. The affiliated bargaining agent is not a party to the province-wide collective agreement. So under section 112(a) of The Labour Relations Act the affiliated bargaining agent cannot institute agreements with respect to the contract. You would then say to yourself the employer bargaining agency will institute the grievance. But the problem is, section 130 of the bill gives the power to the employer bargaining agency only for the purpose of conducting bargaining and concluding provincial agreements. So neither the affiliated bargaining agency nor the employer bargaining agency has the power to grieve, as I read the statute. I could well be wrong but that’s the way I read it for the present moment. So we require a look at that.

I took the extra time purely to put it on the record for those people throughout the province who wanted us to expedite the agreement and to ask them to bear with us in this respect. I asked them if they read Hansard to have some sympathy for us Liberals. Eight years ago we asked for it and didn’t get it. Two years ago, finally, the minister of the day decided to look into collective bargaining in the construction industry. In June of this year, the final report came down. And on December 2 we get the legislation.

So if we say please give us an opportunity to digest the legislation, give the public and especially those people who are directly affected an opportunity to have input, I don’t think we are being obstructionist in our attitude. We don’t mean that. I want to send out a signal to CLRAO and let the record show I raised my voice. Those men were offensive to me.

Mr. Mancini: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: It was a happy circumstance to meet with the mechanical contractors association and the plumbers and the pipefitters, to see the liaison they have and then to have the people from CLRAO say, “Aw, don’t listen to those guys, they are in bed together.” I hope every collective bargaining process in the province of Ontario gets in bed together like that.

I want to record for the people of Ontario that if I were Minister of Labour CLRAO would have nothing to do with the co-ordinating agency -- make no mistake about that -- if that’s their egotistical, self-centred, narrow, opinionated approach, to try to lay the blame on people for putting legislation before a standing committee where the public can have input. One of them had the effrontery to say to me, “Why do you have to let the public have input?” Imagine people coming to a parliamentarian and asking him to expedite legislation and not understanding the essential democratic process in this province. Thank God we’ve got a Minister of Labour who seems to understand this.


That was a very vigorous signal that I gave to them. But, majority government or minority government, that obtains; when the public want to make input, they should be given the opportunity of doing so.

Legislation should only go to committee of the whole House, in my opinion, under adequate rules and when there is unanimous consent. That’s the way legislation should be passed, in my respectful opinion. Were I Premier of Ontario, I would ask the Legislature to entertain that type of rule, that legislation goes automatically to standing committee. If one member feels that the public should have input, so be it. It should need unanimous consent to go directly to the committee of the whole House. Then people such as CLRAO will understand what the process is all about.

You’ve been very indulgent with me, Mr. Speaker. I again compliment the minister for the legislation. We’ll try our best, as part of the opposition, to co-operate in bringing forward your intention and the intention of Professor Franks.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if I might clarify some of the concern which has been expressed regarding the apparent delay between the reporting of the Franks commission and the introduction of the legislation, that period of time has been taken up with almost daily consultations with the parties concerned. It was felt, as a result of this degree and amount of consultation, that indeed almost everyone who could have some concern about this type of legislation would have had the opportunity to make those concerns known to us.

It was therefore with a little bit of chagrin, after the first reading, that we entertained the notion that there were some groups within the province who were not totally happy with the concept as proposed in Bill 176. With the overall concept, I think there is general agreement; with certain specific parts of the concept, there is certainly some opposition. As a result of that, it has been decided that it would be wisest to develop some kind of mechanism whereby there could be adequate public input into the deliberations regarding the clause-by-clause reading of this bill.

I had really hoped -- and I have to tell you this, Mr. Speaker -- that we would have the opportunity to have all of this done by January 1, because I am informed by both parties that if such legislation is introduced, it will take them a moderate period of time to gear up for the system which, in effect, is being developed through this legislation.

It is my sincere hope that, with the support of other members of the House, when this House is again open in the spring, that we will be able to reintroduce the legislation immediately, move immediately to standing committee and begin immediately the careful scrutiny of the legislation and the amendments which undoubtedly are going to be introduced by my colleagues from the Riviera of Ontario, Sarnia and Windsor, and that in a relatively short period of time the legislation will be ready for presentation again to the whole House.

I believe it would be useful to have it in place at least for the beginning of negotiations for the coming year. We won’t have it in place for January 1, and I am informed by some trade unions that indeed they would need to know at that time. Therefore, upon making the decision that there had to be public hearings in standing committee for this bill, it was our intention to ensure that some of the concerns which we have heard over the last couple of weeks, since the introduction of the bill at first reading, might be clarified for those people who are going to be examining the bill in the interim. That is why the reprinting of the bill has been done, with the addition of the amendments which we felt were appropriate in order to solve some of the problems which some of the critics found in the bill and in order to ensure that the intention of the bill was clearly demonstrable for those who would be perusing the legislation in the interim period.

I would point out to the hon. members that some of the concerns regarding section 137, for example, and section 136, may be removed as a result of that reprinting, because there have been some clarifications therein. The co-ordinating agency perhaps is not defined as specifically as the hon. member for Sarnia would like, but I know he has an inherent antipathy for anything which smacks of ministerial discretion at any time. I understand that and I understand his reasons for it as well. However, I would remind him that there is no piece of legislation that is etched in stone, that indeed any one of them can be changed. If it doesn’t work in the form in which it is presently delineated, then that can be modified and I would ask him not to be too unhappy.

I really would like to wish the hon. member a merry Christmas because I understand that he may not be back in this House and I find that a very sad kind of scene to contemplate. Without that smiling visage across the floor, I think life will be very much duller in this institution. However, having said that --


Hon. B. Stephenson: Having said that, I am aware of some of the problems that he has with certain kinds of thoughts and some concerns that he has about certain types of legislation and I can accept those. But I really believe that he has to be aware of the fact that this is new and experimental legislation. Not new to the member because he suggested it in 1968 -- and I bow to his superior capacity -- but it is new legislation for this House. I believe that it has to be considered reasonably experimental and therefore not something which we have to consider came down the mountain with Moses.

Mr. Bullbrook: When legislation is etched, we find it hard to get it unetched.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I find that an intriguing suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and probably this has been the public perception of legislation for some time. I do hope that as a result of experience that public perception will change quite dramatically.

Mr. Bullbrook: Good, I hope so too. We think you’d do it too. That’s great.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There were other suggestions which the hon. member for Sarnia and, indeed, the hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich made as well. Obviously the member for Sarnia would like the function and the construction of the power of the Lieutenant Governor in terms of establishing employee bargaining agencies and employer bargaining agencies spelled out absolutely to the letter so that there can be no variation, no aberrations, no concern about moderate moves in one direction or another, which might arise as a result of the legislation as it is presently stated.

I find that an intriguing suggestion. I still think he is being a bit rigid about it, but this is something which will be considered very seriously within the committee. I appreciate his presentation of the potential amendments which he might bring in.

I would remind the members -- no, I wouldn’t remind them because the members of the House do not know, but there are specific concerns about the apparent conflict between sections 130 and 112(a). That has, I think, been corrected totally by the addition of an amendment which is 134(3).

Mr. Bullbrook: Oh you modified it. Good.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, and it specifically removed that conflict, which I think will solve some of the problems.

But I really do feel very strongly that this legislation is vitally needed in the construction industry, in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of this industry, at this time. I believe very strongly that we should not depend upon the projection made by the hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich that because of the fact that the anti-inflation programme is still in existence, the contracts which will be established hopefully in late April, early May of this year will be for one year only and therefore we can have the legislation in place for the next year.

I think it would be much wiser if the employers and the employees in the construction industry were aware of our intentions regarding this legislation, could begin to establish mechanisms within their own structures to accommodate this kind of legislation at the time that the legislation is enacted and, in fact, could apply this new mechanism to the agreements which are reached this year. I think it would be good for the construction industry as a whole. I think it would be good for the economy as a whole. I think it would signify that the legislators in this province are aware of the joint concerns of employers and employees in that industry -- aware of the kinds of efforts which they have jointly put into developing the concepts which are embodied in this legislation. I think we should support them fully and I think we should give this very interesting experiment a chance to come to good fruition, which I think will be of benefit to all of us.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of Bill 176 being now read a second time will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Welch moved resolution No. 10.

“Resolution: That the order for the adoption of the second interim report of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature be discharged, and the following be adopted:

“1. Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to party leaders, or their representatives, at or before the time the statement is made in the House.

“2. The question period shall be extended to one hour; opposition party leaders each having two questions plus supplementaries; and further questions be by rotation among all parties, starting with the official opposition.

“3. Parliamentary assistant shall be able to question ministers other than their own, and be able to answer for their ministers when authorized by the Premier.

“4. There shall be a half-hour adjournment debate as provided in standing order 28 each Tuesday and Thursday at 10:30 p.m., and a member shall give verbal notice of his intent to raise a matter in the debate immediately at the end of the question period at which the question was asked, and the reasons for the member’s dissatisfaction shall be filed with the Clerk at the table by 8 p.m. the same day.

“5. The government shall provide a response to the House within two weeks to all petitions presented to the House.

“6. Every report of a committee, other than when reporting bills which have been referred to it, shall be tabled in the House by the committee chairman, accompanied by a brief statement from the chairman only; and any such report which includes a request for consideration by the House shall be entered on the order paper as a government order.

“7. The Clerk of the House shall maintain a record in his office of those reports required by statutes which have been tabled and those outstanding. The government shall present all such reports within six months of the close of the reporting period, unless reasons are given to the House; annual reports of the immediate past reporting period for each ministry, and boards, commissions, and other agencies reporting through each minister, shall be tabled in the House before consideration of that ministry’s estimates, unless reasons are given to the House. On the petition of any 20 members, any such report tabled shall be referred to a committee of the House.

“8. After any policy statement or introduction of a government bill, the government shall table a compendium of background information of the type proposed on page 50 of the second report of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature.

“9. (a) Any return, report or other paper required to be laid before the House in accordance with any Act of the Legislative Assembly or in pursuance of any resolution or standing order of this House may be deposited with the Clerk of the House on any sitting day, and such return, report or other paper shall be deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House. A record of any such paper shall be entered in the votes and proceedings of the same day.

“(b) The ministry concerned shall distribute copies of reports to all members and copies of any background material tabled shall be sent to the opposition critics.

“10. (a) Written inquiries of the ministry shall be dated;

“(b) The minister shall indicate to the House within 14 days if the answer will be costly or time-consuming to prepare, or if the minister declines to answer;

“(c) A notation shall be put below the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer;

“(d) If a member repeats any unanswered question in the ensuing session, the date of the original notice thereof shall be shown.

“11. The government House leader shall announce the following week’s business before the adjournment of the House each Thursday.

“12. At first reading of an amending bill, the minister shall file with the Clerk of the House, and send copies to the opposition critics, an up-to-date consolidation of the Act or Acts to be amended by the bill.

“13. A bill may not pass more than one stage in one day if opposed by 20 members standing in their place.

“14. No order for second reading of a bill may be called until the bill has been printed and so marked on the order paper.

“15. ‘Order paper’ means the order paper distributed that day.

16. The House shall not sit past 10:30 p.m. if 20 members object to the government motion by standing in their places.

“17. A bill shall not be called for second reading if the Clerk of the House is notified by noon of the sitting day following the introduction of the bill of intention to give notice of a reasoned amendment and such notice of a reasoned amendment is filed with the Clerk of the House by noon of the second sitting day after introduction. If the notice of a reasoned amendment is not so filed, the notification of intention shall lapse, and the order for second reading may be called immediately. If the notice of the reasoned amendment is filed as required the order for second reading shall not be called before the third sitting day after introduction of the bill.

“18. When 20 members stand in their place, after second reading of a bill, the bill shall be referred to a standing or Select committee of the House as the minister having charge of the bill designates.

“19. When a bill is referred to a standing or select committee after second reading, consideration by the committee shall not begin until five days after such referral. At the time of referral the minister having charge of the bill may request the waiver of this interval but such waiver shall not be granted if 20 members register their objection thereto by standing in their places.

“20. That amendments proposed to be moved to bills in committee shall be filed in the office of the Clerk of the House at least two hours before the sitting at which they will be moved, copies of which shall be distributed to the other parties by the mover.

“21. A full Hansard service shall be provided to committees considering estimates, and a tape recording without transcription shall be made of all other committee proceedings.

“22. Sufficient copies should be printed of any bill which may be of particular public interest.

“23. The Speaker shall reduce the number of strangers under the press gallery and behind the members’ benches by prohibiting standees.

“24. The motion for interim supply requires notice, and such notice shall include a time limit of not more than six months.

“25. There shall be a minimum of eight sitting days allocated for the debate on the motion for an address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, which debate shall be completed before the introduction of the budget.

“26. A minimum of eight sitting days shall be allocated to the debate on the budget motion, the first five days of which shall be consecutive; the first day for the Treasurer’s budget statement, the second and third days for the opposition critics, and the fourth and fifth days for other private members.

“27. The estimates of approximately half the ministries shall be referred to standing committees.

“28. The main estimates of all ministries shall be presented to the House not later than five days following the presentation of the budget.

“29. The order in which estimates are to be considered shall be chosen in rounds, through the House leaders, with the official opposition first, then the third party, then the government, until all estimates are allocated; and the estimates will, as much as is practicable, be grouped in the committee of supply or standing committees according to policy field.

“30. There shall be 420 hours for the consideration of all estimates and following consultation by the House leaders, the government House leader shall announce the allocation of time for each set of estimates.

“31. Estimates or legislation shall not be considered in any standing or select committee while any matter relating to the same policy field is being considered in the House. Not more than two standing or select committees shall meet to consider estimates at the same time and, any member rising on a point of order before the orders of the day, and being supported by 19 other members standing in their places, shall prevent more than one standing or select committee considering estimates from meeting concurrently with the House.

“32. Ministers should provide advance briefings to their opposition critics before consideration of their estimates, in a format to be determined by each minister.

“33. Before the consideration of the estimates of any ministry, the minister shall, where possible, table the latest estimates of actual expenditures in the preceding fiscal year.

“34. Management Board orders shall be printed as an appendix to Ontario Finances, with an explanation of significant variances from printed estimates, and a summary of special warrants shall be tabled on the first sitting day following the issue of the warrants.

“35. In each session the official opposition shall be entitled to three non-confidence motions, and the third party to two. Such motions may be put at any time upon proper notice during the session, and the debate on each such motion shall be not more than two and one-half hours.

“36. Private bills shall be referred to the appropriate standing committee; and the sessional deadline for the submission of private bills is removed; the required advertisements shall be completed before referral of the bills to committee.

“37. The following procedures shall govern private members’ public business:

“(a) each Thursday, from the completion of the routine proceedings until 6 p.m., shall be allocated for private members’ public business;

“(b) the parties shall take turns, sharing the time, with up to 90 minutes allowed for each item;

“(c) there shall be no limit on the right of members to introduce private members’ public bills;

“(d) there shall be a ballot in each caucus, conducted by the Clerk of the House, in which each member may enter his name once, to draw the names of members who will be able, in the order drawn, to have a bill or resolution of their choice put to the House for debate and vote;

“(e) the ballots shall be held not later than February 10, 1977, for the session of 1977, and the results shall be posted;

“(f) if objection to the bill or resolution being voted on is received either from one-third of the members by written petition to Mr. Speaker at least 48 hours in advance of the debate; or from 20 members standing in their place when the question is about to be put to a vote, then the item will not be voted on. Debate will, however, have been allowed on the item for up to 90 minutes;

“(g) the names of objectors filing the petition against a vote on any item shall be recorded in votes and proceedings the next sitting day after the deadline for filing a petition of objection;

“(h) the votes on all items not opposed, as above, shall be stacked for 6 p.m., following a non-whipped five-minute division bell;

“(i) Private members’ public bills which receive second reading shall be carried on the order paper daily and will be called by the government House leader in the same manner as government orders;

“(j) on any Thursday there shall be not more than two items scheduled unless otherwise agreed by the House Leaders after notice; and at least two weeks’ notice of any item for any Thursday shall be provided;

“(k) there shall be no adjournment of the debate on any item of private members’ public business from one Thursday to another;

“(l) there shall be no limit to the number of resolutions of which a member may give notice.

“38. In the committee of the whole House there shall be a 10-minute division bell for all stacked votes at the end of the sitting. In the House there shall be a maximum 30-minute bell if a vote is pre-arranged by all parties at any time; and a no-limit bell for divisions under any other circumstances.

“39. All recommendations under the heading “committees” at pages 26 through 29 in the second interim report of the select committee are hereby referred for discussion and recommendation, to an ad hoc committee composed of the House leaders, the whips, and a further representative from each caucus.

“40. The proposal for four large policy-field standing committees, and four other smaller committees, is endorsed.

“41. The select committee’s recommendation concerning an expanded Legislature in light of the work load for members is noted.

“42. Undertakings by ministries shall be considered in adjournment debates, after notice, similar to other adjournment debates.

“43. There shall be a maximum 20-minute wait for a vote in standing or select committees.

“44. The select committee recommendations concerning the size and skill of the staff of the Clerk of the House, and the Speaker’s panel of chairmen, is referred to the ad hoc committee of House leaders, whips et al.

“45. There should be wider posting each Friday of the next week’s committee meetings, throughout the legislative building, and such notices be given to the press.

“46. There should be a messenger or page for each committee.

“47. It is noted that the government does not support, at this time, the recommendations of the select committee concerning research assistants for all members.

“48. It is noted that the government will make known its position on the proposal that Mr. Speaker have jurisdiction over the full legislative building, following presentation of the final report of the select committee.

“Where there is a conflict between any of these procedures and any standing order of the House, these procedures shall take precedence during the fourth session of the 30th Parliament.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Having moved the resolution, I’m not going to take any time at all, except to draw the attention of the members of the House to the notice paper, pages three to eight, where the subject matter of the motion is set out in some detail. I would be very remiss, however, if I didn’t say in his hearing to the Clerk of the House and to his very capable staff how much we appreciate the special effort that had to be expended last evening in order to have this in printed form for the members of the House today. They worked very late last night in order to accommodate us in this regard, and I’m quite satisfied it’s made it much more practical for us to study this matter. I do want to say to the clerk and to the assistant clerk and to all the staff of the office of the Clerk a special thank you for that effort.

Also I would be very remiss if I didn’t indicate at this stage that what appears on pages three to eight is really the result of a great deal of work and negotiation. I’d want to say that it’s the product of a number of meetings and I’d want to say thank you to all those who contributed with a very positive spirit. We’re now able to present this particular consensus for the consideration of the House.

Mr. Morrow: Although this interim report of the select committee dealing with the fourth and fifth Camp reports was presented to the House on June 22 last, I am thankful to the House leaders that a debate on its contents has been arranged before the House prorogues. I’m also pleased that the government House leader has given the committee the assurance that the government will undertake to implement the agreed-upon provisions during the next session of the Legislature. I would also like to add my thanks to that of the minister’s to the clerk and his staff and to Mr. Mackenzie who, I understand, had a good night’s work last night in order that it would be on the order paper today so that we could have this debate. I add my thanks to those expressed by the minister.

I can appreciate the fact that the various caucuses, the House leaders and the government have been unable to accept all the recommendations, some 131 in number, because of their very nature and the members’ legitimate differences of opinion. But I’m pleased that for the time being at least a great many of the recommendations have been accepted outright and others with slight modifications. I would remind the hon. members and others who may be reading this report that in assessing the various recommendations, they should always keep in mind the terms of reference given the Camp commission which were, in turn, in effect, passed on to the committee, namely to study the function of the Legislative Assembly with a view to making such recommendations as the commission deems advisable with respect thereto, with particular reference to the role of the private members and how their participation in the process of government may be enlarged, including the services, facilities and benefits provided to the members of the assembly.


The central theme throughout the Camp commission reports was how best to improve the legislative process and at the same time enhance the role of the back-bencher in the parliamentary process so that he may better carry out his responsibilities. We members of the select committee charged with this responsibility kept this theme foremost in our deliberations. Therefore, if some readers of this report are of the opinion that our recommendations are a little radical, and even too generous in some cases, we hope they will understand that we were endeavouring to follow closely our commitment and we were recommending not just for the present but also for the future.

It has been my privilege to view and participate in the proceedings of this Legislature for some 28 years. During that time I have seen many changes. The world in which we are living is a world of rapid change; and parliaments, if they are to survive, must change with the times. Parliaments everywhere are having difficulty responding rapidly enough to the world in which we live. Parliament must become much more responsive than it is today in order to give people more confidence in its existence and in its decision-making.

As I have mentioned, the select committee has looked at the legislative process as a whole, including the private members, with the goal of improving the efficiency of both the House and the back-bencher. Our recommendations for more research assistants, more adequate physical facilities, more private members’ time and so on, are in keeping with the purpose for which the Camp commission was established some three years ago. Many of our recommendations are interrelated and interdependent, which was pointed out to the House leaders and the whips of all parties in the discussions prior to the agreement on the accepted format for today’s debate. For example, when Wednesday sittings were not agreed to, then one could not justify three adjournment debates each week, or much more time for private members’ bills and resolutions.

We bring these recommendations to the House, believing that they will improve our legislative proceedings, which must keep changing with the times and with our ever-increasing responsibilities and, at the same time, to give the parliamentary back-bencher the tools and the expertise to participate and to play a more meaningful role in meeting the responsibilities for which the electorate sends him to the Legislature and to represent them in all its deliberations.

In closing, I would just like to inform the House that the committee has covered, with few exceptions, every chapter and verse of the fourth and fifth reports of Camp, and that the committee will be presenting a final report to the Clerk of the House in the new year in order that a debate may be scheduled during the 1977 session of Parliament.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to join with the chairman of our committee in welcoming the material on the order paper and the response of the government to the recommendations of the select committee on the Camp commission reports.

I’ve had a dual role in this because, along with the member for Ottawa West and the member for St. George, we sat in with the House leaders and the whips in a small committee which, as the House leader has said, negotiated line by line and piece by piece over recommendations which we of the committee had laboured over a number of months before. It was interesting, and at times difficult, to see our labour of love being transmuted in the political fires.

However, I have to say with pleasure that the government negotiated with very good faith on the proposals, and that it’s quite amazing if you look at the degree to which the recommendations of the committee were adopted. By our count -- the NDP’s count is a bit different from the government’s; it always is -- there were 131 specific recommendations that were made in the report; and all of those, with the exception of about half a dozen, have either been accepted or accepted with modifications by the government during the course of negotiations. I would say in other words that the spirit of the recommendations has been honoured, and the integrity of the report has been honoured with great flexibility, on the part of the House leader.

I think that among other things this is a guarantee that the kinds of difficulties we had in the running of this House between 1971 and 1975 will never happen again so long as rules like these that are being adopted today are maintained in force within the province.

Of course they are being maintained as an experiment at this time. We’ll have to see how they work. There will inevitably be some desire to some need to change the recommendations being adopted now. I would hope, though, that the words of a recommendation before the House that these procedures shall take precedence during the fourth session of the 30th Parliament could over the coming months be expunged.

We may face an election during 1977. I think it would be very healthy if the new government, whether it’s majority or minority and whichever party is in power, were to come to power with these rules on the books. Then if it had a majority and wished to change them that would be its responsibility. But I don’t think we should be in a position where we go back to the old rules when the next Legislature comes back after the election.

There are several areas which are areas of disagreement or areas where the government did not go along. The major area I want to talk about is research assistance. I’ll come to that later. The committee recommended that opposition critics travel with ministers. That may have been idealistic; it was not accepted. However, I understand that there may be a possibility of making some arrangements in the future to at least permit opposition members more freedom to travel than they have at present. Outside Ontario, opposition members have to do that kind of travel on their own pocketbook even if they’re making study tours in order to look into areas of expertise.

We recommended that committee hearings be held back when a critic was unable to attend as now they’re held back when a minister is unable to attend. I think there was general agreement that the courtesy should apply to critics as well as to ministers, and that both ministers and critics should give the estimates very high priority. In other words, when estimates are being held, no member who is involved should be able to plead some excuse in order to be absent.

We recommended a full day for non-confidence motions; we’re going to experiment with a half day and the government wasn’t prepared to accept the committee’s recommendation on that particular point.

The recommendation that ministerial statements be followed by a reply from the opposition, as is the case in Ottawa, was not accepted by the government. I’m sorry it was not accepted. We will have to see whether the lengthening of the question period will permit effective rebuttal by the opposition at the time when the public and the media are watching ministerial statements. May I say, particularly after today’s experience, that I’m rather sorry we didn’t put in a limit of maybe four or five minutes on ministerial statements to prevent the lengthy use of House time which we see from time to time, particularly at the beginning and end of sessions.

Our recommendation for a proposed procedure for private members’ bills, which included the vote on all private members’ bills, was rejected by the government. However, I think the rejection was done in a very positive spirit, and although I class this as one of the four or five noes, I think that what we have now is going to be extraordinarily interesting and quite positive. I can foresee the day in six months’ time --

Mr. Deans: Innovative.

Mr. Cassidy: Innovative. Certainly if you compare it with the procedure in Ottawa where one member could talk a bill out, or in Westminster, where I understand that one anonymous member by saying “nay” can vote a bill down, the Ontario House is probably moving to the forefront of any parliamentary Legislature in the degree of importance it’s giving to private members’ bills.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Maybe the others will follow the model.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe. But the fact that you will have to get 42 members by petition to prevent a vote on a bill, or that 20 members will have to rush into the House at five to six on a private members’ day in order to prevent a vote, could lead to some dramatic races at five to six on Thursday afternoons. It certainly will ensure that if the government or some other party --

Mr. Shore: Or to a public accounts meeting.

Mr. Cassidy: -- that’s right -- wishes to avoid a vote on a private member’s bill they will clearly be seen as taking that responsibility. I think that’s very healthy.

I have to say that I think everybody in the House is wrong in rejecting Wednesday sittings. However, I also have to admit that that is perhaps a minority view. The government decision to veto that recommendation of the committee, which the member for Sudbury East was also very strongly in favour of, is unfortunate but one of the facts of political life. There’s certainly no question that there were divisions within caucuses and not just between caucuses as to whether or not it would be desirable for the House to sit on Wednesdays. I think the point’s been made by some out-of-town members that the load has increased so much just in the last two or three years that that Wednesday free to do desk work has become more of an advantage than of a disadvantage, as it used to be in the past when we sat on our thumbs while the government cabinet ministers met.

I mentioned my concern about the fact that these recommendations are only for one session. I hope they will be made more permanent.

I want to turn to the question of research assistance. The government does not really support this recommendation at this time. Following on from what the member for Ottawa West had to say, I just recall that the purpose of the Camp commission recommendations and of our select committees was to enhance the role of the back-bencher. Our report said:

“Given the size and the complexity of the Ontario government today, which will only increase in future, it is irresponsible not to ensure that legislation and expenditures receive the careful scrutiny that was originally expected of members. Unfortunately, to date the expansion of government has not been accompanied by a strengthening of the legislative process to provide that scrutiny.”

Many of the recommendations, such as the power to refer matters out to standing committee, the extension of the question period and other things that have embodied in the recommendations accepted by the government will strengthen the role of the private members and of the back-benchers. However, it’s still going to be difficult for the MPPs to do the job that’s expected of them. In the chapter on research assistance on page 33 of our report we said again: “The primary concern of the reports of the commission and this committee is to enhance the role of the private members. At present, with the research assistance provided, it is impossible for members to effectively scrutinize government expenditures in legislation, defended by a minister with the assistance of his entire ministry. Also, it is becoming ever more important, and correspondingly more difficult, for members to develop expertise in their areas of responsibility or particular interest.”

Consider the situation of the opposition because it’s the opposition, I maintain, who particularly needs this research assistance. We’re up against a minister who normally has an executive assistant, a special assistant, the services of a speech writer, perhaps a couple of secretaries and the resources of his department, which can in many cases mean hundreds of high-level policy and research-type people. If you consider the size of the government, whose budget is $12 billion and rising very fast, despite all of the Treasurer’s efforts, there are areas within individual ministries which, by themselves, could justify the work of an entire research department or at least of a full-time researcher.

For example, I have an interest in mental retardation, a small part of the work of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Yet that’s a programme with a number of large institutions across the province, it’s a programme that desperately requires public scrutiny, it’s a programme that involves more than $100 million in public funds. It gets almost no attention in this House.

When the Ombudsman’s office was established, they took unto themselves the task of looking at the jails that are run by the province of Ontario. I don’t know how many people they put on to that particular job. I think there’s no question that they’ve had a very positive and searching impact on those institutions. That is another example where I think that this House has not been doing its job. I would suggest one of the reasons is the lack of research resources in the hands of the members of this House of all parties.

The oversight and scrutiny of the Legislature is vitally important to the work of democracy in this province, no matter who the critic is, no matter what the responsibility and no matter who is the government. Most of that oversight does come from the opposition but consider what happens with the 50 or 60 hours we have to work a week -- that was the estimate of the Hickling-Johnston report.

I tried to break it down just for the record. You spend maybe 15 hours a week in question period, in a committee or in the House on estimates or on legislation; a dozen hours a week in riding work, riding phone calls, party organization and that kind of thing; four or five or six hours on a Saturday or on the weekend and an hour or so a day for the rest of the week -- and that’s the minimum -- and five hours in caucus and caucus committees.


Every party has a caucus. I think the Liberal and NDP caucuses both meet for three or three and a half hours a week, and there is other work connected with the caucuses. There are also half a dozen hours for each out-of-town member in travel to and from his riding; five hours or so in answering calls at the Legislature, dealing with the press and so on; five hours or so in studying bills, estimates and just trying to read some of the flow of material which comes over our desks; and five hours a week in correspondence, preparation of speeches and preparation of press releases.

Out of 60 hours, that leaves seven hours. I can tell you and the House, Mr. Speaker, that as everybody knows, those seven hours are hypothetical; they normally just aren’t there. That’s why we have such difficulty in doing our job of legislative oversight. This is why I would maintain that the recommendations for research assistants for members of the House should be adopted at a very early date. To put it into the caucuses, or to put it into the library, would not be as beneficial to the work of the House as putting it in the hands of individual members.

I don’t think that now is the time to confront the government on this particular issue. I think our committee will come back with a similar recommendation in its final report and we maybe can isolate the question of research assistants from the rules. The rules are where we’re making major reforms now. We’ll come to the question of research in another three months, and I hope that maybe the government can take a more positive stand at that time.

I have discussed with the House leader one minor amendment which would permit 20 members of the House to ensure that a committee report was put on the order paper for consideration even if that had not been moved by the chairman of the committee. I think there is agreement on it. I will read it and move it and then we can dispose of it in the normal way.

I would move that clause 6 be amended by adding at the end, “as shall any report for which consideration is requested in a petition of 20 members filed with the clerk.”

In closing, after making that motion I would again like to thank the government, the House leader and all parties, I would say, for the very constructive attitude that they have taken towards these proposals of the select committee. I think that the rule changes are positive and will have a very beneficial effect in the House.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express my appreciation to the government and indeed to all members who worked, I believe, so effectively to bring forward this package for our consideration. I am sorry that we weren’t able to get at it a little sooner, because it leaves it in a somewhat incomplete form as it is here now.

I just want to speak briefly on the matter of the committee structure as proposed in the recommendations. Again, we struck the note of the committees in order to give to the back-benchers the kind of thrust and importance that they ought to have as legislators. You know, sir, that we suggested and proposed committees dealing much as they are now in the social development field and the other policy fields. But we have added some committees which, in my view, can assist the House in obtaining information, for example, in reviewing not just regulations, which I believe has been somewhat of a farce in the past here, but adding to the regulations committee the study of other statutory instruments as is done in Ottawa.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the committee in Ottawa does review such matters, in some detail. For example, when I was there we discussed with them what they would be doing about the agreements flowing from the AIB legislation. They were studying those agreements from the point of view of the federal government, obviously. In retrospect, it might have been helpful if we’d had such a committee studying our agreement from our point of view. We believe that this kind of operation would be useful to the House and to the procedures in the House.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that we have recommended a management and members’ services committee which would have an ongoing function, so that again we would not be faced with this rather large review of the whole procedures of the House after a period of years, but rather that we could move to recognize change, as our chairman has said, as it occurs to make us more flexible in our approach.

I do want just briefly to say that some of the members have expressed concern to me about the recommendation that the membership in this House should be increased. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Camp commission recommended quite a substantial increase and this committee did not see the need to go that far. But if you look at the committee structure which we have proposed, you will note that we need to have this kind of membership to ensure that each member will have one committee, so far as it is possible after an election where the changing population may take place.

As I say, I am somewhat sorry that we could not at least have completed the matter of the committee for this report. But you will note in the recommendations, Mr. Speaker, that there is the proposal that a committee be struck, somewhat of the nature of the committee which worked on the negotiations, to bring in the details of the committee structures for the next session.

Since on this side of the House we are dividing our chores, I will not proceed further.

Mr. Eaton: As one of those who joined this committee rather late in the proceedings on this part of the report, I must say that I find the recommendations that have been brought in here tonight in this resolution much more acceptable than a number of things that I signed in the report that we put forth. I know that we had considerable debate all times over how we would wind up with agreement on some of the sections of this and I think we did pretty well in agreeing as much as we did. I do want to comment on one particular item though, that hasn’t apparently been covered yet and resolved. It is still to be done. That is in regard to the recording of the committees.

It was indicated that we felt that official Hansard should record all committee proceedings. Several reasons were outlined -- among them to prevent repetition in the House of some of the things that went on in committee. I think we know full well that that won’t happen; things will still be repeated when we come back to the House.

I expressed some concern about the amount of money that would be spent on recording all committees, because I think the committees are a free exchange -- an opportunity for people to throw in their ideas and kick them around, not to see that it is taken down and recorded and all this. But, however, they do point out that there may be times when they do want some reference material.

I have some information on the cost of producing Hansard; it works out to about $900 an hour. And with the increase in the committees that we are going to see because of the structure of the committees that has been proposed -- which I fully agree with -- because of that increased time it is going to be a great expense that I don’t think we really need to go to. I simply point out that we can record them electronically and keep the recordings for approximately $20 an hour in comparison to that $900 an hour that it would take to record, put them in print and publish them. I would suggest that the committee that’s working together goes a little further and gives serious consideration to taking that sort of step in the recording of committees.

I would just like to comment quickly on the private members’ hour. I think the changes to our report that were suggested are very valid. The opportunity is given for members to have much more chance of having something that they are proposing come forth and be accepted and have it recognized that it’s accepted. So many times suggestions are put forth by members in the way of private bills and then they appear later as government legislation and very little credit is given to the individual who initiates it. I think this gives that opportunity to the private members to have some of the programmes they support brought forward and given credit.

On the whole I fully accept what the House leaders and the members of our committee who did the negotiating have put together here. I conclude by saying only one thing, that many of the proposals that are there will work only if the cooperation of the members is put forth to make them work. Also I think that a little added to that would be the behaviour of the members in the House to see that it functions much better.

Mr. Gaunt: I just want to take a few moments. We have another member who would like to make a few brief comments and, since the time is very limited, I just want to put a few remarks on the record at this time as a member of the committee. First of all, I want to pay tribute to the chairman of our committee. Our committee tended to be a totally unruly group at times.

Mr. B. Newman: It wasn’t the chairman’s fault.

Mr. Gaunt: He was successful in eventually pulling us back into the line and giving a little focus to the committee again. So I do pay tribute to him. I also want to mention the good work of Cathy Paterson. Cathy was the staff to our committee and did an excellent job as well.

I think this is a major and significant overhaul of the rules of the House. The member for Ottawa West indicated that in his view these changes would make for a more effective operation here. I would certainly subscribe to that. These rule changes reflect the need for improvements and increased efficiency, in the light of the greater volume of government business, the greatly expanding level of expenditure in the province and the flood of constituency problems which beset all members and which have to be attended to.

In the limited time, I just want to talk about the matters of supply, Management Board orders and special warrants. I certainly consider the matter of supply to be one of utmost importance. We’re spending approximately $12 billion in this province and based on the Provincial Auditor’s recent report, there’s really no planned programme budgeting. I think, at best, in some instances the government handling of this is rather sloppy.

Mr. Reid: It’s done purposely that way.

Mr. Gaunt: The consideration of estimates spending therefore is of vital consideration, in my view.


In the current session of Parliament, we had 17 estimates referred to committee and we allowed 10 hours for each estimate; that meant that there were 170 hours used up in committee out of a total of 225 hours, which meant that we had 55 hours in the House for consideration of estimates of such ministries as Education, Health, Community and Social Services, Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs -- very major government departments in the province, and yet we only had 55 hours for consideration of those estimates.

The procedure that has been adopted is to set a global figure of 15 hours per estimate so that we arrive at 420 hours for total consideration; and that when the estimates are being considered in committee and in the House, the hours in both places are then deducted from the global figure. I think that’s a sensible approach and will provide more time for consideration of estimates.

It seems to me that 15 hours is a reasonable limit. I think there are many estimates that certainly won’t take up that amount of time, and the allocation that isn’t used on some can be put towards other estimates for their consideration. I think the government is to be congratulated on accepting this proposal, which I feel will assist in the consideration of the estimates and the spending programme of the government.

In so far as the Management Board orders and special warrants are concerned, the Auditor had something to say about that. In the fiscal year 1975-76 there was $289,905,005 expended via Management Board orders. That’s a huge amount. I think the recommendation of the committee is a good one in which the committee recommends that the Management Board orders which would be utilized as appropriate throughout the year be tabled as a supplement or appendix to Ontario Finances, the Treasurer’s quarterly report.

Mr. Reid: They should get legislative approval for them; that’s what they should do.

Hon. Mr. Welch: When would we do that?

Mr. Reid: When the session starts again.

Mr. Gaunt: The government has accepted that, and I hope the government will use this procedure in a judicious way and not use it in the fashion which I think it has tended to use it in the past. They have granted amounts ranging all the way from $15,000 to $57 million by way of Management Board orders without the consideration of this House. I think it shouldn’t be that loose; I think the procedure which has been recommended, and which has been adopted by the government, will tend to focus some attention on that and hopefully will reduce the government’s dependency on Management Board orders.

I think the same applies to special warrants. I would hope that the government would see fit to see these avenues as ways of approving expenditures as less desirable and do it through the normal process of consideration of the expenditures.

In summary, I just want to congratulate the government for being so pliable and so flexible in the consideration of these rule changes.

Mr. Reid: It’s certainly a new role for them.

Mr. Roy: Minority government helps.

Mr. Gaunt: I want to congratulate the committee. I think its recommendations are a very good step forward and will enhance the operation of the Legislature as well as the role of the private member as a backbencher in the system; for that, I certainly applaud all of those people who had a role in it. I must say when I see that the government spent a full 13 per cent of its budget in the month of March, which is the last month of the fiscal year, I had the feeling that we all should have a bigger part to play in the spending role of the government -- how it spends its money, and when.

Mr. Ruston: I will be very brief.

I want to tie in my remarks with my position as chairman of the regulations committee. As many of the members are aware, the power of that committee has been very limited in the last number of years. We had a number of meetings, but we found that we didn’t have very much power to do anything to really check the regulations.

We then got information from one of the other provinces -- I think it was Manitoba -- as well as from the House of Commons. The clerks from both those jurisdictions sent us back considerable information as to how they operate. But I see the recommendation that is made here is to have a regulations and statutory instruments committee and the Act broadened to give that committee power to have at least some legal staff at certain times of the year to assist it.

I think this is one way to solve this problem, because we must remember that the number of regulations passed each year is massive. In effect the governing really is done by regulation. It is something that the public should be aware of and that we as legislators should be aware of. So I strongly recommend that that committee be broadened and given more power to look into regulations.

Mr. Reid: I will be very brief; I know we have other matters to get to.

One of the first select committees that I had the pleasure of serving on some seven or eight years ago was the select committee dealing with the rules and procedures of the House. It is interesting that we are here tonight to again deal with updating the rules and procedures of the House. It is also interesting that under present circumstances the government seems a great deal more pliable now than it was seven or eight years ago.

I want to speak specifically about only two matters; one is item 34 in the government notice of motion in regard to Management Board orders. Now my colleague has just spoken concerning this. This has been a recommendation of the public accounts committee, formerly under the chairmanship of my colleague from Kitchener and then with myself as chairman in the last year and a half. That was one of our recommendations --

Mr. Roy: Very capable member. Very capable.

Mr. Reid: -- that the Management Board orders and special warrants be brought to this House for approval. Because one of our responsibilities here as legislators is to bring to account the government for the actions and for the money that it has expended, supposedly for the benefit of the public.

The auditor pointed out in his report tabled yesterday or the day before the fantastic amount of money that is being spent under Management Board orders, where the government, and the cabinet particularly, sit around, decide that they are going to either expand a programme, bring in a new one, do whatever they wish, and that money is spent without any recourse to the Legislature and without any possibility of the members of this House being able to question the government as to why the money was spent, whether it was properly spent and, in fact, whether it was to the general benefit of the people of the province of Ontario.

I appreciate and realize the kind of compromises that went into bringing this report into the House and in formulating the rules that were finally arrived at. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I think one of the weaknesses is the fact that still the government, whichever party it is, is not being made to be responsible to the members of this Legislature, accountable to the members and, through the House, to the public for this money that they spent.

We realize in the estimates that we don’t always have the opportunity to ensure that the money was properly and efficiently spent. But we have this other murky area: the government, at its own will, without recourse to the Legislature, without any accountability, has the power to spend over $200 million, I believe, in the last year under Management Board orders, not even considering special warrants. When this situation exists, the government has a responsibility to provide that accountability. They should see it as their responsibility to bring Management Board orders before the House and special warrants for the approval of the House. They bring supplementary estimates in and these are moneys they are spending over and above what was approved by the Legislature. To be consistent they should also bring the Management Board orders and special warrants before the House.

I have one more thing to say. That is, that I have read carefully the Hickling-Johnston report that was asked for, I believe, by the select committee.

Mr. Morrow: That’s our next report.

Mr. Reid: All right. But I want to give the chairman notice that I understand it cost the public of the province somewhere around $11,000. If we paid that kind of money, we are being ripped off to an extent that is unbelievable. Any member here, almost anyone in this building, could sit down in an office for half an hour and come up with that kind of report. I think that the committee has an obligation, and I’m writing the chairman to this effect, to ask for a breakdown of the time that was spent on that report. I think it’s a disgrace and I think that it’s time that we looked at those kinds of expenditures by government.

Mr. Deans: I hadn’t intended to speak in this debate, but the comments that have been made prompted me to my feet. I wanted, at the outset --

Mr. Mancini: You said that a dozen times already in the last year.

Mr. Deans: That’s fine, but I thought we had an understanding we’d finish at 8 o’clock. The comments that I wanted to make are simple and, I hope, to the point. First of all, I want to pay recognition to my colleague from Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) who I know would have been very eager to be here tonight to make his own comment with regard to the report that he laboured over so diligently. In fact, I suspect the very reason that he’s not here may have something to do with the amount of sacrifice that he made in trying to reach some conclusions about the affairs of the members of the Legislature. I’m looking forward to his early return.

I want to say that the work we undertook, as the committee that sat down to negotiate the final draft that you have before you, was made simple by the concise and easily understood way that the original committee under Chairman Morrow conducted its work. The report made by the committee studying Camp was so well written and the recommendations so much to the point, as far as the way the Legislature operates, that I think when the House leaders, whips and the party representatives sat down to come up with a satisfactory form in which to place them, the job had been done almost totally on our behalf by that committee.

The rules that we have before us, though, won’t work unless we want to make them work. I don’t really care what rules you have -- if you’re not going to work by the rules then the rules won’t work. These rules provide us with any number of good opportunities to embark on new ways of doing things in the Ontario Legislature which should bring it into the more modern times. I suspect by virtue of the passage of these rules of procedure that we will be, if not the most modern, certainly one of the most modern Legislatures in the world in terms of the way we deal, not only with government business, but with the business of the private member. I think the Legislature will be measured in terms of its worth by the way we have written the rules to accommodate the rights of the private member to proceed with the implementation of legislation or proposals that he or she may feel would be worthwhile for the citizenry of the province of Ontario.


I want to thank the House leader for the third party and the government House leader for the tremendous co-operation that I got and that we had in general during the discussions, to thank the staff of the House leader’s office and the staff of the Liberal House leader’s office for the work that they did on the legislation and to thank my own assistant for the work that she did. I want also to say that if we set our mind to it we can make the Legislature much more relevant and the rules themselves should never come into question as long as we treat each other with respect while we’re dealing with the matters before us.

Mr. B. Newman: I don’t intend to be long at all, but because item 36 does make mention of the procedural affairs committee, I thought I should make a comment. It always struck me very strange that the procedural affairs committee would be sitting only during the early stages of the Legislature and not accept bills that may come beyond the given deadline. I think the committee’s recommendation is right, that as long as the advertising has been met with, the bill should be presented to the procedural affairs committee, so that debate could carry on in the House at an extended period of time, rather than during the early sessions only.

I also would like to make a recommendation or a suggestion to facilitate the finding of the debates in the House for all members as well as for the public. Any time an item, a bill or an estimate debate continues in more than one Hansard, in that second Hansard there should be right at the beginning, “continued from,” and the date indicated as to when that item, that bill or that estimate was discussed, so that once we picked up a Hansard, say, No. 45 of a given date, right at the beginning we could see that this item was continued from the debate that was listed in Hansard No. 43 or on a given date. It would facilitate reference for all of us as members as well as for the public.

The other item I’ve raised time and time again and the committee did not care to include it as one of its recommendations, that is, that we should get into the 20th century by having electronic voting in the House, rather than the time-consuming method of standing up and bowing to the Speaker and then having a count by the Clerk of the House and his assistants.

Mr. Reid: He uses a computer.

Mr. B. Newman: This would facilitate things. This is done in other Legislatures and I can’t see why we couldn’t adopt it. The last comment that I wish to make is that, rather than quibble over whether the time is used up for the question period, we could have a four-faced clock indicating the one hour on the Speaker’s table. Then when the question period starts, that clock starts, and when the one hour is over with, the alarm goes off and the question period is over.

Mr. Breithaupt: I only wanted to enter this discussion of the rules to thank the persons who have worked particularly hard in preparing the order paper for today and the series of rules that are before the House. As members are aware, there were some 131 separate recommendations made by the committee, chaired by the hon. member for Ottawa West. Discussions over these items have gone on for several weeks. Yesterday morning, starting at 8:30 and going into the afternoon -- perhaps around the 3 o’clock mark -- there were a number of people who met in order to attempt to resolve the various differences and come up with a set of rules that this House could attempt to use for the upcoming session. In addition to the three House leaders, the three party whips and representatives from each of the caucuses, namely the member for Ottawa West, the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for St. George, there were three particular people who were involved, and who have been involved over the past several weeks, in the preparation of a grid of agreements or lack of agreements that has allowed us to come to the stage at which we are at the moment.

They are, of course, Mr. James MacKenzie, who is the assistant to the government House Leader, Avril Mitchell, the assistant to the House leader for the New Democratic Party, and Mr. David MacDonald, who is my assistant. Particularly realizing that these three were involved, and that indeed Mr. MacKenzie was here until nine or 10 o’clock last night, I think, in the drafting of these various items, we should give credit to them for the work they have done.

Many discussions and reviews of the work of this select committee have taken place, and I hope it’s not the lateness of the hour, or the fact that this debate was begun perhaps during what otherwise would have been a supper break, that would lead us in any way to denigrate the importance of the acceptance of a new series of rules in this House which we all wish to be successful. The member for Wentworth has mentioned earlier on that the rules will not work unless we are all of a mind to make them work. He has also mentioned that we go into this whole procedure with the best interests of adopting what we hope will be the most modern set of rules that we are able to develop intelligently.

In a minority House, of course, these rules may work somewhat differently than they would work in the traditional majority situation in which many Legislatures find themselves, but I’m certain, as we go into the next session with the goodwill necessary to attempt to make these rules work, we will be well benefited from the kind of co-operation that has developed them in the first place.

The House leaders, and certainly the whips and the other members who have been involved. will be meeting again in the New Year to attempt to deal with any of the details required to put these into formal rules into a proper, balanced document. We need the support and involvement of the other members of the House, of course, because there are going to be many changes that members may not be familiar with for some time.

I am sure that, with guidance from the Chair and from the Clerk’s office, we’re going to be successful in developing these rules, and I hope the members will attempt to use them so that the Legislature will indeed be a place that deals not only efficiently and satisfactorily with the public business but also with the private member’s business.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the amendment that has been moved by the member for Ottawa Centre, I would like to propose some amendments here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Welch moves, seconded by Mr. Deans, that clause 20 be amended by inserting in the first line, between the words “that” and “amendments,” the words “wherever possible.”

Mr. Welch moves, seconded by Mr. Breithaupt, that clause 21 be amended by inserting in the last line, between the words “other” and “committee,” the word “standing.”

Mr. Welch moves, seconded by Mr. Deans, that clause 26 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“26. A minimum of eight sitting days shall be allocated to the debate on the budget motion, four of which shall be consecutive in the week following introduction of the budget; the first of the eight days shall be for the Treasurer’s budget statement, the second and third days shall be consecutive and for the opposition critics, and the fourth and fifth days shall be consecutive and for other private members.”

Mr. Welch moves, seconded by Mr. Breithaupt, that clause 32 be amended in the first line by deleting the word “briefings” and substituting the words “briefing material.”

Mr. Welch moves, seconded by Mr. Deans, that clause 35 be amended in the last line by deleting the words “two and one-half hours” and substituting the words “one sitting.”

Mr. Welch moves, seconded by Mr. Breithaupt, that clause 42 be amended by striking out the word “ministries” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “ministers.”

Mr. Cassidy moved previously that clause 6 be amended by adding at the end, “as shall any report for which consideration is requested in a petition of 20 members filed with the Clerk.”

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to revert to motions?



Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following substitutions be made on the standing public accounts committee: Mr. Deans for Mr. Ziemba; Mr. Makarchuk for Mr. Ferrier; Mr. Davidson (Cambridge) for Mr. Mackenzie.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the terms of reference of the select committee appointed on July 15, 1976, to review from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available, be amended to give the committee authority to formulate from time to time, as the committee deems necessary, pursuant to section 16, subsection 1, of The Ombudsman Act, 1975, general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions under The Ombudsman Act.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mr. Welch tabled the answers to questions 182, 190 and 193 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Riddell: What about 191?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, we’re doing well. You must admit we’re doing well.


Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at this time to speak on the last evening of this session. I think you can well appreciate, sir, that this, having been for me the first full session, certainly as leader of the party --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: And the last.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s been a very interesting --


Mr. Nixon: Go back to sleep, Lorne.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To get this debate off on an even keel maybe all members, including the member for Lambton, might be a little more charitable.

Mr. Ruston: He’s charitable when he’s got the pork barrel out.


Mr. S. Smith: And I wanted, Mr. Speaker -- if I can possibly manage to do so -- I wanted to thank members of all parties for the assistance that on a personal basis they have from time to time offered me. It is appreciated.

We’ve had political differences. We shall continue to have and that is the democratic system. But on a personal basis, I want to say that in their own way various members in all parties have made me feel welcome and have been very decent and reasonable in their relationships with me. I just want to say thank you at this time of year and hope that I can make my contribution as a party leader and as an elected representative of the people in a way that, perhaps, allows me to pass on to other new members as time goes by the same kind courtesies that have been extended me.

I want to talk this evening about Ontario’s role in this great country of ours. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that since the events in Quebec, since the election of an avowed separatist government in the province of Quebec, I have had rather a heavy heart. I’m not a person given to being a crepe hanger or a pessimist. I tend to think that people are basically good people. People, generally speaking, make decisions that are in everyone’s best interests. But I am fundamentally very worried and part of this, I know, may go back to my origins in that province, our sister province to the east. Even though a lot of time has passed since then, I’m very worried about the crisis in the unity of our nation which is upon us now.


I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I’m not prepared just to go on as though it’s business as usual. I’m not prepared to take the point of view that all this is for the best and everything is going on in the best of all possible worlds. I must tell you I feel sick about what’s happening and I very much am worried that my country and your country may be torn apart. It’s a very real possibility and it’s one that makes me very sick at heart. I know people criticize the Toronto Star, for instance, because of the reaction it had with a lot of front-page editorializing and so on. Whether or not the contents of their editorials were 100 per cent accurate or agreeable, at least they sensed that there was a problem.

I must say I think there’s a problem. You and I know and all members of this House know that the vote in Quebec was not a vote for separation. We all know that. We know it was a vote for what seems to be an able and charming man, a good leader, over a government that was widely thought among the people to be a very weak government that was out of touch with people. We recognize that government was overturned in a way that is not difficult to understand. But that’s not the point. It’s not the point that originally when the vote was cast it was not intended as a separatist vote. The real problem is what is going to happen now. In the present situation, I ask members to reflect with me.

The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, is surrounded by people of varying quality, but quite a number of excellent people and quite a number of very capable people. Every one of them is totally dedicated to breaking up my country and your country. Make no mistake about it. There is no one in that group who is shilly-shallying on that. This is a total dedication which these people have. They are going to be given the prestige of government and the prestige of office. They are going to have available the opportunity to create confrontations as they may so desire, to utilize the civil service to do studies and so on and release various reports in a manner favourable to separation.

They can time the referendum to suit their own purpose. I ask members to reflect for a moment on what would have happened if the referendum had come during the civil aviation crisis that we have had and which has threatened to rear its head again. This is going to be a fight, Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislature, for the hearts and minds of Quebeckers.

There is no point in negotiating with Mr. Levesque. He is a man dedicated to destroying our country. I think his strategy is not hard to discern. He will go among us here in English Canada. He will go among us and will say: “Forget about Quebec, forget the expense and the nuisance of trying to accommodate two official languages in one country.” He will say, “It hasn’t worked in 15 years. Why keep at it? Why bother,” he will say, “with bilingual cereal boxes? Why bother with French television in places where perhaps there are very few if any French-speaking people?” He will say: “Why not give it up? Why not forget about it? You be English, be happy and be proud of it. We’ll be French, we’ll be happy and proud of it. And we can all be good friends. We can have a customs union,” and so on and so forth. That’s what he’s going to say.

If he gets a good response, if people here agree that we don’t need or want French, he’ll take that message home to Quebec and he’ll say: “You see, they don’t really want you. Why don’t you recognize that you’re never going to be first class in Canada? Why don’t you accept that your only hope is to be first class here in Quebec? Grow up, accept your mature obligations and separate into a separate country.” That’s what he’s going to say to people. We know that’s his strategy.

Our job as political leaders -- and it’s a job which every one of us sitting in this Legislature has today -- is to go among our people to appeal to that generosity of spirit that marks Ontario. We must appeal to that group of people who have a deep and abiding belief in a united Canada.

No one in this country has a greater belief in Canada than the people of Ontario. Ontarians in fact, generally speaking, are the first to identify themselves as Canadians first and Ontarians second; in some regions of the country it is not always that way. But every one of us in this room is fundamentally dedicated to Canada as a united country. We have therefore to reject Mr. Levesque and his narrow ethnic nationalism.

Our people must understand why it is that you might have French television in some city that doesn’t have many francophones. The reason is that if Franco-Canadians from Quebec or elsewhere move to Regina or Edmonton or Thunder Bay or Windsor or London, they can feel comfortable; they don’t have to feel they, their kids and their wives will lose touch with the French language and culture. It will be available.

It takes a certain generosity of spirit to accept that but we have that in Ontario. We, as leaders, must go home to our ridings, we must speak in our churches and our places of recreation and among our friends, in our clubs, at any parties we attend, and we must speak of these matters. We must take the high road. We must tell people what it is that motivates us to be part of a united Canada and why we have to accept things that may otherwise seem like a nuisance or an unnecessary expense.

I have young children, as many members in this House do, and I want to raise my children in a uniquely Canadian environment -- in a country that is united from sea to sea. I don’t want to have to raise them in a country where the Maritimes are split off like some form of East Pakistan. We have to keep this country together. I want them to appreciate and accept from an early age diversity among humans, differences among humans in cultural and language aspects. I want there to be that tolerance, that human acceptance that is uniquely Canadian in a world which is shrinking, where every year it gets smaller and smaller from a linguistic point of view and a cultural point of view. It is an advantage to have a country with two official languages. It is not a nuisance. We must see it that way and preach it that way.

I sometimes wonder if Divine Providence should look down on this great nation and think: “I’ve given that small group of people such a huge land with such diversity of landscapes and seasons and wealth and natural resources. Are they to squabble over it like two children squabble over the inheritance, and eventually squander it and ruin it and have nothing left to show for it?” Do we have to follow the example of places like Northern Ireland? Do we have to follow that narrow, ethnic nationalism when we are the most bountiful nation on earth and we have been blessed with peace on our land?

It is absolutely unthinkable that we should have come to this point. We have to show up Mr. Levesque’s narrow nationalism for what it is. It is a meanness of spirit. It is not a breadth of spirit. And we have to appeal to our friends and neighbours and fellow Canadians in Quebec. We have to appeal to them to be part of a greater country -- not part of a lesser, narrow, tightly bounded little Quebec which is Mr. Levesque’s mean and narrow vision.

We sit here in the Parliament of Ontario at a crucial time and we have to have a strategy. I would put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the effort we are going to make there is one group that is going to be very vital. Our problem is not going to be solved by redesigning federal-provincial power sharing arrangements. That is going to help maybe but it is not going to solve the problem. This is a gut issue and our strategy has to be a gut issue, because what we’re after is to be certain that francophones in Quebec feel as good about themselves, as first-class Canadians, as they would feel as citizens of small, separate country of Quebec. That’s the issue.

The issue isn’t dollars and cents. It’s not provincial or federal control of cable television. Will they feel, deep in their hearts, like first-class citizens of Canada? Will they feel as good that way as they would as being sort of masters in their own little province? That’s the question.

We have to recognize, in addition to that, whether they are going to be willing to have a Quebec where other Canadians feel first class in that province. It’s very important to recognize it as a two-way street, it’s not a one-way matter.

But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec are not mean and narrow. I can tell you they are good people. They are willing to make sure that anglophones in Quebec feel first class, but we must do the same in Ontario and make sure that francophones in this province feel first class. What can we do?

There’s one group that we need desperately and that’s a group of Franco-Ontarians. That group of half a million Franco-Ontarians can raise their voices to their compatriots in Quebec and can say, “Friends, don’t let us down.” They can say, “Friends, stay and keep this country united. We in Ontario feel very good about being Ontarians. We’re accepted as first-class Ontarians.”

We have to have those half a million people with us, I would tell the members in every party. The half million Franco-Ontarians must be with us and must raise their voices to call for the united Canada. But that means action on our part. That means action so they’ll have the gut feeling that they’re first class here in Ontario, and that’s something that we have to do together.

Historically Ontario has had a great role in Confederation; it’s the keystone in Confederation. And we’ve gained the most from it. We have the most to lose if it breaks up -- not just if Quebec goes, but after Quebec the members know it will be the west next. Our country will break up and what will Ontario be left with.

We’ve been the great beneficiaries of Confederation and we have the most to lose. We have to fight to keep it together and, as I say, it’s a passionate fight. It’s a fight on the emotional level. Our country was created around Ontario and Quebec, around Upper and Lower Canada.

John Robarts knew that -- the former Premier of this province knew that. He met regularly with the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Robarts understood Quebec and he understood Canada and he had, as you know, a Confederation of Tomorrow conference, which was a great milestone in Canadian history.

In fact it’s interesting, because Mr. Robarts and Mr. Johnson actually led the way in Canada. They delved into new ground and it made it much easier for the Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Pearson, to follow in with certain aspects of language policy. Because in a federal state in which we live it’s not an easy matter for the federal government always to lead in these things. Mr. Robarts knew that and by getting together frequently with the Premier of Quebec, in forging into new territory, he made it easier for the whole federation to move onto that higher ground.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you go into Quebec now and you ask the francophone population of Quebec who is their favourite anglophone politician, the answer you get even today, in 1976, is John Robarts. You’ll get that answer even today, because they felt he went out of his way to understand Quebec, and to understand the aspirations of Quebec and of the French people in Canada generally.

As I say we now have, somehow or other, to call on the Franco-Ontarians to be part of a general call to Quebec. There are half a million Franco-Ontarians and, if they’re quiet -- if, during the crisis in Quebec the Franco-Ontarians remain very quiet -- then our country may well be doomed, because they will speak volumes with their silence.


A lady called me on an open-line programme when I was in Ottawa. It was right after Mr. Levesque’s victory in Quebec. This lady was certainly not separatist. In fact, she was a very dedicated Canadian who had lived in Ontario over 30 years. She didn’t like the fact that Mr. Levesque’s position is to cast aside those French-speaking Canadians who live outside Quebec. He says to them: “If you want to live in an English country, go ahead and do so. Quebec is the only French country.” That’s what he says. She didn’t like him because of that. Yet she said to me: “Dr. Smith, it’s a strange thing but when I watched his victory on television, I felt very proud.”

One has to ask oneself, why would this lady feel very proud when logically there’s no reason for it? I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it’s because she’s a member of a minority group, and down in her guts she has felt second class for a long time. She just felt proud that somehow one of her people was able to stand up and say: “We are first class,” and somehow was able to achieve a victory which led to a passion that she didn’t even know was in her. As a member of a minority group, I can tell you that happens -- and it only happens when you feel that at some point during your life you haven’t been treated as a first- class citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell you that we in this province have an obligation to the Franco-Ontarians: We must find, as I say, that generosity of spirit to make them first class. This is perhaps not a time to be critical on a personal level, but I want to say that I am disappointed that it took time for the Premier of this province, unlike his predecessor -- very much unlike him -- I am disappointed that, two days after Mr. Levesque’s victory, we heard that the Minister of Education might ask Ottawa for some money and might consider a little more French in the schools. Two days after Mr. Levesque’s victory, the Minister of Transportation stood up and said we might have some kind of bilingual application for driving licences or something like that. We shouldn’t have to wait for that kind of thing to happen. We should be able to show a little leadership, a little courage --

Mr. Samis: They are afraid.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact is --

Hon. Mr. Snow: The fact is, long before --

Mr. S. Smith: Why didn’t the Premier have the same courage that we in the Liberal Party were able to show when we called, long before the election, for mandatory second-language education from grade one? Where was the Premier at that time?

Mr. Evans: One language or two?

Mr. Drea: That’s a beautiful --

Mr. S. Smith: Why is it that he didn’t provide health services? Why did we need a report, such as was tabled by the Minister of Health, detailing the tragic situation in health services among francophones? Why is it that we haven’t had justice services? I was in Kapuskasing when there was a trial where the defendant was a francophone, the two lawyers were francophones and the judge was a francophone, but the whole proceeding had to be in English. Why should that be that way in Kapuskasing, which is well over 60 or 70 per cent French-speaking? How is it going to sound when the Premier of this province goes to Quebec, as he should do, and he pleads with the people of Quebec: “Stay with us. Keep us united, brethren” --


Mr. S. Smith: -- and a voice calls out from the back of the hall, saying: “Why is it that the people in Kapuskasing can’t even have a trial in their own language?”

Hon. B. Stephenson: Ah, hogwash.

Mr. Smith: That is the great tragedy. That’s the difference between Mr. Robarts and the Premier of the province at the moment.

Mr. Drea: Stuart, you are re-electing yourself.

Mr. Moffatt: Yes, as much as Frank might not like it.

Mr. S. Smith: There was an article in the paper recently in which it said: “Queen’s Park is stealthy with regard to language policy.” I quote from the communications director in the Premier’s office: “Whenever newspapers publish articles about francophone rights, the rednecks start coming out of the woodwork and the telephone in this office starts ringing off the hook.” I don’t care if the telephone is ringing off the hook. Isn’t it time that the Premier showed leadership? Isn’t it time the Premier showed courage and stood up for what’s right? The Premier of this province is the keystone of Canada.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is right.


Mr. S. Smith: And if the man occupying that office is not up to that kind of leadership, then that keystone goes down the drain -- and that’s what has been happening.

Mr. Moffatt: How can a keystone go down the drain?

Mr. Breithaupt: If it’s a big enough drain it can.

Mr. S. Smith: It is not difficult to say what everybody wants to hear. That is easy. Anybody can stand up and tell people what it is they want to hear, by assessing what is the particular issue of the day and where most people stand. It is very simple to do that.

Mr. Hodgson: You know more about Quebec than --

Mr. S. Smith: But real leadership is being able to stand up and mould public opinion, to lead people in the direction where you know they have to go to keep this country healthy and sound and united. That takes courage and real leadership.

In about 1780, John Adams was asked about the American Revolution --

Mr. Yakabuski: Peterson’s granny.

Mr. S. Smith: “Tell me,” he was asked, “how did that happen? Where was the support for the American Revolution?” He said, “Thirty per cent of the people were in favour, 30 per cent of the people were opposed and 40 per cent were pretty indifferent to it. That is how we won.” I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has been part of that 40 per cent, and that is the kind of reason that makes me shudder when I think of what might happen as Mr. Levesque arranges his attack and his strategy in the way I have outlined.


Mr. S. Smith: I went to Quebec in September. I was there before the election was called. I spoke in both languages at that time in Quebec.

Mr. Hodgson: And you are still doing it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Sure, it is only out of both sides of your mouth.

Mr. Hodgson: What is your third language?

Mr. S. Smith: I said to them that we ought to have a Confederation of Tomorrow conference on linguistic policy. I called for that in July. I called for it before it was fashionable. At that point I think we should have had the ability to rise to that occasion and have a sort of conference on linguistic policy.

I said in Quebec that we in Ontario would have to have our linguistic policy looked at. I also said, “You will have to have your Bill 22 put on the table too, my friends.” I was criticized for that. I was criticized by some of the francophone reporters who thought I was against the preservation of the French language. I said to them -- I said this on television -- “It is unacceptable to me that there should be Italian Canadians and Greek Canadians who are being treated differently from other Canadians. There can only be one class. It can only be first class. There cannot be more than one class of Canadian.”

Why was it that we didn’t have that kind of initiative taken by the Premier of this province months and months ago, when it would have done some good. There is no point in negotiating with Mr. Levesque now. His only object is to break up this country.

Mr. Moffatt: He’s just breaking up the Liberal Party; that’s all.

Mr. S. Smith: We need a Premier who can go into Quebec, who can say how deeply committed we are to Canada and how much we really want to make this country work. But his own house must be in order. There is no point in going into Quebec to talk to the people who are going to decide the fate of this great country in another year or so, unless our own house is in order. There is still time -- and I plead with the Premier, wherever he is tonight --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He will be here.

Mr. Eaton: He is not playing tennis, anyway.

Some hon members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Warner: Is your panty-hose too tight? Is that your problem?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: I plead with the Premier to make absolutely certain that our own house is in order.

We know that the federal government has certainly had a number of problems. I think I and many others have criticized the civil service programme of the federal government. I think their attempt to implement bilingualism has been expensive, sometimes wasteful and frequently unfair. But that is not an excuse for doing nothing in Ontario. That is not an excuse for sitting back and just criticizing in the way the Premier did the other day.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Great guy. Great guy.

Mr. S. Smith: I want to say too that I think it would be a very serious error for us to say, as the Prime Minister is alleged to have said, that there has to be a national referendum to decide the future of this country. I think it is very important for us to recognize that when we say there has to be a national referendum to do this, we basically are saying to Quebec that they can’t have self-determination.

Mr. Yakabuski: You have never forgiven Trudeau, have you?

Mr. Roy: Paul, listen a bit. You might learn something.

Mr. S. Smith: By saying that, we are telling them they are not permitted to have self-determination. And that is a great mistake. We are going to have to give Quebec self-determination; there’s no point in arguing for a national referendum except, perhaps, as an indication of opinion. The real decision is going to be made in Quebec and all of us here, as leaders of the people, have to have the courage to go to our citizens and save this country. There must be a united voice from Ontario calling out to Quebec to vote to stay in this country.

I want to say as well, if I might, there are people now like Mr. Parizeau, people like Mr. Moran and, of course, Mr. Levesque himself, who are going about this country and are going about their own province of Quebec and saying, “don’t worry if we have separation. It’s perfectly all right. We can always have a customs union. We can have tariff barriers removed. We can always have free trade. Money will flow easily.

He’s saying that. He’s saying to them, “You can have your cake and eat it too.” He’s saying to them, “There’ll be no problem. The English will be just as happy to be rid of you and commerce will continue. The almighty dollar will rule and everything will be just dandy.” That’s what he’s saying in Quebec today, this man who’s trying to destroy our country.

We have to stand up and say in no way are we going to accept his point of view that everything can be just as it was before, even after a vote of separation. No way is that going to be the case. We have fought to create an economy in a very difficult circumstance, in a country which is stretched with a thin line of population from sea to sea. We have fought for years, for over 100 years, to make an economy viable in this country. There’s no way that we’re going to stand back and just let them break up this country because of their narrow, petty, ethnic nationalism.


Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. S. Smith: I can tell that the members opposite are actually listening carefully to my comments, and I am very glad to see that.

Mr. Roy: It’s a bit above the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. S. Smith: I feel that if this particular crisis is to be overcome in a way that keeps us together as Canadians; if this crisis is to be overcome in a way that keeps this country together so that we can raise our children as real Canadians and not simply as members of a broken up, shattered dream; if we can have that generosity of spirit and appeal to that generosity of spirit which marks the people of Ontario, then we can transcend this crisis; we can give equality to our Franco-Ontarians.

We can go into Quebec and fight for the hearts and minds of Quebeckers, just as we fight for the hearts and minds of the rest of the people of this country. We can reject Mr. Levesque and his blandishments. Unless we get some leadership from the Premier; unless we get a Premier who’s more like Mr. Robarts, then I really wonder whether Ontario will simply forfeit the key and vital role which it ought to be playing in Confederation.

I will draw my remarks to a close. I can picture, at the end of a long and difficult session when from time to time we have stressed political differences; from time to time have stressed fundamental issues which have come up -- matters ranging from provincial parks to Greyhound and things of this kind -- that perhaps the House is not prepared this evening to consider seriously what is really the only issue, the only real issue, that’s going to occupy this country for the next year. That is the future and survival of this nation, this experiment in nationhood which is still going on.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask members of this House to accept the remarks I have made; to think upon them; to formulate their own opinions about these matters. If they agree with me that this country is worth fighting for, let them go home to their constituents and show leadership and fight for the survival of this country, for the equality of all Canadians, for the equality of the languages and cultural groups in our country and the survival of the Canadian dream.


Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate on behalf of our party and the official opposition in closing this debate --


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


Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Renfrew North -- South, that is -- will please come to order.

Mr. Conway: On a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ve had a very orderly debate tonight and let’s continue that way.

Mr. Sargent: Where is the Premier?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: -- and in bringing to a close this session of Parliament. I will be asking, of course, in the course of the debate for the support of all the members of the House, but particularly the support of the members of the Liberal Party, for the amendment which was moved by my colleague, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, what appears to be many weeks ago, and the further amendment to that amendment placed by the leader of this party in the latter part of this debate at the end of November.

I will not repeat those amendments during the course of my remarks but they are available in print; they will be read to us and I solicit the support of the Liberal Party for those amendments. Indeed, I solicit the support of those independent members of the Conservative Party --

Mr. Roy: Where are those?

Mr. Renwick: -- who may choose to support us.

Mr. Conway: We are not that desperate.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all assure you and assure the House that I do not intend to speak for very long this evening -- I would think for half an hour or thereabouts -- and as usual I don’t intend to repeat myself.

Mr. Breithaupt: But you will.

Mr. Renwick: May I express to you, Mr. Speaker, and to your colleague and our colleague, the Deputy Speaker and chairman of the whole House, the member for Lake Nipigon, and to the member for Simcoe East, the deputy chairman of the committee of the whole House, the appreciation we have for the way in which you and they have conducted the business of the assembly under some difficult occasions. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would want me to wish the member for Simcoe East a full, speedy and quick recovery and return to this House. We who have worked with him admire always the calm charm which the member for Simcoe East brings to the deliberations of this House and to the work in the committee with which I have been associated for some considerable period of time.

I also know, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me a special word about our colleague, the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Hodgson: How about the one for High Park?

Mr. Renwick: Our colleague, the member from Nipigon, has a voice in this House and one of these days he may again have a vote. I hope so. The non-voting member for Lake Nipigon is close to us; we esteem him and regard him highly. For us, it was a signal honour that he was given the opportunity, as a member of this caucus, to participate as Deputy Speaker of the House and chairman of the committee of the whole House. We are all proud of him and although on occasions he exasperates us as I know he does other members, on other occasions we expect and anticipate that he has found that particular niche in parliamentary life which eminently suits him.

Before I forget, I would like to wish all of the members of the House a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I may forget to do that during the course of my remarks. I also want to make a confession to the House --

Mr. Moffatt: What did you do?

Mr. Ruston: No, Jim, no.

Mr. Renwick: I want to make a confession to the House. I am a noted plagiarizer, so anything I have plagiarized in my remarks tonight and cannot attribute, and even those that I could attribute and don’t attribute, I apologize to all of them and thank them for allowing me to use their material in whatever way I wish to use it.

I also thank two eminent research and statistical bodies, Statistics Canada and my research colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus. With some aspersions these days cast upon Statistics Canada, I’m glad we have our research group on whom we can rely totally and implicitly. Much of what I have to say tonight on difficult and somewhat arcane matters is the result of the work they have done for us and I may say that any confusion that there may be in my delivery is certainly not attributed to the lucidity of the research work which they do for us over many, many months and under very difficult occasions.

I want to talk just a little bit about the politics of Ontario at the present time so that the Tories know that we know what they’re about in an election time. We happen to believe, and have a very simple view of politics, we happen to think that the election will be called --

Mr. Moffatt: Not simplistic. You have the simplistic view.

Mr. Breithaupt: Everything is a plot.

Mr. Renwick: Just so they will understand that we know, the election will be called when the Premier of Ontario decides to walk down the hall and ask for the dissolution. It will not be called except if they so engineer it, by the combined vote of the party to the left and ourselves.

Mr. Conway: Which is it, Jim? Come on.

Mr. Breithaupt: It won’t be your decision, that is clear.

Mr. Renwick: We will consistently be voting against their policies on all major matters and at some point in time my colleagues in the Liberal Party will stand and vote with us, but that will have been engineered by the Premier of the province --

Mr. Breithaupt: So it could be our decision too.

Mr. Renwick: -- and he will call the election when he wants to call it.

Mr. Breithaupt: There are two people who will call it and neither one of them is your leader.

Mr. Renwick: So that is what it will be about. Let me tell the House a little bit about the shape of the next Tory campaign. They’re going back to 1971 and to 1967 and to 1963. What they really want is what they like to have, a no-issue campaign. I’ve noticed, apart from the inevitable hazard of the political accident that they are so prone to these days, apart from that I noticed that they have moved deliberately and continuously --

Mr. Nixon: You had a doozer today.

Mr. Renwick: -- to defuse every issue. I know very well that, come the end of a long hot summer rather than the spring, the Premier will decide well there aren’t any issues now and people are quite relaxed and we’ll just have one of our elections. He will be wrong, because he will not come back with a majority and indeed the Tories will be lucky if they are a minority government after the next election.

I had occasion to look at the remarks made on April 13 by my colleague --


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Fewer interjections would be better.

Mr. Renwick: -- by my colleague, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, in her response on our behalf to the budget. I had occasion to look at the remarks of the then critic for the Liberal Party of the budget, the member for London North.

Mr. Reid: You will get him next.

Mr. Renwick: I just want members to know that I have them here.


Mr. Cunningham: Twenty pieces of silver.

Mr. Renwick: If the member for London North would like me to sign this and send it to him, I would be glad to do so.

Mr. Breithaupt: He not only read them, he wrote them.

Mr. Angus: You have got an excellent research department.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s playing out his option.

Mr. Sargent: You all come back, Marvin. You all come back.

Mr. Reid: You want to trade Jack Stokes for Marvin Shore?

Mr. Ruston: The member for Lake Nipigon is going over.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps I should say to the Attorney General that there’s a case cluttering up the list of the Supreme Court. It’s an old Dickensian case. It’s Sargent versus Singer.

Mr. Nixon: That’s not as old as your statement that Lewis would never lead the NDP to victory.

Mr. Renwick: I just want you to know that we have --

Mr. Nixon: Are you preaching for another call, Jim?

Mr. Renwick: -- relatively long memories, so that if there’s anything that I or my colleague from Lakeshore could do to settle that dispute we would be happy to assist.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s all settled.

Mr. Renwick: It’s still on the list, near the bottom -- my friend, the member for Wilson Heights, tells me -- near the bottom of the list.

Mr. Conway: If you are wise, Jim, you will keep personalities out of this.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: But I’m glad that the Treasurer has come, because I am --


Mr. Renwick: -- indebted to my non-voting colleague from Lake Nipigon for bringing to my attention the regard which I have for the Treasurer of the province, being similar as it is to the regard that Benjamin Disraeli had for Mr. Gladstone.

Mr. Bullbrook: Which one are you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You knew them both well.

Mr. Renwick: When Mr. Disraeli was asked if he could distinguish between a misfortune and a calamity, he said that if Mr. Gladstone fell into the Thames it would be a misfortune and if anybody pulled him out it would be a calamity.

Mr. Nixon: At least you attributed that one.

Mr. Renwick: To the member for Lake Nipigon, yes.

Mr. Drea: The analogy fits: Singer versus Sargent.

An hon. member: No, that’s two calamities.

Mr. Nixon: You are next, Frank.

Mr. Conway: You are both a calamity and a disaster.

Mr. S. Smith: Mention the Supreme Court and Frank is right on the bit.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of matters. That was just by way of preamble.


Mr. Renwick: I was going to go to the peroration now, but I think I have two or three things that I’d like to say in the interval.

Mr. Nixon: Your perorations are the best.

Mr. Renwick: I always like to choose a text. For my colleague, the member for Armourdale (Mr. Givens), this is from McGibbon, not from Gibbon, and it’s on page four of the Speech from the Throne. It states: “Employment security is the only real income security a free society can afford for the vast majority of its citizens.”

I’d like to just talk a little bit about the inability of this government to understand the extent and degree of the unemployment problem which faces the people of the province of Ontario and which this government is unable to deal with. I have the figures for the population, labour force, employment, unemployment, unemployment rate and the participation rate of the labour force of the province of Ontario since 1970 up to and including October 1976.


Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on the question of unemployment, let me draw to the attention of the House that in the five years since 1970 until the present time, the participation of women in the labour force has gone from just over 40 per cent to just under 50 per cent. I think it is probably a statistic which is often lost sight of. The participation of the men members of the labour force has remained relatively constant at 80 per cent.

The significant part about the unemployment rates, of course, is the very significant deterioration which has taken place in them since 1970 and each year thereafter. In 1974 -- and I’m not going to recite too many of these figures -- in 1974, the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario was 4.4 per cent, made up of an unemployment rate for men of 3.7 per cent and for women of 5.7 per cent, averaging out at 4.4 per cent. In 1975, that rate had deteriorated to the point where the unemployment rate overall in Ontario was 6.3 per cent and the unemployment rate for men was 5.4 per cent and for women was 7.8 per cent. That has continued to the present time when we have in Ontario an unemployment rate now of 6.3 per cent.


I want to say to the Treasurer specifically that he has found himself in a situation of his own making which destroys any possibility that this government can deal with that question of high unemployment. The reason he’s in that position is the deficits of this government. Let me go back and state for him what he knows our position is. We believe in an economy of economic growth, an economy of price stability, an economy of full employment and an economy of fair shares. In 1975, in his budget the Treasurer of Ontario posited the concept of a full employment budget and he gave certain statistics that would support that. The peculiar and strange thing about the deficit of the Davis government under the treasurership of the member for Chatham-Kent is that the deficits piled up year over year in the last five years by this government mean that it is impossible to project a budgetary surplus on a full employment economy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Mr. Renwick: It is just not possible to do that because of the dramatic deterioration in the debt position of the province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Mr. Renwick: I can deal with questions of manpower and employment and the facts and statistics which relate to them, but I want to use for my purposes a major piece of work which was done at my request in connection with the projections of the Smith committee on taxation. It was by coincidence that their projections carried through a 10-year period ending in 1975. I want to point out to the assembly the destruction that has been wrought on the economy of this province by this government in its deficit financing.

Mr. Yakabuski: What about Barrett in BC?

Mr. Renwick: I recognize there have been significant accounting changes in the way in which the government presents its financial information since the days of the Smith report. I recognize there has been the implementation of a number of the Smith committee’s taxation recommendations. Having said all that and recognized all that, let me just refresh the mind of the Treasurer and other members of the House about what the Smith committee had to say, on the question of debt financing and borrowing by the province.

The Smith committee makes the following statements: “Our projections lead us to the clear and inescapable conclusion that in the absence of remedial measures the present unsatisfactory revenue and spending positions of the provincial and local governments of Ontario will deteriorate sharply and continuously within the coming decade. The concrete problem that emerges is that of determining the most appropriate means of financing a combined provincial-local, expenditure-revenue gap. The province will need to consider to what extent it may wish to modify the projected level of its public expenditures and to what degree it will rely on taxation and borrowing to meet its financial requirements.”

They then go on to address themselves to the question of the growing debt of the province. They say: “It is, nevertheless, appropriate in view of the prospective continuing growth of the Ontario economy that the province undertake a substantial expansion of debt as one means of financing the continuously rising levels of government expenditure forecast during the next decade.”

The Smith committee recommended that the ratio of debt to provincial domestic product be cut to nine per cent, but with respect to the province they made the following recommendation:

“A policy that simply stabilizes the provincial debt ratio at its present level of nine per cent represents no more than the minimum reliance that we think should be placed on borrowing in meeting the rising levels of provincial expenditure within the expanding provincial economy. We therefore recommend that, as a partial solution to its projected annual expenditure revenue gaps, the province permit a modest expansion of its net debt at a rate at least equal to the growth in provincial domestic product.”

Let me just indicate what has happened in relation to those projections in the historic circumstances of this government. The figures show very clearly that for the period from 1964 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in net debt predicted by the Smith committee was 15.54 per cent, while the actual average annual rate of growth was 12.18 per cent. These figures are obviously not very interesting.

Mr. Nixon: Right, right.

Mr. Renwick: They become a lot more interesting when we break the 1964-1975 period up into two periods -- 1964 to 1969, with an actual average annual growth in net debt of 0.98 per cent, and 1970 to 1975, with an actual average annual growth in net debt of 25.23 per cent.

Let me also clearly indicate that I recognize the government no longer reports the provincial domestic product but has gone to the gross provincial product as the margin. I am not going to labour the distinction between those two particular measurements, but I do want to say that a chart which the Treasurer showed to this House in his 1975 budget, chart C5 on page C20 -- and I specify it particularly -- was a fraudulent statement.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What year was that?

Mr. Renwick: It was 1975. It was a fraudulent statement. The ratio used in that chart was not the ratio referred to by the Smith committee. If we assume the provincial domestic product has grown at the same rate as the gross provincial product --

Mr. Nixon: What did we do to deserve this?

Mr. Renwick: -- and we use those projected provincial domestic product figures in the ratio, we find that in 1975-76 we are very close to the nine per cent debt ratio that the Smith committee talked about. In fact, it was 8.7 per cent, but there were budget estimates at that time. I think the calculations will show that, in fact, we are over the nine per cent limit which was projected by the Smith committee.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Renwick: I ask the Treasurer to check this out, because I have used a fairly strong term about that chart and the misleading nature of the position placed before the province in that budget with respect to the Smith committee test.

Let me just go on; the nine per cent business is perhaps rather picky, especially since it was only a minimum suggestion. What does show clearly, though, is not that the main Smith committee recommendation for a responsible debt policy has not been followed, but that the net debt has grown between 1964 and 1975 at an average annual rate of 12.18 per cent, while gross provincial product has grown at an average annual rate of 11.15 per cent. That is, net debt has expanded faster than the economy.

Of course, this difference in rates of growth is even more dramatic when we look at the 1970-75 period. During this period, gross provincial product was growing at an average annual rate of 12.1 per cent while the net debt was growing at an average annual rate of 25.23 per cent. In fact during the period from 1964 to 1969, net debt was growing very slowly, much slower than gross provincial product. The Davis regime therefore completely ignored the debt policy recommended by the Smith committee and subsequently finds itself faced with an expenditure revenue gap which is out of control and which calls for Draconian cutbacks.

I’m not going to talk about the cutbacks. I notice the Treasurer on radio the other morning quickly corrected himself and said --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This morning.

Mr. Renwick: -- it was a decrease in the rate of growth and not a cutback. In any event the cutbacks occurred not because of concern about inflation; not in any sense because of government concern about inflation. The pressure on it has been because of its deficits and it cannot translate it into any other rational explanation.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Mr. Renwick: The net effect --

Ms. Bryden: Out of control.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You should really stick with family law.

An hon. member: So should you.

Mr. Renwick: I’m good at that, too.

An hon. member: The member for London North was right.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale. Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He is right now; on the right side.

Mr. Kerrio: Two more votes if he comes back.

Mr. Renwick: The budget does contain a dramatic turn around in the size of the deficit. It drops from $ 1.889 million to $1.230 million but that turn around has nothing to do with the social service cutbacks or health cutbacks. It comes very easily to the government -- $442.5 million rolls in as last year’s election tax concessions expire. Sales tax cut $330 million; home buyers grants $67.5 net change.

Mr. Makarchuk: And $11 million wasted.

Mr. Renwick: Elimination of sales tax on cars, $45 million. Another $228 million from raising OHIP premiums justified with the fiction that the employer’s share of premiums really comes from the employer and not ultimately from the employee.

Mr. Wildman: Such gobbledegook.

Mr. Renwick: We’ve had all of this hullabaloo over lazy welfare cheats, bankrupting the province to the tune of $20 million, while the Treasurer watches over $400 million --


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. These interjections do not add to the calibre and quality of this debate.

Mr. Breithaupt: Nothing does.

Mr. Nixon: No way to help it at all.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, they don’t bother me. I’m always speaking to posterity.

Mr. Cassidy: And posterity will listen.


Mr. Renwick: The Treasurer watches over $400 million roll in simply because we can’t afford two election-year budgets in a row. The pattern of deficits in Ontario reflects perfectly the timing of elections. Year 1969-70; 1970-71; 1971-72; 1973-74; 1974-75; 1975-76.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is called the --

Mr. Renwick: Deficit in 1969-70, $438 million, no election. Deficit 1970-71, $556 million, no election; 1971-72, election year, $1.018 billion.

Mr. Nixon: That was the Premier’s first year in office.

Mr. Renwick: In 1972-73, no election, $744 million; 1973-74, no election, $708 million; 1974-75, $1.03 billion; 1975-76, $1.976 billion.


Hon. Mr. McKeough: You don’t understand counter --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s like linear whatever it is.


Mr. Renwick: The percentage increase of 1970-71 over 1969-70 was 29 per cent, and no election. The percentage increase of 1971-72 over 1970-71, an election year, was 79 per cent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You just don’t understand.

Mr. Renwick: The 1972-73 percentage decrease was 27 per cent, and no election. The 1973-74 percentage decrease was five per cent.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the hon. member for Riverdale only.

Mr. Renwick: The 1974-75 percentage increase was 45 per cent and the 1975-76 percentage increase 92 per cent.

Mr. Deans: Was there an election mentioned?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, there was an election mentioned.


Mr. Renwick: If you double the deficit, you will halve your members. Let me just go on and perhaps state it as another ratio that the Treasurer can mull upon later on this evening.

Mr. Deans: The Treasurer looks embarrassed.

Mr. Renwick: The deficit as a percentage of revenue in 1969-70 was 12 per cent; 1970-71, 11 per cent; 1971-72, 19 per cent; 1972-73, 12 per cent; 1973-74, 10 per cent; 1974-75, 13 per cent and 1975-76, 21 per cent.


Mr. Renwick: The pattern is at least interesting.

Mr. Deans: Do you get a message there somewhere?

Hon Mr. McKeough: Just wait until you see this spring.

Mr. Cunningham: I can’t wait until you thaw out.

An hon. member: Wait until the people of this province pay for it.

Mr. Renwick: The deficit jumps substantially in an election year. The immediate postelection budget is obviously an effort towards consolidating the excesses of the previous year. If we are overborrowed and over-spent, it seems to be a condition exacerbated by election fever. The norm for the period seems to be for us to borrow about 12 per cent of general revenue. In election years that jumps to 20 per cent.

Perhaps those pertinent figures and ratios illustrate more clearly than anything else could the proposition I put to the Treasurer that this government, despite its posturing about its relationships with the federal government, despite the blame which it puts upon the Canadian dollar exchange rate, despite the blame which it puts on world conditions and despite the blame which it puts on rising oil prices, has not in place a single policy designed to produce the jobs which are required in this province either by way of the labour force increment from year to year, either by way of matching skills to job vacancies or by way of bringing the disadvantaged people of the province into the work force.

I am saying to the government that unless it comes down with manpower and employment policies designed to protect the people of the province it is not going to be able to vary in any major extent the present unemployment rate which is hanging over this province at about 6.3 per cent. It may go up slightly. It may go up to seven or it may come down to 6.1, but it is most unlikely to come anywhere near to below six per cent.

Mr. Shore: You would fix that up, wouldn’t you?

Mr. Cunningham: Who is going to fix you up?

Mr. Renwick: Let me just point out what this causes at the present time. The unemployment in Ontario is currently running at around 270,000 people. Job vacancies, and I want the Treasurer to understand this, number only about 19,000 to 20,000. Even were we to fully match existing job vacancies with persons to fill those jobs we would still need to create 250,000-plus jobs. And there is nothing that this province is doing to facilitate the creation of those jobs which are so desperately needed if we are, in fact, to have a full employment economy, an economy of economic growth, an economy of stable prices and an economy in which there are fair shares. I am not going to deal right now about the distribution of income amongst the various quintiles but I am simply going to say that there has been no significant relative change.


Mr. Renwick: Well, the income distribution of the province of Ontario with respect to each of the 20 per cent levels of income throughout the province. That was a matter not only of Statistics Canada but of the Treasurer’s Economic Council reporting to this government about that question.


M. Renwick: The shares have never, ever varied.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Senator Cole has been on that.

Mr. Renwick: Let me say this. In Ontario at the present time, other than the role played by Colleges and Universities in the design of training programmes for Canada Manpower clients -- other than that -- there are only two provincial programmes directed toward those who are disadvantaged and on social assistance. One is the vocational rehabilitation under the federal Adult Occupational Training Act with 50 per cent federal funding. The province conducts a training and rehabilitation service; $5,685,200 of provincial moneys were devoted to it in fiscal 1976-77. In fiscal 1975-76 about the same number of dollars. Eleven thousand five hundred persons went through the process and 3,600 went into training; others were assessed, dropped out, were rehabilitated. Community and Social Services also purchased courses from Colleges and Universities where the fees have gone up.

The only other work activity project in the provinces is 50 per cent funded under the Canada Assistance Plan and work activity is designed to provide work acculturation to hard core unemployed. The director expects to have 17 projects this coming year. Last year 561 persons were served. A follow-up of graduates of three months after leaving revealed a surprising rate of rehabilitation; 34.5 per cent were gainfully employed, 11.8 per cent were in training and 11.8 per cent were living independently. The province on this programme spent a grand total of $578,750, on what was, in relative terms, for the limited clientele which it could serve, at least a reasonable success.

I say to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) when the session is over, when the bureaucrats are bargaining for the share of the provincial pie I hope the minister and his bureaucrats will be in there fighting for his ministry in order that we can have a vast improvement in the number of dollars provided for these work-related programmes.

Mr. Conway: He won’t be in that ministry long.

Mr. Renwick: I could go on on that topic, but I did want to try very briefly to deal with the question of the deficits in the province and their relationship to the immense lack of manpower training programmes and to the high level of unemployment in this province and to say to the Treasurer in no possible way can this government deal with the matter.

I have -- and I think perhaps I will quote this, Mr. Speaker, very briefly. On Saturday, May 15, 1976, Fred Lazar and Arthur Donner wrote in the --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The only negative comments.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, the only negative comments. Oh.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Thousands cheered.

Mr. Deans: The only ones.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Millions cheered. Negative, really -- from two run-down academics.

Mr. Bain: The world was at your feet.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Millions cheered and you picked out two run-down academics. Really.

Mr. Moffatt: That’s a run-down Treasurer, that’s what it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Riverdale.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is called New Democratic Party research.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Treasurer will please restrain himself.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t worry, some day you’ll be queen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Riverdale.


Mr. Renwick: I quote only in part: “The announced budgetary deficit or surplus provides insufficient information to determine what the impact of the budget will be on the economy. A more appropriate measure is the full employment budgetary position” --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: First adopted by this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: First adopted by this province.

Mr. Conway: Throw him out.

Mr. Renwick: -- “Even though the concept of full employment remains ambiguous and thus the calculation of full employment expenditures and revenues becomes, to a considerable extent, an arbitrary exercise, it is one that will still prove to be worthwhile for the information it provides. A full employment budget deficit would suggest that the government is taking an expansionary fiscal stance. A surplus suggests a contractionary stance, and a balanced budget a neutral government position.”

Interestingly, in the latest Ontario government budget, there is no presentation of the full employment budget position.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We cut back on the number of pages, it was a restraint.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: In the 1975 budget, the Treasurer, going to great lengths to rationalize the government’s record budget deficit -- members will remember that was an election year -- presented a table showing the Ontario budget impact on a full employment basis in order to --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member for Beaches-Woodbine is blushing at those references.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Riverdale only.

Mr. Renwick: -- in order to explain how the Ontario government was undertaking the appropriate fiscal measures for the underlying economic conditions. This year, all we get from the Treasurer is the brief comment: “My conclusion is that the Ontario economy does not require government stimulation at this time.”

Whether or not the budget is neutral is difficult to assess in the absence of the full employment budget position. Nevertheless, it is surprising that in 1975 the Treasurer believed that the Ontario economy required stimulation when he expected the Ontario unemployment rate to average 5.4 per cent and the national inflation rate to approach 10 per cent. Yet, in 1976, the same man does not believe stimulation is necessary when the Ontario unemployment rate is expected to remain at its 1975 average of 6.3 per cent.

Whatever happened to last year’s stimulative budgetary impact? If a stimulative budget kept the unemployment rate in Ontario from rising by no more than one percentage point then the Ontario economy may be in serious trouble this year with his neutral budget.

I think that’s enough of that lesson in elementary government finance for this evening. I trust that my remarks will be read.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You really should stick to law.

Mr. Renwick: I was going to deal with productivity. I was going to deal with the profit figures in the supplementary statement of the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Attorney General is worried so much about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I was going to deal with the balance of payments and the outflow on transfer payments from this province under so-called know-how agreement to foreign parents of subsidiaries in the province. I was going to say to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism that he no longer should talk to us about matching Ontario expertise with foreign capital --

Mr. Conway: He is getting matched himself.

Mr. Renwick: -- because we are paying, every year, an increasing amount from the province of Ontario for so-called foreign expertise. It’s a burden on this economy, not by way of debt, not by way of dividends, but by way of service charge passing from Canadian companies, subsidiaries of foreign operations, to their foreign capitals.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Get your facts. Get the financial statements about what the programme is.

Mr. Foulds: The minister is the Mr. America of the Tory cabinet.

Mr. Renwick: In any event, I urge the Minister of Industry and Tourism, in consultation with the Treasurer, to look at the balance of payment figures with respect to the outflow, the net outflow, from Canada paid by Canadian companies to their foreign parent companies or the foreign companies with which they’re in partnership. That gap is just like the gap between the government’s revenues and its expenditures --


Mr. Drea: That gap is smaller than the union gap, I will tell you.

Mr. Renwick: -- it’s expanding at a rate which is destroying the Canadian and Ontario economy in the secondary manufacturing field. I ask the minister to look at it. I don’t ask him to understand it, but just to look at it.

Mr. Bain: And you don’t have to do anything about it.

Mr. Warner: It’s too bad you can’t sell off --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I promise not to go on too long --

Mr. Eaton: You said that half an hour ago.

Mr. Conway: You broke that promise.

Mr. Renwick: Thomas Jefferson said at one point in time that business had no country. That’s my theme for this portion of the windup of this budget debate on behalf of this party. Since business is designed to make money, and high unemployment creates labour pools of idle workers who are willing to take lower wages; since inflation doesn’t hurt the well-to-do much; and since the inequitable tax system in this country was imposed and continues to be imposed on it by the business community through acquiescent legislatures, it seems unlikely that any Treasurer of a Tory government would attempt to help people if that meant reduced profits.

The Treasurer should be concerned about people’s welfare, rather than being constantly preoccupied about the business community. Businessmen over and over destroy their own markets in favour of short-term profits. Businesses will have to be examined by any Treasurer who hopes to stimulate the province’s economy and protect the people at the same time. No Treasurer can satisfy the insatiable but he can control them. if I can state the difference between this party and the Tory party -- and, if it any longer matters, the Liberal Party -- in budgetary, fiscal and financial matters and policies --

Mr. Reid: So much for NDP research.

Mr. Renwick: -- it is that this party is determined to help lift the burdens of unemployment, inflation and unfair taxes from ordinary citizens of Ontario; I am convinced that one cannot serve them and serve the interests of the business community too.

Mr. Conway: Does the member for Lake Nipigon agree?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Let me deal with a couple of the slogans that have come to us from the United States and which have been adopted by this government; “Profits is not a dirty word,” and, what’s the other one, “No free lunches”? I happen to know that’s not very original. I think it was first said in 1958, but it’s currently being used by adherents of the Tory party, as is the “Profits is not a dirty word” slogan.

In any event, both those slogans were part of an organized campaign in the United States, with the usual slop-over into Canada, trying to convince the public that the business community had nothing to do with high unemployment and high inflation; and that the higher the profits, the better everyone was. The Conservative Party -- this government -- has adopted this slogan in its dying days -- that’s both the slogan and the government. It was negative, in any event. And if Eddie Goodman thinks he can save the Tory government, my advice to him would be to drop those slogans.

Mr. S. Smith: And work for Greyhound.

Mr. Reid: He has gone to work for Greyhound.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What was that, Stuart?

Mr. Mancini: Why don’t you pay attention?

Mr. Renwick: This party, the New Democratic Party, is not a sycophant of business, nor does it damn business out of hand. A New Democratic Party government would demand of business that the business community restore public confidence in itself, but we would not turn Ontario over to it lock, stock and cash register. And that will require the examination of businesses to determine whether they are serving the public interest or whether they are incapable of serving that interest.

Mr. Conway: Does the member for Lake Nipigon agree?

Mr. Renwick: That is what any government must do to have the confidence of the people; that is what this government is not doing, and, need I complete the logic of the syllogism -- for the benefit of the government, I must -- that is why this government no longer has the confidence of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Sounds like “tomorrow starts today.”


Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to close my remarks by commenting a little bit about the Confederation. I was interested to note -- and I trust the Treasurer will hear this or read it at some point -- I was interested to note the comment which he made, which was drawn to my attention by my colleague from Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), when the Treasurer spoke on November 26, 1976, and he quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier --

Mr. Conway: Great fellow.

Mr. Renwick: “The French Canadian who appeals to his fellow countrymen to stand by themselves aloof from the rest of the continent, the English Canadian who appeals to his fellow countrymen on grounds affecting them alone, may perhaps win the applause of those whom they may be addressing, but impartial history will pronounce their work as vicious in conception as it is mischievous and wicked in its tendencies.”

I can quite see that the Treasurer shares many of the views of the problem facing the Confederation expressed earlier this evening by the leader of the Liberal Party. Let me commend to the Treasurer, indeed to the Premier, indeed to the members of the government, indeed to all members of the House, what John A. Macdonald said in 1865 in the Canadian Assembly --

Mr. Conway: Great fellow.

Mr. Renwick: “I have again and again stated in the House that, if practicable, I thought a legislative union would be preferable, but on looking at the subject in the conference and in discussing the matter as we did, most unreservedly and with a desire to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, we found that such a system was impracticable.

“In the first place it would not meet the assent of the people of Lower Canada because they felt that in their peculiar position, being a minority with a different language, nationality and religion from the majority, in case of a junction with the other provinces their institutions and their laws might be assailed and their ancestral association, on which they pride themselves, attacked and prejudiced. It was found that any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada, if I may use the expression, would not be received with favour by her people.”

I commend that quotation for equal consideration with the other quotation the Treasurer used of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I had occasion to write a letter to the leader of the New Democratic Party on May 13 of this year. It’s a “Dear Stephen” letter.

Mr. Conway: Are you taking over again Jim?

Mr. Renwick: I’m not going to quote the whole of it. Parts of it were personal and private in the communication.

Mr. Conway: Oh, the plot thickens.

Mr. Renwick: The occasion for my letter was the publication in the Toronto Sun of a letter from Mike Dare -- I speak of him as Mike Dare; he was a lieutenant-colonel but I knew him in the army so I can call him by his first name. I wrote to my leader and I said:

“There are obviously some very interesting developments in what -- ” and I used last names, not in any sense of disrespect in this letter “ -- Trudeau is saying, which had a rather bizarre focus with the publication by the Sun of the letter from Mike Dare. Hugh Windsor had what I thought to be an inciteful comment on CBC radio this morning about it as well.

“You will recall no doubt that Trudeau and Bourassa were reported to have had a very tough exchange at a private luncheon not so very long ago. Trudeau seems extremely upset about the corruption evident behind the Bourassa regime, and as you know, there are rumours that Bourassa may call for an election.

“Mike Dare’s letter, which indicates that the RCMP were to cease any surveillance of the PQ as a political party, appeared to me, whatever the motive of the person who delivered the letter to the Sun may be, to indicate that Trudeau, who has always been concerned about the Confederation, which indeed appears to be his principal motivation for entering federal politics, must now be saying very clearly that in a way he would welcome Rene Levesque to Ottawa as Premier of Quebec and in a sense underlining his distaste for the Bourassa government as well as admitting the political reality that there’s certainly no reason to believe that Rene Levesque will not be Premier of Quebec, just the same as there’s no reason to believe that you will not be Premier of Ontario.”

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You like to have a little fun, don’t you?

Mr. Breithaupt: You could have avoided reading that remark.

Mr. Conway: That was a change of heart, was it?

Mr. Renwick: My letter goes on: “Somehow or other the constitutional question will become of importance, not the dry as dust aspects of the patriation of the constitution or indeed the dry as dust aspects of the amending formula, but the substantial questions about the distributions of powers, including both their modernization and a reallocation of the taxing powers. The great constitutional cases of the 1930s about the distribution of powers and the Rowell-Sirois report on Confederation, which was for practical purposes submerged because of the war, nevertheless, provided the key to the domination of Canadian politics by the federal government, which was reinforced during the war and perpetuated by the Liberal Party ever since. The key was that the federal government could raise money by any mode or system of taxation. It is trite to say that he who commands the money effectively dictates policies, regardless of the distribution of powers.

“One of the big attributes that John Robarts had that Davis does not was a close relationship with Daniel Johnson, Premier of Quebec at the time when the whole question of Confederation was so significant during the 1960s. Davis, because of a political affiliation and personally, would not be able and has not been able to establish any worthwhile relationship with Bourassa. You know my views on the importance of Confederation. In the last analysis, and I say this without any disrespect or lack of understanding of the unique problems of both the Maritimes and the western provinces, the substance of Confederation has always depended upon the fundamental reality of Canadian politics, the triangular relationship between the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Ontario.

“I hope you will find this at least of sufficient interest to have read this far. I think it is important for you to reflect a little about it at your leisure.”

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He didn’t answer it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is what Elmer Sopha described as the big breakthrough in Quebec. Remember that? And they are off on to it again.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Nixon: Gee, it is 10 o’clock already. How time flies when you are speaking.


Mr. Renwick: I did want to read, because I thought it said so succinctly the position, as I understand it, of the Premier of Quebec --

Mr. Breithaupt: Quoting from the impeccable and unimpeachable sources.

Mr. Renwick: -- a quotation that was reported in the Globe and Mail of December 6, It was a CP dispatch from Montreal, in which they were speaking about Mr. Levesque. It said: “Returning to the question of separation, he said Quebec was not going to approach Ottawa with demands for greater powers in return for staying in Confederation.” Then there was this quote: “Independence is a positive thing. It’s a basic question of national life, not a matter of trading one thing for another. It is a deep conviction for us but we will not force it on people. We will try to sell it in a legitimate way and then try to accomplish our goal democratically.”

I’m not one who is able instantly to analyse, understand or state in capsule form the result of the election of the PQ in the province of Quebec. I’m not interested, even if I were able, in classifying that government. All I know is that I felt an immense sense of relief, yielding to a feeling of joy, as the results came in on that mid-November evening. I am thrilled at the defeat of the Liberal Party in Quebec. The victory of the PQ over the Liberal Party in Quebec opens for Canada new possibilities and new hopes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The ghost of Charles de Gaulle.


Mr. Renwick: For one who has worked in the vineyards since the devastating years of the 1950s and the decades before, it has brought a new hope and a renewed faith in Canada. As Canada nears the 21st century I believe we will have a new constitution which will again unite a divided Canada. It will affirm that the rock on which the independence of the north half of the North American continent is dependent is historically, in time and space, the relationship of the French-speaking people and the province they control with the English-speaking people of Ontario and the province they control.

If those relations can be refashioned with grace, understanding and consideration in the last decades of this century, we will enter the 21st century with a constitution which will reflect the reality of those relations and will be a beacon beckoning us to our destiny to establish a civilized society here in that part of the world called Canada.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, after that enthusiastic reception from all sides of the House, it’s obvious there’s no need really for me to say much to persuade the --

Mr. Cassidy: It was a farewell.

Mr. Conway: Not that you have it to say.

Mr. Speaker: Order; order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To say too much in order to prevail on all members opposite to support that very enlightened progressively conservative budget of my colleague, the Treasurer.


Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s a budget which has done much to stabilize yet at the same time maintain the economic vitality of this province. I’m sure when I’m finished the members opposite will, as one, rise to support the government.

Mr. Conway: -- be in a hurry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would point out that in the intervening period of time since the Treasurer’s budget was first presented that at least one member opposite, who is now not opposite, saw the merit of that budget. The member for London North --


Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, he is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- who was really the economic and financial critic of the third party in this House --

Mr. Breithaupt: Have you read his speech? He wrote the speech and he gave it and he didn’t like it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- saw just how excellent were the economic policies of the government of this province. As a matter of conscience, he had no alternative but to join the Progressive Conservative Party and the government caucus here in this Legislature.

Mr. Roy: You really don’t have much to shout about.


Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Et tu Brute.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t provoke me tonight. I have a very sore throat and I don’t want to keep you too long.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have just a few thoughts --


Mr. Speaker: Order, the hon. member for Renfrew North.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, he is interrupting me, Mr. Speaker, you’re quite right. Mind you, his interjections are about as relevant as his prepared addresses, so keep it up.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Premier.

Mr. Breithaupt: That makes him bang on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. The member for Kitchener has analysed his colleague well. I understand that. I regret I didn’t hear all of the leader of the Liberal Party’s address tonight. I understand it was, by and large, constructive and I appreciate that. I would suggest to him, and I say this in the spirit of this time of the year, that his appearance on television and some of his references on television tonight were different and less constructive and I regret that. I’ve conveyed that impression to him on other occasions.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you want me to enumerate what it is you are reported to have said? I would prefer not to.

Mr. S. Smith: Go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party raised great concern about, I guess, some pins from my colleague although, I assume, not directly from his own hands. I think he asked a question why some pins were given to -- this wasn’t on his TV appearance tonight; this was a question of urgent public importance about Ontario pins for some Miss Nude World contest. He was very concerned about where those pins would be placed. I can recall this question being asked by the leader of the Liberal Party.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He has pierced ears.

Mr. Breithaupt: And where did you stick them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say this to him, not having had any experience, my guess is, though, it would be easier to find a place to put that pin than it is to find a plank of significance in the Liberal Party in this province.

Mr. Reid: You seemed to think the education plank was pretty good.

Mr. Roy: You are starting to squirm now. Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am being provoked.

An hon. member: Who wrote that?


Mr. Kerrio: You need a new writer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hear from the member for Niagara Falls that I need a new writer.

Mr. Cunningham: You need a lot of new things.

Mr. Speaker: Order.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, when I look around me and I see some of the people who have been here for a while --

An hon. member: Too long.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- who are pretty able, who are tried and responsible, and then I look across the House, I am awfully tempted to do an Elmer Sopha. I look at the vacant seat -- and I understand why; I am not being critical of the Leader of the Opposition -- and I go to his immediate left, I go to his immediate right; and I look at the member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Reid: It’s scary, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and perhaps the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), who is away. Then I say to myself, even if I were to reorganize the New Democratic Party of Ontario, after I have said all of those things, where else is there to go? There is a great paucity of talent, we know that --

Mr. Renwick: We have heard that line.


Hon. Mr. Davis: That is what Elmer would do. And I certainly wouldn’t do what Elmer would have done.

Hon. J. R. Smith: He is missed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Elmer would look at his former colleagues across the House -- and all the hon. members remember him, or most of them do, so well -- and he would be at a loss for words. Poor Elmer just couldn’t think of anything to say about the Liberal Party of Ontario at this precise moment. He couldn’t think of a word. But I didn’t come here tonight to --

An hon. member: We know what you came here for.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The Premier is not in Elmer’s class.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ve got to tell the member for Nipissing, or whatever the riding is, I was in Elmer’s class. He says I am not; I’ve got to tell him I was.

Mr. Nixon: You must have had different teachers; you don’t measure up to him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. He did much better in class than I did.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get on with the business of the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly. I don’t want to be interrupted like this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: We are just trying to help him out, Mr. Speaker. He has got nothing to say.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Several other people are in the same boat, then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, Mr. Speaker. This evening I am with you -- until later on. But I want to talk about the budget because that is what the budget debate is about.

Mr. Reid: It will be a short speech to defend that.

Mr. Wildman: Very good.

Mr. Makarchuk: Another Davis profundity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Brantford that before I am finished, he may find one or two profound things that he and some of his colleagues might think about.

Mr. Makarchuk: Like Rondo, for example.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps when we get to the conclusion the hon. member might just give some consideration to one or two thoughts I have tonight.

However, I want to deal with non-controversial matters first. I want to deal with the budget, because it was a budget aimed at stimulating our growth and sharing equity in the management of costs and protecting the average citizen against the ravages of inflation. It forms a consistent element of an economic strategy which has contributed to a real drop in the rate of inflation -- not just a fictitious one -- which has served to protect the buying power of the working men and women of our province. It is a strategy which both opposition parties have consistently opposed from time to time, with the present opposition position being led by the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Reid: We are against deficits of the size you bring in.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The no-confidence motion put forward by the NDP is a clear statement of their agenda for government, their cynicism and their negative approach.


Hon. Mr. Davis: While I really don’t want to be provocative tonight --

Mr. Cassidy: You are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- because I was provoked a little earlier -- and I will be referring to it and to the member for Sudbury -- I think it is a clear indication of the subtle transformation that has taken place in the last few months in the party opposite.

Mr. Angus: Yes, you guys have shaped up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I sense the idealism is gone; the hope is gone.


Hon. Mr. Davis: It has all been replaced with an umbrella of cynicism and defeatism about much that challenges Ontario and her people.


Mr. Reid: We always find them that way.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve read it very carefully and the non-confidence motion advanced and amended places the NDP four square in the position of personifying cynicism in every respect.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me deal directly with Reed Paper and our memorandum of understanding, a classic target for the cynical and the negative.

Mr. Moffatt: Memorandum of misunderstanding.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, they really are being very unruly, Mr. Speaker. It’s something beyond the comprehension of those opposite that any agreements between a government and a private company can bring any good.

Mr. Cassidy: That agreement and Reed’s record.

Mr. Renwick: That agreement; not any agreement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is totally outside their minds

An hon. member: Where’s Jack Stokes?


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s outside their frame of reference.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I exclude the hon. member to the geographic left of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). It is beyond their public comprehension that the government or the company would live up to a set of conditions which sought jobs and development for northwestern Ontario --


Hon. Mr. Davis: -- through a carefully-phased and exhaustive examination of the public interest, the environmental aspects, the economic, our native people and developmental aspects.

Mr. Reid: You only came to that reluctantly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That happens to be exactly what we are doing.


Hon. Mr. Davis: The difference between us over here and those people over there -- this is a matter of record, thank heavens --

Mr. Cassidy: Vive la difference.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is that they would not even have tried to do anything. They would have shelved the whole deal. They would have pigeon-holed all of northwestern Ontario simply because it was easier, less controversial and less in conflict with their own narrow approach.


Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t defend the indefensible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government must serve all of the --

Mr. Cassidy: Your problem is selling the province for a mess of pottage.

Mr. Speaker: Order.


Hon. Mr. Davis: A mess of pottage? Are you going to put that on your next circular to your constituents? You should see the bulletin of the member for Ottawa Centre to his constituents. Have you seen it?

An hon. member: Did you fill it out?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It solicits support for the New Democratic Party. I don’t know whether that’s good or bad, but that I understand. Then it has a series of questions -- that’s tremendous.


Hon. Mr. Davis: One of the questions to his constituents is -- and this opposite a very flattering picture of the member for Ottawa Centre --

Mr. Reid: That’s impossible; technology isn’t that good.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which is not easy to achieve, but it’s right there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It must have been retouched.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He says in his questionnaire: “Which party do you think can best govern Ontario?” He has the three parties listed.

Mr. Breithaupt: And a fourth space for, “None of the above.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll make a prediction: If he got back a totally objective analysis, even from his riding, his party would not come ahead in that question. I give him that information.


Hon. Mr. Davis: I say this to the member for Wentworth -- do you know what the next question was?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the unfortunate one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you know what it was? I’ve got to tell you what it is: “Which party leader do you think has the most sex appeal?” It’s right there in writing.

Mr. Angus: And they all said Lorne Henderson.


Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t back off from any challenge.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It lists the three party leaders. I’ve got to tell you -- which of the three party leaders do you think has the most sex appeal? -- I can see the member for Ottawa Centre now; if the report comes in that his leader has less he’ll have to find some other riding or some other profession. I’ll give him a straw poll and tell the member for Wentworth that if the young ladies in their caucus are any example of what reaction might be to that question, they are in trouble as a party, and you know whereof I speak.

I only digressed because I was provoked, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Mr. Davis: That is a great pamphlet. I commend it to the attention of all members.


Mr. Deans: We have three girls who are going to be fired in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have some very nice people in your caucus office. Get them back to business.

Speaking of the north, we don’t intend to write it off like the members opposite. They are ready to write off their own constituencies.

Mr. Angus: No way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will not write off the north. We will not accept that our native people should not have a chance to share in the prosperity with others.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are sharing your mercury with them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will not accept the fact that when town councils and elected municipal and provincial representatives seek economic opportunity for the people they serve, the government should turn a deaf ear as would our friends opposite. We don’t intend to ignore them.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you going to change the rules?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The New Democratic Party is so busy institutionalizing envy that they have lost touch with the economic needs of the people of this province. Their opposition to this budget is further proof of that insensitivity. I am really surprised they are not supporting it.

Mr. Conway: The member for London North didn’t.


Hon. Mr. Davis: I have made reference in the past to their obsession with the pie. I use it because I don’t have the same command of the language as some of the members opposite but I know about pie.

Mr. Warner: One day you are going to eat humble pie.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I am a very humble person. You should learn a little humility and you would go further. It is something you people haven’t learned over there. I am just amazed at how some of the members opposite in that party in particular have all the answers after one year.

Mr. S. Smith: You don’t have any of the answers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have been here since 1959, and I know some of you will say it’s too long, but I must confess I don’t have all the answers to all of the problems.

Mr. Reid: You don’t even know the questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know I don’t. However, I am this bold as to say I have more answers than some of the members opposite. Mind you, I have got a lot more able help than the members opposite too.

Mr. Reid: Oh, no.

Mr. S. Smith: There goes the humility.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I am talking about the economic pie.

Mr. Breithaupt: Let them wake up and stand up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did I hear from the member for Kitchener? I remember when he used to be the economic expert in that party.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am still not all that badly off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Those were the good days. His party had more members then.

Mr. Breithaupt: We’ve never had more.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I should say a higher percentage of the total; that’s right.

Mr. Sweeney: You never listened. That’s why you are in so much trouble.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for London North wanted a chance but he blew it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Everyone else has had the opportunity to debate this matter. The hon. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In simple terms, getting back to the pie, if I may, we seek to make it bigger through economic growth and through vitality so everyone can have a fair share of that pie, but members opposite simply seek to divide it again and again without any thought of growth until they are scratching the bottom of an empty plate.

Mr. Sargent: Look who is talking about the pie.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In simplistic terms, that is your approach to economics.

Mr. S. Smith: And ours is the only party that will do both.

Mr. Breithaupt: Your share of the pie is more crust.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As the leader of the third party should know, and I am sure he does --

Mr. Sargent: It is a bunch of nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry the member for Grey-Bruce is leaving. He is concerned about nonsense.

Mr. Sargent: You gave the same speech last year.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The member wasn’t here.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Who told him?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Who read it to him?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell him that if anybody knows anything about nonsense, there is not a better expert in the House than the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Grey-Bruce either leave or take his seat?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Get out. Go on, leave. Goodbye.

Mr. Sargent: Tell us about the deficit.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: How much deficit have you got?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are embarrassing your leader again.

An hon. member: That is hard to do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member embarrassed his leader earlier this week. He is embarrassing him again tonight. He can only take so much embarrassment. But as the leader of the third party should know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP is not totally opposed to free enterprise or individual freedom. They define it differently, if I can phrase it that way. Free enterprise for them conjures up visions of government insurance plans --

Mr. Conway: Of good severance pay.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in British Columbia or Manitoba, where those enterprises were free of competition, we understand that. They were free of good customer service and they were free of balanced books, that’s the NDP approach to free enterprise.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Their type of free enterprise, as they define it and as we understand it -- and the member who’s leaving out the back door because he knows what I’m saying is true -- their type of free enterprise is over-regulation, over-taxation; simple job-destroying discouragement of the resource industry. They would seek that kind of enterprise and see it operating free of initiative, free of freedom and free of profit; that we acknowledge.


Mr. Cassidy: That’s almost as bad as Darcy’s statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, do you want me to go back to your pamphlet again? Don’t tempt me.

That’s the type of free enterprise, Mr. Speaker, this province can do without.

And that brings me to that part of the motion that the New Democratic Party have placed, with jobs and job creation. You know, in their obsession with the pie they forgot some basic geometric realities. The reality of one piece getting smaller if another gets bigger. And let’s hold up their logic to scrutiny -- it won’t be easy.

We have a tax exemption on production machinery and equipment to promote industrial growth, expansion and job creation, a very enlightened piece of legislation.

Ms. Bryden: How many people?

Mr. Cassidy: Prove it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve got to tell them this, those people voted for it on second reading.

Mr. Eaton: That’s right, I was there!

Mr. Roy: Then they changed their minds.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want Hansard to show the New Democratic Party of Ontario voted for that bill on second reading. They did.


Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Wentworth did vote for it. I didn’t see him voting against it. What, was he neutral?

An hon. member: The NDP House leader wasn’t here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The House leader was busy conducting his own survey.

Mr. Deans: I was trying to figure out if we could afford it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Their motion calls for job creation, and their finance critic, in her budget speech, said they would eliminate that exemption, I think that’s fair to state. That’s the type of logic that Dave Barrett would be proud of. He would understand it and he would accept it.

But I want to read into the record a letter received by the Treasurer from a Mr. Malcolm Mallory, president of Rubbermaid Limited. It happens to be in the Mississauga riding that I used to represent. I want to quote from the letter, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll read it very rapidly:

“The Hon. W. Darcy McKeough,

Treasurer of Ontario, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs,

Frost Building, Queen’s Park,


“Dear Mr. McKeough:

“I am writing to offer my sincere congratulations for having the courage to make the decision you did in continuing the sales tax exemption for production machinery.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, that’s courage.

Mr. S. Smith: A lot of courage.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish the letter, I’m only quoting.

Mr. S. Smith: That is creating a lot of jobs, I’m sure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: “This is most certainly a positive measure and will be one badly needed inducement for Ontario manufacturers to provide capital for investment in productive equipment. The only regrettable consequence of this forthright decision is the absolutely regrettable and irresponsible comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, Stephen Lewis, and the leader of the Liberal Party, Stuart Smith. Mr. Lewis has stated” -- and I’m still quoting from the letter because I wouldn’t say these things --

Mr. Breithaupt: Is he your campaign manager?

Hon. Mr. Davis: “‘It is really quite breathtaking to be giving away this amount of money to create jobs when there’s not a single study to show it has created any.’” That is Mr. Mallory’s quote from the Leader of the Opposition. I now go on to quote Mr. Mallory:

“I can offer Mr. Lewis tangible evidence that my company is investing money in expansion and growth requiring productive equipment. No small part of this decision to invest further capital in our business has been the availability of sales tax exemption.

“Congratulations, keep up the good work.

“Yours very truly, M. R. Mallory,” of Rubbermaid of Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: Michael Gee?

Mr. Foulds: How many jobs?

Mr. Breithaupt: One swallow doesn’t make a summer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And that is just one of thousands of letters we had.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, thousands of them!

Mr. Moffatt: The perfect non sequitur.

Mr. Roy: How many letters?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The hon. Premier will continue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me deal briefly with that part as it relates to agricultural land, one of our favourite subjects. I want to take all of these in order, in a sensible, logical, friendly sort of way until I get to the end.

Mr. Warner: When you get to the end you are going to resign, I hope.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yon are vulnerable over there. You are a little vulnerable in that party.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the hon. member for Scarborough wherever, I will have something --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: An overnight guest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to say about resignations at the end of my remarks. Yes, I will.

Dealing with agricultural land, this is an issue which is tailor-made for the people in the New Democratic Party. It’s one that gives them the formula scare approach which they call love. They do it by frightening people but they call it love. The politics of fear, some might call it, although I, for one, would not be quite so controversial.

The Minister of Health has to go and check his swine flu shot; so do I.

In simple terms they have once again distorted an issue. The issue is food production and agricultural acreage and the relationship of that production to the needs of our province and its people. There are some facts here which our friends opposite are reluctant to make reference to; that’s not unusual.

In our major agricultural district, southwestern Ontario -- they are not too familiar with that area --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Thank God.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we find more than 5.36 million acres being farmed now in 11 counties and regions. Potential food lands not being used for farming or anything else amount to more than 66,000 acres or a hit more than one acre in reserve for every 100 acres being farmed. That seems appropriate for an area of intensive agricultural use.

Mr. S. Smith: We had planned to vote with you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Moving to eastern Ontario --

Mr. Bain: You forgot the Niagara Peninsula.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll get to the Peninsula; give me time. I’m going west and then east.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, we’re going to Welland in particular. We think that’s a highly desirable area.

In eight counties and regions in eastern Ontario we find more than 27 acres of potential food land in reserve for every 100 acres being farmed. Agriculture is still thriving on 1.45 million acres in this area stretching roughly from Oshawa to Niagara, and the reserves of potential agricultural land amount to well over a quarter of a million acres.

The point here, and I know it’s simplistic, is that there has been a tremendous increase in per acreage production in the agricultural industry. As a whole, based on physical volume, there has been a 95 per cent increase over a 20-year period spanning from 1951 to 1971.

Mr. Cassidy: But we import more and more of our needs.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is because of desire.

Mr. Cassidy: That is because of need.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to touch on the area of occupational health but very briefly. I want to compliment the minister and to say to all members of the House, that I think with the bill we have passed, we have made a very significant step forward in terms of the occupational health of our citizens.

I have been asked a number of questions and I want to deal specifically with the question of rent control. That emerges in one of the subamendments -- I forget which order it is in -- and it’s a matter in which our friends opposite should have, with their friends in the third party, an all-abiding concern.

The present rent review legislation has many administrative problems. We acknowledge it; they’re there. Members opposite made many amendments to what was initially more simple legislation. They will all recall it.


Mr. Roy: Oh, yes, it was very simple.

Mr. Cunningham: It would be cheaper to give the money away.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Their concern now over the difficulties in bureaucracy is interesting and revealing, and I’m sure some of the members opposite wish they could have a second go-round at it.

Mr. Roy: You’re really backing off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Roy: Talk to your minister who was suck-holing around here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- Saul on the road to Damascus, some would say to the member for Ottawa East.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He ought to learn the English language and keep it clean.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right This government has asserted on a number of occasions its firm conviction that the anti-inflation programme can only be successful if it is carried out as a national effort. For that reason this government entered into a programme inaugurated by the government of Canada, and into an action that was eventually sustained by resolution of this House with great enthusiasm.

At the moment, there is considerable discussion both about the length of time the controls should continue to apply in this country and the measures that will be appropriate when those control measures come to an end. Indeed, we have already announced a major Ontario initiative in calling together leaders from business, industry and the unions to discuss this matter with us early in the new year.

Mr. Nixon: Is it going to be held in Tel Aviv?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it will be after that. One of the great regrets the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk has had in his political career --

Mr. Nixon: You never get it right -- along with everything else.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is that he has never been over here so he could go on some of those exotic trips. I know it, I can tell it every time he raises it. I’ve got to tell him, it’s a lot of work as well.

Mr. Nixon: I just wish I didn’t have to pay for yours.

Mr. Cunningham: Tell us about that Italy trip.

Mr. Nixon: Are you going to take Piccininni with you on this one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hopefully, out of these discussions, a sensible, workable approach to the matter, which is so important to the economic well-being and future of this country, will emerge.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you going to put out a nice glossy on this one too?

Mr. Nixon: Who pays for the cameraman?

Mr. Breithaupt: Eddie Goodman and his Brownie.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Clearly, in attempting to maintain effective control over both wages and prices, no important area of expenditure affecting the average citizen can be neglected.

For many people, the most important expenditure of all is the rental payment that must be made month after month. At the same time that the AIB programme was being launched in this country, this Legislature gave approval to rent control legislation that has had much to do with maintaining an effective lid over increasing rental charges during the past 18 months.

Ms. Bryden: You were pushed into that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not really. The hon. member should have been with me with the first minister at lunch on that Thanksgiving. We weren’t pushed; we were politely asked: “Join the anti-inflation programme, which included rent controls.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or no dessert.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While that programme has been independent of the AIB, it certainly operated in parallel with it and towards the same major objectives. Under these circumstances it is clearly reasonable to believe that rent control cannot be brought to an end independently of the termination of the AIB programme in total. Or, to state it in a reverse fashion --

Mr. Cassidy: It is reversed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as long as we have AIB regulations, it is clear that we must also have some form of rent control.

Mr. Roy: Sid, are you going to take that?

Mr. S. Smith: You are the minister of a mess.

Mr. Reid: Are you resigning, Sid?

Mr. Nixon: You’re going to give that job to the member for Ottawa West.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Premier only has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: You have made your minister very mad at you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the member for Ottawa East.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Only I have the floor.


Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The members opposite are going to support it, I tell them now.

Mr. S. Smith: There will be one cabinet shuffle.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Premier continue, please?

Mr. S. Smith: There will be one more cabinet shuffle. Sid won’t do it, you know; he won’t administer a mess.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to give some advice to the leader of the third party: He should be so fortunate to have so few problems internally within his party as I have within mine.

Mr. S. Smith: You are still going to have to deal with him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: His life would be relatively simple.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Have you found a new seat yet, Stuart?

Mr. Breithaupt: What size parka do you wear, Sid?

Mr. S. Smith: Maybe Sid can privatize the campgrounds for Leo, and Leo can give away Gray Coach for Jim; then Jim could close the hospitals for Frank.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just look at the anticipatory smile -- that’s a good way of describing it -- on the face of the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: What?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He knows what I mean.

Mr. Roy: No, I don’t. Explain.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does he want me to tell the world?

Mr. Sargent: You know why, because they are all a bunch of dummies over there.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the leader of the third party how questionable his judgement has become in the last few moments by promoting the member for Grey-Bruce to the front row. I just can’t understand it.

Mr. Roy: Eddie will take on Lorne anytime.

Mr. Nixon: You and Frank too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not so sure.

Mr. S. Smith: Where is Bob Johnston?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to make it clear, therefore, to both the members of the House and the general public of this province that this is the position of the government of Ontario in regard to the policy we will follow after July 1, 1977.

Mr. S. Smith: Took you long enough.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As a result we shall, during the spring session, introduce legislation that will ensure continuation of a form of rent control programme following that date. So, to the member for Ottawa Centre who I know can hardly wait to make speeches I say, for the next three months relax, enjoy yourself, tabulate your questionnaire, show more people that picture on there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And burn the results.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And burn the results, as the Treasurer would say.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Be sure to write and tell Mr. Greenberg right away.

Mr. Roy: It is the speeches of the member for Carleton that I am anxious to hear.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, there is no problem.

Mr. Roy: It is a mess.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member would listen to him more often he would have fewer problems.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You may not be so glad, boys.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the conclusion, if I can rush this along, in my remarks.

Mr. Deans: Come to the end.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no, I never come to the end, I come to a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I would use the opportunity of these brief remarks to deal with our participation at the first ministers’ conference earlier this week and any reactions we might have to the participation of our sister province of Quebec at that meeting. Let me say at the outset --

Mr. Sargent: You weren’t very impressive down there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, that is not what some people have said. But I would agree; I am very modest. I am not out to impress, as the member for Grey-Bruce is. I am just not that kind of person.

I will say at the outset we wanted more, but that wasn’t the sole issue at this conference. The concessions made by the federal government with respect to the revenue guarantee and the change in basic policy and principle were significant.

Mr. Warner: This speech has had a great effect on the Minister of Transport.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The federal government moved from zero to two points, largely because the provincial consensus on the issue of revenue guarantee held long enough for the federal government to sense the importance of responding. That provincial consensus held largely because of the leadership and direction provided by this province and particularly by the Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of this province, the hon. member for Chatham-Kent.


Mr. S. Smith: Such enthusiastic response; there goes the leader. Try the Attorney General and see if he does any better.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, be patient.

Mr. Deans: Would you do that again? It was really weak applause.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That provincial consensus held largely because of the leadership and direction provided by this province and particularly by the Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs --

Mr. Breithaupt: Now let’s hear it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- of our own province, the hon. Darcy McKeough, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Breithaupt: Now.



Mr. Peterson: Did he shout at them all? How did he handle it? Did he shout them all down or what?

Mr. S. Smith: Call time for the Attorney General. Call time for the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the leader of the third party that the Attorney General in this province --

Mr. Breithaupt: Is second to none?

Mr. S. Smith: Get ready now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- has the capacity to make his own equal time. He doesn’t need any assistance from me, do you, Mr. Attorney?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Absolutely not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Absolutely not.

Mr. Reid: The Supreme Court will only carry him so long.

Hon. Mr. Davis: These men and women on this side don’t need to be propped up like some of their colleagues opposite. They really don’t.

Mr. S. Smith: Speaking of that, where is the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston) tonight?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where is the member for St. Catharines tonight? He is unwell.

Mr. Cassidy: He is always unwell.

Mr. Reid: Can’t argue with that.

Mr. Breithaupt: How can you tell?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know.

Mr. Cunningham: Got on the wrong bus.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me say as well that the present government of Quebec, separating its long-term goals from short-term, was generally most supportive of the provincial consensus both in public and in private. I did not hesitate to disagree with the Premier of Quebec when he advanced the view that the tensions and ongoing negotiations were symptomatic of a federal system which did not work.

In response to a statement from the first minister of this country when he used the phrase, as I think I expressed it, of our system really relating to one of accommodation, I suggested to the first minister that four points would illustrate a combination very nicely. I went on to make these observations -- I have thought about them since and I believe them to be right -- that the tensions which do exist in this country make it different in a qualitative sense from our friend to the south.

I look to the south not as some of the rest of you do; I even go there on occasion, as do some of the rest of you; but I don’t ever recall there being a series of conferences between the President of the United States and the governors of the states to discuss constitutional reform and fiscal matters. There has never been that sort of dialogue, that sort of communication.

We have had that here in this country and I know the leader of the Liberal Party who --

Mr. S. Smith: They have used it. They have had a constitutional amendment. It is a totally different system.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly, that is the point I was making to the Premier of Quebec. It is a totally different system and I think, as a result, the quality of what has emerged from the system in this country is better for our purposes, if I can phrase it that way, than the system which exists in the United States. I think it is fundamentally better.

Mr. Cunningham: You borrow your money from them. You be nice to them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say, if you don’t want to take this matter seriously, we borrow money from a number of places.

Mr. Cunningham: You bet you do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps you do, too, I don’t know.

Mr. Cunningham: I will tell you I get better rates than you do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know anything about the member from wherever --

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you tell them you are at the end of the line? You can’t afford their money.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That isn’t quite right either. The member for Grey-Bruce may be at the end of his line of credit but this government is not.


Hon. Mr. Davis: How are your Team Canada sweatshirts going?

Mr. Roy: There is no end of the line.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to comment very briefly on the new government of Quebec. It is my impression that the government of Quebec is evaluating every issue on its own merits. It is taking a look at each issue as it emerges in the national context and it is doing so with a view to long and short-term objectives. I found the Prime Minister -- I know some members may be surprised at this -- while still not as sensitive to provincial fiscal concerns as we would like him to have been or as open to reasonable compromise when the provinces stood firmly, I do believe it represents progress for national unity and regional reconciliation.

It was a major step forward for the government of Canada to recognize that the time had come -- a position advanced by Ontario and Quebec some years ago -- when we should have the fiscal resource to administer those programmes for which we are basically responsible. That is the kind of accommodation, the kind of reasonable progress, which has enabled this country to move ahead in the past and I am an optimist -- I think it will continue to do so in the future.

I want to touch on a related area because it has been mentioned by one or two members in this House. I would say to them as I introduce these remarks that I recognize the sensitivity of this area. I would refer them to Mr. Levesque’s statement to the first ministers’ conference when he was, I think, pretty categorical that he was not, as Premier of Quebec, concerned about the bilingual policy of the government of Canada.

I would say to the leader of the Liberal Party in this province that Mr. Levesque’s predecessor, a Liberal, really was not concerned about the kind of policy we have for Franco-Ontarians which did not in any way relate to his policies, his concerns, within his province of Quebec. I say, with respect, my view is that will be the attitude of the new Premier of Quebec as well.

Mr. S. Smith: That is right, he is against it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the leader of the Liberal Party that I support --



Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member had his opportunity to speak. Order.

Mr. S. Smith: He says just separate. You don’t even understand.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just giving the member a few personal thoughts. Don’t get excited. I am trying to help him with this, and help myself and everybody. Come on.

Mr. Roy: Yes, misguided.

Mr. Nixon: You should have been here to listen to his speech.

Mr. S. Smith: If you had heard my speech you would understand.

Mr. Sweeney: That is the problem. He doesn’t understand. That is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Davis: May I say to the member for Hamilton West that the policy we have adopted here is a reasonable one. It’s clear and it’s direct. We are committed to providing, where it is reasonable and practical, French language services to the francophone residents of this province. This is their home. We are their government as much as we are the government of the anglophone majority.

The 110,000 students in over 350 French-language schools across Ontario benefit from a policy of which all Ontarians can be proud. Trial programmes in French-language service delivery are proceeding in many areas.

Mr. Cassidy: It has always been a struggle to get them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to be clear on one point -- and I’m not going through a litany of all of the things that are being undertaken -- this government is not interested in a programme based on deadlines, overblown publicity, moralizing, and self-proclaimed self-righteousness. That type of programme just doesn’t work.


Hon. Mr. Davis: I resent, Mr. Speaker -- and I don’t often resent things, although there’s another subject in a moment or two -- the statement attributed in Hansard on December 2, to the NDP member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier), and I quote: “I don’t think this government had a significant commitment to any kind of bilingualism. Any kind of commitment they have had has been mere tokenism.”

An hon. member: Right on. Right on.

Mr. Warner: It’s so evident.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the hon. member relatively well. He was a former constituent. But I say to him, because he’s a very fair-minded man, that is a cheap remark, it is unseemly and it is less than fair. It just is not true.

Mr. Samis: That’s pretty cheap yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It really represents a cavalier attitude towards any pragmatic concern for French-English harmony in relations which is unbecoming any political party in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: We would -- always creates resentment among francophones.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Our commitment to provide, reasonably, practically and economically, French-language service to our French-speaking citizens, will not be deterred by that type of sniping or irresponsibility.

Mr. Cassidy: A lot of it has come because of pressure from this side of the House and from the francophone community.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Irrespective of administrative difficulties, which we will seek to deal with, we think our programme is fair, it is practical, it is cost effective, and it is reasonable, and that is exactly how this programme in our province is going to remain.

Mr. Sargent: This is the worst speech the Premier has made in his life.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, get off it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In seeking the confidence of the House --

Mr. Bullbrook: Lorne, you believe in bilingualism, don’t you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted the bilingual member for Sarnia is back with us here tonight. It’s a pleasure. He has moved a seat.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have been demoted slightly, sir.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Moved it more than slightly?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Premier please continue? Thank you.

Mr. Bullbrook: Demoted, it’s an English word.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I see, you’ve been demoted. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you.

Mr. Speaker: We’re keeping Her Honour waiting.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say that if the leader of your party has demoted you, he has made a fundamental error again. I wouldn’t have demoted you at all.

Mr. Bullbrook: The greatest applause you have got on your bilingualism policy was from Lorne Henderson.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He probably understands it better than you do.

Mr. Sweeney: If he understands it, you are really in trouble.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get on with the debate now, please? Thank you. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In seeking the confidence of the House, as is my responsibility on this budget wind-up -- and I don’t do this lightly and I have never really done this before -- I want to apprise the House of my own deep disappointment, my disgust and anger at the conduct of certain members of the public accounts committee.

This morning in a national newspaper 800 medical practitioners in this province were exposed to a level of cheap, underhanded and malicious politicking which is a scar on the face of the political life of this province. Those doctors, to my knowledge, have committed no crime. They have received payments from the Ontario Health Insurance Programme for services which they dispense to the citizens of this province. There’s no relationship in any necessary way between the amount of money paid to them by OHIP and their personal income before taxes. Many pay large groups of technicians and nurses. Many have large overheads which relate directly to the services they dispense. Yet they have been exposed so as to imply that they have somehow cashed in unfairly.

Mr. Philip: That’s not so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is sick. It is unfair, it is repulsive and it is a very sad commentary on the priorities of some members opposite. It is a matter that angers me and depresses me personally and I think it should gnaw at the conscience of every member of this House and any citizen of this province who cares about an open and responsible political process.

The member for High Park-Swansea seems to feel that his responsibilities are discharged through an apology and a resignation from a committee. The sacred responsibility of this House to deal with all citizens fairly and to respect their natural rights would require more than an apology from a member concerned about his or her public responsibility. Let me make this as clear as I can. If a member of my caucus had violated a resolution of confidentiality moved by another member of my caucus and approved by the committee, I would ask that member of my caucus to resign his seat in the House.


Mr. Deans: Don’t applaud too loudly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Moreover, a member of my caucus who was a chairman of a public accounts committee who had a warrant signed with a signature from members of the committee who were by the way available would be asked to resign his chairmanship of that committee. I saw him doing it over there.

Mr. Foulds: Why didn’t you ask Ed Havrot to resign?


Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Further, members who share my political affiliation who race from courthouse to committee room to effectively deny a group of citizens their fair day in court and their right of appeal through fast footwork would not be welcome within the caucus.


Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Their halo has slipped.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are three party leaders in this House and it is no simple responsibility to discharge, and I acknowledge it. I acknowledge the apology of the Leader of the Opposition, but I am also hoping that the acting Leader of the Opposition, will convey to him what I have said would be my reactions with respect to the members on this side of the House. I have indicated that we all have to discharge our responsibilities and I have indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people of this province how I would discharge mine.

One of the values of minority government -- and it has been a value -- is that the responsibility of running the legislative affairs of this House is more generally shared. I have said this to the House leader for the New Democratic Party and some of my colleagues may be upset but I compliment him. He has made a genuine effort to make this system work. So has the member for Kitchener. He has had more problems, I expect, internally in endeavouring to do it.

I think the people of this province have been served by minority government. I don’t pretend to like it -- I would rather have a majority and I have news for the members -- some day we are going to have that but that’s not tonight; commencing with tonight.

Mr. Reid: No, you won’t --

Mr. Nixon: You had it before you let Mr. Havrot run for you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One of the values has been the responsibility -- and I use the term responsibility because in today’s political climate I think it’s particularly appropriate -- which relates pretty directly to the capacity to be a government or an alternative government as our system provides.

The doctors of Ontario deserve an apology from the official opposition and perhaps --

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you remember Ed Havrot?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we might be permitted to ask who is next on their list of targets. Is it the lawyers?

Mr. Cassidy: You are demeaning yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is it the pharmacists? The teachers --

An hon. member: It won’t be the labour unions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the nurses, or will it be the civil servants?

Mr. Cassidy: Did you ever apologize for the teachers?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Sudbury, he can’t escape some of the responsibility for what happened. He cannot escape some of the responsibility.


Hon. Mr. Davis: In appealing to this House for --

Mr. Cassidy: We won’t forget this when your people get into trouble.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- confidence and support on this budget motion --

Mr. Samis: You are just exploiting it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I want to add one final thought. The members of the government have no plans for an early election. We really don’t. We intend to continue governing through co-operation with all sides of the House but that co-operation has been weakened. It has been limited and devalued today through no fault of this government and that is a tragedy for every citizen of this province.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ready for the question? We will place the question now.

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Ms. Bryden moved that all the words after “that” in the main motion be struck out and the following added:

“This House regrets the introduction of a budget responding only to the fiscal impasse of a government which, having over-borrowed and over-spent during its four years in office, recorded an election year deficit approaching $2 billion and regrets the paralysis of the government when faced with 250,000 people unemployed and the passive acceptance of a continuing unacceptable rate of unemployment in excess of six per cent and regrets the most inequitable feature of the budget, the increased premiums for health care, which highlights the preoccupation of this government with unfair and regressive taxes without considering existing and alternative sources of revenue; and regrets the choice by the government of policies dictated by this impasse and paralysis which fail to create jobs and which cut back vital programmes in health, education and social services, causing more unemployment, and which force regional and other municipal governments and school boards to increase taxes on property;

“And regrets the failure of the government to introduce programmes stabilizing the income of farmers; preserving land for agriculture; making available medical, dental and other social services within a basic economic framework in northern Ontario, particularly in unorganized municipalities, in any way comparable to southern Ontario; providing the incentives and opportunities which will stimulate the ordinary economic development of eastern Ontario; protecting the health of people working in our industries; meeting the needs of public transit in the regions, towns and cities; producing quality housing at reasonable prices and reducing the dependence of our natural resource industries on foreign capital.”

Then Mr. Lewis moved that the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government be further amended by adding the following words:

“And further, that this government has failed to respond adequately to:

“1. The administrative problems which have undermined the tenants’ accessibility to and confidence in the rent control procedures and to recognize by legislative action the need to ensure protection against unfair rent increases after July 1977;

“2. The need for the early implementation of policies to designate prime agricultural food lands throughout Ontario;

“3. The obvious need to develop man-power programmes, job retraining programme and job creation programmes;

“4. The neglect of adequate management of our forest resources, which neglect should clearly mean the abandonment of the proposed Reed Paper transaction.

“And that, therefore, this government does not enjoy the confidence of this House.”

The House divided on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Lewis which was negatived on the following vote:












(Hamilton Centre)


di Santo





















Ziemba -- 31






























































(Rainy River)











(Hamilton Mountain)




(Hamilton West)














Yakabuski -- 81

Ayes 31; nays 81.

The House divided on Ms. Bryden’s amendment which was negatived on the same vote.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. McKeough’s motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, which was approved on the same vote reversed.


The following bill was given first, second and third readings on motion by Hon. Mr. McKeough:

Bill 194, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant Governor is standing by.

Mr. Speaker: In the interlude, may I just remind the members that after this part of the business is over with -- I will just remind them of the invitations on their desks this afternoon.

Mr. Reid: Some members got there early.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took her seat upon the throne.


Hon. P. M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed several bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.


The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 189, An Act to establish the Unified Family Court.

Bill 135, An Act to Provide for the limited inclusion of Grapes grown outside Ontario in Ontario Wines.

Bill 171, The Funeral Services Act.

Bill 187, An Act to amend The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, 1973.

Bill 131, An Act respecting Farm Income Stabilization.

Bill 139, An Act respecting Employees’ Health and Safety.

Bill 168, An Act to amend The Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 169, An Act to amend The Income Tax Act.

Bill 170, An Act to amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.

Bill 190, An Act to amend The Judicature Act.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, we, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and faithful subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty’s person and government, and humbly beg to present for Your Honour’s acceptance, a bill entitled An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977.

Clerk of the House: The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill in Her Majesty’s name.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to deliver the following gracious speech:


Hon. Mrs. McGibbon: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly: I am pleased to address you at the close of this third session of the 30th Parliament of Ontario.

More than 80 bills have been granted royal assent during this period. Among them, the new Employees’ Health and Safety Act has brought into force key recommendations of the royal commission on the health and safety of workers in mines. The provisions enacted so far included establishment within a single ministry, the Ministry of Labour, of all responsibility for occupational health and safety legislation. Further plans are in progress to extend the application of the proposals as the core of the report to include industrial safety and construction safety and to produce in a comprehensive omnibus bill an occupational health code for working men and women throughout Ontario.

New legislation was introduced in the fall to establish a fairer and firmer structure of law in dealing with matrimonial property and in providing for support in cases of marriage breakdown. These family law reforms are the culmination of years of study and consultation based on the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Passage of the legislation has been postponed to allow more time for responses from interested parties and for further review.

The establishment of a commodity income stabilization programme, as provided for in the new Farm Income Stabilization Act, is a vital step in protecting the future of farming and food production.

Royal assent was given to legislation on warranty plans for new homes to protect purchasers against added cost and inconvenience caused by poor construction workmanship. These provisions take full effect at the end of this year.

To help meet the demand for housing in Ontario, the provincial housing action programme, originally scheduled to end in March, 1976, will be extended for another year. The scope of the Ontario home renewal programme, designed to help low- and moderate-income home owners, has been broadened to include rental accommodation.

The provincial rent review programme established in 1975 has been successful in stemming rapid rent increases faced by many tenants in recent years and in keeping rents in line with anti-inflation objectives.

Following the Ontario budget of April 6, a property tax reform commission was appointed, under the chairmanship of Mr. Willis Blair. Public hearings have been in progress since June and the commission is expected to report in the new year. The reforms will seek to achieve a new system of taxation based on a province-wide standard for the assessment of property, and one which Ontario’s taxpayers will see as more equitable and more efficient.

New select committees of the Legislature have been appointed to investigate highway safety, transportation of goods, and corporation law, and to review reports of the Ombudsman.

The House also received the final report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro’s proposed bulk power rates. At the federal-provincial energy price negotiations, Ontario put forward the position that any price increase be related to production costs and to increasing the incentive to develop and expand energy production. It was, and remains, the government’s stand that energy cost increases should not be used as a means of providing additional revenues for governments at consumers’ expense.

At the same time, the government of Ontario is aware of its responsibility in ensuring that throughout the province efforts be made to conserve all forms of energy in everyday use. Ontario’s energy management programme to achieve savings in all sectors of the economy is well under way.

Over the past year, potential industrial energy savings of more than $15.6 million have been identified by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism’s Energy Bus in its province-wide travels. Insulation requirements for housing to help conserve energy have been defined in the new Ontario Building Code which came into effect on April 1. Energy Conservation Week, observed from October 31 to November 6, had appreciable results in schools, businesses and municipalities throughout the province.

A new five-year agreement between Ontario and the federal government, signed March 12, ensures fulfilment of continuing obligations on Canada and the United States to improve the quality of the Great Lakes. The agreement includes provision for prior consultation between Canada and Ontario on all proposals for discussion with the United States, and places greater emphasis than before on environmental assessment and protection.

Within the province, it has been the expressed policy of the Ontario government to ensure through consultation with the public in issues of major long-term significance. The province’s economic priorities and their projection to the end of the anti-inflation programme and beyond are among several such questions now facing all Ontarians.

As announced recently, the government will be inviting representatives of Ontario’s labour, business, consumer, agricultural and social organizations to participate in a conference next February 10 and 11 to be entitled Partnership for Prosperity. The conference will provide a forum for discussion on the future direction of the provincial economy and the post-controls period.

The management of growth is another important question with longer-term implications. The government has taken steps to stimulate public discussion on this subject with the publication in April of eight reports relating to provincial and regional development and the pattern of future life in the province. A covering statement, Ontario’s Future: Trends and Options, outlines basic elements of a broad planning strategy for the province and indicates the government’s priorities.

Ontario’s first Environmental Assessment Board was appointed in April to perform the essential function of reviewing assessments of major public development projects that may have significant effects on the environment. The new board also assumed the activities of the Environmental Hearing Board under The Environmental Protection Act and The Ontario Water Resources Act.

In October, terms and conditions for the proposed development of a new integrated forest industry complex in northwestern Ontario created a framework for the most intensive environmental evaluation of this kind for any undertaking by the private sector. This review, under the provisions of The Environmental Assessment Act, 1975, will be undertaken by Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt. The scope of the inquiry will encompass the social, cultural and economic interests of northern residents. Ultimate approval of the projected enterprise will depend on proposals for a comprehensive forest management programme, satisfactory environmental safeguards and the protection of native rights. If approved, the project anticipates an investment of $400 million and the creation of some 1,200 new jobs.

New regulations, effective April 1, established stricter eligibility criteria for general welfare assistance recipients, including a requirement to seek employment. The stipulation is intended to encourage recipients to regain a measure of self-reliance as well as to prevent abuses to the system.

On the same date, guaranteed annual income levels in Ontario were adjusted to ensure that the full benefits of federal old age security and guaranteed income supplement increases were passed on to Ontario GAINS recipients. The minimum wage in Ontario was raised on March 15 to a general rate of $2.65 per hour, and to $2.90 per hour for construction industry employees.

The problems of continuing inflation have been squarely challenged. The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of the national anti-inflation programme and the subsequent legislative endorsement by members of this House for Ontario’s involvement in the programme enabled the province to pursue several necessary initiatives.

The government looks to all citizens to place continued emphasis on economic prudence and restraint in the larger interest of the public good. The province’s preliminary budgetary plans for 1977 have been placed before the Legislature. Municipalities, school boards and government-funded bodies have been advised well in advance of levels of support that will be forthcoming in provincial transfers so that an even better job of planning ahead may be achieved for the new year.

Rounds of talks at the first ministers’ level have placed renewed focus on patriation of Canada’s constitution and on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. The former issue affects all Canadians as individuals, in as much as it affects the future of Canada as a nation, and it is the view of the Ontario government that the public must have every opportunity to be fully informed as matters progress.

On the latter subject, new revenue sharing terms for the next five years, beginning April 1, 1977, were agreed on with the government of Canada in discussions in Ottawa this week.

Canadians everywhere shared in the success of the games of the 21st Olympiad in Montreal in July. Ontario played a part in staging the games by holding qualifying tournaments in several cities, and was honoured with a visit by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the sailing competitions at Kingston.

Hon. members, the record of achievement during the course of this session has been substantial. I thank you in our Sovereign’s name for your loyalty in carrying out your duties, and I wish you all a safe and happy holiday season.

I now declare this session prorogued.

God bless the Queen and Canada.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the Legislative Assembly, it is the will and pleasure of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor that this Legislative Assembly be prorogued, and this Legislative Assembly is accordingly prorogued.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House prorogued at 11:30 p.m.